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.
If you park your car where it is not allowed, it gets impounded and towed.
In this case, the Feds confiscated his cattle to sell. That is THEFT.
Leave your car on gov't property for 21 years without paying and see if they don't sell your car to pay the fines and fees.
Leave your car on your own property and then see the feds to nationalize your property is a more apt analogy.
Actually, if you don't come and pay the fine THEY CAN SELL YOUR CAR.
IF you don't come and pay. That's a lot different than selling the car or destroying it without giving you a chance to do so.
In the case of the rancher, he has a valid dispute that he should even have to pay - and the government is engaging in defacto terrorism against him and his family.
The BLM raised the grazing fee and the rancher stopped paying completely. Then he kept grazing his cattle for 21 years. No, he does not have a dispute. He has a large debt.
Leave your car on gov't property for 21 years without paying and see if they don't sell your car to pay the fines and fees.
Leave your car on your own property and then see the feds to nationalize your property is a more apt analogy.
Again, horseshit. They didn't take away his land. They simply assumed ownership of unowned land. The fact that Bundy's family allowed their cattle to graze on the land does not equate to ownership.
The feds took unowned property under federal control. Then allowed Bundy to use it for his commercial cattle operation, for a fee. Bundy disagreed with the fee increase, so he stopped paying anything.
Ok who does. Can you provide the link to individual bill of sale specifying who owns the land?
Forgive me but I always thought we, the collective we, owned this country, not specific government individuals. Government workers, are our employees, not our slave masters as the democrats would have us believe.
What wasn't mentioned is that Mr. Bundys family owned all that land until the govt seized it over the desert tortoise. It was legal to graze until 98'. Still his family were the land owners as I understand it and now it belongs to Cook County he said.
Do you have a link to the rancher owning the land up until 1998?
Leave your car on your own property and then see the feds to nationalize your property is a more apt analogy.
Again, horseshit. They didn't take away his land. They simply assumed ownership of unowned land. The fact that Bundy's family allowed their cattle to graze on the land does not equate to ownership.
The feds took unowned property under federal control. Then allowed Bundy to use it for his commercial cattle operation, for a fee. Bundy disagreed with the fee increase, so he stopped paying anything.
His mistake, if there was one, was paying in the first place.
What wasn't mentioned is that Mr. Bundys family owned all that land until the govt seized it over the desert tortoise. It was legal to graze until 98'. Still his family were the land owners as I understand it and now it belongs to Cook County he said.
Do you have a link to the rancher owning the land up until 1998?
No, they do not. If Bundy owned the land then why would he have paid the grazing fees up until '93?
I have seen nothing to suggest that Bundy's family ever owned the land in question. They just used it when they wanted.
What wasn't mentioned is that Mr. Bundys family owned all that land until the govt seized it over the desert tortoise. It was legal to graze until 98'. Still his family were the land owners as I understand it and now it belongs to Cook County he said.
Do you have a link to the rancher owning the land up until 1998?
No, they do not. If Bundy owned the land then why would he have paid the grazing fees up until '93?
I have seen nothing to suggest that Bundy's family ever owned the land in question. They just used it when they wanted.
Do you have a link to the rancher owning the land up until 1998?
No, they do not. If Bundy owned the land then why would he have paid the grazing fees up until '93?
I have seen nothing to suggest that Bundy's family ever owned the land in question. They just used it when they wanted.
Here's hoping some federal agent decides to take away your property and your livelihood. Where I come from the stuff the feds are doing is a hanging offense. I suppose where you come from shitting on peoples livelihood is an every day thang.
Do you have a link to the rancher owning the land up until 1998?
No, they do not. If Bundy owned the land then why would he have paid the grazing fees up until '93?
I have seen nothing to suggest that Bundy's family ever owned the land in question. They just used it when they wanted.
Here's hoping some federal agent decides to take away your property and your livelihood. Where I come from the stuff the feds are doing is a hanging offense. I suppose where you come from shitting on peoples livelihood is an every day thang.
