BF2S Forums Armed militia scares off government agents for deadbeat millionaire

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

'justice reform' = making youtube martyr videos?

No, that's just dumb.

Justice reform as in standing up to the Department of Justice ordering them back to prison because the mandatory minimum sentence is 5 years rather than the more lenient and reasonable sentence handed down by the judge. Mandatory minimums should be abolished across the board. They're an ineffective and cruel absurdity.

Ok sure, but you know there is a reason they got re-sentenced to 5 years minimum, there was an error of law during the trial by not giving the appropriate sentence.

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay, "the left" has been at the forefront in arguing against mandatory minimums in federal sentencing for over 20 years.  Keep up.

Where exactly have the Bundy's (or Hammonds) said they are protesting against mandatory minimum sentencing?  The only quotes I've read from anyone involved with the ranchers side invokes the asinine "sovereign citizen" mumbo jumbo about restoring citizen's "constitutional rights".  Are you reading something I'm not or are you creating your own narrative?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ … regon.html
https://reason.com/blog/2016/01/03/on-o … qaeda-stop
https://reason.com/blog/2016/01/04/ranc … red-oregon
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Popehat/~3/SAdZRJIP3h0/

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

they are all about personal and private property and constitutional rights. the 'non-progressive left', by which i assume you mean the traditional left, are interested in socialism. are you trying to suggest these guys are somehow socialists because they are anti-government? i'm so confused as to how you are making these echo right-wing conservatives into left sympathisers, or somehow examples of the left's stupidity of public opinion.

I'm saying that if you remove economics from the equation, they're on the same side in this instance.

Here, some satire for you: https://workersspatula.wordpress.com/20 … -brothers/

what a fucking meaningless sentence. "if you remove economics from the equation".

the entire disagreement between right and left is fundamentally economic. what's the difference between communism and fascism? it's 99.5% economic. most political ideologies share the same socio-political DNA, especially the extreme fringe ones (i.e. the same despotic or totalitarian streak). it's a question of organisation and allocation, i.e. economics.

also anarchists are not the 'non-progressive left'. the traditional left is socialism. what has come to be termed 'progressivism' is basically leftish thought integrated into a working democratic framework, i.e. the social democrats of 19th century europe. anarchism in a historical and theoretical context is basically an aberration. especially if you consider the history of the position through people like proudhon and bakunin. it was always the emotive and irrational tumour that grew on socialist theory.

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

I'm saying that if you remove economics from the equation, they're on the same side in this instance.

Here, some satire for you: https://workersspatula.wordpress.com/20 … -brothers/

what a fucking meaningless sentence. "if you remove economics from the equation".

the entire disagreement between right and left is fundamentally economic. what's the difference between communism and fascism? it's 99.5% economic. most political ideologies share the same socio-political DNA, especially the extreme fringe ones (i.e. the same despotic or totalitarian streak). it's a question of organisation and allocation, i.e. economics.

also anarchists are not the 'non-progressive left'. the traditional left is socialism. what has come to be termed 'progressivism' is basically leftish thought integrated into a working democratic framework, i.e. the social democrats of 19th century europe. anarchism in a historical and theoretical context is basically an aberration. especially if you consider the history of the position through people like proudhon and bakunin. it was always the emotive and irrational tumour that grew on socialist theory.

Progressives in America are totalitarian and largely economically agnostic. Everything can be fixed with just a bit more government. They believe in socialist redistributive policies only when it supports their Platonian goals.

There are a lot of liberal, hippie-types mixed up in there who don't necessarily like or trust the government but would never vote republican because of the anti-gay, anti-abortion etc stances.

Ultimately, American political parties just don't make any sense, really.

Last edited by uziq (2016-01-04 15:14:51)

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

what a fucking meaningless sentence. "if you remove economics from the equation".

the entire disagreement between right and left is fundamentally economic. what's the difference between communism and fascism? it's 99.5% economic. most political ideologies share the same socio-political DNA, especially the extreme fringe ones (i.e. the same despotic or totalitarian streak). it's a question of organisation and allocation, i.e. economics.

also anarchists are not the 'non-progressive left'. the traditional left is socialism. what has come to be termed 'progressivism' is basically leftish thought integrated into a working democratic framework, i.e. the social democrats of 19th century europe. anarchism in a historical and theoretical context is basically an aberration. especially if you consider the history of the position through people like proudhon and bakunin. it was always the emotive and irrational tumour that grew on socialist theory.

