So, it is not his land... but he claims it is his land because his family has been using it for hundreds of years.
It ain't his land. He has no rights to it. If I went to a random park or person's land, and had a pack of animals tear it up and crap all over it, I would probably have my animals seized and be arrested.
Sounds like he can use the land if he pays... which is how it should be.
Not that simple. The family wasn't told the charges or where he was taken. The family has also grazed and improved the land since the late 1800's.
The question here is if the government is going to go Ruby Ridge on this family.
That first article was a certain kind of special. And yeah, guy breaks the law for 10 years, and then they finally get around to going after him and he's all outraged? What an idiot.
motyak wrote: That first article was a certain kind of special. And yeah, guy breaks the law for 10 years, and then they finally get around to going after him and he's all outraged? What an idiot.
It's getting interesting out here now. Half the comments in the local news are coming out for the family and half are saying they should have long ago been booted.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A blogspot has been created this should be interesting in the next few days to see what happens:
Is the only person saying the 'snipers' were there still the family? Because it seemed to start with them, and everything since has either referenced them, or just not referenced anything and gone 'ermagerd sniperz'. I'd love for there to have been none, that'd make me chuckle
motyak wrote: Is the only person saying the 'snipers' were there still the family? Because it seemed to start with them, and everything since has either referenced them, or just not referenced anything and gone 'ermagerd sniperz'. I'd love for there to have been none, that'd make me chuckle
This is something that has apparently been building up over the past couple of decades and looks readyto come to a head, so we'll see what goes on. It wouldn't surprise me to find there were snipers since gunplay is a very real possibility here. The issues involved are complex and there seem to be more players in this game coming out of the woodwork.
The thing is a lot of these ranchers out here have been grazing this land since the mid 1800's abd feel that theFederal government is stealing their livlihood out from under them.
nkelsch wrote: So, it is not his land... but he claims it is his land because his family has been using it for hundreds of years.
It ain't his land. He has no rights to it.
In the eyes of the law, he probably has a compelling legal argument. Most venues have archaic laws on the book allowing for adverse possession. If you're not familiar with this concept, essentially: if you use property long enough that you have no right to, and the property owner doesn't give you permission, but they also don't enforce it for a long enough period of time, you can lodge a claim towards the property. It's a gakky law but it is the law.
There was a notable case a few years ago, where a guy wanted to expand his fence (or whatever) onto his yard, and his neighbors sued him under the argument that since he had allowed the neighbors passage through his yard for a long enough period, they legally owned that part of his yard. The neighbors won.
This is why when my neighbor's renters would park on my property, I would go over and make them move their car. I don't like being a jerk and it wasn't hurting me, but Iowa has a weak adverse possession law.
Relapse wrote: The thing is a lot of these ranchers out here have been grazing this land since the mid 1800's abd feel that theFederal government is stealing their livlihood out from under them.
Then maybe they should have taken steps to secure their livelihood and bought sufficient grazing land instead of just assuming that they'd be allowed to use someone else's land forever.
Of course the whole concept of "free speech zones" is completely absurd, and anyone attempting to enforce them should be fired and banned from ever working as a police officer again, if not thrown in prison until they get the point.
Relapse wrote: The thing is a lot of these ranchers out here have been grazing this land since the mid 1800's abd feel that theFederal government is stealing their livlihood out from under them.
Then maybe they should have taken steps to secure their livelihood and bought sufficient grazing land instead of just assuming that they'd be allowed to use someone else's land forever.
Of course the whole concept of "free speech zones" is completely absurd, and anyone attempting to enforce them should be fired and banned from ever working as a police officer again, if not thrown in prison until they get the point.
It's a pretty twisted situation shaping up here and hopfuly no one gets killed.
edit: ha I just googled it, that sounds so silly. Why do you need a special zone to have free speech in it? When you step outside the zone can you suddenly not speak against a government or something? Also, can you post a link to what the free speech zones have to do with this? I can't find it...I fail at google apparently.
Ouze wrote: One of the most unamerican ideas in recent history
It's funny how this is one of the few things that pretty much everyone, liberal or conservative, agrees on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
motyak wrote: Why do you need a special zone to have free speech in it?
You don't. It's blatantly unconstitutional, but the police have sometimes decided that protests are inconvenient so it's best to move them away to some random box where nobody has to deal with them.
Also, can you post a link to what the free speech zones have to do with this? I can't find it...I fail at google apparently.
The articles in the OP claim that someone was arrested for taking pictures outside of the designated "free speech zone" after refusing to obey an illegal order to leave public property. It's the kind of thing that makes it very hard to have any sympathy for the police if the confrontation does turn violent.
I think the whole idea of squatters rights is nonsense, but the law's the law, I guess. I think if a few really outrageous cases happen the state legislations will remedy it by striking it from the record - much has how the Kelo decision wound up with a lot of states tightening up their eminent domain laws.
In this case I may have raised a red herring in that I don't think you can bring an adverse possession claim against the government.
nkelsch wrote: So, it is not his land... but he claims it is his land because his family has been using it for hundreds of years.
It ain't his land. He has no rights to it. If I went to a random park or person's land, and had a pack of animals tear it up and crap all over it, I would probably have my animals seized and be arrested.
That depends on how well the facts of the case meet with adverse possession - basically a law that says if you and your family have been the sole users of a piece of land for a really long time, the law may well treat the land as yours now.
But it's a pretty tough case to make.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: Not that simple. The family wasn't told the charges or where he was taken. The family has also grazed and improved the land since the late 1800's.
The question here is if the government is going to go Ruby Ridge on this family.
First up - Alex Jones? What the hell? Do you actually read that stuff?
Second, mmm, yes, both sides. It remains one of the great paradoxes of US law that people obsessed with government heavy handedness refuse to deal with government in a sensible manner, and so end up provoking that heavy handedness they were so concerned about in the first place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Adverse possession needs to be tested in court.
From the articles it says this has been through the courts for 20 years, so I'm guessing that is what he has been trying to do. Given these final actions from BLM, I'm guessing he's lost that claim.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I think the whole idea of squatters rights is nonsense, but the law's the law, I guess. I think if a few really outrageous cases happen the state legislations will remedy it by striking it from the record - much has how the Kelo decision wound up with a lot of states tightening up their eminent domain laws.
In this case I may have raised a red herring in that I don't think you can bring an adverse possession claim against the government.
I think there's a basic legal necessity at the core of adverse possession - that history is a legal mess full of people taking stuff that didn't belong to them and it'd open all kinds of bizarre historical stuff if people could go looking for every past injustice to lay claim to stuff that's been in a family for generations.
But the law as it stands now is manipulated, I agree, and does need tightening up in lots of places, but it seems to me those reforms are as much about process as the law itself (getting the more ludicrous squatters claims reviewed and rejected should be a matter of hours, not weeks). And there should, of course, be some kind of penalty, including possibly jail time, for people who falsely claim squatter's rights.
Are you sure you can't make an adverse possession claim against government? I know in Australia you can, though of course the land laws in both countries are very different.
Thats some seriously weird stuff. Either its militia nonsense or infowars is right. Given the predliction to Polizei up everything I'm thinking male genitalia vs. Big Brother. Whoever loses, we win! As policy I'd proffer all ranchers should be thrown off government property, and any other permitted "developer." Thats subsidized rich people making money off MY LAND. Remove them Trail of Tears style.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nkelsch wrote: So, it is not his land... but he claims it is his land because his family has been using it for hundreds of years.
It ain't his land. He has no rights to it. If I went to a random park or person's land, and had a pack of animals tear it up and crap all over it, I would probably have my animals seized and be arrested.
Sounds like he can use the land if he pays... which is how it should be.
Well it couldn't have been too long. The rightful owners held that property until the mid 1800s when they lost the case of US Army vs. Native Tribes (settled by the court of .45-70). Thats likely guvment property, and if not its Paynee or some such (who lived there?)
Oh wait thats Nevada. Some places should never be fought for. Chernobyl, the Sahara Desert, New Mexico, Hobokken. Nevada?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: Not that simple. The family wasn't told the charges or where he was taken. The family has also grazed and improved the land since the late 1800's.
So he says. its still goverment land. If its not government land its Shoshone or somebody his family stole it from. He's stealing from me. Burn him down.
The question here is if the government is going to go Ruby Ridge on this family.
Militia nonsense. Don't act like a psycho criminal who's going to shoot it out with the federales and you won't get sniper rounds coming at you.
motyak wrote: Is the only person saying the 'snipers' were there still the family? Because it seemed to start with them, and everything since has either referenced them, or just not referenced anything and gone 'ermagerd sniperz'. I'd love for there to have been none, that'd make me chuckle
This is something that has apparently been building up over the past couple of decades and looks readyto come to a head, so we'll see what goes on. It wouldn't surprise me to find there were snipers since gunplay is a very real possibility here. The issues involved are complex and there seem to be more players in this game coming out of the woodwork.
The thing is a lot of these ranchers out here have been grazing this land since the mid 1800's abd feel that theFederal government is stealing their livlihood out from under them.
Which is pathetic since its MY LAND (TM) not theirs. Go buy your own land and graze and quit being a welfare cheat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
In the eyes of the law, he probably has a compelling legal argument. Most venues have archaic laws on the book allowing for adverse possession.
edit: ha I just googled it, that sounds so silly. Why do you need a special zone to have free speech in it? When you step outside the zone can you suddenly not speak against a government or something? Also, can you post a link to what the free speech zones have to do with this? I can't find it...I fail at google apparently.
sebster wrote: But the law as it stands now is manipulated, I agree, and does need tightening up in lots of places, but it seems to me those reforms are as much about process as the law itself (getting the more ludicrous squatters claims reviewed and rejected should be a matter of hours, not weeks). And there should, of course, be some kind of penalty, including possibly jail time, for people who falsely claim squatter's rights.
Are you sure you can't make an adverse possession claim against government? I know in Australia you can, though of course the land laws in both countries are very different.
No, I'm not sure.
Sorry, tangent.
Anyway, so you think adverse possession should remain a thing? Man, I dunno. I can see the argument for a tightly-defined eminent domain, but but I have a hard time seeing the value in an obscure way of legally stealing.
The value is that it returns properties neglected and unused by absentee or deceased and unknown landlords into the public domain by people occupying them, doing them up and selling them on.
In this case, as the ranchers have been through the courts and failed in their claim, there doesn't seem much justification in their continuing to contest the issue.
Whatever its faults, the USA is a country with the rule of law, in which the gubmint can be held to account by the courts and public opinion.
Ouze wrote: Anyway, so you think adverse possession should remain a thing? Man, I dunno. I can see the argument for a tightly-defined eminent domain, but but I have a hard time seeing the value in an obscure way of legally stealing.
The concept has some value, to prevent cases of "surprise, here's this old deed that completely screws you over" where everyone honestly thought that they were doing things right. For example, let's say we've been neighbors for the past 20+ years and there's always been a fence between our houses. Now you sell your house, and the new owner discovers that the property line isn't where we've been assuming it was: instead of matching the fence it is actually inside my wall. I think it's pretty reasonable to say that I have a claim to ownership of the property, despite someone long ago making a mistake in recording the boundaries.
The problem, like the problem with eminent domain, is when someone tries to exploit it to take property they just feel like owning. It should be a rare solution to messy disputes, not a way to claim new property just because you haven't been punished sufficiently for trespassing on it. And you'll notice that, like cases of eminent domain abuse, the Boulder adverse possession case involved someone with a lot of influence in the local government taking the property. That seems like the problem has more to do with corruption and making sure "important" people get what they need than the law itself.
Yeah, for them to say 'we been using it and 'keeping it up'... it is NATURE. It keeps itself up. It is a government habitat for wildlife which is a GOOD THING for all of us. We pay taxes so land can be sustained and not developed on so we can try to keep some of our countries natural land.
If he was trying to claim he owned 600,000 acres, then I want to see 600,000 worth of property taxes for 180 years... hell, how about the past 20 years which he has claimed it is his... No? Then he can either get off the land or go to jail with Wesley Snipes.
He needs to go, his cattle which are off his land should be taken from him due to him neglecting them. Apply leash laws to them. Stampeding your cattle onto some government land doesn't mean it is yours.
Peregrine wrote: The concept has some value, to prevent cases of "surprise, here's this old deed that completely screws you over" where everyone honestly thought that they were doing things right. For example, let's say we've been neighbors for the past 20+ years and there's always been a fence between our houses. Now you sell your house, and the new owner discovers that the property line isn't where we've been assuming it was: instead of matching the fence it is actually inside my wall. I think it's pretty reasonable to say that I have a claim to ownership of the property, despite someone long ago making a mistake in recording the boundaries.
More like 15 years. And apparently the last roundup was cancelled due to threatening statements, which is why they're coming heavy this time.
Not that that would justify, like, shooting his wife with babe in arms through a screen door; or running over his dog with a tank, as is the wont of other federal bureaus.
nkelsch wrote: Yeah, for them to say 'we been using it and 'keeping it up'... it is NATURE. It keeps itself up. It is a government habitat for wildlife which is a GOOD THING for all of us. We pay taxes so land can be sustained and not developed on so we can try to keep some of our countries natural land.
If he was trying to claim he owned 600,000 acres, then I want to see 600,000 worth of property taxes for 180 years... hell, how about the past 20 years which he has claimed it is his... No? Then he can either get off the land or go to jail with Wesley Snipes.
He needs to go, his cattle which are off his land should be taken from him due to him neglecting them. Apply leash laws to them. Stampeding your cattle onto some government land doesn't mean it is yours.
Today, I was talking about the situation with my sister who lives down there. It turns out my brother in law knows Bundy and and his family quite well. While they concede he should have gotten off the land, they also say he has been busting his ass and putting in sizable amounts of money for decades to maintain and improve the area not only for his cattle but the wildlife as well.
She also told me that the BLM has moved in big time and has been harrasing people from her neighborhood and taking over land all over the county that people use to get to property they own, essentually cutting them off from it.
One of the prime movers in this appear to be enviornmentalists concerned about the Desert Tortoise. She says that's a joke because developers down there are killing them by the thousands.
The government was going to try to auction his cattle off here in Utah, but the county commisioner down that way told them to piss off because there were no papers on inocculations and he didn't want cattle that may be diseased into the state, infecting our herds.
Bundy should have vacated long ago, but the BLM is way out of control.
Sounds like the cattle owners need to make use of an obscure town law that allow them to drive their cattle through Main Street until the paths are opened again. That will teach them townies!
d-usa wrote: They closed the path they use for their cattle?
Sounds like the cattle owners need to make use of an obscure town law that allow them to drive their cattle through Main Street until the paths are opened again. That will teach them townies!
Not just for cattle that I know of, but for any purpose. She says people are getting fairly pissed rather quickly at this point at the government and the BLM.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This editorial from the local paper is summing up the feelings of the local residents as I've been told:
This editorial from the local paper is summing up the feelings of the local residents as I've been told:
I'm shocked, just shocked, that a rural newspaper is heaping blame on the Federal Government.
Bundy broke Federal law and has had more than a decade to comply with it. He is the one to blame here.
I'm just sharing the attitude that the people in that area have about being run all over by the BLM. They still have bad memories of when the parks were closed and their economy was heavily impacted. To the people living there, it feels like round two from Washington just as things were beginning to recover.
Relapse wrote: Today, I was talking about the situation with my sister who lives down there. It turns out my brother in law knows Bundy and and his family quite well. While they concede he should have gotten off the land, they also say he has been busting his ass and putting in sizable amounts of money for decades to maintain and improve the area not only for his cattle but the wildlife as well.
Purely anecdotal. The comment section for the Mesquite, NV local newspaper is full of people taking issue with the damage he and his cattle have caused on public land.
She also told me that the BLM has moved in big time and has been harrasing people from her neighborhood and taking over land all over the county that people use to get to property they own, essentually cutting them off from it.
Again, purely anecdotal. There are equally anecdotal stories of Bundy and his followers harassing local businesses for not "supporting" them, including posting names and numbers of businesses that have nothing to do with the BLM and asking supporters to harass them.
One of the prime movers in this appear to be enviornmentalists concerned about the Desert Tortoise. She says that's a joke because developers down there are killing them by the thousands.
Anecdotal again. Conservation is important and as a former resident of Nevada, I'm all for protecting the tortoise. One of the biggest threats to the tortoise was the Ivanpah Solar power station, but they at least attempted to relocate as many tortoises as they could and they even scaled to project size down to limit the impact to the animal. What exactly has Bundy done to improve the land and the wildlife?
The government was going to try to auction his cattle off here in Utah, but the county commisioner down that way told them to piss off because there were no papers on inocculations and he didn't want cattle that may be diseased into the state, infecting our herds.
Exactly, because Bundy had broken to law again by not tagging his cattle.
Bundy should have vacated long ago, but the BLM is way out of control.
Bundy had threatened a "range war" against the BLM and their contractors and they operated well within with rights to protect government land, employees, and contractors.
Relapse wrote: Today, I was talking about the situation with my sister who lives down there. It turns out my brother in law knows Bundy and and his family quite well. While they concede he should have gotten off the land, they also say he has been busting his ass and putting in sizable amounts of money for decades to maintain and improve the area not only for his cattle but the wildlife as well.
Purely anecdotal. The comment section for the Mesquite, NV local newspaper is full of people taking issue with the damage he and his cattle have caused on public land.
She also told me that the BLM has moved in big time and has been harrasing people from her neighborhood and taking over land all over the county that people use to get to property they own, essentually cutting them off from it.
Again, purely anecdotal. There are equally anecdotal stories of Bundy and his followers harassing local businesses for not "supporting" them, including posting names and numbers of businesses that have nothing to do with the BLM and asking supporters to harass them.
One of the prime movers in this appear to be enviornmentalists concerned about the Desert Tortoise. She says that's a joke because developers down there are killing them by the thousands.
Anecdotal again. Conservation is important and as a former resident of Nevada, I'm all for protecting the tortoise. One of the biggest threats to the tortoise was the Ivanpah Solar power station, but they at least attempted to relocate as many tortoises as they could and they even scaled to project size down to limit the impact to the animal. What exactly has Bundy done to improve the land and the wildlife?
The government was going to try to auction his cattle off here in Utah, but the county commisioner down that way told them to piss off because there were no papers on inocculations and he didn't want cattle that may be diseased into the state, infecting our herds.
Exactly, because Bundy had broken to law again by not tagging his cattle.
Bundy should have vacated long ago, but the BLM is way out of control.
Bundy had threatened a "range war" against the BLM and their contractors and they operated well within with rights to protect government land, employees, and contractors.
So the government trying to foist possibly diseased cattle at auction, risking infecting other herds, is acceptable to you?
Automatically Appended Next Post: As far as the enviornmental aspect goes, give me a break. People there get fined if they kick up dust farming, building, or what have you, forcing them to waste the limited water resources dampening the ground down.
All that being said, I agree it was far past time for Bundy to have gotten his cattle out of there.
The BLM is not making friends though, with it's methods.
I'm just sharing the attitude that the people in that area have about being run all over by the BLM. They still have bad memories of when the parks were closed and their economy was heavily impacted. To the people living there, it feels like round two from Washington just as things were beginning to recover.
Then they should blame the guy that brought this whole mess down on them, not Washington.
I'm just sharing the attitude that the people in that area have about being run all over by the BLM. They still have bad memories of when the parks were closed and their economy was heavily impacted. To the people living there, it feels like round two from Washington just as things were beginning to recover.
Then they should blame the guy that brought this whole mess down on them, not Washington.
They are taking issue with a lot of things Washington related, like the timing of all the land closures during another one of the peak tourist times like happened last year.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In their mind, this could easily have been put off for another couple of months.
Well, if he wouldn't have been breaking the law then nobody else would have to worry about enforcement of the law at an time that doesn't really work for them all that well...
Relapse wrote: So the government trying to foist possibly diseased cattle at auction, risking infecting other herds, is acceptable to you?
They aren't my cattle and I don't care what they do with them. Shoot them for all I care, just don't blame the government for attempting to sell cattle in order to recoup some of the cost to the taxpayers who already share the burden some stubborn douchbag left on them. On top of not breaking the law by not having them tagged, they were illegally grazing on government land that their owner refused to move even though he had been ordered numerous times to do so. If by the long shot they went on to infect other herds, that blame lies solely on the man who refused to follow the law... but everyone knows it's easier to blame the federal government instead.
As far as the enviornmental aspect goes, give me a break. People there get fined if they kick up dust farming, building, or what have you, forcing them to waste the limited water resources dampening the ground down.
Okay, and? The air pollution laws are a little more complicated than that but the law is the law, whether you like it or not. My family got fined for misuse of water when we lived in Clark County and you know what we did? Instead of issuing threats and making a rallying cry to go to war with Deputy Drip, we paid the fine and got on with our lives.
All that being said, I agree it was far past time for Bundy to have gotten his cattle out of there.
You're right, why should the BLM wait even more time to remove the cattle? To make you feel warm and fuzzy?
The BLM is not making friends though, with it's methods.
They are the Bureau of Land Management, not the Bureau of Land Management and Friend Making. They have seemed to practiced a lot of patience with Bundy over the years and are finally tired of dealing with him. I feel that their methods are perfectly within reason given the threats he has made against government employees and contractors.
Admittedly, this arrangement can’t last forever. And it won’t. Bundy is getting older and so are his cows. The economy of the thing as a long-term business proposition can’t possibly pencil out that well. Chances are the problem would solve itself within a decade or so.
At least one (I assume) local would argue that this could have been "...put off another couple of months." for a decade or more. And, Bundy being 67, the "or more" part has real importance; as does the continued impact of his cows on the environment which, according to you and the editorials you have posted, locals look to as a primary source of economic activity.
Not that this really matters, as the sentiment you're expressing vicariously (and the editorial clearly outlines) isn't really about the economy of the region, but a general dislike of the Federal Government.
Anyway, so you think adverse possession should remain a thing? Man, I dunno. I can see the argument for a tightly-defined eminent domain, but but I have a hard time seeing the value in an obscure way of legally stealing.
Thing is, I own a house that some lady bought off a developer who was transforming market gardens in to residential property. I have no clue if the land used by those market gardens was originally properly purchased - it's all suburbia now but when those gardens started up in the post war period the land was empty. For all I know the original market gardener could have encroached past his original allotment and on to other land, and so without adverse possession then legally I might have no claim to the house I bought in good faith.
At some point there needs to be same way of wiping the slate clean, and saying 'everyone has been acting like that is yours for long enough that it is yours - we're not going to let people go scrolling through property documents from generations ago to find a technicality that costs you your home'.
Now, obviously that doesn't mean the nonsense that goes on with squatters claiming adverse possession is okay. The law maybe needs to be tightened, and the processes that identify false claims need to be more rapid, with penalties for claims made in bad faith, but as a concept I think adverse possession has a place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: The problem, like the problem with eminent domain, is when someone tries to exploit it to take property they just feel like owning. It should be a rare solution to messy disputes, not a way to claim new property just because you haven't been punished sufficiently for trespassing on it. And you'll notice that, like cases of eminent domain abuse, the Boulder adverse possession case involved someone with a lot of influence in the local government taking the property. That seems like the problem has more to do with corruption and making sure "important" people get what they need than the law itself.
Yeah, this is a very good point - in cases where the law produced a poor result corruption was the bigger issue. Though it is worth recognising that adverse possession and eminent domain are both more susceptible to corrupt rulings that other laws.
That doesn't mean they need to be abandoned as legal principles, but as Ouze says they need to be really limited and tightly defined.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: They closed the path they use for their cattle?
Sounds like the cattle owners need to make use of an obscure town law that allow them to drive their cattle through Main Street until the paths are opened again. That will teach them townies!
I feel like this story needs to end with a breakdancing contest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: So the government trying to foist possibly diseased cattle at auction, risking infecting other herds, is acceptable to you?
I love that kind of language - 'foist'.
Anyhow, a part of government tried to recover costs of dealing with an idiot by selling property of his that they seized. Another part of government said they couldn't sell that asset because it didn't meet the standards needed for sale. Not really much of a story there.
The BLM is not making friends though, with it's methods.
Note the BLM has spent 15 years trying to resolve this peacefully. If anything they've been far too lenient.
And now, because Bundy is an idiot who believes that there is some kind of need to keep stubbornly resisting even after the courts have thrown all your claims out... the government ends up getting heavy handed. As I said earlier, one of the interesting paradoxes of the US is that anti-government rhetoric produces bloody minded resistance, that necessitates government crackdown, which ends up delivering exactly the heavy handed militant government the anti-government forces were worried about in the first place.
Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher in clash with federal rangers By BEN BOTKIN and HENRY BREAN LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL April 9, 2014 - 6:28pm
BUNKERVILLE — From near and wide, armed men are trickling toward Cliven Bundy’s ranch, where the rancher’s fight with the federal government has become a rallying cry for militia groups across the United States.
On Wednesday, that dispute teetered at the edge of deadly conflict, when Cliven Bundy’s family members and supporters scuffled with rangers from the Bureau of Land Management sent to protect the federal roundup of Bundy’s cattle on public land.
One of Bundy’s seven sons was shot with a stun gun, and Bundy’s sister was knocked to the ground; but no one was seriously hurt, and no arrests were made.
By late Wednesday, three militia members — two from Montana and one from Utah — had arrived at the ranch 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas. Other militia groups have inundated the Bundy household with calls and pledges to muster at the site. Their stated goal: to protect the Bundys from tyranny.
They say they are prepared for armed confrontation, but they insist they will not be the instigators if bloodshed happens.
Ryan Payne and Jim Lardy, members of the West Mountain Rangers, made the 12-hour drive from western Montana on Tuesday night. Payne is also a coordinator with Operation Mutual Aid, a national association that describes itself as a coalition of state militias.
“They all tell me they are in the process of mobilizing as we speak,” Payne said.
He didn’t put a specific estimate on how many militia members may come, but he said the groups expected are from places like New Hampshire, Texas and Florida and could number in the hundreds.
“We need to be the barrier between the oppressed and the tyrants,” he said. “Expect to see a band of soldiers.”
Payne, 30, and Lardy, 49, both wore holstered handguns as they spoke, but they downplayed the display of firepower. They wear their weapons daily.
They say the goals are for no one to be harmed, the Bundy family to be protected, and the Bundy property restored.
For now, the militia members will camp on the Bundy ranch. They say the issue isn’t about cattle or grazing rights; it’s about constitutional rights.
“We’re not anti-government,” said Lardy, who cuts firewood for a living. “We’re anti-corrupt government.”
Stephen Dean, 45, an artist from Utah, said he made the trip in hopes of heading off another Ruby Ridge or Waco, referring to deadly confrontations involving federal agents in Idaho in 1992 and in Texas in 1993.
A member of the People’s United Mobile Armed Services, Dean said he also carries weapons more powerful than his firearms: a camera and the Internet. Those tools will document the plight of the Bundy ranch and bring the issue to light, he said. “I’m here to see it does happen differently.”
Serious bloodshed was narrowly avoided earlier in the day, when a BLM ranger shot Ammon Bundy, a son of Cliven Bundy, with a stun gun during a heated confrontation a few miles from the ranch house.
A YouTube video shows protesters and law enforcement officers yelling and threatening each other as trucks involved in the roundup attempt to drive through. The officers have stun guns drawn, and one is trying to push the crowd back with a barking dog on a leash.
Cheryl Teerlink, said Ammon Bundy was hit by a stun gun in his arm, chest and neck, but he shook off the first attempt to incapacitate him. “I pulled the tasers out of him,” Teerlink said.
Shortly before that, Cliven Bundy’s sister, Margaret Houston, was thrown to the ground by a BLM officer, Teerlink said.
The incident unfolded near the intersection of Gold Butte Road and state Route 170, where protesters gathered after they saw BLM vehicles coming down from the range.
The Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service released a statement confirming that one protester had been stunned. The agencies said the incident started when “a BLM truck driven by a non-law enforcement civilian employee assisting with gather operations was struck by a protester on an ATV, and the truck’s exit from the area was blocked by a group of individuals who gathered around the vehicle.”
According to the statement, peaceful protests have “crossed into illegal activity” in recent days, with people “blocking vehicles associated with the gather, impeding cattle movement, and making direct and overt threats to government employees.”
“These isolated actions that have jeopardized the safety of individuals have been responded to with appropriate law enforcement actions,” it said.
Federal law enforcement officers, also heavily armed, are providing tight security to contract cowboys from Utah who were hired by the government for almost $1 million to round up as many as 900 cattle that Bundy has left to roam on federal land despite not paying grazing fees for the past 20 years.
Two federal court orders issued within the past year called for the rancher’s livestock to be impounded from a vast swath of mountains and desert. That roundup began Saturday on almost 600,000 acres closed to the public during the operation.
As of Wednesday, 352 animals had been rounded up.
Gov. Brian Sandoval on Tuesday slammed the BLM for creating an “atmosphere of intimidation” and called on the agency to dismantle two “First Amendment areas” it set up for demonstrators well away from any roundup activity.
The former federal judge said he told the agency “that such conduct is offensive to me and countless others.”
“No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans,” the Republican governor said.
On Wednesday morning, before news broke of the scuffle between protesters and the BLM, Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., sent a statement expressing “great disappointment with the way that this situation is being handled.”
Heller said he spoke to newly confirmed BLM director Neil Kornze and “told him very clearly that law-abiding Nevadans must not be penalized by an over-reaching BLM.”
“After hearing from local officials and residents, and receiving feedback from the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association in a meeting this morning, I remain extremely concerned about the size of this closure and disruptions with access to roads, water and electrical infrastructure,” Heller said. “I will continue to closely monitor this situation, and urge the BLM to make the necessary changes in order to preserve Nevadans’ constitutional rights.”
Kornze is a Nevada native who spent eight years as a senior policy adviser for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid before joining the BLM.
Reached for comment before Wednesday’s altercation between rangers and demonstrators, spokeswoman Kristen Orthman said: “Senator Reid hopes the trespassing cattle are rounded up safely so the issue can be resolved.”
d-usa wrote: But there was no reason for the Feds to come in armed and ready...
This guy made a lot of noise about that but didn't mention that it only got that way after he made a lot of loose, vague threats. It really doesn't seem like it had to be this way.
So far as what I saw on the video, imo the son who was tased should have been arrested, but I accept that police can exercise some discretion.
Much props to Relapse for giving us the early track into what will surely be an interesting news story over the next few weeks.
d-usa wrote: But there was no reason for the Feds to come in armed and ready...
This guy made a lot of noise about that but didn't mention that it only got that way after he made a lot of loose, vague threats. It really doesn't seem like it had to be this way.
So far as what I saw on the video, imo the son who was tased should have been arrested, but I accept that police can exercise some discretion.
Much props to Relapse for giving us the early track into what will surely be an interesting news story over the next few weeks.
If a 'militia' stands up, they deserve to get whatever enters into and splatters out the back of their heads. This is not a just cause worth taking up arms for... if they going to take up arms, then they deserve to be shot dead.
Sounds like the rancher is the tyrant who is threatening the local town folk to 'support him' or risk the consequences. Faster he is removed from the land and society it sounds, the better off everyone will be.
If they were black, and in the city on public park land taking up arms while illegally squatting the land and breaking other laws, they would all be dead and there would barley be a page 12 story in the local paper about it, let alone national news.
Breotan wrote: Not feeling overly sympathetic for this guy. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
I don't know if it's been in the news yet, but a pregnant woman got tazed.
Even if everyone was in agreement that Bundy was in the wrong, the methods being employed are destroying the economy of that area. The government is making every one suffer for one man's offense, turning the whole "It's better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned" statement on it's head.
My sister was down by the ranch today and said if the BLM, Rangers, and FBI were doing their best to piss the area residents off, tjey couldn't have used better methods. They are shooting the bulls and leaving them to rot, and since it's calving season, calves are being separated from their mothers and left to starve to death or die of exposure.
The BLM trying to foist off cattle they didn't know the health of in Utah cattle auctions, risking exposing healthy herds to sickness didn't go over well either.
This gak is getting ugly according to my sister, with this as just a taster:
nkelsch wrote: If a 'militia' stands up, they deserve to get whatever enters into and splatters out the back of their heads. This is not a just cause worth taking up arms for... if they going to take up arms, then they deserve to be shot dead.
Sounds like the rancher is the tyrant who is threatening the local town folk to 'support him' or risk the consequences. Faster he is removed from the land and society it sounds, the better off everyone will be.
If they were black, and in the city on public park land taking up arms while illegally squatting the land and breaking other laws, they would all be dead and there would barley be a page 12 story in the local paper about it, let alone national news.
You don't know the guy. He is niether a tyrant or threatened anyone if they didn't support him. The Government's methods are what are pissing people off down there and they are drawing together to protest.
Breotan wrote: Not feeling overly sympathetic for this guy. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
I don't know if it's been in the news yet, but a pregnant woman got tazed.
