Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you feel that Nixon should have put the Native Americans on Alcatraz in prison for a long time. I disagree, that is okay that we disagree on this instance.
Maybe, maybe not. It isn't a historical event I am familiar with.
When you realize that most liberals possess no intellectual honesty whatsoever, it won't bother you so much. However, I applaud you for showing you aren't one of those liberals.
Your previous posts seem to clearly indicate that anyone, liberal or conservative that:
-seizes federal property
-with guns
-threatens violence if forcibly removed
-for a political aim
...should spend a long time in prison.
Do you modify or qualify this position at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Nope, that sound about right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
So you feel that Nixon should have put the Native Americans on Alcatraz in prison for a long time. I disagree, that is okay that we disagree on this instance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Maybe, maybe not. It isn't a historical event I am familiar with.
Are you waffling, because you realize that your initial argument was too rigid and too myopic?
They seized federal property.
With Guns.
Threatened violence if forcibly removed.
For a political aim.
You would have supported locking them up for a long time, unless you need to modify your previous argument to include exceptions for things like just causes, which can be subjective.
Should revolutionary war soldiers that seized royal property (a fort), with guns, and threatened violence if forcibly removed, for a political aim been locked up for a long time too?
The difference between this occupation and all of the rest is this is NOT a peaceful act. The very presence of guns makes this a violent assault on the public. Remember the assault is the threat and having guns present makes this an assault with a deadly weapon. Fortunately the weapons have not been used by the protesters so far. If they do they have provided the LAW with justification for using whatever force is needed to protect the public as well as themselves.
I suggest the LAW place a very tight siege on the buildings and, after blocking all communications, food, water, electricity and fuel, wait for the protesters to leave the buildings to be arrested for assault with a deadly weapon and trespassing.
This can be settled without a gun fight but not without criminal prosecution by the LAW.
If it turns into a gunfight then just drop a couple of missiles on the compound and then kill the survivors.
Are you waffling, because you realize that your initial argument was too rigid and too myopic?
They seized federal property.
With Guns.
Threatened violence if forcibly removed.
For a political aim.
You would have supported locking them up for a long time, unless you need to modify your previous argument to include exceptions for things like just causes, which can be subjective.
Should revolutionary war soldiers that seized royal property (a fort), with guns, and threatened violence if forcibly removed, for a political aim been locked up for a long time too?
Nope, you just simply asked me about an event I have never heard about, though seizing a federal buiding, armed, and ready to shoot anyone who tries to remove you should lead to your arrest even if they are Native Americans because that is not something that should ever be acceptable.
As for your last comment, had the US lost those wars, those soldiers would have either been arrested or put to death. If you are trying to insist the Bundy clan is at war, then they are on the losing end of that war.
I agree, I am hoping these idiots are facing years in prison for this act.
They have probably condemned the Hammonds to that as well. The Hammonds were seeking executive clemency from Obama and, under the circumstances of their sentencing, probably would have gotten it. Not now. It would be seen as caving and would just encourage more of this thing as did the Clive Bundy weakness.
You don't think Donald Trump is the second coming, but is Bernie Sanders?
In all seriousness, the protestors being white is a liberal's wet dream. They cry and say "if they were black, the conservatives would call them thugs!"
Yes, they have even gone so far to post this BS all over the internet.
I do disagree with the protesters taking over the government building, but at least they haven't burnt it down!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
