Gov. & Cattle

[LittleFuzzy]

That would probably mean more court proceedings, and another governmental agency to intervene (like the IRS) -- yeah, we went over those options already. The bottom line is: what's the end-game for folks like Bundy et al, who don't recognize the "validity" of the federal government in pretty much every aspect of this land dispute, and would use weapons against federal authorities?

Just to make things absolutely clear, whether any of these people would actually use their weapons and shoot at the Feds is as yet pure speculation. Having said that, I don't really know what the "end-game" of folks like Bundy might be. I'd wager they don't have a solid end-game in mind either beyond hoping the Feds will just give up the dispute as not worth it. If they do have ambitions for more, they're going to be disappointed because getting ignored is about the most they have any chance of achieving.

Freezing accounts assumes he does business using banks or credit (instead of cashiers checks or cash),

As I've said previously in the thread, he runs an agribusiness with 1000+ head of cattle. I guarantee you he's using banks AND credit. He's not operating off-grid.

or that he has a mortgage on his ranch (instead of owning the deed). Putting a lien against his property wouldn't do much until he died,

No idea whether he has a mortgage on the ranch but that's not the only property a lien can be placed on. It can also be placed on, for instance, the cattle and all their calves. And such a lien can be executed even if the property changes hands (i.e. after he's sold the calves to a slaughter-house, middlemen, other ranchers) which any potential buyers will be more than aware of considering the high profile of this dispute. So even if the Feds find themselves unwilling to execute seizures or other action against Bundy directly, they can still act against him indirectly and manage to freeze his business that way if they were so inclined. It is NOT HARD for the government to harass a business of that size, the only real defense against it are A) if it's not worth it to the government to bother and B) if the courts think the government is the one acting unlawfully. We already know that the ones they've consistently sided against is Bundy.

At some point....real people will have to evict and/or confiscate....likely facing another armed stand-off.

The thing is, this militia holding action is inherently defensive and reactive in nature. Bundy managed to drag in a pretty large segment of the entire militia movement to his side but the movement isn't all that large and they can't cover everything. They also have their own homes, families, and livelihoods to get back to at some point so their cover is short-term as well.

I'm not trying to be "right". I wanted to discuss the long-term brass tacks of dealing with armed extremist groups, particularly when they see their mission as a righteous battle against federal tyranny, or the Second Revolution -- and elected legislators are either calling them "Patriots", or looking the other way because it's just a few quirky guys in Nevada.

Long-term and broad-scale? They just don't matter. There aren't enough of them. There are more students in any good-sized university than there are in the entire militia movement. Most individual groups are smaller than your average inner-city gang and cause a whole lot less trouble. Nothing is going to go their way that isn't both very local and rather temporary.

[GGT]

Just to make things absolutely clear, whether any of these people would actually use their weapons and shoot at the Feds is as yet pure speculation. Having said that, I don't really know what the "end-game" of folks like Bundy might be. I'd wager they don't have a solid end-game in mind either beyond hoping the Feds will just give up the dispute as not worth it. If they do have ambitions for more, they're going to be disappointed because getting ignored is about the most they have any chance of achieving.

Federal agencies don't just "give up" disputes when they have the law and court orders supporting them. But extremist fringe groups don't want to be ignored.....

As I've said previously in the thread, he runs an agribusiness with 1000+ head of cattle. I guarantee you he's using banks AND credit. He's not operating off-grid.

That doesn't mean he's using "the grid" in ways the feds can demand claw-backs. There's enough trouble in the banking and financing sectors to put Bundy's cattle ranch under suspicion.

No idea whether he has a mortgage on the ranch but that's not the only property a lien can be placed on. It can also be placed on, for instance, the cattle and all their calves. And such a lien can be executed even if the property changes hands (i.e. after he's sold the calves to a slaughter-house, middlemen, other ranchers) which any potential buyers will be more than aware of considering the high profile of this dispute. So even if the Feds find themselves unwilling to execute seizures or other action against Bundy directly, they can still act against him indirectly and manage to freeze his business that way if they were so inclined.

It is NOT HARD for the government to harass a business of that size, the only real defense against it are A) if it's not worth it to the government to bother and B) if the courts think the government is the one acting unlawfully. We already know that the ones they've consistently sided against is Bundy.

For Cause?

The thing is, this militia holding action is inherently defensive and reactive in nature. Bundy managed to drag in a pretty large segment of the entire militia movement to his side but the movement isn't all that large and they can't cover everything. They also have their own homes, families, and livelihoods to get back to at some point so their cover is short-term as well.

How does that "explain away" fringe movements that can be national threats?

Long-term and broad-scale? They just don't matter. There aren't enough of them. There are more students in any good-sized university than there are in the entire militia movement. Most individual groups are smaller than your average inner-city gang and cause a whole lot less trouble. Nothing is going to go their way that isn't both very local and rather temporary.

Yet it only takes one person, like Timothy McVeigh, to bomb a federal facility. Or one first-person shooter to kill people at a military institution...or an elementary school.

Fuzzy, few things are "localized or "temporary".

[LittleFuzzy]

Federal agencies don't just "give up" disputes when they have the law and court orders supporting them. But extremist fringe groups don't want to be ignored.....

Actually federal agencies can and do just that. I have no idea whether they will in this case. And of course even if they temporarily stop pursuing it, they can always come back again later since, as you say, the courts sided with them. And no, groups like the militia don't want to be ignored. They're also well aware that if they are proactive, they are completely and totally screwed, not just in the views of the public, the media, etc, but also internally because their entire ideological line is that they're a response to government overreach and they'll lose a ton of their less fanatical people if they try and take a step past that. GGT, you are once again thinking that a conglomeration of people is a single voice and mind. I really hope that someday you'll learn that they aren't.

That doesn't mean he's using "the grid" in ways the feds can demand claw-backs. There's enough trouble in the banking and financing sectors to put Bundy's cattle ranch under suspicion.

It does mean that and absolutely nothing in the banking and financing sectors have anything to do with this. The "malaise" you're referring to is about as relevant to how Bundy's ranch has to operate as linear algebra is to the kid doing their multiplication tables.

How does that "explain away" fringe movements that can be national threats?

It explains away the "threat" we've been talking about. And there isn't any fringe movement that can be a national threat that I'm aware of. Generally speaking, it is almost impossible for anything "fringe" to be a national threat for something as large as the US.

Yet it only takes one person, like Timothy McVeigh, to bomb a federal facility. Or one first-person shooter to kill people at a military institution...or an elementary school.

Fuzzy, few things are "localized or "temporary".

Actually, almost everything is both localized AND temporary. Including Oklahoma City, the Fort Hood shooting, and even that¹ school shooting in Colorado back in December. Your fanatical terror-mongering notwithstanding, not one domestic event with the possible exception of 9/11 has ever touched on you. This is one of the big problems with your wrongheaded insistence that emotional reaction and perception is as valid as reality GGT. You see something on TV, or hear about it on the radio, you have an emotional response and because of that you think whatever it was is actually present in your life and significantly impacts you. That perception is false GGT. It isn't real. It is not a noticeable risk you face in your life. It is not a noticeable risk that anyone you know faces.

^{1 Actually, there have been enough school shootings that risk there might be considered to be real. Still quite small, but not necessarily negligible. No shooting will have actually touched you but repeated broadly-spread incidences can have an actual impact}

[GGT]

<snip> GGT, you are once again thinking that a conglomeration of people is a single voice and mind. I really hope that someday you'll learn that they aren't.

Hang on. I've been addressing a modern reality: that an individual, or a small group, can create enough havoc and chaos to bring a nation, and a society, to a standstill. What used to be one-off plane hijackers ("Fly me to Cuba") morphed into larger events (like the Munich Olympics)....and eventually became Oklahoma City bombings, and 9/11 itself.

Violence, or threats of violence at the domestic level isn't *less* important than what's happening in foreign nations. IMO, it might even be more important to focus on internal threats.

It does mean that and absolutely nothing in the banking and financing sectors have anything to do with this. The "malaise" you're referring to is about as relevant to how Bundy's ranch has to operate as linear algebra is to the kid doing their multiplication tables.

It explains away the "threat" we've been talking about. And there isn't any fringe movement that can be a national threat that I'm aware of. Generally speaking, it is almost impossible for anything "fringe" to be a national threat for something as large as the US.

If you mean that hypothetically or theoretically...then you haven't been paying attention to the US political system, or how the TEA Party has moved the Republican Party from moderate or centrist principles to the extreme right.

Actually, almost everything is both localized AND temporary. Including Oklahoma City, the Fort Hood shooting, and even that¹ school shooting in Colorado back in December. Your fanatical terror-mongering notwithstanding, not one domestic event with the possible exception of 9/11 has ever touched on you. This is one of the big problems with your wrongheaded insistence that emotional reaction and perception is as valid as reality GGT. You see something on TV, or hear about it on the radio, you have an emotional response and because of that you think whatever it was is actually present in your life and significantly impacts you. That perception is false GGT. It isn't real. It is not a noticeable risk you face in your life. It is not a noticeable risk that anyone you know faces.

^{1 Actually, there have been enough school shootings that risk there might be considered to be real. Still quite small, but not necessarily negligible. No shooting will have actually touched you but repeated broadly-spread incidences can have an actual impact}

Jesus! I'm not a fanatic, a fear-mongerer, or a conspiracy theorist. It's not an "emotional response" to recognize the connections between domestic policy (health, housing, education, employment, energy, debt/credit, financing, taxes)....or international and global impacts of trade, commerce, and military policies.

Contrary to what you "think", my kids have experienced school violence first-hand. Not just from guns, but from a parent wielding a machete at an Elementary School (and using it to cut off a teacher's fingers). Those "broadly-spread" incidences DO have an impact, even if not experienced directly. And they are happening with enough frequency to change attitudes, and affect policy.

Fuzzy, you can't characterize my perceptions as "false". I'm from an earlier and older generation that helped *your* state of CA thrive and prosper

[LittleFuzzy]

Hang on. I've been addressing a modern reality: that an individual, or a small group, can create enough havoc and chaos to bring a nation, and a society, to a standstill. What used to be one-off plane hijackers ("Fly me to Cuba") morphed into larger events (like the Munich Olympics)....and eventually became Oklahoma City bombings, and 9/11 itself.

An individual can't, a small group conceivably can. But GGT, actually pulling off that sort of thing is so very incredibly hard. And it requires lots of detachment from your targets and isolation from them and anyone who might find out and be less than committed to the project. Anything large enough to create that much of an impact (and Oklahoma City wasn't) coming from domestic sources isn't going to be coming from the militias. Too many connections to others, too much monitoring from the Feds and state authorities. It could come from a group that has isolated itself from the militias and got inspired by the stand-off at Bundy's ranch. . . but it could also just as plausibly come from some people similarly isolated themselves, and angered by the "manipulative and exploitative reach of Wall Street and corporate America" and inspired by the Occupy protests (and then further enraged by how that massive and extended protest didn't change anything). The "fringe" itself can be divided along mild, mainstream, and crazy/extreme lines and the first two can't really be used to say anything about the last. Bundy motivated the mainstream section.

Also, attention is paid to possible domestic threats. Lots of it. Almost all of the enforcement power in the US is focused on the domestic side. Domestic intelligence (aka police work) gets way more total funding than the CIA. And as a consequence, domestic threats rarely get far. The reason the international sphere seems to get more attention is because it takes a lot more effort there (and you get less results). But you can't ignore it because then you're at risk of something like 9/11.

If you mean that hypothetically or theoretically...then you haven't been paying attention to the US political system, or how the TEA Party has moved the Republican Party from moderate or centrist principles to the extreme right.

The Tea Party isn't fringe nor is it or the Republican Party extreme right. Well, maybe by your own hard Left/progressive perspective which probably sees anything more than just barely right of the political middle as extreme right but certainly not by any national evaluation, before or after the rise of that bit of conservative populism. Both are solidly center-right. It's just that the party's moderate wing collapsed nor do they have any functional equivalent of the Blue Dog Democrat. What actually characterizes the Tea Party is that they are Stupid Right. This is a normal problem with populist movements since they tend to be built on overly-simplistic platforms (in the Tea Party's case, an anti-tax and somewhat weaker anti-spending platform). The only way in which this political movement can be characterized as a "national threat" is in that it has galvanized the party you don't belong to in opposing a platform you favored but were never going to see enacted anyway.

Jesus! I'm not a fanatic, a fear-mongerer, or a conspiracy theorist. It's not an "emotional response" to recognize the connections between domestic policy (health, housing, education, employment, energy, debt/credit, financing, taxes)....or international and global impacts of trade, commerce, and military policies.

Actually you are all three. The last is never more apparent than in your regular insistence that everything is closely connected, and always in ways that are inimical to you or your position. For instance, absolutely nothing in the above list has anything whatsoever to do with this thread on the militia/BLM confrontation at a ranch in Nevada.

Contrary to what you "think", my kids have experienced school violence first-hand. Not just from guns, but from a parent wielding a machete at an Elementary School (and using it to cut off a teacher's fingers).

There's really no other way to say this. I don't believe you. First and foremost, there's no way you wouldn't have brought it up before. Second, because I just did a search, found the only incident you could be referring to (Stankiewicz at North Hopewell-Winterstown Elementary in Red Lion Pennsylvania, February 2nd 2001, correct?) and you're already in conflict with the facts of the case. Now I'm willing to believe that it might have been a nearby town or even that your kids attended or visited the school at one time or another (though not at that time) though I think it's more likely that you read or saw something mentioning it more recently, but your claim that your kids were there? No.

Those "broadly-spread" incidences DO have an impact, even if not experienced directly. And they are happening with enough frequency to change attitudes, and affect policy.

It's like you didn't read the footnote at all. Unsurprising.

Fuzzy, you can't characterize my perceptions as "false". I'm from an earlier and older generation that helped *your* state of CA thrive and prosper

And there again is that idea that I should be respectful of you because. . . you're older and have payed your taxes? Nevermind that the war and post-war boom that led to California thriving came when you were a kid at best, possibly before you were even born, and that California has been a net contributor of funds for longer than you've been paying taxes. Disregard how everything you just said is untrue. Even if every bit of it were accepted as gospel truth, not one bit of it would contribute ANYTHING to the idea that I can't or shouldn't call out those perceptions as being false.

[GGT]

An individual can't, a small group conceivably can.

I disagree. Individuals can do a lot of damage, and they don't have to be part of a militia or any organized group, either.

The Tea Party isn't fringe nor is it or the Republican Party extreme right. Well, maybe by your own hard Left/progressive perspective which probably sees anything more than just barely right of the political middle as extreme right but certainly not by any national evaluation, before or after the rise of that bit of conservative populism. Both are solidly center-right. It's just that the party's moderate wing collapsed nor do they have any functional equivalent of the Blue Dog Democrat. What actually characterizes the Tea Party is that they are Stupid Right. This is a normal problem with populist movements since they tend to be built on overly-simplistic platforms (in the Tea Party's case, an anti-tax and somewhat weaker anti-spending platform). The only way in which this political movement can be characterized as a "national threat" is in that it has galvanized the party you don't belong to in opposing a platform you favored but were never going to see enacted anyway.

The Republican Party was pulled farther right by the Tea Party faction. Hell, even the NRC admits that...why can't you? The reason I consider it a "national threat" is how it's fouled up the two-party political system, contributed to polarization, and created an unproductive congress with legislative obstruction/impasses. Again, that's not just my opinion but is borne out by public 'approval' ratings in the ditch.

Actually you are all three. The last is never more apparent than in your regular insistence that everything is closely connected, and always in ways that are inimical to you or your position. For instance, absolutely nothing in the above list has anything whatsoever to do with this thread on the militia/BLM confrontation at a ranch in Nevada.

If seeing those connections makes me a fanatical, fear-mongering conspiracy theorist in your mind....you'd have to believe the same of anyone working in the public sphere. People live in dynamic eco-systems, like a big venn diagram -- not closed bubbles. The "list" is relevant because Bundy and the protestors disagree about property ownership, public land use, interstate commerce, agriculture/food animals, taxes...and general domestic policy, including guns/weapons. Employment, credit/debt, and even public education are related subsets. <Bundy carries a copy of the US Constitution in his shirt pocket....yet claims the sovereign state of Nevada is the only "legitimate" government power he recognizes.>

There's really no other way to say this. I don't believe you. First and foremost, there's no way you wouldn't have brought it up before. Second, because I just did a search, found the only incident you could be referring to (Stankiewicz at North Hopewell-Winterstown Elementary in Red Lion Pennsylvania, February 2nd 2001, correct?) and you're already in conflict with the facts of the case. Now I'm willing to believe that it might have been a nearby town or even that your kids attended or visited the school at one time or another (though not at that time) though I think it's more likely that you read or saw something mentioning it more recently, but your claim that your kids were there? No.

Oh, I've brought it up before. At the Atari forums, many years ago, when we used to have great debates about public education, school safety, and Zero Tolerance policies that suspended elementary kids with nail clippers in their pockets, or butter knives in their brown-bag lunches. Don't blame me for your poor memory.

If that doesn't ring a bell, maybe the debates we had about teaching Intelligent Design (Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District) will? Look, I live in York County, PA. My children attended K-12 public schools in York County, and both Red Lion and Dover are part of the York county-wide school district. I've tried to avoid saying that outright, to maintain a semblance of privacy. But anyone who came here from Atari probably already knows that, so what the hell.

[LittleFuzzy]

I disagree. Individuals can do a lot of damage, and they don't have to be part of a militia or any organized group, either.

You said national threat. The damage an individual can inflict simply doesn't rise to that scale.

The Republican Party was pulled farther right by the Tea Party faction. Hell, even the NRC admits that...why can't you? The reason I consider it a "national threat" is how it's fouled up the two-party political system, contributed to polarization, and created an unproductive congress with legislative obstruction/impasses. Again, that's not just my opinion but is borne out by public 'approval' ratings in the ditch.

The GOP was pulled farther to the right. It has less to do with the Tea Party as such as the collapse of the party's New England and old fiscal-responsibility wing but since we're dealing with relative terms it amounts to the same thing. But again, YOUR WORDS were "extreme right." That's not the same thing. The GOP is not and cannot be reasonably considered a "national threat" by anyone possessing a lick of sense. And they're not the ones responsible for the low approval ratings. Congressional approval ratings are regularly crap. They occasionally spiked above 50% after they managed to balance the budget. That was when there was a Republican majority, by the way. There was also a predictable spike after 9/11. Since then, it has been trending downward. It continued doing so with both houses (and the Oval Office) controlled by the Democrats. Beyond the occasional monthly spike, the only time approval ratings have risen above 30% was a nine-month streak in 2009. That would be the period when Tea Party populism first saw some success in getting new faces in Congress. And it promptly disappeared when it became apparent that nothing was going to change. You want to know what put Congressional approval numbers below 20% and has kept them there? Healthcare reform.

Your "perception" and the facts are, as always, misaligned.

If seeing those connections makes me a fanatical, fear-mongering conspiracy theorist in your mind....you'd have to believe the same of anyone working in the public sphere.

It's not that you see connections. It's that you always insist they are closely connected and as such whatever your current bugbear is (like that fast trading) is responsible for or driven by the same thing as some marked bad thing you've seen mentioned in the media recently. The problem is that you do things like insist Wall Street is, for instance, significantly connected somehow to events in Nevada.

Oh, I've brought it up before. At the Atari forums, many years ago, when we used to have great debates about public education, school safety, and Zero Tolerance policies that suspended elementary kids with nail clippers in their pockets, or butter knives in their brown-bag lunches. Don't blame me for your poor memory.

If that doesn't ring a bell, maybe the debates we had about teaching Intelligent Design (Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District) will? Look, I live in York County, PA. My children attended K-12 public schools in York County, and both Red Lion and Dover are part of the York county-wide school district. I've tried to avoid saying that outright, to maintain a semblance of privacy. But anyone who came here from Atari probably already knows that, so what the hell.

It's always possible I simply don't remember but god knows school violence has come up on here often enough and I can't find one trace of it so far in searches. I think it's far more likely you're being dishonest. Wouldn't be the first time in this thread. And I also notice you've already backtracked. You said your kids experienced the violence first-hand. Now you're saying you just live in the same school district.

[GGT]

You said national threat. The damage an individual can inflict simply doesn't rise to that scale.

*sigh* Any time an individual (or a small number of people) does something dangerously violent or extreme....it impacts the whole nation. Therefore, it's a national threat -- whether that's hijacking a plane, bombing a building or a public event, or using weapons against innocent bystanders at a shopping mall, Community Center, or school.

[The GOP was pulled farther to the right. It has less to do with the Tea Party as such as the collapse of the party's New England and old fiscal-responsibility wing but since we're dealing with relative terms it amounts to the same thing. But again, YOUR WORDS were "extreme right." That's not the same thing. The GOP is not and cannot be reasonably considered a "national threat" by anyone possessing a lick of sense. And they're not the ones responsible for the low approval ratings. Congressional approval ratings are regularly crap. They occasionally spiked above 50% after they managed to balance the budget. That was when there was a Republican majority, by the way. There was also a predictable spike after 9/11. Since then, it has been trending downward. It continued doing so with both houses (and the Oval Office) controlled by the Democrats. Beyond the occasional monthly spike, the only time approval ratings have risen above 30% was a nine-month streak in 2009. That would be the period when Tea Party populism first saw some success in getting new faces in Congress. And it promptly disappeared when it became apparent that nothing was going to change. You want to know what put Congressional approval numbers below 20% and has kept them there? Healthcare reform.

Plus the inability to pass Bills, or address reforms in Education, Immigration, the Financial Industry, gun safety regulation, Veteran Affairs, etc.

Your "perception" and the facts are, as always, misaligned.

Resurrect The Republican Party thread if you want to continue analyzing the GOP's "autopsy".

It's not that you see connections. It's that you always insist they are closely connected and as such whatever your current bugbear is (like that fast trading) is responsible for or driven by the same thing as some marked bad thing you've seen mentioned in the media recently. The problem is that you do things like insist Wall Street is, for instance, significantly connected somehow to events in Nevada.

Wall Street and Main Street are closely connected. Jesus Fuzzy, it never takes more than a few scratches at the veneer to realize money's significance in capitalism or politics or daily life. And if you read as much as you claim, you'd know High Frequency Trading hasn't been brushed under the rug as something irrelevant or insignificant, either. It falls under The Long Tail category -- things that seem small and inconsequential when looking at the forest but ignoring the trees.

It's always possible I simply don't remember but god knows school violence has come up on here often enough and I can't find one trace of it so far in searches. I think it's far more likely you're being dishonest. Wouldn't be the first time in this thread. And I also notice you've already backtracked. You said your kids experienced the violence first-hand. Now you're saying you just live in the same school district.

That's what this boils down to -- you think I'm dishonest? Are you braiding ass hair too tightly? Maybe you're being emotional.

Look, I live about five miles from Red Lion, and news travels fast between parents/teachers/students here. When that machete attack happened, my youngest child came home wondering if his Red Lion friends (from soccer, or Scouting, or whatever else) were okay. Teachers and families move between schools in the district fairly often, and our "connections" are pretty close. Yes, that event was experienced by many children who weren't directly involved. Using your definition, only two or three people had "first-hand" credibility.

[Veldan Rath]

*sigh* Any time an individual (or a small number of people) does something dangerously violent or extreme....it impacts the whole nation. Therefore, it's a national threat -- whether that's hijacking a plane, bombing a building or a public event, or using weapons against innocent bystanders at a shopping mall, Community Center, or school.

Ooo, that kind of barometer won't lead to a police state or anything.

[LittleFuzzy]

*sigh* Any time an individual (or a small number of people) does something dangerously violent or extreme....it impacts the whole nation.

No, it really doesn't. This, again, is an illusion you get from watching your TV. If and when it manages to create a paradigm-shift (through size, media management, or other unpredictable factors) it impacts the whole nation. If it is large enough it can impact the whole nation regardless of whether it prompts change.

Plus the inability to pass Bills, or address reforms in Education, Immigration, the Financial Industry, gun safety regulation, Veteran Affairs, etc.

Nope, the timing is pretty clear. And Congress hasn't been any more sclerotic on the above than it usually is. 's got nothing to do with the Tea Party. Just ask Loki, Congressional activity is one of those areas that really does lend itself to quant-analysis.

Wall Street and Main Street are closely connected. Jesus Fuzzy, it never takes more than a few scratches at the veneer to realize money's significance in capitalism or politics or daily life.

They are closely connected in some respects. And they're not really connected at all in others. Wall Street has absolutely nothing to do with the events discussed for this thread's topic.

That's what this boils down to -- you think I'm dishonest? Are you braiding ass hair too tightly? Maybe you're being emotional.

Look, I live about five miles from Red Lion, and news travels fast between parents/teachers/students here. When that machete attack happened, my youngest child came home wondering if his Red Lion friends (from soccer, or Scouting, or whatever else) were okay. Teachers and families move between schools in the district fairly often, and our "connections" are pretty close. Yes, that event was experienced by many children who weren't directly involved. Using your definition, only two or three people had "first-hand" credibility.

Yes, I think you're being dishonest. And you just keep providing more and more material to support that skepticism.

[GGT]

No, it really doesn't. This, again, is an illusion you get from watching your TV. If and when it manages to create a paradigm-shift (through size, media management, or other unpredictable factors) it impacts the whole nation. If it is large enough it can impact the whole nation regardless of whether it prompts change.

Hang on. The school machete attack happened in the pre-smart phone era, but news still traveled fast enough via cell phone, internet, and cable TV news....to make a national impact on school safety debates, and influence public school policy changes.

Today's technology (complete with pictures and videos) moves at real time) speed, making social media a driver for news/information. Even school kids with "smart tech" in their pockets can transmit "data" that impacts a nation -- well before cable TV or "media management" can react, or journalists can publish. Modern US school examples are Sandy Hook Elementary and UC Santa Barbra, but public places like a Colorado movie theater, or public events like the Boston Marathon are just as important.

Bundy's "protest" against BLM wouldn't have hit the front pages of any national print newspaper, or been covered by national cable/TV news during the Red Lion school machete attack time period. But that was then, and this is now. Since we're engaged in important *national* debates surrounding school safety, public safety, gun safety, and weighing that against federal vs state intervention/legislation....your lecturing falls flat.


Nope, the timing is pretty clear. And Congress hasn't been any more sclerotic on the above than it usually is. 's got nothing to do with the Tea Party. Just ask Loki, Congressional activity is one of those areas that really does lend itself to quant-analysis.[/quote]

Congress hasn't used the "full faith and credit of US debt" as a political weapon during budget debates, and lost our AAA credit rating for the first time in history, either. Quant that.

They are closely connected in some respects. And they're not really connected at all in others. Wall Street has absolutely nothing to do with the events discussed for this thread's topic.

Bull. Just follow the money, and the political "economics" aren't far behind. States rely on federal funding for major infrastructure, crucial commodities like water, and public services like education and healthcare....because they can't sustain a modern "American" lifestyle on their own. No state can. Nevada is no exception, and neither is Bundy's cattle.

This is why privatization, and securitization through the financial or insurance industries are up against corporate and income tax policy....and why public revenue is controversial, contentious, and ultimately political. Defining "shareholder interest" isn't some simplistic, single metric used by private businesses.

Yes, I think you're being dishonest. And you just keep providing more and more material to support that skepticism.

Forum moderators can confirm my location by ISP and posting history. It's consistent with my other personal "data" from the Atari forums. Dread could find my house on Google maps if he wanted to, but hopefully he wouldn't ring my doorbell, let alone share it publicly.

What other "dishonesties" do you want to challenge, Fuzzy? I've also changed some of my opinions over time....

[GGT]

Ooo, that kind of barometer won't lead to a police state or anything.

Did you think the US was becoming a "police state" when airlines used new screening techniques (like metal detectors) to thwart plane hijackings....back in the "old days" of the 70's or 80's?

[Veldan Rath]

The initial stages of Security Theater?

Depends upon who put them there. The Feds, yes, as that was a foot in the door for the silliness we have now.

[Enoch the Red]

Forum moderators can confirm my location by ISP and posting history. It's consistent with my other personal "data" from the Atari forums. Dread could find my house on Google maps if he wanted to, but hopefully he wouldn't ring my doorbell, let alone share it publicly.

What other "dishonesties" do you want to challenge, Fuzzy? I've also changed some of my opinions over time....

I think how you define first hand is why he is calling you dishonest, not whether or not you live in PA.

[GGT]

I think how you define first hand is why he is calling you dishonest, not whether or not you live in PA.

I know that. It's easier to call *me* an old bat, or a luddite, or infer my opinions are based on ignorance or emotion.....instead of actually addressing national issues, or how society-at-large uses information to form political opinions.

[LittleFuzzy]

Hang on. The school machete attack happened in the pre-smart phone era, but news still traveled fast enough via cell phone, internet, and cable TV news....to make a national impact on school safety debates, and influence public school policy changes.

Uh, no. You're radically overestimating how extensively knowledge of the attack spread and what the impact was. Columbine had a national impact. Your cited attack on a school in your district didn't achieve any real penetration outside your region. Wasn't front-page news in a lot of places and wasn't readdressed beyond initial reporting in most places even where it did make the headline nationally.

Today's technology (complete with pictures and videos) moves at real time) speed, making social media a driver for news/information. Even school kids with "smart tech" in their pockets can transmit "data" that impacts a nation -- well before cable TV or "media management" can react, or journalists can publish. Modern US school examples are Sandy Hook Elementary and UC Santa Barbra, but public places like a Colorado movie theater, or public events like the Boston Marathon are just as important.

Something having the potential to do something, dependent on unpredictable factors (which I already mentioned) does not mean it does or will actually happen. Take the bombing of the Boston Marathon, for example. Definitely seen across the country. Very disturbing imagery. Hasn't changed anything. Its actual impact was low, because however horrifying it was, it wasn't really unfamiliar.

Bundy's "protest" against BLM wouldn't have hit the front pages of any national print newspaper, or been covered by national cable/TV news during the Red Lion school machete attack time period.

Wanna bet? An armed confrontation between over 100 police and militia is significantly more newsworthy than a nut who attacked and injured a principal and two teachers. This is you demonstrating your distorted perspective. Affects a lot more people, both directly and indirectly, and while it doesn't push quite as high on pure sensationalism since there were no injuries, it doesn't lack for sensationalism either.

Congress hasn't used the "full faith and credit of US debt" as a political weapon during budget debates, and lost our AAA credit rating for the first time in history, either. Quant that.

Hey. Who here wants to make a wager about which is massively more likely to get cited as cause for dissatisfaction with Congress, the ACA or the most recent budget-showdown and the rating downgrade? Anyone?

After the brief nine-month spike in Congressional approval ratings in 2009 which I already mentioned, the approval rating went below 20% again in Febuary 2010. That was one month before ACA was passed and about 18 months before the downgrade. Well before that budget showdown you're trying to shuffle the blame to. Approval ratings haven't risen above 20% for more than two consecutive months since ACA was passed. Another statistic (which is rather less useful but still serves to speak against your claim) the proportion of Republican seats in both houses has risen since the rating downgrade.

Bull. Just follow the money, and the political "economics" aren't far behind. States rely on federal funding for major infrastructure, crucial commodities like water, and public services like education and healthcare....because they can't sustain a modern "American" lifestyle on their own. No state can. Nevada is no exception, and neither is Bundy's cattle.

Wall Street cares very little about Western land-management. Wall Street didn't say "boo" over the efforts of the Carter administration (carrying through on a Kennedy initiative) to assess and exert greater control over the vast Federal landholdings in the West. They didn't say boo when Reagan campaigned against it either. Nor when he immediately abandoned that bit of his platform on reaching the White House. If you want me to follow this nonexistence money trail of yours, GGT, why don't you get to citing? You can't. This thread has nothing to do with Wall Street. Nothing arising from the last forty years of legal and semi-legal fighting over federal Western land management has had anything to do with Wall Street. It's had nothing to do with your so-called "Main Street" either. You have absolutely nothing like Western land management in your socio-political lexicon, GGT.

Forum moderators can confirm my location by ISP and posting history. It's consistent with my other personal "data" from the Atari forums. Dread could find my house on Google maps if he wanted to, but hopefully he wouldn't ring my doorbell, let alone share it publicly.

I said right off I'd be willing to concede that maybe you live or lived in that general area. But that wasn't the limit of what you claimed, you said your children experienced the school violence firsthand. And you've already admitted that was out and out false.

[GGT]

The initial stages of Security Theater?

Depends upon who put them there. The Feds, yes, as that was a foot in the door for the silliness we have now.

The US national security "theater" goes back several decades. But I wouldn't call it "silliness" to identify weaknesses, or threats. My earliest memories of 'terrorism' includes plane hijackers diverting planes to Cuba.....and the Munich Olympic Games. Viet Nam protestors, and "draft dodgers" were considered 'domestic terrorists' in my childhood, too.

"Principle" is a mixed bag for folks in my demographic group.

[Veldan Rath]

Oh no, yer not switching the discussion again. You asked if I thought the security added in the 70-80 was the beginning of a police state, not identifying threats and weaknesses.

[GGT]

Oh no, yer not switching the discussion again. You asked if I thought the security added in the 70-80 was the beginning of a police state, not identifying threats and weaknesses.

The principle dilemma remains the same.

[Veldan Rath]

Yeah, okay sure and water is wet.

[GGT]

Yeah, okay sure and water is wet.

Where do you draw the line?

[Veldan Rath]

In meaningful places.

[GGT]

Uh, no. You're radically overestimating how extensively knowledge of the attack spread and what the impact was. Columbine had a national impact. Your cited attack on a school in your district didn't achieve any real penetration outside your region. Wasn't front-page news in a lot of places and wasn't readdressed beyond initial reporting in most places even where it did make the headline nationally. <snip>

Since it happened when school security and "Zero Tolerance" policies were hotly contested issues, it impacted any parents with young school children who follow national news. It impacted my kids and neighbors because it was just down the road, and my out-of-town family and friends who heard it on the news were concerned, too.

School boards, superintendents, and police departments pay attention to what happens in other states -- it's part of their jobs to reduce risks/protect students, and learn from tragedies in other schools. Even if they seem like isolated one-off events, they can be a legal liability.

At that time there were still elementary schools with "open-door" access, voluntary sign-in, and no CCTV monitors or buzzed entry systems. Just a secretary at the front desk, with likely no window view to the outside (depending on when the school was built). You discounting or disbelieving my perspective is denying historical context, or hurling personal insults. Neither works.

[LittleFuzzy]

I never saw this get updated.

Bundy and 17 others were arrested in 2016 and charged with a bunch of felonies. Two have been convicted and sentenced, there was a mistrial for six others and they are undergoing retrial, two have been acquitted, and the rest still have their trials coming up, including the senior Bundy.

[Aimless]

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/...-pardon-bundys