Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Im sure there is plenty to the story that bolsters both sides. But at what point does that equate to this type of force being used against an unviolent American?
He stopped paying the grazing fee in 1993.
It was 5 years before a federal judges ruled that he had to stop grazing on federal land.
It was 15 more years, and another federal judge saying the same thing, before the feds started working to remove his cattle.
It has been almost a year since the second ruling.
How long do the feds allow someone to ignore the law and federal rulings before they take any sort of action? They are not doing anything to Bundy. They are removing his cattle from public land, like a federal judge ordered him to do 16 years ago.
Why is it any other case can be adjudicated through the courts but this one requires 200 armed men?
rw fauxrage is strong in this thread. He needs to be held accountable for being a freeloader.
Anyone who calls those murderers at Waco "peaceful American citizens" is a lying piece of shit. Period.[/QUOTE
The murderers at Waco were the Feds. The people inside the compound were peaceful citizens. They weren't breaking any laws until they were invaded.
Yeah, so murdering law enforcement officers who are serving a legal warrant isn't "breaking any laws"????
Sorry, I disagree.
If you watch the above interview of Bundy, you can see that it is quite that simple.
Do you mean "NOT quite that simple" ?
I've read his position - he's full of crap. He's a welfare cowboy whose family has been feeding off the public trough for 127 years. And he has 14 children to boot. He can't afford to pay for his cattle's feed, but he keeps cranking out kids that the taxpayers are gonna have to support as well.
This is the definition of generational welfare.
Yes, thank you.
I fail to see how this is any different than the mineral rights that the government gives to the oil companies. Please, do elucidate me.
Oh, wait. You need cheap gas. That's the difference.
Well, guess what? I'm primarily a vegetarian. The only time I buy beef is from ranchers like these. You know how much a pound of ground beef is from grass fed beef? About $12/lb. If we let the factory farms use the BLM to force these farmers out of business, you won't have that option anymore. Do you really know where most of your beef really comes from?
You will be left with beef polluted with bovine growth hormones, mad cow disease, super antibiotic resistant pathogens, & just generally nasty rotten stinking meat.
You really don't want to know where that shit you buy at Wal-Mart comes from. It certainly doesn't come from ranchers like this guys.
Bush-41 killed the Nazis at Ruby Ridge.
And the insane, pedophile cultists at Waco killed themselves.
not seeing the issue here. This guy is letting his cattle roam onto federal land because he's too cheap to buy feed for them.
So here are the facts as I understand them:
- Bundy's family has been using that land for grazing for generations.
- The government at some point, but after Bundy's family had been grazing there, claimed that the land was federal property.
- The government claims it is trying to protect some subspecies of tortoise.
- Bundy stopped paying his grazing fee in 1993.
If these facts are correct, then the only real thing to say is that the government had no right to the land in the first place, and that Bundy's family, and probably other ranchers who were driven from the area, had the property right to that land. As far as the argument regarding the tortoises goes, the government's success rate for protecting endangered or at risk species' is so low as to be essentially nonexistent, so it's not even a factor in this case.
How do you see the ownership of the land being with Bundy?? Did they file the deeds, pay the taxes or do all the other things that signify ownership?
Even Bundy agrees that it is public land.
But if you want to say that the Bundy family has owned it for 140 years, then I guess that they owe some pretty serious back taxes, wouldn't you say?
He stopped paying the grazing fee in 1993.
It was 5 years before a federal judges ruled that he had to stop grazing on federal land.
It was 15 more years, and another federal judge saying the same thing, before the feds started working to remove his cattle.
It has been almost a year since the second ruling.
How long do the feds allow someone to ignore the law and federal rulings before they take any sort of action? They are not doing anything to Bundy. They are removing his cattle from public land, like a federal judge ordered him to do 16 years ago.
Why is it any other case can be adjudicated through the courts but this one requires 200 armed men?
It HAS been adjudicated through the courts. Bundy ignore the rulings for better than 15 years, and continued to graze his hundreds of head of cattle for free.
This entire operation is about removing the cattle. They are not in a stand-off with Bundy.
rw fauxrage is strong in this thread. He needs to be held accountable for being a freeloader.
Do you know anything about ranching or free grazing? What he is doing is nothing new to this country. In fact free grazing was the norm for generations. No one is losing anything, the land is unused otherwise. This is just the government poaching the pockets of ranchers. What YOU normally refer to as CEO greed
So here are the facts as I understand them:
- Bundy's family has been using that land for grazing for generations.
- The government at some point, but after Bundy's family had been grazing there, claimed that the land was federal property.
- The government claims it is trying to protect some subspecies of tortoise.
- Bundy stopped paying his grazing fee in 1993.
If these facts are correct, then the only real thing to say is that the government had no right to the land in the first place, and that Bundy's family, and probably other ranchers who were driven from the area, had the property right to that land. As far as the argument regarding the tortoises goes, the government's success rate for protecting endangered or at risk species' is so low as to be essentially nonexistent, so it's not even a factor in this case.
How do you see the ownership of the land being with Bundy?? Did they file the deeds, pay the taxes or do all the other things that signify ownership?
Even Bundy agrees that it is public land.
But if you want to say that the Bundy family has owned it for 140 years, then I guess that they owe some pretty serious back taxes, wouldn't you say?
These are simply state-created indicators of ownership, but irrelevant to whether the property right is rightfully that of the ranchers who mixed their labor with the land. I own this computer that I'm writing this post on, but if I had to prove that I would probably find myself coming up empty. I have no deed to this computer, in other words, but it's still my property. The government can't simply come and take it from me.
And no, as a libertarian I would say they do not owe taxes on their own property. That makes no sense at all. If I own something where does anybody get the right to tell me that I have to pay them a fee to use it? That would indicate that they own it, which is not the case.
The government paid Randy Weaver money because it was cheaper than litigating with him.
They should have fought that Nazi fuck every step of the way.
Why is it any other case can be adjudicated through the courts but this one requires 200 armed men?
It HAS been adjudicated through the courts. Bundy ignore the rulings for better than 15 years, and continued to graze his hundreds of head of cattle for free.
This entire operation is about removing the cattle. They are not in a stand-off with Bundy.
That would put him in contempt of court and he could have been jailed YEARS, shit, DECADES ago. The government as usual has let this boil over into this mess.
[
Wrong Did ya ever wonder why the Feds paid Randy weaver a very large sum of money??
If you think what happened at ether place was good Gov,your simpley an idiot.
The government paid Randy Weaver money because it was cheaper than litigating with him.
They should have fought that Nazi fuck every step of the way.
So here are the facts as I understand them:
- Bundy's family has been using that land for grazing for generations.
- The government at some point, but after Bundy's family had been grazing there, claimed that the land was federal property.
- The government claims it is trying to protect some subspecies of tortoise.
- Bundy stopped paying his grazing fee in 1993.
If these facts are correct, then the only real thing to say is that the government had no right to the land in the first place, and that Bundy's family, and probably other ranchers who were driven from the area, had the property right to that land. As far as the argument regarding the tortoises goes, the government's success rate for protecting endangered or at risk species' is so low as to be essentially nonexistent, so it's not even a factor in this case.
How do you see the ownership of the land being with Bundy?? Did they file the deeds, pay the taxes or do all the other things that signify ownership?
Even Bundy agrees that it is public land.
But if you want to say that the Bundy family has owned it for 140 years, then I guess that they owe some pretty serious back taxes, wouldn't you say?
These are simply state-created indicators of ownership, but irrelevant to whether the property right is rightfully that of the ranchers who mixed their labor with the land. I own this computer that I'm writing this post on, but if I had to prove that I would probably find myself coming up empty. I have no deed to this computer, in other words, but it's still my property. The government can't simply come and take it from me.
And no, as a libertarian I would say they do not owe taxes on their own property. That makes no sense at all. If I own something where does anybody get the right to tell me that I have to pay them a fee to use it? That would indicate that they own it, which is not the case.
How do you see the ownership of the land being with Bundy?? Did they file the deeds, pay the taxes or do all the other things that signify ownership?
Even Bundy agrees that it is public land.
But if you want to say that the Bundy family has owned it for 140 years, then I guess that they owe some pretty serious back taxes, wouldn't you say?
These are simply state-created indicators of ownership, but irrelevant to whether the property right is rightfully that of the ranchers who mixed their labor with the land. I own this computer that I'm writing this post on, but if I had to prove that I would probably find myself coming up empty. I have no deed to this computer, in other words, but it's still my property. The government can't simply come and take it from me.
And no, as a libertarian I would say they do not owe taxes on their own property. That makes no sense at all. If I own something where does anybody get the right to tell me that I have to pay them a fee to use it? That would indicate that they own it, which is not the case.
I have no problem with the removal of property taxes. But do it all over, not in just a special case.
And you actually purchased your computer. The Bundy family has apparently just allowed their cattle to graze on public land for years.
As I have said, even Cliven Bundy has stated that it is public land.
It HAS been adjudicated through the courts. Bundy ignore the rulings for better than 15 years, and continued to graze his hundreds of head of cattle for free.
This entire operation is about removing the cattle. They are not in a stand-off with Bundy.
That would put him in contempt of court and he could have been jailed YEARS, shit, DECADES ago. The government as usual has let this boil over into this mess.
So the fact that they waited and did NOT rush in makes this mess the fault of the feds??
lmao
How do you see the ownership of the land being with Bundy?? Did they file the deeds, pay the taxes or do all the other things that signify ownership?
Even Bundy agrees that it is public land.
But if you want to say that the Bundy family has owned it for 140 years, then I guess that they owe some pretty serious back taxes, wouldn't you say?
These are simply state-created indicators of ownership, but irrelevant to whether the property right is rightfully that of the ranchers who mixed their labor with the land. I own this computer that I'm writing this post on, but if I had to prove that I would probably find myself coming up empty. I have no deed to this computer, in other words, but it's still my property. The government can't simply come and take it from me.
And no, as a libertarian I would say they do not owe taxes on their own property. That makes no sense at all. If I own something where does anybody get the right to tell me that I have to pay them a fee to use it? That would indicate that they own it, which is not the case.
You were given a receipt for the purchase of your computer. If Bundy can show a receipt where he paid his grazing fees - no problem.
IMHO - a very poor analogy.
These are simply state-created indicators of ownership, but irrelevant to whether the property right is rightfully that of the ranchers who mixed their labor with the land. I own this computer that I'm writing this post on, but if I had to prove that I would probably find myself coming up empty. I have no deed to this computer, in other words, but it's still my property. The government can't simply come and take it from me.
And no, as a libertarian I would say they do not owe taxes on their own property. That makes no sense at all. If I own something where does anybody get the right to tell me that I have to pay them a fee to use it? That would indicate that they own it, which is not the case.
I have no problem with the removal of property taxes. But do it all over, not in just a special case.
And you actually purchased your computer. The Bundy family has apparently just allowed their cattle to graze on public land for years.
As I have said, even Cliven Bundy has stated that it is public land.
It doesn't matter what Bundy says. Just because he thinks something doesn't make it true.
In regards to my computer, I did the same thing Bundy's family, and other ranchers did, to their land, only I did it indirectly. They mixed their labor directly with unowned, unoccupied land, thus creating their own property right into it. Now my computer was already owned by somebody else before I owned it, but my labor indirectly led me into owning it. The principle remains the same regardless of whether you've directly or indirectly mixed your labor with that which you now own.
The government had no right to take that land from its rightful owners, even if those owners never really thought of themselves as the owners.
That would put him in contempt of court and he could have been jailed YEARS, shit, DECADES ago. The government as usual has let this boil over into this mess.
So the fact that they waited and did NOT rush in makes this mess the fault of the feds??
lmao
What exactly did they expect him to do if they showed they had no intention of enforcing any court decisions?
This is entirely their fault. Apparently they had the law on their side and what did they do to enforce it? Nothing.......yeah, great deterrent
