• 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:
Seriously a bad tyrannical government would have shot their asses dead on the spot.
Click to expand...

Martha Stewart was investigated for suspicion of breaking investment laws and the evidence gathered showed that she hadn't broken any laws and so she was sent to prison for what her investigators alleged was a falsehood in her conversations with them.

Sure looks like tyranny to me.
 
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...

You're mixing apples and oranges. The problem here is that the federal govt is involved at all. After that's settle we'll settle the grazing rights.
 
A key to this discussion is Bundy's claim that he is the "last" rancher in that area. Obviously, if that claim is false, then his credibility is shot and everything is suspect. But, if his claim is true, then the federal government essentially taxed and regulated an entire little sector out of existence! How can that possibly be defended?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I am thinking that people like George Washington would not agree with you. You Remember President Washington right? He was a famous military figure from the American Revolution. ANd you 40% figure came from where? stormfront?
Click to expand...

There are those that say that 75% supported the war, but they are counting people that were on the fence on the issue as people that supported it, which actually amounts for about half of those they are counting as supporting the revolution. If you just count those that supported the cause, as I did, then you are looking at around 40%.
 
RiverDad said:
Is that the crux of the issue for you?

I'm not following this saga all that closely but my understanding is that Bundy was willing to pay but those who he sent the money to refused to accept it.

Now what, from where you stand?
Click to expand...

According to what was posted earlier, he refused to pay because he didn't like the way they used their money.
 
American said:
You're mixing apples and oranges. The problem here is that the federal govt is involved at all. After that's settle we'll settle the grazing rights.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It's not apples and oranges - it's apples and apples. It's federal land...which belongs to me just as much as it belongs to that rancher. What gives him the right to have his cattle crap all over that land every day, all the while ignoring those people - who own that land just as much as he does - who tell him that no, he can't have his cattle crap all over that land?

You know what the answer is...but you're going to avoid it all day long, because you know I'm right and he's wrong. Not that you'd ever admit that, either.
 
RiverDad said:
Is that the crux of the issue for you?

I'm not following this saga all that closely but my understanding is that Bundy was willing to pay but those who he sent the money to refused to accept it.

Now what, from where you stand?
Click to expand...

The issue is that this guy is a welfare queen deadbeat.
 
Henrin said:
There are those that say that 75% supported the war, but they are counting people that were on the fence on the issue as people that supported it, which actually amounts for about half of those they are counting as supporting the revolution. If you just count those that supported the cause, as I did, then you are looking at around 40%.
Click to expand...

Meh its just your opinion oh well.
 
RiverDad said:
Identical concept in play. The objection was that he was in the wrong because he was breaking the law. Rosa Parks broke the law too. Now the focus shifts onto whether the law was just. Well, is it?

If this turtle is so important that the Feds need to be stripping all of the ranchers in the area of their grazing land, and Cliven Bundy is now the very last rancher still operating in that area, then why are the Feds euthanizing the turtles in their preservation center?

The fact that the turtles are being euthanized suggests to me that the turtles are not that important. If the turtles are not that important then the revokation of grazing access to all of the ranchers in that area wasn't necessary. This puts us well into legitimate debate about whether that law is justified.

There is also a secondary issue in play. Is the government the master of the people or their servant? The Feds are closing the turtle preservation center due to a lack of funds but the Feds had plenty of money to devote to deploying all the equipment and personnel to enforce their will on the Bundy ranch. If the turtle was so important then that money could have instead been allocated towards keeping the center open and the turtles alive. Instead it seems that it was very important to use Federal assets and incur expenses to show the people who is boss, no matter that this is a protest of conscience.
Click to expand...

Again you only are sharing a opinion.
 
RiverDad said:
Martha Stewart was investigated for suspicion of breaking investment laws and the evidence gathered showed that she hadn't broken any laws and so she was sent to prison for what her investigators alleged was a falsehood in her conversations with them.

Sure looks like tyranny to me.
Click to expand...

You are just full of opinions aren't you?
 
