Mel Bundy Beaten, Starved, Tortured while being Unlawfully Imprisoned

originally posted by: DrThodt

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Boadicea

All the more reason to give it to the people who can develop the land and resources and create new streams of revenue and serve the needs of the people.

At what cost? Clearly unchecked industrial development is not only harmful to local ecosystems, but to human population. Mercury, lead , arsenic and radiological contamination, GHG emissions aside.

Re-legalizing hemp production would do far more to serve those needs than simply fire-selling trust lands.

Typical ! For hemp production against beef production all the while decrying general "industrial development" in the name of sustainable development. We the people are not allowed to eat beef and consume coal, we are only allowed expensive organics and sprawling wind turbine farms (which by the way kill more eagles than cattle farming destroys endangered turtles....) you just get more transparent with every post

a reply to: DrThodt

At what cost?

If done right, no cost -- much gain.

Clearly unchecked industrial development is not only harmful to local ecosystems, but to human population. Mercury, lead , arsenic and radiological contamination, GHG emissions aside.

Clearly.

But homes are clearly not unchecked industrial development. Nor are the community businesses and services needed to build and sustain and nurture a community. And with our current technology, we can build in

Re-legalizing hemp production would do far more to serve those needs than simply fire-selling trust lands.

And a whole lot more!!!

But it's not an either/or situation. That same land given to the people could be used for the very purpose of hemp production -- everything from industrial to medical to recreational.

a reply to: Boadicea

But it's not an either/or situation

Right, its the old guns or butter thing...

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
against beef production

What gave you this ridiculous impression? I eat beef...

originally posted by: DrThodt
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

No one is saying you can't eat beef.

Sadly, yes, there are people saying that. Maybe not a majority, but it is an issue for some.

They're saying you're going to pay the actual cost rather than using public money to subsidize commercial use of public lands.

Yes, some people are saying that... some people -- mostly government agents -- are saying lots of things to lots of people and then doing whatever benefits them, using their power to bully, intimidate, and otherwise abuse the people AND the land.

I am all for being good stewards of the earth. That's not what's happening.

a reply to: Boadicea

Do you really believe a corporation is going to develop zero-impact sustainable structures when they can keep producing POSs and selling them for insane margins? There's no incentive. Urban sprawl linearly increases waste and inefficiency. And as I've stated, there's already plenty of unincorporated land not held in trust. We don't need more land to develop until we develop pre-existing land. I don't even believe there are enough resources to harvest on land held in trust aside from grazing and there are much better lands for that elsewhere.

There are also the logistical concerns of developing a new municipality. Requisite resident counts, etc. What reason would a developer have to develop land so far away from established services? It sounds like you're talking about building from the ground up, and that just doesn't happen anymore given modern economics.

And no, you would need the DEA to issue permits which isn't going to happen. People need to worry about taking government back first rather than making ethical concessions.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
We the people are not allowed to eat beef and consume coal, we are only allowed expensive organics and sprawling wind turbine farms (which by the way kill more eagles than cattle farming destroys endangered turtles....) you just get more transparent with every post

btw, I'm not in favor of wind or solar, especially solar. Solar is no more green than fracking for natural gas. I'm in favor of nuclear energy.

As for coal, it pollutes, and more than pollutes, it's directly contributable to negative health effects. So why should a for-profit corporation have the right to production that negatively affects Americans? Is deliberate harm a free-market principle?

a reply to: DrThodt

Don't lecture me about the free market. Go call up the Peabody coal family and all the workers which have been put out to pasture by the very likes of you and your compatriots who believe your sustainable development is all the cat's meow.

TN Note: President Obama pledged to destroy the coal industry in America and he has apparently succeeded with the bankruptcy of the largest and oldest coal titan in the nation. Peabody Energy is also the largest privately-owned coal company in the world. Overall, the war on carbon is devastating related industries all over the world. The United Nations is pushing companies to divest themselves of carbon-related investments in favor of alternative energy.

www.technocracy.news...

anyway back to the Bundys, now I know why you rail against them and why you use arguments such as they didn't want to pay the grazing fees and broke the law.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Did you even bother to read my post? Sustainable energy sources are a joke, nuclear is the only viable option. An option that would create hundreds of thousands of well paying jobs while simultaneously cleaning up the environment and air quality. Win-win.

a reply to: Swills

This could all be a completely a manufactured situation that Obama made up to discourage the people from rising up and completely eliminating this particular regime that is not representing the American people.

originally posted by: DrThodt
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Did you even bother to read my post? Sustainable energy sources are a joke, nuclear is the only viable option. An option that would create hundreds of thousands of well paying jobs while simultaneously cleaning up the environment and air quality. Win-win.

You rail against fracking(Russia wants to dominate and all the Progressives are against it) and coal(every Progressive here in town had anti coal signs in their yards last election cycle).

www.nytimes.com...

I could go on about coal....but it seems believers in sustainable development will go to amazing lengths to protect their ideals and diminish those which they believe comprise the evildoers of society.
But do carry on.... Bundys are just cowboy rednecks who broke the law...mantra from sayyyyy Salon . com or huffpo or ThinkProgress....
oh and Peabody Coal is headquartered in St. Louis where I grew up. I can already hear the cries of anguish

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I'm in favor of nuclear energy, how can I be an evil liberal demon?

a reply to: DrThodt

You're all communists to me. Real right wingers believe that every person is responsible for his/her own energy needs. Read a book and learn how to construct your own solar panels. I did it in a weekend, but I'm not lazy.

[post]originally posted by: DrThodt
a reply to: Boadicea

All of this is quite off-topic and we are talking in circles. I appreciate your willingness to discuss reasonably and I thank you for the conversation, but this is not the appropriate thread to continue.

a reply to: BrokedownChevy

You mean you assembled PV cells into a frame and wired it. I'm confident you didn't fab your own PV cells.

a reply to: Boadicea

So this is clearly unreasonable treatment for American citizens in their own country, if this is true Americans should have a good look at this because any one of you could be next on the list

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

It's been this way ever since our founding. Nothing new, and it will continue to happen as long as we elect a--holes. Oppression is a requisite to economic exploitation.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: dragonridr

Thank you for all this background info -- much appreciated!

In reading various angles and perspectives, I've noticed that pretty much no one is happy with how the feds are managing the lands -- not the ranchers/farmers, not the environmentalists, not the locals, not anyone...

Mostly because they don't manage it really. Remeber its ran from congress. They are the ones actually in charge of this land. And due to their in action not a lot happens beyond basic stuff. For example they handle fire stations and set up buildings for things like sanctuaries for scientific studies. That works out well enough. However even the states couldn't afford these basic services without selling off large parcels of land or charging fees.

Good example of that is Las Vegas they screamed at the federal government that wanted to expand services around Vegas. Turns out it was just a scam to fleece tax payers. They were granted there request then ended up selling it to a developer after claiming they couldn't afford to keep it. Big time developer can't in paid pennies on the dollar I'm sure with brides to local officials. Then built golf courses and as it turned out there water usage caused a severe problem causing the city to have to renevate its water system costing millions and led to rationing.

This is why in most situations local government just can't afford to maintain the land especially with government requirements involving wildlife.

What is the point of closing Gitmo if this is allowed to happen.

Anyone still buying into Big Government still caring
about humanity better get that insanity checked.

Totalitarian regime rulers never change they just pass the baton.

originally posted by: DrThodt
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I'm in favor of nuclear energy, how can I be an evil liberal demon?

Yah you're right because the Club of Rome is behind sustainable development and agenda 21 and all that. But look who is in the Club of Rome....Bill Gates, Al Gore, Queen Beatrix, Mikhail Gorbachev...

The Club of Rome is perhaps at the apex of the New World Order pyramid, a Neo-Malthusian organization with interlocking membership with European power elite groups such as the Committee of 300 (a secret society founded by the British aristocracy in 1727) and the Bilderberg Group.

To facilitate the management of the New World Order agenda calls for the elimination of most of the worlds population through war, disease, abortion and famine. According to the Club of Rome's publications, the common enemy of humanity is man. One of the major goals of the Club of Rome is to reduce the world's population by 2 billion people through war, famine, disease and any other means necessary.

www.jeremiahproject.com...

actually that's a lowball number as the actual goal is something more like reducing the population to something like 500 million.

Im not the only one who has made the connection between the Bundy standoff and Agenda 21.... that being said, torture in prison is just the tip of the iceberg for people who resist the NWO
www.youtube.com...

www.thecommonsenseshow.com... s/

www.redicecreations.com...

just a few to start