BLM vs Bundy

I vote this thread gets chopped.

David.S wrote:This was my thinking on the situation when I agreed to travel there: While I agree that Cliven Bundy owes grazing fees to the government, my support stemms from my belief that the government has taken a civil/administrative matter and has reacted with intimidation and heavy handed tatics. To paraphrase a common analogy shared among the protestors, imagine that you were in the midst of a dispute with your credit card company. You dispute that you owe the charges; they insist that you do. Normally this would be settled with bill collectors, or perhaps a court order garnishing your wages.

The first court order against hte Bundy's was over ten years ago. That's right, when you don'[ pay your bills, someone will eventually garnish your wages, and if that doesn't get the bill paid, law enforcement does indeed come to your house, take your stuff and sell it to pay your bills. This is how capitalism under the rule of law works. You make an agreement, the agreement is enforceable, if necessary, by seizure of your assets to satisfy your debts.

Sure as hell glad I didn't waste 4 days of vacation time sitting in the desert protesting for a deadbeat, public lands, welfare rancher. Almost all of us use public lands on a regular basis. If we care about the future of climbing we needd to care about respecting those lands, and repsecting the laws governing those lands. The rule of law sucks when it seems like the law is coming down on you, but it's the only system that works in the long run, adn it's the only system that even promises any kind of equality.

David.S wrote:I WAS THERE. Full disclosure: I'm not really a rock climber. My brother is though

Cool Story Hansel.

I've watched at least 10 different primary source videos of both the initial encounter on the road with the dump trucks, and under I-15 with the stand off a-la OK Corral style, and I have four main thoughts:

1) Regardless of the circumstances of their presence in Nevada (I don't know the full legalities of the case yet but will soon), the law enforcement officers in these videos act in accordance with the law and their training. Some (the bro with the goatee that tries to deescalate under the bridge), should be given commendations. On the road, they are dealing with a hysterical crowd and are out-numbered, yet remain relatively calm. Nobody drew their weapons, and the dogs are restrained even as one gets KICKED. I've watched multiple videos and never see any excessive force. Not saying it didn't happen; I just don't see it and watched multiple angles of the same quick event.

2) In one of the videos, a protester says to a ranger, "Go back to Washington, or..China". I dont know why that is important, but thought I should note it for posterity.

3) You guys are dicks for blocking I-15 like that. Traffic blows already without all these gun-toting fat slobs making it worse.

4) The moron "militiamen" in these videos are nothing more than bored d-bags who love guns and want an excuse to carry them around. They are still bitter that Obama got elected President. TWICE. They are an embarrassment to the Untied States.

The excuse of maybe he should pay his taxes is getting old, maybe the illegals should pay theirs too?

Illegals do pay taxes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States#Taxes_contributed

Nicholas Webb wrote:Illegals do pay taxes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States#Taxes_contributed

Wikipedia?

Meme Guy, What facts on that Wikipedia site are inaccurate?

This is from one of Bundy's supporters:
One of the rancher’s supporters, Richard Mack, a Tea Party leader who is in the National Rifle Association’s Hall of Fame, said he planned to use women as human shields in a violent showdown with law enforcement.

“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up front,” Mack said in a radio interview. “If they were going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot.”
from the NYTimes

Regardless of the specifics of what did or did not happen with Bundy, he is attracting some questionable supporters who have their own agendas.

Andy Novak wrote:Meme Guy, What facts on that Wikipedia site are inaccurate?

Where do I begin?

Sheen

SinRopa wrote: So the guy that puts the women up front is evil, but the police/BLM threatening to shoot the unarmed women get a free pass?

i thought our society generally considered the use of human shields to be a war crime?

SinRopa wrote: So the guy that puts the women up front is evil, but the police/BLM threatening to shoot the unarmed women get a free pass?

Well that one wooshed right over your head didn't it? Regardless of where you stand on the issue, this is not civil disobedience. Emphasis on civil.

SinRopa wrote:Free to accuse Martin Luther King of "war crimes" if you see fit. "While he faced criticism for exposing children to violence...King maintained that...'the introduction of Birmingham’s children into the campaign was one of the wisest moves we made. It brought a new impact to the crusade, and the impetus that we needed to win the struggle.'” mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/inde…

One major difference--children were already experiencing horrific violence at the time King made that decision. Emmet Till had just turned 14 when he was brutally lynched. The victims of the Birmingham Church bombing were all 14 or younger. Their fates made Bull Connor's firehouses--while still painful--seem a little less threatening.

To bring this back to the realm of climbing:
1. How would most climbers react if someone fenced off part of a cliff for their own exclusive use?

2. What if they said that they had paid someone else for the right to do so--but did not believe they should obey the owner of the cliff? (which is the U.S government--and by extension its citizens)

3. What if a guide service claimed that because they had been using the area for years they had the exclusive right to section of a crag--or the entire crag for that matter? (you may wish to use the MP search function for variations of this debate)

4. Or what if an FA claimed the exclusive right to a route and no one else would be allowed to climb that route without the FA's permission?

Unarmed?

Scott Phil wrote:

Man, that's scary. Please tell me someone arrested him.

Really? Cause I see zero. One's just a gloved hand pointing. The foremost has his gun in the holster. Regardless it's bickering at this point. I really feel bad for the officers and BLM workers tasked with stepping into this mob though.

These photos are carefully framed. Someone with a rifle could easily be outside the photograph and still within easy range.

There are a lot of statist's up in here.

The Blueprint Part Dank wrote:There are a lot of statist's up in here.

I think the folks still reading this thread are more likely to be masochists.

The Blueprint Part Dank wrote:There are a lot of statist's up in here.

In comparison to the anarchists, yes.

Complaining about the government is a god-given American right (do it all the time, myself).

And yet, the overwhelming majority of Americans rely on the government for everything from reasonably good roads to drive on, to generally effective food inspections, to mostly safe drinking water (sorry West Virginia), to a kick-ass national defense force. Don't forget about social security, public schools, public libraries, public lands, etc. Most of us want all levels of government to be more effective, less wasteful (though that is often in the eye of the beholder), and more respectful of the rights of individual citizens. To say that there is room for improvement, is not the same as arguing for abolishing the government--even though there are a few actual anarchists who call for that.

The Constitution was adopted to correct the deficiencies and inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation. Under that weak government inflation was rampant, there were an ever-increasing number of disputes between the individual states, armed rebellions, and the threats of foreign invasions. Even life expectancy was dropping during the 1780s. All in all, there were a lot of problems with the Confederation government that led the founding generation to adopt a national government through the Constitution.

You should google the Bohemian Grove, I have trouble trusting a single decision made by a government whose leaders make symbolic sacrifices to the pagan god moloch.