What gets me about people openly supporting Cliven Bundy is what they are supporting: "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing," Cliven Bundy this guy is a ****ing anti American scum bottom eating State Rights extremist. **** him and the horse that he rode in on. he had his fair day in court and lost over and over. Now he thinks that he is going to use force to rerach his ****ing anti American bull**** crusade. He ****ed big though since the courts will take his family ranch to pay back grazing fees that he purposely stopped paying the stupid ass. ANd when that happens all the militia extremists will show up again thinking that last time they gained a victory and will have giant balls. ANd when they start shooting other Americans the whole lot of them will be ****ed. I say bring it on use them guns dip****s society will be better off without your dumb **** asses.

» Blueprint For Revolution Realized In Nevada At Bundy Ranch Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Gun Confiscation -- Operation American Spring

"Concept of Operations:
Phase 1 – Field millions, as many as ten million, patriots who will assemble in a peaceful, non-violent, physically unarmed (Spiritually/Constitutionally armed), display of unswerving loyalty to the US Constitution and against the incumbent government leadership, in Washington, D.C., with the mission to bring down the existing leadership. Go full-bore, no looking back, steadfast in the mission.

THE BLUEPRINT from LSTV on Vimeo.

Phase 2 - One million or more of the assembled 10 million must be prepared to stay in D.C. as long as it takes to see Obama, Biden, Reid, McConnell, Boehner, Pelosi, and Attorney General Holder removed from office.
Consistent with the US Constitution, as required, the U.S. Congress will take appropriate action, execute appropriate legislation, deal with vacancies, or U.S. States will appoint replacements for positions vacated consistent with established constitutional requirements.

Phase 3 – Those with the principles of a West, Cruz, Dr. Ben Carson, Lee, DeMint, Paul, Gov Walker, Sessions, Gowdy, Jordan, should comprise a tribunal and assume positions of authority to convene investigations, recommend appropriate charges against politicians and government employees to the new U.S. Attorney General appointed by the new President."

revolution-is-my-name.png


blm-2.jpg


Revolution_USA_-_Bundy_Ranch_sm.jpg
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Wrong. It's not apples and oranges - it's apples and apples. It's federal land...which belongs to me just as much as it belongs to that rancher. What gives him the right to have his cattle crap all over that land every day, all the while ignoring those people - who own that land just as much as he does - who tell him that no, he can't have his cattle crap all over that land?

You know what the answer is...but you're going to avoid it all day long, because you know I'm right and he's wrong. Not that you'd ever admit that, either.
Click to expand...

The fed govt should never have control of 84% of a state. It's outrageous, and the discussion of grazing rights should be within the state.
 
One thing should be noted here, apparently Bundy hasn't refused to pay the fees, he's tried to pay them to to Clarke County NV. They have just refused to take the payments. So he's not exactly a deadbeat. He stopped paying the BLM because they were suppose to be there to assist ranchers in managing their land, when the BLM stopped doing that he stopped paying them. That sounds entirely reasonable to me. If you pay someone to do something and they stop doing it you should not have to pay them. Doesn't matter if its a private company or a government agency. He did still try and pay the fees that were owed to a different government agency though, they just refused to accept the payment.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
What is your source for that assumption? I mean even Cliven Bundy said that he refused to pay the grazing fee because of new provisions because or the turtles. When someone states that they refuse to pay a fee it means that what they were paying the fee for still exists. Possibly if the Bundy Ranch would have worked with the BLM in preserving habitat for these turtles they might still be able to have their cattle on public lands. but instead Bundy acted like a idiot and just broke the law consistently for a couple decades.

The fact that Bundy Ranch has had their cattle grazing illegally shows that the BLM and hence the Government isnt that bad after all.
Click to expand...
I think there is a distinction between the fee and the fine.
The fee is the normal charge, the fine was for grazing cattle on protected land.
If their was a fine, there could no longer be a permit, because if he had a permit
there could be no fine.
 
Kal'Stang said:
One thing should be noted here, apparently Bundy hasn't refused to pay the fees, he's tried to pay them to to Clarke County NV. They have just refused to take the payments. So he's not exactly a deadbeat. He stopped paying the BLM because they were suppose to be there to assist ranchers in managing their land, when the BLM stopped doing that he stopped paying them. That sounds entirely reasonable to me. If you pay someone to do something and they stop doing it you should not have to pay them. Doesn't matter if its a private company or a government agency. He did still try and pay the fees that were owed to a different government agency though, they just refused to accept the payment.
Click to expand...

The land he leases doesn't belong to the state though.

If you have a mortgage or lease a property, do you make your payments to the person - company - or corporation who is the lienholder - lessor, or, do you make payments to a place which has nothing to do with your lease - purchase?

It doesn't get any simpler than that now, does it?
 
AJiveMan said:
The land he leases doesn't belong to the state though.

If you have a mortgage or lease a property, do you make your payments to the person - company - or corporation who is the lienholder - lessor, or, do you make payments to a place which has nothing to do with your lease - purchase?

It doesn't get any simpler than that now, does it?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't exactly say that Nevada has nothing to do with that particular bit of land would you?
 
The irony will likely be that the turtles could only thrive where there was active cattle operations.
The cattle were rendering the vegetation into something the turtles could eat.:mrgreen:
 
The situation shows failure of government. The legal system hasn't fixed the situation. The local government has been unable to act. The BLM did not complete their task. 20 years of ineffective management is coming to a head.
 
Kal'Stang said:
One thing should be noted here, apparently Bundy hasn't refused to pay the fees, he's tried to pay them to to Clarke County NV. They have just refused to take the payments. So he's not exactly a deadbeat.
Click to expand...
if you have a mortgage with bank of America and instead attempt to make your payments to wells fargo, because you don't like the way bank of America is giving bonuses to is employees, you are intentionally NOT tendering payment where and when due. you have created a default situation because you have refused to pay the creditor what is just due the creditor. and that has been found to be the circumstance thru protracted litigation in this matter

He stopped paying the BLM because they were suppose to be there to assist ranchers in managing their land, when the BLM stopped doing that he stopped paying them. That sounds entirely reasonable to me.
Click to expand...
it's identified mission, from the BLM site:
To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of America’s public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.
Click to expand...
About the BLM

notice that it is to manage PUBLIC lands, NOT PRIVATELY owned ranches. which then tells us your conclusion is very wrong. and very UNREASONABLE


If you pay someone to do something and they stop doing it you should not have to pay them.
Click to expand...
notice that the BLM IS doing its job. this rancher is making that difficult for them. in a variety of ways he and his family and supporters are impeding the accomplishment of the BLM mission

Doesn't matter if its a private company or a government agency.
Click to expand...
actually, it does. try not paying your taxes because you don't think the government is doing what you believe it should do with your tax dollars. let me know how that works out; if necessary, i will send stamps and stationary so that you can write us about it from the correctional facility

He did still try and pay the fees that were owed to a different government agency though, they just refused to accept the payment.
Click to expand...
he attempted to pay a local county government the monies owed the federal government, recognizing such funds could not be legally accepted. he was too clever by half. the cost of collections, previously estimated to be one million dollars, will only escalate because bundy has estopped the BLM from legally attaching his cattle to its court decreed judgment against his ranch. that cost of collections is imposed on top of the $1.1 million due and owing. all he has done is pile more debt against his ranch. the legacy he leaves his family will likely be bankruptcy. one hell of a win for him ... and for your side, which for some incredulous reason finds bundy, who denies federal authority, a credible character, deserving of support in the media and with guns on the ground. this manufactured confrontation, and the reich wing's support of it, illustrates why the public finds the tea party to now be out of touch with the values of the average American
 
Kal'Stang said:
I wouldn't exactly say that Nevada has nothing to do with that particular bit of land would you?
Click to expand...

Nevada has no say in the matters of federally owned lands, or the fees due for those lands from grazing or use of them.

When I lived in New Mexico, we camped at the Mesa campground, the fee for camping was about 12 bucks a day, paid to the USDA, a government agency.

There are cattle ranchers in New Mexico who own land abutting National Forests, those ranchers pay their grazing fees, not to the state, but to the USDA, a federal agency.

I don't understand what part of this dispute has a few using this forum confused.
 
American said:
The fed govt should never have control of 84% of a state. It's outrageous, and the discussion of grazing rights should be within the state.
Click to expand...

If you'll recall, there's a LOT of that which is owned by the Department of Defense. And in any case, if America owning 84% of that state is your issue, then LOBBY for it to get changed - get VOTES to change it. You can't just go do what you want with somewhere that is not your yours and yours alone and somehow still expect that nothing bad will happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom