I am sure with 6 heritage sites established in 2019. There must be some record of the govt infringing on private property rights in the past two years on those sites.
I am sure of it…
No you say…
Allan
3 years is an eye blink.
Ah so no evidence.
Get back with this thread once you find someone’s private property rights were infringed on.
Methinks it will be a long time in coming…
Allan
I gave you an example above.
What you’re not getting is I don’t need “evidence”.
NYT is in New York, not Montana. And it’s a snapshot in time. Yet you automatically believe it. Because: EXPERTS!
The EPA had never fined a rancher millions for digging a stock pond either, until it did. Or fenced off ranchers’ water.
Ask the Indians about government promises and land.
It’s not about this case, it’s about information and who owns it and gets to risk it.
1 Like
So you have nothing but your fee fees to tell you the information you want to be wrong is wrong?
Sounds about right.
Now what? I guess we can trust nothing the government says. Not a big deal when the consequence is that Montana doesn’t get federal National Heritage Area funds. A little more serious when someone doesn’t want to get a vaccine that could save their life.
Except of course when it’s trump in the governemnt.
Then we can believe everything he says.
It doesn’t matter if the information is right or wrong. Yet.
What matters is who you believe is right or wrong and why.
But not even really that.
Based on what?
“Doesn’t want” right. Makes a decision! Now we’re talking!
Oh and I have history.
1 Like
Ready to go back to this when y’all are.
Why doesn’t it matter if the information is right or wrong?
If people are making decisions based on lies, why wouldn’t that matter?
Because they made the decision. Who gets to say what is a lie? Is it a lie that government has a history of screwing over land owners? Of creating seemingly “nice” programs, then abusing them?
Who gets to control the information I use to make my decisions?
What was the initial case that led to Citizens United (for example)?
Exciting times!
1 Like
Let’s say I own a little property. I want more. I decide to risk the property I have to get my more.
Who decides if it was a good decision or bad?
Who decides tha “truth”? Which “research” to believe?
Objective reality is a real thing.
There is ZERO evidence that the heritage program leads to the kind of abuses that were propagated here.
They made a decision based on fear mongering lies.
You can make your decisions based on lies if you want, but I would suggest you would make better decisions basing them on truth.
Had she said “we don’t with this because the governemnt MIGHT do this int eh future…” well, that’s I guess CLOSER to the truth. But she didn’t.
She lied to monger fear.
It’s funny to me that you are not only accepting of this, but you are cheering in on.
I don’t see how that is analogous.
Can you try again?
Sure you need evidence.
That’s how you prove something.
Otherwise it’s just misinformation.
Remember trump and his clarion election fraud claims with no evidence.
Just misinformation.
Allan
Don’t buy that property. It is an ancient burial ground now inhabited by blood-sucking demons.
1 Like
The New York Times running a story about the dangers of misinformation is a bit like an owner of a whore house warning about the dangers of infidelity.
I don’t need to read any further.
3 Likes
