I admit it, I think that the folks involved in this dust-up are intellectually inferior and a danger to society. The question is, "What do we do about it?" My favored result is that they be separated from the rest of us, and rendered impotent. How, though, can that be accomplished in a moral and principled way? Can it be done within the structures and limitations of our laws? And, at what cost? Yes, I think that their behavior is criminal, but do I want the lives of law enforcement personnel put at risk trying to bring them to justice? At what point do they move past being an "annoyance" and pest to a real threat? I think they are close, now, but what are the implications of action? Ruby Ridge and Waco are lessons of just how volatile these personalities are and how difficult they are to bring to heel.
_________________________ A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
If I were the administration would walk easily on this, people are upset and the country is divided about how powerful the Fed should really be. By backing down they have encouraged the crazies and given them an issue to rally behind. It wouldn't take much to push this into dangerous territory and I do not want to see anybody get shot over a grazing rights issue. However, when I saw the ham handed way that the BLM decided to handle this issue I expect that the eventual "Ruby Ridge" moment that is coming.
A proud member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, Massachusetts Chapter
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson
Loc: San Jose, Ca USA
If you want to see ham handed Try threatening a police officer with a gun while telling him to back off.
As I understand it This family stopped paying rent 20 years ago
You do that with your taxes and you have Elliot ness. On your ass.
The Blm is not set up as a police agency If or when a police agency is called in They will not be amused by people pointing guns at them.
I am not familiar with this case So cannot say if there is some valid grounds to oppose the gov Otoh if they used to pay rent And stopped It seems like there is an acknowledge that they are using land they do not own. Or do they pay taxes on this land
But what ever the case People who threaten. Gov officials with guns. Have made a serious decision.
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
Loc: One of the Mexicos
Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
... However, when I saw the ham handed way that the BLM decided to handle this issue ...
What was ham-handed about it? They were there rounding up cows and a mob confronted them. They tried to work it out but the Bundys refused. They backed down.
I think the amateur militia certainly behaved in a ham-handed manner, and without any legal basis for their actions. The U.S. has had title to the land in question since Mexico ceded it in 1848. Various federal agencies have managed it since that time, charging rent, the most recent entity being the BLM starting in 1948.
Ardy pegged it pretty good, I think.
The point is that Bundy has been trying to create a legal fiction that he has some kind of rights to federal land, where he does not.
Here's an example that may be appropriate::
You rent me a house that has been owned by your family since 1848, where I live for 40 years starting in 1954, paying rent all the time. In 1993, you decide that you want to change the house and charge a different rent. I don't like the changes that you are going to do to your house, so I claim that because I lived there for 30 years, I now have ancestral rights (my uncle also rented part of the house for a couple of years 90 years ago, too), and I stop paying rent. We go to court and you get an eviction notice, but I still won't move out. You wait a very long time, hoping I will come to my senses, before finally you call the police to evict me and move my stuff out of the house, selling whatever to help cover the legal costs and the eviction costs and the past due rent. I get a bunch of folks to come, who believe my legal fiction about ancestral rights and who hate people like you (whatever that means to them), and present armed resistance. When the cops don't shoot me and my new friends, I declare victory over the government thugs who overstepped the bounds of the Constitution by trying to force me to give you your house back.
Bundy is just a rent deadbeat.
You can’t solve a problem without first understanding what the problem is.
Loc: Whittier, California
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
What, by the way, makes these idjits think that they are different than other terrorists? Their complete inability to make even simple distinctions between their acts and other terrorist groups is breathtaking.
Loc: Whittier, California
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Can it be done within the structures and limitations of our laws? And, at what cost? Yes, I think that their behavior is criminal, but do I want the lives of law enforcement personnel put at risk trying to bring them to justice? At what point do they move past being an "annoyance" and pest to a real threat? I think they are close, now, but what are the implications of action? Ruby Ridge and Waco are lessons of just how volatile these personalities are and how difficult they are to bring to heel.
--Which is exactly why the order to stand down went out to BLM and law enforcement. No way in Hell were they going to make the mistake of martyring Mr. Bundy and his "Malicious-men".
I do not honestly know if President Obama was directly consulted about this at any point, nor do I believe it's important if he was, or wasn't. But if he was, this is just another example of chess versus checkers.
If he wasn't, someone else further down the totem pole has been watching him (or someone like him) play chess and decided that chess was indeed the way to play this out.
Game ain't over yet! Bundy et all just think it is. How very foolish of them, but it's to be expected.
Thats all fine and good, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE: POLITICAL BIAS WAS NOT A FACTOR.