Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, May 12, 2014

A group of ATV riders violated a ban on driving all-terrain vehicles in a Utah canyon, hoping for a showdown like the one outside Cliven Bundy's ranch in Nevada.
This was the latest challenge by citizens saying they are defending state and local rights against an increasingly arrogant federal government that has overstepped its role in small communities such as Blanding. This protest was the brainchild of a public official, San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman, who contends that this town of 3,500 residents has tried hard to compromise with the bureau to reopen scenic Recapture Canyon to ATVs. BLM officials banned the vehicles to protect archaeological sites, a move residents say has cheated them out of a prime recreational area. "If you make a rule that I have to lick your boots," Lyman said of federal officials, "I'm just not going to do that.".

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Harry_Powell

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

"In Nevada, Bundy's "range war" with federal officials, supported by armed "citizen soldiers," resulted in death threats against Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who called the militia members "domestic terrorists."

"Each day that goes by, it's hard for me to comprehend how ugly, vile, vulgar and threatening people are sending letters to my home and making other threats," Reid recently told reporters.

Last week in rural Utah, two men pointed a handgun at a BLM worker in a marked federal vehicle while holding up a sign that said, "You need to die."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

How about finding a job, losers?

#1 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2014-05-12 12:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Each day that goes by, it's hard for me to comprehend how ugly, vile, vulgar and threatening people are sending letters to my home and making other threats," Reid recently told reporters."

It can't possibly be Harry's fault.
I meant Harry Reid, of course.

#2 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-05-12 01:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Dang! I missed the opportunity to put up a mirror:
The butthurt left claims victimhood? The leftist heads are exploding.
At least the three main echo phrases are included.

#3 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-05-12 01:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

Nothing says I am a "small government conservative" quite like some good ole' grave desecration

#4 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2014-05-12 08:24 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

"If you make a rule that I have to lick your boots," Lyman said of federal officials, "I'm just not going to do that.".

Posted by Harry_Powell at 08:33 AM | 4 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

The rule was made to preserve the irreplaceable historical heritage of this Yahoo's state. He equates that with licking someone's boots.

#5 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-12 09:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Last week in rural Utah, two men pointed a handgun at a BLM worker in a marked federal vehicle while holding up a sign that said, "You need to die."

Now these are men who obviously know what a gun is designed to do.

#6 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-12 09:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

How about finding a job, losers?

#1 | POSTED BY HARRY_POWELL AT 2014-05-12 12:27 AM | FLAG:

Yes, obviously they must be jobless. Every jobless person I know can afford expensive rifles, recreational off-road vehicles, and protest vacations.

#7 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-05-12 09:31 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"Each day that goes by, it's hard for me to comprehend how ugly, vile, vulgar and threatening people are sending letters to my home and making other threats," Reid recently told reporters.

This behavior is the very essence of Redneckism. If these people couldn't threaten someone, they'd feel like life was not worth living.

#8 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-12 09:31 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 4

Here's what I don't get, why are these people so butt hurt they couldn't use ATVs in the canyon any more because some among them were vandalizing federal and archeological property? There are over 4000 miles of public trails in the area. Is the town willing to post police 24x7?

Or how protecting the lands is comparable to "licking someone's boots"? So many conservatives simply are conservatives when it is convenient for them. I can almost guarantee the vandals were conservatives, at the very least they are the definition of opportunistic capitalists. I just can't see the connection here.

And Harry Reid is correct, the people "protecting" Bundy are domestic terrorists. The law is pretty plain and clear. Bundy lost in court numerous times leading up to this. The law of the land says if you want to put your cattle to pasture in this scrub land you pay a fee because it does not belong to you. These thugs want to make the law the way they see fit and threaten law enforcement when it doesn't match their vision. Bundy is legally and morally wrong on this.

#9 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-05-12 09:40 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Here in north Georgia we have a particular national forrest that has dirt roads on it. I once got stopped for driving my atv on one road. Was told by the park ranger it was illegal b/c atv's don't have license plates and the dirt road was considered like any other paved road. Funny thing was he was on a atv himself. I explained myself and he let me go but, did say I could get a ticket for it.

#10 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-05-12 09:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, obviously they must be jobless. Every jobless person I know can afford expensive rifles, recreational off-road vehicles, and protest vacations.

#7 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014

Then I assume these affluent rednecks are pursuing their redneck hobby.

#11 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-12 09:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

"They're (militias) just roaming bands of loners who want to pretend they're 19th century cowboys," he said.

A good and succinct definition.

"They scare me. If someone gets drunk or angry and decides to use their weapon, then we have bloodshed. And there's always a loose nut who's going to show how much testosterone he has."

Anyone would be scared. Despite the propaganda that armed men do not get drunk, or angry, or full of his "manhood", and then feel like shooting someone-----They do.

#12 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-12 09:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

#10 | Posted by Dalton

You had a good experience. I have found the Federal people and State DNR types tend to be jerks more often than not. And I have found that it's an "ignorance of the law" thing on both parties at times. There are so many freaking little laws out there that it isn't funny.

#13 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-05-12 09:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

It is certainly true that some areas should be off limits for some various reasons....

....but when you start getting over 1% or 2% of the nation, you've not just hit the limit of what is appropriate, you've gone way beyond it and need some hard rollback.

Nope greenies, you can't use this trick to shut down vast tracts of land anywhere someone finds a pottery shard. MINIMUM 99% of the land is for people to LIVE on, and by 'live', I don't just mean biological survival, but actual LIFE.

#14 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-05-12 09:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

#12 | Posted by Zed

I have found that possessing a firearm actually emboldens most of them.

#15 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-05-12 09:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

How about this? Get your fat ass off the ATV and walk.

#16 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2014-05-12 10:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

#13 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-05-12 09:55 AM | Reply | Flag

I did. I have heard stories of park rangers hanging out in the woods and listening to people while they camp to see if they can catch them doing something illegal.

#17 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-05-12 10:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

This same thing has been happening all over the Rcoky Mountain states, where DC legislators have been restricting access to public lands. Lands they themselves will never set foot it, and have no stake in. More importantly, in many cases the locals are very much against the restrictions.

This is why the lands should be under state control. So that the interests of the state are represented. There is some middle ground, but it will never be found when legislation is being directed from thousands of miles away with no thought given to the wants of the local population. And outlawing snowmobiling because the noise scares the wildlife is just retarded. That's something that only someone who had never ridden a snowmobile would say.

#18 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-12 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

#14 | Posted by USAF242

So since the federal government bought the land it's just automatic everyone has a right to use it as they see fit with no rules? Like Bundy? What if I want my cattle there? Or heck, why not just put up an oil well if there is oil? If you were USAF then you know the importance to rules and structure to avoid chaos.

To be clear you do realize that Recapture Canyon is not "just a pottery shard" area right?

And you sort of babbled on the LIVE / LIFE thing. It makes no sense. It isn't a closed area we are talking about, you just can't use ATVs there.

#19 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-05-12 10:15 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

#18 | Posted by madbomber

In my book it is for the American People to control and not just the locals. In most cases States NEVER owned the land and in particular in the West. How will the states compensate the rest of the American People? Can the states afford to buy the land? The Federal government granted the states statehood and didn't give them the land. The land never belonged to any particular American person/people or any state. I guess you could say it belonged to Native Americans, Mexico, or France before that. I see it as a likely conservative land grab to exploit resources in 'giving' states the land. I think long term strategy wise, I don't have faith in either states or the Federal Government. But I have more confidence in the Federal system - it moves slow.

I have personally found there is often good reason for closing sections of it. Like locals plundering resources that belong to all people or simply being destructive. Here we are talking about Pueblo settlements (which you can still access - just not on an ATV). Another instance there is an area near Durango CO where local pillage petrified wood after rain storms uncover it. And I am sure everyone has seen the Scout leaders knocking over the boulder by now.

#20 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-05-12 10:37 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

How about this? Get your fat ass off the ATV and walk.

#16 | POSTED BY HARRY_POWELL AT 2014-05-12 10:01 AM | FLAG:

Off-roading (bikes/quads, not cars) burns more calories than walking.

It's definitely healthier than sitting around all day in front of a computer bitching about politics.

#21 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-05-12 10:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

And outlawing snowmobiling because the noise scares the wildlife is just retarded. That's something that only someone who had never ridden a snowmobile would say.
#18 | Posted by madbomber

It disturbs anything not on an ATV. For miles around.

There's a singing sand dune in Nevada, Sand Mountain. I could barely hear the thing sing due to [...] riding their ATVs on it. You had to ride your ATV in the one place people might want some quiet. [...]

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-12 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Can we take a brief time-out to review the three-wheeler? After many accidents and deaths public health officials determine they're too big of a risk. But there was no real way to ban them. So the government shared the safety data with the ATV manufacturers and asked them to simply stop production in the public interest. Industry complied.

If you ride ATVs you support a centrally planned economy.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-12 12:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

The trike is making a comeback as reverse-trikes.

They're inherently much more stable.. it makes you wonder what idiot decided the single wheel should be on front to begin with?

#24 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-05-12 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Probably some numbskull in Washington, D.C.
Oh wait...

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-12 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Last week in rural Utah, two men pointed a handgun at a BLM worker in a marked federal vehicle while holding up a sign that said, "You need to die."

over the right to ride their ATV in a particular area you don't even own?

yes, rednecks for sure.

#26 | Posted by eberly at 2014-05-12 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

"They're inherently much more stable.. it makes you wonder what idiot decided the single wheel should be on front to begin with?"

my mother in law still has a functioning Honda 3-wheeler (early 70s model I think) out on her farm.

I rode it yesterday. pretty slow and flat surfaces is all I'll do with that thing.

#27 | Posted by eberly at 2014-05-12 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

DC legislators have been restricting access to public lands. Lands they themselves will never set foot it, and have no stake in.

DC legislators?
They're not DC legislators.
They're Federal legislators.
They have an office in the District of Columbia, where we centrally plan our government in accord with the Founder's intent, and another in their state of residence.
At minimum, three of them have a stake in any State.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-12 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Last week in rural Utah, two men pointed a handgun at a BLM worker in a marked federal vehicle while holding up a sign that said, "You need to die."

Pointed a gun at a Federal worker? They should be dead or in prison.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-12 01:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

I am really surprised LDS has not weighed in on this. Native American historical sites are very important in the Mormon Faith. I can not imagine the main church in Utah would not be freaking out over a bunch of guys driving ATVs through this area and possibly destroying artifacts to protest the federal Government.

#30 | Posted by THomewood at 2014-05-12 01:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm wondering how we managed to raise a generation and taught them to reject the social contract.

This is one of the reasons I think we really need national health. So it will mean something to be an American.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-12 01:35 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"In my book it is for the American People to control and not just the locals."

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. Because you're going to have a very tough time convinving me that my riding an ATV is the desert of southern Idaho has an impact, positive or nrgative, on a schoolteacher in Washington DC or a lawyer in San Francisco.

"How will the states compensate the rest of the American People?"

Compensate them for what? It would still be public land-it would just be subject to a more decentralized controlling agency.

"I have personally found there is often good reason for closing sections of it. Like locals plundering resources that belong to all people or simply being destructive."

I agree. There are areas that should be off limits for a variety of reasons. But those decisions should include both outdoorsmen and conservationsist. In many cases they're one in the same. But the overarching point is that the decisions should be made locally. I spend a lot of time on the Island of Guam. Would it make sense for someone in DC to make a rule regarding walking on reefs? Not really. That's something better left up to local government. The same is true here.

#32 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-12 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Grow up you selfish child."

You're calling me selfish? Odd since your statement would seem to suggest that you have more right to hear a sand dune sing that I do to ride an ATV.

"If you ride ATVs you support a centrally planned economy."

If you think the 3-wheeler is representative of your average ATV you need to bow out of this conversation now and maybe salvage a little bit of your dignity...

"They have an office in the District of Columbia, where we centrally plan our government in accord with the Founder's intent, and another in their state of residence."

Somehow I doubt the founders intent was to prtect local wildlife by removing public access. more likely that's the intent of the Sierra Club or the Nature Conservancy. And I have no problem with that, but if they want to restrict access to large swaths of land, they should pony up and buy it. Give the people something in return for the access they want to take.

"Pointed a gun at a Federal worker? They should be dead or in prison."

You should go find them and tell them that.

"This is one of the reasons I think we really need national health. So it will mean something to be an American."

Actually, what you need is absolute control over access to the economy, information, etc. That way, you could weed out all that "bad" information that leads to this sort of behavior.

It's the only way. But you already know that.

#33 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-12 02:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is one of the reasons I think we really need national health. So it will mean something to be an American."

Actually, what you need is absolute control over access to the economy, information, etc.

You're trying too hard.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-12 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Odd since your statement would seem to suggest that you have more right to hear a sand dune sing that I do to ride an ATV.

There's countless dunes you could ride on that don't sing.
You riding on the one that does sort of ruins the experience for everyone but you.
Selfish.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-12 03:35 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It would still be public land-it would just be subject to a more decentralized controlling agency.

About the only "upside" I could see here is that it would be easier for the state to privatize the land.
And that is not a public benefit. That's the loss of a public benefit.
Just come out and say what you want: You want this land in private hands.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-12 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You riding on the one that does sort of ruins the experience for everyone but you. Selfish."

Again, Snoofy, what exactly is it about Snoofy your desires a higher priority than those of anyone else? Do you live near the singing sand dune, or do you just expect that no one should be allowed ride ATVs there based on the off chance that you someday decide to visit the area and don't want to be inconvenieced by some mouth breather on an ATV?

#37 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-12 04:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Just come out and say what you want: You want this land in private hands."

I would prefer it remain public, but when it comes to public lands that I'm not permitted on, and private lands that I'm not permitted on, is there really any difference?

The River of No Return Wilderness area in Idaho used to be a very popular recreation area. Havin been declared as wilderness, most of it will never be visited by humans again. I remember riding on the back of my dad's motorcycle as a little kid. That will never happen again.

So exactly what is the value of something you can't use?

#38 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-12 04:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So exactly what is the value of something you can't use?"

That just shows how ecologically illiterate you are. If something can't be commodified, it's worthless to propertarians.

#39 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-05-12 04:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So exactly what is the value of something you can't use?"

#39 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014

That's the problem with the Mona Lisa: You can't use it as a beer coaster.

#40 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-12 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"That just shows how ecologically illiterate you are. If something can't be commodified, it's worthless to propertarians."

We're not discussing ways to make money on public lands, but you're going to be hard pressed to say that lands are truly public when there is little public access. It's like saying the moon is publicly accessible. For some people, maybe. But not to most.

#41 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-12 04:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Again, Snoofy, what exactly is it about Snoofy your desires a higher priority than those of anyone else?

There's one singing dune. Why do you have to ride on that one? Ride on one of the millions that doesn't.
It's almost like you're riding on the dune to ruin my bad time.
Childish.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-12 05:36 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Again, Snoofy, what exactly is it about Snoofy your desires a higher priority than those of anyone else?

I'm suggesting one dune that you can't ride on and millions that you can.
And you say my priority is getting favorable treatment?
Childish.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-12 05:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

We're not discussing ways to make money on public lands, but you're going to be hard pressed to say that lands are truly public when there is little public access.

There's just as much public access whether ATVs are permitted or not.
Unless you're some sort of half-man, half-machine ATV cyborg.
Which would be pretty cool.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-12 05:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

"There's just as much public access whether ATVs are permitted or not."

Sure. Sort of like the moon, right?

You can do what you want there, once you get there. But it's getting there that's problematic.

Regardless, and in response to an eariler comment by you, many ATV trails are already limtied access. They are only open for a short part of the year. The rest of the time the area is completely off limits to travel. It would seem to me that the solution should suit most everyone who is not being "selfish."

#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-12 05:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It's almost like you're riding on the dune to ruin my bad time."

If I ruin your bad time, aren't I really creating a good time?

#46 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-12 05:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

There is a clear pattern by our Government of not directly confronting right wing protesters while pitting the full force of riot police, SWAT teams and now even the military to put down left wing protesters.

Setting aside some land for motorized vehicle use and other land for restricted development is just good policy. This area was protected in order to attempt to preserve ancient native Indian writings on surrounding cliffs. The BLM has said it has recorded and will prosecute these violators. We will see.

#47 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-05-12 06:06 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

The rest of the time the area is completely off limits to travel. It would seem to me that the solution should suit most everyone who is not being "selfish."
#45 | Posted by madbomber

The ATV enthusiasts in this article don't share that opinion.
I suppose that means they're being selfish.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-12 07:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Send a couple of remote control model airplanes after these NRA Lovin' morons and theyll all crap themselves to death thinking the government is ending drones after them. Clueless hilljacks!

#49 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2014-05-13 02:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

Clueless hilljacks!

#49 | POSTED BY ABORTED_MONSON

I had to look up the word "hilljack" because I've never heard it. The urban dictionary says it is a hillbilly who doesn't know he's a hillbilly. Other definitions were similar.

But they all had one thing in common: Hillbilly. A hillbilly is someone from Appalachia. (hence the word "hill"). Utah is pretty darn far from Appalachia. It looks like the DR has its share of clueless people. LOL

#50 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-13 02:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

Regardless, and in response to an eariler comment by you, many ATV trails are already limtied access. They are only open for a short part of the year. The rest of the time the area is completely off limits to travel.

And good thing too. People should have the right to peace and quiet without a bunch of drunk rednecks flying down the trails on ATVs 'cuz durn tootin', it's ain't freedumbz if we can't peel out in it.

#51 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-13 03:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

So exactly what is the value of something you can't use?

By being spared the slow decay of "use", it can be revisited in the future after we humans destroy everything else.

We as a species, certainly a society, definitely lack the ability to not destroy something. Even something as priceless as archeological sites mean nothing to you hicks who just want to ride your vee-hickles wherever you feel you should be able to in the name of "freedom".

#52 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-13 03:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

A hillbilly is someone from Appalachia. (hence the word "hill"). Utah is pretty darn far from Appalachia. It looks like the DR has its share of clueless people. LOL
#50 | Posted by goatman

Beverly Hills also isn't in Appalachia.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-13 04:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

People should have the right to peace and quiet without a bunch of drunk rednecks flying down the trails on ATVs 'cuz durn tootin', it's ain't freedumbz if we can't peel out in it.

#51 | Posted by jpw at 2014

Its people like you who force these ATV drivers to stay armed, you vicious hippie you.

#54 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-13 08:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The ATV enthusiasts in this article don't share that opinion.
I suppose that means they're being selfish."

Yes it does. Sort of like JPW in #52, no?

"And good thing too. People should have the right to peace and quiet without a bunch of drunk rednecks flying down the trails on ATVs 'cuz durn tootin', it's ain't freedumbz if we can't peel out in it."

What people? You?

I have a sneaking suspicion you'll never set foot on BLM lands.

#55 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-13 09:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

"We as a species, certainly a society, definitely lack the ability to not destroy something. Even something as priceless as archeological sites mean nothing to you hicks who just want to ride your vee-hickles wherever you feel you should be able to in the name of "freedom"."

Are you an idiot?

I only ask because you seem to be saying that the remains of a previous population should be vigorously defended from incursion by a current population. Already having been populated, isn't this somewhere you would prefer to be utilized for human use, rather than an area that was never populated?

But as a knuckle dragging mouth breather, I'm probably just not smart enough to comprehend your superior intelligence. In the future I'll do my best to more respectfully ackowledge my intellectual, not to mention moral, superiors. Sir.

#56 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-13 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tea Party Taking Over US Government this Friday

Self-styled revolutionary patriots plan to converge on Washington, D.C., this week to drive President Barack Obama and disloyal lawmakers out of office.

"We are calling for the removal of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, and Eric Holder as a start toward constitutional restoration," said retired Army Col. Harry Riley, leader of the Operation American Spring protest group. "They have all abandoned the US Constitution, are unworthy to be retained in a position that calls for servant status."

The activists say they expect 10 million to 30 million like-minded Americans to join them Friday in the nation's capital for a rally patterned after Occupy Wall Street and "Arab Spring" protests.

They also plan a sister event the same day in Bunkerville, Nevada, where militia groups have gathered to support scofflaw rancher Cliven Bundy in his dispute with the federal government.

Riley told Before It's News that his group does not want violence, but he admits that peaceful solutions have thus far proved ineffective.

The Raw Story

#57 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2014-05-13 02:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

#57

"Or, as a blogger speculated at Before It's News, the whole operation could be a false flag planted by the Obama administration to launch a civil war."

rofl!

#58 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-13 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

What people? You?

I have a sneaking suspicion you'll never set foot on BLM lands.

I see. So if it's me, then I'd be selfish. If it's not me, then my opinion is irrelevant?

To clarify, I was using the proverbial people. No one specific but those who choose to enjoy public lands.

#59 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-13 03:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

But as a knuckle dragging mouth breather, I'm probably just not smart enough to comprehend your superior intelligence. In the future I'll do my best to more respectfully ackowledge my intellectual, not to mention moral, superiors. Sir.

Given your presentation of only two options as the apparent only two options (which is false), I'd say a little thinking is in order.

#60 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-13 03:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

"To clarify, I was using the proverbial people. No one specific but those who choose to enjoy public lands."

Unless, of course, I want to enjoy them on a mechanized means of travel. Then I'm SOL because my riding an ATV is an inconvenience to you.

"Given your presentation of only two options as the apparent only two options (which is false), I'd say a little thinking is in order."

I'm sorry. You didn't seem like much of a compromiser in #51-#52.

And while you may be, there seem to be plenty in the BLM sphere of influence who are not. While concerns about damaging archeological sites is valid, restricting ATVS doesn't do much to prevent it. Especially when you can still travel through the same area on horseback. Horses aren't exactly zero impact. They're fun, and incredibly useful for some activities, but aren't going to offer much of an improvement over ATVs.

#61 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-13 05:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

ATVs can cause way more damage than horses. The government doesn't restrict ATVs because it hates patriots or some other kooky reason.

#62 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2014-05-13 05:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I want to enjoy them on a mechanized means of travel.

So ride a bicycle, or enjoy the scenery from your pogo stick.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-13 05:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

ATVs can cause way more damage than horses

ATVs don't --------. They don't neigh either. If you slap an ATV on its hindquarter you don't run the risk of it kicking you. ATVs don't get spooked by loud noises.

#64 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-13 05:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

"ATVs can cause way more damage than horses. The government doesn't restrict ATVs because it hates patriots or some other kooky reason."

Is this based on your experience? How much time do you have on horseback? How much time to you have on an ATV? I'm going to go ahead and guess none.

The government restricts vehicular access because by doing so can restrict almost all human access. You're not going to take your family camping in the interior of the River of No Return wilderness because kids don't hike for more than about a half mile. And even if they did, they would never pack in their own gear. Which basically limits access to adult hikers who have nothing else to do.

"So ride a bicycle, or enjoy the scenery from your pogo stick."

Most of the trails that I use are equally off limits to ATVs and bicycles. Not sure about pogo sticks. but I do get the message. I'm best served by shutting the ---- up and doing what people like you tell me to do.

maybe you're starting to understand why this thing in Utah is going on...

#65 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-13 05:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

I was getting to "mechanized means of travel" being an overly broad term.

Suggest you try riding the pogo stick, not sitting on it.

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-13 05:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's a shame that horse hater blog got taken down. That was the best link I have ever gotten from here.

#67 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-05-13 05:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

maybe you're starting to understand why this thing in Utah is going on...

Yes, I understand that grown children are behaving selfishly, and they are acting out when being told to stop. We already established this.

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-13 05:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have mixed feelings about this. I own a couple of ATV's and love to go riding, but I also think archaeological sites should be protected. Here in CO I do think the governments are overreaching on closing so many roads and trails to motorized vehicles though.

#69 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-05-13 06:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Yes, I understand that grown children are behaving selfishly, and they are acting out when being told to stop. We already established this."

Are they?

have you been out there? Are they taking from something from you personally? Because if not, it's a tough sell that they are being selfish. In fact, it's more likely that your being selfish. Like a child demanding that other kids don't play with their toys, even when they have no intention of playing with them themselves.

"I have mixed feelings about this."

I think you have rational feelings about this. The desire to protect national treasures while still preserving access to many of those same areas. I'm not familiar with CO, but WY and MT seem to being handling it well. There are lots of trails in those states, but they restrict access to several months out of the year. They also delineate trails by use. Some are for hiking, others are for ponies, others for motorcycles, and others for ATVs.

But you have to understand that there is a huge political bloc out there who will never, ever set foot on these lands, yet feel that it is within their purview to control them.

#70 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-13 08:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've ridden mountain bikes on off-limits horse trails.
And through off-limits Federal property.
I did it because it was fun and the trails were good riding.
But I didn't think me any my friends enjoyment was a valid stepping stone to question Federal policies regarding land use.
There's the difference.

If these guys want to go the civil disobedience route, let them get arrested and take their lumps.

But when they go pointing guns at Feds and threatening Feds, that's something different.

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-13 08:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

But you have to understand that there is a huge political bloc out there who will never, ever set foot on these lands, yet feel that it is within their purview to control them.

Yeah, that's because it is in their purview to control them.

Ever been to Mount Rainier? Mr. Rainier never even saw it. Oh the injustice!

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-13 08:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are they taking from something from you personally? Because if not, it's a tough sell that they are being selfish.

That's just a stupid definition of selfish. If one kid is hogging all the toys, they don't have to be my toys to call that kid selfish.

Here's the real definition, it describes these ------ perfectly. dictionary.reference.com

self·ish
adjective
1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-13 08:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

"But I didn't think me any my friends enjoyment was a valid stepping stone to question Federal policies regarding land use."

So then if you were thrown in jail for doing it, you would have been OK with it?

"Ever been to Mount Rainier? Mr. Rainier never even saw it. Oh the injustice!"

Funny you should ask. I grew up outside of Portland, Oregon. Every morning I would wake up and see Mt Hood, above the clouds, off the end of my Deck. Also visible was Mt Jefferson. My dad always said he could see Mt St Helens, but I was never able to pick it out. Post Eruption. But I was able to see Rainier. I suppose that gives me free "Rainier" to tell you and your people how to behave while on a mountain that I could once see? Actually, belay that. Because maybe Ted Cruz and Rick Perry should truthfully have a say in what happens on that mountain. They being from such an important state of Texas. Doesn't it make sense that the determine how Mt Rainier is used recreationally? Sentences doubled for those found with pot. Armed guards to ensure that bikes are not used on trails. ATVs have free reign. Cool?

"That's just a stupid definition of selfish. If one kid is hogging all the toys, they don't have to be my toys to call that kid selfish."

Dude. You're the one who wants to hog all the toys.

It's also telling that the definitions you provided pretty much describe your position.

Are you one of those born rich kids or something? Because your sense of entitlement is just astounding.

#74 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-13 09:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Dude. You're the one who wants to hog all the toys.

How ever did you arrive at this conclusion, I wonder?
It's these unruly ATV riders who want to ride where they're not supposed to ride.
It's not like there are zero trails available to them.
If that were the case they might have a point.
But it's not, and they don't.
And neither do you.

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-13 09:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"But I didn't think me any my friends enjoyment was a valid stepping stone to question Federal policies regarding land use."

So then if you were thrown in jail for doing it, you would have been OK with it?

I doubt I would have been thrown in jail for it or I wouldn't have done it. I'm not aware of anyone who got thrown in jail for riding there, I think the worst anyone got was a ticket.

Now, the guy who decided to actually set up a shelter and live on Federal land, when they rooted him out I think he got probation or something. I don't really know.

Also, if some official had stopped me, I would have probably found some other place to ride, because they tend to remember people like me.

Now these guys, if they are committed to continue riding where the law says they can't, yes, they should be prepared to face the consequences of their decision. Like when Thoreau went to jail for refusing to pay his poll tax in protest of the Mexican-American war, or so many others. But I don't think these guys are looking to get arrested. They're certainly not interested in going peacefully if they are pointing guns at Feds. And that is a world of difference that you apparently cannot understand.

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-13 09:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why can't these guys just ride their ATVs under the power lines like normal people? They are intent on riding in the place they are not supposed to for no other reason than riding where they are not supposed to. They are picking a fight. This isn't about ATVs any more, it's about them being sovereign citizens or some such nonsense.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-13 09:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Let me sum up my attitude towards these ATV riders in one simple phrase:
"This is why we can't have nice things."

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-13 09:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

yet feel that it is within their purview to control them.

Well, they do have an equal stake in their ownership, do they not?

These people, as well as tea party types (probably a significant overlap), only want more of what they think they're entitled to. It's that simple. There's no give or take. There's just take.

#79 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-14 02:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

it's about them being sovereign citizens or some such nonsense.

Exactly.

In their mind, freedom means "I get to do whatever I want to do when I want to do it" regardless of the consequences.

#80 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-14 02:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

These people, as well as tea party types (probably a significant overlap), only want more of what they think they're entitled to. It's that simple. There's no give or take. There's just take.

#79 | POSTED BY JPW

I don't disagree with that.

I think we are going to see this at an ever-increasing level as government at all levels (federal, state, local, etc) continues to grow beyond the pace of population increase and the growth of GDP.

Those who favor limited government get resentful when government gets in their face. When the nanny-state continues to get more intrusive, somewhat irrational people become increasingly so.

#81 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-14 02:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

"In their mind, freedom means "I get to do whatever I want to do when I want to do it" regardless of the consequences.

Posted by jpw"

But isn't that the essence of liberalism?

#82 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-05-14 02:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

I would say it's the essence of being a spoiled child.
If the child is rich enough they call it "affluenza."

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-14 02:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

But isn't that the essence of liberalism?

Only if you believe the tripe Faux News is doling out.

#84 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-14 02:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

continues to grow beyond the pace of population increase and the growth of GDP.

OK, so are you going to back this up with any meaningful links/info because I think it's just a reflexive throwing out of a over-used talking point. Even then, IMO this is a really stupid way of protesting government growth, which lately has been largely "national security" oriented with agencies such as DHS, TSA ect being formed.

When was the last time the federal government took over land and made it off limits to the public? Because it seems that in both this case and the Bundy ranch case the policies have been in place for decades and these "patriots" are just now making a stink about it because, well, they have to bitch about the ebil gubment somehow, don't they?

#85 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-14 02:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

OK, so are you going to back this up with any meaningful links/info...

It is based upon the following:

The growth of the federal government has been outpacing inflation for a long time.

HUGE PROBLEM: The growth of the big-3 (Medicare, Medicaid and SS) are WAY out-pacing ALL economic models to a point that if nothing is changed in a few decades these programs will consume 100% of the budget.

We keep creating more and more recipients - people who produce little-to-nothing in exchange for a subsidy - a check.

Government IS what private-sector tax revenues generates. When expenditures chronically outpace revenues - which is already happening and is becoming exponentially worse - the whole thing collapses.

#86 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-14 03:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

The growth of the federal government has been outpacing inflation for a long time.

Government spending you mean.

Different than government in my eyes.

As I said above, government expansion I'm aware of is well worth protesting. DHS, TSA, NSA spying ect. Protest it all.

These yokels aren't, however, and would seem content with the above so long as they were given free reign on their ATVs.

#87 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-14 03:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

"These people, as well as tea party types (probably a significant overlap), only want more of what they think they're entitled to. It's that simple. There's no give or take. There's just take."

Hmm. Entitlement mentality.

Good thing the entitlement mentality is limited to ATV riding Tea Party types. It could really present a problem if you had a large part of the population demanding that they are entitled to something. An income for instance. Or Healthcare. Something like that could potentially break a nation.

#88 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-14 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

But isn't that the essence of liberalism?

#82 | Posted by Greatamerican

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

JFK, September 14, 1960

As true today as it was then.

#89 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-05-14 06:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

But isn't that the essence of liberalism?

#82 | Posted by Greatamerican

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

JFK, September 14, 1960

As true today as it was then.

#90 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-05-14 06:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

But isn't that the essence of liberalism?

#82 | Posted by Greatamerican

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

JFK, September 14, 1960

As true today as it was then.

#91 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-05-14 06:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort