BREAKING: 200+ “Militarized” Federal Police Surround Peaceful Rancher in Nevada

[paulitician]

Oh please! Could you be any more dramatic?? lol

I have seen no serious argument that the land is anything but public land. The gov't didn't take anything away.

And if there are any "Authority Worshippers" (whatever the hell that is) it is certainly not evident in this case. This is about a rancher running a business on public land and refusing to pay the fees. And about ignoring a legitimate court order.

Pretty sure you're the type who would justify your beloved Big Brother murdering this man and his whole family over some some grazing cattle. You do come off as a servile Authority-Worshipper. I just call em like i see em.

Yeah, you call'em like you see'em. The problem is, all you do is insinuate that there are facts we don't know. But you never actually offer any of these facts. You just stick with your "Big Brother is evil" routine.

The feds are not after the rancher or his family. They are not surrounding the family's ranch. They are simply removing trespass cattle from public land, per a federal judges orders.

The Bundy family has never owned the land in question. But they want to use it, without paying fees or following any regulations.

Spoken like a true Big Brother worshipping apologist. He can always count on you. Nice job.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Government stole the land from Native Americans. And now it's gonna steal yours. And don't think that's just far-fetched paranoia either. Eminent Domain is very real. When Big Brother wants yours, he's gonna take it. Such is life in this Police State.

LOL - don't you ever get tired of being wrong. We took it from the Mexicans.
And we paid them.

You present a nonstop barrage of some of the most mindless drivel I have seen on these boards - and THAT - my friend, is saying something.

 

[paulitician]

His rights? His rights to graze his cattle on public land while refusing to pay the associated fees? His right to defy a federal judge?

His rights have not been violated. He owns over 150,000 acres of land. But his cattle are on public land.

Yes, some are more equal than others. Big Brother's rights are far more important & valid, than some little rancher peon's rights.

His rights have NOT been violated. He has grazed his cattle on land he does not own for 21 years. The feds are simply removing his cattle from public land after the rancher has refused to do so.

The Feds are thieving pieces of shit. But hey, that's just how i feel anyway.

 

[WinterBorn]

Government stole the land from Native Americans. And now it's gonna steal yours. And don't think that's just far-fetched paranoia either. Eminent Domain is very real. When Big Brother wants yours, he's gonna take it. Such is life in this Police State.

I am totally against the abses of the eminent domain laws.

Your problem is that you apparently do not understand what the eminent domain laws mean.

They did not take his land away from him. He still has over 150,000 acres of land. This is about public land and one man deciding that he can run a commercial enterprise on public land without paying a dime.

Ignoring the facts does not change them.

 

[Flopper]

For over twenty years now, a battle has raged between cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management. Bundy has been using federal land to allow his cattle to graze, and the BLM has argued that this is “trespassing” because the land is protected and because Bundy has not paid required grazing fees.

The guy is freeloader. He's using land he doesn't own.

But I like the fact that you are worried about Federal power inside the states.

The Reagan War on Drugs and the Bush War on Terrorism has given the Federal Government unprecedented control over state law enforcement. Nothing in my lifetime has made government bigger or more invasive.

Turn off the Republican noise machine so you so that you are not so dependent on news sources that are in the tank for one political party.

Surely you jest. I guess you missed the 90's.

I notice the article seem to leave out a few facts such as the Federal government show of might is in response to the son attacking K-9 officers and Bundy and his militia friends brandishing automatic weapons. The article also seem to neglect Bundy's threats, arrest record and violation of court orders but that's to be expected from the Conservative Tribune, Small government, free markets, and traditional values.

 

[paulitician]

Government stole the land from Native Americans. And now it's gonna steal yours. And don't think that's just far-fetched paranoia either. Eminent Domain is very real. When Big Brother wants yours, he's gonna take it. Such is life in this Police State.

LOL - don't you ever get tired of being wrong. We took it from the Mexicans.
And we paid them.

You present a nonstop barrage of some of the most mindless drivel I have seen on these boards - and THAT - my friend, is saying something.

We'll see how you feel when or if Big Brother comes to take yours. You might just have a different take then. But who knows? Lots of dumb sheeple out there. You could be one of em.

 

[WinterBorn]

Pretty sure you're the type who would justify your beloved Big Brother murdering this man and his whole family over some some grazing cattle. You do come off as a servile Authority-Worshipper. I just call em like i see em.

Yeah, you call'em like you see'em. The problem is, all you do is insinuate that there are facts we don't know. But you never actually offer any of these facts. You just stick with your "Big Brother is evil" routine.

The feds are not after the rancher or his family. They are not surrounding the family's ranch. They are simply removing trespass cattle from public land, per a federal judges orders.

