• 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

AJiveMan said:
You call him by Cliven, I call him Clyde. This is what your issue is about, not calling him by his name, big deal. You lost the debate again. Sorry.:lamo
Click to expand...

Again let me know when you start debating anything....
 
American said:
A politician in Washington who's never seen Nevada, in your world.
Click to expand...

C'mon, guy - answer the question. Let's say I move right next to that same plot of federal land. Who's got more right to say what goes on on that land - the rancher who wants to let his cattle crap all over what he says is his federal land, or myself, who tells him that no, he can't let his cattle crap all over I say is my federal land.

How do we decide who is 'more' right?
 
AJiveMan said:
This is the third time I've posted this link.

Everything you need to know about the long fight between Cliven Bundy and the federal government
Click to expand...

Next time just post the correct link instead of pointing back towards another DP thread.


So let's talk about the substance of that link. Was a militia member or group identified as the perpetrators of the bombing in either case? No. Was ANYONE at ALL identified as the perpetrators in the bombing. No.

So when you stated this:

AJiveMan said:
You know, those kind loving militias that have bombed the BLM & National Forest Service offices, and at least one forest supervisors car.
Click to expand...

It was was bull**** that you made up. Your posts have a lot of "exigent creativity" in them don't they. :lamo
 
Henrin said:
The police are made up of thugs and have a task that very much empowers thugs, as the job basically amounts to thuggery in many cases.
Click to expand...

My mother was a cop and I find it insulting that you consider people who put their lives at risk enforcing the law as thugs.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
C'mon, guy - answer the question. Let's say I move right next to that same plot of federal land. Who's got more right to say what goes on on that land - the rancher who wants to let his cattle crap all over what he says is his federal land, or myself, who tells him that no, he can't let his cattle crap all over I say is my federal land.

How do we decide who is 'more' right?
Click to expand...

Well, if he were paying his fees like he was before 1993, then he would...Largely because he paid for the right to have his cattle there...Today? this is in dispute due to an over bearing government agency that just used the endangered species act to arbitrary raise those fees, probably backed by the National Vegan society to put him out of business.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
My mother was a cop and I find it insulting that you consider people who put their lives at risk enforcing the law as thugs.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with you considering my comment insulting. I stand by my comment that police work is largely thuggery and the vast majority of those in the police force are thugs.
 
j-mac said:
Well, if he were paying his fees like he was before 1993, then he would...Largely because he paid for the right to have his cattle there...Today? this is in dispute due to an over bearing government agency that just used the endangered species act to arbitrary raise those fees, probably backed by the National Vegan society to put him out of business.
Click to expand...

If he paid his fees before 1993 he recoginised the legitimacy of the fee, so what changed?
 
Ockham said:
Next time just post the correct link instead of pointing back towards another DP thread.


So let's talk about the substance of that link. Was a militia member or group identified as the perpetrators of the bombing in either case? No. Was ANYONE at ALL identified as the perpetrators in the bombing. No.

So when you stated this:



It was was bull**** that you made up. Your posts have a lot of "exigent creativity" in them don't they. :lamo
Click to expand...
You're another conservative or whatever that's lost this debate. After the rant about brown shirts.
 
Henrin said:
I have no problem with you considering my comment insulting if you want. I stand by my comment that police work is largely thuggery and the vast majority of those in the police force are thugs.
Click to expand...

Dos that accusation Include the 9/11 first responders?
 
j-mac said:
Well, if he were paying his fees like he was before 1993, then he would...Largely because he paid for the right to have his cattle there...Today? this is in dispute due to an over bearing government agency that just used the endangered species act to arbitrary raise those fees, probably backed by the National Vegan society to put him out of business.
Click to expand...

And out come the tin foil hats folks.
 
j-mac said:
Well, if he were paying his fees like he was before 1993, then he would...Largely because he paid for the right to have his cattle there...Today? this is in dispute due to an over bearing government agency that just used the endangered species act to arbitrary raise those fees, probably backed by the National Vegan society to put him out of business.
Click to expand...

Actually, he stopped paying those fees five years BEFORE there was any raise in fees and the endangered species act was invoked. Again, he might have been grandfathered in under the act enforcement, if his payments had been at all current. He's screwed his own pooch on this one and now he's using the wounded bird defense.
 
AJiveMan said:
You're another conservative or whatever that's lost this debate. After the rant about brown shirts.
Click to expand...

You made a claim, and the link fails to provide facts about that claim. Therefore you made it up.

Way to go big and fail! :lamo
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
If he paid his fees before 1993 he recoginised the legitimacy of the fee, so what changed?
Click to expand...

As I understand it, before 1993 the fees were paid to the state of Nevada, after that, the feds came in with some BS about this turtle, and just started demanding a fee.
 
j-mac said:
As I understand it, before 1993 the fees were paid to the state of Nevada, after that, the feds came in with some BS about this turtle, and just started demanding a fee.
Click to expand...

Ahhh the turtle.... it always does seem to come back around to that turtle nonsense doesn't it?
 
j-mac said:
As I understand it, before 1993 the fees were paid to the state of Nevada, after that, the feds came in with some BS about this turtle, and just started demanding a fee.
Click to expand...

Nevada was probably acting as a intermediary for the federal government.
 
Henrin said:
You mean besides the fact that it is a lie? The people didn't do anything to establish the Union or to establish the Constitution. They didn't even consent to any of it, and hell, the majority of the people didn't even want to fight england.
Click to expand...
Yet those same people did fight in the American Revolution and won. By the use of their guns and lives they were behind the US Constitution, a majority by a huge proportion. those that did not want America went home or died.

I had to memorize the Gettysburg Address as a kid, so yeah, I'm aware of it. His statement is saying that people have no right to eliminate government. Not exactly something you should champion.
Click to expand...
So then it sounds like you went to public schools. So which version did you memorize? I am not thinking that it was any version that actually exists, if your take was what you just said. Or your interpretation is a outright lie. I am going with the latter.
 
j-mac said:
As I understand it, before 1993 the fees were paid to the state of Nevada, after that, the feds came in with some BS about this turtle, and just started demanding a fee.
Click to expand...
I do not know who he paid fees to before, but after 1993, the Government did not
grant him a new permit to graze , (and also did not accept payment.)
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Nevada was probably acting as a intermediary for the federal government.
Click to expand...

Maybe, I don't know...Although I concede that Bundy is wrong for not paying his fees, the government is wrong for sending in heavily armed people to try and intimidate him into it...
 
j-mac said:
Maybe, I don't know...Although I concede that Bundy is wrong for not paying his fees, the government is wrong for sending in heavily armed people to try and intimidate him into it...
Click to expand...

Is he wrong for believing he can violate the law because he does believe the United States government exists?
 
longview said:
I do not know who he paid fees to before, but after 1993, the Government did not
grant him a new permit to graze , (and also did not accept payment.)
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this?

EDIT: Here is the reason the OP gave for his refusal to pay fees:

The trouble started when Bundy stopped paying grazing fees in 1993. He said he didn't have to because his Mormon ancestors worked the land since the 1880s, giving him rights to the land.

“We own this land,” he said, not the feds. He said he is willing to pay grazing fees but only to Clark County, not BLM.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Unitedwestand13 said:
Is he wrong for believing he can violate the law because he does believe the United States government exists?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have to admit I heard him being interviewed on that, and he said, that he didn't recognize the US government, and I had to say to myself "What the...?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom