Bundy Caught Lying about "Ancestral Rights"

[Mertex]

No, he didn't. Not if the *lie* is based on the fact that his folks lived in some other state, lol.

So now you have a new definition for "lie"?

“I’ve lived my lifetime here. My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley here ever since 1877. All these rights that I claim, have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water and the access and range improvements.”

[...]

“My rights are before the BLM even existed, but my rights are created by beneficial use. Beneficial use means we created the forage and the water from the time the very first pioneers come here.”

However, as the I-Team discovered: “Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy’s parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt.”

Water rights were transferred too, but only to the ranch, not the federally managed land surrounding it. Court records show Bundy family cattle didn’t start grazing on that land until 1954.

The Bureau of Land Management was created 1946, the same year Cliven was born.

Bundy's 'Ancestral Rights' Come Under Scrutiny (VIDEO) - Liberals Unite | Liberals Unite

 

[martybegan]

And it gives you great pleasure for an individual to dis the Constitution and stick it to the rest of us....genuis!

Where is the BLM listed in the constitution?

Here:

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

So by that logic the government can basically do anything. The BLM is not listed in the constitution. Being against it is not unconstitutional. It is created by law ALLOWED by the constitution, a big difference.

 

[Sallow]

It describes a concept of the Rights of people. That they have the RIGHT to revolt if a government is unjust. It doesn't matter if no legislation came from it.

Where in the document does it say this is a one shot deal?



I don't see a limit to just the British Empire here, or of them talking about a certain time frame.

Um..

-Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Additionally..this "right to revolt" didn't carry over into the Constitution of the United States.

yes. The document goes on to the specific case of the colonies against the British Empire, but that does not negate the initial sentiment that the people reserve the right to remove a government that has become unjust.

The right to revolt is not created by a document, it is an inherent right, described in the declaration. The key is to win your revolt. At that point an offending government is removed, and their reliance on the tools and laws of their oppression are rendered moot.

It's not a "right" inherent or otherwise recognized by the United States Constitution or United States Case law.

If you participate in such a revolt against the United States government you are in breach of the Constitution. And the Constitution provides that the United States government can use means to make sure you don't succeed.

And if you "win" such a revolt you are as "pro American" as the colonists were "pro British".

 

[Sallow]

Where is the BLM listed in the constitution?

Here:

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

So by that logic the government can basically do anything. The BLM is not listed in the constitution. Being against it is not unconstitutional. It is created by law ALLOWED by the constitution, a big difference.

Seriously?

Have you ever read the Constitution?

I mean the whole thing?

Remember when President Obama was discussing "Negative Liberties of Government"?

Do you understand what he was talking about?

Do you get what "rights" actually mean?

The government can't do what ever it wants.

It's in the Constitution.

I invite you to read it and discover why.

You might be surprised.

 

[Asclepias]

When the bureaucracy gets to the size it is now, there is no real representation. Representatives don't get involved, its up to FEDERAL bureaucracies and FEDERAL courts. There are too many people, such as yourself, complacent to let our government fuck over other people simply because you either don't care, or agree with the fucking over.

The land in the area that is privately owned has always had access to BLM land for uses such as this. Its part of the value of the property. If you change it, the government at a minimum should compensate the people losing its use. Especially over a fucking tortoise.

It isn't over the tortoise. They tortoise is symbolic and the key being used to protect and restore the natural environment of the area. Look at a map. The region is filling up with tourist type land use. The property in question is becoming less valuable as grazing land and more valuable as tourist affiliated uses. The BLM is taking the logical steps to bring the the maximum value of the property to the region and the people who reside in the region.

And fuck the ranchers who have been able to use the land for decades.

Pretty much. Fuckem. It was never their land in the first place. I cant believe this thread is even still active. The Bundy clown has been busted in a lie on top of being wrong.

 

[martybegan]

Um..



Additionally..this "right to revolt" didn't carry over into the Constitution of the United States.

yes. The document goes on to the specific case of the colonies against the British Empire, but that does not negate the initial sentiment that the people reserve the right to remove a government that has become unjust.

