|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Apr 23, 2014 17:04:45 GMT -5
Along the lines of Bastiat, ask yourself this question about government actions, "If I were to do the exact same thing as a private citizen, would I be charged with a crime for doing it?" If the answer is 'yes' then chances are the government is doing something unethical. And that really is the problem with what's going on with Bundy. I don't think anyone disputes that Bundy owes at least several hundred thousand dollars - not even Bundy disagrees with that. I don't think anyone disputes that Bundy doesn't own the land (he doesn't dispute that either), and very few people dispute that he doesn't have a right do graze his cattle on that land. What the dispute is mostly about is the heavy-handedness of the government's response, and to a lesser extent BLM's management practices on the land in question. If you, or I, sent a SWAT team in to intimidate our neighbors over some cattle, we'd be charged with a crime. Of course, you and I would have the sense to sit down with Bundy and attempt to come to a mutually agreeable solution to this problem instead of just issuing dictates. Good points, I wonder if this tortoise issue was ever raised nationally? Why not? If it is the peoples land then it should be voted on by the people in a national election, having this department make unilateral decisions that effect existing policy seems wrong, they are un elected officials and as such should answer to the people. The EPA suffers from the same problem, too much power gone to their heads, due process is thrown out the window. Now I know that there have been several trials, and have all ruled against Bundy, but really there were no legal steps short of rampaging, killing, and spending over a million dollars on top of what they haven't gotten in fees (which they didn't want anyway), and all over tortoises? Swat teams? I mean really.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Apr 23, 2014 17:09:15 GMT -5
And that really is the problem with what's going on with Bundy. I don't think anyone disputes that Bundy owes at least several hundred thousand dollars - not even Bundy disagrees with that. I don't think anyone disputes that Bundy doesn't own the land (he doesn't dispute that either), and very few people dispute that he doesn't have a right do graze his cattle on that land. What the dispute is mostly about is the heavy-handedness of the government's response, and to a lesser extent BLM's management practices on the land in question. If you, or I, sent a SWAT team in to intimidate our neighbors over some cattle, we'd be charged with a crime. Of course, you and I would have the sense to sit down with Bundy and attempt to come to a mutually agreeable solution to this problem instead of just issuing dictates. If Bundy were Black, do you think that outrage would be there? I don't. There may be no better example of racist privilege than the right to flout the government's authority and then back its agents down at gunpoint. There wouldn't be a problem because a black would have gotten special permission, they are the darlings of the left after all. Now when the next Black Rancher gets his land use taken away by the BLM please let us know so we can see if your theory is correct, until then it is just mental masturbation. It does seem that Native americans can have their land taken away, but then it probably wasn't an election year, and the media never heard about it, also being on tribal land I expect there would not have even been free speech zones allowed. Lets also not forget that Bundy had to raise a hugh and a cry to even get the attention he has gotten, if he had just caved we would not have heard a word at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 17:10:01 GMT -5
Along the lines of Bastiat, ask yourself this question about government actions, "If I were to do the exact same thing as a private citizen, would I be charged with a crime for doing it?" If the answer is 'yes' then chances are the government is doing something unethical. And that really is the problem with what's going on with Bundy. I don't think anyone disputes that Bundy owes at least several hundred thousand dollars - not even Bundy disagrees with that. I don't think anyone disputes that Bundy doesn't own the land (he doesn't dispute that either), and very few people dispute that he doesn't have a right do graze his cattle on that land. What the dispute is mostly about is the heavy-handedness of the government's response, and to a lesser extent BLM's management practices on the land in question. If you, or I, sent a SWAT team in to intimidate our neighbors over some cattle, we'd be charged with a crime. Of course, you and I would have the sense to sit down with Bundy and attempt to come to a mutually agreeable solution to this problem instead of just issuing dictates. The Bundy problem is better described as a tragedy of the commons. When property is held in common everyone wants the benefits and nobody wants the costs. What needs to happen there is a clear description of just who the owner is. I believe the state of Nevada is attempting to do that for themselves. That may not be the best solution but it beats the heavy handed approach of the Feds. There is absolutely no reason for me, a person who knows nothing about ranching and has never been to Nevada, to have a seat at the table for solving this problem. It is exactly why the Federal government shouldn't be involved. It needlessly drags the unconcerned, and worse, busy bodies, into decision making for which they have little to no stake in the result.
|
|
|
Post by joefriday on Apr 23, 2014 17:16:43 GMT -5
If Bundy were Black, do you think that outrage would be there? I don't. There may be no better example of racist privilege than the right to flout the government's authority and then back its agents down at gunpoint. There wouldn't be a problem because a black would have gotten special permission, they are the darlings of the left after all. Now when the next Black Rancher gets his land use taken away by the BLM please let us know so we can see if your theory is correct, until then it is just mental masturbation. It does seem that Native americans can have their land taken away, but then it probably wasn't an election year, and the media never heard about it, also being on tribal land I expect there would not have even been free speech zones allowed. Lets also not forget that Bundy had to raise a hugh and a cry to even get the attention he has gotten, if he had just caved we would not have heard a word at all. Was that special permission when the Philadelphia police dropped a bomb on MOVE? Where were the armed protestors up in firearms then? Where were they when the State aided the community in banishing Blacks from their own private property in places line Forsyth Co. GA? Picking up the scraps, no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by joefriday on Apr 23, 2014 17:17:42 GMT -5
And that really is the problem with what's going on with Bundy. I don't think anyone disputes that Bundy owes at least several hundred thousand dollars - not even Bundy disagrees with that. I don't think anyone disputes that Bundy doesn't own the land (he doesn't dispute that either), and very few people dispute that he doesn't have a right do graze his cattle on that land. What the dispute is mostly about is the heavy-handedness of the government's response, and to a lesser extent BLM's management practices on the land in question. If you, or I, sent a SWAT team in to intimidate our neighbors over some cattle, we'd be charged with a crime. Of course, you and I would have the sense to sit down with Bundy and attempt to come to a mutually agreeable solution to this problem instead of just issuing dictates. The Bundy problem is better described as a tragedy of the commons. When property is held in common everyone wants the benefits and nobody wants the costs. What needs to happen there is a clear description of just who the owner is. I believe the state of Nevada is attempting to do that for themselves. That may not be the best solution but it beats the heavy handed approach of the Feds. There is absolutely no reason for me, a person who knows nothing about ranching and has never been to Nevada, to have a seat at the table for solving this problem. It is exactly why the Federal government shouldn't be involved. It needlessly drags the unconcerned, and worse, busy bodies, into decision making for which they have little to no stake in the result. Thanks for chuckle. Bundy should have just paid his bill.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 17:19:28 GMT -5
He is allowed to make things up and attribute false positions to others... special privileges I guess. No, just adequate writing skills, sorry you have problems with reading. Writing skills my arse, you repeatedly attribute false positions to posters which on other boards would get you a time out. I have not problem reading your lies, I'll put my English skills above yours any day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 17:28:30 GMT -5
That was your inference and well you know it. Inference is not a statement of fact, now how many times have you lefties inferred things? Is this now off limits? Is it against the TOS? Really you are stretching here. If you would infer more often I am sure you would get fewer warnings from the mods, and hey maybe your blood pressure would lower some. Basically you lie by inference and then hide behind it. The fact that the mods allow you to do that on this board, doesn't make it right. Now, about my warnings, you infer that you know my warning status, therefore you are informed by the Mods. Do they know that you are making that known openly on the board? What is all this about blood pressure? It's a piece of cake showing you up for what you are.
|
|
|
Post by Desert Cowboy on Apr 23, 2014 17:46:51 GMT -5
The Bundy problem is better described as a tragedy of the commons. When property is held in common everyone wants the benefits and nobody wants the costs. What needs to happen there is a clear description of just who the owner is. I believe the state of Nevada is attempting to do that for themselves. That may not be the best solution but it beats the heavy handed approach of the Feds. There is absolutely no reason for me, a person who knows nothing about ranching and has never been to Nevada, to have a seat at the table for solving this problem. It is exactly why the Federal government shouldn't be involved. It needlessly drags the unconcerned, and worse, busy bodies, into decision making for which they have little to no stake in the result. Thanks for chuckle. Bundy should have just paid his bill. Therein lies the rub. He never agreed to pay the Feds anything when they took over for Nevada. 52 of his neighbors did and they've been put out of business. The question remains... why now... WHY the rush? The Feds proffer up this tale of the tortoise like they proffered up the tale of the 'Mohammed' video as a convenient excuse. They allowed running guns into Mexico on the pretense of 'tracking them'. Nobody even wants to touch Operation Castaway out of BATF Tampa... running guns to Honduras. Ohh... imagine what was coming back on the flip? But I digress... In all of this... just 'follow the money'. Follow the favors. Follow the corruption of Harry Reid.
|
|
|
Post by Desert Cowboy on Apr 23, 2014 18:04:15 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 18:07:29 GMT -5
Basically you lie by inference and then hide behind it. The fact that the mods allow you to do that on this board, doesn't make it right. Now, about my warnings, you infer that you know my warning status, therefore you are informed by the Mods. Do they know that you are making that known openly on the board? What is all this about blood pressure? It's a piece of cake showing you up for what you are. Interesting defense. I only know about your warning status because you are constantly whining about your warning status, and the fact that you think others are not getting the same warnings. So you yourself are the reason we know that you have crossed the line a lot. I have gotten one warning for "infering" that someone else was an idiot, but actually my post was inferring that the group the poster was talking about were the idiots, he just happened to be one of those number. So yes treading close to the "infer" line can cause one to cross over occasionally. The talk about blood pressure is the way your posts seem to reek of anger, and venom, oops, I am inferring something from your writing style again. How about lets stay on topic? Hmmmm. So how do you feel about how the BLM as acted with regards these trespassing cows? Do you think it is the proper course to spend over a million dollars to get rid of the cows when really all that needs doing is getting a court order to shut down the wells, and or put up a pen to catch them as they come to drink. I mean helicopters for gods sake, a bit of overkill that. Again you lie, post where I have "constantly whined" about my warning status. Links please. I have no anger or blood pressure problems, you just infer that I have. You must go through life inferring this and that, you must struggle with reality when it presents itself to you and you can't imagine it away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 18:20:09 GMT -5
Again you lie, post where I have "constantly whined" about my warning status. Links please. I have no anger or blood pressure problems, you just infer that I have. You must go through life inferring this and that, you must struggle with reality when it presents itself to you and you can't imagine it away. I hope you are happy now. You have managed to get a boat anchor assigned to this thread. How many threads have you done that to now? Of course I did help by not ignoring you, I have tried to answer all of your questions, you just don't seem to understand the answers. If you want to reread all of your posts you can certainly find where you have mentioned warnings.How about we just ignore each other? No, I haven't mentioned my warnings (as you claim) anywhere, that's why I challenged you to post links. It's just you lying through inference again. Yes, I single handedly got the thread anchored, wow! Such power.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 18:35:54 GMT -5
No, I haven't mentioned my warnings (as you claim) anywhere, that's why I challenged you to post links. It's just you lying through inference again. Yes, I single handedly got the thread anchored, wow! Such power. It took two to get it anchored, I have tried to answer all of your accusations, but you can't seem to comprehend my responses, you also cannot post about the subject of this thread, I have tried several times to steer it back on topic. Don't you recall when EY gave a warning on another thread about misbehavior on the thread, and you chimed in some whine that others were doing it, and he responded that it didn't matter who was doing it? If you were not one of the misbehaving posters then why chime in? Similar posts, and just reading your posting style is all that I needed. Calling people liars, not staying on topic, those are all problem posts. I know you must be having fun doing this, and it does seem to break the threads, so maybe this is just a tactic to stop the discussion of certain topics. Only you know your reasoning. More vacuous claptrap, you didn't answer my questions, you keep ducking them by saying that I don't comprehend your answers.
|
|
|
Post by Desert Cowboy on Apr 23, 2014 18:37:11 GMT -5
BLM's FB page is getting hammered. 'Doesn't matter the subject... it's all about the assault on Bundy and the BLM selling 'our' wild horses and burros to foreign abattoirs. I've yet to encounter a BLM dude in this desert. At this point... I doubt they want any personal 'encounters' with cowboys.
Umm... Baldy doesn't know zip about the subject of the thread and doesn't care. He just wants to argue. This person has serious issues in that regard. Put him on 'block'... I did.
|
|
|
Post by joefriday on Apr 23, 2014 19:28:56 GMT -5
Now there's a politician capitalizing on a current event. I wonder if it will help him in his gubernatorial race.
|
|
|
Post by Desert Cowboy on Apr 23, 2014 20:01:59 GMT -5
Now there's a politician capitalizing on a current event. I wonder if it will help him in his gubernatorial race. I really don't think it's posturing. Texans are like that... Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 23, 2014 20:15:35 GMT -5
And that really is the problem with what's going on with Bundy. I don't think anyone disputes that Bundy owes at least several hundred thousand dollars - not even Bundy disagrees with that. I don't think anyone disputes that Bundy doesn't own the land (he doesn't dispute that either), and very few people dispute that he doesn't have a right do graze his cattle on that land. What the dispute is mostly about is the heavy-handedness of the government's response, and to a lesser extent BLM's management practices on the land in question. If you, or I, sent a SWAT team in to intimidate our neighbors over some cattle, we'd be charged with a crime. Of course, you and I would have the sense to sit down with Bundy and attempt to come to a mutually agreeable solution to this problem instead of just issuing dictates. If Bundy were Black, do you think that outrage would be there? I don't. There may be no better example of racist privilege than the right to flout the government's authority and then back its agents down at gunpoint. You don't honestly believe that do you? If Bundy were black, Harry Reid would be shrieking that Eric Holder is a domestic terrorist because Holder would be right there, next to Bundy, protecting 'his people.'
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 23, 2014 20:21:56 GMT -5
And that really is the problem with what's going on with Bundy. I don't think anyone disputes that Bundy owes at least several hundred thousand dollars - not even Bundy disagrees with that. I don't think anyone disputes that Bundy doesn't own the land (he doesn't dispute that either), and very few people dispute that he doesn't have a right do graze his cattle on that land. What the dispute is mostly about is the heavy-handedness of the government's response, and to a lesser extent BLM's management practices on the land in question. If you, or I, sent a SWAT team in to intimidate our neighbors over some cattle, we'd be charged with a crime. Of course, you and I would have the sense to sit down with Bundy and attempt to come to a mutually agreeable solution to this problem instead of just issuing dictates. The Bundy problem is better described as a tragedy of the commons. When property is held in common everyone wants the benefits and nobody wants the costs. What needs to happen there is a clear description of just who the owner is. I believe the state of Nevada is attempting to do that for themselves. That may not be the best solution but it beats the heavy handed approach of the Feds. There is absolutely no reason for me, a person who knows nothing about ranching and has never been to Nevada, to have a seat at the table for solving this problem. It is exactly why the Federal government shouldn't be involved. It needlessly drags the unconcerned, and worse, busy bodies, into decision making for which they have little to no stake in the result. You must have read my post a few pages back. You're absolutely correct - the tragedy of the commons is the end result of all of this. You know, we have a massive national debt. And all this land that the Federal Government lacks the resources to properly maintain and manage - which is why they're attempting to do it by dictate. The land has no historical, recreational, national security, or even any significant natural resource value to the Federal Government. It costs the government a great deal to look after, causes conflict with neighbors, and offers no real benefit to the country. It should be sold off, the money used to retire the debt, and for the best interest of the land - which will now have someone with a vested interest in looking after it. Selling it is a win-win-win. Keeping it is nothing but a net loss for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Cuchulain on Apr 23, 2014 21:53:44 GMT -5
I'd like to know if someone could trace the title to that land that Bundy runs his cattle on. After rereading the penultimate clause of Article I Sec. 8, it is not at all clear to me who "owns" the land in question, or how that person or entity derives title.
Nevada became a State in 1864. I pose the question who had title to the land in Nevada on the date of its admission into the Union.
Did the property in question become "Federal land" because it was owned by no-one in particular at the time it was acquired as spoils in the Mexican War?
Did the indigenous occupants ever deed title to anyone, or was it just taken by the U.S.?
If a person occupied land on 30 October 1864, the day before Nevada Statehood, was his title, whether acquired by deed or possession, usurped by the claim of the U.S.?
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Apr 23, 2014 22:25:50 GMT -5
Again, the Feds don't legally own that land, so they are guilty of cattle rustling. That can still carry a death sentence if you are caught in the act. Just because it's "the government" doing it doesn't make it legal. The U.S. had held title to that particular land since 1848 when it was ceded to them by Mexico... and even before that since the GLO in 1812... how long do you want them to have "owned" it before they can protect it?... in essence, it's mine... and I want it protected... The Nevada constitution says that the state won't take away land previously owned by the U.S. government... Article I Section 2... Nevada state constitution... Sec: 2. Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States. All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.Reposted...
|
|
|
Post by joefriday on Apr 24, 2014 8:09:17 GMT -5
If Bundy were Black, do you think that outrage would be there? I don't. There may be no better example of racist privilege than the right to flout the government's authority and then back its agents down at gunpoint. You don't honestly believe that do you? If Bundy were black, Harry Reid would be shrieking that Eric Holder is a domestic terrorist because Holder would be right there, next to Bundy, protecting 'his people.' Love the hyperbole.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2014 8:59:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Apr 24, 2014 9:16:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Apr 24, 2014 9:40:19 GMT -5
Why does this thread have an anchor on it and marked "Sinking"?... is it because it is just getting good now since the truth and facts are coming out about Clive?...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2014 11:57:58 GMT -5
He has some backwards views on race, perhaps. Yet his resistance to Fed overreach is still legit. Just now he has something to over which to bond with Aboutwell!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2014 12:26:58 GMT -5
He has some backwards views on race, perhaps. Yet his resistance to Fed overreach is still legit. Just now he has something to over which to bond with Aboutwell! While this is true, it is hard to have sympathy for asshats. I suppose one could take the highroad and insist that even asshats have rights. It would be the correct thing to do. It is just tiresome.
|
|