Tiberius Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 JUST STFU. Ok!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 I was under the impression that the land belonged to the state of Nevada, and that the deal for grazing rights was with the state, not the feds. I can't remember where I heard or read that, though. either way, if there was a deal that he could use the land to graze his cattle, then he should be able to do so. if he owes any government agencies money for using the land per the agreement, then he should pay what he owes. if the feds don't have an ownership stake in the land, then they should be held accountable for moving in on a private citizen under force of arms. Nope. Federal land, falling under the BLM's authority as of one of FDR's New Deal plans. As far as I can tell, it was federal land before that, just not managed. As of 1993, it's apparently belonged to the turtles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Nope. Federal land, falling under the BLM's authority as of one of FDR's New Deal plans. As far as I can tell, it was federal land before that, just not managed. As of 1993, it's apparently belonged to the turtles. Incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Well, Old Gatorman just finished his taxes. Don't see me out screaming and crying about that Incorrect. Boom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Why were the feds kicking everybody off their land in that area? What was their plan for the land? I heard it was because the Chinese want the land to put a solar farm on it. Hairy Back Reid is involved in the scam. Yes, this is troubling, BUT it seems like this has been a protracted battle. From what I read, there has been court orders he is diobeying... So this has taken years... Problem is the Feds were going light on him since the start... Put faith in the court system... Can't blame them... They should of put the heavy screws to him early on and not cut him any slack... That's what happens... Give an inch and take a mile! Thinking that court orders would work against a guy who has no respect for the rule. Now... They finally want to get these people off (there are others who left) and they are looking like the heavy. Should been heavy since the start, IMO. Nice guys get taken advantage of and made to look like the bad guys... Feds put themselves into this mess. Nope. Federal land, falling under the BLM's authority as of one of FDR's New Deal plans. As far as I can tell, it was federal land before that, just not managed. As of 1993, it's apparently belonged to the turtles. "Conservation" is considered being managed. Now... If people are going to question where the Feds jurisdiction falls under Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17... "needful buildings" has been defined by the court as including conservation since the start of the 1900's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Yes, this is troubling, BUT it seems like this has been a protracted battle. From what I read, there has been court orders he is diobeying... So this has taken years... Problem is the Feds were going light on him since the start... Put faith in the court system... Can't blame them... They should of put the heavy screws to him early on and not cut him any slack... That's what happens... Give an inch and take a mile! Thinking that court orders would work against a guy who has no respect for the rule. Now... They finally want to get these people off (there are others who left) and they are looking like the heavy. Should been heavy since the start, IMO. Nice guys get taken advantage of and made to look like the bad guys... Feds put themselves into this mess. I think there is more to this story that has not been reported yet... there were some pretty strong reactions on both sides so I think there is more going on than at least I am aware of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Incorrect. Possibly. It's what I read, but the information I could find was all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 http://www.politicususa.com/2014/04/12/lawbreaking-rancher-cliven-bundy-wins-victory-embolden-domestic-terrorists.html What do people think of this? I know... Over-the-top with whiny "domestic terrorism" thing. Yet, there are points to be made with the argument/violence/insurrection. Just some food for thought: "James Madison, Federalist, no. 43, 288--90 23 Jan. 1788 The indispensible necessity of compleat authority at the seat of Government carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every Legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings be interrupted, with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general Government, on the State comprehending the seat of the Government for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the Government, and dissatisfactory to the other members of the confederacy...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 I don't know what you are even talking about, did you just make that up? JUST STFU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 http://www.politicususa.com/2014/04/12/lawbreaking-rancher-cliven-bundy-wins-victory-embolden-domestic-terrorists.html What do people think of this? I know... Over-the-top with whiny "domestic terrorism" thing. Yet, there are points to be made with the argument/violence/insurrection. Just some food for thought: of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings be interrupted, with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general Government, on the State comprehending the seat of the Government for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the Government, and dissatisfactory to the other memberstching this and of the confederacy...." Whiny? This is only a step away from Tim McVeigh. Fox news carried this event like these people were saints. Can't tell me thousands of right wing frreaks around the country are not watching this and being spurred to some kind of action. Copy cats and further acts--probably violent--are almost inevitable. I hope I am wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Whiny? This is only a step away from Tim McVeigh. Fox news carried this event like these people were saints. Can't tell me thousands of right wing frreaks around the country are not watching this and being spurred to some kind of action. Copy cats and further acts--probably violent--are almost inevitable. I hope I am wrong Like you actually watched Fox News. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Whiny? This is only a step away from Tim McVeigh. Fox news carried this event like these people were saints. Can't tell me thousands of right wing frreaks around the country are not watching this and being spurred to some kind of action. Copy cats and further acts--probably violent--are almost inevitable. I hope I am wrong I know... I am trying to give them a little bit of leeway. I really hope not, maybe I am naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Like you actually watched Fox News. Tom, it was on at a place where I was at. And that story came on and I was very interested. You are right, I don't watch it at home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 I was under the impression that the land belonged to the state of Nevada, and that the deal for grazing rights was with the state, not the feds. I can't remember where I heard or read that, though. either way, if there was a deal that he could use the land to graze his cattle, then he should be able to do so. if he owes any government agencies money for using the land per the agreement, then he should pay what he owes. if the feds don't have an ownership stake in the land, then they should be held accountable for moving in on a private citizen under force of arms. One would pray that the BLM knows what is and what isn't Federal land that they are managing. From what I read, this has been going for a long time... There are court orders against Bundy. @ this point how can both state and Federal gov'ts not know what is Nevada land anc what is Federal land? I will give you the nebefit of doubt, stranger things have happened. It would be interesting to see what the previous courts have decided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 One would pray that the BLM knows what is and what isn't Federal land that they are managing. From what I read, this has been going for a long time... There are court orders against Bundy. @ this point how can both state and Federal gov'ts not know what is Nevada land anc what is Federal land? I will give you the nebefit of doubt, stranger things have happened. It would be interesting to see what the previous courts have decided. I would never give that prick the nebefit of doubt. He doesn't deserve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 What does PWNED mean BTW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 What does PWNED mean BTW? owned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 owned Is that like a slave? O you kids-I would have said "ha B word-looks like you got your ass kicked." And no aid I am not calling you a kid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 (edited) Possibly. It's what I read, but the information I could find was all over the place. same here....I've read and heard several different things involving state, county, and federal government ownership of the land. I try to get my information from diverse sources in order to get a clearer picture of events, but this time the multitide of sources have been widely ranging in what they had to say. that's why I worded my previous post to include caveats for whichever situation was most correct. I'm not sure what it was in my earlier post that mastergator found so repugnant, but it was an extremely weak, if not typical display of his intellectual prowess. Is that like a slave? O you kids-I would have said "ha B word-looks like you got your ass kicked." And no aid I am not calling you a kid the way I understand it, 'pwned' derrived from 'owned' due to the ease in which people accidentally hit the 'p' key instead of the 'o' key. pop/tech culture took it from there. Edited April 14, 2014 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 same here....I've read and heard several different things involving state, county, and federal government ownership of the land. I try to get my information from diverse sources in order to get a clearer picture of events, but this time the multitide of sources have been widely ranging in what they had to say. that's why I worded my previous post to include caveats for whichever situation was most correct. Yeah, tough to get the real background through the shills on either side. But on the surface from scanning sites that at least have a moral obligation of fact checking, Bundy has a harder time defending his side of the story. I don't see how this could be a state's rights issue, since the State of Nevada never had the possession of the land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts