• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US agents raid Gibson Guitar over ebony

justabubba said:
it is the only one believed to be in violation of the lacey act, hence the federal raids to which you have objected
Click to expand...

That is one huge assumption on your part. Where do we find the conclusion by the Feds as to "believe".? That is also not the standard. The standard is to be charged, and with due process. Can you show us the "due process" of four years without being charged ?

Trust me. I know one Helluva lot more about this process than you. As I said earlier, they have not been charged because our Fed cannot make the case to pin this specific wood on illegal origins. If you would read, I noted some of the differences between CITES Appendix I, II, and III. Much of this wood is Appendix III, and the claim to its illegality is not that it was above or in excess of allowable export quota, but rather that it was illegally harvested from protected land in its country of origin.

That is incredably difficult to prove after the wood has been processed through a third country. Cause it looks just the same as legally harvested wood.

When something is listed as CITES Appendix I or II, each increment of it is counted, with documentation every step of the way. The government over-reached trying to bust Gibson on a problem that is for the country of origin to stop.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Some have been trying to say this investigation is due to Obama and his justice department. So that is the reason I made it clear the law was amended by Congress in June 2008 to include plants, including timber, paper and other forest products.
Click to expand...


Yes, and Nancy Pelosi (D) was the speaker of the house, with demo control of congress, and the Senate had demo operational control...So, your point? Or were you trying to say that in hopes that people wouldn't remember who had control of congress?


j-mac
 
Eighty Deuce said:
That is one huge assumption on your part. Where do we find the conclusion by the Feds as to "believe".? That is also not the standard. The standard is to be charged, and with due process. Can you show us the "due process" of four years without being charged ?

Trust me. I know one Helluva lot more about this process than you. As I said earlier, they have not been charged because our Fed cannot make the case to pin this specific wood on illegal origins. If you would read, I noted some of the differences between CITES Appendix I, II, and III. Much of this wood is Appendix III, and the claim to its illegality is not that it was above or in excess of allowable export quota, but rather that it was illegally harvested from protected land in its country of origin.

That is incredably difficult to prove after the wood has been processed through a third country. Cause it looks just the same as legally harvested wood.

When something is listed as CITES Appendix I or II, each increment of it is counted, with documentation every step of the way. The government over-reached trying to bust Gibson on a problem that is for the country of origin to stop.
Click to expand...

what we know, is that there have been no other manufacturers raided because the government has reason to believe they have violated the lacey act
 
sangha said:
And it's up to Ockham to prove his case, or have you forgotten *that*?
Click to expand...

Ockham has laid out his case in detail, and has been quite detailed as to the assertions he has made with linked back up for those assertions. What is it that you would consider as "proof" to be satisfied?

j-mac
 
Ockham said:
Obviously it would prove that Gibson was not singled out, as you claim. I don't see a link though.... did you forget to paste it in your post?
Click to expand...

Ummm, the quote is yours and it comes from a post YOU linked to. Did you forget what you said?

See, without evidence, my point will be correct... and as you've no doubt already Googled it... you'll see that Gibson has been the only guitar company in the past 4 years, singled out twice for raids.
Click to expand...

You have to prove your claim is correct. Simply pointing to a lack of disproof does not mean you are right.
 
Ockham said:
The Presidency and who held office is irrelevant to the context and subject matter, as you well know.
Click to expand...

Except when Gibson is raided during the Obama presidency. *Then* it's all the presidents fault!!! :roll:
 
j-mac said:
Ockham has laid out his case in detail, and has been quite detailed as to the assertions he has made with linked back up for those assertions. What is it that you would consider as "proof" to be satisfied?

j-mac
Click to expand...

he has insisted gibson was singled out
yet he is unable to point to another known lacey act violator the government refuses to raid

he insists the 16th amendment is being violated
yet we find that no person has been arrested for an illegal act
 
j-mac said:
Ockham has laid out his case in detail, and has been quite detailed as to the assertions he has made with linked back up for those assertions. What is it that you would consider as "proof" to be satisfied?

j-mac
Click to expand...

No, Ockham has laid out his bizarre delusions and refused to show that Gibson has been singled out or that their 6th Amend rights have been violated, or that Obama has anything to do with this.

And "proof" is what I consider "proof" to be
 
justabubba said:
he has insisted gibson was singled out
yet he is unable to point to another known lacey act violator the government refuses to raid
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm refusing to prove a negative. Silly me.

justabubba said:
he insists the 16th amendment is being violated
yet we find that no person has been arrested for an illegal act
Click to expand...

Incorrect - I am making a claim the 6th amendment may have been violated. I also find the 4 years as being excessive and unreasonable.
 
Ockham said:
Yes, I'm refusing to prove a negative. Silly me.
Click to expand...

We'll add "prove a negative" to the List of Dishonest Arguments you've used

You claimed that Gibson was singled out. That's not a negative. Now prove your deluded claim

You've also claimed that Gibsons' 6th Amend rights were violated. That's not a negative either. Now prove your deluded claim



Incorrect - I am making a claim the 6th amendment may have been violated. I also find the 4 years as being excessive and unreasonable.
Click to expand...

This is the 2nd time in one day that you have forgotten your own words. Given their absurdity, I can't blame you

Ockham said:
The government has issued no additional warrants nor arrests, therefore since there is a presupposition of charges being brought (ie., the warrant, the raid), the 6th amendment has been violated.
Click to expand...

(emphasis mine)
 
justabubba said:
what we know, is that there have been no other manufacturers raided because the government has reason to believe they have violated the lacey act
Click to expand...

No, we do not know that.

What we know is that the government has raided only Gibson, confiscated their assets, but has yet to charge them after four years.

Now, you can make assumptions off that, as you have, but clearly there are other explanations. I would suggest that our government made a token effort to pacify some other party, either such as India, or the tree-hugging voter block, or both. It did not need to raid anyone else as there is a huge diminishing political return after the first such action. Further, as it has not brought charges, it is fully aware of the difficulty in supporting this over-reach.
 
Ockham said:
Yes, I'm refusing to prove a negative. Silly me.
Click to expand...
no
you want to believe there are other lacey act violators
but you have no basis to make such a statement
'which causes you to wrongly insist that gibson has been singled out



Incorrect - I am making a claim the 6th amendment may have been violated. I also find the 4 years as being excessive and unreasonable.
Click to expand...
my bad. it is the sixth amendment
the one that tells us:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Click to expand...
even tho there have been ZERO arrests
somehow, you believe there must be a prosecution prior to arrest
a position amazingly devoid of any form of logic
 
justabubba said:
no
you want to believe there are other lacey act violators
but you have no basis to make such a statement
'which causes you to wrongly insist that gibson has been singled out ....
Click to expand...

Actually, the notion that Gibson has been targeted, and that there have been no legitimate Lacey Act violations by anyone, is also compatable.
 
sangha said:
That still doesn't support Ockhams delusional claim that Gibson was targeted
Click to expand...

It does to some of us.

Speaking of which, don't you think that a dozen posts saying essentially the same thing over and over is .... well ... targeting the rest of us with drivel ? :)
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Actually, the notion that Gibson has been targeted, and that there have been no legitimate Lacey Act violations by anyone, is also compatable.
Click to expand...

no. here is what is different
all other manufacturers - they incurred no raid because the government does not suspect them of violating the lacey act
gibson - incurred two raids because the government does suspect them of violating the lacey act

notice how that describes the DIFFERENCE and NOT the SIMILARITY

pity such basic logic is lost within your posts
 
justabubba said:
no
you want to believe there are other lacey act violators
Click to expand...
Wrong. I am saying there are NO other guitar companies which have been raided; Gibson was singled out.

Keep trying to change my words though... :lol:


justabubba said:
my bad. it is the sixth amendment
the one that tells us:
even tho there have been ZERO arrests
Click to expand...
Don't forget zero charges filed, zero hearings held....

justabubba said:
somehow, you believe there must be a prosecution prior to arrest
a position amazingly devoid of any form of logic
Click to expand...
I believe no such thing. I believe 4 years is excessive and an unreasonable amount of time to wait for charges to be filed after 2 raids.


The least you could do is read my posts.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
It does to some of us.

Speaking of which, don't you think that a dozen posts saying essentially the same thing over and over is .... well ... targeting the rest of us with drivel ? :)
Click to expand...

You seem to have the deluded opinion that there is such a thing as "proof for some people"

The truth is, either he has proof, or he does not. In this case, it's the latter
 
Ockham said:
Wrong. I am saying there are NO other guitar companies which have been raided; Gibson was singled out.

Keep trying to change my words though... :lol:
Click to expand...

You're the one who's changing your own words. Given their inanity, I can't say that I blame you

You said that Gibson was targeted. We're still waiting for you to prove this delusion of yours
 
justabubba said:
he has insisted gibson was singled out
yet he is unable to point to another known lacey act violator the government refuses to raid
Click to expand...

I have searched, and can find no other guitar manufacturer in the US, that I assume uses the same woods that Gibson was raided for, having been raided themselves...Therefore, I, unless shown that others have had the same treatment as Gibson, would have to conclude that Gibson is being singled out.

he insists the 16th amendment is being violated
yet we find that no person has been arrested for an illegal act
Click to expand...

I don't follow you. the 16th amendment is about laying and collecting taxation, it mentions nothing about arrest.

j-mac
 
Eighty Deuce said:
No, we do not know that.

What we know is that the government has raided only Gibson, confiscated their assets, but has yet to charge them after four years.

Now, you can make assumptions off that, as you have, but clearly there are other explanations. I would suggest that our government made a token effort to pacify some other party, either such as India, or the tree-hugging voter block, or both. It did not need to raid anyone else as there is a huge diminishing political return after the first such action. Further, as it has not brought charges, it is fully aware of the difficulty in supporting this over-reach.
Click to expand...

The judge that issued the search warrant obviously disagrees with you, as he felt there was sufficient grounds, most likely because he was more familiar with the evidence against Gibson than you are.
 
j-mac said:
I have searched, and can find no other guitar manufacturer in the US, that I assume uses the same woods that Gibson was raided for, having been raided themselves...Therefore, I, unless shown that others have had the same treatment as Gibson, would have to conclude that Gibson is being singled out.
Click to expand...
you abandoned logic which would tell those who used it that there are no other known violators of the lacey act for that to be the actual circumstance




I don't follow you. the 16th amendment is about laying and collecting taxation, it mentions nothing about arrest.

j-mac
Click to expand...
sixth amendment - my bad
his bad that he wants a prosecution before any arrests
go figure
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom