Donald Trump takes on federal land control

[SuperDemocrat]

Not according to courts, Billy.

The Constitution does not authorize permanent state land-grabs by the federal government. If you believe it does, show the article.

No need for a land grab. The federal government owns it to start with.

Explain why this is true?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

NaziCons are desperately trying to get their greedy hands on our federal public lands and other national treasures. This must not be allowed to happen!

Weird how the republican party has changed in the past 100 years...Theodore Roosevelt was one of the biggest drivers of the national park system and cared about the environment greatly.

Today...Well, we need to mine, drill and give it to the rich!

You are perfectly free to get into a time machine and vote for him.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Weird how the republican party has changed in the past 100 years...Theodore Roosevelt was one of the biggest drivers of the national park system and cared about the environment greatly.

Today...Well, we need to mine, drill and give it to the rich!

that's what i was going to say.... Antiquities Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unconstitutional.

Not according to courts, Billy. And wingnutism isn't helpful. The ranchers have a valid issue in that land use changes by the BLM are ending some ways of life that existed for generations, and which arguably contributed to the American character. But the BLM's job is to effectuate the "best" use, and I have no interest in subsidizing ranchers who are trying to raise cattle in less efficient ways than other beef industry folks are using, esp if their use of public lands actually harms or alters life found on the land.

So, we should try to find a compromise.

The courts are wrong on this issue, ergo the law is enforced at gunpoint, not by constitutional authority.

Bank robbers have law enforced at gunpoint, and that doesnt' mean the law's wrong, billy.

Your wingnutism has always made your views easy to parody. The BLM administers federal lands in the way that maximizes the most benefit to Americans as a whole. There's nothing illegal or immoral about that.

The question is whether small family free range ranching can be preserved in some way.

The argument that freedom doesn't exist because we have laws is an attempt to show that people who like freedom are hypocrits because how can you support freedom yet support laws. It really is a dumb arguments and it paradies the same arguments that NAZIs made about the same issue.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Am I the only one that has ever noticed a pattern with the left. Whenever their is a conflict between a government and the people they almost always side with the government. Just take the issue of federal owned land. Why defend the government on this issue. They have no argument that says the federal government should own it other than it is the government s and they have to retain it. That is the their only argument that they make. Now sometimes govenrment needs to own land such as building bases and parks but a lot of federal land is not used at all and why should any state have most of its territory owned by the federal government. Why even call it a state at that point? Just call it a federal territory since on that property they can make whatever rule on it and enforce it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Am I the only one that has ever noticed a pattern with the left. Whenever their is a conflict between a government and the people they almost always side with the government. Just take the issue of federal owned land. Why defend the government on this issue. They have no argument that says the federal government should own it other than it is the government s and they have to retain it. That is the their only argument that they make. Now sometimes govenrment needs to own land such as building bases and parks but a lot of federal land is not used at all and why should any state have most of its territory owned by the federal government. Why even call it a state at that point? Just call it a federal territory since on that property they can make whatever rule on it and enforce it.

You're an idiot. And illiterate.

 

[Seawytch]

Donald Trump's Shameful Eminent Domain Abuse

say no more.

But wait, aren't conservatives supposed to be opposed to government attacks on private property? Not according to Trump. "Eminent domain, when it comes to jobs, roads, the public good, I think it's a wonderful thing, I'll be honest with you. And remember, you're not taking property.... I don't think it was explained to most conservatives."

Just another flip flop?

 

[bendog]

Am I the only one that has ever noticed a pattern with the left. Whenever their is a conflict between a government and the people they almost always side with the government. Just take the issue of federal owned land. Why defend the government on this issue. They have no argument that says the federal government should own it other than it is the government s and they have to retain it. That is the their only argument that they make. Now sometimes govenrment needs to own land such as building bases and parks but a lot of federal land is not used at all and why should any state have most of its territory owned by the federal government. Why even call it a state at that point? Just call it a federal territory since on that property they can make whatever rule on it and enforce it.

You're an idiot. And illiterate.

He's too focking stupid to know the land belonged to no one, and the original ranchers back in the 1800s oked this deal to take land out of circulation so it couldn't be "settled" by small ranchers and farmers, so the ranchers could "rent" the land ... cheap.

Now it turns out that ranching on the land is not the most economically efficient use. So, the ranchers are saying "give us the land.'' Fuck that, they want it, they can make the rest of us taxpayers a cash offer. Maybe it'd be worthwhile, maybe not.

 

[g5000]

The invader fuckheads who have seized the Oregon land are not even from Oregon. They are outsiders. They are starting to really piss off the locals.

This is David Fry, one of the invaders. He is a white supremacist who worships Hitler and admires ISIS:

 

[bendog]

That's what the wingnuts cannot get. It's NOT the ranchers against the evil gummit. It's a bunch of wannabe freeloaders against us US citizens who own the damn land.

 

[BULLDOG]

Not according to courts, Billy.

The Constitution does not authorize permanent state land-grabs by the federal government. If you believe it does, show the article.

No need for a land grab. The federal government owns it to start with.

Explain why this is true?

I'm not going to give you a class on how the federal government came to own so much land in the west. Look it up for yourself. It's easily found.

 

[bripat9643]

The whole place was fed land before it was even a state .

That's true of every state except the original 13 colonies.

 

[bripat9643]

Not according to courts, Billy.

The Constitution does not authorize permanent state land-grabs by the federal government. If you believe it does, show the article.

No need for a land grab. The federal government owns it to start with.

Explain why this is true?

I'm not going to give you a class on how the federal government came to own so much land in the west. Look it up for yourself. It's easily found.

We know how it happened. The question is "what's the justification for it?" The answer is that nothing more than the federal government's lust for power.

 

[bripat9643]

That's what the wingnuts cannot get. It's NOT the ranchers against the evil gummit. It's a bunch of wannabe freeloaders against us US citizens who own the damn land.

The federal government owns the land. They idea that citizens have anything even remotely resembling true ownership is laughable.

 

[Staidhup]

Reminds me of the monarchical governments of Europe, Crown Lands, for the privileged few. I recall once upon a time these lands were to be managed for colleges, schools, and the surrounding communities, now its being managed for what purpose and who's enjoyment remains clouded in politics benefiting special interest groups. So where is the we the people in all this?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Am I the only one that has ever noticed a pattern with the left. Whenever their is a conflict between a government and the people they almost always side with the government. Just take the issue of federal owned land. Why defend the government on this issue. They have no argument that says the federal government should own it other than it is the government s and they have to retain it. That is the their only argument that they make. Now sometimes govenrment needs to own land such as building bases and parks but a lot of federal land is not used at all and why should any state have most of its territory owned by the federal government. Why even call it a state at that point? Just call it a federal territory since on that property they can make whatever rule on it and enforce it.

You're an idiot. And illiterate.

You're an idiot and an illiterate bastard. That would sound so much better and less idiot-like and illiterate.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Reminds me of the monarchical governments of Europe, Crown Lands, for the privileged few. I recall once upon a time these lands were to be managed for colleges, schools, and the surrounding communities, now its being managed for what purpose and who's enjoyment remains clouded in politics benefiting special interest groups. So where is the we the people in all this?

I thought the same thing. It must be great being a government because you get your money for free and plenty of property to use.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Am I the only one that has ever noticed a pattern with the left. Whenever their is a conflict between a government and the people they almost always side with the government. Just take the issue of federal owned land. Why defend the government on this issue. They have no argument that says the federal government should own it other than it is the government s and they have to retain it. That is the their only argument that they make. Now sometimes govenrment needs to own land such as building bases and parks but a lot of federal land is not used at all and why should any state have most of its territory owned by the federal government. Why even call it a state at that point? Just call it a federal territory since on that property they can make whatever rule on it and enforce it.

You're an idiot. And illiterate.

You're an idiot and an illiterate bastard. That would sound so much better and less idiot-like and illiterate.

Go soak your head. For an hour.

 

[koshergrl]

NaziCons are desperately trying to get their greedy hands on our federal public lands and other national treasures. This must not be allowed to happen!

Weird how the republican party has changed in the past 100 years...Theodore Roosevelt was one of the biggest drivers of the national park system and cared about the environment greatly.

Today...Well, we need to mine, drill and give it to the rich!

It's amazing what you freaks will tell yourselves in order to justify tyranny and abuse.

 

[koshergrl]

NaziCons are desperately trying to get their greedy hands on our federal public lands and other national treasures. This must not be allowed to happen!

I live in Nevada, troll. Not all of the 85% of our state's land that the feds control is a national treasure.

My family is from NV, most of the land is desolate.

So don't move there.

 

[koshergrl]

ALMOST sounds like he is standing with the Oregon Militia.... Freedom from government and Freedom for the PEOPLE!

washington examiner ^ | 1/8/16 | Gabby Morrongiello
Trump says Americans shouldn't let the government turn the West into a federally-owned frontier. Forget China, guns or immigration. Donald Trump is taking on a new issue: federal land ownership. In a new op-ed for the Reno Gazette-Journal, the Republican presidential front-runner rails against the "draconian rule" of the Bureau of Land Management and the Obama administration's "land grab" in the western United States. "The BLM controls over 85 percent of the land in Nevada," Trump explains. "In the rural areas, those who for decades have had access to public lands for ranching, mining, logging and energy...

Does this mean Trump wants the land returned to the local Paiute Indians?

Well, I'd say he just wants to represent the people AGAINST government tyranny and stronghold. The government should not be using the "peoples" money to grow government control of any states resources, or any ranchers private property!! That everyone doesn't support these ranchers right to the grazing land and the right to expect our government will not legally stronghold good people in order to DESTROY them is astounding to me. The Local bureau of land mgmnt testified that ranchers do control burns to get rid of juniper that steals the water from the grass. They also said burns often spilled onto the BLM territory and nobody but the Hammonds have been arrested charged and sentenced....ever. Why do you suppose that is? Also, they testified that BLM fires had spilled over onto rancher land and destroyed cattle and property and BLM had never compensated them! Are you starting to see a problem yet? Yeah, the Hammonds are holdouts to a government grab to 170,000 acres of land. Do they intend to destroy them to get it? Yep, pretty much! Sound like something worth supporting to you?

People? Which people? More than likely Trump would like to give the land away for multi national corporations to exploit. That way only the really important people would have access to "the people's" land.

And that's worse than the feds in what way? At least the multi national corporations would hire locals and let them benefit from the harvest of resources.