What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Most revolutions today are like most wars. A lot of people die, and they usually don't accomplish much.

Also, anyone who waxes on about the glory of death can feel free to be first in line. It's a whole lot easier to be killed in a war or political action today than it was in the late 1700s.

There was nothing wrong or conspiratorial when conservatives pointed out that polls that showed a D+7 or higher sample were probably incorrect, and that was proven true when the 2012 electorate was less Dem than the 2008 electorate. But it's wildly inaccurate to try to claim that huge numbers of people on the right were convinced the polls were off by 5 points, as Chambers was claiming. I can't recall a single conservative commentator or analyst who remotely backed that claim (or otherwise trumpeted Chambers' site). This was just another example of lefties going off in the weeds, finding something ridiculous, and then pretending it was the mainstream position of the right.

You're right. Silver was wrong, the polls were wrong, everyone on the left was wrong about everything, and you were right about everything. You're always right, all the way up to where you nailed the election.

What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion?

Are you expecting one in the next two years? I'm guessing he's gonna be proven wrong on that.

(I'm talking the US there, of course. I'm guessing that someone who actually knows world history can confirm that this is a comically incorrect statement in general.)

You're right. Silver was wrong, the polls were wrong, everyone on the left was wrong about everything, and you were right about everything. You're always right, all the way up to where you nailed the election.

Nice piece of foot-stomping, but otherwise non-responsive.

...and this one is not fake either:

What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Which demonstrates only that Jefferson was not a top-notch prognosticator.

This thread (and some reading I've done) has convinced me that while guns do indeed have some deterrent effect on government overreach, the people in the US who accumulate guns because of their suspicions regarding said government overreach are also by far the most ignorant of what constitutes liberty, and are the most likely group to abet the rise of a repressive, fascist government by serving as its paramilitary arm. Think something on the order of the KKK's role in severely limiting the rights of black Americans in the southern states following the Civil War and how it acted well into the last century by taking a lead role in threatening and committing what was nothing less state-sanctioned violence.

The idea that the armed, militant right in this country is somehow going to be the force that resists leftist government/corporate tyranny aimed at, say, suspending elections, grossly limiting private property rights, substantively expanding corporate rights, and invading privacy to the point of rendering private life essentially transparent strikes me as beyond utterly preposterous.

Tyranny in the United States, if it comes, is certain to come from the right.

With the exception of the right to keep and bear arms, which has been misunderstood to be entirely divorced from membership in a militia, and therefore divorced from any sense of duty to ones fellows and ones country, I cannot think of a single, broad right that government is infringing upon that is currently meeting resistance primarily from the right.

Man, not that I'm in the habit of defending Joe's statements (which are too often shaded so that he can blatantly imply things while maintaining the ability to say "I never said that" later) but on this thing about the polls and the Unskewed idiot I'd say that Joe's defense is much closer to the truth than the accusations being hurled against him. Joe misjudged the electorate, and I think he deserves criticism for some of the assumptions he made (I believe his hyper-partisanship blinded him somewhat), but he was nowhere close to the lunacy of people like Chambers who were declaring that the polls were massively biased and Romney was going to win huge. I also don't think he ever cited Chambers or said that his "unskewing" was giving correct results.

(I believe his hyper-partisanship blinded him somewhat), but he was nowhere close to the lunacy of people like Chambers who were declaring that the polls were massively biased and Romney was going to win huge.

IIRC, Kehoskie said that Romney would get 315 EC votes. It was either 315 or 303. I don't recall that he predicted a percentage of the PV. As to the rest, Hombre already summarized it pretty well, and you said something similar in the parentheses in the first sentence up above. Whether it is worth talking about at this point is another question, but as I said the last time one segment of the thread made Kehoskie a topic: for the most part, you get what you give at BTF, and Kehoskie is no exception.

Nice piece of foot-stomping, but otherwise non-responsive.

What else is there to talk about? You've knocked down the pin you set up for yourself, and you've firmly established that you believe you were completely right on everything. Way to go. You win.

But it's wildly inaccurate to try to claim that huge numbers of people on the right were convinced the polls were off by 5 points, as Chambers was claiming.

Let's all just remember, I didn't claim it, I've never claimed it, and I didn't claim that anyone else did, either. I realize you're not here to respond to what I said, but to what you want me to have said... so you win there, too. High five! I can't wait to hear President Romney's inaugural speech.

IIRC, Kehoskie said that Romney would get 315 EC votes. It was either 315 or 303.

What's important isn't that he was wrong, but that he was wrong for all the right reasons.

IIRC, Kehoskie said that Romney would get 315 EC votes. It was either 315 or 303. I don't recall that he predicted a percentage of the PV.

That was a day or two before the election, and as I said on the last page, it's possible there was some bravado involved. The accusation, however, was that I "spent page after page parroting that 'unskewed poll' wingnut," whom I actually mentioned zero times. (A lot of the lefties here delighted in discussing that site; it appears Andy confused me with someone else.)

As to the rest, Hombre already summarized it pretty well, and you said something similar in the parentheses in the first sentence up above.

You think I was implying that I believed Romney was winning by 5 points as of early September, but maintained plausible deniability by never mentioning the Unskewed site by name? If so, that's both funny and wrong.

As for the complaint you referenced in #5706 — a comment I otherwise appreciated — about my statements "too often" being "shaded so that I can blatantly imply things while maintaining the ability to say 'I never said that,'" I recall seeing this complaint a while back but not any examples. In my experience, my refusal to backtrack from positions I've staked out is what seems to cause controversy, not a habit of repeatedly doing so.

Whether it is worth talking about at this point is another question, but as I said the last time one segment of the thread made Kehoskie a topic: for the most part, you get what you give at BTF, and Kehoskie is no exception.

This is a point you seem to enjoy making, but I'm not sure of the relevance here. I don't recall spending days insisting that Andy or Hombre or anyone else said or did things they didn't say or do, so the "get what you give" thing seems inapt.

In any event, these politics threads, on their worst day, are mostly child's play. I can't believe people take them so seriously, to the point of grudges forming and whatnot. I come here because I enjoy bare-knuckles political debate; otherwise, if I wanted an echo chamber, I'd go to Red State. (I'm not sure the same is true of all of my liberal amigos here, some of whom probably would be happier at Daily Kos or a similar site.)

You think I was implying that I believed Romney was winning by 5 points as of early September

No. Like I said, in a part you quoted above, you never predicted a percentage. But given Romney's huge pluralities in some red states, if he had pulled 315 EC votes he probably would have had some pretty solid PV numbers.

This is a point you seem to enjoy making, but I'm not sure of the relevance here. I don't recall spending days insisting that Andy or Hombre or anyone else said or did things they didn't say or do, so the "get what you give" thing seems inapt.

Not at all. You seem to think that the crap you get here is entirely based on the inability of BTF liberals to deal with, as you once put it, a "dissenting view", and you implied as much again with your red State/Daily Kos line above, but actually, a lot of the crap you get here is because of crap you give out.

Some autonomy is lost, yes; but something much greater is gained—something we would not have without it. This is all too often ignored, doesn’t even come to mind, or is waved away as if a mere gnat. There’s a certain type of mentality that apparently can’t see the advantage we get from this arrangement because it has a view that wants to view it as just duality—almost in a religious pre-fall and post-fall way.

Is there an anarchist in the thread that you're responding to? This is painfully obvious to me and not at all incompatible with my position. Of course we trade some autonomy for the benefit of a social order.

The operative word being "some," and not "most," and certainly not "all." Considering the government to be off the hook for practically any use of force in "the service of a proper warrant" is miles away from "some." Even if Koresh were vivisecting infants, the government is not morally absolved from an operation of systematic incompetence that resulted in 70-plus deaths.

The government doesn't need to be perfect or nearly perfect. It needs to be competent, especially so when using deadly force, and it needs to clean house properly when that basic standard of competence is violated. It needs to be accountable to its citizens for its actions and their consequences.

And having as your bottom line value that the enforcement apparatus of that institutional structure must always concede to the individual is the Maginot Line of that mentality.

This is not, and has not ever been my position. The bottom line value, as you put it, is that there is a high burden to pass before it should be permissible for the enforcement apparatus (from crafting of law, to enforcement, to punishment) to supersede the individual rights of the citizens. Not an impossibly high burden, but one that isn't easily met.

The police are justified in using extreme deadly force to stop a crazy gunman from killing innocents. They are not justified in using any deadly force to prevent jaywalking. Clearly, there is some proper amount of force (within a certain range) appropriate for a given situation. When there is a bloodbath on the order of the Waco Siege, it demands an outrageously high level of provocation and imminence of danger in order to be justified. When considering merely the amount of force authorized, even without looking at the terrible results, that itself demands such justification.

So, you seem to be an anarchist, yes. But, me, a fascist?

I'm not an anarchist. I'm not even close to an anarchist; I freely admit that there is good, desirable, even necessary aspects of government. You do, however, seem very much like a fascist when you say something like this:

I am the only person here on these threads that I know of that has consistently time after time gone on record as agreeing to abide by process, regardless of outcome.

This is exactly the sort of mentality that DOES send people to death camps. I will abide by process for so long as it's good for me (with short-term and long-term perspectives). If it's not, the process isn't worthy of my respect or obedience. Good government is worth my loyalty, poor government is not.

When process leads to a particularly awful place, it is your moral responsibility as an individual and also as member of the society to reject, resist, and rebel against process. And since the next nation to develop any system of government where process never leads to particularly awful place will be the first one, even the best of systems will have justified resistances.

You see this as a prime character trait of fascists or totalitarians?

Certainly a significant one. The heart of your ideology is, to me, authoritarianism. That the authority is the majority rule rather than a dictator or political party is an insignificant distinction. Gilded chains are still chains.

And I don’t think that a government is automatically discredited if it does what I don’t like. That does seem to be your position.

Not what I do not like. I recognize that I'm one person in a society and sometimes, the price of living in a society is not always getting what you like. I'm talking about what I can tolerate before I attempt to skirt the system, what I can tolerate before I attempt to cheat the system, and what I can tolerate before I attempt to overthrow the government. The government should always be afraid that a reasonably large group of dissenters represent a credible threat, and work to ensure that the laws or the enforcement of law does not generate a high enough level of public dissatisfaction to inspire such resistance.

Not mine, however. I rest mine on fairness and balancing interests, both within the psyche of the individual and between people.

So does pretty much everyone else. It's all about how you balance the various competing interests and what you consider to be fair.

With the exception of the right to keep and bear arms, which has been misunderstood to be entirely divorced from membership in a militia, and therefore divorced from any sense of duty to ones fellows and ones country, I cannot think of a single, broad right that government is infringing upon that is currently meeting resistance primarily from the right.

Economic liberty. Religious liberty.

Morty has a very good point. You can't respond to a service of warrant by starting a shootout that kills four federal agents and then complain that the federal apparatus didn't let you off with a pouty face emoticon.

I do find it odd that this little precursor to the whole affair is basically brushed aside by GF and CB.

Well, there's the fact that it isn't true. We don't know who "started the shootout" in the sense of firing first, but we do know who started the armed aggression. We do know that it was a raid, not a "service of warrant." Here's how you serve a warrant: "Knock, knock. It's the police. We have a warrant to search your property." Here's how you start a shootout: get a bunch of heavily-armed soldier-wanna-bes to surround a property and charge in to kick down the door. Of course, cops are used to doing that with the element of surprise, kicking in doors at night, throwing in flash grenades, and storming apartments to find small quantities of marijuana possessed by sleeping families, and then acting all shocked that the homeowner didn't realize that the home invaders were police. Here, they ran into people who were prepared. Whoops!

religious liberty

Oh PLEASE. Don't tell me you really buy this. Which party took the lead in protesting construction of a ####### Mosque? Which party's state legislatures are busily passing anti-Sharia laws?