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.
That's because you've mixed it up. You're focusing on the grazing fees, rather than the fact that the Bundy's already owned the land in the first place. And yes, I was awarded a receipt, but where that receipt is now I couldn't tell you. In other words, I have as much proof that I own this computer as Bundy's family had to prove that they owned the land. Yet it's clear in both cases who the rightful owners of the property in question are. In the case of the computer, I am the obvious rightful owner. In the case of the land, the ranchers who mixed their labor with the unowned, unoccupied land are the owners of the land. Even if they don't have some deed saying that it's so.
Allowing cattle to eat grass on some land does not mean you own the land. There are steps you must take to secure ownership. Those steps were never taken.
The fact that neither side is debating who owns the land makes it a moot point.
If squatters move into vacant property I legally own and occupy it for X amount of time, the govt gives them right to my personal property even though I can show legal proof of ownership. Likewise, if a neighbor erects a fence on my property and it remains X amount of time, the govt gives that neighbor my land. This is often how property rights are determined.
That's because you've mixed it up. You're focusing on the grazing fees, rather than the fact that the Bundy's already owned the land in the first place. And yes, I was awarded a receipt, but where that receipt is now I couldn't tell you. In other words, I have as much proof that I own this computer as Bundy's family had to prove that they owned the land. Yet it's clear in both cases who the rightful owners of the property in question are. In the case of the computer, I am the obvious rightful owner. In the case of the land, the ranchers who mixed their labor with the unowned, unoccupied land are the owners of the land. Even if they don't have some deed saying that it's so.
Allowing cattle to eat grass on some land does not mean you own the land. There are steps you must take to secure ownership. Those steps were never taken.
The fact that neither side is debating who owns the land makes it a moot point.
The federal government is systematically seizing ranches to end the cattle industry. This is the last rancher in this area. Then BLM can move on to cleansing other ranch land. It's a religious thing. They worship Gaia.
The federal government is systematically seizing ranches to end the cattle industry. This is the last rancher in this area. Then BLM can move on to cleansing other ranch land. It's a religious thing. They worship Gaia.
Jesus Christ, I'm seeing a whole lot of contorting to try and make this seem like the Government or whomever is doing something wrong. He kept his stuff on Land that ISN'T HIS, if I park my car on your lawn you can have it towed because IT'S ON YOUR LAND. This is literally no different, except this idiot had 16 years time to comply.
He's dumb, and finally it caught up to him, Cry me a river.
If you park your car where it is not allowed, it gets impounded and towed.
In this case, the Feds confiscated his cattle to sell. That is THEFT.
They aren't confiscating the cattle to sell. They are killing the cattle and burying the bodies.
Oh please - say your hyperbole and name-calling. It adds NOTHING to any conversation or debate.
The davidians murdered agents who came to their compound to serve a legal warrant. You can try to re-write history all you want. You can even believe your fictions if you choose. But don't get all pissy, when others choose to stick with the facts.
If you park your car where it is not allowed, it gets impounded and towed.
In this case, the Feds confiscated his cattle to sell. That is THEFT.
They aren't confiscating the cattle to sell. They are killing the cattle and burying the bodies.
And THIS is what makes the whole thing stink - RIGHT at the time when there is a crises with beef and milk production, at THAT moment, the feds decide to remove another massive part of the resources.
Do you have a link for that? The news stories have talked about contractors transporting the cattle.
If you park your car where it is not allowed, it gets impounded and towed.
In this case, the Feds confiscated his cattle to sell. That is THEFT.
They aren't confiscating the cattle to sell. They are killing the cattle and burying the bodies.
And THIS is what makes the whole thing stink - RIGHT at the time when there is a crises with beef and milk production, at THAT moment, the feds decide to remove another massive part of the resources.
Ahhhhh so he only had 18 years. Wow, what a rush to judgement. So now that your "property rights" argument has been shredded you're now onto the food price gambit?
Pretty weak man.
