Harry Reid Calls Bundy Supporters 'Domestic Terrorists'

[ScreamingEagle]

Is it your opinion the, "Tortoise was never endangered to begin with" or do you have a legitimate authority on the subject to evidence your statement?

as they say here's the rest of the story....Las Vegas developers beat out the ranchers...

from an article back in 1993...Washington Post

Three years ago, with tortoise populations crashing largely because of habitat destruction across its range in Nevada, California, Arizona and Utah, the federal government added the tortoise to its list of threatened species. The designation immediately imperiled tens of millions of dollars worth of construction projects in this development-crazed city.

But it also triggered a novel experiment in the peaceful resolution of endangered species conflicts that is similar, in many respects, to the process Babbitt would like to try nationwide to defuse explosive development-versus-environment fights.

Employing a rarely used mechanism approved by Congress a decade ago, environmentalists, developers, government officials, cattlemen, miners and off-road vehicle enthusiasts began negotiating a “habitat conservation plan.” The hope was it would satisfy both the needs of the tortoise and the Las Vegas area’s rapacious appetite for development.

The result was a plan to protect the tortoise by providing vast tracts of federal land as a refuge while sacrificing other tortoise areas to development....

By mid-1991, the Fish and Wildlife Service had approved a short-term conservation plan that allows for development of about 22,000 acres of tortoise habitat in and around Las Vegas in exchange for strict conservation measures on 400,000 acres of federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land south of the city. The plan is funded by development fees of between $ 250 and $ 550 an acre paid by builders. Almost $ 10 million has been raised so far.

Among the conservation measures required are the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat. Two weeks ago, the managers of the plan completed the task of purchasing grazing privileges from cattle ranchers who formerly used BLM land....

Cattlemen are particularly irate, and have gone to court to prevent grazing restrictions on BLM land now outside the tortoise management area, where the federal agency has tried to keep cattle from competing with tortoises for forage for three months in the spring. Ranchers like Cliven Bundy, whose family homesteaded his ranch in 1877 and who accuses the government of a “land grab,” are digging in for a fight and say they will not willingly sell their grazing privileges to create another preserve.

The Post article was written more than 21 years ago, before Bundy had been assessed even one dime in fees, and validates his claim that his grievance is about the intrusiveness of federal rules aimed at protecting the desert tortoise, and how the government has used the rules as yet another tool to pick economic winners and losers.

It’s background and context that the networks could have provided as they picked up on the story of a rancher fighting the feds — but, sadly, was omitted from the broadcast coverage this past week.

Read more: What the Networks Aren't Telling You About the Nevada Cattle Battle | NewsBusters

Was Bundy ignored for 21 years or was there an on going dialogue between he and several administrations?

Is the Obama Administration enforcing the law or not? Isn't that the essential question?

no that's not the 'essential question'.....there is more going on here than just that...

the 'Sagebrush Wars' have been ongoing for years between the Feds and ranchers (and others)...

As Nevada Clark County Commissioner Tom Collins put it.... “The U.S. government has perpetrated a bigger fraud on people over those tortoises than Al Capone did selling swampland in Miami."

Everything you need to know about the long fight between Cliven Bundy and the federal government

 

[Wry Catcher]

as they say here's the rest of the story....Las Vegas developers beat out the ranchers...

from an article back in 1993...Washington Post


The Post article was written more than 21 years ago, before Bundy had been assessed even one dime in fees, and validates his claim that his grievance is about the intrusiveness of federal rules aimed at protecting the desert tortoise, and how the government has used the rules as yet another tool to pick economic winners and losers.

It’s background and context that the networks could have provided as they picked up on the story of a rancher fighting the feds — but, sadly, was omitted from the broadcast coverage this past week.

Read more: What the Networks Aren't Telling You About the Nevada Cattle Battle | NewsBusters

Was Bundy ignored for 21 years or was there an on going dialogue between he and several administrations?

Is the Obama Administration enforcing the law or not? Isn't that the essential question?

All the sudden we're interested in how precisely Barak's Administration enforces Laws?

The Obama Administration subjectively administers the law.

In Colorado they turn a blind-eye to "legal" marijuana.

In Nevada they gotta protect the Tortoise.

Your tone suggests Obama is the only administration to turn a blind-eye to law enforcement. I doubt that's true and would argue that Obama is simply listening to the people in Colorado and Washington St. A pragmatic pol who is not afraid of the masses will listen, and BTW, local law enforcement and many state legislatures have not enforced state and federal laws of MJ possession, transportation and even small sales since the early 1970's.

When the children of wealthy and influential (redundant?) citizens were arrested and detained on felonies and put in county jails with high bail, it took less than a year for the California Legislature to pass Penal Code Sec. 1000. A law to allow those arrested for simple possession to be diverted from the Criminal Justice System. 1000 PC has been expanded so MJ in CA is essentially legal to possess. Causing young kids to interact with a professional criminal enterprise leading to many bad outcomes.

Thus, IMO as a retired LE professional, I support Obama on this issue, and I'm not alone in that community. Those who benefit from the failed war on drugs are the most vocal opponents of the will of the people.

Before you accuse me of hypocrisy, see this quote in my signature line:

"Inconsistencies of opinion, arising from changes of circumstances, are often justifiable."
Daniel Webster

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Was Bundy ignored for 21 years or was there an on going dialogue between he and several administrations?

Is the Obama Administration enforcing the law or not? Isn't that the essential question?

All the sudden we're interested in how precisely Barak's Administration enforces Laws?

The Obama Administration subjectively administers the law.

In Colorado they turn a blind-eye to "legal" marijuana.

In Nevada they gotta protect the Tortoise.

Your tone suggests Obama is the only administration to turn a blind-eye to law enforcement. I doubt that's true and would argue that Obama is simply listening to the people in Colorado and Washington St. A pragmatic pol who is not afraid of the masses will listen, and BTW, local law enforcement and many state legislatures have not enforced state and federal laws of MJ possession, transportation and even small sales since the early 1970's.

When the children of wealthy and influential (redundant?) citizens were arrested and detained on felonies and put in county jails with high bail, it took less than a year for the California Legislature to pass Penal Code Sec. 1000. A law to allow those arrested for simple possession to be diverted from the Criminal Justice System. 1000 PC has been expanded so MJ in CA is essentially legal to possess. Causing young kids to interact with a professional criminal enterprise leading to many bad outcomes.

Thus, IMO as a retired LE professional, I support Obama on this issue, and I'm not alone in that community. Those who benefit from the failed war on drugs are the most vocal opponents of the will of the people.

Before you accuse me of hypocrisy, see this quote in my signature line:

"Inconsistencies of opinion, arising from changes of circumstances, are often justifiable."
Daniel Webster

Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws

Obama is relying on federal agencies to ignore, or at least not defend, some laws. | AP Photo
By STEVE FRIESS | 6/16/12 7:02 AM EDT Updated: 6/16/12 8:21 PM EDT

President Barack Obama returned Friday to a trusted tactic — satisfying his political allies by not doing something.

Conservatives were angry when Janet Napolitano announced the administration would stop deporting certain undocumented immigrants, but they should have seen it coming. On issue after issue — gay rights, drug enforcement, Internet gambling, school achievement standards — the administration has chosen to achieve its goals by a method best described as passive-aggressive.

Rather than pushing new laws through a divided Congress to enact his agenda, Obama is relying on federal agencies to ignore, or at least not defend, laws that some of his important supporters — like Hispanic voters and the gay community — don’t like.

“If the president says we’re not going to enforce the law, there’s really nothing anyone can do about it,” University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Kermit Roosevelt said. “It’s clearly a political calculation.”

A White House official said the strategy is the result of a stalemate in Washington.

“We work to achieve our policy goals in the most effective and appropriate way possible,” the official said. “Often times, Congress has blocked efforts (ie [No Child Left Behind] and DREAM) and we look to pursue other appropriate means of achieving our policy goals. Sometimes this makes for less-than-ideal policy situations — such as the action we took on immigration — but the president isn’t going to be stonewalled by politics, he will pursue whatever means available to do business on behalf of American people.”

For Obama — and future presidents should Washington remain polarized to the point of perpetual inaction — it may be the only way to fulfill a range of campaign promises.

As of Friday, the federal government won’t deport undocumented immigrants under age 30 who came to the United States as children. It is a temporary, de facto implementation of a part of the stalled DREAM Act.

The result: a loud message to Hispanic voters to remember Obama in November.

On gay rights, too, the administration has asked agencies to do less. In February 2011, the Justice Department announced it would not defend DOMA against court challenges — an unusual step for the agency, which typically defends legal challenges to laws on the books. But the 1996 law, which bars the government from recognizing same-sex marriage, appears headed to the U.S. Supreme Court via either the 9th Circuit or 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

(PHOTOS: 20 gay rights milestones)

In August, Obama’s DHS announced it would no longer deport the noncitizen spouses of gay Americans — a direct contradiction to DOMA as well.

The tactic has its start in the earliest days of the administration. In October 2009, the Department of Justice announced it would not prosecute medical marijuana users or suppliers in states where it’s legal, despite the state laws contradicting federal law. Federal law generally trumps state law in such matters.

© 2012 POLITICO LLC

Read more: Obama?s policy strategy: Ignore laws - Steve Friess - POLITICO.com

Ok , I believe you ...

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.rangemagazine.com/specialreports/range-su13-hage-decision.pdf

A little history of the abuses of the BLM in Nevada. And another case were a rancher won representing himself against 2 Federal Agencies.

 

[Samson]

Was Bundy ignored for 21 years or was there an on going dialogue between he and several administrations?

Is the Obama Administration enforcing the law or not? Isn't that the essential question?

All the sudden we're interested in how precisely Barak's Administration enforces Laws?

The Obama Administration subjectively administers the law.

In Colorado they turn a blind-eye to "legal" marijuana.

In Nevada they gotta protect the Tortoise.

Your tone suggests Obama is the only administration to turn a blind-eye to law enforcement. I doubt that's true and would argue that Obama is simply listening to the people in Colorado and Washington St. A pragmatic pol who is not afraid of the masses will listen, and BTW, local law enforcement and many state legislatures have not enforced state and federal laws of MJ possession, transportation and even small sales since the early 1970's.

When the children of wealthy and influential (redundant?) citizens were arrested and detained on felonies and put in county jails with high bail, it took less than a year for the California Legislature to pass Penal Code Sec. 1000. A law to allow those arrested for simple possession to be diverted from the Criminal Justice System. 1000 PC has been expanded so MJ in CA is essentially legal to possess. Causing young kids to interact with a professional criminal enterprise leading to many bad outcomes.

Thus, IMO as a retired LE professional, I support Obama on this issue, and I'm not alone in that community. Those who benefit from the failed war on drugs are the most vocal opponents of the will of the people.

Before you accuse me of hypocrisy, see this quote in my signature line:

"Inconsistencies of opinion, arising from changes of circumstances, are often justifiable."
Daniel Webster

A. I never said The O was the first administration to selectively choose which laws to enforce.

B. Try to focus: I'm not making this a thread about the Drug War.

The point is that asking whether or not the "ESSENTIAL QUESTION" is if the Administration is enforcing Federal Law in Nevada is a little silly.

 

[peach174]

Isn't just POSSIBLE that all this is really about is a thief taking something and not paying for it?

Did that EVER occur to you in any of this? From the day it became news?

We have federal grazing lands near where I live, yes in New York of all places. Livestock owners join a grazing association and pay dues to get access to the pastures.

If some guy came along and put his cattle in there, and he wasn't in the association, and he wasn't paying dues, I'm sure he'd get kicked out, and possibly face legal action,

and no sane person around here would think twice about it. That's how the normal world works.

You people are deranged. Period.

The Feds stopped the grazing of the land 20 years ago and made it into a Desert Tortoise sanctuary because they declared it an endangered species, of which said Tortoise was never endangered to begin with.
This is about Federal abuse and wanting to get all of the ranchers out of there, of which one is not cooperating.
This is not the only Rancher who has been fighting this type of Federal abuse. It is happening in all of the western states.
It's has been a twenty year war with EPA. BLM and Environmentalists.

Let me just remind everyone that when it came to the Occupy Wallstreeters, when the partisan shoe was on the other foot,

YOU supported the pepper spraying of the protesters by law enforcement, and your rationale was...

...the OWSers were BREAKING THE LAW.

Funny how you changed since then.

The OWSers were doing damage to public parks & property and hindering businesses.
This Rancher is doing no such thing, other than trying to make a living as a rancher and BLM and environmentalists are making Ranching too cost prohibitive to stay in businesses.
It happened in the 70's during the Carter years where government made it to expensive to remain a farmer or rancher and many lost their farms and ranches.
It also happened under Franklin Roosevelt, many people lost their farms under his polices also.
When ever Government gets too big and overbearing it costs us the people.

 

[jillian]

The Feds stopped the grazing of the land 20 years ago and made it into a Desert Tortoise sanctuary because they declared it an endangered species, of which said Tortoise was never endangered to begin with.
This is about Federal abuse and wanting to get all of the ranchers out of there, of which one is not cooperating.
This is not the only Rancher who has been fighting this type of Federal abuse. It is happening in all of the western states.
It's has been a twenty year war with EPA. BLM and Environmentalists.

Let me just remind everyone that when it came to the Occupy Wallstreeters, when the partisan shoe was on the other foot,

YOU supported the pepper spraying of the protesters by law enforcement, and your rationale was...

...the OWSers were BREAKING THE LAW.

Funny how you changed since then.

The OWSers were doing damage to public parks & property and hindering businesses.
This Rancher is doing no such thing, other than trying to make a living as a rancher and BLM and environmentalists are making Ranching too cost prohibitive to stay in businesses.
It happened in the 70's during the Carter years where government made it to expensive to remain a farmer or rancher and many lost their farms and ranches.
It also happened under Franklin Roosevelt, many people lost their farms under his polices also.
When ever Government gets too big and overbearing it costs us the people.

what nonsense... you were concerned with "damage" to a park that has no relationship to you, but it's ok for a bunch of armed thugs to raise arms against our government?

lol

 

[peach174]

Is it your opinion the, "Tortoise was never endangered to begin with" or do you have a legitimate authority on the subject to evidence your statement?

as they say here's the rest of the story....Las Vegas developers beat out the ranchers...

from an article back in 1993...Washington Post

Three years ago, with tortoise populations crashing largely because of habitat destruction across its range in Nevada, California, Arizona and Utah, the federal government added the tortoise to its list of threatened species. The designation immediately imperiled tens of millions of dollars worth of construction projects in this development-crazed city.

But it also triggered a novel experiment in the peaceful resolution of endangered species conflicts that is similar, in many respects, to the process Babbitt would like to try nationwide to defuse explosive development-versus-environment fights.

Employing a rarely used mechanism approved by Congress a decade ago, environmentalists, developers, government officials, cattlemen, miners and off-road vehicle enthusiasts began negotiating a “habitat conservation plan.” The hope was it would satisfy both the needs of the tortoise and the Las Vegas area’s rapacious appetite for development.

The result was a plan to protect the tortoise by providing vast tracts of federal land as a refuge while sacrificing other tortoise areas to development....

By mid-1991, the Fish and Wildlife Service had approved a short-term conservation plan that allows for development of about 22,000 acres of tortoise habitat in and around Las Vegas in exchange for strict conservation measures on 400,000 acres of federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land south of the city. The plan is funded by development fees of between $ 250 and $ 550 an acre paid by builders. Almost $ 10 million has been raised so far.

Among the conservation measures required are the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat. Two weeks ago, the managers of the plan completed the task of purchasing grazing privileges from cattle ranchers who formerly used BLM land....

Cattlemen are particularly irate, and have gone to court to prevent grazing restrictions on BLM land now outside the tortoise management area, where the federal agency has tried to keep cattle from competing with tortoises for forage for three months in the spring. Ranchers like Cliven Bundy, whose family homesteaded his ranch in 1877 and who accuses the government of a “land grab,” are digging in for a fight and say they will not willingly sell their grazing privileges to create another preserve.

The Post article was written more than 21 years ago, before Bundy had been assessed even one dime in fees, and validates his claim that his grievance is about the intrusiveness of federal rules aimed at protecting the desert tortoise, and how the government has used the rules as yet another tool to pick economic winners and losers.

It’s background and context that the networks could have provided as they picked up on the story of a rancher fighting the feds — but, sadly, was omitted from the broadcast coverage this past week.

Read more: What the Networks Aren't Telling You About the Nevada Cattle Battle | NewsBusters

Was Bundy ignored for 21 years or was there an on going dialogue between he and several administrations?

Is the Obama Administration enforcing the law or not? Isn't that the essential question?

No
Obama put in a 35 year old who is inexperienced, in charge and he doesn't know what he is doing.
He used excessive force against protesters instead of using the courts to settle this.

 

[Iceweasel]

The OWSers were doing damage to public parks & property and hindering businesses.
This Rancher is doing no such thing, other than trying to make a living as a rancher and BLM and environmentalists are making Ranching too cost prohibitive to stay in businesses.
It happened in the 70's during the Carter years where government made it to expensive to remain a farmer or rancher and many lost their farms and ranches.
It also happened under Franklin Roosevelt, many people lost their farms under his polices also.
When ever Government gets too big and overbearing it costs us the people.

what nonsense... you were concerned with "damage" to a park that has no relationship to you, but it's ok for a bunch of armed thugs to raise arms against our government?

lol

I eat beef so I have more empathy for dwindling cattle rachers. Government should be helping them instead of drumming them out of business. The Occutards were soiling their feces coated urban campgrounds and creating a public hazard, vandalizing property and blocking traffic. That should concern anyone needing to pass by or use the area.

 

[peach174]

Let me just remind everyone that when it came to the Occupy Wallstreeters, when the partisan shoe was on the other foot,

YOU supported the pepper spraying of the protesters by law enforcement, and your rationale was...

...the OWSers were BREAKING THE LAW.

Funny how you changed since then.

The OWSers were doing damage to public parks & property and hindering businesses.
This Rancher is doing no such thing, other than trying to make a living as a rancher and BLM and environmentalists are making Ranching too cost prohibitive to stay in businesses.
It happened in the 70's during the Carter years where government made it to expensive to remain a farmer or rancher and many lost their farms and ranches.
It also happened under Franklin Roosevelt, many people lost their farms under his polices also.
When ever Government gets too big and overbearing it costs us the people.

what nonsense... you were concerned with "damage" to a park that has no relationship to you, but it's ok for a bunch of armed thugs to raise arms against our government?

lol

I use the Tucson Park that they damaged and the city had to clean up and repair.
The armed thugs are State Militia's who are trained, funded and run by their State Governors.
Modern Militia: State Defense Forces and Homeland Security.
Ours in Arizona started after this was written in 2011.
Brewer signs bill authorizing volunteer state militia | Arizona Capitol Times
Yes our State Militia was there and still is there.
Yes it is OK, it is in our Constitution and the State Constitutions, they are there to stop a tyrannical government and anything else that they would be needed for.
Once again Sen. Harry Reid has no idea what he is talking about.
Remember what he said when he went to a town hall meeting and the people were reading the new health care bill?
He said "where are these people getting the bill from? They are holding up papers and reading parts the bill to me, when there has been no bill passed yet".
He had no idea that the bills are published on line at Thomas.gov
He now has no idea that the Militias who showed up from many different States are the legal state militias.
They are far from armed thugs. They are well armed State trained Citizen Militias.

 

[Vigilante]

A man disobeys the law. An element of anti social, anti government, armed men come to the law breaker's defense. An element of anti Obama self defined conservatives conflate a simple issue into an hysterical rant based on flawed logic, prejudice and hypocrisy.

That about sums up the current crisis exploited by FOX, Limbaugh and the rest of AM radio 'philosophers'.

What's wrong in America today? A minority of people who wrap themselves in our flag, carrying guns and a cross interpreting law to suit their personal needs.

So did the men at the Boston Tea Party! Yes, morality, and ethics, the very essence of what let us win WW II is almost snuffed out by the likes of you!

The Revolution, which we hold so dear as the very beginning of a ONCE GREAT REPUBLIC was only fought by 15% of the population.... Chew on that for awhile, subversive!

I enlisted and served on AD in the US Navy (1967 - 1969), and you? I swore to support and defend the COTUS on three occasion, did you? I supported the Commander-in-Chief under two Presidents I did not support because I did not agree with their foreign policies; yet, I did my duty and rationally discussed my reasons for my lack of support with senior officers, respectfully.

You're an asshole and too concerned with your rep, which suggests you're a weak person who needs approval from others, and lack the self esteem to hold views which are not popular. Here you've found fan audience, the echo chamber, who support even the dumbest of the dumb simply because they too drink the same kool-ade.

I support honest and sincere iconoclasts, you don't meet the standard and seem to be nothing more and much less than the typical charlatan.

I got drafted out of college and full time work for Ma Bell, a 36C20, and for you NON-Vietnam boys, because I came from AT&T I was running field wire connecting foxholes out in the muck and mire of that shithole from 66-68! No such thing as WIRELESS for the men back then, UNLESS it was 35 lbs. strapped to your back! I wasn't a PRIVELEGE scumbag that had a connection to get in the NAVY, at the time, to miss those pesky metal flys that bit like sons of bitches, and usually caused death. I also supported LBJ's intrusion, although I never voted for a democrap!

Your a mental midget, and seeing you were a fag Navy man, and that's what we called those elitist that MISSED the ground pounding fun, I guess it rubbed off on you.

When YOU can't see that the gov't is now run by the very people Khrushchev mentioned in 1959, all I can see is another communist sympathizer. Bundy JUST MIGHT BE that incident that will become the tipping point. We'll wait and see. I've been there, done that, and didn't hide out in some boat away from the action.

Rep? I like to point out when the subversives Neg Rep me. It's a badge of honor, KNOWING that I pissed off some little FAGERAL, and he just couldn't take it like a man! That's why my location says "Inside Pogo's Vacant Head" I've bitch slap that silly bastard in three separate threads, and all he can do is Neg Rep me...I KNOW I got to him, and that is PRICELESS!

I couldn't give a fuck less about what you think of me. I can only put out what I observe over these last 7 decades, and let silly bastards like you, try to refute it! You're up!

 

[Papageorgio]

Ft Hood, not a terrorist action. Benghazi not a terrorist related. Boston Bomber is not terror related. Feds moving in on a cattle rancher, terrorist attack.

Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[OnePercenter]

Reid is right-on!

 

[Kosh]

Another thread proving once again the far left is far detached from reality.

 

[ron4342]

as they say here's the rest of the story....Las Vegas developers beat out the ranchers...

from an article back in 1993...Washington Post


The Post article was written more than 21 years ago, before Bundy had been assessed even one dime in fees, and validates his claim that his grievance is about the intrusiveness of federal rules aimed at protecting the desert tortoise, and how the government has used the rules as yet another tool to pick economic winners and losers.

It’s background and context that the networks could have provided as they picked up on the story of a rancher fighting the feds — but, sadly, was omitted from the broadcast coverage this past week.

Read more: What the Networks Aren't Telling You About the Nevada Cattle Battle | NewsBusters

Was Bundy ignored for 21 years or was there an on going dialogue between he and several administrations?

Is the Obama Administration enforcing the law or not? Isn't that the essential question?

No
Obama put in a 35 year old who is inexperienced, in charge and he doesn't know what he is doing.
He used excessive force against protesters instead of using the courts to settle this.

This has been in the courts for several years. To the best of my knowledge bundy has lost every court case. He refuses to accept the court decisions. The government acted in a legal and lawful way.
"First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay. Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can graze and the number that can graze, and Bundy has ignored those directives. As a result, BLM has sued Bundy twice in federal court, and won both cases. In the second, more recent action, Bundy’s defense is that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question and therefore has no authority to regulate grazing. That simply isn’t right; the land, like most of Nevada, is federally owned. Bundy is representing himself, of necessity: no lawyer could make that argument."
Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy | Power Line
The bottom line is this, bundy wants all of his rights (to graze his cattle wherever he wants) and refuses to accept any of the responsibilities (paying for the use of government land). That is not how things work in a democracy.

 

[peach174]

Was Bundy ignored for 21 years or was there an on going dialogue between he and several administrations?

Is the Obama Administration enforcing the law or not? Isn't that the essential question?

No
Obama put in a 35 year old who is inexperienced, in charge and he doesn't know what he is doing.
He used excessive force against protesters instead of using the courts to settle this.

This has been in the courts for several years. To the best of my knowledge bundy has lost every court case. He refuses to accept the court decisions. The government acted in a legal and lawful way.
"First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay. Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can graze and the number that can graze, and Bundy has ignored those directives. As a result, BLM has sued Bundy twice in federal court, and won both cases. In the second, more recent action, Bundy’s defense is that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question and therefore has no authority to regulate grazing. That simply isn’t right; the land, like most of Nevada, is federally owned. Bundy is representing himself, of necessity: no lawyer could make that argument."
Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy | Power Line
The bottom line is this, bundy wants all of his rights (to graze his cattle wherever he wants) and refuses to accept any of the responsibilities (paying for the use of government land). That is not how things work in a democracy.

He has repeatedly said that he would gladly pay to the State.

 

[ron4342]

Another thread proving once again the far left is far detached from reality.

We are detached from reality because we believe that in a democracy a person should follow the law? We are detached from reality because we believe in a democracy it is wrong to use violence to solve problems? We are detached from reality because we do not approve of people who want all of their rights (the right to graze cattle on government land) without any of the responsibilities (refusing to pay for the use of that land). If anyone is detached from reality, it is you and the shit heads who think like you.

 

[ron4342]

No
Obama put in a 35 year old who is inexperienced, in charge and he doesn't know what he is doing.
He used excessive force against protesters instead of using the courts to settle this.

This has been in the courts for several years. To the best of my knowledge bundy has lost every court case. He refuses to accept the court decisions. The government acted in a legal and lawful way.
"First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay. Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can graze and the number that can graze, and Bundy has ignored those directives. As a result, BLM has sued Bundy twice in federal court, and won both cases. In the second, more recent action, Bundy’s defense is that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question and therefore has no authority to regulate grazing. That simply isn’t right; the land, like most of Nevada, is federally owned. Bundy is representing himself, of necessity: no lawyer could make that argument."
Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy | Power Line
The bottom line is this, bundy wants all of his rights (to graze his cattle wherever he wants) and refuses to accept any of the responsibilities (paying for the use of government land). That is not how things work in a democracy.

He has repeatedly said that he would gladly pay to the State.

Maybe he has said it but he has not done so. According to the article I have posted this has gone on since the early 90's which means he has had plenty of time to pay his debt. To the best of my knowledge there is over a million dollars in grazing fees that are unpaid. Provide your proof that he has agreed to pay or STFU.

 

[peach174]

Another thread proving once again the far left is far detached from reality.

We are detached from reality because we believe that in a democracy a person should follow the law? We are detached from reality because we believe in a democracy it is wrong to use violence to solve problems? We are detached from reality because we do not approve of people who want all of their rights (the right to graze cattle on government land) without any of the responsibilities (refusing to pay for the use of that land). If anyone is detached from reality, it is you and the shit heads who think like you.

The violence was used by the Feds who threw women down on the ground and tasered people. Killed prized expensive Bulls and orphaned more than 16 calf's.

 

[eagle1462010]

Another thread proving once again the far left is far detached from reality.

We are detached from reality because we believe that in a democracy a person should follow the law? We are detached from reality because we believe in a democracy it is wrong to use violence to solve problems? We are detached from reality because we do not approve of people who want all of their rights (the right to graze cattle on government land) without any of the responsibilities (refusing to pay for the use of that land). If anyone is detached from reality, it is you and the shit heads who think like you.

Reality has awoken. States are getting ready to take on the Fed on their land grabs. Bundy has started something. Something the Feds don't like.

They could have just sent a few law enforcement agents their, but they chose the 200 armed men path, and it blew up.

Now we'll see if the States will follow up and challenge the Fed. Looks like they will, and I hope we see an end of the million of acres being seized by the Gov't end, and some given back.

The Feds opened pandora's box. We shall see where it leads.