Recommended Posts
kallend 1,679
QuoteJohn:
Also note - the discussion has been skewed. The Sovereign Citizen movement doesn't appear to have any organized leadership that had been pointed out. Yet it's been skewed that way in talking about the USPA.
If a California Central Coast skydiver put out something about how to smuggle pot in a 182 that advises attention to NOTAMs to be sure about presidential airspace restrictions, for example, we wouldn't be looking at that as coming from our leaders. But - all it takes is for somebody to call the dumbass a leader and the sights get turned on us.
This is the trap. Take an individual, call him a leader, and go from there. It's political spin 101. The disorganization of the response cannot overcome an organized attack.
The USPA has nothing to do with your initial discussion but you're playing into it.
JR isn't playing into a trap, he INTRODUCED the trap by bringing USPA into the discussion, Post #19.
There is a BIG difference between complaining and civil disobedience. Not liking what the govt. does with its revenues is NOT an excuse for tax evasion. Tax evasion is THEFT from all the citizens of the country.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
jclalor 12
Quote[Reply]
as Rosa Parks a subversive for sitting in the white section on the bus?
Was Martin Luther King a subversive for marching without a permit?
Were the four black college students in Greensboro subversive for sitting at a whites-only lunch counter?
Yep. And the government certainly made sure to let them know under no unceretain terms that they weren't appreciated. Arrests and water cannons - roundly cheered by much of the population, were preferred tactics.
We have a history in the US of celebrating these people. We have Independence Day, George Washington's birthday, MLK Day. The latter espouswd civil disobedience. The former two regarded armed revolt.
Here's the rule John: when it's their side it's "civil disobedience." When it's not their side it's "domestic terrorism.". When they are OWS protestesters blocking streets and offices, stealing everything that's not bolted down, destroying windows, barricading, and turning whatever location they are in into a bio-hazard, they are applauded because they blame business for taking what the government gives them because business is too powerful.
QuoteMeanwhile, civil disobedience exercised by those who just want to be left alone, don't bother anybody, and protest a government giving money to big business are the scary ones. (I can't help but wonder if people wanting to be left alone just scare the hell ouit of people. I mean, they don't try to shut anyone up, outshou them or piss off anybody that isn't directly involved in bothering them. There is a part of me that wonders whether their desire for privacy is necessarily interpreted as a desire for secrecy.)
Your side does it too, John. All sides do it. I do it. I just did it. I try to recognize it.
Comparing the non-violence of the civil rights movement with modern day sovereigns is just silly. Can you cite any mainstream Democratic leaders that condone any violence or theft by OWS?
They don't like paying taxes and registering their uninsured vehicles? Fuck them, who does. Have one slam in to your car and see how that works out for you.
Better yet, you know the law, why don't you go cash in on that big secret Government bank account they claim that's in your name.
Some times, you guys on the right can make lucid and intelligent arguments for your side, they make me pause and think. Other times, any stance that is just plain bizarre, but as long at it's anti-government and anti- Obama will always gets the seal of approval.
Prof:
I sit corrected.
Joh rich - you introduced a red herring into your own argument that was inapplicable when you mentioned uspa.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
I sit corrected.
Joh rich - you introduced a red herring into your own argument that was inapplicable when you mentioned uspa.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
But Harry Reid says paying your taxes is voluntary.
Theft from the other citizens of the country, hmm, that sits odd to me for some reason.
Matt
Theft from the other citizens of the country, hmm, that sits odd to me for some reason.
Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!
So, start being safe, first!!!
[Reply]Can you cite any mainstream Democratic leaders that condone any violence or theft by OWS?[/reply}
No more than I can cite any "mainstream" Republicans who advocate attacks on women. You've done two things: (1) you've put in the "mainstream" argument, meaning that one could be cited that you claim is not "mainstream"; and (2) you limited it to violence. One can no more separate the White Aryan Resistance from its acts of violence than can separate OWS from its. And like it or not, part of what has defined OWS has been the public health nighmare they create and even leave behind. While not specifically an act of "violence" they are nonetheless disturbing.
I'll cite Oakand's mayor - who supported them. That is, until he found himself on the losing end. Sorry, but if someone supports a group that has large amounts of thefts and assaults, there's a problem.
Go through my history and you'll see sdomething consistent: I never have a problem with a person speaking. I have problems with how the message is sent. I have a problem with the means. I havbe a problem when "free speech" means "captive audience." I have a problem with any messageor solution where the ends justify the means. (Seriously - sending memos not to contact police? Handle it internally? What the hell is that?)
Movements can become linked with violence. It looks like this sovereigns movement hasn't had much violence associated with it. They are tax evaders and apparently want to have no governance (even state or local.) Which, of course, makes them anarchists (who are historically linked to violence).
