Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

Likely Should Read This


Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Nugget Shooter said:

I thought politics was off limits. Are is it fair game from now on? I have a bunch of threads I'd like to start.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I think I’m living in an alternate reality as I read stories like this.  All this was known during the confirmation which makes it even odder.

I worry about our country’s debt, but I keep hearing about the unfunded which is ten times what our debt is at: $130 trillion.  I don’t even know what this unfunded is.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a lot more to the story. The article seems to not mention the woman's adult life at all. 

Half of you guys in your early twenties were as dumb as a stump and as wild as a shithouse rat. If you were judged now by your actions then you couldn't get a job as mall security.

Likewise, what this woman did in her younger years needs to be put in perspective with what she has become. 

Even if she was a "radical environmentalist" (which she is not) it wouldn't make her unfit for the position. Take a look at the last few years of radical leadership on the other side of the spectrum. It was dismal, corrupt and didn't help land management one iota. 

Painting her in a partisan light is just that... Partisan. Partisanship got us into this mess. And more partisanship isn't going to get us out.

We need to make good decisions on the long term management of our lands. Decisions that are driven by respect for the land over short term corporate profits. It isn't about drilling and mining anymore. It hasn't been for decades now.

We have a much more precious commodity in our public lands that is in major demand the world over. It is much more lucrative for the common man than oil or mining and is not nearly as destructive. It will produce more jobs, more tax revenue and more wealth for the average citizen than any industrialized use of natural resources. 

Its multiple use land. We should manage it as such. We should prioritize use that is non destructive and non exploitive over timber, mining and oil in many areas. And severely restrict industry that limits multiple use in all areas.

We think gold and oil is treasure. That is only because we are so limited in our capacity to define wealth. We ruin what is really precious to fulfill our immediate needs. All we are capable of understanding is conquest and exploitation. We really don't comprehend value outside of those narrow parameters.

Mining and oil is a huge burden on our ability to utilize public land in ways that benefits the larger population. If we subsidized sustainable industry with a fraction of the money that we spend supporting the oil and mining giants our economic situation would be much more stable. 

IMHO we need someone to manage these lands in the people's best interest and not in the interest of big money. Someone who is "radical environmentalist" is much closer to the ideal than someone who wants to mine and drill until it is no longer profitable and then let the taxpayer clean up their mess.

So I like the choice for Seccy of the Interior (Deb Haaland) as well as the Director of the BLM. I think they are just what we need to preserve our public lands for guys like me who enjoy them. I have no problem supporting them. I don't necessarily agree with their ideas or every policy but I think it is a big step in the right direction. And a YUGE improvement over the riff raff that occupied the office during the previous administration.

Edited by Bedrock Bob
Edited to make people suspicious that I may be a leftist ANTIFA guerrilla.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Morlock said:

I thought politics was off limits. Are is it fair game from now on? I have a bunch of threads I'd like to start.

I'm thinking that this story is more about the background of the seated "Officer / Office" currently.  If Congress considers 'mining' important to the economy of the nation with the 8-15 different 'mining acts'.  Then it is very important about the background / credentials of the "Officer / Office". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Bedrock Bob said:

I think there is a lot more to the story. The article seems to not mention the woman's adult life at all. 

Half of you guys in your early twenties were as dumb as a stump and as wild as a shithouse rat. If you were judged now by your actions then you couldn't get a job as mall security.

Likewise, what this woman did in her younger years needs to be put in perspective with what she has become. 

Even if she was a "radical environmentalist" (which she is not) it wouldn't make her unfit for the position. Take a look at the last few years of radical leadership on the other side of the spectrum. It was dismal, corrupt and didn't help land management one iota. 

Painting her in a partisan light is just that... Partisan. Partisanship got us into this mess. And more partisanship isn't going to get us out.

We need to make good decisions on the long term management of our lands. Decisions that are driven by respect for the land over short term corporate profits. It isn't about drilling and mining anymore. It hasn't been for decades now.

We have a much more precious commodity in our public lands that is in major demand the world over. It is much more lucrative for the common man than oil or mining and is not nearly as destructive. It will produce more jobs, more tax revenue and more wealth for the average citizen than any industrialized use of natural resources. 

Its multiple use land. We should manage it as such. We should prioritize use that is non destructive and non exploitive over timber, mining and oil in many areas. And severely restrict industry that limits multiple use in all areas.

We think gold and oil is treasure. That is only because we are so limited in our capacity to define wealth. We ruin what is really precious to fulfill our immediate needs. All we are capable of understanding is conquest and exploitation. We really don't comprehend value outside of those narrow parameters.

Mining and oil is a huge burden on our ability to utilize public land in ways that benefits the larger population. If we subsidized sustainable industry with a fraction of the money that we spend supporting the oil and mining giants our economic situation would be much more stable. 

IMHO we need someone to manage these lands in the people's best interest and not in the interest of big money. Someone who is "radical environmentalist" is much closer to the ideal than someone who wants to mine and drill until it is no longer profitable and then let the taxpayer clean up their mess.

So I like the choice for Seccy of the Interior (Deb Haaland) as well as the Director of the BLM. I think they are just what we need to preserve our public lands for guys like me who enjoy them. I have no problem supporting them. I don't necessarily agree with their ideas or every policy but I think it is a big step in the right direction. And a YUGE improvement over the riff raff that occupied the office during the previous administration.

You point out very strong points backed by the different "Mining acts" (8 - 15 acts of Congress).   Just think the antifa was not around then however some other groups where around then.......lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chrisski said:

Sometimes I think I’m living in an alternate reality as I read stories like this.  All this was known during the confirmation which makes it even odder.

I worry about our country’s debt, but I keep hearing about the unfunded which is ten times what our debt is at: $130 trillion.  I don’t even know what this unfunded is.

I'm thinking you are not alone in your thinking like maybe 85 million people give or take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup...did some reading on her a few weeks ago. She's a real piece of work. Would have fit right into the Weather Underground back in the day. She should have no place in the government, of any kind. She believes anything is OK, if it accomplishes her ends. If she leads the BLM, she's going to get people killed trying to execute her agenda....count on it. While I agree with some of what Bob posted, people with that background should certainly not be discriminated against, they also don't deserve to hold leadership positions in our national government. Behavior should have consequences, regardless of how long ago it was.

Jim

Edited by Idaho Jim
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bedrock Bob said:

I think there is a lot more to the story. The article seems to not mention the woman's adult life at all. 

Half of you guys in your early twenties were as dumb as a stump and as wild as a shithouse rat. If you were judged now by your actions then you couldn't get a job as mall security.

Likewise, what this woman did in her younger years needs to be put in perspective with what she has become. 

Even if she was a "radical environmentalist" (which she is not) it wouldn't make her unfit for the position. Take a look at the last few years of radical leadership on the other side of the spectrum. It was dismal, corrupt and didn't help land management one iota. 

Painting her in a partisan light is just that... Partisan. Partisanship got us into this mess. And more partisanship isn't going to get us out.

We need to make good decisions on the long term management of our lands. Decisions that are driven by respect for the land over short term corporate profits. It isn't about drilling and mining anymore. It hasn't been for decades now.

We have a much more precious commodity in our public lands that is in major demand the world over. It is much more lucrative for the common man than oil or mining and is not nearly as destructive. It will produce more jobs, more tax revenue and more wealth for the average citizen than any industrialized use of natural resources. 

Its multiple use land. We should manage it as such. We should prioritize use that is non destructive and non exploitive over timber, mining and oil in many areas. And severely restrict industry that limits multiple use in all areas.

We think gold and oil is treasure. That is only because we are so limited in our capacity to define wealth. We ruin what is really precious to fulfill our immediate needs. All we are capable of understanding is conquest and exploitation. We really don't comprehend value outside of those narrow parameters.

Mining and oil is a huge burden on our ability to utilize public land in ways that benefits the larger population. If we subsidized sustainable industry with a fraction of the money that we spend supporting the oil and mining giants our economic situation would be much more stable. 

IMHO we need someone to manage these lands in the people's best interest and not in the interest of big money. Someone who is "radical environmentalist" is much closer to the ideal than someone who wants to mine and drill until it is no longer profitable and then let the taxpayer clean up their mess.

So I like the choice for Seccy of the Interior (Deb Haaland) as well as the Director of the BLM. I think they are just what we need to preserve our public lands for guys like me who enjoy them. I have no problem supporting them. I don't necessarily agree with their ideas or every policy but I think it is a big step in the right direction. And a YUGE improvement over the riff raff that occupied the office during the previous administration.

:pop:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2021 at 6:24 AM, Morlock said:

I thought politics was off limits. Are is it fair game from now on? I have a bunch of threads I'd like to start.

It is related to Miners rights and land use, have you read what is allowed in this section? "This forum is strictly for the discussion of land usage restriction and Miners rights issues we face and how to deal with them." Political is about politics in general, but land issues cross over and senators congressman etc. are involved in most if not all land right closures, laws, etc. so hard not to have it involved. It is not about taking political "sides" but action to preserve our rights IMHO

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Read the ICMJ article on Tracy-Stone Manning. To quote Senator Barrasso It is not clear that her radical views have changed. BLM's work is to important to be led by someone who covered up for eco-terroists, lied to the senate and supports extremist views most Americans find reprehensible. The senate must reject this nomination. Ten Republican senators on the Senate Energy and National Resources Committee asked Biden to withdraw the nomination. No withdraw from Biden. I cannot express my opinion without getting political, but I don't think she gives a darn about miners rights.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...