Meanwhile, Dems want insurance to cover birth control...which party is worse on religious liberty, Dave? Or does that liberty only apply to religions you like.

David - Having re-read the tale in the interim, it was indeed nothing close to a knock-knock warrant.

David - Having re-read the tale in the interim, it was indeed nothing close to a knock-knock warrant.

Can anyone without a dog in this fight link to a balanced account of the events at Waco? I have only a vague recollection of specifics, on the order of the feds screwed it up, but that Koresh contributed mightily to an incredibly tense conflict during which there were legitimate reasons to fear for the safety of the children and some of the adults in the BD compound.

With the exception of the right to keep and bear arms, which has been misunderstood to be entirely divorced from membership in a militia, and therefore divorced from any sense of duty to ones fellows and ones country, I cannot think of a single, broad right that government is infringing upon that is currently meeting resistance primarily from the right.

Economic liberty. Religious liberty.

You omitted the sarcasm tag.

It's sufficient to note the GOP is interested in only a very, very narrow range of economic liberty; essentially only that of maximizing profit regardless of how many other rights must be suppressed during its accomplishment. The party certainly isn't interested in doing other than suppressing the ability to maximize wages.

Nor is it interested in economic liberty when it comes to ensuring a minimum wage for millions, let alone a living wage for millions. It isn't interested in the economic liberty involved in the right of millions to unionize. It isn't interested in the economic liberty involved in allowing towns and cities to keep large chains from locating within their boundaries. And so on, almost ad infinitum.

You have to have completely drowned yourself in the kool-aid in order to believe that billionaires and the working poor are in fact working out the powerful economic liberty of 'free contracts freely arrived at', and to convince yourself that systemic unemployment, which serves only the interests of business, is not the systematized destruction of economic liberty for millions.

You have to sustain the childish fiction of free markets and free contracts in order to pretend the GOP has any interest in economic liberty (which is not, of course, divorceable from economic justice) for more than a small fraction of our citizenry.

Since you seem at sea on this issue, let me commend you to FDR's Economic Bill of Rights; a useful starting point. It's a view of economic rights (also inseparable from the economic justice I noted, above) more complete than what I gather you are used to considering. The idea seems straightforward enough, that free markets and free contracts are only possible when the parties involved are not coerced through fear or want.

re 5714, as WJ implies, the right tends to conflate it's very narrow view of freedom, for itself, with freedom in its broadest meaning and applications. It's a neat political trick when you can get people to buy it, but a smart fellow like you shouldn't be falling for political philosophy's version of "I Can't Believe It's Butter is Best!!"


.

Citing FDR to a libertarian? Well-played.

summary courtesy of wsj:

With just Monday remaining before the year-end deadline, the two sides appeared to be approaching a middle ground on the central question of individual income-tax rates. President Barack Obama has called for raising taxes on family income above $250,000. In the latest round of Senate talks, Republicans proposed a $550,000 threshold, which Democrats moved to $450,000, according to Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.).

But tensions ran high over differences on other issues. Talks almost foundered when Republicans tried to resurrect a proposal to cut spending by slowing the growth of Social Security's yearly cost-of-living adjustments, an idea opposed by many Democrats. The GOP later withdrew the idea. Also at issue is the 2013 level of the estate tax, which is a levy on larger inheritances. And Republicans are complaining that the Democratic proposals do nothing to address the deficit and may in fact add to it.

While the parties jousted over particular elements of the deal, the disputes pointed to a more fundamental disagreement between the parties: Republicans wanted any tax increase, which they only reluctantly accepted, to go toward reducing the deficit. Democrats wanted any increased tax revenue to offset spending cuts that are scheduled to kick in as part of the fiscal cliff, and to pay for extending unemployment benefits.

In the absence of a bipartisan deal, Mr. Reid is preparing for a Monday vote on a bill to carry out Mr. Obama's backup proposal, which tackles only a few items on the legislative agenda, including extending current tax rates for income up to $250,000 for couples filing jointly. Democrats are confident they could pass the bill through the Senate. A key question is whether the House, which returned Sunday evening, would approve it if it doesn't enjoy broad bipartisan support in the Senate.

Which party's state legislatures are busily passing anti-Sharia laws?

Wait, now the liberals are against separation of church and state? I'm so confused.

Oh PLEASE. Don't tell me you really buy this. Which party took the lead in protesting construction of a ####### Mosque?

Which was ###########, but didn't really affect the overall right to worship on a national level. Though seeing progressives finally see a property right worth defending did bring a tear to my eye. I was going to buy some eyedrops, but I assumed (correctly) that it was an outlier and I wouldn't need to make future arrangements for my optical health.

But it's all pretty irrelevant. Libertarians know Republicans suck, so it's not exactly a biting rejoinder. I really really hate the Republican party, but I really really really hate the Democratic party.

Anyway, the equivalent would be if the Democrats passed laws stating that mosques that provide suhoor meals for their congregations must not only provide it to anybody who happens to enter the mosque and wishes to have it, but also to provide those people with free pork products and free alcohol.

The part that gets me about the Waco discussion is who cares?*

Not that the whole event wasn't a screw up (clearly it was), not that it wasn't a tragedy and horrible that people died (again, clearly it was terrible), but why is that one event someone emblematic of the totality of the US government? Why is how that one event was handled the entire relationship between government and civilian?

I am on record as being against the militarization of the police. I hate most of the various intrusions (Patriot Aact and so on) that have happened. I think the government often overreaches and people need to strongly advocate loudly for more freedom from the government. But the minutia of the Waco disaster and details around how the warrent was served and the degree to which the BD were breaking laws is silly, unless we want to discuss the right way to deal with nutjobs like the BD who live in armed compunds.

* Yes people can care, I am exaggerating for effect because people are getting way too carried away (again, still) regarding the whole thing.

Is there an anarchist in the thread

When it suits me.

that you're responding to?

No.

Economic liberty. Religious liberty.

Oh, Davey. You're the gift that keeps on giving.

Wait, now the liberals are against separation of church and state? I'm so confused.

Wow, now Dan is going with the so confused bit. You are better than that Dan.

Anyway, the equivalent would be if the Democrats passed laws stating that mosques that provide suhoor meals for their congregations must not only provide it to anybody who happens to enter the mosque and wishes to have it, but also to provide those people with free pork products and free alcohol.

This is a terrible analogy. A better analogy would be if you are going to provide free meals to folks you have to follow health code regulations, even if you feel some of those health codes impinge on your religion beliefs.

Wait, now the liberals are against separation of church and state?

Wait, now it's the libertarians who are for pointless laws that address paranoid delusions of a wacko minority?

I'm so confused

Oftentimes, yes, and oftentimes quite deeply. But we press on in the faith that our children are learning.

Not that [Waco] wasn't a screw up (clearly it was), not that it wasn't a tragedy and horrible that people died (again, clearly it was terrible), but why is that one event someone emblematic of the totality of the US government? Why is how that one event was handled the entire relationship between government and civilian?

Because hammers on autopilot need nails.

Also at issue is the 2013 level of the estate tax, which is a levy on larger inheritances. And Republicans are complaining that the Democratic proposals do nothing to address the deficit and may in fact add to it.

The irony of these two sentences was apparently lost on both the WSJ and the Republicans in Congress.

This is not, and has not ever been my position. The bottom line value, as you put it, is that there is a high burden to pass before it should be permissible for the enforcement apparatus (from crafting of law, to enforcement, to punishment) to supersede the individual rights of the citizens. Not an impossibly high burden, but one that isn't easily met.

With Waco in mind, what rights are you talking about and at what point were they superseded? There is not a high burden to be passed when it comes to merely administering a warrant. The person to be served has his remedy in law. Why did the Wacoites not availed themselves of it and the entire legal process? At no point did Koresh and BD's act reasonably in accordance with. If they were somehow extra-legally justified, where and when did that arise?

The irony of these two sentences was apparently lost on both the WSJ and the Republicans in Congress.

Well, as Jon Bernstein learned me, when Republicans talk about the budget, they actually mean exclusively spending. They don't really believe in budgets as an item of math, but rather of theology. So, that explains a lot of the disconnect.

***

Welcome back, David! I, for one, would appreciate a higher quality of argument being expressed.

***

Side note: when did this Waco tangent start? It's spectacularly uninteresting.

Moreover, service in a knock knock manner is not something you do when you anticipate that the place you will serve pursuant to the search warrant has an armed hostile army. You don't have to bend over in the communal shower just because someone asked you to. Was the government justified in taking precautions? In assuming that BD's might be violent?

Defenders of Koresh say he was approachable outside of the compound during the day. Well, he knew of the warrant. Why didn't he just accept the warrant voluntarily, carrying a phalanx reporters along with him for protection if he felt threatened, and then object to the warrant in a court proceeding? This idea that Koresh and the BD's were these poor, helpless victims without any resources doesn't begin to pass the giggle test. Koresh didn’t do any of this because he wanted a confrontation, and everything followed from that recusancy, and everything that followed supports such assumptions and conclusions. Koresh was not ever going to accept service peaceably and it would not have been smart to pretend beforehand that he would.

The police are justified in using extreme deadly force to stop a crazy gunman from killing innocents. They are not justified in using any deadly force to prevent jaywalking.

It’s ridiculous and insulting to compare Koresh and the BD’s to jaywalkers.

When there is a bloodbath on the order of the Waco Siege, it demands an outrageously high level of provocation and imminence of danger in order to be justified. When considering merely the amount of force authorized, even without looking at the terrible results, that itself demands such justification.

Actually, if you’re going to indulge in promiscuous second-guessing, more force from the outset should have been used.

The government pleaded, coaxed, cajoled, wheedle—for 50 days. They wanted Koresh to at lease release the women and children. Once it was clear beyond all doubt that Koresh & Co. were never going to submit, or accede in any way, the government had two choices: walk away or attempt to breach the defenses.

Why didn’t Koresh simply go down and accept service?

Or: when the agents showed up, why didn’t Koresh at that time accept service?

And then, in either instance, simply take it from there asserting there?

What’s the alternative?

This is exactly the sort of mentality that DOES send people to death camps. I will abide by process for so long as it's good for me (with short-term and long-term perspectives). If it's not, the process isn't worthy of my respect or obedience. Good government is worth my loyalty, poor government is not.

At some point you revolt or be content to be a slave. Then we are beyond the rule of law, and political argument becomes irrelevant. The question is at what point? And until that point, you play by the rules (always remembering that you can try to change those rules). Waco was not Dachau. And the government did not act like Nazis--Nazis don't negotiate respectfully with yhou for 50 days. It’s absurd to think otherwise.

But if you think that things have reached the pass where the covenant between governed and government has been violated beyond repair, yeah, rebel. But don’t then expect your adversary in war to play according to your rules.

Wait, now it's the libertarians who are for pointless laws that address paranoid delusions of a wacko minority?

Didn't say I was for it.

A better analogy would be if you are going to provide free meals to folks you have to follow health code regulations, even if you feel some of those health codes impinge on your religion beliefs.


Nonsense. There's no danger to unsuspecting parties here as you can argue when concerning much of the health code. Someone has a reasonable expectation to not expect rat feces in their soup. Nobody has a reasonable expectation to expect birth control to be offered in a proposed health insurance policy that explicitly declines to provide that particular service option. If I want to eat fries with Cajun seasoning, I either have to go to Five Guys, which offers that specific service option, or get other fries and provide my own Cajun seasoning.

The government doesn't need to be perfect or nearly perfect. It needs to be competent, especially so when using deadly force, and it needs to clean house properly when that basic standard of competence is violated. It needs to be accountable to its citizens for its actions and their consequences.