The right to revolt is not created by a document, it is an inherent right, described in the declaration. The key is to win your revolt. At that point an offending government is removed, and their reliance on the tools and laws of their oppression are rendered moot.

It's not a "right" inherent or otherwise recognized by the United States Constitution or United States Case law.

If you participate in such a revolt against the United States government you are in breach of the Constitution. And the Constitution provides that the United States government can use means to make sure you don't succeed.

And if you "win" such a revolt you are as "pro American" as the colonists were "pro British".

It is a right inherent to all people, or do you think people should just kowtow to an oppressive government?

Your second part is why you have to win said revolt.

As our country continues to slide away from its original intent I would say yes, the people revolting are the real Americans, and the people who let tyranny rule them are a bunch of useless sheep.

 

[martybegan]

It isn't over the tortoise. They tortoise is symbolic and the key being used to protect and restore the natural environment of the area. Look at a map. The region is filling up with tourist type land use. The property in question is becoming less valuable as grazing land and more valuable as tourist affiliated uses. The BLM is taking the logical steps to bring the the maximum value of the property to the region and the people who reside in the region.

And fuck the ranchers who have been able to use the land for decades.

Pretty much. Fuckem. It was never their land in the first place. I cant believe this thread is even still active. The Bundy clown has been busted in a lie on top of being wrong.

it is their land partially, because it is land managed for the people. Why shouldn't they be allowed to graze on it when the whole purpose of the BLM was to manage land for people to use in that and other ways?

Again, this is not a National Park, or National Monument. Its land to be used.

 

[Mertex]

Well, now, it could be that "Clive Bundy" may become a memorable name from 2014....

And whodathunk that so many people would suddenly be interested in a place called Bunkerville?

lol...

Nobody had any clue or cared about Pearl Harbor until it was attacked by the Japanese either. Nobody heard of Shanksville, Pennsylvania until a terrorist crashed a fully laden jet liner into a field there. Trust me. Fate is whimsical.

Did you just compare a rancher/squatter standoff to Pearl Harbor? Really?

Sorry, I cannot agree with you on that one. The scope of these two things is just too different to make any logical comparison, imo.

When you're grasping at straws, the sky is the limit.....

 

[RKMBrown]

No, he didn't. Not if the *lie* is based on the fact that his folks lived in some other state, lol.

So now you have a new definition for "lie"?

“I’ve lived my lifetime here. My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley here ever since 1877. All these rights that I claim, have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water and the access and range improvements.”

[...]

“My rights are before the BLM even existed, but my rights are created by beneficial use. Beneficial use means we created the forage and the water from the time the very first pioneers come here.”

However, as the I-Team discovered: “Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy’s parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt.”

Water rights were transferred too, but only to the ranch, not the federally managed land surrounding it. Court records show Bundy family cattle didn’t start grazing on that land until 1954.

The Bureau of Land Management was created 1946, the same year Cliven was born.

Bundy's 'Ancestral Rights' Come Under Scrutiny (VIDEO) - Liberals Unite | Liberals Unite

Your accusation has been debunked dozens of times. Yet you keep posting the same tired lies. It's not our fault you don't understand english. Maybe take some classes?

He's been there since he was two. That pretty much qualifies as his whole life in most peoples book. I doubt he falsified his BC like the POTUS did, but find it a little nutz that a lib like you would be a birther.

The rights in question that he's claiming are not the rights inherited from the land purchased by his parents but rather the rights of his maternal grandparents that precede the BLM, through his parents. Ancestral does not just mean self, or immediate parents.

You and the libtard reporter may or may not know this but your mother once had a different name before she was married. That would explain why the maternal parent line of his ancestors was not Bundy.

 

[martybegan]

Here:

So by that logic the government can basically do anything. The BLM is not listed in the constitution. Being against it is not unconstitutional. It is created by law ALLOWED by the constitution, a big difference.

Seriously?

Have you ever read the Constitution?

I mean the whole thing?

Remember when President Obama was discussing "Negative Liberties of Government"?

Do you understand what he was talking about?

Do you get what "rights" actually mean?

The government can't do what ever it wants.

It's in the Constitution.

I invite you to read it and discover why.

You might be surprised.

No, progressive like you think you can do anything you want, then run to the constitution for cover, using vague parts of it, or ignore it entirely when you see fit.

I have more understanding of the constitution in my pinky than you have in your whole body.

 

[Mertex]

What if the electric company decided I only needed 25% of the kilowatts I wanted? What if the gas company decided to shut my gas off because of a turtle?

That is an interesting point.

Well, you could pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and install your own solar panel, if you don't like what the utilities are offering.

Thats all fine and dandy in Nevada. In Maine in December? Not so much.

Also in bundy's case he doesnt have enough of his own land to keep his herd. The BLM land was part of the equation, and they decided to take it away from him.

So, if I don't have enough water in my well to water my plants I should just connect my hose to my neighbor's well?

For all those that want to live in a country with no government....move to Somalia....

 

[peach174]

Nope. That's the difference between you and me: when you are losing an argument, you decide to try to attach an emotion to a person to give him a negative "look".

But it doesn't work with me. I argue the points.

What [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] wrote is actually quite correct. The US Constitution does allow the Federal Government to quell rebellions:





Right there, in the US Constitution.


Why are you so against the US Constitution?

did what happened out in Nevada reach the level of an insurrection?

And guess what? if the government ever does become so onerous that revolt is necessary, then we write a new one. (Or we restore the old one, what we have now isn't the constitution.)

The Declaration of Independence states that people have the right to revolt against an unresponsive and onerous government. Why do you hate the Declaration of Independence.

(two can play at this game)

1. Yes. It did.

2. The Declaration was a specific and one shot deal. No legislation is derived from it or tested against it.

Why do you think that the Declaration of Independence is always with the Constitution?
The Declaration of Independence is the bedrock of how our Constitution was formed.
And no it is not a one shot deal.
The Declaration of Independence is our Nations reminder of how we should never put up with a tyrannical Government and lists what the Tyrant King had done.
That list is very familiar as to what this government is now doing to us today.
Especially this one altering fundamentally the forms of our government.

 

[RKMBrown]

It isn't over the tortoise. They tortoise is symbolic and the key being used to protect and restore the natural environment of the area. Look at a map. The region is filling up with tourist type land use. The property in question is becoming less valuable as grazing land and more valuable as tourist affiliated uses. The BLM is taking the logical steps to bring the the maximum value of the property to the region and the people who reside in the region.

And fuck the ranchers who have been able to use the land for decades.

Pretty much. Fuckem. It was never their land in the first place. I cant believe this thread is even still active. The Bundy clown has been busted in a lie on top of being wrong.

The lines been drawn... on one side we'll have folks like this ass hole Asclepias who will be well armed in military gear just itching to "fuckem" all and politicians waving their hands, egging it on, and paying people to fuckem all.

On the other side we will have militias just itching to get some payback and ranchers and workers just trying to earn a damn living.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Sallow]

yes. The document goes on to the specific case of the colonies against the British Empire, but that does not negate the initial sentiment that the people reserve the right to remove a government that has become unjust.

The right to revolt is not created by a document, it is an inherent right, described in the declaration. The key is to win your revolt. At that point an offending government is removed, and their reliance on the tools and laws of their oppression are rendered moot.

It's not a "right" inherent or otherwise recognized by the United States Constitution or United States Case law.

If you participate in such a revolt against the United States government you are in breach of the Constitution. And the Constitution provides that the United States government can use means to make sure you don't succeed.

And if you "win" such a revolt you are as "pro American" as the colonists were "pro British".

It is a right inherent to all people, or do you think people should just kowtow to an oppressive government?

Your second part is why you have to win said revolt.

As our country continues to slide away from its original intent I would say yes, the people revolting are the real Americans, and the people who let tyranny rule them are a bunch of useless sheep.

"Tyrannical" rule is where you have a small group of people that seek to rule without consent.

And that would be by trying to stop people from voting.

Just who, pray tell, is involved in that practice?

Additionally, who thought:

-Indefinite Confinement without redress or challenge was appropriate.
-Torture was dandy.
-Trial without the ability to examine opposing evidence and heresay being admissible was fine.

That would be you folks.

 

[martybegan]

That is an interesting point.

Well, you could pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and install your own solar panel, if you don't like what the utilities are offering.

Thats all fine and dandy in Nevada. In Maine in December? Not so much.

Also in bundy's case he doesnt have enough of his own land to keep his herd. The BLM land was part of the equation, and they decided to take it away from him.

So, if I don't have enough water in my well to water my plants I should just connect my hose to my neighbor's well?

For all those that want to live in a country with no government....move to Somalia....

Ahh. Argumentum ad absurdum, the first and last refuge of the poster without a point to make.

Its not using his neighbor's hose, its using a hose that's set up for everyone in the area to use, being able to use it for decades, and then all of a sudden someone says you can only get a few drops out of it.

 

[Mertex]

What if the electric company decided I only needed 25% of the kilowatts I wanted? What if the gas company decided to shut my gas off because of a turtle?

You'd pay or you'd have your gas shut off, right? You really think you have the right to arm yourself against the utility company if they shut you off? Really?

Bundy is getting a sweet deal. $1.35 a month per cow. Know how much he'd be paying another rancher to eat his grass? $16 bucks per.

It's not his fucking land. He either abides by the rules or gets his fucking cows off land that does not belong to him. This is not a difficult concept. It doesn't matter how many cows they say he can have on land that is not his...it's NOT HIS.

It is his fucking land. its all our fucking land, not the BLM's land. They are caretakers, nothing more, and the caretakers have taken the side of a tortoise over a person.

So is the land where my house sits, it's mine....that doesn't mean I don't have to pay taxes.
So, if it's your land....why don't you go and try and sell it - then you could pay Bundy's taxes.

 

[Sallow]

Eyah.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T72vgAEX66M]Scalia: Torture Is Not Unconstitutional - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Asclepias]

And fuck the ranchers who have been able to use the land for decades.

Pretty much. Fuckem. It was never their land in the first place. I cant believe this thread is even still active. The Bundy clown has been busted in a lie on top of being wrong.

it is their land partially, because it is land managed for the people. Why shouldn't they be allowed to graze on it when the whole purpose of the BLM was to manage land for people to use in that and other ways?

Again, this is not a National Park, or National Monument. Its land to be used.

Yes and the land is being used the way the BLM sees fit. Its not up to the ranchers to decide for the rest of the people what it will be used for.

 

[RKMBrown]

That is an interesting point.

Well, you could pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and install your own solar panel, if you don't like what the utilities are offering.

Thats all fine and dandy in Nevada. In Maine in December? Not so much.

Also in bundy's case he doesnt have enough of his own land to keep his herd. The BLM land was part of the equation, and they decided to take it away from him.

So, if I don't have enough water in my well to water my plants I should just connect my hose to my neighbor's well?

For all those that want to live in a country with no government....move to Somalia....

99 times out of a hundred, you and your neighbor will be drawing water out of the same underground reservoir.

 

[martybegan]

It's not a "right" inherent or otherwise recognized by the United States Constitution or United States Case law.

If you participate in such a revolt against the United States government you are in breach of the Constitution. And the Constitution provides that the United States government can use means to make sure you don't succeed.

And if you "win" such a revolt you are as "pro American" as the colonists were "pro British".

It is a right inherent to all people, or do you think people should just kowtow to an oppressive government?

Your second part is why you have to win said revolt.

As our country continues to slide away from its original intent I would say yes, the people revolting are the real Americans, and the people who let tyranny rule them are a bunch of useless sheep.

"Tyrannical" rule is where you have a small group of people that seek to rule without consent.

And that would be by trying to stop people from voting.

Just who, pray tell, is involved in that practice?

Additionally, who thought:

-Indefinite Confinement without redress or challenge was appropriate.
-Torture was dandy.
-Trial without the ability to examine opposing evidence and heresay being admissible was fine.

That would be you folks.

One can always tell when Sallow is at his end, because he goes off on a tangent. I've been schooling you all morning.

No one is trying to stop people with a legitamate right to vote from voting. Try again.
The confinement was of Non US citizens fighting an undeclared war against the US.Try again.
Also against non US citizens, and you people consider anything except 3 hots and a cot torture.
Again, non US citizens.