|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 03 2016 22:11 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2016 21:26 Silvanel wrote:
Of course armed response should be on the table only if they become vilolent. Attacking them otherwise would play into this conpiracy/nutjob milita theory that govenemnt wants them dead and disarmed. Reading up on the backstory its really quite appalling how the federal government treated the Hammond family and other landowners in the area since the 70's. Really makes you think about how little you can do when the state gets an eye for your privet property. These people have been bankrupted and ruined by their own government but still I don't see how picking up guns and shoo-ing the fed's away will solve anything in the long term. edit: Maybe all of this will make people aware of how petty and abusive the BLM has become. And things can change.
The two that were the subject of the "protest" were even there and are planning on turning themselves in. Also let's no forget that Jon Ritzheimer, the one who organized the Mosque protests is a member of this militia.
|
Where are all the other ranchers, farmers, and miners distancing themselves publicly? We can't let any more ranchers into the country until we all know what's going on.
|
The state of Wyoming recently passed Senate Bill 12, the Data Trespass Bill, which will prevent people from collecting evidence of pollution, even on public lands. The bill prohibits the “collecting of information” on property that the person does not own, even public and federal land.
According to the text of the bill, it is now illegal to “take a sample of material, acquire, gather, photograph or otherwise preserve information in any form from open land which is submitted or intended to be submitted to any agency of the state or federal government.”
Simply taking a picture or collecting trash from a polluted stream could lead to $5,000 in fines and a year in prison.
Justin Pidot, an assistant professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law recently told Think Progress that, “People on the ground, who have been engaged in this kind of data collection in the past, now have to face the worry about being potentially prosecuted. The chilling effect on citizen participation is huge.”
“This is sort of a new tactic we’re seeing, where state governments are trying to build legal rules that prevent people from uncovering information about favored industrial groups. I think it’s very concerning as a phenomenon,” he added.
Even collecting evidence or photos from a national park could lead to criminal charges.
Source
|
On January 04 2016 02:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The state of Wyoming recently passed Senate Bill 12, the Data Trespass Bill, which will prevent people from collecting evidence of pollution, even on public lands. The bill prohibits the “collecting of information” on property that the person does not own, even public and federal land.
According to the text of the bill, it is now illegal to “take a sample of material, acquire, gather, photograph or otherwise preserve information in any form from open land which is submitted or intended to be submitted to any agency of the state or federal government.”
Simply taking a picture or collecting trash from a polluted stream could lead to $5,000 in fines and a year in prison.
Justin Pidot, an assistant professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law recently told Think Progress that, “People on the ground, who have been engaged in this kind of data collection in the past, now have to face the worry about being potentially prosecuted. The chilling effect on citizen participation is huge.”
“This is sort of a new tactic we’re seeing, where state governments are trying to build legal rules that prevent people from uncovering information about favored industrial groups. I think it’s very concerning as a phenomenon,” he added.
Even collecting evidence or photos from a national park could lead to criminal charges. Source
Seriously?
Go stick your head in the sand more folks. It has worked so well on all the other fronts....
|
On January 04 2016 02:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The state of Wyoming recently passed Senate Bill 12, the Data Trespass Bill, which will prevent people from collecting evidence of pollution, even on public lands. The bill prohibits the “collecting of information” on property that the person does not own, even public and federal land.
According to the text of the bill, it is now illegal to “take a sample of material, acquire, gather, photograph or otherwise preserve information in any form from open land which is submitted or intended to be submitted to any agency of the state or federal government.”
Simply taking a picture or collecting trash from a polluted stream could lead to $5,000 in fines and a year in prison.
Justin Pidot, an assistant professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law recently told Think Progress that, “People on the ground, who have been engaged in this kind of data collection in the past, now have to face the worry about being potentially prosecuted. The chilling effect on citizen participation is huge.”
“This is sort of a new tactic we’re seeing, where state governments are trying to build legal rules that prevent people from uncovering information about favored industrial groups. I think it’s very concerning as a phenomenon,” he added.
Even collecting evidence or photos from a national park could lead to criminal charges. Source
Time to wait for a huge chemical spill in Wyoming and none of the news networks can show pictures/footage of it out of fear of prosecution.
|
On January 04 2016 02:47 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2016 02:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The state of Wyoming recently passed Senate Bill 12, the Data Trespass Bill, which will prevent people from collecting evidence of pollution, even on public lands. The bill prohibits the “collecting of information” on property that the person does not own, even public and federal land.
According to the text of the bill, it is now illegal to “take a sample of material, acquire, gather, photograph or otherwise preserve information in any form from open land which is submitted or intended to be submitted to any agency of the state or federal government.”
Simply taking a picture or collecting trash from a polluted stream could lead to $5,000 in fines and a year in prison.
Justin Pidot, an assistant professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law recently told Think Progress that, “People on the ground, who have been engaged in this kind of data collection in the past, now have to face the worry about being potentially prosecuted. The chilling effect on citizen participation is huge.”
“This is sort of a new tactic we’re seeing, where state governments are trying to build legal rules that prevent people from uncovering information about favored industrial groups. I think it’s very concerning as a phenomenon,” he added.
Even collecting evidence or photos from a national park could lead to criminal charges. Source Time to wait for a huge chemical spill in Wyoming and none of the news networks can show pictures/footage of it out of fear of prosecution.
rofl as if nobody in the wyoming legislature ever read this little book called the constitution. in which there is written something very unimportant called the first amendment.
|
I'm sure Wyoming will get hit by some sort of toxic catastrophe then simultaneously blame and beg the federal government
|
I cant even begin to think of a legitimate reason you would make a bill like that. Its only purpose is to hide bad environmental practices of corporation. Everyone who voted yes on that has made a statement of "My vote has been bought".
meanwhile
#stillnotaterrorist.
|
Spiegel headline, "Protest against US government". Just a few concerned citizens I guess
|
Rural Oregon, much like rural Washington, tends to be really resentful of the modernized portion of the state that determines basically every political decision. I'm happy to see their insecurity has boiled over to the point of terrorism. Putting myself in their shoes, they must feel so powerless and insignificant. None of their beliefs are considered in state legislature and they are essentially the bug on the bottom of your shoe that you don't even realize you stepped on. I just sit here, as a Portland resident, and smile knowing how little they matter.
|
On January 04 2016 03:40 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'm sure Wyoming will get hit by some sort of toxic catastrophe then simultaneously blame and beg the federal government
If you are blaming an entity, isn't asking them to clean up financially pretty logical? We do that to companies all the time.
Plus its a nonsensical argument because the US government is going to extract the taxes that go to cleanup funds from Wyoming residents regardless of it the state asks for/accepts help from the fund.
|
On January 04 2016 04:42 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2016 03:40 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'm sure Wyoming will get hit by some sort of toxic catastrophe then simultaneously blame and beg the federal government If you are blaming an entity, isn't asking them to clean up financially pretty logical? We do that to companies all the time. Plus its a nonsensical argument because the US government is going to extract the taxes that go to cleanup funds from Wyoming residents regardless of it the state asks for/accepts help from the fund.
yeah - but guess what would be the smartest, cheapest and most efficient solution?
not having to have to pay for a spill or another environmental catastrophe in the first place. and having sensible safeguards in place to prevent one.
|
On January 04 2016 05:25 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2016 04:42 cLutZ wrote:On January 04 2016 03:40 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'm sure Wyoming will get hit by some sort of toxic catastrophe then simultaneously blame and beg the federal government If you are blaming an entity, isn't asking them to clean up financially pretty logical? We do that to companies all the time. Plus its a nonsensical argument because the US government is going to extract the taxes that go to cleanup funds from Wyoming residents regardless of it the state asks for/accepts help from the fund. yeah - but guess what would be the smartest, cheapest and most efficient solution? not having to have to pay for a spill or another environmental catastrophe in the first place. and having sensible safeguards in place to prevent one.
Yes, which is why who pays is actually very important to determine. Because who pays would be the entity most interested in preventing a spill.
|
On January 04 2016 05:29 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2016 05:25 Doublemint wrote:On January 04 2016 04:42 cLutZ wrote:On January 04 2016 03:40 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'm sure Wyoming will get hit by some sort of toxic catastrophe then simultaneously blame and beg the federal government If you are blaming an entity, isn't asking them to clean up financially pretty logical? We do that to companies all the time. Plus its a nonsensical argument because the US government is going to extract the taxes that go to cleanup funds from Wyoming residents regardless of it the state asks for/accepts help from the fund. yeah - but guess what would be the smartest, cheapest and most efficient solution? not having to have to pay for a spill or another environmental catastrophe in the first place. and having sensible safeguards in place to prevent one. Yes, which is why who pays is actually very important to determine. Because who pays would be the entity most interested in preventing a spill.
well criminalizing citizens, environmentalist or whoever interested to take investigative steps is a good way to "muddy the water" then 
|
One party criminalizes knowledge and the other tries to fund it. What a world.
|
On January 04 2016 05:29 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2016 05:25 Doublemint wrote:On January 04 2016 04:42 cLutZ wrote:On January 04 2016 03:40 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'm sure Wyoming will get hit by some sort of toxic catastrophe then simultaneously blame and beg the federal government If you are blaming an entity, isn't asking them to clean up financially pretty logical? We do that to companies all the time. Plus its a nonsensical argument because the US government is going to extract the taxes that go to cleanup funds from Wyoming residents regardless of it the state asks for/accepts help from the fund. yeah - but guess what would be the smartest, cheapest and most efficient solution? not having to have to pay for a spill or another environmental catastrophe in the first place. and having sensible safeguards in place to prevent one. Yes, which is why who pays is actually very important to determine. Because who pays would be the entity most interested in preventing a spill.
le free market to the rescue again. because that worked so well in the past to prevent environmental disasters.
this is just an other sad episode of the criminalizing of eco-activist (the no.1 "domestic terrorist threat", lol).
|
Your democracy has died over a decade ago.
America the land of the free,cant even take a picture lol.
|
On January 04 2016 04:42 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2016 03:40 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'm sure Wyoming will get hit by some sort of toxic catastrophe then simultaneously blame and beg the federal government If you are blaming an entity, isn't asking them to clean up financially pretty logical? We do that to companies all the time. Plus its a nonsensical argument because the US government is going to extract the taxes that go to cleanup funds from Wyoming residents regardless of it the state asks for/accepts help from the fund.
I don't really understand what you are trying to say here.
|
|
|
Well.. 2016 is already almost 4 days old. Was peaceful long enough, time to get out the assault rifles again.
Just funny though how this is handled. White terrorists apparently are reasonable and can make demands. Just imagine these people being black and/or muslims. One would wonder if everything would be still that calm.
Just drive your freedom dispensers through that building, at least you'd get rid of a tiny amount of weapons in clearly the wrong hands.
The argument btw, that they're ready "to defend themselves" is mindblowing. Mainly because i feel like they're so dumb that they're actually not realizing that there's no "defending" if you are the attacker. You can't walk into Walmart with an RPG and two M249, stating "this is mine now, and i'm ready to defend myself against anyone who wants to change that".
4 days people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
