Pages:
Author

Topic: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher - page 3. (Read 34677 times)

legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276
Oh dear. Cry

Sounds like more job security for federal parasites. Shame they can't seem to find the resources to keep out trespassers on the nation's Southern border.

No, you forgot enforcing immigration law is RAYSHIST! Don't mind the fact that every other nation on Earth does this. These people are poor, suffering, and need a home! Perhaps they can move in with you?

No problemo...cocked, locked, and ready to rock. Send em on over. I'll pack some spare clips to ensure the trespassers receive the welcome they deserve.

Almost every foreigner I've know has been a much better man and much better human being than you Bundy worshiping scum.  That goes for the Mexican mowing my neighbor's yard or working in the woods in my current locale, to the Chinese and Indian here on an H1B.

Spanish is becoming the  lingua franca on the logging landings because Mexican immigrants can and do work.  They don't (yet) seem to have some sense of entitlement to a god-given right to burn cookies over archaeological artifacts.  And they are not being unfairly discriminated against on the basis of needing an ATV because they are to fat and out-of-shape to walk.

In the other sphere of my life where most of my co-workers were ethnic Chinese or Indians, most of them spoke English unless they were alone.  In fact they spoke it and especially wrote it much more fluently than most Americans.

I would welcome and be honored to have most of the foreigners who I've met choose to become Americans.

BTW, I'll bet that a lot of my foreign friends are also better shots Mr. tough-guy Solarian.  Certainly that is the case for the older ones from SE Asia who actually know what war is.

 - edit: slight.

hero member
Activity: 966
Merit: 513
Oh dear. Cry

Sounds like more job security for federal parasites. Shame they can't seem to find the resources to keep out trespassers on the nation's Southern border.

No, you forgot enforcing immigration law is RAYSHIST! Don't mind the fact that every other nation on Earth does this. These people are poor, suffering, and need a home! Perhaps they can move in with you?

No problemo...cocked, locked, and ready to rock. Send em on over. I'll pack some spare clips to ensure the trespassers receive the welcome they deserve.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
Oh dear. Cry

Sounds like more job security for federal parasites. Shame they can't seem to find the resources to keep out trespassers on the nation's Southern border.
No, you forgot enforcing immigration law is RAYSHIST! Don't mind the fact that every other nation on Earth does this. These people are poor, suffering, and need a home! Perhaps they can move in with you?
hero member
Activity: 966
Merit: 513
Oh dear. Cry

Sounds like more job security for federal parasites. Shame they can't seem to find the resources to keep out trespassers on the nation's Southern border.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon

Feds Consider Pressing Charges Against BLM Trespassers



Federal authorities are considering bringing charges against a group of at least 50 protesters who trespassed on U.S. Bureau of Land Management land in Utah Saturday.

A handful of demonstrators decided over the weekend to protest the U.S. government by riding all-terrain vehicles on federal property that has been off-limits to motor vehicles for the past seven years.

Federal authorities in 2007 to closed off land near Recapture Canyon, Utah, after they found an illegal trail cutting across ancestral ruins left behind by Ancestral Puebloans, the Associated Press reported.

The Bureau of Land Management said at the time of the closure that the land had become overused and that motor vehicles threatened to do serious damage to other archeological artifacts in the area, including ancient Indian dwellings.

While the federal agency closed off the land to motor vehicles, it has always remained open to hikers and horseback riders.

Nevertheless, dozens of demonstrators, some of them armed, stormed the federal land on their ATVs in protest of the closure, arguing that the federal government had unfairly robbed them of “outdoor recreation opportunities,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/13/feds-consider-pressing-charges-against-blm-trespassers/

hero member
Activity: 966
Merit: 513
This is exactly what an indoctrinated person such as yourself would see as his eyes glaze over and blocks out any responses/statements/facts/questions that contradict his current belief system.

That's precisely what he does. Nothing reaches him through his carefully constructed labyrinth of nonsense. If a particular dialogue begins to make his inconsistencies apparent he immediately disconnects. He's a poster child for cognitive dissonance.

I claim to be a Liberal/Progressive who strongly supports the 2nd.

Strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment do not believe the right to keep and bear arms is granted or maintained by collectivist government authority and they do not believe those rights can or should be stripped on a whim because they disagree with the particular values of another. At best tvbcof is a strong supporter of his own 2nd Amendment rights and a wishy washy supporter of the rights of others.

legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
Yes because everyone knows bankers and politicians never get together to conspire about how best to fuck the public. That is way too far fetched. So your saying upkeep of a desert costs more than they'll acquire selling land, oil, and mineral rights? That makes sense, but hey, why bother confirming anything when you can just state your personal opinions as if they are fact?

If you feel like re-phrasing things in a way which makes some sense, particularly given the text to which you were responding, I'd probably be interested enough to comment.  As it stands it looks kind of like you agree with me but seek to dis-agree in a passive/aggressive sort of manner and are grasping for ways to do it.

No I am addressing facts, not your opinion. Why would I allow you to divert the topic of discussion to your opinions and respond to them when you give no one else the same courtesy, you just give more opinions and pretend the statements/facts/questions are irrelivant.

Actually, by all appearances, what you seem to be doing is babbling.


This is exactly what an indoctrinated person such as yourself would see as his eyes glaze over and blocks out any responses/statements/facts/questions that contradict his current belief system.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
I see now why folks like Solarian get into some mode like the hitchhiker in 'Something about Mary' and accuse me of 'inconsistency' when I claim to be a Liberal/Progressive who strongly supports the 2nd.  People have been programmed (by themselves or others or some combination) to some hard-n-fast associations.  This is not 'inconsistency'.  The basic problem false understanding of the world and one which is aggravated by a mindset of absolutism.

Not that I (for instance) don't have some genuine inconsistencies.  I do.  But actually far fewer than most of the readers here probably believe.



1. You support a policy not consistent with liberal party leaders.
2. You claim people don't know what a liberal is (but some how you know the right definition and everyone you claim to support doesn't).
3. You claim to be a liberal with policies inconsistent with what is commonly known as liberal policy.
4. You contradict yourself.

Why even associate yourself as a liberal or conservative? Apparently you don't understand the terms are both meaningless and the people who run both parties just feed you a different flavored shit sandwich, but you are still putting a shit sandwich in your mouth and eating it up. SELF PROCLAIMED LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN! They are just fighting "the other" like good little trained monkeys while bankers and politicians rob us ALL blind. None of them give a shit about you. Stop subsidizing their system by endorsing it.
legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276
Yes because everyone knows bankers and politicians never get together to conspire about how best to fuck the public. That is way too far fetched. So your saying upkeep of a desert costs more than they'll acquire selling land, oil, and mineral rights? That makes sense, but hey, why bother confirming anything when you can just state your personal opinions as if they are fact?

If you feel like re-phrasing things in a way which makes some sense, particularly given the text to which you were responding, I'd probably be interested enough to comment.  As it stands it looks kind of like you agree with me but seek to dis-agree in a passive/aggressive sort of manner and are grasping for ways to do it.

No I am addressing facts, not your opinion. Why would I allow you to divert the topic of discussion to your opinions and respond to them when you give no one else the same courtesy, you just give more opinions and pretend the statements/facts/questions are irrelivant.

Actually, by all appearances, what you seem to be doing is babbling.

legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
Yes because everyone knows bankers and politicians never get together to conspire about how best to fuck the public. That is way too far fetched. So your saying upkeep of a desert costs more than they'll acquire selling land, oil, and mineral rights? That makes sense, but hey, why bother confirming anything when you can just state your personal opinions as if they are fact?

If you feel like re-phrasing things in a way which makes some sense, particularly given the text to which you were responding, I'd probably be interested enough to comment.  As it stands it looks kind of like you agree with me but seek to dis-agree in a passive/aggressive sort of manner and are grasping for ways to do it.


No I am addressing facts, not your opinion. Why would I allow you to divert the topic of discussion to your opinions and respond to them when you give no one else the same courtesy, you just give more opinions and pretend the statements/facts/questions are irrelivant.
legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276
Last time I checked liberals don't often support guns, militias, farmers, or southerners really. You are trying to make your square biases fit into a round hole.
Check again. This time don't drink that tea they give you. The idea of liberal and conservative is the wool that is put before our eyes to hide the truth. For if the truth came out and people discovered we are all fighting the same monied interests they would fall. People are complicated and rarely buy into a set of disconnected beliefs despite what political fundraisers would like us to think.
I have ethical problems with abortion, carry a gun every day, love the south, am involved with CSA farming, despise laws that limit my freedom in any way. You know, a liberal.  
You misunderstood. First of all there is a reason I used "don't often" instead of "all". One exception does not dictate the norm. Additionally if you are so above the irrelevant 2 party dialectic, then why do you even bother identifying yourself as a liberal?

The words liberal and conservative are meaningless except when describing the general popular sentiment, ie what TV tells you to think. Those words lost their true meanings many years ago. One might argue even that a politicians job is to make definitions of words meaningless so that they can get away with whatever they want with ambiguous definitions. I was simply pointing out his hypocrisy in using ambiguous inconsistent statements, much like a politician would do. Ironically as a person like him who identifies with socialist values, he attacks the liberal left, the same people who usually identify most with this mindset.

I see now why folks like Solarian get into some mode like the hitchhiker in 'Something about Mary' and accuse me of 'inconsistency' when I claim to be a Liberal/Progressive who strongly supports the 2nd.  People have been programmed (by themselves or others or some combination) to some hard-n-fast associations.  This is not 'inconsistency'.  The basic problem false understanding of the world and one which is aggravated by a mindset of absolutism.

Not that I (for instance) don't have some genuine inconsistencies.  I do.  But actually far fewer than most of the readers here probably believe.

legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276
Yes because everyone knows bankers and politicians never get together to conspire about how best to fuck the public. That is way too far fetched. So your saying upkeep of a desert costs more than they'll acquire selling land, oil, and mineral rights? That makes sense, but hey, why bother confirming anything when you can just state your personal opinions as if they are fact?

If you feel like re-phrasing things in a way which makes some sense, particularly given the text to which you were responding, I'd probably be interested enough to comment.  As it stands it looks kind of like you agree with me but seek to dis-agree in a passive/aggressive sort of manner and are grasping for ways to do it.

legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
Last time I checked liberals don't often support guns, militias, farmers, or southerners really. You are trying to make your square biases fit into a round hole.
Check again. This time don't drink that tea they give you. The idea of liberal and conservative is the wool that is put before our eyes to hide the truth. For if the truth came out and people discovered we are all fighting the same monied interests they would fall. People are complicated and rarely buy into a set of disconnected beliefs despite what political fundraisers would like us to think.
I have ethical problems with abortion, carry a gun every day, love the south, am involved with CSA farming, despise laws that limit my freedom in any way. You know, a liberal.  
You misunderstood. First of all there is a reason I used "don't often" instead of "all". One exception does not dictate the norm. Additionally if you are so above the irrelevant 2 party dialectic, then why do you even bother identifying yourself as a liberal?

The words liberal and conservative are meaningless except when describing the general popular sentiment, ie what TV tells you to think. Those words lost their true meanings many years ago. One might argue even that a politicians job is to make definitions of words meaningless so that they can get away with whatever they want with ambiguous definitions. I was simply pointing out his hypocrisy in using ambiguous inconsistent statements, much like a politician would do. Ironically as a person like him who identifies with socialist values, he attacks the liberal left, the same people who usually identify most with this mindset.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
How come no one has discussed Harry Reid's deal with a Chinese solar company allowing it to operate via setting this disputed grazing land aside as a natural preserve and ecological "balancing" effect to even out the ecological damage of a huge solar farm?

I think that accusation was debunked.
How the fuck do you debunk a tentative deal, the status of which is most likely not even published? Just because the deal was off in 2013 doesn't mean they can't still make the deal. It more than likely means they got flack from environmental groups and had to step back until they could appease them with land mitigation. Interestingly enough I also found out there is quite a bit of oil in that area the BLM  just sold rights to. BLM owns about 80% of Nevada and pays the state nothing for these resources. Why would anyone be upset by these things? LOL

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/tech_notes.Par.29872.File.dat/TN_444.pdf
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-20/martin-armstrong-asks-do-feds-really-own-land-nevada
http://m.shalereporter.com/industry/article_0de547ba-8ca4-11e2-ab4e-0019bb30f31a.html


Occam's razor suggests that in the case of the Bundy situation things are not all that complicated.  He's been a deadbeat for 20 years at least, and things have finally progressed to the point where there is some concrete action to finally put an end to it.  If there is a conspiracy to be found in this case, I'd start by trying to find out why Bundy got to mooch for that long.

Ironically, managing BLM land for grazing itself invalidates the 'pays the state nothing' argument.  It is done at a loss and to the direct benefit of (sometimes) local ranchers and the theorized benefit of the public at large so they can buy more hamburgers.  I personally am OK with that as one of the factors driving land management decisions.  It is also the case that tourism and recreation are a large part of many smaller local economies.  And we have the BLM and other similar federal agencies to thank for managing the land in a way that makes that more feasible.

Should we keep an eye all deals involving the resources of public lands and those who are instrumental in formulating them?  Fuckin'A yes!  Certainly that includes Harry Reid.  Should we continue to pound on a dead horse when a chain of conspiracy toward a particular action is at best highly tenuous and highly political?  Not so much.

It is entirely likely that there are machinations involving solar energy, environmental group appeasement, and future mitigation agreements.  I don't see this as a necessarily bad thing.  I expect the BLM to make land use decisions which consider their large holdings as a related system.  I want them to choose areas which are less sensitive for destruction and use more sensitive and unique areas for ecological preservation.

I don't want the BLM to be funneling money to their political friends even if they are doing a good job otherwise , and again, that should be monitored.  What I really don't want is for the Koch brothers to turn vast areas into sludge ponds through oil shale operations and destroy the limited water resources by fracking.  Particularly since their modus operandi is the same as those who came before them.  Keep all the profits (many of them subsidies from my pocket thanks to lobbying) and abandon the works as a super-fund site when it has been milked dry.  That is a much better reason to keep a close eye on the politicians outside the BLM and the managers within the BLM.  And groups and efforts sponsored by groups like Citizens United.


Yes because everyone knows bankers and politicians never get together to conspire about how best to fuck the public. That is way too far fetched. So your saying upkeep of a desert costs more than they'll acquire selling land, oil, and mineral rights? That makes sense, but hey, why bother confirming anything when you can just state your personal opinions as if they are fact?
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
..despise laws that limit my freedom in any way.  

Its an interesting thread this one, for various reasons. But I think in a sense what you have written above gets to the crux of it in some way.

In the UK there is a saying - "The punctual have to pay the price for the tardy", and this is what came to my mind as I read your post.

My point being, is that even if/though you may be a responsible citizen and so are able to use the freedom accorded to you (by nature) for the betterment of both yourself and your community, we cannot say the same for everyone in this world. And, unfortunate as it might be for the likes of you and me, the laws of the nation have to, to a degree, be framed to compensate for those that would act irresponsibly - tvbcof made the point pretty succinctly with his childhood pop gun story  Cheesy



    Short of a "moral eugenics" programme I don't see a way around this.

Socialists always think they are righteous and all the problems that manifest from collectivism are due to the bad apples.

Thus they can't see it is collectivism ("the death by 1000 paper cuts") that causes the problems.

See my next post in the Mad Max thread later today which will elaborate.
hero member
Activity: 966
Merit: 513
TPTB have thought of that argument.

That they might have thought of it - and that they might even have appropriated it as a means of safeguarding their own self interest, doesn't in itself make it an unsound principle though does it ?

Not at all. If you're a tyrannical government authority it's a proven winner. A whole lot of misguided and shortsighted peasants will even come out in support of surrendering liberties for security, some will even help attack those that are opposed *cough*tvbcof*cough*. Rogue governments are incentivized to keep the sheep afraid, divided, and dependent else the masses may realize who the real enemy is.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 500
TPTB have thought of that argument.

That they might have thought of it - and that they might even have appropriated it as a means of safeguarding their own self interest, doesn't in itself make it an unsound principle though does it ?

The prince of darkness is a gentleman, yes - but what you gonna do ? Start robbing your Grandma ?

hero member
Activity: 966
Merit: 513
..despise laws that limit my freedom in any way.

Its an interesting thread this one, for various reasons. But I think in a sense what you have written above gets to the crux of it in some way.

In the UK there is a saying - "The punctual have to pay the price for the tardy", and this is what came to my mind as I read your post.

My point being, is that even if/though you may be a responsible citizen and so are able to use the freedom accorded to you (by nature) for the betterment of both yourself and your community, we cannot say the same for everyone in this world. And, unfortunate as it might be for the likes of you and me, the laws of the nation have to, to a degree, be framed to compensate for those that would act irresponsibly - tvbcof made the point pretty succinctly with his childhood pop gun story  Cheesy



    Short of a "moral eugenics" programme I don't see a way around this.

IOW, freedom is the currency one must exchange for security?

TPTB have thought of that argument. Actually that's the argument employed by nearly every tyrannical regime throughout history. Your hero and I agree that the USG savagely attacked it's own people to encourage the masses to accept a reduction in their liberties, we differ only in how we choose to respond.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 500
..despise laws that limit my freedom in any way.  

Its an interesting thread this one, for various reasons. But I think in a sense what you have written above gets to the crux of it in some way.

In the UK there is a saying - "The punctual have to pay the price for the tardy", and this is what came to my mind as I read your post.

My point being, is that even if/though you may be a responsible citizen and so are able to use the freedom accorded to you (by nature) for the betterment of both yourself and your community, we cannot say the same for everyone in this world. And, unfortunate as it might be for the likes of you and me, the laws of the nation have to, to a degree, be framed to compensate for those that would act irresponsibly - tvbcof made the point pretty succinctly with his childhood pop gun story  Cheesy



    Short of a "moral eugenics" programme I don't see a way around this.
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1147
The revolution will be monetized!
Last time I checked liberals don't often support guns, militias, farmers, or southerners really. You are trying to make your square biases fit into a round hole.
Check again. This time don't drink that tea they give you. The idea of liberal and conservative is the wool that is put before our eyes to hide the truth. For if the truth came out and people discovered we are all fighting the same monied interests they would fall. People are complicated and rarely buy into a set of disconnected beliefs despite what political fundraisers would like us to think.
I have ethical problems with abortion, carry a gun every day, love the south, am involved with CSA farming, despise laws that limit my freedom in any way. You know, a liberal.  
Pages:
Jump to: