Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby beretta24 » Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:21 pm

Why can't the ownership be transfered to the states? That's the argument most make, not let's sell it to private citizens.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5953
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN


Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby dudejcb » Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:18 pm

cartervj wrote:... I don't care if the guy is an idiot, facts are facts and should reported as so...
Where's Sean Hannity? He was in love with this guy when he was a convenient foil to attack the government, and now can't put distance between them fast enough. Why isn't he helping your guy out? What up?

BTW: Is FOX part of the MSM in your world?
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby cartervj » Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:02 pm

Once again you can't see the forest for the trees.


The MSM is NBC, CBS and ABC plus the Big newspapers, you know the ones that used to try and protect the public against corrupt government and politicians. They now champion their beliefs without even trying to hide it.

Let's see, one conservative voice against all those others and you get bent about FOX, by the way I rarely watch FOX. It's pretty easy to see what's really going on in the world, watch the MSM and figure 90% is favoritism and embellishment if not outright lies for the Liberals. :hi:
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7336
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby dudejcb » Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:52 pm

I try not to believe in conspiracy theories.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby boney fingers » Sun Apr 27, 2014 7:40 pm

dudejcb wrote:
cartervj wrote:... I don't care if the guy is an idiot, facts are facts and should reported as so...
Where's Sean Hannity? He was in love with this guy when he was a convenient foil to attack the government, and now can't put distance between them fast enough. Why isn't he helping your guy out? What up?

BTW: Is FOX part of the MSM in your world?


At least give him credit for putting distance between himself and the clown; the left only does that close to election time.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby cartervj » Sun Apr 27, 2014 7:46 pm

dudejcb wrote:I try not to believe in conspiracy theories.



you play your role well :thumbsup:
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7336
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby dudejcb » Sun Apr 27, 2014 8:39 pm

cartervj wrote:
dudejcb wrote:I try not to believe in conspiracy theories.



you play your role well :thumbsup:

Except when it comes to the Kock brothers. Then again their pretty open about their agenda to turn back the clock.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:45 pm

beretta24 wrote:Why can't the ownership be transfered to the states? That's the argument most make, not let's sell it to private citizens.

And what would be accomplished by transferring the ownership of Federal properties to states?
It's just another sad reference to the whole right-wing "states rights" republic that had it's meaning in 1776. Does no one on the right believe that things change and require different perceptions? Do you not recognize the difference between the US of 1776 and the US of 2014? Really. I like nostalgia. I like antiques. I like history. But how our society can best operate is not based upon how it could best operate app. 250 years ago.
If you want to be there, I suppose one could go off the grid on a remote parcel and pretend he is living the life of a founding father, but the operative word is pretend. If you can fool yourself that much.....more power to ya.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby clampdaddy » Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:12 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
beretta24 wrote:Why can't the ownership be transfered to the states? That's the argument most make, not let's sell it to private citizens.

And what would be accomplished by transferring the ownership of Federal properties to states?
It's just another sad reference to the whole right-wing "states rights" republic that had it's meaning in 1776. Does no one on the right believe that things change and require different perceptions? Do you not recognize the difference between the US of 1776 and the US of 2014? Really. I like nostalgia. I like antiques. I like history. But how our society can best operate is not based upon how it could best operate app. 250 years ago.
If you want to be there, I suppose one could go off the grid on a remote parcel and pretend he is living the life of a founding father, but the operative word is pretend. If you can fool yourself that much.....more power to ya.

Or another way to look at it is, other than military bases and maybe the national parks, what is accomplished by the federal government owning land? How does our current society benefit from it?
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby :-) » Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:17 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
beretta24 wrote:Why can't the ownership be transfered to the states? That's the argument most make, not let's sell it to private citizens.

And what would be accomplished by transferring the ownership of Federal properties to states?
It's just another sad reference to the whole right-wing "states rights" republic that had it's meaning in 1776. Does no one on the right believe that things change and require different perceptions? Do you not recognize the difference between the US of 1776 and the US of 2014? Really. I like nostalgia. I like antiques. I like history. But how our society can best operate is not based upon how it could best operate app. 250 years ago.
If you want to be there, I suppose one could go off the grid on a remote parcel and pretend he is living the life of a founding father, but the operative word is pretend. If you can fool yourself that much.....more power to ya.


Do you honestly believe that the federal government is operating properly? Surely you're just trying to jack with some people...you aren't very funny!
User avatar
:-)
hunter
 
Posts: 797
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:57 pm
Location: Texas Coast

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:24 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
beretta24 wrote:Why can't the ownership be transfered to the states? That's the argument most make, not let's sell it to private citizens.

And what would be accomplished by transferring the ownership of Federal properties to states?
It's just another sad reference to the whole right-wing "states rights" republic that had it's meaning in 1776. Does no one on the right believe that things change and require different perceptions? Do you not recognize the difference between the US of 1776 and the US of 2014? Really. I like nostalgia. I like antiques. I like history. But how our society can best operate is not based upon how it could best operate app. 250 years ago.
If you want to be there, I suppose one could go off the grid on a remote parcel and pretend he is living the life of a founding father, but the operative word is pretend. If you can fool yourself that much.....more power to ya.

Or another way to look at it is, other than military bases and maybe the national parks, what is accomplished by the federal government owning land? How does our current society benefit from it?

The Federal Govt should represent EVERYONE'S interests in the country, as well as they can be balanced. States, counties, cities, etc can be held responsible only to serve the interests of their population, whether it be positive or detrimental to everyone outside of that geographical district. How much should we be required to bounce around in an attempt to find a state that agrees with the majority of our personal beliefs? Which would be constantly changing, as smaller political groups are more subject to capricious change than larger. States are a political tool in this day and age. Gerrymandering controls politics.
Let's see, I am for woman's choice...against legalized "end of life" decisions....for the legalization of marijuana.....against raises in the minimum wage....for a "flat tax".....against insurance provided birth control....against school vouchers, but for "Common Core". What state must I move to in order to have my interests best represented? OOOOPS. .As soon as I get there, they have changed half of their legislation. Where should I go now?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:26 pm

:-) wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
beretta24 wrote:Why can't the ownership be transfered to the states? That's the argument most make, not let's sell it to private citizens.

And what would be accomplished by transferring the ownership of Federal properties to states?
It's just another sad reference to the whole right-wing "states rights" republic that had it's meaning in 1776. Does no one on the right believe that things change and require different perceptions? Do you not recognize the difference between the US of 1776 and the US of 2014? Really. I like nostalgia. I like antiques. I like history. But how our society can best operate is not based upon how it could best operate app. 250 years ago.
If you want to be there, I suppose one could go off the grid on a remote parcel and pretend he is living the life of a founding father, but the operative word is pretend. If you can fool yourself that much.....more power to ya.


Do you honestly believe that the federal government is operating properly? Surely you're just trying to jack with some people...you aren't very funny!

Do you honestly believe that giving all power to every individual state would make the country run more efficiently? Surely you're just trying to jack with some people...you aren't very funny![/quote]
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby clampdaddy » Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:36 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
beretta24 wrote:Why can't the ownership be transfered to the states? That's the argument most make, not let's sell it to private citizens.

And what would be accomplished by transferring the ownership of Federal properties to states?
It's just another sad reference to the whole right-wing "states rights" republic that had it's meaning in 1776. Does no one on the right believe that things change and require different perceptions? Do you not recognize the difference between the US of 1776 and the US of 2014? Really. I like nostalgia. I like antiques. I like history. But how our society can best operate is not based upon how it could best operate app. 250 years ago.
If you want to be there, I suppose one could go off the grid on a remote parcel and pretend he is living the life of a founding father, but the operative word is pretend. If you can fool yourself that much.....more power to ya.

Or another way to look at it is, other than military bases and maybe the national parks, what is accomplished by the federal government owning land? How does our current society benefit from it?

The Federal Govt should represent EVERYONE'S interests in the country, as well as they can be balanced. States, counties, cities, etc can be held responsible only to serve the interests of their population, whether it be positive or detrimental to everyone outside of that geographical district. How much should we be required to bounce around in an attempt to find a state that agrees with the majority of our personal beliefs? Which would be constantly changing, as smaller political groups are more subject to capricious change than larger. States are a political tool in this day and age. Gerrymandering controls politics.
Let's see, I am for woman's choice...against legalized "end of life" decisions....for the legalization of marijuana.....against raises in the minimum wage....for a "flat tax".....against insurance provided birth control....against school vouchers, but for "Common Core". What state must I move to in order to have my interests best represented? OOOOPS. .As soon as I get there, they have changed half of their legislation. Where should I go now?

So you would rather move to another country altogether when every state is exactly the same and you don't agree with it?
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:52 pm

clampdaddy wrote: So you would rather move to another country altogether when every state is exactly the same and you don't agree with it?

No. I would rather be in a country that is representing all the various socio-economic groups to the best of its ability. As opposed to a country wherein one state allows slavery, one state allows pedophilia, one state only allows white, male dominated households with incomes over $1,000,000/year, one state allows any and all forms of personal weapon ownership and one state is run by Jim Jones, one state is teaching radical Muslim tenets, and one state is slaying all those of any religious persuasion but Scientology. One state has a drive-through for abortions, and one state limits you to one child, male. C'mon, cd. Where do we want to go with this?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby beretta24 » Mon Apr 28, 2014 12:23 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
clampdaddy wrote: So you would rather move to another country altogether when every state is exactly the same and you don't agree with it?

No. I would rather be in a country that is representing all the various socio-economic groups to the best of its ability. As opposed to a country wherein one state allows slavery, one state allows pedophilia, one state only allows white, male dominated households with incomes over $1,000,000/year, one state allows any and all forms of personal weapon ownership and one state is run by Jim Jones, one state is teaching radical Muslim tenets, and one state is slaying all those of any religious persuasion but Scientology. One state has a drive-through for abortions, and one state limits you to one child, male. C'mon, cd. Where do we want to go with this?

Half of what you listed is illegal based on numerous laws. Come off it Jim. If you don't like states rights move elsewhere or convince someone to change the constitution. The idea isn't to screw one dude in CA over, its about leaving the power closer to the people so someone moron politician in CA can't dictate what I do in MN. It gives us a republic instead of a democracy. It's not just nostalgia. You may now continue your logically perverse rant.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5953
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby boney fingers » Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:05 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
clampdaddy wrote: So you would rather move to another country altogether when every state is exactly the same and you don't agree with it?

No. I would rather be in a country that is representing all the various socio-economic groups to the best of its ability. As opposed to a country wherein one state allows slavery, one state allows pedophilia, one state only allows white, male dominated households with incomes over $1,000,000/year, one state allows any and all forms of personal weapon ownership and one state is run by Jim Jones, one state is teaching radical Muslim tenets, and one state is slaying all those of any religious persuasion but Scientology. One state has a drive-through for abortions, and one state limits you to one child, male. C'mon, cd. Where do we want to go with this?


You live in a country where the most of what you mentioned is allowed to happen in other countries; what do you intend to do about it.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby boney fingers » Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:09 am

dudejcb wrote:
cartervj wrote:
dudejcb wrote:I try not to believe in conspiracy theories.



you play your role well :thumbsup:

Except when it comes to the Kock brothers. Then again their pretty open about their agenda to turn back the clock.


Still looking for an explanation of the evils of the Kochs; perhaps Dude could explain. As for the Kock brothers; Ive never heard of them.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby clampdaddy » Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:21 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
clampdaddy wrote: So you would rather move to another country altogether when every state is exactly the same and you don't agree with it?

No. I would rather be in a country that is representing all the various socio-economic groups to the best of its ability. As opposed to a country wherein one state allows slavery, one state allows pedophilia, one state only allows white, male dominated households with incomes over $1,000,000/year, one state allows any and all forms of personal weapon ownership and one state is run by Jim Jones, one state is teaching radical Muslim tenets, and one state is slaying all those of any religious persuasion but Scientology. One state has a drive-through for abortions, and one state limits you to one child, male. C'mon, cd. Where do we want to go with this?

You missed the point of my question, Jim. I'll ask it again. If one all encompassing federal government allows all of those things, then where do you go? At least you'd still have a choice under a system that strongly upholds states rights. A strong federal govt works for you because we currently have a left leaning govt.. Your tune would change if President Limbaugh and Vice president Nugent were mandating gun ownership and attending protestant church services on Sunday.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby cartervj » Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:32 am

dudejcb wrote:
cartervj wrote:
dudejcb wrote:I try not to believe in conspiracy theories.



you play your role well :thumbsup:

Except when it comes to the Kock brothers. Then again their pretty open about their agenda to turn back the clock.


It's apparent you hang out in the leftist loonysphere :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

they purposely misspell Koch to degrade them, I see you have that same mentality :thumbsup:

Try thinking for yourself once, you might like the Freedom, however I do know it's a scary thing for you leftist. :welcome:
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7336
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby dudejcb » Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:39 am

boney fingers wrote:
dudejcb wrote:
cartervj wrote:
dudejcb wrote:I try not to believe in conspiracy theories.



you play your role well :thumbsup:

Except when it comes to the Kock brothers. Then again their pretty open about their agenda to turn back the clock.


Still looking for an explanation of the evils of the Kochs; perhaps Dude could explain. As for the Kock brothers; Ive never heard of them.

never heard of the Kock brothers? but you know about George Soros? Try google, or try watching something besides Fox.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby cartervj » Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:57 am

dudejcb wrote:
boney fingers wrote:
dudejcb wrote:
cartervj wrote:
dudejcb wrote:I try not to believe in conspiracy theories.



you play your role well :thumbsup:

Except when it comes to the Kock brothers. Then again their pretty open about their agenda to turn back the clock.


Still looking for an explanation of the evils of the Kochs; perhaps Dude could explain. As for the Kock brothers; Ive never heard of them.

never heard of the Kock brothers? but you know about George Soros? Try google, or try watching something besides Fox.



you still can't spell Koch right :hi:


from wiki
George Soros (/ˈsɔroʊs/ or /ˈsɔrəs/;[3] Hungarian: Soros György; Hungarian: [ˈʃoroʃ]; born August 12, 1930, as Schwartz György) is a Hungarian-born American[4] business magnate,[5][6] investor, and philanthropist.[7] He is the chairman of Soros Fund Management. He is known as "The Man Who Broke the Bank of England" because of his short sale of US$10 billion worth of pounds, giving him a profit of $1 billion during the 1992 Black Wednesday UK currency crisis.[8][9][10]

Soros is a well-known supporter of progressive-liberal political causes.[11] Between 1979 and 2011, Soros gave over $8 billion to causes related to human rights, public health, and education. He played a significant role in the peaceful transition from communism to capitalism in Hungary (1984–89)[9] and provided one of Europe's largest higher education endowments to Central European University in Budapest.[12] Soros is also the chairman of the Open Society Foundations.



Insider trading conviction[edit]
In 1988, Soros was interested in purchasing shares in French companies. The Socialist party had lost its majority of seats in the Assembly, and the new government under Jacques Chirac had instituted an aggressive privatization program. Many people considered shares in the newly privatized companies undervalued. During this period, a French financier named Georges Pébereau contacted one of Soros' advisors in an effort to assemble a group of investors to purchase a large amount of shares in Société Générale, a leading French bank that was part of the program.

The advisor reported to Soros that Pébereau's plan was ambiguous and included an implausible takeover plan, which later failed. On that advice, and without ever having met the financier, Soros decided against participating.[42] He did, however, move forward with his strategy of accumulating shares in four French companies: Société Générale, as well as Suez, Paribas and the Compagnie Générale d'Électricité.

In 1989, the Commission des Opérations de Bourse (the French stock exchange regulatory authority) conducted an investigation of whether Soros' transaction in Société Générale should be considered insider trading. Soros had received no information from the Société Générale, and had no insider knowledge of the business, but he did possess knowledge that a group of investors was planning a takeover attempt. The COB concluded that the statutes, regulations and case law relating to insider trading did not clearly establish that a crime had occurred, and that no charges should be brought against Soros.[43]

Several years later, a Paris-based prosecutor reopened the case against Soros and two other French businessmen, disregarding the COB's findings. This resulted in Soros' 2005 conviction for insider trading by the Court of Appeals (he was the only one of the three to receive a conviction). The French Supreme Court confirmed the conviction on June 14, 2006, but reduced the penalty to the minimum.[44]

Punitive damages were not sought because of the delay in bringing the case to trial. Soros denied any wrongdoing, saying news of the takeover was public knowledge[45] and it was documented that his intent to acquire shares of the company predated his own awareness of the takeover.[44]

His insider trading conviction was upheld by the highest court in France on June 14, 2006.[44] In December 2006, he appealed to the European Court of Human Rights on various grounds including that the 14-year delay in bringing the case to trial precluded a fair hearing.[46] On the basis of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, stating that no person may be punished for an act that was not a criminal offense at the time that it was committed, the Court agreed to hear the appeal.[47] In October 2011, the court rejected his appeal in a 4–3 decision, saying that Soros had been aware of the risk of breaking insider trading laws.[48]



Let's see, Soros a convicted leftist, Steyer and political opportunist for global warming and stands to make billions off NOT opening the XL pipeline against the Koch Bros. Bloomberg's 50 million against the NRA and don't forget the attack against soft drink companies.


