• 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

Jerry said:
I listened to the original interview in it's entirety, Bundey simply over-spoke in an effort to stress how he feels. It wasn't a literal statement, but hey, that's why you have to keep your emotions in check when talking to the media.
Click to expand...

Link? Right back atcha! :wink:

nvm you edited the upper post

EDIT2
nvm the nvm
the upper link you edited in is not the same interview.
In your link I love how he moves the goal posts about land ownership. The feds own the lan, Nope the sovereign state of NEvada owns. Nope Clark County owns it. WHy stop there CLiven? Maybe you really do own it.
 
Last edited:
jaeger19 said:
Not all beef are grass fed. Some operations go directly to milk and then transition to grain mixtures. usually the highest quality meat or veal operations.
Click to expand...

Maybe calves used for veal. 99.9999% of the rest start off primarily on grass, then to grain at feed lots.
 
Jerry said:
Link?

Edit:
At 4:30; The Western War: Last Remaining Rancher Vs The Federal Gov’t | The Dana Show

Bundey: "It get's back to the ownership of this, who owns this land. Does the sovereign state of Nevada own this land within their borders, or does the United States own this land? If the United States owns this land then I guess I'm wrong."
Click to expand...

Then as someone pointed out earlier: he would owe the state of Nevada a lot more money than the federal government. Either way he is still a deadbeat rancher regardless of who he owes the money to.
 
RogueWarrior said:
Then as someone pointed out earlier: he would owe the state of Nevada a lot more money than the federal government. Either way he is still a deadbeat rancher regardless of who he owes the money to.
Click to expand...
Bundy has been paying the Nevada fees all this time. He just hasn't been paying the BLM. Bundy's an idiot but I think there's something wrong with having to pay twice for the use of the same land. IMO he should have to pay either Nevada or the BLM, not both.
 
Hatuey said:
Hahaha, I'll take your inability to respond as a sign of not having an argument. Again, what part of you not having sympathy for the government gives you the right to graze on land that DOESN'T belong to you? None. I have no sympathy for most people. Do I get to use their possession as I see fit? I have no sympathy for the conservative right wing. Can I graffiti the RNC's headquarters? No. You not having sympathy doesn't really do anything to discredit the facts that:

1. This man is grazing on land that doesn't belong to him.
2. Ignorant self proclaimed constitutionalist bullies like yourself are standing up for him (to stick it to the government) and in doing so are contradicting your own positions on private property.
3. You have no claim to lands that belongs to either the feds or the state.
4. If the state had been managing these lands, HE WOULD STILL BE ILLEGALLY GRAZING ON THESE LANDS.

Standing up for this guy essentially means that you are effectively endorsing the complete discard of property laws. From now on, any party that is barred from using another party's from private property can simply counter with "I have no sympathy for you".
Click to expand...

I won't explain why the gov't. is wrong, but you won't care to hear it and that would require going back a couple decades. Freedoms have eroded for years because of constitutional provisions to give the feds more and more power to do what they want, when they want, without question. Question the authority and you go to jail, as they tried here. Well, people are starting to get sick of overreach of a federal gov't. who has appointed officials that only want to make a quick buck. The states should be the ultimate authority here, not the feds. This is another story of a money trail of corruption and back door deals.
 
shrubnose said:
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?
Click to expand...

Bundy had a signed contract? If he did, I would bet it included some form of compensation for the land use.
 
1750Texan said:
The turtle is irrelevant. The reason for the eviction does not have to be any other than the lease is up and over.

I can almost guarrantee that their is no provision in BLM regulations that suspension of leases has to be because of violation of any law protecting endangerd species.

If that was the bases for the judicial reasoning for the eviction, please cite the ruling...I would love to read it.
Click to expand...
.

The turtle was relevant. 90% of Bundy's land allotment was taken away in 1993 and he was limited to 150 cows on the Bunkerville Allotment where Bundy grazed most of his cattle. Bunkerville and another allotment area were closed to protect the desert tortoise.

That's what started the whole mess.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Funny though, they put Al Capone in prison without a fight. But Cliven Bundy they need to go after with AR15s? Please.
Click to expand...

Interesting analogy. Clearly Al Capone respected the rule of law. Though he made is living playing outside of the law, he had sufficient respect for it that when he was caught he went silently. Bundy seems to have no respect for the rule of law.
 
JRSaindo said:
I won't explain why the gov't. is wrong, but you won't care to hear it and that would require going back a couple decades. Freedoms have eroded for years because of constitutional provisions to give the feds more and more power to do what they want, when they want, without question. Question the authority and you go to jail, as they tried here. Well, people are starting to get sick of overreach of a federal gov't. who has appointed officials that only want to make a quick buck. The states should be the ultimate authority here, not the feds. This is another story of a money trail of corruption and back door deals.
Click to expand...

Please do.... please explain this to the civilized community. This guy has taken a position that is mind-boogling. I would love to hear an articulate and compelling argument as to why he shouldn't be sued for back payment or even locked up for trespass.
 
These militia 'patriots' need a better poster boy.

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro ... because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked.
Click to expand...

“They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
Click to expand...
 
reinoe said:
So it's ok to use militias to defend freeloading if the circumstances met your personal preferences?
Click to expand...

That makes Bundy part of the 47% of freeloaders that Republicans despise.......

Right now, I am so confused. :mrgreen:
 
j-mac said:
So, you enjoy seeing heavily armed government LEO, go after your neighbors eh? pathetic....Wait til they come for you, and no one gives a ****.
Click to expand...


If the Feds came after me because I was stealing, I wouldn't like it, but the Feds would be right. And no, nobody would give a ****, and rightfully so.
 
danarhea said:
That makes Bundy part of the 47% of freeloaders that Republicans despise.......

Right now, I am so confused. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

You certainly seem confused. What is your bold assertion based on? The 47% comment, made by Romney, referred to the lack of political "selling power" of federal income tax cuts for those that now pay none - the same reason that Obama opted for a SS tax withholding "holiday" instead as a stimulus. If one now pays ZERO federal income tax then a proposed federal income tax rate cut means absolutely ZERO to them.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You certainly seem confused. What is your bold assertion based on? The 47% comment, made by Romney, referred to the lack of political "selling power" of federal income tax cuts for those that now pay none - the same reason that Obama opted for a SS tax withholding "holiday" instead as a stimulus. If one now pays ZERO federal income tax then a proposed federal income tax rate cut means absolutely ZERO to them.
Click to expand...

Um, did you see the Mrgreen smiley at the end of what I posted? I was being a smartass. LOL.
 
Jerry said:
Of course he's still on his land, he still owns it.
Click to expand...
Not if there is the lean you talked about.
You don't have to physically posses land to get the value of the lien. It's just money, which is just numbers in a bank computer. You don't need physical possession of an asset in order to have some of those numbers transferred to you.
Click to expand...
You go with that Jerry--meanwhile he's still on the land--a squatter.
All this is is a rancher refusing to pay fees for using land he doesn't own.
This whole thing can be resolved without either side bullying the other, but both sides are being retarded instead.
Click to expand...
Only one side is being retarded, using your words.
None of us have ever seen a case like this, which wouldn't have happened without the scofflaw.
Calling the government retarded is just more of "government hatred", as you guys would say with gun haters .
 
In a very simplified nutshell:

Someone is trying to skip out on the check.
The proprietor has security.
Security stops this someone and demands payment.
This someone decides to punch security (who is a bouncer in a bar at night), and gets his ass beat.
The culprit pulls a gun and threatens the bouncer.
The bouncer lets the guy leave rather than risk violence in the eatery.
 
NIMBY said:
Not if there is the lean you talked about.
Click to expand...
A lien doesn't transfer ownership. It's just a financial claim on the property. What is a Property Lien? | Nolo.com If the Fed puts a lien on the property, then when Bundy Sr. dies his family can't inherit the land until they pay the lien. Don't pay the lien then Nevada takes ownership of the property, pays the lien to the Fed to clear the deed, and sells it (or keeps it and folds it into the BLM bwahahahaa). Super simple.
 
Jerry said:
A lien doesn't transfer ownership. It's just a financial claim on the property. What is a Property Lien? | Nolo.com If the Fed puts a lien on the property, then when Bundy Sr. dies his family can't inherit the land until they pay the lien. Don't pay the lien then Nevada takes ownership of the property, pays the lien and sells it (or keeps it and folds it into the BLM bwahahahaa). Super simple.
Click to expand...
Yes Jerry--super simple to you is Bundy stays on the land and sets legal precedent.
And the armed militias get bolder--you don't see a problem with that either .
 
tecoyah said:
The culprit pulls a gun and threatens the bouncer.
The bouncer lets the guy leave rather than risk violence in the eatery.
Click to expand...

The problem is the guy won't leave and he still has his gun pulled.
He's still grazing and he's using the mainstream/FOX media as the useful idiots they are .
 
NIMBY said:
Yes Jerry--super simple to you is Bundy stays on the land and sets legal precedent.
And the armed militias get bolder--you don't see a problem with that either .
Click to expand...
Yeah, the legal precedent would be "don't pay the Fed and they'll put a lien on your property" just like they do with taxes.

Put a lien on the property and walk away. That's what the Fed should do. Bundy should pay the bill. Neither side is doing the right thing, so I have sympathy for neither.

Besides, if a militia becomes a problem the first thing the Fed will do is freeze all their assets (the Patriot Act is good for that sort of thing) which will be especially effective on those who rely on ObamaCare, Medicare or other government hand-out, the Guard makes a perimeter miles out from the property, cutting them off from the world. Then the leaflets of propaganda get dropped in we wait. The pragmatists will give up and surrender, the idealists will drink cool-aid, we'll have a few more threads about it and move on to the next issue of the day.
 
Last edited:
jrsaindo said:
i won't explain why the gov't. Is wrong, but you won't care to hear it and that would require going back a couple decades. Freedoms have eroded for years because of constitutional provisions to give the feds more and more power to do what they want, when they want, without question. Question the authority and you go to jail, as they tried here. Well, people are starting to get sick of overreach of a federal gov't. Who has appointed officials that only want to make a quick buck. The states should be the ultimate authority here, not the feds. This is another story of a money trail of corruption and back door deals.
Click to expand...

do you have a right to graze on land that doesn't belong to you?
 
danarhea said:
If the Feds came after me because I was stealing, I wouldn't like it, but the Feds would be right. And no, nobody would give a ****, and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

You're right. No one gives a ****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom