Bundy Caught Lying about "Ancestral Rights"

[martybegan]

Constitutional protections are applicable to all subject to US control.

So the people in Guantanamo can vote and sit on jury? They get 4th amendment rights?

Those aren't protections.

And yes..the 4th amendment applies to them.

They are given them, they are not entitled to them. We can remove them as we see fit.

 

[peach174]

Against what majority? Do you need to see the vote counts? Are you that ignorant?

55% of the people were against it, just about the same then as it is today.
Dems voted over the majority of the people who did not want it.
Than is tyranny when one party votes over the rule of the majority of the people and without the consent of the other party.

Actually no.

The Majority of people favor government control of health care.

There were people that were in that majority that did not favor the individual mandate, they favored expanding Medicare for all.

And you folks continue to count those people as "against" the ACA.

That's wrong.

Either way you look at it the majority did not want this bill for different reasons.
You are using that as an excuse.
If you want to expand Medicare for all, that is against the New Health Care Bill.

 

[RKMBrown]

Where are all of you property rights cons when it comes to Nebraska farmers not wanting a freaking pipline running through their land.

ROFL... is the scary "pipe" gonna put any farmers out of business?

If there's an Oil Spill?

Yeah..it will.

Yeah and electricity can start fires. Should we go back to the stone age? And more particularly, in this case back to an age before man domesticated animals? ROFL

 

[Barb]

Also eminent domain is when government wants to build something else on your land, not make it a turtle sanctuary.

I'm pretty sure they can make it a turtle sanctuary. I grew up in florida and they we're pretty adept at using eminent domain to buy up private land and turn it into sanctuaries to mitigate more valuable property being turned from sanctuaries to hotels. Sucks when the government is picking the winners and losers and the winner is who ever owns the guys in charge.

Especially when it doesn't (as it usually does) pick your people as winners, huh? But think of it this way, if you can wrap your head around something further than the next quarterly profits for your favorite or invested in whatever: Supporting, protecting, and promoting biodiversity supports, protects, and promotes the ecosystems that supports, protects and promotes the ecological services that supports, protects, and promotes every living thing on this planet - including you, the CEOs of big business (including big ag), and every stockholder on the list of companies whose MASSIVE profits have to take a miniscule hit for the sake of the sustainability of everyfuckingthing that supports, protects, and promotes human life, wealth, health, and happiness.

So, in short, go suck your thumbs, buy cheaper cuts of meat, row your own boats, tie your own shoes, and get over yourselves.

 

[Barb]

So the people in Guantanamo can vote and sit on jury? They get 4th amendment rights?

Those aren't protections.

And yes..the 4th amendment applies to them.

They are given them, they are not entitled to them. We can remove them as we see fit.

You can't.

 

[Asclepias]

Also eminent domain is when government wants to build something else on your land, not make it a turtle sanctuary.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong about that.

There has to be a firm reason for eminent domain. Highways and such. And it is done as a last resort instead of buying people out.

No. You're simply wrong. It is actually buying people out.

Condemnation cases like that against the Gettysburg Railroad Company exemplify another use for eminent domain: establishing parks and setting aside open space for future generations, preserving places of historic interest and remarkable natural beauty, and protecting environmentally sensitive areas. Some of the earliest federal government acquisitions for parkland were made at the end of the nineteenth century and remain among the most beloved and well-used of American parks.

 

[Barb]

55% of the people were against it, just about the same then as it is today.
Dems voted over the majority of the people who did not want it.
Than is tyranny when one party votes over the rule of the majority of the people and without the consent of the other party.

Actually no.

The Majority of people favor government control of health care.

There were people that were in that majority that did not favor the individual mandate, they favored expanding Medicare for all.

And you folks continue to count those people as "against" the ACA.

That's wrong.

Either way you look at it the majority did not want this bill for different reasons.
You are using that as an excuse.
If you want to expand Medicare for all, that is against the New Health Care Bill.

You know what? Start a thread. I'd be happy to go into how, why, and by who's behest ACA turned into such a clusterfuck, from way back when Hillary tried it to the present. I'll even admit up front and center that the compromises to the insurance industry that were allowed to infect this legislation turned it into a cold bucket of piss.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So the people in Guantanamo can vote and sit on jury? They get 4th amendment rights?

Those aren't protections.

And yes..the 4th amendment applies to them.

They are given them, they are not entitled to them. We can remove them as we see fit.

Only by amending the Constitution.

Or are you arguing for an expanded organic interpretation of the document?

 

[martybegan]

I'm pretty sure you are wrong about that.

There has to be a firm reason for eminent domain. Highways and such. And it is done as a last resort instead of buying people out.

No. You're simply wrong. It is actually buying people out.

Condemnation cases like that against the Gettysburg Railroad Company exemplify another use for eminent domain: establishing parks and setting aside open space for future generations, preserving places of historic interest and remarkable natural beauty, and protecting environmentally sensitive areas. Some of the earliest federal government acquisitions for parkland were made at the end of the nineteenth century and remain among the most beloved and well-used of American parks.

Were these condemnations contested? Typically the government only threatens eminent domain, because people can keep them in court for years. they CALL it eminent domain, but only when force is used is it ACTUALLY eminent domain. And then the people are paid off. They government tries to just buy people out usually first.

 

[manifold]

I haven't read the thread yet, but I'm sure the rightwingers here have showered Bundy with the same condemnation they gave to Elizabeth SacagaWarren.

Damn, how could I have been so wrong?

 

[martybegan]

Those aren't protections.

And yes..the 4th amendment applies to them.

They are given them, they are not entitled to them. We can remove them as we see fit.

Only by amending the Constitution.

Or are you arguing for an expanded organic interpretation of the document?

The constitution protect citizens, and visitors we extend such protections to via treaty with their country. The people at Guantanamo are closer to prisoners of war than guests of our country, and thus do not get certain protections, such as trial by jury. In fact a real prisoner of war would be insulted by the insinuation of needing a trial in the first place, or of our courts ability to try them. The hard part is they are part of an undeclared war, and thus we have felt the need to try them. But even then they do not get the full protections Citizens and guests get, because we choose NOT to extend them to them.

 

[Barb]

They are given them, they are not entitled to them. We can remove them as we see fit.

Only by amending the Constitution.

Or are you arguing for an expanded organic interpretation of the document?

The constitution protect citizens, and visitors we extend such protections to via treaty with their country. The people at Guantanamo are closer to prisoners of war than guests of our country, and thus do not get certain protections, such as trial by jury. In fact a real prisoner of war would be insulted by the insinuation of needing a trial in the first place, or of our courts ability to try them. The hard part is they are part of an undeclared war, and thus we have felt the need to try them. But even then they do not get the full protections Citizens and guests get, because we choose NOT to extend them to them.

Take another look and share with the class how many time citizens are specified in the document rather than persons.

 

[Asclepias]

There has to be a firm reason for eminent domain. Highways and such. And it is done as a last resort instead of buying people out.

No. You're simply wrong. It is actually buying people out.

Condemnation cases like that against the Gettysburg Railroad Company exemplify another use for eminent domain: establishing parks and setting aside open space for future generations, preserving places of historic interest and remarkable natural beauty, and protecting environmentally sensitive areas. Some of the earliest federal government acquisitions for parkland were made at the end of the nineteenth century and remain among the most beloved and well-used of American parks.

Were these condemnations contested? Typically the government only threatens eminent domain, because people can keep them in court for years. they CALL it eminent domain, but only when force is used is it ACTUALLY eminent domain. And then the people are paid off. They government tries to just buy people out usually first.

What does that have to do with you being wrong about establishing a turtle sanctuary via eminent domain? You love to deflect instead of just saying "damn I was wrong". Try it out. You dont have to admit it to me because I know you are wrong already but dont lie to yourself.

 

[Howey]

Actually no.

The Majority of people favor government control of health care.

There were people that were in that majority that did not favor the individual mandate, they favored expanding Medicare for all.

And you folks continue to count those people as "against" the ACA.

That's wrong.

Either way you look at it the majority did not want this bill for different reasons.
You are using that as an excuse.
If you want to expand Medicare for all, that is against the New Health Care Bill.

You know what? Start a thread. I'd be happy to go into how, why, and by who's behest ACA turned into such a clusterfuck, from way back when Hillary tried it to the present. I'll even admit up front and center that the compromises to the insurance industry that were allowed to infect this legislation turned it into a cold bucket of piss.

A-fuckinmen Barb!

What the idiots on the right don't understand is that many of us don't like Obamacare because it's watered down to appease them - the right.

Medicare for All or a system based on VA healthcare, with some tweaking, is the way to go.

 

[Barb]

ROFL... is the scary "pipe" gonna put any farmers out of business?

If there's an Oil Spill?

Yeah..it will.

Yeah and electricity can start fires. Should we go back to the stone age? And more particularly, in this case back to an age before man domesticated animals? ROFL

Which is why we have regulations stipulating that electricians must be licensed.

I'm interested in what you suppose the timeline consists of there.

Beyond that, you should understand (and I suspect you reject) that dominion brings responsibility.

 

[koshergrl]

Actually no.

The Majority of people favor government control of health care.

There were people that were in that majority that did not favor the individual mandate, they favored expanding Medicare for all.

And you folks continue to count those people as "against" the ACA.

That's wrong.

Either way you look at it the majority did not want this bill for different reasons.
You are using that as an excuse.
If you want to expand Medicare for all, that is against the New Health Care Bill.

You know what? Start a thread. I'd be happy to go into how, why, and by who's behest ACA turned into such a clusterfuck, from way back when Hillary tried it to the present. I'll even admit up front and center that the compromises to the insurance industry that were allowed to infect this legislation turned it into a cold bucket of piss.

Which is exactly what we said would happen.

Maybe next time you'll listen..

Whoops..okay, well maybe NEXT time you'll lis...

Oh never mind.

 

[Statistikhengst]

did what happened out in Nevada reach the level of an insurrection?

And guess what? if the government ever does become so onerous that revolt is necessary, then we write a new one. (Or we restore the old one, what we have now isn't the constitution.)

The Declaration of Independence states that people have the right to revolt against an unresponsive and onerous government. Why do you hate the Declaration of Independence.

(two can play at this game)

I can shorten that for you: if enough states decide to call for a constitutional convention, I am actually for it, but until said time, the Constutition in this form in the law of our land.

You do understand that simple concept, right?

it is the law of the land, until such time as changed by the methods listed in the constitution, or rendered invalid by a revolution.

So you are saying the government could do basically anything, go against the constitution, and you would just accept it, or call out for a constitutional convention? If it gets that bad the only thing a convention would do is make it easier to round you up.

Nope, that is not what I said.

Pay attention and learn for once.

I pointed out that the Constitution clearly gives power for the US military to quell rebellions. It is in the Constitution.

THAT is what I said.

Anything else you try to make out of it is nothing more than RWNJ wet dreams that make no sense, anyway. Kind of like Clint Eastwood's chair.

 

[RKMBrown]

If there's an Oil Spill?

Yeah..it will.

Yeah and electricity can start fires. Should we go back to the stone age? And more particularly, in this case back to an age before man domesticated animals? ROFL

Which is why we have regulations stipulating that electricians must be licensed.

I'm interested in what you suppose the timeline consists of there.

Beyond that, you should understand (and I suspect you reject) that dominion brings responsibility.

You think civil engineers for public works projects like pipelines are not licensed?

What timeline are you talking about the deflection to pipelines or the rape of the ranchers livelihood?

What makes you think I don't understand dominion/tyranny or the complete lack of responsibility shown by these tyrants?

 

[RKMBrown]

Either way you look at it the majority did not want this bill for different reasons.
You are using that as an excuse.
If you want to expand Medicare for all, that is against the New Health Care Bill.

You know what? Start a thread. I'd be happy to go into how, why, and by who's behest ACA turned into such a clusterfuck, from way back when Hillary tried it to the present. I'll even admit up front and center that the compromises to the insurance industry that were allowed to infect this legislation turned it into a cold bucket of piss.

Which is exactly what we said would happen.

Maybe next time you'll listen..

Whoops..okay, well maybe NEXT time you'll lis...

Oh never mind.

And they were so excited when it was a warm bucket of piss.

 

[koshergrl]

Well they do seem to enjoy their own excrement. I can't tell you how many times I've come across threads about creative uses for human shit. I wish I could say the one that surfaced yesterday was unique, but it has come up in the past.

Seriously. It makes quite an impression.