The Bundy family has never owned the land in question. But they want to use it, without paying fees or following any regulations.

Spoken like a true Big Brother worshipping apologist. He can always count on you. Nice job.

Oh please, spare us the downtrodden speech.

If you have more facts, like you have hinted that you did, please post them.

If you have justification why this man should be allowed to run a commercial cattle operation on public land, lets hear it.

Otherwise you are just one of those whiney wannabe anarchists who would hide behind a cop at the first sign of trouble.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I notice the article seem to leave out a few facts such as the Federal government show of might is in response to the son attacking K-9 officers and Bundy and his militia friends brandishing automatic weapons. The article also seem to neglect Bundy's arrest record and violation of court orders but that's to be expected from the Conservative Tribune, Small government, free markets, and traditional values.

Leaving out facts has been the hallmark of the whining about this case.

 

[WinterBorn]

Government stole the land from Native Americans. And now it's gonna steal yours. And don't think that's just far-fetched paranoia either. Eminent Domain is very real. When Big Brother wants yours, he's gonna take it. Such is life in this Police State.

LOL - don't you ever get tired of being wrong. We took it from the Mexicans.
And we paid them.

You present a nonstop barrage of some of the most mindless drivel I have seen on these boards - and THAT - my friend, is saying something.

We'll see how you feel when or if Big Brother comes to take yours. You might just have a different take then. But who knows? Lots of dumb sheeple out there. You could be one of em.

Who is taking anything from anyone??? Please tell us that?

 

[paulitician]

Government stole the land from Native Americans. And now it's gonna steal yours. And don't think that's just far-fetched paranoia either. Eminent Domain is very real. When Big Brother wants yours, he's gonna take it. Such is life in this Police State.

I am totally against the abses of the eminent domain laws.

Your problem is that you apparently do not understand what the eminent domain laws mean.

They did not take his land away from him. He still has over 150,000 acres of land. This is about public land and one man deciding that he can run a commercial enterprise on public land without paying a dime.

Ignoring the facts does not change them.

I've already stated Eminent Domain does not apply to this particular case. But it certainly makes you contemplate how much power to seize lands our Government currently has. All Americans should start educating themselves on Eminent Domain.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Government stole the land from Native Americans. And now it's gonna steal yours. And don't think that's just far-fetched paranoia either. Eminent Domain is very real. When Big Brother wants yours, he's gonna take it. Such is life in this Police State.

LOL - don't you ever get tired of being wrong. We took it from the Mexicans.
And we paid them.

You present a nonstop barrage of some of the most mindless drivel I have seen on these boards - and THAT - my friend, is saying something.

We'll see how you feel when or if Big Brother comes to take yours. You might just have a different take then. But who knows? Lots of dumb sheeple out there. You could be one of em.

Dumb sheeple who keep regurgitating talking points that are proven false one after the other ?????????????

Go back to arguing how this case hinges on eminent domain again. You'll still look just as stupid, just not quite as obnoxious.

 

[Katzndogz]

B'loney. His family had ranched cattle on that land since the 1870s, long before the BLM was established. The Feds have no business nationalizing private ranch land.

But it was never private ranch land to begin with.

And the land has NEVER been private ranch land because no one wanted it. It has been the property of the federal government since it became part of the United States.

I swear - do you guys know ANYTHING about this issue?

It wasn't federal land because all land not otherwise owned is not automatically federal land. Only 28% percent of the US landmass is owned by the federal government. The land in question was open range. Not owned by anyone but a part of the state of Nevada.

You seem to be the one who doesn't know anything about this issue. If this were federally owned land the controlling authority would be the Forestry Service. It isn't. It's the Bureau of Land Management which can exercise authority over any land like the EPA can.

 

[paulitician]

LOL - don't you ever get tired of being wrong. We took it from the Mexicans.
And we paid them.

You present a nonstop barrage of some of the most mindless drivel I have seen on these boards - and THAT - my friend, is saying something.

We'll see how you feel when or if Big Brother comes to take yours. You might just have a different take then. But who knows? Lots of dumb sheeple out there. You could be one of em.

Dumb sheeple who keep regurgitating talking points that are proven false one after the other ?????????????

Go back to arguing how this case hinges on eminent domain again. You'll still look just as stupid, just not quite as obnoxious.

Never argued that dummy. But you did try to argue how outraged you were over this man receiving some sort of 'Welfare.' Now that was pathetically comical. A Communist Entitlement douche pretending to be outraged over Taxpayer-funded Freebies. Truly priceless.

 

[nodoginnafight]

But it was never private ranch land to begin with.

And the land has NEVER been private ranch land because no one wanted it. It has been the property of the federal government since it became part of the United States.

I swear - do you guys know ANYTHING about this issue?

It wasn't federal land because all land not otherwise owned is not automatically federal land. Only 28% percent of the US landmass is owned by the federal government. The land in question was open range. Not owned by anyone but a part of the state of Nevada.

You seem to be the one who doesn't know anything about this issue. If this were federally owned land the controlling authority would be the Forestry Service. It isn't. It's the Bureau of Land Management which can exercise authority over any land like the EPA can.

May be - but THIS land is federal land because the federal government bought it from Mexico - it is public land - owned by all the people of the United States - if the welfare cowboy had wanted the land he could have filed a homestead application.

He didn't want to own it - he just wanted his cattle to graze their for free.

I swear - do you guys know ANYTHING about this issue?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But it was never private ranch land to begin with.

And the land has NEVER been private ranch land because no one wanted it. It has been the property of the federal government since it became part of the United States.

I swear - do you guys know ANYTHING about this issue?

It wasn't federal land because all land not otherwise owned is not automatically federal land. Only 28% percent of the US landmass is owned by the federal government. The land in question was open range. Not owned by anyone but a part of the state of Nevada.

You seem to be the one who doesn't know anything about this issue. If this were federally owned land the controlling authority would be the Forestry Service. It isn't. It's the Bureau of Land Management which can exercise authority over any land like the EPA can.

Your bizarre opinions have no relation to the actual laws of this country.

 

[Againsheila]

So now that we've aired it out on Waco, perhaps someone can tell me why this is anything other than hyperbole and a pathetic attempt to whip up the faithful in trying to apply any similarities to this rancher.

As far as I know this rancher is not a cultist (well, nothing more serious than mormonism and if that is a cult it is a benign one), he isn't holding hostages, and he hasn't murdered any agents (yet).

I think we just got off on a tangent. That happens on this board a lot.

 

[bendog]

And the land has NEVER been private ranch land because no one wanted it. It has been the property of the federal government since it became part of the United States.

I swear - do you guys know ANYTHING about this issue?

It wasn't federal land because all land not otherwise owned is not automatically federal land. Only 28% percent of the US landmass is owned by the federal government. The land in question was open range. Not owned by anyone but a part of the state of Nevada.

You seem to be the one who doesn't know anything about this issue. If this were federally owned land the controlling authority would be the Forestry Service. It isn't. It's the Bureau of Land Management which can exercise authority over any land like the EPA can.

May be - but THIS land is federal land because the federal government bought it from Mexico - it is public land - owned by all the people of the United States - if the welfare cowboy had wanted the land he could have filed a homestead application.

He didn't want to own it - he just wanted his cattle to graze their for free.

I swear - do you guys know ANYTHING about this issue?

KAtz is posting total bullshit. Open range has been federal lands since at least the 1930s, and the BLM has been managing it.

 

[paulitician]

And then they came for the Cattle Grazers. My oh my America, what the hell happened?

 

[nodoginnafight]

What does that have to do with this at all?

Nothing at all. If they had a real case in favor of this welfare cowboy - they would state it. The fact that they keep posting diversions and conspiracy theories and ....

"ewwww ewwww remember Waco"

Is a very clear indication that they have no case.

Eminent domain? LOL - REALLY - how is that a factor in this case AT ALL? It isn't.

It's a factor, and it's very disturbing. Do you really own anything? You probably don't even realize that what you think is yours, is actually Big Brother's. If he says it's so, it becomes so.

now what were you saying?

Go back to arguing how this case hinges on eminent domain again. You'll still look just as stupid, just not quite as obnoxious.

Never argued that dummy.

ooops

 

[MikeK]

Yeah when you start murdering law enforcement officers, it is not going to end well for you.

[...]

I believe that should depend on why a law enforcement officer is killed. (Self defense is not "murder.")

You might be surprised to learn that according to Texas Penal Law (Section 9.31) the Branch Davidians were perfectly justified in killing the rogue ATF agents who improperly raided their premises. Several of the Davidians were acquitted by a Texas jury for doing just that. 11 in Texas Sect Are Acquitted Of Key Charges - NYTimes.com

It is the increasingly repressive federal law which held them responsible.

Any law enforcement officer who deliberately exceeds his authority in causing or attempting to unnecessarily cause injury to a non-threatening subject deserves to be forcibly resisted -- even if that resistance causes his/her death. I have absolutely no sympathy for the ATF agents who were killed while unlawfully conducting an armed raid on the peaceful Davidian premises. It is the supervisory ATF personnel who are responsible for those agents' deaths. Not the Davidians.