Can Someone Explain This to Me?

[Mr.B]

"Are you laughing at theses? Seriously? Or just presenting a way to make them look laughable? "

Yup....you got it!

"I'm not going to bother with Mr.B's subsequent cut and paste whining that he was too lazy to research the veracity of and/or rationales for."

"Whining, too lazy".......obssessed.

Naturally, all these scenarios I've presented are perfectly reasonable.....to liberals.

Whole or sliced bagels? Depends on how much tax you want to pay....

(I'm not too concerned with bagels anyway...if they're ever served in parts, you and O Really can have my part)

[Mr.B]

..."Whining, too lazy".......obssessed.

Naturally, all these scenarios I've presented are perfectly reasonable.....to liberals. ...

Several of the states are con, you screwed up some facts out of laziness, and you're unable to compose even a single "reasonable" response to the points O Really and I made. All you're doing is whining rather than even attempt to answer one of our questions.

There a lot of irony here given that Mr.B uses the VA, is or soon will be on Medicare, endorses the very expensive drug war prison-industrial complex and would deny marriage tax reductions for gay couples.

You're on a roll today, aren't you. You must have your "obssessed liberal's" user's manual open in front of you;
surely you couldn't think of all those phrases yourself.

Makes no difference to me whether the states are con or liberal....I don't swing either way; so you're not rubbing me the wrong way. Sorry!

[O Really]

A fundamental part of the legislator's job is to fund government services while pretending those services aren't necessary or desirable, and to increase tax revenue while claiming to be anti-tax and without getting caught and pilloried in the next election. One way to do that is to tax items or services that really are optional, publicly undesirable, or socially derided. Thus you have "sin" taxes on tobacco and liquor, as well as specific entertainment or product taxes. One could argue whether any given one of the list is reasonable, but conceptually they aren't silly or frivolous. And no, Maryland doesn't "tax rain." You might want to look that one up. Start here... http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMa ... hb0987.htm The tax is an annual fee on impervious surfaces such as roofs, driveways, sidewalks, garages, and any other surface that could create drainage problems and water contamination situated on property owned by an individual or a business.

[O Really]

Back to "Another's" comments, it would appear he is a student of Saul Alinsky. Seems he is adroit at taking generally true events, generalizing them into a concept suitable for a slogan, and then presents the entire conclusion as truth, repeated until it is believed. Another, you're not going to find many around this forum that support police abuse of power. But it's not enough to say that you have 50 or 1000 examples of bad cops unless you put it in the context of total number of incidents handled. Just because you may have examples of some members of Congress getting by with stuff others have been prosecuted for does not lead to the logical conclusion that "laws don't apply to them." At least unless there are no members of Congress who have ever been prosecuted for their actions. Personally, I think those reviewing police-involved shootings are way too lenient in what they determine to be "justified." But nevertheless, it's not hard to find examples where a cop has been fired and/or prosecuted for having shot somebody unnecessarily. I don't question the specifics or your examples (well, maybe some of them since you tried to pass off the Chinese conspiracy), but they don't necessarily lead to your overly broad conclusions.

Back to one of the original questions - the reason people are so interested in the rancher story is because of the way it was reported, and for much the same reason large numbers of people seem to be interested in what Lindsay Lohan or the Kardashians are doing. Entertainment. But when you get past that point, there isn't much to the case itself to put up the barricades over.

[Bungalow Bill]

I am relieved to learn that the crack tax in Tennessee concerns
crack cocaine. Otherwise things really could have gotten messy.

[Bungalow Bill]

I'm still going with the old rip off artist theory, though I don't doubt that
this guy is a wingnut also. The one doesn't contradict the other. From what
I can piece together, he seems to have been paying grazing fees prior to
1993. Something set him off that year, not sure what. He has said that the
land belongs not to his family, but to the state of Nevada, and thus not to
the federal government. Not sure where he got that idea, maybe he just
pulled it out of his ass. Who knows? Once the right wing dog whistle went
off on TV shows and online, the nut cakes packed up and headed to Nevada.
Since the "tyranny of government" is pretty much limited here, the nutters
will use just about anything to try to tie that into an event. This really turned
out to be about a guy who hadn't paid his fees for 20 years and the BLM
trying to follow a court order. Hard to really turn that into a case of tyranny,
but the crazies did their best. And naturally the Reid rumor took off before
anyone had a chance to check it out. Typical wingnuts--they will fall for just
about anything as long as it agrees with their crazy world view.

[O Really]

The rest of the story here... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... overnment/

[Another]

I only have a few minutes tonight, so I'm having to limit myself to a few comments.

Ownership is a legal construct and the same exact system that created it has ruled against Bundy. "he says" is his wishful thinking without any grounding in reality.

Are you familiar with English common law and the idea of the homesteading principle. Or with John Locke?

I did, forum-wise.

...And in Albuquerque, police officers shot and killed a mentally ill homeless man as he turned away from them, which police chief Gordon Eden said was "justified."...

Albuquerque mayor asks DOJ to help with police

Bold move, especially for a GOP Mayor. In the long run: Protestors 1, Cops 0.

http://blueridgedebate.com/viewtopic.ph ... que#p36160

Plus, I've been in touch with an activist friend in Albuquerque. Then, I suspect there's a fair chance that several of us here have been the victims of or confronted law enforcement abuses more than you have.

We've got an entire thread about cops, bad and good.

Good to know you've taken up the topic. But see my last response. Incidentally, yes, I have both confronted and been confronted by abusive cops, including one potentially very dangerous incident back in 2008.

Yep, we've been discussing that, too:

NC LEO Execution

See Also

http://blueridgedebate.com/viewtopic.ph ... on+#p33472

That's good.

... just as your Chinese post was debunked ...

I revised my view in light of new information. That's the scientific way of doing things, is it not?

Then, there's our relative real life experience. How many protests against authority have you been part of - it's hundreds for me - and how many times have you been arrested for civil disobedience (the real kind, not this self-serving welfare ranching) - it's scores of times for me, you?

Enough. I was a child of the '60s. I took part in a lot of civil rights marches for equal rights for African-Americans (or "Negroes" as we called them back then). One of the reasons it raises my hackles when someone justifies some government action with "it's the law" and why I don't just fall into line when someone says "he broke the law." Rosa Parks broke the law. So did Martin Luther King Jr. So did thousands of other people both white and black, to change the laws. You know what? The authorities then would have taken the same attitude toward claims of civil disobedience that you're taking toward ranchers now, that this is not "really" civil disobedience, just self-serving law-breaking. Not just you personally, Vrede, a lot of people who identify with left-of-center. Something's changed. But that's another thread, I think.

It's all a fantasy about us that you've concocted, no doubt due to your extremely limited time here.

[/quote]

You're right, I don't spend much time here, or on forums generally. It's called work, family, and now, learning a foreign language in a foreign country--plus getting out on weekends and getting some fresh air away from crowds and pollution and computers. I sometimes glance at this site but don't log in if nothing catches my eye in the first minute or so, although I am genuinely sorry I missed the thread about police. I'll read it when I get back next week.

[Another]

Back to "Another's" comments, it would appear he is a student of Saul Alinsky. Seems he is adroit at taking generally true events, generalizing them into a concept suitable for a slogan, and then presents the entire conclusion as truth, repeated until it is believed. Another, you're not going to find many around this forum that support police abuse of power. But it's not enough to say that you have 50 or 1000 examples of bad cops unless you put it in the context of total number of incidents handled. Just because you may have examples of some members of Congress getting by with stuff others have been prosecuted for does not lead to the logical conclusion that "laws don't apply to them." At least unless there are no members of Congress who have ever been prosecuted for their actions. Personally, I think those reviewing police-involved shootings are way too lenient in what they determine to be "justified." But nevertheless, it's not hard to find examples where a cop has been fired and/or prosecuted for having shot somebody unnecessarily. I don't question the specifics or your examples (well, maybe some of them since you tried to pass off the Chinese conspiracy), but they don't necessarily lead to your overly broad conclusions.

Back to one of the original questions - the reason people are so interested in the rancher story is because of the way it was reported, and for much the same reason large numbers of people seem to be interested in what Lindsay Lohan or the Kardashians are doing. Entertainment. But when you get past that point, there isn't much to the case itself to put up the barricades over.

LOL! I think this is the first time I've been accused of being an Alinsky-ite! Sorry, that's not what I was trying to do. I look at the cases that come to my attention. In the Boiling Springs Lake case, yes, the cop's been prosecuted, but for voluntary manslaughter, for what looks like it should be second degree murder. In general, cops get special treatment and everybody knows it. I think of the case where there's a guy on death row in Pennsylvania who shot a cop; he had no priors, and yes it was a stupid thing to do (he thought the cop was about to shoot his dogs), but what's interesting about the case is that the judge handing down the sentence as much as said that cops are "untouchable."

Re: the "Chinese conspiracy" see post above. Some conspiracy claims don't pan out; some do.

Just to note: I think anybody who thinks powerful people never conspire is living in a fantasy world. The issue is not whether or not to believe in conspiracies but which ones are true and which are pure hokum. The guy who says the moonlandings never happened is obviously a loon. But how much have you read about the CIA, which was almost certainly involved in bringing down democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, Panama, Chile, and several other places; I don't know, of course, but it wouldn't surprise me any if the CIA was involved in Kennedy's assassination. He'd pissed them off: they wanted an invasion of Cuba; he'd skillfully defused a very dangerous situation; and on top of that, he was actually opening up a rational dialogue with the Soviets. I'll have to continue this at another time if it gets a response. But do read a book called The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills if you can find a copy. I've read it maybe a dozen times since college, and I can guarantee you, things are worse today than they were in the 1950s when it was just the "military-industrial complex."

[O Really]

Another says, "In the Boiling Springs Lake case, yes, the cop's been prosecuted, but for voluntary manslaughter, for what looks like it should be second degree murder. In general, cops get special treatment and everybody knows it."

Well, we can always argue over whether a particular charge is appropriate or not. Some famous cases have been lost from over-charging. Some have gained convictions because of pursuing a lesser charge than might seem to apply. There's relatively little difference in the penalty for voluntary manslaughter and second degree murder, but manslaughter is easier to prove. Voluntary manslaughter is like a "crime of passion" resulting from the events of the time. Second degree murder requires some malicious intent, even without pre-meditation. I'd rather the guy get convicted of something than nothing.

Cops do get some presumptions that may not apply to regular citizens. For example, we know the cop is expected to carry a firearm, and there may be occasions when s/he will need to use it. Cops are also subject to extensive pre-employment screening, training, certification, and theoretically close supervision. So yes, the starting point is that the cop was properly trained, knew what s/he was doing, and had some rationale for his/her action. The guy who shoots a cop who is trying to serve a warrant does not get that presumption. IMNVHO, however, the problem is that people (and juries) are more likely to automatically assume the cop is a "good guy" and the person s/he shot "asked for it" in some way. Or that the cop just "reacted" to what "looked like a gun." Or that the suspect was "aggressive." I think the break in presumption needs to be balanced with a higher standard of responsibility, but that's not always what happens in court.

[O Really]

BTW, Another, the Alinsky reference wasn't intended to be insulting. Alinsky may have written "rules for radicals" but the principles expressed are applicable to any cause. But for some reason the right-wingers somehow think it's akin to being a Maoist.

[O Really]

Another says, "..One of the reasons it raises my hackles when someone justifies some government action with "it's the law" and why I don't just fall into line when someone says "he broke the law." Rosa Parks broke the law. So did Martin Luther King Jr. So did thousands of other people both white and black, to change the laws. You know what? The authorities then would have taken the same attitude toward claims of civil disobedience that you're taking toward ranchers now, that this is not "really" civil disobedience, just self-serving law-breaking."

Umm, not exactly. Rosa was charged specifically with "civil disobedience," and she knew very well what she was in for, and received no personal profit from her courage. Not to offer advice where none is sought, Another, but I might be careful lecturing people on civil disobedience whose father's picture is in the Civil Rights museum in Birmingham getting sprayed by the fire hoses, and who was on the last Selma march. Comparing Bundy to Rosa is truly lame.

[Bungalow Bill]

Do they still use cowhide in shoes? There's your connection.

Right-wing deadbeat Bundy has been busted again. Remember
how he has said his family has been on this land since the 1870s?
Someone checked out the land records and turns out his parents
bought the farm, literally that is, in 1948. Bundy is just a conman,
but I've got to admit he's a pretty good one, not that it takes much
skill to fool the nutjobs.

Yeah, nothing says manly courage like standing behind a group of
women when trouble is coming.

[neoplacebo]

Those women were probably crazy. Possibly mad cow disease.....hard to say.

[JTA]

Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

I'm not surprised, is anyone else? The hilarious irony here is that he is a welfare rancher being subsidized by the American people with free grazing, and that he's not smart enough to figure it out.

A List of Cliven Bundy's Supporters, Now That We Know He's a Pro-Slavery Racist

Opps.

If he had just remembered to say "I'm not racist, and I have black friends..." before saying that stuff he would have been in the clear.

[JTA]

"...I have black friends..."

Looking through Google images I couldn't spot a single one of them. Must be that danged liberal media refusing to show them.

I just did a google search and found no black people either:



At first I thought "verily, are these black people? Where are the black people"? Then I thought "Nay, these are not black people. These are simply people." It's possible I am incapable of seeing a people's color because I only see people. No black people, no white people, no yellow people - just people. This is probably because I have black friends.

[Bungalow Bill]

Cliven Bundy? Cliven Bundy, no that name doesn't ring
a bell.

[Wneglia]

What Bundy said was stupid and wrong. However, the press never said a peep about King Samir Shabazz The silence was deafening.

[Boatrocker]

Cliven Bundy stands by racially charged comments, ‘That’s exactly what I said’

I'm not surprised, is anyone else? The hilarious irony here is that he is a welfare rancher being subsidized by the American people with free grazing, and that he's not smart enough to figure it out . . . .

And neither is his collection of cracker fanboys. Classic example of our knee-jerk, reactionary teabagger nation rushing down the street to find a pile of shit to step in, smearing it all over their pants, and then blaming it on the sidewalk.

[Boatrocker]

Karma is a stone, cold bitch. I waste little sympathy on self-inflicted wounds; I hope they leave scars.