• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

What doesn't matter is you conflating Sharpton owing taxes to Bundy owing fees and gathering armed folks support his theft.

Sharpton has nothing to do with this situation. You bringing this up amounts to nothing more than a smoke screen.

Bundy owes the federal government money. Sharpton owes the federal government money. It doesn't matter which entity within the government either of them owes. Sharpton is not bothered with armed federal agents attempting to collect his debt. Bundy is. Your failure to notice such a thing just demonstrates your faith in the government to punish it's perceived enemies, and ignore the transgressions of it's perceived friends.
 
Before the Taylor Grazing Act, these government lands were called “the public domain.” They could be privatized, as mentioned, under the Homestead Act and such, but the acreage allowed per homesteader was limited to 160 acres. There were no 158,000 acre homestead privatizations and certainly no 750,000 acre privatizations. Livestock owners ran their livestock freely without a permit on the public domain. They didn’t even need a home base of property (a ranch). The result was disaster because the operator to find green grass and eat it first won out, promoting very bad grazing practices. That was the reason for Taylor Grazing Act — ranchers and others could see the public domain system led to disaster on the ground. Therefore, the more powerful ranchers with “base” private property received grazing permits. This got rid of the landless livestock operators.

Taylor Grazing was administered on the ground by the U.S. Grazing Service. Now, ranchers with grazing permits had to pay a grazing fee to use their permits. Bundy’s ancestors probably got one of these grazing permits, but they most certainly did not buy the land. That was not possible. The public domain was not for sale and ranchers generally did not want it. After all, if they owned it, they would owe local property tax.
Cliven Bundy Has No Claim to Federal Land and Grazing | The Wildlife News
 
Well it COULD be managing public lands so the land is not abused by 'takers' who don't live in a big city. I'd say a libertarian shouldn't care a great deal how you graze cows on PRIVATE lands, but on public lands that belong to more than one rancher...

If not then why not free range in every public park, forest, grassland, reserve??? And not to make too fine a point of it, why not just let whoever wants to use it do so free of charge... which is what Bundy was doing... 900 cows can eat 13 pounds of dry matter a day- I wish I could get free grazing like that!!!!

A libertarian believes in MINIMAL govt. A huge federal bureaucracy in Washington, telling someone 1000 miles away in Nevada where his cows can graze is not something someone who believes in minimal govt would support. You might have an argument if the local ranchers had their own LOCAL system for managing the land such that everyone had fair access. But they arent allowed.
 
Of course it matters. Land user fees come under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.
A tax would come under the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service.
It doesn't matter if you are ignorant of the law, is what you are saying.
.

No, that's what you're saying. Tax? Penalty? User fee? These terms were interchangeable when the administration wanted to pass the ACA, depending on exactly who was asking. Now you're saying such things make a significant difference. You guys are just a hoot.
 
He has more claim than the federal govt[/SIZE

Sorry jonny ...You know not of which you speak.
What about Bundy’s claim that his forebears bought the land he is now accused of trespass grazing upon? This land was once Mexican land, and was won by the United States after the Mexican-American War. It is part of what is known as the “Mexican Cession.” All of Nevada, California, Arizona and most of New Mexico were part of the Cession. Much of this land was privatized under various grants and laws such as the Homestead Act and the Desert Lands Act, plus mining claims. Several million acres were granted to Nevada for state lands, but those lands that were not privatized have always been Mexican lands or United States lands owned by the U.S. government.
 
No, that's what you're saying. Tax? Penalty? User fee? These terms were interchangeable when the administration wanted to pass the ACA, depending on exactly who was asking. Now you're saying such things make a significant difference. You guys are just a hoot.

Go ahead and pay your income tax to the Bureau of Land Management... Write them the check...That should be a real "HOOT"...
:lamo
 
Last edited:
If one owes the government money, it doesn't matter to which entity within the government you owe it to or how you characterize it. You owe it. Stop trying to veil the true issue.


Cattle? You're missing the point. Bundy makes his living raising cattle. It's his source of income. Sharpton makes his living at NAN, MSNBC, and other places. It's his source of income.

You're trying to change the subject or topic of the thread. Taxes are different than user fees, if you don't know the difference, stop paying your rent or mortgage payment for a couple of years, you'll figure it out.
 
Bundy owes the federal government money. Sharpton owes the federal government money. It doesn't matter which entity within the government either of them owes. Sharpton is not bothered with armed federal agents attempting to collect his debt. Bundy is. Your failure to notice such a thing just demonstrates your faith in the government to punish it's perceived enemies, and ignore the transgressions of it's perceived friends.

I'm sorry, I'm not buying your smoke screen talking point. It's not relevant to this situation and amounts to nothing more than a stupid argument that Bundy doesn't have to follow the law because Holder isn't going after Sharpton for taxes.

BTW, people owe taxes and aren't automatically carted off to prison. Bundy, on the other hand, continued to steal by taking his cattle onto those lands over and over again despite being told not to. If you are in the act of committing a crime, the state has the right to intervene.
 
What doesn't matter is you conflating Sharpton owing taxes to Bundy owing fees and gathering armed folks support his theft.

Sharpton has nothing to do with this situation. You bringing this up amounts to nothing more than a smoke screen.

You're too nice, I call it bullsheet.
 
Does that change the fact he's stealing?

I'll bet many people used brothels before prostitution became illegal....yet they would be jailed for doing so now....except in Nevada....hmmmmm

So you're sayin' he' got the right to squat since his family's been using the land for years? What are the grandfather rights in Nevada? do you know?

I'd suggest that y'all read this eminently fair article about the situation before supporting an armed eviction of Cliven Bundy and his cattle.
Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy | Power Line
 
Go ahead and pay your income tax to the Bureau of Land Management... Write them the check...That should be a "HOOT"...
:lamo

I can't help you there. The treasury doesn't care about the sources of their income. The debtor's bank account doesn't care whether the check is made out to the IRS, BLM or any other alphabet agency. And no, I don't expect you to understand something so fundamental.
 
A libertarian believes in MINIMAL govt. A huge federal bureaucracy in Washington, telling someone 1000 miles away in Nevada where his cows can graze is not something someone who believes in minimal govt would support. You might have an argument if the local ranchers had their own LOCAL system for managing the land such that everyone had fair access. But they arent allowed.

A Libertarian... now that is a difficult cat to pin down... you seem to have A version you wish to use but there are a many Libertarian types out there as there are Libs or CONs.

You warp the facts on the ground. First you forget the range wars where early ranchers thought they owned all the land they could use, and not pay anything for that use. As territories the Federal Government ran the lands, hence had first claim before statehood.

Then you forget as the West was settled, to be fair to everyone, you either bought the land to use or rented it from the unassigned lands. many cattle barons were outraged they couldn't run cattle wherever they felt like it... but at least they now knew how the early Spanish settlers felt when their 'royal deeds' were ignored by the supplanting Anglos... :shock:

You obviously don't know the BLM, it isn't a huge bureaucracy, but quite under-strength and relies on the honor system for land management. Bundy has not paid for YEARS, a very small rent compared to if he wanted to use private land.

The Nevada cattleman's association, not a Lib group by any means hasn't sided with Bundy because they know it isn't fair for one rancher to break the law and the others obey it.

I would opine a Libertarian would say, min gubmint yes, but no gubmint is worse. Bundy wants NO Gubmint. if we all can't run cattle on public lands rent free and anyplace we want why should a very select few get that 'right'??? this was the argument as the Homestead act settled the west after statehood. free range was over.

I'd say a Libertarian would say the public lands belong to everyone and not anyone in particular, their safeguarding belongs to the Federal Gubmint that uses a series of LOCAL offices to manage the lands for us all.
 
You're trying to change the subject or topic of the thread. Taxes are different than user fees, if you don't know the difference, stop paying your rent or mortgage payment for a couple of years, you'll figure it out.

No I'm not. You are. The reason the federal agents are involved is because they claim Bundy owes them money. It wouldn't matter whether it was the IRS, BLM, or any other agency within the government. The debt is what precipitated the action. Exactly which of the agencies Bundy owes the money to is a moot point trotted out to cover the selective nature of the attempted enforcement.
 
I'd suggest that y'all read this eminently fair article about the situation before supporting an armed eviction of Cliven Bundy and his cattle.
Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy | Power Line
I'm not sympathetic to anyone who owes money, if you owe money, pay it.

I don't care if Clyde has been there since 1700. He leases the land he uses, leases usually involve monetary compensation. If you can't afford or are not willing to pay the lease fees, then get the hell off the land.

This is also true for oil companies who lease government land for extracting oil from government owned lands, and it's true for logging companies who cut timber on National Forest Lands.

What part of leasing don't some of the people here understand?
 
I can't help you there. The treasury doesn't care about the sources of their income. The debtor's bank account doesn't care whether the check is made out to the IRS, BLM or any other alphabet agency. And no, I don't expect you to understand something so fundamental.

You can't help yourself.
You not of which you speak.
 
No I'm not. You are. The reason the federal agents are involved is because they claim Bundy owes them money. It wouldn't matter whether it was the IRS, BLM, or any other agency within the government. The debt is what precipitated the action. Exactly which of the agencies Bundy owes the money to is a moot point trotted out to cover the selective nature of the attempted enforcement.

Federal agents are involved because
1. he owes money

2. he is in contempt of a court ruling that stated he owes money

Next up, the US Marshals will possibly attempt to serve an arrest warrant on contempt charges.

I'm waiting for some moron to shoot a federal officer trying to serve a warrant.

I'm also waiting for Clyde to resist arrest.
 
You can't help yourself.
You not of which you speak.

Well, you'll have to clear that bit up a little, there. Or you could read my previous post, which actually does make some sense.
 
No I'm not. You are. The reason the federal agents are involved is because they claim Bundy owes them money. It wouldn't matter whether it was the IRS, BLM, or any other agency within the government. The debt is what precipitated the action. Exactly which of the agencies Bundy owes the money to is a moot point trotted out to cover the selective nature of the attempted enforcement.
The BLM is taking action because Bundy owes the money for the user fees to them.
It may be to you but that is not a moot point to the BLM or to Bundy
 
Federal agents are involved because
1. he owes money

2. he is in contempt of a court ruling that stated he owes money

Next up, the US Marshals will possibly attempt to serve an arrest warrant on contempt charges.

I'm waiting for some moron to shoot a federal officer trying to serve a warrant.

I'm also waiting for Clyde to resist arrest.

Then the government wasted taxpayer time and money. They should have submitted a lien against Bundy's ranch and pursued payment through the courts and the IRS. There was zero reason for an armed state or federal officer to be there, and everyone knows it and can now see the heavy handed federal gestapo tactics used. :shrug:
 
Well, you'll have to clear that bit up a little, there. Or you could read my previous post, which actually does make some sense.

Sorry but this case has nothing to do with the ACA.
References to the ACA make no sense.
 
Then the government wasted taxpayer time and money. They should have submitted a lien against Bundy's ranch and pursued payment through the courts and the IRS. There was zero reason for an armed state or federal officer to be there, and everyone knows it and can now see the heavy handed federal gestapo tactics used. :shrug:

No, the IRS normally doesn't involve itself into a land or lease of land squabble.

I'll tell you this though, when or if a federal marshal or marshals go back to issue an arrest for contempt of court, you can bet your sweet ass they'll be armed, most US Marshals are armed.

You might want to take a step into the reality part of that.
 
Federal agents are involved because
1. he owes money

2. he is in contempt of a court ruling that stated he owes money

Next up, the US Marshals will possibly attempt to serve an arrest warrant on contempt charges.

I'm waiting for some moron to shoot a federal officer trying to serve a warrant.

I'm also waiting for Clyde to resist arrest.

I haven't disputed the nature or veracity of the debt. I have merely pointed out the selective nature of enforcement, and documented it. Since none have addressed that, I assume it's because none can.
 
Then the government wasted taxpayer time and money. They should have submitted a lien against Bundy's ranch and pursued payment through the courts and the IRS. There was zero reason for an armed state or federal officer to be there, and everyone knows it and can now see the heavy handed federal gestapo tactics used. :shrug:
Bundy was continuing to violate court orders and violate the law in defiance of litigation against him.
Law breakers who are caught in the act are generally stopped by law enforcement.
If you are caught speeding every night on the same stretch of road by the same cop ... is he going to put a "lien" on your house to stop you from speeding and get you to pay your speeding tickets?
No. He is going to have your car impounded.
The BLM were in the process of seizing Bundy's cattle when the guns came out.
 
Back
Top Bottom