• 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

Ockham said:
When a person owns land, that land has boundaries which separates land he owns and pays taxes on from other people's land or government owned land. This land is outlined by surveyors who outline the exact measurements and recorded in the local tax office by lot and block (some area's use different terminology). His land is, using a metaphor, an island.

I'm not sure what you think you understand, but at a practical level, it sounds like what you understand is incorrect.
Click to expand...

the metes and bounds plat dimensions of the bundy ranch has no bearing on this matter. what does matter is that the rancher's cattle improperly grazed on the land of another without permission and payment. in short, he stole federal assets from the American public. and now it is time for him to both pay his delinquent obligation and to discontinue grazing on federal lands without authorization
 
CRUE CAB said:
Your home is not "yours" as long as there is a mortgage. But you keep playing apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

The grazing land is not his, why did he pay the fees for so many years, then stop?

(he is a freeloader moocher)
 
AJiveMan said:
He paid lease fees until 1993, which is when he stopped. His faux outrage should have begun then. But, there weren't any tea militias around back then, were there?

When the feds show up to seize property, they are usually armed.
Click to expand...

So ceasing payments wasn't sufficient 'faux outrage'? Are you suggesting that he isn't outraged unless he takes up arms? Seems that's more the government's position than it is Bundy's.
 
Cryptic said:
No, at the practical level, I am 100% correct. The public property in question does not belong to him. This is the core concept. Yes, his property is an island, but he chooses to live there and this does not change the core concept.
Click to expand...
Yes the public property, where the suppose desert turtles were being protected.
 
Cryptic said:
No, at the practical level, I am 100% correct. The public property in question does not belong to him. This is the core concept. Yes, his property is an island, but he chooses to live there and this does not change the core concept.


Not all the time. If I dont pay my car payments, my car is going to get removed. If I "squat" on somebody elses property, I am going to get removed.

The Constitution forbids unlawful siezures -not all siezures. Please, stop the blind followership of Bundy.
Click to expand...
You agreed to those terms on your car payment when you started the loan.
 
Ockham said:
The Feds tried to intimidate him and it didn't work now the Feds look stupid. Bundy didn't invade Washington. What part of that are you still not understanding?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it took the "jack booted thugs" what 20 years to "intimidate him". Next time a ranger tells me not to commercially harvest timber in the State Forest with out a permit, I"ll just say:

A. The land is mine in the mystical sense
B. The ranger's order is "unconstitutional"
C. And oh yeah... "Stop trying to intimidate me..."

Ockham said:
Yes the public property, where the suppose desert turtles were being protected.
Click to expand...
I would advocate grandfathering his privelage to use the area- if he pays his debts. I also dont like endangered species laws. I like freeloaders even less.
 
Cryptic said:
No, at the practical level, I am 100% correct. The public property in question does not belong to him. This is the core concept. Yes, his property is an island, but he chooses to live there and this does not change the core concept.


Not all the time. If I dont pay my car payments, my car is going to get removed. If I "squat" on somebody elses property, I am going to get removed.

The Constitution forbids unlawful siezures -not all siezures. Please, stop the blind followership of Bundy.
Click to expand...
Exactly... Park your car in a city lot and stop paying the daily fee. See how long before it is towed away to an impound lot and held there in lieu of fees owed.
This is very close to what the BLM were doing to Bundy's cattle.
 
jonny5 said:
You didnt answer the question. What is libertarian about a centralized govt managing where cows eat grass?
Click to expand...

The Tragedy of the Commons is an example of a Market Failure. Even libertarians recognize that there is a government role in cases of market failures. If you have a finite resource: Public Land. With finite resources on it: Forage, Water, Plants and Animals, then there has to be a way of managing that resource for future generations and all interests.
 
Buck Ewer said:
At some point you must concede that apples and oranges are both fruit.
See my post # 533.
Click to expand...

And you must concede that the G is making a fool of itself after a 20 year court battle to show up with armed BLM agents.
To do nothing really but scare cattle and piss off people, 6 months before the mid terms.
 
Ockham said:
Yes the public property, where the suppose desert turtles were being protected.
Click to expand...

Why should a rancher and his cattle have more value on public land than a threatened species? Personally, I don't think any one rancher and his cattle has more value than an entire species. Particularly when that rancher refuses for 20 years to pay the fees to use a common resource, in this case public land. There are 7 billion of us on this earth now, unless we want nothing but mass extinctions, we cannot always do whatever we want to any place.
 
CRUE CAB said:
And you must concede that the G is making a fool of itself after a 20 year court battle to show up with armed BLM agents.
To do nothing really but scare cattle and piss off people, 6 months before the mid terms.
Click to expand...

how is seizing debtor assets to satisfy a financial obligation after a twenty year litigation determined the debtor owes the government monies, found to be the government 'making a fool of itself'
 
CRUE CAB said:
And you must concede that the G is making a fool of itself after a 20 year court battle to show up with armed BLM agents.
Click to expand...
They gave him his chances to make his case in court and he lost. He then continued to break the law and steal from the federal government.
What do you propose they should have done?
My analogy about parking your car without paying the fee is VERY close to what has occurred here.
The BLM took the same next step with Bundy's cattle the city will do with your car.
 
Cryptic said:
Yeah, it took the "jack booted thugs" what 20 years to "intimidate him".
Click to expand...
There's been 100+ years of history with that land but make sure you ignore it like you did just then.

Cryptic said:
Next time a ranger tells me not to commercially harvest timber in the State Forest with out a permit, I"ll just say:

A. The land is mine in the mystical sense
B. The ranger's order is "unconstitutional"
C. And oh yeah... "Stop trying to intimidate me..."

I would advocate grandfathering his privelage to use the area- if he pays his debts. I also dont like endangered species laws. I like freeloaders even less.
Click to expand...

If they did come at you with 100 armed federal agents and started driving your trucks away as some insipid plan to pay off your debt, I would have the same problem with the jack booted thugs yes. You keep hammering away at an issue which I agree with you. He had no legal claim, he owes money. The only person you're arguing with on that account is yourself. I've been very consistent about what I have a problem with and that is the intimidation. Bottom line was, the government didn't have the balls (and thankfully so) to shoot other American's over grass cattle ate. Their methods were overt bordering on totalitarian. That leaves me with a smidgen of hope that not all politicians are drooling morons.

I think grandfathering the use would be great, though since something like 80% of Nevada is government owned land, I doubt that will happen. It's clear whatever the future use of the land in question, cattle nor people like Bundy are welcome given he's the last cattle rancher in his county and the rest were, allegedly, run off by the same government types.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Why should a rancher and his cattle have more value on public land than a threatened species? Personally, I don't think any one rancher and his cattle has more value than an entire species. Particularly when that rancher refuses for 20 years to pay the fees to use a common resource, in this case public land. There are 7 billion of us on this earth now, unless we want nothing but mass extinctions, we cannot always do whatever we want to any place.
Click to expand...

there are competing interests
imagine this being about placing a damn on the site, further endangering the tortoise species
would providing water to an expanding population not outweigh the interest of preserving this species at this locale?
 
sangha said:
Actually, it was fed land before the Bundy family arrived in the area.
Click to expand...
Yes... The land became US government land when the US won the war with Mexico.
Nevada became a state in 1864 ...Bundy claims his family started grazing cattle there in the 1880s.
The right wing media keeps feeding these people bad information. They just parrot the lies.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Why should a rancher and his cattle have more value on public land than a threatened species?
Click to expand...
I can think of a lot of reasons. Primarily because cattle is a source of food for people, as well as other resources such as leather, gelatine, pharmaceuticals, etc. Why should a tortoise have more rights than people? Relocate them to similar habitats.

SouthernDemocrat said:
Personally, I don't think any one rancher and his cattle has more value than an entire species. Particularly when that rancher refuses for 20 years to pay the fees to use a common resource, in this case public land. There are 7 billion of us on this earth now, unless we want nothing but mass extinctions, we cannot always do whatever we want to any place.
Click to expand...

No amount of land management will stop extinctions - it will only slow them down. Ultimately, people are more important than animals - any animal. Until interstellar space can be traversed with ease, animals will continue to lose out to an ever growing human population. That is human nature. While I didn't see you comment on the brown shirt methods used by the government, I can only assume you agree with the methods used - is that correct?
 
bubbabgone said:
How did the Federal Government come to own that land?
Click to expand...

They bought it from Mexico as part of the Mexican Cession
What about the various Supreme Court decisions regarding The Federal Government and how it may Constitutionally come to own State land?
Click to expand...

Art IV, Sec 3
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Click to expand...
 
Buck Ewer said:
Yes... The land became US government land when the US won the war with Mexico.
Nevada became a state in 1864 ...Bundy claims his family started grazing cattle there in the 1880s.
The right wing media keeps feeding these people bad information. They just parrot the lies.
Click to expand...

Can you back that up with you know ... evidence? Something more than just your say so about that evil right wing conspiracy you vomited just now.
 
Lutherf said:
Bundy's family was grazing that land since before Nevada was a state. They started chagrin him rent for land he had been using for years.
Click to expand...

The land was purchased by the feds in 1864, which is at least 13 years before Bundy claims he started grazing there, and even that claim seems to be a lie because there's no evidence anyone in his family was there in 1877
 
Ockham said:
If they did come at you with 100 armed federal agents and started driving your trucks away as some insipid plan to pay off your debt, I would have the same problem with the jack booted thugs yes.
Click to expand...

I would understand their actions (send 100 guys) if I:

- Said I would do "whatever it took" to defend my illegal logging operation (the one located on land I dont own) - and
- Had several dozen armed people near me, some of whom openly promised to defend my illegal logging operation and maybe looking for a excuse to do so - and
- The very patient government received word that more armed supporters were on their way over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom