The Battle of Bunkerville: Restoring the Rule of Law

[joejonbob]

The funniest part about this is that I'm completely sure you really believe that.

Cliven Bundy will be back in court again soon - and just like last time, he's gonna lose.

And then what is gonna happen?

Are 200 thug mercenaries paid for with tax dollars gonna show up at this ranch?

And then what?

 

[TemplarKormac]

How is that relevant? The federal government isn't forcing the state of Nevada to do anything at all.

They are. By snapping up most of the land, they have the state by the balls. Land can be used as leverage. This can hold sway over the state's legislative processes concerning land. That's how it's relevant. States aren't sovereign when you own 86% of them. You aren't giving the people much free roam over the state they live in.

You're still not getting it. The fed isn't "snatching up" anything - they have ALWAYS owned it. Any random arguments you have about it not being "fair" to Nevada is the state of Nevada's business, and they've had 150 years to figure it out. The way it stands now, there's not the slightest question about what the law is - and it's not on Bundy's side.

I get it quite well, actually. You told me yourself. Besides, how is it right to give only 13% of a state to the people and 86% of it to the Government? If it were the state of Nevada's business Doc, then why are the Feds involved? I'm not questioning the fact he broke the law. I'm questioning the government's right to have all that land out there and denying the fair use of it to the people. It's time the government gave up some of that land to be settled upon, not be hoarded for an eternity. Just imagine how it would be if you only had 13% of your state to live in.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You're making the ridiculous assumption that many of Harry Reid's "constituents" support Bundy - that's the problem.

I think you'll find that Bundy has a lot more internet support than he does from his actual neighbors.

No, I'm making the certain assumption (fact) that the state could never find a Jury that would UNANIMOUSLY convict him. It would take some serious rigging in Jury selection process to manage such a feat.

He'd never be officially acquitted either, since there are enough loons like yourself that would shoot Americans to save turtles.

However, a hung Jury ultimately functions as an acquittal.

I really don't know what to say to this, other than you're staggeringly wrong.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You do know that a "Jury of the People" ruled against Bundy, right?

He had his day in court - and he lost.

I'm talking about the standoff, you know that. They'll never rule against him now. Molon labe.

The funniest part about this is that I'm completely sure you really believe that.

Cliven Bundy will be back in court again soon - and just like last time, he's gonna lose.

Unless the government is planning a mass slaughter, the court orders are ineffective so long as there are people willing to fight them. You don't realize the situation this government is in. People have already had enough of heavy handed government tactics. If they so much as injure one person, kill someone else, or touch one cow, then they will be seen as tyrannical, on top of murderous.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Templar, ask Doctor how it is that Nevadans are able to register as voters in Nevada when living on this federal territory, or how Sheriffs have exclusive authority over all actions state and federals upon these very same lands.

Let's see what convoluted tales he spins.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I'm talking about the standoff, you know that. They'll never rule against him now. Molon labe.

The funniest part about this is that I'm completely sure you really believe that.

Cliven Bundy will be back in court again soon - and just like last time, he's gonna lose.

Unless the government is planning a mass slaughter, the court orders are ineffective so long as there are people willing to fight them. You don't realize the situation this government is in. People have already had enough of heavy handed government tactics. If they so much as injure one person, kill someone else, or touch one cow, then they will be seen as tyrannical, on top of murderous.

This as well.

Reminds me when the people took up arms to defend a freed slave when the SCOTUS said to return him his previous master. LOLOLOLOL

 

[TemplarKormac]

The standoff was Cliven Bundy refusing a court order. The rest of it was just a bunch of rednecks showing up to support him because they don't want a black President.

Negged for making such a patently outrageous statement. This has less to do with Obama and more to do with government excess. You can't help playing the race card, can you? And what do you have against white cattle ranchers anyhow?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

They are. By snapping up most of the land, they have the state by the balls. Land can be used as leverage. This can hold sway over the state's legislative processes concerning land. That's how it's relevant. States aren't sovereign when you own 86% of them. You aren't giving the people much free roam over the state they live in.

You're still not getting it. The fed isn't "snatching up" anything - they have ALWAYS owned it. Any random arguments you have about it not being "fair" to Nevada is the state of Nevada's business, and they've had 150 years to figure it out. The way it stands now, there's not the slightest question about what the law is - and it's not on Bundy's side.

I get it quite well, actually. You told me yourself. Besides, how is it right to give only 13% of a state to the people and 86% of it to the Government? If it were the state of Nevada's business Doc, then why are the Feds involved? I'm not questioning the fact he broke the law. I'm questioning the government's right to have all that land out there and denying the fair use of it to the people. It's time the government gave up some of that land to be settled upon, not be hoarded for an eternity. Just imagine how it would be if you only had 13% of your state to live in.

The government didn't "give" itself 86% of the state - in fact, they spent a hundred years trying to give it away. No one wanted it.

The government doesn't have a "right" to the land, they own it. We're not talking about what should be, we're talking about what is. Whether or not you feel that it's fair to the state, that doesn't change the way things are - and feelings don't change the law.

I don't believe the US government should have thousands of troops and bases all over the world. You don't believe the US government should own 86% of Nevada. Neither of us gets what we want.

What we believe is entirely irrelevant. Only the law is relevant.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The standoff was Cliven Bundy refusing a court order. The rest of it was just a bunch of rednecks showing up to support him because they don't want a black President.

Negged for making such a patently outrageous statement. This has less to do with Obama and more to do with government excess. You can't help playing the race card, can you? And what do you have against white cattle ranchers anyhow?

Seriously, they just drop the race card whenever they can lately.

Obama had nothing to do with this, I would actually believe him this time if he said he found about it in the newspaper or on TV. Without a doubt, if Obama actually knew about this situation, he wouldn't have allowed it to escalate to this level for his own political sake. Shooting Americans over turtles is the last scandal he needs. It wouldn't' even be a scandal, it would be a civil war

 

[TemplarKormac]

Templar, ask Doctor how it is that Nevadans are able to register as voters in Nevada when living on this federal territory, or how Sheriffs have exclusive authority over all actions state and federals upon these very same lands.

Let's see what convoluted tales he spins.

I will not be doing any trash talking, especially to someone I respect. That doesn't stop us from disagreeing with each other on issues, though. So, let him speak his mind; and to each his own.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Templar, ask Doctor how it is that Nevadans are able to register as voters in Nevada when living on this federal territory, or how Sheriffs have exclusive authority over all actions state and federals upon these very same lands.

Let's see what convoluted tales he spins.

No one lives on BLM land.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Templar, ask Doctor how it is that Nevadans are able to register as voters in Nevada when living on this federal territory, or how Sheriffs have exclusive authority over all actions state and federals upon these very same lands.

Let's see what convoluted tales he spins.

I will not be doing any trash talking, especially to someone I respect. That doesn't stop us from disagreeing with each other on issues, though. So, let him speak his mind; and to each his own.

I have no respect for him at all. He's far too intelligent to not realize how wrong he is.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm talking about the standoff, you know that. They'll never rule against him now. Molon labe.

The funniest part about this is that I'm completely sure you really believe that.

Cliven Bundy will be back in court again soon - and just like last time, he's gonna lose.

Unless the government is planning a mass slaughter, the court orders are ineffective so long as there are people willing to fight them. You don't realize the situation this government is in. People have already had enough of heavy handed government tactics. If they so much as injure one person, kill someone else, or touch one cow, then they will be seen as tyrannical, on top of murderous.

You vastly over-estimate the extent that people are willing to "fight" for a shady cattle rancher in Nevada, and if anyone does something stupid enough that they get hurt by the feds, it will almost certainly be their own damn fault.

This idea that the federal government is actually trying to kill Bundy or the protestors is ludicrous, and the idea that there's any sort of significant political movement behind him is equally ludicrous.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You vastly over-estimate the extent that people are willing to "fight" for a shady cattle rancher in Nevada

These people were ready to die, how much more of an "extent" can they reach for?

I'll tell you what's ludicrous: Making preparations to slaughter Americans to save turtles. It's beyond ludicrous --- it's terrorism.

 

[edthecynic]

Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West

Whether on public or private lands, the western livestock industry is subsidized in multiple ways. First, there is the abundance of federal and state funding that props up the industry, including below-market grazing fees, emergency feed programs, low-interest federal farm loans, and many other taxpayer-funded programs.

Bundy the taker didn't even want to pay the below-market grazing fees. He wanted freebies!

Where in the Constitution is the United States Government given the authority to administrate that land?

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings,

Are there forts, dockyards or other needful building on this land his cattle grazes on? If so, how do his cattle damage these buildings?

Only Communist Governments have rights to all property, are we a Communist Government?

Come on wing nuts....

Let's hear you rip St Ronnie a new one.



Executive Order 12548 -- Grazing Fees

February 14, 1986
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to provide for establishment of appropriate fees for the grazing of domestic livestock on public rangelands, it is ordered as follows:
Section 1. Determination of Fees. The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior are directed to exercise their authority, to the extent permitted by law under the various statutes they administer, to establish fees for domestic livestock grazing on the public rangelands which annually equals the $1.23 base established by the 1966 Western Livestock Grazing Survey multiplied by the result of the Forage Value Index (computed annually from data supplied by the Statistical Reporting Service) added to the Combined Index (Beef Cattle Price Index minus the Prices Paid Index) and divided by 100; provided, that the annual increase or decrease in such fee for any given year shall be limited to not more than plus or minus 25 percent of the previous year's fee, and provided further, that the fee shall not be less than $1.35 per animal unit month.
Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this Order, the term:
(a) ``Public rangelands'' has the same meaning as in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (Public Law 95 - 514);
(b) ``Forage Value Index'' means the weighted average estimate of the annual rental charge per head per month for pasturing cattle on private rangelands in the 11 Western States (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California) (computed by the Statistical Reporting Service from the June Enumerative Survey) divided by $3.65 and multiplied by 100;
(c) ``Beef Cattle Price Index'' means the weighted average annual selling price for beef cattle (excluding calves) in the 11 Western States (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California) for November through October (computed by the Statistical Reporting Service) divided by $22.04 per hundred weight and multiplied by 100; and
(d) ``Prices Paid Index'' means the following selected components from the Statistical Reporting Service's Annual National Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Goods and Services adjusted by the weights indicated in parentheses to reflect livestock production costs in the Western States: 1. Fuels and Energy (14.5); 2. Farm and Motor Supplies (12.0); 3. Autos and Trucks (4.5); 4. Tractors and Self-Propelled Machinery (4.5); 5. Other Machinery (12.0); 6. Building and Fencing Materials (14.5); 7. Interest (6.0); 8. Farm Wage Rates (14.0); 9. Farm Services (18.0).
Sec. 3. Any and all existing rules, practices, policies, and regulations relating to the administration of the formula for grazing fees in section 6(a) of the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 shall continue in full force and effect.
Sec. 4. This Order shall be effective immediately.
Ronald Reagan
The White House,
February 14, 1986.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're still not getting it. The fed isn't "snatching up" anything - they have ALWAYS owned it. Any random arguments you have about it not being "fair" to Nevada is the state of Nevada's business, and they've had 150 years to figure it out. The way it stands now, there's not the slightest question about what the law is - and it's not on Bundy's side.

I get it quite well, actually. You told me yourself. Besides, how is it right to give only 13% of a state to the people and 86% of it to the Government? If it were the state of Nevada's business Doc, then why are the Feds involved? I'm not questioning the fact he broke the law. I'm questioning the government's right to have all that land out there and denying the fair use of it to the people. It's time the government gave up some of that land to be settled upon, not be hoarded for an eternity. Just imagine how it would be if you only had 13% of your state to live in.

The government didn't "give" itself 86% of the state - in fact, they spent a hundred years trying to give it away. No one wanted it.

The government doesn't have a "right" to the land, they own it. We're not talking about what should be, we're talking about what is. Whether or not you feel that it's fair to the state, that doesn't change the way things are - and feelings don't change the law.

I don't believe the US government should have thousands of troops and bases all over the world. You don't believe the US government should own 86% of Nevada. Neither of us gets what we want.

What we believe is entirely irrelevant. Only the law is relevant.

The government doesn't have a "right" to the land, they own it. We're not talking about what should be, we're talking about what is. Whether or not you feel that it's fair to the state, that doesn't change the way things are - and feelings don't change the law.

First of all, Doc, I cited case law, meaning I didn't use my feelings to debate this issue. Using feelings for arguments will lead anyone down a path of destruction, but I digress. Owning 86% of the state doesn't really make it a state, now does it? I see this as a 10th Amendment problem. You can't really say or do much when almost everything around you, including the ground you walk upon is owned by the government. Whatever happened to territorial sovereignty?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Let's hear you rip St Ronnie a new one.



Executive Order 12548 -- Grazing Fees

February 14, 1986
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to provide for establishment of appropriate fees for the grazing of domestic livestock on public rangelands, it is ordered as follows:
Ronald Reagan
The White House,
February 14, 1986.

The Constitution vests ALL legislative power within Congress, not the President.

Ronald Reagan was Neocon traitor who aided and abetted the Enemies of the United States.

Nice try partisan hack.

Molon labe.

 

[bucs90]

Those "faceless ghouls" in the page 1 photos are Federal agents assigned to tactical teams (obviously), and are almost certainly ex-military. The same people who praised and honored for enforcing laws in Baghdad, and doing the will of the United States in those countries.

But now we hate them for doing the same here?

And you see why I hate politics and partisan dipshits.

EVERYONE needs to ******* tone it down. There are some mentally loose cannons out there, and thank goodness the government was smart enough to avoid a conflict.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The funniest part about this is that I'm completely sure you really believe that.

Cliven Bundy will be back in court again soon - and just like last time, he's gonna lose.

Unless the government is planning a mass slaughter, the court orders are ineffective so long as there are people willing to fight them. You don't realize the situation this government is in. People have already had enough of heavy handed government tactics. If they so much as injure one person, kill someone else, or touch one cow, then they will be seen as tyrannical, on top of murderous.

You vastly over-estimate the extent that people are willing to "fight" for a shady cattle rancher in Nevada, and if anyone does something stupid enough that they get hurt by the feds, it will almost certainly be their own damn fault.

This idea that the federal government is actually trying to kill Bundy or the protestors is ludicrous, and the idea that there's any sort of significant political movement behind him is equally ludicrous.

Sure, call him shady, but is government not shady itself? And if they weren't trying to kill him, explain why they felt the need to have snipers trained on his residence? So far all he did was make a threat. He himself has carried out no violent action against the government. All threats are are words. With no real way to carry them out Bundy didn't deserve having a militaristic operation carried out against him, now did he?

Actually, you vastly underestimate the extent to which people hate the government, Doc. If anything, the government brings this stuff on itself.

 

[bucs90]

You vastly over-estimate the extent that people are willing to "fight" for a shady cattle rancher in Nevada

These people were ready to die, how much more of an "extent" can they reach for?

I'll tell you what's ludicrous: Making preparations to slaughter Americans to save turtles. It's beyond ludicrous --- it's terrorism.

Sure, they were bold when it was a handful of Bureau of Land Management officers.

But what about when the Nevada State Police SWAT teams started showing up, with armored cars and high powered rifles, OR, the Nevada National Guard (same guys we honored and praised for doing the will of the USA overseas) showed up with it's infantry and armor units.

THEN how many of those folks were ready for a fight? I be it would have changed quickly.

Im not taking a side necessarily, because as my new thread shows, I haven't read up on this issue at all.

But just talking pure tactics.....the citizens vs government there....citizens had them outnumbered, and the BLM officers aren't exactly SWAT or military level guys. But had those BLM guys taken fire.....SWAT teams and National Guard would have arrived, and overwhelmed the citizens with firepower and training.

But again, it may very well be that the government was 100% wrong, I haven't read up on the issue, and on the surface it sounds like quite a STUPID law to be enforcing.

But I seriously doubt those folks were truly "read to die" over it. It was a Tea Party rally on steroids basically.