Posted on 01/04/2016 10:33:31 AM PST by ObozoMustGo2012
If Trump agrees with Cruz, then Cruz is just parroting Trump's sage analysis.
If Trump disagrees with Cruz, then Cruz is an establishment puppet.
Heh-heh. Well put, and exactly right, of course.
Whenever someone comes along outside the political parties and their machines like Black Lives Matter or the Bundy’s or whoever, the politicians try to speak to their issues and say they care. Dems for the racial protest, Reps for the Western land issues.
Action doesn’t follow. The cop in the Michael Brown case in Ferguson hasn’t faced civil rights charges yet even though the protestors want that.
Martin Luther King upset JFK’s apple cart by forcing the race issue with the Birmingham protests in 1963.
Kennedy and the Dems were forced by the weight of King’s actions leading to the dogs, water cannon from Bull Connor’s police.
The Kennedy-Johnson Democrats had to start doing something about racial issues instead of talking about racial issues.
Republicans and the GOPe, ‘beltway conservatives’ desperately want to control and contain this situation.
They want to talk about the Hammond’s case and express sympathy.
But they don’t want to take any meaningful action to stop the people out West losing their land and the use of their land to the federal behemoth.......
24 hour notice, then drone strike these low-life punks and thugs.
This administration is itching for a violent confrontation especially with “white extremists” and we should be careful not to hand it to them on a silver platter. All those government agencies bought tons of ammo for a reason. When the socialists are in power, they have shown an eagerness to turn their weapons on the people. I still have the image of Janet Reno/Clinton torching women and children with tanks in Waco seared into my mind. This administration is far more evil and highly motivated to prove they are tough on anyone except actual criminals and terrorists. And its the perfect “crisis” to push for more gun confiscation and regulations.
A peaceful settlement in favor of the Hammonds would be far preferable to an armed confrontation.
“Why not sooner rather than later?”
Because the pain is not acute enough and general enough just yet. The American revolution would have been a failed rebellion if it had been attempted ten years earlier.
In 1905, the Russian protesters were just shot down in the streets. By 1917, the Tsar was forced to step down.
The time is not ripe.
Ping to Travis McGee because interested in his thoughts on the principles here.
Of course it was, because the Boston Tea Partiers were denied their legal right to vote for or against the Tea Act.
Cruz suffers normalcy bias from living too comfortably. I do believe a Cruz presidency could reverse a lot of this, even more than Reagan, but his stand on this really scares me.
Well, I think Cruz is in a difficult position. If he says, stand your ground and fight, he will be accused of advocating violence. If he says nothing, he doesn’t care. And saying stand down makes him look weak. Three bad choices. Which one do you choose?
IMHO, stand down is the best of the bad choices. For one thing, the powers that be in Washington are looking for any excuse to unleash a whole lot of hurt on all of us. An armed insurrection would give them that excuse. For another, are we sure all peaceful, legal remedies have been exhausted? Do these two guys have a right to appeal? If so, it may be prudent to wait till everything else has been tried and has failed before we go the armed insurrection route.
I think civil war is coming and it’s inevitable. But it’s not something to rush into without careful consideration of the pros and cons and an effective strategy. Do these protesters have a clear plan of action?
You ever hear about the Whiskey Rebellion and how George Washington marched the U.S. Army into western Pennsylvania to crush it?
They want to talk about the Hammond’s case and express sympathy.
But they don’t want to take any meaningful action to stop the people out West losing their land and the use of their land to the federal behemoth.......
Because one side armed up I am guess it is harder for govt Republicans to show open support. If these protestors showed up unarmed and chained themselves in the building and did non violent (aka unarmed) disobedience it would garner a whole lot of sympathy. I don’t get why non violent disobedience is frowned upon by the right these days for our causes - it is a Christian aka Conservative invention we should take back from the leftists. The leftists - if you recall - were the ones arguing for armed uprisings in the 60s and 70s.
But there are questions here beyond the potential False Flag, like the terms of the lease and contractual obligations they had to follow.
Example: Was there a no burn order in effect? Did the burn they did escape their land? Were they poaching as has been alleged and was the burn used to cover evidence?
Bottom line is if you act on your land then that`s one thing, it is YOUR land. But you don`t have the right to act unilaterally on behalf of other`s land, even land held by the BLM, which by rights is our land.
LOL. Campaigns are good. They show who is able to lead and who is just phoning it in. It also shows who has imagination, and who is unable to think out of the box.
Now stand back and watch what Trump does. I wouldn’t be surprised if he flies out there to meet with the ranchers. And then proposes a pardon for the ranchers that are headed to prison today. All while calling out dear leader as a weakling and a fool.
This is the argument that I don't understand.
The minimum sentencing law was passed by our duly elected representatives and signed by the President. Just the way the Constitution prescribes.
Since when do we support "black-robed tyrants" ignoring the laws and deciding on their own what the right sentence should be?
If the shooting starts, people will rally. There will not be another Waco or Ruby Ridge in America where it all just goes away after a few stupid hearing.
If it is to have a bloodbath, to what ends?
How does that help?
What will further occupation of the facility accomplish?
The issues will fade into the background and the occupation will become the news item.
Time to stand down, the point has been made.
Either some good will come of this, or not. If not, then there will be another opportunity to engage in conflict.
Our Founding Fathers did not “stand down” to defend liberty!!!
_________________________________________
To equate our Founding Fathers with these Bundy baffoons is an insult.
“The back story is.....
Two men served their time. Some judge comes along and said he doesn’t think their prison time was adequate...so back they go.
What the hell kind of law is that??”
Officially, it is the correction of an illegal sentence. I don’t like it either, but that is what the game called law will say that it is.
So you would describe it as a legal action then?
In this case, the standoff is not a winning strategy. Cruz is right. There is a way to win, but this particular time, this ain’t it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.