Don't Mess with Texas?

[RKMBrown]

What this amounts to is state of texas politicians creating a problem so they can thump their chests and say things like "don't mess with texas." that plays well with the boobs down there that will eat it up and vote for them because by god states rights freedom the troops and constitution.

TX is in legal fights with the feds on dozens of fronts. The feds are using our tax dollars to punish texans because the majority of texans don't lean left. These water rights issues are a major problem down here in TX.

 

[RKMBrown]

So your question about when the rules is the same as the question about when the people of the United States of America acquired ownership of the property?

Of course not.

The point of my question was to point out the silliness of disusing ownership of land when the real issue is rape of the people on the land. IOW my point was why are we letting these folks deflect from the real issue.

So you butted into a conversation between two other posters to interject an unrelated observation about how what they were discussing was not as important as what YOU wanted to discuss???

Yes, to the first part. No to the second. Looked to me like your discussion was over, and to say the acts of the owners is unrelated to the ownership discussion, well that's just you being obtuse.

 

[ogibillm]

What this amounts to is state of texas politicians creating a problem so they can thump their chests and say things like "don't mess with texas." that plays well with the boobs down there that will eat it up and vote for them because by god states rights freedom the troops and constitution.

TX is in legal fights with the feds on dozens of fronts. The feds are using our tax dollars to punish texans because the majority of texans don't lean left. These water rights issues are a major problem down here in TX.

well maybe your ag could have talked about an issue that existed then instead of making one up whole cloth.

 

[RKMBrown]

What this amounts to is state of texas politicians creating a problem so they can thump their chests and say things like "don't mess with texas." that plays well with the boobs down there that will eat it up and vote for them because by god states rights freedom the troops and constitution.

TX is in legal fights with the feds on dozens of fronts. The feds are using our tax dollars to punish texans because the majority of texans don't lean left. These water rights issues are a major problem down here in TX.

well maybe your ag could have talked about an issue that existed then instead of making one up whole cloth.

Huh? He did talk about it. He said he was provided reports that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering taking property in the State of Texas. So he sent them a letter asking them to respond.

You accusing the Attorney General of Texas of lying?

 

[boilermaker55]

If the federal government is such a horrible entity. The next time there is some natural disaster that affects your state, don't ask for federal aid.
If you want a fence built between your state and Mexico.
Build it yourself.
Find the resources within your beloved state.
Leave federal monies alone.

 

[OKTexas]

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"

Has to already belong to the feds for that to apply.

BLM says the 140 acres applicable to THIS issue - is federal land.

And how do the say they got title to that land? A court doesn't have the authority to give it to them when settling a private land dispute.

 

[Katzndogz]

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"

Has to already belong to the feds for that to apply.

BLM says the 140 acres applicable to THIS issue - is federal land.

BLM got title to the 140 acres 30 years ago. Now it's 90,000 acres along a 116 mile stretch of the Red River.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Has to already belong to the feds for that to apply.

BLM says the 140 acres applicable to THIS issue - is federal land.

BLM doesn't say it - the courts do.

Well, yes. I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of the court case(s) in this issue.
You'd think the attorney general of the state of Texas would be aware of them wouldn't you?

Or was he going off half-cocked based on the exaggerated "media" reports that (once again) put out a story without any real research? If this is the case, it will be intersting to me to see if Texas voters prefer an attorney general who looks before he leaps or one who throws out his chest and blusters "Don't Mess with Texas."

 

[Katzndogz]

BLM says the 140 acres applicable to THIS issue - is federal land.

BLM doesn't say it - the courts do.

Well, yes. I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of the court case(s) in this issue.
You'd think the attorney general of the state of Texas would be aware of them wouldn't you?

Or was he going off half-cocked based on the exaggerated "media" reports that (once again) put out a story without any real research? If this is the case, it will be intersting to me to see if Texas voters prefer an attorney general who looks before he leaps or one who throws out his chest and blusters "Don't Mess with Texas."

Texans likely know that there are two land grab incidents even if you don't.

 

[ogibillm]

Has to already belong to the feds for that to apply.

BLM says the 140 acres applicable to THIS issue - is federal land.

BLM got title to the 140 acres 30 years ago. Now it's 90,000 acres along a 116 mile stretch of the Red River.

according to whom? not the blm - they say they aren't going after that land at all.

in other words, the texas ag likes to tell fairy tales.

 

[ogibillm]

BLM doesn't say it - the courts do.

Well, yes. I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of the court case(s) in this issue.
You'd think the attorney general of the state of Texas would be aware of them wouldn't you?

Or was he going off half-cocked based on the exaggerated "media" reports that (once again) put out a story without any real research? If this is the case, it will be intersting to me to see if Texas voters prefer an attorney general who looks before he leaps or one who throws out his chest and blusters "Don't Mess with Texas."

Texans likely know that there are two land grab incidents even if you don't.

what are they?

 

[ogibillm]

Has to already belong to the feds for that to apply.

BLM says the 140 acres applicable to THIS issue - is federal land.

And how do the say they got title to that land? A court doesn't have the authority to give it to them when settling a private land dispute.

your right. if the court gave it to them that would be wrong.

but that's not what happened. the issue was decided in 1986, but the land already belonged to the federal government.

 

[nodoginnafight]

BLM doesn't say it - the courts do.

Well, yes. I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of the court case(s) in this issue.
You'd think the attorney general of the state of Texas would be aware of them wouldn't you?

Or was he going off half-cocked based on the exaggerated "media" reports that (once again) put out a story without any real research? If this is the case, it will be intersting to me to see if Texas voters prefer an attorney general who looks before he leaps or one who throws out his chest and blusters "Don't Mess with Texas."

Texans likely know that there are two land grab incidents even if you don't.

It appears likely at this point that the BLM isn't aware of their "land grab" of this ... what ... 90,000 acres. THEY say they are talking about 140 acres of federal land.

When the BLM starts talking about expanding this (not when Breitbart speculates that they are considering it) let me know.

Fox and Breitbart screwed the pooch so royally on the Bundy thing - I'm not inclined to jump in with both feet based on their reports.

 

[RKMBrown]

If the federal government is such a horrible entity. The next time there is some natural disaster that affects your state, don't ask for federal aid.
If you want a fence built between your state and Mexico.
Build it yourself.
Find the resources within your beloved state.
Leave federal monies alone.

Texas doesn't want a dumb ass fence. Fences are only good for keeping cows in. The illegals & drug traffickers would just laugh at it.

As to federal tax payers funding every natural event in every state... what a load of bull shit that is. Get your own damn insurance and stop using TX tax dollars to fund your mistakes ya panzy asses.

 

[Katzndogz]

Well, yes. I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of the court case(s) in this issue.
You'd think the attorney general of the state of Texas would be aware of them wouldn't you?

Or was he going off half-cocked based on the exaggerated "media" reports that (once again) put out a story without any real research? If this is the case, it will be intersting to me to see if Texas voters prefer an attorney general who looks before he leaps or one who throws out his chest and blusters "Don't Mess with Texas."

Texans likely know that there are two land grab incidents even if you don't.

what are they?

There is the 140 acres that the BLM got from Tom Henderson 30 years ago. That went to court and the court held that the 140 acres was federal land because they redrew the border. Since Henderson had a deed for the fully paid for land in question, he still had to pay property taxes on it or lose his entire ranch as it was one parcel.

Today, separate from the 30 year old case is the issue of 90,000 acres of land in a 116 mile stretch along the Red River that is owned by multiple landowners. BLM again unilaterally redrew the border and says that the deeded land never belonged to the owners in the first place, when they bought it.

Two incidents thirty years apart.

The attorney general knows this. Texans probably know that it's two cases thirty years apart.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You didn't understand what I said. I said that we don't need Texas oil, Canadian tar sands, or anything from your Saudi boyfriends.

Please don't respond until you've read every single word at each of those links.

Green energy all the way huh? Good luck with that.

We don't need luck. We just need to legalize Cannabis Sativa. The free market will take care of the rest. You will understand that when you have finished reading those links.

Aaaaah...so you're going to power the country with weed. BRILLIANT!!!!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

If the federal government is such a horrible entity. The next time there is some natural disaster that affects your state, don't ask for federal aid.
If you want a fence built between your state and Mexico.
Build it yourself.
Find the resources within your beloved state.
Leave federal monies alone.

You really dont get it.

 

[ogibillm]

Texans likely know that there are two land grab incidents even if you don't.

what are they?

There is the 140 acres that the BLM got from Tom Henderson 30 years ago. That went to court and the court held that the 140 acres was federal land because they redrew the border. Since Henderson had a deed for the fully paid for land in question, he still had to pay property taxes on it or lose his entire ranch as it was one parcel.

Today, separate from the 30 year old case is the issue of 90,000 acres of land in a 116 mile stretch along the Red River that is owned by multiple landowners. BLM again unilaterally redrew the border and says that the deeded land never belonged to the owners in the first place, when they bought it.

Two incidents thirty years apart.

The attorney general knows this. Texans probably know that it's two cases thirty years apart.

weird. the court doesn't have the power to redraw property lines - so my guess is you're full of shit on that count. and if Henderson's deed was so clear that he had to pay property taxes on that 140 acres he should have been able to prove his case in court. he could not.

as for the 90,000 acres - that's entirely made up. the blm says they are not interested in that land. the only people that claim they are are jackasses that want to thump their chests and say 'don't mess with texas'

 

[OKTexas]

BLM says the 140 acres applicable to THIS issue - is federal land.

And how do the say they got title to that land? A court doesn't have the authority to give it to them when settling a private land dispute.

your right. if the court gave it to them that would be wrong.

but that's not what happened. the issue was decided in 1986, but the land already belonged to the federal government.

How could the court say the land belonged to the feds when deciding a boundary issue between two private land owners. The feds had not laid a claim to that point, they weren't even a party to the suit.

 

[ogibillm]

And how do the say they got title to that land? A court doesn't have the authority to give it to them when settling a private land dispute.

your right. if the court gave it to them that would be wrong.

but that's not what happened. the issue was decided in 1986, but the land already belonged to the federal government.

How could the court say the land belonged to the feds when deciding a boundary issue between two private land owners. The feds had not laid a claim to that point, they weren't even a party to the suit.

pretty easy. if my neighbor to the west claims they own part of my land, and my neighbor to the east says they own that same land, and they take the issue to court the court would be right in telling them both to go to hell and that the land belongs to me.

or say i sell part of my land and a portion of my neighbors land to an individual. then i sell a different part of my land and the same portion of neighbors land to a second individual. they have a dispute over who owns that portion of land, take it to the court, and the court finds that neither of them do since i didn't have the right to sell it.