Bundy Ranch

[Azalin]

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.

the way I understood it, the feds didn't come into play with regard to that land until 1993, and his family claims to have grazing rights dating back to 1870 or so. I guess my question would be 'from whom did did they obtain the grazing rights?'

 

and for the record, if Bundy is indeed trespassing, then he needs to back off and relinquish his claims on the land. that being said, the sight of armed feds moving in on citizens, especially when they're using snipers and apache helicopters, will always give me chills.

[DC Tom]

the way I understood it, the feds didn't come into play with regard to that land until 1993, and his family claims to have grazing rights dating back to 1870 or so. I guess my question would be 'from whom did did they obtain the grazing rights?'

 

and for the record, if Bundy is indeed trespassing, then he needs to back off and relinquish his claims on the land. that being said, the sight of armed feds moving in on citizens, especially when they're using snipers and apache helicopters, will always give me chills.

 

That's great. We've now progressed to the point where people who even try to make themselves informed can't, because the coverage is so inflammatory and the facts aren't available.

 

We're !@#$ing screwed.

[Azalin]

That's great. We've now progressed to the point where people who even try to make themselves informed can't, because the coverage is so inflammatory and the facts aren't available.

 

We're !@#$ing screwed.

much of what I've seen is indeed inflammatory, either painting Bundy as being a poor, simple cattle farmer who's being invaded by an oppressive federal government, or a militant, anti-government redneck inciting militias to revolution. the rest has been inconsistent, and even contradictive. it's usually not so difficult to get to what appear to be the facts by sifting through various reports on a given subject, but this story, depending on where you choose to get your information from, is being spun one way or another by just about everyone who's reporting it.

[GG]

the way I understood it, the feds didn't come into play with regard to that land until 1993, and his family claims to have grazing rights dating back to 1870 or so. I guess my question would be 'from whom did did they obtain the grazing rights?'

 

and for the record, if Bundy is indeed trespassing, then he needs to back off and relinquish his claims on the land. that being said, the sight of armed feds moving in on citizens, especially when they're using snipers and apache helicopters, will always give me chills.

 

Not really. The issue dating to 1993 was when Feds told him to cut down the size of his herd to protect a turtle species. That's when he stopped paying the grazing fees.

 

This is the most even-handed account I've seen. Doesn't look like the preponderance of the law is on Bundy's side.

[DC Tom]

Not really. The issue dating to 1993 was when Feds told him to cut down the size of his herd to protect a turtle species. That's when he stopped paying the grazing fees.

 

This is the most even-handed account I've seen. Doesn't look like the preponderance of the law is on Bundy's side.

 

Finally, the court decisions I was looking for.

 

Looks like none of the law is on Bundy's side. In fact, given his "I own the land I leased from the government" argument (uh, if you leased it FROM the government, aren't you admitting it's the government's?), and his violations of Nevada state law, I don't even think he has himself on his side.

 

And given his "the turtle's can't be classified as endangered under federal law, because the 'critter' [his legal term] doesn't engage in foreign commerce and the federal government doesn't really exist" argument, I'd say the only thing he does have on his side is a whole lot o' crazy.

[Koko78]

What this topic calls for is a PPP field trip to the Moonlite BunnyRanch, so that Mr. Bundy's legal claims can be properly assessed and weighed.

[Azalin]

Not really. The issue dating to 1993 was when Feds told him to cut down the size of his herd to protect a turtle species. That's when he stopped paying the grazing fees.

 

This is the most even-handed account I've seen. Doesn't look like the preponderance of the law is on Bundy's side.

 

thanks....there's a good deal of info there that I hadn't heard or read before, much of it pretty damned significant in light of what's being reported elsewhere.

What this topic calls for is a PPP field trip to the Moonlite BunnyRanch, so that Mr. Bundy's legal claims can be properly assessed and weighed.

 

although it would appear that this particular ranch has no actual bearing on the case, this is obviously executive-level thinking. were we to receive paychecks for posting, ideas like this would earn you a raise, and possibly even a corner office.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Azalin

[ExiledInIllinois]

Maybe I am putting too much faith in the gov't, but they know who's land is who's. Sure there are shills on both side, but the Rand fans on the right are brutal. Bundy is showing that he is not accepting the rule of law. I have read where there are court orders that he is not acknowledging. Why is this acceptable? Big bad collectivism is putting the screws to poor John Galt! Now mix in those big bad commie Chinese! This means war!

[DC Tom]

Maybe I am putting too much faith in the gov't, but they know who's land is who's. Sure there are shills on both side, but the Rand fans on the right are brutal. Bundy is showing that he is not accepting the rule of law. I have read where there are court orders that he is not acknowledging. Why is this acceptable? Big bad collectivism is putting the screws to poor John Galt! Now mix in those big bad commie Chinese! This means war!

 

Chinese? What Chinese?

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

Chinese? What Chinese?

 

LoL... The ones that are muscling in with Harry Reid to take over the land! Solar plant.

 

We love inflammatory, don't we! ;-)

[Tiberius]

Maybe I am putting too much faith in the gov't, but they know who's land is who's. Sure there are shills on both side, but the Rand fans on the right are brutal. Bundy is showing that he is not accepting the rule of law. I have read where there are court orders that he is not acknowledging. Why is this acceptable? Big bad collectivism is putting the screws to poor John Galt! Now mix in those big bad commie Chinese! This means war!

For whatever its worth, I drove along way across country today, through some of the heartland, had Rush Limbo on for a bit, and caught a little other right wing radio and nothing on this. At least that I heard, didn't listen that long, but I figured he would be howling up a storm, but not from what I could see. He was yammering on about Stephen Colber instead. Interesting for its absence

 

The American Cattle Rancher is thrown off public land so it can be sold at a very generous price to the chinese who are going to build a 5 billion dollar solar plant that we will be forced to purchase our energy from?...

 

Forced??? Heck, I can't wait to buy that energy!

[ExiledInIllinois]

For whatever its worth, I drove along way across country today, through some of the heartland, had Rush Limbo on for a bit, and caught a little other right wing radio and nothing on this. At least that I heard, didn't listen that long, but I figured he would be howling up a storm, but not from what I could see. He was yammering on about Stephen Colber instead. Interesting for its absence

 

Yeah... I am getting the impression that the Wingnuts are trying to distance themselves from this Bundy dude. But then again, there are the Teabaggers throwing themselves right into the fire. You don't hear too many of them in this thread... They must of mustered out for the rally in in Nevada and do a little gambling in Vegas! ;-)

 

Big bad gubmint might have backed down... They did the right thing especially in this gov't hate climate. Too many anti-rule of law militia nut bags running around.

[OCinBuffalo]

Yeah... I am getting the impression that the Wingnuts are trying to distance themselves from this Bundy dude. But then again, there are the Teabaggers throwing themselves right into the fire. You don't hear too many of them in this thread... They must of mustered out for the rally in in Nevada and do a little gambling in Vegas! ;-)

 

Big bad gubmint might have backed down... They did the right thing especially in this gov't hate climate. Too many anti-rule of law militia nut bags running around.

You're likely going to regret these comments once the truth of this matter emerges. I'm just saying. A lot of this doesn't wash. I have a ton of questions, and no answers, but I think I've made some useful observations:

 

You made one of the same ones I did: why isn't talk radio wall-to-wall on this? For now, the "wingnuts" appear to be a lot smarter than you think. They seem to be biding their time, for when that truth does emerge. They've heard that there's more to it, and, once that more comes out? Well, do you really want to be sharing a PPP cell with gatorman?

 

When this story first began, I noticed something odd about Hannity's behavior: he is one of the very few on the right talking about it, but, he's being very, very careful with this. Why? If he is the dullard that you and many on the left claim, then why has he gone out of his way to parse his words so surgically? And, it's only with this story. The rest of his show he is the hack we all know and love/hate/coudln't care less about. He is acting like he knows something else, and is being very careful to avoid whatever it is, or take any chance that he might say something now, that gives the the left a chance to make him the story, later.

 

I think the left is aware of the "whatever" too, because, almost on cue, they have tried to make Hannity the story. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hannity+rancher Notice what comes up first, and who those people are = usual suspects.

 

Consider: Why now? Why this? Why does any government agency suddenly go to the extremes of stealing cattle? You can call it what you want, but stealing cattle is over 2500 years old, and no matter what names and circumstances have been applied to it, it's still stealing cattle. Every person in the world knows what stealing cattle is, even aboriginal tribes. Why would anyone then, purposely, risk being seen as a cattle "rustler"? Why would any government agency manager take such a risk, especially in this info-environment, given even the slightest chance that the story gets away from them? Government people spend huge amounts of their time protecting their turf and discussing its protection. Normally, they spend 0 time risking it.

 

Thus, something not-normal must be occurring. There must be something serious, like $, or power, and a great deal of it embodied in the person(s) behind this, that can threaten the government people to lose their turf if they didn't comply initially. But...not so much power that, once "the story" could no longer be controlled, the person(s) behind this couldn't suddenly be ignored, and the BLM people could be moved out. Nothing else makes sense.

 

Ask yourself: why the sudden urgency? What's with the geography of this land? What the hell is going to be done with this land, such that cattle grazing is no longer tolerable? I mean, we are talking about shithole land in a shithole, arid region. What difference does it make if cattle graze there? What difference would it make if all of us kept our crap in trash bags, and sent weekly shipments to this land? Normally? Not a damn bit. Suddenly, it does?

 

The turtle? The turtle is a weak-ass cover story that has totally degraded, now that the Feds have admitted to killing the damn things themselves, on purpose. Because, yet again, another of their "great plans for the environment" failed miserably, and instead of protecting the turtle, they created legions of them, thereby threatening the environment.

 

Why does a government "decider" decide to send in armed troops with snipers etc....so casually....and...just as casually and quickly....call them back? I've never heard of a police chief/military commander that is so casual with their leadership, and therefore with morale. I've never heard of a police captain/military officer who, once given an objective, would act in such a cowardly way once engaged with the enemy. I've never seen American police/soldiers so easily run off from their objective. It appears to me that their entire chain of command wanted wanted no part in this engagement, and were merely following orders. As soon as the orders were lifted, so was their personal commitment in this.

 

Think anybody at BLM is going to re-up for another year...so they can go back and settle the score with this cattle rancher?

 

The pattern that fits: some weak-ass top-level bureaucrat was told to do this, all of a sudden, by someone. He was told to do this now, because later is unacceptable. But, as soon as weak-ass saw the risk to himself, he turned tail and ran, and ordered his men to do the same.

 

Finally you've stated it:

They did the right thing especially in this gov't hate climate.

If it was the right thing to back down, because of the "gov't hate climate", doesn't it follow that it was the dumb thing to begin this, because of the "gov't hate climate"?

 

So why did it have to be now? Why not later/never? Hmmm...is there an election coming up in November? What do we think is going to happen in that election?

[Nanker]

What this topic calls for is a PPP field trip to the Moonlite BunnyRanch, so that Mr. Bundy's legal claims can be properly assessed and weighed.

/[thread]

[Tiberius]

You're likely going to regret these comments once the truth of this matter emerges. I'm just saying. A lot of this doesn't wash. I have a ton of questions, and no answers, but I think I've made some useful observations:

 

You made one of the same ones I did: why isn't talk radio wall-to-wall on this? For now, the "wingnuts" appear to be a lot smarter than you think. They seem to be biding their time, for when that truth does emerge. They've heard that there's more to it, and, once that more comes out? Well, do you really want to be sharing a PPP cell with gatorman?

 

When this story first began, I noticed something odd about Hannity's behavior: he is one of the very few on the right talking about it, but, he's being very, very careful with this. Why? If he is the dullard that you and many on the left claim, then why has he gone out of his way to parse his words so surgically? And, it's only with this story. The rest of his show he is the hack we all know and love/hate/coudln't care less about. He is acting like he knows something else, and is being very careful to avoid whatever it is, or take any chance that he might say something now, that gives the the left a chance to make him the story, later.

 

I think the left is aware of the "whatever" too, because, almost on cue, they have tried to make Hannity the story. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hannity+rancher Notice what comes up first, and who those people are = usual suspects.

 

Consider: Why now? Why this? Why does any government agency suddenly go to the extremes of stealing cattle? You can call it what you want, but stealing cattle is over 2500 years old, and no matter what names and circumstances have been applied to it, it's still stealing cattle. Every person in the world knows what stealing cattle is, even aboriginal tribes. Why would anyone then, purposely, risk being seen as a cattle "rustler"? Why would any government agency manager take such a risk, especially in this info-environment, given even the slightest chance that the story gets away from them? Government people spend huge amounts of their time protecting their turf and discussing its protection. Normally, they spend 0 time risking it.

 

Thus, something not-normal must be occurring. There must be something serious, like $, or power, and a great deal of it embodied in the person(s) behind this, that can threaten the government people to lose their turf if they didn't comply initially. But...not so much power that, once "the story" could no longer be controlled, the person(s) behind this couldn't suddenly be ignored, and the BLM people could be moved out. Nothing else makes sense.

 

Ask yourself: why the sudden urgency? What's with the geography of this land? What the hell is going to be done with this land, such that cattle grazing is no longer tolerable? I mean, we are talking about shithole land in a shithole, arid region. What difference does it make if cattle graze there? What difference would it make if all of us kept our crap in trash bags, and sent weekly shipments to this land? Normally? Not a damn bit. Suddenly, it does?

 

The turtle? The turtle is a weak-ass cover story that has totally degraded, now that the Feds have admitted to killing the damn things themselves, on purpose. Because, yet again, another of their "great plans for the environment" failed miserably, and instead of protecting the turtle, they created legions of them, thereby threatening the environment.

 

Why does a government "decider" decide to send in armed troops with snipers etc....so casually....and...just as casually and quickly....call them back? I've never heard of a police chief/military commander that is so casual with their leadership, and therefore with morale. I've never heard of a police captain/military officer who, once given an objective, would act in such a cowardly way once engaged with the enemy. I've never seen American police/soldiers so easily run off from their objective. It appears to me that their entire chain of command wanted wanted no part in this engagement, and were merely following orders. As soon as the orders were lifted, so was their personal commitment in this.

 

Think anybody at BLM is going to re-up for another year...so they can go back and settle the score with this cattle rancher?

 

The pattern that fits: some weak-ass top-level bureaucrat was told to do this, all of a sudden, by someone. He was told to do this now, because later is unacceptable. But, as soon as weak-ass saw the risk to himself, he turned tail and ran, and ordered his men to do the same.

 

Finally you've stated it:

 

If it was the right thing to back down, because of the "gov't hate climate", doesn't it follow that it was the dumb thing to begin this, because of the "gov't hate climate"?

 

So why did it have to be now? Why not later/never? Hmmm...is there an election coming up in November? What do we think is going to happen in that election?

You think there is something else going on here, don't you! Tell us! Why did the govt turn to cattle wrestling??

[Gary M]

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.

 

But only the healthy ones!!

 

http://www.infowars.com/before-nevada-cattle-rancher-dispute-blm-was-euthanizing-endangered-desert-tortoise/

[TakeYouToTasker]

cattle wrestling??

 

[DC Tom]

But only the healthy ones!!

 

http://www.infowars....esert-tortoise/

 

Yeah, I'm sure that Infowars article is 100% accurate and reliable.

[Tiberius]

 

Ut oh...

 

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/reid-says-bundy-ranch-standoff-not-over

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid weighed in on the tensions in his state between rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management, saying, “It’s not over.”

 

“Well, it’s not over,” Reid told NBC’s Nevada affiliate KRNV on Monday. “We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.”

[Gary M]

Yeah, I'm sure that Infowars article is 100% accurate and reliable.

 

Most of the article was from other sources, the euthanizing stat was from the Huffington Post.