Don’t confuse them with the facts.
2 Likes
Yea I read through that, though I would like to make a point about facts. Especially to those that may think my point is a little off key.
On April 3rd I downloaded the actual BLM website page your link references. Now don’t you worry I have it all my data stored on three different HD.
That article you posted as a reply is not very forthcoming. Especially the part left out from the original April 3rd version of the BLM.gov website which is very crucial in my eyes, for two reasons. One it’s not there anymore, and two it’s not there anymore … Oi I also have a third… Here it is:
Examples of Restoration Funding:
“Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle.”
It’s hard to believe but Mr. Reid hired his friend at the BLM so his family could buy a bigger ego boost cause he can’t get it up anymore. But, It’s no different than the Bush family and how they used Americans to roll up two wars in a nice little piggy called “fear of the unknown”. They were playing you like a little girl scared of the wind - in bed wanting to hug something.
Republican or Democrat they are feeding off each other and they are useless liars.
Facts removed by the BLM from the website…
http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/more/trespass_cattle/cattle_trespass_impacts.html
To bad I archived all of it on three different HD and no, they are void of any little bugs written for such occasions…
I hope you don’t work for the NSA; Cause you seem to suck as a counter intelligence officer.
Read above the quote that the BLM.gov removed. Cause well maybe you should be the one to tell everyone?
So what they were planning on doing is moving the turtles from the site of the solar project the Chinese based company with Mr. Reid’s son as a board member to where bundy was not willing to leave.
Cause he didn’t value their opinion. Cause they lie to you and me.
Kinda see why he’s mad now huh…
I really don’t care what the BLM removed from their website. That’s a straw man to the actual issue, which is someone refusing to pay for what they use and then inciting armed militia crazies to show up.
—
Sent from Mailbox
1 Like
OK then, whom do you shoot? And will that
a) solve your problem and get the govt. to leave you alone, or,
b) make things dramatically worse for yourself and others (especially the people you shoot)?
Arming yourself against the federal government is a fetish and a fantasy, not a practical measure against oppression.
The states wanting their citizens armed as defense-in-depth against organised external aggression, that makes sense, and especially made sense when the British empire was a non-trivial threat, so very long ago.
4 Likes
So you really don’t care about a government that makes arbitrary changes without notice, refuses to release information on why changes are made, and then for political purposes hides information because it will make them, or somebody else, look bad. That’s the problems with edicts, facts become meaningless.
I was once involved in a eminent domain situation. The city had targeted the property my business operates out of that was included in a 9 block land grab. We received the usual notices about meetings, plans were put on the town website, etc.
They had a nice little presentation for all the affected property owners (commercial and residential), where they had the development company display slides and a slick little AutoCAD walkthrough. Then they had us break up into groups where we discussed among us how the properties could be best used to help the community. Guess what, nobody there thought that taking the properties would help anybody but the developers. They made sure that was talked around by some “community engineering” professionals.
But the really sneaky part was, all of the engineering plans were already in place for exactly what they wanted to do. The development companies were lined up, and the pockets were already greased. Planning had started at least 5 years before that without any notice to the property owners. Certain insiders were quietly buying up property, and property was already being taken in another section of town.
Then some inspectors got busted by the FBI for unrelated stuff, and the market tanked (2008), a case concerning ED made it to the State Supreme Court and the town (a different one) lost. Investors got nervous an backed away.
After it was all over, all of the engineering and PR hype disappeared from the websites like it was never there. I also found out that the town had put a price on the property for reimbursement for 65K. Mind you , this is a prime location on a major road directly across from a train station. A property on tax records with an assessment of nearly 250k. A property that Solomon Dwek (don’t know who he is, look him up), sent a “proposal for an option to buy” during this whole mess for 500k. It was really a laughable offer. We had to guarantee him the right to purchase for 500K if he decided to, while preventing us from selling to anyone else, while not actually getting anything in return if he didn’t buy.
In other words, the powers that be didn’t’ care about the local businesses, the local residents, or actual fairness or property values. They decided that they wanted a certain swath of property so that some other group could make money by taking property cheap from people that would have had no control or input into the process.
1 Like
Forget it, kiddo. Three cranks are dominating this thread. I’m a little surprised Falcor hasn’t stopped by.
5 Likes
That’s not how biology works. You can’t magically find and move all of a species from one area and plop it down in a different area, and you especially can’t do it when there are trained professionals keeping track of the species because they’re known to be endangered.
I will give you points for using “oy” on a thread about white supremacists, though.
2 Likes
Well, we can’t nuke it from orbit, he’s the only option we have left to play.
Fight the sadness!
1 Like
Are we reading the same thread? Unless you are saying that the BLM is run and controlled by Stormfront…
Sometimes on the internet I get confused. You just turned my confusion to 11.
dominating = not having their posts deleted by a mod.
(yay for free speech, the exchange of thoughts/ideas, etc.)
More often than not, dominating = repetition. Nowhere did I suggest your comments should be deleted, though.
4 Likes
I do agree with you but they don’t.
And for your information before you call some one a racist or white supremisist, you might want to understand colloquial slang. Where I was stationed, in a portion of the UK, oi was a form of greeting or expression.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oi!
Good day to you chap.
I’d be happy to discuss the disconnect.
Are you outraged at the ridiculous abuse of prosecutorial power and threats that were used against Aaron Swartz in an essentially “victimless” crime? Those types of real life threats that destroy livelihoods, marriages, and families have been used against gun owners many times over. I see the ripples from Aaron’s death and the incarceration of Kevin Mitnick (also weev, even though his time ended up being relatively short comparitively; I don’t mean to trivialize the wringer he went through) and I know they ring in my heart the same way that Waco and Ruby Ridge do.
The belief in the right to bear arms largely stems from two things - the right to protect yourself, and the right to protect your property. If you don’t first agree that a person has the right to defend themselves I probably can’t offer anything that would invite conversation or discussion. If you don’t believe in individual property rights the same applies.
The people you see as gun rights fanatics, many also feel the same way about fanatics of other more liberal causes. I see them as both promoting different sides of freedom. Both are disturbed at the government war on freedom, they just value different personal freedoms differently.
What matters most to you?
The freedom to ingest/inhale/absorb the substances what you want.
The freedom to have access to medications that may not have the govt. stamp of approval once you are educated about the risks.
The freedom to use your computing power as you see fit.
The freedom to conduct your daily life free from unwanted/unagreed to surveilance.
The freedom to protect yourself, your family, and your home.
The freedom to know what actions are being carried out by the government agents we collectively grant power to.
The freedom to know when your data is being collected or used.
The freedom to hear the music and play the video games that you want to.
All of these things are important to me. I don’t want to sound like a generic libertarian rant. I see all of these issues as stemming the same root cause of personal freedom and the government intrusion on freedom.
End the drug war.
End the war on personal computing.
End the war on privacy.
End the war on civiliam arms.
Support freedom.
1 Like
tl;dr.
Can you stick to the point of the post we’re all discussing instead of going off in the weeds about yourself?
Without debating the merits of whether the government or the cattle owners are in the right or wrong in the first place. I have to disagree with your analysis.
While no one was shot, it seems to me that the government would NOT have released the cows if there had not been an armed civilian presence ready to make a spectacle. Saving those cows before they were all dead from malnourishment and dehydrations is a very practical measure of the outcome here.
While no shooting took place, if the protestors were not armed or committed to action, I do not think the government would have had trouble stymieing them until the cows were all dead essentially ruining the rancher.
Yes - many of the gun owners may be enmeshed in fetish and fantasy with guns, but there really is a practical and measurable affect from having armed citizens in this situation that I don’t think should be ignored.
1 Like
Ahh I see, you don’t want to care.
Now I get it.
By the way look at this guy, awesomeness! He wrote gun control legislation and ended up getting caught selling guns to several armed militia groups. Sweet!!! Why isn’t this the headline? Cause your news is pushed to you like feeding some one in a hospital.
Life term politicians like the ones voted to office right now, true to form, will eat themselves every time.
Good luck to you’
Well, if you asked the crowd of people below who they would rather have pointing a rifle at them:
A) some T-shirt wearing dude who probably agrees with why you are here.
B) A govt agent who is enforcing a rule that made you so angry you showed up here.
C)No one, please don’t point any guns at me
Hopefully C is the winner, but I wouldn’t be surprised if A gets some votes, and I think we can probably agree that B would get the least votes of any of them.
The rule I’m most familiar with is the Cooper version of don’t point your gun at anything you aren’t willing to destroy. In the case of both sides, I think the willingness is there. 
He needs only a very very very small angle of rotation to be able to cover a large area of fire at a distance. He is restricted, but it may not be as restrictive as it seems. Plus, he is sitll way better off than popping his rifle, and head, uncovered above the barrier.
