• 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

FreedomFromAll said:
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
Click to expand...

I watched all 14 minutes of it.

From the video said:
2:49
Our intent was peaceful intent, although we did have militia and weapons, and I think that was important because they didn't know for sure if we were going to fire on them. There was that anticipation. our intent was that if they did not, our intent was to make a big enough stink that the sherrif would come in and get it done.
Click to expand...

Don't ignore that part or the rest of the video, just pick out the one sentence that sorta supports your point.

FreedomFromAll said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can you link to where it's the "Bundy's militia". :lamo You guys are a ****ing hoot. I'm guessing Bundy is the head of the militia too right?
 
Buck Ewer said:
Why did Bundy stop paying the fees in 1993? That was the year Bill Clinton took office. This has been a partisan issue from the get go.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why he stopped payments, it's what I read somewhere.
 
j-mac said:
And you're obviously fine with hypocrisy....
Click to expand...

Where is the hypocrisy in my argument? It is a shared resource. We all own public land, we all even get to weigh in on how its managed as public land management is subject to public hearing and comment. For example, I support the concept of public access to publicly owned lakes. Does that make me a hypocrite if I also believe that you should pay a yearly fishing license to fish that lake and thus contribute to the management and stocking of that lake?
 
Lutherf said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting anything, except that I'd read somewhere that Clyde stopped paying in 1993. I have not a clue as to his motives for not paying his bills.
But, as I said before, if federal agents show up on someone's doorstep, or ranch to confiscate items for payment, they usually show up expecting trouble, that's a given. It angers people that their property is about to be seized, you don't need a picture to figure that out.

Local law enforcement possibly tipped off federal officers about his attitude. Who knows what transpired during the alleged seizure.
 
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...

Really? the BLM has been in existence since 1946.
 
Federalist said:
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.
Click to expand...

You exhibit all the worst stereotypes of the tea party, you only operate on anger and outrage, facts be damned. The feds have won this in court a few times, he is a freeloading hypocrite.
 
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...

Sorry, amigo, but the facts of the case simply don't bear out for this guy. He's in the wrong. You can attempt to make liberals feel guilty all you want, but it's not going to work.
 
Ockham said:
You're new here so ... duh. Hyperbole is a way of life on DP.



So now welfare is bad. :lamo
Click to expand...

Now you really have run out of arguments, your all too self important "seniority" is almost as lame as your argument.

Your seniority does not make you a better poster, but if you need to believe that.....LOL
 
beefheart said:
You exhibit all the worst stereotypes of the tea party, you only operate on anger and outrage, facts be damned. The feds have won this in court a few times, he is a freeloading hypocrite.
Click to expand...

As I said, I'm not talking about Bundy.
 
Many people assume, since most of the western landscape is given over to livestock production, that ranching must be economically important. But, as economist Thomas Power points out in the opening essay of this section, the livestock industry contributes almost nothing to western economies, even at the local level.

Despite the cowboy's image as a rugged, independent individual, a host of government subsidies keep him propped up in the saddle. The western rancher is dependent on what is, in essence, a welfare program. The much-publicized low fees paid by ranchers to graze federal lands are only the beginning. Other subsidies include taxpayer-supported research at western land grant universities and agricultural exemptions that lower property taxes paid by ranchers. There are handouts to help with nearly every problem: drought relief, low-interest agricultural loans, emergency livestock feed programs, emergency grazing on Conservation Reserve Program lands, to name a few. Even many of the fences crisscrossing the West's "open" spaces are paid for by American taxpayers.
Click to expand...

All of this back and forth debating is almost laughable when people begin saying it's liburuls to blame for Clyde's plight.

But I'll just bet Clyde has applied for and received some welfare from Uncle Sam, this is just a portion of what options are open to ranchers to get them through tough times.

I wonder how much money Clyde has accepted from the government he so dislikes?

http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=livestock
 
Federalist said:
As I said, I'm not talking about Bundy.
Click to expand...

So I am bad because I support the rule of law and respect the findings from court cases?

You want anarchy, provided it is the anarchy you agree with.
 
beefheart said:
Now you really have run out of arguments, your all too self important "seniority" is almost as lame as your argument.
Click to expand...
Sorry - I just had to quote your whining about hyperbole. Everyone was a newb at some point.

beefheart said:
Your seniority does not make you a better poster, but if you need to believe that.....LOL
Click to expand...

Your naivete doesn't make you a good poster either.
 
beefheart said:
So I am bad because I support the rule of law and respect the findings from court cases?

You want anarchy, provided it is the anarchy you agree with.
Click to expand...

So you accuse, then are unsure about your accusation.... clever. :lamo
 
beefheart said:
So I am bad because I support the rule of law and respect the findings from court cases?

You want anarchy, provided it is the anarchy you agree with.
Click to expand...

Didn't say you were bad.

Here's a question: Would you have supported the rebels at Concord bridge? Would you condemn them as nut-job extremists for stealing government musket and powder?
 
Ockham said:
And stealing deserves death of everyone, even the innocent in that family, children, the infirm and old. They all deserve to die right?
Click to expand...

It's what the Bible says to do: 1 Samuel 15 now I am sure some apologist will come along and tell us that Bundy and his family shouldn't be equated with the Amalekites. My point however is that the Lord God YWHW told Saul, "3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."
 
Ockham said:
Sorry - I just had to quote your whining about hyperbole. Everyone was a newb at some point.



Your naivete doesn't make you a good poster either.
Click to expand...

You brought up seniority, pretty much a weak last ditch approach at making a personal attack because you can't argue the subject.
 
Federalist said:
Didn't say you were bad.

Here's a question: Would you have supported the rebels at Concord bridge? Would you condemn them as nut-job extremists for stealing government musket and powder?
Click to expand...

Not the same. We have a government, we have rules, we have courts. You want anarchy? Move to Somalia.
 
beefheart said:
Not the same. We have a government, we have rules, we have courts. You want anarchy? Move to Somalia.
Click to expand...

The rebels at Concord bridge had government, rules, and courts as well. Would you support them raising arms against government employees in order to steal government musket and powder?
 
CRUE CAB said:
Good for him. Its a unconstitutional law.
Click to expand...

As usual, WRONG!!

Nevada constitution

Article 1, Section 2

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States.
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
So now the right's idea of property rights means the rightful owner of land must surrender their property to the state :lamo
Click to expand...

Nice twist.

You have a problem with the concept of buying land?
Click to expand...

I have a problem with the Federal Govt forcing someone to sell it, even if that someone is a foreign govt.

Owned by the federal govt
Click to expand...

No, by the people of the United States.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom