Well:
This should prove interesting!
Jim

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/militias-route-bunkerville-nv-will-start-2nd-american-revolution/

Nothing really interesting. The rancher feels special doesn't like the rules and wants "free ride" to continue.

The militias might start something but If they do the Feds will finish it.

Do they really want another Waco ?

Then again as bad as Reno was I don't ever recall her being found in contempt,proposing that gun owners wear a bracelet or telling a Senator "you don't want to go there buddy"

Funny you should bring up Waco. Holder's then boss Janet Reno should have been brought up on criminal charges herself after the fiasco she instigated there.
Poetic justice would be to jail Holder with that ugly lesbian Reno.
Jim

How so, PJ? The land in question is not federal land, but, state of Nevada land-presumably, the rancher pays taxes in Nevada, and is a resident of that state, meaning that the land actually belongs to him, not the federales. Said rancher has offered, going back to 1997, to pay fees and use taxes to graze cattle on this land. "Free ride" hasn't been suggested, rather, a desert tortoise, which, is clearly not on the brink of extinction, has been offered up as a reason to forbid cattle grazing on this ground, to this rancher, something his family has done, lawfully, since 1873.

On a side note, at least the feds haven't burned his home to the ground with everyone in it, as they have in the past.


Best,
Ted

In fact, the Government established a refuge for these "endangered" tortoises near Las Vegas, and they have propagated so well that the Feds are actually killing the excess. The ranchers proved that the cattle won't step on a tortoise by placing a stone the size of their shell in the middle of a cattle gate and herding the cows through the narrow opening. None would step on the stone.

Wouldn't it be something if the Government expended as much enforcement effort to keep illegal aliens and drug dealers from crossing the border as they do exercising excessive force against a U.S citizen and his family? They don't seem at all worried about the endangered middle class whose wages have been depressed for years due to competition from 11 to 20 million illegals who broke Federal law to come here.

Joe Biden recently said that the illegals are already citizens as far as he is concerned. When King sticks his nose in our business, I hope he'll make the offer to take in a few dozen of our illegals to work his Nova Scotia vinyard!

Ted,
everything I read has stated this was taking place on the Lake Mead recreation area, BLM owned and controlled land, not state land. Bundy stopped paying the lease fees in 1993 in protest. I'm no fan of this type of operation, but this is not exactly an unexpected response from the Feds. An article detailing the back ground this story is here:

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/good-progress-cattle-roundup-decelerate

All it takes for another Waco is a few people who think their martyrdom will invoke change. I'm not quite ready to stand in that line with someone I don't know, but if it were my family being threatened then it might be a different story.

What am I missing here. It's not Bundy's land, regardless of how long his ancestors have run cattle on it.

Ted, unless property laws are wildly different down there, your statement suggesting that because it may be state land, then it belongs to Bundy doesn't make sense to me. The state is a legal entity. It can own property. That doesn't mean the citizens own the property and can do what they please on it any more than they can act as the boss of state employees. e.g. "As your boss, Mr State Trooper, I'm ordering you not to write up that speeding ticket."

Jim posted that the confrontation is interesting. Mike predicted accurately how it will end. Citizenship demands defence of the constitution and laws of the land. Citizens can't pick which laws they will accept. Citizens are free to advocate making and amending laws. To take up arms as militias in this case to arbitrarily change the law to serve one wealthy rancher is a violation of allegiance to America, hardly deserving of support here. Some may call it treason. I think ignorance.

We live right next door to this thing, 30 miles. Our county commissioners, Washington County and Iron County Utah say they back Clive Bundy and his family.

Our county commissioners have pointed out that the BLM has a responsibility to manage the wild horses in our counties, a task at which the BLM is failing miserably at,

SO if the BLM would rather spend their time rounding up someones privately owned cattle instead of doing their job and managing the wild horses which over populate our counties, where all these "special tortoise live", then they will have no alternative other than to instruct our County Sheriff to start thinning out the wild horse populations . The resolution has been passed and sent to the BLM.......

http://fox13now.com/2014/04/04/nevada-cattle-at-center-of-battle-between-federal-county-officials/


The "tortoise" b.s. is just a muse, for weenie media and public consumption .....there are MORE wild horses than there are Clives cattle......so why won't the all important and caring BLM worker bees thin out the horses like they are supposed to, which do more damage to the land than the cattle.

If the militias' confrontation should come to a dimwit pulling a trigger on either side, what should concern most of us here is whether it will hurt or strengthen the Second Amendment which needs all the help it can get, Doug. I'd be surprised if NRA supported militias taking the law into their own hands.

Once again NO CLUE King,

And once again LIES and about ANY NRA connection in this.Your just mad because you LOST your battle against he NRA to give in after Newtown. Get over it YOU LOST,the NRA and the children and parents who are not protected by armed resource officers WON !

do us ALL a favor and stop worrying about our 2nd Amendment,we are all happy that we don't have to live under the oppressive Canadian gun laws and certainly don't need or want your advice to take us down that road !


Putting aside who is right or wrong,this military overreach of the Federal Government need to be stopped,one look at the no fly zones and shutting down the cell towers,creating "free speech zones" (WTF is next 2nd Amendment zones ?) as well as the killing off if his property should make EVERY American be concerned.

If you want to dig abit,go past the bogus turtle protection and look into Reid and the Chinese Solar Farms

Better yet King why don't you preach your panty waist, limp wristed, lulling, blather to the inmates of some old age home. You would have a better audience. By GOD this is AMERICA.

Cool it, Dave. I never said anything about NRA connection. You some growly bear just out of hibernation across the bay?

It is America, for sure, JRB. Anyone pro-gun as all members here should recognize that giving ammunition to the grabbers, as a militias' futile and possibly tragic confrontation would do, does nothing to protect gun rights.

Ask Jim.

"Cool it, Dave. I never said anything about NRA connection. You some growly bear just out of hibernation across the bay?"




Whats up King, forgetting what you just posted ?That winery has the same rules as the drug dealers I thought, "don't get hooked on the product"

All around this situation are glaring examples of where the constitution and laws of the land are ignored, progressively modified, selectively enforced or ridiculed. Why an absolute here, and a lecture just a day or two ago about gun RIGHTS subject to erosion by complacency.

Near daily, examples are brought up around here about exceptions to the law for lib progressive agenda advancement. Take the always correct social warrior bo due to the pc romance of his race, hasn't he unilaterally change the ocare LAW some thirty plus times...so far.

Maybe blame you, meaning the 'world acclaimed, award winning' mainstream media. Since there's no pc gay, women, race, class or green warfare issue, the only way this POOR rancher has to make his case is to toy with the media's blood thirst.

So many deals are cut with 'friends', what stops this guy from getting an invite to dc for an award. In a very harsh environment, he's converting a tiny bit of renewable, worthless weeds into something the average citizen wants and needs. I'd have a passing curiosity if this rancher has been a de facto, unappreciated immigration observer.

Thanks Doug for a local view point on the issue.

Just a quick rerun because I do not advocate for repetition becoming fact. There should not be an automatic association but you do remind us of tactics. Futility and tragedy are conclusions, why.

Again, a poor rancher eking out a tough living in a dispute is being lectured about following the constitution and laws. While, it's pc okay to equivocate that with some vague, progressive, inevitable loss of a right.

Are you offering help, or is this an 'I told you so' cocktail party joke when you and the grabbers win.

I hadn't considered that the rancher would turn his need into choice attention-grabbing for, as you say, the media's blood thirst.

Can't you see it: Americans shooting at Americans, .50 cal, ARs and all the rest of it, Waco and Wounded Knee, live in colour around the world.

There is no winner except for the grabbers. The militias take the Second down another notch. Make a great movie, eh? Something for the kids.

I've read and heard that the land in question is state of Nevada owned and controlled. If that is the case then why is BLM involved?

As to "welfare ranchers" quite a few of them can't even graze cattle on land they own due to elk and horses over-running it, and, elk, in particular destroying fencing. It isn't as simple as "hey, he is getting something for nothing".

The history of the US government with individual citizens affairs seldom has a good outcome for the individuals involved. I'm beginning to think we need another ammendment to the constitution that holds the federal government to a much higher standard of behavior, and much greater penalties when dealing with private citizens or their livelyhood/property. That way, when somebody like, say, Randy Weaver's wife is gunned down by a government paid sniper as she is holding an infant, careers are ended, departments are dismantled, and people involved are charged with murder, right up to where the mess started.

Best,
Ted

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/a-crisis-that-wont-be-going-to-waste/

Sure I can see it. Sounds like there're two sides here. Why don't you call for a beer summit or an naacp righteous little guy speech.

What's the agenda. If someone pays the fees, do they get to ranch. Hmmm, maybe not. This guy's feeding the poor, providing needy churl'in with school glue and fertilizing plants that're struggling for survival. I want an award here.

Agree on individual outcomes, Ted, although redress should not require god-knows-how-long constitutional amendments. Perhaps your higher standard would involve greater accountability of all federal and state enforcement agencies concerning their responsibilities in discharging their duties i.e. not acting illegally, unnecessary force, negligence in use of firearms etc. Still, holding to accountability with serious consequences favouring victims may be a bridge too far if your situation is the same as here. Generally we're an apathetic bunch.

There are only two left, Craig. The Mother Teresa and John Wayne. You deserve both, but you may choose only one.

UPDATE:
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25230368/m...n-bundy-and-blm

What is a "welfare rancher"? If the terminology has been correctly applied, then I would assume such an individual would be on the good side of any libtard. Is someone suggesting that a little-guy rancher should be relegated to ranching on their own privately held lands, or else be classified as a recipient of welfare? Seems like the Democrats would be flocking to support this guy's access to the planet at-large. Anyone think Libtard Ted Turner would be willing to let the Bundy's ranch on even a single acre of Capt. Outrageous's millions of acres out West?

My personal opinion is that they should sell the guy's cattle until his land use fees are caught up. After that everyone should go home with at least one tortoise in the trunk of their car.

Oh no, not for me please, but what a kick in the jingle bells. The white guy's a dinosaur wild west cowboy, and the nun, well she's associated with known pedophiles. No, I want the rancher to get an award at an naacp meeting. Some window dressing thing would be fine.

The BLM has backed down and leaving......they were not going to release Clive Bundy's cattle, but after the road was blocked by militia and supporters, they released the cattle back to Bundy also. The link below is an up to date article on this situation and provides info that has not been seen on the media. Bundy owes no money to the govt., is the last rancher in the area to be run out, and it seems the land is needed for a Chinese investment that was brokered by Harry Reid's son....Cliven Bundy's problem is not turtles or fees, but the fact he is not a money donor to Harry Reid. This enlightening fact spread across internet sources and may be part of the reason the BLM is pulling out. Now, information has surfaced that the BLM is proposing to declare 90,000 acres of private ranch land along the Red River in Texas as "public land" and confiscate(steal it). This land has been in ranch families for generations. This will not go well in Texas, I assure you. I urge everyone who commmented on this post to read the link. If it happened in Nevada, it can happen in your state.
http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/k...-control-14427/

I can't wait to read King's lulling liberal reply to this one. His blather should make good bathroom reading in the morning.

Here is the latest factual news to break on this.....guns were drawn on both sides at the very end and the govt. blinked.

http://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccu...medium=facebook

I guess King just doesn't understand the good old U.S.A. as much as he thinks he does......and some back peddlers around here don't either.......LOL......

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ranch-land.html

Doug, I went to Gary's link, as he suggested, and found nothing more definitive than what has already been expressed here. The story touches on the ambivalence of right and wrongs of both sides, and said the standoff was only another "trampling" incursion on Second Amendment endemic across the country (which I have mentioned here many times in spite of notions of inalienable rights).

As far as not understanding America, this is small potatoes compared to the Weathermen, civil rights struggle, burning of Washington, Detroit and Los Angeles. Nothing new of US rebellion and protest. Note no definitive of right or wrong in Gary's link. My opinion is that if a dimwit of either side pulled a trigger it would be a victory for the grabbers. For all the bombast of black and white hats, cooler heads prevailed.

"While it has been widely reported that Bundy failed to pay grazing fees (taxes in order to utilize the land), that is not entirely true. Bundy said in numerous interviews yesterday that he’s abiding by the State of Nevada’s laws, and that he’s happy to pay fees directly to Clark County, which he believes has appropriate jurisdiction, not the Feds.

"Whichever side is right, we have seen a scenario play out that will play out again and again for the foreseeable future. As the federal government in Washington continues to grow and overreach for more and more power — as the NSA leans in to listen a little more closely, as the IRS continues to place their foot on the neck of democracy — you will see more and more of these battles wage, and more American citizens rebel.

"We saw this in Colorado last fall with the Colorado recalls — an all-out gun battle over the government’s attempt to erode Second Amendment rights. We are seeing this scene repeat in states like New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut, where Second Amendment rights are being trampled, and the people are beginning to entertain the idea of similar recall efforts."

If 5 percent of the well Regulated American Citizen Militia (15 Million ?) twisted off against the FEDGOD they would go through their erstwhile Overlords like S&@* through a Tin Horn, it would not be pretty.

JRB, quick reply for a man who "can't wait" for a liberal view, mostly in my reply to Doug's. The only question I have after all the outpourings is, Did the militias arrive from across the country? Lots of throwing of hats in the air---better than bullets, eh?---at what appears to have been a photo op for the cause. Negotiations had been going on between the rancher and authorities for months around states' rights.

How many deployments has Brian been on---four or five? The US has been continually at war for years with insurgents in the type of war you describe. The US military knows its business. The civil war you conjure of killing Brian, brothers, sisters, fathers, sons committed to defence of their country is unimaginable.

Imagine if people would have actually died over Harry Reid's Chinese solar plant that is to be constructed there. It might still come to that. Tortoise? Please.

No it is not unimaginable it has happened before, and will again.

The current Military Forces have their Lees, Jacksons, and Davises, and as I figure it the best of the US military will choose their Oath to defend the Constition over their loyalty to the FEDGOD. I know what side my two kids and son in law and niece and nephew will be on.

Instead of an Industrial group of States fighting an Agrian group of States, it will be the producers vs. the takers. Place your bets on that match up.

Maybe Canada will get a new group of "Subjects" out of it, you will be welcomes to them.

LOL, Rockie, don't pawn them off on us!

James

King, are you really that stupid? We were granted an "Inalienable Right" to self defense by God which was enumerated in our Constitution as the right to keep and bear arms. No one said there have not been incursions on these rights. We talk about them all the time.

You Canadians had that same right to self defense also given by God, but you didn't place it in your Constitution. The results are obvious. No Canadian Supreme Court will affirm such a right because it does not exist, so you will feed upon the crumbs your politicians drop for you. The fickle whims of the winds of change will create your destiny as to what class of guns you may own.

Wherever we find these incursions on our 2nd Amendment, we find folks just like you. They are caused by folks just like you. They are made into laws by Liberal Democrat politicians who were elected to office by folks just like you.

You are no help to us or our 2nd Amendment. You are the problem we face every day. You LULL and lie and promote complacency among gun owners which leads to more incursions and more erosions of our rights. You ignore the facts about firearms ownership, and you totally ignore who and what group has been the most irresponsible with firearms. Hint, it ain't Mormons or Japanese students who are doing drive-bys and gang initiation killings. But your lips are sealed when it comes to reporting which ethnic group, per capita, is most responsible for violent crime.

Now, once again, please tell us what you personally have done to advance the cause of Gun Rights in Canada. Proof please!

And tell us why you expend so much time and effort here using our First Amendment in order to weaken our Second Amendment.

Well you took them in the 1770-80s didn't you !

God Bless Canada !

It's quite a story, postoak. By 1783 the loyalists established a new community of Shelburne here in Nova Scotia with a population of 17,000, the fourth largest city in North America. Blacks who had escaped slavery came with them and settled in nearby Birchtown, North America's largest free Black settlement.

The Burger King Credo: When you've got nothing to defend your position... pretend to ignore dissent, and move on.

Here it is again King... in case you missed it. Hahaha!

Well, it would seem that once slimy harry reid's name came up as the chief instigator, the DNC controled news media found other things to talk about.

Imagine that. No news is good news, right?


Best,
Ted

The head of the BLM is Neil Kornze, formerly Senior Policy Advisor to Harry Reid and a major figure in the Western Solar Plan. He became BLM head March 1, 2013 after recommendation and strong urging by Harry Reid.(all this is on the BLM website) The corruption in this case goes all the way down to the county commissioners and sheriff. Hasn't been on the news yet, but Saturday, agents of the U.S. Forest Service knocked on the door of a southwest New Mexico ranch and ordered the owners to remove their possessions and livestock as the ranch now belonged to the Forest Service. Land grab is easy in cases like this....keep increasing the rules, regulations, and restrictions until the people using the land(for generations and generations) can no longer possibly adhere to them. Then, under the law, confiscate(steal)the land for political cronyism. Ranchers and farmers tend to be conservative in their viewpoints, thus being the opposition in the eyes of the current administration who believes in paybacks. Al Sharpton,the race hustler with the imaginary seminary degree,still owes 2.5 million dollars to the IRS...no agents have shown up at his place confiscating possessions.

Harry Reid has long history of corruption even going back to his day on the casino commission in Vegas.


Here are some more of his crooked land deals:

"How did Harry Reid get rich
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314025/how-did-harry-reid-get-rich-betsy-woodruff

In 2004, the senator made $700,000 off a land deal that was, to say the least, unorthodox. It started in 1998 when he bought a parcel of land with attorney Jay Brown, a close friend whose name has surfaced multiple times in organized-crime investigations and whom one retired FBI agent described as “always a person of interest.” Three years after the purchase, Reid transferred his portion of the property to Patrick Lane LLC, a holding company Brown controlled. But Reid kept putting the property on his financial disclosures, and when the company sold it in 2004, he profited from the deal — a deal on land that he didn’t technically own and that had nearly tripled in value in six years.

Here’s another example: The Los Angeles Times reported in November 2006 that when Reid became Senate majority leader he committed to making earmark reform a priority, saying he’d work to keep congressmen from using federal dollars for pet projects in their districts. It was a good idea but an odd one for the senator to espouse. He had managed to get $18 million set aside to build a bridge across the Colorado River between Laughlin, Nev., and Bullhead City, Ariz., a project that wasn’t a priority for either state’s transportation agency. His ownership of 160 acres of land nearby that stood to appreciate considerably from the project had nothing to do with the decision, according to one of his aides. The property’s value has varied since then. On his financial-disclosure forms from 2006, it was valued at $250,000 to $500,000. Open Secrets now lists it as his most valuable asset, worth $1 million to $5 million as of 2010.

How Reid acquired that land is interesting, too. He put $10,000 into a pension fund his friend Clair Haycock controlled, to take over the 160-acre parcel at a price far below its assessed value. Six months later, Reid introduced legislation that would help Haycock’s industry, a move many observers said appeared to be a quid pro quo, though Reid and Haycock denied that the legislation was the result of a property deal.

keith,

You must keep reminding yourself that in order for someone to believe in these God granted rights, as you and I do, they must first believe IN the one true God. King has repeatedly stated his atheistic beliefs.

SRH

The Militia all grouped in prayer before this was finalized and looking grim was the most telling moment of this episode for me.
Naturally you'll only see this video on FOX News.
Jim

Jim, you mention militia, singular. Was there more than one militia, that is, as an organized group, or is a militia comprised of protestors joining together to right a perceived wrong? Militia hereabouts is civilian soldiers.

Stan, with all due respect, I have the inalienable right to defend myself simply by being alive on this earth.

If I believe in God it follows that God gave me that right, by His involvement in my creation. At the same time, if I don't believe in God, I have that natural right, as do all animals. It's the nature of life on Earth.

The fact that the US Constitution describes those rights as "God given" doesn't, in itself, make that statement true. If it were true, it would be because of God, not because of what the authors of your constitution wrote.

And if it is not true, then it's just not true.

You don't need to be a believer to have rights that existed before government was invented.

I'm one of those, although I have ancestors who died on both sides of the argument.

Did you know that what now is the Unites States fought more Wars with what is now Canada than any other Country ?

And now we are good friends.

Stan and Canvasback, it is hard to know what King believes or does not believe, because he is all over the map, and will say anything whether it's true or not in order to make a point. Here's our Athiest, from a recent thread, once again using Christ's name in order to try to guilt Jim into accepting his ridiculous Socialist position.



In the recent "Arming the Iranians" thread, we were treated to seeing King really open up and reveal just how much he disagrees with our 2nd Amendment and how he looks at gun ownership in the U.S.

It is just hard to not question the motives of a man who claims to be a gun guy, yet has done absolutely nothing to advance the cause of Gun Rights in his own country... and who spends literally hundreds of hours attempting to LULL U.S. gun owners into a sense of complacency, and to advance a strategy of proven abject failure in dealing with the anti-gun threat.

There have been numerous infringments upon the 2nd Amendment. There are new threats all the time. In almost every instance, this is directly traceable to Liberal Democrats who were elected by folks just like King. And this situation in Bunkerville Nevada is also traceable to Liberal Democrats also elected by folks like King. One of them, Harry Reid, has vowed that the BLM agents will return. Somewhere in Nova Scotia, I'll bet a certain Athiest is lighting a candle and praying that the rancher and his supporters lose the fight.

Keith, as you likely know, my recent comments has little to do with King or any comment he has made here in this thread but were of more of a philosophical nature on the subject of "God given" rights.

Both you and Stan made the point, admittedly in response to King's posts, that the self defence rights guaranteed by the US Constitution were originally given by God and that as an atheist, King cannot possibly believe in those rights. I was simply pointing out that doesn't necessarily follow.

A quick reiteration of my view of rights: we start with the overarching right, simply because we exist, to do anything we want. Anything! We CHOOSE to give up some aspects of that right in order to live more harmoniously and successfully with others. We allow certain groups (governments) to define those limitations as we also allow them to define those aspects of that right we have chosen not to give up. Occasionally, when we are unhappy with the behaviour of those groups we have ceded some of our rights to (governments) we take them back. This is the history of humankind.

And likely to stay that way for a while.

There are some significant differences between our two countries. I like to dwell on the parts we have in common. Probably the most important is that, when it's all said and done, we are two countries populated entirely by people who felt the need to leave their country of origin, both from persecution and for opportunity, and start fresh. To leave the shit behind and look to the future. I like that!

I see that a little differently, canvasback. You have the ability to defend yourself, but not necessarily the right. Rights are granted, by someone, something. We do not espouse that the Constitution gave us those rights, but that God did, and that the Constitution simply enumerates that fact. You also have the ability to wantonly murder, but you certainly do not have that right.

I agree with your statement "The fact that the US Constitution describes those rights as "God given" doesn't, in itself, make that statement true. If it were true, it would be because of God, not because of what the authors of your constitution wrote." However, just because it is written into the Constitution by men does not necessarily take away from it's credence, either. It is true, because of God, and it is truthful for the framers of the Constitution to say so.

Our only disagreement here is about what the term "rights" means, IMO. It is kinda like the difference between power and authority. Power is the ability to control, authority is the right to enforce control.

All my best, SRH

Harry Reid aka "dirty harry"(one of the most corrupt dems in power),says "Its not over"

Sheriff Richard Mack claims they are planning a raid.

"The executive director of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association says his sources inside the federal government warn that Washington’s weekend retreat in a dispute over grazing land in Nevada was only a move to distract attention and diffuse tensions, because a raid on the family’s ranch still is planned.

Here is a video of the Feds bring in SWAT command trucks.

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2014/04/bundy-ranch-the-test-is-over-2836542.html

On Fox New last night-the only news covering this, had a guy who claimed the slaughter house that was supposed to take the cattle in Utah backed out and wanted no part of it,the BLM contracted with a company for $967k to take Bundy's cattle.


http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/sheriff-feds-strategize-for-raid-on-ranch/#Jy9r79LXXKz7GkTb.99

Stan, just to be clear, in no way am I suggesting that there is any less credence because the authors included a reference to God. I'm suggesting that the lack of belief in God doesn't invalidate the rights. Or the right to the rights.

Lol that sounds a bit goofy but I think you know what I mean.

James, where does God come into the Constitution? The founding fathers had eclectic backgrounds, from deists to evangelical Christians, but were adamant on a secular state.

My references to "inalienable rights" of the Second pertain not to God, which to me is a Spirit to Love. The Second is what various jurisdictions say it is---by vote. One True God and the Second embrace passionate debates.

So does global warming which 42 per cent of Americans believe is exaggerated, according to Gallup. The National Science Foundation recently reported 25 per cent of Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth, and almost half do not believe in human evolution.

And there's always the primacy exhibited here of Clint Eastwood in the rain. So there are all kinds of belief among our members. It seems boorish to separate the true believers from the rest of us and prod us down a cattle chute. All my neighbours are Catholics; none believe in One True Church.

I think I'm probably more deist than atheist, like Jefferson! And struggling as we all do.

King, I haven't been looking at a copy of the US Constitution. Perhaps I should have been.

I was really responding to Keith's and Stan's references to "God given" rights, as they suggested that because they thought you were an aethiest, it followed that you could not believe in the rights contained in the US Constitution. At least that's how I read it.

I was trying to point out that belief in God is not a requirement for a belief in inalienable rights.

As to your other points, belief is just that, belief. It is subjective and personal. That's why there is a different word for it than the word "fact".

When it comes to a belief in God, I have no wish to argue with anyone....who am I to say what's correct. But in the same vein, I also think "who is anyone else?"

IMHO it is an unknowable question while we are alive on this earth. And when we are no longer alive, we may, or may not, have the truth revealed.

In the meantime I'm still working on what I believe.

A conservative and liberal in the same boat, god love us!

I dunno cback. In the US, one is supposed to be a citizen to have rights that did not exist prior to that government creating them. I don't understand why those rights can't be based on biblical concepts rather than evolutionary survival of the fittest ideas.

Using things like the ten commandments for guidance have no gray area with respect to some loss of theoretical rights that the colonists clearly didn't have prior, and once accepted no one man can supersede. Or, at least they're not supposed to.

In no way does the US Constitution say that one has to be a believer in order to be protected by it's rights. Lucky there're enough believers around to remind us that the Constitution applies to all.

If you want the comfort of an inalienable right, it may not be as simple as being alive on earth. I'd think the old real estate saying, location location location.

Spoken just like another Libtard former President Clinton: "I guess it depends upon what your definition of is is." Pure obfuscation.

The fundamental fact that a group of common citizens came together as a militia and stood down a bunch of jack booted government thugs is ignored by King Brown.
The fact that they took the opportunity to pray before doing so is of course anathema to him.

Again, King Brown shows his ignorance which leads to his bias. The Second Amendment says exactly what it says, and it means what it says until some person or entity violates it and another person or entity goes to the courts for relief and clarification. The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter and this is why it is so important to elect a president who will not stack the Supreme Court with anti-gun nominees as Obama has done.

The infringements we see in various jurisdictions--- by vote, were done by Liberal Democrats in almost all cases. These politicians who voted to infringe upon the Second were elected by Libtards like King. People like him are directly to blame for the infringements we see in various locales. King is part of the problem, and his so-called solutions are a sure path to further erosion of our rights. King thinks and says here that the Second is open to passionate debate. He is part of the Liberal Progressive crowd that sees our Constitution as a "living document" subject to change.

I think King should concentrate on Gun Rights in Canada... where he has never lifted a finger to help. He sure is no help to us.

Craig, I come at this not so much from the standpoint of evolutionist survival of fittest theory but the difference between English Common Law vs Jeffersonian/Napoleanic Law. In one, we accede rights to the state, in the other, the state gives you the rights.

I happen to subscribe to the former.

At no point have I said the rights we choose to protect and/or exercise can't or shouldn't be based on Biblical concepts, because I happen to believe that there is remarkable commonality between the Biblical concepts of right and wrong etc and what rights/freedoms we need to give up in order to live together in a society successfully.

Craig, do you really want to allow the definition and perpetuation of your rights by a body so aptly described by Jim as a bunch of jack booted thugs? When we know how common the jack booted thugs can be in governments around the world and through out history.

The action of this rancher and those citizens who stood by him demonstrate clearly, to me, that the origins of rights don't start with any government. They may start with God, they may start within each of us, but they don't start with the state.

Quote:
"The infringements we see in various jurisdictions--- by vote, were done by Liberal Democrats in almost all cases. These politicians who voted to infringe upon the Second were elected by Libtards like King. People like him are directly to blame for the infringements we see in various locales. King is part of the problem, and his so-called solutions are a sure path to further erosion of our rights. King thinks and says here that the Second is open to passionate debate. He is part of the Liberal Progressive crowd that sees our Constitution as a "living document" subject to change."

And I may add that the inane belief on the part of Libard Democrats that you can solve what are generally deep seated social problems in big Cities by attempting to regulate inanimate objects shows just how bankrupt their beliefs are.
But if you're a Libtard politician it's always easier to attack a symptom rather then the real problem.
Jim

Keith, you can wish for things but that doesn't make them true. On one hand you say it's important to elect a president that doesn't stack the SC. On the other hand you say it's the Liberal Progressive crowd that thinks of the Constitution as a living document.

The reality is that it IS a living document, subject to interpretation by all points of the political spectrum.

Otherwise you would be unconcerned, for this issue, in the make up of the SC. Otherwise a Liberal Progressive SC couldn't interpret the Constitution in a way you/we are uncomfortable with and oppose.

We might wish that it wasn't, but that doesn't make it so.

Very good point Jim, but of course we have seen enough over the years to know they aren't really trying to solve the problem. It's simply one more method for gaining power over others.

I believe my rights in the US have to be established and defended by the US. A quick look at world news and foreign relations would show the value of theory. That has little to do with knowing that rights seem to be under constant attack from within.

I don't think the rancher story has ended or is it a good example of higher rights superseding the state. It was clearly a pr calculation. Wondered before, if 'ranching' fees are paid, will anyone be able to ranch that land.

Reid is still being evasive as to any connection with him his son.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/04/14/Harry-Reid-on-Bundy-Ranch-Showdown-It-s-not-Over

Reid was confronted earlier at UNR during the Q & A time after Reid's speech about the cattle issue by Kim Kollman a former teacher at Truckee Meadows Community College, The Reno Gazette Journal reported:

Citing Reuters News Service, the Drudge Report and another website, Kollman asked Reid if he was in collusion with his son and the "Communist Chinese" to forcibly remove Bundy from his property to help bring more solar energy to Southern Nevada. Kollman said Reid was "papering over" the question of possible collusion.

Reid replied, "That is an easy question to paper over. Do you know what you just said? Please read something else. And that is how I'm going to respond to that question."

The crowd applauded Reid. Kollman then asked Reid, "What are you afraid of, sir?" before Kollman was asked by an organizer to sit down, which he did.

I am curious just how Harry Reid can reconcile his statement;

"Well, it's not over. We can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it's not over," Reid said.

with the Democrat Party's stance on treatment of 12 million illegal aliens, who genius Joe Biden seems to think are already American citizens.

Jim,I didn't ignore anything. I asked earlier if other militias joined the protest, and with no answer I asked for a definition of a militia after your post militia in the singular because it appeared to differ from ours---citizen soldiers, reserves.

Now, you have informed me it's a group of people getting together "as a militia." A common definition for militia, according to OED is "a military force, a civilian army," which is closer to my understanding of the word. A group of people getting together could be anything, eh?

Praying is not anathema to me, Jim. Remember Jesus's injunction to judge not? I pray every day.

Just look at their patriarch of immigration reform :

James, you validate exactly what I am saying. The Constitution does not mean what we think it says... it means what the Courts think it says. The U.S. Supreme Court has the final say when a Constitutional issue advances that far.

Unfortunately, the Second Amendment is not the only amendment which has been misinterpreted, and infringed upon. Most of the infringements and outright violations we see today have sprung from the Progressive Movement. Here at Bunkerville, Nevada, for example, the Governmennt put strict limits on free speech by attempts to limit the number of protesters, and limits on exactly where they could speak. You will not find an amendment in our Constitution that says there must be a separation of church and state... only that the Government cannot inflict a religion on the people. That idea came from a Supreme Court Justice, Learned Hand as I recall, in his written opinion of a Supreme Court case where he stated that "there ought to be a separation of church and state". It is repeated as if it was written by James Mason himself and discussed and debated in the Federalist papers!

This is why it is so important to elect presidents who are likely to nominate Justices who will faithfully interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Founders intended. Their intent when they wrote the Second Amendment was abundantly clear, and that was recently affirmed in the Heller and McDonald cases. Still, the Liberal Democrat lawmakers are trying to do end runs around these decisions. They should be put in prison for contempt of court. The tallies were 5-4 with the Liberal Justices against us. It was that close, yet King repeatedly tells us that the Second is in no danger. And yes, there have been Justices who obviously lied during their confirmation hearings and later did the opposite of what the president who nominated them expected. But Kagan and Sotomayor will be a thorn in our sides for decades.

Yes, we all have to be concerned because the attacks are relentless. We need to first understand that it is folks like King who are at the grassroots of trying to subvert what the Founders intended. They will lie and LULL and pretend that they are on our side.

They are not on our side. We will never convince them to come over to our side. It is what it is, and we need to be intelligent enough to recognize it, or else the erosion will continue.

King, are you an Athiest or not? Make up your mind. Are you praying to the Miqmak Sun god or the Moon or what? Here's a prayer... let's all bow our heads and pray that King will stop being dillusional.

Geez!

So ok you want to nitpick:

Here's 3 common definitions of militia:

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Pick whichever one you like.

Keith, we must be agreeing on all but terminology because as I read your latest post, I'm saying "yup, yup, yup" as I read through.

My point is that because the Supremes are people, and because those individuals change over time, and because they are appointed by different Presidents of differing political persuasions, their interpretations must change over time. That is the way of humans.

I'm not saying I like it, or that I want it, or that it's good. Just that it's what happens. And so, given that, I consider the document to be "living".....subject to interpretation over time.

I completely agree that the current aims of the liberal Left include dismantling the individualism and self reliance that has been a hallmark of successful America. And that you are right to struggle against that. And that it is a devious foe that operates in the long term.

The Left wraps itself in a blanket of altruism yet the facts belie that selflessness. It is the Left that is selfish, that is concerned with power for power's sake. It is the Left that is the greatest threat to freedom in the US and around the world. I have never thought otherwise.

Looks close to No. 3: a group showed up at Bunkerville for a photo-op. But to be a militia, "the whole body" had to be of an age and physically fit for military service. Notice those gray heads and bellies-over-belts, Jim? Looked more like the militia at my last birthday party.

So your definition of able bodied discriminates against older individuals? That's some what strange coming from a committed Libtard.

Lets see: Since most definitions I've seen over the years specifically states "able bodied men" I guess that means no females could be members of the militia either?

Sometimes you "logic" escapes me and I believe the majority
of the members of this board.

Tench Coxe, a prominent American political economist of the day (1755–1824) who attended the earlier constitutional convention in Annapolis, explained (in the Pennsylvania Federal Gazette on June 18, 1789) the founders' definition of who the militia was intended to be and their inherent distrust of standing armies under the direct control of 'civil rulers' when he wrote:


"The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

The above is the intent of the United States founding fathers and is as valid today for most of us as it was 200 years ago. I believe a goodly portion of the responsible citizens will continue to stand up for and if necessary die to retain our rights to freedom. This oppressive and illegal Obama administration has accomplished ONE thing in the past 5 years and that's provide a wakeup call as to what a demonic socialist in the mold of a Hitler or Stalin can accomplish if left unchecked.
I suspect he remains as clueless as to just how close he was to an armed rebellion as he is about the happenings in the former USSR.

Jim, you provided the definition, not me. No. 3 makes no gender distinction. No. 3 said of eligible age for military service. Any discrimination against age is in your common definition, nothing to do with me.

"Logic" doesn't enter into it. Erosion of the Second often pivots on various jurisdictional interpretations of militias. That's why I asked how many militias were heading for Bunkerville, as reported here, and what exactly is a militia.

That "whole body" could have been a militia of six or 60 according to your common definition No. 3. Take your pick!

Quote:
"Jim, you provided the definition, not me. No. 3 makes no gender distinction. No. 3 said of eligible age for military service. Any discrimination against age is in your common definition, nothing to do with me. "

I guess you are at the point where you'll try to lie right here in public. I provided you with THREE definitions and said take you pick. You're the one that was nitpicking here and if you think age or sex discrimination are as you indicated above allowable then please defend your point. Personally I think the woman's libbers and AARP representatives are going to eat you for lunch but that's the choice you've made.
From what I see you have now exposed yourself not only as a Libtard anti-gun person but a closet anti-woman's rights individual as well. Wow! It's hard to believe one individual could have this many varied and contradictory prejudices! I guess it takes many years and a muddled brain to get to this point!

It sure looks like King is referring to age, specifically the age of participants in the militia. Why is he dishonestly attempting to saddle Jim with the age discrimination against gray haired men? I wonder if it takes a hard flat belly and dark hair to aim and squeeze a trigger? I know I wouldn't want my Dad shooting at me. Maybe King should lead by example and turn in his guns.

It also looks like King is looking for any technicality that would disqualify participation in the militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." There's your answer King... from George Mason. The original intent is clear enough that even you might understand it.

But I'm thinking you are more in tune with Michael Moore who said, "If the guy out in the woods with the Michigan Militia is a real estate negotiator, instead of some crackpot, and has a normal life, that's unnerving. You don't want to think it's as normal as the guy next door, hedging his lawn. It's easier to demonize or separate them off from 'us'."

What's next King? Are you going to advance the Liberal Democrat argument that the National Guard has replaced the militia of the Second Amendment? That seems to be the direction you are taking. I won't put words in your mouth, but then again, I don't have to. You've made it abundantly clear lately that you feel the Second Amendment has no teeth, and is subject to the whims of Liberal Progressives like you.

First you try to LULL us into thinking the Second Amendment is in no danger from anti-gunners, which was your position in the aftermath of Newtown... then you try to say it isn't worth the parchment it's written on.

Jim, by any definition of militia---the OED's or the three "common" ones you mentioned---only No. 3 came close to describing the Bunkerville arrivals. Close. Members earlier posted the militias were coming. I asked if they had arrived; no reply.

You asked me to choose from your three definitions of militia to determine if the Bunkerville protestors comprised a militia. I inferred that there may have been a militia depending on how many met eligibility for military service as described in No. 3.

No. 3 ruled out those of a certain age and physical fitness. Most of them looked like those who came to my last birthday party: grey-haired and overweight. Apparently any US group can call themselves a militia. As for the libbers, I'm safe as a church.

My family has been involved for generations in womens' rights. My grandmother was a suffragette who chained herself to lamp posts to win the right to vote. My mother fought banks requiring a husband's signature for a loan. My three daughters watch me like hawks.

I taught community women for years how to influence big bugs to make transformative change. Night classes, Jim. How to write press releases, appear on television, make their own TV and radio documentaries of what they do and feel about what they do, etc. No one makes messes on their heads!

Quote:
"I taught community women for years how to influence big bugs to make transformative change."

Well you have me there! I don't have any experience as an exterminator my self.

Back to the top... waiting for King to cover it all with more lies and Bullshit.

Maybe big jugs have a transformative appeal to most guys. Okay, I'll crawl back under my rock.

You'll have a lot of company under the rock...


Best,
Ted

King Brown won't be there. He's too busy with his real day job... sitting at the computer attempting to undermine our gun rights and advancing Socialism.

Harry Reid - another Libtard POS!

How ironic. We have a Muslim wacko in the military who kills fellow servicemen in the name of Allah and the idiot occupying the White House and his cohorts refuses to label him a terrorist. You have normal Americans standing up for what they believe is heavy handed government intervention and they are labeled "domestic terrorists"**.
Go figure!

**Harry Reid specifically made this comment.

actually Title 10 of the US Code spells out the definition of Militia; the organized and the unorganized militia as it relates to us. Very clearly defined.

10 U.S.C. § 311 : US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/I/13/311#sthash.gMcAPaq7.dpuf

and seeing how I was used as a reference in this string by King earlier in the conversation, Ill weigh in on the age/gray hair/capability comments.
I have gray hair! and at age 55 when I started my last 1 year combat deployment to Afghanistan, I wasn't considered too old by Uncle Sam and the Big green Machine. He was perfectly happy to send my gray haired, stiff jointed, crotchety ass over there. so if I can be like that and serve in the organized military, then by extension, I should be able to serve in an unorganized militia even with gray hair.

I couldn't agree more Brian and I intend to remain active as a member of the unorganized militia until that is no longer physically possible.
Believe me I'm on the far side of 55 but I was still able to pass the competency test for active carry at my gun club the last time I took it. I was told it's the same pistol qualification test used for some SWAT teams and it's very demanding.
Jim

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/...n-the-west.html

The U S Constitution on Federal Land Ownership Article I Section 8:


"Perhaps the most important factor in the escalating showdown, though, is the U.S. Constitution — the contract whereby state governments delegated certain limited powers to the federal government. In Article I, Section 8, the American people, acting through their sovereign states, granted this authority to their agent: “To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.”

In other words, the federal government’s purported claims of jurisdiction over an estimated one-third of America’s landmass are brazenly unconstitutional. Whether federal courts are willing to concede that should be irrelevant — the language of the Constitution is clear, and there is no need for "interpretation" by federal supremacists in the federal judiciary. "

I had the opportunity to bring up the above last evening with Rep David Schweikert(R,AZ) and Rep Darrell Issa(R,CA) on an online forum I was invited to participate in. They both agreed that this is a real issue that will be addressed as the Western States have already begun the process of rolling back the unconstitutional Federal abuse in this area.
Jim

Well Jim I for one hope that movement dies before it gets any traction. As someone who lives within the boundaries of the National Forest and spends lots of time hunting on public land, I do not want to see our Federal Government sell off these recreational lands. Privatizing public lands will only escalate the trend of decreasing hunter participation. Our country needs places for the average man to go and chase the wild things and you can still do that here. It is why this guy that was raised back east moved out west.

Oh and as to the link posted above by nca225, it is hard to believe people are still ignorant enough to speak that way in any setting let alone public. Sort brings to mind the title of that movie, how to loose friends and alienate people.......

SKB
I for one am not interested in our lands that are now illegally held under Federal Government control being sold off as private lands.
My interest is in seeing the respective States exercise their Constitutional rights and that these lands illegally seized by the Federal Government be returned to them. I can only speak for my own State of Arizona and the land currently under their control has been well managed.
The States have been under the thumb of the Federal Government since the socialist Roosevelt Administration and it's high time we took back control over our own destiny.
This movement doesn't need to die; it needs in fact to pick up traction if we are ever to get back to some semblance of Constitutional Rights in this Country.
The Western States are already meeting for just this purpose. If there has been any good that's come out of the oppressive and corrupt Obama administration it's been the re-awakening of State's rights.
Jim

It was pretty bad what Mr. Bundy had to say about blacks perhaps being better off as slaves than as dependants on the Democrat Plantation which uses them, and abuses them, and plays them for fools for their own selfish agenda. Of course, the race hustlers will try to paint anyone who supported Bundy's stand against excessive government enforcement with the broad racist brush.

It was interesting that FOX NEWS replayed Mr. Bundy's comments in their entirety, and then lambasted them. Fair and balanced, I guess. Something we sure didn't see from NBC, MSNBC, etc., after Martin Bashir made his vile misogynist remarks about Sarah Palin, or even Rev. Al Sharpton's disgusting remarks about Colin Powell being a "House Negro", or when Sharpton defended an XM radio show routine about raping Condoleeza Rice (and raping Laura Bush to death). Or how about the Rev. Jesse Jackson's admission that he spit in white peoples food when he worked as a waiter in New York. And golly gee whiz, no links from nca225 to any of those faux pas??? Go figure.

Well, here's 20 Great Moments in Liberal Bigotry. LBJ's was especially nice!

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/20-great-moments-in-liberal-bigotry

How about some more? Looks like Clive Bundy's comments were small potatoes compared to many leading Democrats!

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/quotes-from-democrats-on-race-anti-semitism/

But Bundy's comment wasn't near as bad as what that slimy cowardly piece of shit nca225 said about my daughters right here in Misfires last year. And what he reiterated about a month ago. Of course, he also revealed his true feelings last year after the Heller decision when he said that the Militia of the Second Amendment is obsolete, and he supported some of the same anti-gun measures that his Idol Obama was advancing.

nca225... Socialist, liberal, anti-gun troll... and filthier than anything in Clive Bundy's heart... or colon.

"It was pretty bad what Mr. Bundy had to say about blacks perhaps being better off as slaves than as dependants on the Democrat Plantation which uses them, and abuses them, and plays them for fools for their own selfish agenda. Of course, the race hustlers will try to paint anyone who supported Bundy's stand against excessive government enforcement with the broad racist brush."

well said,many conservative blacks have pointed out that the Dem's are just keeping the poor on their "plantation"in trade for votes.





And no news stories when Dems say stupid things like this:

Illinois Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn is in some hot water with the Jewish community after his campaign tweeted—and then quietly deleted—several messages urging backers to read an article comparing black Republican voters to Jews who collaborated with the Nazis.

Chicago Sun Times readers were stunned last week to find that writer Neil Steinberg has penned a column comparing black supporters of Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner to Jews who collaborated with the Nazis against their brethren.

“As a general rule, individuals will sell out the interests of their groups in return for personal benefit,” Steinberg wrote in his column, which claimed that Rauner is buying off the black community and its leaders. “It isn’t just a black thing. Jews collaborated with the Nazis during World War II, helping them to round up their own people in the hopes they’d be the last to go.”

As to Bundy,its important to stay focused on the government overreach in essentially and armed thug money collection and not Bundy's thoughtless statements. To tie government overreach and land grabs to that-again thoughtless statements is the only thing ignorant in the whole story

"Jews collaborated with the Nazis during World War II, helping them to round up their own people in the hopes they’d be the last to go.”

As a student of WW II history I seriously doubt that this was a common occurrence. However one prominent Jewish far left Democratic supporter, George Soros, is documented as doing just that. And I don't believe for a minute that the fact he was a teenager at that time changes the situation one bit.
Jim

I an another case of the media and its hypocrisy on racism.

Bundy vs Shabazz


"All was quiet on the mainstream media front back in 2012 when New Black Panther Party national field Marshal King Samir Shabazz in very explicit terms called for black Americans to form an army and murder white people. The clear threats and hate speech were ignored."

Too bad Bundy isn’t a black leftist; he could have threatened to firebomb white cracker babies without a peep from the leftist press.

Shabazz sounding off on August 13,2012 in an online broadcast:

you’re going to have to kill some of these babies, just born three sec­onds ago. You’re going to have to go into the God damn nurs­ery and just throw a damn bomb in the damn nurs­ery and just kill every­thing white in sight that ain’t right.”

We gonna need preach­ers going into the cracker churches throw­ing hand grenades on early Sun­day morn­ing when the cracker got his hands up, ‘please white Jesus!’ Well we gonna throw a bomb in that God damn church, burn up the cracker, burn up the cracker Jesus, and burn up some cracker white supremacy.”

…drag some of these god damn rusty dusty ass crack­ers out of their homes, skin their asses alive, hang their asses up by some damn rope in some trees, drag them up and down the streets by God damn trucks, sick the pit bulls on them, pour acid on their asses, dump them in a God damn river, bring them back up, bust them in the head with a rock.

We're getting close to the one year anniversary keith. I see you still have not sought help from the victim crisis centers I referred you to. Perhaps that is due to your concurrent shame of those hard to treat medical conditions (one of which is well known to result in insanity if left untreated) and being the first to bring in a person's family member to attack them. And gosh darn-it I guess you are finding it hard to run from your record. You should be a man like your idol Ol' Cliven and stand by what you say.

That guy Shabazz is only catching up to us, Dave. You could hear that kind of stuff from whites on any street in the South 50 years ago. Only difference is they were't just raving, they were doing it. I was there.

I was there too King, still am for that matter. In addition I was old enough to be aware of what was going on.

You seem to want to paint the entire South with blanket racism; I don't remember it that way. Yes there were some nutcase KKKers that bombed some Black churches, some with children in them. They also murdered some of what they called "outside adjitators".

Southerners were as horrified as you were when those things happened. I saw it as a Southerner, King and maybe I saw it more clearly than you...Geo

There's no question of your seeing it more clearly, living through decades of every institution being corrupted by it for going along with it for so long. Many persons of decency and faith, including my friends in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi, abhorred those laws and joined with others to try to change them. In the end, constitutional rights could only be enforced by military bayonets.

Yes, I was there in Birmingham when the four little black girls were blown up in their church, and when the feds first started to take action when a carload of Jewish students heading south to get out the vote were ambushed and murdered. A colleague was murdered on Ole Miss campus during the riots around James Meredith registration for attendance.

As for the "outside agitators," I was one of them. Any reporter north of the Line was "a Northern white troublemaker." It was more dangerous for us at times than any revolt or war I had covered. We were hated and blacks were leery because of the consequences of speaking to us. I did my time in southern jails. I know Southerners were horrified, Geo. Only problem: there weren't enough of you.

Either way you looked at it, as an observer or citizen, it was horrible.

Wow King,and thats the best excuse you can come up with to try and stand behind that racist ?
If we follow your "rules" then there is always a pass for a liberal racist because in your mind he just "catching up"

BTW that Shabazz clown was the same guy in this video that Holder DOJ decided to drop the case because he was on of "my people"

A couple of points:

When that was going on George was what? Eleven? The church bombers and murderers from the sixties are now all dead or old men. Had Shabazz called for their death his hateful speech might not be so reprehensible.

Those events seven decades ago do not justify the murder of white people this decade, even if they are the children of the bombers and lynchers of the fifties and sixties. I am surprised that you find Shabazz's recent call for the murder of innocent babies justified by acts of domestic terror sixty and some-odd years ago.

My point, Mike, is that kind of mindless talk was currency not that long ago, only it was spewing from our white mouths. Shabazz is a caricature, a grotesque representation of racist bigots which we'll always have with us. He's a nut case, not to be taken too seriously.

But if we turned everything in Shabazz's speech inside out the Left and you would have been all over the speaker and it would have been on MSNBC, CBS, CNN, and ABC and in the New York Times:

In a speech today Jefferson Davis VII of the Aryan Nation said "You’re going to have to kill some of these babies, just born three sec­onds ago. You’re going to have to go into the God damn nurs­ery and just throw a damn bomb in the damn nurs­ery and just kill every­thing black in sight that ain’t right.

We gonna need preachers going into the black mosques throw­ing hand grenades on Friday when the [censored] got his hands up, ‘please black Mohammed!’ Well we gonna throw a bomb in that God damn mosque, burn up the [censored], burn up the black Mohammed, and burn up some [censored] black supremacy.”

…drag some of these god damn rusty dusty ass niggers out of their homes, skin their asses alive, hang their asses up by some damn rope in some trees, drag them up and down the streets by God damn trucks, sick the pit bulls on them, pour acid on their asses, dump them in a God damn river, bring them back up, bust them in the head with a rock."

You and your co-ideologues give black racists and hate speech by black racists a pass. But you have a hyperbolic reaction to a white person objectively criticizing black urban culture.

The left embraces black racists,just look a the drug dealing, race bating, mob rat !He has his own show on MSNBC,goes to white house functions and even has the president and Holder come kiss his ring at the NAN !

Apparently, the prez does not feel this way. Not only will he remain quiet on issues like this, but when he's in campaign mode, near always, he'll regurgitate the PG-13 version of blame whitey. Maybe the folks around him advise on the nation as a whole. Well, maybe not. If not for the grace of God, near all his extended circle would be shabazz'.

I don't give anyone a pass on racism, Mike. When the above trash talk was introduced here, I said that's the way we used to talk. Nothing was drummed more than bigotry as sin into the heads of my brother and sisters by our parents. From the evidence here, I believe you had a similar indoctrination.

But that is not the way I used to talk. Nor is it the way I talk today. And it is reprehensible. But you and MSNBC and CBS and NBC give black rascists a pass and bring up a bombing fifty years ago by white domestic terrorists as an excuse for a black racist's hateful speech advocating the murder of white babies. But mostly you don't even acknowledge it. Then, when a newsworthy white like Bundy makes a hateful racist remark, it is broadcast by all of the Liberal media.

My point King is that the same indoctrination was drummed into my head and those of my brothers and sister by my parents. We were certainly not the only home on the block or in the neighborhood, the City or the South where that very same thing was taking place...Geo

But that is not the way I used to talk. Nor is it the way I talk today. And it is reprehensible. But you and MSNBC and CBS and NBC give black rascists a pass and bring up a bombing fifty years ago by white domestic terrorists as an excuse for a black racist's hateful speech advocating the murder of white babies. But mostly you don't even acknowledge it. Then, when a newsworthy white like Bundy makes a hateful racist remark, it is broadcast by all of the Liberal media. [/quote

But this is NOT the way I used to talk or the way anyone I knew used to talk either. This is the typical "They all do it" Libtard excuse for the radical and ultra racist behavior you see from black groups like that one.
Jim

Cliven Bundy's entire conversation casts a somewhat different light on his thoughts than the select quotes being persented by the media. He is not an articulate man, but his thoughts do not appear to be that different from many who feel that the welfare state has not done blacks any favors.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/unedited-tape-bundy-emerges-sheds-light-racist-remarks

Come to think of it, Bundy's "welfare plantation" analogy comes straight from the conservative black journalist/editorialist Starr Parker...Geo

"This is the typical "They all do it" Libtard excuse for the radical and ultra racist behavior you see from black groups like that one."

Is this different from all liberals are the enemy, Jim, which is postulated often here by some conservatives?

Clive Bundy may think of himself as a folk hero, but he is merely the perfect example of the welfare recipient he holds in such contempt. The fees he is required to pay to graze BLM land are a small fraction of of the value received. Even if he had paid all along, his operation was being subsidized by all tax paying citizens of this country. His posture as a rugged, self- sufficient pioneer is a sorry myth. The publically owned land he treats as if it belongs to him alone is actually the glory of outdoor recreation throughout the West. Anyone who hikes or camps or fishes or hunts and who doesn't have access to his own private Idaho, knows the priceless heritage that BLM and USFS lands represent.

You said Bill and I could not agree more. Here is to continuing the tradition of public land access for future generations of hunters, hikers, etc !

This is correct,the NYT of course selectively edited his remarks-and your right he is not the most articulate,he also defends both Mexican and Blacks;

” and so what I’ve testified to ya’, I was in the WATTS riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen the last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people is thinking they did not have their freedom; they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.

We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and sure don’t want to go back; we sure don’t want the colored people to go back to that point; we sure don’t want the Mexican people to go back to that point; and we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.

http://conservativebyte.com/2014/04/nyt-...5jY4GfAK8yAm.99

There's a long history of grazing rights, grandfathered an otherwise, that does not exclude public access. I noticed two points brought up that very likely would limit or eliminate public access. Some fabricated endangered species and dedicating land to an agenda, a 'green' project back door brokered with a foreign company.

I'd like to know where, in this C. Bundy story, I can find out about ensuring public hunting access for generations to come. I am very interested in public access for hunting, not just continuing but expanding. Wouldn't it have been easier and much more cost effective to just send Mr. Bundy a letter reminding him he can not obstruct lawful public access. Are we sure this all came about because he restricted access.

The public PR campaign seems to have worked to get some public opinion against the rancher. All they had to do was legitimately garnish what's supposed to be owed, and the fellow would have rounded up the cattle and sold them off himself. I'm not convinced I'll be able to take a grandson out hunting there. About an hour out of Las Vegas, it would be more interesting than the Hoover Dam tour.

Craig,
I think these are two separate issues in the same thread. My concern for continued access to to public hunting has little or nothing to do with Mr. Bundy. My comments related to Jim's post regarding Federal ownership of vast amounts of the West. Most BLM land can be hunted on even if grazing rights are held by private ranchers. My neighbor and myself took an antelope last winter off some BLM that had been leased for cattle grazing last fall here in CO. As to whether or not you can hunt were Mr. Bundy runs his cows, I do not know. Here is to hoping you can get that grandson of yours out on a good public land hunt.
Steve

Recreation on public land is as well established a right across the West as any other I can name. I don't think it is threatened by conservation efforts. To insure hunting access for future generations on pubic land, the most important action people can take is to elect local, state, and national leaders who value outdoor recreation and have a strong conservation ethic. Teddy Roosevelt is the role model we should keep in mind. The greatest threat to outdoor sport and recreation is habitat degradation.

Thanks guys for the follow up comments.

This thought sounds good, but granted permission to access is, in my mind, most definitely revocable and not a right.

I've noticed many confrontational threads with political components. You have not seemed to support politicians that value hunting rights and access. It's none of my business who you support, but if you believe your comment, I'd look harder at actions and track records.

Revoking recreational access to public lands is not a realistic worry in states whose economy depends on tourism. People come to Montana to hunt, fish, hike, and camp. Outfitting is a big industry here and in all the Rocky Mountain region. A common sore point throughout the West is user fees, charging the public for access to their own lands. User fees derive from federal under-funding of agencies like BLM and USFS. My reluctant conclusion is that whom we elect only matters any more at the local level. State and national elections nowadays are up for sale to the highest bidder. Those elected will favor the interests that bankrolled their campaigns.

There is a good deal more going on here,and elsewhere-like in Texas with the BM land grab, when the government uses this type of overreach-no one should be subjected to armed BLM and other Federal officers invading and shooting their livestock to "collect a debt".

Could it be a attempt to stop fracking by environmentalist groups ?

http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/...bundy-showdown/

Nevada could soon join the ranks of the states that are experiencing an economic boom and job creation due to oil-and-gas development. And, that has got to have the environmental groups, which are hell-bent on stopping it, in panic mode. Until now, their efforts in Nevada have been focused on blocking big solar development.

A year ago, the BLM held an oil-and-gas lease sale in Reno. At the sale, 29 federal land leases, totaling about 56 square miles, were auctioned off, bringing in $1.27 million. One of the winning bidders is Houston-based Noble Energy, which plans to drill as many as 20 exploratory wells and could start drilling by the end of the year. Commenting on its acreage, Susan Cunningham, Noble senior vice president, said: “We’re thrilled with the possibilities of this under-explored petroleum system.”

The parcels made available in April 2013 will be developed using hydraulic fracturing, about which Coyner quipped: “If the Silver State’s first big shale play pays off, it could touch off a fracking rush in Nevada.” Despite the fact that fracking has been done safely and successfully for more than 65 years in America, the Center for Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Nevada-based senior scientist, Ron Mrowka, told the Las Vegas Review Journal: “Fracking is not a good thing. We don’t feel there is a safe way to do it.”

One year before the April 2013, sale, CBD filed a “60-day notice of intent to sue” the BLM for its failure to protect the desert tortoise in the Gold Butte area—where Bundy cattle have grazed for more than a century.

Because agencies like the BLM are often staffed by environmental sympathizers, it is possible that CBD was alerted to the pending potential oil-and-gas boom when the April 2013 parcels were nominated—triggering the notice of intent to sue in an attempt to lock up as much land as possible before the “fracking rush” could begin.

A March 25, 2014 CBD press release—which reportedly served as the impetus for the current showdown—states: “Tortoises suffer while BLM allows trespass cattle to eat for free in Nevada desert.” It points out that the Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan purchased and then retired grazing leases to protect the endangered tortoise.

Energy development, whether it's coal or shale oil, will most certainly destroy enormous areas of public lands. It has already done so in North Dakota, northeastern Montana, and Wyoming. It does produce huge income for the lessees and short-term jobs for miners and other laborers. The energy boom in the West is a sad repetition of the region's history, an extractive exploitation that leaves behind abandoned communities and a devastated landscape. The future of fossil fuel consumption is a dead end. There's not much point in worrying about recreational access if we're willing to cede dominion of public lands to the coal and oil industries.

Fossil fuels are to stay for many decades and the benefits of both coal oil and fracking far outweigh any perceived disadvantages the environment groups try to show.Fossil fuels remain the most efficient, reliable, and affordable energy available. They enable ordinary Americans to travel to work, heat and cool their homes, and put food on their family’s table.

Alternative energy provides less then 2% of the world energy needs and is littered with failed government backed schemes like Fisker.

Its time for the western states to evict the Feds !

http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2014/04/time-for-western-states-to-evict-feds/

“More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal: wresting control of oil-,timber-and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.

“‘It’s simply time,’ said Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, who organized the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands along with Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. ‘The urgency is now.’

Here is the percentage of land owned by the federal government in seven eastern states:

Illinois: 1.8%

Ohio: 1.7%

Alabama: 1.6%

Maine: 1.1%

New York: 0.8%

Rhode Island: 0.4%

Connecticut: 0.4%

By contrast, here is the percentage of land owned by the federal government in seven western states:

Wyoming: 42.3%

California: 45.3%

Arizona: 48.1%

Idaho: 50.2%

Oregon: 53.1%

Utah: 57.4%

Nevada: 84.5%

Remember that ranchers and farmers such as Cliven Bundy were promised access to these federal lands in perpetuity back in the nineteenth century when all of these land deals were being negotiated between the states and the federal government. Beyond that, ownership of the land by the federal government was supposed to preserve and protect the land for the people, not for the federal government.

Those states in the West were the property of the US before they became states. They were admitted to the Union as full states by a vote of congress on congress' terms. Those terms included retention by the Feds of vast swaths of public land.

Texas was a Republic for a few years before it was admitted to the Union. The Republic of Texas did negotiate retention of its public lands and the US accepted it on those terms. The original (thirteen?) colonies also kept their public lands. For reasons I don't understand there is not a lot of public land (state or Federal) in Kansas either.

Almost all hunting in Texas is on private land. Although there is some public "walk-in" hunting most hunting is leased out. It is very expensive in my opinion. I usually make a trip every year to New Mexico to hunt Blues on BLM and state land. I estimate about a third of the land in New Mexico is owned by the Feds. At the time of Texas' admission into the Union a disagreement about who owned New Mexico and Colorado between the US and the Republic of Texas was settled. Obviously the Feds got New Mexico and Colorado, along with their public lands.

Can you post a photo of the enormous areas of "destroyed" public land in any of these states? What is your definition of "destroyed"? The only things I have actually seen are new well heads and increased truck traffic on un-improved roads. This hardly constitutes "destruction". This notion of "destruction" of land is a hint of someone who thinks what occurs to a section of land in their lifetimes is significant in geological time, which, is most certainly not the case. This is often a liberal's erroneous viewpoint.
What will said land look like in 1 million years? 10 million years? The dinosaurs existed for 55 million years, give or take, and land was created and actually destroyed throughout that period, with no input from mankind. This is a bit more significant than the view that land can be "destroyed" in the coarse of a man's lifetime, which, is, of coarse, silly.

Another point, if I may? The way I see it, your own breathing and digestion are, in fact, "dead ends". They cannot and will not be sustained to infinity. None the less, I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess that you are interested in them continuing as long as possible, despite them being a complete "dead end".

Such is where we find ourselves with petroleum and it's by products.


Best,
Ted

I have killed many many blue and bobwhite quail within yards of oil wells and their associated infrastructure. An oil well doesn't seem to bother them at all.

I don't see how an oil well or a tank farm harms the Lesser Prairie Chickens or Sage Grouse either.

The root cause of all pollution and all endangerment of species is the overpopulation of the planet.

I suggest much of the opposition to the new Western fossil fuel boom is just guerrilla warfare on perceived CO2 induced global warming. Obama won't reject the XL pipeline because of the coming November elections. He won't approve it because he is opposed to fossil fuels. But he is for jobs.

It saddens me to hear that the area I hunt in Montana is in the new oil boom. It means more people, less game, and higher costs. But I don't begrudge the new jobs and improved economy brought to the area's residents.

I tried to highlight all the important facts here.

Also wondering, where can I find out more about dead ends and big bad corps. One of the most awe inspiring sights is a row of wind turbines at the foot of the Rocky's, in Montana, with every other one locked down because it tripped off for yet another problem. I wonder if the cocktail party libs will care if a place like Bunkerville is preserved in all its glory by being blanketed with chinese panels. Happy hunting.

And all those wind farms and solar farms have to be backed up by a fossil fuel plant with 100% of the "renewable's" capacity for those times that the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow.

So we import solar panels from China at the expense of coal miners and oil industry workers in the US. But Obama is for job growth.

Reluctant conclusion or justification. It's a familiar theme, 'I can't stand all you kooks, buy ya know we're all in this together, so lets just support the dems cause they make me feel good, I think'.

The New York Times condemns and opposes the mining, transporting, refining and burning of fossil fuels at every opportunity and on the smallest of pretexts. But in the context of the partial annexation of Ukraine the NYT editors advocated an immediate program to build infrastructure so we can export natural gas to Europe to end their dependence on Russia's. Why weren't they pushing a solar and windmill solution instead of a natural gas solution for those Europeans?

interesting viewpoints. The effects of the Bakken are well documented. I started a thread a few weeks ago inquiry where a guy might hunt. Not a pretty picture.

Oh and since we are pointing out the obvious regarding fossils fuels. Could one one of you die hards explain how when multinational oil companies sell resources that come from our public land on the INTERNATIONAL commodities market that somehow provides the US with secure fuel source. The multinationals benefit and the US consumer takes it in the shorts while the stockholders cash a nice dividend check. Politics as usual boys.

Far from "die hards" Steve,the facts fully support mine others views that oil/coal/nat gas are all going to be by far the most significant producers of world energy demands,Not wind Not solar.

Oil,like other commodities are all traded on an international markets, the profits can go to the Saudis' or to those who pay taxes here-that benefit ALL Americans.Before you trash big oil take a look at the tax they pay,the jobs-high paying jobs they provide and benefits of having natural resources available here in this country,one look at economies that don't like Japan show are fortunate we are.
Taxes and Tax rates of big oil;
ExxonMobil paid $146 billion in taxes; Chevron paid $85 billion; and ConocoPhillips paid $58 billion over the last five years.

In terms of their effective tax rates, the big three oil companies don’t get off easily either. Exxon had an effective tax rate of 37 percent, Chevron’s effective tax rate was 39 percent, and ConocoPhillips’s was a whopping 74 percent. The U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent.

In fact, the big three oil companies paid multiples more, in both total dollars and effective tax rates, than such administration favorites as Apple, Google and General Electric.

The US is still a net importer of oil. Some of that money we were sending to Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, is staying here.

The drilling rights are auctioned off and the US treasury receives the money.

Gasoline prices would be higher if there was less oil available here.

Drilling jobs, pipeline jobs, refining jobs, and cheap energy are beneficial to US citizens. They are also beneficial to the treasuries of the US' and several state governemnts' treasuries.

Natural gas prices are way way down. That is beneficial to US manufacturers and their employees. It is beneficial to those that heat their homes and businesses with natural gas.

I doubt that those areas you photographed were representative of more than a small percentage of the area of the Bakken.

The BS put out about the benefits and costs of solar and windpower is still BS, no matter anyone's "die-hard" status.

The oil companies make lots of money and support politicians that vote their way. Same way the railroads did in the 1800s, the New York Banks did for the last thirty years. And the same way the next big thing will when they make the money.

so how does this help us become energy independent? It does not.

I'm fine with tapping natural resources but a little honesty in the conversation goes a long ways. The story that fracking is the energy savior of the US is total B.S. More big business having its way with our resources. So Dave are we meeting the worlds demands or those here in the US?

Steve how do we exploit "our resources" without fracking? Do you think fracking is bogus? Are you like those people that think we didn't really land on the moon, that it was faked?

As far as "our resources" significant portion of the fracking and drilling is on private land.

Our citizens are putting gasoline in their cars that was made in our refineries from our oil that the oil companies drilled on our land. Those oil companies competitively bid for the drilling rights on our land and sent that money to our treasury.

Why do you think we producing 50% more oil that we were in 2005 ? http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=A

We are projected to be energy indpendent: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100450133

Not my pictures of the Bakken, but the stories seem to be consistent as far as I can tell.

I do not believe that fracking is half as safe as the oil companies say it is.

But hey, what difference is an extra 80 or so earth quakes a year?

http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/man-made-earthquakes/


If the oil companies were just a little more forth coming....maybe.

But then to Ted's point....hey in a few thousand years who cares? It will be all gone by then.

This board blows my mind at times. Bill comes on and makes what any outdoorsman should recognize as a statement regarding the need to keep our wild places wild and our game populations up and then he is instantly labeled a liberal and possibly some type of trader.

I'd love to see this board grow up some. Not gonna happen though. You are the boys of the ultra small tent. The same mentality that lost the last 2 presidential election for the GOP. But at least you all can claim the moral high ground.

who knows...maybe Rand Paul will get the nod. That would shake things up some.

Steve I did not call Bill a liberal or a traitor. I didn't take him as a liberal and if he is a liberal that is just fine.

If we could argue facts instead of casting stones we might both learn something though.

Mike I'm not totally against fracking but would love to see some honesty in the conversation. The oil companies here do everything they can to avoid any responsibility. When one of there proprietary chemicals shows up in someones well the answer is always "you can prove it". BS you know it and so do I. Same goes when they have a spill. The earthquakes? I'm mean really. I would be hunting the bastards down personally if it was my well or foundation. Some responsibility like most industries is all I ask. oh and the illegal dumping of nuclear waste....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-15/radioactive-waste-booms-with-oil-as-new-rules-mulled.html

is it really too much to ask for the industry to be held to some standard level accountability? I do not feel it is.

Sorry Mike, not you I had meant, just was replying to you. The erroneous liberal view was Ted's comment, not yours.

I feel I can usually discuss things with you, even if we don't see it exactly the same. Some others who frequently post here, not so much.

Steve,
once again,energy coal/oil/nat gas,are ALL traded on an international market,if we somehow decide not to produce any or less two things will happen,the worlds demands will go even higher above the supply.The second is we will pay more- A lot more.
One look at Putin's strangle hold on Europe and his ability to leverage it shows how important it is for America,and most importantly have American companies that pay taxes here, to drill and use coal/oil/nat gas that we will all be using for MANY decades to come.

Fracking is going on all around the Panhandle of Texas. I know many landowners. Many of them do not own the mineral rights. The oil companies coming on their land and drilling is just a PITA. I haven't heard of any polluted wells from them. I haven't heard of any on the local news.

Do you know anybody that has had their well ruined? I don't doubt that it has happened many times. Again it is a low percentage. Nothing is 100%

No doubt that we are going to have leaks and spills of oil.

But as far as no accountability what about BP in the Gulf of Mexico? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill

" As of February 2013, criminal and civil settlements and payments to a trust fund had cost the company $42.2 billion.[30]"

BP earnings for 2013 were 13.4 billion: http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/press/press-releases/fourth-quarter-2013-results.html

Steve I agree, personal attacks are counter-productive and unpleasant.

Quote:
"Also wondering, where can I find out more about dead ends and big bad corps. One of the most awe inspiring sights is a row of wind turbines at the foot of the Rocky's, in Montana, with every other one locked down because it tripped off for yet another problem. I wonder if the cocktail party libs will care if a place like Bunkerville is preserved in all its glory by being blanketed with chinese panels. Happy hunting."

I just returned from spending Easter in Kalifornia with the family and drove there and back on Route 10 thru the Palm Springs area. I'd estimate that at least 60 % of the turbines in that area are currently inoperable. And this was in very windy conditions. Well: At least they're not killing birds.
Jim

Dave,
Do not Russia, Venezuela, Saudi etc meet there own domestic needs before selling into the international market? Thereby controlling the cost of fuel internally? I believe they do and so do many other petroleum producing countries. Those countries typically have nationally owned oil companies. I'm not saying that is what we need. A tweak to the laws concerning energy exports could be considered though. But by claiming energy independence and selling our resources into the international commodity market we are not exactly achieving the stated goal. I get the premise of increased supply lowers our cost but that is a long long way from what is being sold to the American public.

I raise my hand up Steve.

Did you read Bill's thoughts. He called Mr. Bundy a welfare hypocrite, but said he had a right to accessing federal land because of where he lives. I get lectured about my small tent, but Bill says elections don't matter except around his immediate area.

Many say petroleum fuels are not necessary, but no mention about how he gets along with 'green' energy. Does a wild place really seem wild if it's dotted with turbines and panels.

He offers the very general comment about needing leadership that is pro conservation. Does that mean areas with no human access, or recycling bins in big cities.

Back to the point, and to your point, where is the assurance that hunting access on public land is preserved. At the least, is there something more than counting on luck and living out west. Sure I brought up the liberal connection, but I tried to explain the history and wonder about inconsistency.

At every turn, 'outdoorsman' are giving up rights, privileges and traditions. It bears worth repeating, he said national elections don't matter. How much smaller could a tent be.

Mike,
I do not know anyone who has had a well effected personally. I do read the paper here and to me it is very obvious that the rules are tilted away from accountability here in Colorado. Our Governor is suing several cities, not little crossroads on the plains but major cities. The reason? The have banned fracking inside city limits. Seems reasonable to me for a city to set land use rules. That is how it usually works in our cities. By the way, Gov is a Democrat. Another Colorado rule governing fracking allows the drilling companies to not reveal the chemicals they use. Hard to prove they are the source then.

BP certainly paid out, but that was deep water drilling wasnt it? Or did they frack that well too? Amazing technology and I'm not totally against it.

Steve I don't think the Gulf/BP blowout was from fracking. But it was an oil spill and contamination.

It appears to me that those cities do not own the mineral rights underneath them. If they did the oil/gas would be theirs' to leave in the ground. If the state owns the mineral rights it would be theirs to pump out.

I am not in the oil business. But as I understand it the fracking occurs four or five miles underground. Your water well is probably no deeper than two hundred feet. The danger of contamination comes from the vertical penetration through the water aquifer. So they penetrate your acquifer and then drill down another 25,000 feet and then they drill out horizontally in several directions. That is the level that the fracking occurs in.

I do not know how much accountability there is for oil companies in Colorado. I have operated a profitable business for thirty some odd years. I do know when there is no mess I don't have to argue about who caused it and who pays to clean it up. So we go out of our way to prevent messes in our business, even when they would be someone else's fault. In my opinion the oil companies are making so much money they don't want to spend any time with lawyers, being deposed, and talking to the press and congressional committees. They would much rather be out drilling making obscene amounts of money. I believe they are very very careful because it is profitable for them to be careful.

I think the people that believe in and are worried about CO2 induced global warming are waging a guerrila war on fossil fuels. I think the horror stories about fracking and damage to sage grouse are about global warming, not water well pollution and game conservation. That is my opinion. I base it on the hyperbole surrounding fracking as compared to the reality of fracking.

The only reason not to approve the new big pipeline from Canada is that it increases CO2 per gallon of gas because tar sands crude makes more CO2 than West Texas Intermediate Crude. Before Obama knew he was going to be able to get CO2's classification as pollutant through the Supreme Court he put on strict new and unnecessary mercury pollution levels on coal fired plants which would have obsoleted half of them.

Fracking is spreading around the world. The people who believe CO2 is the cause of global warming see a worldwide supply of plentiful and cheap oil and gas as a catastrophe. They oppose fossil fuels at every opportunity and are willing to use the flimsiest of arguments. They exaggerate its risks and minimize its benefits.

Steve I don't mean you are being disingenuous. I mean that the guys writing the stories for the New York Times and Bloomberg and the guys in the White House and the EPA are spinning everything they can, including the dangers of fracking. I think yours is the natural reaction to the news as they have spun it to us.

Craig,
I think national elections matter. Quite a bit actually. I have no illusions that green energy will save the planet. Not my bag. I do feel we should be doing our all to tap these natural resources in a responsible manner. I'm not saying that we should not frack, or that solar or wind will save the day. They won't.

As to Mr. Bundy, at this point I'm not sure what to think. I think him and the BLM need to come to terms on the grazing issues and not have shoot out that is for sure. His story has little to with hunting public lands really. I do think with history on the side of outdoorsman and many elected officials who fully understand the need for the common person to access these lands that nothing will change in terms of the ability to hunt federal lands anytime soon. The current Federal land use policy calls for mixed use and hunting is specifically mentioned as one of those uses. You asked where is the assurance? The only thing I can assure you of is death and taxes. I still believe that the Feds controlling huge amounts of the west is a GREAT thing. I love being able to hunt, hike, fish, camp etc where ever the map tells me to go. Pretty amazing really. Not many places on the planet you can do that.

Craig I really think that in person we would most likely agree on much more than we disagree on.

Mike,
the climate change/global warming debate should become more interesting over time. Have you read much about how solar activity effects our climate? Really interesting stuff and well above my head. I do have a close friend who spent years in the field who's brain I am planning to pick on the subject.

I believe the mineral rights in question in these cities are privately owned. The question revolves around what kind of regulations on industry a city can put in place.

Personally I have not doubt that pollution is out of control, not in this country but in China, India ETC. I do agree with you that much quackery revolves around the subject of climate change, CO2 etc. I'm not so sure I agree with your take on the media spinning it though. Plenty of media on both sides really. One side might exaggerate the risks and downplay the benefits but the industry does exactly the opposite. Two sides as always and in this case neither is being completely honest are they?

No doubt in my mind that both the oil industry and the anti-CO2ers spin. But most of the media are on the anti-CO2ers side and certainly Obama and his EPA are.

I have read some articles about solar cycles and sunspots and global warming.

BBC recently reported a study that found that pine forests emitted certain volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These specific VOCs combine with dust and water vapor to make trillions of tiny little "mirrors" that reflect sunlight back into space, thus significantly dampening global warming. The higher the temperature, up to a certain point, the more of these particular VOCs are emitted by the pine forests and the more sunlight gets reflected back into space. I have diligently searched the New York Times several times and the study has not been mentioned yet. Nor have I seen it reported on CBS, MSNBC, ABC or PBS.

Agree with you about Obama and the EPA but I see it as both sides completely lacking in credibility. Sort of like who is the least bad liar? Just my view mind you.

The article I read about solar activity stated that the period we are just entering is similar to one last encountered during the 1400's and coincided with some of the coldest temperatures known to have occurred since the last ice age. It stated that globally 2013 recorded the largest single year temperature drop in quite some time. Centuries if memory serves. I'll look for that article.

The hard- science evidence is clear about the co-2 damage and contribution to climate change. Even if it were less clear, how could we ignore the risk? Green energy is presently puny, but the potential job creation in its widespread development would be significant. I'm not saying we can drop fossil fuels tomorrow, but it seems a foregone conclusion that they'll wreck the planet long before they're used up. As for sage grouse, I know their declining rapidly in Wyoming where the gas industry cuts up habitat with roads,and builds structures that permit hawks and eagles to prey on them more easily.

Steve I don't think Obama and the EPA lie more than the oil industry. I do think Obama's propaganda gets deep and broad coverage by the major media outlets I mentioned before and that the oil industries' hardly sees the light of day.

Here is the BBC article:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26340038

I had details wrong. The article says that the VOCs combine with oxygen to make aerosols and that that aerosol reflects sunlight back into space.

Bill the climate models missed the predicted warming in the last decade significantly. They predicted much more than we actually had.

There are several numbers that are necessarily plugged into those models to calibrate them to past CO2 levels and global temperatures.

If the study in the BBC article I linked to above is to be believed that covers one of the major mysteries in why the CO2 warming models were off so much in the last decade. There are other "assumed" numbers in the models too.

Last I heard China was putting one coal fired plant a week online. China is the land of solar panel manufacturing. That indicates how worried they are about global warming and how much they are willing to sacrifice to stop it. And they have to import our coal. But it comes out even because they swap us solar panels for it.

Bobwhite have been on a decline for several decades. But fracking has only been around for ten years. Perhaps the sage grouse decline and fracking are not connected.

To clarify what I meant about elections, I'd say that neither Republicans nor Democrats at the national level have the courage or the clout to deal effectively with environmental damage. The worst culprit is coal. The Koch brothers mine and sell it, and Warren Buffet hauls it away on his rail cars. West Virginia is the future for the rest of coal- mining country. What we can clearly see anywhere we choose to look is that somebody is perfectly willing to do anything to make big bucks. Big bucks speak more loudly than we do. Jimmy Carter was ridiculed for asking the country to face up to it's energy appetite. No one since has had the gumption to face the facts.

Back to Bunkerville, note Conservative commentators are backing off support of Bundy as a disreputable citizen defying authority of government, railing against welfare while on a subsidized teat.

Not to say the issue was handled well. According to reports, he was behind a million dollars for subsidized grazing; authorities had only to place a lien and let the law take its course.

Either way, it's no help for the in-ascendancy Tea Party, and another schism to be bridged to make its way to the White House.

And, this just in on MNBC, from cleaning floors to $450,000 annually with Tea Party:

"The Washington Post said over the weekend that Tea Party groups aren’t putting their money where their mouths are. “Out of the $37.5 million spent so far by the PACs of six major tea party organizations, less than $7 million has been devoted to directly helping candidates, according to the analysis, which was based on campaign finance data provided by the Sunlight Foundation.” So where is the money going? “Roughly half of the money — nearly $18 million — has gone to pay for fundraising and direct mail, largely provided by Washington-area firms. Meanwhile, tea party leaders and their family members have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees, while their groups have doled out large sums for airfare, a retirement plan and even interior decorating.”

"The paper goes on to add that prominent Tea Party activist Jenny Beth Martin, who headed up Tea Party Patriots, had twin salaries putting her on track “to make more than $450,000 this year, a dramatic change in lifestyle for the tea party activist, who had filed for bankruptcy in 2008 and then cleaned homes for a period of time to bring in extra money.” As we’ve said before, the next six weeks are a make-or-break time for the Tea Party. Losing the key Senate primaries in May and June will show that the Tea Party is out of juice. And this Post story doesn’t help, either."

The article from the BBC is interesting, and I hope the study is on to something. Where I live we've had so many years of drought that thousands of square miles of lodgepole and ponderosa pine are dead or dying from bark beatle infestation. This past winter leaves a good snowpack for a change ; river flows are way up. Someone earlier mentioned population and that, of course, is the elephant in the room. If there weren't so many of us, none of these problems would seem insurmountable. PS This is the best- mannered thread we've seen for a while. It's a nice change. Civility makes lots of things possible for people who can't agree on every issue.

If it's some consolation the forests in Northern Arizona appear to be bouncing back after several years of severe drought and beetle problems.
Jim

I sure agree with that.

I guess if you bury your head in MSNBC you get the idea that the TEA is not a factor in the 2014 races,of course that not the case,here are just 7 states in the senate that show otherwise;

So, what impact will the Tea Party have in the mid-term elections? Well, the Tea Party Express plans to target 25 House races and 7 to 10 Senate races—primarily races with Democratic incumbents. “The false narrative continues to be written that the Tea Party is dead and that 2014 will not be like 2010,” the Tea Party Express has said, adding that “every month we see a strong example to the contrary.

SENATE

•ALASKA: Tea Party candidate Joe Miller is expected to be one of three contenders for the Republican nomination to challenge Mark Begich, first-term Democratic incumbent. Other Republican candidates include Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell and Dan Sullivan, former head of the state’s natural resources department.

•LOUISIANA: Sen. Mary Landrieu is a vulnerable Democrat, not only because Louisiana is a red state but also because of Landrieu’s support of Obamacare. Her opponent, Republican U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy, vehemently opposes the law.

•ARKANSAS: While Mark Pryor is a Democrat hoping for a third term, Republicans are rallying around Tom Cotton, a young freshman congressman who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

•KENTUCKY: Many Republicans are frustrated with Sen. Mitch McConnell. The five-term senator is facing a primary challenge from Tea Party candidate Matt Bevin and, if he survives, an Election Day challenge from Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes. Campaign ads were already in place over the airwaves–eight months ahead of the primary. Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio has given his support McConnell, but the Senate Conservatives Fund, an influential political action group, has recently announced that it will support Bevin.

•GEORGIA: Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss is retiring, which will leave the race for the Republican nomination wide open. The two top candidates are Reps. Phil Gingrey and Paul Broun and they face a primary with perhaps a half-dozen other candidates. As for the Democrats, Michelle Nunn, daughter of former Georgia senator Sam Nunn, has an unobstructed path to the Democratic nomination.

•SOUTH CAROLINA: One of the most high-profile races involves Tea Party candidate, Nancy Mace, the first female graduate of The Citadel, in an attempt to unseat Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham. Graham is also facing a primary challenge from Christian conservative lawyer Richard Cash and from Libertarian-minded state Sen. Lee Bright.

•NORTH CAROLINA: First-term Sen. Kay Hagan won in 2008, running on the same ticket as President Obama, who won the state. In 2008, she beat Elizabeth Dole. However, in 2012 the Tar Heel State threw its support to Mitt Romney and Hagan is now under fire for supporting Obamacare. On the Republican side, the primary battle pits state House Speaker Thom Tillis against the Rev. Mark Harris.

With a stoke of the pen, good, bad or indifferent, G.Dubya mandated 10% ethanol in pump gas. That might arguably be the single most significant bite into petroleum based fuel consumption, ever. President Bush was not ridiculed for that, he was pc acceptably ridiculed for every thing.

Another mention problem was population size. Is there an answer, and who has it. Current philosophy, free prophylactics and abortions.

If we're considering public land access and hunting, among other things that touch every corner of life, I noticed a quick news tidbit this morning. Four out of the top five years for most added regulations on the country have been by this current fellow.

Sure maybe he bought his way in, but there's gotta be someone out there that actually went into a booth and punched the ballot. I don't think it can be brushed off as 'they all do it'. I already know the Bush was a big spender line, and the bash Regan lines, and the read my lips line, but I don't believe any past or perspective R has the fortitude to take and waste at this pace.

I wonder if there was a big sigh of relief when the belittle Romney campaign got traction. It must have been frightening to some that a successful businessman might have been influencing policy.

Steve,

all three examples you use are indeed state run oil companies that for the most part subsidise the sale of energy in their countries.We here in America are of course a capitalist free market country,that said there is a ban on export of crude oil-with small exceptions-a 100-200 thousand barrels per day that goes to Canada.Refined products are exported and the US has been fortunate enough to be a large exporter to the worlds markets.
There is a good case to allow for more crude exports -like corn,wheat and other commodities that we export)it would generate additional revenue/taxes.

What drives energy pricing is the same as other commodities,demand and in our time its world demand.The price here in those country for gas for instance also has the added costs of taxes and the 14 different blends for different states.Like many business its best to let the market decide and get the government out of the way.

Here is a good read for the opening up the export of crude sale in the US.

http://www.cfr.org/oil/case-allowing-us-crude-oil-exports/p31005

Exporting energy is good for the economy. Crude oil exports could generate upward of $15 billion a year in revenue by 2017 at today's prices, according to industry estimates. Those gains would be partially offset by displacing some refined product exports, however. Today's export restrictions run the risk of dampening U.S. crude oil production over time by forcing down prices at the wellhead in some parts of the country. Letting drillers reap extra profits from selling crude oil overseas, if the market dictates, would provide greater incentives for drilling, stimulating new supply. It would also encourage investment in oil and gas production in the United States rather than abroad. In oil-producing regions, more workers would be hired for oil exploration and production, as well as for local service industries. Greater policy certainty regarding exports would also catalyze the expansion of U.S. energy infrastructure.

Same with coal world demand is increasing and we should be mining and exporting using as much as we can,coal now used to provide the majority of electricity here and will be for many decades.

I wouldn't mind if they left the crude export ban in place. Cheap energy would give the manufacturing workers here a leg up on some of their overseas and Mexican competition.

My wife wants a new Buick Enclave. In my research on them one of the things I learned is that they are made in Mexico. A crude oil export ban would offset some of the job loss caused from the elimination of tariffs and import quotas. "Globalization" is the euphemism used to describe that travesty of a policy.

In regard to DaveK's chart the ironic thing is that much of China's coal is going to come from the US. That chart is from 2008. Since then Obama's EPA managed to classify CO2 as a pollutant. This practically outlaws any new coal plants and obsoletes many existing ones. Natural gas prices have plummeted so there should be a building boom in natural gas electric generating plants. I bet the projected 2025 USA coal consumption is about one fourth of what that 2008 chart shows.

So if Clive Bundy and all of the ranchers who paid grazing fees for generations are nothing more than Welfare Bums who are being subsidized by the taxpayers... does this also mean that hunters, campers, and fishermen who freely use these same lands without paying anything at all are even worse? I don't think Clive Bundy had contempt for the Welfare recipients as much as he did for the vast government expenditures that did nothing but make generations of Liberal Democrat Plantation dependants even worse off than they were before the Great Society farce.



And I guess we now know why the pheasant and grouse populations have been in decline here in Pennsylvania for over 30 years... they must have known the Marcellus Shale boom was coming long before anyone else. Or... maybe it had something to do with game management like permitting the harvest of hens, and the protection of raptors which were previously hunted and even had a bounty paid for their elimination. It all depends upon whether your perceptions are clouded by Liberal dogma.

I know a number of people who believe in Global Warming propaganda, and believe that the use of fossil fuels will destroy the planet. I don't know even one who has personally stopped using fossil fuels or has put forth any effort to get the biggest CO2 offender, China, to stop polluting. Remember, the first Earth Day was on Lenin's 100th birthday.

Mike,

your right that chart is a bit dated,sorry here are some more up to date ones,note China's demand continues to be very strong;






"China: the centre of the coal world

Coal demand grew by 170 megatonnes around the world in 2012, according to the report, or 2.3 per cent of annual consumption. China accounted for 97 per cent of that increase.

China is now importing roughly as much seaborne coal as the rest of the world combined - and its coal consumption is expected to grow by another 17 per cent over the next five years. Overall, China alone will account for half the expected growth in coal demand to 2018, as this chart shows:



Coal use in Europe was up but for now remains flat not down.



Who's exporting where Coal is largely a domestic energy source, according to the IEA. Less than 17 per cent of global demand is traded internationally, with the rest being produced at home. But the amount of coal that's traded around the world is increasing - it's doubled in the last five years. Over the next five years, the IEA predicts that it will increase even more, and that more coal will be imported from west to east:

Let's not forget that Liberal Democrat Bill Clinton locked up over a Trillion Dollars of low sulfur/ low ash coal deposits in Utah when he fired his shot in the war on coal. Of course, we should ignore the political payoff to the Lippo Group and the Riady family which funneled millions of dollars into his re-election campaign.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/lippo.htm

Energy costs here in the U.S. rose, and China prospered. This is the same guy who allowed the Chinese access to our advanced missile guidance technology. Our Libtards will have problems connecting the dots, and will no doubt continue to vote for anti-gun Liberal Democrats. Feelings matter. Facts do not.

Wait... mustn't call them Libtards... not civil. And we should just forget that they routinely call us racists, bigots, misogynists, homophobes, and everything but white English gentlemen. And they conveniently ignore things like this:

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/20-great-moments-in-liberal-bigotry

Let's just lie to ourselves, and call them pro-gun Rocket Scientists, so everyone feels all warm and fuzzy as we hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

On the other hand, this ain't a damn T-ball game where there are no losers. And these are supposedly grown men who fall for bullshit, disseminate bullshit, and drink the Hope and Change Kool-Aid.

Dave thanks for those graphs and graphics - great information. And I want you to know I wasn't criticizing or complaining about the one from 2008.

Keith as I understand it Bundy hasn't paid his grazing fees to the BLM in decades. He used to pay grazing fees to the BLM and he quit. He lost in court. It appears to me to be a matter of a landlord evicting a tenant for non-payment of rent.

Remember how the liberal media made fun of Dan Quayle for misspelling "Potato"? And they lampooned the younger George Bush all the time. But Obama's "all fifty-seven state" tour hasn't been brought up in several years. It was initially reported by the liberal media but they quickly dropped it. Had Romney or McCain made that remark MSNBC would still be playing the video. Yep, they have one standard for conservatives and another for liberals.

I believe being civil in a civil conversation wins friends and influences people. Dale Carnegie agrees with me. I try to be civil in a civil discussion. I try not to rise to the bait when baited. Don't always live up to my ideals but I really try.

Mike, I know Clive Bundy hadn't paid his grazing fees to the BLM for years. That disagreement is what led to this confrontation where the BLM used excessive force and likely spent more on that enforcement than Mr. Bundy owed.

The point I was making is that Rocky Mtn. Bill seemed to think that ranchers who pay those fees to graze cattle are taking more than they give and are no better than Welfare Bums. He also never makes the connection between affordable and abundant food, and historical access to grazing on government land. Yet when Rocky Mtn. Bill uses those same government lands while paying zero fees... and takes fish and game and recreational pleasure without compensating the rest of us taxpayers... he feels somehow justified and entitled.

I also try to be civil when appropriate Mike. I don't think there has ever been an uncivil word between us, even when we've disagreed. However, I draw the line where certain folks intentionally and repeatedly lie, and where they hurl thinly veiled insults in the third person, under the guise of faux civility. An attack does not have to be ad hominum in order for it to be uncivil. This goes double for anyone who attacks my Second Amendment and other Constitutional Rights. And there will never be any semblence of civility on my part for any slimy piece of shit like nca225, who attacked my daughters here last year. Nobody gets away with that, and the passage of time doesn't make it all better. We Conservatives are relentlessly and ruthlessly attacked every day, and we are painted with broad and inaccurate brushes in order to advance the Progressive Liberal agenda. Playing nice simply guarantees a slow death by attrition. My opinion... if liars don't like being called liars, maybe they ought to quit telling lies. But don't expect me to pretend it didn't happen just to spare the feelings of grown men who act as if their panties are all bunched up. Fighting by the Marquis of Queensbury Rules when you're involved in a street fight may be admirable to Dale Carnegie and other onlookers, but it will likely mean you will lose when all is said and done.

Slimeball Harry at it again:


http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/04/27/judge-jeanine-links-nevada-land-grab-solar-energy-plant

Jim that is a great article. Thank you.

Very interesting article Jim. Once again, we see something nefarious being done to the taxpaying public, and cloaked behind a fake, manufactured environmental "crisis".

Judge Pirro could have pretended to be civil and called Harry Reid "Senator". Instead, she accurately now calls him "Dirty Harry", and calls attention to his lies, suspicious wealth accumulation, and dirty dealings with Chinese associates. The Progressives who advance these sneaky schemes would like nothing more than to hide comfortably behind a "civil" discussion which is soon swept under the rug.

I wonder how much hunting and fishing will be permitted to outdoorsmen who have land stolen from the public and transferred to Chinese businessmen for the personal enrichment of Harry Reid and his family? I wonder how a lame and civil discussion illuminates all this and gets him removed from office?

I wonder where our resident Libtards are when this kind of news surfaces?

I posted this on a page earlier in the thread but it help shows what a crook dirty Harry really is.

"How did Harry Reid get rich
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314025/how-did-harry-reid-get-rich-betsy-woodruff

In 2004, the senator made $700,000 off a land deal that was, to say the least, unorthodox. It started in 1998 when he bought a parcel of land with attorney Jay Brown, a close friend whose name has surfaced multiple times in organized-crime investigations and whom one retired FBI agent described as “always a person of interest.” Three years after the purchase, Reid transferred his portion of the property to Patrick Lane LLC, a holding company Brown controlled. But Reid kept putting the property on his financial disclosures, and when the company sold it in 2004, he profited from the deal — a deal on land that he didn’t technically own and that had nearly tripled in value in six years.

Here’s another example: The Los Angeles Times reported in November 2006 that when Reid became Senate majority leader he committed to making earmark reform a priority, saying he’d work to keep congressmen from using federal dollars for pet projects in their districts. It was a good idea but an odd one for the senator to espouse. He had managed to get $18 million set aside to build a bridge across the Colorado River between Laughlin, Nev., and Bullhead City, Ariz., a project that wasn’t a priority for either state’s transportation agency. His ownership of 160 acres of land nearby that stood to appreciate considerably from the project had nothing to do with the decision, according to one of his aides. The property’s value has varied since then. On his financial-disclosure forms from 2006, it was valued at $250,000 to $500,000. Open Secrets now lists it as his most valuable asset, worth $1 million to $5 million as of 2010.

How Reid acquired that land is interesting, too. He put $10,000 into a pension fund his friend Clair Haycock controlled, to take over the 160-acre parcel at a price far below its assessed value. Six months later, Reid introduced legislation that would help Haycock’s industry, a move many observers said appeared to be a quid pro quo, though Reid and Haycock denied that the legislation was the result of a property deal.

When Judge Pirro gets into a discussion with Harry Reid I invite her to call him "Dirty Harry".

But having civil discussions with other members of this board is both productive and pleasant. I don't imagine that there is anyone on the planet that I agree with on everything. So if I don't agreeably disagree then I find myself in constant disagreeable discussions.

And calling other members names here stifles conversation and debate and devolves into either a name calling contest or just us conservatives talking among ourselves. And I find it boring reaffirming each other's statements and arguments without a counter argument from those that disagree with us. We might even get better at making our arguments and more effective at persuasion if we actually sparred with the liberals here for practice.

Pretending that the anti-gun Socialist Progressives here actually have something of value to debate here just lends them credibility that they don't deserve. I find it tiresome and time consuming repeatedly offering proof of the follys and failures of Liberalism and attacks on our Constitutional Rights, especially the RTKBA. All of the proof you, Jim, Dave K, craigd, Doug, J.R.B., and others provide is simply ignored in order to advance a dishonest, hypocritical, and Socialist agenda. Diplomacy worked so much better after Shock and Awe, D-Day, and dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't spar with liars. I go for the knockout.

And this isn't just practice here. The Leftist lies and LULLING are intended to have immediate and lasting effect. You and I Mike continue to disagree in this area... but our conversations will remain civil because they are honest. Your plea for civility is not rooted in a desire to freely advance lies and Socialism. I respect that just as I respect many other opinions I am not in complete agreement with.

I've asked for proof of where playing nice with any of our Libtards has in any way persuaded them or changed their minds.

Still nothing.

It is my opinion that being civil in a civil discussion allows me and the other person to be open to each other's arguments. I am secure in my beliefs. But I might have a chance to persuade the other person to adapt my point of view. If I am uncivil and I call him names he can't consider my point of view at all, much less ever have a chance of embracing it.

I have both sold and had salesmen working for me for many years. I know how to sell tangible and intangible products.

And Dale Carnegie agrees with me.

Certainly I can't say "On June 3, 2013 Dave in Maine, while having a discussion with me on this board, publicly acknowledged that he had become convinced that the Republicans were right about how wrong Affirmative Action was and Dave conceded that both he the Democratic Party had been wrong about it all along."

But certainly you can't provide an example of someone here that, as a result of being called "libtard" by you, joined the Tea Party wing of the Republican party, can you?

Keith,
I very much appreciate how hard ranchers work to provide affordable food for the American public. My grandparents had a dairy farm in western N.Y. where I grew up and I fully understand how hard the work can be and how little the economic reward is at times. At the same time I feel anyone running a for profit business on our Federal lands should pay a use fee. All hunters pay an 11% excise tax on guns, ammo etc due to Pittman-Roberts which brings in hundreds of millions of dollars each year to support wildlife habitat. Link here:

http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/PittmanRobertsonFacts.pdf

More BLM seizing of land this this time in Texas.

Mike, I am in complete agreement with your last several posts regarding the tone of our discussions here. I believe I fully understand Keith's position and certainly share his frustration at the Sisyphusian nature of discussions with members who have a different outlook. Always surprises that what seems so obvious to me, isn't.

However, I don't see the value in ever decreasing the size of the tent (to paraphrase SKB) where we hold our discussions. I have little interest in reminding myself and seven other people of the rightness of our views. I know some members have referenced the number of views some of our more heated threads garner but it seems likely to me that many, many of those views are from the same group of us checking the latest posts and deciding whether to chime in again.

On a larger scale, I think I am correct when I say that millions of GOP voters didn't, because Romney wasn't "their guy". This after 4 years of arguably the worst presidential performance in modern history. If you want the Democrats out, you must find a way to include more. Perfection is the enemy of good!

I have no illusions that I may change the mind of some hard core lefty. But I am also utterly aware that the response of the right to the bullshit that emanates from the hard left utterly alienates millions of undecided, especially younger voters.

The reality is that there is an increasingly urban voter and old Republicans die every day, replaced by young Democrats. This is the quandry, in my view, and being angry and bitter doesn't solve it.

Just to inject a little personal experience here: IMHO it's like my relationship with my ex wife. Without getting into it here, I have plenty of reason to be angry and bitter. And boy, would it feel good to express that now and again. BUT, my son was five when I discovered what was going on. He's nine now. And my every interaction with my ex is through the lens of what results in the best outcome for my son when he is 25. Not what makes me feel good now. It's called delayed gratification and exercising properly my real and fundamental responsibilities.

What makes that easy is to see how my boy is developing, utterly free from the insecurity and self doubt that comes too often to children in similar circumstances. As any child needs and should have, he has a positive relationship with both his mother and father.

The Right needs to express leadership on the difficult issues that face all Americans. Being angry and bitter won't win that battle in the long term.

One of the key reasons Obama was reelected (besides successfully covering up Benghazi and voter fraud) along with Romney not playing to the base-your point about how many conservatives stayed home is correct, it in the Millennials vote,not the independents.The left has now has a big problem in losing them as they have aged and suffered from a poor job market,obamacare,high levels of student loan debt to name just a few.

From Pew reasearch

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/are_the_millennials_reliably_leftist.html

" The Millennials will have encouragement in that direction as they face “higher levels of student loan debt, poverty, unemployment and lower levels of wealth and personal income than their two immediate predecessor generations (Gen Xers and Boomers).” The continuing recession is especially hard on Millennials, who came of age expecting to be ushered into the good life enjoyed by their television-celebrity role models just when the economy tanked and good jobs dried up. They are the ones upon whose backs the financial burdens of ObamaCare rest."

Dave, that is encouraging research in some ways. Specifically their openness to change politically, moving towards the right. Although it's not a given. What is sad but not surprising is the information the poll reveals about the lack of historical knowledge or sensible moral compass, leaving them open to misinformation.

I have a 24 year old nephew, fits this profile to a tee. However, he is smart and somewhat curious. Was with him recently over Easter. His default position is a young lefty who thinks Obama is great. But scratch the surface and he willingly admits he knows nothing about any of this stuff. So I can lead him to the water and I can get him to drink. But not by calling everyone on the left a Libtard. Being angry and bitter about these things just causes him to turn off.

Mike and canvasback, You guys are the ones who naively expect that you might change King Brown, nca225, Dave-in-Maine, etc.

I never said I could change them. It's more than obvious that we can't. I don't even try... I just illuminate their lunacy, hypocrisy, and dishonesty whenever I have the time. I don't try to sugar coat anything either. These are grown adults who are moronic enough to believe that a politician like Obama, with a 100% anti-gun voting record as a state legislator and as a U.S. Senator, would not be a threat to our 2nd Amendment rights.

Either they are that stupid, or they are that dishonest and agenda driven, for they not only consistently support the anti-gun Liberal Democrats, they also attempt to convince other gun owners that they are not a threat.

James, when you talk about the success that the Democrats have had garnering supporters, you must acknowledge that they have done that by name-calling, hurling insults, mud slinging, telling total lies about good men like Mitt Romney. They preach about having civil discussions while they call you a racist, bigot, homophobic, woman hating, cretin. The guys you are trying to influence and win as friends are slicing your balls off and stabbing you in the back. Good luck with that.

I'll bet even ol' Dale Carnegie had his limits. I'd like to recommend the book that was written by his evil twin.

Agreed, but for me, not so much a use fee, but a fee for restricting others. Say corral and and other buildings, water rights etc., unless the family has grandfathered rights. Two hundred some agents sweeping in on a multimillion dollar operation might raise questions.

True, not just hunter pay through the P-R tax, but the efficiency of administering that budget is extremely questionable. May be, but I haven't seen any reports that Mr. Bundy has not paid his income taxes derived from that profit, or not paid any other fees or taxes attached to the ranching industry. So many other interests have their hand in the P-R pot that some feel a fee should be charged for public land access to hunt.

Just this morning the whouse announces that they want interstate tolls so they can collect an additional 320 billion in 'taxes'. Don't our income taxes cover that and various recent stimulus packages gave our 'infrastructure' a shot in the arm. It's never enough, but it's also clear non pc activities will slowly be priced out of reach.

SKB, I totally agree that ranchers who graze cattle on Federal lands should pay a fee. Almost all do as far as I know. Bundy has not paid due to his dispute, which he feels is not resolved. The government response to that was way out of porportion to what needed to be done. And it now appears that Harry Reid and Co. may have had some nefarious reasons for confiscating Bundy's cattle and attempting to force him off that land. And it sure wasn't going to save any desert tortoises of improve access for hunters.

So ranchers pay grazing fees and cattle eat grasses and leave manure behind... Just as the great herds of bison did for hundreds of thousands of years before. Rocky Mtn. Bill was trying to make the point that the ranchers are taking more value than they pay the government, i.e., that they are Welfare Bums. Most likley, that is true to a small extent, or it wouldn't be economically reasonable. Rocky Mtn. Bill was also forgetting the great value he takes without compensating the government whenever he hunts, fishes, or camps on those Federal lands. The Pittman Robinson tax he paid on the few shells he fires are probably a much smaller percentage of value received than the cattle ranchers get. And the ranchers subsidy has the added benefit of keeping food costs lower for all of us. Rocky Mtn. Bill's sage grouse hunting does nothing for anyone but him. But Liberals are always quick to want to restrict others while ignoring their own sins. See this recent thread:

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=364591#Post364591

Craig,
while I certainly agree with the sentiment in the first half of your sentence, I would disagree with the second part.

"It's never enough, but it's also clear non pc activities will slowly be priced out of reach."

The Interstate tolls Obama has proposed is a sure way to lower his already abysmal approval rating. That is the worst idea I have heard in sometime.

As to Non-PC activities, meaning hunting, being priced out I would disagree. Here in CO our state continues to try to expand opportunity for hunters. Tags and herd sizes have increased as have access to private land through partnerships with Parks and Wildlife department. While nothing is perfect, the options continue to increase yearly here. I have no idea where your from, but if at all possible you should look into a trip out west somewhere and see for yourself. Western states are full of places to hunt, free of cost.
Steve

Plus +1000 Keith.......

The people mentioned in the above quote and the other libtards on this forum and elsewhere are ignorant, plain and simple....anybody who voted for Obama is ignorant and did not do their homework......you will never change these people by trying to engage them in a debate of any kind where FACTS are included and common sense is required.

Only when their pocket book, their employment, their buying power, their retirement or benefits and their family and/or their general well being is reduced to half or more of what it once was, will they wake up and completely understand the damage their voting patterns have created. They will never admit it of their own free will, for fear of losing face and admitting they are ignorant.

And just think, these are the libtards that work, or have worked and retired.......the millions and millions that squat in the inner cities ... (5th generation WHO HAVE NEVER WORKED, AND WON'T WORK)... and suck off of welfare and the taxpayers will never change their liberal voting allegiance AS LONG AS THE EAGLE FLIES OVER AND DUMPS CASH AND FREEBIES IN THEIR LAP FOR THEIR ZERO EFFORT YEAR IN AND YEAR OUT, AND ALL OF YOU KNOW IT..............They will continue to promote and vote for politicians who increase the freebies.......It is now bred into their DNA.

Only after people suffer enough does the light bulb go on in the kitchen.......our society is spoiled rotten and still wants MORE.......as long as they don't have to pay for it.

Good luck trying to convince these libtards of current hard core facts and the massive destruction that this administration has heaped on the American taxpayer........

I believe there are more than plenty of signs that cost can be used to discourage a legal activity. Price of ammo regulatory hoops to jump through that add even more to all things 'hazmat', lead smelter giving up operations, closing of target ranges for various new regs (costs). Even demonizing the pickup truck makes it more expensive to enjoy the outdoors. I'd bet your recent recall issues over gun control are seen by others as the price to pay for getting a foot in the door to more control.

I can't get enough of the west. I get out to Montana each fall, but for bird hunting, none of the great big game chances. Yes, I see the changes there, west of the Rocky's there're many communities that are trying their hardest to become suburbs of california. A favorite duck hunting marsh was drained by the feds, seems like because the regional boss had project to get on the radar for promotion out east.

LOL, Keith.

I don't expect to change King's mind, or Dave in Maine or any others who have posted on here. To post on here with an opposing view is to invite a fairly scathing critique. Those who do that are likely pretty sure of where they stand.

I'm talking about the kind of discourse we have with, for example, the Millennials, as described in the Pew poll posted by DaveK. The guys I'm trying to win over aren't the ones stabbing me in the back. It's the men and women who are wondering.

And to be honest with you, I could care less about "the left" calling me a "racist, bigot, homophobic, woman hating, cretin" in terms of how I would like to respond. Although I am wondering how I could be both homophobic and woman hating? Haha! They are wrong about who I am, I am right about who I am and ultimately the truth will out.

On a personal level, I can't be made to feel bad by insults that have no grounding in fact. I've already been through the "falsely accused" wringer. When there was a fair bit on the line, not just someone getting their panties in a knot because they felt I had slagged them on the internet. Not to say that my life didn't get turned upside down, but I'm not changing who I am.

I get a little grief on here now and again because of my open mindedness regarding gays and my lack of religious conviction. But I am bound and determined to treat people with the care and respect I would like to be treated with. Regardless of their views or their behavior towards me. (bad drivers excepted).

That's not to say I am perfect and don't make mistakes. Because I have and Keith, you know I have. You yourself brought one such incidence to my attention a couple months ago.

RM Bill has some reasonable thing to say about the importance of the environment and as people who enjoy the outdoors we should all be concerned about our ability to manage the natural environment. We (I mean people) don't have a good track record. So should I just toss his comments aside because he may have supported Obama? (I'm just guessing, Bill and using you as an example. Not trying to define your position). I may suggest or advocate a different course of action, but I find the best thoughts and plans are often arrived at through critical discussion.

I think this thread has been interesting precisely because we have had differing viewpoints discussing an important issue and reacting to new information as it came available.

Bingo!
Jim

Doug, you know I didn't vote for Obama!

And I don't think it is now bred into their DNA. I think the "hand out" behavior is innate in a large portion of mankind. Check out Roman history.

My scorn is mostly reserved for the idiots who give the stuff out, not for those who take it. The Harry Reids, Nancy Pelosis, Obamas and Clintons of the world. There is where the real problem lies. the self serving, self aggrandizing grasping for power and the willingness to do and say whatever it takes to get it. That's is where our culture's problems lie. Not with people taking a hand out.

Bill Ferguson was a perfect example James,

I hunt in Wyoming every year and have for 50 + years......

Ferguson in a previous post mentions the "Sage Grouse", one of the dumbest birds to ever lay an egg. These birds are really, really stupid.....they will stand at medium to close ranges and are commonly shot in the head with rifles.......and the others just stand there until they are shot......stupid does not define these birds.......

Ferguson says the dirt roads that oil companies have been building for 75 years or so is diminishing the "Stupid Sage Grouse" population by allowing predators to take advantage of these dumb birds......this is the biggest line of b.s. I've ever seen on this board.........ANY predator can, at will, take as many of these Stupid Grouse as they want, but this is not the main reason for their decline according to the facts, but because of the inherent stupidity of the bird itself and not because of oil company improvements of any kind......These birds nest on the ground under sage brush, and during a recent study lost 84% of their eggs due to poor nesting sites chosen.

Only after experiencing these "Stupid Grouse" for years could anyone fully understand how fact-less Ferguson's post was. This is what libtards do...find a little piece of information and twist it way past reality for impact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Sage-Grouse

I'd use a similar quote as Doug did for a different reason, and me personally would worry about your take on it.

Bill said he has all the access he could want so he's happy. No doubt in my mind the nation is trending towards less access. I worry about what it means to 'manage' the environment or people not having a good track record. Some will say the best policy is no hunting at all and they work daily to take little increments with many different strategies.

Mike, to be perfectly honest I'm tired of being civil. Everytime us conservatives have been civil the liberals have walked on us. The only thing they understand is getting hit over the head with a verbal sledge hammer. If you don't think they have walked on us go back to the Gun Control Act of 1968 and every damned new gun law passed since. I'm glad keith rubs their nose in it when ever they fall on their ass, just like rubbing a dogs nose in it when he shits on the floor.

Craig, I have those same concerns. But we can't escape the reality of our impact on the environment. What we can do is work to ensure the discussion includes facts, not hyperbole and that the course of action is based on those facts.

I'm involved with Delta Waterfowl in a significant multi-million dollar effort to fix something humans did, that had a devastating impact on waterfowl in a certain area. I wish the ducks were where they used to be but they are not and they are not because of human action. Hopefully it will be successful.

This situation has been played out across North America, in every state and province, with only rare circumstances where human involvement has been good for diverse species. Should we stick our head in the sands or lead the effort to do it right, ensuring our interests are considered while the solution is worked out?

People work daily to take away a whole host of our rights and freedoms. Access to public land and hunting is only a small part of it. We need to work smartly and tirelessly to counter all those infringements. I think the best strategy involves winning people to our viewpoint when they are young.

It is a strategy that has been employed successfully by the other side for 40 years or longer. We should be turning the tables, not making our discussions so unpalatable that no one gives a shit what we have to say. As is clear in so many areas of life today, it's not the best product that sells in volume, it's the product with the best marketing. We might not like that but that's the world we live in. A successful strategy depends on a truthful understanding of reality.

"A successful strategy depends on a truthful understanding of reality."

We're doing the same work here, James, restoring forests to the biodiversity of before the Europeans came to the continent.

Most people want to do the right thing for the environment but need to be shown how to do it. We don't have to advertise, we're swamped from word-of-mouth.

Water protection is a big part of it. It's against the law here to cut trees within 30 metres of a watercourse that may be dry in summer.

JRB, Do you think that will be a successful strategy moving forward or will it entrench what opposition there is.

There are three groups of people, us, them and the undecided. We aren't changing the minds of the anti gun people, only the undecided. One could scare the shit out of them, the way the left does constantly does about guns. But I don't think that's too effective. Sure, the NRA efforts scare the shit out of elected officials and get them to do the right thing but as you point out, that's a constant battle. Better to figure out a successful indoctrination of the undecided into our camp. We won't accomplish that by being angry old men, no matter how right we are.

You, Keith, Doug and a few others sometimes confuse what I'm saying as if I cared what the left leaning members here think. I know what they think and I won't be changing their minds, no matter how nice or rude our exchanges are. Because of that, I'd just as soon they are nice exchanges. I have enough unpleasantness in my life....I don't come here for more.

What I'm generally talking about is the larger picture...for example the Millenials in the Pew poll Dave posted about. There is the jackpot....the ones that can make a difference.

I'll give you an example in another area of life and politics....inter generational change.

You all have probably heard that since the mid 1960's there has been a strong effort by a faction in Quebec to separate from Canada. Over the last 50 years, facts and reason have been lost on those who heard the siren song. The province suffered mightily, both economically and socially, as did the rest of Canada. The separatists have spoken with an angry voice for half a century, lying the whole time. Finally, after enough exposure to the hollowness and falseness of their dream and the lies, the population of Quebec is done with them. Oh, they'll flap around like a dying turkey for a few more elections, but it's over. Why? Because they are a bunch of angry old reactionaries, fighting battles the younger generations couldn't care less about. Each passing year they are a smaller group and less relevant.

To me, the Left today are those those separatists. Liars simply trying to maintain their position at the public trough. We need people like Keith, rigorous in their efforts to expose the lies. But it has to be more than that.

There has to be something good and uplifting to win them, their hearts and minds. That's not just a slogan for the Left, it should be a rallying call for the Right. You have the reality and mythology of your American history, as uplifting a story as can be told. Surely to God your Founders would have been able to do better than kick the ground and grumble about the F***ing Libtards.

I believe you and congratulate your success, no kidding, but is this a truthful understanding of reality or a bit of glamorized embellishing. But hey, speaking of 'word of mouth', reprangel says today that the TEA party is a bunch of racist. That should dovetail conveniently with your misgivings about them.

Let's see, we could just ask the TEA party and observe their track record, or we could find inspiration in a lib ideolog. I don't think we could question the ideolog, that would be pc inappropriate.

No embellishing, Craig. It can't be embellished. Taking off Monday for NYC to pick up, in effect, the Nobel Prize for responsible forestry, awarded by the Rainforest Alliance once globally each year to a community-backed organization.

I don't think there are more racists in Tea Party than any other national political organization. The TP is vulnerable because the Dems (and Rs in their own party) are capitalizing on their weakness in recognizing critical demographics.

Canvasback, how many times have us gun owners compromised? Everytime there's a compromise we give up a little more and they give up NOTHING. If we keep it up pretty soon we won't have a damn thing left. I'm done compromising. I'm not giving up anymore. PERIOD DONE DEAL.

JRB, not for a moment am I suggesting you compromise. Not you, not me, not anyone. I've had my guns taken away from me because too many people compromised. That's not what I'm suggesting or encouraging.

All we are suggesting is civility in our discussions with those members that disagree with us here on this board. No compromise, just civility between members in our discussions here on this board.

Truly congrats King. I believe your accomplishment is one of preservation and responsible resource use for your area. I'm not so sure the landscape is being returned to its pre european colonization state, or if that's even a primary goal. I personally don't believe most care about environmental issues. Particularly in the venue you're headed to, an honest look around the room may show more posers than than folks that would head up to NS and roll up their sleeves. Does not though take one bit away from your special day.

Why....?

Would you be civil and nice to someone who burned down your house and injured your family.......Would you go have coffee with them knowing they intentionally did this..........

Why would you want to be polite to someone who knowingly voted to destroy the country you love and impair the hobby or sport that you hold dear..........?.......Why......?

It is obvious they are ignorant and will not change, so what do you hope to gain.......more destruction to the country that you love..........?

So when did Dave in Maine burn down my house? When did King injure my family?

Hunters and shooters need to attract voters to our sport and our hobby. If we insist that they have to be pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-ObamaCare, anti-welfare, pro-states' rights, anti-renewable energy and pro-fossil fuels before we deign to be friendly and civil to them the Second Amendment and our gun rights are doomed.

Doug, our allies can change. In WWII, both our countries fought a hard war primarily against Germany and Japan. For most of my adult life those two countries have been good strategic allies with America.

Not all the people who vote Democrat or voted for Obama are obviously and permanently our enemies. Some are...but many are not.

Has anyone here not changed views on some subject as they have gotten older? I sure have. My views are constantly evolving. I learn new things daily and sometimes these new things I learn change my mind. I also find I learn my better from people who show me some respect. I do not think I'm unique in possessing that quality.

I find being angry at your fellow citizen for how they chose to vote to be contradictory to the principle of democracy that country was founded upon. Isn't the premise of a Democracy that each person is entitled to their own vote? I'm not happy with the current administration in the least and look forward to a change in direction as soon as possible. I still feel a rational discussion will change many more viewpoints than name calling.

Case in point. This isn't a democracy. It's a REPUBLIC. Go recite the Pledge of Allegiance. It says and I quote--->And to the Republic for which it stands.

Damn liberal news media and communist infiltrated education system has everyone brainwashed into believing their hogwash.

Yes it is a Republic, you are correct. My point still stands.....everybody is entitled to their own vote, not the one you happen to deem acceptable.

Here are several links to online dictionaries' for "Democracy" and "Republic".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy?show=0&t=1398911333

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/republic

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/democracy?q=democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Actually you have a democracy. A republic is a form of representative democracy.

But the majority rule of our democracy is trumped by the Constitution. In a true democracy wouldn't rule of majority be the prime power?

We vote for the people who we expect to do our wishes and this is something our current slate of senators, representatives, AND the idiot in the oval office are NOT doing.

I believe our system is commonly refereed to as a representative democracy.

I bear no grudge or anger, but no doubt in my mind that the ideology has injured my family. We face significant cost increases in taxes, fees, regulations and healthcare with absolutely nothing to show for it in societal improvement. No infrastructure or foreign relationship improvement. More debt, poor and unhealthy than ever. Less jobs and optimism for the future than...I can't recall. I respect elections, but rhetorically, where am I wrong.

Nope, although I'm not a constitutional lawyer, thank God. A democracy, even one grounded in common law, can have a constitution. And your constitution can be amended. To a large degree, modern usage that separates the term democracy from republic is really only indicating one has an elected head of state and the other has a constitutional monarch or appointee as head of state.

Happens everywhere people vote.

Craig, the same argument can be made about Bush getting you into the Iraq war. Gigantic expense, lost lives and little or nothing to show for it. Every government wastes money, does stupid things. The Left doesn't have a lock on that. They just usually do a lot more of it.

I will send money to my party, my candidates, and vote.

I am against affirmative action, political correctness, years of unemployment insurance payments for the unemployed, abortion, the war on coal, the guerrilla war on fossil fuels, Obamacare, subsidizing solar and wind energy, gun control, non-universal income tax, and the left's domination of the network news.

I am for food stamps, social security, medicare, medicaid, and programs that try to divert drug addicts to treatment in lieu of prison, progressive income tax, user taxes on fuel to maintain highways and airports, and states' rights.

Now if I am uncivil to everyone that disagrees with me on any of this I will never be civil. And if we gun owners exclude everyone that disagrees with us about any of the items in my list we are going to lose our effectiveness in promoting our sport, hobby, self defense rights, and our guns.

At the end of WWII we owed about 100% of GDP. We never paid it off. The Greatest Generation grew the economy and inflated the dollar and so that debt didn't matter any more.

Something else - I am against amnesty for illegal aliens and I am for deporting them as fast as we can with due process.

I am for reinstating the tariffs and import quotas we once had too.

I believe the little or nothing to show for it has to do with credibility lost over the last five or so years. At every turn in foreign relations from super powers to small specks on the map, does anyone in this world know where the US stands or have any respect for its telegraphed indecision. The US, with unanimous world support, took charge in a volatile region with a history of heavy russian/soviet influence. Hardly nothing, until it was squandered.

Agree completely... almost... one caveat... I've said it before and I'll repeat it now. Dishonesty is not civility. I can be as civil as anyone, but I draw the line with people who continually spout lies and bullshit, especially when it is for the sole purpose of advancing an agenda which has increased my taxes, weakened my country, and infringed upon my freedoms. Then the gloves are off.



Dave-in-Maine did not burn down my house. But he did tell bold faced lies to us last year when he denied supporting Obama. When I reproduced quotes from earlier threads proving that he was lying, he slithered away. Good riddance to a lying so-called gun guy who did his best to sabotage our rights.

King did not injure my family... directly. But he continually espouses a system which steals tax dollars (read that as time out of my finite life, and labor which exacts a toll on ones body) from my family and me in order to redistribute wealth to millions who are neither disabled or infirm. They are merely lazy and choose to suck off the government teat. His bloviating self-aggrandizement and resume inflation are well known and on full display in this very thread. We even had King, the self professed Athiest invoking Christ's name in order to shame Jim into supporting welfare leeches back on pg.6. We also had him on pg.7 trumpeting the many infringements upon the 2nd Amendment in various locales, as proof that it is not inviolate, while ignoring the fact that it is folks like him who support and defend and elect the Liberal Democrats who tirelessly work to steal our rights.

King doesn't have to load his airplane with fuel and crash it into your house to do damage. Liberal Socialists like King have done tremendous damage to this country with pen and typewriter.

We have two Canadian regulars here... James and King. James frequently shares his experiences with Canadian Gun Control and warns us to be vigilant. James and I disagree on some things, but always courteously. King, on the other hand, spends an inordinate amount of time here trying to convince or LULL us that there is no threat to the Second Amendment, that we should concede ground to the anti gunners to appease them, that the NRA is wrong and counterproductive, and that anti-gun Liberal Socialist Democrat politicians are actually good for us and good for the country. I'm sorry. With all due respect to those who think we can have a productive dialog with someone like that, and win converts by showing him a level of respect... I think you're wrong. And I think that kind of civility, where none is deserved, gives him and his kind a level of credibility which paves the road to ruin. Neville Chaimberlain was said to be a very civil and accomodating man...

I do not believe we went into Iraq with unanimous world support. Many did not believe the claims of Weapons of Mass destruction and urged caution. We had no UN mandate, but a coalition. Iraq was a huge mistake in terms of dollars spent and the loss of US integrity on the world stage. I completely agree that Obama's foreign policy is a mess, but I do not feel Bush did very well in that area either. As I have stated before, in my view, plenty of blame to go around after two failed administrations in a row. A sad state of affairs.

keith I think we show civility to those that disagree with us for our benefit, not theirs.

I am going to be offline. I am going to Lubbock for the NSTRA West Texas Regional Championships Trials to run my dogs. Not that I am bragging but all four are qualified. It is too difficult to type on my IPhone so I won't be posting.

Best,

Mike

Mike, you think your dogs are qualified?

King's dogs would be doing the typing on the IPhone as they drove the truck on their way to pick up the equivalent of the Nobel Prize for canine excellence.

Good luck Mike!

I for one as a Conservative did not support the invasion of Iraq. My position was that Hussein was more useful in place in keeping the various entities from each others throats and avoiding civil war. We many not have approved of his tactics in doing so but they were effective. My position was that we could win a war against Iraq; it was the peace that would prove a difficult task.
Unfortunately much of this is painfully apparent today with Iraq in a near civil war situation. Bombing and murders occur on almost a daily basis.
As an aside: Contrary to what the Liberals have maintained the Iraqis did have weapons of mass destruction at least in the form of chemicals. These are documented to have been used against the Kurds. Much of the material was moved into Syria before the invasions and have been used against the populace by that regime.
I suspect it's going to take another "strongman" to get that Country back under control again.
Jim

Civil unrest is one issue, but a quick look at a map tells me it's a strategic location for a military base. There were times when the US had to request fly over permissions and basically announce any surveillance or other activity. One example, there's little doubt in my mind that the success of the current drone program has to do with secrecy and reaction time. We've parked on the DMZ for some sixty years, it might be thought that we have an interest in monitoring the middle east.

Anyway, go get 'em Mike. Running four dogs, sounds like you're gonna be busy.

http://thefrogblog.org/2014/04/30/rainforest-alliance-annual-gala-to-be-held-may-7th/

Really? It sure looks embellished to me. King's organization, the Nova Scotia Landowner's and Forest Fibre Producer's Association is but one of ten receiving the Sustainable Standard-Setter Award. The Lifetime Acheivement Award is going to Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever.

I never knew there was a Nobel Prize for Small Potatoes. More resume inflation from the Burger King. Too bad they don't give a Nobel Prize for Bullshit!

Dissent among the ranks...?

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/04/30...ild-rumors-fly/

nca and craig, the dimensions of Bunkerville ignorance reminds of the GOP: all in for the same thing but trying to kill each other in the process. And here's the embellishment omitted earlier:

"Dear Mr. Brown:

In appreciation of Nova Scotia Landowners and Forest Fiber Producers Association’s (NSLFFPA) commitment to sustainability, it is with pleasure that the board of directors and I invite the company to be recognized with the Sustainable Standard-Setter award at the Rainforest Alliance annual gala taking place on May 7, 2014 at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.

The Sustainable Standard-Setter award is our opportunity to provide global recognition to industry champions who have the vision to make sustainability a priority and the dynamism to make it a reality. NSLFFPA has been a critical part of this journey we have undertaken to build a more sustainable and equitable future. Sustainable forest management has long been a priority within the association, and its leadership in promoting the FSC in Nova Scotia has made a tremendous impact in the province. Its continued success protecting both the environment and the interests of woodlot owners has made the NSLFFPA a sterling example for the industry. With these outstanding achievements and more, I can think of no better time than now to recognize NSLFFPA with the Sustainable Standard-Setter award, for its leadership in sustainable business practices.

"Past honorees embody a distinguished group including HRH The Prince of Wales, Walter Cronkite, Blommer Chocolate Company, Olam International Ltd., Kraft Foods Inc., AMResorts, Mars, Incorporated, Unilever-Lipton Tea and Domtar among many others. We are proud to announce next year’s confirmed honorees include Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, Livia Firth, Creative Director of Eco Age Limited/The Green Carpet Challenge and C.F. Martin & Co., Inc. The 2014 gala program will include a brief presentation of the prestigious Sustainable Standard- Setter and Lifetime Achievement awards, a silent auction, a formal dinner and live entertainment."

There is only one RA sustainability award given globally annually to a community-backed organization.

Congratulations and do take some time to enjoy the museum on your trip. The NY Natural history museum and the British Museum are two of my favorites.

Thank you. Nancy and I love New York.

Rainforest Alliance 2014 Sustainable Standard Setter Awards... click on the Rainforest Alliance link above and count 'em... there's ten total. One of them goes to NSLFFPA of which King is a co-coordinator. I wonder if the other co-coordinator is embellishing and tooting his own horn?

But more interesting is the rest of the story from the rival Nova Scotia Woodlot Owners and Operators Association which does not see widespread clearcutting and taking saplings as small as 1 1/2" in diameter to feed a 60 megawatt biomass power plant at the New Page Pulp Mill as environmentally responsible, "FSC certification or not." Read about what amounts to a unionized effort to do short rotation clear-cutting with a huge carbon footprint. There's worse slash and burn type forestry practices going on, but this doesn't sound very sustainable and sure isn't returning the Nova Scotia forests to Acadian pre-European old growth timberlands. But hey, even an old communist needs to make a living!

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2009/11/future-forestry-nova-scotia

Congratulations on your embellishment, oops, I mean award King. Since you're are now making lame efforts to prove me wrong, maybe you'll show us what you personally have done to advance gun rights in your own country instead of working to screw up ours. Hope you didn't hurt your shoulder patting yourself on the back once again. Maybe you can get some more anti-Second Amendment pointers from ex-Mayor Bloomberg while you're in New York.

actually Bloomberg is gone,there is even a worse liberal in charge de blasio- they Hate him there but King will be right in his element.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/...-at-citi-field/

Be sure to enjoy a horse drawn carriage ride while you there King-he wants to outlaw them. And oh yea don't even think about using a fireplace in NYC he wants them outlawed as well. Don't worry thou at least its a "gun free" zone,you should feel very safe.....................

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-...ticle-1.1774643

Who cares about a measly fireplace when you're feeding a 60 megawatt wood burning powerplant! And this is the same hypocrite who wrote letters to the editor protesting the Nova Scotia offshore drilling by my ExxonMobil. Wow. I'm enjoying my dividends even more!

Hey King,

I thought enjoy the swing down to NY, but I guess I'll ask. Some obscure internet opinion blog should determine GOP strategy and dictate reaction. Are you sure that would be good advice. nca is not shy about his far left loyalties, how come his 'facts' have more credibility with you than others.

On a brighter note, I'm relieved sustainable management is a priority. I was worried the grape might be declared an introduced weed. Might get stuffy in the room, here's hoping those big bad corps are free and clear of the public teat.

Don't bring it up at the dinner, that could be foolish or heroic, but maybe ask if the annual meeting can patronize resource sustainable parts of this great country. Don't mind me, I'm not the biggest NY fan. Safe trip and have fun.

Thank you, Craig.

I hope I wasn't giving more credibility to nca "facts" by referencing his source. The story seemed authentic and, accurate or not, it reminded me of GOP schisms militating against the party's capture of the White House.

I anticipate party accommodations later this year.

I wish I was going along with King. I'm no Tom Brady but I wouldn't mind meeting Gisele. Mmmmmm, Gisele.

Thank you,James. I'll be carrying your Scottish heritage with full Highland, Bonnie Prince Charlie jacket, Lamont tartan kilt, sealskin sporran to really stick it to PETA.

Hey King, I guess authenticity comes only from the blaze or breitbart.com.

Congrats on the award BTW.

Thank you, nca225.

I wasn't aware of Andrew Breitbart, looked him up. Interesting background, interesting guy.

I often wonder if firebrand spokespersons of any party do more harm to their causes than good.

In my experience, loose cannons are risky partners.

Whew, I'm relieved. A bit slow at connecting the dots, but next time maybe nca would label the foregone conclusion, 'spokespersons and partners of the GOP'.