Senator Harry Reid, who has been implicated in using the BLM to steal a Nevada Rancher�s land for his friends at a Chinese Solar Company, is now threatening the rancher with further federal action.
In a statement given to NBC4 in Reno, Reid said, �it�s not over.� � �We can�t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it�s not over.�
But as many in the area are pointing out, this has little to do with the cattle, and more to do with Reid�s attempt to steal even more Nevada land to enrich himself and help fund his son�s political ambitions. It�s pretty ironic that someone who has made millions violating the law, is now using the �law� as a justification for an armed invasion on American soil.
Harry Reid: the architect of the Bundy Ranch Invasion?
The Bureau of Land Management is headed by longtime friend and former Reid aide Neil Kornze, who was confirmed by the Senate as BLM director on Tuesday, just as armed BLM agents descended on the cattle ranch outside Mesquite, Nevada. Harry Reid�s son, Rory Reid, has been the chief representative to the Chinese solar firm, which is trying to use land near the Bundy Ranch to build a $5 billion solar plant.
Over the years, the Harry Reid has used his political influence to make a number of similar shady deals throughout Nevada. He�s been accused of doing business with the mob and using his influence to manipulate zoning ordinances throughout the state � in one instance making over $700,000 that he failed to disclose, because of his partnership with a Las Vegas lawyer whose name has surfaced in federal investigations involving organized crime.
Supporters still at Bundy Ranch, armed and ready for a possible confrontation.
Bundy supporters remain at the ranch, fully expecting a raid from the Federal Government. According to World News Daily, The executive director of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association says his sources inside the federal government is warning that the BLM�s weekend retreat was only a move to distract attention and diffuse tensions, and that a raid on the family�s ranch still is planned.
Richard Mack, the former sheriff of Grisham County, Ariz. told WND �I don�t think it would be possible� to launch a raid without violence. �I don�t think the Bundys would lie down and be taken.�
This afternoon, federal officers could be seen moving back into the area, along with a number of Clark County officers who arrived with a large prison transportation bus.
Registered: 12/31/06 Posts: 12184 Loc: NW NV & Far NW MT Originally Posted By: isaac There it is folks.... It's a lock pick. Bundy will be a free man and allowed to graze his cattle as long as he lives. ======
How about 5-1 odds for 1000, amigo?
L2S "He might not live so long. Reid's mob are ruthless and untouchable in Clark County."
Here it comes, and the mob-controlled Clark County LEO, along with Holder's Brown Shirts will make Bundy pay. You can bet on it.
which is trying to use land near the Bundy Ranch to build a $5 billion solar plant.
I wonder how long that lie will be parroted? The Chinese site is 175 miles from Bundy's place. The location was given in the original article, but no one bothers to read past the headlines
which is trying to use land near the Bundy Ranch to build a $5 billion solar plant.
I wonder how long that lie will be parroted? The Chinese site is 175 miles from Bundy's place. The location was given in the original article, but no one bothers to read past the headlines
Yeah, even The Blaze had to admit these important facts.
Reid and his son, Rory, were both deeply involved in a deal with the Chinese-owned ENN Energy Group to build a $5 billion solar farm in Laughlin, Nevada. But that is roughly 177 miles away from Bundy�s 150-acre ranch in Bunkerville, Nev., and 213 miles from the federally owned Gold Butte area where Bundy �s cattle graze, according to Google Maps.
there may be a lot of misinformation on this issue all the way around.....but of this I'm quite sure.....Harry Reid is full of $hit through and through
there may be a lot of misinformation on this issue all the way around.....but of this I'm quite sure.....Harry Reid is full of $hit through and through
They are taking the native wildlife from the solar site to Bundys place.They have a name for this but I dont remember it.
The term is "migitation", the principle is destroyed habitat somewhere is replaced by restored habitat somewhere else.
Usually this does not mean physically transporting wildlife from one area to another. Most often with mobile wildlife its a "if you build it, they will come" sort of deal.
So yes, removing cows from designated tortoise habitat like the former Bundy grazing allotments could be migitation for a solar project 200 miles away.
They are taking the native wildlife from the solar site to Bundys place.They have a name for this but I dont remember it.
Habitat mitigation. This is used often here, usually for filling in wetlands. It allows the developer to "offset" damages to a less desirable tract. Basically you can fill in an area deemed wetland by creating and or preserving an equal tract elsewhere. It is the legal equivalent of "graft". Give us some land and you can carry on. We also have the "endangered" Alabama beach mouse, which essentially is a field mouse that has adapted to living in sand dunes. These little field mice can stall a development for years. Once you wade through all the red tape, you can "relocate" the mice on down the beach, or in some instances, next door. I saw 2 of these mice while I was superintendent on a development. One was being carried off by an osprey. Part of my job was to report any "sightings" to USFWS. Ha! They weren't sure what to say when I asked if we should start shooting the osprey. I forgot to tell them about the one that drowned in the pool.
which is trying to use land near the Bundy Ranch to build a $5 billion solar plant.
I wonder how long that lie will be parroted? The Chinese site is 175 miles from Bundy's place. The location was given in the original article, but no one bothers to read past the headlines
It's called offsetting. No matter where they build the power plant, they need to set aside X-amount of land for undisturbed nature as an offset for the environmental destruction that the plant will cause. It's like the way carbon credits work. So they cannot proceed with the plant till they've first arranged for the offset land, which they decided Bundy's ranch was going to be, which is why they drove off the other ranchers in the area, and are trying to drive off Bundy, with burdensome regulations that make ranching unprofitable.
Naah, more like those folks prone to making simple-minded generalizations.
Ya got government ownership of the land on the one and vs. allotment holder's rights on the other.
Apparently the BLM has the right to limit the amount of grazing allotments on public land. Fair enough, makes sense.
OTOH, cutting Bundy's grazing allotment by 60% without any compensation in 1993 was clearly not just, even if technically legal. The fact that this was done to preserve the desert tortoise only rubs salt in the wound.
As for the Fed's "killing surplus tortoises" as is repeatedly and inaccurately brought up here:
First off, habitat is everything, individual animals being relatively unimportant. Those tortoises in that holding "sanctuary" were picked up and turned in by the public, if anything a symptom of disappearing habitat, but just as often in this case due to misguided good intentions.
The fact that there is not enough places to release those tortoises points to a dearth of remaining habitat.
Also, IIRC adult desert tortoises are exceedingly hard to relocate. These extremely sedentary creatures can spend literally centuries on the same acre, operating out of the same hole in the ground, in a precarious equilibrium with food and water supply.
Once I was riding my motorcycle through past our big Air Force Training base here when I came a cross a big Texas tortoise (a close cousin to the desert tortoise, though not endangered) coming from the base attempting to cross a busy four-lane highway in the middle of the day. There was new construction on the adjacent area on base. Likely that remnant tortoise had persisted in that formerly quiet little corner in the middle of the city for at least decades before being displaced.
I transported it outside of town to suitable habitat but I figured its chanced of survival there were about zip.
In a statement given to NBC4 in Reno, Reid said, �it�s not over.� � �We can�t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it�s not over.�.
But it's quite okey-dokey to have Holder and the AIC violate laws nearly daily...
With each passing day, Reid becomes an even larger pile of chit..
In the American Revolutionary era the American Patriots were much more efficacious than are we today. They tarred and feathered those who sided with or were employed by King Barack George and of course during the Revolution itself they shot or hung them.
In a statement given to NBC4 in Reno, Reid said, �it�s not over.� � �We can�t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it�s not over.�
Interesting this isn`t the position he takes when it comes to fellow politicians or illegal immigrants...
Naah, more like those folks prone to making simple-minded generalizations.
Ya got government ownership of the land on the one and vs. allotment holder's rights on the other.
Apparently the BLM has the right to limit the amount of grazing allotments on public land. Fair enough, makes sense.
OTOH, cutting Bundy's grazing allotment by 60% without any compensation in 1993 was clearly not just, even if technically legal. The fact that this was done to preserve the desert tortoise only rubs salt in the wound.
As for the Fed's "killing surplus tortoises" as is repeatedly and inaccurately brought up here:
First off, habitat is everything, individual animals being relatively unimportant. Those tortoises in that holding "sanctuary" were picked up and turned in by the public, if anything a symptom of disappearing habitat, but just as often in this case due to misguided good intentions.
The fact that there is not enough places to release those tortoises points to a dearth of remaining habitat.
Also, IIRC adult desert tortoises are exceedingly hard to relocate. These extremely sedentary creatures can spend literally centuries on the same acre, operating out of the same hole in the ground, in a precarious equilibrium with food and water supply.
Once I was riding my motorcycle through past our big Air Force Training base here when I came a cross a big Texas tortoise (a close cousin to the desert tortoise, though not endangered) coming from the base attempting to cross a busy four-lane highway in the middle of the day. There was new construction on the adjacent area on base. Likely that remnant tortoise had persisted in that formerly quiet little corner in the middle of the city for at least decades before being displaced.
I transported it outside of town to suitable habitat but I figured its chanced of survival there were about zip.
Birdwatcher
As I remember it awhile back I got accused of making derogatory comments about somebody's wife. That was untrue and it was publicly proven to be untrue. You and I have been on here a long time together yet you came down on the side of the untruths. Many on here I would have expected that of, but you, not so much. I don't have you on Ignore, but I don't read much of what you write any more Birdie. I lost interest. Just thought I'd save you some typing time.
In a statement given to NBC4 in Reno, Reid said, �it�s not over.� � �We can�t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it�s not over.�
Interesting this isn`t the position he takes when it comes to fellow politicians or illegal immigrants...
Yeah he pretty much described 90% of Congress, including himself.
In a statement given to NBC4 in Reno, Reid said, �it�s not over.� � �We can�t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it�s not over.�
Interesting this isn`t the position he takes when it comes to fellow politicians or illegal immigrants...
There is a difference in civil disobedience that ends up in civil court for 20 years, and criminal activity that could send someone to the penitentiary for years.
In a statement given to NBC4 in Reno, Reid said, �it�s not over.� � �We can�t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it�s not over.�
This hypocrite, (Reid) should be in prison! Screw him and the rice suckers!
I'm having a hard time buying into the Chinese solar plant theory though. It doesn't add up and for several reasons.
1) If the Chinese wanted to spend 5 billion dollars on a solar farm they could afford to buy some cheap desert land.
2) Locating the plant near Laughlin makes sense. There was a coal fired power generating facility near Laughlin that was shot down in 2005. Locating a new facility near there gives access to the power grid without stringing new power lines.
Yep...it had nothing to do with the tortoise or his refusal to pay grazing fees... both were just instruments used by the govt. In the end, he'll be forced on down the road one way or the other. I'm sure the IRS is already well on their way to building a case on him...
I'm having a hard time buying into the Chinese solar plant theory though. It doesn't add up and for several reasons.
1) If the Chinese wanted to spend 5 billion dollars on a solar farm they could afford to buy some cheap desert land.
2) Locating the plant near Laughlin makes sense. There was a coal fired power generating facility near Laughlin that was shot down in 2005. Locating a new facility near there gives access to the power grid without stringing new power lines.
which is trying to use land near the Bundy Ranch to build a $5 billion solar plant.
I wonder how long that lie will be parroted? The Chinese site is 175 miles from Bundy's place. The location was given in the original article, but no one bothers to read past the headlines
I could care less about reading past the Headlines , If the Government is involved it is for their benefit. I want nothing more than to see these Government POS to fall flat on their faces. It has now come down to it in this country, it is the people versus Government .
In a statement given to NBC4 in Reno, Reid said, �it�s not over.� � �We can�t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it�s not over.�.
But it's quite okey-dokey to have Holder and the AIC violate laws nearly daily...
With each passing day, Reid becomes an even larger pile of chit..
Just because they make the laws doesn't mean they have to abide by them in their twisted minds. They are the ruling class and we are the minions they need to control.
Birdy, if you believe this is a "fact", I have a good deal on some ocean front property in Clark Co., Nevada.
The original reduction in grazing allotments (or permits, whatever the correct term is) occurred in 1993, as stated at the time over the tortoise.
Are there idealogues in power who will sacrifice whole communities over an endangered species? Yes of course.
This is Texas, yet not five miles from where I sit is an unfinished highway interchange used by more than 80,000 vehicles per day. A 50 million dollar project.
The cause? A 4mm transparent blind spider found in a small cavern exposed by excavation. The last of these spiders was a single individual seen in a cave four miles away twenty years previously.
Must there be an unknown number of these things scattered in the interconnecting caverns between the two points? Of course.
Yet I kid you not, construction abruptly stopped cold.
Will there be deaths and injuries causes by the still-impeded traffic flow? Yes, already has been.
Hey, I'm Joe Conservationist, but this is beyond idiocy.
If there's some underlying "real reason" or "conspiracy" in that spider case I dunno what it might be.
I'd like to know if the 1993 tortoise ruling would still hold up in court today based upon common sense evidence.
Bundy has been grazing cattle for twenty years since then, not to mention since the 1800s, and if it really was endangering the tortoises it would surely be evident by now.
Was Bundy screwed by the court in 1993?
In my mind that's is the only relevant question that might affect his ability to keep grazing cattle on public land. There's no doubt he owes the govt $$$ in unpaid grazing fees and he's in the wrong for not paying those fees but ...
Is there a fair way to settle this if he was screwed in 1993?
Senator Harry Reid, who has been implicated in using the BLM to steal a Nevada Rancher�s land for his friends at a Chinese Solar Company, is now threatening the rancher with further federal action.
In a statement given to NBC4 in Reno, Reid said, �it�s not over.� � �We can�t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it�s not over.�
But as many in the area are pointing out, this has little to do with the cattle, and more to do with Reid�s attempt to steal even more Nevada land to enrich himself and help fund his son�s political ambitions. It�s pretty ironic that someone who has made millions violating the law, is now using the �law� as a justification for an armed invasion on American soil.
Harry Reid: the architect of the Bundy Ranch Invasion?
The Bureau of Land Management is headed by longtime friend and former Reid aide Neil Kornze, who was confirmed by the Senate as BLM director on Tuesday, just as armed BLM agents descended on the cattle ranch outside Mesquite, Nevada. Harry Reid�s son, Rory Reid, has been the chief representative to the Chinese solar firm, which is trying to use land near the Bundy Ranch to build a $5 billion solar plant.
Over the years, the Harry Reid has used his political influence to make a number of similar shady deals throughout Nevada. He�s been accused of doing business with the mob and using his influence to manipulate zoning ordinances throughout the state � in one instance making over $700,000 that he failed to disclose, because of his partnership with a Las Vegas lawyer whose name has surfaced in federal investigations involving organized crime.
Supporters still at Bundy Ranch, armed and ready for a possible confrontation.
Bundy supporters remain at the ranch, fully expecting a raid from the Federal Government. According to World News Daily, The executive director of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association says his sources inside the federal government is warning that the BLM�s weekend retreat was only a move to distract attention and diffuse tensions, and that a raid on the family�s ranch still is planned.
Richard Mack, the former sheriff of Grisham County, Ariz. told WND �I don�t think it would be possible� to launch a raid without violence. �I don�t think the Bundys would lie down and be taken.�
This afternoon, federal officers could be seen moving back into the area, along with a number of Clark County officers who arrived with a large prison transportation bus.
just to be a little technical, there is NO Grisham county arizona. Probably meant Graham county
I don't think anyone following the story felt that was over because there is no resolution yet.
letting the cattle go isn't a resolution, the BLM doesn't want them on the land and Bundy does - until that is resolved, whatever has happened to date is just a postponement.
The question is however - does our federal government think the big picture issue of making sure a citizen does not feel emboldened to do something like this in the future is worth using force against the Bundy family or worse, a small arms skirmish with self described militias and 1%'ers over some gd's cows eating brush in the desert.
I'm pretty sure a cow is not a predator to a solar panel.
I don't think anyone following the story felt that was over because there is no resolution yet.
letting the cattle go isn't a resolution, the BLM doesn't want them on the land and Bundy does - until that is resolved, whatever has happened to date is just a postponement.
The question is however - does our federal government think the big picture issue of making sure a citizen does not feel emboldened to do something like this in the future is worth using force against the Bundy family or worse, a small arms skirmish with self described militias and 1%'ers over some gd's cows eating brush in the desert.
thats exactly what im afraid is gonna happen....the kooks in charge at the moment are not going to be able to handle the thought of someone very publicly getting their way cause its gonna mean alot of chit possibly coming down in the Arsehole in Chiefs lap that he doesnt want public....
I'd like to know if the 1993 tortoise ruling would still hold up in court today based upon common sense evidence.
Of course the truth is usually somewhere in the middle, and unfortunately for both private individuals and the cause of conservation "common sense" usually does not seem to figure into it.
Case in point the Golden-cheeked Warbler here in Texas. Listed endangered in 1990 when an estimated 10,000 pairs remained.
The bird needs woodland, specifically 100 year-old cedars. Only problem is before settlement MOST of Central Texas was prairie. There might have been more of these warblers in Texas in 1990 than there ever was. Got declared endangered anyway, in 1992 Clinton's Secretary of the Interior declares 33 whole counties in Central Texas as "critical habitat".
