The Feds, probably all the way up to Obama, don't want a Waco with elections on everyone's mind. But I wouldn't put it past em to level that place. End of negotiations.
I hope those boys out there can shoot.
If our president had a spine, that place would be flat. I don't now why the feds put up with it, but more spineless, .gov I guess.
The Raisuli's back, it would seem. A sick, demented coward with a computer.
GTC
Member, Clan of the Border Rats -- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain
In fact, the Bundys and Hammonds have been generously subsidized by the Big Government they claim to oppose. Here are just a few examples of welfare programs these families and other ranchers receive: •The Hammonds, whose arson conviction inspired the action in Malheur, received almost $300,000 in federal disaster payments and subsidies from the mid-90s to 2012. •Ammon Bundy, spokesperson for the Malheur action, got a $530,000 Small Business Administration loan in 2010, costing taxpayers more than $22,000. And we don’t know if he’s even paid the loan back.
Yeah, you're right.
The Hammonds deserved to be sentenced, serve their sentence and get released after their sentence was served in full, and then be re-arrested and re-sentenced, and sent back for another long term for the same crime.
Bundy needs to be shot.
If a judge sentenced the Bundys to a shorter than mandatory sentence, it's his (or her) responsibility and problem. Re-sentencing, after serving the original sentence (to adjust it upward to conform with the law) is not right.
The Feds, probably all the way up to Obama, don't want a Waco with elections on everyone's mind. But I wouldn't put it past em to level that place. End of negotiations.
I hope those boys out there can shoot.
If our president had a spine, that place would be flat. I don't now why the feds put up with it, but more spineless, .gov I guess.
If Obama flattened that place, all hell would break loose
have you paid your dues, can you moan the blues, can you bend them guitar strings
In fact, the Bundys and Hammonds have been generously subsidized by the Big Government they claim to oppose. Here are just a few examples of welfare programs these families and other ranchers receive: •The Hammonds, whose arson conviction inspired the action in Malheur, received almost $300,000 in federal disaster payments and subsidies from the mid-90s to 2012. •Ammon Bundy, spokesperson for the Malheur action, got a $530,000 Small Business Administration loan in 2010, costing taxpayers more than $22,000. And we don’t know if he’s even paid the loan back.
This is an interesting conundrum. The Federal government (BLM, USFS) actually leases the land to ranchers, miners, oil drillers, etc. at BELOW market rates. If a rancher or driller wanted to lease identical land int he same area form a private owner, they'd have to pay more.
Great analogy.
What is the initial cost of the lease permit though? Any idea?
The difference in price between private lease and grazing permit is the amount of work and infrastructure that ranchers on grazing permits have to install and maintain.
Private land leases have the water, fences and roads maintained by the landowner.
But, excellent analogy.
BTW, If given the choice between buying two identical ranches, they would cost about the same, whether it is a grazing permit ranch, or private... I would go with private every time. At least you can lock the dumbfuggs out of private, and not have to continually pay lease on a permit you already paid for.
If a judge sentenced the Bundys to a shorter than mandatory sentence, it's his (or her) responsibility and problem. Re-sentencing, after serving the original sentence (to adjust it upward to conform with the law) is not right.
If a judge sentenced the Bundys to a shorter than mandatory sentence, it's his (or her) responsibility and problem. Re-sentencing, after serving the original sentence (to adjust it upward to conform with the law) is not right.
In fact, the Bundys and Hammonds have been generously subsidized by the Big Government they claim to oppose. Here are just a few examples of welfare programs these families and other ranchers receive: •The Hammonds, whose arson conviction inspired the action in Malheur, received almost $300,000 in federal disaster payments and subsidies from the mid-90s to 2012. •Ammon Bundy, spokesperson for the Malheur action, got a $530,000 Small Business Administration loan in 2010, costing taxpayers more than $22,000. And we don’t know if he’s even paid the loan back.
This is an interesting conundrum. The Federal government (BLM, USFS) actually leases the land to ranchers, miners, oil drillers, etc. at BELOW market rates. If a rancher or driller wanted to lease identical land int he same area form a private owner, they'd have to pay more.
Great analogy.
What is the initial cost of the lease permit though? Any idea?
The difference in price between private lease and grazing permit is the amount of work and infrastructure that ranchers on grazing permits have to install and maintain.
Private land leases have the water, fences and roads maintained by the landowner.
But, excellent analogy.
BTW, If given the choice between buying two identical ranches, they would cost about the same, whether it is a grazing permit ranch, or private... I would go with private every time. At least you can lock the dumbfuggs out of private, and not have to continually pay lease on a permit you already paid for.
Much of the BLM lands are pretty desolate and good principally for grazing; most are too arid for decent farming.
You've got to keep in mind when considering whether the ownership should be Federal, state, local or, private hat these lands were obtained by the Federal government, not the other entities. The Federal government obtained them and the ownership through (1) appropriation (e.g., Native American lands), (2) conquest (e.g., Mexico in the case of California, Arizona, Nevada), (3) purchase (Alaska, Louisiana and Gadsden Purchase) or, (4) Treaty (Oregon & Washington, Florida, Midwest). The Feds sold the land to encourage development, but retained large portions; in cases like the arid West, no one wanted to buy the land even at low prices. The Federal Government is not obligated to sell any of its lands if it does not wish to and, occupying it is illegal.
If a judge sentenced the Bundys to a shorter than mandatory sentence, it's his (or her) responsibility and problem. Re-sentencing, after serving the original sentence (to adjust it upward to conform with the law) is not right.
The Federal and state governments are capable of a lot of things that can make one's life miserable. The best advise is to not violate the law, pay your taxes, and not illegally occupy government land. In the case of the Bundys, they refused to pay the grazing fees for the Federal land on which they grazed their cattle; these owed fees totaled in excess of $1 million, not a small amount. After a number of years attempting to collect the owed money, the Feds moved to arrest, indite and try the Bundys. A jury ruled they were guilty and the judge sentenced them.
I can't speak to the Bundy or Hammond clans contracts for grazing, but here in this area, if you have a grazing permit, you must have a carrying capacity property that the cattle can be wintered on with adequate feed and water.
so with that said, it's not joe blow can buy 8 pair and turn them out and come back two years later with the check for the grazing fee and go to the sale. who is responsible for the fence? who covers the damage expenses....yup, the lessee.
Originally Posted by BrentD
I would not buy something that runs on any kind of primer given the possibility of primer shortages and even regulations. In fact, why not buy a flintlock? Really. Rocks aren't going away anytime soon.
says a bunch when your congressman stands up for you in congress.
Originally Posted by BrentD
I would not buy something that runs on any kind of primer given the possibility of primer shortages and even regulations. In fact, why not buy a flintlock? Really. Rocks aren't going away anytime soon.
I miscredited the poster, it was another fella' from Alaska.
And to him, THANKS again.
In another interview, he said that he intended to speak for a brief 5 minutes, ...but than became inspired to get it all out front.
By damn we could sure use MANY more like him !
GTC
Member, Clan of the Border Rats -- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain
This protest is experiencing a bit of mission creep! These kooks are pissed off about a lot of things but not the form of corporate welfare that they are receiving.
This will go away and most of the country will forget it ever happened.
If that fellow were running in my district as a Democrat, I would attend his rallies and VOTE for him.
And I'll tell ya' what, it would NOT be the first time I've done that.
The message he's putting down transcends this [bleep] "Republican" partisan loyalty that seems to affect so many of the weaker minds at large in this country.
Take a close look at the azzwholes "representing" my district.
GTC
Member, Clan of the Border Rats -- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain
Free me, The video is not to teach you about how the Constitution works.
It's unclear to me now, which video you are talking about. But I am very clear on which video I commented on. The KrisAnne Hall video - her claims are not supported by an honest reading of the Article of the Constitution that she is referring to.
Quote
It is the topic of this thread, which is, what those guys are doing there. Did you watch it? When you do, then we can continue. And yes, my response earlier was to "your" red highlighted comment.
I have watched so many videos and read so many articles from both sides that I think I have a pretty good handle on what the issue is. I am sympathetic to the cause of the fight against over-reaching government - but more importantly, the fact that the Hammonds have been yanked back into prison due to the abuse that is the application of mandatory sentencing laws.
Quote
They kept it simple, because it is.
Wrong answer.
Dealing with large and varied groups of people is never simple. The framers knew that government does and would naturally tend to expand it's influence. They did not have any belief or even desire that it should not expand appropriately - just that it should be controlled by constitutional limits and the people. We've had the constitutional limits all along, but guess what? The people have sat on their fat behinds and accepted a government run amok. But that doesn't mean that the federal government can't own land.
Quote
Only the arrogance of man has corrupted and complicated it. If all of us modern day "living document" kind of guys would humble ourselves and get back to the original document, we would marvel in the genius of the founding fathers.....
Oh, get off it. Nowhere have I ever expressed any belief in this "living document" thought. What that refers to is the the belief that interpretations of the Constitution can change with time, reflecting the current value system. I don't buy that and never did. One does not have to buy into "living document" to understand that the fed can own land.
