Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Chicken Dance, until they surrender.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xmV5uHWNag

Even better...

Simply airdrop some THC enriched snacks (chocolate, gummies, etc...). But, don't provide the doritos, funyuns, and twinkies...

When they run out of the munchies on hand... dude... its over.

Good idea, but wrong execution. Airdrop laxative enriched snacks.

Why not both? Being high will cause them to eat more of the laxative enriched snacks.

Capital thinking there.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Chicken Dance, until they surrender.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xmV5uHWNag

Even better...

Simply airdrop some THC enriched snacks (chocolate, gummies, etc...). But, don't provide the doritos, funyuns, and twinkies...

When they run out of the munchies on hand... dude... its over.

Good idea, but wrong execution. Airdrop laxative enriched snacks.

Why not both? Being high will cause them to eat more of the laxative enriched snacks.

This will definitely increase the chances of catching them with their pants down.

Relapse wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Chicken Dance, until they surrender.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xmV5uHWNag

Even better...

Simply airdrop some THC enriched snacks (chocolate, gummies, etc...). But, don't provide the doritos, funyuns, and twinkies...

When they run out of the munchies on hand... dude... its over.

Good idea, but wrong execution. Airdrop laxative enriched snacks.

Why not both? Being high will cause them to eat more of the laxative enriched snacks.

This will definitely increase the chances of catching them with their pants down.

If that were to happen, gak would hit the fan.

This just reinforces my idea that we are all on welfar one way or another.
5 ways bundy benefits from welfare programs he is on.
http://usuncut.com/news/5-government-handouts-bundys-receive/

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This just reinforces my idea that we are all on welfar one way or another.
5 ways bundy benefits from welfare programs he is on.
http://usuncut.com/news/5-government-handouts-bundys-receive/

You could stop most of those by getting the federal Gov't out of the land owning business (which aside from federal installations it needs it should not be in).

Why do the feds own 80% of a state to begin with? How does that sound even slightly reasonable?

Seriously, if private land charges so much more, think how much the Feds are losing in taxes by holding onto land they cannot even efficiently administer to begin with. Let the ranchers cap predators on their own.

I suspect you'll find at least some conservatives who are disgusted by the subsidies handed out, corporate welfare and crony capitalisms are big problems that include but extend way beyond ranching.

Sell it for a profit.

 Frazzled wrote:
Sell it for a profit.

Peicemeal... I don't want the bank of china or walmart owning 50% of a state's territory.

Yep. Or better, give it to the state. The state can do whats its citizens feel is appropriate.

Except New Mexico. That radioactive mutant zone needs to continue to be surrounded by the military. We're in it for the species people!

 Frazzled wrote:
Except New Mexico. That radioactive mutant zone needs to continue to be surrounded by the military. We're in it for the species people!

Wait a minute. Philmont Scout Ranch is there. I had the most awesome time of my youth at that place.

Thats because Scout Ranch is protected by Captain America. Step off the ranch and the muties will getcha!

Honestly, i feel like the Government is playing this about right. Stay in the background, let the locals take the lead and avoid a Federal vs. Miltia fight. That is what they want, and I am all in favor of not letting radicals or any stripe get what they want.

 CptJake wrote:
Why do the feds own 80% of a state to begin with?

First, you steal it from the Natives. Then you contract a land company to sell it to white people. When the land company cannot find buyers, it reverts to the Fed, who then try to find homesteaders. If no homesteaders can be found, it's assigned for other uses such as National and State parks.

 Frazzled wrote:
Sell it for a profit.

Or return it to the natives you stole it from.

Or, we keep it under the Fed because I trust them more thant corporations.
And this isnt about Native LAnd Rights, hell, most of them believe you cant even own land

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Or, we keep it under the Fed because I trust them more thant corporations.
And this isnt about Native LAnd Rights, hell, most of them believe you cant even own land

Believed. Most have gotten over that little quibble.

 CptJake wrote:

Why do the feds own 80% of a state to begin with? How does that sound even slightly reasonable?

Step 1: The Federal Government settles the area.
Step 2: A treaty between the UK and the Federal Government of the US declares the Federal Government of the US as a the owner of the land.
Step 3: The Federal Government, who owns all this land, opens it up for home steading and tells everyone that they can own their own slice of land if they want to.
Step 4: Nobody wants most of the land.
Step 5: Federal Governments keeps the land that nobody wants.
Step 6: The territory becomes a state and people who own their land keep on owning their land (settlers, cities, local/state/federal governments).
Step 7: ????
Step 8: Complain that the federal government still owns the land that they couldn't get anybody to take 150 years ago.

The more I heard about this event, the more it sounds like an episode of squidbillies.

I mean, sizing an vacant building in the middle of nowhere in the middle of winter to protest the sentencing of a complete stranger, only to run out of food and get frozen out is pretty ridiculous.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
The more I heard about this event, the more it sounds like an episode of squidbillies.

I mean, sizing an vacant building in the middle of nowhere in the middle of winter to protest the sentencing of a complete stranger, only to run out of food and get frozen out is pretty ridiculous.

There hardly a threat long as you isolate them and just wait. They will run out of food, beer or fuel at some point.

John Green did an amusing video about this pointing out that if the Federal Government has no right to this land, then logically the only people who actually do have the right (since the settlers were granted rights from the Fed originally) are the native tribe that were living there at the time it was annexed. Apparently there are about 300 of them left.

 CptJake wrote:


Why do the feds own 80% of a state to begin with?

Because they're the ones who negotiated for it in the first place. It's not like a US citizen walked up to France or Mexico and paid for the land. The US government paid/won it.

Land is always owned by someone. It's not just spontaneously owned out of nothing.

 LordofHats wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


Why do the feds own 80% of a state to begin with?

Because they're the ones who negotiated for it in the first place. It's not like a US citizen walked up to France or Mexico and paid for the land. The US government paid/won it.

Land is always owned by someone. It's not just spontaneously owned out of nothing.

In Oregon? You may want to look up the history... The Spanish lost Nevada in a war.

Honestly once it becomes a state the fed should have transferred all territory to the state.

 CptJake wrote:


In Oregon? You may want to look up the history... The Spanish lost Nevada in a war.

The Oregon Territory was acquired by the Federal Govenment as part of a treaty with the British in 1848 (technically speaking, how the US got the pacific Northwest is a mix of 'we bought it from France', but Britain said 'no it's mine').

Further the Spanish didn't lose Nevada. They lost Mexico, which included Nevada until we fought the Mexican-American War and took Nevada (and Arizona, New Mexico, and Californy) in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

But that's all beside the point. The French, British, Spanish, Mexicans (or anybody) was not dealing with US citizens, they dealt with the US government who acquired the land in treaty, purchase, and war. If they didn't own the land at that point (disregarding any natives) who the hell did? If no one ever settled the land or bought it under the numerous programs the US government used to distribute lands if acquired, of course the US government still owns it.

EDIT: Copy pasting this from a PM from a more astute poster than I who bothered to type out a timeline;

The timeline is such:

-- Treaty of 1818 established the 49th parallel east of the Lake of the Woods as the border of British-held lands.
---- As a part of this treaty, "Oregon Country" established as shared land between the USA and UK.
---- Was disputed by Spain and Russia.
---- Oregon Country was most of Idaho and Oregon, all of Washington part of Montana, and even a portion of British Colombia.
-- Adams-Onis Treaty of 1821 ceded Spain's claims to Oregon Country.
---- America's claims of Texas were ceded to Spain, not that we really believed that at the time
-- Russo-American Treaty of 1824 and Anglo-Russian Convention of 1825 ceded Russian claims to Oregon Country.
---- They did keep a fort in California until the 1840s.
-- Oregon Treaty of 1846 ended British claims of Oregon Country, save for that which was north of the 49th parallel.
---- Oregon Country vanished as a region, becoming unorganized territory.
---- With no more disputes from other countries, Oregon Country was recognized as owned by the United States.
-- 1848, Oregon Territory was established, covering what used to be most of Oregon Country.
-- 1853, Washington Territory was split from Oregon Territory.
-- 1859, western portion of Oregon Territory was admitted as a state, remainder given to Washington Territory.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
Honestly once it becomes a state the fed should have transferred all territory to the state.

Well that's not how it happened so it's a bit late to be crying about how things should have been 100 years ago.

And even then, it's just the same deal. The State governments aren't exactly going to stand around letting people use state lands without paying applicable fees, or setting fires to cover up poaching.

 Da Boss wrote:
John Green did an amusing video about this pointing out that if the Federal Government has no right to this land, then logically the only people who actually do have the right (since the settlers were granted rights from the Fed originally) are the native tribe that were living there at the time it was annexed. Apparently there are about 300 of them left.

Can't exactly steal from people who lacked the concept of owning land in the first place.

And face it, the Native Americans got into a war with the US. They lost, get over it. Both sides were jerks, get over it. Join the modern world and stop wringing hands over stuff that happened 200 years ago.

 Grey Templar wrote:
. Join the modern world and stop wringing hands over stuff that happened 200 years ago.

Can Bundy & Company do the same about stuff that happened 150 years ago?

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
. Join the modern world and stop wringing hands over stuff that happened 200 years ago.

Can Bundy & Company do the same about stuff that happened 150 years ago?

Well yeah. What are you referring to exactly?

The land belongs to anyone with the strength to take it. Everything else is just lawyer talkin'

 Bromsy wrote:
The land belongs to anyone with the strength to take it. Everything else is just lawyer talkin'

I see we're citing Native Peoples v. Winchester

Too dark?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Can't exactly steal from people who lacked the concept of owning land in the first place. .

Not quite true. We generally viewed it as communal property. And the people in the area had a very good idea of owning land before the US ever existed, they'd been trading with the French.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And face it, the Native Americans got into a war with the US. They lost, get over it.

You're thinking of the Nez Perce. The Coeur d'Alene were the ones in that area, if I remember right. IIRC they never had a war with the US, and were just ripped off at gunpoint.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:
The land belongs to anyone with the strength to take it. Everything else is just lawyer talkin'

Right up until the war crimes tribunal starts hanging people.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
And the people in the area had a very good idea of owning land before the US ever existed, they'd been trading with the French.

This thread is no place for truth, just feelings about what people think to have been true..

 BaronIveagh wrote:
IIRC they never had a war with the US, and were just ripped off at gunpoint.

One need not even be neutral, settlers turned on their Native allies as well. But oh baby that sweet land was totally worth it as it never came up again and everyone lived happily ever after.

 Ahtman wrote:
This thread is no place for truth, just feelings about what people think to have been true...

That pretty much is true for nearly all of the OT forum.

A little background on the patriots this whole thing is in defense of. Warning, it's a little hard to read.