Jump to content


Member Since 16 Jul 2007
Offline Last Active Apr 24 2015 03:49 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Capitalism, Communism or just plain Theft?

24 April 2015 - 03:41 PM

It's a ridiculous use of the government.  It's one of the many examples of government that doesn't benefit anybody.

Can someone explain the purpose of regulating the supply/price of produce via this manner or subsidies? Is it something the farmers are in favor of? I know next to nothing about this. 

In Topic: Capitalism, Communism or just plain Theft?

24 April 2015 - 03:40 PM

As usual, The Daily Show gets to the heart of the matter.



Jones brought up some very raisonable points.  :whistling:

In Topic: Capitalism, Communism or just plain Theft?

24 April 2015 - 03:06 PM

I couldn't believe my ears when I first heard about this story.  It seems that there is actually a Raisin Administrative Committee which is overseen by the Department of Agriculture.  Their job?  To seize almost half (47%) of a raisin farmer's crop.  In return, the raisin farmer might receive some money after the raisins are sold and the Raisin Administrative Committee "covers their cost".  To quote the Wikapedia article linked above:



What got my attention is the Fifth Amendment of The Bill of Rights states that private property can not be taken for public use, without just compensation.  This was challenged by one particular farmer, and the case made it to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Of course the liberal 9th Circuit Court disagreed and said that the Fifth Amendment only applies to real estate.   :wacko:


The case has made it to The Supreme Court, and it appears that the court will probably rule in favor of the farmer.


Here are a few news articles related to the story.


From Fox News

From The LA Times

From USA Today


This is just another example of how government has gotten too big.

This feels like a joke. It just sounds so absurd  :sick:

In Topic: BOOM! Fed Up Citizens Fight Back Against Freeway Blocking Protests!

24 April 2015 - 03:02 PM

I'm arguing against the existence of this law from the start. No one has argued against the existence of a speed limit. So the arguments are not the same, if a law is not justifiable in ALL cases I support non-compliance, I'm very consistent in that regard. Now if you're taking the road of non-compliance then confrontation is inevitable. To assume the system can always be corrected from working within the confides of the system is assuming the system is correctable. If an access fee was charged for you to drive on the highway for example (A government toll you can call it) I'd take the same stand what right does the federal government have to charge a toll for access, those roads belong to the public (we paid for them). That land long before the government went broke in the 1930's was used to graze cattle, so because the Feds need a fund raiser the ranchers should just bend over and pay for access to land they've been grazing for generations? 


I'm not as much of a pacifist as Bundy is, he tried to keep the waters calm and regardless of his outdated views on race worked to stop a confrontation. I'm a bit more pro-confrontation, the Fed needs to be confronted and challenged it's out of control.


Now if you want to pretend ranchers fighting fee's for access to land is the same as a thief who stole products from another private entity and then not paying his probation fee's we're on two different levels.




You see plenty of white in the west?

Plenty people have advocated the removal of speed limits. It's a nanny state thing isn't it? 


State ran tolls are a thing already and you yourself have advocated privatizing all roads as if those would have tolls on them. You would be ok with those tolls though. 


The problem here is you take issue with the government operating, in some cases (but not others for some reason you wont elaborate on) as private industry does and making money to fund operations. I don't see the problem in that. Why should the gov not make any money off lands it owns and use those monies to fund other programs? 


I am not pretending anything. I am stating the legal stance that he was trespassing and grazing with a permit in willful and direct violation of the law. This has been upheld by multiple courts multiple times. We can argue wether the land should be grazable (is that a word?) at no fee all we want but that does not ignore the current law on the books that has been upheld by the courts showing he is in violation of the law. 

In Topic: BOOM! Fed Up Citizens Fight Back Against Freeway Blocking Protests!

24 April 2015 - 01:41 PM

Here it is in a picture, where the hell is a rancher supposed to graze his cattle?



There is plenty of white there. Or he could continue to lawfully pay for the grazing permit like 40,000+ other ranchers do. Seems simple to me.