Too much ice

I was not against the FBI or ATF trying to arrest Koresh. Koresh was an insane pedophile who was stockpiling arms against federal law.

I took issue with the FBI burning the house down around women and children.

If you "just want to understand", ask a few more questions and stop listing disparate examples as though we should see them as synonyms.
What made him insane? Was he really a pedophile or was that just a CYA allegation by the Administration?
I didn't know there's anything wrong with stockpiling arms as long as they're legal.
Many at the time had a problem with LE not arresting him on one of his very frequent trips to town and instead making a big show of their raid.
 
I’m just trying to understand the rights typical stance on armed federal guards being used against US citizens against the support of ICE. At best this should be a local law enforcement issue if required protest permits are not there or if it turns violent. Using ICE to raid homes and control protest crowds should be concerning, and it is a 100% certainty if a Dem administration was doing this outlets like Foxnews would be all over it. Now there is talk of possible troops?

I don’t care if it is Waco or Minnesota, I don’t agree with it on principle.
Your anger seems to be at the police chief holding back his officers.
 
If people that want to live in a Civilized country with law abiding citizens are Nazis.

What do you call people that encourage breaking federal laws, protecting illegal aliens that are illegally entering the US via the border, enabling mob violence on innocent citizens, and funneling billions of taxpayers dollars out of the country via fraud?
 

I think what is causing confusion is there are more dimensions in politics than just left vs right (1 dimension).

that model is pretty lazy and doesn't do a fair job explaining all of the pieces. IMO there are at least 3 dimensions, probably more.

1. the basic left vs right is USUALLY defined as market control. Laissez faire (right) or not (left).
2. there is also the value of the individual (right) vs society (left)
3. and the nationalism (right) vs internationalism (left)
4. maybe a fourth of interventionist (left) vs isolationist (right)

this is all without getting into weird specifics one off specifics. like the difference between Nazism and Fascism (how do you feel about Jews)

a various political system will vary on each of those scales. so even though they may both be "right" on one doesn't mean they are all that similar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt2496
Again, you refuse to answer the question why? I suspect because you know the answer to why every Dem politician and Blue city was pro-ICE enforcement until about 2016

For example, Tennessee has had 40,000 illegal criminals arrested and deported by ICE, Minnesota has had about 10,000 at this point.

Why is Minnesota and their officials the only state where ICE is a serious issue?
The answer to that has multiple facets. Trump is going in hard and en force to make an example.

An example because Minnesota has not been as forthcoming in helping ICE. In fact they've been hostile, and I'm some cases actually called for open confrontation with ICE

They are using these operations also as a distraction to their constituents, they've either been complicent with or negligent with that fraud.

Many other elements at okay here as well. Another is Trump can't help himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
I’m just trying to understand the rights typical stance on armed federal guards being used against US citizens against the support of ICE. At best this should be a local law enforcement issue if required protest permits are not there or if it turns violent. Using ICE to raid homes and control protest crowds should be concerning, and it is a 100% certainty if a Dem administration was doing this outlets like Foxnews would be all over it. Now there is talk of possible troops?

I don’t care if it is Waco or Minnesota, I don’t agree with it on principle.
Agreed, we haven't seen violence and clashes in places except those who refuse to assist ICE in any way, crowd control etc, the reason they aren't there is because Minnesota and Minneapolis leadership refuse to provide it.

The local police are best suited for this. But leadership in Minneapolis won't provide it. So we get more chaos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
Re the protestors at the church and Bondi, et al, threatening prosecutions, I'm trying to understand what law the protestors would have broken. Anyone got any sense of what that is about?
This is what a quick Google search gave me. I'm not up on law though:

No, protesters are not allowed to disrupt religious services inside a church. Disrupting a church service is illegal in the United States and other jurisdictions, as churches are considered private property.
Here is a breakdown of the legal, constitutional, and safety aspects:
Legal Protections: Most U.S. states have specific statutes—such as California Penal Code 302 PC, Ohio Revised Code 2917.12, or New York Penal Law § 240.21—that criminalize the intentional disturbance of religious gatherings through noise, threats, or interference.
Federal Law (FACE Act): The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act (18 U.S.C. § 248) makes it a federal crime to use force, threats, or physical obstruction to intimidate or interfere with anyone exercising their First Amendment right to religious freedom at a place of worship.
Private Property Rights: Churches are private property. While they may be open to the public, they are not public forums. Church leadership has the right to ask protesters to leave, and failure to do so constitutes trespassing.
Consequences: Protesters who disrupt services can face arrest for disorderly conduct, trespassing, or disturbing the peace.
What is Protected: Free speech protections generally apply to protesting outside a church (e.g., on a public sidewalk) in a peaceful manner that does not block access or drown out worship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
If you choose to see conservatives on the board as a broad-brush group, you're free to do so.

You're also smuggling in the concept of what "gov't overreach" is. We could sharpen our pencils and discuss that with a bit more precision, but not if you just want to throw out "gotchas" because nameless people said something about different things years ago. <eyeroll> It's not the best audition for someone's time.
Thanks for the advice. <eyeroll>

The problem here is there is always a kernel of uniqueness when comparing specific examples or “discussing in more detail” that derails those discussions instead of focusing on the idea/position.

My position here is simple:

If you are here illegally, you can/should be deported.

If you are a pedophile or engage in underage sex you should be arrested.

If you are protesting legally, you should be able to do so free of government interference, no matter how stupid I think the protest is.

Government agents should not be raiding homes unless there is a valid warrant signed by a judge.

Troops should not be deployed against US citizens unless there is extenuating circumstances (think LA riots or post Katrina). Protesters sitting in a target or a small group protesting a Church don’t apply, let local law enforcement handle it.

Trump is a lowlife the same way Clinton was, if one was bad so is the other for the same reasons. It matters equally.

Overuse of EOs is problematic, no matter who is doing it.

Government overreach is bad. Period.

1st and 2nd amendments are central to a free democracy and should be protected at all costs, no matter what. Hiding behind them to abuse people/kids is wrong.

Telling the truth always matters more than lying or exaggerating, no matter how harmless.




I would think there would be widespread general agreement here on these principles. But there doesn’t seem to be, and opinions are fluid depending on which tribe is in charge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
The answer to that has multiple facets. Trump is going in hard and en force to make an example.

An example because Minnesota has not been as forthcoming in helping ICE. In fact they've been hostile, and I'm some cases actually called for open confrontation with ICE

They are using these operations also as a distraction to their constituents, they've either been complicent with or negligent with that fraud.

Many other elements at okay here as well. Another is Trump can't help himself.

Imagine the federal government kowtowing then tucking tail and leaving while the anarchist feel victorious, more virtuous and emboldened. It is not going to happen.
 
What made him insane? Was he really a pedophile or was that just a CYA allegation by the Administration?
I didn't know there's anything wrong with stockpiling arms as long as they're legal.
Many at the time had a problem with LE not arresting him on one of his very frequent trips to town and instead making a big show of their raid.
I’m about to log into my shadow account just so I can like this a 2nd time.
 
What made him insane? Was he really a pedophile or was that just a CYA allegation by the Administration?
I didn't know there's anything wrong with stockpiling arms as long as they're legal.
Many at the time had a problem with LE not arresting him on one of his very frequent trips to town and instead making a big show of their raid.
Some of the people that did make it out have gone on record that a big part of his MO was grooming women especially younger women for his personal desires, as the Messiah people felt compelled to comply.

Agreed with others concerns that this didn't need to go down the way it did. He should have been taken on neutral ground safely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
The same act the Biden Administration charged citizens with



Well, I agree that protestors shouldn't disrupt church services at all, and that is regardless of the church or the message of the protestors. Seems a bit of a stretch to call this some sort of federal crime.

Funny thing is, when you consider what the January 6 crowd did at the Capitol and MAGA claiming it was peaceful, or no big deal, it was FAR, FAR worse than what these folks did and the Trump administration coddles one, and bashes the other.
 
Well, I agree that protestors shouldn't disrupt church services at all, and that is regardless of the church or the message of the protestors. Seems a bit of a stretch to call this some sort of federal crime.

Funny thing is, when you consider what the January 6 crowd did at the Capitol and MAGA claiming it was peaceful, or no big deal, it was FAR, FAR worse than what these folks did and the Trump administration coddles one, and bashes the other.
Still throwing up the J6 incident to comparing tit for tat. Its been 6 years since that happened. Besides, FBI and Antifa thugs were dressed up looking like Trump supporters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: appvol
Thanks for the advice. <eyeroll>

The problem here is there is always a kernel of uniqueness when comparing specific examples or “discussing in more detail” that derails those discussions instead of focusing on the idea/position.

My position here is simple:

If you are here illegally, you can/should be deported.

If you are a pedophile or engage in underage sex you should be arrested.

If you are protesting legally, you should be able to do so free of government interference, no matter how stupid I think the protest is.

Government agents should not be raiding homes unless there is a valid warrant signed by a judge.

Troops should not be deployed against US citizens unless there is extenuating circumstances (think LA riots or post Katrina). Protesters sitting in a target or a small group protesting a Church don’t apply, let local law enforcement handle it.

Trump is a lowlife the same way Clinton was, if one was bad so is the other for the same reasons. It matters equally.

Overuse of EOs is problematic, no matter who is doing it.

Government overreach is bad. Period.

1st and 2nd amendments are central to a free democracy and should be protected at all costs, no matter what. Hiding behind them to abuse people/kids is wrong.

Telling the truth always matters more than lying or exaggerating, no matter how harmless.




I would think there would be widespread general agreement here on these principles. But there doesn’t seem to be, and opinions are fluid depending on which tribe is in charge.
I would largely agree on most, but think you are whitewashing a couple of current issues.


I don't see that all of the current protests are merely peaceful.

I don't know that ICE are "invading homes" homes without warrants signed by a judge. Can you give specific examples of ICE forcing entry illegally? If they are doing that, I wholeheartedly agree they shouldn't.

Government overreach is bad. Period.

Is imprecise to the point of uselessness. Huff thinks there should be no immigration enforcement at all, so any activity by ICE is considered "government overreach". The staunchest Trump acolyte will defend anything he wants done, so nothing would be "government overreach".
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
Imagine the federal government kowtowing then tucking tail and leaving while the anarchist feel victorious, more virtuous and emboldened. It is not going to happen.
If that's what brings law and order so be it. As long as it's the right things to do. The problem here, in the particular situation nobody is right. Everyone is wrong.

So what do we do then?
 
Last edited:
Consider that he was a politician and an extraordinarily FOS politician. In other words, he lied. Fascism and its subset Nazism aren't real Socialism because it's not the government controlling the means of production but the owners of the means of production controlling the government.
the owners of the means of production did not control the government under either fascism or nazism in WW2. in both they answered to the state. The Nuremberg trials state as much. Multiple businesses/oligarchs were found guilty working for/with the Nazis. I don't know of any who were found guilty of running the Nazi party, or faced the same punishments.

under both Fascists and Nazis the government directly controlled what the means of production did.

There were multiple Nazi party members whose job was to directly set the goals for industry to meet, and control those industries who didn't. Speer, and to a lesser extent Goring. the SS had their own manufacturing arm the WVHA. you had to get down to at least the third tier of the Nazi party to find your first oligarch, and even they were appointed by Hitler.
 
Well, I agree that protestors shouldn't disrupt church services at all, and that is regardless of the church or the message of the protestors. Seems a bit of a stretch to call this some sort of federal crime.

Funny thing is, when you consider what the January 6 crowd did at the Capitol and MAGA claiming it was peaceful, or no big deal, it was FAR, FAR worse than what these folks did and the Trump administration coddles one, and bashes the other.
J6 was one day, a bad day. What happened at the church has been going on since the riots of Ferguson & Summer of Love etc.. Liberals can’t keep chirping J6 if they don’t take accountability for their side burning cities. Not sure the term far, far worse is accepted here anymore until the left gets their own people in check.
 
Re the protestors at the church and Bondi, et al, threatening prosecutions, I'm trying to understand what law the protestors would have broken. Anyone got any sense of what that is about?
I think they may be looking at the activities in comparison to this federal law:


(2)
by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or
 

Advertisement



Back
Top