- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,909
- Reaction score
- 11,003
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
You don't know what the government requires for action either... therefore you don't know what you're talking about.Ok so you do not know what you are taking about, yet, you wish for the Lacey Act to stay in force because some other guy (Gibson CEO ) wants the law to stay intact.
Yet, you continue to put the burden on Gibson. :think:I do not.
I'm certainly biased against unreasonable actions taken by a government which has yielded no charges and a loss of millions of dollars, with no day in court. Definitely biased against that, you caught me.You stated that, [you] do not know what is required for the government to take action". You are clear in your bias and outrage, but, not your factual analysis.
So you're citing yet more government inadequacies. I quite agree.Enforcement of the Lacey Act itself is not clear either , indeed, "How enforcement resources will be allocated is yet to be determined; in general, enforcement priorities and plans are not discussed in detail. In most enforcement work, if information is developed indicating a high likelihood of violations of a particular type, enforcement resources will likely focus on those types of activities".
You don't know what the government requires for action either... therefore you don't know what you're talking about.
So are you being purposefully obtuse? Probably... for what purpose? Dunno... but you're starting to bore me.
Yet, you continue to put the burden on Gibson. :think:
I'm certainly biased against unreasonable actions taken by a government which has yielded no charges and a loss of millions of dollars, with no day in court. Definitely biased against that, you caught me.
So you're citing yet more government inadequacies. I quite agree.
I seem to have missed the other guitar companies who have been raided since 2008. And since there were none (I'll just skip the witty reparte of the next few posts if you don't mind), I'm sure you'll admit that Gibson has been singled out.
I'm stating I want to see Gibson get their day in court, and the government to produce charges or, drop it and stop trying to intimidate company's by using the law as a baseball bat.It seems to me that you simply want to argue with someone additionally, ascribe behaviors and position to me that are simply not true.
I'm stating I want to see Gibson get their day in court, and the government to produce charges or, drop it and stop trying to intimidate company's by using the law as a baseball bat.
It's real simple. Either you get it or you don't. And you don't. :shrug:
Not my problem.
My position is that the procedural aspect of the law needs to be more direct so all parties have a fair opportunity to defend their case.
time limitations for which all are given the opportunity to present their case.
I'm stating I want to see Gibson get their day in court, and the government to produce charges or, drop it and stop trying to intimidate company's by using the law as a baseball bat.
It's real simple. Either you get it or you don't. And you don't. :shrug:
Not my problem.
Indeed, your problem is reading comprehension. I have stated this position multiple times.
The bottom line seems to be that trees now have more rights than American citizens.
and your "proof" that gibson was singled out for enforcement action consists of what?Indeed, you cannot grasp my argument, even after posting it multiple times. I can lead the horse to water but cannot make him think. :shrug:
Your claims that Gibson was not singled out, wrong. You're inability to grasp basic concepts of the argument - wasted. You're knowledge about what the government's process is - none and no better than mine. Sorry you're so lost... but there's nothing more I can help you with. (BTW - feel free to get in the last word, you know, to garner those fictional "forum" points you tally up.)
and your "proof" that gibson was singled out for enforcement action consists of what?
[emphasis added by bubba as the forum member apparently cannot recall what he has posted]Strawman... I'm not claiming proof.
I'm not going to retype it - read the following link:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...bson-guitar-over-ebony-10.html#post1060452199
... Your claims that Gibson was not singled out, wrong. Y ...
[emphasis added by bubba as the forum member apparently cannot recall what he has posted]
then what we find is that there is no proof that gibson was singled out
yet you post
do you even understand what it is you are posting?
Then please, provide me a link that shows another guitar company since 2008 was raided. I'll wait.
and that proves what, exactly
other wood fabricators had to have violated the lacy act for gibson to have done so?
notice how that makes no sense?
well, that absence of logic is also true of your "argument"
[emphasis added by bubba as the forum member apparently cannot recall what he has posted]
then what we find is that there is no proof that gibson was singled out
yet you post
do you even understand what it is you are posting?
For those that do not know the history of the Lacey Act
US LACEY ACT
"The Lacey Act was introduced in 1900 to prohibit the transportation of illegally captured wildlife across state lines. It has been amended several times, most recently in June 2008 when US Congress extended the Act to plants, including timber, paper and other forest products.
This made the USA the first country to prohibit the trade in timber which is illegal according to the laws of the country from which it is sourced."
US LACEY ACT
If I am not mistaken, Obama was not president in June of 2008.
As already pointed out to you. Only Gibson has been targeted. You are otherwise asking posters to prove a negative, that being that those not targeted were not targeted by some deliberate action. That the government has yet to charge Gibson is strongly indicative of an over-reaching Justice Department.
and there is nothing to suggest that gibson is the only one thus targeted because it is now found to be the only manufacturer violating the lacey act
Then post the other guitar company's who were raided. It's real simple...
why would federal agents raid other manufacturers if they had no basis to believe they were violating the lacey act
one again, your post is devoid of any logic
......... The standard is as follows: "Forfeiture. The Lacey Act’s civil forfeiture provisions are enforced on a strict liability basis. If illegal timber or a product made from illegal timber (and/or illegal wildlife or fish) is brought into the U.S., that timber or timber product may be seized whether or not the person from whom it is seized knew of the illegal nature of the product. Nonetheless, the government must still show that a plant, plant product, or wildlife has been imported or received in violation of a State or foreign law or regulation." Where the government can or has proved their burden is unknown at this point.....
The Presidency and who held office is irrelevant to the context and subject matter, as you well know.
No more responses to your attempts to change the subject until you post a link...
and there is nothing to suggest that gibson is the only one thus targeted because it is now found to be the only manufacturer violating the lacey act
It has not been found to have violated the Lacey Act.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?