I just have a problem with calling them "threats." Seriously - consider the oxymoron of a group of loners.
[Reply]Some times, you guys on the right can make lucid and intelligent arguments for your side, they make me pause and think.
No more than I can cite any "mainstream" Republicans who advocate attacks on women. You've done two things: (1) you've put in the "mainstream" argument, meaning that one could be cited that you claim is not "mainstream"; and (2) you limited it to violence. One can no more separate the White Aryan Resistance from its acts of violence than can separate OWS from its. And like it or not, part of what has defined OWS has been the public health nighmare they create and even leave behind. While not specifically an act of "violence" they are nonetheless disturbing.
I'll cite Oakand's mayor - who supported them. That is, until he found himself on the losing end. Sorry, but if someone supports a group that has large amounts of thefts and assaults, there's a problem.
Go through my history and you'll see sdomething consistent: I never have a problem with a person speaking. I have problems with how the message is sent. I have a problem with the means. I havbe a problem when "free speech" means "captive audience." I have a problem with any messageor solution where the ends justify the means. (Seriously - sending memos not to contact police? Handle it internally? What the hell is that?)
Movements can become linked with violence. It looks like this sovereigns movement hasn't had much violence associated with it. They are tax evaders and apparently want to have no governance (even state or local.) Which, of course, makes them anarchists (who are historically linked to violence).
I just have a problem with calling them "threats." Seriously - consider the oxymoron of a group of loners.
[Reply]Some times, you guys on the right can make lucid and intelligent arguments for your side, they make me pause and think.
Sure - even Scalia isn't always wrong. And neat to be considered on the right.
[Reply]Other times, any stance that is just plain bizarre, but as long at it's anti-government and anti- Obama will always gets the seal of approval.[:reply]
That's some of those on the right, yes. Like blaming Obama for gas prices - it's as ignorant as it was blaming Bush for them in 08. On the left, the same ridiculousness occurs (the whole 08 convention was full of it - the Bush economy of the last eight years, etc. Forgetting the recession in 00-01 and forgetting the good times between 03 and 07). I personally see about 5% difference between Dems and GOP, and the diference is only narrowed down to which winners or losers they want to pick.
So when I point out that Obama can't be blamed for some things I'm a lefty. When I point out that he can I'm a righty. When I point out that both sides do it, each side argues the other is worse.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 1,679
QuoteBut Harry Reid says paying your taxes is voluntary.
Theft from the other citizens of the country, hmm, that sits odd to me for some reason.
Matt
Harry Reid said nothing untrue:
taxes.about.com/od/taxglossary/g/Voluntary.htm
His moronic interviewer clearly was ignorant of the US tax system and interrupted every time Reid attempted to enlighten him.
I can't help it if you don't think tax evasion is theft. It IS theft.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
JohnRich 4
Quoteyou introduced a red herring...
Just a herring? Heck, I'll give a red whale! This whole debate is based upon judgements made by the Souther Poverty Law Center about groups of people, derived mostly from just web sites. And based upon that, they brand 300,000 Americans as "terrorists" simply because they don't like paying taxes? There's the whale for you. But none of the liberals seem to have any problem with that giant red whale. They're only response to people who protest high taxes with civil disobedience is "shut up and pay".
Thank goodness our founding fathers didn't just shut up and pay.
At some point when taxes get so high, that a large proportion of the population refuses to pay, then a tipping point will come in which something drastic will have to happen. We'll either shut up and pay whatever the government asks for and have oppressive despotism with prisons full of tax protestors, or we'll go the other way and once again have a representative democracy that serves the people's will. And since so far presidents and legislatures don't seem too willing to voluntarily cut the tax burden, it seems every more likely to me that civil disobedience will continue to rise. That doesn't make them terrorists. It makes them tax evaders, and scofflaws, but not terrorists.
By ratcheting the language up against them that far, all it does is make things worse, and hurries the onset of violent responses. Shame on the SPLC for stooping to such tactics.
charlie5 0
Quote
I doubt that you'll find it funny if the USA ends up in the situation the Greece is now in. The USA is on a slippery slope and this sort of action is far more damaging to your country than killing dozens, hundreds or even three thousand people.
Greece is in the situation it's in now BECAUSE of an ever growing government that could not sustain itself.
The government was its own terrorist, the opposite of these "sovereign" citizens. To blindly follow Uncle Sam's word and continually think that throwing more money at government will fix it makes you and people that think like you a bigger terrorist threat to the very fabric of American society.
What's even more terrifying is that you think people who have the nerve to question those in charge makes them terrorists.
You've got it back asswards. Good sheep.
The feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo
SkyDekker 1,153
QuoteThe Greek situation is a problem raised by people who want the government to be responsible.
No.
The Greek situation comes down to expenses being bigger than revenues and debt service no longer possible. What the money is being spent on is really not that relevant.
QuoteThe Greek situation comes down to expenses being bigger than revenues and debt service no longer possible. What the money is being spent on is really not that relevant
The first part is true.
The second part is highly relevant. It's why they are rioting - because it's a nanny state and the nanny got fired. What are the charges going to do?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Marinus 0
Except, of course, your hypothesis doesn't survive European reality where most welfare states do well compared to the non-welfare states and low-welfare states. Welfare states work excellent as long as the population pays enough taxes. Sweden for instance has a social security that'll make Obama weep in horror, but the country is doing fine. And despite the horrific taxes (50%) Sweden is one of the happiest nations on the earth.
Obamacare, (for example) is nothing new, in fact calling it Obamacare is almost ignorant. Much if not most of Europe has had "Obamacare" for decades now.
Obamacare, (for example) is nothing new, in fact calling it Obamacare is almost ignorant. Much if not most of Europe has had "Obamacare" for decades now.
SkyDekker 1,153
QuoteIt's why they are rioting - because it's a nanny state and the nanny got fired.
If the US would equalize revenues and expenses within a 5 month window, I guarantee you there will be riots.
QuoteQuoteIt's why they are rioting - because it's a nanny state and the nanny got fired.
If the US would equalize revenues and expenses within a 5 month window, I guarantee you there will be riots.
Because some would lose there free rides? "Entitlements" would be cut?
Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!
So, start being safe, first!!!
billvon 2,473
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Because some would lose there free rides? "Entitlements" would be cut?
Yep. And veterans would lose their healthcare. And government workers - and workers at government contractors, and construction workers, and pilots, and refinery workers - would lose their jobs. And shippers would not be able to ship goods. And aircraft manufacturers would not be able to sell their new airplanes. And taxes would rise like crazy. Etc etc.
Yep. And veterans would lose their healthcare. And government workers - and workers at government contractors, and construction workers, and pilots, and refinery workers - would lose their jobs. And shippers would not be able to ship goods. And aircraft manufacturers would not be able to sell their new airplanes. And taxes would rise like crazy. Etc etc.
Yeah, that was all too much to type.
So I gather that who ever it was that said they had decades of free GOV health care, high taxes, free education, etc, in Europe, was also saying the riots are next? Following that type of plan.
Matt
So I gather that who ever it was that said they had decades of free GOV health care, high taxes, free education, etc, in Europe, was also saying the riots are next? Following that type of plan.
Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!
So, start being safe, first!!!
bakerjan 0
QuoteIs not from Islamist terrorists but from ///
JohnRich 4
QuoteIs not from Islamist terrorists but from the estimated 300,000 home grown Subversives and terrorists claiming to be 'Sovereign citizens' and its a treat (sic) that is growing by the day across all states.
News:
Mich. militia head, son plead guilty to gun chargeFull story: Associated Press
A Michigan militia leader and his son pleaded guilty Thursday to possessing a machine gun, giving prosecutors their only gain in a domestic terror trial that was upended when the judge dismissed charges of plotting war against the government.
Hutaree leader David Stone rocked in a chair at the defense table after pleading guilty and told reporters he was a "stand-up true American patriot" whose anti-government comments and bravado about wanting to kill police were not a call to attack the United States.
He and six militia members were cleared Tuesday of conspiracy charges, which he called a "victory for everyone" who cherishes the First Amendment. "It's amazing how someone can take a comment out of context and make it to whatever they want it to be," Stone, 51, said...
The government, with all its money and lawyers, couldn't find these militia members guily of being terrorists. And yet some people still want to call them the "biggest terrorist threat to America".
Skyrad 0
The US government, with all its money and lawyers, couldn't find these Gitmo prisoners guilty of being terrorists (Even resorting to kangaroo courts). And yet some people still want to call them the "biggest terrorist threat to America".
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Also note - the discussion has been skewed. The Sovereign Citizen movement doesn't appear to have any organized leadership that had been pointed out. Yet it's been skewed that way in talking about the USPA.
If a California Central Coast skydiver put out something about how to smuggle pot in a 182 that advises attention to NOTAMs to be sure about presidential airspace restrictions, for example, we wouldn't be looking at that as coming from our leaders. But - all it takes is for somebody to call the dumbass a leader and the sights get turned on us.
This is the trap. Take an individual, call him a leader, and go from there. It's political spin 101. The disorganization of the response cannot overcome an organized attack.
The USPA has nothing to do with your initial discussion but you're playing into it.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites