U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-14-2014, 07:13 AM
 
Location: Florida
21,668 posts, read 11,132,190 times
Reputation: 7892

Advertisements

With beef prices averaging almost $6.00 this year , we need cattle to be able to graze. With China and Japan importing more and more beef we will continue to have higher and higher costs for beef.

The federal government (Obama) bought up much cattle to keep beef prices high after a drought.. the government has their hands into everything. We the people are getting the shaft over and over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-14-2014, 07:20 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, AZ
878 posts, read 626,346 times
Reputation: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTRIDER AZ View Post

Its post like this and guys like your self that is not bashful when it comes exercise one right to be "American:!
Thank you GHOSTRIDER AZ, I don't believe in being politically correct to appease the sensitive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2014, 07:45 AM
 
Location: Austin
29,546 posts, read 16,496,198 times
Reputation: 8087
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw View Post
That appears to be existing federal land - not grabbing it from anyone.
I'm not sure why the feds should own ANY land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2014, 08:04 AM
 
12,045 posts, read 5,718,913 times
Reputation: 7054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
I'm not sure why the feds should own ANY land.
The Fed's "own" the land because the land was not "owned" by anyone when a Territory became a State ..... that is not the case with the Red River that forms the border between Texas and Oklahoma. FED's also own land that they have purchased for Military installations of all sorts.

The Maps that are in the pdf files at the BLM website on this new "land grab" show clearly that the only BLM "land" is the river bed that they laid claim to in an Oil rights case in 1918.

"BLM officials believe they have a responsibility to manage land they believe is federal which includes an estimated 90,000 acres along 116 miles of the Red River."

Think about that for a minute - the FED's want to add 90,000 acres to the river bed (which is the only part they claim to "own") over a 116 miles stretch. It's the only part of the Red River they claim to "own".

This particular 'land grab' has to do with Oil and Gas Leases and Royalties. It's not like there is going to be any big "Stand Off" between Ranchers/Farmers and the FED's - they want what is UNDER the ground of that River Bed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2014, 08:06 AM
 
Location: Austin
29,546 posts, read 16,496,198 times
Reputation: 8087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibby View Post
The Fed's "own" the land because the land was not "owned" by anyone when a Territory became a State ..... that is not the case with the Red River that forms the border between Texas and Oklahoma. FED's also own land that they have purchased for Military installations of all sorts.

The Maps that are in the pdf files at the BLM website on this new "land grab" show clearly that the only BLM "land" is the river bed that they laid claim to in an Oil rights case in 1918.

"BLM officials believe they have a responsibility to manage land they believe is federal which includes an estimated 90,000 acres along 116 miles of the Red River."

Think about that for a minute - the FED's want to add 90,000 acres to the river bed (which is the only part they claim to "own") over a 116 miles stretch. It's the only part of the Red River they claim to "own".

This particular 'land grab' has to do with Oil and Gas Leases and Royalties. It's not like there is going to be any big "Stand Off" between Ranchers/Farmers and the FED's - they want what is UNDER the ground of that River Bed.
My point is there is no reason for the Feds to own any land. All of our land is in a state and should be owned by people or the state, not the Feds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2014, 08:07 AM
 
1,743 posts, read 1,394,136 times
Reputation: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
My point is there is no reason for the Feds to own any land. All of our land is in a state and should be owned by people or the state, not the Feds.
Amen to this, they cant even get their **** straight with this country and they want to worry about land LOL... They need to worry about our god damn illegal immigration problems, career criminals, and guard our country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2014, 09:08 AM
 
12,045 posts, read 5,718,913 times
Reputation: 7054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
My point is there is no reason for the Feds to own any land. All of our land is in a state and should be owned by people or the state, not the Feds.
I don't disagree with what you are saying - I was just explaining how it all happened.
These "territories" that became States had no Government and they did have a lot of land that wasn't owned by anyone ..... that land transferred to the Federal Government when they joined the USA.

Hard to go back in time and "change" all that. I'm just very grateful that is not the case with my State, which did not transfer any land to the Federal Government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2014, 09:26 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,543 posts, read 33,820,661 times
Reputation: 14260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibby View Post
I don't disagree with what you are saying - I was just explaining how it all happened.
These "territories" that became States had no Government and they did have a lot of land that wasn't owned by anyone ..... that land transferred to the Federal Government when they joined the USA.

Hard to go back in time and "change" all that. I'm just very grateful that is not the case with my State, which did not transfer any land to the Federal Government.


We are discussing the Red River here.
Texas was a nation before it became a state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2014, 09:41 AM
 
Location: Steeler Nation
6,868 posts, read 3,947,393 times
Reputation: 1596

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LNANu26A4E
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2014, 09:45 AM
 
4,814 posts, read 3,269,811 times
Reputation: 1112
It seems that I read some information, some time back, concerning a law on the books stating that if land owned by the federal government was not producing anything to benefit the said state on an economic basis that the land had to be returned to the state. Seems like it also involved the percentage the government could own.

Is anyone familiar with a law on that regard?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top