masterrig

Does anyone on this board or anyone at all outside the government know what is actually being done? I doubt it. I really do suspect that the Department of State are taking the proper channels to bring this man home. I know, some believe they should go in with guns blazing. However, this is a delicate situation. To piss them off would be the end of this Marine. Some folks should really bite their tongues and just shut up (Fox news.) I read one source where Kerry turned his back on the idea. I wouldn't expect anything less from him. For the right price, they'll cut him loose in a heartbeat. Chuck

ABDSOLUTELY - I agree - we go get our own, and then deal with misconduct and crimes 'in house'. We don't take the morally corrupt and lazy way by looking away letting others do our 'dirty work' however - it's completely naive to think that this is a partisan right wing only issue. Left wingers would LOVE to "decide that there are US soldiers worth saving and others who aren't, you can have all kinds of lists, and can abandon a wide variety of soldiers who you dislike". the only difference is righties would try to rationalize a 'false' morality to their terrible choice. lefties would do it on a whim. Lefty policy is based on putting people into little arbitrary groups and showing favoritism and spite based on their moods of the day. this is right up their alley - just pushing their favoritism up a notch to who lives and who dies. But both parties even do that a bit now already, don't they? I like that! Take care of our own. If, the man has a mental problem... get him home and get him care and help. To let him rot in a Mexican jail till his family is flat broke is criminal. You bet! Get him back this side of the border and handle it in house. Yessir! Chuck

So Chuck, do you believe that only Marines should be free to go into other countries and violate their laws with impunity, or does that "right" apply to all Americans? How would you feel about foreigners who come into the US, violate our laws, then claim immunity because they served in their country's military? Should we give a pass to all those illegal immigrants you're so concerned about, if they can prove they served in the Mexican military in the past? Don That is not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is, this country 'rescued' a soldier who DESERTED... why not the Marine in that Mexican jail. The guy screwed-up, yes but good lord, where is the sense? I guess, folks who never screw-up wouldn't understand. Where is the equality? I thought that this country did all they could to help Americans in a jam in some other country. Lotta talk outa both sides of their collective mouth. Chuck

is it any less fair than holding people indefinitely in Guantanamo without trial? And who would we trade for here - does Mexico actually want back their people who commit crimes in the United States? As I said, the State Department exists for these concerns, and it would be informative to see how they responded to the family. You're more concerned about the welfare of known terrorists than you are a U.S, Marine being held in a Mexican jail? I haven't seen where their own country has done anything until now to get them freed. The State Dept. has basically turned their back on that Marine. I'm having a hard time with the logic here. Chuck

there's a world of difference between the two. Sloppy mistake or not, Americans who get caught in other countries with guns or drugs are subject to that nation's laws. He is hardly a prisoner of war. The starting point for the family is the State Department, not the President. This UK article doesn't mention any response other than the 911 operator. I thought the idea was that we get Americans back home then deal with any other matters. I get the impression you don't agree with that. Both men screwed-up... one gets traded for and comes home. The other gets to rot in a Mexican prison. Yeah, that's fair. Chuck

...and what about this Marine? Or is Obama 'selective' in who he gets freedom for? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2650114/EXCLUSIVE-Mr-President-Commander-Chief-Get-jail-US-Marine-rotting-away-Mexican-prison-making-driving-mistake-begs-Obama-help-free-did-Bowe-Bergdahl.html Chuck

That's not how it goes - it's pieces...pieces of shit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LAnmnS0-9g&feature=kp It's been awhile since I've seen the movie. Chuck

You've tasted donkey dick? Chuck Thank you Chuck... I was so not going to ask that one... it fits into my TMI parameters. I couldn't help myself. I was thinking 'Happy Gilmour' when he asked the 'pro'... "You eat little balls of shit for breakfast?" Chuck

You've tasted donkey dick? Chuck

In a strange way, it seems to have worked. Chuck

I'm speechless. Chuck

you think his daddy will trim the beard for the trial? The interview with his daddy came across (to me) that he could be an Al Qaida sympathizer!? By the way... aren't there other U.S. Military being held by Al Qaida? Why just this guy? Also, a trade of one for five doesn't seem like good odds. Chuck

Yes Chuck.. even those dumbasses who go to a war zone to go backpacking (The whole WTF were you thinking certainly applies though) Edited to fix Chucks excellent attempt at markup Chuck

***Any and all citizens should be recovered and expect for the government to do so. These folks too? http://home.myhughesnet.com/news/read/article/the_associated_press-ap_exclusive_videos_of_couple_held_in_afghanistan-ap Chuck

Yes it was! A real nail biter for sure. GO RANGERS!! Chuck

And send it REGISTERED MAIL.. Return receipt etc etc.

I'm not familiar with those but do they record sound, too? You want to record voices, not just faces. I really think, since you filed a complaint, they'll back-off. I don't think they would want to make this any bigger than it is. Then too, you just never know. You're on the right track. Keep the odds in your favor. Chuck

Obviously, she was being a bully. I'd take Airtwardo's advice and write a letter... pronto! She started things by her driving and flipping you off. Then, she got her fellow officers to support her. She probably won't do anything more but I wouldn't give her the opportunity. Her superiors need to know about this. There's no telling what she's gotten away with in the past and more than likely she'll try for more. Chuck

Not sure about that....But I do want to see another original 6 Cup final.....GO BLACKHAWKS!!! Me too! I was really wanting to see Montreal win their series. Then, it would be the U.S. against Canada. Then, I got to thinking about all the Europeans on NHL teams... Anyhow... GO BLACKHAWKS!! Chuck

You made the statement that the cattle industry isn't facing hard times. Well, it is just the opposite. Thousands of head of cattle we killed by an early fall blizzard. Beef producing states are in a drought. Most of the cattle in the drought states have been sold-off so as to keep them from starving to death. The cost of cattle feed has skyrocketed due to the increase in ethanol production. I'm seeing entire ranches or parts of ranches either sold or portions of ranches being sold just to maintain the rancher's livelihood. And you say the beef raisers aren't facing hard times? Re-building a herd takes time. Depending how many head of breeder cows the ranchers can afford and with their present numbers reduced to bare minimum, you don't re-build a herd over night. I've been accused of saying that all the land should be for grazing. Not at all. What I am saying is, there needs to be a medium struck where food producers can do just that. You and the rest of this country likes to eat. Don't you?? Chuck

Not really. At least not in this particular case. This is some of the worst possible grazing land. The very bottom of the barrel. The few hundred head of cattle (few thousand if you consider all that used to be there) aren't even a drop in the bucket to the beef industry. There is a lot better land, and a lot of it, elsewhere for cattle. We don't have a grazing land shortage in this country. We do have a few people who feel that they are entitled to use federal land however they like regardless of consequences because they have always done it. I'm curious about your statement that there is 'a lot' of grazing land in this country. Is that your assessment or do you have a source for that statement? I keep reading and hearing that we are losing millions of acres of farm and ranchland annually due to 'urban sprawl'. Also, if there is such an abundance of grazing land... why are ranchers leasing government land for grazing in our Western states? Chuck Sorry for the delay, Chuck. Haven't had much chance to catch up here. I don't have any source for this, it's a personal assessment based on a bit of personal knowledge, observations around the country and "gut feeling." It could also be very wrong. There is a huge (I mean really huge) amount of grazing land in the middle of the country. Good, well watered pasture. Much of it is too dry for food crops (corn, wheat, beans ect), but adequate for grass/alfalfa. Some of it is unsuitable for food crops for other reasons, like contour (too steep/hilly) or soil conditions. Here in Wisconsin, there is a huge dairy industry. The cattle graze pasture during the summer, plus the farmers have additional fields growing alfalfa that gets stored for winter feeding. Out west (Montana, Dakotas, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas) it takes more acreage per animal, but still nowhere near what it takes on the land in question. Where the amount of land per animal gets higher, and where the land is mostly owned by the federal government, then leasing the land makes more sense than owning it. I'm not sure that it is even possible for the ranchers to buy the BLM land they lease. Urban sprawl is taking a lot of land, cities like to expand. Grazing land and cropland is being developed. But it's a tiny fraction of the arable land. It sure won't appear that way when the government decides to "appropriate" half of a friend's property, but it really isn't all that much compared to how much is really out there. And the beef industry isn't facing any hard times. Nor will it any time soon, at least not for lack of land. The US is still way up near the top for per capita beef consumption, and we are 4th in the world in beef exports. Wiki Clicki The land Bundy uses/used/wants to use is really marginal for cattle. If it was really usable, there would be wild grazers living on it (antelope, elk, bison, ect.) Those sorts of animals are quite common on good grazing land. It would be far better overall, IMO, to get the cattle off that land and let it land go back to it's natural state. Which is what the BLM has been trying to do. Thanks for your response... it's a good one! Chuck

I did not say that grazing is a more legitimate use of the land. I don't know where you get your ideas but you don't make sense. I don't believe you know the eatin' end from the shittin; end of cow. I don't believe either, there is anything I could say that would get you to understand so this is my last word on the matter. Chuck

I can't link to an "official source", but my anecdotal observation is that there seems to be a lot of fallow pasturage here in Georgia. This is potentially quite rich grazing land. More about this below. Unquestionably that is true. Proximity to markets is an advantage, but that also means developers come looking for land. When I was looking to buy property, I found that anything west of town (between my town and Atlanta) was selling for $12,000-20,000/acre, because even 60 miles is considered within commuting distance of Atlanta. Developers can put in a subdivision, put 4-5 houses on an acre of land, and charge $200,000-400,000/house, so $20,000 an acre is a rounding error to them. To a farmer, though, that can add up to enough money to retire on. Also in some cases cities expand their boundaries, and land that was once rural (and taxed as such) now find themselves inside city limits, subject to much higher property taxes. In some questionable cases this tactic is used to strong-arm farmers into selling land to developers. By the way, I ended up buying east of town and paid about $4,000/acre. Larger parcels go for less, if I was looking for ~100 acres or more I could have had it for around $2,500/acre. Because the land is so unsuitable for grazing you need 100X the land to support a viable operation, and it would be unfeasible to have to buy that much land. Around here, there is no government land to lease and farmers have to buy their land (or lease it from another farmer). You can certainly run a viable ranching operation on 150-200 acres, but the setup costs (land, equipment, buildings, infrastructure, and stock) can easily run several hundred thousand to a million dollars. Most farms (that I know of) are family operations where the land has been in the family for generations, or maybe one of the children will buy land close by and use the family equipment for a few years until they can afford their own. So around here there is plenty of land, but the startup costs are a barrier. Don I get the idea that the 'fallow' acreage you mentioned is not used for grazing. Someone owns that land and probably doesn't want it grazed.(?) I understand what you are saying about the land and land prices there in Georgia. My main point is the grazing land is shrinking. In some parts of Texas, it takes more than 100 acres to graze one cow. Other parts, it may only take around 25 acres. Cattle eat faster than the grass can grow back. Natural grass is far cheaper than having to buy hay and grain to feed cattle. I know a rancher outside Midland Texas who recently lost around 1,000 acres of pasture land through 'immanent domain', so a truck by-pass could be built across a portion of his ranch. That rancher and his family have been very generous to the community. He fought in the courts but lost. For this and other reasons, pasture land is shrinking. The open land areas seen while traveling the interstates looks like good grazing land but is it used for that? A lot of folks say that beef can be raised in feed-lots. Sure they can but the price of beef will sky-rocket. We all like a good steak that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. That cattle would have to be fed grains and grains costs money. Also, cattle in feedlots take more caring to keep diseases out and so-on. Those vaccinations aren't cheap. One sick cow can do a lot of damage. In more open pastures, cattle do better. Also, it takes people to work feed-lots on a daily basis and quite often, at night all year long. Those hands have to be paid. It's as you know, more involved than going to the grocery store and buying a T-bone. For some reason, the government keeps making it more and more difficult on those people trying to do something they love to do... produce the food that feeds this nation and parts of the world. Those people know how to care for the land. Unfortunately, the government doesn't agree. They just hammer-out law after law and regulation after regulation and most of them don't make sense. Chuck

Not really. At least not in this particular case. This is some of the worst possible grazing land. The very bottom of the barrel. The few hundred head of cattle (few thousand if you consider all that used to be there) aren't even a drop in the bucket to the beef industry. There is a lot better land, and a lot of it, elsewhere for cattle. We don't have a grazing land shortage in this country. We do have a few people who feel that they are entitled to use federal land however they like regardless of consequences because they have always done it. I'm curious about your statement that there is 'a lot' of grazing land in this country. Is that your assessment or do you have a source for that statement? I keep reading and hearing that we are losing millions of acres of farm and ranchland annually due to 'urban sprawl'. Also, if there is such an abundance of grazing land... why are ranchers leasing government land for grazing in our Western states? Chuck

Not really. At least not in this particular case. This is some of the worst possible grazing land. The very bottom of the barrel. The few hundred head of cattle (few thousand if you consider all that used to be there) aren't even a drop in the bucket to the beef industry. There is a lot better land, and a lot of it, elsewhere for cattle. We don't have a grazing land shortage in this country. We do have a few people who feel that they are entitled to use federal land however they like regardless of consequences because they have always done it. I see. Chuck