The right to repair

[GreensvilleJay]

Everyone has the 'right to repair', in this example, however few have the specialized tools, equipment and training to replace the battery pack. Most homeowners don't have 4 post lifts, pallet lifts,etc. needed to remove the 1000-2500# battery 'pack'. One current R&R EV battpack is a 9 HOUR job. Again, can you see the average homeowner working 2-3 days getting his car 'up and running'? Heck, these people don't even replace a bad cell in their cordless drills...just toss into landfill, buy another pack, instead of buying a few tools and spend 1/2 hr repairing the pack. I seriously doubt many (if any) have removed, tore down, repaired, reinstalled the transmission in their rides.
While the concept sounds great, ever since the 'industrial evolution' began, fewer and fewer people have actually worked on their 'stuff'. No need to, as they make enough to pay someone else to do the 'dirty' jobs. We've 'outsourced' almost everything from making computer chips to having babies.

 

[SDT]

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,….”

Unalienable means that subsequent peoples cannot obviate earlier residents’ Creator-endowed Rights.

OK. I now understand the claim.

The British have no legitimate claim to England, the French none to France, the Italians to Sicily (or most of Italy), the Turks none to Anatolia. The list is endless, but at least I now understand the claim.

SDT

 

[GeoHorn]

OK. I now understand the claim.

The British have no legitimate claim to England, the French none to France, the Italians to Sicily (or most of Italy), the Turks none to Anatolia. The list is endless, but at least I now understand the claim.

SDT

There’s nothing inherently “wrong” with immigration. (In fact, Immigration itself is a “right”.)
But the immigrant does not have a “right” to steal the property or the rights of those who preceded.

It’s interesting the comment was made that “ Our rights and the tribe's rights were created by the US at the same time when the project was created.” …. That person believes the (recently-arrived) U.S. gov’t can “create” rights….. yet at the same time, he discounts the validity of the U.S. Courts decision which ruled against him regarding those rights.

Kinda contradictory , IMO.

 

[JerryMT]

There’s nothing inherently “wrong” with immigration. (In fact, Immigration itself is a “right”.)
But the immigrant does not have a “right” to steal the property or the rights of those who preceded.

It’s interesting the comment was made that “ Our rights and the tribe's rights were created by the US at the same time when the project was created.” …. That person believes the (recently-arrived) U.S. gov’t can “create” rights….. yet at the same time, he discounts the validity of the U.S. Courts decision which ruled against him regarding those rights.

Kinda contradictory , IMO.

I tried to get back on track but this is still going on so lets have some facts.

Where did you get that US Court ruled in this case? A bunch of unelected bureaucrats and some elected politicians pushed this through.

Our project was started by the US and the settlers were invited to buy the surplus lands per the Hellgate Treaty of 1855, approved by Congress in 1859. The treaty said the lands would be allotted to every tribal member and the "residue" would be available for sale with the net revenue from the sale going to the tribe. This occurred in 1909 when the irrigation project was planned by the US. Irrigated lands were given to the tribal members and the settlers paid the highest price per acre for any left over lands. The tribal members got the best lands for free, the settlers got what was left over. Initially the tribal ownership was 40% of the irrigation project. Today it's about 8 %, tribal members having sold off their lands. Some tribal members convert their lands from tribal trust lands to fee simple so their titles are just like the settlers. i.e fee simple.

It is a simple fact, whether you like it or not, that the US was the only sovereign capable to making a treaty, creating a reservation, alloting lands and administering a treaty. The motivation was to take a hunter gatherer group and transition it to the industrial age in some sort of organized fashion. The alternative was to let the tribes "sink or swim".

If any bad things happened to this tribe, there is nobody alive today on either side so why punish people for something they didn't do.
It's just simply a "guilt complex" by people who don't even have a clue about the situation. The fact remains that my constitutional right to property , (and 2400 non-indian and indian fee land holders), was violated by a 5th Amendment taking without compensation. If it can happen to me, it can happen to you.

This is the last that I will say on this subject. So lets get back to talking tractors and the "right to repair"!

 

[GeoHorn]

Yeah…the tribal members got the lands (they already owned) …”for free”….

and you are unhappy about that.

THAT is the problem! Like many…you simply don’t “get it”.

“If any bad things happened to this tribe, there is nobody alive today on either side so why punish people for something they didn't do.” Sooo…… your grandaddy stole a mans property and you’ve inherited it… therefore everybody should forget about it and let you keep it. I get it. And Hermann Goerings’ daughter Emmy should have been allowed to keep all that stolen art.

 

[SDT]

There’s nothing inherently “wrong” with immigration. (In fact, Immigration itself is a “right”.)
But the immigrant does not have a “right” to steal the property or the rights of those who preceded.

It’s interesting the comment was made that “ Our rights and the tribe's rights were created by the US at the same time when the project was created.” …. That person believes the (recently-arrived) U.S. gov’t can “create” rights….. yet at the same time, he discounts the validity of the U.S. Courts decision which ruled against him regarding those rights.

Kinda contradictory , IMO.

Immigration and conquest are entirely different processes. The Romans did not immigrate to Sicily, the Normans did not immigrate to England, the Franks, Goths, Visigoths, etc. to France, the Seljuk Turks to Anatolia, etc., etc., etc. Again, historical accounts are nearly countless. Any policy purporting to enforce any perceived "rights" once claimed by a culture henceforth and forevermore into the future is, nonsensical, unenforceable, and obviously chaotic.

Immigration has little if anything to do with water rights in MT, and no where in treaty, Constitution, Bible, etc., etc., etc. is it written that immigration is a right, inalienable or otherwise.

Yes, Jerry, unelected, cube-dwelling, deep state bureaucrats do indeed promulgate countless thousands of regulations concerning countless things about which they know little or nothing. Sadly, U.S. S. Ct. precedent has given such regulations the full force and effect of law. It appears that it is someone else that doesn't "get it."

SDT

 

[lugbolt]

Well…that post sorta resembles a “rant” more than a legitimate comment. Why?

Because our Elected Representatives created/passed a “law” that represents what the majority of citizens who vote wanted… Clean Air Act…. which regulates such matters.
The “law” does not prohibit owners from repairing their machinery. It only requires they be “qualified and equipped” to make repairs ”which affect emissions”… nothing more.

The fact that individuals may find this law ”inconvenient” only means they are either in the “minority” of public desire (as demonstrated by their elected representatives who authored and passed that law)…. or they were not influential in affecting the outcome of that legislation.

We can change the law. All we have to do is be registered to vote, actually vote, and have the money to influence our fellow voters to agree with us on that vote. AS always…”Follow the Money”.

And the mfr’s have taken advantage of us who wanted clean air by finding a method they can twist things to their benefit… They’ve created a machine that requires expensive equipment, education, and certification-of-repairmen to accomplish the repair.

Anyway… it’s NOT US against THEM (the gov’t and the gov’t agency). WE ARE the “gov’t”. All we have to do is be in the majority if we want to affect change…and most people in the U.S. live in cities where air quality outweighs rural tractor-owners.

yes follow the money
in 2010, the supreme court passed a landmark decision that we call "citizens united". Google it.
basically, before then, there were limits placed on how much corporations could donate to elections. After, not so much.
What that means is that, lets say I ran for the state house of representatives. I could probably generate $500,000 somewhat easily. But if the lady up the road, who works in the governor's office already 2 days a week, and the other 3 days working for a large company based out of CHINA who just happens to have a presence here as well, runs for the same seat-and generates, say $2M she now has more money that is used to influence voters, via TV, internet, radio advertising. it is a proven, that the more you spend in campaigning/advertising you have a higher probability of winning the seat. But--keeping that in mind, lets's compare the lady's $2M, which comes from indivduals and from companies (perhaps the company she is working for) to, say, larger corporate donations from, well let's say Musk (Tesla) or Google, or Bezos. Those companies have a huge bankroll, and they are smart, let's use Amazon for example. Amazon, Inc can donate, say $2M very very easily and it would likely not even be noticed on their bankroll. Multiply that by 100 corporate donations. so using that, it could easily be said that citizens united opened up the doors for companies to "own" the government and thus have control over the usa+

Go back and look at what Google, eBay, Amazon, and other large companies donated to campaigns in 2020, and who they gave to. it's eye opening.

Citizens united ruling should be revisited, and, well, maybe I don't understand all of the ins and outs of it, but it looks to me like the supreme court sold out in a way to large corporate entities, and if that is true, then we the working people of the usa, have very little say in elections and if I am right, the USA is no longer a rule "by the people, for the people", it is now a rule "by the money, for the money"--leaving the working people out of the equation, other than they show up at the polls and cast a vote that was swayed by....MONEY.

My friend is a retired supreme court associate justice and for a while a senator of the state. I asked him about citizens united a while back and got an earfull. It works in a lot of ways and it hurts in a lot of ways, and I just described a tiny bit of it.

 

[JerryMT]

Yeah…the tribal members got the lands (they already owned) …”for free”….

and you are unhappy about that.

THAT is the problem! Like many…you simply don’t “get it”.

Owned you say! Utter nonsense. They had no concept of property ownership. The idea of property ownership came from Europe. They could only occupy land if they could hold it against other tribes. They were constantly at war among themselves. Today they are nothing more than a government subsidized culture club with all sorts of special privileges that other US citizens do not have. Congress has plenary control of Indian tribes and thanks to income from Tribal casinos, Congress is in the Tribes pocket.

 

[GeoHorn]

Owned you say! Utter nonsense. They had no concept of property ownership. The idea of property ownership came from Europe. They could only occupy land if they could hold it against other tribes. They were constantly at war among themselves. Today they are nothing more than a government subsidized culture club with all sorts of special privileges that other US citizens do not have. Congress has plenary control of Indian tribes and thanks to income from Tribal casinos, Congress is in the Tribes pocket.

Really? Then why did the U.S. “buy” and Indian tribes “sell” the rights to their land? Tribal ownership of land was a practice which preceeded European immigration by centuries…and as you mentioned, was a motivational force of intertribal warfare.
The “government subsidized culture club with all sorts of special privileges that other US citizens do not have”…. IS the “utter nonsense” you mention, and appears to be an indicator of on-going racial hatred of native Americans.
Contrary to popular belief, Indians do not receive payments from the federal government simply because they have Indian blood. Funds distributed to a person of Indian descent may represent mineral lease income on property that is held in trust by the United States or compensation for lands taken in connection with governmental projects. Some Indian tribes receive benefits from the federal government in fulfillment of treaty obligations or for the extraction of tribal natural resources — a percentage of which may be distributed as per capita among the tribe’s membership.
(American Indians Today: Answers to Your Questions, Third Edition, 1991.)

If you want to see first-hand some of their “special privileges” drive thru AZ/New Mexico pueblos and witness …in America….those who live in mud huts, undernourished scantily-clad children in dirt streets and no hope… visit the lone local store (non-resident owned) with overpriced low-quality produce…no civil services, school, etc…(except there seems always to be a small liquor store).… those people are still today despised, maltreated and live in squalor. At the edge of the pueblo, just outside its jurisdiction will be a gasoline station with overpriced merchandise …and if you think gasoline prices are high in Your neighborhood… try looking at the pumps at the edge of a pueblo.
Yep…. “government subsidized culture club” indeed.

Boy! we’ve gone off-topic…
… I ain’t seen no Kubotas in a pueblo…

 

[SDT]

yes follow the money
in 2010, the supreme court passed a landmark decision that we call "citizens united". Google it.
basically, before then, there were limits placed on how much corporations could donate to elections. After, not so much.
What that means is that, lets say I ran for the state house of representatives. I could probably generate $500,000 somewhat easily. But if the lady up the road, who works in the governor's office already 2 days a week, and the other 3 days working for a large company based out of CHINA who just happens to have a presence here as well, runs for the same seat-and generates, say $2M she now has more money that is used to influence voters, via TV, internet, radio advertising. it is a proven, that the more you spend in campaigning/advertising you have a higher probability of winning the seat. But--keeping that in mind, lets's compare the lady's $2M, which comes from indivduals and from companies (perhaps the company she is working for) to, say, larger corporate donations from, well let's say Musk (Tesla) or Google, or Bezos. Those companies have a huge bankroll, and they are smart, let's use Amazon for example. Amazon, Inc can donate, say $2M very very easily and it would likely not even be noticed on their bankroll. Multiply that by 100 corporate donations. so using that, it could easily be said that citizens united opened up the doors for companies to "own" the government and thus have control over the usa+

Go back and look at what Google, eBay, Amazon, and other large companies donated to campaigns in 2020, and who they gave to. it's eye opening.

Citizens united ruling should be revisited, and, well, maybe I don't understand all of the ins and outs of it, but it looks to me like the supreme court sold out in a way to large corporate entities, and if that is true, then we the working people of the usa, have very little say in elections and if I am right, the USA is no longer a rule "by the people, for the people", it is now a rule "by the money, for the money"--leaving the working people out of the equation, other than they show up at the polls and cast a vote that was swayed by....MONEY.

My friend is a retired supreme court associate justice and for a while a senator of the state. I asked him about citizens united a while back and got an earfull. It works in a lot of ways and it hurts in a lot of ways, and I just described a tiny bit of it.

Be advised that the NEA, AFT, SEIU, AFSCME, etc., also have enormous bankrolls collected from their members, voluntatily or otherwise, and they donate enormous sums almost exclusively to a single party.

SDT

 

[SDT]

Owned you say! Utter nonsense. They had no concept of property ownership. The idea of property ownership came from Europe. They could only occupy land if they could hold it against other tribes. They were constantly at war among themselves. Today they are nothing more than a government subsidized culture club with all sorts of special privileges that other US citizens do not have. Congress has plenary control of Indian tribes and thanks to income from Tribal casinos, Congress is in the Tribes pocket.

Well said, Jerry.

SDT

 

[GeoHorn]

Be advised that the NEA, AFT, SEIU, AFSCME, etc., also have enormous bankrolls collected from their members, voluntatily or otherwise, and they donate enormous sums almost exclusively to a single party.

SDT

You forgot NRA and NSSF.

 

[SDT]

Really? Then why did the U.S. “buy” and Indian tribes “sell” the rights to their land? Tribal ownership of land was a practice which preceeded European immigration by centuries…and as you mentioned, was a motivational force of intertribal warfare.
The “government subsidized culture club with all sorts of special privileges that other US citizens do not have”…. IS the “utter nonsense” you mention, and appears to be an indicator of on-going racial hatred of native Americans.
Contrary to popular belief, Indians do not receive payments from the federal government simply because they have Indian blood. Funds distributed to a person of Indian descent may represent mineral lease income on property that is held in trust by the United States or compensation for lands taken in connection with governmental projects. Some Indian tribes receive benefits from the federal government in fulfillment of treaty obligations or for the extraction of tribal natural resources — a percentage of which may be distributed as per capita among the tribe’s membership.
(American Indians Today: Answers to Your Questions, Third Edition, 1991.)

If you want to see first-hand some of their “special privileges” drive thru AZ/New Mexico pueblos and witness …in America….those who live in mud huts, undernourished scantily-clad children in dirt streets and no hope… visit the lone local store (non-resident owned) with overpriced low-quality produce…no civil services, school, etc…(except there seems always to be a small liquor store).… those people are still today despised, maltreated and live in squalor. At the edge of the pueblo, just outside its jurisdiction will be a gasoline station with overpriced merchandise …and if you think gasoline prices are high in Your neighborhood… try looking at the pumps at the edge of a pueblo.
Yep…. “government subsidized culture club” indeed.

Boy! we’ve gone off-topic…
… I ain’t seen no Kubotas in a pueblo…

Why? It's called consideration. Study contract law and you will understand.

There are, indeed, so-called "native americans" who do, indeed receive direct payments and other benefits from US taxpayers, some of which have no native american blood, but filled out the right papers at the right time, making the right claims. I give you a very close Irish law school associate of mine as well as a Senator from MA, etc.

SDT

 

[SDT]

You forgot NRA.

The NRA is not a union nor does it collect funds involuntatily from anyone.

Your point is?

SDT

 

[GeoHorn]

The NRA is not a union nor does it collect funds involuntatily from anyone.

Your point is?

SDT

My point is that Citizens United is just WRONG all-around WRONG.

Unions are prohibited from collecting funds from Members involuntarily.

 

[JerryMT]

Really? Then why did the U.S. “buy” and Indian tribes “sell” the rights to their land? Tribal ownership of land was a practice which preceeded European immigration by centuries…and as you mentioned, was a motivational force of intertribal warfare.
The “government subsidized culture club with all sorts of special privileges that other US citizens do not have”…. IS the “utter nonsense” you mention, and appears to be an indicator of on-going racial hatred of native Americans.
Contrary to popular belief, Indians do not receive payments from the federal government simply because they have Indian blood. Funds distributed to a person of Indian descent may represent mineral lease income on property that is held in trust by the United States or compensation for lands taken in connection with governmental projects. Some Indian tribes receive benefits from the federal government in fulfillment of treaty obligations or for the extraction of tribal natural resources — a percentage of which may be distributed as per capita among the tribe’s membership.
(American Indians Today: Answers to Your Questions, Third Edition, 1991.)

If you want to see first-hand some of their “special privileges” drive thru AZ/New Mexico pueblos and witness …in America….those who live in mud huts, undernourished scantily-clad children in dirt streets and no hope… visit the lone local store (non-resident owned) with overpriced low-quality produce…no civil services, school, etc…(except there seems always to be a small liquor store).… those people are still today despised, maltreated and live in squalor. At the edge of the pueblo, just outside its jurisdiction will be a gasoline station with overpriced merchandise …and if you think gasoline prices are high in Your neighborhood… try looking at the pumps at the edge of a pueblo.
Yep…. “government subsidized culture club” indeed.

Boy! we’ve gone off-topic…
… I ain’t seen no Kubotas in a pueblo…

IS the “utter nonsense” you mention, and appears to be an indicator of on-going racial hatred of native Americans.
Now you play the race card! A sure sign that you really don't know what you are talking about when you have to play that.
I can assure you that a lot of the "feelings" you are expressing are very similar to my own until they and the State of Montana started fooling with my property right, which by the way is protected by the State and US Constitution. The tribe I'm referring to has 7000 members , 5000 live on the reservation. There annual income is $400,000,000. That's ~$70,000 per member. the "elite members" of the tribe have all the high paying jobs as nepotism is rampant. They have full time 29 lobbyists in DC. The vast majority of their members live in poverty. They are a corporate entity under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 and are defined as "domestic dependent sovereigns" which SCOTUS has said means they are only "sovereign over their own land and people". Their own members live in fear of retribution by tribal government if they do not publicly support tribal policy. They can lose their tribal jobs or have their children taken away because the tribe has that authority. Being a guy from Texas, you would not know this because this, reality is not published. The tribal leadership are professional victims, very wealthy ones.

'Nuff said.

 

[aaluck]

Sooo…… your grandaddy stole a mans property and you’ve inherited it… therefore everybody should forget about it and let you keep it

I completely agree. So lets start with your stolen land and give it back to its rightful owner. Since you really believe this what time should we have the moving trucks there?

 

[GeoHorn]

I completely agree. So lets start with your stolen land and give it back to its rightful owner. Since you really believe this what time should we have the moving trucks there?

My place was acquired by treaty with Comanches and never challenged afterward. I bought it from previous owners.

Texas does indeed have Native American reservations…not many…but some, Alabama-Coushatta, Tigua, and Kickapoo and The Lipan-Apache headquarters are actually in McAllen, Texas.

 

[NHSleddog]

....... if they do not publicly support tribal policy. They can lose their tribal jobs.....

Sounds like another group of donkeys.

 

[aaluck]

My place was acquired by treaty with Comanches and never challenged afterward

I'm sure that was a fair treaty.