What is this an example of to you?

[Seth]

I'd imagine I and my well armed kinfolk might discuss the matter with you. Friendly like, of course, Southerners are nothing if not polite and hospitable.

I'm a Yankee, though. I'll just let Seth and clear them out as they come in. They'll be easy pickings for him.

Seriously, though, my point is not that Bundy shouldn't pay grazing fees: as a part owner of that public land, of course I want him to pay the fees, just as fishermen should pay fees for fishing on the ocean. However, I think that what's needed is use of those courts piscator thinks there are too many of: if I want to evict a tenant, I use the court system, I don't just start shooting his pets or kids.

I understand he has already ignored several court orders; given that, application of law enforcement is the next logical step, unless you want courts to be toothless tigers...

The appropriate recourse in this case is to file a lien on his ranch. That's how civil collection issues like this are almost always handled by the federal government. This show of force by the government is exactly that, they are trying to intimidate and frighten others by using military tactics in a civil action. It's all part of Obama's militiarization of law enforcement, which includes both dozens of federal agencies that have never in history had armed agents as well as giving out military surplus goodies like MRAP armored vehicles to podunk local police departments.

I don't know how many of you remember what Obama said years ago. He said that it was his intention to create a domestic federal "army" equal in power to the US military. And that's what he's been doing. We are now seeing Homeland Security paramilitary forces showing up at local crimescenes and drug busts and driving vehicles marked "Police" and undertaking actions that are explicitly forbidden to the US military under the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids our military from engaging in domestic law enforcement actions.

So Obama has been building up Homeland Security as a national police force armed with military weapons and equipment instead.

This is both a breach of the intent of the Founders, who knew that a large standing army with powers to enforce law domestically is a grave danger to the people, and it's a breach of trust between the federal government and the people.

This national police force, under the sole control of the President, not the Congress, threatens the sovereignty of the states as well. It has been made powerful by the duplication of state criminal offenses in the Code of Federal Regulations, which means that many crimes that used to be strictly state matters are now also federal crimes, which gives Homeland Security the power to act and even take over investigations and prosecutions.

Worst of all, this duplication of state laws creates a double jeopardy situation for defendants that's being abused all the time. You can be arrested on state charges, be acquitted of the crime, and then be arrested on the same set of alleged actions by the feds and be tried in federal court again.

This COMPLETELY disrespects the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy prohibitions.

In the past, federal crimes were few and far between and related to interstate acts like kidnapping and espionage, and they were investigated by the FBI. Now we have this federal police force lording it over local police and state authorities and acting without even notifying the state, and such actions are becoming more and more militaristic, with heavily armed paramilitary squads serving no-knock federal warrants against people accuse of credit card fraud.

It's disgusting.

[Seth]

The BLM seriously miscalculated, but to someone's credit (who knows who) they decided it wouldn't be politic to roll flame throwing tanks like they did in Waco, nor to let snipers start murdering citizens like at Ruby Ridge. I think the fact that armed militias from several states were heading towards Nevada gave them pause. It's hard to spin a pitched battle. I agree with Jack, this ain't over.

But hey, according to the standard liberal mantra an armed populace is of no use against a tyrannical government

So.. Why is the focus being put on the government rather than the capitalist corporations pulling the governments strings? It's not your government thats tyrannical and needs to be held accountable to an armed populace, it's your untouchable corporations.

Because the government not only has the power to control corporations, it has the power to tyrannize the entire populace and is therefore the greatest risk to liberty, which means that being able to face down the government is far more important than bitching to a corporation.

Is there no situation where Americans will understand their beloved big business are the actual problem pulling your governments strings rather than the puppets in Washington.

The seat of regulatory power is the government. Corporations cannot affect citizens without the cooperation of the government. Therefore the government is the appropriate target for redress of abuses by our elected representatives. Corporations can only do what the government permits them to do.

You want a revolution then you need to go after corporations, they are the feral tyrannical money hungry despots desperate to keep their power and wealth. Unless you prevent them from using that power and influence to get what they want, no amount of over throws of your gubberment is going to change the situation.

No, we need to clean government's house and install representatives who will take control of the federal government back, eliminate 90 percent of it by amending the Commerce Clause, and devolve regulatory power over commerce back to the individual states, where it is supposed to lie in the first place. By aggregating control of commerce in the federal government as it has been done (completely in defiance of the Founder's intent), it gives great power to the few corrupt representatives in Congress. They should not, and do not by right have that power, which should lie with the state legislatures and the tens of thousands of state representatives who are close to the people whom they serve, and who can be recalled by those people if they overstep their authority.

A perfect example of this is Colorado's first recall of two state Senators in its entire history for their egregious violations of the gun rights of Coloradoans. Recalling a Congressman is, according to some, not even possible (although Colorado law says it is), and nearly impossible to do.

Recalling a state level representative is much, much easier and puts the power back with the voters of the state.

Cutting Congress and the federal government back to it's intended role and sphere of authority, which is ONLY those powers granted by Article 2, Section 8 of the Constitution by amending the Commerce Clause to restrict Congress' power over "interstate commerce" ONLY to the authority to adjudicate disputes over state laws affecting interstate commerce where they conflict and where a complaint is brought to the Congress BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE INVOLVED STATES would eliminate 90 percent of federal government agencies literally overnight.

[Hermit]

the government not only has the power to control corporations, it has the power to tyrannize the entire populace and is therefore the greatest risk to liberty

You got that one arse about face. Corporations control government. They are therefore the greatest risk to liberty through the strings they pull on their political puppets.

[Svartalf]

But should the government get its teeth pulled or corporations be barred from influencing it?

[Hermit]

The only way to stop corporations from their puppeteering is to form a government by the people for the people. That can only be achieved through the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!
You have nothing to lose but your chains.
You have a world to win.

[JimC]

Better still, the lumpen-proletariat!

[Hermit]

Jim, please do look up the definition of Lumpenproletariat. It does not mean what you think it means.

[Brian Peacock]

There can be only one.

[JimC]

Jim, please do look up the definition of Lumpenproletariat. It does not mean what you think it means.

What, you mean it's not poor people covered with ugly lumps?

Yes, Hermit, I know precisely what the term means...

As is my want, I was using it facetiously...

[Warren Dew]

I'd imagine I and my well armed kinfolk might discuss the matter with you. Friendly like, of course, Southerners are nothing if not polite and hospitable.

I'm a Yankee, though. I'll just let Seth and clear them out as they come in. They'll be easy pickings for him.

Seriously, though, my point is not that Bundy shouldn't pay grazing fees: as a part owner of that public land, of course I want him to pay the fees, just as fishermen should pay fees for fishing on the ocean. However, I think that what's needed is use of those courts piscator thinks there are too many of: if I want to evict a tenant, I use the court system, I don't just start shooting his pets or kids.

I understand he has already ignored several court orders; given that, application of law enforcement is the next logical step, unless you want courts to be toothless tigers...

In my country, the escalation steps for eviction never get to a step that includes shooting the pets or kids.

[pErvinalia]

the government not only has the power to control corporations, it has the power to tyrannize the entire populace and is therefore the greatest risk to liberty

You got that one arse about face. Corporations control government. They are therefore the greatest risk to liberty through the strings they pull on their political puppets.

Exactly.

[FBM]

I still say that the US is a de facto plutocracy. For a long time, we've had an elite economic aristocracy that actually runs things. I'm gradually beginning to wonder if the Republican-Democrat or conservative-progressive divide is even really all that significant.

[Hermit]

I'm gradually beginning to wonder if the Republican-Democrat or conservative-progressive divide is even really all that significant.

They're not. Both parties are bought and paid for running dogs of capitalism. The only difference is that the democrats are not quite as brutal about it as the republicans. This situation is not all that different to democracies in other countries either.

[FBM]

I'm gradually beginning to wonder if the Republican-Democrat or conservative-progressive divide is even really all that significant.

They're not. Both parties are bought and paid for running dogs of capitalism. The only difference is that the democrats are not quite as brutal about it as the republicans. This situation is not all that different to democracies in other countries either.

No significant difference here in SK, either. The largest conglomerates, LG, Samsung, etc, are all family operations and are "too big to fail." They ultimately decide public policy, and everybody knows it. I talked to a group of my students about that last Thursday night. They were surprised to learn that the US is no different. Except that they try harder to hide it.

[SnowLeopard]

Because the government not only has the power to control corporations

LOL. You're in the USA so no.

it has the power to tyrannize the entire populace and is therefore the greatest risk to liberty, which means that being able to face down the government is far more important than bitching to a corporation.

Nope. You're government is under the thumb of your capitalist corporations. And the corporations dictate the tyranny of your entire populace when it sees fit. All this militarization you're so fearful of by the government is orchestrated by big business so their status quo of power and money making is not disrupted by you sweaty masses. What you need is a good socialist revolution, a hearty exorcism, severing the power of the 1% to amend the ills you chat about. But the 1% has already been at the ear of the government to allow the militarization of your police at home to prevent such a thing from ever happening, so their power and influence is untouchable.

Until you prevent corporations from manipulating government, no amount of changes of your government will change the situation.

Corporations cannot affect citizens without the cooperation of the government. Therefore the government is the appropriate target for redress of abuses by our elected representatives. Corporations can only do what the government permits them to do.

And corporations will always have the cooperation of the government while they're allowed to lobby and throw money at the problem. Corporations manipulating the government to oppress the population to suit their needs, to get what they want, to protect their money. Your countries blind love of capitalism has placed the corporations in charge and your government is the corporations muscle. Corporations are the appropriate target since the American public have allowed them to get in to a position of untouchable power because of the delusion you all hold that capitalism and big business are the bestest things ever. It's why those of us in the free world have universal health care. And you lot in America have big pharma. We the people are in charge over here. Not them the fat cats.

You all have permitted and orchestrated your own down fall. You're confused as to who the puppet is and who the people pulling the strings are. Is the puppet master the person that changes randomly every 5 years? Hardly. Not a very stable solution is it. Do you really think Obama cares, he's out in a year. Of course he doesn't. The people who care are the ones in penthouses and board rooms. The ones that have seen the Arab spring and the riots that took place all over Europe over the past few years. The ones that have seen the wall st protests and are worried the 99% might finally realize they are getting fucked by the 1% and decide to do something about it.

Cutting Congress and the federal government back to it's intended role and sphere of authority, which is ONLY those powers granted by Article 2, Section 8 of the Constitution by amending the Commerce Clause to restrict Congress' power over "interstate commerce" ONLY to the authority to adjudicate disputes over state laws affecting interstate commerce where they conflict and where a complaint is brought to the Congress BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE INVOLVED STATES would eliminate 90 percent of federal government agencies literally overnight.

Your constitution is very old and out of date. Update it for the 21st century and stop trying to live in the 18th century.

Maybe you should do away with your states instead. I think that would be a more sensible move.

Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!

Viva la revolution.