View Poll Results: was the rancher right or wong

Voters
46. You may not vote on this poll
  • he was a freeloader

    32 69.57%
  • he should not have to pay the gov

    8 17.39%
  • he should settle this in court

    6 13.04%
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 54

Thread: Was the rancher in nevada wrong about not paying for grazing to the gov?

  1. #11
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,400

    Re: Was the rancher in nevada wrong about not paying for grazing to the gov?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    It as litigated in the wrong court. How are you gonna have a Federal judge rule on a case where the plaintiff is the Federal government?

    Nah, no conflict of interest there...

    It should have been decided in a State court.
    That is just plain stupid. Had it been state land and state law applied it would have been litigated in the state court system. As it was federal land and federal law applied it was litigated in the federal courts. As to your "conflict of interest" argument, I guess the entire concept of a separation of powers is an alien one to you.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  2. #12
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,123

    Re: Was the rancher in nevada wrong about not paying for grazing to the gov?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    He was wrong. It's that simple.

    Observe property rights or pay the price. The government has just as much right to land ownership as you or I. Unfortunately, thanks to Eminent Domain, more than you or I.
    His argument is that his hereditary rights of land use trump BLM custodianship. It was fought in a Federal court, it should have been in a State court.


    The BLM had no right to confiscate his property. A lien against his holdings is the way they should have went about this, not a cattle round up.
    "Oh no no no, you got me talkin' politics. I didn't wanna. Like I said y'all, I'm just happy to be alive. ” -- Sheriff Chris Mannix

  3. #13
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,123

    Re: Was the rancher in nevada wrong about not paying for grazing to the gov?

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    That is just plain stupid. Had it been state land and state law applied it would have been litigated in the state court system. As it was federal land and federal law applied it was litigated in the federal courts. As to your "conflict of interest" argument, I guess the entire concept of a separation of powers is an alien one to you.


    No, it is not plain stupid. Calling that which you disagree with stupid is childish. Grow the F up...
    "Oh no no no, you got me talkin' politics. I didn't wanna. Like I said y'all, I'm just happy to be alive. ” -- Sheriff Chris Mannix

  4. #14
    Professor
    Bigfoot 88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    12-01-15 @ 06:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    2,027
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Was the rancher in nevada wrong about not paying for grazing to the gov?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    He was wrong. It's that simple.

    Observe property rights or pay the price. The government has just as much right to land ownership as you or I. Unfortunately, thanks to Eminent Domain, more than you or I.
    His argument was not that he shouldn't have to pay grazing fees, rather that the federal government is not the legitimate owner of the land, thus should not receive payment. Bundy attempted to pay the fees to the county government.

    The land was not seized via eminent domain. It was originally owned by the federal government as a territory, yes. But after Nevada became a state, it should have been relinquished to the state as sovereign territory. At that point, the federal government would have only been allowed to purchase land with the consent of the state legislature.

    This is why the fact that the federal government owns over 80% of Nevada is absurd on it's face. It was not intended to be that way.

    According to Bundy, when he started out there were 50 other ranchers and now he is the last one. Perhaps the fees are too exorbitant, even if he is capable of paying them.
    "I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." -Thomas Sowell

  5. #15
    Professor
    Monserrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    04-29-14 @ 11:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,497

    Re: Was the rancher in nevada wrong about not paying for grazing to the gov?

    Quote Originally Posted by plutonium View Post
    Was the rancher with the cattle right or wrong about paying the gov. for grazing rights on government land? .was he a freeloader.... the rest of us pay to use the streets ,roads, fire dept parks etc. with taxes this land belongs to the people of the united states it does not belong to him so he should pay us to use it/ graze cattle
    He's a freeloader. Most of the ranchers pay what they owe and he should not get away with breaking the law. I'm surprised some republican politicians have supported him when typically they tend to be staunchly against freeloaders.
    I believe half of the things I say and say half of the things I believe.

  6. #16
    Guru
    soot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    04-25-17 @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,308

    Re: Was the rancher in nevada wrong about not paying for grazing to the gov?

    He is definitely in the wrong in relation to the law.

    But the fellas who threw a bunch of tea into Boston Harbor back in 1773 were also wrong as far as the law was concerned.

    The way Fed LEOs descended on that place with snipers and armor vehicles and wanna-be Blackwater mercenaries in tacticool armor and camouflage and set up "1st Amendment Zones" made an absolute mockery of the Constitution.

    But after income tax, property tax, RAMPANT eminent domain abuse, DHS, extrajudicial killing of American citizens, NDAA, NSA spying, Fast-n-Furious, Ben Ghazi, Solyndra, IRS targeting political opponents, ACA, AG Perjury, etc... ad nauseum it was only the latest affront to the dignity of a free people.

    This went from being about a freeloading rancher to everything that is wrong with our government and whhat is wrong with our government, in relation to the law, is infinitely worse than what is wrong with this rancher.
    “Now it is not good for the Christian’s health to hustle the Aryan brown,
    For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the Christian down;
    And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased,
    And the epitaph drear: “A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.”

  7. #17
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,400

    Re: Was the rancher in nevada wrong about not paying for grazing to the gov?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    No, it is not plain stupid. Calling that which you disagree with stupid is childish. Grow the F up...
    I am sorry, but sometimes an argument is not one that has merit but I simply disagree with. Sometimes an argument is plain stupid. For example, to argue that federal law should be adjudicated in the state court system because "there is a conflict of interest" is just plain stupid. We have a separation of powers in this country and an independent judiciary. This is 4th Grade Civics we are talking about.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  8. #18
    Paying To Play
    AJiveMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    wisconSIN
    Last Seen
    05-15-15 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,775

    Re: Was the rancher in nevada wrong about not paying for grazing to the gov?

    Quote Originally Posted by Monserrat View Post
    He's a freeloader. Most of the ranchers pay what they owe and he should not get away with breaking the law. I'm surprised some republican politicians have supported him when typically they tend to be staunchly against freeloaders.
    Freeloading only applies to the cases which they say are valid.

  9. #19
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,899

    Re: Was the rancher in nevada wrong about not paying for grazing to the gov?

    Quote Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
    And...now he has a bunch of tea party cowboys trying to help him continue doing so.
    I wonder how many of the cowboys were really cowoboys. I would not be surprised if most of these protesters were just far right goons claiming to be "cowboys" to increase their legitimacy (much in the same way that some far left goons in the past claimed to be "workers").

    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    The BLM had no right to confiscate his property. A lien against his holdings is the way they should have went about this, not a cattle round up.
    And had they resorted to the round up on day one of non payment and after only one court order, I would agree with you.

    But, Bundy had three court orders against him and it was day what.... 3,000 (+) of his refusal to comply.
    Last edited by Cryptic; 04-15-14 at 07:19 PM.

  10. #20
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,400

    Re: Was the rancher in nevada wrong about not paying for grazing to the gov?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfoot 88 View Post
    His argument was not that he shouldn't have to pay grazing fees, rather that the federal government is not the legitimate owner of the land, thus should not receive payment. Bundy attempted to pay the fees to the county government.

    The land was not seized via eminent domain. It was originally owned by the federal government as a territory, yes. But after Nevada became a state, it should have been relinquished to the state as sovereign territory. At that point, the federal government would have only been allowed to purchase land with the consent of the state legislature.

    This is why the fact that the federal government owns over 80% of Nevada is absurd on it's face. It was not intended to be that way.

    According to Bundy, when he started out there were 50 other ranchers and now he is the last one. Perhaps the fees are too exorbitant, even if he is capable of paying them.
    1. The issue of federal land being transferred to a state upon that state being granted statehood is adjudicated in congress at the time statehood is granted.

    2. If the rancher has an issue with the federal government owning 80% of the land in Nevada, then he is free to petition his representatives to change that or support candidates that share his view. However, most likely the land being desert has little value, and the state does not want much of it because it would lose money on it. That is why a lot of land is in BLM hands rather than state or private hands. The BLM loses money managing it, grazing and usage fees only partially offset that. Usually the state doesn't want it because the state doesn't want to lose money on it.

    3. Perhaps the reason why he is the only rancher left out there is because he is grazing his cattle in a desert and competing with ranchers in the plains and Midwest that can raise far more cattle, for less expense, on less land because that land is more suitable for agricultural purposes.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •