It isn't about the man, black woman speaks out about Bundy:
- Thread starter koshergrl
- Start date
HenryBHough
Diamond Member
Tut tut...Harry Reid, Himself, has promised it's not over and has called out for a further massing of the troops. Possibly bringing in tactical nuclear weapons? Dunno - that depends on how seriously the derangement has become in the last few days.
Where IS your patience?
R.C. Christian
Gold Member
Oh the irony.
Vigilante
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #24
Bundy may or may not owe the money. It sure seems fishy that Harry Reid's son is involved in a nearby multi-billion dollar solar farm with the Chinese.
My objection is this: with all of the powers of the US government, they couldn't deal with one elderly rancher and a herd of cows without sending in militarized police with M-16's, APC's, and everything but the Bureau of Land Management's B-52 bomber? They couldn't slap a lien on his property or garnish his income tax returns?
Are you kidding me?
Seems to me that the Feds waved their dicks and got their balls slapped. They overreacted and got the response they deserved.
Howey
Gold Member
- Mar 4, 2013
- 5,481
- 761
- 200
Ok. So what she's saying is he's a bigot but she doesn't care.
Did he give her a freezer for that free cow?
SFC Ollie
Still Marching
I cant figure out if he owes or not. Not enough info really from either side of the argument.
The democrats need Bundy right now to hide behind his plaid shirttails.
Iraq is completely falling apart. One of the Russians on the sanction list just got a 17 billion dollar no bid contract to make rockets for the military. Russia parked a spy ship off the Florida coast. John Kerry made things demonstrably worse in Israel. Japan sent the presidunce packing with no agreement. The police in the Phillipines had to use fire hoses to push back the furious crowds. America is arming up just shy of civil war.
Cliven Bundy was desperately needed. No wonder democrats are making more out of this than it is.
Iraq is completely falling apart. One of the Russians on the sanction list just got a 17 billion dollar no bid contract to make rockets for the military. Russia parked a spy ship off the Florida coast. John Kerry made things demonstrably worse in Israel. Japan sent the presidunce packing with no agreement. The police in the Phillipines had to use fire hoses to push back the furious crowds. America is arming up just shy of civil war.
Cliven Bundy was desperately needed. No wonder democrats are making more out of this than it is.
- Moderator
- #28
Bundy most certainly didn't help himself by making those remarks. A good case of "you would have been better off keeping your mouth shut." But she's right. This transcends politics and the man altogether.
Andylusion
Platinum Member
You know... I just glanced through this thread, and some of the posts here are so unbelievably stupid, I don't know how you people have the intelligence to even turn on your computer, let alone navigate here and post.
Back when I was in high school, I had this moment where I started thinking about the issues I believed in, and realized my logic was insane, stupid, and didn't make sense. When that happened, I stopped being a leftist, and started being a right-winger.... because my leftist beliefs were stupid.
I kind of assumed everyone else had a similar enlightening experience at some point... and then I come here and read that Cliven Bundy is like a welfare queen.
Cliven Bundy is like a welfare queen? How absolutely retarded must a person be, to make a statement like that, and not know how idiotic they are sounding!
Welfare queen.... sitting at home, watching TV, doing absolutely nothing of any value to society...
Verses Cliven Bundy up at dawn, working in the hot sun all day long, and only going home at dusk, providing food for the entire nation.
Oh yes.... very very similar.... Mindless idiots.
Welfare Queens cost me in taxes. The government comes and confiscates money from my pay check that I rightfully earned, and then gives that money out, and cuts a check which is sent to the Welfare Queen who has not earned it.
You show me in the government budget where Cliven Bundy is getting paid by the Federal Government for anything. You prove that to me, and I'll at least grant you that he's getting my money. Of course it's not there, but the Welfare Queen's line item is there. Idiots.
If you people want to really find a similar comparison, try the Occupy protests. March down city streets blocking traffic and causing disruption to citizens, all without a permit. Taking over parks and other public places, all without permits. Taking over private property without permission or a lease to put up tents and tarps, and all the rest of their crap. Blocking traffic over Brooklyn Bridge, trapping driving citizens on the bridge with no ability to avoid the protesters, and still no permit.
This is a more accurate similarly to Cliven Bundy. But of course the hypocrites known as "leftist" have no problem with all these protests not paying the dues.
Of course the difference is, those protests were causing problems for entire cities and all their citizens, and Cliven had some cattle eat wild grass. Occupy people were protesting they were not handed enough free stuff like a welfare recipient, Cliven was trying to get work done.
But back in leftard land, OWS good, Cliven bad. OWS complaining government is not giving them enough while they do nothing in a park, is not like a welfare queen, but Cliven working for a living for the past 50 years, somehow is.
Thankfully I am no longer associated with these people. To think that so many years ago, I would have looked at idiocy like this, and believed it. My excuse was a too young, and too ignorant to know better. What are the excuses for you people?? HUH!?
Back when I was in high school, I had this moment where I started thinking about the issues I believed in, and realized my logic was insane, stupid, and didn't make sense. When that happened, I stopped being a leftist, and started being a right-winger.... because my leftist beliefs were stupid.
I kind of assumed everyone else had a similar enlightening experience at some point... and then I come here and read that Cliven Bundy is like a welfare queen.
Cliven Bundy is like a welfare queen? How absolutely retarded must a person be, to make a statement like that, and not know how idiotic they are sounding!
Welfare queen.... sitting at home, watching TV, doing absolutely nothing of any value to society...
Verses Cliven Bundy up at dawn, working in the hot sun all day long, and only going home at dusk, providing food for the entire nation.
Oh yes.... very very similar.... Mindless idiots.
Welfare Queens cost me in taxes. The government comes and confiscates money from my pay check that I rightfully earned, and then gives that money out, and cuts a check which is sent to the Welfare Queen who has not earned it.
You show me in the government budget where Cliven Bundy is getting paid by the Federal Government for anything. You prove that to me, and I'll at least grant you that he's getting my money. Of course it's not there, but the Welfare Queen's line item is there. Idiots.
If you people want to really find a similar comparison, try the Occupy protests. March down city streets blocking traffic and causing disruption to citizens, all without a permit. Taking over parks and other public places, all without permits. Taking over private property without permission or a lease to put up tents and tarps, and all the rest of their crap. Blocking traffic over Brooklyn Bridge, trapping driving citizens on the bridge with no ability to avoid the protesters, and still no permit.
This is a more accurate similarly to Cliven Bundy. But of course the hypocrites known as "leftist" have no problem with all these protests not paying the dues.
Of course the difference is, those protests were causing problems for entire cities and all their citizens, and Cliven had some cattle eat wild grass. Occupy people were protesting they were not handed enough free stuff like a welfare recipient, Cliven was trying to get work done.
But back in leftard land, OWS good, Cliven bad. OWS complaining government is not giving them enough while they do nothing in a park, is not like a welfare queen, but Cliven working for a living for the past 50 years, somehow is.
Thankfully I am no longer associated with these people. To think that so many years ago, I would have looked at idiocy like this, and believed it. My excuse was a too young, and too ignorant to know better. What are the excuses for you people?? HUH!?
Last edited:
guno
Gold Member
- Banned
- #31
In the 98 case, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction ordering Bundy to remove his cattle from federal lands. By 2014, the unpaid fines and fees are now in excess of $1 million. Hes never paid a dime.
He claims there is no such thing as federally-owned land and that there is no Constitutional basis for the Interior Department or the BLM. Yes, hes that far out there.
Cliven Bundy is a seditious liar, not a patriot
guno
Gold Member
- Banned
- #32
He claims there is no such thing as federally-owned land and that there is no Constitutional basis for the Interior Department or the BLM. Yes, hes that far out there.
Time and time again, Bundy went to court, including an appeal to the 9th Circuit in 1998, in which Bundy represented himself. His claims have invariably been nonsensical and at odds with established facts and laws.
In the 98 case, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction ordering Bundy to remove his cattle from federal lands. By 2014, the unpaid fines and fees are now in excess of $1 million. Hes never paid a dime.
In August 2013, he was given 45 days by the BLM to remove his cattle, or they would be seized and sold off to pay the fines. Bundy refused. (Actually, the BLM has warned him a whole bunch of times over the years to remove the cattle or risk forfeiture.)
The only point on which we disagree is that Cliven's cows were not eating grass that was his. Cliven may well be guilty of, as you stated, "Taking over private (public) property without permission or a lease." The gov't should just have put a lien on his prop which would have forced his hand. You can't get new financing with that on your record and at the end of the day, the gov't gets their pint of blood.
Andylusion
Platinum Member
I never said it was his grass. Only that it's ironic (read hypocritical) how the left is screaming over this guy letting his cattle eat wilderness grass, but somehow a mass of people disrupting an entire city of people, is somehow ok. Do I want my entire day ruined by a bunch of spoiled brat yuppy kids, or do I want some cattle eating grass in the wilderness? I'll take Cliven and the cows eating wild grass, over the poop in the park crowd blocking traffic any day.
Now if you want to talk about the grass, let's talk.
You are right, it's not Cliven's grass...... because the government has made it impossible for Cliven to get grass. Government has a monopoly on the land.
Look at Nevada. There is no state in the entire Union with a higher percentage of Federally owned land.
Do you understand now? Cliven can't get his own grass. I'm sure he'd love to have some grass land to let his cattle feed on without being harassed and bothered by some bureaucrats from DC.
Now granted, I still disagree with Cliven on how he's going about this, but the fact is, he's got a point.
Further, there is no provision in the Constitution for the Federal government owning state land. Period. There is none. I've looked. There is no provision allowing the Federal government to setup a land lease system. I've read it. It's not there.
Outside of the states, there is no constraint on buying land, or owning land. But inside the bounds of the constitution, the Federal government has no provision for operating leases on land.
To the point, the Federal government should not be owning any land at all, inside individual states. I understand that the Federals purchased land, and thus owned land to start with. But once each state was formed, all land within that state should have reverted to the property of the states.
Now if the states want to operate a lease system, that's totally up to the state, and is within the framework of the constitution. "all rights reserved for the states".
So based on my reading of the constitution, Cliven is right.
Asclepias
Diamond Member
That might be because people recognize she has an opinion and also recoginize she is far from a sell out. Parts of her opinion I may disagree with but parts are also undeniably correct.
guno
Gold Member
- Banned
- #38
I never said it was his grass. Only that it's ironic (read hypocritical) how the left is screaming over this guy letting his cattle eat wilderness grass, but somehow a mass of people disrupting an entire city of people, is somehow ok. Do I want my entire day ruined by a bunch of spoiled brat yuppy kids, or do I want some cattle eating grass in the wilderness? I'll take Cliven and the cows eating wild grass, over the poop in the park crowd blocking traffic any day.
Now if you want to talk about the grass, let's talk.
You are right, it's not Cliven's grass...... because the government has made it impossible for Cliven to get grass. Government has a monopoly on the land.
Look at Nevada. There is no state in the entire Union with a higher percentage of Federally owned land.
Do you understand now? Cliven can't get his own grass. I'm sure he'd love to have some grass land to let his cattle feed on without being harassed and bothered by some bureaucrats from DC.
Now granted, I still disagree with Cliven on how he's going about this, but the fact is, he's got a point.
Further, there is no provision in the Constitution for the Federal government owning state land. Period. There is none. I've looked. There is no provision allowing the Federal government to setup a land lease system. I've read it. It's not there.
Outside of the states, there is no constraint on buying land, or owning land. But inside the bounds of the constitution, the Federal government has no provision for operating leases on land.
To the point, the Federal government should not be owning any land at all, inside individual states. I understand that the Federals purchased land, and thus owned land to start with. But once each state was formed, all land within that state should have reverted to the property of the states.
Now if the states want to operate a lease system, that's totally up to the state, and is within the framework of the constitution. "all rights reserved for the states".
So based on my reading of the constitution, Cliven is right.
Last edited:
Asclepias
Diamond Member
I never said it was his grass. Only that it's ironic (read hypocritical) how the left is screaming over this guy letting his cattle eat wilderness grass, but somehow a mass of people disrupting an entire city of people, is somehow ok. Do I want my entire day ruined by a bunch of spoiled brat yuppy kids, or do I want some cattle eating grass in the wilderness? I'll take Cliven and the cows eating wild grass, over the poop in the park crowd blocking traffic any day.
Now if you want to talk about the grass, let's talk.
You are right, it's not Cliven's grass...... because the government has made it impossible for Cliven to get grass. Government has a monopoly on the land.
Look at Nevada. There is no state in the entire Union with a higher percentage of Federally owned land.
Do you understand now? Cliven can't get his own grass. I'm sure he'd love to have some grass land to let his cattle feed on without being harassed and bothered by some bureaucrats from DC.
Now granted, I still disagree with Cliven on how he's going about this, but the fact is, he's got a point.
Further, there is no provision in the Constitution for the Federal government owning state land. Period. There is none. I've looked. There is no provision allowing the Federal government to setup a land lease system. I've read it. It's not there.
Outside of the states, there is no constraint on buying land, or owning land. But inside the bounds of the constitution, the Federal government has no provision for operating leases on land.
To the point, the Federal government should not be owning any land at all, inside individual states. I understand that the Federals purchased land, and thus owned land to start with. But once each state was formed, all land within that state should have reverted to the property of the states.
Now if the states want to operate a lease system, that's totally up to the state, and is within the framework of the constitution. "all rights reserved for the states".
So based on my reading of the constitution, Cliven is right.
You should read it again and realize no rights are specifically stated by the constitution. They are only granted through inference by protecting them. The 5th amendment is the part you should be looking at. It actually limits the governments sovereign right to your land. The government has always had a right to your land. In this case the land was never Bundys so theres that.
Vigilante
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #40
I never said it was his grass. Only that it's ironic (read hypocritical) how the left is screaming over this guy letting his cattle eat wilderness grass, but somehow a mass of people disrupting an entire city of people, is somehow ok. Do I want my entire day ruined by a bunch of spoiled brat yuppy kids, or do I want some cattle eating grass in the wilderness? I'll take Cliven and the cows eating wild grass, over the poop in the park crowd blocking traffic any day.
Now if you want to talk about the grass, let's talk.
You are right, it's not Cliven's grass...... because the government has made it impossible for Cliven to get grass. Government has a monopoly on the land.
Look at Nevada. There is no state in the entire Union with a higher percentage of Federally owned land.
Do you understand now? Cliven can't get his own grass. I'm sure he'd love to have some grass land to let his cattle feed on without being harassed and bothered by some bureaucrats from DC.
Now granted, I still disagree with Cliven on how he's going about this, but the fact is, he's got a point.
Further, there is no provision in the Constitution for the Federal government owning state land. Period. There is none. I've looked. There is no provision allowing the Federal government to setup a land lease system. I've read it. It's not there.
Outside of the states, there is no constraint on buying land, or owning land. But inside the bounds of the constitution, the Federal government has no provision for operating leases on land.
To the point, the Federal government should not be owning any land at all, inside individual states. I understand that the Federals purchased land, and thus owned land to start with. But once each state was formed, all land within that state should have reverted to the property of the states.
Now if the states want to operate a lease system, that's totally up to the state, and is within the framework of the constitution. "all rights reserved for the states".
So based on my reading of the constitution, Cliven is right.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Repub Sessions says marines on Kharg Island would not be “ boots on the ground”- Started by JimH52
- Replies: 4
-
Good riddance Joe Kent - reaction. (US/Israel no one dies "for" others)
- Started by Thethingsz
- Replies: 2
-
-
Brazil Launches Mandatory Age Verification Law for Online Platforms
- Started by MayorQuimby
- Replies: 0
