Invasion USA

[RJB]

More people always means less freedom and more idiots trying to tell me what to do. If I was in one of the native tribes, I would have been against the mountain men. If I was a mountain man, I wouldn't be thrilled with homesteaders moving in, nor the cattle barons, nor the city dwellers. Now our roads are clogged, rivers polluted, our culture is dying, the last thing we need is a few million more people who screwed up their country with communism, moving here with chips on their shoulders against us and adding to the traffic on my way to work.

 

[susano]

Not in the slightest. The Indian tribes and clans fought constantly for "ownership" of the land, hunting rights, acreage for crops and so on.

IIRC this is supposed to be an accurate portrayal of the "powwow" between Custer and Sitting Bull.

Custer was not wrong in his assessment.





It's already in place, after a fashion. Massive fish farms off Greenland, Iceland, Labrador and Norway are already functioning enterprises where the ocean is, if not bought outright, it is leased. Sub sea minerals are already leased and bought.

I agree with ownership.

Ownership means somebody has skin in the game, they have an incentive to make sure the property is not damaged, destroyed, befouled, pirated or squatted upon.

Government "ownership" means none of that, and when government places squatters on those properties, they almost always get destroyed.

But I don't put the man in the OP in that category.

It appears he did have skin in the game and he was paying his freight.

Until foreign invaders, with the help of local cops following orders, kicked him out.

Yes, I get they invaded and killed each other but the parties were either using or wanted to use the land fought over to sustain themselves - as in eating, maybe stealing women, whatever. That's not the same as saying every unoccupied inch of the planet should owned (private or controlled by govts). How about if nobody's using it, it's not owned by anyone?

 

[PAF]

Yes, I get they invaded and killed each other but the parties were either using or wanted to use the land fought over to sustain themselves - as in eating, maybe stealing women, whatever. That's not the same as saying every unoccupied inch of the planet should owned (private or controlled by govts). How about if nobody's using it, it's not owned by anyone?

If nobody is using it, and if they do not have a property deed, then it is Public Land where people are free to travel freely, no "papers please" required.

 

[susano]

Not in the slightest. The Indian tribes and clans fought constantly for "ownership" of the land, hunting rights, acreage for crops and so on.

IIRC this is supposed to be an accurate portrayal of the "powwow" between Custer and Sitting Bull.

Custer was not wrong in his assessment.





It's already in place, after a fashion. Massive fish farms off Greenland, Iceland, Labrador and Norway are already functioning enterprises where the ocean is, if not bought outright, it is leased. Sub sea minerals are already leased and bought.

I agree with ownership.

Ownership means somebody has skin in the game, they have an incentive to make sure the property is not damaged, destroyed, befouled, pirated or squatted upon.

Government "ownership" means none of that, and when government places squatters on those properties, they almost always get destroyed.

But I don't put the man in the OP in that category.

It appears he did have skin in the game and he was paying his freight.

Until foreign invaders, with the help of local cops following orders, kicked him out.

Sorry, I just noticed the bottom of your post. I hadn't even thought of what you brought up. I'm assuming these concerns are in territorial waters? What about further out and who can lay claim to that other than fighting for it? In fact, I think that's how Sea Shepard Society works: they've directly confronted and engaged Japanese whalers in the open ocean. Anyway, I don't want to get to far afoot. I'm just sayin' if nobody's using it it shouldn't belong to or be under the control of anybody.

 

[susano]

Governments, as it is implied, should never be in the business of owning land.




That is where homesteading comes in. If you homestead the land, or live there, or make use of the land, it is yours to do as you like; nobody should have a right to tell you what to do with it, unless what you do causes damage to another person, place or thing. Once the land is abandoned, it should be made available for others to homestead. Here is an example:

I purchased acreage some years back. As I started building my home, I noticed a barbed-wire fence approximately 60 feet away from the property line. I thought that the previous owner had installed it, but to my surprise it was the neighbor in the back who owned a horse ranch. When I instructed the neighbor to please remove the barbed-wire fence, he stated to me that in one more year the property would become his, because the previous owner never bothered to take the wire down. Long story short, after several heated arguments and trips to the town office, I physically removed the barbed-wire fence myself, rolled it up neatly, placed the rolls on his property and took over what was rightfully mine. Lawfully, he had no recourse because I removed it within the allotted time, and I was able to make use of the property that I had purchased. Unless there is something out-of-the-ordinary-whacky-whack going on, Property Rights and Contract Rights are the only lawful way to solve any/all disputes.




It is up to the company owner to negotiate under contract (verbally and/or written) with workers, and vice versa. Whether you like it or not, it is not the business of anybody else what two consenting individuals do. If it were [which it is not], then I would have every right as an outsider to enter into your garage and dictate to you who you should/should not hire, and at what wage, while you make pretty waxed candle figurines to sell to your neighbors ;-)


[MENTION=1515]susano[/MENTION] , with all due respect, and I've noted it before, I am not much of a conversationalist online, one because my long-windedness would fill volumes, and two because I would be adding nothing more than what is already available.

Perhaps [MENTION=28167]Occam's Banana[/MENTION] (also [MENTION=5460]CCTelander[/MENTION] and [MENTION=12430]acptulsa[/MENTION]) can chime in and point you in the right direction, or explain it better than I could

No, thank you for the bit about homesteading. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Sort of use it or lose it. I realize that can result in fights but so be it. Hell, I'm not happy with courts getting the final say but it's either that or shoot it out, I guess. I don't like absentee ownership and I know this will cause me to get piled on but would like to see it outlawed. That would dramatically drive down the price of real estate and the cost of all housing, rented or purchased. It would also get rid of big ag and make the land available for homesteading! Farm it yourself or GTFO.

On the company owner employing whomever he wants, I cannot agree because those employees will reside in the surrounding community. If they are not a compatible group then chaos ensues, as it has in Europe and the UK. I know you've seen it - fights with machetes, Islamists cutting people's throats and other atrocities. Taking over huge parts of cities and breeding like rats. It's suicide for the countries and people who allow it to happen. I also mean that in reverse, as well. People are entitled to live among like kind. You mix the lions and gazelles and you know the result.

 

[susano]

More people always means less freedom and more idiots trying to tell me what to do. If I was in one of the native tribes, I would have been against the mountain men. If I was a mountain man, I wouldn't be thrilled with homesteaders moving in, nor the cattle barons, nor the city dwellers. Now our roads are clogged, rivers polluted, our culture is dying, the last thing we need is a few million more people who screwed up their country with communism, moving here with chips on their shoulders against us and adding to the traffic on my way to work.

WORD

 

[susano]

If nobody is using it, and if they do not have a property deed, then it is Public Land where people are free to travel freely, no "papers please" required.

Is there any really public land, as in not under the claimed jurisdiction of a government? And, if it exists, that would mean anyone could homestead it, right?

 

[PAF]

On the company owner employing whomever he wants, I cannot agree because those employees will reside in the surrounding community. If they are not a compatible group then chaos ensues, as it has in Europe and the UK. I know you've seen it - fights with machetes, Islamists cutting people's throats and other atrocities. Taking over huge parts of cities and breeding like rats. It's suicide for the countries and people who allow it to happen. I also mean that in reverse, as well. People are entitled to live among like kind. You mix the lions and gazelles and you know the result.

Leaving the PLANNED, COORDINATED effort led by BOTH Parties, NGO's and .Gov contractors ASIDE:

I have a completely different perspective which may or may not be "popular". I live in a very ethnic town consisting of many nationalities; Italian, Greek, Syrian, Spanish, Oriental, etc. I can say from personal experience that for the most part they are very hard working and we all get along just fine. Over the past few years I have seen a slight influx of immigrants coming in, and they, too, are hard working. New restaurants, a new paving company, other local businesses, and recently a group of 3 young men who are originally from Mexico recently installed my wall-to-wall carpeting and did a fantastic job.

I see people as individuals and never blanket-label anybody. I embrace the Christian view, and the Bill of Rights which outline our Natural Rights, which are not only for Americans, but all human beings.

That said, as a white person myself, I can also say this: when I worked the '12 Ron Paul campaign, it was the ladies with dyed red hair and the men with the "Veteran" ball-caps at Republican Committees who insisted that Romney was the all-mighty sacred one, and completely dis'd Ron Paul. It was the 3 Iranian sisters, Mexican families, and a variety of other immigrants who lived here who were not able to vote, but helped me tremendously in getting all 3 of Ron Paul delegates to win hands-down.

This immigrant crisis is being coordinated. It is designed to cause Americans to sacrifice more liberty (just like 9-11) in order to implement more security. I simply am not falling for their tactics. The money going out as incentives, as much as I abhor it, is nothing compared to what it will cost in liberty AND money to build their walls, implement biometric-security, aerial-drones and cameras on every street corner, expansion of the Constitution-Free-Zone, not to mention the strain that it will put on AG/cattle-ranching, to empower the globalist corporations (synthetic meat and protein-bugs).

It is also designed so that government will have more of a strangle-hold on more small/medium businesses; who they can/can't hire, dictate salaries/minimum-wage, and other government conditions. The small/medium companies suffer, the globalist corporations will dominate. This will set up a permanent public/private system = Fascism at its finest.

If the politicians were actually serious about this "crisis", they would simply stop giving tax-payer money to the immigrants as incentives, and stop giving tax-payer money to the NGO's and contractors who are coordinating and profiting by these transports. And rather than the American people demanding more anti-liberty and astronomical costly measures, they would/should be all over the politicians that they put into office and demand stop-payment.

 

[PAF]

Is there any really public land, as in not under the claimed jurisdiction of a government? And, if it exists, that would mean anyone could homestead it, right?

No offense, susano, it is a serious question: ask the red-blooded Americans who "vote". It was supposed to be "We the People", but they freely and willingly gave up all of their rights and land to the politicians to control.

 

[RJB]

That said, as a white person myself, I can also say this: when I worked the '12 Ron Paul campaign, it was the lady with dyed red hair and the man with the "Veteran" ball-cap at Republican Committees who insisted that Romney was the all-mighty sacred one, and completely dis'd Ron Paul. It was the 3 Iranian sisters, Mexican families, and a variety of other immigrants who lived here who were not able to vote, but helped me tremendously in getting all 3 of Ron Paul delegates to win hands-down.

 

[PAF]

...

You brought back a lot of good memories ;-)

 

[RJB]

You brought back a lot of good memories ;-)

Ah all very convenient.

 

[PAF]

Ah all very convenient.

I've been through this rodeo a time or a dozen. It never hurts to be prepared.

 

[PAF]

Ah all very convenient.

That brings to mind another thing... the "voting" issue. The republican committees thought 100% that they had Romney wrapped nicely in a bow. When all of Ron's delegates won hands-down, the committee folks, all of them, in my area insisted that the democrats were to blame and screamed "VOTER FRAUD!!! VOTER FRAUD!!!" I laughed all the way to Tampa convention lol. But then, that's when the corruption happened (RNC Convention), all while Boehner was in charge.

 

[WarriorLiberty]

The senate had passed a bill which the borders only get 20 Billion in support but Ukraine gets more.

 

[RJB]

I've been through this rodeo a time or a dozen. It never hurts to be prepared.

It doesn't surprise me that many people question your integrity to the point where you have had to amass a readily available trouve of questionable photos. I have never bothered with photos because no one questions my integrity except people who I don't respect.

I try to limit what I say online these days to what I would say to someone's face. I meant what I said in the Boston guy thread, but I probably shouldn't have posted that Jeopardy meme. However, in real life, I would avoid talking to you. Not because you offend me, but because I don't believe anything that you say as I have stated earlier. So to save the mods some headaches, I will just avoid you on this forum here on out. Enjoy your evening.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The Crisis On Our Border | Part Of The Problem 1089
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlH3giO8Dzc
{Dave Smith | 04 February 2024}

On this episode of Part Of The Problem, Dave and Robbie take a look at clips from The bill Maher Show where he and Adam Schiff discuss the security crisis at the border. We then hear from Peter Doocy and KJP about what the administration is doing to stem the overflow of illegal immigrants.

 

[Anti Federalist]

https://twitter.com/FrankDeScushin/status/1753932461610844179

 

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1754480700122665034

 

[PAF]

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1754480700122665034

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1754480700122665034

Move on, folks, nothing to see here.


Don't you know that American's don't "Follow the Money"?

Don't you know that American's would much rather spend more money in order to save money? [is that even possible?]

Don't you know that instead of stopping the payments, American's would much rather exchange their own liberties, and continue financing the security [industrial complex]?

Why stop payment, when you can ignore and side-step the root problem, and look for more ways to spend on top of that?

Elon, why do you hate America?