terolla Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 Dude, you cant compare hawaii law enforcement to the mainland. totally different. Link to comment
terolla Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 law enforcement in mexico has less corruption than hawaii law enforcement Link to comment
tr8er Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 Dude, you cant compare hawaii law enforcement to the mainland. totally different. Same rules, same mindset(largely). But your point is not without merit. Link to comment
RatVonDude Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 the cops in Oakland are always " so busy doing important things " that you don't even see them anymore. I could give a fuck, they won't come anyway. Link to comment
Ratwagon1600 Posted December 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 It should have said personal friends, (not,, never met anyone), i didn't re-read what i posted ,, thought i edited it differently.. I also maybe should have included these were normal traffic stops NOT blowing through neighborhoods ( and stop signs WTF??) at 80!!,, if i lived where you pulled shit like that it wouldn't be a police weapon i would be worried aboot.... Overreacting?? You have no fuckin idea And............, all this, despite my dislike for our gun laws, reminds me how good Aus (and perhaps Canada) is/are the best place(s) on earth to live. P.s. god bless Aus, Can, Nz, Uk, Us (AUSCANZUKUS). Those of you in the know will know what this alliance means!!! 2 Link to comment
Chuck Most Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 I've noticed something- a lot of the people I know, who are fond of saying "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" have been strangely silent regarding the shooting of those cops in New York. Look at what happened- one bad guy with a gun killed TWO good guys with guns. Two guys who were extensively trained how to handle and use a gun were killed by some asshole nut job with a gun. Then again, a lot of those same "good guy with a gun" people were cheering for Cliven Bundy when his supporters were pointing guns at police officers. That's why I have problems with the hardcore pro-gun people, even though I don't have any issues with firearms themselves. 2 Link to comment
john510 Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 law enforcement in mexico has less corruption than hawaii law enforcement Now thats funny,im guessing you've never been to Mexico.If you cross that border driving anything other than a beat up POS you better have quite a few 20 dollar bills for mordida.You will need them.I once got ticketed for doing an illegal U-turn in a culdesac.My fishing buddy paid 200 bucks for running a stop sign that didnt exist. Link to comment
terolla Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 Now thats funny,im guessing you've never been to Mexico.If you cross that border driving anything other than a beat up POS you better have quite a few 20 dollar bills for mordida.You will need them.I once got ticketed for doing an illegal U-turn in a coldesac.My fishing buddy paid 200 bucks for running a stop sign that didnt exist. it was a joke john, ive had my brush with the law down there. Link to comment
Z-train Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 I've noticed something- a lot of the people I know, who are fond of saying "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" have been strangely silent regarding the shooting of those cops in New York. Look at what happened- one bad guy with a gun killed TWO good guys with guns. Two guys who were extensively trained how to handle and use a gun were killed by some asshole nut job with a gun. Then again, a lot of those same "good guy with a gun" people were cheering for Cliven Bundy when his supporters were pointing guns at police officers. That's why I have problems with the hardcore pro-gun people, even though I don't have any issues with firearms themselves. You mean you can't tell the difference between to guys sitting in a car being ambushed and the government trying to take land that wasn't theirs? Link to comment
Chuck Most Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 You mean you can't tell the difference between to guys sitting in a car being ambushed and the government trying to take land that wasn't theirs? Since when is federal land not owned by the government? Nobody was trying to take land- the government was removing cattle from federal grazing land, all because Bundy couldn't renew a simple permit. Link to comment
Z-train Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 Since when is federal land not owned by the government? Nobody was trying to take land- the government was removing cattle from federal grazing land, all because Bundy couldn't renew a simple permit.Re-new a permit to use YOUR LAND?!!!Sorry,but Bundy's family had been on the land for over 100 years.It was his.Not to mention that it was Harry reid was behind this all because his kid works for a Chinese company who wanted the use of the land.If it was as you say, there would not have been any argument. Link to comment
Chuck Most Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 Government land. The Bunkerville Allotment is GOVERNMENT LAND. If he'd paid for the permit for his cattle to graze there, the the government would not have intervened. There are no legally recognized rights public-domain rights pertaining to the area- any he may have had, he lost in one of his many Supreme Court trials. I seem to remember reading that he never even attempted to prove the existence of any such rights when he was given the chance to do exactly that. If his family had been using the land for 100 years before he took offense to renewing his permit, well, tough shit for him. He can piss and moan about that all he likes... but I doubt he's bitching much about the subsidies and tax breaks he gets from the government as a rancher. But ask him to pay a fee (tax) on a permit, and watch the shit hit the fan... Not to say I don't believe the government could have handled it way better than they did, but then again, when has the US Government ever been known for its subtle tactics. As far as the Harry Reid thing- the company, ENN, had already pulled the plug on their plans in the area. No big shocker there...kind of hard to make a deal to build solar panels on protected federal land. If none of the above applied, I'd be more willing to believe it. But as it sits, the Harry Reid connection carries about as much water as the "Sandy Hook Was A Government Plot" theories. Link to comment
datzenmike Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 This is the way I see it also from up here. The land was basically rented for over? a hundred years from the government. Don't pay the rent... the landlord can evict. Link to comment
tr8er Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 It's amusing how anything can become a partisan issue as long as one of the bobble head party puppets brings it up on the news or radio. This one seems like a freeloader, looking for free shit from the gov. Yet the republicans were up in arms in support because the talk shows on the right took it up. It just felt backwards the whole way for me. 1 Link to comment
Z-train Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 Mike-no-his family had the land prior. If it is otherwise, then why did they back down? Why have they not made another move? Link to comment
Chuck Most Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 At this point, is there anything that HASN'T become a partisan issue? 1 Link to comment
datzenmike Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 He owns it or the government? Link to comment
Mattndew76 Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 The land was to be turned into a solar energy farm brokered by Harry Fucken Reid and championed by his benefactor son. The only legal way the GOV could evict the ranch owner was to have the EPA come in and deem the land protected. So called endangered turtle. Happened a few times locally here in Oregon. EPA comes in and say they found a protected species and locks up the ownership of the land. 15 years later when everyone has forgotten or don't give a rats ass anymore, a Government building pops up on the land.....,..Or a project promised to the highest donating constituent. Its not partisan... Just some people don't dig hard enough and go with what easiest to grasp. Lazy, Busy, Ignorant, and what ever reason, people just don't give a shit when other people get pissed on. Its not my problem so why should I care? The trick of marginalizing anyone seems to work too. So if a guy stands up for himself the opposite side just has to call him a name and the lemmings follow right along. TV and the Propaganda machine said he was a radical. So he must be...... 2 Link to comment
Z-train Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 Government now,but before it did,his ancestors ranched it/farm it(what ever) over a 100 years ago.So he is grandfathered. ANd MattNDew is correct.If it WAS the governments to do with as they please,then they would have run right to court and had a Judge rule in their favor.But they haven't.Which can mean only one thing.... Link to comment
q-tip Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 So here is the deal with government land WE THE PEOPLE FUCKING OWN IT!!!!! The problem with that is that the government doesn't seem to know they are owned by the people any more because they seem to get to do whatever they want. 2 Link to comment
Guest Rick-rat Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 And............, all this, despite my dislike for our gun laws, reminds me how good Aus (and perhaps Canada) is/are the best place(s) on earth to live. P.s. god bless Aus, Can, Nz, Uk, Us (AUSCANZUKUS). Those of you in the know will know what this alliance means!!! It means you still give money to a bunch of in-bred royalty for nothing B) 1 Link to comment
Mattndew76 Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 I have read the Conspiracy and the Fact by Fact break downs of the Cliven Ranch. The 9000 acres of land was deemed wilderness protected in 1994, and Cliven has been fighting it since. Ancestral rights type defense. Poor defense really..He really should have paid the prices the lease had stipulated. The solar farm was to be 50 miles from the ranch on the same 9000 acres. Even though the land was deemed protected wilderness not suitable to be grazed. It did not make it potentially usable as the largest solar farm ever built. The solar deal fell through because they couldn't lock down enough power contracts NOT because it was protected land. See the issue?............ Though Harry Reid knew it was federally protected land he was still involved in 5700 acres of that 9000 to be used as a solar farm regardless. So it makes for an appearance that it is OK for his government interests, or sweetheart deals but not good enough for private individuals..... 1 Link to comment
Mattndew76 Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 And............, all this, despite my dislike for our gun laws, reminds me how good Aus (and perhaps Canada) is/are the best place(s) on earth to live. P.s. god bless Aus, Can, Nz, Uk, Us (AUSCANZUKUS). Those of you in the know will know what this alliance means!!! God bless all the English colonies. Link to comment
Recommended Posts