MoonShadow, I feel like you have gone on the attack toward me, beltim, and others, accusing or implying that we have political leanings that may be opposite of yours, and doing so without a solid basis.
Your persecption is incorrect. I have attacked no one.
If I were to generalize, I would say that this is typical of the right on today's political climate - not able to even engage in a discussion without throwing around accusations.
I would have to agree with this perspective, and that habit seems to be particularly prevalent among members of this particular forum. Something that intrigues me, since it's not even a political forum.
But I don't want to generalize,
You still did, despite your declaration of contrary desires.
and I don't know what your political leanings are, so I'm willing to let it all be water under the bridge.
I have actually made my own political leanings well known on this forum, actually. I'm a libertarian, so I'm quite used to being in a minority.
My two main points remain:
1. Threatening violence is not acceptable.
Wait, in what context? Are we still talking about the Oregon stand-off, or something else? Because at it's root, all political activity is, ultimately, supported by a credible threat of violence. That is why the word for police action is enforce
ment. You can say nice things like "threatening violence is not acceptable", but you cannot remove the gun from the politics.
2. We need a civil conversation about what to do with public lands to preserve the viability of rural communities while sustaining ecosystem benefits, as those ecosystems ultimately support us and enhance our quality of life. And economics are important too because I live in a rural community and rural poverty pisses me off.
Okay, but that has exactly zero to do with this event in Oregon. This is, at root, about who "owns" public wilderness; the states or the federal government. If we were to dive into the history of the lands in question, we would discover that those who have an original
claim to the property isn't either the state or the federal government, but a collection of homesteading ranchers who agreed amongst themselves that these lands were a common grazing area. Those claims predate the statehood of Oregon. Even the idea that it was an Indian reservation is bullshit, because they never actually lived on the land, as far as can be determined. It might have been intended
as an Indian reservation, but that never happened either.