Progressives in America are totalitarian and largely economically agnostic. Everything can be fixed with just a bit more government. They believe in socialist redistributive policies only when it supports their Platonian goals.

There are a lot of liberal, hippie-types mixed up in there who don't necessarily like or trust the government but would never vote republican because of the anti-gay, anti-abortion etc stances.

Ultimately, American political parties just don't make any sense, really.

none of this makes any sense to me. it's like you picked up the terms from reason.com and toss them like nutshells.

progressives are not totalitarian. they want to work within a democratic framework. they are pragmatic. they aim for reforms and objectives using the democratic apparatus of state. textbook non-totalitarian. socialism is a different kettle of fish: now they reject the democratic system, parliament, representatives, popular dismissal in some cases, etc. a whole different paradigm. at best they view it as a 'necessary' apparatus on the stage to some utopian or communistic end-goal. queefing about totalitarianism because a progressive wants to raise taxes and increase public spending in a bicameral system is fucking moronic.

what is a "platonian goal" and what does it have to do with progressive politics? i don't know what plato has to do with it (assuming that's who you are even referring to). if you are referring to plato's republic, which i assume is the narrow sliver of his work you are familiar with, then you should know that is incredibly autocratic and, again, has no time for things like universal suffrage, representation, arbitration, etc. plato has never been mentioned in the context of progressivism. that one very specific work has been understood as one of the earliest examples of political science/economy, but again, absolutely nothing to do with progressivism.

uziq wrote:

can't you refer to someone having a political ideal or practical objective, without having to make it a 'platonian goal'? for a start, no one says platonian, and a platonic goal à la the republic would suggest a highly specific, ultra-fascistic commune type environment with some very bizarre – to our modern sensibility – proscriptions (plato was more interested in banning poets for their false mimesis than grazing rights or crises of the commune). you basically tried to sound clever and well read and betrayed the fact you are not well read on this matter.

as for the rest of the political definitions stuff, i don't see how i'm wrong in any classical/theoretical or consensually understood way.

Last edited by uziq (2016-01-04 16:51:58)

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ … regon.html
https://reason.com/blog/2016/01/03/on-o … qaeda-stop
https://reason.com/blog/2016/01/04/ranc … red-oregon
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Popehat/~3/SAdZRJIP3h0/

none of those quote the Bundy's or Hammonds (note that the Hammonds have disavowed the Bundy's protest) as protesting against the mandatory minimum sentencing (I couldn't listen to the video in the first link).  The articles argue that the sentencing is wrong (which is a valid argument), but a good way for the Bundy's and other protesters to make their reasoning clear is to COME OUT AND FUCKING SAY IT!  They keep repeating the "government is evil and we will stand up to them as concerned citizens" mantra.  It's akin to the Occupy protesters in that they are just, like, fighting the power, maaan.

I don't disagree at all. I think they're morons just like I thought the occupiers were idiots.

Jay wrote:

they're morons and should've been locked up last time, but the cause they've taken up actually dovetails with the non-progressive lefts goals.

Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Resentenced to Five Years in Prison




EUGENE, Ore. – Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, both residents of Diamond, Oregon in Harney County, were sentenced to five years in prison by Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for arsons they committed on federal lands.

A jury sitting in Pendleton, Oregon found the Hammonds guilty of the arsons after a two-week trial in June 2012.  The trial involved allegations that the Hammonds, owners of Hammond Ranches, Inc., ignited a series of fires on lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), on which the Hammonds had grazing rights leased to them for their cattle operation.

The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area.  Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property.  Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.”  One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson.  The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations.  After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands.  Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.

The jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area.  An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires.  Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed.  The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby.  The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons.

By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence.  When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.”  The court vacated the original, unlawful sentences and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced “in compliance with the law.”  In March 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds’ petitions for certiorari. Today, Chief Judge Aiken imposed five year prison terms on each of the Hammonds, with credit for time they already served.

“We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires.  Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze” stated Acting U.S. Attorney Billy Williams.

“Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States’ property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison.  These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy.”

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Frank R Papagni, Jr., AnneMarie Sgarlata and Kelly Zusman handled the prosecution of this case.

Now, they have a name. And now, we know how long they're vowing to stay.

The armed protesters who took over a federal building in Oregon are calling themselves the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom.
...
But on Monday night, protest spokesman Ammon Bundy laid out specific demands.

The occupation would end when "the Hammonds are freed and the federal government gives up control of the Malheur National Forest," Bundy tweeted.

The tweet was later deleted.

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2016-01-05 10:54:09)