Epic land grab probable. - DFWstangs Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 21 (permalink) Old 03-12-2010, 07:17 PM Thread Starter
Rockin' da fumanchu
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the straight and narrow,stumbling at best, only by Gods grace.
Posts: 7,224
Thumbs down Epic land grab probable.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...use-land-grab/

A secret administration memo has surfaced revealing plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job- creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development. Worse, this land grab would dry up tax revenue that's essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers.

The document lists 14 properties that, according to the document, "might be good candidates" for Mr. Obama to nab through presidential proclamation.

Administration officials claim the document is merely the product of a brainstorming session...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
We should blindly believe this 'cause they've never lied. :blink:

The 21-page document, marked "Internal Draft-NOT FOR RELEASE," names 14 different lands Mr. Obama could completely close for development by unilaterally designating them as "monuments" under the 1906 Antiquities Act.


My text in red.





Listen to my buddy, Jeff Bolton, from 6-9 AM Mon-Fri.

Obamanomics = Trickle Up Poverty

Think you need to format/reinstall your OS(XP), read this first.
Tx Redneck is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 21 (permalink) Old 03-12-2010, 10:17 PM
Lifer
 
MR TINFOIL HAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NAU
Posts: 4,982
I heard about this from several people but never saw the article. You're correct they never lie.

Our government needs our help, they have an addiction. Our government is addicted to our money. Since they always have our best interest at heart it's time we return the favor. We need to have an intervention, for the governments own good of course. It's just irresponsible for us to let people with a known money addiction continue to handle our money. Lets have an intervention now so we can help these sick individuals.
MR TINFOIL HAT is offline  
post #3 of 21 (permalink) Old 03-13-2010, 12:47 AM
Canada is welcome here.
 
justinsn95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ft worth
Posts: 4,039
Yeah well, what Mr. Soetoro says, and what is able to do, is two different things. His retarded democrat ass can scheme up anything he damn well pleases. But let's see him do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aksthem1 View Post
i think thedark1337 is a pretty cool guy. eh plays the game and doesnt afraid of anything


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chillaxed View Post
- later on when i was about 16 i suddenly came to the realization that i had zero appeal to women and i said "i'm going to say i'm gay from now on"
justinsn95 is offline  
 
post #4 of 21 (permalink) Old 03-13-2010, 07:55 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 445
What a great way to start a revolution.

Wars have been fought over this type of bullshit.

68 Coupe- 351w, Twisted Wedge heads, XE284 cam, T5, disc conversion, former 6 cylinder car.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DOHCTR View Post
(thats right, in a fucking duel with guns, Jackson allowed his oppenent to fucking shoot at him before shooting back). Now we have Obama, who is a little bitch. God damn the presidency of the US is just not the same as it used to be.
351Coupe is offline  
post #5 of 21 (permalink) Old 03-13-2010, 10:02 AM
duh...duh....duh
 
ceyko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ES BEER
Posts: 9,543
So, that article does not tell me shit.

Yeah, the government is going to try and snap up 10 million acres across several states.

k.

What kind of land?
What will the use it for?
Who owns it now?
What is it being used for now? Apparently logging, ranching and farming. Which would mean it is farm land and that's who owns it right?

In case you have not noticed farming sucks more and more every year for farmers. We are losing farmers already as the old timers die off. At least that's what I see the most of in the NE and I'm sure they are not the only farmers that are fed up.

10 million acres is a good bit of land to folks like us. I can see the need for concerns but as I already said, what does this article say? Nothing.

It could be used for military bases which would generate more jobs and tax revenue from local businesses then farm land. Maybe wildlife preservation, which is a necessary evil that irritates almost everyone.

Hell, Dallas County Comm Colleges have 2-4 million...maybe more just in Dallas. What's 10 million over several states?

My '03 Sold.
ceyko is offline  
post #6 of 21 (permalink) Old 03-13-2010, 11:06 AM
makin' bacon
 
Stevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Longview,TX
Posts: 5,752
With a bill that passed several years ago, the federal government declared that all watersheds in the US were to be governed by laws pertaining to conservation, under the discretion of the said conservation agencies . And then shortly after wards, they passed a new law that declared any and all connected bodies of water (including those that seasonally run dry), from the smallest creeks and streams, to basic runoff (ditches) from fields to be included in the definition of watersheds.

Now, this doesn't sound all that bad, until you realize that they are wanting to force every landowner (at their discretion) that has these creeks and runoffs on their property to put up a conservation 'easement' that stretches for hundreds and sometimes thousands of feet to each side of these creeks and runoffs. In the name of conservation, your land near these creeks will be untouchable by you for development, farming/irrigation, or ranching. It will basically be useless (unless you are a frog or lily pad), and yet you will still have to pay taxes on it.

Stevo

Animal whisperings

Intoxicate the night

Hypnotize the desperate

Slow motion light

Wash away into the rain

Blood, milk and sky


Stevo is offline  
post #7 of 21 (permalink) Old 03-13-2010, 01:57 PM
duh...duh....duh
 
ceyko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ES BEER
Posts: 9,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevo View Post
Now, this doesn't sound all that bad, until you realize that they are wanting to force every landowner (at their discretion) that has these creeks and runoffs on their property to put up a conservation 'easement' that stretches for hundreds and sometimes thousands of feet to each side of these creeks and runoffs. In the name of conservation, your land near these creeks will be untouchable by you for development, farming/irrigation, or ranching. It will basically be useless (unless you are a frog or lily pad), and yet you will still have to pay taxes on it.

Stevo
*nod* Understood. My Dad builds houses for a living and ran into some of these issues already. They invested in hundreds (maybe thousands)of acres for development, but then some law changed (maybe what you're referring to) and now they are having major issues getting permits - which sucks. Why? Small but efficient and GOOD company. However, no major assets and they put a lot of assets into that land. w/houses on it, it is good profit. Right now though, it is causing them heartache.

My '03 Sold.
ceyko is offline  
post #8 of 21 (permalink) Old 03-13-2010, 09:54 PM
PAN
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under a rock
Posts: 20,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceyko View Post
10 million acres is a good bit of land to folks like us. I can see the need for concerns but as I already said, what does this article say? Nothing.

It could be used for military bases which would generate more jobs and tax revenue from local businesses then farm land. Maybe wildlife preservation, which is a necessary evil that irritates almost everyone.

Hell, Dallas County Comm Colleges have 2-4 million...maybe more just in Dallas. What's 10 million over several states?

Liberal!


Don't military bases require MORE tax money? Gee, what say we create MORE abuse?


Why let them sieze privately held land, regardless of use, that which people have worked to obtain? Saying they should be allowed to do so is shameful on your part.
Fox466 is offline  
post #9 of 21 (permalink) Old 03-13-2010, 09:55 PM
Canada is welcome here.
 
justinsn95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ft worth
Posts: 4,039
I don't think wildlife preserves are a necessary evil. I think they are necessary, though. Who wants to live in a world where there are no woods to go camping in, or to hunt in? And where the lakes and ponds are all just a bunch of oversized septic tanks? If you don't want to live in a world like that, then you have to put into law, what is, and what is not, ok to kill. Cause if not you and I both know, that it will just be overrun eventually. I don't see why they need that much land for it, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aksthem1 View Post
i think thedark1337 is a pretty cool guy. eh plays the game and doesnt afraid of anything


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chillaxed View Post
- later on when i was about 16 i suddenly came to the realization that i had zero appeal to women and i said "i'm going to say i'm gay from now on"
justinsn95 is offline  
post #10 of 21 (permalink) Old 03-14-2010, 09:28 AM
duh...duh....duh
 
ceyko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ES BEER
Posts: 9,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox466 View Post
Liberal!


Don't military bases require MORE tax money? Gee, what say we create MORE abuse?


Why let them sieze privately held land, regardless of use, that which people have worked to obtain? Saying they should be allowed to do so is shameful on your part.
So, I had a big argument typed up and reread the original post and missed this one (Or actually did not fully understand the wording) specific part...

Quote:
through presidential proclamation.
Now if the land is being bought from farmers who are selling and it is agreed upon by the farmer, I'm in agreement. Farmers ARE selling off their land left and right. Either through need or the old timers die off and their family sells it off since they don't want that life for whatever reason. This is one thing.

If what I understand now of a presidential proclamation is accurate, I'll concur with the drama in this thread. In short, that it is bullshit regardless of what it'll be used for in the future. I don't care if you own one or 10 million acres of desert, it is yours. If you sell it, that is different then having it taken.

Also, I don't consider any news source as....reliable. However, I consider The Washington Times more credible then most of the ones posted in threads that shout conspiracy.

In other words, I'll stand corrected if "presidential proclamation" basically means "take" the land from the rightful owners.

