(22-Jul-2018) NOTICE: Mockforums.net has been upgraded. Please post any issues/queries. Thank you!


Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cliven Bundy vs. Government land management
#61
(01-23-2016, 05:47 PM)Cutz Wrote: Let me rephrase.

Why is the American taxpayer paying for HBO at a park ranger station?

It might be one of the reasons that blueberry noted. Or, it might be that one or some of the weekend rangers paid for it themselves, or it came as part of a discount cable package. I don't know.

We just know that one of the employee rooms was able to get HBO, according to one of the occupiers.

Anyway, it doesn't concern me whether it was part of the employee accommodations way out there or if an employee(s) instead chose to pay for it, so I'll let you investigate if you're interested Cutz.
Reply
#62
(01-23-2016, 07:35 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:
(01-23-2016, 05:47 PM)Cutz Wrote: Let me rephrase.

Why is the American taxpayer paying for HBO at a park ranger station?

It might be one of the reasons that blueberry noted. Or, it might be that one or some of the weekend rangers paid for it themselves, or it came as part of a discount cable package. I don't know.

We just know that one of the employee rooms was able to get HBO, according to one of the occupiers.

Anyway, it doesn't concern me whether it was part of the employee accommodations way out there or if an employee(s) instead chose to pay for it, so I'll let you investigate if you're interested Cutz.

When you mentioned employee might have paid for it, I was reminded of a situation back in the 60's when I was working at a military installation. As you know, Kansas is close to being in middle of U.S. Well, back then, they had this invisible line across the center of US. Any State above the line, no air conditioner in public offices, etc......and, of course, anything below would be provided air conditioners at taxpayer expense.....This base was just above the line in NE Kansas...I had an upstairs office in a renovated old barracks building; it got up to 112 one day when I took a thermostat thingy to work.....I was soaked through by noon and sometimes took a change of clothes if humidity was high. I took my first 3 paychecks and purchased a window unit.....boy, what a difference in my work performance....I left air conditioner for my successor.
Reply
#63
(01-23-2016, 07:07 PM)Duchess Wrote: ...the fuckin' cell phones are another story though. The_Villagers

If you're referring to "Obama phones", there aren't any. The true subsidized telephone program details may still rub you wrong, but free cell phones aren't being doled out to blacks and welfare recipients by the Obama administration as some claim.

The Lifeline program originated in 1984 because the government was concerned that some disabled and disadvantaged Americans lacked the resources to have land lines (and later, as they became cheaper, cell phones) to access emergency services when needed.

The Lifeline program was initiated during the Reagan administration. It was expanded in 1996, during the administration of Bill Clinton; and its first cellular provider service (SafeLink Wireless) was launched by TracFone in 2008, during the administration of George W. Bush.

The Lifeline program covers monthly discounts on landline or cell phone service for eligible consumers, not limited to or always inclusive of welfare recipients. It does not pay cellular companies to provide free cell phones to consumers, although some cellular service providers choose to offer that benefit to their Lifeline customers.

The Lifeline program is not directly subsidized by taxpayer monies. It is paid for out of the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) through a fee assessed against telecommunications service providers, who may or may not pass those costs along to their customers.

I understand if some people have a problem possibly paying higher phone fees to help providers cover the costs of Lifeline landline or SafeLink cell services, but I personally don't. I don't wanna see anybody who needs emergency services being unable to get them because they don't have phone service. I think Reagan got it right (though I'm sure there are some who abuse the program, like any other).

Here's some info about the SafeLink cell phone program: https://www.safelinkwireless.com/safelin...ligibility
Reply
#64
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=surb8FzjWfg
Reply
#65
My word salad's make sense HoTD, you just don't speak my language.
Reply
#66
(01-23-2016, 09:32 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: If you're referring to "Obama phones", there aren't any. The true subsidized telephone program details may still rub you wrong, but free cell phones aren't being doled out to blacks and welfare recipients by the Obama administration as some claim.

The Lifeline program originated in 1984 because the government was concerned that some disabled and disadvantaged Americans lacked the resources to have land lines (and later, as they became cheaper, cell phones) to access emergency services when needed.

The Lifeline program was initiated during the Reagan administration. It was expanded in 1996, during the administration of Bill Clinton; and its first cellular provider service (SafeLink Wireless) was launched by TracFone in 2008, during the administration of George W. Bush.

The Lifeline program covers monthly discounts on landline or cell phone service for eligible consumers, not limited to or always inclusive of welfare recipients. It does not pay cellular companies to provide free cell phones to consumers, although some cellular service providers choose to offer that benefit to their Lifeline customers.

The Lifeline program is not directly subsidized by taxpayer monies. It is paid for out of the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) through a fee assessed against telecommunications service providers, who may or may not pass those costs along to their customers.

I understand if some people have a problem possibly paying higher phone fees to help providers cover the costs of Lifeline landline or SafeLink cell services, but I personally don't. I don't wanna see anybody who needs emergency services being unable to get them because they don't have phone service. I think Reagan got it right (though I'm sure there are some who abuse the program, like any other).

Here's some info about the SafeLink cell phone program: https://www.safelinkwireless.com/safelin...ligibility


It's my opinion that cell phones are a luxury, not a necessity. It's only a matter of time before internet subscribers will be paying for those same people to have internet access. It's either already happening in some areas or it has been purposed, I can't recall which, but it's coming.
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#67
I understand, Duchess. And, you're right about the internet connection coming next.

First, the program applied to land line phone service in the 80s. After Katrina, G.W. Bush expanded it to include cell phone service, and the FCC has just voted to include broadband service as an option too (the expansion of Lifeline did not undergo congressional approval, since the FCC collects funds for the program through additional charges on Americans' monthly cell phone bills -- not through taxes).

Those households at or below 135% poverty line can pick one of the three options (per household) using the preloaded $9.25 per month benefit card. Link: http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/18/technolo...broadband/

There is a lot of fraud in the program, unsurprisingly, and that pisses me off too. I feel that way about people and businesses who abuse any government subsidy/assistance program and I hope the new stricter screening process and regulations minimize the opportunity for recipient fraud and provider corruption. The program currently costs $2 billion per year, which is a hell of a lot of money.

I don't mind paying a little more to help those who truly need it and don't object to the aim of the program, but paying for scammers rubs me way wrong.
Reply
#68
Subsidization of public lands leased to ranchers for livestock grazing is huge as well. But, I don't object to the very sweet deal ranchers get for grazing on federal/public land. It helps keep ranchers in business.

Ranchers of federal/public land get a 93% discount as compared to ranchers grazing on private land. The federal government maintains the land, and the grazing fees only covers 15% of the costs. The American taxpayers foot the rest of the bill, just like we do for the federal land that is dedicated to public parks and wildlife refuges.

[Image: 700x394]
[Image: 700x394]
Ref: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oreg...story.html

It's easy to see why the Bundys have failed to inspire ranchers to tear up their federal grazing licenses. Finicum made a statement that the Oregon occupation has resulted in double the number of ranchers who had been inspired to tear up their leases. Well, almost true. He and Cliven Bundy tore up their leases, and he got a rancher from New Mexico to tear up his this weekend. So the number went from 2 ranchers in the entire country to 3 ranchers in the entire country. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/24/new...event.html
Reply
#69
(01-24-2016, 09:15 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I don't mind paying a little more to help those who truly need it and don't object to the aim of the program, but paying for scammers rubs me way wrong.


I share this opinion. I would never begrudge a truly needy person anything and will always be glad I can help. My main bitch has always been those that take advantage of the system and it's my personal feeling that they far outnumber those in need.
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#70
Regarding the HBO thing, it could be a completely unrelated accident. When I was trapped in the hills of Oregon living in what amounted to dirt-poor conditions, there was zero reception for over-the-air tv but for some inexplicable reason one of the only two or three channels I could receive free of charge was HBO. Had nothing to do with service or connections, just some mystery of the way the system was set up there in central Oregon. I wasn't complaining but it could be a similar situation.
Thank god I am oblivious to the opinions of others while caught in the blinding splendor of my own cleverness.
Reply
#71
[Image: AP_608195355248_scdljd.jpg]

I feel for the people of Harney County, including sheriff Dave Ward ^ who tried to reason with the Bundy criminals and is now a target of their ire because he's working with state and federal LE to end the occupation.

The anti-occupation protests continue to grow. http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/2016/01/2.../79286966/

[Image: Joseph-A.-Stetson-arrest-Harney-County-S...10x220.jpg]
Meanhwile, people like this winner ^ are attracted to the Bundys and rolling into Harney County. Joseph Arthur Stetson, 54, was arrested yesterday for DUI. He was en route to serve as a Bundy bodyguard, he said.

He was pulled over and quickly turned belligerent, telling the very measured sheriff deputies that he was going to kill them all when he was released, that he was the "last hope" and a green beret (Reagan sealed his records, he claims), and spouting some shit about Obama and Nazis. All caught on body cam. Stetson's now in the pokey. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oreg...ra-n504216
Reply
#72
(01-26-2016, 11:48 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: He was pulled over and quickly turned belligerent, telling the very measured sheriff deputies that he was going to kill them all when he was released, that he was the "last hope" and a green beret (Reagan sealed his records, he claims), and spouting some shit about Obama and Nazis. All caught on body cam. Stetson's now in the pokey.


Throw the book at 'em.

Those Bundy people and their ridiculous followers have got to be some of the most ignorant on the face of the earth. My God they are dumb.
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#73
I don't know what "in the pokey" means, but it sounds like the worst part of prison.
Reply
#74


Fuckface Ammon has been arrested along with some of his cronies. One of them has been shot dead.

One protester was shot dead and eight others were arrested on Tuesday after authorities confronted members of an armed group that has staged a month-long occupation of a federal wildlife reserve in Oregon, activists and officials said.

The FBI said gunshots rang out after officers stopped a car carrying protest leader Ammon Bundy and others near the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Activists said Robert LaVoy Finicum, a rancher who acted as a spokesman for the occupiers, was killed.

Story

Killed. LaVoy Finicum

[Image: 309DF03200000578-3418491-image-m-55_1453875827300.jpg]

[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#75
So is the rest of the group still held up in the building?
Beer drinking, gun toting, Bike riding,
womanizing, sex fiend, sexist, asshole !
Don't like it? Well than F.U !!!!!!!!!
Reply
#76
(01-27-2016, 09:09 AM)F.U. Wrote: So is the rest of the group still held up in the building?

Most left. There's still four or five there. One woman, and she's pregnant. LE has all the roads closed-off with check points.
Reply
#77


It's my opinion that Finicum was a fool, a blowhard. He had been married for 23 years, was the father to 11 kids and had 19 grandchildren. He had little to no regard for them given his comments and actions. He's been breaking the law for weeks now and commented a few weeks ago that he would never be taken alive. Apparently he felt above having to pay for his actions. He paid the ultimate price for his fuckedupness. Sayonara, asshole.
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#78
[Image: CZuVcnIUUAAschR.jpg]

Good news that arrests were made with only one casualty. I'm not glad Finicum is dead, but it ended the way he said he wanted it to end for him.

I think LE was smart. The best possibility for a bloodless outcome was probably to arrest the leaders and their bodyguards off the compound, in my opinion. Finicum declared several times that the occupation would never end until the gang's demands were met and that he would die before he was detained. I'm not surprised that he resisted arrest, if that's what happened.

LE let the gang get comfortable; comfortable enough to make the ignorant and arrogant move of putting their leaders and key players on the road, on the same path, at the same time.

The gang was headed to Grant, hungry to drum up support and supporters which they failed to get in the town they invaded and where they were unwanted. The sheriff in Grant sympathized with the Bundys.

The Bundy gang considered the sheriff in Harney county treasonous because he was representing all of the people of the county and working with state and federal LE to end the occupation rather than working for them. They had torn down fences and announced that they were going to open the refuge grounds to grazing later this year; seizing the land, declaring the government and elected officials invalid, messing with the native American artifacts, and taking over by armed force.

This is where those gun laws that criminals don't obey come in handy against criminals anyway. We already know some of the Bundy gang were criminals before the occupation began. If they were felons carrying guns, they can be charged with illegal possession along with the conspiracy charges.
Reply
#79
[Image: knxv%20jon%20ritzheimer%201%20youtube_14...40_480.jpg]

^ Jon Ritzheimer had left for Arizona hours before the bust.

He is in custody on conspiracy charges there and asking for a lawyer and help for him and his family.
Reply
#80
(01-27-2016, 12:54 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: asking for a lawyer and help for him and his family.


Ain't that rich.

I frequently see people like this not give any thought to their families until it suits them. Where I come from, men put their families first. I have no compassion for these people, they made their beds, now they can pie in them.
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply