'In my opinion Mr. Finicum was murdered,' says Nevada Assemblyman John Moore

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Xcathdra

1. Dismiss 2. Distort
3. Distract 4. Dismay

Yup it applies to Russian propaganda. You apparently left that part out...

Here -

Evolution of Russian propaganda - www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is the part you intentionally left out.

I think it applies to propaganda in general. I also found it interesting and noteworthy that it is your signature line, and therefore worth mentioning. The fact that you came across these tactics in studying Russian propaganda is not the point. The fact that these tactics are listed in your signature is.

Second question - what does it have to do with this thread?

You are posting in this thread. I thought it prudent to highlight part of your signature. It is your signature, after all. As such I think it's natural to assume that it represents something you believe in or stand for, at least in part.

My argument on the inalienable rights excuse put forward by others is in fact correct. When you remove laws and allow an individual to make their own interpretation you open up Pandora's box and the founding fathers never had that in mind. They put together a document that restricts the government while spelling out the things they cannot take away from the people.

They also included the ability to make laws, sign them into law and have a judicial system hear arguments when its in dispute. Since some are so fond of invoking the federalist papers, had they actually read them all instead of ignoring the parts they dont like, they would have noticed the intent for the supreme court to interpret issues of constitutionality and how it applies.

Inalienable rights dont trump the law. What part confuses you? Maybe make a valid argument instead of resorting to quoting stuff in my signature line that applies to Russia. You are capable pf making a valid argument right? Supporting your argument with facts and what not.

Go ahead.. give it a shot.

The bill of rights is void, then, huh? Life, liberty, property, those rights don't matter either, right? Congress passed a law once, so bye bye inalienable rights? SCOTUS made a bad call, so bye bye inalienable rights? Good luck with that one. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, whether you like it or not. I think I speak for a majority of Americans when I say that you'll have to disappear us all off to camps before you make that one stick...

Us Constitution:
Article 6, para. 2:
The Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby; anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

(I bolded that part myself because I thought you might have missed that the last time you read through this document.)

para. 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

See also Amendment 9 to the US Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Copied from Living American Documents, published by California State Department of Education, Sacramento, 1967
The Annals of America, c.1968 by Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. matches this text, with the exception that two commas are ommitted in this version.

It then reads:

Us Constitution:
Article 6, para. 2:
This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

para. 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Amendment IX matches exactly, with the exception that it's numeral is written in the Roman style.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

* - It is based on the Russian way of propaganda.
* - It has nothing to do with this thread or my post.
* - The Constitution, and bill of rights (among all other amendments) is taken as a whole and not piecemeal based on what someone agrees with and what they ignore because they don't like / agree with it.

I never claimed the bill of rights is void. As I mentioned earlier about totality the bill of rights is not the entire constitution and is very much valid based in the context of the entire constitution. Yes the constitution is the supreme law of the land - when their is conflict between federal and state law. Absent that their is the that little clause that states whats not specified to the federal government is reserved to the states (never mind the fact not all amendments have been applied to the states but why worry about facts right?)...

The constitution does not allow for an individual to ignore the law based on their personal views. The Supreme court gets to decide constitutional issues and last I checked the Constitution says they are the final word absent a constitutional amendment making a change or them telling congress what parts should be rewritten to comply with the constitution.

There is a process in place for redress of grievances. Maybe people should try using the process the constitution put in place, since they like to quote from it, instead of ignoring the parts they dont like while yelling about natural / inalienable rights and the other bs excuses they use.

Tell me have these militias attempted to use the court system or did they give up at the first sign of defeat and decide to pick and choose the parts of our founding documents they liked while ignoring the parts they didn't?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

* - It is based on the Russian way of propaganda.
* - It has nothing to do with this thread or my post.

Okay, okay, just bustin your chops. I just couldn't resist the urge to tweak your nose a little over it. It is in your signature, after all.

* - The Constitution, and bill of rights (among all other amendments) is taken as a whole and not piecemeal based on what someone agrees with and what they ignore because they don't like / agree with it.

Agreed.

I never claimed the bill of rights is void. As I mentioned earlier about totality the bill of rights is not the entire constitution and is very much valid based in the context of the entire constitution. Yes the constitution is the supreme law of the land - when their is conflict between federal and state law. Absent that their is the that little clause that states whats not specified to the federal government is reserved to the states (never mind the fact not all amendments have been applied to the states but why worry about facts right?)...

States' rights do not trump one's right to be secure in their person and effects, nor do they trump a person's right to life, liberty, and property, some of the most basic rights enumerated in and protected by the US Constitution. That was essentially your claim as I saw it which is why I replied as I did. All of our federal and state officials are bound by their oaths to uphold and defend these rights, according to the US Constitution. Judges too.

The constitution does not allow for an individual to ignore the law based on their personal views. The Supreme court gets to decide constitutional issues and last I checked the Constitution says they are the final word absent a constitutional amendment making a change or them telling congress what parts should be rewritten to comply with the constitution.

There is a process in place for redress of grievances. Maybe people should try using the process the constitution put in place, since they like to quote from it, instead of ignoring the parts they dont like while yelling about natural / inalienable rights and the other bs excuses they use.

Tell me have these militias attempted to use the court system or did they give up at the first sign of defeat and decide to pick and choose the parts of our founding documents they liked while ignoring the parts they didn't?

Not even making that argument with that post. I was refuting your notion that 'states rights'?, I guess?, trumps people's rights.

There's no right way to answer that last paragraph/question, at least as it is. I'm just not even going to touch that for now.

Apologies for the long response. I wanted to make my argument in clear terms.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
States' rights do not trump one's right to be secure in their person and effects,

The 4th amendment does not apply to the individual.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
nor do they trump a person's right to life, liberty, and property, some of the most basic rights enumerated in and protected by the US Constitution. That was essentially your claim as I saw it which is why I replied as I did. All of our federal and state officials are bound by their oaths to uphold and defend these rights, according to the US Constitution. Judges too.

and the constitution gives the government at all levels the ability to pass and enforce laws against those violating those laws. Again a person cannot use the life liberty happiness argument as a way to ignore the law. The meaning of those words are not absolute. They can be open to interpretation by the government via legislation or the courts. They have to be otherwise we would have people deciding they want their neighbors land / they kill their neighbor because, in their personal opinion, those actions would make him happy, improve his life while expanding his liberties.

As for oaths I agree. However the Constitution is a framework not only for our government but for citizens as well. It requires the citizens to be actively involved in government as an ultimate checks and balance.

Dont like your rep? - vote
Don't like a law? - hold your rep accountable by voting.
Affected by the law? - use the system the constitution put in place for redress of grievances.

Still not happy? Its the price we pay for living in a constitutional republic. Often times someone else gets elected.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
Not even making that argument with that post. I was refuting your notion that 'states rights'?, I guess?, trumps people's rights.

There's no right way to answer that last paragraph/question, at least as it is. I'm just not even going to touch that for now.

The states do in fact have rights just like the individual and we know this because of the Senate, which are the states representation to the federal government. In addition the argument gets more complex when you factor in the term separate sovereigns (Federal / State governments).

Depending on what "right" we are talking about yes, in some cases states rights will trump individual rights. This is why we come back to constitutional interpretations and establishing a working framework that allows a uniform standard that applies to all while allowing flexibility to deal with the unknown future. Absent accepting that framework we again come back to the individual making their own interpretations and with over 300 million citizens we would end up with 600 million view points that overlap, agree, disagree with no possible way to resolve the issue.

What about:
How about:
* - Should the laws that govern the military draft include women?
* - Should the laws that govern Indian affairs be revoked?
* - If roe vs. wade gets overturned or redefined does it interfere with an individual woman's right to life liberty pursuit of happiness?
* - Making a kid requires 2 to tango so is the father being denied his rights to life liberty happiness?

As an example take gay marriage -
You have some states allowing full marriage, some civil unions and some not at all. People then make the argument that if they are married in a state allowing gay marriage and move to one that doesn't their marriage is still lawful.

The several problems that arise -
* - The full faith and credit clause says legal proceedings from one state must be accepted by the other states.
* - However Congress gets to decide whats covered by full faith and credit.

A lot of people in this country oppose gay marriage based on:
* - Their personal opinion.
* - Their religious views.
* - Their views on the law of nature.
* - Homophobia.

Thereby denying life liberty an the pursuit of happiness. Without the supreme court that topic would result in chaos based on election cycles and who wins those elections.

Did gay people take up arms and occupy government buildings, issuing threats and ultimatums to the government at gun point?

Nope - they used the constitution. Just like the civil rights movement. The argument for a long time is allowing black people into the military would cause morale / unit effectiveness problems. Colin Powell might see that differently. The same argument came about with being gay and in the military (never mind the morale / good order and discipline issues like the tail-hook scandal). The same argument came about with women in the military.

There is no way possible to create a document that defines everything. It must establish a baseline open to change in order to be effective / relevant 100, 200, 900 years down the line. It must be able to account for the unknown.

The constitution was designed purposely not to take into account the here and now but to speak to those who come long after the founding fathers died and without the ability / flexibility the Constitution becomes nothing more than a suicide pact.


In finicums case he acted after being told not to, all of which is unlawful. By failing to comply he presented himself as a threat. Had he read and understood the whole constitution he might be alive. By substituting his own views while ignoring the parts he didn't like essentially turned the constitution (his version of it) into a suicide pact.

What a load of bovine excrement.

Finicum was murdered.

a reply to: Discotech

Somewhere in all the threads on this topic it was stated by Shawna Cox that her and Ryan Bundy were filming on their phones, also as far as i read she was going to videotape the singing group, i think she stated she started filming as soon as they left for the trip.

Now, all their devices were confiscated by authorities so not sure what has happened to those items and if all sides will be party to the contents on them.

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
What a load of bovine excrement.

Finicum was murdered.

Nope he was not murdered.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: yuppa

Only a moron stands still while pulling a gun when someone is drawn on you.

Or one who would rather be dead than imprisoned.

Can you say 100 percent this wasnt a set up?

No. But from what I've seen and heard, it was a planned apprehension of a group of people who were known to go armed.

Which is a MORON if they want to die instead of going to jail.

And Xcarthia..how do we actually know he ignored commands? theres no audio to that drone footage. All we have are th e officers word. not th e first time a cop has lied.

a reply to: yuppa

Which is a MORON if they want to die instead of going to jail.

So we're clear, that's your word, not mine.
www.nbcnews.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: yuppa

Which is a MORON if they want to die instead of going to jail.

So we're clear, that's your word, not mine.
www.nbcnews.com...

Plenty of room between SAYING something and doing something though. I say im gonna kill people alot but I havent yet have I? This is another snow job to cover up a assasination of someone the establishment didnt like.

a reply to: yuppa

Heh.
So, he was bluffing. Just hot air. He lost the bluff I guess.

I say im gonna kill people alot but I havent yet have I?

Really? I don't.
Maybe you should seek therapy for your anger issues before you do something you may regret.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
What a load of bovine excrement.

Finicum was murdered.

Nope he was not murdered.

Bovine excrement.

The FBI is notorious for their cover ups. This man was ambushed and murdered by armed tax collecting thugs.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: yuppa

Heh.
So, he was bluffing. Just hot air. He lost the bluff I guess.

I say im gonna kill people alot but I havent yet have I?

Really? I don't.
Maybe you should seek therapy for your anger issues before you do something you may regret.

I dont say it ou t of anger.(most of th e time) i say it playing around. you never said im gonna kill you playing around before? Also If i was going to kill you i woudnt tell you. thats really stupid.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: PublicOpinion

What the sheriff, and a lot of other people, are missing is situations like this require ALL sides to comply. In case people didnt notice finicum was alive until he decided to ignore commands and start putting his hands in pockets.

Decisions and actions are the responsibility of all parties and not just law enforcement.

Could you provide us some evidence that LaVoy was commanded to do anything? Evidence other than the word of the gang that shot him.
Could you also provide some evidence of the reason for the traffic stop?

a reply to: diggindirt

Well when he didn't stop for law enforcement is a good place to start. Then he opted not to stop at the road block.

Reason -
He had a felony warrant for his arrest.
He and the people in the truck had violated federal law when they commandeered the federal buildings.

A traffic stop only requires reasonable suspicion. Secondly there is whats called an investigative stop, where an individual is stopped based on non traffic violations. If I know a person has an active warrant for their arrest and during my daily routine I see this person in a car (driving or as a passenger) I can take action by stopping the vehicle.

I can keep going if you want...

In order for people to understand some of this they need to stop substituting the law with their personal opinions.

a reply to: Xcathdra
Can you show us some actual evidence that there was a felony warrant for his arrest at the time of the shooting?
I am not aware that one existed so please show us a link.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: TheBadCabbie
....
Yes the constitution is the supreme law of the land - when their is conflict between federal and state law. Absent that their is the that little clause that states whats not specified to the federal government is reserved to the states (never mind the fact not all amendments have been applied to the states but why worry about facts right?)...

The constitution does not allow for an individual to ignore the law based on their personal views. The Supreme court gets to decide constitutional issues and last I checked the Constitution says they are the final word absent a constitutional amendment making a change or them telling congress what parts should be rewritten to comply with the constitution.

There is a process in place for redress of grievances. Maybe people should try using the process the constitution put in place, since they like to quote from it, instead of ignoring the parts they dont like while yelling about natural / inalienable rights and the other bs excuses they use.

Tell me have these militias attempted to use the court system or did they give up at the first sign of defeat and decide to pick and choose the parts of our founding documents they liked while ignoring the parts they didn't?

Yes the constitution is the supreme law of the land - when their is conflict between federal and state law. Absent that their is the that little clause that states whats not specified to the federal government is reserved to the states (never mind the fact not all amendments have been applied to the states but why worry about facts right?)...

You neglected to fully state the Tenth. Here, let me show your error.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

See, you forgot they granted powers to the people. That's what your Cult of Authority forgets, neglects to mention and ignores. That is the issue.

There is a process in place for redress of grievances. Maybe people should try using the process the constitution put in place, since they like to quote from it, instead of ignoring the parts they dont like while yelling about natural / inalienable rights and the other bs excuses they use. Tell me have these militias attempted to use the court system or did they give up at the first sign of defeat and decide to pick and choose the parts of our founding documents they liked while ignoring the parts they didn't?

Take a look at this video which sums up the entire case. Then tell me what more they should have done. How did they not exhaust all other means of redress of grievance?
www.youtube.com...

Really, if you're going to pretend you know the case, you should also know what came before the occupation. Deny Ignorance. They had been working on this case for months and months....

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Apologies for the long response. I wanted to make my argument in clear terms.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
States' rights do not trump one's right to be secure in their person and effects,

The 4th amendment does not apply to the individual.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
nor do they trump a person's right to life, liberty, and property, some of the most basic rights enumerated in and protected by the US Constitution. That was essentially your claim as I saw it which is why I replied as I did. All of our federal and state officials are bound by their oaths to uphold and defend these rights, according to the US Constitution. Judges too.

and the constitution gives the government at all levels the ability to pass and enforce laws against those violating those laws. Again a person cannot use the life liberty happiness argument as a way to ignore the law. The meaning of those words are not absolute. They can be open to interpretation by the government via legislation or the courts. They have to be otherwise we would have people deciding they want their neighbors land / they kill their neighbor because, in their personal opinion, those actions would make him happy, improve his life while expanding his liberties.

As for oaths I agree. However the Constitution is a framework not only for our government but for citizens as well. It requires the citizens to be actively involved in government as an ultimate checks and balance.

Dont like your rep? - vote
Don't like a law? - hold your rep accountable by voting.
Affected by the law? - use the system the constitution put in place for redress of grievances.

Still not happy? Its the price we pay for living in a constitutional republic. Often times someone else gets elected.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
Not even making that argument with that post. I was refuting your notion that 'states rights'?, I guess?, trumps people's rights.

There's no right way to answer that last paragraph/question, at least as it is. I'm just not even going to touch that for now.

The states do in fact have rights just like the individual and we know this because of the Senate, which are the states representation to the federal government. In addition the argument gets more complex when you factor in the term separate sovereigns (Federal / State governments).

Depending on what "right" we are talking about yes, in some cases states rights will trump individual rights. This is why we come back to constitutional interpretations and establishing a working framework that allows a uniform standard that applies to all while allowing flexibility to deal with the unknown future. Absent accepting that framework we again come back to the individual making their own interpretations and with over 300 million citizens we would end up with 600 million view points that overlap, agree, disagree with no possible way to resolve the issue.

What about:
How about:
* - Should the laws that govern the military draft include women?
* - Should the laws that govern Indian affairs be revoked?
* - If roe vs. wade gets overturned or redefined does it interfere with an individual woman's right to life liberty pursuit of happiness?
* - Making a kid requires 2 to tango so is the father being denied his rights to life liberty happiness?

As an example take gay marriage -
You have some states allowing full marriage, some civil unions and some not at all. People then make the argument that if they are married in a state allowing gay marriage and move to one that doesn't their marriage is still lawful.

The several problems that arise -
* - The full faith and credit clause says legal proceedings from one state must be accepted by the other states.
* - However Congress gets to decide whats covered by full faith and credit.

A lot of people in this country oppose gay marriage based on:
* - Their personal opinion.
* - Their religious views.
* - Their views on the law of nature.
* - Homophobia.

Thereby denying life liberty an the pursuit of happiness. Without the supreme court that topic would result in chaos based on election cycles and who wins those elections.

Did gay people take up arms and occupy government buildings, issuing threats and ultimatums to the government at gun point?

Nope - they used the constitution. Just like the civil rights movement. The argument for a long time is allowing black people into the military would cause morale / unit effectiveness problems. Colin Powell might see that differently. The same argument came about with being gay and in the military (never mind the morale / good order and discipline issues like the tail-hook scandal). The same argument came about with women in the military.

There is no way possible to create a document that defines everything. It must establish a baseline open to change in order to be effective / relevant 100, 200, 900 years down the line. It must be able to account for the unknown.

The constitution was designed purposely not to take into account the here and now but to speak to those who come long after the founding fathers died and without the ability / flexibility the Constitution becomes nothing more than a suicide pact.


In finicums case he acted after being told not to, all of which is unlawful. By failing to comply he presented himself as a threat. Had he read and understood the whole constitution he might be alive. By substituting his own views while ignoring the parts he didn't like essentially turned the constitution (his version of it) into a suicide pact.

That is, quite honestly, the biggest pile of propaganda I've read in quite some time. It's quite the argument for the police state so I'm sure you're just quoting your superiors in the Authority Cult.

I'll just ignore the most of the gobbledegook, word salad in defense of your brothers in the Authority Cult but there are a couple of statements that need to be addressed.

The 4th amendment does not apply to the individual.

That's the one of the crazier things I've ever heard asserted. To whom does it apply? What does "the people" mean in this case?

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In finicums case he acted after being told not to, all of which is unlawful.

Again, please provide us with some evidence of what, exactly, he was told to do. Evidence that we can evaluate, not some member of the Cult of Authority's words. We need to hear what he was told to do. I don't believe that evidence has been supplied so you are guessing about why he was shot since you can't know what was said to him.
Shawna Cox has said that she was using her phone to record but that recording hasn't been released. She also stated that she believed at least one other person inside the truck was recording but that recording hasn't been released either. Wouldn't it be such a shame if all those rounds fired into the truck after the exited the truck ruined those recordings? Such a shame.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Well when he didn't stop for law enforcement is a good place to start.

How do you think R. Payne was arrested? Not during the first stop?

Then he opted not to stop at the road block.

He crashed his truck on the snowbank, avoiding injuries or damage at the road block. I don't know what you think he did, but I guess you didn't see the breaklights as well.
Eh... he opted to fly away then?

1. Dismiss
2. Distort
3. Distract
4. Dismay
...
5. Disney

Yeah, ok. I get it. You're working on a weird fantasy cartoon for a police state kid's book? Need some help?

Let's just focus on the topic and leave out the insults.

Thanks.