My '03 Sold.
ceyko is offline  
post #11 of 21 (permalink) Old 03-14-2010, 09:37 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceyko View Post
I'll stand corrected if "presidential proclamation" basically means "take" the land from the rightful owners.
In this type of situation in the past, the government offered the landowner "fair market value" for their property. I don't know either if a Presidential Proclamation alters that requirement.
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #12 of 21 (permalink) Old 03-14-2010, 09:43 AM
duh...duh....duh
 
ceyko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ES BEER
Posts: 9,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Majestyk View Post
In this type of situation in the past, the government offered the landowner "fair market value" for their property. I don't know either if a Presidential Proclamation alters that requirement.
Unfortunately, again in PA, I've known people to lose their land with fair market value. What sucks is...

Either 1...

They love their land so much FMV is not enough.

OR

FMV was higher then what was offered.

These were for road expansions and so forth though. Not a full land grab.

So, IMO it has to be for sale to begin with. Even around here with our road growth and all that. They are buying up people's stuff. Seems like most goes smooth, but I often wondered how many people were forced or otherwise hard balled.

My '03 Sold.
ceyko is offline  
post #13 of 21 (permalink) Old 03-14-2010, 10:18 AM
Lifer
 
67camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nevada,Texas Custom Tranny Builder
Posts: 1,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceyko View Post
Hell, Dallas County Comm Colleges have 2-4 million...maybe more just in Dallas. What's 10 million over several states?
Are you saying that DCCC owns 2-4 million acres in dallas county? There is only about 581,000 acres in all of dallas county. WTF???

You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertnut View Post
Bullet sort of looses his grip when he factually gets his ass tore off.
67camino is offline  
post #14 of 21 (permalink) Old 03-14-2010, 10:53 AM
duh...duh....duh
 
ceyko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ES BEER
Posts: 9,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67camino View Post
Are you saying that DCCC owns 2-4 million acres in dallas county? There is only about 581,000 acres in all of dallas county. WTF???
My God, I've been proven an idiot again. I'm bowing out of this thread.

You're correct...they are 200-400 acre plots. Not 200-400K acre plots.

My '03 Sold.
ceyko is offline  
post #15 of 21 (permalink) Old 03-14-2010, 11:01 AM
duh...duh....duh
 
ceyko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ES BEER
Posts: 9,543
Knowing my estimations were off, and if Texas has around 172,044,800 acres (which is taken from some wiki)...

Fort Hood is supposedly only around 159K acres.

Know I'm really curious.

My '03 Sold.
ceyko is offline  
post #16 of 21 (permalink) Old 03-14-2010, 12:17 PM
makin' bacon
 
Stevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Longview,TX
Posts: 5,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by justinsn95 View Post
I don't think wildlife preserves are a necessary evil. I think they are necessary, though. Who wants to live in a world where there are no woods to go camping in, or to hunt in? And where the lakes and ponds are all just a bunch of oversized septic tanks? If you don't want to live in a world like that, then you have to put into law, what is, and what is not, ok to kill. Cause if not you and I both know, that it will just be overrun eventually. I don't see why they need that much land for it, though.
This is all find and dandy, until the government comes onto your forty acres, tells you to stop planting your crops, says you can't let your mule graze on the grass or drink from the stream, and that you have to remove your house from the 'easement' because it interferes with the mating rituals of the pygmy suckerfish. The government has decided that the land that has been in your family for the last two hundred years will better serve the world if it is turned into a 'wildlife preserve'.

Oh yeah by the way, you still have to pay taxes on the land, because technically it's still YOUR land, but you can't do shit with it now except allow the algae and mosquito larvae grow in federally mandated peace.

There is a huge difference between having animal sanctuaries and wildlife preserves, and the federal government forcing you to convert your privately owned land into such against your will.

Stevo

Animal whisperings

Intoxicate the night

Hypnotize the desperate

Slow motion light

Wash away into the rain

Blood, milk and sky


Stevo is offline  
post #17 of 21 (permalink) Old 03-15-2010, 12:37 AM
Canada is welcome here.
 
justinsn95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ft worth
Posts: 4,039
Oh yeah I totally agree. If the government is going to say that, then the next words out of their mouth needs to be "And here is our offer to buy it, at more than twice what it is really worth on the real market." If not, then they need to piss off. But I still say the biosphere needs to be preserved, (in huge bulk, since that's what it takes to sustain life on earth) even if some land has to be legally bought from some people to preserve it. A couple of Yellowstone parks aren't going to cut it. You can't build the city park in new york city and say "Well, we did our part. Nature is saved. If the shit hits the fan, this will be able to feed us." Eventually (probly in like 50 years, but still) we will have to limit our own population, just like china does. Which I have no problem with. Only have two kids. Nobody needs to have 500 kids like a bunch of cockroaches, like all mexicans feel the need to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aksthem1 View Post
i think thedark1337 is a pretty cool guy. eh plays the game and doesnt afraid of anything


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chillaxed View Post
- later on when i was about 16 i suddenly came to the realization that i had zero appeal to women and i said "i'm going to say i'm gay from now on"
justinsn95 is offline  
post #18 of 21 (permalink) Old 03-15-2010, 01:09 AM Thread Starter
Rockin' da fumanchu
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the straight and narrow,stumbling at best, only by Gods grace.
Posts: 7,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by justinsn95 View Post
Oh yeah I totally agree. If the government is going to say that, then the next words out of their mouth needs to be "And here is our offer to buy it, at more than twice what it is really worth on the real market." If not, then they need to piss off. But I still say the biosphere needs to be preserved, (in huge bulk, since that's what it takes to sustain life on earth) even if some land has to be legally bought from some people to preserve it. A couple of Yellowstone parks aren't going to cut it. You can't build the city park in new york city and say "Well, we did our part. Nature is saved. If the shit hits the fan, this will be able to feed us." Eventually (probly in like 50 years, but still) we will have to limit our own population, just like china does. Which I have no problem with. Only have two kids. Nobody needs to have 500 kids like a bunch of cockroaches, like all mexicans feel the need to do.





Listen to my buddy, Jeff Bolton, from 6-9 AM Mon-Fri.

Obamanomics = Trickle Up Poverty

Think you need to format/reinstall your OS(XP), read this first.
Tx Redneck is offline  
post #19 of 21 (permalink) Old 03-15-2010, 01:11 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by justinsn95 View Post
Oh yeah I totally agree. If the government is going to say that, then the next words out of their mouth needs to be "And here is our offer to buy it, at more than twice what it is really worth on the real market." If not, then they need to piss off. But I still say the biosphere needs to be preserved, (in huge bulk, since that's what it takes to sustain life on earth) even if some land has to be legally bought from some people to preserve it. A couple of Yellowstone parks aren't going to cut it. You can't build the city park in new york city and say "Well, we did our part. Nature is saved. If the shit hits the fan, this will be able to feed us." Eventually (probly in like 50 years, but still) we will have to limit our own population, just like china does. Which I have no problem with. Only have two kids. Nobody needs to have 500 kids like a bunch of cockroaches, like all mexicans feel the need to do.
Your last argument is pretty damned stupid.

And I'll tell you why. If the United States of America is going to exist in any way shape or form 50 years from now, we will have those very same Mexican Americans you despise to think.

And I can give you several reasons this is true.

They are having kids, lots of them. Who do you think is going to be the backbone of the work force in the southern US in 20-30 years? It's going to be these very same Mexican American kids you despise.

Furthermore, they live in larger family units, and work for less wages. Because of their lifestyle they require less wages. In a lot of ways this makes them pretty damned smart. It will in the long run make the United States a more competitive business environment and eliminate the need to send jobs overseas.

Lastly and most shockingly the most conservative politician in Texas today is a hispanic female. That would've been literally impossible 20 years ago.

My advice to anyone under 40 is simple. Ditch your stupid racial ideas and learn to speak Spanish.

The two most powerful economies in the United States are California and Texas, which are also two states with the highest percentages of hispanic residents.... you need to get a clue.
AnthonyS is offline  
post #20 of 21 (permalink) Old 03-15-2010, 07:09 AM
Canada is welcome here.
 
justinsn95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ft worth
Posts: 4,039
I know, I know, I'm completely at odds with all other conservatives in that I don't think we should poison ourselves to death. I knew I would get those kinds of replies when I started that conversation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aksthem1 View Post
i think thedark1337 is a pretty cool guy. eh plays the game and doesnt afraid of anything


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chillaxed View Post
- later on when i was about 16 i suddenly came to the realization that i had zero appeal to women and i said "i'm going to say i'm gay from now on"
justinsn95 is offline  
post #21 of 21 (permalink) Old 03-15-2010, 08:11 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyS View Post
.....learn to speak Spanish
No

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyS
The two most powerful economies in the United States are California and Texas, which are also two states with the highest percentages of hispanic residents.... you need to get a clue.
Actually it could just as easily be because those two states have the highest level of oil production in the lower 48.....perhaps it is you who needs to get a clue before presenting your own economic "theories" as fact.

Also, the state with the highest percentage of hispanic residents is neither California or Texas, it is New Mexico. Therefore, a high percentage of hispanic residents does not necessarily translate into economic might. If that were true, Mexico would be at the top of the economic food chain instead of foundering in the gutter.

Last edited by Mr Majestyk; 03-15-2010 at 10:06 AM. Reason: grammar police
Mr Majestyk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome