• 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

Oh reall y...did we get a say so in those conditions.
The Bundys don't feel they.did
.



I really don't give a **** what the Bundys feel about anything.

I have less use for them than I do for the Kardashians.
 
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.




Yeah, but that desert tortoise that one of Bundy's cattle stepped on won't be doing any more growing.
 
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?

It being "ours" doesn't give people the right to use it as they see fit. The Capitol Building is by definition ours. Can I set up a tent in the main lobby and live there? No. Your understanding of public property and what it entails is EXTREMELY misinformed or you're being disingenuous. Which is it?
 
Your rights existed before you? What?

No. Rights exist with or without you. Your rights exist when you exist.
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.
 
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.
So you would just sell property that has been in your family since the 1800s. Versus fight to keep it and stand strong.
 
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?

Funny you say that, go down I95 south of Brevard County and there is miles of fence with signs on it that say "PUBLIC LAND, NO TRESPASSING".
 
So you would just sell property that has been in your family since the 1800s. Versus fight to keep it and stand strong.

At no point did that family own that land that the cows were grazing on. Please quit with the bald faced lies.
 
At no point did that family own that land that the cows were grazing on. Please quit with the bald faced lies.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Bull****...I would bet it was an executive order

There seems to be some confusion about how government works. You might look into it.
 
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.
 
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? :mrgreen:
 
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_archives/documents/doc_1400_hist_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/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_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.
 
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.
 
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.

Have they?
 
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.

Thing is you may not have heard but, They have driven off ALL the other ranchers. He is pretty much he last one in that area, guess you dont care that they are driving away food producers though huh?

But hey beef prices just hit an all time high! nothing to see here
 
Right, until a 1,000 lb cow steps on them.

Seems the tortoise and cows have coexisted so far. Might want to research agenda 21 a bit see what is really going on.
 
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_archives/documents/doc_1400_hist_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/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_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.

So by executive order under Reagan? Interesting.
 
Back
Top Bottom