DanteGabriel Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 No you really aren't right at all. Prior to the BLM the ranchers DID maintain all their own infrastructure, hell they were the ones who built it all in the first place. After the BLM took over managing the land the ranchers were told they were not allowed to maintain, let alone build, infrastructure as this was now the BLMs responsibility, and instead they should pay a mandated fee per head of cattle to fund the works. So ranchers are the ones who drove off the native inhabitants, built roads and railroads and irrigation projects that made the settlement of Nevada possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumdin Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 So ranchers are the ones who drove off the native inhabitants, built roads and railroads and irrigation projects that made the settlement of Nevada possible? No but they were the ones who built water courses and fencing on the land which made cattle grazing possible....that is what we're discussing or have I missed something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 No but they were the ones who built water courses and fencing on the land which made cattle grazing possible....that is what we're discussing or have I missed something? Bundy built all that? After they started using the land in 1954? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumdin Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 I'm confused. Was the solar plant in the works in 1998, when Bundy lost his last court case? If not, then this whole solar plant thing is a red herring to distract, again from the fact that this is a simple case of a rancher illegally using land, but he made enough of a stink in the right channels (well connected, you might say) to get a bunch of couch cowboys to come down to his land and posture at overmatched federal agents. Well you could go ask the BLM why they wrote what they did on their website. Clearly it was a major factor in motivating them to get Bundys cows off the land in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Well you could go ask the BLM why they wrote what they did on their website. Clearly it was a major factor in motivating them to get Bundys cows off the land in question. Hrm. I'd say a few hundred thousand dollars in unpaid fees and some overprivileged jackhole flouting a court order for 16 years are enough of a motivation, but you clearly don't believe in Occam's razor, so yes, it's a complicated shell game involving endangered tortoises and a canceled solar plant project and a missing page on the BLM's website. Go with it. You're expending an awful lot of time and bending yourself into all sorts of positions trying to chip away at a land ownership case that you have acknowledged Bundy is wrong about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumdin Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Bundy built all that? After they started using the land in 1954? He would have built a lot of it and certainly would have maintained it, until the BLM came along and told him he couldn't. Are you getting some idea of what his beef is with the Feds? He's been told to pay a fee to maintain the infrastructure, the Feds don't maintain it and what's worse tell him he can't either. Without this cattle ranching becomes increasingly difficult and unprofitable. Yes what the Feds did to him is perfectly legal but it's also unfair and immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumdin Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Hrm. I'd say a few hundred thousand dollars in unpaid fees and some overprivileged jackhole flouting a court order for 16 years are enough of a motivation, but you clearly don't believe in Occam's razor, so yes, it's a complicated shell game involving endangered tortoises and a canceled solar plant project and a missing page on the BLM's website. Go with it. You're expending an awful lot of time and bending yourself into all sorts of positions trying to chip away at a land ownership case that you have acknowledged Bundy is wrong about. Well I didn't write that the BLM did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 I'm trying for the life of me to think of the name of the far rightie who has been banned from the board several times but keeps coming back. I can't remember the name, but I'm fairly certain grumdin is the latest incarnation. Which means you're all wasting your time on a troll. This Bundy situation is nothing. He's a skidmark in the country's collective underwear, being made into a hero by a political party that has decided skidmarks like him are the new Freedom Fries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 I'm trying for the life of me to think of the name of the far rightie who has been banned from the board several times but keeps coming back. I can't remember the name, but I'm fairly certain grumdin is the latest incarnation. Which means you're all wasting your time on a troll. This Bundy situation is nothing. He's a skidmark in the country's collective underwear, being made into a hero by a political party that has decided skidmarks like him are the new Freedom Fries. I was starting to wonder if he was an alt. Oh well. On to bigger and better things, other overhyped, overrated darlings of the right wing... Like Rand Paul and Ronald Reagan! "The deficit went through the roof under Reagan," he said while stumping for his father, Ron Paul, at a campaign event in 2007. "So how long did it take Ron Paul to figure out that the guy he had liked, endorsed, campaigned for, campaigned for him? The very first [Reagan] budget. Ron Paul voted 'no' against the very first Reagan budget… Everybody loved this 'great' budget. It was a $100 billion in debt. This was three times greater than Jimmy Carter's worst deficit." Ruh roh! Rand Paul said unorthodox things about Right America's Undead Saint! He better fix his fuckup quick, now that someone noticed! Paul's office promptly issued a statement to Mother Jones. "I have always been and continue to be a great supporter of Ronald Reagan's tax cuts and the millions of jobs they created," the senator said in the statement. "Clearly spending during his tenure did not lessen, but he also had to contend with Democrat majorities in Congress." Ahahahaha, see the shell game being played here? Obama can't get his policies past an obstructionist Republican Congress so he's an ineffectual wimpy leader. Saint Ronnie had to compromise with Congressional Democrats and it's Not His Fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumdin Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 I'm trying for the life of me to think of the name of the far rightie who has been banned from the board several times but keeps coming back. I can't remember the name, but I'm fairly certain grumdin is the latest incarnation. Which means you're all wasting your time on a troll. This Bundy situation is nothing. He's a skidmark in the country's collective underwear, being made into a hero by a political party that has decided skidmarks like him are the new Freedom Fries. Is that what you guys do around here? I was asked to cite sources and I have. You can't refute what I say so what? You throw around some weird ass shit?? Whatever go knock yourselves out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 That is honestly why the GOP's destruction cannot come soon enough, or the remaining sane members in the party grow a goddamned spine and realize the teanuts aren't going to help them in the long run and in fact have damned them with young voters. As long as an entire political party's mindset seems to be that working with the other side is tantamount to treason to the point that they will kill their own legislation if its picked up by a Democrat, this country is on a path downward. Is that what you guys do around here? I was asked to cite sources and I have. You can't refute what I say so what? You throw around some weird ass shit?? Whatever go knock yourselves out. If you're not an alt and you're not a troll, pray tell what makes one sign up for a message board dedicated to A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones and then proceed to ignore all book/show discussion to instead immediately jump into political discussions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Is that what you guys do around here? I was asked to cite sources and I have. You can't refute what I say so what? You throw around some weird ass shit?? Whatever go knock yourselves out. I already told you -- your sources are not convincing. And whatever abuse you think they prove, doesn't make Bundy right about starting this standoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madfunkymonkey Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 I don't know about you but it is pretty f*cking awesome to shout out an early birthday to my nephew G-man, niece Katie-bear and the one an only, my niece Jazzie Jackie. HAPPY BIRTHDAY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 In terms of the Waco situation, I don't think it is helpful to argue about whether or not things "should" have been foreseeable. Such judgments are very susceptible to hindsight bias which can distort people's conclusions. This of course applies not just to Waco but to 9/11, arguments about the outcomes of elections, and many other issues that would be discussed in this thread. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/i-knew-it-all-along-didnt-i-understanding-hindsight-bias.html Since most humans are so susceptible to this bias, it seems to me to be that it's often counterproductive to play a blame game and worry about whether or not certain outcomes "should" have been foreseen. I think it's better to focus on what one can learn from the past to help get better outcomes in the future without making any assumptions as to how easy or difficult foreseeability "should" have been back then.I don't entirely agree. It's true that we are susceptible to hindsight bias, but in this case there wasn't any planning at all for protecting the hostages. It didn't have to be a fire, they could have just as easily killed everyone with guns and there would have still been nothing anyone could do about it. That said, the government does appear to have learned from the past -- in the current event, they chose to leave the cattle be rather than use force against a mixed group of non-combatants and potential combatants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 The solar plant thing is a complete canard which has been shot down everytime Grimdum has brought it up. The straw-grasping has reached legendary proportions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Summah Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 It's like you are acting out some sort of bizarre right wing parody. I'm starting to think we may have a poe on our hands. Quite possibly more than one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Well I didn't write that the BLM did More likely Pynchon is testing the waters with the plot from his new political thriller by allowing it to trickle into the collective consciousness per various internet sockpuppets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted April 23, 2014 Author Share Posted April 23, 2014 If you're not an alt and you're not a troll, pray tell what makes one sign up for a message board dedicated to A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones and then proceed to ignore all book/show discussion to instead immediately jump into political discussions? I did this, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 yeah, I made one post in a book thread and then started dunking douches in miscellaneous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Me, too. Thirteen years of ignoring both books and the alleged TV series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.