That’s a bit of a cop-out, isn’t it? If Congress didn’t want the Bureau of Land Management selling U.S. land to foreign interests they could pass a law barring the sale of U.S. land to foreign interests.
3 Likes
I think everyone got that 
Aside from the self-appointed Class Monitor above, that is…
I’ve seen sources labeling them as SWAT/BLM/??? - they weren’t part of the civilian protestors.
My point was that we, as Americans, almost don’t bat an eye when gov. forces and police agencies station snipers at events. Both somewhat tense ones such as this, but also things like the Inauguration. Search around and you can find countless photos of scoped rifles being pointed at people at events and/or directly at photographers.
Despite countless examples of police/gov. abuse (ranging from questionable use of force, to incompetency, to out right murder) people I guess think the gov. is here to “protect and serve” us. That is somehow supposed to make us feel safe I guess? But if a citizen did something similar some people loose their shit, “OMFG mind blowing racist white militia BBQ!” While it’s hard for me to condone such behavior as “smart”, why aren’t people equally loosing their shit when a police sniper is scanning a crowd?
“It’s their job.” Well that’s bullshit. They can use binoculars. The whole purpose of having police snipers somewhere and at the ready is to respond if shit goes down, which is what this guy appears to be doing as well. Had gov. forces opened fire, wouldn’t this guy then have a legit reason to respond in kind? (I know such a thing sounds far-fetched, unlikely, and something ala infowars - but tell that to the 4 dead and 9 wounded at Kent state.)
1 Like
That was kind of a scenario I alluded to above. If a random cop acts illegally in a life-or-death situation and you successfully defend yourself from him with deadly force, chances are you are still going to either a) be eventually killed by another cop or b) go to prison for the rest of your life as a “cop killer.” There is, increasingly, no recourse to police misconduct. And they, the police, know this. So, in your scenario, if the snipers opened fire in an unprovoked (or even a provoked but reckless manner, with their bullets heading toward innocent civilians as well as “bad guys”) could a civilian be reasonably expected to shoot back at the police, in order to save their own lives from being lost? I think so. Others would disagree.
1 Like
And Congress is completely trustworthy about passing laws concerning the differing branches of the government. Except for the ones they exempt themselves from (to name a few);.
— The Freedom of Information Act.
— Investigatory subpoenas to obtain information for safety and health probes.
— Protections against retaliation for whistleblowers.
— Having to post notices of worker rights in offices.
— Prosecution for retaliating against employees who report safety and health hazards.
— Having to train employees about workplace rights and legal remedies.
— Record-keeping requirements for workplace injuries and illnesses
— Insider trading
Oh, wait a second. Isn’t Harry Reid via his son, Rory heavily implicated in land deals overseen by the BLM? I know that the scrubbing of websites of all the incriminating data was just because the deal was really not happening. And that Harry Reid’s former senior advisor being the new head of the BLM is just a happy coincidence. It’s just that old Harry seems to be taking what should be a legal or policy issue very personal.
But it’s all about the Desert Tortoise. So old Harry wasn’t concerned when he had the BLM change the rules for his top donor, Harvey Whittemore. Or the fact that the BLM is planning to euthanize some tortoise’s because they can’t afford the conservation center anymore (they had no problem doing the same to some of Bundy’s stock, including two penned in prize bulls). But they can afford armored carriers to move BLM shock troops around.
And of course all of those BLM permits for fracking…
Well, I for one, don’t like police snipers either. I don’t like anyone having guns anywhere, and I really, really hate the police being armed.
I’ve worked at an airport when Dubya was using it to fly home for the weekend in Air Force One, and I was extremely uncomfortable with the snipers and the threats issued about going outside the office or too close to the runway.
Then speaking logically; it’s a cop out. Who is to blame? The president? Your kidding me right?
Don’t even get me started about fracking… BLM just seems to do what ever they want… And on and on… It goes only reporting to ONE elected official.
Do you want to talk about the chemistry of fracking and how it effects your biochemistry? I wonder what Obummer would say if he faced me in a debate. He would cry by the time I was done.
Let’s roll…
Fact: BLM does not have you the citizen of the United States, a sovereign human being in mind when it’s making it’s decisions.
If your child gets a disease directly associated with the chemical exposure to fracking who the hell do you call? Try it. You ain’t gettin anywhere fast. You have to figure out a way to pay money to sue them directly.
Right in your home town: The case is Center for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Management, 11-cv-06174, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).
Brendan Cummings:
“In an era of dangerous climate change, the federal government should not be leasing public land for extreme forms of fossil fuel extraction”
They just started selling it off and made you the citizen pay for your rights through a civil court? Really? That is a JOKE.
Yes, lets remind them of their favorite band Devo. Read about how they started here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
From Jerry’s mouth:
“We knew Chrissie Hynde really well, I was in a band with her brother, Terry Hynde, he was a saxophone player.”
Rage Against the Machine of their time maybe?
Devolution
Little Billy said it best:
Fanatics are picturesque, mankind would rather see gestures than listen to reasons.
I was browsing The Nietzsche Family Circus that @thewoman pointed to in a different topic and thought that it was apropos here.
Fanatics started the country you live in.
They understand the risks involved in being your own sovereign. If you don’t want that responsibility then move back to England. Let them tell you how to live; where they now they live in a complete Orwellian state.
Fanatics run North Korea.
Your point is?
Edit to add: I would welcome a new revolution led by folks who can think and write like this: Founders Online: Home
Fanatics who can just spout hackneyed conspiracy theories and wave their thundersticks not so much.
5 Likes
I’m a fan of freedom not haircuts…
If your going to make an argument you better think a little harder.
Free thinking men started the country I live in.
They believed in the individual, choice, and the necessity of the common man to be free from an onerous government controlling them.
A fanatic believes that everyone else is wrong, only they have the right idea, and that anyone not going along should be forced to for their own good.
2 Likes
I was responding to your original, trite, response with my trite response (I see that you edited it later (without acknowledging the edit) to make it a bit beefier).
I would rather pick my own fanatics – the ones in Nevada/Idaho seem like they have groups associated with them that appear as though they might only be interested in obtaining freedom for a certain subset of people. I would rather not see an America where a kid might be pulled off of a bus and shot in the head because Freedom Fighters don’t think the kid should be going to school.
1 Like
There are many ways to define that word, fanatic. This is mine:
All fanatical beliefs are self-confirming…(some beliefs are) fanatical not because they are ‘false’, but because they are expressed in such a way that they can never be shown to be false.
I do agree with you:
They believed in the individual, choice, and the necessity of the common man to be free from an onerous government controlling them.
What you say above can never be false to me.
That’s not what they want. They don’t want the BLM charging them 50k per year to graze 300 cattle for a two month period every year.
They were paying 5000% less to the state.
The BLM had different ideas about the land.
My point if you have read the information I have tried to give you is:
The BLM does what ever they want and it takes a civil lawsuit to make them stop. In case of fracking, BP oil spill, and simple use of land for the common man.
I am not supporting their tactics just trying to explain to Xeni and everyone here why feel they have no course left.
The solution is simple-- graze on lands you can afford to lease,
I see a different solution. A government that isn’t trying to monitize every aspect and activity in life.
2 Likes
Yea I guess your right, paying 1.1 million for cows to eat? What are they Hindu?
Ridiculous. Besides, strippers and nuclear warheads will be the only thing left in Nevada in 20 years anyways.
I’ve been trying to work out how much the fees really are, and this is the best I’ve been able to find.
Which suggests something of the order of $20 per head of cattle, per year. I don’t know if that $1m includes fines, or interest charges, or something.
4 Likes
