Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Odium, Apr 14, 2015.
I've never been in a sewer. I still know they stink.
Is that what you call an armed standoff with police defending law breaking now? Power to the people?
I thought open defiance of the law was called law breaking...
If the feds wanted to steal that gold they would have done it back in the 1800s.
What's going on is the government is trying to save a species of salmon.
Thousands of people depend on salmon for a living. When the salmon are gone they're out of a job. Not just the fishermen but every business that supports fishing.
We are a nation of laws. When people violate our laws they face our justice system. It doesn't matter if the law you broke is protecting fish. It's still the law.
If those people want to mine that area for gold fine. Just do it within the law.
Don't kill salmon eggs. Don't destroy salmon habitat.
It's very simple.
Just because that mine existed before the EPA doesn't mean they don't have to obey the law.
There is no grandfather clause so what was done before the EPA doesn't matter. What matters is that the laws exist now and people must obey them.
So your argument about this is worthless. The law didn't grandfather that mine so the law applies to that mine just like it applies to every other place in America.
These people aren't special. They don't get to be an exception to the law. Everyone is treated equally under the law or the constitution is violated.
Leave it to a right winger to violate the constitution and laws. You people think you're special and our laws don't apply to you. You're wrong.
You won't see the miners win this. No court in our nation will rule in their favor against the EPA.
I could be wrong but I don't think that the government needs to go to court to get someone to stop violating the law on federal lands.
I think they only need to go to court to enforce EPA or the Clean Water Act when the violations are happening on privately owned land.
The government already has control and authority over public lands so they don't need a court order. The owners of land don't need to get a judge to enforce ownership and control of the land. However they would need one if it was happening on private land.
So the cease and desist order is probably perfectly legal. If it wasn't then the judge in this case would have thrown it out of court and ruled against the government.
Yes, you are wrong, and obviously completely unversed in this type of scenario.
Now walk to the 7-11 and pick up your 40.
As compared to the Ferguson protestors? Those all American loving little fuzzballs of hope, joy, peace and serenity?
You're one fucked up bigoted perverse asshole if you can call the Bundy protestors trash.
Check out these law abiding patriots! OMG the love of country just oozing from their pores!
I didn't make the comparison, you did. You apparently have no idea what you want to talk about. Maybe you should give it some thought first and get back to me.
Separate names with a comma.