Pentagon deploying troops to thwart Russia

[freakworld]

Woo go russia

Nsa Edit: No u.

 

[Mario4Ever]

goddammit the united states is not the world's police

fucking obama

Fucking Roosevelt.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

goddammit the united states is not the world's police

fucking obama

Fucking Roosevelt.

*Insert any US president here*

Also, while we're on the topic of stupid US gov't decisions:

I thought this was just a silly NationStates option, to set up a designated area where people could protest, but this is a legit thing the government can use whenever they want to. This is from the Bundy case, and while I'm not defending Bundy in any way (although I am impressed at how he's managed to not be arrested due to the efforts of militias and his family), the entire idea of First Amendment Areas is absolute garbage.

I'm more inclined to agree with these images:

Note: with regards to the second image, I can't really say that the government is overreaching their authority by throwing people off their land. It's still for a stupid reason though.

 

[Daniel Dyce]

You do know that he's lost multiple federal court battles and that another issue is that he's allowing his cattle to graze on public land for which he has been fined multiple times and paid none of them

 

[Dr. Javelin]

I'm not defending Bundy in any way

 

[Specific Neptune]

i'm sure shoey meant no offense to any russian users here

Why would he be offending Russian users?

well he just called Russia a SHITHOLE which I think would offend users who live there

even if it is going through some tough times, there's no need to offend other users who might live there

Russia is a shithole it's a corrupt semi presidency with a rubber stamp legislature where the main opposition is actually funded by Putin in order to make the opposition look stupid and make the country seem more democratic then it really is.

i'm not arguing with you, i have no opinion on russia at the moment, all i'm saying is just watch what you say, because you might offend other users

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

I'm not defending Bundy in any way

Then don't use Bundy's case as a way to reinforce your notion that "1st amendment is garbage".

This argument hardly connects and probably misses the context of the process of nuclear bomb testing.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

I'm not defending Bundy in any way

Then don't use Bundy's case as a way to reinforce your notion that "1st amendment is garbage".

No, Bundy's case is an excellent example precisely because I don't agree with him. That I'm still against a First Amendment Area despite not agreeing with Bundy is evidence that I'm not just biased against First Amendment Areas because I support him.

And where in the world did you get the idea that I believe the 1st Amendment is garbage? I love the 1st Amendment! It's one of the greatest things this country has, and to see it so drastically limited by the idea of "oh you can only protest in this small area" infuriates me. That absolutely goes against the whole idea of free expression if you're limiting where and when people can express themselves.

This argument hardly connects and probably misses the context of the process of nuclear bomb testing.

It's an exaggeration, but it makes the point that kicking people off government land to protect a desert tortoise is silly, especially in light of what the government has in the past used its land for.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

Oops, I misread "First Amendment Areas" as "First Amendment". I don't know how I got that there.

It's an exaggeration, but it makes the point that kicking people off government land to protect a desert tortoise is silly, especially in light of what the government has in the past used its land for.

It's a bad example, even if it is an exaggeration and I think it oversimplifies the argument. It's like thinking environmental regulations on mining is stupid because government has done underground nuclear bomb tests.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Oops, I misread "First Amendment Areas" as "First Amendment". I don't know how I got that there.

oh okay, good

i was wondering if i would have to go deep into detail about why free speech is so important

It's an exaggeration, but it makes the point that kicking people off government land to protect a desert tortoise is silly, especially in light of what the government has in the past used its land for.

It's a bad example, even if it is an exaggeration and I think it oversimplifies the argument. It's like thinking environmental regulations on mining is stupid because government has done underground nuclear bomb tests.

Fair point. Although I can't be the only one who finds the idea of protecting one turtle to be ridiculous.

A lot of environmental regulations on mining are more about sustainability and safety. I don't think protecting one turtle species promotes either.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

It depends on the role the desert tortoise plays in the ecosystem. It can be a food source, it can control certain populations... there is also a ethical side to it as well. The panda, for instance, doesn't occupy a very important niche, but we still want to prevent it from being extinct.

I don't think protecting a tortoise is the whole story anyway.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

It depends on the role the desert tortoise plays in the ecosystem. It can be a food source, it can control certain populations... there is also a ethical side to it as well. The panda, for instance, doesn't occupy a very important niche, but we still want to prevent it from being extinct.[/quote

well yeah that's because pandas are adorable

one species of tortoise isn't really the same thing

I don't think protecting a tortoise is the whole story anyway.

Well, I can give you a brief outline.

For years, Bundy had been paying a fee to allow his cattle to graze on federal land. This was entirely legal. Then the desert tortoise apparently became "threatened", which meant the government had to protect it. So they cut off access to their land. Bundy decided that was stupid and allowed his cattle to continue grazing there, only without paying. Now he faces a ton of fines, so he's insisting that federal land is public land and it should be free to graze there.

I personally feel he's wrong there, and while I don't see any reason for the feds to own this land, they do still own it and as such have every right to kick people off.

However, the agency trying to remove Bundy has been pretty terrible, and I'm particularly miffed that they set up a "First Amendment Area" to try and force people to only protest them there. That's stupid. That's what I have a problem with, not with Bundy getting fined for breaking the law.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

It depends on the role the desert tortoise plays in the ecosystem. It can be a food source, it can control certain populations... there is also a ethical side to it as well. The panda, for instance, doesn't occupy a very important niche, but we still want to prevent it from being extinct.[/quote

well yeah that's because pandas are adorable

one species of tortoise isn't really the same thing

It's still based on ethics, because, um, I like tortoises, and I'm the type of person who'd hate to see them suffer further at human ignorance.

I don't think protecting a tortoise is the whole story anyway.

Well, I can give you a brief outline.

For years, Bundy had been paying a fee to allow his cattle to graze on federal land. This was entirely legal. Then the desert tortoise apparently became "threatened", which meant the government had to protect it. So they cut off access to their land. Bundy decided that was stupid and allowed his cattle to continue grazing there, only without paying. Now he faces a ton of fines, so he's insisting that federal land is public land and it should be free to graze there.

I personally feel he's wrong there, and while I don't see any reason for the feds to own this land, they do still own it and as such have every right to kick people off.

However, the agency trying to remove Bundy has been pretty terrible, and I'm particularly miffed that they set up a "First Amendment Area" to try and force people to only protest them there. That's stupid. That's what I have a problem with, not with Bundy getting fined for breaking the law.

Bundy is a racist whackjob who threatens violence, and he doesn't recognize federal government as even existing. It's not even just the desert tortoise we should be concerned about.

Laws that apply to management of public land grazing include the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (TGA), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978,[36] and the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971[...]

Among other issues, the 1993 rules were changed to protect the vulnerable desert tortoise.[44] Other rules included limits to the number of cattle allowed in certain areas[4] to protect the lands from the severe overgrazing caused by less regulation in previous years and to help the land recover from recent wildfires.

These regulations are here to prevent overgrazing and maintain rangeland conditions, not just to protect the desert tortoise. Bundy has violated these laws and claimed that the land is owned by the state, although it's the federal government. He is misusing this land, letting the cattle trespass, and he has ignored court orders.

"First Amendment Area" also sounds like a snarl word, so I will be looking into its origins and context. Like this one.

With many roads closed to ensure safety during the cattle removal, designated First Amendment areas where protesters could safely congregate or exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble were marked with signs and orange plastic fences adjacent to the road.[61][62]

But anyway, we're verging into off topic territory.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Bundy is a racist whackjob who threatens violence, and he doesn't recognize federal government as even existing. It's not even just the desert tortoise we should be concerned about.

Are you honestly concerned over a few cattle ranchers and militiamen in the middle of nowhere? What panicky news station have you been listening to?

Laws that apply to management of public land grazing include the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (TGA), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978,[36] and the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971[...]

Among other issues, the 1993 rules were changed to protect the vulnerable desert tortoise.[44] Other rules included limits to the number of cattle allowed in certain areas[4] to protect the lands from the severe overgrazing caused by less regulation in previous years and to help the land recover from recent wildfires.

These regulations are here to prevent overgrazing and maintain rangeland conditions, not just to protect the desert tortoise. Bundy has violated these laws and claimed that the land is owned by the state, although it's the federal government. He is misusing this land, letting the cattle trespass, and he has ignored court orders.

Like I said, I'm not really trying to defend Bundy here.

"First Amendment Area" also sounds like a snarl word, so I will be looking into its origins and context. Like this one.

With many roads closed to ensure safety during the cattle removal, designated First Amendment areas where protesters could safely congregate or exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble were marked with signs and orange plastic fences adjacent to the road.[61][62]

Aha, that's the most positive and biased description you could possibly give them. Of course the government is just looking out for its citizens' safety with this!

The fact that the government has to designate an area where I can "safely" exercise my Constitutional right is absurd. Also, a place where I can "safely" congregate or peacefully assemble. That entirely goes against the point of a protest, and it just a way to technically grant the First Amendment without actually giving people the ability to protest things.

Feel free to read up on other instances of First Amendment Areas, including use to cordon off protestors from the Democratic National Convention and the Republican National Convention.

But anyway, we're verging into off topic territory.

Off topic territory?

...er, I mean Mindless Junk. Still.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

Bundy is a racist whackjob who threatens violence, and he doesn't recognize federal government as even existing. It's not even just the desert tortoise we should be concerned about.

Are you honestly concerned over a few cattle ranchers and militiamen in the middle of nowhere? What panicky news station have you been listening to?

Um, if it's publicized like crazy, this can set precedents, maybe giving other whackjobs ideas. Not to mention, it can potentially demonize more responsible cattle owners. And, it does raise issues of state vs. federal government powers. Finally, it can lead to further distrust of federal government (as if it's trusted a lot already, sure</sarc>).

Aha, that's the most positive and biased description you could possibly give them. Of course the government is just looking out for its citizens' safety with this!

The fact that the government has to designate an area where I can "safely" exercise my Constitutional right is absurd. Also, a place where I can "safely" congregate or peacefully assemble. That entirely goes against the point of a protest, and it just a way to technically grant the First Amendment without actually giving people the ability to protest things.

Feel free to read up on other instances of First Amendment Areas, including use to cordon off protestors from the Democratic National Convention and the Republican National Convention.

Um, this doesn't sound like white-washing the government. First Amendment expression does have its limits, and according to U.S. court decisions, "government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression." It really depends on how the free speech zones are used. You should use free speech zones for protests near abortion clinics. You should not use free speech zones for censorship. I don't necessarily agree with the policing activities on the free speech zones on National Conventions, but there's a time where peaceful protests overstep their boundaries as well.

And, besides, "peaceful protests have crossed into illegal activity, including blocking vehicles associated with the (roundup), impeding cattle movement, and making direct and overt threats to government employees"

...er, I mean Mindless Junk. Still.

Umm.... okay.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Um, if it's publicized like crazy, this can set precedents, maybe giving other whackjobs ideas. Not to mention, it can potentially demonize more responsible cattle owners. And, it does raise issues of state vs. federal government powers. Finally, it can lead to further distrust of federal government (as if it's trusted a lot already, sure</sarc>).

How's life on that slippery slope?

Um, this doesn't sound like white-washing the government. First Amendment expression does have its limits, and according to U.S. court decisions

oh god, not the courts

"government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression."

I would argue that regulating the time, place, and manner of expression allows the government to nullify any gains the expression might have achieved. That's censorship.

It really depends on how the free speech zones are used. You should use free speech zones for protests near abortion clinics. You should not use free speech zones for censorship. I don't necessarily agree with the policing activities on the free speech zones on National Conventions, but there's a time where peaceful protests overstep their boundaries as well.

If it's a peaceful protest, I don't see how it can overstep its boundaries.

Unless you're going by that complete garbage the courts say are limits on the First Amendment.

And, besides, "peaceful protests have crossed into illegal activity, including blocking vehicles associated with the (roundup), impeding cattle movement, and making direct and overt threats to government employees"

That doesn't validate confining protestors away. If the protestors are doing anything illegal, arrest them for that illegal thing.

Punishing them before they've committed a crime is stupid.

...er, I mean Mindless Junk. Still.

Umm.... okay.

By mindless junk I mean that the off-topic rule doesn't apply, so you don't have to worry about this going off-topic! oh wait nvm this is off-topic discussion, my bad

well, this is still tangentially connected to the flow of conversation

I'm really not sure if we're going to see eye-to-eye on this, me being a civil libertarian whose primary goal is the upkeep of the peoples' rights and you being a hardliner lefty whose primary goal is stability.

 

[Daniel Dyce]

Pst you guys are in the wrong topic

 

[Dr. Javelin]

no, actually i started this discussion here as a tangential branch off of people being unhappy with the federal government

 

[Daniel Dyce]

Javelin just conform

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Never! I'd rather die than give up my Constitutional freedoms!

YOU'LL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE

 

[Daniel Dyce]

Technically we have taken away your constitutional freedoms for example it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded movie theater well where in the Constitution does it say that the government can make that illegal
the courts allow cops to get away with accidentally using the wrong warrant which is a blatant disregard for the Constitution
AND WORST OF ALL I CAN'T OWN A GOD DAMN BAZOOKA

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Technically we have taken away your constitutional freedoms for example it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded movie theater well where in the Constitution does it say that the government can make that illegal

That's only a reasonable limit on freedoms.

First Amendment Areas are absolutely unreasonable and are censorship.

the courts allow cops to get away with accidentally using the wrong warrant which is a blatant disregard for the Constitution

i hate the courts, they make such awful decisions

and they do it all the time too

AND WORST OF ALL I CAN'T OWN A GOD DAMN BAZOOKA

srs response: well you could always join the military
fun response: YES YOU CAN I HAVE LIKE TWELVE IN MY BACKYARD

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS JOIN A MILITIA AND THEY'LL HOOK YOU UP

 

[Mario4Ever]

Unless you're going by that complete garbage the courts say are limits on the First Amendment.

I'm having trouble understanding why, as someone who doesn't seem to like censorship, you employed self-censorship here by modifying your post.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

it's complicated

 

[Mario4Ever]

I see.