Don't Mess with Texas?

[HereWeGoAgain]

What if we cut Texas off from the US like they want so that they lose all public assistance, Federal disaster relief funding, and have to fight murderous Mexican drug cartels entirely on their own?

It will take about two months for Texas to come begging for help.

Big whoop....Texas has either the 14 or 15 largest economy in the world.
And when you fools run short on oil? We'll be happy to sell it to you for around $400 bucks a barrel.
If you grovel .....

We don't need Texas oil, Canadian tar sands, or anything from your Saudi boyfriends.

Vote Hemp: Why Hemp?: New Billion-Dollar Crop
The feasibility of converting Cannabis sat... [Bioresour Technol. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32725.pdf
http://evanmills.lbl.gov/pubs/pdf/cannabis-carbon-footprint.pdf
http://www.liq.wa.gov/publications/Marijuana/SEPA/5d_Environmental_Risks_and_Opportunities_in_Cannabis_Cultivation.pdf
http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8415/1/prade_t_111102.pdf
UConn Biofuel Consortium
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/59909/676695681.pdf?...1
https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/publication/1868648
http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=2856430&fileOId=2857088
Effect of harvest date on combustion related fuel properties of industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) - Fuel - Tom 102, Numer Complete (2012) - Biblioteka Nauki - Yadda
https://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/pubs/res_other/hemp98.pdf
Hemp: A New Crop with New Uses for North America
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/EvergreenEnergy/kforbin.pdf
Industrial Hemp - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=93&ved=0CC0QFjACOFo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhumboldt-dspace.calstate.edu%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F2148%2F1461%2FArnold_Jessica_M_Sp2013-r.pdf%3Fsequence%3D4&ei=UfTnUqLJNI-FogSHuIKoAg&usg=AFQjCNGePT2nLRH82rx6h817DYxZ6v-J3A&cad=rja
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=91&cad=rja&ved=0CCMQFjAAOFo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcore.kmi.open.ac.uk%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2F2778292.pdf&ei=UfTnUqLJNI-FogSHuIKoAg&usg=AFQjCNFqhjiy8F4VRqHnZ08t7CZFDqLgXQ

Since you think the Bush's are so cozy with the Saudis? I'm sure we can can sway them to fuck you over as well.
As far as tar sands go? I thought you libs were against that sort of thing? Whats next? You going to endorse fracking?

 

[KNB]

Average citizens won the Alamo?

Sure, if you consider everyone dying a "victory".

How about San Jacinto ? Texans made General Santa Anaa their bitch that day.
Little faggot tried to pretend to be a common soldier,his silk underwear and his own men gave him away.

Ultimately, you could say that the US "won" the Mexican-American war. We obtained nearly 50% of Mexico's territory with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Santa Anna was captured but that doesn't mean that the Alamo was a victory. Americans have been conditioned to accept that everything that we've ever done was a righteous victory. We even have people in this country still trying to justify Bush's invasion of Iraq.

"American exceptionalism" on the march. Selfish rich racists formed this country of, for and by selfish rich racists, and it even took a Civil War for society just to get this far. We obviously still have a long way to go since Cliven Bundy and his white trash "militia" prove that there are still racists today who want another Civil War.

Progress would come much sooner if people would stop being so Conservative.

 

[RKMBrown]

The federal government has held that land on behalf of the owners - the people of the United States of America - since the moment it became a part of the United States of America.

My math MAY be a little fuzzy, but I think that was LONG before 1993.

You've been fed a pile of horseshit. Shame on you for swallowing it without checking it out first.

And for how long have they had a regulation that ranchers can't have more than a couple hundred head?

trying to move the goal post?

No. The issue was never just one of grazing fees, that's just what the government is charging cause that's what gives the government the presumed authority to confiscate. The issue here has always been the government running the ranchers off by limiting the number of head they can have and by increasing the grazing fees to the point where no family could possibly live off ranching in this area.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Average citizens won the Alamo?

Sure, if you consider everyone dying a "victory".

How about San Jacinto ? Texans made General Santa Anaa their bitch that day.
Little faggot tried to pretend to be a common soldier,his silk underwear and his own men gave him away.

Ultimately, you could say that the US "won" the Mexican-American war. We obtained nearly 50% of Mexico's territory with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Santa Ana was captured but that doesn't mean that the Alamo was a victory. Americans have been conditioned to accept that everything that we've ever done was a righteous victory. We even have people in this country still trying to justify Bush's invasion of Iraq.

"American exceptionalism" on the march. Selfish rich racists formed this country of, for and by selfish rich racists, and it even took a Civil War for society just to get this far. We obviously still have a long way to go since Cliven Bundy and his white trash "militia" prove that there are still racists today who want another Civil War.

Progress would come much sooner if people would stop being so Conservative.

Never said the Alamo was a victory. And the battle of San Jacinto was fought for Texas independence from mexico. You know Texas was a country right?

 

[KNB]

Big whoop....Texas has either the 14 or 15 largest economy in the world.
And when you fools run short on oil? We'll be happy to sell it to you for around $400 bucks a barrel.
If you grovel .....

We don't need Texas oil, Canadian tar sands, or anything from your Saudi boyfriends.

Vote Hemp: Why Hemp?: New Billion-Dollar Crop
The feasibility of converting Cannabis sat... [Bioresour Technol. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32725.pdf
http://evanmills.lbl.gov/pubs/pdf/cannabis-carbon-footprint.pdf
http://www.liq.wa.gov/publications/Marijuana/SEPA/5d_Environmental_Risks_and_Opportunities_in_Cannabis_Cultivation.pdf
http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8415/1/prade_t_111102.pdf
UConn Biofuel Consortium
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/59909/676695681.pdf?...1
https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/publication/1868648
http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=2856430&fileOId=2857088
Effect of harvest date on combustion related fuel properties of industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) - Fuel - Tom 102, Numer Complete (2012) - Biblioteka Nauki - Yadda
https://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/pubs/res_other/hemp98.pdf
Hemp: A New Crop with New Uses for North America
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/EvergreenEnergy/kforbin.pdf
Industrial Hemp - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=93&ved=0CC0QFjACOFo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhumboldt-dspace.calstate.edu%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F2148%2F1461%2FArnold_Jessica_M_Sp2013-r.pdf%3Fsequence%3D4&ei=UfTnUqLJNI-FogSHuIKoAg&usg=AFQjCNGePT2nLRH82rx6h817DYxZ6v-J3A&cad=rja
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=91&cad=rja&ved=0CCMQFjAAOFo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcore.kmi.open.ac.uk%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2F2778292.pdf&ei=UfTnUqLJNI-FogSHuIKoAg&usg=AFQjCNFqhjiy8F4VRqHnZ08t7CZFDqLgXQ

Since you think the Bush's are so cozy with the Saudis? I'm sure we can can sway them to fuck you over as well.
As far as tar sands go? I thought you libs were against that sort of thing? Whats next? You going to endorse fracking?

You didn't understand what I said. I said that we don't need Texas oil, Canadian tar sands, or anything from your Saudi boyfriends.

Please don't respond until you've read every single word at each of those links.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

We don't need Texas oil, Canadian tar sands, or anything from your Saudi boyfriends.

Vote Hemp: Why Hemp?: New Billion-Dollar Crop
The feasibility of converting Cannabis sat... [Bioresour Technol. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32725.pdf
http://evanmills.lbl.gov/pubs/pdf/cannabis-carbon-footprint.pdf
http://www.liq.wa.gov/publications/Marijuana/SEPA/5d_Environmental_Risks_and_Opportunities_in_Cannabis_Cultivation.pdf
http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8415/1/prade_t_111102.pdf
UConn Biofuel Consortium
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/59909/676695681.pdf?...1
https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/publication/1868648
http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=2856430&fileOId=2857088
Effect of harvest date on combustion related fuel properties of industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) - Fuel - Tom 102, Numer Complete (2012) - Biblioteka Nauki - Yadda
https://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/pubs/res_other/hemp98.pdf
Hemp: A New Crop with New Uses for North America
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/EvergreenEnergy/kforbin.pdf
Industrial Hemp - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=93&ved=0CC0QFjACOFo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhumboldt-dspace.calstate.edu%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F2148%2F1461%2FArnold_Jessica_M_Sp2013-r.pdf%3Fsequence%3D4&ei=UfTnUqLJNI-FogSHuIKoAg&usg=AFQjCNGePT2nLRH82rx6h817DYxZ6v-J3A&cad=rja
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=91&cad=rja&ved=0CCMQFjAAOFo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcore.kmi.open.ac.uk%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2F2778292.pdf&ei=UfTnUqLJNI-FogSHuIKoAg&usg=AFQjCNFqhjiy8F4VRqHnZ08t7CZFDqLgXQ

Since you think the Bush's are so cozy with the Saudis? I'm sure we can can sway them to fuck you over as well.
As far as tar sands go? I thought you libs were against that sort of thing? Whats next? You going to endorse fracking?

You didn't understand what I said. I said that we don't need Texas oil, Canadian tar sands, or anything from your Saudi boyfriends.

Please don't respond until you've read every single word at each of those links.

Green energy all the way huh? Good luck with that.

 

[RKMBrown]

Put another way. The equivalent to a trucker would be the government saying you can only have one truck at a time on each road in the country and you have to pay 1k dollars a mile for the use of dirt roads.

 

[nodoginnafight]

And for how long have they had a regulation that ranchers can't have more than a couple hundred head?

trying to move the goal post?

No. The issue was never just one of grazing fees, that's just what the government is charging cause that's what gives the government the presumed authority to confiscate. The issue here has always been the government running the ranchers off by limiting the number of head they can have and by increasing the grazing fees to the point where no family could possibly live off ranching in this area.

No - The issue I was discussing with another poster in the conversation you quoted - while chopping off the part I was referring to (seems dishonest - why did you do that?) - was when did the Federal Government gained control over the land on behalf of the people of the United States of America.

Now if there is some separate issue, you'd like to discuss, fine. But why would you link a quote on a different topic?


Here is the FULL quote stream.

psst..............

keep it quite.........

but the Federal Gov't took the land in 1993 to save the turtles..........

Don't let that out.........

shhhhhhhhhhhh...........

Quote: Originally Posted by nodoginnafight View Post:

The federal government has held that land on behalf of the owners - the people of the United States of America - since the moment it became a part of the United States of America.

My math MAY be a little fuzzy, but I think that was LONG before 1993.

You've been fed a pile of horseshit. Shame on you for swallowing it without checking it out first.

Quote: Originally Posted by RKMBrown View Post:

And for how long have they had a regulation that ranchers can't have more than a couple hundred head?

Is THIS what you want to discuss ?

 

[Katzndogz]

That is not research, idiot. It is all opinion piece bullshit from bullshit sources.

Try harder.

I guess you know more in your 2 minutes of famous research than the Lt. Governor and AG of Texas............

Damn it man, you are brilliant..................

Have you considered telling these incompetent people the real deal here..........In 2 minutes you have stated that these men's claims don't exist at all...........

Are you a legend in your own mind as well..............

I'll call them for you..............and tell them that lone laughter has stated that it's all BS and no need to file a lawsuit against the Feds..........

You can all go home now.................

Are you really that stupid Lone Laughter................

No. In my two minutes...I learned that the BLM does not want 90,000 acres and denies that they are even seeking any new land. They are looking to protect 140 acres that have always been federal property. I learned that the Texas-Oklahoma border area has been the subject of decades of lawsuits and that any case generated by this grandstanding candidate will not likely solve the matter.

Here is the official BLM statement on the matter:

BLM Red River (OK/TX) Statement

The BLM is categorically not expanding Federal holdings along the Red River. The 140-acres in question were determined to be public land in 1986 when the U.S. District Court ruled on a case brought by two private landowners, each seeking to adjust boundary lines for their respective properties. The BLM was not party to any litigation between the landowners. The 140-acres were at no time held in private ownership.

Questions should be addressed to Paul McGuire at 405-790-1009.

Any comment on that?

I also learned that the State of Texas has done some nifty land grabbing while this dude has been AG. Got any comment on that?

It looks like you are just confused by multiple actions. The 140 acres in question was owned (with a deed and everything) by Tom Henderson. Thirty years ago the BLM took it by redrawing the border and insisting that despite the deed, Henderson never actually owned the land claimed. With perfect irony, Henderson still pays property taxes on the stolen 140 acres or he will lose the remainder of his ranch.

The 90,000 acres now sought to be confiscated is the land along a 116 mile stretch along the Red River. Again the BLM has redrawn the border and now says the landowners never owned that property. It was always federal land, despite long standing deeds. Part of that 90,000 is owned by Tom Henderson. Part of that land is owned by others.

That's why the BLM claim that they have no plans to expand federal holdings are such a joke. They aren't "expanding" they are just claiming the land was always federal land and they are just taking it back.

Perry, Abbott accuse feds of Red River land grab | State | News from Fort Worth, Dallas,...

 

[rightwinger]

Put another way. The equivalent to a trucker would be the government saying you can only have one truck at a time on each road in the country and you have to pay 1k dollars a mile for the use of dirt roads.

No, actually the equivalent would be a trucker making a profit off of taxpayer provided roads and refusing to pay gas taxes

 

[RKMBrown]

trying to move the goal post?

No. The issue was never just one of grazing fees, that's just what the government is charging cause that's what gives the government the presumed authority to confiscate. The issue here has always been the government running the ranchers off by limiting the number of head they can have and by increasing the grazing fees to the point where no family could possibly live off ranching in this area.

No - The issue I was discussing with another poster in the conversation you quoted - while chopping off the part I was referring to (seems dishonest - why did you do that?) - was when did the Federal Government gained control over the land on behalf of the people of the United States of America.

Now if there is some separate issue, you'd like to discuss, fine. But why would you link a quote on a different topic?

Quote: Originally Posted by RKMBrown View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by nodoginnafight View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by eagle1462010 View Post

psst..............

keep it quite.........

but the Federal Gov't took the land in 1993 to save the turtles..........

Don't let that out.........

shhhhhhhhhhhh...........
The federal government has held that land on behalf of the owners - the people of the United States of America - since the moment it became a part of the United States of America.

My math MAY be a little fuzzy, but I think that was LONG before 1993.

You've been fed a pile of horseshit. Shame on you for swallowing it without checking it out first.
And for how long have they had a regulation that ranchers can't have more than a couple hundred head?
Here is the FULL quote stream.
Is THIS what you want to discuss ?

Liar. I didn't "chop" anything off.

The date when we allowed government some administrative duties for our land, is meaningless. They can't use their assigned duties to rape the shit out of the people. Rapping the shit out of the people, exceeds their mandate.

 

[KNB]

Since you think the Bush's are so cozy with the Saudis? I'm sure we can can sway them to fuck you over as well.
As far as tar sands go? I thought you libs were against that sort of thing? Whats next? You going to endorse fracking?

You didn't understand what I said. I said that we don't need Texas oil, Canadian tar sands, or anything from your Saudi boyfriends.

Please don't respond until you've read every single word at each of those links.

Green energy all the way huh? Good luck with that.

We don't need luck. We just need to legalize Cannabis Sativa. The free market will take care of the rest. You will understand that when you have finished reading those links.

 

[nodoginnafight]

That is not research, idiot. It is all opinion piece bullshit from bullshit sources.

Try harder.

I guess you know more in your 2 minutes of famous research than the Lt. Governor and AG of Texas............

Damn it man, you are brilliant..................

Have you considered telling these incompetent people the real deal here..........In 2 minutes you have stated that these men's claims don't exist at all...........

Are you a legend in your own mind as well..............

I'll call them for you..............and tell them that lone laughter has stated that it's all BS and no need to file a lawsuit against the Feds..........

You can all go home now.................

Are you really that stupid Lone Laughter................

No. In my two minutes...I learned that the BLM does not want 90,000 acres and denies that they are even seeking any new land. They are looking to protect 140 acres that have always been federal property. I learned that the Texas-Oklahoma border area has been the subject of decades of lawsuits and that any case generated by this grandstanding candidate will not likely solve the matter.

Here is the official BLM statement on the matter:

BLM Red River (OK/TX) Statement

The BLM is categorically not expanding Federal holdings along the Red River. The 140-acres in question were determined to be public land in 1986 when the U.S. District Court ruled on a case brought by two private landowners, each seeking to adjust boundary lines for their respective properties. The BLM was not party to any litigation between the landowners. The 140-acres were at no time held in private ownership.

Questions should be addressed to Paul McGuire at 405-790-1009.

Any comment on that?

I also learned that the State of Texas has done some nifty land grabbing while this dude has been AG. Got any comment on that?

WOW - I feel so used. Thanks for the rest of the story.

What kind of news source would run a "story" without even trying to get the info it took you two minutes to get? That's more than "sloppy" journalism - it's fraudulent.

I should have known.

I'll keep watching and listening, but right now - it looks to me like "Cliven Bundy II - Just when you thought it was safe to trust your news source ........ "

 

[RKMBrown]

Put another way. The equivalent to a trucker would be the government saying you can only have one truck at a time on each road in the country and you have to pay 1k dollars a mile for the use of dirt roads.

No, actually the equivalent would be a trucker making a profit off of taxpayer provided roads and refusing to pay gas taxes

You got proof the rancher did not pay his gas taxes or you just making shit up again? The cows are not even walking on the road. They are in the middle of the desert eating grass that god provided.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Liar. I didn't "chop" anything off.

really? Here's the original:

psst..............

keep it quite.........

but the Federal Gov't took the land in 1993 to save the turtles..........

Don't let that out.........

shhhhhhhhhhhh...........

The federal government has held that land on behalf of the owners - the people of the United States of America - since the moment it became a part of the United States of America.

My math MAY be a little fuzzy, but I think that was LONG before 1993.

You've been fed a pile of horseshit. Shame on you for swallowing it without checking it out first.

And for how long have they had a regulation that ranchers can't have more than a couple hundred head?

In my next post I noted that you are trying to move the goalpost; You responded with the following quote stream that chopped off the evidence of your dishonesty: (see post 117)

 

[OKTexas]

It all comes down to eminent domain.

There are many justifiable reason for a govenment to exercise eminent domain. Roads, Hospitals, schools. I also support using it to protect a fragile environment

I can't understand the State of Texas....you know.....Don't Mess with those fuckers, using eminent domain to give land so a Canadian Oil Company can make a profit

Where is the right wing outrage on this?

The federal government has no right of eminent domain over state land.

I'm leery about this story. So much misinformation flew out about the Bundy situation in the beginning that a lot of people got sucked in without really understanding the whole story. So I tread carefully here.

But if the facts of this issue are that the people of the United States - by way of the Bureau of Land Management - want to take over control of property that is already owned by the State of Texas and/or private citizens - then I'll back the private citizens and/or State of Texas 100% on this one. If they want to claim "eminent domain" they better have a much better "public good" that turtles, beavers, wind farms, solar farms, or alibino duck-billed platypuses (platypi?).

I'll be listening and watching carefully.

The federal government does not have eminent domain rights, they can only purchase state land with the consent of the state legislature.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17


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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

 

[nodoginnafight]

And for how long have they had a regulation that ranchers can't have more than a couple hundred head?

trying to move the goal post?

No. The issue was never just one of grazing fees, that's just what the government is charging cause that's what gives the government the presumed authority to confiscate. The issue here has always been the government running the ranchers off by limiting the number of head they can have and by increasing the grazing fees to the point where no family could possibly live off ranching in this area.

see

 

[nodoginnafight]

The federal government has no right of eminent domain over state land.

I'm leery about this story. So much misinformation flew out about the Bundy situation in the beginning that a lot of people got sucked in without really understanding the whole story. So I tread carefully here.

But if the facts of this issue are that the people of the United States - by way of the Bureau of Land Management - want to take over control of property that is already owned by the State of Texas and/or private citizens - then I'll back the private citizens and/or State of Texas 100% on this one. If they want to claim "eminent domain" they better have a much better "public good" that turtles, beavers, wind farms, solar farms, or alibino duck-billed platypuses (platypi?).

I'll be listening and watching carefully.

The federal government does not have eminent domain rights, they can only purchase state land with the consent of the state legislature.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17


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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

Moot point: it appears now that the land under question is about 140 acres of federal land. NOT the amount or the specific property that was originally reported by the same people who screwed the pooch on the Bundy story.

I'm out of this one until I can sort things out a lot more reliably.

 

[rightwinger]

Put another way. The equivalent to a trucker would be the government saying you can only have one truck at a time on each road in the country and you have to pay 1k dollars a mile for the use of dirt roads.

No, actually the equivalent would be a trucker making a profit off of taxpayer provided roads and refusing to pay gas taxes

You got proof the rancher did not pay his gas taxes or you just making shit up again? The cows are not even walking on the road. They are in the middle of the desert eating grass that god provided.

You make an analogy and then make a post proving that you have no idea what an analogy is

 

[OKTexas]

What if we cut Texas off from the US like they want so that they lose all public assistance, Federal disaster relief funding, and have to fight murderous Mexican drug cartels entirely on their own?

It will take about two months for Texas to come begging for help.

We send more money to the feds than we get back, would be easy to take care of ourselves.