For those who supported the McCloskeys...

[BSM1]

Is it any weirder than how the McCloskeys tried to ban BLM protesters from their property but not couriers, servants, garbage collectors, etc., heading to their neighbours?

Soooo....you saying no one should have the right to say who can and who cannot access their private property?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Soooo....you saying no one should have the right to say who can and who cannot access their private property?

No, I was pointing out that this is what @Cooky was suggesting.

But I take it from your post that you (now) agree that the Sioux have the right to say who can and who cannot access their private property... right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"In the Treaty of 1868, the U.S. government promised the Sioux territory that included the Black Hills in perpetuity. Perpetuity lasted only until gold was found in the mountains and prospectors migrated there in the 1870s. The federal government then forced the Sioux to relinquish the Black Hills portion of their reservation."
Notice the underlining I added to that last sentence.

Ah - so you think that being forced off your property means you lose your claim on the property.

Strange - and not at all obvious - position you have there.

 

[Windwalker]

How much lower can our country go?

Alex Jones as president?

 

[BSM1]

No, I was pointing out that this is what @Cooky was suggesting.

But I take it from your post that you (now) agree that the Sioux have the right to say who can and who cannot access their private property... right?

Actually, they relinquished their 'private property' rights when they allowed the monument to become a 'public' attraction. Not going to argue the 'right or wrong' of previous treaties or agreements with any agency, If the Sioux feel aggrieved then they need to take a legal approach to settling their differences. Instead, taking a page from recent protesters/rioters, they decided to make this totally political with this stupid and dangerous grandstanding ploy.

 

[columbus]

Soooo....you saying no one should have the right to say who can and who cannot access their private property?

No, really the question is more like "Does the government have the right to seize your property and force you out, without even compensations?" That appears to be what you're advocating.

For much of human history, that's exactly how things worked. Supposedly, the USA is different. But in actuality, as history shows, it isn't. Not when the owners are non-white people like the Sioux.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah - so you think that being forced off your property means you lose your claim on the property.

Strange - and not at all obvious - position you have there.

You mistake my citing the historical record for approval of what was done.
I do not approve.
I recommend asking more questions, & making fewer presumptions.
(You'd be more interesting.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, they relinquished their 'private property' rights when they allowed the monument to become a 'public' attraction.

"Allowed?" You think they had a choice in the matter?

OTOH, the original owners of the McCloskeys' mansion most certainly allowed a thoroughfare to be built on their property.

Not going to argue the 'right or wrong' of previous treaties or agreements with any agency, If the Sioux feel aggrieved then they need to take a legal approach to settling their differences.

You don't think that physically barring trespassers from your land is a "legal approach?"

Instead, taking a page from recent protesters/rioters, they decided to make this totally political with this stupid and dangerous grandstanding ploy.

Funny - I'd say it was the McCloskeys who were the ones doing the stupid, dangerous grandstanding.

 

[BSM1]

No, really the question is more like "Does the government have the right to seize your property and force you out, without even compensations?" That appears to be what you're advocating.

For much of human history, that's exactly how things worked. Supposedly, the USA is different. But in actuality, as history shows, it isn't. Not when the owners are non-white people like the Sioux.
Tom

Although this is obviously an attempt to twist, derail, and conflate my statement, I will give you an answer. The government does have the right to force you out of your property through the 'Eminent Domain' act. Granted, you are supposed to be compensated even that compensation may not be adequate in your mind. Is this fair? Who knows? But if you have a beef with the government you don't stand out in the road and try to block the bulldozers, you take it to court. Why was no other president ever treated to this display of stupidity before now? There were other presidents that visited the monument.

 

[BSM1]

"Allowed?" You think they had a choice in the matter?

OTOH, the original owners of the McCloskeys' mansion most certainly allowed a thoroughfare to be built on their property.


You don't think that physically barring trespassers from your land is a "legal approach?"


Funny - I'd say it was the McCloskeys who were the ones doing the stupid, dangerous grandstanding.

Originally I said that your post didn't warrant discussion. Again, you've proven me correct. If you do not understand the concept of private ownership of property, then I'm afraid we're just wasting each other's time. Happy Fourth of July to you.

 

[fantome profane]

The government does have the right to force you out of your property through the 'Eminent Domain' act.

This does not apply to land granted to another nation through treaty. The US cannot just pass a law and take back this land anymore than France could pass a law and take back Louisiana.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally I said that your post didn't warrant discussion. Again, you've proven me correct. If you do not understand the concept of private ownership of property, then I'm afraid we're just wasting each other's time. Happy Fourth of July to you.

You're under no obligation to stay in the thread. I understand why confronting your hypocrisy would be difficult for you.

 

[Cooky]

They obviously haven't done anything to warrant a ban, so not weird at all.

It wasn't that obvious to me in the beginning... At least now I kind of understand what's going on here.

 

[Father Heathen]

Although this is obviously an attempt to twist, derail, and conflate my statement, I will give you an answer. The government does have the right to force you out of your property through the 'Eminent Domain' act. Granted, you are supposed to be compensated even that compensation may not be adequate in your mind. Is this fair? Who knows? But if you have a beef with the government you don't stand out in the road and try to block the bulldozers, you take it to court. Why was no other president ever treated to this display of stupidity before now? There were other presidents that visited the monument.

Perhaps because no previous president was using it as a prop for some partisan agenda? Perhaps because no previous president - not even Bush - was a 5 alarm dumpster fire?

 

[Cooky]

This does not apply to land granted to another nation through treaty. The US cannot just pass a law and take back this land anymore than France could pass a law and take back Louisiana.

It seems shared. Shared land, since the tribe allows the National Park Service to do whatever it wants there.

 

[Cooky]

Perhaps because no previous president was using it as a prop for some partisan agenda? Perhaps because no previous president - not even Bush - was a 5 alarm dumpster fire?

Dare I ask what this partisan agenda is?

 

[columbus]

It seems shared. Shared land.

Why does it seem that way?
What I see is people insisting that since they stole it(at gunpoint) a long time ago, it now belongs to them.
The people I'm referring to is the federal government.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps because no previous president was using it as a prop for some partisan agenda? Perhaps because no previous president - not even Bush - was a 5 alarm dumpster fire?

Certainly no other president decided to bring several thousand people to their land during a pandemic.

 

[columbus]

Dare I ask what this partisan agenda is?

Trump was holding a political rally.
At taxpayer expense.

That's the partisan aspect.
Tom

 

[columbus]

The government does have the right to force you out of your property through the 'Eminent Domain' act. Granted, you are supposed to be compensated even that compensation may not be adequate in your mind.

If you do not understand the concept of private ownership of property, then I'm afraid we're just wasting each other's time.

Nor do you seem to understand the concept of government seizure, which is why the federal government lays claim to the land.

I often find the terms "woke" and "white privilege" tiresome. But here, they seem quite approps.
Tom