• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

What part do you want evidence of? The history of the land or the history of the right wing media filling heads with erroneous information?
I would ask Lutherf and jonny5 where they got their erroneous information about the history of Nevada land they keep repeating...
I'll bet it wasn't MSNBC.
:lamo
 
Cryptic said:
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.
Click to expand...

And if they shot you and everyone there and killed you, that's justified in this case right?
 
Ockham said:
And if they shot you and everyone there and killed you, that's justified in this case right?
Click to expand...

The govt is allowed to use on those who resist arrest or interfere with them carrying out lawful orders. In some circumstances, deadly force is allowed
 
jonny5 said:
Except the homestead act is unconstutional. Govt cant pass a law giving themselves power. 10th amendment, look it up. Youre using laws that congress passed to justify laws that congress passed.
Click to expand...

Thats great have you files a suit yet?
 
Buck Ewer said:
What part do you want evidence of? The history of the land or the history of the right wing media filling heads with erroneous information?
Click to expand...

You claim their family's cattle have not been grazing on there since the 1880's, so start there.
 
Buck Ewer said:
The Feds backed down BEFORE it came to that...
Calm down.
Click to expand...

Hey hey... let the other guy talk. He brought up a hypothetical so I'm taking it to it's conclusion and asking for agreement.
 
Buck Ewer said:
That was Bundy's claim not mine.
Click to expand...

Try again.

Buck Ewer said:
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...

So it's not a parroted lie?
 
Ockham said:
And if they shot you and everyone there and killed you, that's justified in this case right?
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not.

If I pointed a weapon at them in an attempt to keep them from removing my illegal logging operation, then yes shooting me would be justifed. Likewise, if my friends pointed weapons at them in an effort to protect my illegal logging, then yes, it would be justified to kill them.
 
Cryptic said:
Maybe, maybe not.

If I pointed a weapon at them in an attempt to keep them from removing my illegal logging operation, then yes shooting me would be justifed. Likewise, if my friends pointed weapons at them in an effort to protect my illegal logging, then yes, it would be justified to kill them.
Click to expand...

So you like the jack boots. Good to know.
 
Ockham said:
Try again.



So it's not a parroted lie?
Click to expand...
We keep hearing from members that Bundy's family grazed their cattle there before Nevada statehood and that the federal government bought the land from Nevada. Both are untrue
Bundy's own words are that his family started to graze their cattle there "in the 1880s.
I take him at his word and repeated what he claimed.
 
Ockham said:
So you like the jack boots. Good to know.
Click to expand...

Nope, I just know that my actions may have concequences. Commiting a crime and then pointing weapons at the police is just inviting concequences.
 
Ockham said:
So you like the jack boots. Good to know.
Click to expand...

So, you like hyperbole, good to know.

Personal responsibility, Bundy won't take it, he is a freeloading welfare queen.
 
Ockham said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can't always relocate a species without impacts to the ecosystem you relocate them to. The vast majority of our cattle are not raised and grazed on desert lands. We are talking about one rancher, not our nation's cattle industry, its one rancher. This one rancher has been quite successful yet refused to pay for the use of a shared resource. Fees that all of his peers pay, yet he doesn't.

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?
Click to expand...

1. The Nazi brown shirt reference is absurd. If our government was even remotely like that of Nazi Germany: A. There is no way in hell this guy would have been able to ignore the law and refuse to pay grazing fees for 20 years. B. They would have publicly shot him when he refused to comply. Its a stupid comparison you are making and it does nothing for your argument other than make it look loony.

2. The government backed down, and even though he has ignored the law for 20 years he faces no consequences. I suppose next time I go fishing I will forgo the license and when the government tries to write me a citation I can just refuse to recognize their authority and call in a bunch of anarchist militia types to back me up.
 
justabubba said:
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?
Click to expand...

I agree its always a question of balancing competing interests, but in this case we are talking about 1 rancher refusing to follow the law, not the entire cattle industry.
 
beefheart said:
So, how is this helped if some tea party goober shoots a BLM employee who is doing their job?

Nothing sychophantic, just trying to ensure that a deadbeat follows the law, this has been adjudicated in court, Bundy claims there is no Federal government, because it is convenient to his pocketbook. You bring up words like tyranical government...they have been letting this mooch slide for years, hardly tyranical. Bundy is guilty for any BLM person that gets injured, he caused this situation, he needs to be a man and pay his damned bills.
Click to expand...

Bundy? I wasn't referring to Bundy.

I was simply making an observation about sycophantic government bootlickers and how they would have denounced the militiamen at Concord bridge as nut-jobs and a fanatic fringe element. These extremist fanatics were, after all, bringing arms to bear against government employees over a simple disagreement over public policy.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I agree its always a question of balancing competing interests, but in this case we are talking about 1 rancher refusing to follow the law, not the entire cattle industry.
Click to expand...

The communist concept of the old song that you libs loved so much in the 60s of "This land is your land, this land is my land...." All bull **** depending on who's boy is in office I see.
 
Ockham said:
That's all good information and I'm sure they were very well armed, however, no where in either the Reuters piece nor in the Youtube vid did anyone claim that Bundy called in the militia, which was my question.
Click to expand...

I take then that you didnt actually watch the video's or anything?

"The presence of weapons was needed in order to intimidate them." Ammon Bundy


"do whatever it takes" Cliven

The Bundy's showed up with the militia and guns together, thats enough for me. You can deny their intent till the cows come home but hey whatever dude.
 
j-mac said:
The communist concept of the old song that you libs loved so much in the 60s of "This land is your land, this land is my land...." All bull **** depending on who's boy is in office I see.
Click to expand...

That song is from the 40's
 
j-mac said:
The communist concept of the old song that you libs loved so much in the 60s of "This land is your land, this land is my land...." All bull **** depending on who's boy is in office I see.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? It is public land, so its all of our land. We all pay for it as have previous generations. But because it is all of our land and a shared resource, we have to manage it for the benefit of everyone. This is not a difficult concept. Moreover, the grandfather of the concept of public land, Teddy Roosevelt, was hardly a commie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom