Home
As all these Oregon Occupiers threads are running, I think this video needs to be shown on its own. Ask yourself what kind of man Lavoy Finicum is was.

If you were to leave your family with this man, how do you feel he would treat them?

Is this the kind of man you would trust with your favorite rifle?

Would you expect to get your truck back if you loaned it to him?


I'll tell you, from what I see here I think the world is now poorer with him gone. I won't even touch on what I think of the people that would want him killed.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...E6BA06D6CB284704093AE6BA0&FORM=VIRE5
<sigh>

it's = contraction of the words "it is"

its = plural possessive article

This ain't rocket science. Sixth graders know this.
Don't worry Doc, I misspelled "man" and had to go back and fix it too. Mna probably wouldn't make sense would it? I beg your forgiveness for errors as my brain is moving ahead of my grammar.
Originally Posted by DocRocket
<sigh>

it's = contraction of the words "it is"

its = plural possessive article

This ain't rocket science. Sixth graders know this.

At the risk of sounding picayune, I'm afraid lots of college graduates these days don't know that. Which is not meant to undermine the validity of your statement, just expressing a personal general disappointment in what I see coming into the work force.
I refrained from correcting an earlier post...

"in vein" vs. in vain...maybe it is "rocket" science..."Doc......" wink
Originally Posted by Fireball2
As all these Oregon Occupiers threads are running, I think this video needs to be shown on its own. Ask yourself what kind of man Lavoy Finicum is was.

If you were to leave your family with this man, how do you feel he would treat them?

Is this the kind of man you would trust with your favorite rifle?

Would you expect to get your truck back if you loaned it to him?


I'll tell you, from what I see here I think the world is now poorer with him gone. I won't even touch on what I think of the people that would want him killed.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...E6BA06D6CB284704093AE6BA0&FORM=VIRE5



Sometimes good people make really bad decisions.

I have no idea what happened on the highway but I bet he has some family that wonders if him putting himself in that position was worth it.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Thomas Jefferson


I just hope Lavoy Finicum didn't die in vain.
just waiting for the resident experts to dogpile now
Originally Posted by Jim in Idaho
Originally Posted by DocRocket
<sigh>

it's = contraction of the words "it is"

its = plural possessive article

This ain't rocket science. Sixth graders know this.

At the risk of sounding picayune, I'm afraid lots of college graduates these days don't know that. Which is not meant to undermine the validity of your statement, just expressing a personal general disappointment in what I see coming into the work force.


Yeah. And no insult intended to fireball, btw...
.
Originally Posted by Fireball2
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Thomas Jefferson


I just hope Lavoy Finicum didn't die in vain.


What do you mean by in "vain"? So that welfare ranchers can continue stealing from the public trust? So that your lands and your wildlife take a back seat to lining their pocket books? F these guys. Nobody rallied to their cause because no one supports it. I get hating the government, but you're not gonna get any support from conservatives over guys who live off the public. And you dang sure ain't gonna get liberals to join the movement. So who did they think would sympathize with them? Other so called conservatives sucking on the government tit?
Committing suicide is NOT, "looking after one's family",

...not in my world, by a VERY long shot.

GTC

Originally Posted by dawggone
just waiting for the resident experts to dogpile now


It's comin'! frown
Originally Posted by DocRocket


Yeah. And no insult intended to fireball, btw...


Well, thank you for that, but the real point is in the video. I'm glad I watched it.

It's a snapshot from Lavoy's perspective into the Constitution and what's going on with the battle over whether the federal govt has the right to administer the public lands, and specifically, how "rights" are established and maintained. He talks about how he bought the grazing rights and what that means, Constitutionally. It was intriguing to say the least.

Even the critics here would really be interested to hear this, IMHO.
Originally Posted by DocRocket
<sigh>

it's = contraction of the words "it is"

its = plural possessive article

This ain't rocket science. Sixth graders know this.


I have a journalism degree and from time to time still mess that up. "It's" is a contraction of "it is" and also can be a contraction for "it has". Mistakes are common. We are taught the possessive form of a noun, such as "DocRocket's house", but we'll often see people apply the same form using this specific pronoun. ie - "DocRocket's house was left standing after the storm, but it's shutters were torn from their hinges."

It is another example of where the rule supplants what would seem to be logical. In the first half of the sentence, the possessive of a noun's apostrophe shows ownership, but in the second half of the sentence, the "it" is a pronoun that when used as a possessive pronoun becomes "its", with no apostrophe. The hard rule is that ALL possessive pronouns do not use an apostrophe while all possessive nouns do use an apostrophe.
How about a bit of slack for those of who try to get it right but are a long time out of school.
My career required some knowledge of Physics and I learned as I went along, very little writing skill was necessary so my ability in that area faded as the years passed.
I seldom see someone with particular skills in those areas going out of their way to correct the wordsmiths among us.
Do we fail to make what we write understandable?
I just watched the entire video. Thank you for posting it.

It's ironic, but if I'm honest, I don't think I'd have watched it had Lavoy not been shot and killed. I regret this. I wish I had watched it two weeks or a month or three months ago. This was a good decent man, calm and reasonable. I've got to learn more about this.

I'm not a rancher, I've got no horse in this race. I did grow up on a small farm in PA, but that's the extent of any bias I might have. I'm not a here and haven't been here to shove my political, personal, or religious views down your throats. I'm a pretty reasonable guy whose biggest flaw is sometimes writing flowery prose. I urge you to watch this video.
Originally Posted by exbiologist
So that welfare ranchers can continue stealing from the public trust? So that your lands and your wildlife take a back seat to lining their pocket books? F these guys. (sic) Other so called conservatives sucking on the government tit?


You are not fairly representing their position or the issue.
Originally Posted by exbiologist
Originally Posted by Fireball2
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Thomas Jefferson


I just hope Lavoy Finicum didn't die in vain.


What do you mean by in "vain"? So that welfare ranchers can continue stealing from the public trust? So that your lands and your wildlife take a back seat to lining their pocket books? F these guys. Nobody rallied to their cause because no one supports it. I get hating the government, but you're not gonna get any support from conservatives over guys who live off the public. And you dang sure ain't gonna get liberals to join the movement. So who did they think would sympathize with them? Other so called conservatives sucking on the government tit?


I'd much rather ranchers have use of it, than let mineral.mines and wind farms take it over...

Quite frankly ranchers shouldn't have to pay grazing rights on it
Originally Posted by Fireball2
Originally Posted by DocRocket


Yeah. And no insult intended to fireball, btw...


Well, thank you for that, but the real point is in the video. I'm glad I watched it.

It's a snapshot from Lavoy's perspective into the Constitution and what's going on with the battle over whether the federal govt has the right to administer the public lands, and specifically, how "rights" are established and maintained. He talks about how he bought the grazing rights and what that means, Constitutionally. It was intriguing to say the least.

Even the critics here would really be interested to hear this, IMHO.


His video sounds reasonable, but what he's not accepting is that as the country grew west, where territories had vast amounts of land acquired by the federal government through purchase or treaty (Louisiana Purchase, Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Seward's Folly, etc.), the legislated jurisdiction over those lands was voluntarily ceded by the state (not territory) to the federal government. The state had to agree. As the Western territories became states, they ceded legislative jurisdiction of federal owned lands as a condition of statehood. Some would say voluntary - some would say coerced. "You can become a state as long as you cede jurisdiction of federal lands - otherwise you can pound sand." They put similar requirements on the adoption of state Constitutions. For example, New Mexico was required to include recall of elected officials in their constitution as a condition of statehood. Essentially, a gun was held to their heads if they wanted statehood.

The question is whether a state can rescind that legislative jurisdiction. The Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1980's explored those legal questions and I do not believe they ever found a legal workaround to reclaim federal lands to state jurisdiction.

The true legal questions around the rights of federal grazing leaseholders is a matter of case law and new legal suits. The Bundy's stopped paying their lease, thus their right to sue for redress was lost.

Where ranchers like Lavoy lose their argument is when they call the lease "their land". No, it's not. It's their land to use under the terms of the lease - no more and no less. If the government comes in and arbitrarily changes or revokes the lease without due process, then obviously that is a legal matter.
To be fair he repeatedly referred to it as "his grass".

Originally Posted by kingston
To be fair he repeatedly referred to it as "his grass".



He also referred to it as "his ranch". No, it's "his lease".

My wife's grandfather used to lease a couple hundred acres of land for farming from another landowner. He never called that piece "his farm". he always called it, "My lease".
Originally Posted by WyColoCowboy
Originally Posted by kingston
To be fair he repeatedly referred to it as "his grass".



He also referred to it as "his ranch". No, it's "his lease".

My wife's grandfather used to lease a couple hundred acres of land for farming from another landowner. He never called that piece "his farm". he always called it, "My lease".


I appreciate your post and the historical perspective it offered. I also appreciate your reference to case law. This issue is clearly complicated and I would like to understand it further.

It seems reasonable to contend that leased grazing land alone does not constitute a "ranch". Further, the notion of a "ranch" is generally thought of as including an amalgam of resources purposely gathered toward the raising of livestock. Grazing land (leased or otherwise) would be one of these resources. Other resources integral to a "ranch" could be: access to water sufficient to sustain humans and live stock, livestock, barns, accessory structures, a house(s), tools, implements, roads/trails, fences, gates, etc.

I'd argue, in the case of your grandfather's leased agricultural land, that although he didn't own it, in most contexts it would be reasonable and appropriate to included it in the spectrum of things that constituted his farm.

You posting from Wyoming and me from Massachusetts, our quibble over the notion of "Farm" and "Ranch" and the relationship of land to them has me thinking. Namely, that an examination of the colloquial vernacular used in ranching communities could shed light on what relationship "leases" have to the notion of ranch and what it's historical equivalents have been. The fate of the reality these vernaculars represent and has represented is what's being hashed out in courts. To do this fairly, the rancher's language and the relationships it describes should have been well translated into legal terms. I'm guessing this didn't happen. Then, over the last 80 years, the face to face, give and take, hand shake dealt, sidebar deals and the people who made them are all gone. These relationships and the agreements that came out of them tempered a law written by outsiders. The people in these communities have been left at the mercy of outsiders. Outsiders who who might not have the best interests of locals in mind.

Thanks to Isaac for a clear and reasoned reply to my question.
It will be easier if I have to vote for Trump later on to know that someone here gave some thought to who the man is.
all of this grazing on public land thing...

cattle are eating stuff that is pretty much not used otherwise, that will just wither away, and new seeds will produce new plants...

pretty renewable... and the feds aren't really selling it to anyone for any other reason...

it use to bother me that these ranchers get to let their cattle graze on Federal land, until I really thought about it.. and came up what are they hurting or who are they stealing from...

to me, its like, if I dip a cup into a creek and drink the water, have I stolen water from our federal government or the public trust? or does that start at 2 cups, 3?

In my opinion these protesters were harmless in the long run.. bunch of guys with a gripe... and the Malheur Refuge was a poor choice to voice it and make a stand over.. 60 miles south of a small town out in the middle of nowhere...

just west of Riley ( a cross roads), which is 17 miles west of Burns, there is a sign on Hwy 20.. no gas for next 99 miles.... turn south on Hwy 395 South, there is another sign.. no Gas for that many miles or more...down to Lakeview...

This is a place where there are more coyotes than cows out there... and 500 sage brush plants for every ONE blade of grass....
Seafire, it's hard to sell them corn to feed their cows, if they're getting grass for free.
They have done nothing but put a bad light on responsible public land permit holders.
Originally Posted by Fireball2
As all these Oregon Occupiers threads are running, I think this video needs to be shown on its own. Ask yourself what kind of man Lavoy Finicum is was.

If you were to leave your family with this man, how do you feel he would treat them?

Is this the kind of man you would trust with your favorite rifle?

Would you expect to get your truck back if you loaned it to him?


I'll tell you, from what I see here I think the world is now poorer with him gone. I won't even touch on what I think of the people that would want him killed.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...E6BA06D6CB284704093AE6BA0&FORM=VIRE5
One things for sure with me. I'd trust a family man/rancher like Finnicum with my family or rifle way before I'd trust the gov't thug who killed him.
Originally Posted by Middlefork_Miner
I refrained from correcting an earlier post...

"in vein" vs. in vain...maybe it is "rocket" science..."Doc......" wink
maybe he was shooting up
So he's supporting that the land be returned the Native Americans based on natural law, right?
I'm just not buying it. "It" being that Lavoy Finicum wasn't a decent man. From what I've seen so far I can't make that judgement.

Originally Posted by selmer
So he's supporting that the land be returned the Native Americans based on natural law, right?



Ive met more than a few indians, we did them a favor by taking their land...


Sure they had a bad run for a while ..but now they have casinos
Originally Posted by SLM
They have done nothing but put a bad light on responsible public land permit holders.




You have to pay your bills, pretty simple concept.
Originally Posted by Seafire
all of this grazing on public land thing...

cattle are eating stuff that is pretty much not used otherwise, that will just wither away, and new seeds will produce new plants...

pretty renewable... and the feds aren't really selling it to anyone for any other reason...

it use to bother me that these ranchers get to let their cattle graze on Federal land, until I really thought about it.. and came up what are they hurting or who are they stealing from...

to me, its like, if I dip a cup into a creek and drink the water, have I stolen water from our federal government or the public trust? or does that start at 2 cups, 3?

In my opinion these protesters were harmless in the long run.. bunch of guys with a gripe... and the Malheur Refuge was a poor choice to voice it and make a stand over.. 60 miles south of a small town out in the middle of nowhere...

just west of Riley ( a cross roads), which is 17 miles west of Burns, there is a sign on Hwy 20.. no gas for next 99 miles.... turn south on Hwy 395 South, there is another sign.. no Gas for that many miles or more...down to Lakeview...

This is a place where there are more coyotes than cows out there... and 500 sage brush plants for every ONE blade of grass....


Water? Could be stealing it from a rancher, a farmer 1,000 miles away, or a municipal utility. Out west, every drop is owned by someone. Heck, in Colorado , you can't even have a rain barrel because that water "belongs" to someone else. smh
Don't seem like a man that needed killing..

g
Originally Posted by dvdegeorge
Originally Posted by Middlefork_Miner
I refrained from correcting an earlier post...

"in vein" vs. in vain...maybe it is "rocket" science..."Doc......" wink
maybe he was shooting up

You guys are killin' me... grin
do ya'll know they don't teach cursive writing in school anymore, everything these days is keyboard input and print. so yes grammar went down the hole, including me, I failed English and writing in school, but I make a good living regardless
Originally Posted by GeoW
Don't seem like a man that needed killing..

g


Plenty do, but they all walk.

This man was killed because whites don't burn cities to the ground. Bout time we did, for our own protection.
© 24hourcampfire