BATFE still out of control

[The Rabbi]

That's just absolute hogwash.

Your comparisons would be odious if they were not so laughable.

[Marswolf]

And my dog can beat up your dog.

[molonlabetn]

The disposition for a biased authority to oppress a minority whom they disagree with, and pass laws against in order to legitimize the oppression, is just as evident now as it was then... only the names, motive and specific manner of oppression have changed. I'm sorry if comparing the mechanism for one tyranny to another offends you, but in reality there is no threshold for the number of lives which must be affected before injustice has occurred, or before one should seek to end it. The motives in both cases are the same, manipulation and control of the society, to conform it into what the government deems to be appropriate. On one hand is religion, and on the other hand is the configuration of a weapon. It's easy to feel more strongly about one vs. the other, especially when one has already come to its conclusion with great loss of life... but if allowed to continue along the path of increased restriction on property, the end of the current oppression will be equally tragic.

Edited April 1, 2008 by molonlabetn

[Smith]

That's the same logic Cyndi Sheehan uses when she calls Bush a fascist dictator. They are not the same. They may originate from similar ideologies, but the application is vastly different.

Just because a pine tree and an oak tree originate from similar seeds and are trees doesn't make them the same. If I get a pine tree disease I'm not going to cut down all the oaks too.

[Marswolf]

Your comparisons would be odious if they were not so laughable.

I must have that laminated for my put-down idiotic comment card.

[Marswolf]

Just because a pine tree and an oak tree originate from similar seeds and are trees doesn't make them the same.

DAMN! I've been wondering why I don't get pine trees when I plant an acorn.

[molonlabetn]

Yes, the application is of course different... but that does not change the fact that both of these are examples of state-sanctioned oppression, which was the original point that has since become a philosophy debate because that simple fact seemed unacceptable.

Again, both were committed as enforcement of law. That is a fact. The subjective part of the equation is that some people hold one or the other to be more or less wrong (or not wrong at all)... that part is just opinion which in no way minimizes the tragedy and loss of life in both events.

[The Rabbi]

No, there is no state sanction oppression going on with ATF. There is no oppression at all. This is a democratic society. If enough people feel strongly enough then they can elect legislators to change laws, they can amend the constitution, they can petition and put measures on the ballot. That by definition cannot happen in an oppressive society, like Nazi Germany.

[Guest SUNTZU]

I just started reading this thread. This is for everyone reading the dialogue between molonlabe and the rabbi.

<object height="355" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPBZ2LKd1D4&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></object>

[molonlabetn]

No, there is no state sanction oppression going on with ATF. There is no oppression at all. This is a democratic society. If enough people feel strongly enough then they can elect legislators to change laws, they can amend the constitution, they can petition and put measures on the ballot. That by definition cannot happen in an oppressive society, like Nazi Germany.

Germany was also a democratic society, and enough people supported the Nuremberg Laws to make them law... Hitler didn't just pull the Holocaust out of his arse. Even if an actual majority didn't want it to happen, as it so often occurs in this country, the vocal minority influenced their will upon everyone else by twisting reality and backroom deals. Either way, the required due process was followed to initiate it.

Fact of the matter is, what was done, was done as if it was for the good of the country, as prescribed by law... in both cases. And in both cases the bounds of the law were overstepped (the argument is not about 'by how much').

Hem and haw all you wish, but those are the facts... yet again, in response to the original assertion that these two events had nothing in common.

[The Rabbi]

No that will not wash either.

Germany was not a Democratic society by the time of the Nuremburg Laws. Most political parties were outlawed and many segments lost the right to vote. Political enemies were dead or in exile. Hitler was well established as a dictator already and no one was going to do anything that he didnt want.

You have consistently voiced opinions based on misinformation and misunderstanding. Every single post is an exercise in poor logic, poor grasp of facts, and inappropriate reasoning from what is given. If you cannot see that then I cannot change your mind. There are no grounds to argue. You might as well post every single time "Bush lied, people died" and have it mean as much.

[Guest Phantom6]

Well, dang! I can't believe I watched that whole Clint Eastwood/"For a few Dollars More" thing anxiously awaiting the gunfight scene just to be so disappointed when the credits rolled as that famous tune came to a close with no bang, bang.

I really like the bang, bang.

Edit- It has been my personal experience in my off and on again dealings with the ATF over the last 26 years that they are a bunch of folks doing a job that I surely wouldn't want. At least now they are no longer part of the Infernal Revenue Service since they were re-assigned to DHS after 9-11. Now they are more the BFE (Bureu of Firearms and Explosives not Big F*%#!^g Enforcers).

Every organization, the government, the military, public safety and business has it's share of seemingly steroidal power mongers that mis-lead dissasterously. It's been my experience that for the most part these BATFE folks put their pants on in the morning the same way I do, kiss their wives and children goodbye and go to work doing their job to enforce the laws that our elected officials either enacted or allowed by code to happen, many of which are contradictory to each other. At the end of the day they go home, walk the dog, kiss the children and then play with the wife. My point is don't blame the inspectors. Blame the law and change the law or deal with it if you run afoul of it.

Edited April 1, 2008 by Phantom6

[molonlabetn]

No that will not wash either.

Germany was not a Democratic society by the time of the Nuremburg Laws. Most political parties were outlawed and many segments lost the right to vote. Political enemies were dead or in exile. Hitler was well established as a dictator already and no one was going to do anything that he didnt want.

You have consistently voiced opinions based on misinformation and misunderstanding. Every single post is an exercise in poor logic, poor grasp of facts, and inappropriate reasoning from what is given. If you cannot see that then I cannot change your mind. There are no grounds to argue. You might as well post every single time "Bush lied, people died" and have it mean as much.

The simple fact that the agents of the FBI/BATFE and the German state were both following lawful orders at the behest of authority originally given by the people is not in any way likening the motives or attitude of the US government with those of the Nazis. That is a false assumption and has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. Arguing that simply lumps the entire emotional issue of the Holocaust into a comparison which is way out of proportion, when the original point was only that the Ruby Ridge and Waco were both injustices perpetrated by agents who had no respect for innocent life, in the context of upholding the law. That is certainly a tragedy. This isn't about whether or not which of those laws or governments is more evil or killed more people, because that's pretty obvious. As with any execution of tyranny, the people performing those acts believed that they are doing the right thing at the time... That is a common theme which should be equally opposed, since any government is only what the people allow themselves to be under.

It should be noted that I have not at any time pointed accusations, insults or extreme comparisons of other posters because I disagree with the notion that the murder of the Weavers or Davidians was somehow less wrong than the murder of the Jews, or any other state sanctioned assault on their people. I'd appreciate it if we could have discussions without ridiculing other posters just because they disagree, that is a sign that one has lost objectivity.

Edited April 1, 2008 by molonlabetn

[Guest strelcevina]

all i have to add to this thread,

is a Joseph Stalin Quote:

The death of one man is a tragedy,

the death of millions is a statistic.

please don't compare holocaust to some isolated incidents.

it just don't make any sense,

[molonlabetn]

Just ask yourself if the agents in any of these events were doing their job, or acting of their own volition. There is the similarity.

[The Rabbi]

Just ask yourself if the agents in any of these events were doing their job, or acting of their own volition. There is the similarity.

You seem to be positing a distinction without a difference. Or maybe no difference at all. Or maybe no meaningful comparison, along the lines of "SS Agents and ATF Agents both wear shirts."

[molonlabetn]

So, there's no ideological difference between a government authorized agent coming to a house and forcibly removing/killing people, and an independently motivated criminal coming to a house and forcibly removing/killing people?

In one instance the purpose is sanctioned by the state, in the other it is a crime.

I am saying that it is significant (as related to this thread) that the agents of this government have too much leeway with regard to the force they can use to impose the laws of the state, and that is the only similarity I am suggesting to the SS.

[The Rabbi]

So, there's no ideological difference between a government authorized agent coming to a house and forcibly removing/killing people, and an independently motivated criminal coming to a house and forcibly removing/killing people?

In one instance the purpose is sanctioned by the state, in the other it is a crime.

I am saying that it is significant (as related to this thread) that the agents of this government have too much leeway with regard to the force they can use to impose the laws of the state, and that is the only similarity I am suggesting to the SS.

Again, you're lack of precision and proper use of language makes it difficult.

A criminal generally is not acting out of "ideology"--he is acting for personal gain. A government agent acts in pursuance to his job. So I don't know why you drag ideology in here.

I do not know whether gov't agents have too much leeway to enforce the state's laws. From what I can gather, they are subject to tremendous oversight, up to and including ending their career, fines, and jail sentences. Frequently major operations must be cleared at the highest levels (as Waco was).

So now you've combined an unproven assertion with a factual mistake and added an inappropriate comparison.

What's next?

[Fallguy]

What's next?

I vote for closing this thread......

[Smith]

The problem with ideology and this discussion is you can't make baselines for an argument without accepting a common base. One view is coming from an absolute of right and wrong. The other is coming from a question of how do we enforce right and wrong properly in a socety. The Holocaust was an example of right and wrong. Weaver was the other.

The Jews were exterminated because they were "right". The Nazi's were "wrong". The Jews did nothing to morally, legally, or otherwise instigate their situation. It was completely and whole heartedly perpetrated on them by the Nazi's.

The problem with Weaver was that the "crimes" committed against him were instigated by him. Had he never broken the law and then failed to use our publicly accepted procedure for defending and rectifying himself, the said scenario would have never happened. Now did the Feds cross the line, absolutley. However the two comparisons are two separate issues.

One is right and wrong the other is a debate on what is acceptable in our society to govern right and wrong. The Gov't was "right" in it's addressing of the issue but wrong in it's final application. The Nazi's were wrong all the way through. Just another .02

Edited April 1, 2008 by Smith

[Smith]

I vote for closing this thread......

Why? This is rather intriguing discussion. Nothing is out of hand or mean spirited. If you don't want to read it don't.

[Fallguy]

Why? This is rather intriguing discussion. Nothing is out of hand or mean spirited. If you don't want to read it don't.

LOL...true....just server space I guess. ...and the fact I don't see it ever coming to an end. Oh.....and like a train wreck, I can't keep from watching...

[strickj]

Actually,this type of discussion is what makes TGO stand apart from the others.You can not have a debate on THR with out someones feelings getting hurt and the thread being deleted.Here,stuff is said,more stuff is said,and in the end we still like each other and actually learn something

[Smith]

Actually,this type of discussion is what makes TGO stand apart from the others.You can not have a debate on THR with out someones feelings getting hurt and the thread being deleted.Here,stuff is said,more stuff is said,and in the end we still like each other and actually learn something

I think that is because a lot of us have met one another.It takes some of the anonymity away, which is a good thing....sometimes ! Some folks are a lot dumber looking in person!:D

[molonlabetn]

Again, you're lack of precision and proper use of language makes it difficult.

A criminal generally is not acting out of "ideology"--he is acting for personal gain. A government agent acts in pursuance to his job. So I don't know why you drag ideology in here.

I do not know whether gov't agents have too much leeway to enforce the state's laws. From what I can gather, they are subject to tremendous oversight, up to and including ending their career, fines, and jail sentences. Frequently major operations must be cleared at the highest levels (as Waco was).

So now you've combined an unproven assertion with a factual mistake and added an inappropriate comparison.

What's next?

All that an ideology is, is a collection of ideas... if one can't realize that this country has an abundance of collective criminal mentality grafted into it's social makeup, they are blind. It is part of certain aspects of the culture to be a thug. call it what you will, but by definition that certainly fits an ideology...

Where was the oversight in the Ruby Ridge case, or Waco?

Sure, there was damage control in hindsight, though...

If only there was someone who could provide an argument otherwise, instead of bowing to ad-hominem attacks...