My revised position on the Bundy Ranch crisis

[Sallow]

the native Americans are another group of people

promised lands then taken away by the government

so you are just for restoration of the white boys rights...got it

he has no 'right' to this land....he was a paying tenant

has nothing to do with white boys rights

the Native Americans do not own the land their reservations sit on

the federal government does

what they are doing to bundy they can do to the Native Americans again

Technically?

No.

The Indians own that land. The Federal government does not.

They don't collect taxes on it. And the regions are autonomous. That's why you have gambling in Indian Reservations.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Excuse me? No we are not just "another group of people." We are (or more rather our ancestors) are the original settlers of this country. Any and all settlement by the white men (no racism intended) happened at our expense. The Trail of Tears for example. This is why you see so many of my people in reservations these days, all for that. Anyone who claims preeminent rights to any land who isn't of Native American descent would in fact be incorrect. They have taken it from my people.

But then again, given that history is history for a reason, my views on this land ownership thing is rather moot, even if I do feel strongly about it. I can't go kicking people out of their homes, now can I?

That would require you to put down the game controller and get out of the house, so no...

So you're Native American now?

 

[LoneLaugher]

[

Excuse me? No we are not just "another group of people." We are (or more rather our ancestors) are the original settlers of this country. Any and all settlement by the white men (no racism intended) happened at our expense. The Trail of Tears for example. This is why you see so many of my people in reservations these days, all for that. Anyone who claims preeminent rights to any land who isn't of Native American descent would in fact be incorrect. They have taken it from my people.

But then again, given that history is history for a reason, my views on this land ownership thing is rather moot, even if I do feel strongly about it. I can't go kicking people out of their homes, now can I?

That would require you to put down the game controller and get out of the house, so no...

So you're Native American now?

What do you think his Native American "name" is?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Excuse me? No we are not just "another group of people." We are (or more rather our ancestors) are the original settlers of this country. Any and all settlement by the white men (no racism intended) happened at our expense. The Trail of Tears for example. This is why you see so many of my people in reservations these days, all for that. Anyone who claims preeminent rights to any land who isn't of Native American descent would in fact be incorrect. They have taken it from my people.

But then again, given that history is history for a reason, my views on this land ownership thing is rather moot, even if I do feel strongly about it. I can't go kicking people out of their homes, now can I?

That would require you to put down the game controller and get out of the house, so no...

So you're Native American now?

What do you think his Native American "name" is?

"Sitting Bull"

or maybe

"Dances with Joysticks"

 

[strollingbones]

last of the moochers?

little big scam?

 

[Howey]

Okay. I never said I was perfect, but even I know when to change my views to reality. I promised myself I would never be so stubborn as to be blinded to the facts. Mr. Bundy did break the law. He lost two court cases which mandated he pack up and leave. In 1993, the Federal Government chose to designate the Bunkerville Range area as a habitat for an endangered species of desert tortoise. They told him that he could not have more than 150 head of cattle on that land at any point in time. Yet he chose to continue letting all 1000 of his cows graze on the land. According to the government, he now owes $1.1 million in back grazing fees.

Let's also get another thing straight here. He doesn't own the land. He owned (past tense) the grazing rights to the Bunkerville Allotment. Under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the government can revoke grazing rights for a set of reasons, including but not limited to circumstances which deplete the grazing area. He claims "preemptive rights" over the land in question, but as I see it, I tend to disagree. Being a Native American, I am inclined to believe that the Native American tribes who lived in that area for well over 3,000 years have a "preeminent right" to that land, not Mr. Bundy, or the Federal Government; but I digress.

In 1998, Clark County purchased the grazing rights to this 250 square mile swath of land and chose to retire them once again for the sake of a desert tortoise. Mr. Bundy contends that only the State of Nevada can solve this issue since it does indeed own the grazing rights. He would be correct. But he also did make threatening statements to government officials. That still doesn't change the fact he broke the law. That also does not excuse the government from its behavior either.

I cannot ignore how the government is handling this issue. They have assaulted protesters and set up "free speech" zones for these protesters. They proceeded to taser Bundy's son in the fracas. My support for Mr. Bundy doesn't hinge on his misconduct, but on how he is being treated by the government. He could have simply up and left, but he didn't. The government could have simply conducted this operation peacefully, not in a heavy handed manner, and without inflaming the surrounding populous plus ultimately Americans across the country. I think both the Federal Government and more ultimately the State of Nevada hold the fate of this entire conflict in their hands.

I am also inclined to believe that if further, more intense violence ensues i.e. gun violence, this could be the exact excuse that Democrats and our President would use to pass some sort of gun control legislation in Congress. Militias are falling for the bait, and any way you slice it, this won't be good for anyone.

That is all. Discuss this as you please.

Bundy's son was tasered after he obstructed oncoming traffic, kicked a guard dog and refused to follow a lawful order. The police would have been justified shooting him.

But thanks for at least realizing Bundy was at fault.

 

[mudwhistle]

Okay. I never said I was perfect, but even I know when to change my views to reality. I promised myself I would never be so stubborn as to be blinded to the facts. Mr. Bundy did break the law. He lost two court cases which mandated he pack up and leave. In 1993, the Federal Government chose to designate the Bunkerville Range area as a habitat for an endangered species of desert tortoise. They told him that he could not have more than 150 head of cattle on that land at any point in time. Yet he chose to continue letting all 1000 of his cows graze on the land. According to the government, he now owes $1.1 million in back grazing fees.

Let's also get another thing straight here. He doesn't own the land. He owned (past tense) the grazing rights to the Bunkerville Allotment. Under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the government can revoke grazing rights for a set of reasons, including but not limited to circumstances which deplete the grazing area. He claims "preemptive rights" over the land in question, but as I see it, I tend to disagree. Being a Native American, I am inclined to believe that the Native American tribes who lived in that area for well over 3,000 years have a "preeminent right" to that land, not Mr. Bundy, or the Federal Government; but I digress.

In 1998, Clark County purchased the grazing rights to this 250 square mile swath of land and chose to retire them once again for the sake of a desert tortoise. Mr. Bundy contends that only the State of Nevada can solve this issue since it does indeed own the grazing rights. He would be correct. But he also did make threatening statements to government officials. That still doesn't change the fact he broke the law. That also does not excuse the government from its behavior either.

I cannot ignore how the government is handling this issue. They have assaulted protesters and set up "free speech" zones for these protesters. They proceeded to taser Bundy's son in the fracas. My support for Mr. Bundy doesn't hinge on his misconduct, but on how he is being treated by the government. He could have simply up and left, but he didn't. The government could have simply conducted this operation peacefully, not in a heavy handed manner, and without inflaming the surrounding populous plus ultimately Americans across the country. I think both the Federal Government and more ultimately the State of Nevada hold the fate of this entire conflict in their hands.

I am also inclined to believe that if further, more intense violence ensues i.e. gun violence, this could be the exact excuse that Democrats and our President would use to pass some sort of gun control legislation in Congress. Militias are falling for the bait, and any way you slice it, this won't be good for anyone.

That is all. Discuss this as you please.

This is all a sham.

Harry Reid and Barack Obama trying to push farmers around over a Desert Reptile.

The cows and the critters have been coexisting for close to a hundred years, yet now, while Democrats are in charge, all of the sudden it becomes a problem.

Why does this always happen while Democrats occupy the White House?

Because their compassion only extends to their special interest groups. Average Americans just trying to live their lives are getting in their way.

The law isn't on this rancher's side simply because the powers that be are changing laws to force these people out. Vegetarians and Sierra Club members are out in force trying to kill cattle because of their farts, plain and simple.

 

[mudwhistle]

so you are just for restoration of the white boys rights...got it

he has no 'right' to this land....he was a paying tenant

has nothing to do with white boys rights

the Native Americans do not own the land their reservations sit on

the federal government does

what they are doing to bundy they can do to the Native Americans again

Technically?

No.

The Indians own that land. The Federal government does not.

They don't collect taxes on it. And the regions are autonomous. That's why you have gambling in Indian Reservations.

People from India own the land?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Okay. I never said I was perfect, but even I know when to change my views to reality. I promised myself I would never be so stubborn as to be blinded to the facts. Mr. Bundy did break the law. He lost two court cases which mandated he pack up and leave. In 1993, the Federal Government chose to designate the Bunkerville Range area as a habitat for an endangered species of desert tortoise. They told him that he could not have more than 150 head of cattle on that land at any point in time. Yet he chose to continue letting all 1000 of his cows graze on the land. According to the government, he now owes $1.1 million in back grazing fees.

Let's also get another thing straight here. He doesn't own the land. He owned (past tense) the grazing rights to the Bunkerville Allotment. Under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the government can revoke grazing rights for a set of reasons, including but not limited to circumstances which deplete the grazing area. He claims "preemptive rights" over the land in question, but as I see it, I tend to disagree. Being a Native American, I am inclined to believe that the Native American tribes who lived in that area for well over 3,000 years have a "preeminent right" to that land, not Mr. Bundy, or the Federal Government; but I digress.

In 1998, Clark County purchased the grazing rights to this 250 square mile swath of land and chose to retire them once again for the sake of a desert tortoise. Mr. Bundy contends that only the State of Nevada can solve this issue since it does indeed own the grazing rights. He would be correct. But he also did make threatening statements to government officials. That still doesn't change the fact he broke the law. That also does not excuse the government from its behavior either.

I cannot ignore how the government is handling this issue. They have assaulted protesters and set up "free speech" zones for these protesters. They proceeded to taser Bundy's son in the fracas. My support for Mr. Bundy doesn't hinge on his misconduct, but on how he is being treated by the government. He could have simply up and left, but he didn't. The government could have simply conducted this operation peacefully, not in a heavy handed manner, and without inflaming the surrounding populous plus ultimately Americans across the country. I think both the Federal Government and more ultimately the State of Nevada hold the fate of this entire conflict in their hands.

I am also inclined to believe that if further, more intense violence ensues i.e. gun violence, this could be the exact excuse that Democrats and our President would use to pass some sort of gun control legislation in Congress. Militias are falling for the bait, and any way you slice it, this won't be good for anyone.

That is all. Discuss this as you please.

I also revised my position yesterday, TK. Same reason. If we don't obey the law of the land we are acting in lawlessness and that is wrong. As I understand it there is a standing court order. That pretty much settles it unless he wants to challenge it in court. But inviting thousands of people out there to join in the stand off is wrong. What if these people get hurt? Does the rancher want that on his conscience? I wouldn't want it on mine. The situation seems to be escalating and it is very disturbing to me. Even if his rights were violated the place to settle this is in a court of law. For the sake of others he must rethink this. imo.

 

[mudwhistle]

Okay. I never said I was perfect, but even I know when to change my views to reality. I promised myself I would never be so stubborn as to be blinded to the facts. Mr. Bundy did break the law. He lost two court cases which mandated he pack up and leave. In 1993, the Federal Government chose to designate the Bunkerville Range area as a habitat for an endangered species of desert tortoise. They told him that he could not have more than 150 head of cattle on that land at any point in time. Yet he chose to continue letting all 1000 of his cows graze on the land. According to the government, he now owes $1.1 million in back grazing fees.

Let's also get another thing straight here. He doesn't own the land. He owned (past tense) the grazing rights to the Bunkerville Allotment. Under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the government can revoke grazing rights for a set of reasons, including but not limited to circumstances which deplete the grazing area. He claims "preemptive rights" over the land in question, but as I see it, I tend to disagree. Being a Native American, I am inclined to believe that the Native American tribes who lived in that area for well over 3,000 years have a "preeminent right" to that land, not Mr. Bundy, or the Federal Government; but I digress.

In 1998, Clark County purchased the grazing rights to this 250 square mile swath of land and chose to retire them once again for the sake of a desert tortoise. Mr. Bundy contends that only the State of Nevada can solve this issue since it does indeed own the grazing rights. He would be correct. But he also did make threatening statements to government officials. That still doesn't change the fact he broke the law. That also does not excuse the government from its behavior either.

I cannot ignore how the government is handling this issue. They have assaulted protesters and set up "free speech" zones for these protesters. They proceeded to taser Bundy's son in the fracas. My support for Mr. Bundy doesn't hinge on his misconduct, but on how he is being treated by the government. He could have simply up and left, but he didn't. The government could have simply conducted this operation peacefully, not in a heavy handed manner, and without inflaming the surrounding populous plus ultimately Americans across the country. I think both the Federal Government and more ultimately the State of Nevada hold the fate of this entire conflict in their hands.

I am also inclined to believe that if further, more intense violence ensues i.e. gun violence, this could be the exact excuse that Democrats and our President would use to pass some sort of gun control legislation in Congress. Militias are falling for the bait, and any way you slice it, this won't be good for anyone.

That is all. Discuss this as you please.

I also revised my position yesterday, TK. Same reason. If we don't obey the law of the land we are acting in lawlessness and that is wrong. As I understand it there is a standing court order. That pretty much settles it unless he wants to challenge it in court. But inviting thousands of people out there to join in the stand off is wrong. What if these people get hurt? Does the rancher want that on his conscience? I wouldn't want it on mine. The situation seems to be escalating and it is very disturbing to me. Even if his rights were violated the place to settle this is in a court of law. For the sake of others he must rethink this. imo.

Wouldn't be the first time a federal judge ruled incorrectly to help the rich squash the little people under their thumb.

The BLM’s official reason for encircling the Bundy family with sniper teams and helicopters was to protect the endangered desert tortoise, which the agency has previously been killing in mass due to “budget constraints.”

“A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher; they want his land,” journalist Dana Loesch wrote. “The tortoise wasn’t of concern when [U.S. Senator] Harry Reid worked with BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore.”

“Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests,” she added. “BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area.”

“If only Cliven Bundy were a big Reid donor.” http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/

 

[Plasmaball]

I believe the son got tased because he went after a k-9 unit which we know is the same as going after a real human cop legal wise.
Furthermore the government handled this fine. It took them 20 years to get to this point. 20 years! This wasnt some rash over reaction. Bundy forced it to boil to this point by " Not listening to any federal law"-his words.
Last we didnt need another thread on this. You could have submitted this in the countless other ones. Way to be narcissistic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bundy is neither legally nor morally right.

He is a welfare cheat using our federal lands for his selfish gain.

This is the wrong horse for the militia to ride.

 

[KissMy]

the heritage of his family ranch dates back to the homestead act by Abe Lincoln

Did his family own title to that land?

Did the government buy the land from his family, or did they just take it from them?

Did he own title to that land his cattle grazed on?

 

[Dot Com]

I commend the two people put down the DrudgeFoxRush kool aid at least in part. rw media has been fanning the flames, like Beck was known for, from the beginning.

(thats 007 in the bottom left & AquaAthena on the right under the jug.)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[Plasmaball]

the heritage of his family ranch dates back to the homestead act by Abe Lincoln

Did his family own title to that land?

Did the government buy the land from his family, or did they just take it from them?

Did he own title to that land his cattle grazed on?

no

no

no

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

The land the cattle is on isn't federal. It is State. Which is where Bundy's issue lies I believe, Jake. The bottom line is he has to obey the court order. If he loses in court he has to go back to court or take it to the supreme court but he cannot take the law into his own hands. This isn't the wild west.

What is most disturbing to me is the govt dragging this out. Why choose to do this now? Right before the anniversary of WACO? April 19th? Was that planned? Is is pretty creepy if you ask me.

I feel there should have been more news about this story out of the gate. Because there wasn't alot of news reporting early on - it led to many different stories, speculations about what happened. It was handled very poorly by the govt imo. Bundy hasn't handled it well either. It's a mess.

 

[mudwhistle]

I believe the son got tased because he went after a k-9 unit which we know is the same as going after a real human cop legal wise.
Furthermore the government handled this fine. It took them 20 years to get to this point. 20 years! This wasnt some rash over reaction. Bundy forced it to boil to this point by " Not listening to any federal law"-his words.
Last we didnt need another thread on this. You could have submitted this in the countless other ones. Way to be narcissistic.

The dispute started under Clinton....and Obama is eager to escalate it.....mostly because he loves throwing his weight around.

Maybe he can off himself a few crackers in the process. Pretty good bet he's already killed 300 of the man's cattle.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

the heritage of his family ranch dates back to the homestead act by Abe Lincoln

Did his family own title to that land?

Did the government buy the land from his family, or did they just take it from them?

Did he own title to that land his cattle grazed on?

What I heard was his family owned the land until the desert turtle protection was needed and then the govt took oversight of the land? When it should have been the State? Then the story developed to the govt has been euthanising these turtles because there was so many of them so it looks as if he could have a case in court if he would obey the court order. He has to obey the court order.

 

[Plasmaball]

I believe the son got tased because he went after a k-9 unit which we know is the same as going after a real human cop legal wise.
Furthermore the government handled this fine. It took them 20 years to get to this point. 20 years! This wasnt some rash over reaction. Bundy forced it to boil to this point by " Not listening to any federal law"-his words.
Last we didnt need another thread on this. You could have submitted this in the countless other ones. Way to be narcissistic.

The dispute started under Clinton....and Obama is eager to escalate it.....mostly because he loves throwing his weight around.

Maybe he can off himself a few crackers in the process. Pretty good bet he's already killed 300 of the man's cattle.

you are a fucking retard who literally knows nothing about this issue.

 

[mudwhistle]

The land the cattle is on isn't federal. It is State. Which is where Bundy's issue lies I believe, Jake. The bottom line is he has to obey the court order. If he loses in court he has to go back to court or take it to the supreme court but he cannot take the law into his own hands. This isn't the wild west.

What is most disturbing to me is the govt dragging this out. Why choose to do this now? Right before the anniversary of WACO? April 19th? Was that planned? Is is pretty creepy if you ask me.

I feel there should have been more news about this story out of the gate. Because there wasn't alot of news reporting early on - it led to many different stories, speculations about what happened. It was handled very poorly by the govt imo. Bundy hasn't handled it well either. It's a mess.

Anything to bring in the base.

What's on the docket?

Accuse Republicans of voter suppression = Racism
Accuse Republicans of supporting unequal pay = Republicans hate women
Accuse Republicans of supporting ranchers = Republicans hate the environment