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!?
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.
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 state.
So based on my reading of the constitution, Cliven is right.
