- Joined
- Mar 31, 2020
- Messages
- 37,909
- Reaction score
- 29,694
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
No, the Republican Party is not right-wing, and has never been.
Hahahahaha
No, the Republican Party is not right-wing, and has never been.
The Federal Land Reclamation Act
"An Act Appropriating the receipts from the sale and disposal of public lands in certain States and Territories to the construction of irrigation works for the reclamation of arid lands". The act identifies 16 states and territories included in the project: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. It requires surplus fees from sales of land be set aside for a "reclamation fund" for the development of water resources.
Below are listed the larger of the irrigation projects of the United States, with the area reclaimed or to be reclaimed as of 1925.
Arizona: Salt River, 182,000
Arizona-California: Yuma, 158,000
California: Orland, 20,000
Colorado: Grand Valley, 53,000; Uncompahgre Valley, 140,000
Idaho: Boise, 207,000; Minidoka, 120,500
Kansas: Garden City, 10,677
Montana: Blackfeet, 122,500; Flathead, 152,000; Fort Peck, 152,000; Huntley, 32,405; Milk River, 219,557; Sun River, 174,046
Montana-North Dakota: Lower Yellowstone, 60,116
Nebraska-Wyoming: North Platte, 129,270
Nevada: Truckee-Carson, 206,000
New Mexico: Carlsbad, 20,261; Hondo, 10,000; Rio Grande, 155,000
North Dakota: North Dakota Pumping, 26, 314
Oregon: Umatilla, 36,300
Oregon-California: Klamath, 70,000
South Dakota: Belle Fourche, 100,000
Utah: Strawberry Valley, 50,000
Washington: Okanogan, 10,999; Sunnyside, 102,824; Tieton (Teton), 34,071
Wyoming: Shoshone, 164,122
Oh, look! The federal government built the Klamath irrigation system. I don't see the Kroll and Nielsen Dam on that list.
Aldo Leopold wrote a book Sand County Almanac in which he detailed the complex seasonal relationship of the climate, the soil, the water, the plants and animals on his land. He noted that we exploit rather than understanding these relationships and treat them as if they were infinite. In doing so, he said, we are destroying the environment that sustains us. He stated that until we come up with a land ethic and live by it we will keep on destroying our environment. He wrote this book in the 1950s. Since then we have increased our supply of people like the Bundys who would rather get the last drop of water for themselves than work together, reduce demands, and find an alternative to destruction of the environment.And there you have it. Without FEDERAL government intervention in the first place, those land areas are unable to grow crops because they don’t have the water to do so without irrigation. But somehow when a problem arises, it’s suddenly a “state’s rights” issue.
I swear, the right wingers get dumber by the day.
My neighbors have zero impact on whether something is true or false.
Ammon Bundy and his family/others with the same thieving instinct are criminals and cheats.
Loads of farmers do the legal thing and pay for their use of land/water/etc. Their products have that cost in the price of their meat. Thieves like Bundy et al can profit from their thieving behavior and they should be arrested and the wealth they achieved from federal lands/US lands should be recuperated by selling property of Bundy and other thieves until their debt to the US government and extra fines on top of that should be paid. If they cannot pay with their property then their livestock should be sold until the debt is paid.
And for those stealing with menace/violence/threat of violence should be locked up on top of that.
Does that mean we have to approve of lawbreaking violent idiots like the Bundy's and those of their supporters who also use violence and crimes? I can answer that, **** no.Have YOU @Peter King known rural folks? Ever. Yes or No
Speak Clearly Into The Microphone, please.Moi
Does that mean we have to approve of lawbreaking violent idiots like the Bundy's and those of their supporters who also use violence and crimes? I can answer that, **** no.
I grew up in a rural farming community of 1500. I've lived in Alaska in a farming community. I've lived in Indian and Maine in rural farming communities. The Bundys are still ignorant jerks that don't know history, don't understand the Constitution or the requirements of intelligent behavior.Don't have to approve nothin'
I'm just saying exposure to rural folks changed my
city kid, liberal attitudes.
And I wonder among Bundy critics, if there is one who has
known rural folks.
That's very cool. I did not know that about Alaska.According to Article IV, Section 3 of the US Constitution, Congress has the authority to create new States and establish their borders. The federal government is not required to give every parcel of land within those State borders to the newly created State. The federal government may keep whatever land it deems necessary.
For example, Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming was created in 1872, even though Wyoming was not made a State until 1890. So while the State borders of Wyoming include Yellowstone National Park, the park still remains federal lands.
Or in the case of the Alaska Statehood Act of 1958, only 104 million acres from the total land area of 375 million acres was set aside by Congress for the new State. As a result, the State of Alaska actually looks like this (only the yellow bits are State lands):
View attachment 67336500
The issue of water rights is something else entirely, and was largely decided by the Supreme Court in Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908) which held:
Which very effectively gives the federal government control over all navigable waters in the US, unless Congress states otherwise. For example, in the Alaska Statehood Act of 1958 Congress gave the State of Alaska control of its submerged lands under navigable lakes and rivers. So when the National Park Service tried to prohibit the use of hovercraft on rivers within National Parks, the Supreme Court in a 9-0 decision in Sturgeon v. Frost, 587 U.S. ___ (2019) held:
So Alaska is the one exception to the States in the lower-48, because Alaska, not the federal government, owns its navigable water ways.
What exactly are you talking about here? Whom is California stealing from, and what TW country is it subsidizing?Also, people should be mad at California. It’s a master state in stealing resources from others to subsidize a third world country within our borders.
Wow, your absolute certainty about the rest of the world must be reassuring. I found no fascists or USA haters in Costa Rica. Guatemala, on the other hand, had a lot of fascists but few leftists (in power), and again, no USA haters that I encountered. Mexico had few fascists or leftists but some USA haters. And fascist leftist is a silly term. Don't go down that road of claiming that the NSDAP was a "socialist" organization. Socialism, Communism and Fascism are VERY different.The one thing they do have in common is that they are both run by anti-American fascist leftists, in absolutely every case.
Fascism was in fact a socialist movement. Mussolini was a socialist and Hitlers movement shared many of the philosophical underpinnings with socialism.Wow, your absolute certainty about the rest of the world must be reassuring. I found no fascists or USA haters in Costa Rica. Guatemala, on the other hand, had a lot of fascists but few leftists (in power), and again, no USA haters that I encountered. Mexico had few fascists or leftists but some USA haters. And fascist leftist is a silly term. Don't go down that road of claiming that the NSDAP was a "socialist" organization. Socialism, Communism and Fascism are VERY different.
Not true. According to fascism's founder its core philosophy was: "Everything within the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State." It doesn't get any more left-wing than that. The fasces was indeed the symbol of Musollini's fascist party, but it was also more than just a symbol. The bundle of wooden rods symbolized the unity of the people and the axe symbolized the ultimate authority and law-giving status of the ruler. Furthermore, the axe was used (as opposed to a single-blade) to symbolize the power of capital punishment. Considering the underlying philosophy of fascism, it was the ideal symbol.The term fascism anyway doesn’t convey any meaning in terms of philosophy, it was a purely symbolic term, since officials in the Roman Republic would carry a symbol called a “fasces” as evidence of their office.
I was talking about the pure etymology of the word fascism. Fascism itself as a word does not convey any meaning of a political program. It is merely a term Mussolini applied to his movement.Not true. According to fascism's founder its core philosophy was: "Everything within the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State." It doesn't get any more left-wing than that. The fasces was indeed the symbol of Musollini's fascist party, but it was also more than just a symbol. The bundle of wooden rods symbolized the unity of the people and the axe symbolized the ultimate authority and law-giving status of the ruler. Furthermore, the axe was used (as opposed to a single-blade) to symbolize the power of capital punishment. Considering the underlying philosophy of fascism, it was the ideal symbol.
The fasces also predates Rome. They have also been used by both France and the US, primarily in government seals and documents. In the case of the US, also on the back side of a Mercury dime.
I have lived in rural Alaska since 2003. My closest neighbor is just over an acre away, and the nearest town with a population of 7,500 is 8 miles away. I'm also critical of Bundy, since he was clearly unaware that the federal government owns all navigable water ways in the lower-48 and in Hawaii. The only State in the Union that owns more than 8,000 miles of rivers and streams, and 30 million acres of lakes, is Alaska.Don't have to approve nothin'
I'm just saying exposure to rural folks changed my
city kid, liberal attitudes.
And I wonder among Bundy critics, if there is one who has
known rural folks.
Come to think of it
Robert Redford's 2 rural movies
Milagro Beanfield War and an Unfinished Life
were critical of the Park Service
Moi
It is true, fascism was only employed by Mussolini's National Fascist Party of Italy and did not extend beyond Italy's borders. While the Mussollini's fascist principles could be applied to Hitler, it would be more accurate to describe Hitler as a socialist totalitarian and Franco as just a totalitarian. Franco was neither socialist nor conservative, he was just a power-mad totalitarian monarchist.I was talking about the pure etymology of the word fascism. Fascism itself as a word does not convey any meaning of a political program. It is merely a term Mussolini applied to his movement.
Really where the term became popular is when the Comintern uses the term fascism as a propagandistic slur against everyone they didn’t like.
No political movement outside of Italy identified themselves as fascist. The Nazis never called themselves fascist nor did they share the political program of the Italians (and yet everyone things of a Hitler when they hear the word) Franco in Spain and Horthy in Hungary were both conservative monarchists and yet they are called fascists, general Mannerhein in Finland is sometimes referred to as a fascist although this is less common. You begin to realize that the term fascist was used to describe one movement in one country by that movement, and to everyone else it was applied by the communist international
Franco was neither power mad nor totalitarian. He was largely a symbolic figurehead after the conclusion of the civil war and the immediate transition period.It is true, fascism was only employed by Mussolini's National Fascist Party of Italy and did not extend beyond Italy's borders. While the Mussollini's fascist principles could be applied to Hitler, it would be more accurate to describe Hitler as a socialist totalitarian and Franco as just a totalitarian. Franco was neither socialist nor conservative, he was just a power-mad totalitarian monarchist.
Fascism could easily be applied to socialist totalitarianism, but not communism. Communism does not permit any private property. All property is owned by the State. Which is different from socialism that does allow private property ownership. Socialism is when government controls the means of production. Like Truman attempted to do in 1952 when he illegally nationalized the steel industry.
It's not their property.
It's the citizen's property, you and me and everyone else.
Bundy nor anyone else can tell us citizens of the United States what to do with our land.
.
It's not your land and pretending you are the federal government itself doesn't change that. How much is it NOT your land? For much of federal undeveloped land it is a criminal offense for you to merely step on the government's land. In relation to land of the federal government, you have no more rights to be on it than anyone else in the world. The land is not yours nor land of the citizens of the United States. It is land totally owned and controlled by the federal government. You are nobody in relation to the government's land.
How is the federal government banning people obtaining food off the government's land any different than how it was illegal in the story of Robin Hood to hunt for food on the king's land? How it is any different for the 640,000,000 acres of land the federal government controls? You have NO rights as a "citizen" in relation to federal land.
It is not citizens property. It is the property of the federal govt managed for the benefit of all persons, not individuals.Yes Citizen's property
But, Citizens of a State.
Not any Atlantic Coast, Yankee Federal
who veto those State's citizens!
Get It Or Not!
Economic development is not despoilment. Besides you shouldn’t have the right to demand your ability to pretend you care that a deer lives in a specific acre supersedes the ability for someone in more rural areas to have well paying extractive jobsI would much rather see it protected for wildlife and to maintain it’s “natural” state than to be despoiled in “private” hands. As it is, the great bulk of the land does indeed “belong to all of us” because we can ALL use it for our pleasure rather than it being held back from us by private landowners.
I would much rather see it protected for wildlife and to maintain it’s “natural” state than to be despoiled in “private” hands. As it is, the great bulk of the land does indeed “belong to all of us” because we can ALL use it for our pleasure rather than it being held back from us by private landowners.