Ranchers all across the Hill Country immediately cut down every old cedar on their property, and who can blame 'em? Listing prob'ly hurt the bird more than anything, ironic since ranchers were never a previously a threat to the bird, nor the bird a threat to ranchers. The hoopla did launch the political career of George Bush Jr. tho'.
'Nother case point the Concho Water Snake, had to be later UNlisted after halting water development for all of San Angelo when it turned out they were all over the place in the reservoir that was supposed to be a threat.
With the tortoise I'd wanna know how they survived the sort of range abuse that caused the Taylor Grazing Act to be enacted in the first place, and jut how many are left today.
I don't think anyone following the story felt that was over because there is no resolution yet.
letting the cattle go isn't a resolution, the BLM doesn't want them on the land and Bundy does - until that is resolved, whatever has happened to date is just a postponement.
The question is however - does our federal government think the big picture issue of making sure a citizen does not feel emboldened to do something like this in the future is worth using force against the Bundy family or worse, a small arms skirmish with self described militias and 1%'ers over some gd's cows eating brush in the desert.
thats exactly what im afraid is gonna happen....the kooks in charge at the moment are not going to be able to handle the thought of someone very publicly getting their way cause its gonna mean alot of chit possibly coming down in the Arsehole in Chiefs lap that he doesnt want public....
I'll say this - this country will not tolerate another Waco.
It would be the tipping point. Waco happened prior to the advent of social media and readily available internet access as well as more talking news media.
An event like that would incite outrage nationwide -and whether Bundy is a lawbreaker for cattle chewing their cud where they don't belong would be long irrelevant to the situation.
With the tortoise I'd wanna know how they survived the sort of range abuse that caused the Taylor Grazing Act to be enacted in the first place, and jut how many are left today.
Desert tortoises have lived in the deserts of California, Arizona, Nevada and Utah since the Pleistocene. In the early years of the 20th century, they still thrived within the Southwest�s arid landscapes: As many as 1,000 tortoises per square mile once inhabited the Mojave. But by the end of the century, this population of the desert tortoise was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Livestock grazing and urban development, along with the ever-increasing use of off-road vehicles, continue to degrade the tortoise�s vanishing habitat, while Army translocation projects threaten to devastate the Mojave population.
If that isn't the biggest crock of horseschidt I ever saw lied about, I don't know what is.
That's the trouble with groups like that. They will blatantly lie to further their cause. As you said, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. But, I doubt cows were ever a threat to any tortoise, just like the bison wasn't.
I have seen many, many tortoises run over by vehicles. I will still stop and move one out of the roadway if it's on it. Never, ever saw a cow kill one though.
I posted a link to a recipe for Turtle Soup to Bob the Lawyer in one of these threads. I don't know if he's tried it yet or not but I just wondered if he favored it over Crow Pie, which we all know is something he eats regularly.
I don't think anyone following the story felt that was over because there is no resolution yet.
letting the cattle go isn't a resolution, the BLM doesn't want them on the land and Bundy does - until that is resolved, whatever has happened to date is just a postponement.
The question is however - does our federal government think the big picture issue of making sure a citizen does not feel emboldened to do something like this in the future is worth using force against the Bundy family or worse, a small arms skirmish with self described militias and 1%'ers over some gd's cows eating brush in the desert.
thats exactly what im afraid is gonna happen....the kooks in charge at the moment are not going to be able to handle the thought of someone very publicly getting their way cause its gonna mean alot of chit possibly coming down in the Arsehole in Chiefs lap that he doesnt want public....
I'll say this - this country will not tolerate another Waco.
It would be the tipping point. Waco happened prior to the advent of social media and readily available internet access as well as more talking news media.
An event like that would incite outrage nationwide -and whether Bundy is a lawbreaker for cattle chewing their cud where they don't belong would be long irrelevant to the situation.
One more white supremacist attack may be all it takes for .GOV. Bundle this with the Bundy deal and you know Holder is going to be chomping at the bit.
If that isn't the biggest crock of horseschidt I ever saw lied about, I don't know what is.
That specific fact? 1,000 tortoises per square mile? Maybe not so exaggerated, at least for some areas of the Mohave.
That translates to about 2/3 of an acre per tortoise. These things live much of their lives in a sort of near-suspended animation, a metabolism so low the water in their bladder equates to a year's supply.
Retraction to above.... "In the most densely populated areas, you may find one tortoise per 2.5 acres."...
The flip side of that is their space/food requirements are so low one wonders how much the target restoration population is since it got listed. In other words, how much acreage do ya gotta preserve?
At this point, if I was a disinterested observer living near the Bundy place, I'd go out and count tortoises on that disputed range.
As browsing around revealed; everything from ATV's, to people picking them up and causing them to pee and lose stored water to trash-feeding ravens around towns also preying on young tortoises can hammer them.
In Texas the Black-capped Vireo (bird) was declared endangered largely on population data from the Austin area, by which stats it shoulda gone extinct years ago. Now this vireo might genuinely be endangered, but it has turned out since then that the Austin area is presently marginal habitat for that species. In other words even if they were common they'd still be dying off around Austin, and that this Austin population has maybe always consisted of birds bred in other areas. Turns out since that there are substantial numbers scattered locally across West Texas, and a college professor friend of mine found a sizeable and previously unknown breeding population in the mountains of North-Central Mexico.
Perhaps the tortoise was classified on the basis of disappearing populations around urban areas too I dunno.
The .gov has been arguing for an internet flip switch so they can just turn it off for most people in the event of "national emergency" which is to them somebody keeping them away from the pig trough. I wonder if they've got much of one. Most of the ISP's would roll right over willingly and the .gov has their tentacles everywhere on the internet and all other COMMO. [bleep] Holder and the braying assclown named Farry that he rides.
The .gov has been arguing for an internet flip switch so they can just turn it off for most people in the event of "national emergency" which is to them somebody keeping them away from the pig trough. I wonder if they've got much of one. Most of the ISP's would roll right over willingly and the .gov has their tentacles everywhere on the internet and all other COMMO. [bleep] Holder and the braying assclown named Farry that he rides.
Yeah, they hate the fact that the internet allows folks to get instant real-time information before their propagandists have had a chance to manipulate public opinion towards the government slant. If they had it, they would have used an internet cut off switch during the Bundy thing.
The .gov has been arguing for an internet flip switch so they can just turn it off for most people in the event of "national emergency" which is to them somebody keeping them away from the pig trough. I wonder if they've got much of one. Most of the ISP's would roll right over willingly and the .gov has their tentacles everywhere on the internet and all other COMMO. [bleep] Holder and the braying assclown named Farry that he rides.
Yeah, they hate the fact that the internet allows folks to get instant real-time information before their propagandists have had a chance to manipulate public opinion towards the government slant. If they had it, they would have used an internet cut off switch during the Bundy thing.
Their problem with a kill switch is that nobody believes their lies in the old school media anymore so if you turn off the internet, one of their big propaganda tools is gone. That plus the fact that they have provocateurs everywhere on the internet sewing disinformation. They hate to let go of those advantages.
I'm having a hard time buying into the Chinese solar plant theory though. It doesn't add up and for several reasons.
1) If the Chinese wanted to spend 5 billion dollars on a solar farm they could afford to buy some cheap desert land.
2) Locating the plant near Laughlin makes sense. There was a coal fired power generating facility near Laughlin that was shot down in 2005. Locating a new facility near there gives access to the power grid without stringing new power lines.
actually they DID string new power lines, on the road from quartzsite up to bouse. Couldn't figure out why they were putting in those nice new poles and lines,sure as heck know now. They are in the process of deactivating/shutting down coal generators in northern arizona, even tho that puts navajo's out of work. And the plants supplied the power to pump water out of the colorado to lift up the hill to the canal which runs all the way down to tuscon. Accross property originally owned by some prominent democratic elected officials. Must not forget that bridge accross the river at laughlin they were purposing too, seem ol harry reid might have owned the land on the nevada side where the road would have connected.
It would be quite easy for someone not familar with that area to underestimate the residents who live there. A stiff spine comes to mind, and not bluffed easily. I don't think anyone wants to see violence, but i would not be surprised at it if these people are pushed in the wrong way. It's the match that lights the kindling that lights the fire. Again, there is prior history in the area of the state/federal gov. moving into these areas on issues of polygamy, some of it recent. I don't know how far intimidation would work. Geez, there are some homes built at colorado city on the state line between utah and arizona. If you get harrassed on side, move to the other side of the room.
this shows exactly why the government wanted an internet cutoff
can you imagine a social media call to all armed citizens to go defend the Bundy ranch against an armed assault by a federal program?
I told my wife the very same thing yesterday. If it came down to it, I wonder how many people would pack up their gear and head down there to make a stand?
The problem is the sights isn't pointing toward that bastard, Harry R. It will be government employees that that will be on the other end of the good guys sights.
The evil one is in Washington - Harry R. He could care less how many deputies or guardsmen get killed. I suspect that he would just use the number killed to justify gun control.
The problem is the sights isn't pointing toward that bastard, Harry R. It will be government employees that that will be on the other end of the good guys sights.
The evil one is in Washington - Harry R. He could care less how many deputies or guardsmen get killed. I suspect that he would just use the number killed to justify gun control.
The trouble is the guys at the front for the government are not the ones who should be catching hell. We should be putting all efforts in defeating those bastards.
The trouble is the guys at the front for the government are not the ones who should be catching hell. We should be putting all efforts in defeating those bastards.
Why not? I don't have much sympathy for the camp guards. You pick your teams and you make your choices. There are no drafts. People who enforce bad laws are just as responsible as those who pass them. At any point, the bad law could be avoided if one of the actors in the system took a stand. If people who make the bad laws get no free pass, then those who enforce them don't either.
The trouble is the guys at the front for the government are not the ones who should be catching hell. We should be putting all efforts in defeating those bastards.
Why not? I don't have much sympathy for the camp guards. You pick your teams and you make your choices. There are no drafts. People who enforce bad laws are just as responsible as those who pass them. At any point, the bad law could be avoided if one of the actors in the system took a stand. If people who make the bad laws get no free pass, then those who enforce them don't either.
^^This^^
Government employees are but Barry's and Harry's fingers and toes with which they reach into and grasp hold of every part of our lives and with which they stand on us as they do so.
The trouble is the guys at the front for the government are not the ones who should be catching hell. We should be putting all efforts in defeating those bastards.
Why not? I don't have much sympathy for the camp guards. You pick your teams and you make your choices. There are no drafts. People who enforce bad laws are just as responsible as those who pass them. At any point, the bad law could be avoided if one of the actors in the system took a stand. If people who make the bad laws get no free pass, then those who enforce them don't either.
I agree, at some point "just doing your job" doesn't cut it
You have three bank robbers who go into a bank with the understanding nobody gets hurt and two of whom have rubber guns. The third guy sneaks in a real one and kills somebody for the fun of it. They all get charged with murder. Maybe the two who did nothing get worse sentences if the third guy rolls over on them first and makes up a good enough story. If good cops refuse to arrest good people whom they know have done nothing morally wrong, then there is no problem. If these BLM goons didn't go out there, that leaves it to their bosses, up to and including Harry and Zero. If the wars were fought by the guys who started them and profit from them, then there would be no wars. Just say no to bad laws.
this shows exactly why the government wanted an internet cutoff
can you imagine a social media call to all armed citizens to go defend the Bundy ranch against an armed assault by a federal program?
I told my wife the very same thing yesterday. If it came down to it, I wonder how many people would pack up their gear and head down there to make a stand?
Not many, other than some gun store commandos and 22LR hoarders. Lotsa shiny polished reeboks and starched high-water blue jean types.....
He plans to put woman and children in harms way for the cause.
So, if BLM thugs shoot MEN that are not shooting at them, then it's OK? How about the fact that it's not right to fire on the protestors? No matter what sex they are?
We know you are liberal, 4100. You don't have to continually prove your stupidity and ignorance though.
Well sure it isn't ober Airy they too much Reid family money to be made. What another WACO didn't seen to hurt you or Billy boy did it. Government murders people everyday. They just don't figure out some of them.
Idid watch it and that is why I asked the question.. Grazing fees have been charged and have been paid for many years. The rancher owns 150 Ac? That is a large garden not a ranch. His ranch is all BLM leased land which belongs to you and I.
The trouble is the guys at the front for the government are not the ones who should be catching hell. We should be putting all efforts in defeating those bastards.
Why not? I don't have much sympathy for the camp guards. You pick your teams and you make your choices. There are no drafts. People who enforce bad laws are just as responsible as those who pass them. At any point, the bad law could be avoided if one of the actors in the system took a stand. If people who make the bad laws get no free pass, then those who enforce them don't either.
^^^ THIS^^^
Although I do not agree that Bundy is innocent in this whole mess and he is indeed a Law Breaker, I don not agree with the Feds game plan here.
If Bundy has broken the Law (which he has) then he should be arrested, charged and have his day in court.
Take the Man, arrest him and officially charge him giving him the opportunity to defend these Criminal Charges in Court, not on the Battle field.
this shows exactly why the government wanted an internet cutoff
can you imagine a social media call to all armed citizens to go defend the Bundy ranch against an armed assault by a federal program?
I told my wife the very same thing yesterday. If it came down to it, I wonder how many people would pack up their gear and head down there to make a stand?
who is to know the answer to that question, but i can add a little more. You have to keep in mind a lot of these areas are not heavily metro settled, and families go back generations, and are interelated. Shoot, i have had contact with people around various parts of the country, all having a common heritage to the ranching early families in central arizona, and to the north. There were NOT a lot of people around not that far back, and it is not hard to find commonality. Particularly in ranching circles. Everybody knows of or knows everybody else. Those loyalities run pretty deep. I recieved something today from someone with a 100year history of ranching, and it basically supported bundy's position, and mentioned the blm being the strongarm of running thousands of ranchers off. That's okay i guess, if you want to eat turtle, or sardines. But if you want to eat beef, you gots to feed them, and throwing hay out doesn't work. Ask some of the cattle guys on this forum about hauling water/feed when the range won't support them. And you wonder why beef prices go up? What always seems to amaze me is how people with kvetch about cattle messing up the countryside/forest but have never seen what a herd of a couple hundred elk will do in wet weather. And what another federally protected species, that little burro will do to waterholes.
Idid watch it and that is why I asked the question.. Grazing fees have been charged and have been paid for many years. The rancher owns 150 Ac? That is a large garden not a ranch. His ranch is all BLM leased land which belongs to you and I.
Not an uncommon situation at all, most ranches have a little deeded land and then grazing rights.
He plans to put woman and children in harms way for the cause.
So, if BLM thugs shoot MEN that are not shooting at them, then it's OK? How about the fact that it's not right to fire on the protestors? No matter what sex they are?
We know you are liberal, 4100. You don't have to continually prove your stupidity and ignorance though.
When did "BLM Thugs" shoot at MEN? I missed that.
We know your a right wing fascist. Similar to Hitler. Heil Rockinbar.
When you have nothing you through out insults. Kudo's to you.
Now tripple up on the Tin foil their reading your mind.
He plans to put woman and children in harms way for the cause.
So, if BLM thugs shoot MEN that are not shooting at them, then it's OK? How about the fact that it's not right to fire on the protestors? No matter what sex they are?
We know you are liberal, 4100. You don't have to continually prove your stupidity and ignorance though.
When did "BLM Thugs" shoot at MEN? I missed that.
We know your a right wing fascist. Similar to Hitler. Heil Rockinbar.
When you have nothing you through out insults. Kudo's to you.
Now tripple up on the Tin foil their reading your mind.
They shot one of the Bundy sons, twice.
The weapon was a Taser rather a firearm, but the federal scum JBT did shoot a man during their ranch occupation.
I agree with you but to pay the grazing fee is no big deal, the BLM charges far below what the market would and not paying is BS. The land is public and he either pays his grazing fee or he should stick to his 150 Ac which would support exactly 3.6 cows during a wet year.
He plans to put woman and children in harms way for the cause.
So, if BLM thugs shoot MEN that are not shooting at them, then it's OK? How about the fact that it's not right to fire on the protestors? No matter what sex they are?
We know you are liberal, 4100. You don't have to continually prove your stupidity and ignorance though.
When did "BLM Thugs" shoot at MEN? I missed that.
We know your a right wing fascist. Similar to Hitler. Heil Rockinbar.
When you have nothing you through out insults. Kudo's to you.
Now tripple up on the Tin foil their reading your mind.
Below is what you said.
Quote
He plans to put woman and children in harms way for the cause.
My response didn't say that anyone HAD been shot... I was asking if the BLM had shot at MEN instead of WOMEN it would have been OK?
Damnn, I didn't think I'd have to explain that, even to you...
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Bundy is one hundred percent wrong. This is entirely a civil issue. Slap a lien on his land, file a lien in every county with a sale barn within a thousand miles and let all the sale barns know that if they sell a cow with his brand on it, the check goes to the government. If he can't sell his cows, they are worthless and he'll be out of business.
Heck, up until the other day when he defied the feds and went and released his cows, he arguably wasn't even violating the injunction to remove his cows. Nevada is a free range state and if a landowner wants to keep someone else's cows off of his property, Nevada law says that he must build his own fence.
The feds could have filed their liens, put the sale barns on notice, and built a fence around Bundy's 160 acre homestead. But they did none of that. Instead, they did more or less nothing for the better part of twenty years and then they roll out with this massive display of completely unnecessary force that did nothing but nearly get a bunch of people killed. They deserve the egg they got on their faces.
Nothing illustrates the way the feds think and feel about us than their arrogant misuse of force to enforce a civil order.
How could it be well stated? I thought you said it wasn't Bundy's land. Further, you can't put a lien against land Bundy didn't own.
They can place a lien against his personal property(cows)only after a judgment is first entered against him.
The most likely event to occur is the rendering of a judgment against Bundy and a Rule To Show Cause whereupon he could be jailed until he complies with a court order.
If the government wanted to be wiser, instead of vindictive, they possibly could work out a settlement with some sort of judgment reduction and assist Bundy in the relocation of his herd.
How could it be well stated? I thought you said it wasn't Bundy's land. Further, you can't put a lien against land Bundy didn't own.
They can place a lien against his personal property(cows)only after a judgment is first entered against him.
The most likely event to occur is the rendering of a judgment against Bundy and a Rule To Show Cause whereupon he could be jailed until he complies with a court order.
If the government wanted to be wiser, instead of vindictive, they possibly could work out a settlement with some sort of judgment reduction and assist Bundy in the relocation of his herd.
Or,..the government could just fug off,..since it has no legitimate claim to ownership of 85% of Nevada, anyway.
How could it be well stated? I thought you said it wasn't Bundy's land. Further, you can't put a lien against land Bundy didn't own. He owns deeded property in conjunction with the permit.
They can place a lien against his personal property(cows)only after a judgment is first entered against him.
Didn't seem to matter to the BLM thugs that warned everyone to back off, or they would shoot, when the cowboys came for the cattle, did it?
The most likely event to occur is the rendering of a judgment against Bundy and a Rule To Show Cause whereupon he could be jailed until he complies with a court order.
What they should have done from the beginning.
If the government wanted to be wiser, instead of vindictive, they possibly could work out a settlement with some sort of judgment reduction and assist Bundy in the relocation of his herd.
That is the avenue they all should have gone down 20 years ago, rather than back a man into a corner with nothing left to lose.
A judgment would have been falling off a log simple for the unpaid fees and fines. Summary judgment type stuff. But no, let's roll out with 200 goons and show people you don't frick with the US BYGOD GOVERNMENT. Ha! Fricking hilarious.
This old man has completely thumbed his nose at you for twenty years because you were too stupid to take care of it. Now, even if you kill him, it's too late. He has won. He'll go down in history as the cowboy who single handedly humbled the US government
Good post JoeBob. Maybe they chose to do none of that because the court that ruled on the case doesn't have jurisdiction (fed court). If they had taken their case to State court and got a court order to round-up and sell the cattle, then the brand inspector would sign-off on the cows, the sale yard would legally sell them, and all of this would be over. BUT, for some strange, unknown reason, they chose to go the route that they did, attempting to illegally transport his cattle across state lines and illegally sell the cattle in another state. Pretty decent segment on Megyn's show tonight on Fox.
Harry Reid better watch his ass. If they take out Bundy, somebody will get Reid. He has put himself way too far out in front on this deal. He ain't the president. Somebody will get is ass. Too many crazies will make this their cause.
What we are seeing now is the crowning of the head of a birth of "An All Powerful Central Government". You are left with only two entities. The Government and the people it rules.
When 40% of the entire United States is owned by one entity, the union of states is dissolved, and the unconstitutional Central Government emerges to claim it's place as provider for the good of us all.
He has a 160 acres deeded to him that was homesteaded by his family. This property is the "base" property the BLM requires for a grazing allotment. The allotment goes with the property. If Bundy had sold it before he lost/gave up his allotment, the allotment would have gone with the 160 acres.
Good post JoeBob. Maybe they chose to do none of that because the court that ruled on the case doesn't have jurisdiction (fed court). If they had taken their case to State court and got a court order to round-up and sell the cattle, then the brand inspector would sign-off on the cows, the sale yard would legally sell them, and all of this would be over. BUT, for some strange, unknown reason, they chose to go the route that they did, attempting to illegally transport his cattle across state lines and illegally sell the cattle in another state. Pretty decent segment on Megyn's show tonight on Fox.
Judge Napolitano agreed that State Courts hold jurisdiction.
And constitutional scholars were hammering him on that today. He's been saying a few silly things as of late. I'm sure you also noticed him changing much of his tune from yesterday am through tonight.
In any event, Napolitano's comments are 2 federal courts and 1 appellate court late, on top of being silly.
He was right about the first amendment violation though.
When the BLM created a 25x25 area and labeled it a "First Amendment Zone", and located it 3 miles from anywhere, (where nobody could hear them) and said they would arrest protestors outside those zones,... government interfered with free speech.
They need their ass handed to them for that, if nothing else.
which is trying to use land near the Bundy Ranch to build a $5 billion solar plant.
I wonder how long that lie will be parroted? The Chinese site is 175 miles from Bundy's place. The location was given in the original article, but no one bothers to read past the headlines
It's called offsetting. No matter where they build the power plant, they need to set aside X-amount of land for undisturbed nature as an offset for the environmental destruction that the plant will cause. It's like the way carbon credits work. So they cannot proceed with the plant till they've first arranged for the offset land, which they decided Bundy's ranch was going to be, which is why they drove off the other ranchers in the area, and are trying to drive off Bundy, with burdensome regulations that make ranching unprofitable.
which is trying to use land near the Bundy Ranch to build a $5 billion solar plant.
I wonder how long that lie will be parroted? The Chinese site is 175 miles from Bundy's place. The location was given in the original article, but no one bothers to read past the headlines
It's called offsetting. No matter where they build the power plant, they need to set aside X-amount of land for undisturbed nature as an offset for the environmental destruction that the plant will cause. It's like the way carbon credits work. So they cannot proceed with the plant till they've first arranged for the offset land, which they decided Bundy's ranch was going to be, which is why they drove off the other ranchers in the area, and are trying to drive off Bundy, with burdensome regulations that make ranching unprofitable.
None of that matters, since they never built it
Don't you have a Federal AZZ to be licking somewhere, right now ?
That will get you a LOT further down your destined road than what you're attempting here, bought dog.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_v_Bundy_Court_Order_July_2013.pdf His actual charges say: "unauthorized and UNLAWFUL grazing of livestock..." and "trespass damages"
Quote
United States v. Bundy "arose out of Bundy�s unauthorized grazing of his livestock on property owned by the United States and administered by the Department of the Interior through the BLM and the National Park Service." According to the case, "On November 3, 1998, the Court issued an order permanently enjoining Bundy from grazing his livestock on the former Bunkerville Allotment ('The Allotment'), and ordering him to remove his livestock no later than November 30, 1998, and pay damages to the United States in the amount of $200 per day per head for any remaining livestock on the allotment after November 30, 1998." The court stated that "[t]he government has shown commendable restraint in allowing this trespass to continue for so long without impounding Bundy�s livestock."[4] On September 17, 1999, after Bundy failed to comply with the court�s earlier order(s), the court issued another order directing Bundy to comply with the 1998 permanent injunction and modifying the trespass damages owed.[3][4][5]
Legal actions 2012 to 2014[edit] The cattle expanded into additional public lands over the years. After a protracted legal process, on December 21, 2012 in United States v. Bundy,[a] a summary judgment in favor of the United States was granted, and Bundy's motion to dismiss was denied. The order was signed by Judge Lloyd D. George on July 9, 2013 and permanently enjoined Bundy and his cattle from trespassing on the Bunkerville Allotment, the Gold Butte area, and parts of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area.[6] Another order had to be issued in October 8, 2013. The orders allowed the United States to protect the land from Bundy and to seize any of his cattle that remains in those areas
which is trying to use land near the Bundy Ranch to build a $5 billion solar plant.
I wonder how long that lie will be parroted? The Chinese site is 175 miles from Bundy's place. The location was given in the original article, but no one bothers to read past the headlines
It's called offsetting. No matter where they build the power plant, they need to set aside X-amount of land for undisturbed nature as an offset for the environmental destruction that the plant will cause. It's like the way carbon credits work. So they cannot proceed with the plant till they've first arranged for the offset land, which they decided Bundy's ranch was going to be, which is why they drove off the other ranchers in the area, and are trying to drive off Bundy, with burdensome regulations that make ranching unprofitable.
None of that matters, since they never built it
Don't you have 40 some rifles to ship back to Remington?
He plans to put woman and children in harms way for the cause.
So, if BLM thugs shoot MEN that are not shooting at them, then it's OK? How about the fact that it's not right to fire on the protestors? No matter what sex they are?
We know you are liberal, 4100. You don't have to continually prove your stupidity and ignorance though.
When did "BLM Thugs" shoot at MEN? I missed that.
We know your a right wing fascist. Similar to Hitler. Heil Rockinbar.
When you have nothing you through out insults. Kudo's to you.
Now tripple up on the Tin foil their reading your mind.
Below is what you said.
Quote
He plans to put woman and children in harms way for the cause.
My response didn't say that anyone HAD been shot... I was asking if the BLM had shot at MEN instead of WOMEN it would have been OK?
Damnn, I didn't think I'd have to explain that, even to you...
I'm with you on your statement that its never right to fire on protesters ever.
You see RB usually peaceful protesters aren't laying down with a sniper rifle pointed at the "FEDS" hiding behind woman. They're usually holding signs up. I saw how peaceful those guys were. (BTW, are "FEDS" communists, from Russia, or China, maybe even Korea? Could they really just be red blooded Americans just as yourself, just doing their job?
The retired Sheriff put the woman and children up front so the world would see them getting shot in the event that some moron from either side accidentally or not fired off the first shot. Real stand up guy.
It shows at what length this right wing group was willing to go to sway public opinion.
In condoning those actions you make any normal conservative look liberal.
Glen Beck is he liberal? He's all for state ownership of the lands on the maps you keep posting up. BUT, he said Bundy is fighting one cause, (wrongly) and the "Patriots" are there for another. Makes the whole lot (and their supporters) look stupid, and ignorant.
I hope Mr Bundy runs for congress, wins a seat and then runs for Senate and beats that low life Harry "the devil" Reid.
Then I hope he gets to form some special investigation committee that uncovers all of Harry Reid's dirt.
Then I hope they strike Reid's name from all public records as in Cecil B Demill's ten commandments, and purge history of the knowledge of such a miscreant as in George Orwell's 1984, by shoving Harry Reid down the memory hole.
which is trying to use land near the Bundy Ranch to build a $5 billion solar plant.
I wonder how long that lie will be parroted? The Chinese site is 175 miles from Bundy's place. The location was given in the original article, but no one bothers to read past the headlines
It's called offsetting. No matter where they build the power plant, they need to set aside X-amount of land for undisturbed nature as an offset for the environmental destruction that the plant will cause. It's like the way carbon credits work. So they cannot proceed with the plant till they've first arranged for the offset land, which they decided Bundy's ranch was going to be, which is why they drove off the other ranchers in the area, and are trying to drive off Bundy, with burdensome regulations that make ranching unprofitable.
None of that matters, since they never built it
They can't build it till they've arranged for the offset.
Harry Reid better watch his ass. If they take out Bundy, somebody will get Reid. He has put himself way too far out in front on this deal. He ain't the president. Somebody will get is ass. Too many crazies will make this their cause.
From what I've seen from that pos Reid, I'd say that 'cause' might (emphasis there) MIGHT be just...
One thing about Beck - and overall I like the guy - but he has ALWAYS condemned violence....always said guns used are not the answer.. Well, just MAYBE he should be stating that to our benevolent gov't - the SAME gov't that showed up at Bundy's ranch with guns, tasers and snarling dogs.. And if NOT for guns, we'd have had a dictator leading this country LONG before the AIC showed up..
At SOME POINT, people, there WILL come a time when violence may be THE ONLY ANSWER; the last straw, the only avenue left to take.. And I don't say that lightly. For those that say violence is never the answer - then why in hell did the US end up in a couple world wars, along with others? If the country never defended itself with firearms of some type we would all now be speaking either German or Japanese..
"Peace with superior firepower"..
Originally Posted by rockinbbar
He was right about the first amendment violation though.
When the BLM created a 25x25 area and labeled it a "First Amendment Zone", and located it 3 miles from anywhere, (where nobody could hear them) and said they would arrest protestors outside those zones,... government interfered with free speech.
They need their ass handed to them for that, if nothing else.
IN SPADES!!! NO ONE should have accepted that BS... NO ONE!
If you take the premis that this should all have been done in State courts then Bundy is still within the law, he is disobeying a false judgement, the first judge should have throwen it out of court, but it seams that the feds persisted in following their nose instead of looking at proper law.
main probablem came when all those western states did not push the Feds to give them their right full amount of land in the first place then Nev not ratifying what they had passed.
then the feds listened to the enviromentalists to feds[HARRYs] own benefit, without doing a proper study of the turtle population in conjunstion with the graseing over more than 80 years. HEY guess what there's still lots of turtles.
Seams to me Obama is doing what harry has been for as many years that he has been in Gov , working on the edge of the law using loopholes and steping over the fence just enough to get away with it for years and of course linning his pockets as he goes. HAS he now used enough roap to hang himself?????????????????????
The most likely event to occur is the rendering of a judgment against Bundy and a Rule To Show Cause whereupon he could be jailed until he complies with a court order.
He has a pretty good argument on removing the cattle. Nevada law requires someone who wants to keep cattle off of his place, to build a fence. Thus the feds should be required to build a fence around his 160 acres.
I'll bet he has been pretty smart about things in that the cows have always been out there and they started on his place. Up until he actually went and released them from BLM custody, I think he had a really good argument that he was not in violation of the court order.
He plans to put woman and children in harms way for the cause.
So, if BLM thugs shoot MEN that are not shooting at them, then it's OK? How about the fact that it's not right to fire on the protestors? No matter what sex they are?
We know you are liberal, 4100. You don't have to continually prove your stupidity and ignorance though.
When did "BLM Thugs" shoot at MEN? I missed that.
We know your a right wing fascist. Similar to Hitler. Heil Rockinbar.
When you have nothing you through out insults. Kudo's to you.
Now tripple up on the Tin foil their reading your mind.
Below is what you said.
Quote
He plans to put woman and children in harms way for the cause.
My response didn't say that anyone HAD been shot... I was asking if the BLM had shot at MEN instead of WOMEN it would have been OK?
Damnn, I didn't think I'd have to explain that, even to you...
I'm with you on your statement that its never right to fire on protesters ever.
You see RB usually peaceful protesters aren't laying down with a sniper rifle pointed at the "FEDS" hiding behind woman. They're usually holding signs up. I saw how peaceful those guys were. (BTW, are "FEDS" communists, from Russia, or China, maybe even Korea? Could they really just be red blooded Americans just as yourself, just doing their job?
The retired Sheriff put the woman and children up front so the world would see them getting shot in the event that some moron from either side accidentally or not fired off the first shot. Real stand up guy.
It shows at what length this right wing group was willing to go to sway public opinion.
In condoning those actions you make any normal conservative look liberal.
Glen Beck is he liberal? He's all for state ownership of the lands on the maps you keep posting up. BUT, he said Bundy is fighting one cause, (wrongly) and the "Patriots" are there for another. Makes the whole lot (and their supporters) look stupid, and ignorant.
yeah, i saw that picture too. I also saw the picture of the two blm snipers on the ridgeline. I guess it only works one way. If you ever wanted a representation of what the second amendment was about, maybe this was it. It ain't so easy as if only one side has the firepower.
there was another article in the arizona azzwipe newspaper today, talking about the san pedro river. Which is a story all in itself. Lots of controversy over it. But in essence the story portrayed a developer wanting to build a 7000 house project and getting approval through the state for the "magical 100year water supply". On the other side a consortium of interests are spending big bucks to capture monsoon rain water to slowly release into the san pedro to stablilize flow. The interesting part to me was the mention for this stabilization project was the center for biological diversity working through the BLM. One of the arguments the developer was using is better him doing it than ordinary people putting in wells. It's the same ol problem, too many people moving in, too little water in an arid environment.
You know, having a pain in the ass neighbor is the oldest story in the book. In every county in every state in the country you can find at least one simmering feud between neighboring landowners that will involve cows getting out, fences being cut, property lines being ignored/disputed and so on and so forth. Often, they are litigated for years, even decades in stop and start actions. Sometimes, the parties run out of money and reach an uneasy truce. Sometimes, one side or another will actually box the other one in legally speaking so that a true victory can be reached.
That is exactly what you have here. And the more I see about it, I can fully understand that Bundy is a pain in the ass. But the BLM basically said, "Frick all that legal stuff we're going to have to do. We've done enough. We BY GOD are the US BYGOD GOVERNMENT and we're going in there and shut this contrary self-righteous pain in the ass down with overwhelming force."
That is what they did, and in that respect they are no different or more right than that neighbor, who after years of unsatisfying litigation, finds his fence down one day, snaps, and goes and shoots his neighbor.
There has been a lot of talk about the rule of law in this instance. But if the US Government is above the rule of law and does not follow the legal forms and procedures TO THE LETTER and reserves the right to use overwhelming force, then it is no more right than anyone else who boils over with frustration and does something stupid and THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW.
pretty much i think you said it well. intimidation only works until the other side is not intimidated, then you have no law, you have a range war. I was talking with someone the other day about ruby ridge. Regardless of what took place and what happened, there was one part i could never get past. The swat guy shooting weaver's dog. For God's sake it was a golden retriever. I live with golden retrievers. They would lick an intruder to death. Overreach is the word i am looking for, just because i can. Which is what i think some of these entities do. There is another thing i pulled out of the bundy mess. One of the incident commanders in the popo was described as i remember it an asst chief of police for las vegas. Las vegas is quite a ways from the bundy ranch. Who made this guy chief? When Biden was in the prescott area last year for the memorial for the fallen firefighters they had popo from all over the state doing traffic. Odd to see uniformed motorcycle officers from way south of phx doing street duty in prescott valley. I thought their authority was limited to their jurisdiction? So what is a chandler cop doing traffic 140 miles to the north? Kind of like the las vegas guy playing popo on the arizona/utah/nevada border.
Without looking it up, I'm pretty sure that Nevada, like most open range states, has a procedure for removing livestock your neighbor refuses to come get. You're going to have to have it fenced, then you're going to have to give them notice, then you get a court order allowing you to remove and impound the livestock, and then finally you can sell it while deducting your costs for feed, transport, and damages said livestock may have caused.
The BLM had won its case in the federal courts it was by all accounts, legally speaking, the lawful owner of the property. It should have fenced in Bundy's 160 acres, noticed him of his trespassing cattle, given him opportunity to get them, then gotten a judgment FROM A STATE COURT allowing them to impound and finally, to sell the cattle. All of that, relatively speaking, could have been done quickly and had they done so, they would be completely in the right legally. And they could have taken the sheriff out there with them.
And you know, in just about every state in the country, the case law on trespassing livestock is just about the oldest case law on the books. It would have been simple.
He has a pretty good argument on removing the cattle. Nevada law requires someone who wants to keep cattle off of his place, to build a fence. Thus the feds should be required to build a fence around his 160 acres.
I'll bet he has been pretty smart about things in that the cows have always been out there and they started on his place. Up until he actually went and released them from BLM custody, I think he had a really good argument that he was not in violation of the court order.
Does Nevada's fence out law exclude the federal government? It is my understanding that Utah's does.
there was another article in the arizona azzwipe newspaper today, talking about the san pedro river. Which is a story all in itself. Lots of controversy over it. But in essence the story portrayed a developer wanting to build a 7000 house project and getting approval through the state for the "magical 100year water supply". On the other side a consortium of interests are spending big bucks to capture monsoon rain water to slowly release into the san pedro to stablilize flow. The interesting part to me was the mention for this stabilization project was the center for biological diversity working through the BLM. One of the arguments the developer was using is better him doing it than ordinary people putting in wells. It's the same ol problem, too many people moving in, too little water in an arid environment.
These "developers" are on record, both in many meetings and on the local AM radio,......my neighbors and I ( "Those People out East of Moson Road" the preferred vernacular) are, in their eyes anyway, some sort of "problem".
They are powerful, politically astute, and "Well Connected".
The whole scenario can get pretty strange, sometimes, Ron.
yeah, i saw that picture too. I also saw the picture of the two blm snipers on the ridgeline. I guess it only works one way. If you ever wanted a representation of what the second amendment was about, maybe this was it. It ain't so easy as if only one side has the firepower.
When it comes down to it, why isn't the Clark Co. Sheriff pursuing that matter? If there is evidence of people pointing guns at other people for no reason...and their was no reason as these people were peacefully supporting Bundy. Why cannot they be arrested and tried?
Blaming the cops for the situation is like blaming the enlisted guys for Vietnam.
It is the bastard in Washington (Reid) that should be defeated! I hope that bastard gets defeated next time up!
No it's not. This has nothing to do with Vietnam and we don't need sorry analogies like that one confusing the issue. Reid is giving the orders but somebody has to carry them out. By carrying out the order, you are agreeing with it. If there was nobody that agreed and thus carried the order out, there would be no problem unless Obama and Harry Reid themselves wanted to do it. Comprende?
pretty much i think you said it well. intimidation only works until the other side is not intimidated, then you have no law, you have a range war. I was talking with someone the other day about ruby ridge. Regardless of what took place and what happened, there was one part i could never get past. The swat guy shooting weaver's dog. For God's sake it was a golden retriever. I live with golden retrievers. They would lick an intruder to death. Overreach is the word i am looking for, just because i can. Which is what i think some of these entities do. There is another thing i pulled out of the bundy mess. One of the incident commanders in the popo was described as i remember it an asst chief of police for las vegas. Las vegas is quite a ways from the bundy ranch. Who made this guy chief? When Biden was in the prescott area last year for the memorial for the fallen firefighters they had popo from all over the state doing traffic. Odd to see uniformed motorcycle officers from way south of phx doing street duty in prescott valley. I thought their authority was limited to their jurisdiction? So what is a chandler cop doing traffic 140 miles to the north? Kind of like the las vegas guy playing popo on the arizona/utah/nevada border.
There is no local LE anymore. It is all countywide and statewide and can be Federalized if necessary. There may be a few backwater town Marshalls that aren't in some states, but I doubt there's even that. They haven't done it to Walmart security yet that I know of, but maybe that's the next step.
"Sir, my name is Paul Blart and I'll be your Homeland Security Cop today."
yeah, i saw that picture too. I also saw the picture of the two blm snipers on the ridgeline. I guess it only works one way. If you ever wanted a representation of what the second amendment was about, maybe this was it. It ain't so easy as if only one side has the firepower.
When it comes down to it, why isn't the Clark Co. Sheriff pursuing that matter?
If there is evidence of people pointing guns at other people for no reason...and their was no reason as these people were peacefully supporting Bundy.
yeah, i saw that picture too. I also saw the picture of the two blm snipers on the ridgeline. I guess it only works one way. If you ever wanted a representation of what the second amendment was about, maybe this was it. It ain't so easy as if only one side has the firepower.
When it comes down to it, why isn't the Clark Co. Sheriff pursuing that matter? If there is evidence of people pointing guns at other people for no reason...and their was no reason as these people were peacefully supporting Bundy. Why cannot they be arrested and tried?
Has any federal agent of any stripe ever been successfully prosecuted for overstepping his powers?
yeah, i saw that picture too. I also saw the picture of the two blm snipers on the ridgeline. I guess it only works one way. If you ever wanted a representation of what the second amendment was about, maybe this was it. It ain't so easy as if only one side has the firepower.
When it comes down to it, why isn't the Clark Co. Sheriff pursuing that matter? If there is evidence of people pointing guns at other people for no reason...and their was no reason as these people were peacefully supporting Bundy. Why cannot they be arrested and tried?
Has any federal agent of any stripe ever been successfully prosecuted for overstepping his powers?
That's what you call "a small window of opportunity."
I really hope you are thinking that you're funny, but you're not.
That is a photo of tyranny in action.
So the "tyranny" is coming from one of your militia dudes?
Just some pictures being confused.
Liberty is being defended by that militiaman.
Quote
The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. ~ Tench Coxe
These goons sent by Harry and Barry were the ones out to impose tyranny.
The sniper in the pic id wearing a tactical vest. Available, but the Bundy supporters probably had none of that. Also which group is more likely to secure an overpass as a hide?
There has been a lot of talk about the rule of law in this instance. But if the US Government is above the rule of law and does not follow the legal forms and procedures TO THE LETTER and reserves the right to use overwhelming force, then it is no more right than anyone else who boils over with frustration and does something stupid and THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW.
Amen to that.
Think about it all...
Anybody who has read the Federalist Papers is hard pressed to find Constitutional justification for almost everything the Federal Govt does these days.
I like this fellow Cliven and his sons; standing up and taking a stand on the Declaration of Independence. Grazing on that land for over 100 years ought to count for more than some tin horn dictactor beuracrat's whim, or the lawless judge-lawyer cabal that props em up.
re: the militia sniper with his mom on the overpass....
WTF???
We're supposed to be reassured by a guy with what might well be a scoped AK proposing to make maybe 400 yard shots through a milling crowd to pick out Cops?
Said guy of the IQ range that finds it necessary to strap a foot-long knife to his belt
Along with a "retired Sheriff" putting women out front Hamas-style so they can get shot first???
All in support of a guy who illegally grazes cows?
And these are the guys who are supposed to be on *our* side?
re: the militia sniper with his mom on the overpass....
WTF???
We're supposed to be reassured by a guy with what might well be a scoped AK proposing to make maybe 400 yard shots through a milling crowd to pick out Cops?
Said guy of the IQ range that finds it necessary to strap a foot-long knife to his belt
Along with a "retired Sheriff" putting women out front Hamas-style so they can get shot first???
All in support of a guy who illegally grazes cows?
And these are the guys who are supposed to be on *our* side?
We are indeed living in bizarre times.
Birdwatcher
Whatever they did in reaction to violent, militaristic BLM thugs that surrounded them like a camp of Taliban, was to protect themselves. They never fired a shot, tazed anyone, or stepped on the constitutional rights of the American citizens.
If you can't see what the government did, and their tactics were wrong, as well as inflaming, then I can't help you.
Whatever they did in reaction to violent, militaristic BLM thugs that surrounded them like a camp of Taliban, was to protect themselves. They never fired a shot, tazed anyone, or stepped on the constitutional rights of the American citizens.
...and here I was thinking the Cops were called to protect the BLM contactees up the cows from harassment and violence. Especially as Bundy had loudly and publically proclaimed a willingness to do "whatever it takes", thereby calling in the sort of individual who packs foot-long knives to these things and sets up for crowd shots maybe 400 yards out
As for pushing the cancer victim lady down, tasing the son and letting a dog bite some guy I'd have to see the whole incident from the beginning. Same thing for "illegally confiscating firearms" from those two Bundy guys entering the round-up area.
I don't give a rats darn about Harry Reid, but if Bundy would pay the fees that he owes to all of us (taxpayers), there would be no issue.
Really?
What fees could he have paid to keep the ranchland that was taken by the enviro terrorists for the tortoise?
BW, yeah... That's a prime reaction to a man saying he will keep what he has. Send in the troops to INSURE that there will be violence thrown into the mix.
Get a clue.
The whole American public that has half a brain is outraged by the BLM and their tactics towards this family. (No matter whose side they are with the land issue)
If he had no support FOR his cause, he GD sure got support against the government after the world saw what they did.
BW, yeah... That's a prime reaction to a man saying he will keep what he has.
On his land?
'spect this arguing could go on forever.
That famous shot of Fed "snipers" on that nearby hilltop? I woulda just walked up there visibly unarmed and asked them what they were doing. If'n my rights were subsequently violated and whatnot I'd figure the rest of the crowd could get the pics of it going down.
The thing is, I ain't sure at this point I can trust what either side was saying, that bayonet-packing militia Yahoo ain't helping that any.
Lucky no one popped a cap and started a fire fight, with all the long knives and AKs, can you just imagine the number of killed or injured due to friendly fire, much less from the tactical BLM ninjas?
Lucky no one popped a cap and started a fire fight, with all the long knives and AKs, can you just imagine the number of killed or injured due to friendly fire, much less from the tactical BLM ninjas?
BW, yeah... That's a prime reaction to a man saying he will keep what he has.
On his land?
'spect this arguing could go on forever.
That famous shot of Fed "snipers" on that nearby hilltop? I woulda just walked up there visibly unarmed and asked them what they were doing. If'n my rights were subsequently violated and whatnot I'd figure the rest of the crowd could get the pics of it going down.
The thing is, I ain't sure at this point I can trust what either side was saying, that bayonet-packing militia Yahoo ain't helping that any.
JMHO, Birdwatcher
Like Margaret Bundy's son did when they threw his mother to the ground for filming BLM trucks?
They tazed him 3 times. He had not even made a fist in aggression.
If you approach stationed snipers that are within the "Closed Area" they were holding, the outcome may not be as sunny as you think.
Obviously you still have faith that the storm troopers won't fire on the American Public that is conducting a non-violent protest. I think there are those at Kent State and many other places that would not be as certain as you are.
There will be another Tim McVeigh come out of this movement, and there will be another national tragedy. Will that help yours, our cause? For every well meaning individual out there I see another that's just nuts.
You've been duped by an old free loader that doesn't want to pay his fee's and made bad choices. Now he wants militia patriots to save his arse. Others are using this for political gain.
Make very sure of who your enemy is.
Sometimes hunters are our own worst enemy, and so goes with this cause, I'd say those in the "Patriot" movement could also shadow that statement.
Militia supporters...? I think it was the militia, mostly Oathkeepers, that were there in support. It wasn't the ranchers supporting the militia.
There will be another Tim McVeigh come out of this movement, and there will be another national tragedy. Will that help yours, our cause? For every well meaning individual out there I see another that's just nuts.
Really? A nutjob in OKC has what exactly to do with this? He was a terrorist. He was killed for his actions. But keep parroting what Reid said about everyone there being domestic terrorists.
You've been duped by an old free loader that doesn't want to pay his fee's and made bad choices. Now he wants militia patriots to save his arse. Others are using this for political gain.
Duped? Tell me what fees he could have paid when they showed up to take 3/4 of his grazing permit, thus rendering his ability to earn a living useless.
Make very sure of who your enemy is.
I AM sure of who the enemy is.... I'm talking to one of them right now.
Sometimes hunters are our own worst enemy, and so goes with this cause, I'd say those in the "Patriot" movement could also shadow that statement.
re: the militia sniper with his mom on the overpass....
WTF???
We're supposed to be reassured by a guy with what might well be a scoped AK proposing to make maybe 400 yard shots through a milling crowd to pick out Cops?
Said guy of the IQ range that finds it necessary to strap a foot-long knife to his belt
Along with a "retired Sheriff" putting women out front Hamas-style so they can get shot first???
All in support of a guy who illegally grazes cows?
And these are the guys who are supposed to be on *our* side?
We are indeed living in bizarre times.
Birdwatcher
ah birdy, a quote to follow from you:Naah, more like those folks prone to making simple-minded generalizations.
How do you know it was a scoped A.K.? The rifle i saw was i believe a tacticool ar15 in 308. How do YOU know it was 400yards? Have you ever shot a scoped a.k. if in fact that was the rifle, at 400yards? I can say I have seen it done and the ability to hit a chest size target with regularity was NOT an issue. I find you guilty of your own words.
as to the guy with the rifle, he was identified by name in some of the stuff i saw yesterday, believe he was from utah. Probably has house guests by now. What i think is sick and funny at the same time is hearing sheriff mack's group described as a militia, and ol harry reid talking about the protestors and having automatic weapons. Talk about escalation of rhetoric.
Militia supporters...? I think it was the militia, mostly Oathkeepers, that were there in support. It wasn't the ranchers supporting the militia.
There will be another Tim McVeigh come out of this movement, and there will be another national tragedy. Will that help yours, our cause? For every well meaning individual out there I see another that's just nuts.
Really? A nutjob in OKC has what exactly to do with this? He was a terrorist. He was killed for his actions. But keep parroting what Reid said about everyone there being domestic terrorists.
You've been duped by an old free loader that doesn't want to pay his fee's and made bad choices. Now he wants militia patriots to save his arse. Others are using this for political gain.
Duped? Tell me what fees he could have paid when they showed up to take 3/4 of his grazing permit, thus rendering his ability to earn a living useless.
Make very sure of who your enemy is.
I AM sure of who the enemy is.... I'm talking to one of them right now.
Sometimes hunters are our own worst enemy, and so goes with this cause, I'd say those in the "Patriot" movement could also shadow that statement.
No Rockingbar, Tim McVeigh was a militia member, and so was his uncle. Are you not in support of their actions? Is it my fault that he was making his living totally by using my public lands. Grazing fee's that are almost free? I guess you support government handouts and subsides? Oh, that's right, only for Ranchers and farmers. Hypocritical don't think.
That famous shot of Fed "snipers" on that nearby hilltop? I woulda just walked up there visibly unarmed and asked them what they were doing. If'n my rights were subsequently violated and whatnot I'd figure the rest of the crowd could get the pics of it going down.
Lynch and his cameraman, that were on with Megyn Kelly, tried that and were threatened that if they approached any closer they would be shot.
Militia supporters...? I think it was the militia, mostly Oathkeepers, that were there in support. It wasn't the ranchers supporting the militia.
There will be another Tim McVeigh come out of this movement, and there will be another national tragedy. Will that help yours, our cause? For every well meaning individual out there I see another that's just nuts.
Really? A nutjob in OKC has what exactly to do with this? He was a terrorist. He was killed for his actions. But keep parroting what Reid said about everyone there being domestic terrorists.
You've been duped by an old free loader that doesn't want to pay his fee's and made bad choices. Now he wants militia patriots to save his arse. Others are using this for political gain.
Duped? Tell me what fees he could have paid when they showed up to take 3/4 of his grazing permit, thus rendering his ability to earn a living useless.
Make very sure of who your enemy is.
I AM sure of who the enemy is.... I'm talking to one of them right now.
Sometimes hunters are our own worst enemy, and so goes with this cause, I'd say those in the "Patriot" movement could also shadow that statement.
No Rockingbar, Tim McVeigh was a militia member, and so was his uncle. Are you not in support of their actions? Is it my fault that he was making his living totally by using my public lands. Grazing fee's that are almost free? I guess you support government handouts and subsides? Oh, that's right, only for Ranchers and farmers. Hypocritical don't think.
Make no mistake, I consider you the enemy too.
You are what the oath is talking about when it says..."all enemies, foreign and domestic."
You have no clue who or what I am. Your on the extreme fringe and chat with others here that feel the same as you do. You need to get out more. If you do, you'll find out just how extreme your views are.
Militia supporters...? I think it was the militia, mostly Oathkeepers, that were there in support. It wasn't the ranchers supporting the militia.
There will be another Tim McVeigh come out of this movement, and there will be another national tragedy. Will that help yours, our cause? For every well meaning individual out there I see another that's just nuts.
Really? A nutjob in OKC has what exactly to do with this? He was a terrorist. He was killed for his actions. But keep parroting what Reid said about everyone there being domestic terrorists.
You've been duped by an old free loader that doesn't want to pay his fee's and made bad choices. Now he wants militia patriots to save his arse. Others are using this for political gain.
Duped? Tell me what fees he could have paid when they showed up to take 3/4 of his grazing permit, thus rendering his ability to earn a living useless.
Make very sure of who your enemy is.
I AM sure of who the enemy is.... I'm talking to one of them right now.
Sometimes hunters are our own worst enemy, and so goes with this cause, I'd say those in the "Patriot" movement could also shadow that statement.
No Rockingbar, Tim McVeigh was a militia member, and so was his uncle. Are you not in support of their actions? Is it my fault that he was making his living totally by using my public lands. Grazing fee's that are almost free? I guess you support government handouts and subsides? Oh, that's right, only for Ranchers and farmers. Hypocritical don't think.
Make no mistake, I consider you the enemy too.
You are what the oath is talking about when it says..."all enemies, foreign and domestic."
You have no clue who or what I am. Your on the extreme fringe and chat with others here that feel the same as you do. You need to get out more. If you do, you'll find out just how extreme your views are.
Fascism is not trending right now.
By the same account, you don't know me or what I am.
YOU may feel I am extreme. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.
You also make the second amendment about hunting. Which it's not.
You and Reid have both stated today that anyone that has guns is a terrorist.
So, amigo... Just when IS it ok to defend freedom and the constitution? When YOU say so? When the government says we have their permission to do so?
...you and Reid have both stated today that anyone that has guns is a terrorist...
Quotes, please.
Originally Posted by 4100fps
You militia supporters listen up!
There will be another Tim McVeigh come out of this movement, and there will be another national tragedy. Will that help yours, our cause? For every well meaning individual out there I see another that's just nuts.
You've been duped by an old free loader that doesn't want to pay his fee's and made bad choices. Now he wants militia patriots to save his arse. Others are using this for political gain.
Make very sure of who your enemy is.
Sometimes hunters are our own worst enemy, and so goes with this cause, I'd say those in the "Patriot" movement could also shadow that statement.
Tim McVeigh was a militia member, and so was his uncle.
First off, all people that came to protest at Bundy's were not militia. Far from it. Most were ranchers. And since when does carrying a gun make one a terrorist? Open carry is very legal by state law in Nevada. Tim McVeigh WAS a terrorist. His actions proved that. Just as the people that were armed at Bundy's proved that they would not fire unless fired upon.
Second... The 2nd Amendment isn't about "hunting" or "Hunters" as he stated. It's about having the means to quell a government that isn't for the people anymore.
Now for Reid:
Quote
LAS VEGAS � Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is calling armed backers of a Nevada rancher "domestic terrorists"
...you and Reid have both stated today that anyone that has guns is a terrorist...
Quotes, please.
Originally Posted by 4100fps
You militia supporters listen up!
There will be another Tim McVeigh come out of this movement, and there will be another national tragedy. Will that help yours, our cause? For every well meaning individual out there I see another that's just nuts.
You've been duped by an old free loader that doesn't want to pay his fee's and made bad choices. Now he wants militia patriots to save his arse. Others are using this for political gain.
Make very sure of who your enemy is.
Sometimes hunters are our own worst enemy, and so goes with this cause, I'd say those in the "Patriot" movement could also shadow that statement.
Tim McVeigh was a militia member, and so was his uncle.
First off, all people that came to protest at Bundy's were not militia. Far from it. Most were ranchers. And since when does carrying a gun make one a terrorist? Open carry is very legal by state law in Nevada. Tim McVeigh WAS a terrorist. His actions proved that. Just as the people that were armed at Bundy's proved that they would not fire unless fired upon.
Second... The 2nd Amendment isn't about "hunting" or "Hunters" as he stated. It's about having the means to quell a government that isn't for the people anymore.
Now for Reid:
Quote
LAS VEGAS � Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is calling armed backers of a Nevada rancher "domestic terrorists"
Reid and the BLM are the real terrorists. They should have been disarmed by the state police and lead away in shackles to a cell. Reid should be arrested and prosecuted for treason along with about 90% of Congress.
Tim McVeigh WAS a terrorist. His actions proved that.
I hate detours into the weeds, but these weeds are too close to a field of study and an old job to not comment.
McVeigh was a crazy mass murderer and a delusional insurgent, but not a terrorist. While none of these are mutually exclusive and one may be all three, they are not the same.
I saw this in an article and thought it was relevant to all this.
Quote
America is at that awkward stage. It�s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.
From Claire Wolfe - the full quote:
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. On the road to tyranny, we've gone so far that polite political action is about as useless as a miniskirt in a convent. ... Something�s eventually going to happen. Government will bloat until it chokes us to death, or one more tyrannical power grab will turn out to be one too many. ... Maybe it�ll be one more round of �reasonable gun control� or one more episode of burning children to death to save them from �child abuse.� Whatever, something will snap."
Another from Claire that's pertinent:
"Like �em or hate �em, these once peaceful gun owners...are feeling a lot like Jews of 1939 Germany. Maligned, lied about, persecuted and threatened."
The bombing of OKC and the Boston Marathon were both acts of domestic terrorism.
9/11 was an act of foreign terrorism.
The school shootings and such are acts of mass murder in my opinion.
In a nutshell:
To be a terrorist one must use violence as a part of a defined, organizes, and publicly expressed political movement.
To commit an act of terrorism one must target and attack an unarmed or noncombatant third party in order to exert pressure on the party against whom the terrorist demands political action.
McVeigh fails on both counts.
McVeigh was a crazy mass murderer and a delusional insurgent, but not a terrorist.
All this discussion as to whether Mcveigh was whatever whomever thinks is fine I guess.
Gotta comment that I'm NOT real warm and fuzzy about having fine Americans lined out in parallel with the crazy bastard.
You need to go back over to whatever liberal group stuck you here's site, and tell them you've been called out as an azzwhole, and a chit disturbing knob on a dog's pecker.
Gotta comment that I'm NOT real warm and fuzzy about having fine Americans lined out in parallel with the crazy bastard.
That's pretty much what I was upset about, both in Reid's comments and the other yayhoo, here.
When comparison's such as these are made, and a lack of standing up to the watered down version of what is called a domestic terrorist, then we will surely all fit into the liberal attempts at vilifying anyone that is legally carrying a firearm, or speaks out against government over reach.
Gotta comment that I'm NOT real warm and fuzzy about having fine Americans lined out in parallel with the crazy bastard.
That's pretty much what I was upset about, both in Reid's comments and the other yayhoo, here.
When comparison's such as these are made, and a lack of standing up to the watered down version of what is called a domestic terrorist, then we will surely all fit into the liberal attempts at vilifying anyone that is legally carrying a firearm, or speaks out against government over reach.
It is a dangerous road to travel.
That is precisely why it is so important to be clear and exacting about who and what is a terrorist and terrorism, rather than allowing the government and the Left to redefine the words to their advantage or to allow them to devolve into simple pejoratives.
They are sure selective about terrorists by definition and enforcement these days at the Obama camp.
Obama signs Ted Cruz bill into law, but says he won't enforce it By Joel Gehrke | APRIL 18, 2014 AT 4:15 PM
President Obama on Friday signed into law a bill authored by Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz that would bar an Iranian diplomat from entering the United States, but immediately issued a statement saying he won't enforce it.
Obama decided to treat the law as mere advice. "Acts of espionage and terrorism against the United States and our allies are unquestionably problems of the utmost gravity, and I share the Congress's concern that individuals who have engaged in such activity may use the cover of diplomacy to gain access to our Nation," Obama said in his signing statement.
"Nevertheless, as President [George H.W.] Bush also observed, "curtailing by statute my constitutional discretion to receive or reject ambassadors is neither a permissible nor a practical solution." I shall therefore continue to treat section 407, as originally enacted and as amended by S. 2195, as advisory in circumstances in which it would interfere with the exercise of this discretion."
Obama frequently criticized President George W. Bush for such signing statements during his 2008 campaign. �Congress's job is to pass legislation," he said, as The Daily Beast recalled. "The president can veto it or he can sign it.�
�It is unconscionable that, in the name of international diplomatic protocol, the United States would be forced to host a foreign national who showed a brutal disregard for the status of our diplomats when they were stationed in his country,� Cruz said when he introduced the bill.
The legislation was directed at Hamid Abutalebi, whom Iranian President Hassan Rouhani tapped as U.N. ambassador, because of his alleged role in the 1979 student takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, in which 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days. Abutalebi insists his role was limited to translation and negotiation.
Iran has said it will not withdraw his name, and has asked the U.N. to investigate the U.S. visa denial.
You have no clue who or what I am. Your on the extreme fringe and chat with others here that feel the same as you do. You need to get out more. If you do, you'll find out just how extreme your views are.
Fascism is not trending right now.
By the same account, you don't know me or what I am.
YOU may feel I am extreme. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.
You also make the second amendment about hunting. Which it's not.
You and Reid have both stated today that anyone that has guns is a terrorist.
So, amigo... Just when IS it ok to defend freedom and the constitution? When YOU say so? When the government says we have their permission to do so?
Hold your breath for that.
Oh, I do know you. Number 1 on the list would point to the fact that your a liar.
Show one post in all my posts where I said the 2nd Amendment was about hunting. Look real hard, it's going to take you forever because it never happened.
Also backing up the liar trait was your statement that I said anyone with a gun is a terrorist. That's another lie.
Quit the up standing character you are. Don't you just love liars?
Make sure that your defending the constitution, and what it represents, and who it defends. Not just cherry picking either. The full meaning of the document.
Your no better than Hitler IMO. Preaching to your choir, beating on your chest promoting hate on a daily basis. To top it all off, its not even some foreign dictator, its your fellow American. You should be ashamed of yourself. I know your won't because you see yourself as self righteous in your convictions, probably fairly religious too.
I found a good forum for you. Plenty of others there that will follow your logic. Seems that only 100 hate crimes have been linked to this site, but isn't that what your promoting. Hate? Stormfront.org. 100 hate crime website
McVeigh was a right wing believing, fascist, bewildered military dude bred out of the last surge in militia movements. His actions killed the movement to a large degree. Sent them fleeing all over the country.
Quote
Timothy James "Tim" McVeigh (April 23, 1968 � June 11, 2001) was an American who detonated a truck bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. Commonly referred to as the Oklahoma City bombing, the attack killed 168 people and injured over 600.[3] It was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the September 11 attacks,[3] and remains the most serious act of domestic terrorism in United States history.
McVeigh, a militia movement sympathizer and Gulf War veteran, sought revenge against the federal government for their handling of the Waco Siege, which ended in the deaths of 76 people exactly two years prior to the bombing, as well as for the Ruby Ridge incident in 1992. McVeigh hoped to inspire a revolt against what he considered to be a tyrannical federal government. He was convicted of eleven federal offenses and sentenced to death. His execution took place on June 11, 2001, at the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana. Terry Nichols and Michael Fortier were also convicted as conspirators in the plot.
You have no clue who or what I am. Your on the extreme fringe and chat with others here that feel the same as you do. You need to get out more. If you do, you'll find out just how extreme your views are.
Fascism is not trending right now.
By the same account, you don't know me or what I am.
YOU may feel I am extreme. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.
You also make the second amendment about hunting. Which it's not.
You and Reid have both stated today that anyone that has guns is a terrorist.
So, amigo... Just when IS it ok to defend freedom and the constitution? When YOU say so? When the government says we have their permission to do so?
Hold your breath for that.
Oh, I do know you. Number 1 on the list would point to the fact that your a liar.
Show one post in all my posts where I said the 2nd Amendment was about hunting. Look real hard, it's going to take you forever because it never happened.
Also backing up the liar trait was your statement that I said anyone with a gun is a terrorist. That's another lie.
Quit the up standing character you are. Don't you just love liars?
Make sure that your defending the constitution, and what it represents, and who it defends. Not just cherry picking either. The full meaning of the document.
Your no better than Hitler IMO. Preaching to your choir, beating on your chest promoting hate on a daily basis. To top it all off, its not even some foreign dictator, its your fellow American. You should be ashamed of yourself. I know your won't because you see yourself as self righteous in your convictions, probably fairly religious too.
I found a good forum for you. Plenty of others there that will follow your logic. Seems that only 100 hate crimes have been linked to this site, but isn't that what your promoting. Hate? Stormfront.org.
Sometimes hunters are our own worst enemy, and so goes with this cause, I'd say those in the "Patriot" movement could also shadow that statement.
And yet you continue to compare people that stand up, or have firearms, or even post here to domestic terrorists....Just like your buddy Reid did.
Get a clue. If someone reads what you are posting, and doesn't make the connection that you are calling myself and those folks with the were in NV the other day terrorists, then they are dense as you are.
You tell me that I am on the extreme fringe? I tell you that you are a liberal whack job that probably shouldn't own a firearm. Assuming you do of course.
Do liberal kill wolves, and trap? Bet you don't? Would that make you a liberal? Show me some lion kills, trapped animals, something? Toss me a bone here Rock.
How many elk does a liberal usually kill? Coyotes? Lions? Oh yea, I'm liberal alright, not past center but if liberal means elk, and predator killer, then yes, I'm liberal. Laffin! Lots of liberal General Contractors running around huh.
Stay with me Rock. Oh and keep your sidekick posting on your behalf. You need the support.
How many libs worked to keep wolves delisted? You still there?
Just what does a right winger like yourself do for wildlife and sportsman? Come on Rock, you got to have something. Right wingers are all about hunting,fishing, access and the resource, right?
65,000 posts mean you've been sitting on your arse a lot throwing insults to anyone that disagrees with your twisted, and outdated positions. Congrats, your the king of the 24 hr. blogs.
65,000 posts mean you've been sitting on your arse a lot throwing insults to anyone that disagrees with your twisted, and outdated positions. Congrats, your the king of the 24 hr. blogs.
You want a cookie?
And you're the king of not knowing the difference between your and you're.
Do liberal kill wolves, and trap? Bet you don't? Would that make you a liberal? Show me some lion kills, trapped animals, something? Toss me a bone here Rock.
How many elk does a liberal usually kill? Coyotes? Lions? Oh yea, I'm liberal alright, not past center but if liberal means elk, and predator killer, then yes, I'm liberal. Laffin! Lots of liberal General Contractors running around huh.
Stay with me Rock. Oh and keep your sidekick posting on your behalf. You need the support.
How many libs worked to keep wolves delisted? You still there?
Just what does a right winger like yourself do for wildlife and sportsman? Come on Rock, you got to have something. Right wingers are all about hunting,fishing, access and the resource, right?
You post a picture, then I will OK.
You are indeed a phuucking idiot.... There is no doubt.
So now I'm not a domestic terrorist, but I don't know how to hunt, or trap, or fight the wolf crap going on? You think you are a predator killer? You don't have a phooking clue, Buttercup.
What I would REALLY like you to do is to pm me your name and address so that I can decide whether to pursue litigation for calling me a domestic terrorist.
But, if you persist, I will post about what you were saying about my lack of hunting. (Especially predators), and everyone here will see what a total complete fool you really are by NOT knowing who and what you are dealing with when you make your baseless accusations.
Yes, I agree you are a long way from being right of center. You are over your head and are too stupid to know it. Better do a little due diligence before you pop off again, Buttercup.
What is it about you enlightened ze ro azz lickers besides low IQ which makes you too stupid to understand the Campfire is about outdoorsmen that hunt and shoot and prefer patriots to gutless traitors?
You going to enlighten those who can think for themselves rather that swallow the chitt from libturd elves?
Do we impose ourselves on your dick licking site? No we don't, so take a hike and spend the night plugging your dyke.
65,000 posts mean you've been sitting on your arse a lot throwing insults to anyone that disagrees with your twisted, and outdated positions. Congrats, your the king of the 24 hr. blogs.
You want a cookie?
And you're the king of not knowing the difference between your and you're.
You are the king of the net Grammar police too. You get 2 cookies.
What I would REALLY like you to do is to pm me your name and address so that I can decide whether to pursue litigation for calling me a domestic terrorist.
Posting lies again Rock. Show the post where I said your a Domestic terrorist? Look really hard.
Quote
Show one post in all my posts where I said the 2nd Amendment was about hunting. Look real hard, it's going to take you forever because it never happened.
Still waiting for this post. Come on look really hard.
You live in Texas, I'd hope you could kill a coyote.
Does that make you liberal or conservative?
You're good with the swear words, but no proof or response on your accusations. All blow,and no go?
Keep it up, you've got an audience.
This thread is total fabrications by right wingers. I'd say that is a name you can honestly say I called you. So sue me. Laffin.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...ndy-federal-government-cattle-cattle.htm Nevada Sen. Harry Reid may have another reason for getting pesky cattle ranchers like Cliven Bundy out of the way. As Reuters has reported, "(Reid) and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert." To mitigate this commercial land use, other land had to be set aside. That land was Bundy's ranch.
http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/04/reid-smelling-anything-but-rosy-in-ranch-fight/ On April 3, 3012, Bloomberg reported Chinese billionaire Wang Yusuo, one of China�s richest citizens and the founder of Chinese energy giant ENN Group, had teamed up with Senate Majority Leader Reid to win incentives including land 113 miles southeast of Las Vegas that ENN sought to buy for $4.5 million, less than one-eighth of the land�s $38.6 million assessed value.
http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/ The Bureau of Land Management, whose director was Sen. Harry Reid�s (D-Nev.) former senior adviser, has purged documents from its web site stating that the agency wants Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy�s cattle off of the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations.
Corrupt Democratic Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) working with the Chinese gov�t to take land from hard-working Americans.
Deleted from BLM.gov but reposted for posterity by the Free Republic, the BLM document entitled �Cattle Trespass Impacts� directly states that Bundy�s cattle �impacts� solar development, more specifically the construction of �utility-scale solar power generation facilities� on �public lands.�
http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...ndy-federal-government-cattle-cattle.htm Nevada Sen. Harry Reid may have another reason for getting pesky cattle ranchers like Cliven Bundy out of the way. As Reuters has reported, "(Reid) and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert." To mitigate this commercial land use, other land had to be set aside. That land was Bundy's ranch.
http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/04/reid-smelling-anything-but-rosy-in-ranch-fight/ On April 3, 3012, Bloomberg reported Chinese billionaire Wang Yusuo, one of China�s richest citizens and the founder of Chinese energy giant ENN Group, had teamed up with Senate Majority Leader Reid to win incentives including land 113 miles southeast of Las Vegas that ENN sought to buy for $4.5 million, less than one-eighth of the land�s $38.6 million assessed value.
http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/ The Bureau of Land Management, whose director was Sen. Harry Reid�s (D-Nev.) former senior adviser, has purged documents from its web site stating that the agency wants Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy�s cattle off of the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations.
Corrupt Democratic Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) working with the Chinese gov�t to take land from hard-working Americans.
Deleted from BLM.gov but reposted for posterity by the Free Republic, the BLM document entitled �Cattle Trespass Impacts� directly states that Bundy�s cattle �impacts� solar development, more specifically the construction of �utility-scale solar power generation facilities� on �public lands.�
What I would REALLY like you to do is to pm me your name and address so that I can decide whether to pursue litigation for calling me a domestic terrorist.
Posting lies again Rock. Show the post where I said your a Domestic terrorist? Look really hard.
Quote
Show one post in all my posts where I said the 2nd Amendment was about hunting. Look real hard, it's going to take you forever because it never happened.
Still waiting for this post. Come on look really hard.
You live in Texas, I'd hope you could kill a coyote.
Does that make you liberal or conservative?
You're good with the swear words, but no proof or response on your accusations. All blow,and no go?
Keep it up, you've got an audience.
This thread is total fabrications by right wingers. I'd say that is a name you can honestly say I called you. So sue me. Laffin.
4100,
Let me see if I can bring you back to a bit of reality. I know that is exceedingly hard for a liberal grasp, but at least try for a minute OK?
You made the comparison to the supporters at Bundy Ranch to Tim McVeigh. Everyone with half a brain knows that he was a cowardly domestic terrorist that killed innocent people, women and children. ALL Americans rightly should hate him and anyone like him. Beyond that, people that are like Tim McVeigh can and should be hunted down and killed like the dirty, cowardly dogs that they are.
So, to compare a group of supporters that broke no laws, or showed any aggression at all towards anyone, and are largely comprised of Oathkeepers (that are 100% ex military or law enforcement) not only insults the supporters, but in reality vilifies them in the eyes of the public, simply by the comparison made. Beyond that, the same supporters COULD be attacked or killed by anyone that recognizes that if they are "the same as" Tim McVeigh, as you compared, or labeled "Domestic Terrorists" as Reid did.
To post links to sites that are associated with domestic terrorism and suggest that myself and those others here that you don't agree with should go there because that is who we are is further comparison to domestic terrorism.
For Reid's continued labeling of the supporters that Bundy Ranch "Domestic Terrorists", he, at the very least needs removed from office. He further needs a class action lawsuit filed against him for that public labeling by those affected. The damages and real, and proof is easy to find.
As far as you are concerned.... Your comparison to Tim McVeigh, and your continued assault on the folks here that you don't agree with, by posting radical site links and such should earn you the pleasure of having a mudhole stomped in your ass that wouldn't soon forget... But, like most liberals, you hide under the anonymity of the internet.
Then you want to shift he focus of what you did and said into a big dick contest with ME over who knows how to hunt and trap and kill predators the best? You even assume where I live... I assure you, you don't even remotely want to get into that big dick contest with me. I am secure enough with what affiliations I have within the total hunting/shooting industry that are in fact based on my experience, knowledge and education in that field, that I rightly assume that your big dick contest is nothing more than a joke, and we'll let it go at that.
So, carry on. But be aware that the dastardly comparisons to known terrorists made by you towards lawful supporters of Bundy, or people that post in support of defying big government over reach and law breaking by the government may have more personal consequences than you would foresee or care to deal with.
If you approach stationed snipers that are within the "Closed Area" they were holding, the outcome may not be as sunny as you think
Interesting, what we assume about the motives of others says much about ourselves
If it were a cause I believe in ya I'd freely put myself in harm's way, especially if it were likely to go viral and publicise the illegality and brutality of the other side.
This is not an uncommon human trait, and it didn't start with Ghandi tho' he made it an art form.
Sorta related but on a far lesser scale, without making to much of it one does this with some regularity at an urban high school when dealing with the thug element; if one can "draw a foul" by putting oneself right where they can hit you when they are attempting to do a gang-related fight on campus, the seriousness of the offense takes a quantum leap and they are FAR easier to ship out more or less permanently
Anyhow, at that very location that 'retired Sheriff' was openly stating he was putting women in the line of fire for that exact reason. Is one to be less courageous than them?
This is a free forum, ya can find me guilty of what you want.
Quote
How do you know it was a scoped A.K.? The rifle i saw was i believe a tacticool ar15 in 308.
Didn't say it was.
OK, so he was packing a scoped AR 10, I freely confess to profiling based upon his location, wardrobe, associate, and especially that silly knife literally dangling from his belt.
Profiling works most times.
Quote
How do YOU know it was 400yards?
My best guess, based upon the size of the folks in the background given that photographs commonly forshorten distances.
You you know where this was? We ought be able to google maps it pretty easily and get a good estimate.[/quote]
Quote
Have you ever shot a scoped a.k. if in fact that was the rifle, at 400yards?
I can say I have seen it done and the ability to hit a chest size target with regularity was NOT an issue.
Well if it weren't an AK the issue is somewhat redundant but, if even he can group 3" at 100 he's still about what, 15 - 20" at 400? Enough as you said to hit a chest-sized target "with regularity" as long as one doesn't need to worry about the occasional irregularity.
But even if it were a match .308, and the guy a national competitor on a perfect rest, would you still want this guy possibly shooting over your head into a milling crowd on his own hook?
Where's his radio for command coordination? Who is in charge of all assets on the ground? IMHO a whole bunch of loaded chambers there are apparently pointed at decent Americans in uniform just attempting to do their jobs while opposed by other decent Americans.
All it woulda taken is one wingnut. A tragedy narrowly avoided.
I don't think the point has been made that regardless of his weaponry, nobody knows who this guy was or who he was with that I'm aware of. The photo op was almost surely staged. Lots of otherwise sane individuals get caught up in the moment when asked by some news guy to set up a pic for them. Their moment of fame. And that is at best. Just because the guy looks like a militiamen doesn't mean he is. He could just as easily be some undercover .gov. This plus the fact that the militias are about all infiltrated by agents who would love to discredit them by pulling stunts like this.
Wtf has his knife got to do with anything and what is wrong with it?
This is a free forum, ya can find me guilty of what you want.
Quote
How do you know it was a scoped A.K.? The rifle i saw was i believe a tacticool ar15 in 308.
Didn't say it was.
OK, so he was packing a scoped AR 10, I freely confess to profiling based upon his location, wardrobe, associate, and especially that silly knife literally dangling from his belt.
Profiling works most times.
Quote
How do YOU know it was 400yards?
My best guess, based upon the size of the folks in the background given that photographs commonly forshorten distances.
You you know where this was? We ought be able to google maps it pretty easily and get a good estimate.
Quote
Have you ever shot a scoped a.k. if in fact that was the rifle, at 400yards?
I can say I have seen it done and the ability to hit a chest size target with regularity was NOT an issue.
Well if it weren't an AK the issue is somewhat redundant but, if even he can group 3" at 100 he's still about what, 15 - 20" at 400? Enough as you said to hit a chest-sized target "with regularity" as long as one doesn't need to worry about the occasional irregularity.
But even if it were a match .308, and the guy a national competitor on a perfect rest, would you still want this guy possibly shooting over your head into a milling crowd on his own hook?
Where's his radio for command coordination? Who is in charge of all assets on the ground? IMHO a whole bunch of loaded chambers there are apparently pointed at decent Americans in uniform just attempting to do their jobs while opposed by other decent Americans.
All it woulda taken is one wingnut. A tragedy narrowly avoided.
Birdwatcher [/quote]All it also would have taken is another gung-ho Lon Horiuchi. But hey, the Brits and Tories are the ones we had to fight to get out Independence from, so one being on the side of another overreaching and tyrannical entity like the one we formerly beat to achieve it, is not surprising.
I don't think the point has been made that regardless of his weaponry, nobody knows who this guy was or who he was with that I'm aware of. The photo op was almost surely staged. Lots of otherwise sane individuals get caught up in the moment when asked by some news guy to set up a pic for them. Their moment of fame. And that is at best. Just because the guy looks like a militiamen doesn't mean he is. He could just as easily be some undercover .gov. This plus the fact that the militias are about all infiltrated by agents who would love to discredit them by pulling stunts like this.
Here nor there I suppose; but it was indeed a cheap ass AK, with some knock off AR vented hand guard slid on to the front, replacing the plastic or wood forend.
As far as you are concerned.... Your comparison to Tim McVeigh, and your continued assault on the folks here that you don't agree with, by posting radical site links and such should earn you the pleasure of having a mudhole stomped in your ass that wouldn't soon forget... wink
Hey Rock, show me where I posted a link to one radical site. I'm not the one using infowars.com and posting the views of Alex Jones.
So are you actually threatening me Rock? I'd like you to man up and express yourself clearly.
For the rest of your babel, I concede, your win the Big Dick contest. Congrats with that man you earned it.
All it woulda taken is one wingnut. A tragedy narrowly avoided.
Birdwatcher
Interesting that what looks to be an entire company of armed, federal agents in body armor show up at the scene,...yet you choose to direct your ire at one photo of one armed citizen.
Your brain is configured to see things in a certain light.
By American standards,....you're wrongheaded.
But you're first generation out of socialism.
Maybe the next generation of your linage will absord enough American culture to understand American concepts.
All it woulda taken is one wingnut. A tragedy narrowly avoided.
Birdwatcher
Interesting that what looks to be an entire company of armed, federal agents in body armor show up at the scene,...yet you choose to direct your ire at one photo of one armed citizen.
Your brain is configured to see things in a certain light.
By American standards,....you're wrongheaded.
But you're first generation out of socialism.
Maybe the next generation of your linage will absord enough American culture to understand American concepts.
All it woulda taken is one wingnut. A tragedy narrowly avoided.
Birdwatcher
Interesting that what looks to be an entire company of armed, federal agents in body armor show up at the scene,...yet you choose to direct your ire at one photo of one armed citizen.
Your brain is configured to see things in a certain light.
By American standards,....you're wrongheaded.
But you're first generation out of socialism.
Maybe the next generation of your linage will absord enough American culture to understand American concepts.
Maybe not.
I'd add that those armed government thugs, are the only ones that did actually attack, shoot (albeit with a taser), and injure people.
Interesting that what looks to be an entire company of armed, federal agents in body armor show up at the scene,...yet you choose to direct your ire at one photo of one armed citizen.
What ire? I merely pointed out an apparent loony showing up.
The armed Federal agents in body armor showed up mostly to protect those given the responsibility of rounding up the cattle of off Federal land.
A shown by the response, and as per Bundy's own words, the potential or harm to these employees was very high.
Yet espite all the hysteria and wishing of some here, no shots were fired.
Quote
Maybe the next generation of your linage will absord enough American culture to understand American concepts.
Thank you for the advice your Aryan-ness, am I to take it that the Jews did it again?
I'd add that those armed government thugs, are the only ones that did actually attack, shoot (albeit with a taser), and injure people.
...and the circumstance leading up to this was...... ????
Genuine question here, I've head the push down the old lady tazer and bite the son argument about 1,000 times now, pretty much from the same crowd who yells "and the Feds killed 700 turtles!!"
This was more than a rebellion against the BLM. I think a majority of Non-entitlement Americans are so fed up with the federal government. The likes of Obama, Holder, Reid, Pelosi and the lack of media are detroying this country. If shots were fired this may have been the spark to take it all the way to Washington. I think a certain percentage are hoping. This will not be the last time. I think it opened a can of worms and the movement will grow with each situation like this. Eventually its going to happen. A large percentage of the American people who are not liberal.... are not taking it anymore.
The basic fact is that Bundy is violating Federal law. Whether you hate Obama or love Bundy is immaterial. We are a nation of laws, if we are not the BLM will be the least of our problems.
1000s of ranchers pay for grazing rights and are not trying to start a civil war.
The government has rights as does Bundy. If this becomes another WACO, nobody wins.
Wonder how many of the people screaming for a bloodbath are heading for Nevada AND how many of them have grazing leases with the Forest Service or BLM ?
As with all countries with elected officials, we get the government we deserve.
All the moron who did not vote in 2012 because Romney was (fill in the blank) helped Buckwheat win again. Rand Paul will never be President, so wake up or look forward to eight years of Hillary !
The basic fact is that Bundy is violating Federal law. Whether you hate Obama or love Bundy is immaterial. We are a nation of laws, if we are not the BLM will be the least of our problems.
1000s of ranchers pay for grazing rights and are not trying to start a civil war.
The government has rights as does Bundy. If this becomes another WACO, nobody wins.
Wonder how many of the people screaming for a bloodbath are heading for Nevada AND how many of them have grazing leases with the Forest Service or BLM ?
As with all countries with elected officials, we get the government we deserve.
All the moron who did not vote in 2012 because Romney was (fill in the blank) helped Buckwheat win again. Rand Paul will never be President, so wake up or look forward to eight years of Hillary !
The basic fact is that Bundy is violating Federal law. Whether you hate Obama or love Bundy is immaterial. We are a nation of laws, if we are not the BLM will be the least of our problems.
1000s of ranchers pay for grazing rights and are not trying to start a civil war.
The government has rights as does Bundy. If this becomes another WACO, nobody wins.
Wonder how many of the people screaming for a bloodbath are heading for Nevada AND how many of them have grazing leases with the Forest Service or BLM ?
As with all countries with elected officials, we get the government we deserve.
All the moron who did not vote in 2012 because Romney was (fill in the blank) helped Buckwheat win again. Rand Paul will never be President, so wake up or look forward to eight years of Hillary !
"The basic fact is that Bundy is violating Federal law." Precisely so, it's the disobedience in Civil Disobedience. Like sittin' or [bleep] were a sign says you ain't welcome.
I agree.Both the right and left go toward tyranny.We dont have to go there.
Wrong, and this isn't what Bristoe said. He said the left of the Republican Party (whether we're talking Rockefeller Republicans or Neocons) are as bad as the Democrat left. Left refers to a desire to see more and more matters being handled at the national level rather than by either local government or the private sector. Right means you oppose the centralization of government power, and favor allowing local government or the private sector to manage most matters.
This conceptualization of left and right goes back to the post French Revolutionary period, and remained unchanged till WWII. University intellectuals saw that the events of WWII, and those leading up to it, were causing a general condemnation of leftism throughout the world, and they sought to head that off by reconceptualizing left and right to this notion of both extremes leading to centralized, authoritarian, tyranny, which is nonsensical on its face.
Yeah its our land, but even so there must be limits. I do not want farmers grazing cattle on the outer banks here in NC destroying the habitat. You gotta respect that.
I agree.Both the right and left go toward tyranny.We dont have to go there.
Wrong, and this isn't what Bristoe said. He said the left of the Republican Party (whether we're talking Rockefeller Republicans or Neocons) are as bad as the Democrat left. Left refers to a desire to see more and more matters being handled at the national level rather than by either local government or the private sector. Right means you oppose the centralization of government power, and favor local government or the private sector manage most matters.
This conceptualization of left and right goes back to the post French Revolutionary period, and remained unchanged till WWII. University intellectuals saw that the events of WWII, and those leading up to it, were causing a general condemnation of leftism throughout the world, and they sought to head that off by reconceptualizing left and right to this notion of both extremes leading to centralized, authoritarian, tyranny, which is nonsensical on its face.
That's too complicated.
Boiled down,...both the commies and the big government republicans want the government to be an authority which enforces their plan for the world.
Freedom loving patriots don't want the government to be an authority figure.
If government has to exist,...it needs to consist of bean counters,....not tyrants.
Yeah its our land, but even so there must be limits. I do not want farmers grazing cattle on the outer banks here in NC destroying the habitat. You gotta respect that.
So,...some of the people of North Carolina needs to buy the Outer Banks and prohibit cattle from grazing on it.
The Feds assume ownership of it now,...and they're trying to prevent people from even walking on it.
I was out on the Outer Banks during the government shutdown,....and people weren't allowed to walk on the beach,...technically.
But the local authorities saw it for the bullshit that it was and looked the other way.
The basic fact is that Bundy is violating Federal law. Whether you hate Obama or love Bundy is immaterial. We are a nation of laws, if we are not the BLM will be the least of our problems...
I agree.Both the right and left go toward tyranny.We dont have to go there.
Wrong, and this isn't what Bristoe said. He said the left of the Republican Party (whether we're talking Rockefeller Republicans or Neocons) are as bad as the Democrat left. Left refers to a desire to see more and more matters being handled at the national level rather than by either local government or the private sector. Right means you oppose the centralization of government power, and favor local government or the private sector manage most matters.
This conceptualization of left and right goes back to the post French Revolutionary period, and remained unchanged till WWII. University intellectuals saw that the events of WWII, and those leading up to it, were causing a general condemnation of leftism throughout the world, and they sought to head that off by reconceptualizing left and right to this notion of both extremes leading to centralized, authoritarian, tyranny, which is nonsensical on its face.
That's too complicated.
Boiled down,...both the commies and the big government republicans want the government to be an authority which enforces their plan for the world.
Freedom loving patriots don't want the government to be an authority figure.
If government has to exist,...it needs to consist of bean counters,....not tyrants.
'Simplicate and add lightness' is a motto among flyers.
This was more than a rebellion against the BLM. I think a majority of Non-entitlement Americans are so fed up with the federal government. The likes of Obama, Holder, Reid, Pelosi and the lack of media are detroying this country. If shots were fired this may have been the spark to take it all the way to Washington. I think a certain percentage are hoping. This will not be the last time. I think it opened a can of worms and the movement will grow with each situation like this. Eventually its going to happen. A large percentage of the American people who are not liberal.... are not taking it anymore.
Bundy was an entitlement American beyond the wildest dreams of most liberal welfare grabbers.
The basic fact is that Bundy is violating Federal law. Whether you hate Obama or love Bundy is immaterial. We are a nation of laws, if we are not the BLM will be the least of our problems...
This was more than a rebellion against the BLM. I think a majority of Non-entitlement Americans are so fed up with the federal government. The likes of Obama, Holder, Reid, Pelosi and the lack of media are detroying this country. If shots were fired this may have been the spark to take it all the way to Washington. I think a certain percentage are hoping. This will not be the last time. I think it opened a can of worms and the movement will grow with each situation like this. Eventually its going to happen. A large percentage of the American people who are not liberal.... are not taking it anymore.
Bundy was an entitlement American beyond the wildest dreams of most liberal welfare grabbers.
The instant that anyone claims that us not paying ever more is the same as taking from, or that us not paying ever more is a cost to the government, as have you, they have claimed all that we own, all that we can ever earn, and indeed us for the government. We have heard the same line for years from Obama and even longer from Pelosi about taxes, and your argument about fees is no better.
IIRC, the state quit accepting his checks for payment of those grazing fees. Quite probably a legal maneuver instigated by Reid and his lawyers so suckers would say he's not paying the lease and can be kicked off.
If pressure from angry, armed people can over-ride court orders, presumably people with other political leanings can form their own militias to establish their own law? Then what, we have battles every time there's a disagreement, and Might makes Right?
The only poll I've see shows the public supports the Law over Bundy 2 to 1, and I think there would be a much higher spread if a scientific poll were run.
IIRC, the state quit accepting his checks for payment of those grazing fees. Quite probably a legal maneuver instigated by Reid and his lawyers so suckers would say he's not paying the lease and can be kicked off.
His agreement was with the state, not the Feds.
Not true. The state of Nevada never collected any grazing fees because it was Federal Land.
"The court found that Bundy and his father actually first began grazing their cattle on the Bunkerville Allotment in 1954,[7] and used it for several years.[7] They paid for cattle grazing again beginning in 1973 and ending in 1993,[7] when the last grazing fees were paid by Bundy"
If pressure from angry, armed people can over-ride court orders, presumably people with other political leanings can form their own militias to establish their own law? Then what, we have battles every time there's a disagreement, and Might makes Right?
The only poll I've see shows the public supports the Law over Bundy 2 to 1, and I think there would be a much higher spread if a scientific poll were run.
You realize thats exactly how this country came to be.You would be a Tory.
If pressure from angry, armed people can over-ride court orders, presumably people with other political leanings can form their own militias to establish their own law? Then what, we have battles every time there's a disagreement, and Might makes Right?
The only poll I've see shows the public supports the Law over Bundy 2 to 1, and I think there would be a much higher spread if a scientific poll were run.
You realize thats exactly how this country came to be.You would be a Tory.
The laws back then were made primarily by the British, now they are made entirely by Americans. See the difference?
Dumbest thing I ever heard.The colonist were British.Get your eyes off legal and illegal and put them on right and wrong.They are not the same.Hell the NAZIs were legal.
Dumbest thing I ever heard.The colonist were British.Get your eyes off legal and illegal and put them on right and wrong.They are not the same.Hell the NAZIs were legal.
Word games don't change my point. Before the revolution, we weren't making our own laws, now we do. The American people decide what the laws should be and what is right and what is wrong. The law says Bundy is wrong and the majority of the American people agree, including me. If anyone thinks that the threat of violence from a tiny minority is going to win long-term in this case, they would be well advised to rethink things.
Once I read a book about Alaska. Although I've never been anywhere near Alaska, I am pretty sure I know everything there is to know about Alaska.
If you have a point perhaps you can just make it. I've spent about a year of my life in Nevada and much of my life working with cattle. I'm pretty sure there are few topics any of us know everything about.
It's not an entitlement if it's the "people's land".
"the people" are not just those who agree with you. it seems "the people" have spoken when the courts decided against Bundy twice.
Ahhh no sorry , the people did not speak , the BLM spoke . Not one of those laws that the court had to consider , was actually voted on by either the people be they federally or within the state . NOR were they written up in a bill , submitted to congress and thus passed through due process. So in NO way did the people have any voice in this
Also concerning the photo of this so called sniper . Factually I don�t see anyway one can identify that person as being part of either side with any real certainty as such any such discussion about that is rather a moot topic . Back to reed . I watch a little clip today on the news where he was pulling the same old crap . Why are they always blaming someone else for their own stupidity . Does he really feel he is a saint and that the federal government is wrapped in a holy cloth. Terrorists !!! Terrorists , seemed like every other word out of his mouth was calling someone else a terrorist . Funny that he himself , considering the things and ways he has acted, is more likely to fit the definition of the word .
However he brought up sheriff Mac who said that , they put women and children up front . At first I thought , MMM so this was done so that IF the federalies did shot then they would be seen all around the world shooting women and children . Mmmm? The more I thought about this , the more I wanted to see where this actually was the case . Fact is , it didn�t . Past mentioning a considered possible strategy it didn�t happen , reed made the whole thing up . But maybe it did and I missed it . Then I got to thinking about the women . Now maybe things are different in reeds world and back east but out here , you seriously want an ass whooping , piss of a woman . a lot of times you will play hell keeping them back But then that�s probably a regional thing so that lead me to wonder what he thinks of the women in the military now days who are out front . I mean seriously he made this comment into something that sounded like these malita forced women and children , to walk in front of them as the coward behind them
So I guess the way I see it , we have two choices . Either Navada can remove him from office , now or during the mid terms . Or the rest of the country can remove him from the position of senate majority leader
It's not an entitlement if it's the "people's land".
"the people" are not just those who agree with you. it seems "the people" have spoken when the courts decided against Bundy twice.
Ahhh no sorry , the people did not speak , the BLM spoke . Not one of those laws that the court had to consider , was actually voted on by either the people be they federally or within the state . NOR were they written up in a bill , submitted to congress and thus passed through due process. So in NO way did the people have any voice in this
it was not the BLM vs. Bundy, it was The United States of America vs. Bundy...
It's not an entitlement if it's the "people's land".
"the people" are not just those who agree with you. it seems "the people" have spoken when the courts decided against Bundy twice.
Ahhh no sorry , the people did not speak , the BLM spoke . Not one of those laws that the court had to consider , was actually voted on by either the people be they federally or within the state . NOR were they written up in a bill , submitted to congress and thus passed through due process. So in NO way did the people have any voice in this
it was not the BLM vs. Bundy, it was The United States vs. Bundy...
It's not an entitlement if it's the "people's land".
"the people" are not just those who agree with you. it seems "the people" have spoken when the courts decided against Bundy twice.
Ahhh no sorry , the people did not speak , the BLM spoke . Not one of those laws that the court had to consider , was actually voted on by either the people be they federally or within the state . NOR were they written up in a bill , submitted to congress and thus passed through due process. So in NO way did the people have any voice in this
Also concerning the photo of this so called sniper . Factually I don�t see anyway one can identify that person as being part of either side with any real certainty as such any such discussion about that is rather a moot topic . Back to reed . I watch a little clip today on the news where he was pulling the same old crap . Why are they always blaming someone else for their own stupidity . Does he really feel he is a saint and that the federal government is wrapped in a holy cloth. Terrorists !!! Terrorists , seemed like every other word out of his mouth was calling someone else a terrorist . Funny that he himself , considering the things and ways he has acted, is more likely to fit the definition of the word .
However he brought up sheriff Mac who said that , they put women and children up front . At first I thought , MMM so this was done so that IF the federalies did shot then they would be seen all around the world shooting women and children . Mmmm? The more I thought about this , the more I wanted to see where this actually was the case . Fact is , it didn�t . Past mentioning a considered possible strategy it didn�t happen , reed made the whole thing up . But maybe it did and I missed it . Then I got to thinking about the women . Now maybe things are different in reeds world and back east but out here , you seriously want an ass whooping , piss of a woman . a lot of times you will play hell keeping them back But then that�s probably a regional thing so that lead me to wonder what he thinks of the women in the military now days who are out front . I mean seriously he made this comment into something that sounded like these malita forced women and children , to walk in front of them as the coward behind them
So I guess the way I see it , we have two choices . Either Navada can remove him from office , now or during the mid terms . Or the rest of the country can remove him from the position of senate majority leader
What do you think would happen if after becoming tired of your neighbor's cows being on your place, you had ten friends go to his house and hold him and gun point while you caught his cows and got them off of your land? You would all be in jail, of course.
The government is no different than you would be in this case. Right, wrong, indifferent...this is entirely a civil matter.
You guys that keep defending the BLM and government are right where they want you.
Low information, following blindly, and drinking their Kool-Aid.
That is their goal. When they can divide a populace where mostly conservatives that believe in the constitution so easily, where is the general public standing? Any guess?
Keep making it about Bundy not paying fees...
I have no clue as to the number of times that I have typed the truth about that, and what started all the 20 year court battle. Yet, we still have folks here that say "He was freeloader and didn't pay his fees."
If you think that is the case, it's time to pull you head out of your ass before it's too late and they are knocking on your door...
It's not an entitlement if it's the "people's land".
"the people" are not just those who agree with you. it seems "the people" have spoken when the courts decided against Bundy twice.
Ahhh no sorry , the people did not speak , the BLM spoke . Not one of those laws that the court had to consider , was actually voted on by either the people be they federally or within the state . NOR were they written up in a bill , submitted to congress and thus passed through due process. So in NO way did the people have any voice in this
Simply untrue. Most of the legal battle is based on the Taylor Grazing Act, a bill that was introduced and approved by Congress and signed by the President. Ranchers were among the main voice behind the act. Taylor himself was a rancher. The American people select their congressmen as provided for in the U.S. Constitution.
Reed definitely was foolish to lump the whole group of protestors together as terrorists, both factually and politically.
You guys that keep defending the BLM and government are right where they want you.
Low information, following blindly, and drinking their Kool-Aid.
That is their goal. When they can divide a populace where mostly conservatives that believe in the constitution so easily, where is the general public standing? Any guess?
Keep making it about Bundy not paying fees...
I have no clue as to the number of times that I have typed the truth about that, and what started all the 20 year court battle. Yet, we still have folks here that say "He was freeloader and didn't pay his fees."
If you think that is the case, it's time to pull you head out of your ass before it's too late and they are knocking on your door...
No one in the federal government has a lick of credibility left. harry reid is one of those at the top of that "no credibility" list.
captchee said this: Ahhh no sorry , the people did not speak , the BLM spoke . Not one of those laws that the court had to consider , was actually voted on by either the people be they federally or within the state . NOR were they written up in a bill , submitted to congress and thus passed through due process. So in NO way did the people have any voice in this.
WHO regulates the regulators? I'll bet I have asked this question 100 times. It seems no one knows the answer to this question except for maybe captchee.
You guys that keep defending the BLM and government are right where they want you.
Low information, following blindly, and drinking their Kool-Aid.
That is their goal. When they can divide a populace where mostly conservatives that believe in the constitution so easily, where is the general public standing? Any guess?
Keep making it about Bundy not paying fees...
I have no clue as to the number of times that I have typed the truth about that, and what started all the 20 year court battle. Yet, we still have folks here that say "He was freeloader and didn't pay his fees."
If you think that is the case, it's time to pull you head out of your ass before it's too late and they are knocking on your door...
your version of the 'truth' is just that.
it is about Bundy the freeloader not paying his dirt cheap grazing fees for 20 years and getting called on it.
I don't fret the knock on my door because I pay my debts and abide by my contracts.
it is about Bundy the freeloader not paying his dirt cheap grazing fees for 20 years and getting called on it.
I don't fret the knock on my door because I pay my debts and abide by my contracts.
Actually, no it isn't. The bulk of his allotment was cancelled 20 years ago and the rest of it was cancelled in 1998. So, no it is not about paying fees or contracts as that there are no fees to be paid or contracts to be honored.
When you get it right just one time, I'll bookmark it and order some champagne.
You haven't been close, not even once. Your vitriol and histrionics will not change that simple fact.
A couple days ago, maybe yesterday, you said you were going o quit all the debating to wait and see how it played out. You should have listened to yourself.
If you think you're some general for the cause,I'm immediately reminded of Custer.
it is about Bundy the freeloader not paying his dirt cheap grazing fees for 20 years and getting called on it.
I don't fret the knock on my door because I pay my debts and abide by my contracts.
Actually, no it isn't. The bulk of his allotment was cancelled 20 years ago and the rest of it was cancelled in 1998. So, no it is not about paying fees or contracts as that there are no fees to be paid or contracts to be honored.
yet he has been running cattle on BLM the whole time for nothing
I have no clue as to the number of times that I have typed the truth about that, and what started all the 20 year court battle. Yet, we still have folks here that say "He was freeloader and didn't pay his fees."
If you think that is the case, it's time to pull you head out of your ass before it's too late and they are knocking on your door...
When you get it right just one time, I'll bookmark it and order some champagne.
You haven't been close, not even once. Your vitriol and histrionics will not change that simple fact.
A couple days ago, maybe yesterday, you said you were going o quit all the debating to wait and see how it played out. You should have listened to yourself.
If you think you're some general for the cause,I'm immediately reminded of Custer.
What part of in 1993 they took 450,000 acres of his permit to ranch cattle on it and cut his permit to 150,000 acres and 150,000 acres, and thus rendering him unable to make a living there any longer is false?
it is about Bundy the freeloader not paying his dirt cheap grazing fees for 20 years and getting called on it.
I don't fret the knock on my door because I pay my debts and abide by my contracts.
Actually, no it isn't. The bulk of his allotment was cancelled 20 years ago and the rest of it was cancelled in 1998. So, no it is not about paying fees or contracts as that there are no fees to be paid or contracts to be honored.
yet he has been running cattle on BLM the whole time for nothing
dunno what you call that...
The government calls it trespass, but it most certainly isn't about fees and contracts as that there are no fees and no contracts.
it is about Bundy the freeloader not paying his dirt cheap grazing fees for 20 years and getting called on it.
I don't fret the knock on my door because I pay my debts and abide by my contracts.
Actually, no it isn't. The bulk of his allotment was cancelled 20 years ago and the rest of it was cancelled in 1998. So, no it is not about paying fees or contracts as that there are no fees to be paid or contracts to be honored.
yet he has been running cattle on BLM the whole time for nothing
dunno what you call that...
Civil disobedience.
He may not have been legal. But he was damn sure right!
He tried paying the entire amount to the state. He felt he was giving money to the BLM that was using his own money against him. (Which they were.)
The state could not take it, so he socked it ,and to this day, said he would gladly pay all fees once his ranch permit is restored. Doesn't sound like a freeloader to me.
When you get it right just one time, I'll bookmark it and order some champagne.
You haven't been close, not even once. Your vitriol and histrionics will not change that simple fact.
A couple days ago, maybe yesterday, you said you were going o quit all the debating to wait and see how it played out. You should have listened to yourself.
If you think you're some general for the cause,I'm immediately reminded of Custer.
What part of in 1993 they took 450,000 acres of his permit to ranch cattle on it and cut his permit to 150,000 acres and 150,000 acres, and thus rendering him unable to make a living there any longer is false?
Run, Forest, Run...
we've been down this road. where does it say we are obligated to provide the Bundys with 600,000 acres of grazing for eternity?
He tried paying the entire amount to the state. He felt he was giving money to the BLM that was using his own money against him. (Which they were.)
The state could not take it, so he socked it ,and to this day, said he would gladly pay all fees once his ranch permit is restored. Doesn't sound like a freeloader to me.
he didn't owe the state. you don't get to pay "Fred" if you don't like how "Joe" uses the money you owe him
we've been down this road. where does it say we are obligated to provide the Bundys with 600,000 acres of grazing for eternity?
We certainly have.
They aren't. Not under the playbook you have today. That what he has been fighting in court for 20 years to try and change, because it's not fair, nor in the best interest of the public. But, winning against a system that makes the laws, and then adjudicates them when they are all in favor of the government isn't in the playbook either. The rational that government WILL win, no matter what the circumstances needs to be changed.
I see. Like Bundy, you're not arguing for state sovereignty, you're arguing for your version of it,;even after two fed courts and a appellate court said no.
That's Anarchy,sport. Good luck with it. Don't forget my 2 x 4 comment.
...But, winning against a system that makes the laws, and then adjudicates them when they are all in favor of the government isn't in the playbook either. The rational that government WILL win, no matter what the circumstances needs to be changed.
The Courts have ruled against the United States government many, many times. They didn't in this case.
The BLM did not write or sign the Taylor Grazing Act, nor did they issue the Court Orders against Bundy.
Elected Congressman wrote the bill, signed by an elected President, the disagreement about the law between Bundy and the Federal Government settled by the U.S. District Court as provided for in the Constitution.
Some of you guys think it's unfair. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you don't write your own laws and none of you dictate to me or any other American what the law should be or what's morally right or wrong.
Just because you think you are standing up for your version of freedom doesn't mean you are in the right or are going to prevail. George Washington personally led the troops against the Whiskey Rebellion. Washington of course was a well known commie and liberal, right? I mean, who else would support the government on an issue?
The contentious policy at the heart of Cliven Bundy's armed standoff with the government By Peter Weber | April 14, 2014
Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy has been illegally grazing his cattle on federal land for more than 15 years. On Saturday, Bundy, his family, and dozens of armed supporters convinced the federal Bureau of Land Management that confiscating Bundy's cattle wasn't worth human bloodshed.
"Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public," newly sworn-in BLM Director Neil Kornze said in a statement. "We remain disappointed that Cliven Bundy continues to not comply with the same laws that 16,000 public lands ranchers do every year.... Mr. Bundy owes the American taxpayers in excess of $1 million. The BLM will continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially."
Of course, it was the long lack of administrative and judicial success that led to last week's BLM operation to round up and impound Bundy's cattle. Bundy stopped paying grazing fees to the federal government in 1993, after the BLM changed the terms of the grazing allotment near Bunkerville, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas along I-15. The BLM canceled his permit, and when that didn't work, it took him to court.
In 1999, the Nevada district court permanently barred Bundy from grazing his cattle on the land, charging him $200 per animal per day they remained on the land; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction. That is where the most of the $1 million fine comes from.
Bundy's defense is threefold: He claims his family has been raising cattle on the land since 1877, before the BLM existed, so his rights to the land trump the federal government's; he asserts that Nevada really owns the federal lands � a radical offshoot of the long-simmering Sagebush Rebellion � so he should only pay grazing rights to the state or local government; and he has guns.
The courts didn't agree with Bundy's first two defenses. But the three combined make for a pretty strong emotional case, and that drew more than 100 kindred spirits from across the West, notably some heavily armed members of the Operation Mutual Aid militia, to help him defend his claim.
"If you believe in the authority of the federal government over public lands � established unequivocally in the U.S. Constitution � there is ample justification for the impoundment," says Christi Turner at High Country News.
But Bundy and his allies don't seem to care much for federal authority over public lands. On Saturday, after reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, singing the national anthem, and saying a few prayers, the armed gathering drove and rode horses to the BLM's holding pens to demand the release of the some 400 head of cattle the federal government has seized. A tense, four-hour standoff ensued, with each side pointing guns at the other.
Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie negotiated the end of the standoff, with the BLM essentially throwing in the towel: It released the cattle and started closing down the cattle-grabbing operation. It's hard to fault the agency for stepping back to avoid an armed conflict � a bloody confrontation would have been good for nobody � but it wasn't exactly a shining moment for the rule of law.
The BLM was enforcing a court order (read it here), and Bundy has been flouting the law for 20 years, illegally grazing his cattle on land that isn't his and without permission. His supporters raised weapons at federal agents. "We were dedicated to opening those gates and peacefully walking through to retrieve those cattle," Ammon Bundy, one of Cliven Bundy's 14 children, told Reuters. "The presence of weapons was needed in order to intimidate them."
Cliven Bundy, apparently buoyed by his success, ordered Gillespie to disarm all BLM rangers on federal land � the sheriff wisely ignored that ultimatum.
But let's look at Bundy's larger point, that the federal government shouldn't control 87 percent of Nevada and 60 percent of the 12 states in the West. This includes many of the country's most beautiful national parks, forests, and wilderness areas, but also huge swathes of scrub lands, timber forest, and areas with mineral and energy wealth.
It is sort of an accident of history and because of the whims of Congress that the federal government controls all that land. In the mid-1800s, lawmakers passed laws encouraging settlers to colonize the West, with the idea of carving up the new U.S. territories into privately held parcels. Starting with Theodore Roosevelt, though, U.S. lawmakers started to conserve public lands for the public with the creation of the national parks.
In 1934, Congress created the U.S. Grazing Service to manage cattle and sheep grazing on public lands, and in 1946 the Grazing Service was combined with the General Land Office to create the BLM. In 1976, Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, formally setting aside federal public lands for multiple public uses, including recreation, ranching, and mining. The BLM, Forest Service, and National Park Service have been juggling those competing interests ever since.
For Bundy to have the right to graze his cattle in Gold Butte/Bunkerville area, the U.S. government would have to sell him the land, cede it to Nevada, get the area's endangered species removed from the endangered list, and/or lose to Bundy in a court of law. What seems certain is that this standoff isn't over. Even if Bundy and the BLS reach an amicable settlement, the inherent conflict will always fester between environmentalists and hikers who want to preserve the land and ranchers, miners, foresters, and motor-vehicle enthusiasts who want to be a little rougher on the public lands.
In other words, even if we cede the argument to Woody Guthrie that this land is your land and this land is my land, we'll always want to use the land for different purposes. The many Westerners who live on or near these public lands have a point when they complain about being restricted in what they can do near their homes largely so people in the big cities � Seattle, Denver, Portland � and the public lands�sparse East Coast have someplace to hike and camp and fish.
But personally, I'd rather err on the side of having that fight than losing the argument to private developers. So far, Congress agrees.
You remain clueless. You should have listened to your own advice.
Anyways, I'll look forward to when you actually understand the facts and law relevant to this dynamic rather than relying on the attaboys of 5-6 folks who are completely daft or who can't think for themselves and rely on plus one and attaboys without having a clue as to why.
I'm going to try and help ya out a little. I'm going to try and explain in the simplicity that just maybe the azz hole of azz holes can understand.
If a person was taking care of his wife and children. Living with in his means like a good person should. And to do this it took one thousand dollars per week. And being a good provider and good worker. You were successfully doing so. Not only were you successful. But your employer had every intention of keeping you around, because you were good at what ya do.
Than one day the BLM knocked at your door and said. Due to the exhaust emitted from your vehicle. You now could only use your car two days per week. Cutting your one thousand per week to two hundred fifty per week. You wouldn't possibly be pissed would you?? Mind you your employer still was begging you for your service. This is what has been happening to ranchers, seems like forever. For all kind of bugs, lizards, spotted owls, and in this case turtles. And what they did to Mr. Bundy probably cut a little deeper. There was no real reason. Like some provisions in lease agreements described below. It was simply an agenda.
From family members that have leased land. My understanding they can change lease arrangements based on rain fall as to the amount of head the lease will feed. And this is understandable to the rancher. Who is most always a steward of the land including the wild life. In lean years the smaller outfits have to sell almost the entire herd. With hopes of having enough to live on and start again when rain provides enough feed to make it profitable again. The bigger out fits usually have enough deeded ground. That they haul both water and hay, and try and hang on. To be clear Mr. Bundy was wrong to stop paying the lease. For quote un quote legal reasons. According to the ones that make the rules as they go. He would have gotten a lot more support. Had he just have paid, and just ran enough head to make a living. No matter what BLM said.
But the fools that believe this is about Mr. Bundys lease. You are definitely not rowing with both oars in the water. Try looking at militarized bunch of thugs that trampled on the first amendment and wasn't happy about Americans second amendment rights either. I'm not going to take any of ya by the hand explaining the situations to ya. Look it all up before ya engage your big mouths.
The federal government owns the land. Please tell me you understand state legislatures don't have the power to take it back because they didn't like their earlier deal.
Conservatives understand the argument. Anarchists do not.
Property "rights" are a cornerstone of conservative thought.
When did you lose sight of that core principle?
You're arguing for government freebies and you don't even realize it.
it is about Bundy the freeloader not paying his dirt cheap grazing fees for 20 years and getting called on it.
I don't fret the knock on my door because I pay my debts and abide by my contracts.
Actually, no it isn't. The bulk of his allotment was cancelled 20 years ago and the rest of it was cancelled in 1998. So, no it is not about paying fees or contracts as that there are no fees to be paid or contracts to be honored.
yet he has been running cattle on BLM the whole time for nothing
dunno what you call that...
The government calls it trespass, but it most certainly isn't about fees and contracts as that there are no fees and no contracts.
It started over non payment, and progressed to violations of court orders
Saying that's not what its' about is simply denial
So, tell me why Bundy owns it again, while making a profit on our dime?
I'm biased, having gone up against the blm as an outfitter during the clinton years. I hate the bastards. It wasn't about freebies then; but the phasing out of commercial enterprise from public lands.
Until you seek a permit from the lesbian anti-hunter in charge, you won't understand.
So, tell me why Bundy owns it again, while making a profit on our dime?
I'm biased, having gone up against the blm as an outfitter during the clinton years. I hate the bastards. It wasn't about freebies then; but the phasing out of commercial enterprise from public lands.
What kind of outfitter? ATV rides? Hunting Guide? River Rafting?
Where? Arizona? Alaska? Utah?
Was there a prospectus, or did they want you to buy out an existing operation?
How much insurance did they want you to carry>
Sycamore
Did you have a permit before, or want to start a new business?
It's not an entitlement if it's the "people's land".
"the people" are not just those who agree with you. it seems "the people" have spoken when the courts decided against Bundy twice.
Ahhh no sorry , the people did not speak , the BLM spoke . Not one of those laws that the court had to consider , was actually voted on by either the people be they federally or within the state . NOR were they written up in a bill , submitted to congress and thus passed through due process. So in NO way did the people have any voice in this
it was not the BLM vs. Bundy, it was The United States of America vs. Bundy...
You do understand the US part right ? See it wasn�t the US as in we the people �US � it was the US as in a federal government agency . You can Cry TAYLOR ACT all day long doesn�t change the fact that the �act� was made prior to the BLM establishment . But if you want to use it then at least recognize that under that act the Bundy family had recognized grazing rights for that land . Specific rights that were justified by water rights . Now enter the BLM and their endangered species. Well factually probably herry reed but still a belly crawler . THEY and only THEY made the new law which justified the reduction of grazing rights which were recognized before , during and after the glorified TAYLOR act . Those BLM laws were what the court had to rule on as they were the laws Bundys cattle were in violation of breaking.
Show me where , anywhere , that your elected congressman voted on any of that . I don�t care if the president signed it . That doesn�t mater the president cannot make law out side of executive order , . Congress and only congress makes laws by voice/ representation of the people . Thus only the people by way of their duel elected representatives can make law. the people did NOT speak , the BLM spoke as they made the law . A law that Bundy doesn�t recognize . Factually NONE of us should recognize. Thus he refused to pay
When you were a child , did your parents ever tell you not to do something and when you ask why they said; because I said so . Well that�s the BLM that�s what they do . They make laws because they say so . The people don�t make them through congress . Nor did obama or any other president for that mater , make the law that this judge had to accepted because they did it by executive order . Nope , the BLM came up on this all on their little own
that�s the power your telling us we have to accept , the problem is that a vast majority of us don�t . OHHh ya we go along with it because if we don�t , we will end up like Bundy
Well I shouldn�t say we as I/ my family doesn�t have any real ranch anymore . But then there is the little problem that the BLM also has jurisdiction on private land MMMMMM , now that maybe even more complicated as they could come back and tell bundy he cant have cattle even on his deeded land because of some rare desert Nat, that resides in the now designated wetlands around his cattle trough .Thus for any reason if that water supply stops ,IE he refuses to pay the pwer bill for the pump . guess what the judge would have to rule in violation of the law for that to
I understand that, Mike. However, is that emotion enough to have you join a posse cluelesstatus to charge a hill for a freeloader who stole more from you than the BLM ever did?
The only freeloaders I see are those who claim to protect the turtles, save the owls, or transplant the wolves. I reckon they'll have final say over private property rights soon enough also. Free market capitalism is a thing of the past.
You and me love hunting and we're conservationists. Some folks love turtles and the intricacies of the inner workings of nature. They are preservationists and conservationists,as well. Bundy is a rancher freeloading on our dime who couldn't give a rat's ass about you and me...or the turtle lovers. He's a capitalist making a profit. Oh yeah, he thinks the government owes him that gig and we pay for it.
Who gets that land use? The turtle lovers, us hunters and conservationists or Bundy's type? Who speaks for "all" on the public lands.
This dispute deals with the simple fact that the freeloading rancher thinks it's his land and he'll decide how the land will be utilized,rather than courts of law.
I can say it was all good before clinton came along; then the nightmare started. I can sympathize; and they can stick freeloader in their butt. You ought to talk to a few loggers of the era also I think they were called eco terrorists.
You have to buy someone out nowadays; but even after you put your money down, it doesn't guarantee you the necessary permits. Permits are readily granted for winter camping, hiking adventures, bicycling and such.
Interesting that with only one "kinda" exception, not a single poster on this far too long thread deals with the BLM. Even he is just a user of public land for recreation.
There has NOT BEEN one single rancher who leases grazing rights from the BLM or Forest Service show up here.
In summary, the collective opinion would lead us to conclude that Bundy is a poor victim of a government agency and all the other ranchers who pay the grazing fees are just fools and should dig up Tom Horn to kill anyone who thinks that public land is public land, not the domain of some self appointed fellow who thinks his rights supercede those of a duly elected government.
As with most blustering on the internet, short on facts, long on rants.
I do almost all my hiking, riding, hunting, shooting and fishing on public lands. BLM, National Forest and Federal Wilderness. I shudder to think what these lands would be were they in private hands. Would you trade this for a development of McMansions or a forest of gas wells ? Not this kid for sure !
Stop blaming the government. Blame humanity which is outbreeding the ability to have a quality of life we would all enjoy. 150,000,000 Americans when I was a kid in the glorious 1950s, 300,000,000 today DUH ? Stop yammering here go buy and read: The Malthusian Theory of Population and you'll see the real problem.
![[Linked Image]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Philip_Dawe_%28attributed%29%2C_The_Bostonians_Paying_the_Excise-man%2C_or_Tarring_and_Feathering_%281774%29_-_02.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v378/bea175/stupiddemocrat_zps87af7dba.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s65.photobucket.com/user/FalMike/media/mapwest_zps44cf0527.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](https://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Dawn-America-Armed-Militias_021145990077.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://pumabydesign001.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/bundyranchsnipers.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i.imgur.com/kYQBRXr.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m8/kiddglock/1000x1000_zps4e1fdc52.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.ovimagazine.com/toons/toon_30_163.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v148/Sharpshin/24hrcamp/militia_zps048faeea.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e98/watch4bear/10177996_817794524914882_7256169376609241173_n_zpsc4ca9f7a.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ad82208/media/campfire%20pics/media_guide_2_zpspib9nlay.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ad82208/media/campfire%20pics/BundyRanch_zpsljlpy93m.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ad82208/media/campfire%20pics/51oqpd_zpsu9p75z3i.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Km5aMaGM4l4/UJgnuMVEZ5I/AAAAAAAAAfw/NUG95AE9JV8/s1600/Robs+Improved+Liberty+Model.png)
![[Linked Image]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Mountcarmelfire04-19-93-n.jpg/800px-Mountcarmelfire04-19-93-n.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s1186.photobucket.com/user/rocketcity1/media/file-120.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s1186.photobucket.com/user/rocketcity1/media/08defc0c.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s1186.photobucket.com/user/rocketcity1/media/tororeelmower18/719ff96e.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s1186.photobucket.com/user/rocketcity1/media/tororeelmower18/d500939e.jpg.html)