-
Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.
The picture say it all.
- Thread starter nosigma
- Start date
xcm
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Southern Oregon
Nothing new, from the 2004 rnc convention in boston, to g8 summits, to the endless occupy examples. The only differance is the shit kicker in the photo isnt an anarchist or hipster with an ipad, but someone YOU relate to.
You guys on the right ignore shit like police brutality, or government injustices until they effect you, and then you cry about how unfair it is.
Someone said something about this back when, and was ignored, because it didnt effect them.
"An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere"
You guys on the right ignore shit like police brutality, or government injustices until they effect you, and then you cry about how unfair it is.
Someone said something about this back when, and was ignored, because it didnt effect them.
"An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere"
- Location
- Rainy side of Washington
Except I'm not a right winger.
Like it or not, the second amendment is not about hunting. It is about putting checks on the government. The groups protesting this rancher's abuse at the hands of the government would have been, and in fact were being mistreated exactly like Occupy and all the other protestors of recent years... until large numbers of peacably armed protestors started appearing. At that point the government realized that while they were not outgunned they sure as **** had a horrible PR situation on their hands if they did anything about it, no matter what the outcome was.
And it was done without a single shot being fired by either side.
The second amendment, quite frankly, is for when all the others have been destroyed. As you have said, the first amendment is losing its shine these days too - for both sides, G8/occupy protest movements as well as this one.
Like it or not, the second amendment is not about hunting. It is about putting checks on the government. The groups protesting this rancher's abuse at the hands of the government would have been, and in fact were being mistreated exactly like Occupy and all the other protestors of recent years... until large numbers of peacably armed protestors started appearing. At that point the government realized that while they were not outgunned they sure as **** had a horrible PR situation on their hands if they did anything about it, no matter what the outcome was.
And it was done without a single shot being fired by either side.
The second amendment, quite frankly, is for when all the others have been destroyed. As you have said, the first amendment is losing its shine these days too - for both sides, G8/occupy protest movements as well as this one.
8Mud
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Central Germany
Bare with me and think it out for yourself as my thoughts on the subject haven't really gelled yet. But one large major facet of the situation is policy and protocols have slowly eroded law. Any organization from the Police, through bureaucracies, to companies and businesses make there own policy. They ignore the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, The Ten Commandments and the law at there own whim. If you have the might you have the right.
About State and Federal lands. I've had Ranchers who lease grazing rights threaten me with bodily harm, call the Sheriff and charge me with trespassing and generally be a giant pain in the butt because they can or in their minds the have a right I don't. And none of them ever answered my first question during an encounter, how and the heck can I be trespassing on Federal land?
It's all about control and intimidation, the Ranchers do it, the Police do it, the bureaucracies do it, pretty much anybody you happen across while you are out running your hounds tries to do it. Everybody has an opinion and tries to exert their will on others, set their own policies and protocols and generally plays the dominance game.
The rules of the dominance game are, you make the rules, enforce them if you can, make it up as you go, collect allies, be the better liar. In my experience trying to ignore them as much as possible is the only way you are ever going to win, you'll never win any game playing by somebody elses rules.
The part that caused me to laugh out loud was when I heard they were out rounding up Cattle on ATV's and wondering what would happen to a turtle if it were run over by an ATV. Kind of reminded me of the old saying "The operation was a success, but the patient died."
About State and Federal lands. I've had Ranchers who lease grazing rights threaten me with bodily harm, call the Sheriff and charge me with trespassing and generally be a giant pain in the butt because they can or in their minds the have a right I don't. And none of them ever answered my first question during an encounter, how and the heck can I be trespassing on Federal land?
It's all about control and intimidation, the Ranchers do it, the Police do it, the bureaucracies do it, pretty much anybody you happen across while you are out running your hounds tries to do it. Everybody has an opinion and tries to exert their will on others, set their own policies and protocols and generally plays the dominance game.
The rules of the dominance game are, you make the rules, enforce them if you can, make it up as you go, collect allies, be the better liar. In my experience trying to ignore them as much as possible is the only way you are ever going to win, you'll never win any game playing by somebody elses rules.
The part that caused me to laugh out loud was when I heard they were out rounding up Cattle on ATV's and wondering what would happen to a turtle if it were run over by an ATV. Kind of reminded me of the old saying "The operation was a success, but the patient died."
Ronbo
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- San Marcos, CA
8Mud
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Central Germany
The second amendment is about hunting, checks and balances and having a militia pool with it's own weapons. It doesn't have to be one or the other, but is all of the above.
To tell you the truth I could give a hoot about an AR, I have no use for one. But I'm smart enough to figure out that the way to eat an Elephant is one bite at a time, semi auto handguns and AR's are just the first bite, wheel guns ,pump or lever guns and semi auto rifles are likely the second bite, any firearm with more than one round in a magazine is the third bite. Step by step, bite by bite, the powers that be will disarm the general population for whatever agenda or goal they have in mind. My grand kids (or great grand kids) may never learn the skill sets necessary to protect themselves, their families and put game on the table.
Germany is a fairly peaceful place, but having lived through some wars they have developed their own solutions. There is a hunting guild, a federation of hunting clubs with about 65,000 members. It isn't exactly a militia, but a second line militia. 65,000 members with the skills to put a bullet in an invaders ear at a couple of hundred yards and who intimately know the relatively small piece of real estate they hunt on.
xcm
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Southern Oregon
The irony isnt lost on me, and it wasnt accidental. The point is I have been "with you", beleiving free speech zones are bullshit, since long before you even cared. See my first comment.
anytime I see right vs left arguments all I think is "divide and conquer"
if the people hate each other then they are easier to take down because they wont help each other.
gotta quit with the right vs left bs and realize we are all in a fight so that the other man an ourselves can choose what we want to do or believe in and not be told.
if the people hate each other then they are easier to take down because they wont help each other.
gotta quit with the right vs left bs and realize we are all in a fight so that the other man an ourselves can choose what we want to do or believe in and not be told.
- Location
- Rainy side of Washington
First, we hang all the lawyers.
And then the politicians...
And then the politicians...
sidriptide
nobody of any consequence
- Location
- western massachusetts
they are all owned by insurance companies... we must include them as well.
sidriptide
nobody of any consequence
- Location
- western massachusetts
it's all how they spin it.
it's not about taking anything away from you, it's about what they allow us to have..... so they are actually giving us something in the end...
i'm heading to Mexico if this keeps up. at least down there the Govt is openly corrupt, and everyone sees it for what it is.
- Location
- Columbus, In
- Location
- Wasatch Range
It's OK to just agree with someone, without having to twist what they say into a personal insult that was somehow aimed at you.......:confused1
You constantly preach like you invented tolerance and acceptance, yet you consistantly jump to conclusions, make inflamatory statements based on your own assumptions and slap labels on people and make personal insults, as though this behavior will somehow increase your level of credibility.
Just how big IS the chip on your shoulder, anyway?
- Location
- Wasatch Range
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...g-trail-wreckage-after-nevada-ranch-standoff/
Additional perpective.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, whose personal financial stake in the Bundy eviction has been called into question, let it be known that he wants to see the matter pursued.
“Well, it’s not over,” Reid told NBC’s Nevada affiliate KRNV on Monday, April 14. “We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.”
Senator Reid, Nevada’s senior senator, is very incensed when the American people, i.e., ordinary citizens, “violate the law” — as he puts it — but he says nothing about the more serious violations of the laws and the Constitution by public officials, such as himself or the BLM officials.
This is the same federal BLM that Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Federal District Court of Nevada last year ruled had been engaged in a decades-long criminal “conspiracy” against the Wayne Hage family, fellow ranchers and friends of the Bundys. Among other things, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.” In fact, the government’s actions were so malicious, said the judge, as to “shock the conscience of the Court.” Judge Jones granted an injunction against the agencies and referred area BLM and Forest Service managers to the Justice Department for prosecution.
Has Attorney General Eric Holder prosecuted any federal officials for criminal activity and violation of the Hage family’s constitutionally protected rights? No. Has Sen. Harry Reid denounced this lawlessness and criminal activity by government officials and call upon President Obama and Attorney General Holder to protect the citizens of his state from the depredations of federal officials under their command? No.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...-the-west-why-more-bundy-standoffs-are-coming
Additional perpective.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, whose personal financial stake in the Bundy eviction has been called into question, let it be known that he wants to see the matter pursued.
“Well, it’s not over,” Reid told NBC’s Nevada affiliate KRNV on Monday, April 14. “We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.”
Senator Reid, Nevada’s senior senator, is very incensed when the American people, i.e., ordinary citizens, “violate the law” — as he puts it — but he says nothing about the more serious violations of the laws and the Constitution by public officials, such as himself or the BLM officials.
This is the same federal BLM that Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Federal District Court of Nevada last year ruled had been engaged in a decades-long criminal “conspiracy” against the Wayne Hage family, fellow ranchers and friends of the Bundys. Among other things, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.” In fact, the government’s actions were so malicious, said the judge, as to “shock the conscience of the Court.” Judge Jones granted an injunction against the agencies and referred area BLM and Forest Service managers to the Justice Department for prosecution.
Has Attorney General Eric Holder prosecuted any federal officials for criminal activity and violation of the Hage family’s constitutionally protected rights? No. Has Sen. Harry Reid denounced this lawlessness and criminal activity by government officials and call upon President Obama and Attorney General Holder to protect the citizens of his state from the depredations of federal officials under their command? No.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...-the-west-why-more-bundy-standoffs-are-coming
Last edited:
Screw Bundy. Legally he owes the money and is in the wrong here.
Think beyond the sound bite, Look at what is happening.
The first ammendent is not something that can be restricted to a Government defined confined area. Its a God given right. Our first ammendment rights are universal as all our rights are. No man, assembly of men or Government can restrict these rights or can take them away. Conservative constitutionalist, left wing bomb throwing anarchist or middle of the road wishy-washy moderate, we should all defy a Government that wants to restrict our ability to express our views (as differenty as they may be) to some area that the government defines as an approved "First Ammendment Area".
Do you still have the right to free speech outside a monitored, fenced and patrolled area?
Once you concede that rights are government given, the government can restrict them as it (the empowered, left, right or center) see fit. Where is the right to Free Speech authorized? That right to Free Speech is apparently only allowed in a soft fenced (today), hard fenced (tomorrow), walled (next week), super max (next month?), siberian gulag (next year, I hope not) area as defined by the empowered.
Conservative constitutionalist, left wing bomb throwing anarchist or middle of the road wishy-washy moderate we all have common cause in defending our God given rights.
John
Think beyond the sound bite, Look at what is happening.
The first ammendent is not something that can be restricted to a Government defined confined area. Its a God given right. Our first ammendment rights are universal as all our rights are. No man, assembly of men or Government can restrict these rights or can take them away. Conservative constitutionalist, left wing bomb throwing anarchist or middle of the road wishy-washy moderate, we should all defy a Government that wants to restrict our ability to express our views (as differenty as they may be) to some area that the government defines as an approved "First Ammendment Area".
Do you still have the right to free speech outside a monitored, fenced and patrolled area?
Once you concede that rights are government given, the government can restrict them as it (the empowered, left, right or center) see fit. Where is the right to Free Speech authorized? That right to Free Speech is apparently only allowed in a soft fenced (today), hard fenced (tomorrow), walled (next week), super max (next month?), siberian gulag (next year, I hope not) area as defined by the empowered.
Conservative constitutionalist, left wing bomb throwing anarchist or middle of the road wishy-washy moderate we all have common cause in defending our God given rights.
John
- Location
- Wasatch Range
Harry Reid was right, this isn't over.
Here's some insight from a former Superior Court Judge:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...f-the-jaws-of-victory-on-nevada-rancher-case/
Here's some insight from a former Superior Court Judge:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...f-the-jaws-of-victory-on-nevada-rancher-case/
8Mud
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Central Germany
The law! the law! I can see a law to prevent over grazing. But the law is more likely for the benefit of government. Where do the funds (rent) go? In all likelihood they go to hire people to do the paperwork to collect the fees, the bookkeepers to document the funds and management. Computers for the office workers, office space, bigger budgets for management and a slush fund for the politicians to disperse to their cronies. Did you know that the paycheck for upper management in government is directly related to the budget of the organization? The more money they can collect and spend the more they get paid. Pretty much like a tick on a Cows ass, the bigger it gets the more blood it sucks. Government doesn't produce much of anything, it is mostly a parasite.
I know for a fact the Paiute and Washoe dispute the Federal Governments claim to much of that land as does the State. The government sends in the big guns, takes it, passes a law saying they are legal and tells anybody else interested to take a hike.
Sure the land has to be managed or it will be destroyed by mining, cattle or whatever but the flavor of the day seems to be self styled conservationists with some pipe dream that says if you let nature alone it will reach some sort of magical balance. Nature is cycles of feast and famine and this magical balance has no bases in reality.
If past experience is any lesson, Cattle have to be watered, most Ranchers do this proactively in the desert. And most of the existing eco system depends on the water shared with the cattle. Remove the Cattle and where is the existing Eco system going to get it's water? Chances are they won't and the existing Eco system will die, to be replaced by another. Which may or may not benefit the tortoise. Generally speaking the Eco freaks have a piss poor record of wins trying to meddle with Eco systems. It is way to complex to predict the outcome. I remember them helping the California Condor to death.
And lastly, if you watch for years and take the time to notice you often see a recurring theme. The government shuts down an area to the public, four wheelers, hikers, hobby prospectors, hunters or whatever, professing it is for preservation of the Ecology or this animal or that animal. Side note; IMO as often as not because they just don't want witnesses to what is going to happen. And you go back into the same area five years later and find giant holes dug in the earth and abandoned mining trash. First they come in and put up signs, then the Police (or other uniforms) start passing out trespass and parking tickets, eventually the word gets around this is a place to be avoided and then somebody comes in a rapes it. I've often wondered who's side the ECO Freaks are actually on and if they aren't shills hired to make the argument, closing the land is for the public good and wildlife's benefit.
Whenever Government or most anybody for that matter, start professing altruistic motives I start looking deeper. Money is the motivation, altruism is usually misdirection. "Do you know how to tell when a politician is lying? When his (or her) lips are moving."
I know for a fact the Paiute and Washoe dispute the Federal Governments claim to much of that land as does the State. The government sends in the big guns, takes it, passes a law saying they are legal and tells anybody else interested to take a hike.
Sure the land has to be managed or it will be destroyed by mining, cattle or whatever but the flavor of the day seems to be self styled conservationists with some pipe dream that says if you let nature alone it will reach some sort of magical balance. Nature is cycles of feast and famine and this magical balance has no bases in reality.
If past experience is any lesson, Cattle have to be watered, most Ranchers do this proactively in the desert. And most of the existing eco system depends on the water shared with the cattle. Remove the Cattle and where is the existing Eco system going to get it's water? Chances are they won't and the existing Eco system will die, to be replaced by another. Which may or may not benefit the tortoise. Generally speaking the Eco freaks have a piss poor record of wins trying to meddle with Eco systems. It is way to complex to predict the outcome. I remember them helping the California Condor to death.
And lastly, if you watch for years and take the time to notice you often see a recurring theme. The government shuts down an area to the public, four wheelers, hikers, hobby prospectors, hunters or whatever, professing it is for preservation of the Ecology or this animal or that animal. Side note; IMO as often as not because they just don't want witnesses to what is going to happen. And you go back into the same area five years later and find giant holes dug in the earth and abandoned mining trash. First they come in and put up signs, then the Police (or other uniforms) start passing out trespass and parking tickets, eventually the word gets around this is a place to be avoided and then somebody comes in a rapes it. I've often wondered who's side the ECO Freaks are actually on and if they aren't shills hired to make the argument, closing the land is for the public good and wildlife's benefit.
Whenever Government or most anybody for that matter, start professing altruistic motives I start looking deeper. Money is the motivation, altruism is usually misdirection. "Do you know how to tell when a politician is lying? When his (or her) lips are moving."
