Don't Mess with Texas?

[rightwinger]

the issue was absolutely slavery. you can couch it any way you want. the only reason for that war was slavery.

and only people who engage in revisionist history pretend otherwise.

puleeze... land grabs.

right... like the grab of state sovereignty when the big bad armed feds walked black kids into segregationist schools.

no doubt that wasn't a race issue either.

Jesus.........I just told you this issue isn't damned Slavery. It's about Fed land grabs that are ongoing..............

And anyone who disagrees with the Fed is a damned Racist.

Does your side ever get bored with that Straw Argument.

Dumbass, show us proof, other than rightwingnut flapyap, that there are such land grabs going on. Thus far, all you have shown us is a Nevada fruitloop trying to get out of paying legal grazing fees. And calling in a bunch of armed fruitloops to back him up in his illegal operations.

I'm with you

I refuse to even read up on this issue

Been burned too many times by rightwing outrage that turns out to be misleading, misinterpreted or outright lying from the rightwing media

My kneejerk reaction is...this is all rightwing propaganda
Not worth my time

 

[eagle1462010]

It is amazing how often the race card comes up when we start talking about States Rights

because what else is it about?

it's about revenwers....

slavery.....

segregation.....

and women's reproductive rights.

oh yeah... and the whole guns, G-d and gays thing.

in other words, anything that forces them to honor the equal treatment of people under the law.

 

[eagle1462010]

You ******* dumb ass, the land in question is BLM. It was never Bundy's land. And it is being damaged by Bundy running 1000 head on land that is rated for 160 head at the most. So, not only is the jerk not paying for use of land which is not his, and never was his, he is damaging public property. And his family has only owned that 'ranch', since 1948, not since 1877 as he claimed.

You refer to land grabs under Carter and Clinton, yet never link to prove there were such. I think you are a liar and that such never happened.

Oh spare me the outrage. That data has been posted on numerous threads already. It's a matter of history.

This thread is about Texas. Should the BLM seize this land that Texas claims.

Yes or no.

Pick a damned side on the Texas issue.

Texas claims it, the Feds claim it, it is in the courts, and will be decided in the courts. And it is 140 acres, not 90,000 as you fools claim.

Who's side are you on..............

Texas or the Feds..............

Simple question........and why...............

 

[rightwinger]

It is amazing how often the race card comes up when we start talking about States Rights

because what else is it about?

it's about revenwers....

slavery.....

segregation.....

and women's reproductive rights.

oh yeah... and the whole guns, G-d and gays thing.

in other words, anything that forces them to honor the equal treatment of people under the law.

In my lifetime, any cry of "States Rights" has always equated to a violation of civil rights

 

[Old Rocks]

You ******* dumb ass, the land in question is BLM. It was never Bundy's land. And it is being damaged by Bundy running 1000 head on land that is rated for 160 head at the most. So, not only is the jerk not paying for use of land which is not his, and never was his, he is damaging public property. And his family has only owned that 'ranch', since 1948, not since 1877 as he claimed.

You refer to land grabs under Carter and Clinton, yet never link to prove there were such. I think you are a liar and that such never happened.

but it's ok for bundy to be a thief... he's an old gubmint hating white supremacist.

but if a black kid stole $20 worth of foodstamps, they'd be demanding he be jailed

and if the black kid raised a gun at federal officers? oh wow... I can't even imagine.

psst..............

keep it quite.........

but the Federal Gov't took the land in 1993 to save the turtles..........

Don't let that out.........

shhhhhhhhhhhh...........

Psst, keep it quite, you are a liar. It was and always has been Federal land. And, since it belongs to the Federal Government, it can be administrated as they see fit. Bundy's grazing rights were never denied, they just were limited to the number of cows the land could carry without damage, and the government expected him to pay the grazing fees.

 

[eagle1462010]

but it's ok for bundy to be a thief... he's an old gubmint hating white supremacist.

but if a black kid stole $20 worth of foodstamps, they'd be demanding he be jailed

and if the black kid raised a gun at federal officers? oh wow... I can't even imagine.

psst..............

keep it quite.........

but the Federal Gov't took the land in 1993 to save the turtles..........

Don't let that out.........

shhhhhhhhhhhh...........

Psst, keep it quite, you are a liar. It was and always has been Federal land. And, since it belongs to the Federal Government, it can be administrated as they see fit. Bundy's grazing rights were never denied, they just were limited to the number of cows the land could carry without damage, and the government expected him to pay the grazing fees.

Tjhe State of Texas disagrees.

Psst..........

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh spare me the outrage. That data has been posted on numerous threads already. It's a matter of history.

This thread is about Texas. Should the BLM seize this land that Texas claims.

Yes or no.

Pick a damned side on the Texas issue.

