Page 7 of 21 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 210

Thread: Bundy's 'ancestral rights' come under scrutiny

  1. #61
    Hot Flash Mama
    Summerwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Seen
    01-23-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,010

    Re: Bundy's 'ancestral rights' come under scrutiny

    Quote Originally Posted by CRUE CAB View Post
    Lie about what, I never said they owned the property. Find where I said that and quote me. But they paid for the use of the land adjacent to it for many many years until the BLM started to change the rules for bull**** reasons.
    "in your family" means owned to most people. WTF? Additionally did you not read the OP, his family have been on their 160 acres since 1948. hardly close to the 1800s you try to claim.
    jallman: "It's all good. At least you have a thick skin and can take being poked fun back at without crying. "

  2. #62
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,770

    Re: Bundy's 'ancestral rights' come under scrutiny

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Too bad those who are so outraged aren't as outraged at welfare freeloaders, or workmans comp freeloaders, or healthcare freeloaders....
    I'm sure I'd be outraged at some individuals on welfare, workman's comp, or getting government healthcare but not all of them. I support, for example, veterans having access to the VA, and for poor people not to be turned away and die for lack of care. Sometimes workers get injured, and cannot work. What should they do for money? Beg? My mom gets Medicare - I'm not outraged at her at all!

    Etc.

  3. #63
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,770

    Re: Bundy's 'ancestral rights' come under scrutiny

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    Bull****...I would bet it was an executive order
    There seems to be some confusion about how government works. You might look into it.

  4. #64
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,770

    Re: Bundy's 'ancestral rights' come under scrutiny

    Quote Originally Posted by CRUE CAB View Post
    No, our rights exist. Period. His right to graze was there until they decided to change the rules and lie about the "endangered turtles". Thats when it really became not about rights but lies.
    You'll have to explain where this "right" to use Federal property for free arises. The owner of Federal property, like the owner of any property, can and does dictate the terms of its use.

  5. #65
    Sage
    rabbitcaebannog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 08:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,918

    Re: Bundy's 'ancestral rights' come under scrutiny

    Reminds me of the Neo-Sagebrush Rebellion Bills.

  6. #66
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Bundy's 'ancestral rights' come under scrutiny

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    Yeah, but that desert tortoise that one of Bundy's cattle stepped on won't be doing any more growing.
    Still the canard of the desert turtle. Turtles have hard shells don't they?
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  7. #67
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Bundy's 'ancestral rights' come under scrutiny

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Still the canard of the desert turtle.
    Turtles have hard shells don't they? :mrgreen
    :



    Right, until a 1,000 lb cow steps on them.

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    06-19-14 @ 11:55 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,471

    Re: Bundy's 'ancestral rights' come under scrutiny

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Ancestral rights are irrelevant.The Bundys do not own the property they were grazing thee cattle at and just because someone's ancestor used a place they do not own does not entitle their descendant to use it.
    Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt.

    says here they owned 160 acres.

    http://www.publicland.org/35_archive...ist_record.pdf

    PG 8

    GRAZING SERVICE 1934
    -
    1946
    Grazing Service was established as the Division of Grazing in the Department of the Interior in
    1934, to implement the Taylor Grazing Act's provisions for authorizing livestock grazing on the
    public domain lands in 10 western states
    . It was renamed the Grazing Service in 1939, but
    continued to operate as part of the Office of the Secretary of the I
    nterior until July 11, 1944, when
    it was established as an operating Bureau
    in
    the Department. In 1941, the Grazing Service
    headquarters was moved from Washington, DC to Salt Lake City, Utah, a temporary arrangement
    during World War II.
    The Grazing Servi
    ce operated until July 16
    ,
    1946, when it and the General Land Office were
    combined into the new Bureau of Land Management. It

    s grazing functions were then performed
    by a Branch of Range Management in the new Bureau of Land Management


    Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934[1] (P.L. 73-482) is a United States federal law that provides for the regulation of grazing on the public lands (excluding Alaska) to improve rangeland conditions and regulate their use.

    The law initially permitted 80,000,000 ac (32,000,000 ha) of previously unreserved public lands of the United States to be placed into grazing districts to be administered by the Department of the Interior. As amended, the law now sets no limit on the amount of lands in grazing districts. Currently, there are approximately 162,000,000 ac (65,600,000 ha) inside grazing allotments.


    I for one am torn on this issue. It is by Executive order that they are charged to use the land 1986. I for one think its wrong to decry by executive fiat any LAWS,FINES or TAX by executive order, thats congress or the houses job not the military leaders job.

    ONE the ranchers already pay taxes to the federal government in land tax and then when they sell the beef. Often times they also maintain that land for use for the cattle.

    TWO we the people pay taxes into the federal coffers. Why not help the American people with cheaper beef prices by helping the those ranchers.

    Three The land belongs to the federal government by law. I just do not understand why they try to make it so difficult on any American citizen.

    http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshal...7_12032007.pdf

    Federal Land Ownership:
    Constitutional Authority and the History of
    Acquisition, Disposal and Retention

    This explains it pretty clearly.


    Pretty obvious the federal .gov is no longer for we the people.

  9. #69
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Bundy's 'ancestral rights' come under scrutiny

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    Obviously Bundy doesn't respect the U.S. Govt. so why is he in so many pictures with a U.S. Govt. flag, you know, the one with the stars and stripes all over it?

    Why doesn't he get his own flag?
    It's not a US Govt flag.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  10. #70
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Bundy's 'ancestral rights' come under scrutiny

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    We vote in order to elect people to represent us.
    Represent us...not rule us. There is a phenomenal difference in the two.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

Page 7 of 21 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •