Ben Carson and the Holocaust

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's everyone's position that our government could get away with an internal holocaust and not meet with an armed resistance?

My position is knowing the amount of weaponry in the hands of the American people, it definitely would give a tyrant pause.

That's as it should be.

Armed resistance is useless without social organization, networking, and control of institutions. In fact, they matter far more than weapons. Helen Fein in Accounting for Genocide argued that it was the nations with independent institutions that did not support the Holocaust that were less likely to cooperate with the Nazi efforts to send Jews to the camp.

+1,000,000

Nowhere in history did a couple dozen untrained, obese, right wing ridgerunners with guns ever prevent an invasion or prevent governmental tyranny or oppression.

If anything, libertarianism and your desire to be independent, armed loners is far more likely to be your undoing if anything bad were ever to come to be.

Any yet, it worked for Bundy

LOL! Are you sure? Many of his supporters and two of his sons (Ryan and Cliven Lance) have since been facing various legal charges, arrests, guilty pleas et cetera for things like making terroristic threats (a felony under Nevada law as well as in many other jurisdictions - and oops, that means you can no longer legally own a gun in most jurisdictions as well) and various other lawless behaviors on their part, and meanwhile, ole Cliven's original cattle trespassing case is still working its way through the court system where he will end up having a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and which ends up costing him more and more money every day.

See, where you are confused is you are thinking wild west. The government doesn't typically operate wild west style - nor do they have to. That's what they have lawyers for. If your fictionalized fantasy version of the world, where the government wanted an armed showdown were actually true, the government would have sent a different set of resources in, as opposed to sending a half dozen lightly armed (and some unarmed) BLM guys and a couple car loads of local yokel sherrifs (which is all there was at the big standoff).

Instead, the government is working the long game, using the legal system, which at this point has its teeth sunk deep into Bundy like a bulldog, causing him pain every single time he so much as wiggles, and at this point, the more Bundy tries to fight, the weaker he will get, until finally he drops from exhaustion. At this point the best thing that could happen to him is he keels over from a heart attack before getting his court date.

I don't doubt the government is coming down on Bundy hard.

The funny thing? Is you don't even see the problem with the bolded, never mind the rest of your statement. Imagine this is you and the IRS. Sound like fun to you? And before you go all "I pay my taxes", consider how many times the IRS has been wrong and people have had their bank accounts locked, checks garnished, livelihoods destroyed, etc. If that's the government you want, you are a lost soul.

Spare us the bullshit. It's crystal clear (and the courts have already agreed) that Cliven Bundy has been screwing American taxpayers for two decades, ever since he decided to stop paying grazing fees and ever since he then started trespassing on land he didn't own to graze his cattle for profit at the expense of others. You want to talk about "livelihood" how would you like it if I routinely came to your store and shoplifted from it and then resold the goods on Ebay for my own financial benefit? That's basically what Bundy has been doing for 20 years, by allowing his cattle to graze for free on land he doesn't own, whereas other ranchers pay their fees without issue. And it's not even as though grazing fees are even that exorbitant, it's a mere $1.69 per month per cow and calf - far far cheaper than owning and maintaining your own land and paying the county property taxes on it, far far cheaper than leasing land from a private landowner neighbor and for damn sure far cheaper than buying feed. It's a hell of a good deal, yet Bundy wants to screw taxpayers even out of that paltry amount - and has been doing it for over 20 years. Enough is enough.

As for his bullshit claim that "he was there first" - I suggest you read up on history - the reason he's on that land at all goes back to the Mexican-American War, where the Mexico-Texas conflict escalated to the point where the US Army marched all the way to Mexico City and captured it, forcing the Mexican government to surrender and capitulate, and part of the terms of surrender included giving up lands which included what is now Nevada in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. At that point, all of the former Mexican Government owned lands that fell under terms of surrender, with the exception of lands that had already been specifically privately deeded became US land in the ownership of the Federal Government - the US federal government has owned the land that Bundy is grazing for long before anyone named Bundy even lived in Nevada, and those federal lands are under the purview of the BLM. Nowhere ever in history did anyone in Bundy's family ever hold any legal claim to the actual land itself.

See Venezuela. How's that working out?

You love your idea of libertarianism where we don't need any government, just guys with guns - see Somalia, how's that working out?

Limitarian - limited government. Somalia is corrupt.

LMAO! Somalia is corrupt *because* they have limited government. Their government is so small, weak and ineffectual that criminals, pirates and all other sorts of opportunists were able to take over.

I don't know, pp, the person you're replying to seems pretty convinced that libertarians could never be corrupt. Guess they're just morally superior to the rest of us.

Anyone can be corrupt. To claim Somalia's issues is lack of government control is idiocy.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone can be corrupt. To claim Somalia's issues is lack of government control is idiocy.

What? Do you know anything about Somalia?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm very familiar with thus case and the CEOs trust me, what the press says and what happened is not congruent. Everyone knows he was singled out, targeted, and hung out to dry.

Well, if "everyone" knows it, that settles it. Certainly, we should trust "everyone" rather than what we read in the press.

BTW, I am also very familiar with the case. I visited the Memphis plant a few days before it was raided. I own two Gibson guitars and followed the case very closely. The violations discovered in the second round of raids were clearly justified by the false paperwork used to import the wood. It turned out that the violations were not that severe and that the Indian government probably didn't care in the first place. That is probably why the case was settled favorably to Gibson.

Henry Juszkiewicz made a huge mistake by running to the right-wingers and acting like a victim of an over-zealous government. He alienated guitar players who care about the environment. In contrast, companies like Taylor and Martin who are much more forward thinking. That's why I bought a Taylor at that time.

Use your damn head. When you are raided by a SWAT team for freaking fingerboards - twice - it's not about wood. Bob Taylor himself told me that they get their wood the same way that Gibson does, and he didn't understand it. The Indian government disputes the 'false paperwork' and the government admits 'confusion'.

Yet it was only Gibson raided, and only Gibson that had to pay settle and be financially raped in order to get their wood back. There is no need to go into a guitar factory - twice - at gunpoint.

Gibson only alienated progressive guitar players who believe the media.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm very familiar with thus case and the CEOs trust me, what the press says and what happened is not congruent. Everyone knows he was singled out, targeted, and hung out to dry.

Well, if "everyone" knows it, that settles it. Certainly, we should trust "everyone" rather than what we read in the press.

BTW, I am also very familiar with the case. I visited the Memphis plant a few days before it was raided. I own two Gibson guitars and followed the case very closely. The violations discovered in the second round of raids were clearly justified by the false paperwork used to import the wood. It turned out that the violations were not that severe and that the Indian government probably didn't care in the first place. That is probably why the case was settled favorably to Gibson.

Henry Juszkiewicz made a huge mistake by running to the right-wingers and acting like a victim of an over-zealous government. He alienated guitar players who care about the environment. In contrast, companies like Taylor and Martin who are much more forward thinking. That's why I bought a Taylor at that time.

Use your damn head. When you are raided by a SWAT team for freaking fingerboards - twice - it's not about wood. Bob Taylor himself told me that they get their wood the same way that Gibson does, and he didn't understand it. The Indian government disputes the 'false paperwork' and the government admits 'confusion'.

Yet it was only Gibson raided, and only Gibson that had to pay settle and be financially raped in order to get their wood back. There is no need to go into a guitar factory - twice - at gunpoint.

Gibson only alienated progressive guitar players who believe the media.

Fact: The final destination listed on the Customs form was incorrect.
Fact: The wood was classified classified with a tariff code for finished wood when it was actually unfinished.

It is true that the Indian government takes a fairy liberal attitude toward what it considers "finished", but the Customs folk probably wouldn't have known that.

As for the "SWAT team", you act like guys came swinging in on ropes through the windows shooting anything that moved. The agents followed their standard procedures. There are a lot of folks beyond right-wingers concerned about Gibson who have complained about the militarization of polices agencies. When those same agents are going after minorities, you guys are normally very supportive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's everyone's position that our government could get away with an internal holocaust and not meet with an armed resistance?

My position is knowing the amount of weaponry in the hands of the American people, it definitely would give a tyrant pause.

That's as it should be.

Armed resistance is useless without social organization, networking, and control of institutions. In fact, they matter far more than weapons. Helen Fein in Accounting for Genocide argued that it was the nations with independent institutions that did not support the Holocaust that were less likely to cooperate with the Nazi efforts to send Jews to the camp.

+1,000,000

Nowhere in history did a couple dozen untrained, obese, right wing ridgerunners with guns ever prevent an invasion or prevent governmental tyranny or oppression.

If anything, libertarianism and your desire to be independent, armed loners is far more likely to be your undoing if anything bad were ever to come to be.

Any yet, it worked for Bundy

LOL! Are you sure? Many of his supporters and two of his sons (Ryan and Cliven Lance) have since been facing various legal charges, arrests, guilty pleas et cetera for things like making terroristic threats (a felony under Nevada law as well as in many other jurisdictions - and oops, that means you can no longer legally own a gun in most jurisdictions as well) and various other lawless behaviors on their part, and meanwhile, ole Cliven's original cattle trespassing case is still working its way through the court system where he will end up having a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and which ends up costing him more and more money every day.

See, where you are confused is you are thinking wild west. The government doesn't typically operate wild west style - nor do they have to. That's what they have lawyers for. If your fictionalized fantasy version of the world, where the government wanted an armed showdown were actually true, the government would have sent a different set of resources in, as opposed to sending a half dozen lightly armed (and some unarmed) BLM guys and a couple car loads of local yokel sherrifs (which is all there was at the big standoff).

Instead, the government is working the long game, using the legal system, which at this point has its teeth sunk deep into Bundy like a bulldog, causing him pain every single time he so much as wiggles, and at this point, the more Bundy tries to fight, the weaker he will get, until finally he drops from exhaustion. At this point the best thing that could happen to him is he keels over from a heart attack before getting his court date.

I don't doubt the government is coming down on Bundy hard.

The funny thing? Is you don't even see the problem with the bolded, never mind the rest of your statement. Imagine this is you and the IRS. Sound like fun to you? And before you go all "I pay my taxes", consider how many times the IRS has been wrong and people have had their bank accounts locked, checks garnished, livelihoods destroyed, etc. If that's the government you want, you are a lost soul.

Spare us the bullshit. It's crystal clear (and the courts have already agreed) that Cliven Bundy has been screwing American taxpayers for two decades, ever since he decided to stop paying grazing fees and ever since he then started trespassing on land he didn't own to graze his cattle for profit at the expense of others. You want to talk about "livelihood" how would you like it if I routinely came to your store and shoplifted from it and then resold the goods on Ebay for my own financial benefit? That's basically what Bundy has been doing for 20 years, by allowing his cattle to graze for free on land he doesn't own, whereas other ranchers pay their fees without issue. And it's not even as though grazing fees are even that exorbitant, it's a mere $1.69 per month per cow and calf - far far cheaper than owning and maintaining your own land and paying the county property taxes on it, far far cheaper than leasing land from a private landowner neighbor and for damn sure far cheaper than buying feed. It's a hell of a good deal, yet Bundy wants to screw taxpayers even out of that paltry amount - and has been doing it for over 20 years. Enough is enough.

As for his bullshit claim that "he was there first" - I suggest you read up on history - the reason he's on that land at all goes back to the Mexican-American War, where the Mexico-Texas conflict escalated to the point where the US Army marched all the way to Mexico City and captured it, forcing the Mexican government to surrender and capitulate, and part of the terms of surrender included giving up lands which included what is now Nevada in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. At that point, all of the former Mexican Government owned lands that fell under terms of surrender, with the exception of lands that had already been specifically privately deeded became US land in the ownership of the Federal Government - the US federal government has owned the land that Bundy is grazing for long before anyone named Bundy even lived in Nevada, and those federal lands are under the purview of the BLM. Nowhere ever in history did anyone in Bundy's family ever hold any legal claim to the actual land itself.

See Venezuela. How's that working out?

You love your idea of libertarianism where we don't need any government, just guys with guns - see Somalia, how's that working out?

Limitarian - limited government. Somalia is corrupt.

LMAO! Somalia is corrupt *because* they have limited government. Their government is so small, weak and ineffectual that criminals, pirates and all other sorts of opportunists were able to take over.

I don't know, pp, the person you're replying to seems pretty convinced that libertarians could never be corrupt. Guess they're just morally superior to the rest of us.

Anyone can be corrupt. To claim Somalia's issues is lack of government control is idiocy.

LMAO! That's got to be one of the most idiotic statements I've heard on DCUM in a very very long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's everyone's position that our government could get away with an internal holocaust and not meet with an armed resistance?

My position is knowing the amount of weaponry in the hands of the American people, it definitely would give a tyrant pause.

That's as it should be.

Armed resistance is useless without social organization, networking, and control of institutions. In fact, they matter far more than weapons. Helen Fein in Accounting for Genocide argued that it was the nations with independent institutions that did not support the Holocaust that were less likely to cooperate with the Nazi efforts to send Jews to the camp.

+1,000,000

Nowhere in history did a couple dozen untrained, obese, right wing ridgerunners with guns ever prevent an invasion or prevent governmental tyranny or oppression.

If anything, libertarianism and your desire to be independent, armed loners is far more likely to be your undoing if anything bad were ever to come to be.

Any yet, it worked for Bundy

LOL! Are you sure? Many of his supporters and two of his sons (Ryan and Cliven Lance) have since been facing various legal charges, arrests, guilty pleas et cetera for things like making terroristic threats (a felony under Nevada law as well as in many other jurisdictions - and oops, that means you can no longer legally own a gun in most jurisdictions as well) and various other lawless behaviors on their part, and meanwhile, ole Cliven's original cattle trespassing case is still working its way through the court system where he will end up having a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and which ends up costing him more and more money every day.

