I know that it feeds your confirmation bias to convince yourself that this is all an evil plot against ranchers, but it takes a significant amount of willful ignorance to ignore all of the actual facts of the situation.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch
- Thread starter Lovebears65
- Start date
I know that it feeds your confirmation bias to convince yourself that this is all an evil plot against ranchers, but it takes a significant amount of willful ignorance to ignore all of the actual facts of the situation.
But what you seem to be missing here is that Clark County has issued no formal opinion, either for or against Mr. Bundy.
Their actions - buying the grazing rights and then retiring them to protect the tortoise - makes their position fairly clear.
Oh, so now they aren't allowed to change their opinion?
They may be "allowed" to. There's just no reason to think they would.
No that doesn't seem to be what happened here.
The feds and state decided they wanted a turtle sanctuary. Nobody really knows why.
Worked out a deal to make that happen by transferring ownership and retiring the grazing rights simultaniously thus voiding the lease this family had in place and had paid for for years.
It's EXACTLY what happened here. In fact, it's very well documented. Not even the rancher himself is challenging the timeline I put forward.
1946 - 1993: The Bundy family own and pay for grazing rights.
1993: BLM changes grazing rules, and in "protest", Bundy decides to stop paying, and ignore the new rules.
1998: The courts decide against Bundy, vacating his grazing rights and putting them on the market, and issue a court order for him to remove his cattle. He ignores it.
1998: Clark County, NV buys the rights, and retires them.
2013: The courts once again order him to remove his cattle. He again ignores it.
2014: His cattle finally get evicted.
it is an over reach by the federal government
How is it an "overreach"?
The Constitution very specifically gives Congress control of federally owned land.
Missouri_Mike
Diamond Member
- Nov 5, 2012
- 24,075
- 15,604
- 1,405
Do you really think that It would be legal for me to keep livestock on someone else's property without permission, even if they themselves didn't want to do anything with the land?
You said abandoned land. So does the property down the street from you automatically become federal land? Obviously nobody wants it so it defaults to the feds?
No. One doesn't lose ownership of the land simply because they don't want to do anything with it.
Just like the federal government doesn't lose ownership of the land simply because they're not doing anything with it.
An owner can let the land sit and and do nothing with it. That's fine they own it. The feds however shouldn't have that option as a governing body. If they have land it should be up for claims of reasonable use and let go of it immediately. Their hold of land isn't to benefit anyone and now seems to have become just keeping people off for spite and stupid reasons.
You said the land was worthless and nobody wanted it but that doesn't appear to be true. The Bundy's thought it was useful and were paying for grazing rights until the government decided their use was better and cancelled their grazing contract. For some turtles, that now need killed off because there are too many and all the while the rancher still had cattle on the land. So the turtle is doing just fine with the cattle there.
At what point do we start using common sense here? If anyone has a better use for the land it's Bundy. The feds have no use for it. The feds should have the least claim to this property.
You said abandoned land. So does the property down the street from you automatically become federal land? Obviously nobody wants it so it defaults to the feds?
No. One doesn't lose ownership of the land simply because they don't want to do anything with it.
Just like the federal government doesn't lose ownership of the land simply because they're not doing anything with it.
An owner can let the land sit and and do nothing with it. That's fine they own it. The feds however shouldn't have that option as a governing body. If they have land it should be up for claims of reasonable use and let go of it immediately. Their hold of land isn't to benefit anyone and now seems to have become just keeping people off for spite and stupid reasons.
You said the land was worthless and nobody wanted it but that doesn't appear to be true. The Bundy's thought it was useful and were paying for grazing rights until the government decided their use was better and cancelled their grazing contract. For some turtles, that now need killed off because there are too many and all the while the rancher still had cattle on the land. So the turtle is doing just fine with the cattle there.
At what point do we start using common sense here? If anyone has a better use for the land it's Bundy. The feds have no use for it. The feds should have the least claim to this property.
We're not talking about common sense, or what "should" be.
We're talking about the reality that we live it. What "is".
Again, the government didn't "cancel" the grazing rights until Bundy had refused to pay or follow the rules for 5 years - and then didn't actually enforce their ruling for another 15.
Last edited:
Missouri_Mike
Diamond Member
- Nov 5, 2012
- 24,075
- 15,604
- 1,405
It's EXACTLY what happened here. In fact, it's very well documented. Not even the rancher himself is challenging the timeline I put forward.
1946 - 1993: The Bundy family own and pay for grazing rights.
1993: BLM changes grazing rules, and in "protest", Bundy decides to stop paying, and ignore the new rules.
1998: The courts decide against Bundy, vacating his grazing rights and putting them on the market, and issue a court order for him to remove his cattle. He ignores it.
1998: Clark County, NV buys the rights, and retires them.
2013: The courts once again order him to remove his cattle. He again ignores it.
2014: His cattle finally get evicted.
it is an over reach by the federal government
How is it an "overreach"?
The Constitution very specifically gives Congress control of federally owned land.
Where does the Constitution do that?
it is an over reach by the federal government
How is it an "overreach"?
The Constitution very specifically gives Congress control of federally owned land.
Where does the Constitution do that?
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
Missouri_Mike
Diamond Member
- Nov 5, 2012
- 24,075
- 15,604
- 1,405
No. One doesn't lose ownership of the land simply because they don't want to do anything with it.
Just like the federal government doesn't lose ownership of the land simply because they're not doing anything with it.
An owner can let the land sit and and do nothing with it. That's fine they own it. The feds however shouldn't have that option as a governing body. If they have land it should be up for claims of reasonable use and let go of it immediately. Their hold of land isn't to benefit anyone and now seems to have become just keeping people off for spite and stupid reasons.
You said the land was worthless and nobody wanted it but that doesn't appear to be true. The Bundy's thought it was useful and were paying for grazing rights until the government decided their use was better and cancelled their grazing contract. For some turtles, that now need killed off because there are too many and all the while the rancher still had cattle on the land. So the turtle is doing just fine with the cattle there.
At what point do we start using common sense here? If anyone has a better use for the land it's Bundy. The feds have no use for it. The feds should have the least claim to this property.
We're not talking about common sense, or what "should" be.
We're talking about the reality that we live it. What "is".
Again, the government didn't "cancel" the grazing rights until Bundy had refused to pay or follow the rules for 5 years - and then didn't actually enforce their ruling for another 15.
No, common sense isn't involved and that's the problem. The reality is federal government force is the problem no matter how stupid their position is they will persue it until they kill someone.
The reality of this is that the feds make up rules void of common sense and then use force to enforce those stupid decisions.
Think about it, why are we having a stand off in the middle of a desert over land that nobody but this one family has any use for after a bunch of turtles that now need killed because there are too many of them were why the government jumped in?
Give me a solid reason why this is happening and why the feds seem to think sending 200 armed enforcers there is a common sense solution. All I see from this stand off is the feds enforcing stupid just because they want to establish their power.
An owner can let the land sit and and do nothing with it. That's fine they own it. The feds however shouldn't have that option as a governing body. If they have land it should be up for claims of reasonable use and let go of it immediately. Their hold of land isn't to benefit anyone and now seems to have become just keeping people off for spite and stupid reasons.
You said the land was worthless and nobody wanted it but that doesn't appear to be true. The Bundy's thought it was useful and were paying for grazing rights until the government decided their use was better and cancelled their grazing contract. For some turtles, that now need killed off because there are too many and all the while the rancher still had cattle on the land. So the turtle is doing just fine with the cattle there.
At what point do we start using common sense here? If anyone has a better use for the land it's Bundy. The feds have no use for it. The feds should have the least claim to this property.
We're not talking about common sense, or what "should" be.
We're talking about the reality that we live it. What "is".
Again, the government didn't "cancel" the grazing rights until Bundy had refused to pay or follow the rules for 5 years - and then didn't actually enforce their ruling for another 15.
No, common sense isn't involved and that's the problem. The reality is federal government force is the problem no matter how stupid their position is they will persue it until they kill someone.
The reality of this is that the feds make up rules void of common sense and then use force to enforce those stupid decisions.
Think about it, why are we having a stand off in the middle of a desert over land that nobody but this one family has any use for after a bunch of turtles that now need killed because there are too many of them were why the government jumped in?
Give me a solid reason why this is happening and why the feds seem to think sending 200 armed enforcers there is a common sense solution. All I see from this stand off is the feds enforcing stupid just because they want to establish their power.
We live in a nation of laws, and for society to function those laws need to be enforced.
The "outrageous" thing here is that it took 20 years for the enforcement to happen.
Missouri_Mike
Diamond Member
- Nov 5, 2012
- 24,075
- 15,604
- 1,405
How is it an "overreach"?
The Constitution very specifically gives Congress control of federally owned land.
Where does the Constitution do that?
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
The congress has the primary job of giving up the land to people that want it, disposing of this land to the people. It's why we had the land rush, their job was to rid themselves of ownership as quickly as possible.
What needful rules and regulations are they enforcing in the Nevada desert today? They should dispose this land to someone who has a better use for it, or even wants it.
Where does the Constitution do that?
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
The congress has the primary job of giving up the land to people that want it, disposing of this land to the people. It's why we had the land rush, their job was to rid themselves of ownership as quickly as possible.
What needful rules and regulations are they enforcing in the Nevada desert today? They should dispose this land to someone who has a better use for it, or even wants it.
Where in the Constitution is that "primary job" of Congress explained?
Or did you just come up with that yourself?
Missouri_Mike
Diamond Member
- Nov 5, 2012
- 24,075
- 15,604
- 1,405
We're not talking about common sense, or what "should" be.
We're talking about the reality that we live it. What "is".
Again, the government didn't "cancel" the grazing rights until Bundy had refused to pay or follow the rules for 5 years - and then didn't actually enforce their ruling for another 15.
No, common sense isn't involved and that's the problem. The reality is federal government force is the problem no matter how stupid their position is they will persue it until they kill someone.
The reality of this is that the feds make up rules void of common sense and then use force to enforce those stupid decisions.
Think about it, why are we having a stand off in the middle of a desert over land that nobody but this one family has any use for after a bunch of turtles that now need killed because there are too many of them were why the government jumped in?
Give me a solid reason why this is happening and why the feds seem to think sending 200 armed enforcers there is a common sense solution. All I see from this stand off is the feds enforcing stupid just because they want to establish their power.
We live in a nation of laws, and for society to function those laws need to be enforced.
The "outrageous" thing here is that it took 20 years for the enforcement to happen.
We live in a nation that so many laws exist that every single one of us is a criminal for nothing more than being alive.
The outrageous thing here is the government will actually send armed people to enforce the stupid they have made into law.
Laws no longer have to make sense, be effective or even be for the greater good of the country they are simply laws that the government will take to the end of the earth to enforce because...well it's a law.
On the other end we have laws they will ignore for political expediancy such as immigration laws because we want to ignore those ones.
We are a nation of so many fucking laws we can selectively prosecute or not prosecute anyone we want to.
And yet our judgement of a congress is they did nothing because they didn't pass even more fucking laws to screw us.
Laws mean nothing if they don't actually accomplish anything. The ten commandments were pretty good but we've expanded that to about a million pages of such convoluted bullshit you need a lawyer to work your way through it.
It's fucking cows, eating grass you don't give a fuck about anyway on land you don't give a fuck about and it's being protected by government sources for what?
For fuck sakes, some cows ate grass that if they didn't eat it would just die off and I'm supposed to give a fuck about the government thinking they need to screw someone out of that because they didn't collect their tax dollars from it? Dollars that do actually nothing for anyone but the government wants their money, unless they want turtles, then they want me to spend more money on helping the turtles that are doing fine without my money and have lived for 140 years with the cattle with no problems.
I just can't take the fucking stupid that the government has become.
Missouri_Mike
Diamond Member
- Nov 5, 2012
- 24,075
- 15,604
- 1,405
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2
The congress has the primary job of giving up the land to people that want it, disposing of this land to the people. It's why we had the land rush, their job was to rid themselves of ownership as quickly as possible.
What needful rules and regulations are they enforcing in the Nevada desert today? They should dispose this land to someone who has a better use for it, or even wants it.
Where in the Constitution is that "primary job" of Congress explained?
Or did you just come up with that yourself?
I just read it, nowhere does it say the feds will retain the property rights. I'm pretty sure the founders never even concieved that a state would be 85% owned by the federal government. That would totally defeat the 10th amendment.
The federal government was never meant to own any portion of any state, it's why they separated DC from the states as the seat of the federal government with no statehood and no collegiate's in elections, no representatives and no congressmen.
The congress has the primary job of giving up the land to people that want it, disposing of this land to the people. It's why we had the land rush, their job was to rid themselves of ownership as quickly as possible.
What needful rules and regulations are they enforcing in the Nevada desert today? They should dispose this land to someone who has a better use for it, or even wants it.
Where in the Constitution is that "primary job" of Congress explained?
Or did you just come up with that yourself?
I just read it, nowhere does it say the feds will retain the property rights. I'm pretty sure the founders never even concieved that a state would be 85% owned by the federal government. That would totally defeat the 10th amendment.
The federal government was never meant to own any portion of any state, it's why they separated DC from the states as the seat of the federal government with no statehood and no collegiate's in elections, no representatives and no congressmen.
In other words, you've got nothing other than your own imagination of what you think the the founders "really meant".
depotoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 9, 2012
- 40,718
- 13,425
- 2,280
Why do the feds own it? It should have always been state land why are the feds hanging onto it if it does nothing for them and is a pain in the ass to manage?
I just don't get the logic in land being so worthless that nobody wants it yet the feds think it's valuable enough to send 200 armed agents to take it away from someone who actually found a use for it. It's not like he's building cities here. His cattle eat the grass that grows out there for free. It costs nobody in the US a dime for this to happen.
Why the fuck am I paying taxes for an army to go out there and round up this guys fucking cows?
No that doesn't seem to be what happened here.
The feds and state decided they wanted a turtle sanctuary. Nobody really knows why.
Worked out a deal to make that happen by transferring ownership and retiring the grazing rights simultaniously thus voiding the lease this family had in place and had paid for for years.
The feds and state decided they wanted a turtle sanctuary
turtles that they are so concerned about
that they euthanized about a thousand of them
I know that it feeds your confirmation bias to convince yourself that this is all an evil plot against ranchers, but it takes a significant amount of willful ignorance to ignore all of the actual facts of the situation.
Look, the guy should have paid his fees, but the feds should have marked the boundaries as well. My point is this goes much deeper than just his not paying his fees. Environmentalists sueing to keep them out, politicians helping them achieve their goals for their own benefit. Sieera Clubs deep pockets have helped each if thowe thwt have tried to pass the bill for them, put pressure on blm to get them oo Ranchers are being squeezed out everywhere they possibly can be by environmentalists and govt as well. I am an outdoorsman and love all things natural, but I also realize that we cannot go back to a time when man did not walk the earth, which these environmentalists would do if they could. Look at how crops to feed people and their families have been forgone as well as the growers livelihoods over saving an insignificant fish. The examples are all over the place. And yet here they sit euthanizing the very thing they tried to claim these cattle were harming, even though cattle had been there for at the least 75 years. Look at how they have stopped brush from being cleared in natural areas to only then become a much worse threat from fires which in turn threaten the wildlife and people. This is being handled poorly as well. And so many feel run over they are reacting and I hope and pray tempers don't cause harm on either side
I need to quit now so I can finally sleep for awhile. This type of crap just drives me crqzy.
We're not talking about common sense, or what "should" be.
We're talking about the reality that we live it. What "is".
Again, the government didn't "cancel" the grazing rights until Bundy had refused to pay or follow the rules for 5 years - and then didn't actually enforce their ruling for another 15.
No, common sense isn't involved and that's the problem. The reality is federal government force is the problem no matter how stupid their position is they will persue it until they kill someone.
The reality of this is that the feds make up rules void of common sense and then use force to enforce those stupid decisions.
Think about it, why are we having a stand off in the middle of a desert over land that nobody but this one family has any use for after a bunch of turtles that now need killed because there are too many of them were why the government jumped in?
Give me a solid reason why this is happening and why the feds seem to think sending 200 armed enforcers there is a common sense solution. All I see from this stand off is the feds enforcing stupid just because they want to establish their power.
We live in a nation of laws, and for society to function those laws need to be enforced.
The "outrageous" thing here is that it took 20 years for the enforcement to happen.
Laws only stand as the tolerance of the subjects is tested. When people talk about how we can't purchase planes, tanks, automatic machine guns etc, and point to those as 'infringements' for justification of further infringements, I chuckle. You see, those infringements only stand because law abiding citizens allow them to. Not because we must obey.
That's why further infringements will not be tolerated like the ones we have already agreed too.
-Geaux
jillian
Princess
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
neo-confederatet insurrectionists....
neo-confederatet insurrectionists....
I can't comment on the OP, however, it is known that desert tortoise boundaries were moved to help out an ally of Reid. It is also well known that there are too many desert tortoises at the moment. In fact the desert tortoise hatchery is being closed down and they are offering over 1000 tortoises for adoption.
Desert Tortoise Adoption Programs - Tortoise Group
This is true, but entirely unrelated to the issue with Bundy's cattle.
Not so. They are using it as an excuse.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
[youtube]tfOVg5R4ngA[/youtube]
Well, Nevada has lots of room in which to bury the stupid assholes.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 49
- Views
- 954
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 213
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 198
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 48
- Views
- 450
- Replies
- 386
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 95
- Views
- 562
- Replies
- 30
- Views
- 111
- Replies
- 188
- Views
- 8K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8504
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 482
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-