Mountain man stating his rights!

Posted in the Weird Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“[[[ Always Thinking ]]]”

Level 8

Since: Nov 12

Greensburg, IN

#1 Jan 15, 2014
I found this very interesting, see what you think?

&fe ature=player_detailpage

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#2 Jan 15, 2014
It's not like we have rules that limit fishing for no reason. If everyone said it was their natural right to take fish from lakes and streams whenever they wanted, there would be no fish.
LOST IN MISSISSIPPI

Adrian, MI

#3 Jan 15, 2014
do you understand his claims of the gold fringe
LOST IN MISSISSIPPI

Adrian, MI

#4 Jan 15, 2014
the revolution is underway as made evident by targets attack as well as acts like this one

throughout time when 2% owned 98% it happens, ya think they would learn

http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-prof...

stock holders don't care what is happening as long as the market is going up

LOST IN MISSISSIPPI

Adrian, MI

#6 Jan 15, 2014
Sublime1 wrote:
It's not like we have rules that limit fishing for no reason. If everyone said it was their natural right to take fish from lakes and streams whenever they wanted, there would be no fish.
ever read Thoreau's on civil disobedience?

“frequently laughing”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Hotel California

#7 Jan 15, 2014
LOST IN MISSISSIPPI wrote:
do you understand his claims of the gold fringe
I do.

“[[[ Always Thinking ]]]”

Level 8

Since: Nov 12

Greensburg, IN

#8 Jan 15, 2014
To enhance the beauty of the flag mainly. To show Old Glory as the symbol it stands for since it was 1st conceived.
Kinda like every cloud has a silver lining...

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#9 Jan 15, 2014
I agree that absent a compelling reason, freedom should not be limited, but without rules that limit how and when fish can be taken from lakes, there would be no fish. That's a compelling reason. It's that simple.

I don't need to get into Thoreau's on civil disobedience. The rules he violated should not be disobeyed, in the first place.
LOST IN MISSISSIPPI

Adrian, MI

#10 Jan 15, 2014
Always Wary wrote:
<quoted text>I do.
why is it tolerated?
LOST IN MISSISSIPPI

Adrian, MI

#11 Jan 15, 2014
Sublime1 wrote:
I agree that absent a compelling reason, freedom should not be limited, but without rules that limit how and when fish can be taken from lakes, there would be no fish. That's a compelling reason. It's that simple.
I don't need to get into Thoreau's on civil disobedience. The rules he violated should not be disobeyed, in the first place.
so you are saying it should be illegal to live like a natural man?
LOST IN MISSISSIPPI

Adrian, MI

#12 Jan 15, 2014
Hoosier Hillbilly wrote:
To enhance the beauty of the flag mainly. To show Old Glory as the symbol it stands for since it was 1st conceived.
Kinda like every cloud has a silver lining...
OH MY GOD! are you in for a wake up

“frequently laughing”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Hotel California

#13 Jan 15, 2014
LOST IN MISSISSIPPI wrote:
<quoted text>why is it tolerated?
Because not everyone believes the same thing about the gold fringe.
Some think this - " The gold or yellow fringe flag is your warning that you are leaving your Constitutionally secured rights on the floor outside the door to that courtroom. " Sorry I forgot the source!
Some think it means martial law.
Some think is means you are under a power unrecognized worldwide.
Lastly, some think it is simply a decoration.

Army study guide - gold fringe
http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_bo...

“frequently laughing”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Hotel California

#14 Jan 15, 2014
By the way that was link to a private web site, not the US Army!

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#15 Jan 15, 2014
LOST IN MISSISSIPPI wrote:
<quoted text>so you are saying it should be illegal to live like a natural man?
No, I'm not saying that. Live like a natural man if you want, but you still must comply with conservation laws that are established for a compelling reason that advances compelling interests of society as a whole.

I have much more sympathy for Eustice. I don't think there should be any property tax. I don't think you should have to pay the government what is for all practical purposes an annual rent to keep land that you own. I think someone like Eustice should be free to live off of land that he owns ... at the same time, even in his case, he doesn't own wildlife that stumbles upon his land ... we all own it. He should still be subject to conservation laws that advance the compelling interests of society as a whole.

I dunno anyone who is a serious outdoorsman who doesn't support conservation laws.

“[[[ Always Thinking ]]]”

Level 8

Since: Nov 12

Greensburg, IN

#17 Jan 15, 2014
LOST IN MISSISSIPPI don't you think it's about time you made your point?
What it's got to do with a man catching a mess of fish to feed himself I have no idea but please continue.
This mountain man didn't 'dynamite' the river he just wanted something to eat which should be a freedom privilege.
It's those that take advantage of whatever it is - that the laws are made for
which pisses me off too!
Why should the innocent have to suffer for what the azzholes do?
Put a 'corn cob' up their azz not mine!

“frequently laughing”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Hotel California

#18 Jan 15, 2014
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm not saying that. Live like a natural man if you want, but you still must comply with conservation laws that are established for a compelling reason that advances compelling interests of society as a whole.
I have much more sympathy for Eustice. I don't think there should be any property tax. I don't think you should have to pay the government what is for all practical purposes an annual rent to keep land that you own. I think someone like Eustice should be free to live off of land that he owns ... at the same time, even in his case, he doesn't own wildlife that stumbles upon his land ... we all own it. He should still be subject to conservation laws that advance the compelling interests of society as a whole.
I dunno anyone who is a serious outdoorsman who doesn't support conservation laws.
I have some huge issues with "conservation laws". I've seen what they do first hand. The intent is rarely the outcome. The consequences border on disastrous, more often than not for rural economies. The Spotted Owl is good example. The newest one is Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog. http://www.nps.gov/yose/naturescience/frog.ht...
Locals and even the people that are part of the cause know the correct reason why. Vacationers and locals like to fish. The fish are grown in a hatchery then transported to favorite fishing locations. Those fish eat the eggs. Their answer is to stop ALL developments and logging of any kind. Heck they have tried repeatedly to close the forest, to everyone. How will that fix the problem? It won't but it will stop any construction or logging jobs, again.

The Rim fire was another great example. Don't log anything and let nature burn it to the ground. Now don't log it, let the trees rot into the ground. They have one year tops before the wood is useless.(If it is logged by law they must replant it) It usually takes 3-5 years to get a permit, now with the frogs???? I'd be willing to bet money it will never happen. Conservation my ass, bureaucratic red tape that prevents the forest from being replanted and receiving money for the lumber. Who thinks this crap up?

Sorry, I'm off the soap box :)

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#19 Jan 15, 2014
Jeb Wilson wrote:
<quoted text>
dude you dumb. eustice needs to get his finances straight to pay his taxes. dang man who gets a free ride. since you feel sorry for the guy who won't pay his taxes go move on his land that he thinks is all his. spirit was right you a dumb ass.
You should not have to pay property taxes to own land in this country, IMO. There are other ways to tax people other than property tax.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#20 Jan 15, 2014
Always Wary wrote:
<quoted text>
I have some huge issues with "conservation laws". I've seen what they do first hand. The intent is rarely the outcome. The consequences border on disastrous, more often than not for rural economies. The Spotted Owl is good example. The newest one is Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog. http://www.nps.gov/yose/naturescience/frog.ht...
Locals and even the people that are part of the cause know the correct reason why. Vacationers and locals like to fish. The fish are grown in a hatchery then transported to favorite fishing locations. Those fish eat the eggs. Their answer is to stop ALL developments and logging of any kind. Heck they have tried repeatedly to close the forest, to everyone. How will that fix the problem? It won't but it will stop any construction or logging jobs, again.
The Rim fire was another great example. Don't log anything and let nature burn it to the ground. Now don't log it, let the trees rot into the ground. They have one year tops before the wood is useless.(If it is logged by law they must replant it) It usually takes 3-5 years to get a permit, now with the frogs???? I'd be willing to bet money it will never happen. Conservation my ass, bureaucratic red tape that prevents the forest from being replanted and receiving money for the lumber. Who thinks this crap up?
Sorry, I'm off the soap box :)
People only see it from their little perspective. If you want a job, you want a job. Conservation laws are not about the individual, however.

What do you suppose would happen if there were no conservation laws? Do you think logging companies give a damn if an animal goes extinct?

Not saying the government is perfect and doesn’t make mistakes when it comes to policies, but it beats the alternative.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#22 Jan 15, 2014
Many of our conservation policies are guided by science. Science gets it wrong sometimes, but built into science is re-evaluation when new facts come to light.

We know now, for example that forest fires to some extent are beneficial for the ecosystem and are important for certain species. Now that we know this, our conservation policies can reflect that.

To point out that because we didn't know this before and that because of this it led to some adverse consequences as justification to abolish conservation laws, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

“[[[ Always Thinking ]]]”

Level 8

Since: Nov 12

Greensburg, IN

#23 Jan 15, 2014
Check out where and how the money from conservation laws that collect revenues from so many different sources is spent, then tell me they are a good thing!
It cost more for 1 game-warden than it does to stock 100 lakes.
Average hourly salary $26.77 Annual Income $55,670.
See where your deer, hunting, and fish license is spent?
Not for conservation of nature!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 3 min Stormare 17,960
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 4 min Stormare 77,712
Words That End With...E R (Jul '12) 6 min Stormare 96
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min Chimney1 134,789
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 11 min -Lea- 26,055
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 22 min Jennifer Renee 7,858
Post "any three words" (Sep '12) 23 min Crazy Jae 1,140
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 27 min Enzo49 152,925
Is it possible to....... 2 hr Old Sam 620
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 hr TALLYHO 8541 37,800
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 3 hr dragoon70056 3,051
More from around the web