Conservative Action Alerts and Nevada Rancher

[ClosedCaption]

Maybe you and your ilk would like it better if they posted from a roped off First Amendment Area like the Feds originally set up in Bunkerville.

Or like this

On Dec. 6, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft informed the Senate Judiciary Committee, “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty … your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and … give ammunition to America’s enemies.” Some commentators feared that Ashcroft’s statement, which was vetted beforehand by top lawyers at the Justice Department, signaled that this White House would take a far more hostile view towards opponents than did recent presidents. And indeed, some Bush administration policies indicate that Ashcroft’s comment was not a mere throwaway line.

When Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up “free speech zones” or “protest zones” where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

?Free-Speech Zone? | The American Conservative

 

[nodoginnafight]

Interesting how no one on the left is commenting on the fact that the BLM have actually set up a First Amendment area.

I'm not from the left, but I mentioned you right after I saw you post this the first time - I agree that there is no such thing as "a First Amendment area." The United States of America is a First Amendment Area.

Doesn't change the fact that this freeloader can either pay up or get of our land.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Closed caption chiding someone on talking points, now that is hilarious

Deflect, Deflect!!!

 

[B. Kidd]

Maybe you and your ilk would like it better if they posted from a roped off First Amendment Area like the Feds originally set up in Bunkerville.

Or like this

On Dec. 6, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft informed the Senate Judiciary Committee, “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty … your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and … give ammunition to America’s enemies.” Some commentators feared that Ashcroft’s statement, which was vetted beforehand by top lawyers at the Justice Department, signaled that this White House would take a far more hostile view towards opponents than did recent presidents. And indeed, some Bush administration policies indicate that Ashcroft’s comment was not a mere throwaway line.

When Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up “free speech zones” or “protest zones” where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

?Free-Speech Zone? | The American Conservative

Da Boosh!!! How original.

 

[Dot Com]

yep media matters nailed it early on. rw media doing what they do best instilling hate & fear

 

[WinterBorn]

Your finding the idea humorous doesn't change the fact that a great many Americans are worried that the federal gov. wants to establish a tyranny. Adding support to that idea is indeed idiotic.

You think the public is trespassing on public land?

I think running a commercial cattle operation on public lands, while refusing to pay the grazing fees and ignoring a federal judge's order to remove the cattle is trespassing.

It may have begun over turtles and cattle but in the video I saw it appeared that uniformed armed men were using tazers and dogs to violently assault the public on public property. Two wrongs don't make a right. And one crime doesn't justify a more serious one-especially by the government.

The gov't has hired contractors to remove the cattle. The protestors were trying to stop that. Whether it was a legal or proper move is debatable, but allowing the cattle to remain is not up for debate.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The fed is only "playing Nazi" to the people who see Nazis under their bed.

Why would ejecting trespassers from federal land start a "war"?

Do they enforce the border with this vigor? Hmmm?

Maybe we should move the turtles to the Mexican border

The "desert tortoise" has nothing to do with it. It's just a non sequitur to feed your hatred of "conservation".

The fact of the matter is Bundy has been actively (and admittedly) breaking the law for more than 20 years.

Hey doc, his family has been on that land since the 1870s. His land. The 5th Amendment requires the government to compensate him if they are to take his land for any reason. If not, they should leave him alone. The only laws he broke are ones that would only be in effect if he were on government land.

Moreover, in 1998, the BLM designated over 180,000 acres of the Gold Butte Area as "critical" for the survival of a tortoise. You really need to educate yourself. Really.

Southern Nevada District Office

 

[Katzndogz]

Interesting how no one on the left is commenting on the fact that the BLM have actually set up a First Amendment area.

I saw that in two videos. In both of them the area was completely empty.

Apparently no one is taking it seriously.

The Governor of Nevada is. He's made an official complaint.

So did Senator Dean Heller.

 

[Katzndogz]

Last year the feds were on that land killing the desert tortoise. Now they are worried about habitat? What they really want to do is systematically take cattle ranches and end the cattle industry.

 

[PredFan]

Closed caption chiding someone on talking points, now that is hilarious

The hypocrisy meter is pegged on that one.

 

[Plasmaball]

I don't know who is right or wrong as far as the land goes but I do know that this is a truly idiotic time for fed. police to play Nazi unless they want to start a war.

uh huh, you will do nothing

 

[Dot Com]

OP was right. rw media is fanning the flames of their highly gullible/easily led audience: Right-Wing Media Are Throwing Gas On A Rancher's Violent Threats Against The Government

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Do they enforce the border with this vigor? Hmmm?

Maybe we should move the turtles to the Mexican border

The "desert tortoise" has nothing to do with it. It's just a non sequitur to feed your hatred of "conservation".

The fact of the matter is Bundy has been actively (and admittedly) breaking the law for more than 20 years.

Hey doc, his family has been on that land since the 1870s. His land. The 5th Amendment requires the government to compensate him if they are to take his land for any reason. If not, they should leave him alone. The only laws he broke are ones that would only be in effect if he were on government land.

Moreover, in 1998, the BLM designated over 180,000 acres of the Gold Butte Area as "critical" for the survival of a tortoise. You really need to educate yourself. Really.

Southern Nevada District Office

His family has grazed their cattle on that land since the 1870s. They have never owned the land - it's been owned by the Federal government since it stopped being part of Mexico.

And whether or not the BLM has declared areas "critical" back in 1998 has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on now.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The fed is only "playing Nazi" to the people who see Nazis under their bed.

Why would ejecting trespassers from federal land start a "war"?

Your finding the idea humorous doesn't change the fact that a great many Americans are worried that the federal gov. wants to establish a tyranny. Adding support to that idea is indeed idiotic.

You think the public is trespassing on public land?

I think running a commercial cattle operation on public lands, while refusing to pay the grazing fees and ignoring a federal judge's order to remove the cattle is trespassing.

Perhaps you haven't read the 5th Amendment then? That's his land. It has been for 140 years. He has rights under imminent domain law. The government cannot just up and seize land from someone without just compensation. His family was there long before the BLM was ever established. The land was probably granted to his ancestors under the now defunct homestead acts of the early 1800's and the Preemption Act of 1841. The BLM itself wasn't formed until 1946.

 

[Dot Com]

The "desert tortoise" has nothing to do with it. It's just a non sequitur to feed your hatred of "conservation".

The fact of the matter is Bundy has been actively (and admittedly) breaking the law for more than 20 years.

Hey doc, his family has been on that land since the 1870s. His land. The 5th Amendment requires the government to compensate him if they are to take his land for any reason. If not, they should leave him alone. The only laws he broke are ones that would only be in effect if he were on government land.

Moreover, in 1998, the BLM designated over 180,000 acres of the Gold Butte Area as "critical" for the survival of a tortoise. You really need to educate yourself. Really.

Southern Nevada District Office

His family has grazed their cattle on that land since the 1870s. They have never owned the land - it's been owned by the Federal government since it stopped being part of Mexico.

And whether or not the BLM has declared areas "critical" back in 1998 has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on now.

^ that

Another shiny object for their rw audience to become temporarily preoccupied w/ so that they don't catch on that the gov't has been captured by the wealthy & their hordes of lobbyists. Sheeple.

 

[bodecea]

Do they enforce the border with this vigor? Hmmm?

Maybe we should move the turtles to the Mexican border

The "desert tortoise" has nothing to do with it. It's just a non sequitur to feed your hatred of "conservation".

The fact of the matter is Bundy has been actively (and admittedly) breaking the law for more than 20 years.

Hey doc, his family has been on that land since the 1870s. His land. The 5th Amendment requires the government to compensate him if they are to take his land for any reason. If not, they should leave him alone. The only laws he broke are ones that would only be in effect if he were on government land.

Moreover, in 1998, the BLM designated over 180,000 acres of the Gold Butte Area as "critical" for the survival of a tortoise. You really need to educate yourself. Really.

Southern Nevada District Office

Not. His. Land. Never has been....if it had been, why was his family paying lease money up to the point he stopped in a pouty fit years ago?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Your finding the idea humorous doesn't change the fact that a great many Americans are worried that the federal gov. wants to establish a tyranny. Adding support to that idea is indeed idiotic.

You think the public is trespassing on public land?

I think running a commercial cattle operation on public lands, while refusing to pay the grazing fees and ignoring a federal judge's order to remove the cattle is trespassing.

Perhaps you haven't read the 5th Amendment then? That's his land. It has been for 140 years. He has rights under imminent domain law. The government cannot just up and seize land from someone without just compensation. His family was there long before the BLM was ever established. The land was probably granted to his ancestors under the now defunct homestead acts of the early 1800's and the Preemption Act of 1841. The BLM itself wasn't formed until 1946.

The land was still owned by the federal government before the BLM was formed.

His family never owned the land.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The "desert tortoise" has nothing to do with it. It's just a non sequitur to feed your hatred of "conservation".

The fact of the matter is Bundy has been actively (and admittedly) breaking the law for more than 20 years.

Hey doc, his family has been on that land since the 1870s. His land. The 5th Amendment requires the government to compensate him if they are to take his land for any reason. If not, they should leave him alone. The only laws he broke are ones that would only be in effect if he were on government land.

Moreover, in 1998, the BLM designated over 180,000 acres of the Gold Butte Area as "critical" for the survival of a tortoise. You really need to educate yourself. Really.

Southern Nevada District Office

His family has grazed their cattle on that land since the 1870s. They have never owned the land - it's been owned by the Federal government since it stopped being part of Mexico.

And whether or not the BLM has declared areas "critical" back in 1998 has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on now.

And just how do you know it's "not his land"? Are you at all aware of the Homestead Acts? Or the Preemption Act of 1841? How else would his family have been there for the past 140 years?

And it has plenty to do with what's going on now. You have the rights of a rancher being usurped by an animal.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Hey doc, his family has been on that land since the 1870s. His land. The 5th Amendment requires the government to compensate him if they are to take his land for any reason. If not, they should leave him alone. The only laws he broke are ones that would only be in effect if he were on government land.

Moreover, in 1998, the BLM designated over 180,000 acres of the Gold Butte Area as "critical" for the survival of a tortoise. You really need to educate yourself. Really.

Southern Nevada District Office

His family has grazed their cattle on that land since the 1870s. They have never owned the land - it's been owned by the Federal government since it stopped being part of Mexico.

And whether or not the BLM has declared areas "critical" back in 1998 has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on now.

And just how do you know it's "not his land"? Are you at all aware of the Homestead Acts? Or the Preemption Act of 1841? How else would his family have been there for the past 140 years?

And it has plenty to do with what's going on now. You have the rights of a rancher being usurped by an animal.

Even he isn't claiming he owns the land, or that his family ever has.

And the tortoise is entirely irrelevant because it has nothing to do with why his cattle are being evicted.

 

[Plasmaball]

Hey doc, his family has been on that land since the 1870s. His land. The 5th Amendment requires the government to compensate him if they are to take his land for any reason. If not, they should leave him alone. The only laws he broke are ones that would only be in effect if he were on government land.

Moreover, in 1998, the BLM designated over 180,000 acres of the Gold Butte Area as "critical" for the survival of a tortoise. You really need to educate yourself. Really.

Southern Nevada District Office

His family has grazed their cattle on that land since the 1870s. They have never owned the land - it's been owned by the Federal government since it stopped being part of Mexico.

And whether or not the BLM has declared areas "critical" back in 1998 has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on now.

And just how do you know it's "not his land"? Are you at all aware of the Homestead Acts? Or the Preemption Act of 1841? How else would his family have been there for the past 140 years?

And it has plenty to do with what's going on now. You have the rights of a rancher being usurped by an animal.

The roundup started on Saturday. Bundy says he has the right to graze his livestock on open range. But the feds assert that the cattle are trespassing on the habitat of the endangered desert tortoise, which they control.

Nevada rancher has beef with feds over public lands

what do you think open range and ignoring to pay the fees are? Go on take a minute to think on it.