This is gonna get interesting! Militia takes over Ore. federal building after protest.

G

GrowUrOwnDank

Well-Known Member
So the Oregon protestors think they can just walk away with any federally owned property because they are special. None of the rest of us deserve to just walk away with this property. Because the protestors are obviously more special and entitled than the rest of us Muricans and are entitled to just steal any property owned by the people and just claim it as their own. Oh and they want the land free and clear too. So they can raise cattle or whatever. None of the rest of us deserve to have that land set aside so we can enjoy the natural wildlife should we decide to visit it. It's all about mo money fo the Bundy's and they buds.

Yeah. This protest has real merit I can get behind.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/protester_arrested_in_burns_dr.html

Sometimes I dislike my race. The human race. Every day I'm reminded that typically Muricans are the most ignorant arrogant entitled people's on the planet.

I do hope this ends peacefully. But, as every day passes and the more I read, I begin to lean more torward those Bundy's deserve some jail time for this ignant reckless behavior that stems from their own greed.

What good has come from this? The attention has caused an influx of people to flock to the area to cover the story, curiosity or to participate in some way so local businesses like the hotel as an example, is flourishing with business. lol.

I can hardly wait for the docudrama. Adam Sandler should consider the lead role. :bigjoint:
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
GrowUrOwnDank said:
So the Oregon protestors think they can just walk away with any federally owned property because they are special. None of the rest of us deserve to just walk away with this property. Because the protestors are obviously more special and entitled than the rest of us Muricans and are entitled to just steal any property owned by the people and just claim it as their own. Oh and they want the land free and clear too. So they can raise cattle or whatever. None of the rest of us deserve to have that land set aside so we can enjoy the natural wildlife should we decide to visit it. It's all about mo money fo the Bundy's and they buds.

Yeah. This protest has real merit I can get behind.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/protester_arrested_in_burns_dr.html

Sometimes I dislike my race. The human race. Every day I'm reminded that typically Muricans are the most ignorant arrogant entitled people's on the planet.

I do hope this ends peacefully. But, as every day passes and the more I read, I begin to lean more torward those Bundy's deserve some jail time for this ignant reckless behavior that stems from their own greed.

What good has come from this? The attention has caused an influx of people to flock to the area to cover the story, curiosity or to participate in some way so local businesses like the hotel as an example, is flourishing with business. lol.

I can hardly wait for the docudrama. Adam Sandler should consider the lead role. :bigjoint:
Click to expand...

The good that comes from civil disobedience is that the possibility of addressing root causes increases as rational arguments are held. UNLESS, root causes are addressed, no real solution can be affected.

In this case, the discussion is still flailing in the branches though and not striking the root, as the occupiers seem a little confused. They seem to correctly identify that Federal forcible domination of an individual is a bad thing, but then they contradict themselves when they posit that State or County domination is okay.

THAT land being occupied was originally occupied by the high plains Sasquatches who granted the Paiute Indians use as long as they honored the Sasquatches with totems and alms. In THAT movie, Shaquille O'Neal in a Sasquatch suit will play the lead role. Sorry, Adam.
 
S

spandy

Well-Known Member
GrowUrOwnDank said:
None of the rest of us deserve to have that land set aside so we can enjoy the natural wildlife should we decide to visit it.
Click to expand...
99% of the country couldn't find the place without a map, knew the place existed or had any intentions of visiting ever.

Thats why you dont deserve it.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
GrowUrOwnDank said:
So the Oregon protestors think they can just walk away with any federally owned property because they are special. None of the rest of us deserve to just walk away with this property. Because the protestors are obviously more special and entitled than the rest of us Muricans and are entitled to just steal any property owned by the people and just claim it as their own. Oh and they want the land free and clear too. So they can raise cattle or whatever. None of the rest of us deserve to have that land set aside so we can enjoy the natural wildlife should we decide to visit it. It's all about mo money fo the Bundy's and they buds.

Yeah. This protest has real merit I can get behind.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/protester_arrested_in_burns_dr.html

Sometimes I dislike my race. The human race. Every day I'm reminded that typically Muricans are the most ignorant arrogant entitled people's on the planet.

I do hope this ends peacefully. But, as every day passes and the more I read, I begin to lean more torward those Bundy's deserve some jail time for this ignant reckless behavior that stems from their own greed.

What good has come from this? The attention has caused an influx of people to flock to the area to cover the story, curiosity or to participate in some way so local businesses like the hotel as an example, is flourishing with business. lol.

I can hardly wait for the docudrama. Adam Sandler should consider the lead role. :bigjoint:
Click to expand...
Why does the government own land? In some places in the Southwest the federal government owns over 1/2 of the land. They bought it really fucking cheap and have no interest in letting the citizens use it or buy it. Why is that the case?
 
G

GrowUrOwnDank

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
Why does the government own land? In some places in the Southwest the federal government owns over 1/2 of the land. They bought it really fucking cheap and have no interest in letting the citizens use it or buy it. Why is that the case?
Click to expand...
The people are the government. You speak like they are our enemy. Which is usually how some people argue when they want something for free. This is about the Oregon occupiers. And I still think their agenda is to show off their guns. And attempt to get something for free. As it turns out they are shaking up a community. Normal people with jobs and families. They have disrupted a community. Even the bird watchers have protested the protestors. I think it's gone a little far now. I don't even want to try to explain to you why certain lands should be set aside as refuge. Right now. My position is. I still hope this ends peacefully. I hope these guys don't show boat their weapons. Especially in the community of just normal hard working people with families. They took a stand. The people aren't behind them. Walk away peacefully. Perhaps the government will note that and not be too harsh on them. Like the locals told the occupiers. Go home to your families. Peace and love brother.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
Why does the government own land? In some places in the Southwest the federal government owns over 1/2 of the land. They bought it really fucking cheap and have no interest in letting the citizens use it or buy it. Why is that the case?
Click to expand...
There are a lot of privately run businesses using public land under private-public management and within federal environmental laws. Timber, mining, grazing are all going on. Beginning about 8 years before Bundy and his band of pot roasts in boots occupied the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, a council representing all stakeholders in the refuge was succeeding in implementing a cooperative management system that recognized grazing as a part of the plan. Many stakeholders worked together to put that plan in place and there is good agreement that this plan is meeting needs for all.

What the occupiers want is all lands under private ownership and management. They want the land managed for economic benefit without regard to other purposes. When this kind of system was in place (think early 1900's), mine owners made a lot of money, pocketed it and abandoned mines to become pits of toxic waste that today are threatening communities throughout the west. Grazing mismanagement led to overgrazing and loss of productive range land not only for cattle but for wildlife. Again, ranching corporations pocketed the money and left. Timber -- that story didn't go well either -- the logging wasn't going to stop until every stick was gone. The occupiers offer platitudes to the idea of long term management but the reality of business today is manage for short term gain and devil take the hindmost. This is not necessarily a bad way to run a business, but its not a good way to manage the environment.

By the way, the federal govt. took that land from the Paiute Native Americans without payment. If anybody has a right to that land, it is the remaining members of that native american tribe.

In any case, the fact remains that this is publicly owned land. The right by the government to own that land was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1911 that public lands were owned by the public. Occupying a wildlife refuge in the middle of southern Oregon's desert won't change that.
 
G

GrowUrOwnDank

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
There are a lot of privately run businesses using public land under private-public management and within federal environmental laws. Timber, mining, grazing are all going on. Beginning about 8 years before Bundy and his band of pot roasts in boots occupied the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, a council representing all stakeholders in the refuge was succeeding in implementing a cooperative management system that recognized grazing as a part of the plan. Many stakeholders worked together to put that plan in place and there is good agreement that this plan is meeting needs for all.

What the occupiers want is all lands under private ownership and management. They want the land managed for economic benefit without regard to other purposes. When this kind of system was in place (think early 1900's), mine owners made a lot of money, pocketed it and abandoned mines to become pits of toxic waste that today are threatening communities throughout the west. Grazing mismanagement led to overgrazing and loss of productive range land not only for cattle but for wildlife. Again, ranching corporations pocketed the money and left. Timber -- that story didn't go well either -- the logging wasn't going to stop until every stick was gone. The occupiers offer platitudes to the idea of long term management but the reality of business today is manage for short term gain and devil take the hindmost. This is not necessarily a bad way to run a business, but its not a good way to manage the environment.

By the way, the federal govt. took that land from the Paiute Native Americans without payment. If anybody has a right to that land, it is the remaining members of that native american tribe.

In any case, the fact remains that this is publicly owned land. The right by the government to own that land was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1911 that public lands were owned by the public. Occupying a wildlife refuge in the middle of southern Oregon's desert won't change that.
Click to expand...
Fuck yeah homie! Mad respect!
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
There are a lot of privately run businesses using public land under private-public management and within federal environmental laws. Timber, mining, grazing are all going on. Beginning about 8 years before Bundy and his band of pot roasts in boots occupied the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, a council representing all stakeholders in the refuge was succeeding in implementing a cooperative management system that recognized grazing as a part of the plan. Many stakeholders worked together to put that plan in place and there is good agreement that this plan is meeting needs for all.

What the occupiers want is all lands under private ownership and management. They want the land managed for economic benefit without regard to other purposes. When this kind of system was in place (think early 1900's), mine owners made a lot of money, pocketed it and abandoned mines to become pits of toxic waste that today are threatening communities throughout the west. Grazing mismanagement led to overgrazing and loss of productive range land not only for cattle but for wildlife. Again, ranching corporations pocketed the money and left. Timber -- that story didn't go well either -- the logging wasn't going to stop until every stick was gone. The occupiers offer platitudes to the idea of long term management but the reality of business today is manage for short term gain and devil take the hindmost. This is not necessarily a bad way to run a business, but its not a good way to manage the environment.

By the way, the federal govt. took that land from the Paiute Native Americans without payment. If anybody has a right to that land, it is the remaining members of that native american tribe.

In any case, the fact remains that this is publicly owned land. The right by the government to own that land was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1911 that public lands were owned by the public. Occupying a wildlife refuge in the middle of southern Oregon's desert won't change that.
Click to expand...
You are stretching the truth a bit here. If a private company owns land it is not going to let it get cut to the ground or overgrazed. I think you will find lots of those abuses happened on 'government' owned land. A corporation will re-plant trees because it is economically profitable to re-seed and then cut another generation of trees.

The oversight today is 1000 times more than in the wild west days, you cant just show up somewhere, clear cut an area and high tail it back to town without people knowing what is going on.

But lets get back to the question. Why does the federal government own land? I dont see why they should own any. There may be a good argument to be made for the states owning land but I am not sure about that either. Land is like public housing, if you dont own it, why would you care about it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top