Texas claims it, the Feds claim it, it is in the courts, and will be decided in the courts. And it is 140 acres, not 90,000 as you fools claim.

Who's side are you on..............

Texas or the Feds..............

Simple question........and why...............

On the side of law.

 

[editec]

UNLIKE the Bundy issue (which is cut and dried far as I can tell) this is an interesting land dispute.

Keep us informed how the courts finally come down with a finding, would ya?

 

[Old Rocks]

psst..............

keep it quite.........

but the Federal Gov't took the land in 1993 to save the turtles..........

Don't let that out.........

shhhhhhhhhhhh...........

Psst, keep it quite, you are a liar. It was and always has been Federal land. And, since it belongs to the Federal Government, it can be administrated as they see fit. Bundy's grazing rights were never denied, they just were limited to the number of cows the land could carry without damage, and the government expected him to pay the grazing fees.

Tjhe State of Texas disagrees.

Psst..........

And what the hell does the state of Texas have to do with land in Nevada?

 

[hangover]

The illustrious Gov. Perry has invited a massive immigration of California liberals to Texass. I love it.

 

[eagle1462010]

The illustrious Gov. Perry has invited a massive immigration of California liberals to Texass. I love it.

Different op until your voter.......um ..........amnesty agenda is fulfilled..........

 

[eagle1462010]

Texas claims it, the Feds claim it, it is in the courts, and will be decided in the courts. And it is 140 acres, not 90,000 as you fools claim.

Who's side are you on..............

Texas or the Feds..............

Simple question........and why...............

On the side of law.

Sure.............

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The moment your side plays the Race Card it's all over Right????????????

It just ends there...........

Move along, nothing to see here............

Look at the mini skirt............wow.............that is news.

It's not over...........

It continues, and more are aware of the current land grab attempts.

States are taking action.

And the BLM is responsible for bringing this to the light of day as States now take on the Feds.

Yelling Racism will not end this........

But it is your favorite BS Pravda.

It was Bundy who brought up race with his incoherent and racist rant.

Its Bundy who is on welfare and accused others of abusing the system while he himself is the queen of welfare fraud.

 

[Care4all]

I am pretty sure that this will be decided in a court of law. Aren't you?

Yep. But it will not be the Federal Gov't facing off against a lone Cattle Rancher and his family this time.

He will be fighting States who have the resources to take them on.

And you still will not engage on these land grabs one way or another.

Should the feds take these 90,000 acres via the BLM?

Huh..........I can't hear you................

From reading your slanted article Eagle, the Blm NEVER SAID it was going to grab these 90,000 acres....this Candidate for governor/ag/whatever is injecting his own opinion that that blm wants to grab 90,000 acres?

And as far as land grabs by the federal government's BLM of private property, WHERE has this taken place? Not with Bundy, it's not his private land and never was his or his family's private land.... and if the Federal gvt does prove in court that they own this land in Texas, then they would NOT be grabbing private land in Texas either? However if the courts and treaties and legal docs show that the federal gvt/blm does not own this land in Texas, and then they tried to take it away, it WOULD be a land grab of private property!!!

Is that so hard to understand?

As far as the Blm charging and demanding grazing fees from the Indians on the Indian reservations that I have been reading about, THAT SITUATION is appalling and downright wrong....these Indians DO OWN the land and the federal government is just 'managing' it for THEM....and I don't think it is just what so ever to charge the Indians for grazing fees on their own land.....however I do think the blm can charge grazing fees to other US Citizens that may choose to graze their cattle on the Indian's reservation.

I also think it is appalling to see things happen like they did in New London Connecticut, with the city's land grab....for businesses to move in....down right wrong.....

But with Bundy, I have yet to see any evidence that he has some ancestral rights or private property rights to this land that he is grazing his cattle on...? Paying grazing fees is common law, and makes sense....if he had handled this differently from the beginning, he'd still be grazing there....if he had continued to pay his grazing fees, then he'd still have a lease/permit to do such...but since he didn't continue to pay his grazing fees to the federal gvt, he lost his grazing permit and grazing rights, and when he lost his grazing permit, his County bought out ALL of the grazing permits from the fed gvt for a large fee and then "retired" the permits....for the endangered tortoise....SOOOOOOOOOOO, to me....Bundy's issue should be with his County buying up all of the grazing permits from the federal government and "retiring" them....but remember, NONE of that could have happened, if Bundy had paid his grazing fees and not lost his permit due to such....at least from the research I have read and done thus far...

And didn't Reagan CREATE the blm and/or grazing fees on Fed land? Why not the outrage against him?

Or are you okay with the fed/blm charging grazing fees for private citizens using federal land to graze their cattle but just in the Bundy case or a handful of cases that seem wrong to you, you are against it?

 

[eagle1462010]

Taylor Grazing Act

Background


Taylor Grazing Districts in 1937
(Opportunity and Challenge: The Story of BLM.
DOI, BLM, 1988. Washington: GPO.)

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 USC 315), signed by President Roosevelt, was intended to "stop injury to the public grazing lands [excluding Alaska] by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration; to provide for their orderly use, improvement, and development; [and] to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public range" (USDI 1988). This Act was pre-empted by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).

There have been Grazing laws since 1934.

The BLM is simply a new name for an old name but is still under the Department of the Interior.

But that would all be Reagan's fault.

And lets forget that he pushed to send Federal Lands back to the states.

 

[eagle1462010]

The moment your side plays the Race Card it's all over Right????????????

It just ends there...........

Move along, nothing to see here............

Look at the mini skirt............wow.............that is news.

It's not over...........

It continues, and more are aware of the current land grab attempts.

States are taking action.

And the BLM is responsible for bringing this to the light of day as States now take on the Feds.

Yelling Racism will not end this........

But it is your favorite BS Pravda.

It was Bundy who brought up race with his incoherent and racist rant.

Its Bundy who is on welfare and accused others of abusing the system while he himself is the queen of welfare fraud.

BS..........

It was a reporter asking off beat questions trying to stir up some Dirty laundry by taking advantage of an old man who doesn't really understand how the Pravda Press works.

 

[hangover]

Taylor Grazing Act

Background


Taylor Grazing Districts in 1937
(Opportunity and Challenge: The Story of BLM.
DOI, BLM, 1988. Washington: GPO.)

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 USC 315), signed by President Roosevelt, was intended to "stop injury to the public grazing lands [excluding Alaska] by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration; to provide for their orderly use, improvement, and development; [and] to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public range" (USDI 1988). This Act was pre-empted by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).

There have been Grazing laws since 1934.

The BLM is simply a new name for an old name but is still under the Department of the Interior.

But that would all be Reagan's fault.

And lets forget that he pushed to send Federal Lands back to the states.

Thanks for mentioning another Raygun fail. At least that one didn't cost a trillion dollars, like STAR WARS.

 

[eagle1462010]

Taylor Grazing Act

Background


Taylor Grazing Districts in 1937
(Opportunity and Challenge: The Story of BLM.
DOI, BLM, 1988. Washington: GPO.)

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 USC 315), signed by President Roosevelt, was intended to "stop injury to the public grazing lands [excluding Alaska] by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration; to provide for their orderly use, improvement, and development; [and] to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public range" (USDI 1988). This Act was pre-empted by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).

There have been Grazing laws since 1934.

The BLM is simply a new name for an old name but is still under the Department of the Interior.

But that would all be Reagan's fault.

And lets forget that he pushed to send Federal Lands back to the states.

Thanks for mentioning another Raygun fail. At least that one didn't cost a trillion dollars, like STAR WARS.

Let's see. Carters Stagflation.......Economy in ruins........and we recovered.

Are we there yet?

Are we there yet?

With Obama..............

Waiting............Oh......We need another stimulus, just one more and all will be well again.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The BLM is now trying to take 90,000 acres of land from Texas...........

The following is the article of the response from the Texas AG.......

Texas AG to Land-Grabbing Obama BLM: ?Come and Take it?

Texas AG to Land-Grabbing Obama BLM: ‘Come and Take it’

I haven't been following the case too closely. I don't watch Fox. But I guess since your Bundy case blew up in your face this is the best you have

On the surface, it appears to be political posturing for the Texas Attorney General to look good in the race for Governor.

Texans eat up that "Don't mess with Texas" crap

After the election, I imagine it will be a non-issue that the Federal Government will win

We dont "eat that shit up" We live it!!
Dont **** With Texas!!

 

[hangover]

There have been Grazing laws since 1934.

The BLM is simply a new name for an old name but is still under the Department of the Interior.

But that would all be Reagan's fault.

And lets forget that he pushed to send Federal Lands back to the states.

Thanks for mentioning another Raygun fail. At least that one didn't cost a trillion dollars, like STAR WARS.

Let's see. Carters Stagflation.......Economy in ruins........and we recovered.

Are we there yet?

Are we there yet?

With Obama..............

Waiting............Oh......We need another stimulus, just one more and all will be well again.

Carter added $100,000.00 to the national debt. Raygun added $1.8 trillion. Raygun sold chemical weapons to Saddam Husein. Raygun sold cocaine with Noriega. Raygun gave a billion dollars worth of weapons to the Taliban and called them freedom fighters, and had them in the White House. The crimes of Nixon were miniscule compared to Raygun.

Oh yeah, that trillion dollars Shrub gave to Wall Street banks worked well, huh. Cons wreck the whole global economy, and leave it for Obama to clean up. Nice one slimeball.