Yesterday - Bundy Ranch
- Thread starter GoJazz
- Start date
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
First off, what a horrible argument. Just horrible. Lets stick to the fact, ok? No need for anything else. If you can't use the facts to make you sound right, then maybe there's a reason for that. Also, we own our land. Have papers and everything, like any other normal person who farms. The land that we lease from the state, we realize that if we don't do what they want, they can take it from us, even though we've been farming it for decades. Does it suck? Absolutely, but those are the rules and we follow them. If they tried to take the land that we owned, they would have to pay us. If they took the land that we leased, well…it's already theirs. They don't owe us ****. This isn't complicated.
- Bundy's grazing ground that he does not own, got turned into BLM land.
- If he owned it, it would have been a case of eminent domain, and he would have gotten paid for it. He did not, and he's been in courtrooms for 20 years, thus signifying that he did not own the land, and he knows it.
- Bundy hasn't paid his grazing fees for 20 years, thus owing $1.1 million.
- Bundy got warned his cattle would be taken if he didn't move, so he didn't move.
- Bundy's cattle got taken away in a reprehensible way, and the BLM overstepped their boundaries.
- If Bundy would have listened, he could have paid $55,000 a year, which is a lot of money, but he could have easily paid for it. Or he could have relocated.
- If Bundy listened, he would still be ranching, and we wouldn't be having this stupid debate.
- Essentially, if Bundy would have just forked out the money (and I'm sure his legal costs were higher than the leasing costs), then he could still be ranching, still be with his family, and we wouldn't be having these problems. Bundy was greedy and didn't want to pay for the land, I don't feel bad for him.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
Actually, Bundy created the conflict by not obeying the law, the BLM escalated it.
No defense for the BLM in that regard, and like I said earlier, it is frightening.
That doesn't mean that we need to have the militia out there trying to rile up a fight. It's not helping anybody, especially the Bundy's.
Eh, I see them as 50/50 partners in creating this situation. Bundy could have done things differently but that holds true for the BLM as well.
But I see not point in arguing who is at fault foor this fiasco as that is now the minor story here. This is now about a group of people resisting what they view as a tyrannical gov.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
Umm…if Bundy pays his fees, then they don't take his cattle, which means the BLM isn't there. That sure as hell ain't 50/50.
Where the BLM went wrong is how they took the cattle. No defense for how they did that.
If BLM had done what it was created to do then we wouldn't be here either.
Not to mention the part you already concede.
Or how about the Homestead Act back int he 1800s that gave ownership to people for settlign the land? The Bundy family use of that land predates the BLM.
The government changed the purpose of the BLM after it was created.
This fight has changed into one of a runaway government and not one on who is at fault over some cattle.
I'm disappointed in Hantlers tbh. I would have suspected he, of most all people here, would see that just because some dudes (aka gov't) can make rules that are ******** that shouldn't necessarily be followed blindly. Whether Bundy is right or wrong is immaterial to me (I cannot have possibly said that any clearer, yet some of you guys can't grasp that), it's the fact that he 'thinks' he's right and how the feds have decided to show him their opinion differs.
If the feds would have come in, arrested him for monies owed, contempt of court, etc.. I wouldn't have ever made a single post on this subject.
So, someone, anyone.. understand what I am talking about... and it IS NOT about the Bundy's rights, per se.
If the feds would have come in, arrested him for monies owed, contempt of court, etc.. I wouldn't have ever made a single post on this subject.
So, someone, anyone.. understand what I am talking about... and it IS NOT about the Bundy's rights, per se.
No I didn't mean to "insinuate" or in any manner allege something wrong with you. I got it that you said, in the first place, that you're not against grazing per se.
If you drive 65 across the Nevada deserts you're probably going too slow. 75 is the speed limit generally on the flats. In Utah I was doing 85 on a very remote highway recently, and the sheriff clocked me. I surrendered peaceably. The poor man didn't want to give me the ticket. He asked for my registration, proof of insurance, and drivers license. . . . and my lead foot. Funny thing about my driving. I do sixty maybe sixty five most of the time, but once in a while when it's downhill with a tailwind I just don't notice my real speed. I drive by the seat of my pants. . . .
I had no intention of doing anything but admitting my guilt and paying the fine, but the sheriff just handed my stuff back and asked me if I'd just look at the speedoimeter instead of the scenery. I said "Yes, Sir", and I'll be feeling guilty for many moons to come whenever I forget to check my speed, and in fact I'll be checking my speed much more. . . .
I don't hate "law" per se, and I don't imagine anyone can just be unaccountable to authority.
Once in a while there is someone, perhaps a mini-Gandhi, who has a reason to disobey an unjust law. Until Bundy gets to the Supreme Court he hasn't exhausted his right to appeal any court decision. If Bundy can make his case in the public eye, he might be able to provoke Congress to apply some oversight to a Federal Agency that's supposed to be under our management.
If people want a better government they have every right to act peaceably to secure that kind of government. Or, if need be, people have the right fight for the rights they hold dearer than life. Government has no rights, but what we give it.
That's the American Way.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
We've been over the Homestead Act already. Keep up.
He may have used the land, but it's pretty damn obvious he never owned it.
All I need is a paper saying that he paid for it, or that he has any ownership in it. Clearly that has never been produced.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
Some of us just understand how the government works. I've seen people deal with eminent domain, and how you deal with it is that you have no choice. Go ahead and try to argue it, you won't win, just lose money and time. Anybody that leases land knows that there is a chance they won't use that land the next year. If you don't plan accordingly, then that's your own damn fault.
Whether Bundy is right or wrong is important, because it plays the factor in why the BLM is there. If he thinks he's right, and he's wrong, then the BLM has the right to take his cattle.
Have I once said that I agreed with how the BLM went about this? Do try to pay attention old man.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure(could be wrong) you had to fence the land to be able to claim it.
This is no longer about if he owns the land or not (besides for his fmaily). So who is the one who really needs to keep up?
That's rich. You've completely ignored the crux of my issue with this and continue to debate the non-issue.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
You do realize you're the one who brought up the Homestead Act…right?
So if it's not about it, why bring it up?
Because you won't shut up about it.
I've said multiple times, along with PKM, that the Bundy/BLM issue is no longer what this fight is about.
The Forest Service and BLM are staffed mostly by ordinary Americans following administrative policies they didn't make up. Some of the expansions of government power over state territory have been enacted by Congress and signed by Presidents, and sustained by Supreme Court Judges. But there is a whole lot of "administrative rules" and "department policies" that don't go through that process at all. In fact, the BLM has it's own police force, armed and trained like a paramilitary organization with an "Us vs. Them" mentality, the mentality of an occupation army seizing hostile territory. The BLM and Forest Service even have their own "Administrative Judges", like many other federal agencies. What this all amounts to is that Federal Agencies act independently of the people of this country, and in the service of a few powerful "elites" who have visions of how best to manage the land and the people, who are in no sense "elected representatives". What we have ion our hands in this country is a whole bunch of little fascist dictatorships with lots of guns on the ground.
Until Congress realizes we won't put up with this kind of government, and the President thinks better about how to "execute" the laws, and until the Judges put their little pinkies out in the wind and realize that we won't tolerate them ignoring fundamental Constitutional provisions for a government held in check and held accountable to the people, this is the real issue of human rights today. This kind of arrogance by government agencies has got to be ended.
The only reason most people put up with it is because our media is in the tank with the elites and the managerial crowd of knowitalls who are all too willing to assert more power than the people should tolerate them having. If more people lived in direct contact with the BLM and FS. . .. and many other fed agencies. . . . they would soon see the pattern I'm talking about. And not very many of you would really want it, if you knew it as it is.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
The only time I've actually mentioned the Homestead Act was in response to somebody else who brought it up.
Then you brought it up, and when I respond to it, you reply by saying that it's not the issue. You brought the damn issue up!