quote:
If BLM decided to open up a few thousand acres to oil and gas drilling, and in order to offset the environmental damage from the drilling the oil companies wanted to pay to improve the environment on some other federal lands, and the mitigation project (and the drilling) couldn't move forward until some trespassing cows were removed from the property, would you support armed resistance to removing the cows from the property?

so because fatcat congressman reid is lining his pockets (or his son's pockets) by calling in the federal markers on lands used by cattlemen for over a century its ok to you?

the beneficary here is CHINA (and the politicians who take the money)

the losers are the american ranchers who sold their farms and have to find a new way to support their family because they were 'shortsighted' and thought the land they had use of for the prior 100 years and was needed for them to remain solvent would always be there.

yeah, you can blame the rancher for believing they could use this land in perpetuity but when you look at how they were railroaded by a bunch of enviroWACKO lobbyists and a corrupt politican to support a FOREIGN NATION coming in and basically usurping these rights..it kinda smells.

This post was edited on 4/17/14 at 10:26 am

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by LNCHBOX

70448

Member since Jun 2009

84532 posts

Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:26 am to CAD703X

quote:
the losers are the american ranchers who sold their farms and have to find a new way to support their family because they were 'shortsighted' and thought the land they had use of for the prior 100 years was needed for them to remain solvent.

You're still not answering why you support a man that decided he doesn't need to pay a fee for his cattle to graze on land he doesn't own?

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by boom roasted

Member since Sep 2010

28039 posts

Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:32 am to CAD703X

quote:
the losers are the american ranchers who sold their farms and have to find a new way to support their family because they were 'shortsighted' and thought the land they had use of for the prior 100 years and was needed for them to remain solvent would always be there.

That's just dumb. They assumed that the land they were grazing for free would always be free.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by deSandman

Member since Mar 2007

969 posts

Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:51 am to CAD703X

quote:
so because fatcat congressman reid is lining his pockets (or his son's pockets) by calling in the federal markers on lands used by cattlemen for over a century its ok to you?

the beneficary here is CHINA (and the politicians who take the money)

the losers are the american ranchers who sold their farms and have to find a new way to support their family because they were 'shortsighted' and thought the land they had use of for the prior 100 years and was needed for them to remain solvent would always be there.

yeah, you can blame the rancher for believing they could use this land in perpetuity but when you look at how they were railroaded by a bunch of enviroWACKO lobbyists and a corrupt politican to support a FOREIGN NATION coming in and basically usurping these rights..it kinda smells.

The Chinese project has been cancelled for about a year, but really I don't care what the project is for.

I'm generally ok with the federal government developing or not developing its land, and letting or not letting people use it.

Would you support armed resistance if President Romney was ok with Exxon leasing and drilling on this land? Or with Keystone XL passing through it?

I mean, Bundy's great-great-grandpa's cows might have walked on it back when slavery was legal and women couldn't vote, so it would be unfair to change things now...(Granted in that situation there would certainly be a bunch of liberals making that argument, but its still a bad argument)

This post was edited on 4/17/14 at 10:53 am

1 ...

Report Post

O-T Lounge - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board