What's new
By:

150 Terrorists invade Oregon

Stoked said:
You're right it isn't that simple but that is their goal.

Also fair enough on the Rs and Ds.

As far as it being sold off and us locked out. I am not sure I agree. It would all depend how it was done. I am not against all fed land. They need to stay at Yellowstone, grand canyon, Bryce canyon...but the %s of western lands they own is overly excessive IMO.
Click to expand...

I respect your opinion on that. The public lands we have in the west are like nothing else in the world. Theodore Roosevelt created all the national forests and lands for a very good reason, tonensure future generations of an amazing landscape that could be sustainably used. If I felt like the sell of these lands wasn't such a danger, I would be okay with the state taking over management. The problem is, I have talked to state officials, such as Ken Ivory, who when I've asked if there would be any binding agreement to keep these lands in public hands, he simply told me, "we can't promise anything", it was after talking to him and a few other state representatives I knew the plan here is for a major increase in oil, gas, and coal development, and that there's no guarantee what happens when they don't have an economical use to them. The eastern half of our country is nearly all private land, we aren't forced to live in the areas all these public lands are, I for one enjoy them a lot. The Feds already do land transfers, sale some land, and purchase important new areas. It's not as good of relationship between federal agencies and local ones as it should be, but it's getting better and we need to work on making it better.

My opinion on all the federal lands are that they for the most part need to be kept in trust for the public. The federal agencies allow grazing, mining, oil and gas development, protection, hunting, fishing, and a variety of other uses. Sure no one gets everything they want and they shouldn't, but we all get use out of these lands, just because it isn't exactly perfect to me does not call for a complete overhaul of the system. I'm all for more local input, but the input should come from state land and wildlife managers, not state politicians. It's the same on a federal level, more power should be given to local land managers than politicians. Politicians have a sneaky way of messing things up to fit their agendas. There are several BLM and Forest Service employees I have met that could do a better job if they had a little more freedom. They also don't have money to complete projects because congress hasn't fixed fire borrowing which is eating up half these agencies budgets every year.

I can't tell you 100% for certain the majority of these lands will be sold off, but in talking to state representatives it didn't put me at ease, it made me go a lot farther towards keeping these lands under federal authority. It's easy to make the Feds the enemy all the time, I get that. I am for more local input on decisions made, but I'm not for an all out transfer of these lands to the states. What look like empty spaces on a map, aren't as worthless to us or this world as some greedy politician thinks. The states have a good record of selling the majority of land they started or with, the Feds have a track record of keeping it, so at this point I will side with the Feds, which is something or rarely do.
 
one eye said:
I respect your opinion on that. The public lands we have in the west are like nothing else in the world. Theodore Roosevelt created all the national forests and lands for a very good reason, tonensure future generations of an amazing landscape that could be sustainably used. If I felt like the sell of these lands wasn't such a danger, I would be okay with the state taking over management. The problem is, I have talked to state officials, such as Ken Ivory, who when I've asked if there would be any binding agreement to keep these lands in public hands, he simply told me, "we can't promise anything", it was after talking to him and a few other state representatives I knew the plan here is for a major increase in oil, gas, and coal development, and that there's no guarantee what happens when they don't have an economical use to them. The eastern half of our country is nearly all private land, we aren't forced to live in the areas all these public lands are, I for one enjoy them a lot. The Feds already do land transfers, sale some land, and purchase important new areas. It's not as good of relationship between federal agencies and local ones as it should be, but it's getting better and we need to work on making it better.

My opinion on all the federal lands are that they for the most part need to be kept in trust for the public. The federal agencies allow grazing, mining, oil and gas development, protection, hunting, fishing, and a variety of other uses. Sure no one gets everything they want and they shouldn't, but we all get use out of these lands, just because it isn't exactly perfect to me does not call for a complete overhaul of the system. I'm all for more local input, but the input should come from state land and wildlife managers, not state politicians. It's the same on a federal level, more power should be given to local land managers than politicians. Politicians have a sneaky way of messing things up to fit their agendas. There are several BLM and Forest Service employees I have met that could do a better job if they had a little more freedom. They also don't have money to complete projects because congress hasn't fixed fire borrowing which is eating up half these agencies budgets every year.

I can't tell you 100% for certain the majority of these lands will be sold off, but in talking to state representatives it didn't put me at ease, it made me go a lot farther towards keeping these lands under federal authority. It's easy to make the Feds the enemy all the time, I get that. I am for more local input on decisions made, but I'm not for an all out transfer of these lands to the states. What look like empty spaces on a map, aren't as worthless to us or this world as some greedy politician thinks. The states have a good record of selling the majority of land they started or with, the Feds have a track record of keeping it, so at this point I will side with the Feds, which is something or rarely do.
Click to expand...

It all depends on how it was done. Make it hard not to sell it off. But here is what the feds own in the top several states:

AZ - 42.3%
CA - 47.7%
WY - 48.2%
OR - 53%
AK - 61.8%
UT - 66.5%
NV - 81.1%

That's just to much IMO.
 
Stoked said:
It all depends on how it was done. Make it hard not to sell it off. But here is what the feds own in the top several states:

AZ - 42.3%
CA - 47.7%
WY - 48.2%
OR - 53%
AK - 61.8%
UT - 66.5%
NV - 81.1%

That's just to much IMO.
Click to expand...

Nevada at 81% is probably too high, but I am okay with all the rest. The problem is the state wants a transfer, and to write up the management/disposal plan for these lands. The state wants a transfer and no stipulations. There's nothing by law or constitutionally, as well as 125 court cases ruling in favor of the feds having the right to manage these lands, that say the feds have to give this land up for free. If they want the feds can charge the state, there's nothing binding the feds to do anything, unless congress authorizes it. Nevada also when granted statehood, agreed to give the federal government more land, so they could hand pick the sections in the state they wanted. Parts of the Las Vegas strip were sold at about $1 an acre in some instances because politicians took the land and didn't use it for what they agreed they would do with it, which was save the money to fund their school system.

I mean sure those are large percentages, but at the same time, there's plenty of development, I have no problem with the percentages because I've seen plenty of development and there will be plenty more to come. If we start selling these lands, developing them, etc. there is no way to turn around. If the percentage of federally managed lands in Utah dropped to 20%, I guarantee we on't see that number rise again within our lifetimes.

Now I am bias in this argument, I love to hunt, fish, camp, hike, etc. on these lands, so there's a reason I see things that way. It's hard for me to look at the Wasatch front where homes are being built up the mountain, agricultural land is basically doomed to housing and businesses, the Great Salk Lake's wetlands threats to be developed, and want to see that around the rest of the state on a larger scale. Once you use these federal lands that have such an abundance of use and wildlife on them, as well as livestock grazing for food production, its hard to want to doom them to development. I mean as a hunter, I do sympathize when I watch a new sub division go in where deer and elk come to winter and then they get there and they have no place to survive. Then property owners complain about how much of a nuisance they are when they are the ones who intruded on them. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a hardcore environmentalists like that probably makes me sound, but I believe as a society it is not only okay but also our duty to endure a little "burden" to make sure our wildlife, food sources, and open landscapes that ensure their future exist well past this generation. In a world that constantly pushes economic growth, I just think there are some things more important than that, and politicians don't seem to see it that way. Now that 66% of federal land in this state, I can't ensure will remain open space and wildlife habitat, but the feds have a pretty good track record of keeping the majority of it that way, and I think thats beneficial to us and our kids and their kids. Who ever came to Utah to see a shopping mall? Or an oil rig? Our national parks attract millions from around the country and rest of the world every year. Outdoor recreation contributes $646 billion a year to our economy in this country, which is the 3rd largest industry in our country. That recreation revolves heavily around public access, and these lands provide it. Yes its a large percentage, but I embrace that, the only reason I see to not embrace it, is greater economic exploitation of it,and to me that's a short sighted goal only considering those of us that are here and now, and not those who will live here for generations to come.

Aldo Leopold said it best:

“This country has been swinging the hammer of development so long and so hard that it has forgotten the anvil of wilderness which gave value and significance to its labors. The momentum of our blows is so unprecedented that the remaining remnant of wilderness will be pounded into road-dust long before we find out its values.”
Click to expand...
 
Alright now, listen up...because I'm not going to comment on this particular subject till another REAL terrorist attack occurs!

Views on what constitutes terrorism vary widely. For example, in countries torn apart by civil strife, acts of violence by one faction against another may be viewed either as legitimate acts of war or as terrorism, depending on which side is asked. However, the word “terrorism” generally has reference to the use of violence as a means of coercion.

Today’s terrorist threat comes primarily from extremists who have established their own funding networks—through traffic in drugs, private business, independent wealth, charities, and local financial support...and ESPECIALLY deep seated "religious" beliefs and view points! And they continue to be as ruthless as ever.

In general, terrorists seem to exhibit less restraint than they did in the past. Also new is the choice of weapons at the disposal of terrorists. Louis R. Mizell, Jr., an expert on terrorism, stated: “We live in an age of unimaginable rage and apocalyptic arsenals: nuclear, chemical, and biological.” Extremists who want to make a greater impression are turning to the more lethal weapons that technology has made available.

Terrorism can also have an impact on national economies. (Religious terrorist who would simultaneously blow up a few "Malls" or "Walmart's" could bring the US economy to its knees!) Whether we notice it or not, terrorism affects us all. It influences the way we travel and the choices we make when we travel. It forces countries around the world to spend huge amounts of tax money to protect public figures, vital installations, and citizens. (Homeland Security, for example, cost billions of dollars each year in this country!)

So, these armed anti-government protesters who have taken over a building in a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon may be termed "terrorists" by the technical definition, they are NOT the extreme religious terrorists who can decimate entire economies and obliterate thousands, even millions with deadly nuclear weaponry!
 
I don't really consider them "terrorists". However, they have broken the law in several ways and need to be held accountable.
 
carolinajazz said:
Alright now, listen up...because I'm going to perform my tried and true cut and paste plagerisim act once again since they keep allowing me to get away with it on this site.

Views on what constitutes terrorism vary widely. For example, in countries torn apart by civil strife, acts of violence by one faction against another may be viewed either as legitimate acts of war or as terrorism, depending on which side is asked. However, the word “terrorism” generally has reference to the use of violence as a means of coercion.

Today’s terrorist threat comes primarily from extremists who have established their own funding networks—through traffic in drugs, private business, independent wealth, charities, and local financial support...and ESPECIALLY deep seated "religious" beliefs and view points! And they continue to be as ruthless as ever.

In general, terrorists seem to exhibit less restraint than they did in the past. Also new is the choice of weapons at the disposal of terrorists. Louis R. Mizell, Jr., an expert on terrorism, stated: “We live in an age of unimaginable rage and apocalyptic arsenals: nuclear, chemical, and biological.” Extremists who want to make a greater impression are turning to the more lethal weapons that technology has made available.

Terrorism can also have an impact on national economies. (Religious terrorist who would simultaneously blow up a few "Malls" or "Walmart's" could bring the US economy to its knees!) Whether we notice it or not, terrorism affects us all. It influences the way we travel and the choices we make when we travel. It forces countries around the world to spend huge amounts of tax money to protect public figures, vital installations, and citizens. (Homeland Security, for example, cost billions of dollars each year in this country!)

So, these armed anti-government protesters who have taken over a building in a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon may be termed "terrorists" by the technical definition, they are NOT the extreme religious terrorists who can decimate entire economies and obliterate thousands, even millions with deadly nuclear weaponry!
Click to expand...
Fixed
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102001362
 
carolinajazz said:
Hey, it wasn't exactly word for word, but expressed my sentiments to a tee! By the way, you should be working for the FBI, or the IRS, or the front office of the Utah Jazz, seeing how you can find vital information with ease!
Click to expand...
So if it expresses your sentiments to a tee then how about citing the source and providing a link? Taking someone else's words and posting them as if they are your own is a crime called plagiarism, and there are many reasons why it is not okay to do. How come you can't comprehend that? How hard could it possibly be to cite your sources?
 
On a funny note, the Bundy group has put out the call for supplies. In response a bunch of people sent them glitter and self pleasure toys.

Hahahaha
 
franklin said:
Tell me this isn't related to Cliven Bundy.
Click to expand...

Indirectly. He isn't involved but 1 or 2 of his idiot sons are leading the group at the reserve. They are not the only party involved up there. But it was their action that sparked all the mass media attention.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
So if it expresses your sentiments to a tee then how about citing the source and providing a link? Taking someone else's words and posting them as if they are your own is a crime called plagiarism, and there are many reasons why it is not okay to do. How come you can't comprehend that? How hard could it possibly be to cite your sources?
Click to expand...

...when did "copy and paste" become a crime? Besides the writers of those journals are "anonymous", have been and always will be! So to save time and effort I copy and paste! What I do "comprehend" is the content is accurate, reasonable and spot on! So, lighten up...and learn something when you read my posts!
 
ElRoach0 said:
It's already been established that the Hammond's want no part in the Bundy's. Moreover, arson is arson; minimum sentences can suck; not in this case.

What Obama should do, is gas the refuge and incarcerate everyone involved.

Moreover, your tin foil hat is showing. Big shot lawyers aren't big shot lawyers because they follow and interpret the law, they're big shot lawyers because they write law.
Click to expand...

I have declining respect for the legal profession because of trends like administrative courts which assume lawmaking or policy making prerogatives, and because of the influence of various bar associations with society changing agendas. A lawyer today is more of an officer of the court than a defender of anyone's rights.

You really destroy your own credibility calling for violence and throwing out meaningless insults.
 
carolinajazz said:
...when did "copy and paste" become a crime? Besides the writers of those journals are "anonymous", have been and always will be! So to save time and effort I copy and paste! What I do "comprehend" is the content is accurate, reasonable and spot on! So, lighten up...and learn something when you read my posts!
Click to expand...
Your username should be IDontGetIt. I doubt the writers of all the content you steal are anonymous, but even if they are the content belongs to the publishers of the respective articles. When you post them in a way that makes it appear that the words are yours (which you do repeatedly, though very poorly) you disqualify yourself from participating in an honest conversation.
 
babe said:
I have declining respect for the legal profession because of trends like administrative courts which assume lawmaking or policy making prerogatives, and because of the influence of various bar associations with society changing agendas. A lawyer today is more of an officer of the court than a defender of anyone's rights.

You really destroy your own credibility calling for violence and throwing out meaningless insults.
Click to expand...

You have evaded every last fact that we're facing up to now. It doesn't matter which direction we argue, the second you get cornered or called out on anything, you take the opposite.

Fact; these juvenile delinquents are trespassing
Fact; these juvenile delinquents are disrupting the daily lives of the residents of Burns, OR
Fact; The Hammond family do not want to be any part of this
Fact; these juvenile delinquents do not have a legal leg to stand on
Fact; We, the people, have allowed these juvenile delinquents more than enough time, and media attention, to express their point and try to gather followers

They have sent their message. They have had enough time to realize the public does not support them. Hell, the public is sending them bags of gummy wangs, "marital aids", and a 55 gallon drum of lube. Gasing the refuge is the least violent option for removing these juvenile delinquents. Incarceration is just plain fair at this point.

You don't want to talk credibility here. As the second largest conspiracy theorist on the board, only Thriller has less than you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top