Why was the government incompetent?

In deciding that, do you consider the subsequent legal proceedings?

So does pretty much everyone else. It's all about how you balance the various competing interests and what you consider to be fair.

Good. I agree with that. In fact, I’ve said that many times.

So, how do you balance the interests wrt Waco. What were the responsibilities and duties incumbent upon the parties? Did the Wacoites have any—either to do or not to do?

Sorry, the government did behave responsibly.

Except (as noted by others) in the initial decision to serve the warrant at the compound.

Has there ever been a satisfactory explanation of this decision? It truly baffles me.

Where were they supposed to serve it? It was a search warrant. They would have to go to the compound. what makes you think serving it somewhere else would have made everything hunky-dory when they arrived to search after service?

Nobody has a reasonable expectation to expect birth control to be offered in a proposed health insurance policy

"Nobody has a reasonable expectation of preventative health care to be offered in a proposed health insurance policy?"

I've linked this wiki entry on the Waco Siege before. It's a good place to start. Has links you can frollow.

Side note: when did this Waco tangent start? It's spectacularly uninteresting.

Yeah, it's so much more interesting to continue the interminable baiting of the mentally afflicted month after month like y'all have been doing.

Some observations on the Waco massacre...

1. As DN said in 5713, the ATF did not "serve a warrant". They launched a raid; that was their very first direct contact with the Davidians. There was no knocking, no verbal or written requests for compliance. The ATF STARTED the entire mess with kicked down doors and gunshots.

2. Shortly after the Feds first approached local law enforcement about the Davidians, the local cops informed Koresh, who then offered to let the Feds come and inspect his premises. The feds weren't interested. The local cops pleaded with the feds to try talking to Koresh rather than going in guns blazing; they weren't interested in that either. Reading the accounts now, it's pretty clear that some elements in the ATF viewed the Davidians as an opportunity to "make a name" for themselves with a daring and splashy bust. Oops.

3. It's somewhat surprising to see Morty not doing everything in his power to justify and defend child rape. I suppose it's because Koresh was most likely not technically a rapist; hardly worth fantasizing about one assumes.

What did the court proceedings say about that?

Jefferson is the most overrated of the Founders and could be the most overrated American in history.

Disagree. I think his decision not to take revenge on the Adams administration is among the most under-appreciated set of actions in American history. Made it "safe" to lose.

Much of what you say is true. And explains why Hamilton supported him for president. Hamilton saw him as a hypocrite -- a rich man who claimed to be a man of the people -- but one he could work with because he was willing to compromise.

Jefferson was a good politician as well as a great renaissance man. That means he had to be adept at the art of the possible. Too, Jefferson never viewed the Constitution as holy text. He probably didn't view the Declaration as sacred pronouncement either.

2. Shortly after the Feds first approached local law enforcement about the Davidians, the local cops informed Koresh, who then offered to let the Feds come and inspect his premises. The feds weren't interested. The local cops pleaded with the feds to try talking to Koresh rather than going in guns blazing; they weren't interested in that either. Reading the accounts now, it's pretty clear that some elements in the ATF viewed the Davidians as an opportunity to "make a name" for themselves with a daring and splashy bust. Oops.

And it was pretty clear that the Koreshians* wanted to die for god and martydom, and take their kids with them. Everyone in this affair is covered in #### and the blood of children. That doesn't mean the Koreshians had the right to declare when they would allow the ATF in to search the compound. "Give us a week to hide the really big guns first" is a tactic right out of Saddam Hussein vs the UN weapons inspectors (in the 90s, not in the 2000s.)

3. It's somewhat surprising to see Morty not doing everything in his power to justify and defend child rape.

This is just completely out of left field. I assume there's some history between you and Morty on this. I assume it is sordid and probably fundamentally stupid at the nut of it all.

EDIT: *The followers of Koresh, in Waco, requested to be called "Koreshians" rather than Branch Davidians. Likewise, more moderate sects of the Branch Davidians requested that they not be lumped into the bucket with the cult at Koresh's compound outside of Waco. So I think "Koreshians" is the more precise term in this discussion.

Hamilton saw him as a hypocrite -- a rich man who claimed to be a man of the people -- but one he could work with because he was willing to compromise.

Thomas Jefferson was Warren Buffet!

A better analogy would be if you are going to provide free meals to folks you have to follow health code regulations, even if you feel some of those health codes impinge on your religion beliefs.

And I can tell you that the local Hare Krishnas are continually being fined for not following the health code. It's not precisely a free meal, but it is dirt cheap.

Nonsense. There's no danger to unsuspecting parties here as you can argue when concerning much of the health code. Someone has a reasonable expectation to not expect rat feces in their soup. Nobody has a reasonable expectation to expect birth control to be offered in a proposed health insurance policy that explicitly declines to provide that particular service option.

Who said anything about rat feces? I said follow the health code. When you do something you have to follow the law regarding doing that thing. The law of the land. Which has been deemed constitutional. A law which was not passed against any religion, does not limit any religion, and has built in protections for religions and their beliefs.

So when you build a house you have to follow building codes. When you provide meals you have to follow health codes. When you provide insurance you have to follow those codes. No one is making them violate their code of ethics, don't build the damn house if the laws around building houses offend you, but if you engage in an activity you have to obey the rules.

So when you build a house you have to follow building codes. When you provide meals you have to follow health codes. When you provide insurance you have to follow those codes. No one is making them violate their code of ethics, don't build the damn house if the laws around building houses offend you, but if you engage in an activity you have to obey the rules.

The general mantra of the libertarian chorus - specifically Crosby in regards to the Waco sub-thread and Dan in this little tangent - is that the rule of law is only applicable for laws they think are really useful.

Not that the whole event wasn't a screw up (clearly it was), not that it wasn't a tragedy and horrible that people died (again, clearly it was terrible), but why is that one event someone emblematic of the totality of the US government? Why is how that one event was handled the entire relationship between government and civilian?

It's not one event, but merely the most extreme of a series of abusive raids on the part of government in the service of "enforcement." Besides the less bloody but still tragic and completely avoidable Ruby Ridge, there are a number of no-knock raids conducted by heavily-armed police that end in the death or injury of an innocent civilian, or a beloved pet.

That people don't acknowledge the colossal screwup that led to Waco, or that the courts let off the gross incompetence and people consider that absolution, or than some even defend the government's excessive use of force is to me a much, much larger problem. If there were any reason for me to want to buy a gun, it would be the shocking complacency of folks like Morty. Especially smart folks like Morty; I expect stupid people to believe that there was no reasonable use of force one bit less than is used, like the enforcement arm of the government has the tiniest bit of respect for dissent or individual autonomy.

That doesn't mean the Koreshians had the right to declare when they would allow the ATF in to search the compound. "Give us a week to hide the really big guns first" is a tactic right out of Saddam Hussein vs the UN weapons inspectors (in the 90s, not in the 2000s.)

Except the Davidians didn't do that. They heard through back channels that the feds were showing an interest in their compound over potential weapons violations and their response was, "Sure, we're OK with them coming and checking things out." When this was passed back to the feds, they inexplicably showed no interest. There was never a peaceful attempt by the ATF to do anything in this case. Not one. They went from zero to "kicking down doors and shooting people".

No one is making them violate their code of ethics, don't build the damn house if the laws around building houses offend you, but if you engage in an activity you have to obey the rules.

Of course they're being made to violate their code of ethics. They're forced to offer a service that they did not previously offer, because progressives are simply bible-beaters with a different spice blend, and don't care about the private decisions between mutually consenting parties. It's no different than passing a law forcing Jewish restaurants to serve bacon. You can say "well, if you want to have a restaurant, you have to obey the rules!" but don't say that you're not forcing a party to violate their code of ethics by forcing your ideology/ethical code/religion/creed/worldview upon others.