I'm passionate about something that you are not. Yet you sure are pesky about following me around and letting me know how much smarter you are and more genuine than I am. It's been noted, but please feel free to keep it up.
Yesterday - Bundy Ranch
- Thread starter GoJazz
- Start date
I'm passionate about something that you are not. Yet you sure are pesky about following me around and letting me know how much smarter you are and more genuine than I am. It's been noted, but please feel free to keep it up.
calls to mind an old-fashioned religious song. . . . "Nay, Speak No Ill". . . ..
funny how right the socialist humorist Ambrose Bierce was about how people can hardly see themselves for what they are, even while they condemn others for being essentially the same as they themselves are. . . . .
b_line
Well-Known Member
He's Saul Goodman.
b_line
Well-Known Member
Oh, so he's managing a tcby in Omaha?
Duck Rodgers
Well-Known Member
Mike Huckabee is who you are thinking of.
Actually, all I did was google hannity extreme and came up with these. As if I needed more evidence, but I figure I better show you that there totally is another way to think besides your own(a lesson even I sometimes forget).
"Objective differences in opinions" and "Take my ball and go home" are entirely two different things.
Passion without thought is just a lot of hot air.
I'm not really certain what constitutes "following you around." We interact in very few threads (I'm pretty sure this is the only one presently) and I let you run around in this thread for a week or two before I said anything pointing out that you were misrepresenting timelines, quoting articles without linking to them, and posting court cases without any context as to why they were analogous to the Bundy's situation. I can assure you that I'm not so focused on you as an individual that I feel the need to "follow you around."
I had a mild interest in the underlying subject matter, and any amount of research or reading of the court documents in this case leads to the conclusion that the Bundy's haven't been deprived of due process or treated unfairly and have simply lost on the law. You don't seem capable of engaging on that front but are really invested in being a weekend rancher and/or militia groupie. I'm sure this is fun, but that's about all it is. Bunch of boys playing army guy.
I think it is fair to assume that PKM has placed much thought into this.
The Bundy's absolutely lost on the law. Good point. Since then however they have been treated very unfairly. The heavy handedness, excessive waste, abuse and destruction of the BLM has been mind numbing.
If you concede that they lost on the law, then what is the part of saying "you didn't pay your grazing rights, so now we will seize your property" that's unfair? What should they have done instead to enforce their judgment?
Isn't it excessively clear that demanding the cattle back and being upset about taking and or destroying property generally is really a way of saying they don't want to pay the judgment?
I do enjoy the Daily Show segment on this, particularly the critique of Bundy waving an American flag around.
[video]https://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/v4jh6e/apocalypse-cow
They didn't just seize it. They responded with a few hundred heavily armed (assault rifles, snopers, K9 units, tasers, helicopters...) before all the protestors started showing up. Then the proceeded to round up the cattle. They seperated new born calves fromtheir mothers and let them die. They shot numerous cattle, destroyed water lines, roadways, water tanks, holding pens...
Confiscation is fine, but that isn't what happened here. Again, I am not defending Bundy. Just hitting the BLM for their insanely excessive initial activity.
So I think the extent of what the BLM's activities has been way overblown.
I've asked one question multiple times and no one has even attempted to answer it: If the BLM did not bring sufficient forces to get the job done, then how is it possible that they brought too many people?
People act like tons of cattle died. I've seen it described as a "mass grave" and "animal auschwitz." The actual number is six. From a right-wing news source: https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/21/BLM-Confirms-It-Killed-Six-Of-Bundy-s-Cows
You'll note the number of those cows that demonstrably belong to Bundy (based on brand) is two. So how many calves could really have been stranded and separated from mothers? How many cattle did they actually "shoot?"
In terms of what the Bundy camp have called "ranch improvements" it's very clear that everything that was taken down was on federal land and was built and placed without permit and without permission by the land owners. In essence this is the same complaint as the grazing rights issue, that the Bundy's aren't allowed to use federal lands for free like they want to.
In terms of the size of the compound and everything that was supposedly there I've gone looking for pictures and it's hard to substantiate the claims that there were hundreds of armed troopers. The videos of the standoff itself seem to show that there are a handful of federal agents and 3-5 vehicles. In terms of the huge compound itself I was able to find these aerial shots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOjheKG1eOA
This doesn't look like some massive military complex. It appears there are some mobile trailers set up as office space and temporary living facilities but this isn't some massive military operation like others are describing it as.
They did not bring suffecient people to stand off a few hundred (300 roughly - I think) angry protestors. But since when are snipers, K9 units and tasers etc. needed at a round up. That is what the BLM had when it was just the Bundy's.
As for the cattle and damage. There are multiple pictures and acocutns of the damage for those that wish to go look.
Also whya re you atributing what a bunch of other people said to me? I never said "massive military complex". But since all this was on federal land it should just be allowed? If they don't want it then dismantle it not destroy it. Bundy is in the wrong, legally, but the BLM dramatically over reached.
So lets take this piece by piece.
Snipers? Where are pictures of these snipers or anyone saying that they existed with credible support. I've seen pictures of protesters on I-15 in sniper positions pointing at federal agents, but I've seen nothing regarding federal snipers. The most I've seen regarding any kind of snipers or special forces is from sources like this one that seem to be focusing on pictures of a specific person who they baldly assert (with no backup) is some kind of special agent: https://misguidedchildren.com/domes...ers-among-blm-agents-at-the-bundy-ranch/19404. Now maybe you think this is a sign of bias, but if it appears to me that PearlWatson wrote the article, I don't accord it any weight or credibility without secondary sourcing.
The only other source I've seen regarding snipers or "hit men" of any kind is Sheriff Mack, and that's the guy that PKM is explicitly disclaiming in this thread as not knowing what he's talking about and the source for the "we're going to put women and children at the front for the cameras" statement. Suffice to say, this guy doesn't seem to be the brightest person in the world.
K-9: How many were there? A handful? I've seen evidence of two K-9 units. Maybe they shouldn't have been there, but is this really so "excessive" that it justifies an armed conflict?
Tasers: Aren't these standard issue on police at this point?
One thing to note, is that the Federal Government signaled to the court when it sought to obtain an order to seize and impound ranch property that might need to bring additional forces because Bundy was likely to resist violently. This was originally filed in court in the summer of 2013 and was specifically noted in the court order more than six months ago.
https://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medi... Order Granting Motion to Enforce 10-9-13.pdf
Just because I haven't answered your questions to this point doesn't mean I haven't given this thought. Awfully arrogant of you to suggest that.
Okay, I'll concede that you're not following me around.
You do realize that there are more events, facts, and stories that exist outside of court documents, right? I agree the Bundy's have not been deprived of due process, but I completely disagree that they have not been treated unfairly and did not 'simply' lose on the law. Again, there is a big difference between being incapable of engaging versus being unwilling to engage. In this case, it was a timing issue for me. In the post following this one, I will be re-engaging with the info you and others have been asking for.
Btw, I grew up on a ranch, so it may be fair to suggest I quite enjoy playing rancher again in my free time. Militia?? No.
Smh at this. The reason is because they came in too heavy (getting tons of attention from people asking why and taking action to find out) AND moved at a snail's pace, allowing too much support to show up to the ranch. All those protesters weren't there when the BLM showed up.
I'm not certain what difference it really makes how many cattle died. To my knowledge, they only shot two... but many others were 'ran to death.' "Mass graves" may be a bit of hyperbole, but digging up trenches with buried cattle in them may seem like a mass grave to a rancher, even if it were only 6. The Bundy's believe they are missing 36 cows... but it's pretty immaterial to me.... at this point in time.
Fair enough, but I am still not convinced (court delivered or not) that the feds legally own the land. (not interested in debating that at this time... it's not where my passions lie.. but I'm getting to that later.)
Don't know what to tell you, but there were... and it's not a claim the feds are denying. The feds were never all in the same place, but spread out in washes, on hill tops, patrolling, etc. There were choppers, armored vehicles, snipers, etc..... but whatever. No biggie, at this point.
I already addressed this above... doesn't matter to me whether you believe it.. it's not important to me anymore. I'm glad the feds did it, in retrospect.
1998.. I'll be getting to that.
Uh, yeah.
Also the expense.
I resent that last sentence. Get your *** down there and make an informed decision whether these are overgrown boys pretending to be patriots or see for yourself if maybe.. just maybe, they are truly very passionate about their beliefs in state sovereignty and other issues that they are allowed to have convictions for.. and your nor the court's approval is necessary in the United States.
On to some things now that I have uncovered in my research.
I will not be covering the state sovereignty issue here.. again, because it's not my main issue with what is going on here.
Also, fwiw, I am a die-hard HATER of conspiracy theories, they piss me off, in fact.
Okay, where do I start... (this is all the research I've done to try to find out why this one rancher in the middle of nowhere became a big deal to the feds.. it smelled fishy to me)
Summary: Harry Reid (and others I will name as their 'moments' pop up in the story) has been utilizing law firms masquerading as environmentalist companies to rid the land of ranchers. The phony environmentalists file law suits (primarily against the BLM) to protect certain endangered species. BLM takes action and forces ranchers to reduce their herds to small remnants, to protect the turtle (as well as 400+ other endangered species).
Why would they do that?
In 1993 Reid gets Patricia Mulroy appointed as General Manager the Southern Utah Water Conservancy. Her job should be fairly obvious.. manage and GET water for Las Vegas and its continued growth. This is the year that things ratchet up BIG time with ranchers of Clark County that have vested water rights. As I'm sure most know.. water rights are a "use it or lose it" right.
Until 1993, Bundy had paid his grazing rights. In 1993 he stopped. Why? The BLM, under pressure from environmentalist groups, informed Bundy that to protect the tortoise he would have to reduce his herd down to 150 from 1000. This would make him lose his livelihood.. and also his water rights. So he refused. He also refused to acknowledge that the feds had the right to do that on what he believes should be state land.. but let's steer clear of there for now. It should be noted, however, that the Bundy family showed up in Bunkerville under the Lincoln introduced Homestead Act of 1862, in 1877. The federal government 'asked' these ranchers and farmers to go west.
This same action was being taken against rancher after rancher in Clark County.
It was a water grab.
Fast forward to 1998. He wants more, now Reid petitions Las Vegas planning committee to expand the size of Las Vegas by tens of thousands of acres. The committee isn't pleased, they know the water isn't available for anything like that. Mulroy states the only way she would back such an expansion is if they can build a pipeline to get water either from the Colorado River or from the great basin. Where would the money come from? Mulroy's plan was to sell off federal land with 10% of the proceeds going to the water conservancy district to build the pipeline.
There was a problem. The restrictions on selling federal land made it a bit cumbersome to do so. So Reid and Senator Ensign co-introduced a bill to remove the restrictions and were successful.
1998. This was the year the Bundy's were ordered off the BLM land they had been grazing for 150 years. By now, almost every rancher had lost their livelihoods (and most every single one were paying their grazing fees) due, in most part, to the forced reduction of their herd size.
This land that was once homesteaded and ranched but was lost due to the protection of the tortoise began being sold off and the coffers of the water conservancy district bolstered. How much? $300,000,000+
Some of this land was acquired by Whittemore to build the Coyote Springs Resort. The resort was fought by the EPA and some environmentalists, but they were now suddenly defeated and the same 'restrictions' that ran off the ranchers had now suddenly vanished. At the time the above mentioned resort was approved, it included 12 golf courses and 160,000 home sites. A far bit more intrusive than the cattle that were ran off the ground, I dare guess.
It was a land grab.
This is why I find the 2013 case overseen by Judge Richard C. Jones as relevant here. Judge Jones strongly proclaimed corruption and conspiracy from the highest offices of the NV government... the same faces involved in the Bundy scheme.
I'll let that simmer and come back with more. More detail, more proof. I only waited to tell this story (semi)publicly here until I was given the go ahead by someone advising me, that I trust.
Also, fwiw, I am a die-hard HATER of conspiracy theories, they piss me off, in fact.
Okay, where do I start... (this is all the research I've done to try to find out why this one rancher in the middle of nowhere became a big deal to the feds.. it smelled fishy to me)
Summary: Harry Reid (and others I will name as their 'moments' pop up in the story) has been utilizing law firms masquerading as environmentalist companies to rid the land of ranchers. The phony environmentalists file law suits (primarily against the BLM) to protect certain endangered species. BLM takes action and forces ranchers to reduce their herds to small remnants, to protect the turtle (as well as 400+ other endangered species).
Why would they do that?
In 1993 Reid gets Patricia Mulroy appointed as General Manager the Southern Utah Water Conservancy. Her job should be fairly obvious.. manage and GET water for Las Vegas and its continued growth. This is the year that things ratchet up BIG time with ranchers of Clark County that have vested water rights. As I'm sure most know.. water rights are a "use it or lose it" right.
Until 1993, Bundy had paid his grazing rights. In 1993 he stopped. Why? The BLM, under pressure from environmentalist groups, informed Bundy that to protect the tortoise he would have to reduce his herd down to 150 from 1000. This would make him lose his livelihood.. and also his water rights. So he refused. He also refused to acknowledge that the feds had the right to do that on what he believes should be state land.. but let's steer clear of there for now. It should be noted, however, that the Bundy family showed up in Bunkerville under the Lincoln introduced Homestead Act of 1862, in 1877. The federal government 'asked' these ranchers and farmers to go west.
This same action was being taken against rancher after rancher in Clark County.
It was a water grab.
Fast forward to 1998. He wants more, now Reid petitions Las Vegas planning committee to expand the size of Las Vegas by tens of thousands of acres. The committee isn't pleased, they know the water isn't available for anything like that. Mulroy states the only way she would back such an expansion is if they can build a pipeline to get water either from the Colorado River or from the great basin. Where would the money come from? Mulroy's plan was to sell off federal land with 10% of the proceeds going to the water conservancy district to build the pipeline.
There was a problem. The restrictions on selling federal land made it a bit cumbersome to do so. So Reid and Senator Ensign co-introduced a bill to remove the restrictions and were successful.
1998. This was the year the Bundy's were ordered off the BLM land they had been grazing for 150 years. By now, almost every rancher had lost their livelihoods (and most every single one were paying their grazing fees) due, in most part, to the forced reduction of their herd size.
This land that was once homesteaded and ranched but was lost due to the protection of the tortoise began being sold off and the coffers of the water conservancy district bolstered. How much? $300,000,000+
Some of this land was acquired by Whittemore to build the Coyote Springs Resort. The resort was fought by the EPA and some environmentalists, but they were now suddenly defeated and the same 'restrictions' that ran off the ranchers had now suddenly vanished. At the time the above mentioned resort was approved, it included 12 golf courses and 160,000 home sites. A far bit more intrusive than the cattle that were ran off the ground, I dare guess.
It was a land grab.
This is why I find the 2013 case overseen by Judge Richard C. Jones as relevant here. Judge Jones strongly proclaimed corruption and conspiracy from the highest offices of the NV government... the same faces involved in the Bundy scheme.
I'll let that simmer and come back with more. More detail, more proof. I only waited to tell this story (semi)publicly here until I was given the go ahead by someone advising me, that I trust.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik
Reading about PKM and Hannity and a bunch of pissed off rednecks having an anti-federal guvmint orgie reminds me of this south park episode where a bunch of redneck whites get pissed over Mexicans taking their jobs.
They're all emotional, pissed, and completely irrational.
This whole situation just reeks of more redneck birther tea partiers pissed off at the guvmint (because, the guvmint is the root of all evil. Never ever can we ever blame a fellow white "conservative.") being exploited by a desperate (overrated) conservative commentator (Hannity).
No longer can they bitch and moan about Obamacare's signups. Benghazi and the IRS has lost steam. So this imaginary "crime" has gotta sustain the crazies until June. That's when the "next" Obama/federal guvmint crime against conservatives will come. The same people will be all up in arms while the rest of us just kinda watch on.
This one truly is hilarious to watch because it really does look like a bunch of 12 year olds playing "war" in their backyard.
It's funny how the law is the law and should never ever ever be broken for illegals and Occupy Wall Street. But it's not the law when it comes to Bundy.
Reading about PKM and Hannity and a bunch of pissed off rednecks having an anti-federal guvmint orgie reminds me of this south park episode where a bunch of redneck whites get pissed over Mexicans taking their jobs.
They're all emotional, pissed, and completely irrational.
This whole situation just reeks of more redneck birther tea partiers pissed off at the guvmint (because, the guvmint is the root of all evil. Never ever can we ever blame a fellow white "conservative.") being exploited by a desperate (overrated) conservative commentator (Hannity).
No longer can they bitch and moan about Obamacare's signups. Benghazi and the IRS has lost steam. So this imaginary "crime" has gotta sustain the crazies until June. That's when the "next" Obama/federal guvmint crime against conservatives will come. The same people will be all up in arms while the rest of us just kinda watch on.
This one truly is hilarious to watch because it really does look like a bunch of 12 year olds playing "war" in their backyard.
It's funny how the law is the law and should never ever ever be broken for illegals and Occupy Wall Street. But it's not the law when it comes to Bundy.
That's my fear.. that We the People have become desensitized and simply expect these things to happen and say meh..
Not me. I intend to do what I can to find justice. I mean that.
I'm so glad almost everything you back is the complete opposite of what I back. It makes me feel better about myself.
I know, petty... but it's the small victories in life that can bring joy.