Quote from: tvbcof on April 27, 2014, 12:10:34 AM

Quote from: pungopete468 on April 26, 2014, 09:43:21 PM

There comes a point where the "public opinion" spread by the MSM reaches a level so disproportionate with the true public opinion that people start to speak out in opposition. The recent gun control attempt showed that to be true... I've never seen so many random people assert their views in public as I witnessed last summer.

The network of these militias is a powerful network of friends, families, and communities. They are willing to die for each other and for you. The unheard voice of the public is swollen with emotion and just because it isn't heard doesn't discount the strength or will of it...

If the plan is to turn the people against those patriots, then it's not going to work. People who disagree with the presence of a militia at the Bundy ranch are much less likely to take any action or network their desire to disband them. However, on the other hand; those in support of the presence of the militia at the Bundy ranch are exponentially more likely to spread their views and opinions. The supporters care about the cause much more deeply than exists a desire in the general public to disband them. It's a losing proposition for those who would vilify the militia and the Bundy family.

You are sort of right, but mostly wrong (IMHO).

Most random people in my area have a sense of distrust of the means and motives of the central government in some areas. It is probably strong enough for the Feds to consider it a potential problem which needs to be worked on. As I've said, the Occupy stuff was very likely a wakeup call, and it marks a noteworthy point when domestic surveillance efforts were really ramped up. I'd also note that when a complete surveillance system is in place, poking the hornets nest and getting people communicating about things serves a useful purpose if one is formulating individualized high precision dossiers (which, beyond question, the NSA and other agencies are doing.) It also provides the opportunity to field test 'fusion centers' and other mechanisms which could be called upon to deal with certain 'problems.'

You are almost certainly wrong about the level of action and support that most people will have for which groups. A vast majority of thinking people are not going to see a bunch of anarchists with guns imposing their will by force as preferable to much but the most grotesque of 'government overreach.' This because it isn't. The direction that most people will go will be to welcome the otherwise unwelcome government forces to protect them against psychos who would use their own wives and children as human shields.

I think it's too soon to consider any point of view "wrong" IMHO; time will prove somebody wrong but nobody is wrong just yet. I place a lot of faith in society because I believe that the majority of people are good people. I think that the voices of society are largely suppressed. I didn't always have this opinion; before last summer I felt that the majority of people were a lost cause. I was pleasantly surprised last year by the number of people who would share their opinions on their level of dissatisfaction with the state of affairs. I was surprised how many people felt the same way I did. My co-workers and I would talk about current events and customers would simply join into our conversations. It was completely different from what I would expect. I decided then that the voice of society is simply ignored but the message is still alive and strong between people. I disagree with your view because the intelligent people in society will more likely understand the situation from a self-generated perspective rather than the one fed by the MSM. I think the network effect of a strong cause based on truth is greater than the network effect of an opinion based on a mood-swing. Those people will forget about it once they flip the channel and start watching "reality-tv".

Quote from: tvbcof on April 27, 2014, 12:10:34 AM

Quote from: pungopete468 on April 26, 2014, 09:43:21 PM

Also, I'm not arguing about taxes here but there is a point that needs to be considered... He does not owe taxes, he owes "fees" and people would be wise to understand the difference. A fee is not a tax...

These fees were assessed to serve a purpose. The BLM was to use the proceeds of these fees to assist the ranchers with the maintenance of the land. When the BLM stopped using the fees for the purpose of which they were assessed, the fees were no longer necessary. Bundy has elected not to voluntarily pay these fees since they are no longer legitimate. That would be like paying for an "uninsured motorist fee" without using the funding to pay for damages caused by hit and run or uninsured motorists...

fee
fē/Submit
noun
1. a payment made to a professional person or to a professional or public body in exchange for advice or services.

The BLM fees were similar to homeowners association fees in that they are paid as an exchange of money for services that benefit those who pay the fees. (maintenance of the land in this case.)

Further on a tangent; when the government assesses a tax, does that mean the amount is always owed? Do you trust in the infallibility of the government to assess taxes properly and fairly? When the courts refuse to hear cases of tax protest and treat protest in a manner consistent with "heresy" are you sure you can prevent that system from abuse?

I consider the BLM's mandate to be management of ALL of the resource under their charge in a systematic way. That is, if they use some of the fees and other resources at their disposal to protect certain segments of their holdings with an eye toward preserving some ecological artifacts, that seems perfectly appropriate to me.

You can go ahead a vilify the BLM, but I know some people who work for the government personally. As I say, I live near land which they manage and deal with them from time to time. Believe it or not, they don't fly to Brussles and have secret meetings with the one-world Illuminati. They are typical people doing their jobs, and, paradoxically, more likely to be on the anti-government side of most arguments.

As I've said before, the percentage of land which the Feds own in most Western states is kind of high. This is not some evil plot to take over the world. What it is is an artifact of how our nation was built. Someone above said it isn't what the founding fathers had in mind. I agree, but mainly because most of them didn't think about the areas outside of the East at all. Those few who did have some vision (like Jefferson) were active in planning and dreaming much later in their careers and long after the founding documents were assembled.

It is possible to get the Feds off our backs without resorting to an armed conflict, and the dopers are proving this right now. There is a lot of money to be made on the 'war on drugs' and fierce resistance from the Feds against letting that war go. But the states are winning this battle. It would be similarly possible to win control of a reasonable balance of Federal land in the Western states. It would take something more than sitting around polishing one's guns and stewing about things though.

That may seem appropriate to you but it's not appropriate. Think about it; it may seem appropriate to use the funds collected under Social Security for National Disaster Relief in a national emergency, that doesn't make it appropriate. It is absolutely inappropriate for a governmental agency to use proceeds in a manner inconsistent with the purpose of the fee. Just because you might agree that the use of those funds is supporting a good cause doesn't make it appropriate...

Trust me, I don't vilify people working for the government. I live in Hampton Roads and most of the people I know work for the government; family included. I'm not talking about that government. I'm talking about the 4th branch of government which has been abusing the loop-holes in our Constitution to make laws and enforce them without oversight or accountability. I think we need to go back to basics...

Also, they might not fly out to secret Illuminati meetings but you can't believe that the desire for power and control will ever stop at, "Well I guess this is good enough". The common goal has been World domination for much of recorded history and I think it would be foolish to think that we've "grown out of it". The desire to rule the world is alive and well...

I was the one who mentioned above that what we have isn't what our founding fathers envisioned. I believe we're an empty shell of that dream...

It is possible to get the Feds off our backs without armed conflict. However, it's not going to happen when the people are unwilling to take it as far as necessary. Without taking up arms, the fed will steamroll any attempt at peaceful resistance... Taking up arms isn't the same as firing them; it's a basic principle really. When an advancing force encounters a resisting force, the two forces must be balanced or there will be a confrontation. The threat of armed confrontation is decreased dramatically when both forces aren't willing to face the consequences of starting one...

The government is important, however these government agencies who act outside of the Constitution need a reality check. The system we have was designed to protect the people from an unfair/unjust government; not the other way around. These agencies are acting outside of the fundamental framework of our legal system. They're like thousands of branches extending beyond the powers enumerated to the executive branch within the Constitution. Each of these little organizations has the power to legislate, enforce, and uphold their own little bubble of laws. It's like thousands of little dictatorships working together.

--P.S.
The Federal Government shouldn't have the power to pass laws over individual citizens. The Fed should have only the power to regulate interstate commerce, international treaties, and arbitrate interstate disputes. The State and Local government should be responsible for the laws of the people. This is what was envisioned, this is what we need. Ask yourself this; why would each State have it's own Constitution of laws when the Federal Government can impose laws on individuals? The framework of our legal system depended on the separation of State and Federal power. The Federal Government was never intended to possess the power to subject all citizens of the United States to any Federal Law... That's another reason why these Federal Agencies are unlawful; it's against State's Rights to impose Federal Laws dealing with individual citizens. The Federal Government has the power to make laws regarding the interactions between States...