See, where you are confused is you are thinking wild west. The government doesn't typically operate wild west style - nor do they have to. That's what they have lawyers for. If your fictionalized fantasy version of the world, where the government wanted an armed showdown were actually true, the government would have sent a different set of resources in, as opposed to sending a half dozen lightly armed (and some unarmed) BLM guys and a couple car loads of local yokel sherrifs (which is all there was at the big standoff).

Instead, the government is working the long game, using the legal system, which at this point has its teeth sunk deep into Bundy like a bulldog, causing him pain every single time he so much as wiggles, and at this point, the more Bundy tries to fight, the weaker he will get, until finally he drops from exhaustion. At this point the best thing that could happen to him is he keels over from a heart attack before getting his court date.

I don't doubt the government is coming down on Bundy hard.

The funny thing? Is you don't even see the problem with the bolded, never mind the rest of your statement. Imagine this is you and the IRS. Sound like fun to you? And before you go all "I pay my taxes", consider how many times the IRS has been wrong and people have had their bank accounts locked, checks garnished, livelihoods destroyed, etc. If that's the government you want, you are a lost soul.

Spare us the bullshit. It's crystal clear (and the courts have already agreed) that Cliven Bundy has been screwing American taxpayers for two decades, ever since he decided to stop paying grazing fees and ever since he then started trespassing on land he didn't own to graze his cattle for profit at the expense of others. You want to talk about "livelihood" how would you like it if I routinely came to your store and shoplifted from it and then resold the goods on Ebay for my own financial benefit? That's basically what Bundy has been doing for 20 years, by allowing his cattle to graze for free on land he doesn't own, whereas other ranchers pay their fees without issue. And it's not even as though grazing fees are even that exorbitant, it's a mere $1.69 per month per cow and calf - far far cheaper than owning and maintaining your own land and paying the county property taxes on it, far far cheaper than leasing land from a private landowner neighbor and for damn sure far cheaper than buying feed. It's a hell of a good deal, yet Bundy wants to screw taxpayers even out of that paltry amount - and has been doing it for over 20 years. Enough is enough.

As for his bullshit claim that "he was there first" - I suggest you read up on history - the reason he's on that land at all goes back to the Mexican-American War, where the Mexico-Texas conflict escalated to the point where the US Army marched all the way to Mexico City and captured it, forcing the Mexican government to surrender and capitulate, and part of the terms of surrender included giving up lands which included what is now Nevada in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. At that point, all of the former Mexican Government owned lands that fell under terms of surrender, with the exception of lands that had already been specifically privately deeded became US land in the ownership of the Federal Government - the US federal government has owned the land that Bundy is grazing for long before anyone named Bundy even lived in Nevada, and those federal lands are under the purview of the BLM. Nowhere ever in history did anyone in Bundy's family ever hold any legal claim to the actual land itself.

See Venezuela. How's that working out?

You love your idea of libertarianism where we don't need any government, just guys with guns - see Somalia, how's that working out?

Limitarian - limited government. Somalia is corrupt.

LMAO! Somalia is corrupt *because* they have limited government. Their government is so small, weak and ineffectual that criminals, pirates and all other sorts of opportunists were able to take over.

I don't know, pp, the person you're replying to seems pretty convinced that libertarians could never be corrupt. Guess they're just morally superior to the rest of us.

Anyone can be corrupt. To claim Somalia's issues is lack of government control is idiocy.

LMAO! That's got to be one of the most idiotic statements I've heard on DCUM in a very very long time.

To someone who thinks government control is the answer to everything, i can see why. Somalia's issue is a corrupt government, as it is with most banana republics.

Just like y'all think Bernie Sanders is the bomb. What you've never considered is that those who produce will stop producing when their product is confiscated for the people. Do you really think Apple will keep producing if they make no money off of their product? Anyone with real wealth will shelter the money or simply leave the country. All those Hollywood types calling for socialism have already sheltered their money to the hilt. What on earth do you think those production companies are about?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm very familiar with thus case and the CEOs trust me, what the press says and what happened is not congruent. Everyone knows he was singled out, targeted, and hung out to dry.

Well, if "everyone" knows it, that settles it. Certainly, we should trust "everyone" rather than what we read in the press.

BTW, I am also very familiar with the case. I visited the Memphis plant a few days before it was raided. I own two Gibson guitars and followed the case very closely. The violations discovered in the second round of raids were clearly justified by the false paperwork used to import the wood. It turned out that the violations were not that severe and that the Indian government probably didn't care in the first place. That is probably why the case was settled favorably to Gibson.

Henry Juszkiewicz made a huge mistake by running to the right-wingers and acting like a victim of an over-zealous government. He alienated guitar players who care about the environment. In contrast, companies like Taylor and Martin who are much more forward thinking. That's why I bought a Taylor at that time.

Use your damn head. When you are raided by a SWAT team for freaking fingerboards - twice - it's not about wood. Bob Taylor himself told me that they get their wood the same way that Gibson does, and he didn't understand it. The Indian government disputes the 'false paperwork' and the government admits 'confusion'.

Yet it was only Gibson raided, and only Gibson that had to pay settle and be financially raped in order to get their wood back. There is no need to go into a guitar factory - twice - at gunpoint.

Gibson only alienated progressive guitar players who believe the media.

Fact: The final destination listed on the Customs form was incorrect.
Fact: The wood was classified classified with a tariff code for finished wood when it was actually unfinished.

It is true that the Indian government takes a fairy liberal attitude toward what it considers "finished", but the Customs folk probably wouldn't have known that.

As for the "SWAT team", you act like guys came swinging in on ropes through the windows shooting anything that moved. The agents followed their standard procedures. There are a lot of folks beyond right-wingers concerned about Gibson who have complained about the militarization of polices agencies. When those same agents are going after minorities, you guys are normally very supportive.

Horse-shit. There is no need to go in at gunpoint - TWICE. That was the Feds.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/05/28/gibson-guitar-knows-why-the-federal-government-raided-them/

[Anonymous]

Can we please refrain from using the term "financially raped"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we please refrain from using the term "financially raped"?

Micro-aggression?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm very familiar with thus case and the CEOs trust me, what the press says and what happened is not congruent. Everyone knows he was singled out, targeted, and hung out to dry.

Well, if "everyone" knows it, that settles it. Certainly, we should trust "everyone" rather than what we read in the press.

BTW, I am also very familiar with the case. I visited the Memphis plant a few days before it was raided. I own two Gibson guitars and followed the case very closely. The violations discovered in the second round of raids were clearly justified by the false paperwork used to import the wood. It turned out that the violations were not that severe and that the Indian government probably didn't care in the first place. That is probably why the case was settled favorably to Gibson.

Henry Juszkiewicz made a huge mistake by running to the right-wingers and acting like a victim of an over-zealous government. He alienated guitar players who care about the environment. In contrast, companies like Taylor and Martin who are much more forward thinking. That's why I bought a Taylor at that time.

Use your damn head. When you are raided by a SWAT team for freaking fingerboards - twice - it's not about wood. Bob Taylor himself told me that they get their wood the same way that Gibson does, and he didn't understand it. The Indian government disputes the 'false paperwork' and the government admits 'confusion'.

Yet it was only Gibson raided, and only Gibson that had to pay settle and be financially raped in order to get their wood back. There is no need to go into a guitar factory - twice - at gunpoint.

Gibson only alienated progressive guitar players who believe the media.

Fact: The final destination listed on the Customs form was incorrect.
Fact: The wood was classified classified with a tariff code for finished wood when it was actually unfinished.

It is true that the Indian government takes a fairy liberal attitude toward what it considers "finished", but the Customs folk probably wouldn't have known that.

As for the "SWAT team", you act like guys came swinging in on ropes through the windows shooting anything that moved. The agents followed their standard procedures. There are a lot of folks beyond right-wingers concerned about Gibson who have complained about the militarization of polices agencies. When those same agents are going after minorities, you guys are normally very supportive.

Horse-shit. There is no need to go in at gunpoint - TWICE. That was the Feds.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/05/28/gibson-guitar-knows-why-the-federal-government-raided-them/

No, YOU stop with the horseshit. All of this has been debunked. Again, a.) Gibson's CEO donated regularly and frequently to DEMOCRATS. b.) Martin and the other guitar companies DID NOT use the same rare woods c.) Gibson's CEO denied it was political several times in interviews when he was specifically asked about it. c.) Gibson's documentation was NOT in compliance d.) Gibson's attorneys acknowledged and admitted wrongdoing e.) there's no evidence that the raid was "at gunpoint" - the mere fact that a Customs officer shows up with a gun on a hip is not the same as having a gun held to your head with direct threats made

[Anonymous]

Fact is, Gibson has been losing money for the last several years, they are operating in desperation mode, trying to cut corners, trying to find sympathy and trying to blame others...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's everyone's position that our government could get away with an internal holocaust and not meet with an armed resistance?

My position is knowing the amount of weaponry in the hands of the American people, it definitely would give a tyrant pause.

That's as it should be.

Armed resistance is useless without social organization, networking, and control of institutions. In fact, they matter far more than weapons. Helen Fein in Accounting for Genocide argued that it was the nations with independent institutions that did not support the Holocaust that were less likely to cooperate with the Nazi efforts to send Jews to the camp.

+1,000,000

Nowhere in history did a couple dozen untrained, obese, right wing ridgerunners with guns ever prevent an invasion or prevent governmental tyranny or oppression.

If anything, libertarianism and your desire to be independent, armed loners is far more likely to be your undoing if anything bad were ever to come to be.

Any yet, it worked for Bundy

LOL! Are you sure? Many of his supporters and two of his sons (Ryan and Cliven Lance) have since been facing various legal charges, arrests, guilty pleas et cetera for things like making terroristic threats (a felony under Nevada law as well as in many other jurisdictions - and oops, that means you can no longer legally own a gun in most jurisdictions as well) and various other lawless behaviors on their part, and meanwhile, ole Cliven's original cattle trespassing case is still working its way through the court system where he will end up having a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and which ends up costing him more and more money every day.

See, where you are confused is you are thinking wild west. The government doesn't typically operate wild west style - nor do they have to. That's what they have lawyers for. If your fictionalized fantasy version of the world, where the government wanted an armed showdown were actually true, the government would have sent a different set of resources in, as opposed to sending a half dozen lightly armed (and some unarmed) BLM guys and a couple car loads of local yokel sherrifs (which is all there was at the big standoff).

Instead, the government is working the long game, using the legal system, which at this point has its teeth sunk deep into Bundy like a bulldog, causing him pain every single time he so much as wiggles, and at this point, the more Bundy tries to fight, the weaker he will get, until finally he drops from exhaustion. At this point the best thing that could happen to him is he keels over from a heart attack before getting his court date.

I don't doubt the government is coming down on Bundy hard.

The funny thing? Is you don't even see the problem with the bolded, never mind the rest of your statement. Imagine this is you and the IRS. Sound like fun to you? And before you go all "I pay my taxes", consider how many times the IRS has been wrong and people have had their bank accounts locked, checks garnished, livelihoods destroyed, etc. If that's the government you want, you are a lost soul.

Spare us the bullshit. It's crystal clear (and the courts have already agreed) that Cliven Bundy has been screwing American taxpayers for two decades, ever since he decided to stop paying grazing fees and ever since he then started trespassing on land he didn't own to graze his cattle for profit at the expense of others. You want to talk about "livelihood" how would you like it if I routinely came to your store and shoplifted from it and then resold the goods on Ebay for my own financial benefit? That's basically what Bundy has been doing for 20 years, by allowing his cattle to graze for free on land he doesn't own, whereas other ranchers pay their fees without issue. And it's not even as though grazing fees are even that exorbitant, it's a mere $1.69 per month per cow and calf - far far cheaper than owning and maintaining your own land and paying the county property taxes on it, far far cheaper than leasing land from a private landowner neighbor and for damn sure far cheaper than buying feed. It's a hell of a good deal, yet Bundy wants to screw taxpayers even out of that paltry amount - and has been doing it for over 20 years. Enough is enough.

As for his bullshit claim that "he was there first" - I suggest you read up on history - the reason he's on that land at all goes back to the Mexican-American War, where the Mexico-Texas conflict escalated to the point where the US Army marched all the way to Mexico City and captured it, forcing the Mexican government to surrender and capitulate, and part of the terms of surrender included giving up lands which included what is now Nevada in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. At that point, all of the former Mexican Government owned lands that fell under terms of surrender, with the exception of lands that had already been specifically privately deeded became US land in the ownership of the Federal Government - the US federal government has owned the land that Bundy is grazing for long before anyone named Bundy even lived in Nevada, and those federal lands are under the purview of the BLM. Nowhere ever in history did anyone in Bundy's family ever hold any legal claim to the actual land itself.

See Venezuela. How's that working out?

You love your idea of libertarianism where we don't need any government, just guys with guns - see Somalia, how's that working out?

Limitarian - limited government. Somalia is corrupt.

LMAO! Somalia is corrupt *because* they have limited government. Their government is so small, weak and ineffectual that criminals, pirates and all other sorts of opportunists were able to take over.

I don't know, pp, the person you're replying to seems pretty convinced that libertarians could never be corrupt. Guess they're just morally superior to the rest of us.

Anyone can be corrupt. To claim Somalia's issues is lack of government control is idiocy.

LMAO! That's got to be one of the most idiotic statements I've heard on DCUM in a very very long time.

To someone who thinks government control is the answer to everything, i can see why. Somalia's issue is a corrupt government, as it is with most banana republics.

Just like y'all think Bernie Sanders is the bomb. What you've never considered is that those who produce will stop producing when their product is confiscated for the people. Do you really think Apple will keep producing if they make no money off of their product? Anyone with real wealth will shelter the money or simply leave the country. All those Hollywood types calling for socialism have already sheltered their money to the hilt. What on earth do you think those production companies are about?

Thanks yet again for demonstrating you totally do not understand the situation in Somalia, along demonstrating that you have no fucking clue what Sanders is about.

Somalia's government is virtually nonexistent. They have zero power to enforce or regulate, which is why pirates, criminals and warlords run the country. Libertarianism in its most extreme form is nothing but anarchy - and that's exactly what Somalia has.

As for Sanders, he's a democratic socialist, which means a model like Sweden. In "socialist" Sweden, it's all about private industry and they most certainly didn't stop producing - unless you've never heard of Sweden's entrepreneurs, innovators and global leading brands like Ikea, Volvo, Saab, Sandvik, H&M, Spotify, nor will it turn the rich into paupers, given Sweden's many billionaires like Ingvar Kamprad, the Persson family and many more... Sweden has one of the highest standards of living in the world - higher than in the US.

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. On ANY topic, apparently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we please refrain from using the term "financially raped"?

Micro-aggression?

Massive exaggeration and disgusting comparison?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's everyone's position that our government could get away with an internal holocaust and not meet with an armed resistance?

My position is knowing the amount of weaponry in the hands of the American people, it definitely would give a tyrant pause.

That's as it should be.

Armed resistance is useless without social organization, networking, and control of institutions. In fact, they matter far more than weapons. Helen Fein in Accounting for Genocide argued that it was the nations with independent institutions that did not support the Holocaust that were less likely to cooperate with the Nazi efforts to send Jews to the camp.

+1,000,000

Nowhere in history did a couple dozen untrained, obese, right wing ridgerunners with guns ever prevent an invasion or prevent governmental tyranny or oppression.

If anything, libertarianism and your desire to be independent, armed loners is far more likely to be your undoing if anything bad were ever to come to be.

Any yet, it worked for Bundy

LOL! Are you sure? Many of his supporters and two of his sons (Ryan and Cliven Lance) have since been facing various legal charges, arrests, guilty pleas et cetera for things like making terroristic threats (a felony under Nevada law as well as in many other jurisdictions - and oops, that means you can no longer legally own a gun in most jurisdictions as well) and various other lawless behaviors on their part, and meanwhile, ole Cliven's original cattle trespassing case is still working its way through the court system where he will end up having a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and which ends up costing him more and more money every day.

See, where you are confused is you are thinking wild west. The government doesn't typically operate wild west style - nor do they have to. That's what they have lawyers for. If your fictionalized fantasy version of the world, where the government wanted an armed showdown were actually true, the government would have sent a different set of resources in, as opposed to sending a half dozen lightly armed (and some unarmed) BLM guys and a couple car loads of local yokel sherrifs (which is all there was at the big standoff).

Instead, the government is working the long game, using the legal system, which at this point has its teeth sunk deep into Bundy like a bulldog, causing him pain every single time he so much as wiggles, and at this point, the more Bundy tries to fight, the weaker he will get, until finally he drops from exhaustion. At this point the best thing that could happen to him is he keels over from a heart attack before getting his court date.

I don't doubt the government is coming down on Bundy hard.

The funny thing? Is you don't even see the problem with the bolded, never mind the rest of your statement. Imagine this is you and the IRS. Sound like fun to you? And before you go all "I pay my taxes", consider how many times the IRS has been wrong and people have had their bank accounts locked, checks garnished, livelihoods destroyed, etc. If that's the government you want, you are a lost soul.

Spare us the bullshit. It's crystal clear (and the courts have already agreed) that Cliven Bundy has been screwing American taxpayers for two decades, ever since he decided to stop paying grazing fees and ever since he then started trespassing on land he didn't own to graze his cattle for profit at the expense of others. You want to talk about "livelihood" how would you like it if I routinely came to your store and shoplifted from it and then resold the goods on Ebay for my own financial benefit? That's basically what Bundy has been doing for 20 years, by allowing his cattle to graze for free on land he doesn't own, whereas other ranchers pay their fees without issue. And it's not even as though grazing fees are even that exorbitant, it's a mere $1.69 per month per cow and calf - far far cheaper than owning and maintaining your own land and paying the county property taxes on it, far far cheaper than leasing land from a private landowner neighbor and for damn sure far cheaper than buying feed. It's a hell of a good deal, yet Bundy wants to screw taxpayers even out of that paltry amount - and has been doing it for over 20 years. Enough is enough.

As for his bullshit claim that "he was there first" - I suggest you read up on history - the reason he's on that land at all goes back to the Mexican-American War, where the Mexico-Texas conflict escalated to the point where the US Army marched all the way to Mexico City and captured it, forcing the Mexican government to surrender and capitulate, and part of the terms of surrender included giving up lands which included what is now Nevada in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. At that point, all of the former Mexican Government owned lands that fell under terms of surrender, with the exception of lands that had already been specifically privately deeded became US land in the ownership of the Federal Government - the US federal government has owned the land that Bundy is grazing for long before anyone named Bundy even lived in Nevada, and those federal lands are under the purview of the BLM. Nowhere ever in history did anyone in Bundy's family ever hold any legal claim to the actual land itself.

See Venezuela. How's that working out?

You love your idea of libertarianism where we don't need any government, just guys with guns - see Somalia, how's that working out?

Limitarian - limited government. Somalia is corrupt.

LMAO! Somalia is corrupt *because* they have limited government. Their government is so small, weak and ineffectual that criminals, pirates and all other sorts of opportunists were able to take over.

I don't know, pp, the person you're replying to seems pretty convinced that libertarians could never be corrupt. Guess they're just morally superior to the rest of us.

Anyone can be corrupt. To claim Somalia's issues is lack of government control is idiocy.

LMAO! That's got to be one of the most idiotic statements I've heard on DCUM in a very very long time.

To someone who thinks government control is the answer to everything, i can see why. Somalia's issue is a corrupt government, as it is with most banana republics.

Just like y'all think Bernie Sanders is the bomb. What you've never considered is that those who produce will stop producing when their product is confiscated for the people. Do you really think Apple will keep producing if they make no money off of their product? Anyone with real wealth will shelter the money or simply leave the country. All those Hollywood types calling for socialism have already sheltered their money to the hilt. What on earth do you think those production companies are about?

Thanks yet again for demonstrating you totally do not understand the situation in Somalia, along demonstrating that you have no fucking clue what Sanders is about.

Somalia's government is virtually nonexistent. They have zero power to enforce or regulate, which is why pirates, criminals and warlords run the country. Libertarianism in its most extreme form is nothing but anarchy - and that's exactly what Somalia has.

As for Sanders, he's a democratic socialist, which means a model like Sweden. In "socialist" Sweden, it's all about private industry and they most certainly didn't stop producing - unless you've never heard of Sweden's entrepreneurs, innovators and global leading brands like Ikea, Volvo, Saab, Sandvik, H&M, Spotify, nor will it turn the rich into paupers, given Sweden's many billionaires like Ingvar Kamprad, the Persson family and many more... Sweden has one of the highest standards of living in the world - higher than in the US.

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. On ANY topic, apparently.

Honestly, it's like Glenn Beck says - arguing with idiots:

http://fortheargument.com/2014/02/17/no-somalia-is-not-a-libertarian-paradise/

As always, liberals are simple...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm very familiar with thus case and the CEOs trust me, what the press says and what happened is not congruent. Everyone knows he was singled out, targeted, and hung out to dry.

Well, if "everyone" knows it, that settles it. Certainly, we should trust "everyone" rather than what we read in the press.

BTW, I am also very familiar with the case. I visited the Memphis plant a few days before it was raided. I own two Gibson guitars and followed the case very closely. The violations discovered in the second round of raids were clearly justified by the false paperwork used to import the wood. It turned out that the violations were not that severe and that the Indian government probably didn't care in the first place. That is probably why the case was settled favorably to Gibson.

Henry Juszkiewicz made a huge mistake by running to the right-wingers and acting like a victim of an over-zealous government. He alienated guitar players who care about the environment. In contrast, companies like Taylor and Martin who are much more forward thinking. That's why I bought a Taylor at that time.

Use your damn head. When you are raided by a SWAT team for freaking fingerboards - twice - it's not about wood. Bob Taylor himself told me that they get their wood the same way that Gibson does, and he didn't understand it. The Indian government disputes the 'false paperwork' and the government admits 'confusion'.

Yet it was only Gibson raided, and only Gibson that had to pay settle and be financially raped in order to get their wood back. There is no need to go into a guitar factory - twice - at gunpoint.

Gibson only alienated progressive guitar players who believe the media.

Bullshit. This extended video from Bob Taylor completely an thoroughly refutes your claim. They absolutely do not get their wood the same way.