Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

When Henry Speaks

Californiaman

By Californiaman
in The Gibson Lounge

Recommended Posts

zigzag

zigzag

Posted
Posted

"...move to Mexico and China where they can pretty much execute their employees if they want to...India has taken all of our jobs..." This 'journalist' is a sensationalist, outrageous dufus. In my mind, Henry doesn't help his cause by using this type of vehicle to defend himself. This type of 'journalism' fuels the type fanaticism seen in domestic terrorists. This talking head uses lies and hyperbole to incite hatred and outrage. He is dangerous.

 

Alex Jones, Prison TV... funny...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply
bluzhammer

bluzhammer

Posted
Posted

"...move to Mexico and China where they can pretty much execute their employees if they want to...India has taken all of our jobs..." This 'journalist' is a sensationalist, outrageous dufus. In my mind, Henry doesn't help his cause by using this type of vehicle to defend himself. This type of 'journalism' fuels the type fanaticism seen in domestic terrorists. This talking head uses lies and hyperbole to incite hatred and outrage. He is dangerous.

 

Alex Jones, Prison TV... funny...

 

I agree, the thing is with one stroke of the pen, " an elected official " and all the elected mass in a certain area of the country could totally revamp, scrap the US Tax Code and make this nation a economic powerhouse once again. But, collectively all of them lack courage and foresight to save America from financial disaster.

If you come home to backed up sewage in your living room ,do you raise the ceiling or pump the sh## out?

In nature you have a pride of lions, a murder of crows, a flock of birds. Guess what a gathering of Baboons is called " A Congress" msp_scared.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluzhammer

bluzhammer

Posted
Posted

Had to go off topic and get political again bluz. What did I do with my ignore button?

 

Not really, just making a statement as to the fugged up situation we seem to find ourselves in. What you fail to garner from my posts is that I have actually been in the federal courtroom as a defendant and possess firsthand knowledge of it's workings. So that being what it is, I may be a tad jaded and skeptical of the FEDs and their nefarious code books and activities.

Actually it seems to me that you don't care for my point of view, but I'm fine with that. See when the FEDs came a knocking at my door, I educated myself with what they were using against me and turned it on them, hence all things were settled accordingly. Maybe you should make an attempt at educating yourself instead of sitting around in a THC induced fog ( not that there's anything wrong with that IMO, I just choose not to ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
milod

milod

Posted
Posted

One problem with issues like this, and certainly the Gibson situation is only one of many, is that even folks with whom you share a basic agreement will take things a bit past the logical.

 

That's perhaps where "politics" in the sense of being objectionable on this forum might intrude.

 

I actually watched one in my state where even the governor asked very much in public that a federal agent be reassigned for what might be considered over-reaching on the law enough to hurt businesses regardless of court results, and what also was questioned as perhaps a personal agenda by that agent.

 

It was interesting to read and listen to folks on both sides of the issue comment in ways that technically would be considered logical fallacies.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluzhammer

bluzhammer

Posted
Posted

One problem with issues like this, and certainly the Gibson situation is only one of many, is that even folks with whom you share a basic agreement will take things a bit past the logical.

 

That's perhaps where "politics" in the sense of being objectionable on this forum might intrude.

 

I actually watched one in my state where even the governor asked very much in public that a federal agent be reassigned for what might be considered over-reaching on the law enough to hurt businesses regardless of court results, and what also was questioned as perhaps a personal agenda by that agent.

 

It was interesting to read and listen to folks on both sides of the issue comment in ways that technically would be considered logical fallacies.

 

m

 

Ahhh, the old personal agenda ploy. That is very much akin to the situation I found myself in. Seems I irritated the wrong " person " , who in turn attempted to make my life a living hell. Now bear in mind that this was during the days of Waco, Ruby Ridge and other federal adventures. I was much younger and headstrong in those days. Now since objective reporting has gone the way of the dinosaur, I am always skeptical of any so called "news".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stein

stein

Posted
Posted

One problem with issues like this, and certainly the Gibson situation is only one of many, is that even folks with whom you share a basic agreement will take things a bit past the logical.

 

That's perhaps where "politics" in the sense of being objectionable on this forum might intrude.

 

I actually watched one in my state where even the governor asked very much in public that a federal agent be reassigned for what might be considered over-reaching on the law enough to hurt businesses regardless of court results, and what also was questioned as perhaps a personal agenda by that agent.

 

It was interesting to read and listen to folks on both sides of the issue comment in ways that technically would be considered logical fallacies.

 

m

Is being logical concerning politics always so easy? I find that MOST things that concern government politics, the more is understood the less logical it is as a whole.

 

How do we actually understand this case with Gibson? It is difficult to even put it in a proper perspective, as there are so many elements as to what the cause of the problem might be to "allow" such a thing to happen. And, in the end, whatever forces are on the side against Gibson that might prevail in punishing them actually has more to lose by winning.

 

When it comes to identifying the problem that caused this, or identifying the solution to prevent this from happening again, it is hard to stay logical. What may seem a stretch by comparing this problem with another similar situation by another might not be a stretch at all. You have to stretch pretty far just to get to the point Gibson is at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Californiaman

Californiaman

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Ok guys, I've got the answer... The Feds wanted a bunch of Free Gibson Guitars, especially Les Paul's. They didn't want Martin's, Fender's PRS's etc... they wanted Gibsons because they are the best guitars. End of story. [flapper]

 

That's because FLOTUS has been giving them away to heads of state. Or at least to their wives.

Gibson Article

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stein

stein

Posted
Posted

Thank you, what may seem dissimilar in context may be eerily simiar in reality. To dismiss my experience and knowledge as merely politics on my part is disturbingly shortsighted . But what the heck you can't teach a brick to jump

It is hard to relate unless you have been there or been close enough to see it.

 

I think you speak the truth-it IS easy to find yourself in a position where you are completely innocent or well meaning, but as a result of a law, you are into a position of having to defend yourself because there ARE government agencies doing their job. And in such cases, it IS scary because you literally CAN be fined or convicted by expecting others to be reasonable or correct in thier judgement.

 

The thing is, it could be the result of not wrongdoing intented, but there may exist a law or procedeure that has already convicted you.

 

In this case, you would EXPECT that when a issue of red flags and paperwork caused Gibson to look suspect, they would also look into it enough to find the innocence. But Gibson is in a position that this is not the case-and the truth is they have already been found guilty-not by a judge, but by an agency translating and enforcing the law. Unless something is done to change the actions of the agencies and the judges, the next decision or stroke of the pen WILL convict them. Not because what Gibson has done is wrong, but because others MAKE it illegal by request and it happens with the stroke of a pen by a judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zigzag

zigzag

Posted
Posted

The government exists to make laws and enforce them. Why? To protect its citizens from other citizens and from foreign aggression. The courts exist to settle disputes. It ain't a great system in the reality of the way it actually works, but what are you gonna do? Citizens overstep their bounds and break laws. Those who are there to enforce laws overstep their bounds, too. Hopefully, the courts will resolve these issues.

 

Henry J maintains that he received wood that may have violated a nebulous Indian law, and he and Gibson are paying the price. The government appears to believe that Gibson may be guilty of conspiring to receive wood that they know is illegal, and may be facilitating fraud for monetary gain. Granted, the way that the government intruded on Gibson's business may have been excessive, but it is for the courts to decide if Gibson is guilty of what might be considered a serious crime.

 

If you guys want to use this case, a case that so far really only has revealed itself from Henry J.'s side, to soap box your political agendas, have at it. I, for one, will be watching with great interest to see how this case plays out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...