Political activities[edit]
Main article: Political activities of the Koch brothers
Members of the Koch family have given to conservative and libertarian policy and advocacy groups in the United States,[11] including think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, and more recently Americans for Prosperity.[12] Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks are organizations with links to both the Kochs and the Tea Party movement.[13][14][15][16]

According to the Koch Family Foundations and Philanthropy website, "the foundations and the individual giving of Koch family members" have financially supported organizations "fostering entrepreneurship, education, human services, at-risk youth, arts and culture, and medical research." [17]
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7336
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby cartervj » Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:10 am

dude you still don't get it do ya, keep parroting talking points of the left. Name any other administration that literally release talking points daily to the press. Obama claimed he'd be the most transparent and ONCE AGIAN he LIED!

You are nothing but a useful idiot for the left. You can not or will not have a truthful discussion about politics. You sling poo at the first sign of loosing an argument. Think for yourself for a change.

What the Hell does the Koch bros have to do with this thread?
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7336
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:47 am

cartervj wrote:you still can't spell Koch right :hi:

He probably just made a Freudian slip.

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16199
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby :-) » Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:58 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
:-) wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
beretta24 wrote:Why can't the ownership be transfered to the states? That's the argument most make, not let's sell it to private citizens.

And what would be accomplished by transferring the ownership of Federal properties to states?
It's just another sad reference to the whole right-wing "states rights" republic that had it's meaning in 1776. Does no one on the right believe that things change and require different perceptions? Do you not recognize the difference between the US of 1776 and the US of 2014? Really. I like nostalgia. I like antiques. I like history. But how our society can best operate is not based upon how it could best operate app. 250 years ago.
If you want to be there, I suppose one could go off the grid on a remote parcel and pretend he is living the life of a founding father, but the operative word is pretend. If you can fool yourself that much.....more power to ya.


Do you honestly believe that the federal government is operating properly? Surely you're just trying to jack with some people...you aren't very funny!

Do you honestly believe that giving all power to every individual state would make the country run more efficiently? Surely you're just trying to jack with some people...you aren't very funny!
[/quote]

Yes
User avatar
:-)
hunter
 
Posts: 797
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:57 pm
Location: Texas Coast

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:04 pm

:-) wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
:-) wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
beretta24 wrote:Why can't the ownership be transfered to the states? That's the argument most make, not let's sell it to private citizens.

And what would be accomplished by transferring the ownership of Federal properties to states?
It's just another sad reference to the whole right-wing "states rights" republic that had it's meaning in 1776. Does no one on the right believe that things change and require different perceptions? Do you not recognize the difference between the US of 1776 and the US of 2014? Really. I like nostalgia. I like antiques. I like history. But how our society can best operate is not based upon how it could best operate app. 250 years ago.
If you want to be there, I suppose one could go off the grid on a remote parcel and pretend he is living the life of a founding father, but the operative word is pretend. If you can fool yourself that much.....more power to ya.


Do you honestly believe that the federal government is operating properly? Surely you're just trying to jack with some people...you aren't very funny!

Do you honestly believe that giving all power to every individual state would make the country run more efficiently? Surely you're just trying to jack with some people...you aren't very funny!


Yes

I agree, but freedom doesn't have to be more efficient to justify freedom. That is where the people like Jim error by giving the benefit of the doubt to central government control over freedom.

If there is any doubt, error on the side of freedom.

There need not be any evidence that freedom makes the country run more efficiently, a subjective definition anyways.

Government should have the burden of proof that it is necessary and clearly it is not necessary that the sate own 85% of the property unless you think states like Massachusetts where the federal government only owns less than 1%. How is that not definitive proof that there it would work just fine. There is not a state east of the Mississippi that the feds own more than 14% and most less 5%. Are they less efficient than states where the feds own the majority of the state? :lol3:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16199
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests