Page 7 of 22
Re: Nevada Rancher Standoff
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:21 pm
by mojo84
Seems like some believe the end always justifies the means. The way the feds were going about it was wrong and the rotten fruit of bad decisions. If he was trespassing, why not arrest him? That could have been done long ago. Why not cease his bank accounts? Showing up with a bunch of armed "agents" in military style gear like they did is not the way to resolve the issue.
People are getting fed up with the government bullying and intimidating people into compliance.
Re: Nevada Rancher Standoff
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:33 pm
by EEllis
mamabearCali wrote:EEllis wrote:mamabearCali wrote:I have said this several times. The guy could be bat crap crazy and I still think the FEDS were 100% wrong on this. You do not settle financial disputes at the end of a rifle. You put a lien on his asserts, you can seize a portion of his bank account, you can out a lien on his taxes. What I never want my govt. to do is to show up with a small army for a dispute over grazing rights. To point rifles at old men and women instead of simply working through legal channels of obtaining the money they think they are owed is unacceptable.
As I understand it the dispute over the grazing fees is because the turtle that is so endangered that it is being euthanized for over population by the BLM was the reason the grazing rights were so diminished. In order to get the grazing rights paperwork done and in order to pay the fee, Bundy would have had to agree to a 90% reduction in his cattle. That is like you getting a 90% pay cut. Who would agree to that? It was done to deliberately harm the ranchers. It was done to drive them out. Why......well Harry Reid sure does seem to take a serious interest in a solar farm not too far away. Perhaps he is looking to expand.
That is immoral. That is unjust. It may be the law, but legalized theft is still theft. An unjust law is no law at all.
And if your neighbors livestock were continually on your property and you felt that you were owed money for that trespass keeping the cattle
that are on your land is somehow immoral? Mind you I'm not trying to support the feds I just think a lot of the representations are just crap. Like the turtle thing. He quit paying fees long before the turtle was ever an issue so no the dispute had nothing to do with a turtle.
If I pointed rifles at them I'd be going to jail. There are very limited circumstances where a homeowner can remove a neighbors animal with force, but 75% you have to work it out between the two of you. If my neighbor and I have a shared pasture for 50 years and then suddenly I claim it is mine by virtue of the fact that I am bigger and stronger then him, and he has to pay me, is that right?
The turtles were brought up by the govt as the reason for this nonsense. As I have heard it that was their argument in court for the removal of the cattle. So if it is bogus, then it is the govt that brought the turtles up in the first place.
No, the Gov didn't bring up the turtles, the supporters have claimed this as the reason, not the Feds. As to the pointing of guns, the Bundy family has a long history of threats towards BLM employees. If BLM was going to take any action which leads to any interaction with the family they would be remiss if they didn't have some protection for their employees. And your example of the pasture is, well, just off point. He never owned the land and doesn't claim to. Bundy just doesn't believe in the federal govt at all so he stopped paying since he didn't agree with how they spent his fees. So it was like you rented a pasture but the renter felt you should spend more on improvements so they stopped paying you be continued to use the pasture. OH and by the way you have no right to own anything anyway.
Re: Nevada Rancher Standoff
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:36 pm
by SewTexas
EEllis wrote:psijac wrote:Harry Reid 's son has plans to build a solar energy farm there. So the BLM needs to clear the buddy's off that land.
Yeah........not true. While there was a project that Reid's kid is involved with it isn't on the same land in question, just near by. Same thing with the whole turtle deal. Sure there is an issue but the rancher stopped paying fees before anyone ever broached the subject and mentioned turtles.
and I'll repeat what I've said before, if the feds get this land within 5 years there will be a solar field or an oil field on it.
this whole thing is about money, and not the 1 mil he owes the feds, it's about much bigger money than that.
Re: Nevada Rancher Standoff
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:45 pm
by mamabearCali
It was on the news that the Feds brought up the turtles. That is where I heard of it first. So you can keep on saying that it is his supporters that brought it up, but I heard it first from a person supporting the raid.
As far as the argument they had to go in with any army. Bull. There are dozens of ways this could have been handled none of which include snipers. Someone wanted to make a show of force and an example of him.
If you want to use the renter logic then it is even more in favor of Bundy. I have been a renter, if I rent a house and part of the agreement is that they do maintenance and they don't. I don't have to pay them rent until they do. I have to send it to the state and I put it in escrow and until they complete their end of the bargain they don't get their cash. If they attempt to have me evicted for lack of payment and they have not held up their end of the contract or if they have attempted to add or change the contract they are out of luck.
Sadly a few years ago I had to become very well aquatinted with renters laws. We own our house now.
Re: Nevada Rancher Standoff
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:53 pm
by EEllis
One I think that my position is the exact opposite of one based on rhetoric. Right now that has to go to the supporters of Bundy. Second the argument made in the article is not the one made by Bundy or one that has been addressed here AFAIK so far. Probably because it isn't a legal argument. It says in the article that cases have been decided against his theory.
Just as a historical aside in the 30's Hover actually proposed deeding most of the BLM land to the States in 32 but they didn't want it. It was thought that the land was burdon costing more to support than could be made and the cash strapped states wanted no part of it. The BLM was created to manage the land after that.
Re: Nevada Rancher Standoff
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:56 pm
by Cedar Park Dad
SewTexas wrote:EEllis wrote:psijac wrote:Harry Reid 's son has plans to build a solar energy farm there. So the BLM needs to clear the buddy's off that land.
Yeah........not true. While there was a project that Reid's kid is involved with it isn't on the same land in question, just near by. Same thing with the whole turtle deal. Sure there is an issue but the rancher stopped paying fees before anyone ever broached the subject and mentioned turtles.
and I'll repeat what I've said before, if the feds get this land within 5 years there will be a solar field or an oil field on it.
this whole thing is about money, and not the 1 mil he owes the feds, it's about much bigger money than that.
Lets take that as correct. AND? Its the government's land. The government can use it for whatever purpose it wants.
Re: Nevada Rancher Standoff
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:07 pm
by anygunanywhere
The fact that fed.gov "claims to own" 30% of land in US is criminal.
Anygunanywhere
Re: Nevada Rancher Standoff
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:13 pm
by EEllis
mamabearCali wrote:It was on the news that the Feds brought up the turtles. That is where I heard of it first. So you can keep on saying that it is his supporters that brought it up, but I heard it first from a person supporting the raid.
As far as the argument they had to go in with any army. Bull. There are dozens of ways this could have been handled none of which include snipers. Someone wanted to make a show of force and an example of him.
If you want to use the renter logic then it is even more in favor of Bundy. I have been a renter, if I rent a house and part of the agreement is that they do maintenance and they don't. I don't have to pay them rent until they do. I have to send it to the state and I put it in escrow and until they complete their end of the bargain they don't get their cash. If they attempt to have me evicted for lack of payment and they have not held up their end of the contract or if they have attempted to add or change the contract they are out of luck.
Sadly a few years ago I had to become very well aquatinted with renters laws. We own our house now.
I said a pasture not a house. Renting a field is not the same as a domicile nor should it be so again your example is a fail. |
I have seen lots of claims that the feds are trying to get rid of Bundy because of turtles but never once from anyone connected with the actual govt. I think the claim is coming from the fact that in 2012 a eco group was threatening to sue the BLM to make it enforce the rules against Bundy. Their stated reason was because of the tortoise. The land has been closed to grazing since 1998 but that is 5 years after Bundy quit paying so it could have no connection to his original conflict with the feds. The deal with the solar farm only interacts with Bundy in that his grazing area was changed due to the the loss of habitat of the tortoise from the solar farm. So no they don't want to build one on land that Bundy used they farm just caused BLM to change the area it leased so it could make up for the loss of habitat from the farm.
Re: Nevada Rancher Standoff
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:14 pm
by EEllis
anygunanywhere wrote:The fact that fed.gov "claims to own" 30% of land in US is criminal.
Anygunanywhere
Why? You do know that the State deeded all unowned land to the feds in it's constitution right? That in '32 they refused to take the land when offered?
Re: Nevada Rancher Standoff
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:19 pm
by anygunanywhere
EEllis wrote:anygunanywhere wrote:The fact that fed.gov "claims to own" 30% of land in US is criminal.
Anygunanywhere
Why? You do know that the State deeded all unowned land to the feds in it's constitution right? That in '32 they refused to take the land when offered?
Why is it criminal?
The government exists with our permission. The government lost the understanding that the land belongs to us long ago. I expect in the 30s Nevada was in no way capable of taking on management of the land. So.....FDRs boys took it over as part of the plan to get us where we are today - Leviathan national government that seeks to trample on citizens.
Does not matter when. It is still criminal.
Anygunanywhere
Re: Nevada Rancher Standoff
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:20 pm
by mamabearCali
Cedar park and EEllis You know what.
You have your mind set that an armed raid over cattle is 100% ok with you.
I am not going to change your mind. You are not going to change mine that what is happening is an injustice long in the making and even if it wasn't, the raid was absolutely and unacceptable manner to handle this matter.
You have your facts, and I have mine. Neither one of us is going to convince the other.
All this chattering is going to do is to get us mad at each other and end up where all disputes like this end on forums In insults.
We need to agree to disagree. You have your opinion and I have mine. I think you are wrong, you thing I am wrong.
That is where we are at. That is ok.
Re: Nevada Rancher Standoff
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:26 pm
by SewTexas
Fine, I'm stopping
CedarParkDad and EEllis are apparently fine with their government, in their names, putting snipers on hills pointing guns at elderly men and women, throwing pregnant women to the ground, and I'm not. We're not going to reach an agreement. And I've got sewing to do.
I'm out.
Re: Nevada Rancher Standoff
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:26 pm
by EEllis
anygunanywhere wrote:EEllis wrote:anygunanywhere wrote:The fact that fed.gov "claims to own" 30% of land in US is criminal.
Anygunanywhere
Why? You do know that the State deeded all unowned land to the feds in it's constitution right? That in '32 they refused to take the land when offered?
Why is it criminal?
The government exists with our permission. The government lost the understanding that the land belongs to us long ago. I expect in the 30s Nevada was in no way capable of taking on management of the land. So.....FDRs boys took it over as part of the plan to get us where we are today - Leviathan national government that seeks to trample on citizens.
Does not matter when. It is still criminal.
Anygunanywhere
Again that just isn't accurate. Hoover tried to give most of the lands to the States in 32 and they wouldn't take them but it was federal land from the point that it was part of the US and the land still belongs to us which is why the BLM manages it instead of them just anyone being able to do anything on the land. And you still haven't stated why it's criminal.
Re: Nevada Rancher Standoff
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:29 pm
by EEllis
SewTexas wrote:Fine, I'm stopping
CedarParkDad and EEllis are apparently fine with their government, in their names, putting snipers on hills pointing guns at elderly men and women, throwing pregnant women to the ground, and I'm not. We're not going to reach an agreement. And I've got sewing to do.
I'm out.
I'm not fine I just get tired of the inaccuracies , hyperbole, and outright lies that some use to support their positions. Show anything I've said that I support anything done by either side.
Re: Nevada Rancher Standoff
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:34 pm
by Cedar Park Dad
mamabearCali wrote:Cedar park and EEllis You know what.
You have your mind set that an armed raid over cattle is 100% ok with you.
No my mind is set that if you threaten government employees they are going to call in SWAT. Just like if someone threatened you, you'd call the cops.
I am not going to change your mind.
Nope.
You are not going to change mine that what is happening is an injustice long in the making and even if it wasn't, the raid was absolutely and unacceptable manner to handle this matter. [/quote}
It is an injustice, to me, you and every other US citizen, who he's been taking to the cleaners for 21 years.
You have your facts, and I have mine. Neither one of us is going to convince the other.
I've not seen Bundy actually be able to support his argument with facts. Its hard when you start off by denying the base legitimacy of the US Government (again thats a basic
moment). His supporters like you,
are good people, but have been bamboozled.
But yes, I can agree to disagree.
(EDIT ito absolutely clear I'm fine with all the posters here, and even his supporters overrall.)