Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
MARIS61 said:
The bottom line is without Federal control of these lands America would soon be the most polluted, environmentally devasted country in the world, eclipsing hellholes like India and China in a few decades, completely destroying our ecosystems and leaving us without basic life support such as drinkable water and uncontaminated food.
Click to expand...

Wow! And this got three likes too! No Sir! I can't not agree. Most of the Private ranches I know are managed far superior to the BLM land mostly used by grazers taking and putting very little in.
In 2015, the cost to the grazer was $1.69 per cow/calf pair per month. Maris' boys blow right through that in one meeting. Worse yet, the private ranchers paying their way, property tax and all,
can't compete with land rangers the BLM supports. What's the payment from these small fees to the Counties and schools systems in Oregon? Damn close to nothing.

As you can probably tell, I have mixed bias about those guys jailed in SE Oregon. In the micro sense, I think
the Feds are screwing these guys, using and abusing their power and resources to niggle them. In the macro sense, I don't think we should even have a system where this abuse could be possible.
 
Last edited:
SlyPokerDog said:
It's the Garden State.
Click to expand...

The oceans are dead.

http://www.nj.gov/dep/greenacres/

Liberty_State_Park.jpg
Ocean_City_Beach.jpg

Paterson_Falls.jpg
Pochuck_Creek_Wetlands.jpg
Red_March.jpg
Seven_Presidents_Park.jpg
South_Mountain_Reservation.jpg
Blue_Heron.jpg
 
3RA1N1AC said:
I think it does a disservice to their own agenda when liberals laughingly paint these guys as "terrorists" or "thugs" or whatever, in order to equate them with the rights portrayal of black lives matter/ greenpeace/ muslims/ etc in a similar vein. It shifts the argument to "you are bad too!" instead of "neither are bad".

At the end of the day, both sides of the coin have much more in common than either realize.
Click to expand...

Say what you want but commandeering property that doesn't belong to them with guns is terrorism.
 
dviss1 said:
Say what you want but commandeering property that doesn't belong to them with guns is terrorism.
Click to expand...

Commandeering property that doesn't belong to them without guns is fine?
 
While I don't share their views they have staged a peaceful sit-in. The Alcatraz sit-in was allowed to go on for a year or 2. That they have guns is of no more significance than that they have shirts or whiskers.
 
MARIS61 said:
While I don't share their views they have staged a peaceful sit-in. The Alcatraz sit-in was allowed to go on for a year or 2. That they have guns is of no more significance than that they have shirts or whiskers.
Click to expand...

True. The Bundy group seem to be using the situation in Oregon as another stone to grind their ax on. A separate issue in my book.
 
MARIS61 said:
While I don't share their views they have staged a peaceful sit-in. The Alcatraz sit-in was allowed to go on for a year or 2. That they have guns is of no more significance than that they have shirts or whiskers.
Click to expand...

And if the FBI moves in, why, they'll have a giant whisker fight.

barfo
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Have they committed any violent acts?
Click to expand...

Against people no. But they have against federal property. They are also brandishing firearms telling police and federal agents (who have warrants for their arrest) that they will not be taken in and will "defend themselves" if they try.

That is not being peaceably assembled.
 
dviss1 said:
Against people no. But they have against federal property. They are also brandishing firearms telling police and federal agents (who have warrants for their arrest) that they will not be taken in and will "defend themselves" if they try.

That is not being peaceably assembled.
Click to expand...

And if they do attempt to violently prevent their legal arrest, then that will be a different story. Until then, there's no material difference between these morons and the people who dangled themselves from the St Johns bridge.
 
If I were the FBI, I'd just get some black guys to move there. Then the local police would shoot up the place, everyone would die, those in power could resume dining on their Danishes, and the bluebirds would sing.
 
Lotta whining about public ownership of the land and plenty of whining about how it's unconstitutional. The following link was published in this morning's Oregonian. It will be argued that the O is either a right wing or left wing rag (it's the former in my book) but they can't change history. Public ownership of American land is at least as much constitutional as the second amendment and was a requirement by the original 13 colonies before they would agree to even form the United States. Having said all that, I myself would gladly trade the second amendment for private ownership of most if not all public land....but either way, public ownership of the land is utterly constitutional. So get over it....it's called the Land Ordinance of 1784.

https://www.boundless.com/u-s-histo...inances-and-the-northwest-territory-471-8246/
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
I myself would gladly trade the second amendment for private ownership of most if not all public land...
Click to expand...

Sorry there Dad, but that is a weird statement! Why in the hell would you give up your right and my right to bear arms in exchange for better and probably more productive management a great deal of public lands? Just look at the map Denny posted, hardly any public land in New York or Texas as examples. Then you see damn near all of Nevada, SE Oregon, the eastern third of California owned by the government. There is no question about public lands being constitutional, of course the Federal government took control of the land when they acquired possession in the name of the United States. But no one expected the government to own it forever as you see they do not in most states. The only reason they own so damn much of the West is the requirements to transfer the land to private ownership became undo-able with the standard in place, not undesirable. It seems entirely logical that you would want these land to be productive for the people in your state. They are not as managed now and giving away the right to bear arm to do this blows my mind!
 
MarAzul said:
Sorry there Dad, but that is a weird statement! Why in the hell would you give up your right and my right to bear arms in exchange for better and probably more productive management a great deal of public lands? Just look at the map Denny posted, hardly any public land in New York or Texas as examples. Then you see damn near all of Nevada, SE Oregon, the eastern third of California owned by the government. There is no question about public lands being constitutional, of course the Federal government took control of the land when they acquired possession in the name of the United States. But no one expected the government to own it forever as you see they do not in most states. The only reason they own so damn much of the West is the requirements to transfer the land to private ownership became undo-able with the standard in place, not undesirable. It seems entirely logical that you would want these land to be productive for the people in your state. They are not as managed now and giving away the right to bear arm to do this blows my mind!
Click to expand...
I was hoping you were awake, but I was also hoping you would actually read the article. I got one out of two right. And I threw out my second amendment comments to show that that goal is just about as reasonable and obtainable as selling off public lands. The majority of the public appears to be fine with the second amendment as is, just as the majority of the public appears to be fine with public ownership of land as is. Welcome to democracy, like it or don't. We all have to give somewhere in exchange for what matters to us.....don't push to take "my" land and I won't push to take your guns...
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
Lotta whining about public ownership of the land and plenty of whining about how it's unconstitutional. The following link was published in this morning's Oregonian. It will be argued that the O is either a right wing or left wing rag (it's the former in my book) but they can't change history. Public ownership of American land is at least as much constitutional as the second amendment and was a requirement by the original 13 colonies before they would agree to even form the United States. Having said all that, I myself would gladly trade the second amendment for private ownership of most if not all public land....but either way, public ownership of the land is utterly constitutional. So get over it....it's called the Land Ordinance of 1784.

https://www.boundless.com/u-s-history/textbooks/boundless-u-s-history-textbook/founding-a-nation-1783-1789-9/the-confederation-s-problems-83/land-ordinances-and-the-northwest-territory-471-8246/
Click to expand...

What is the alternative to public ownership of some land? Is it whichever rich guy can pay the biggest militia to take and hold a piece of land, as long as he has the Governor's permission to kill local Indians? You know, the way it was done.
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
I was hoping you were awake, but I was also hoping you would actually read the article. I got one out of two right. And I threw out my second amendment comments to show that that goal is just about as reasonable and obtainable as selling off public lands. The majority of the public appears to be fine with the second amendment as is, just as the majority of the public appears to be fine with public ownership of land as is. Welcome to democracy, like it or don't. We all have to give somewhere in exchange for what matters to us.....don't push to take "my" land and I won't push to take your guns...
Click to expand...

Fine, but if you don't mind, my intent was to inform about the way the public land are in fact used, abuse might be a more appropriate word. Certainly very unproductive to our state and it's people.
Then I also included my opinion about it being unfair to the private land owner competing with the public land rangers in the beef market. $1.69 per month per cow/ calf is about half what
a private land owner would pay in property taxes on his land to host the pair. You don't even see the $1.69, no school does either.

Why don't you tell me why you feel so strongly about retaining "your" public land? I don't have the same feeling of ownership, because I sure as hell never abuse my land like the public land is.
Remember, we are not speaking about Crater Lake Nation Park.
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
you would actually read the article.
Click to expand...

Oh, and by the way, my comments are not in anyway in support of this Bundy guy from Nevada. I think his statements are bullshit, he might belong in jail for just a bit more of his lip running free.
 
I trust the private sector about as much as I trust the government. Which means I don't trust either party. Ranchers like the Hammands and Bundys has proven that they aren't stewards of the land. They're takers who do what they feel is best for the Hammonds and Bundys and screw everyone else. I agree that the laws and rules need serious work, and that the BLM can be an arbitrary and mean spirited bitch. But the ranchers aren't saints. Keep the land public, rewrite the rules that need to be rewritten and then enforce them on both sides if the fence (what a concept, eh?). I personally don't like being held hostage by a group of uneducated thugs. Especially when the government has a much better record of good stewardship than the ranchers do. Maybe that isnt saying much, but its the truth. You yourself have pointed out how "some" ranchers have ignored the rules and have damaged or destroyed the land when you had a ranch. Neither you or Denny have yet given a compelling reason for transfer of public ownership that would be in the best interests of the general public. I honestly don't believe one currently exists. Until one does, I'm fine with the status quo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top