• 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!

Bundy's 'ancestral rights' come under scrutiny

As usual, the idiot with the biggest mouth has the weakest case.
While there are ranchers with valid complaints against the BLM, Bundy is not one of them.




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?
 
Rent can be raised based on whatever the owner wants to raise it for. Hell, the owner doesn't even have to rent it to you to begin with. And even if he did tell you a lie in order to raise it,
NOTHING GIVES YOU A RIGHT TO SQUAT ON THEIR PROPERTY.




What if I have a signed contract which states that the rent price will stay the same for a certain period of time?

That changes things, eh?
 
What does pro gun have to do with it. Or I guess we are just going to move the goal posts all over the board. Typical.

If the government came to your house and decided to take your guns based on the same standards you're using as your argument, would you have a problem with it? Again, this is somebody - showing up on someone's property and deciding they don't have to pay to use it or abide by any regulation to use it. If the government can't show up at your house and take your guns (property) and use it as it see fits, what gives this man the right to show up on government property and graze as he sees fit? Your refusal to even try and argue that this land belongs to him is what's really telling that you have no clue what this case is even about.

So here is my last question: DOES THIS LAND BELONG TO THIS MAN? If it does, argument over. He can graze as he sees fit. If it doesn't, REGARDLESS of who it belongs to, the conclusion is: He has no right to graze in it.
 
I own a ranch. I run cattle. The blm can certainly be a pain to deal with.. no doubt. However, there is no better deal when it comes to ranching than to run on blm ground.

Bundy chose to run cattle on land that was not his.. did so for years.. and decided not to pay the rent that was due for years. the government tried to get him to pay, they took him to court, they did everything reasonable to collect what was due and what every other law abiding rancher does. Bundy chose not to follow the law and tried to get a free ride.
I have no sympathy for him. We don't need anymore dead beat ranchers defining our industry.
 
Not an option for the Bundy.

1.How do you know it is not an option for Bundy? Are the Bundys poor? They can't sell of the ranch and move somewhere else? I can't imagine undeveloped land out in the country costing that much. In many parts of the US for the price of a home in the city you can get 20,30,40 100 acres or more of land.

2.IF he can not move then he is SOL.He doesn't own the property he is grazing his cattle on.
 
Last edited:
What if I have a signed contract which states that the rent price will stay the same for a certain period of time?

That changes things, eh?

Completely different issue. If the rent was raised before the original contract terms were up, you'd have the right to continue paying the same price as agreed in the original contract - you'd have no right to stop paying rent and could refuse signing a new contract until the previous one is made void.

Source: I rented when I was younger.
 
Do you have a right to graze on land that doesn't belong to you?

Seems to me that land is all of ours. That's why it sucks we are told when, where , how and how much to use it.

Who did you think owned it?
 
WE ARE THE LANDLORDS! That's what this whole.thing is about.

Then you should be pissed off that Bundy hasn't paid rent and that you had to pay extra for grass fed beef has been fed off the land we are the owners of.
 
Last edited:
Completely different issue.
If the rent was raised before the original contract terms were up, you'd have the right to continue paying the same price as agreed in the original contract - you'd have no right to stop paying rent and could refuse signing a new contract until the previous one is made void.

Source: I rented when I was younger.




I don't believe that Bundy has ever paid any rent for the land that he has been illegally using.

The guy is a total scofflaw and/or outlaw who I believe will eventually learn the hard way that disrespecting the law has consequences.
 
There are way too many here who don't understand government over-reach (or they flat out support it)

Bundy didn't just wake up one mkrning and decide he wasn't going to pay fees any longer, he was intimidated by that constant noise of what he considered to be tyranny. That noise has only gotten louder for.us all.

Can you be anymore melodramatic with your posts? Gimme a break "noise of tyranny"? Typical right wing bull****.

No be didn't just wake up and do it, he's been breaking the law for 20 years! If you don't like a law, change it. Funny that other ranchers were paying this. Maybe you and bunch can bunk up and get the hell out of the country since you despise it so much.
 
WE ARE THE LANDLORDS! That's what this whole.thing is about.

Yes and through the representatives THE PEOPLE elected these laws were made. Don't like it, change the law. Bundy is a freeloader.
 
The facts of the case don't matter to these extremist folks.

As I said in another thread it's not about the facts but the narrative.

Salt of the earth rancher defies tyrannical federal government.

Doesn't matter what happens with this case, they will not accept any information that would cause that narrative to shift.
 
Yes and through the representatives THE PEOPLE elected these laws were made. Don't like it, change the law. Bundy is a freeloader.

Too bad those who are so outraged aren't as outraged at welfare freeloaders, or workmans comp freeloaders, or healthcare freeloaders....
 
Seems to me that land is all of ours. That's why it sucks we are told when, where , how and how much to use it.

Who did you think owned it?




That land belongs to the USA.

We all own it, just like we own the national parks in the USA.

But we can't all put our livestock there anytime we feel like it.
 
Too bad those who are so outraged aren't as outraged at welfare freeloaders, or workmans comp freeloaders, or healthcare freeloaders....

Too bad those that are outraged by welfare freeloaders arent outraged over this. Works both ways
 
That land belongs to the USA.

We all own it, just like we own the national parks in the USA.

But we can't all put our livestock there anytime we feel like it.


I am pretty sure that we drove up to the grazing land in question with a couple thousand cows to graze on the land the Bundys would be screaming bloody murder over any of us using the land.
 
The facts of the case don't matter to these extremist folks.

As I said in another thread it's not about the facts but the narrative.

Salt of the earth rancher defies tyrannical federal government.

Doesn't matter what happens with this case, they will not accept any information that would cause that narrative to shift.

Kind of like it's not the facts but the seriousness of the charge?
You guys invented that.
 
Last edited:
That land belongs to the USA.

We all own it, just like we own the national parks in the USA.

But we can't all put our livestock there anytime we feel like it.

Oh reall y...did we get a say so in those conditions. The Bundys don't feel they.did.
 
Well if we are equal landlords maybe he should have asked for a simple vote of the landlords to see if they objected to his using land that also belongs to them.
If 50% + 1 of americans endorse his request, then graze away.

He never bothered to ask.
If 52 people own equal shares of a time share condo, and one guy decided unilaterally to stay there 50 weeks, would that be fair?

Obviously it is not practical to poll all americans every time public lands are requested by a rancher. Enter the BLM that, on behalf of all americans, rents the land to him. I guess we should divide up the land in question into equal sizes to give to every adult american, then let Bundy contact every single landowner of the land he wants to use and pay them rent.

OR

he could stop being an asshole and pay the BLM fees.
 
Last edited:
Yes and through the representatives THE PEOPLE elected these laws were made. Don't like it, change the law. Bundy is a freeloader.

Bull****...I would bet it was an executive order
 
Too bad those that are outraged by welfare freeloaders arent outraged over this. Works both ways

The grass is still gonna grow whether the cows eat it or not and I don't see an injured party in the government with Bundy's case. But I understand your point.
 
Back
Top Bottom