philoshop Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 At least half of those charges could currently be filed against Hillary Clinton. Time for a roadblock. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Field_Ager Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Over the past three centuries, a sinister pattern has appeared and reappeared. It’s a simple pattern, really: Impose scarcity, divide and conquer, reap the exploitative benefits of triumph. It’s true that the composition of the elite, from the 18th century to today, has changed enormously, but the tactics of the elite have stayed remarkably similar: The first tactic: Drive as many ordinary people as possible off the land—the land that the elite covet for their own idle amusement. The second tactic: Pit the “lower orders,” the little people, against each other—that is, have them at each other’s throats. That way, they will never look up and see who their real enemy is. And as a result, the elite enjoy the good life, untroubled by the unwanted rabble. In 18th century England, it was the land-owning gentry that implemented this strategy, manipulating the power of the state to push the yeomanry off the land—the land that people had long relied on for survival. The elite, you see, wanted that land for themselves—for vital purposes, such as fox hunting, horse racing, and landscape portraiture. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/13/from-the-black-act-to-green-victory-the-elite-win-when-the-middleworking-class-is-at-war-with-itself/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EspressoBuzz Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) First Tactic: The US acquired the land in the west by the Louisiana purchase, Gadsden purchase, Mexican Cession & a British Treaty. The Federal gov't couldn't get rid of all the land even with the homestead act which gave land away for NOTHING, even today the States with the most Federal land are the most sparsely populated and the most arid. The states DON'T want it it would cost too much to administer as currently the land loses 125 million dollars annually with low grazing and mining fees. Second Tactic: Is this where the Koch Industries comes in and "wanted that land for themselves-for vital purposes such as" mineral extraction, timber harvesting, etc. Edited February 13, 2016 by EspressoBuzz 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike rossi Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 I dont know why this thread was moved to this section. It is not politics and it is not about gun laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntscreek Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 This case could of been handled better than it was/is by both sides. You have to admit the Government flexed more muscle on a rancher than other issues it should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curmudgeon Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 The complaint seems entirely reasonable to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philoshop Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I dont know why this thread was moved to this section. It is not politics and it is not about gun laws. It may not be about your particular politics, but it is most assuredly 'about politics'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curmudgeon Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Mike's post is not political. It is about criminality. The follow-up commentary is political. So, any topic can be driven to the politics section. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike rossi Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 Its not a political topic.... I have also seen conservation topics put under politics.... That is the trouble with the world, everything is politicized.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike rossi Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 Do some of you not realize this guy is using public land set aside for conservation of our animals and resources for his own financial gain? Listen to Steven rinellas podcast with the first lite guys. These guys are using public land for their own financial gain and claiming to be patriots? Burning public land? Wtf? Grazing, like timber harvest and share cropping are sometimes used as tools to enhance habitat. The scientists working for the goverment agency which administers the land determines the cattle/sheep stocking rate per acre and the rotation schedule. Grazing is allowed for a below market fee but under rules (stocking rate, rotation) set by the agency. The ranchers are not allowed to overstock and over graze the land, but they also are paying below market value for grazing privileges. As I said elsewhere, few ranchers complain and understand they are getting a good deal. Bundy, reportedly not only thought he was paying too much, but was unhappy about the prescribed stocking rate. So, what the heck, lets just go in and take over federal public property, including an office. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike rossi Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 Why are you even commenting on this?? These guys don't effect your life at all. Why don't you just "Mind your own business"?? I hunt there, so what do you say about that? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawnhu Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I hunt there, so what do you say about that? I think ants tells that to everyone he doesn't agree with. It's his MO. X-Calibur Lighting Systems http://facebook.com/XCaliburLightingSystems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.