Even if everyone was in agreement that Bundy was in the wrong, the methods being employed are destroying the economy of that area. The government is making every one suffer for one man's offense, turning the whole "It's better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned" statement on it's head.
My sister was down by the ranch today and said if the BLM, Rangers, and FBI were doing their best to piss the area residents off, tjey couldn't have used better methods. They are shooting the bulls and leaving them to rot, and since it's calving season, calves are being separated from their mothers and left to starve to death or die of exposure.
The BLM trying to foist off cattle they didn't know the health of in Utah cattle auctions, risking exposing healthy herds to sickness didn't go over well either.
This gak is getting ugly according to my sister, with this as just a taster:
But Bundy started it and is intimidating the locals of 'if you don't support me, we will cause a scene and you and your livelihood will be caught in the crossfire'. If he didn't want to harm his neighbors he could have cooperated. Him and his crew are not. The excuse of 'they should allow them to get away with it as not to impact others' shows how Bundy has basically taken hostages.
All those cows need to die anyways as they are not fit for consumption due to Bundy's lack of management of them. Nature is pretty damn good at cleaning up after itself. I am fine with every one of those cows being put down, it needs to happen. Animals every day starve to death or die of exposure. I have worked in park management and have watched what happens when deer and other wildlife are fighting for food and wither and die. Those cows need to go.
Bundy is the one who is causing this, They are throwing things at federal officers, brandishing weapons... if they were black, they would all be dead with 2 shots to the back and no one would care or even question it. They are getting a lot more leeway than other 'protestors' would have.
Every one of them is putting the local town in danger and they are terrorists. They should beat and arrest every one of them. They should drop pepper spray from the sky like they are putting out a fire and beanbag them until they are unconscious. The town has no one to blame but this 'militia'.
What are the back hoes for? Digging holes to put the dead cattle in. Get out of the way.
You don't know the guy. He is niether a tyrant or threatened anyone if they didn't support him. The Government's methods are what are pissing people off down there and they are drawing together to protest.
He is a blatant criminal, and there is plenty of documentation of him being a tyrant and threatening people... I find nothing wrong with the government's methods... Bundy has driven it to this. he could have removed his cattle and obeyed the law when he lost and expended all legal recourse. I want the rest of the citizen's rights protected from this one person who is breaking the law and causing a problem.
They are not 'protesting' in a reasonable way. They are advocating violence, breaking the law and involving weapons. They need to stop before they cause more violence.
Since they don't support ranching period, probably not the rancher... And they do support euthanizing animals opposed to forcing them to live lives which would resulting in neglect or abuse. Killing a cow to prevent it from starving, being abused or being used for food fits their standards usually.
Also, they probably would side with the conservationists.
A lot of the posters here don't seem to understand or care what the BLM is doing to this area and the people in it and why they are drawing together against the government down there.
These are not just some random no nothing redknecks, these are, in many cases well educated people that could take many here to school on the Constitution.
I'll admit they probably know more about the constitution than I do and the BLM does seem to be acting incorrectly in some regards. That does not excuse the fact he is breaking the law. I'd just sell him the land at decent price or chuck him in prison for a bit. Nicking his cows and terrorising the local populace (Why are they doing that btw?) doesn't seem to be working that well... That said it does seem like this is the sort of place where any kind of government activity would be resisted...
purplefood wrote: I'll admit they probably know more about the constitution than I do and the BLM does seem to be acting incorrectly in some regards.
That does not excuse the fact he is breaking the law.
I'd just sell him the land at decent price or chuck him in prison for a bit. Nicking his cows and terrorising the local populace (Why are they doing that btw?) doesn't seem to be working that well...
That said it does seem like this is the sort of place where any kind of government activity would be resisted...
Watch the videos of the town meeting I posted. This is beyond just the cattle. Most here seems focused on Bundy and his cattle and giving the government a pass on their methods without bothering to try to understand why these valley residents are mad.
There wouldn't be jack to get mad about if somebody wouldn't be breaking the law.
It takes a whole lot town of special snowflakes to get pissed off at the guys that are responding to the breaking of the law instead of the guy breaking the law.
purplefood wrote: I'll admit they probably know more about the constitution than I do and the BLM does seem to be acting incorrectly in some regards.
That does not excuse the fact he is breaking the law.
I'd just sell him the land at decent price or chuck him in prison for a bit. Nicking his cows and terrorising the local populace (Why are they doing that btw?) doesn't seem to be working that well...
That said it does seem like this is the sort of place where any kind of government activity would be resisted...
Watch the videos of the town meeting I posted. This is beyond just the cattle. Most here seems focused on Bundy and his cattle and giving the government a pass on their methods without bothering to try to understand why these valley residents are mad.
The videos have no legal ground, just 'emotional posturing' of an unreasonable 'We can do what we want'
Why are they having dumptrucks and backhoes? Because your untagged, unhealthy, undocumented medical records, abandon, unsupervised cattle outside your property are being shot and killed (as they should be). If you didn't want that to happen, then don't take your poorly managed cattle and let them loose on land which is not yours. If you kept them safe and supervised and fed on your property, there would be no issue.
They *DO* have the authority to close 600,000 acres, they don't THINK they have the right, they KNOW they have the right.
These videos are emotional responses with no legal ground to stand on base don false premises. They are not having their land taken from them, it is not their land. They had plenty of time to appeal and discuss, they lost. If you leave your animals on public property, and they lack proper tags and health records and they are unsupervised, it becomes a hazard. They need to be removed and if needed, disposed of.
Boils down to, if they didn't want their cows taken or killed... keep them on your own property? Interfering with violence and taking up arms while they try to remove these cattle from public land is dangerous... they are trying to prevent the removal of the cattle which is going to extend the issue and harm the community and land more than if they just let them rightfully remove the cattle in a peaceful way.
They are all terrible people. They are causing their own cattle's death. They are using them as pawns and do not actually care about them, if they did, they would have respected the law and kept their cattle safe while they handled the 'rights' issue reasonably.
Why are they having dumptrucks and backhoes? Because your untagged, unhealthy, undocumented medical records, abandon, unsupervised cattle outside your property are being shot and killed (as they should be). If you didn't want that to happen, then don't take your poorly managed cattle and let them loose on land which is not yours. If you kept them safe and supervised and fed on your property, there would be no issue.
Actually in most states if you shoot errant cattle on your property you now owe the value of those unprocessed bovine carcii. Just because it wanders into your yard doesn't mean you can blast it. Seriously.
Medium of Death wrote: So was this land dispute resolved in court prior to all this happening?
He has refused to pay BLM grazing fees since 1993, arguing in court filings that his Mormon ancestors worked the land long before the BLM was formed, giving him rights that predate federal involvement. His back fees exceed $300,000, he says.
In 1998, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against the white-haired rancher, ordering his cattle off the land and setting off a long series of legal filings.
Officials say Bundy is illegally running cattle in the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area, habitat of the federally protected desert tortoise. Last year, a federal court judge ruled that if the 68-year-old veteran rancher did not remove his cattle, they could be seized by the BLM. That seizure began Saturday.
It has been more than settled in court.
The 'argument' is he shouldn't have to pay back money, and he has trespassed for 20 years and it is no big deal.
Quote:
"If people come to monkey with what's mine, I'll call the county sheriff. If that don't work, I'll gather my friends and kids and we'll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws."
It is over... he needs to stop. He can end all of this. He has to abide by federal law.
Actually in most states if you shoot errant cattle on your property you now owe the value of those unprocessed bovine carcii. Just because it wanders into your yard doesn't mean you can blast it. Seriously.
You can if the government says it can. Especially if they are untagged and are a risk to your cattle due to potential illness issues.
purplefood wrote: I'll admit they probably know more about the constitution than I do and the BLM does seem to be acting incorrectly in some regards.
That does not excuse the fact he is breaking the law.
I'd just sell him the land at decent price or chuck him in prison for a bit. Nicking his cows and terrorising the local populace (Why are they doing that btw?) doesn't seem to be working that well...
That said it does seem like this is the sort of place where any kind of government activity would be resisted...
Watch the videos of the town meeting I posted. This is beyond just the cattle. Most here seems focused on Bundy and his cattle and giving the government a pass on their methods without bothering to try to understand why these valley residents are mad.
The videos have no legal ground, just 'emotional posturing' of an unreasonable 'We can do what we want'
Why are they having dumptrucks and backhoes? Because your untagged, unhealthy, undocumented medical records, abandon, unsupervised cattle outside your property are being shot and killed (as they should be). If you didn't want that to happen, then don't take your poorly managed cattle and let them loose on land which is not yours. If you kept them safe and supervised and fed on your property, there would be no issue.
They *DO* have the authority to close 600,000 acres, they don't THINK they have the right, they KNOW they have the right.
These videos are emotional responses with no legal ground to stand on base don false premises. They are not having their land taken from them, it is not their land. They had plenty of time to appeal and discuss, they lost. If you leave your animals on public property, and they lack proper tags and health records and they are unsupervised, it becomes a hazard. They need to be removed and if needed, disposed of.
Boils down to, if they didn't want their cows taken or killed... keep them on your own property? Interfering with violence and taking up arms while they try to remove these cattle from public land is dangerous... they are trying to prevent the removal of the cattle which is going to extend the issue and harm the community and land more than if they just let them rightfully remove the cattle in a peaceful way.
They are all terrible people. They are causing their own cattle's death. They are using them as pawns and do not actually care about them, if they did, they would have respected the law and kept their cattle safe while they handled the 'rights' issue reasonably.
You are talking without a clue. The bulls are being shot, and they are trying to auction off the other cattle in other states, risking spreading disease to healthy herds if these cattle aren't healthy. They already tried to sell a bunch up here in Utah and were told to go to hell.
Medium of Death wrote: Thanks for the legal run down. Seems this guy is on the warparth and it'll probably end in violence.
It isn't him. It's the BLM. My sister went out there and watched what was going on. This man is becoming a hero in that area because of the way the government is handling the situation down there.
This is the same cut of agents that shot and killed a pregnant woman at Ruby Ridge as she held her baby.
Federal officials said BLM enforcement agents were dispatched in response to statements Bundy made that the agency perceived as threats.
“When threats are made that could jeopardize the safety of the American people, the contractors and our personnel; we have the responsibility to provide law enforcement to account for their safety,” National Park Service spokeswoman Christie Vanover told reporters Sunday.
The trouble started when Bundy stopped paying grazing fees in 1993. He said he didn't have to because his Mormon ancestors worked the land since the 1880s, giving him rights to the land.
“We own this land,” he said, not the feds. He said he is willing to pay grazing fees but only to Clark County, not BLM.
Nevada politicians sided with Bundy, well the Gov. and and a Senator Rep. He's the last of 53 ranchers in the area.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Why does BLM have Sniper teams?
Medium of Death wrote: Thanks for the legal run down. Seems this guy is on the warparth and it'll probably end in violence.
It isn't him. It's the BLM. My sister went out there and watched what was going on. This man is becoming a hero in that area because of the way the government is handling the situation down there.
This is the same cut of agents that shot and killed a pregnant woman at Ruby Ridge as she held her baby.
It is him. He is the one breaking the law. The argument that the government should do 'NOTHING' is unacceptable. He is a criminal and needs to be removed from society. He needs to go to jail.
If his cattle were not on the land, there would be no need to 'respond' or 'seize the cattle'. They are protecting the rest of the citizens while one citizen is breaking the law at the expense of everyone else. Lots of people want the land protected from him. I agree with them. He and his group have made threats and called for violence too many times. They have no rights on this issue and their cattle need to be removed, seized and the people who break the law need to go to jail, especially those who resort to armed violence.
Medium of Death wrote: Thanks for the legal run down. Seems this guy is on the warparth and it'll probably end in violence.
It isn't him. It's the BLM. My sister went out there and watched what was going on. This man is becoming a hero in that area because of the way the government is handling the situation down there.
This is the same cut of agents that shot and killed a pregnant woman at Ruby Ridge as she held her baby.
There is almost nothing in that statement that rings true, unless you are one of the militia guys out there. To anyone and everyone else paying attention he is a scofflaw idiot making truoble cause he seems to feel he is owed a free pass to federal land which was never his to begin with. Take the tinfoil hat off, its blocking your view.
DutchWinsAll wrote: Ahh he's Mormon. That explains the rabid support of Relapse.
Actually I didn't know that, but if you are the kind of person that thinks all people of a religious group hang together, nothing I can do for you.
As for me being a rabid supporter, you clearly haven't read any of my earlier posts. It's the government's methods I have issue with and the way they are disrupting an area's lives, rights and financial livlihoods for one man.
When I say he's becoming a hero to these people, It's not out of admiration, but just stating a point of fact to what I am seeing in the news and being told first hand by people on the scene.
I typically support farmers over bureaucracy but in this case it's rubbish. If it isn't his land he can't graze on it unless given permission, private /public whatever. In australia we allow farmers to graze cattle in public land where there is need (usually severe drought) but not as a general rule.
If he threatens that things could get more physical surely then he understands that the agents will take precautions. I find it interesting that things have gone to court and he refuses to comply with rulings.
He needs to stop drinking the "govment is stealing my rights" moonshine as the only one responsible for him losing his rights is himself. He's had 20 years of free feed , time to start paying for his own. If he didn't want his cows seized he should have moved them.
and FFS a hammer and sickle? It's called rule of law.
This threat is an exact repeat of the "evil government is making people homeless" thread we had during the shutdown with the same people making the same argument. A group of people are breaking the rules, but the Feds are the donkey-caves for enforcing them.
Relapse wrote: This man is becoming a hero in that area because of the way the government is handling the situation down there.
Violate court orders for a decade, threaten cops, and then when they show up armed, cry about how you're oppressed. He's only a hero to idiots.
There is, however, a very valid beef (no pun intended) over those "first amendment areas" they set up.
This is the same cut of agents that shot and killed a pregnant woman at Ruby Ridge as she held her baby.
Not only is this horsegak, you know why this is horsegak. For anyone who may not, google it. The events at Ruby Ridge are just an incredible story of outrage and horror. This guy, on the other hand, is a criminal who has had the governments patience for almost 2 decades and is only getting an aggressive response now after he himself precipitated it. Even then the restraint now is so different that this is, to be honest, a trollish analogy.
They don't, unless any cop with a long gun counts as a sniper. The BLM has a law enforcement component as they do investigate some criminal matters, 270 officers total.
Thats some seriously weird stuff. Either its militia nonsense or infowars is right.
Given the predliction to Polizei up everything I'm thinking male genitalia vs. Big Brother. Whoever loses, we win!
As policy I'd proffer all ranchers should be thrown off government property, and any other permitted "developer." Thats subsidized rich people making money off MY LAND.
Remove them Trail of Tears style.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nkelsch wrote: So, it is not his land... but he claims it is his land because his family has been using it for hundreds of years.
It ain't his land. He has no rights to it. If I went to a random park or person's land, and had a pack of animals tear it up and crap all over it, I would probably have my animals seized and be arrested.
Sounds like he can use the land if he pays... which is how it should be.
Well it couldn't have been too long. The rightful owners held that property until the mid 1800s when they lost the case of US Army vs. Native Tribes (settled by the court of .45-70). Thats likely guvment property, and if not its Paynee or some such (who lived there?)
Oh wait thats Nevada. Some places should never be fought for. Chernobyl, the Sahara Desert, New Mexico, Hobokken. Nevada?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: Not that simple. The family wasn't told the charges or where he was taken. The family has also grazed and improved the land since the late 1800's.
So he says. its still goverment land. If its not government land its Shoshone or somebody his family stole it from. He's stealing from me. Burn him down.
The question here is if the government is going to go Ruby Ridge on this family.
Militia nonsense. Don't act like a psycho criminal who's going to shoot it out with the federales and you won't get sniper rounds coming at you.
motyak wrote: Is the only person saying the 'snipers' were there still the family? Because it seemed to start with them, and everything since has either referenced them, or just not referenced anything and gone 'ermagerd sniperz'. I'd love for there to have been none, that'd make me chuckle
This is something that has apparently been building up over the past couple of decades and looks readyto come to a head, so we'll see what goes on. It wouldn't surprise me to find there were snipers since gunplay is a very real possibility here. The issues involved are complex and there seem to be more players in this game coming out of the woodwork.
The thing is a lot of these ranchers out here have been grazing this land since the mid 1800's abd feel that theFederal government is stealing their livlihood out from under them.
Which is pathetic since its MY LAND (TM) not theirs. Go buy your own land and graze and quit being a welfare cheat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
In the eyes of the law, he probably has a compelling legal argument. Most venues have archaic laws on the book allowing for adverse possession.
edit: ha I just googled it, that sounds so silly. Why do you need a special zone to have free speech in it? When you step outside the zone can you suddenly not speak against a government or something? Also, can you post a link to what the free speech zones have to do with this? I can't find it...I fail at google apparently.
d-usa wrote: This threat is an exact repeat of the "evil government is making people homeless" thread we had during the shutdown with the same people making the same argument. A group of people are breaking the rules, but the Feds are the donkey-caves for enforcing them.
Agreed.
1. Do I think the BLM may be going off the deep end? You betcha
2. Do I trust the government to think before it acts and not "ball up" at the first sign of disobedience? Nope
3. Do I think the government is (not so slowly anymore) politzeiing up due to a combination of surplus equipment, keeping up with the Jones's to get a SWAT team for the freaking park rangers? You better believe it.
4. Could the BLM be going off the deep end and acting high handedly to everyone in the area? I'd take that as a matter of course.
HOWEVER, there is an old legal concept to the effect that a party cannot come to the court with unclean hands. This guy is about as clean as a pig in a mud trough.
You don't have to go Ruby RIdge on the guy, but he's wrong and needs to be curb stomped legally. He's committing theft by grazing on other people's land. As a Westerner he should know there's a long history of ending up dead when you do stuff like that. Quit it, then you can whine about the government.
EDIT:
I wish there was a more neutral news source I could find on this. All I get are these guys. Police stopping you from committing trespass is not "police assaulting you"
More importantly, am I the only one who sees this pic and all I can think of is the two cops in center left doing some kind of tango rap http://www.infowars.com/20-cowboys-break-fed-blockade-in-nevada-retrieve-cattle/
n Wednesday, a bureau truck driven by a civilian employee assisting in the roundup "was struck by a protester on an ATV and the truck's exit from the area was blocked by a group of individuals who gathered around the vehicle," the agencies' statement said.
In the scuffle with protesters, a police dog was kicked, and officers protecting the civilian driver were threatened and assaulted, the two agencies' statement said. "After multiple requests and ample verbal warnings, law enforcement officers deployed Tasers on a protestor," the statement said.
If only these were union members; then people would waste no time calling them the thugs that they are acting like.
This is the beginning of complete federal takeover of America and citizen round-up of those who resist the NWO (FEMA camps).
From the Crash News Network's site:
n Wednesday, a bureau truck driven by a civilian employee assisting in the roundup "was struck by a protester on an ATV and the truck's exit from the area was blocked by a group of individuals who gathered around the vehicle," the agencies' statement said. In the scuffle with protesters, a police dog was kicked, and officers protecting the civilian driver were threatened and assaulted, the two agencies' statement said. "After multiple requests and ample verbal warnings, law enforcement officers deployed Tasers on a protestor," the statement said.
If only these were union members; then people would waste no time calling them the thugs that they are acting like.
Wait wait the ranchers kicked a dog? The Great Wienie demands justice! Exterminatz Demz Roman style! Raze their land, salt the earth (looks at pic) oh er, looks like Baby Jebus already did that. Redden their ankles with holy biting wrath!
This is the beginning of complete federal takeover of America and citizen round-up of those who resist the NWO (FEMA camps).
Put nice grasslands in the FEMA camps, the cows will get there first and the poor victims will follow them there.
Back in my day we didn't have FEMA camps. We just had trailer parks and were glad to have 'em. And so were the tornadoes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If all this is government land why are "the protestors" even allowed to be on it? There's no need for a "free speech zone" if you're illegally tresspassing to begin with.
d-usa wrote: This threat is an exact repeat of the "evil government is making people homeless" thread we had during the shutdown with the same people making the same argument. A group of people are breaking the rules, but the Feds are the donkey-caves for enforcing them.
Agreed.
1. Do I think the BLM may be going off the deep end? You betcha
2. Do I trust the government to think before it acts and not "ball up" at the first sign of disobedience? Nope
3. Do I think the government is (not so slowly anymore) politzeiing up due to a combination of surplus equipment, keeping up with the Jones's to get a SWAT team for the freaking park rangers? You better believe it.
4. Could the BLM be going off the deep end and acting high handedly to everyone in the area? I'd take that as a matter of course.
HOWEVER, there is an old legal concept to the effect that a party cannot come to the court with unclean hands. This guy is about as clean as a pig in a mud trough.
You don't have to go Ruby RIdge on the guy, but he's wrong and needs to be curb stomped legally. He's committing theft by grazing on other people's land. As a Westerner he should know there's a long history of ending up dead when you do stuff like that. Quit it, then you can whine about the government.
EDIT:
I wish there was a more neutral news source I could find on this. All I get are these guys. Police stopping you from committing trespass is not "police assaulting you"
More importantly, am I the only one who sees this pic and all I can think of is the two cops in center left doing some kind of tango rap http://www.infowars.com/20-cowboys-break-fed-blockade-in-nevada-retrieve-cattle/
I've been checking the local area paper to see what's happening, along with reports from my family down there.
I agree that Bundy should have long ago been off that land, and I have no defense for his actions in keeping cattle on there long past time they should have been gone.
The way this is being handled though, by the government is a sledge hammer to kill a mosquito approach, and they are hurting a whole area for the sake of one man. This is what I've had issue with from the beginning.
If he were wantonly grazing his cattle on private land he'd be dead already.
Sieze all cattle on public land. Take him to court for the fees owed that are not recompensed for via cattle sale - INCLUDING THE COSTS TO GET THE CATTLE. Hammer this tosser. He's a grifter
Relapse wrote: by the government is a sledge hammer to kill a mosquito approach, and they are hurting a whole area for the sake of one man. This is what I've had issue with from the beginning.
A Mosquito who is using hostages in the form of townsfolk and livestock to hide behind and is heavily armed and threatening violence... He is marching his cattle into harms way intentionally to have them harmed or killed in order to drum up outrage. They are dangerous criminals which are advocating violence and are showing up with weapons, they are assaulting police and intentionally harming them. If you kicked or harmed a police dog in any other place you would have a bullet in your head for attempted murder of an officer.
There is not a single thing wrong with how the government is responding to these people. I would actually be angry if they continued to not respond to these people who are causing harm to everyone else. They need to be rounded up and forced into jail for their crimes. They need to be removed from society. That town will be better off with those people in jail or forced to leave.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: Another rancher grazing his cattle put this in, explaining the process of grazing cattle on BLM administered land:
In very simple terms (yes, I know it’s not simple), this is much the same as licensing your vehicle. Licensing it gives you the right to drive on public roads; or paying property taxes gives you the right to own a home and live in it. If we do not pay the license fees on our vehicle, pay rent to our landlord or pay our property taxes, eventually we will be given citations or notices and finally our vehicle or property will be seized and sold to cover the costs.
Our family is paying our taxes, licenses, fees and rent; just like you are.
So let's see...
*You register with the feds correctly
*Pay your taxes and fees
*Have your cattle maintained and documented
*keep them on the section you are allocated
You can still use the land? Wow... sounds almost reasonable... Shows how refusing to register, pay your taxes and fess, refusal to stay on the allocated land and refusal to document your cattle is unreasonable and those cattle need to be removed via force to protect everyone else and to prevent a blatant criminal from causing harm.
The Feds kept the sledgehammer in the tool shed for over a decade. There has been opportunity after opportunity for this to be settled without any type of force. The reactions at the scene (people running their ATVs into workers, blocking them in, making threats, calling up "militias") make it seem like the amount of force and preparation that went into this operation was not exactly over the top.
d-usa wrote: The Feds kept the sledgehammer in the tool shed for over a decade. There has been opportunity after opportunity for this to be settled without any type of force. The reactions at the scene (people running their ATVs into workers, blocking them in, making threats, calling up "militias") make it seem like the amount of force and preparation that went into this operation was not exactly over the top.
One of the things people there are having a huge issue with is the timing. After 20 years, the government moves in during a part of the year when the Moapa valley makes most of it's money from tourism. They were just barely recovering from the park closures last year, and now this happens.
Frankly it's nice to see some patience from a government body. 20 years of warnings, fines, court cases and finally this. If bailiffs turned up at my house to take something away and I threatened them with violence and militias I'd be arrested. This is on a bigger scale and thus affects more people. It's Bundy that is hurting these people, he is using them as human shields and people are so caught up in the 'government is bad hurr durr' ideology that they can't see that. I thought nkelsch was being overdramatic by calling this man a dangerous criminal and to some extent i think he still is. He isn't doing this for his cattle or for money. He has a self-inflated ego fed on stories of underdogs fighting the good fight against the big guy and he wants to be some kind of anti-federal hero at the expense of his neighbours and his family. The man is psychotic. The government tried to deal with this another way. They tried for 20 years. That's enough time for someone to have a long career in the BLM. That's nearly my entire damn lifetime. This is what is has come to because he didn't stop.
End there's too. Don't make me start singing the tale of Minnie the Moocher. Actually it sounds like there are law abiding people who legally use the ground. Maybe they should get togewther and have a little chat with this Bundy fellow...
d-usa wrote: The Feds kept the sledgehammer in the tool shed for over a decade. There has been opportunity after opportunity for this to be settled without any type of force. The reactions at the scene (people running their ATVs into workers, blocking them in, making threats, calling up "militias") make it seem like the amount of force and preparation that went into this operation was not exactly over the top.
One of the things people there are having a huge issue with is the timing. After 20 years, the government moves in during a part of the year when the Moapa valley makes most of it's money from tourism. They were just barely recovering from the park closures last year, and now this happens.
d-usa wrote: The Feds kept the sledgehammer in the tool shed for over a decade. There has been opportunity after opportunity for this to be settled without any type of force. The reactions at the scene (people running their ATVs into workers, blocking them in, making threats, calling up "militias") make it seem like the amount of force and preparation that went into this operation was not exactly over the top.
One of the things people there are having a huge issue with is the timing. After 20 years, the government moves in during a part of the year when the Moapa valley makes most of it's money from tourism. They were just barely recovering from the park closures last year, and now this happens.
Sorry, the Moapa Valley is not some massive hub of tourism in Clark County. Do people go there? Probably, but we are talking about some place in the middle of the desert 60 miles from Las Vegas.
Furthermore, a handful of federal police dealing with "militia" on a chunk of land in the middle of nowhere is not going to disrupt tourism so badly that the entire town will suffer.
If the townspeople really cared that much they would pressure Bundy to remove his cattle so the BLM can leave the area and be done with it.
End there's too. Don't make me start singing the tale of Minnie the Moocher. Actually it sounds like there are law abiding people who legally use the ground. Maybe they should get togewther and have a little chat with this Bundy fellow...
d-usa wrote: The Feds kept the sledgehammer in the tool shed for over a decade. There has been opportunity after opportunity for this to be settled without any type of force. The reactions at the scene (people running their ATVs into workers, blocking them in, making threats, calling up "militias") make it seem like the amount of force and preparation that went into this operation was not exactly over the top.
One of the things people there are having a huge issue with is the timing. After 20 years, the government moves in during a part of the year when the Moapa valley makes most of it's money from tourism. They were just barely recovering from the park closures last year, and now this happens.
Too bad. Blame Bundy (hey thats catchy).
I thought it would be interesting to post that, showing how the process works to put cattle on the land. This is another reason I have no defense to offer for Bundy's actions. It's the people of the towns around there I feel bad for.
We had a similar issue near me. There is a small town based around a public park and a local Spa. The hotel/Spa decided 'Taxes are too high, we have been here forever, we simply won't pay them.' Pocketing millions of dollars in taxes for themselves.
The entire economy of the town was based around tourism for the spa. The owners continued to make profit, simply not pay taxes. They fought and fought and refused to pay taxes but no one wanted to shut down the Spa out of fear it would crush the town. People were whipped into a frenzy over 'Derterkerjerbs' and 'Government taxes, don't tread on me!' even though this spa is based upon using the natural public springs which are maintained by these taxes, along with schools and infrastructure (like the new courthouse which had to be built due to it burning down)
So after threatening the town, whipping them into a frenzy and getting them to fight battles, the owners took their money and ran. Literally closed the doors, had everything of value taken and abandon the place with the doors locked. people showed up to work and faced a locked door. Customers showed up for a week-long stay in a hotel/spa and found a closed hotel. They took their money and fled and did it in such a way to cause the greatest damage to the town and the supporters. Apparently they were also defaulting on their loans while pocketing cash so it was a double whammie, they had planned to default on loans and taxes and flee. If the government would have stepped in and sized things earlier, the people would have still had jobs and the reputation of the town wouldn't have been hurt and tourism destroyed. there could have been a transition and auction and a new owner. It would have been rough but not as bad as what happened.
It has been 6+ months, the spa still closed. They finally had a public auction and there is a new owner and the taxes are being dealt with but they now have to get the place back to functioning order and then hope they can make a profitable business. The town was manipulated into fighting the hotel's battles with false claims that it was oppression and in their interest and it was all lies. The people were not hurt because of the government and in this case, the in-action lead to worse consequences.
The town will survive, but lots of people feel like they were lied to and now see 'why taxes might be important' in an area which is all about 'this is mah land, no zoning, no taxes'
d-usa wrote: The Feds kept the sledgehammer in the tool shed for over a decade. There has been opportunity after opportunity for this to be settled without any type of force. The reactions at the scene (people running their ATVs into workers, blocking them in, making threats, calling up "militias") make it seem like the amount of force and preparation that went into this operation was not exactly over the top.
One of the things people there are having a huge issue with is the timing. After 20 years, the government moves in during a part of the year when the Moapa valley makes most of it's money from tourism. They were just barely recovering from the park closures last year, and now this happens.
Why don't the citizens form a posse, arrest Bundy and turn him over.
Or form a class action suit against him for wrecking the local economy.
I thought it would be interesting to post that, showing how the process works to put cattle on the land. This is another reason I have no defense to offer for Bundy's actions. It's the people of the towns around there I feel bad for.
not disagreeing with you there. They should actually be cheering on the feds and helping corral the errant cattle instead of being on his side.
d-usa wrote: The Feds kept the sledgehammer in the tool shed for over a decade. There has been opportunity after opportunity for this to be settled without any type of force. The reactions at the scene (people running their ATVs into workers, blocking them in, making threats, calling up "militias") make it seem like the amount of force and preparation that went into this operation was not exactly over the top.
One of the things people there are having a huge issue with is the timing. After 20 years, the government moves in during a part of the year when the Moapa valley makes most of it's money from tourism. They were just barely recovering from the park closures last year, and now this happens.
Why don't the citizens form a posse, arrest Bundy and turn him over.
Or form a class action suit against him for wrecking the local economy.
Well this is the West. I was thinking more Lincoln County War style myself. Come on people. Entertain me!
I thought it would be interesting to post that, showing how the process works to put cattle on the land. This is another reason I have no defense to offer for Bundy's actions. It's the people of the towns around there I feel bad for.
not disagreeing with you there. They should actually be cheering on the feds and helping corral the errant cattle instead of being on his side.
d-usa wrote: The Feds kept the sledgehammer in the tool shed for over a decade. There has been opportunity after opportunity for this to be settled without any type of force. The reactions at the scene (people running their ATVs into workers, blocking them in, making threats, calling up "militias") make it seem like the amount of force and preparation that went into this operation was not exactly over the top.
One of the things people there are having a huge issue with is the timing. After 20 years, the government moves in during a part of the year when the Moapa valley makes most of it's money from tourism. They were just barely recovering from the park closures last year, and now this happens.
Why don't the citizens form a posse, arrest Bundy and turn him over.
Or form a class action suit against him for wrecking the local economy.
Well this is the West. I was thinking more Lincoln County War style myself. Come on people. Entertain me!
They're pretty close knit down in those towns and tend to circle the wagons to help and comfort each other in times of trouble, so it doesn't surprise me that this is playing out the way it is. I see that every time I go down to visit family. Ifsomeone has something bad happen to them, it isn't even a couple of hours before there's a huge group of people at their house, offering to do whatever they can.
I did like the county commissioner telling an armed group from Utah, "To quit the crazy talk and get their inbred asses back north." He also asked them if they had their funeral plans payed up.
If you saw the town meeting videos, and read the editorials in the local news, you get a pretty good idea of the attitude at the moment. At a guess from what I've been told, it's falling into three groups: Those that support Bundy, those pissed at the Feds for shutting down thousands of acres and hurting the economy( memories of the park closures are playing into this), and those that are going, "What the hell, Bundy?"
The Nevada governor is now weighing in against the feds, it seems, but hasn't really done anything.
I hope the crazy crap outlined in this article doesn't pan out, because this could easily turn into a bloodbath if anyone mis calculates:
If it does, it is more than justified... Those people taking up arms and violence based on a false premise know the result. Bundy will gladly whip them up into a frenzy and march them to their deaths from behind safe lines. That is his plan all along, to manipulate the poor and ignorant to think that the government is somehow oppressing them via proxy due to his illegal actions and they need to stand up for HIM before it happens to them.
If causing violence and getting some of his townfolk killed helps him out or saves him some money, he is fine with it. They are all expendable like his cows.
If this was in a city and the people were violent and armed, everyone involved would have been shot dead or already put in jail and no one would have blinked an eye.
If it does, it is more than justified... Those people taking up arms and violence based on a false premise know the result. Bundy will gladly whip them up into a frenzy and march them to their deaths from behind safe lines. That is his plan all along, to manipulate the poor and ignorant to think that the government is somehow oppressing them via proxy due to his illegal actions and they need to stand up for HIM before it happens to them.
If causing violence and getting some of his townfolk killed helps him out or saves him some money, he is fine with it. They are all expendable like his cows.
If this was in a city and the people were violent and armed, everyone involved would have been shot dead or already put in jail and no one would have blinked an eye.
I'm thinking you are wrong on your city premise, and you would realize that to if you were old enought to remember the LA riots or similar incidents.
I'm thinking you are wrong on your city premise, and you would realize that to if you were old enough to remember the LA riots or similar incidents.
How so? The riots were an ignorant and unreasonable response to a bad situation. Was not at all 'the second US American revolution'. People were killing each other int he streets, looting, vandalizing for no reason. They were beating random people to death simply for being "not Black"(mostly latino and koreans were murdered by rioters) and they were 'mad'. I am perfectly old enough to remember those riots.
All those people were 'wrong' and force was used to arrest them and put those who were armed and violent 'down'. And while stopping the criminals, murderers and looters, they still allowed and help support peaceful rallies to happen. The government actually was able to arrest most people and most of the deaths were caused by murderers, not the government. overwhelming force by the government saved lives and was needed.
No one was defending the rioters, everyone was perfectly ok with the massive show of force used to stop the rioting and from a national standpoint it was a fully justified act and everyone went about their business. These 'militias' don't realize the latitude they are being given to even exist right now. if this was a city, the first hint of organization and arming themselves they would have all be arrested and the first sign of violence, shot dead. The fact they can ride around with their weapons, assault federal agents and mostly not even be charged or arrested shows amazing latitude for their bs. I still stand firm that if this was a dispute over city park land, and the armed, violent 'militia' who were assaulting federal officers were black, they would all be dead or in jail right now.
You are saying everyone would have been shot dead or arrested which is a huge overstatement, then you compund the error by playing a race card.
I do agree, however, that it is asnine to an extreme degree for these guys to be bringing in weapons and Bundy should tell everyone to go home before someone gets hurt.
Relapse wrote: You are saying everyone would have been shot dead or arrested which is a huge overstatement, then you compund the error by playing a race card.
I do agree, however, that it is asnine to an extreme degree for these guys to be bringing in weapons and Bundy should tell everyone to go home before someone gets hurt.
If they are violent and brandishing a weapon at authorities, in every other situation they will most likely be shot dead. This happens daily in our cities. No one questions a violent criminal assaulting authorities with deadly weapons. In the LA riots, most people were unarmed and murdering with their bare hands and mob attacks, so the police were simply arresting people. If those people were 'armed militias' they would have been put down to the man and no one would have blinked an eye because you simply don't take up arms and attack law enforcement.
Why these 'militias' feel they are different (and are being treated differently) is beyond me. Why they are not being immediately rounded up and arrested for violence and why those whoa re violent and armed are being allowed to 'continue' to be that and 'claim victory' by disengaging them instead of confronting them is not how regular people would be treated. If you were in a city, they wouldn't 'disengage' a violent and armed person, they would shoot them to death.
The federal officials in this situation *ARE* showing amazing restraint, and if they do have escalate their response, I feel it will be totally justified. They should make sure they have their wills in order before they decide to take up arms against the federal government.
To be fair to the good people of LA, washing their cars on their lunch breaks, the riots were sparked off when the LAPD squad who had been filmed beating the feth out of a black guy astonishingly managed to get acquitted.
Once the spark was lit, the forest fire pretty much burned out of control until it had consumed the available fuel.
In the Bundy case, the narrative is very different.
If you saw the town meeting videos, and read the editorials in the local news, you get a pretty good idea of the attitude at the moment. At a guess from what I've been told, it's falling into three groups: Those that support Bundy, those pissed at the Feds for shutting down thousands of acres and hurting the economy( memories of the park closures are playing into this), and those that are going, "What the hell, Bundy?"
The Nevada governor is now weighing in against the feds, it seems, but hasn't really done anything.
I hope the crazy crap outlined in this article doesn't pan out, because this could easily turn into a bloodbath if anyone mis calculates:
Relapse wrote: You are saying everyone would have been shot dead or arrested which is a huge overstatement, then you compund the error by playing a race card.
I do agree, however, that it is asnine to an extreme degree for these guys to be bringing in weapons and Bundy should tell everyone to go home before someone gets hurt.
If they are violent and brandishing a weapon at authorities, in every other situation they will most likely be shot dead. This happens daily in our cities. No one questions a violent criminal assaulting authorities with deadly weapons. In the LA riots, most people were unarmed and murdering with their bare hands and mob attacks, so the police were simply arresting people. If those people were 'armed militias' they would have been put down to the man and no one would have blinked an eye because you simply don't take up arms and attack law enforcement.
Why these 'militias' feel they are different (and are being treated differently) is beyond me. Why they are not being immediately rounded up and arrested for violence and why those whoa re violent and armed are being allowed to 'continue' to be that and 'claim victory' by disengaging them instead of confronting them is not how regular people would be treated. If you were in a city, they wouldn't 'disengage' a violent and armed person, they would shoot them to death.
The federal officials in this situation *ARE* showing amazing restraint, and if they do have escalate their response, I feel it will be totally justified. They should make sure they have their wills in order before they decide to take up arms against the federal government.
The county commisioner I quoted earlier had it right when he talked to that group from Utah.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: And another lovely example from LA is Christopher Dorner. He took up arms against police and it did not end well for that man. Not well at all.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be fair to the good people of LA, washing their cars on their lunch breaks, the riots were sparked off when the LAPD squad who had been filmed beating the feth out of a black guy astonishingly managed to get acquitted.
Once the spark was lit, the forest fire pretty much burned out of control until it had consumed the available fuel.
In the Bundy case, the narrative is very different.
To the people of that area supporting him, what is happening to Bundy is equivelant. The situation, I hope, doesn't get crazy. I know residents of the town quite rightly unhappy with the thought of militias coming in with guns.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be fair to the good people of LA, washing their cars on their lunch breaks, the riots were sparked off when the LAPD squad who had been filmed beating the feth out of a black guy astonishingly managed to get acquitted.
Once the spark was lit, the forest fire pretty much burned out of control until it had consumed the available fuel.
In the Bundy case, the narrative is very different.
To the people of that area supporting him, what is happening to Bundy is equivelant.
Then the people of that area that are supporting him are stupid.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be fair to the good people of LA, washing their cars on their lunch breaks, the riots were sparked off when the LAPD squad who had been filmed beating the feth out of a black guy astonishingly managed to get acquitted.
Once the spark was lit, the forest fire pretty much burned out of control until it had consumed the available fuel.
In the Bundy case, the narrative is very different.
To the people of that area supporting him, what is happening to Bundy is equivelant.
Then the people of that area that are supporting him are stupid.
I am saddened by the whole situation. I love the people down there, and they are proud of their heritage. They have a museum in Overton called "The Lost City Museum", that is a total surprise to anyone who doesn't know the area.
I don't know the number of times I have gone to it and am continually amazed that such a small town could have something that world class.
Talking to the curators of this place or any of the people around town lets you know how close and caring the people of this valley are of each other, their history, and traditions.
I dread anything happening to them.
I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight.
Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it is in a nut shell.
My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972.
These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.
These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights.
Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches.
My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve.
Instead they began using these money’s against the ranchers.
They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with their own grazing fees.
When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job.
He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.
So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.
In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business.
Well when buying him out didn’t work, they used the indangered species card.
You’ve already heard about the desert tortis.
Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years.
Now they’re desperate.
It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff.
Everything they’re doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.
Now you may be saying,” how sad, but what does this have to do with me?” Well, I’ll tell you.
They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again.
Next, it’s Utah’s turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.
Then there’s the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle do belong to him.
Regardless where they are they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed.
Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it.
They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Auction and sell them.
All with our tax money.
They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars.
EDIT: I stopped reading that woman's list of justifications when I realized her understanding of grammar and syntax seemed to be approximately equivalent to that of a third grader's.
Why can't those people calm down and act maturely? If you disagree with the authorities, there are probably ways to take it up in a civil manner.
Why can't the US government act more like the democratic government it is supposed to be instead of some fascist republic-style ''justice''? Why does it send in snipers etc.? No need for that. They should engage in dialogue with the people instead.
Both sides need to calm and have sittings down for talks. Without weapons.
And why do these kinds of things only seem tohappen in USA?
Someone got tased. A pregnant woman was knocked down. Yep..BLM LEO should have smiled and taking a knee to defuse the situation and really make Bundy look like the aggressor.
Why can't those people calm down and act maturely? If you disagree with the authorities, there are probably ways to take it up in a civil manner.
***There was and they lost, twice. Now they are trying to ignore the verdicts against them.
Why can't the US government act more like the democratic government it is supposed to be instead of some fascist republic-style ''justice''? Why does it send in snipers etc.? No need for that. They should engage in dialogue with the people instead.
***They did and are. It’s the Bundy’s who are making threats. Its also government property. I’d arrest them all for trespassing at this point.
Both sides need to calm and have sittings down for talks. Without weapons.
***That’s boring.
And why do these kinds of things only seem to happen in USA?
***America Hurr!!!
Iron_Captain wrote: Why can't those people calm down and act maturely? If you disagree with the authorities, there are probably ways to take it up in a civil manner.
They did, for a long time, and when they didn't like the result they ignored it.
Why can't the US government act more like the democratic government it is supposed to be instead of some fascist republic-style ''justice''? Why does it send in snipers etc.? No need for that.
Yeah, no deed for "snipers etc" when the groups have threatened you, attacked you, and are calling up their militias.
They should engage in dialogue with the people instead.
They did.
Both sides need to calm and have sittings down for talks. Without weapons.
They did.
And why do these kinds of things only seem tohappen in USA?
It's almost like you didn't participate in the Ukraine thread...
And why do these kinds of things only seem tohappen in USA?
It's almost like you didn't participate in the Ukraine thread...
But that is different. That is about СВОБОДА!!! instead of FREEDOM!!! But in all seriousness, I really don't think the situation is comparable as it doesn't involve ethnic and linguistic tensions, conflicting national interests and a centuries-long history. (oh well, you could argue for that history since he claims his family has used the land for so long )
Just look at those poor peaceful and well educated protesters:
The people kicking the dogs should have had their face in the pavement. They were lucky that they had a an angry mob backing them up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: But in all seriousness, I really don't think the situation is comparable as it doesn't involve ethnic and linguistic tensions, conflicting national interests and a centuries-long history. (oh well, you could argue for that history since he claims his family has used the land for so long )
Ethnic and linguistic tensions: areas of the united states are very different, and you you haven't heard a lot of the rednecks talk if you don't think we have linguistic tensions
Conflicting national interests: we have conflicting federal/state/local/personal interests.
Centuries-long history: The people have hated the Federal government ever since they formed it and then decided to join it state by state
Iron_Captain wrote: And why do these kinds of things only seem tohappen in USA?
Remember that time that Russia gassed that theater and killed half the hostages they were "rescuing"? Or maybe I was thinking of that school.
Tell me more about how uniquely heavy handed the US is, please.
Please do not begin about Beslan here. This is not the place or time. I don't think the Russian government ever pretends not to be 'heavy-handed'. The difference is that the Russian case involved actual, known terrorists that had strapped bombs to everything. The US case just involves some angry peasants with guns.
Oh cossacks, they are always beating anti-government people and immigrants up Maybe the US wants to hire some? They sure are effective. Another difference is that the US is supposed to be the epitome of freedom and democracy, while Russia has always been notorious for being authoritarian and doesn't pretend to be anything else.
Iron_Captain wrote: And why do these kinds of things only seem tohappen in USA?
Remember that time that Russia gassed that theater and killed half the hostages they were "rescuing"? Or maybe I was thinking of that school.
Tell me more about how uniquely heavy handed the US is, please.
Please do not begin about Beslan here. This is not the place or time.
I don't think the Russian government ever pretends not to be 'heavy-handed'. The difference is that the Russian case involved actual, known terrorists that had strapped bombs to everything. The US case just involves some angry peasants with guns.
So we can talk about things, but not things which make your point look silly?
Well okay there, buddy.
The "US case" involves groups which are two or three steps removed from becoming "terrorist organizations" in some instances.
The feth it's not. You pointed out how uniquely jackbooted my country is. Don't open the can if you don't like what crawls out.
Beslan is a very sensitive matter. It is also comparing apples and oranges. In any case, I did not want to say that the US is the only country with a repressive police, they are not. (Russia and Germany are also very high on that list). But more that scenarios as the one here only seem to happen in the US. I did not mean to insult the US in any way or something like that.
d-usa wrote: The US vs Russia argument can only be solved one way: a sexy dance off!
But that is another thread, so we better behave...
By now you’re familiar with the standoff between the federal government, i.e. the Bureau of Land Management, and 67 year-old rancher Cliven Bundy. (If not, check the backstory and my radio interview with him here.) The BLM asserts their power through the expressed desire to protect the endangered desert tortoise, a tortoise so “endangered” that their population can no longer be contained by the refuge constructed for them so the government is closing it and euthanizing over a thousand tortoises. The tortoises, the excuse that BLM has given for violating claims to easements and running all but one lone rancher out of southern Nevada, is doing fine. In fact, the tortoise has lived in harmony with cattle in the Gold Butte, Clark County Nevada for over a hundred years, or as long as Cliven Bundy’s family has lived on the land as ranchers. In fact, the real threat to it is urbanization, not cattle.
A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher. They want his land. The tortoise wasn’t of concern when Harry Reid worked BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore. Whittemore was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Senator Reid. Reid’s former senior adviser is now the head of BLM. Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests. BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area. If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor.
BLM has also tried to argue that the rules have changed, long after Bundy claims he secured rights and paid his dues to Clark County, Nevada. BLM says they supersede whatever agreement Bundy had prior; they demanded that he reduce his living, his thousand-some-odd head of cattle down to a tiny herd of 150. It’s easy for the government to grant itself powers of overreach, but it doesn’t make it right. Many bad things are done in the name of unjust laws. Just look at Obamacare. This heavy-handed tactic has run the other ranchers from the area and now Bundy is the last one. He’s the last one because he stood up to the federal government.
So why does BLM want to run Bundy off this land and is Reid connected?
I discussed this on “Kelly File” tonight:
*UPDATE: Those who say Bundy is a “deadbeat” are making inaccurate claims. Bundy has in fact paid fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM. The BLM arrived much later, changed the details of the setup without consulting with Bundy — or any other rancher — and then began systematically driving out cattle and ranchers. Bundy refused to pay BLM, especially after they demanded he reduce his heard’s head count down to a level that would not sustain his ranch. Bundy OWNS the water and forage rights to this land. He paid for these rights. He built fences, established water ways, and constructed roads with his own money, with the approval of Nevada and BLM. When BLM started using his fees to run him off the land and harassing him, he ceased paying. So should BLM reimburse him for managing the land and for the confiscation of his water and forage rights?
Cliven Bundy’s problem isn’t that he didn’t pay — he did — or that his cattle bother tortoises — they don’t — it’s that he’s not a Reid donor.
**One last thought: For those conservatives saying that since BLM arrived in the late 90s, it’s the law now, well, so is Obamacare.
Besides what the author posted... it's a damn shame she's only on radio... she's a looker.
That video is dumb.
If cattle were people we would kill them, eat them and use their skin to make clothes. We also would brand them and keep them in herds...
That said if cattle were mayflies this would have been over already.
d-usa wrote: So is the Lone Ranger Bundy, or the other guy that explained how his cattle is legally grazing there and how be paid his money and got his permit?
The "he's the only guy left" bit makes it clear that the journalist is just serving up BS.
d-usa wrote: So is the Lone Ranger Bundy, or the other guy that explained how his cattle is legally grazing there and how be paid his money and got his permit?
The "he's the only guy left" bit makes it clear that the journalist is just serving up BS.
Nah... It's a seems like a fethed up situation all over. It seems that both sides could've have handled this differently.
I just find it dubious that the BLM is headed by Reid's former advisor and with all the federal properties being shifted to private developers. Now, that may be "normal" when dealing with Federal Lands... I don't know if that sort of thing can happen. It's just a red flag for me at the moment.
Also... what really doesn't make sense is that government plans to euthanize hundreds of desert tortoises after budget cuts to refuge... why euthanize them in the first place? o.O
d-usa wrote: So is the Lone Ranger Bundy, or the other guy that explained how his cattle is legally grazing there and how be paid his money and got his permit?
The "he's the only guy left" bit makes it clear that the journalist is just serving up BS.
What else did you expect from a Whembly post?
Uh... my understanding that it isn't the same region.
It is not his land. It never was. That is the core of his argument. He claims because his family has used it, it is his. And he has been found to be extremely wrong.
Fees and taxes change every year.
Use for land has changing needs and they have a right to repurpose or change the use of the land.
He needs to pay for his usage of the land, it is not his. He refuses to pay any federal government.
He refuses to abide by the federal government regulations.
He is trespassing and a deadbeat. He is advocating violence and lost all his appeals in court.
Other people are paying their fees, following the regulations and still using the land, so it can be done. He could do it to if he followed the rules.
nkelsch wrote: It is not his land. It never was. That is the core of his argument. He claims because his family has used it, it is his. And he has been found to be extremely wrong.
Fees and taxes change every year.
Use for land has changing needs and they have a right to repurpose or change the use of the land.
He needs to pay for his usage of the land, it is not his. He refuses to pay any federal government.
He refuses to abide by the federal government regulations.
He is trespassing and a deadbeat. He is advocating violence and lost all his appeals in court.
Other people are paying their fees, following the regulations and still using the land, so it can be done. He could do it to if he followed the rules.
There's so much information (or misinformation)... is it clear that BLM just want their fees? Or, are they asking them to "get off their land"?
d-usa wrote: So is the Lone Ranger Bundy, or the other guy that explained how his cattle is legally grazing there and how be paid his money and got his permit?
The "he's the only guy left" bit makes it clear that the journalist is just serving up BS.
What else did you expect from a Whembly post?
Uh... my understanding that it isn't the same region.
All I'm saying is that there's more here than meets the eye...
No there isn't. It's simply another idiot wrapping themselves up in the rhetoric of the "militias" to justify their actions.
Also: Do you even read articles before you post them? Because that article that you posted states that there is "New evidence of voter fraud in North Carolina alleged".
You understand that "alleged" does not mean "confirmed", right?
To top it off though, the allegations of purposeful voter fraud were raised by Civitas...which in and of itself makes those allegations suspect.
Good rule of thumb: whenever any "news" story claims that all of this is just because a bunch of turtles, that's your sign that you can ignore that source.
I believe I posted earlier that I think that rancher is SOL... didn't I?
Jesus.
No one is looking like angels here...
Again... what were the justification that BLM gave to kick off ranchers off?
To kick him off, he owes them 300k$ in grazing fees and he doesn't follow federal regulations for documenting his cattle which leads to risk for animals in food supplies.
Everyone else, they wished to change some of the land to preservations so they offered to buy out people's remaining grazing contracts. Those who did not want to, could continue to pay their fees and follow regulations and stay put within their allotted space.
They want to expand more of the land for nature reservation, which is perfectly acceptable and had plenty of time for discussion and appeals. It has long since been decided. Government land gets repurposed all the time.
Bundy wants nothing short of full, unregulated, undocumented, free use of the land with zero federal involvement. That is an indefensible position. Since he is not getting his way, he is intentionally putting his cattle in harms way in order to get them hurt and killed to make a scene and calling for people to resort to armed violence to protect his personal interests. Both of those actions are also unacceptable.
d-usa wrote: Good rule of thumb: whenever any "news" story claims that all of this is just because a bunch of turtles, that's your sign that you can ignore that source.
Well obviously, everyone knows that it's lizards that are behind everything turtles would just be too silly.
DutchWinsAll wrote: Ahh he's Mormon. That explains the rabid support of Relapse.
Actually I didn't know that, but if you are the kind of person that thinks all people of a religious group hang together, nothing I can do for you.
As for me being a rabid supporter, you clearly haven't read any of my earlier posts. It's the government's methods I have issue with and the way they are disrupting an area's lives, rights and financial livlihoods for one man.
When I say he's becoming a hero to these people, It's not out of admiration, but just stating a point of fact to what I am seeing in the news and being told first hand by people on the scene.
All religious groups? Of course not. But Mormon's have a long history of fighting the Federal government from almost it's inception. From trying to charge the Feds for harboring orphans they created after the Mountain Meadows Massacre to taking Federal aid for their multiple children from multiple wives. "Bleeding the Beast" isn't it called? I mean, the rest of us, we're all just Gentiles right?
Every single poster here has realized Bundy is in the wrong and a criminal. The fact you still support him and keep referencing your family and anecdotal stories shows that you have "a dog in the fight" so to speak. And as you're not an illegal cattle rancher, and the Mormon's history of block-voting and anti-Federalism, it's the only thing I can think that is motivating you. Also, you used InfoWars as a reputable source. It's on the same level as the Weekly World News claiming Bat Boy has been sighted again.
"Hey Dad, where are we going this year for family vacation?"
"Well son, we're heading out to some undeveloped land sixty miles outside of Las Vegas. And its not the Valley of Fire."
"Sounds great Dad!"
DutchWinsAll wrote: Ahh he's Mormon. That explains the rabid support of Relapse.
Actually I didn't know that, but if you are the kind of person that thinks all people of a religious group hang together, nothing I can do for you.
As for me being a rabid supporter, you clearly haven't read any of my earlier posts. It's the government's methods I have issue with and the way they are disrupting an area's lives, rights and financial livlihoods for one man.
When I say he's becoming a hero to these people, It's not out of admiration, but just stating a point of fact to what I am seeing in the news and being told first hand by people on the scene.
Every single poster here has realized Bundy is in the wrong and a criminal.
Really. Where in my post did I say that?. Don't speak for everybody, just yourself.
DutchWinsAll wrote: Ahh he's Mormon. That explains the rabid support of Relapse.
Actually I didn't know that, but if you are the kind of person that thinks all people of a religious group hang together, nothing I can do for you.
As for me being a rabid supporter, you clearly haven't read any of my earlier posts. It's the government's methods I have issue with and the way they are disrupting an area's lives, rights and financial livlihoods for one man.
When I say he's becoming a hero to these people, It's not out of admiration, but just stating a point of fact to what I am seeing in the news and being told first hand by people on the scene.
Every single poster here has realized Bundy is in the wrong and a criminal.
Really. Where in my post did I say that?. Don't speak for everybody, just yourself.
Sorry, I missed one.
Just everyone else. Even the more conservative posters here can see this guy is a criminal and have said so.
I believe I posted earlier that I think that rancher is SOL... didn't I?
Jesus.
No one is looking like angels here...
Again... what were the justification that BLM gave to kick off ranchers off?
To kick him off, he owes them 300k$ in grazing fees and he doesn't follow federal regulations for documenting his cattle which leads to risk for animals in food supplies.
Everyone else, they wished to change some of the land to preservations so they offered to buy out people's remaining grazing contracts. Those who did not want to, could continue to pay their fees and follow regulations and stay put within their allotted space.
Ah then... he's SOL.
They want to expand more of the land for nature reservation, which is perfectly acceptable and had plenty of time for discussion and appeals. It has long since been decided. Government land gets repurposed all the time.
Yeah, that's what I was reading...
Bundy wants nothing short of full, unregulated, undocumented, free use of the land with zero federal involvement. That is an indefensible position. Since he is not getting his way, he is intentionally putting his cattle in harms way in order to get them hurt and killed to make a scene and calling for people to resort to armed violence to protect his personal interests. Both of those actions are also unacceptable.
Right... I'm still trying to get all the details.
Anyone seen the court cases on this? Those would be public documents...eh?
DutchWinsAll wrote: Ahh he's Mormon. That explains the rabid support of Relapse.
Actually I didn't know that, but if you are the kind of person that thinks all people of a religious group hang together, nothing I can do for you.
As for me being a rabid supporter, you clearly haven't read any of my earlier posts. It's the government's methods I have issue with and the way they are disrupting an area's lives, rights and financial livlihoods for one man.
When I say he's becoming a hero to these people, It's not out of admiration, but just stating a point of fact to what I am seeing in the news and being told first hand by people on the scene.
Every single poster here has realized Bundy is in the wrong and a criminal.
Really. Where in my post did I say that?. Don't speak for everybody, just yourself.
Sorry, I missed one.
Just everyone else. Even the more conservative posters here can see this guy is a criminal and have said so.
I see trial by internet. Me I'll just watch and see what turns up.
Maybe he's guilty, maybe not. Time will tell.
What I find amusing is Bundy argued "My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley ever since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water. I have been here longer. My rights are before the BLM even existed,"
I'm sure we can find some Native Americans who can put forth an older claim than his...
Iron_Captain wrote: Why can't those people calm down and act maturely? If you disagree with the authorities, there are probably ways to take it up in a civil manner.
Why can't the US government act more like the democratic government it is supposed to be instead of some fascist republic-style ''justice''? Why does it send in snipers etc.? No need for that. They should engage in dialogue with the people instead.
Both sides need to calm and have sittings down for talks. Without weapons.
And why do these kinds of things only seem tohappen in USA?
They happen in Europe, also I think. It's just that the USA encompases an area the size of most multiple countries over there. Also, I submit for your approval the whole situation that went on immediatly after the Soviet Union broke up and the fact that Crimea just broke away from the Ukraine over thej issue of rights for Russians.
DutchWinsAll wrote: Ahh he's Mormon. That explains the rabid support of Relapse.
Actually I didn't know that, but if you are the kind of person that thinks all people of a religious group hang together, nothing I can do for you.
As for me being a rabid supporter, you clearly haven't read any of my earlier posts. It's the government's methods I have issue with and the way they are disrupting an area's lives, rights and financial livlihoods for one man.
When I say he's becoming a hero to these people, It's not out of admiration, but just stating a point of fact to what I am seeing in the news and being told first hand by people on the scene.
All religious groups? Of course not. But Mormon's have a long history of fighting the Federal government from almost it's inception. From trying to charge the Feds for harboring orphans they created after the Mountain Meadows Massacre to taking Federal aid for their multiple children from multiple wives. "Bleeding the Beast" isn't it called? I mean, the rest of us, we're all just Gentiles right?
Every single poster here has realized Bundy is in the wrong and a criminal. The fact you still support him and keep referencing your family and anecdotal stories shows that you have "a dog in the fight" so to speak. And as you're not an illegal cattle rancher, and the Mormon's history of block-voting and anti-Federalism, it's the only thing I can think that is motivating you. Also, you used InfoWars as a reputable source. It's on the same level as the Weekly World News claiming Bat Boy has been sighted again.
"Hey Dad, where are we going this year for family vacation?"
"Well son, we're heading out to some undeveloped land sixty miles outside of Las Vegas. And its not the Valley of Fire."
"Sounds great Dad!"
Said no family vacation ever.
You just plumed a whole new depth of ignorance with your post. Yup, it's the Mormons behind this, all right, and you're the only one with the cleverness to see the plot.
Where do I say I support him? Count the number of posts where I say he should have been out of there. I don't know what your issue is here, but when you start off your posts with lies about what I have said about Bundy, it shows you have no valid point to make.
As far as the area goes, the Valley af Fire, Lake Mead, and some amazing hiking and camping trails are within a half hour or less from Overton. You continually prove you know less than nothing about me, the Moapa Valley and the people in it, or how I care for my family and enjoy seeing them.
You have proven you have a hot nut for the Mormons by continually , in a passive aggresive fashion, attacking me for my religion, and dropping insinuations and one sided stories about my religion.
That's cool, I have had far better people than you gang up on me because I am Mormon, so your little quips are pretty weak. Stay classy, Dutch.
Tannhauser42 wrote: What I find amusing is Bundy argued "My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley ever since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water. I have been here longer. My rights are before the BLM even existed,"
I'm sure we can find some Native Americans who can put forth an older claim than his...
If almost no tribe has been able to make the US stick to any treaty they actually signed, a white guy who says his great gramps got some land from a dude once doesn't stand a chance...
d-usa wrote: Good rule of thumb: whenever any "news" story claims that all of this is just because a bunch of turtles, that's your sign that you can ignore that source.
Definitely not the turtles, they're just the excuse.
As an aside, Logandale, where the writer of the editorial about leasing land from the BLM is from, is also in Clark County. I might have to make a call or two down there tomorrow to find out why Bundy is being called the last rancher if there are other people grazing cattle in Clark County.
Good thing it was not Red Cockaded Woodpeckers. Quite a legal battle to keep troops housed in the barracks when the birds nested in the tree's by them. Also at National Training Center in Cali at Fort Irwin. The desert turtle/tortuise/whatever all traffic must halt on road till turtle crosses the road or go wide of it by 100 meter. Do not pick up the turtle for the turtle will pee itself and then die of dehydration. Track vehicles are the exception being limited visibility when in combat mode. Wonder if its the same dang turtle.....
Fort Polk, LA. Do not mess with the wild horses on the reservation.
Hey! Why isn't anyone asking the real question? Where is CNN's 24/7 wall-to-wall coverage? Don't they consider this as important as the missing flight out of Micronesia or wherever?
I mean, how will my life be complete without a local reporter talking about how some guy in the distance is walking toward a tree and speculating on what the possible meaning of it is? How do I get through my day without comments like, "There's some activity over at the BLM encampment. We're not sure what is happening exactly but I think I saw someone leave the tent and walk over to one of the cars parked at the encampment. It looked like he was talking to the driver of the car and... I think he's... he's... yes, he just went back into the tent."
reported elsewhere
"Bu t ... [Reid] and his oldest son, Rory, are involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert ... His son helped locate a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site in Clark County, where Rory Reid formerly chaired the county commission".
These reports are in plain view, the mainstream media has so far ignored this link. The bundy ranch is the only spot that fits the description.
loki old fart wrote: I see trial by internet. Me I'll just watch and see what turns up.
Maybe he's guilty, maybe not. Time will tell.
Well, he's also been in 2 different courts for the last 15 years, losing all the way. The BLM are enforcing lawful court orders, not "internet jury decisions". So, you know, there is that too.
Breotan wrote: Hey! Why isn't anyone asking the real question? Where is CNN's 24/7 wall-to-wall coverage? Don't they consider this as important as the missing flight out of Micronesia or wherever?
I hold CNN mostly in contempt, but still read the site now and then. My method of consuming news is web-only, no video, because I like to read not listen. So I read most of the big sites every night and have for a very, very long time, even the ones that I know kinda suck like CNN and Fox News. What has happened over there over the last 5 weeks is literally without precedent in my on and off usage of their site. I have seen some gak - missing white women, elian gonzalez, etc - but I have never seen anything like their fascination with that airplane. Nothing. As far as I can tell, it has literally been the top story since it happened, with the mass stabbing and the truck crash knocking it off for about 6 hours each.
The federal governments killing or nonkilling of turtles, their plot to put a day spa or a chinese factory or a whorehouse on the property, these are all totally, wholly irrelevant to the fact that he has not paid his grazing fees and has no right to be there; period, full stop.
If I don't pay my mortgage it doesn't really matter if the bank colludes to build a gecko breeding facility there once i'm forced off the land I no longer have a right to be on.
You propose that the BLM is acting indirectly on behalf of the solar farm consortium?
I don't see why that is a problem, to be frank, unless the charges against the Bundies have been trumped up solely for the purpose of getting them off the land for building the solar farm.
Kilkrazy wrote: You propose that the BLM is acting indirectly on behalf of the solar farm consortium?
I don't see why that is a problem, to be frank, unless the charges against the Bundies have been trumped up solely for the purpose of getting them off the land for building the solar farm.
Considering the reason for that zone, is to protect the desert tortoise. which cattle have lived with for years. Ant the new plant will threaten
that environment.
"Desert Tortoise
• Goal: Mitigate unavoidable impacts to further sustain the populations of federally listed species so they no longer need protection under the Endangered Species Act." Taken from BLM pdf.
In a case of “I would never have believed this in a million years”, the Arizona State Senate President Andy Biggs and the Arizona House of Representatives Speaker Dave Livingston are both in agreement that Arizona should be involved in supporting CSPOA and Oath Keepers in going to Bunkerville, Nevada. These two leaders of the Arizona Legislature have vowed to support the Cliven Bundy family.
“A Delegation of state legislators, lead by Washington State Representative Matt Shea, along with a delegation of current serving Sheriffs, lead by Sheriff Richard Mack of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, and military and police members of Oath Keepers, are converging on the site of a stand-off between federal law enforcement and Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy, to prevent bloodshed and to stand in defense of hardworking rural Americans who are under assault by a runaway federal government.”
Kilkrazy wrote: How do you know the new plant will threaten the tortoises?
It doesn't matter if it does or not, I've been told thousands of these tortoises are killed yearly by developers and that the government just cut funding to some kind of facility down there dedicated to preserving them, neccesitating the killing of thousands more.
It was never about preserving these creatures.
This may or may not mean anything, just thought I'd put it out here because the Clark County Fair is a big deal when it happens in that area, but there was hardly any traffic to it compared to what there usually is yesterday.
When this thing goes on, the road is choked with traffic during the full run of the fair.
Relapse wrote: This may or may not mean anything, just thought I'd put it out here because the Clark County Fair is a big deal when it happens in that area, but there was hardly any traffic to it compared to what there usually is yesterday.
When this thing goes on, the road is choked with traffic during the full run of the fair.
It'll be interesting to see the final numbers on visitors to the fair this year and how it was impacted.
Why do you keep insisting that what is happening between Bundy and the BLM is somehow going to crush the massive wave of tourism that this area supposedly relies on to survive? The land that is impacted by the closing is indeed "public land" but this is how it is described: "The area is remote with limited vehicular access over steep, rugged terrain"
Is the land that Bundy is fighting over in the Valley of Fire? Nope. It also doesn't keep anyone from accessing Lake Meade, so we don't have to worry about that either.
News flash: it won't impact anyone.
Quit trying to drum up all the "but think of the residents!" sympathy over this.
Relapse wrote: This may or may not mean anything, just thought I'd put it out here because the Clark County Fair is a big deal when it happens in that area, but there was hardly any traffic to it compared to what there usually is yesterday.
When this thing goes on, the road is choked with traffic during the full run of the fair.
It'll be interesting to see the final numbers on visitors to the fair this year and how it was impacted.
Why do you keep insisting that what is happening between Bundy and the BLM is somehow going to crush the massive wave of tourism that this area supposedly relies on to survive? The land that is impacted by the closing is indeed "public land" but this is how it is described: "The area is remote with limited vehicular access over steep, rugged terrain"
Is the land that Bundy is fighting over in the Valley of Fire? Nope. It also doesn't keep anyone from accessing Lake Meade, so we don't have to worry about that either.
News flash: it won't impact anyone.
Quit trying to drum up all the "but think of the residents!" sympathy over this.
An interesting quote from the article about the Texas land dispute:
"For many, that property has been in their family for generations.
"How can BLM come in and say, "Hey, this isn't yours." Even though it’s patented from the state, you've always paid taxes on it. Our family has paid taxes for over 100 years on this place. We've got a deed to it. But yet they walked in and said it wasn't ours," said Henderson."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So is the Lone Ranger Bundy, or the other guy that explained how his cattle is legally grazing there and how be paid his money and got his permit?
The "he's the only guy left" bit makes it clear that the journalist is just serving up BS.
I just found out about the other guy I linked. The difference between him and Bundy is scale of operations. I'm told he only runs a few head of cattle, maybe 60 at the most. What the news reports should say is that Bundy is the last "large" rancher in Clark County, not the last rancher.
Relapse wrote: This may or may not mean anything, just thought I'd put it out here because the Clark County Fair is a big deal when it happens in that area, but there was hardly any traffic to it compared to what there usually is yesterday.
When this thing goes on, the road is choked with traffic during the full run of the fair.
It'll be interesting to see the final numbers on visitors to the fair this year and how it was impacted.
Why do you keep insisting that what is happening between Bundy and the BLM is somehow going to crush the massive wave of tourism that this area supposedly relies on to survive? The land that is impacted by the closing is indeed "public land" but this is how it is described: "The area is remote with limited vehicular access over steep, rugged terrain"
Is the land that Bundy is fighting over in the Valley of Fire? Nope. It also doesn't keep anyone from accessing Lake Meade, so we don't have to worry about that either.
News flash: it won't impact anyone.
Quit trying to drum up all the "but think of the residents!" sympathy over this.
An interesting quote from the article about the Texas land dispute:
"For many, that property has been in their family for generations.
"How can BLM come in and say, "Hey, this isn't yours." Even though it’s patented from the state, you've always paid taxes on it. Our family has paid taxes for over 100 years on this place. We've got a deed to it. But yet they walked in and said it wasn't ours," said Henderson."
Same as nevada ? taken from another web site
The history is telling on this matter. Bundy’s grandfather came to that area of Nevada in 1877 and began to farm and ranch it. He gained preemptive rights to graze there as filed in the court house. He sold his rights to his son and his son sold his rights to his son(Bundy) and we have been brought up to the recent decades. The fees were paid to the local government for years. Some ranchers were accused of over grazing the vast prairie/desert there, so the BLM (Bureau of Land Management, another government alphabet agency) came along and said they would work with the ranchers to help them not over graze the land. The BLM then began to charge a nominal fee to the farmers to cover their costs of maintaining and improving the land. What Bundy began to notice was that the land was not being maintained nor improved. Local ranchers were being pushed out and their lands purchased for pennies on the dollar (with the grazing fees they had previously paid the BLM!). The BLM offered to buy Bundy’s land. Bundy refused, stating it had been in his family since the late 1800s and he intended to pass it on to his children. The BLM became angry with Bundy. They then came back with having to remove him from the land because of the desert tortoise which they claimed was an endangered species. This same tortoise has lived amongst the cattle for 140 years and was not endangered. In fact, the BLM euthenized thousands of desert tortoises because they had overpopulated.
Underlying all of this was the fact that Sen. Reid and his son Rory wanted a Chinese solar company to erect a factory on 9,000 acres there and oil and natural gas supplies were found next to the area.
Relapse wrote: This may or may not mean anything, just thought I'd put it out here because the Clark County Fair is a big deal when it happens in that area, but there was hardly any traffic to it compared to what there usually is yesterday.
When this thing goes on, the road is choked with traffic during the full run of the fair.
It'll be interesting to see the final numbers on visitors to the fair this year and how it was impacted.
Why do you keep insisting that what is happening between Bundy and the BLM is somehow going to crush the massive wave of tourism that this area supposedly relies on to survive? The land that is impacted by the closing is indeed "public land" but this is how it is described: "The area is remote with limited vehicular access over steep, rugged terrain"
Is the land that Bundy is fighting over in the Valley of Fire? Nope. It also doesn't keep anyone from accessing Lake Meade, so we don't have to worry about that either.
News flash: it won't impact anyone.
Quit trying to drum up all the "but think of the residents!" sympathy over this.
The no-fly zone is to keep pilots out of the area because the BLM will be using "low-flying aircraft to herd and capture cattle."
Whatever, Scooty. It is impacting the area financialy, no matter what you try to say.
How exactly is a dispute about some cattle on an isolated plot of land far removed from from the actual tourist destinations in the Moapa Valley impacting the area financially? All you can come up with is some empty talk about "impact" with nothing to back up your statement.
The burden of proof is your hands.
Automatically Appended Next Post: First the feds are going to kill all the tourism to the Moapa Valley and then what? This?:
loki old fart wrote: Same as nevada ? taken from another web site
The history is telling on this matter. Bundy’s grandfather came to that area of Nevada in 1877 and began to farm and ranch it. He gained preemptive rights to graze there as filed in the court house. He sold his rights to his son and his son sold his rights to his son(Bundy) and we have been brought up to the recent decades. The fees were paid to the local government for years. Some ranchers were accused of over grazing the vast prairie/desert there, so the BLM (Bureau of Land Management, another government alphabet agency) came along and said they would work with the ranchers to help them not over graze the land. The BLM then began to charge a nominal fee to the farmers to cover their costs of maintaining and improving the land. What Bundy began to notice was that the land was not being maintained nor improved. Local ranchers were being pushed out and their lands purchased for pennies on the dollar (with the grazing fees they had previously paid the BLM!). The BLM offered to buy Bundy’s land. Bundy refused, stating it had been in his family since the late 1800s and he intended to pass it on to his children. T
I've seen this paragraph elsewhere and I believe there is a sentence missing from it. Specifically, the one right after it, where Bundy stopped paying range fees. He went all sovereign citizen after losing in court, decided that he doesn't have to recognize the federal government, and kept using the land he wasn't paying for the right to be on.
Again, what the government plans to do with the land Bundy has no right to be on is totally, wholly irrelevant.
If I decide that my apartment building isn't doing a good job of maintaining the steps, and stop paying rent, it totally doesn't matter what deal my landlord cut to rent my apartment out to someone else is. I know that you know this and are glossing over it.
Relapse wrote: This may or may not mean anything, just thought I'd put it out here because the Clark County Fair is a big deal when it happens in that area, but there was hardly any traffic to it compared to what there usually is yesterday.
When this thing goes on, the road is choked with traffic during the full run of the fair.
It'll be interesting to see the final numbers on visitors to the fair this year and how it was impacted.
Why do you keep insisting that what is happening between Bundy and the BLM is somehow going to crush the massive wave of tourism that this area supposedly relies on to survive? The land that is impacted by the closing is indeed "public land" but this is how it is described: "The area is remote with limited vehicular access over steep, rugged terrain"
Is the land that Bundy is fighting over in the Valley of Fire? Nope. It also doesn't keep anyone from accessing Lake Meade, so we don't have to worry about that either.
News flash: it won't impact anyone.
Quit trying to drum up all the "but think of the residents!" sympathy over this.
An interesting quote from the article about the Texas land dispute:
"For many, that property has been in their family for generations.
"How can BLM come in and say, "Hey, this isn't yours." Even though it’s patented from the state, you've always paid taxes on it. Our family has paid taxes for over 100 years on this place. We've got a deed to it. But yet they walked in and said it wasn't ours," said Henderson."
Same as nevada ? taken from another web site
The history is telling on this matter. Bundy’s grandfather came to that area of Nevada in 1877 and began to farm and ranch it. He gained preemptive rights to graze there as filed in the court house. He sold his rights to his son and his son sold his rights to his son(Bundy) and we have been brought up to the recent decades. The fees were paid to the local government for years. Some ranchers were accused of over grazing the vast prairie/desert there, so the BLM (Bureau of Land Management, another government alphabet agency) came along and said they would work with the ranchers to help them not over graze the land. The BLM then began to charge a nominal fee to the farmers to cover their costs of maintaining and improving the land. What Bundy began to notice was that the land was not being maintained nor improved. Local ranchers were being pushed out and their lands purchased for pennies on the dollar (with the grazing fees they had previously paid the BLM!). The BLM offered to buy Bundy’s land. Bundy refused, stating it had been in his family since the late 1800s and he intended to pass it on to his children. The BLM became angry with Bundy. They then came back with having to remove him from the land because of the desert tortoise which they claimed was an endangered species. This same tortoise has lived amongst the cattle for 140 years and was not endangered. In fact, the BLM euthenized thousands of desert tortoises because they had overpopulated.
Underlying all of this was the fact that Sen. Reid and his son Rory wanted a Chinese solar company to erect a factory on 9,000 acres there and oil and natural gas supplies were found next to the area.
As I said, even though the case has been going for 20 years, the timing of execution is interesting. The government has no funds for tortoises, but they have the money for this.
Just speculation on my part here, but it wouldn't surprise me to see the ranchers in Texas linking arms with Bundy now and other food producers the BLM is impacting around the country, now that their methods and results are coming more into the national spotlight.
loki old fart wrote: reported elsewhere
"Bu t ... [Reid] and his oldest son, Rory, are involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert ... His son helped locate a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site in Clark County, where Rory Reid formerly chaired the county commission".
These reports are in plain view, the mainstream media has so far ignored this link. The bundy ranch is the only spot that fits the description.
I just realized this is even pants on heady derpier than I thought it was. Did you read the article:
The Langfang, China-based ENN Energy Group hopes to build what would be the largest solar energy complex in America. The site chosen with Rory Reid's guidance is in tiny Laughlin, Nevada, a gambling town of 7,300 along the Colorado River, 90 miles south of Las Vegas.
This is 170 miles south of the Bundy ranching area. It must be a pretty goddamn big facility, huh?
Nevada Cattle Rancher Wins 'Range War' With Feds April 12, 2014
By LIZ FIELDS
A Nevada cattle rancher appears to have won his week-long battle with the federal government over a controversial cattle roundup that had led to the arrest of several protesters.
Cliven Bundy went head to head with the Bureau of Land Management over the removal of hundreds of his cattle from federal land, where the government said they were grazing illegally.
Bundy claims his herd of roughly 900 cattle have grazed on the land along the riverbed near Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, since 1870 and threatened a "range war" against the BLM on the Bundy Ranch website after one of his sons was arrested while protesting the removal of the cattle.
"I have no contract with the United States government," Bundy said. "I was paying grazing fees for management and that's what BLM was supposed to be, land managers and they were managing my ranch out of business, so I refused to pay."
The federal government had countered that Bundy "owes the American people in excess of $1 million " in unpaid grazing fees and "refuses to abide by the law of land, despite many opportunities over the last 20 years to do so."
However, today the BLM said it would not enforce a court order to remove the cattle and was pulling out of the area.
"Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public," BLM Director Neil Kornze said.
"We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner," he said.
The roundup began April 5, following lengthy court proceedings dating back to 1993, federal officials said. Federal officers began impounding the first lot of cows last weekend, and Bundy responded by inviting supporters onto his land to protest the action.
"It's not about cows, it's about freedom," Utah resident Yonna Winget told ABC News affiliate KTNV in Las Vegas, Nevada.
"People are getting tired of the federal government having unlimited power," Bundy's wife, Carol Bundy told ABC News.
By Sunday, April 6, one of Bundy's sons, Dave Bundy, was taken into custody for refusing to disperse and resisting arrest, while hundreds of other protesters, some venturing from interstate, gathered along the road few miles from Bundy's property in solidarity. Dave Bundy was later released.
A spokesman for the Bundy encampment told ABC News roughly 300 protesters had assembled for the protest, while a BLM representative estimated there were around 100 people.
"We want a peaceful protest, but we also want our voices heard," said Cliven Bundy's sister, Chrisie Marshall Bundy.
But clashes between demonstrators and authorities took a violent turn on Wednesday, with cell phone video showing some being tasered at the site, including Bundy's son, Ammon Bundy. Two other protesters were detained, cited and later released on Thursday, according to the BLM.
As the movement grew by the day, and demonstrators rallied together, bonding by campfires at night, local protest leaders warned people not to wear camouflage and keep their weapons inside their vehicles.
Both sides said the issue is one of fairness, with the federal government maintaining that thousands of other cattle ranchers are abiding by the law by paying their annual grazing fees, while Bundy's family and supporters say the government's actions are threatening ranchers' freedoms.
"It's about the freedom of America," said another of Bundy's sisters, Margaret Houston. "We have to stand up and fight."
ABC News' Alan Farnham contributed to this report.
So, it looks like if you don't pay your bills and get violent enough, then the rule of law isn't really a big deal. Good to know.
Ouze wrote: So, it looks like if you don't pay your bills and get violent enough, then the rule of law isn't really a big deal. Good to know.
You know, it's funny that certain people celebrate this because Bundy and his supporters (wrongfully) stood up to the government while threatening violence because they see it as a free exercise of their rights as citizens and at the same time decry people engaging in peaceful protest (in an exercise of their first amendment rights) in favor of a better living wage.
Truly, America is the shining light of freedom in an otherwise dark world.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: You know, it's funny that certain people celebrate this because Bundy and his supporters (wrongfully) stood up to the government while threatening violence because they see it as a free exercise of their rights as citizens and at the same time decry people engaging in peaceful protest (in an exercise of their first amendment rights) in favor of a better living wage.
Truly, America is the shining light of freedom in an otherwise dark world.
Too bad these guys hadn't said they were also standing up to wall street, the police would have moved in with pepper spray and flashbangs to the resounding cheers of the same people decrying their jackbooted tactics here.
In any event, now this guys neighbors, who presumably dislike taxation, will be paying a little extra from now on. The Bundy tax, to cover the costs of what he hasn't and won't pay, along with the costs of this aborted roundup.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: You know, it's funny that certain people celebrate this because Bundy and his supporters (wrongfully) stood up to the government while threatening violence because they see it as a free exercise of their rights as citizens and at the same time decry people engaging in peaceful protest (in an exercise of their first amendment rights) in favor of a better living wage.
Truly, America is the shining light of freedom in an otherwise dark world.
Too bad these guys hadn't said they were also standing up to wall street, the police would have moved in with pepper spray and flashbangs to the resounding cheers of the same people decrying their jackbooted tactics here.
In any event, now this guys neighbors, who presumably dislike taxation, will be paying a little extra from now on. The Bundy tax, to cover the costs of what he hasn't and won't pay, along with the costs of this aborted roundup.
People are taking up a collection to pay his fines, from what I've been told.
To tell the truth, the BLM was brainless when they tore up the watering troughs and took them out. Some of the few places where the cattle were certain to gather and be easy to round up in the middle of the desert and they remove them. Brilliant
I wonder now what is going to happen in Texas with the ranchers there that are dealing with the government land grab.
Relapse wrote: People are taking up a collection to pay his fines, from what I've been told.
You know, my personal property taxes are due next month, but I don't think I should have to pay them because of a completely irrelevant and arbitrary reason. I'll just not pay them for two decades and when they finally come to take my stuff, I'll hole in my garage with my guns and call a couple of my friends to come over and bring their guns and declare a Cul-de-sac War on the feds. Hopefully, after enough threats they'll just leave me alone and my neighbors can pay all the money I owe.
Relapse wrote: People are taking up a collection to pay his fines, from what I've been told.
You know, my personal property taxes are due next month, but I don't think I should have to pay them because of a completely irrelevant and arbitrary reason. I'll just not pay them for two decades and when they finally come to take my stuff, I'll hole in my garage with my guns and call a couple of my friends to come over and bring their guns and declare a Cul-de-sac War on the feds. Hopefully, after enough threats they'll just leave me alone and my neighbors can pay all the money I owe.
Whatever, Scooty. It is impacting the area financialy, no matter what you try to say.
I don't see why I should care about the minuscule economy of a region that would be flyover were it not for the presence of natural tourist attractions maintained by the federal government.
Whatever, Scooty. It is impacting the area financialy, no matter what you try to say.
I don't see why I should care about the minuscule economy of a region that would be flyover were it not for the presence of natural tourist attractions maintained by the federal government.
You've stated multiple times in posts over the years that you don't care about what happens to other people, so this pronouncement comes as no surprise
Automatically Appended Next Post: Bundy just got his cattle released.
You've stated multiple times in posts over the years that you don't care about what happens to other people, so this pronouncement comes as no surprise
Let me put it differently:
Per your argument much of the region's economic activity is based on tourism associated with natural attractions. These attractions are on federal land, and maintained by the federal government. As such, the federal government is essentially subsidizing the region. This means that opposition to BLM actions is biting the hand that feeds, in a "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" sort of way.
purplefood wrote: It's a federal matter is it not?
Why would the sheriff need to be involved? Is he not a county or state official?
Sheriffs come in on situations like this to protect the people and try to calm things by having a familiar face. The word going around about him in that area now is that he's a disgrace and a cowardly son of a bitch that didn't dare show his face until things were winding down today. Some of this talk comes from other sherriffs around the area.
Relapse wrote: The word going around about him in that area now is that he's a disgrace and a cowardly son of a bitch that didn't dare show his face until things were winding down. Some of this talk comes from other sherriffs around the area.
Relapse wrote: The word going around about him in that area now is that he's a disgrace and a cowardly son of a bitch that didn't dare show his face until things were winding down. Some of this talk comes from other sherriffs around the area.
purplefood wrote: It's a federal matter is it not?
Why would the sheriff need to be involved? Is he not a county or state official?
Lets say you are the owner of a fast food franchise. The CEO of the company decides he wants to show up and start directing how things are done in your store.
Would you just sit in your house, and do nothing? I doubt it.
purplefood wrote: It's a federal matter is it not?
Why would the sheriff need to be involved? Is he not a county or state official?
Lets say you are the owner of a fast food franchise. The CEO of the company decides he wants to show up and start directing how things are done in your store.
Would you just sit in your house, and do nothing? I doubt it.
That is a horrible analogy.
He has never legally owned that land and even admits that, something Info Wars and other right-wing news sources tend to leave out. That land has always been the property of the government and he had been under a grazing lease until the BLM changed some conditions in 1993 and he didn't like it. Add a couple of court case, tons of money he owes, threats of militia violence, and fast forward to today.
Good, once the trespassing cattle are removed from federal land, the federal government can begin seizing Bundy's personal assets for the 1.1million dollars he now owes. If you or I owed 1.1mil in taxes and fees, we would be in jail with Wesley Snipes while they liquidate everything we own. The same should happen to him and his family.
Sooner his personal assets are seized to cover his debts, the better.
Medium of Death wrote: Is it not possible that the sheriff had more pressing matters to attend to?
More pressing than heading off a major shootout involving hundreds of people?
Out of state sheriffs were coming in to calm tempers because they were disgusted with the way the local sheriff was being a non entity. From whay I hear, they did a lot in keeping the situation from boiling over.
Medium of Death wrote: Is it not possible that the sheriff had more pressing matters to attend to?
More pressing than a major shootout involving hundreds of people?
He should be working roadblocks at the state borders arresting people illegally transporting firearms across state lines for illegal purposes and stopping these militia members and putting them in chains as they enter the state.
Medium of Death wrote: Is it not possible that the sheriff had more pressing matters to attend to?
More pressing than a major shootout involving hundreds of people?
He should be working roadblocks at the state borders arresting people illegally transporting firearms across state lines for illegal purposes and stopping these militia members and putting them in chains as they enter the state.
He wasn't even doing that. He was no where to be seen from what people there tell me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Looks like the BLM got their hands slapped by a judge at least once playing this game:
purplefood wrote: It's a federal matter is it not?
Why would the sheriff need to be involved? Is he not a county or state official?
Lets say you are the owner of a fast food franchise. The CEO of the company decides he wants to show up and start directing how things are done in your store.
Would you just sit in your house, and do nothing? I doubt it.
That is a horrible analogy.
He has never legally owned that land and even admits that, something Info Wars and other right-wing news sources tend to leave out. That land has always been the property of the government and he had been under a grazing lease until the BLM changed some conditions in 1993 and he didn't like it. Add a couple of court case, tons of money he owes, threats of militia violence, and fast forward to today.
Some folks have reading comprehension issues it seems...
We were discussing why the Sheriff hadn't been present to the site where a large build up of armed federal agents had been present. The Sheriff is responsible for law enforcement in the county. Even if it is a Federal matter, he should have been present to keep oversight of his jurisdiction. When something this big is going down in your back yard, you don't wait until a week later to make an appearance for the news cameras.
Breotan wrote: I'm guessing the Obama administration didn't want to be tied to a Ruby Ridge / Waco style blunder - especially going into the mid-term elections.
Breotan wrote: I'm guessing the Obama administration didn't want to be tied to a Ruby Ridge / Waco style blunder - especially going into the mid-term elections.
Breotan wrote: I'm guessing the Obama administration didn't want to be tied to a Ruby Ridge / Waco style blunder - especially going into the mid-term elections.
November 5th, 2014
Needs more dakka.
For a police vehicle?
What kind of criminals does the police face, that it needs weapons like that?
Such weapons should be reserved solely for the army, not law enforcement.
Law enforcement should only use weapons as the very last resort, and for that it does not need tanks.
Anyway, the guy's argument is gak. This part (It is at about 2:10), in particular, stood out for me: "Our elected representatives surrendered their entire legislative authority to unelected agents." This is obviously not the case, as the BLM cannot actually make law.
Grossly ignorant and ranty video. He lacks basic understanding of how the 3 branches of the government work if you believe all branches of the government are ';elected' so you can rail against essentially the entire executive branch simply because they were appointed by someone you didn't vote for. If he complains about 'unelected agents' one more time, you can't have all aspects of the government pandering for votes... sometimes you need them to enforce laws without a political bent. If the legislators feel they overstep their boundaries, they can legislate restrictions, hence the separation of powers and the 3 branches of government.
His comparisons of private companies dictating regulations and laws to government agencies is invalid.
This guy is so wrong on so many levels. I see no problem with the BLM or how they have acted. It is their land, not the ranchers land. They can do what they want... Remember, there are some of us in this country who 'support' the changing of use of land for conservation. I have read up a lot on the people pushing for conservation and I support them. Remember, this is not just 'the evil government VS ranchers' this is 'the government and lots of other citizens who also want what the BLM is doing to be done VS the ranchers.'
Without due process... if 20 years of appeals and discussion is not due process then we can never prosecute anyone. He is just throwing buzzwords. They reject the BLm can come in and change stuff 'because they say so'... yes, they can. That is how the executive branch works. You can then appeal it in the judicial branch and vote in representatives to change it in the legislative branch. 20 years, they have lost... Government working as intended.
Fail on so many levels.
I hope Bundy's personal livelihood is totally destroyed and anyone who supported him suffers.
I heard some talking head off-handedly mention Harry Reid (or one of his associates) having some kind of business development adjacent to the land, implying that there was some form of ulterior motive for the change. (Even though the reclassification happened in 1993.) I can't find it again, or even who said it. Has anyone else heard this? Is it conveniently ignored fact, or instigatory speculation?
We discussed this previously and decided on page 7 that it's made up garbage. (There is a deal but it's wholly unrelated and in a different location nearly 200 miles away).
The derposphere continues to report it as fact because they are the derposphere and stoking outrage is substantially more important than accuracy in reporting.
Jimsolo wrote: I heard some talking head off-handedly mention Harry Reid (or one of his associates) having some kind of business development adjacent to the land, implying that there was some form of ulterior motive for the change. (Even though the reclassification happened in 1993.) I can't find it again, or even who said it. Has anyone else heard this? Is it conveniently ignored fact, or instigatory speculation?
Stories like this have begun circulating that made the timing of the BLM open to suspician for some people. The initial farm that I read about is seems to be slated down in Laughlin, which is to hell and gone away from the action with Bundy, but I believe other farms are planned for all over Nevada.
Of course, any plans to build a solar plant on the land, a protoype moonbase, a left-handed midget brothel, or a desert tortoise day spa are all totally seconday to the fact Bundy has no right to be there. Again, it's like my refusing to pay my rent for 20 years and complaining that the bank is in cahoots to build a Pollo Locos on my land once they finally get me off it. The main gist is I haven't paid rent for 20 years so it's not my land.
Ouze wrote: Of course, any plans to build a solar plant on the land, a protoype moonbase, a left-handed midget brothel, or a desert tortoise day spa are all totally seconday to the fact Bundy has no right to be there. Again, it's like my refusing to pay my rent for 20 years and complaining that the bank is in cahoots to build a Pollo Locos on my land once they finally get me off it. The main gist is I haven't paid rent for 20 years so it's not my land.
While I agree Bundy should have been out of there long ago, I don't think Reid or the BLM should be given a pass, either.
Ouze wrote: Of course, any plans to build a solar plant on the land, a protoype moonbase, a left-handed midget brothel, or a desert tortoise day spa are all totally seconday to the fact Bundy has no right to be there. Again, it's like my refusing to pay my rent for 20 years and complaining that the bank is in cahoots to build a Pollo Locos on my land once they finally get me off it. The main gist is I haven't paid rent for 20 years so it's not my land.
While I agree that Bundy is a total tool and in no way in the right on this one, I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be.
If someone sets up a livelihood based on doing something legally (and as I understand it, prior to 1993, grazing cattle on the land WAS legal) on public property, and a government agency suddenly swoops in and tells you that you can no longer make your living, then I think you would have legitimate cause for grievance. It's not unreasonable in that circumstance, to expect either the forewarning and support to alter your operation, or compensation based on the difficulty of bringing your operation into compliance with the changing laws.
To reiterate, the land was reclassified back in 1993, over twenty years ago. They didn't start prosecuting him until five years after THAT, and didn't start trying to seriously enforce it until relatively recently. Bottom line is that Bundy is a total screwball.
Ouze wrote: Of course, any plans to build a solar plant on the land, a protoype moonbase, a left-handed midget brothel, or a desert tortoise day spa are all totally seconday to the fact Bundy has no right to be there. Again, it's like my refusing to pay my rent for 20 years and complaining that the bank is in cahoots to build a Pollo Locos on my land once they finally get me off it. The main gist is I haven't paid rent for 20 years so it's not my land.
SO? They can and should build power plants wherever they feel there is need for it. And to offset the land needed for solar plants, if they want to isolated and reserve other land for conservation... that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I hope they seize Bundy's personal property due to owed money and build a solar plant on his land. Screw him.
If the ranchers don't like it... they can ranch on their own lands... If they can't handle that because they need 600,000 acres of desert to support their cattle opposed to 200 acres of lush grassland, then maybe they shouldn't be ranching in a desert and should pack up and move elsewhere because their livelihood relies on mooching off government land and is looking like it is unsustainable both financially and environmentally.
The guy I buy my meat from seems to be able to raise his cattle on his own personal property which he owns and pays taxes on... Seems reasonable that everyone should be able to handle their own stuff and not expect to get away with not paying and then throw a tantrum like a criminal and expect charity to pay his debts.
Ouze wrote: Of course, any plans to build a solar plant on the land, a protoype moonbase, a left-handed midget brothel, or a desert tortoise day spa are all totally seconday to the fact Bundy has no right to be there. Again, it's like my refusing to pay my rent for 20 years and complaining that the bank is in cahoots to build a Pollo Locos on my land once they finally get me off it. The main gist is I haven't paid rent for 20 years so it's not my land.
While I agree that Bundy is a total tool and in no way in the right on this one, I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be.
If someone sets up a livelihood based on doing something legally (and as I understand it, prior to 1993, grazing cattle on the land WAS legal) on public property, and a government agency suddenly swoops in and tells you that you can no longer make your living, then I think you would have legitimate cause for grievance. It's not unreasonable in that circumstance, to expect either the forewarning and support to alter your operation, or compensation based on the difficulty of bringing your operation into compliance with the changing laws.
To reiterate, the land was reclassified back in 1993, over twenty years ago. They didn't start prosecuting him until five years after THAT, and didn't start trying to seriously enforce it until relatively recently. Bottom line is that Bundy is a total screwball.
There are several ranchers in Texas with what looks on the face of it anyway, a legitimate claim to 90, 000 acres that theBLM is taking away from them based on a precident set in a 30 year old case. They took a Rancher's land with no compensation. What I hope for here is that they stand up to this seizure and get the support Bundy did.
Ouze wrote: Of course, any plans to build a solar plant on the land, a protoype moonbase, a left-handed midget brothel, or a desert tortoise day spa are all totally seconday to the fact Bundy has no right to be there. Again, it's like my refusing to pay my rent for 20 years and complaining that the bank is in cahoots to build a Pollo Locos on my land once they finally get me off it. The main gist is I haven't paid rent for 20 years so it's not my land.
SO? They can and should build power plants wherever they feel there is need for it. And to offset the land needed for solar plants, if they want to isolated and reserve other land for conservation... that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I hope they seize Bundy's personal property due to owed money and build a solar plant on his land. Screw him.
If the ranchers don't like it... they can ranch on their own lands... If they can't handle that because they need 600,000 acres of desert to support their cattle opposed to 200 acres of lush grassland, then maybe they shouldn't be ranching in a desert and should pack up and move elsewhere because their livelihood relies on mooching off government land and is looking like it is unsustainable both financially and environmentally.
The guy I buy my meat from seems to be able to raise his cattle on his own personal property which he owns and pays taxes on... Seems reasonable that everyone should be able to handle their own stuff and not expect to get away with not paying and then throw a tantrum like a criminal and expect charity to pay his debts.
So speaks someone who apparently knows nothing about farming, ranching, or pretty much anything to do with how his food is produced outside of anecdotes.
If someone sets up a livelihood based on doing something legally (and as I understand it, prior to 1993, grazing cattle on the land WAS legal) on public property, and a government agency suddenly swoops in and tells you that you can no longer make your living, then I think you would have legitimate cause for grievance. It's not unreasonable in that circumstance, to expect either the forewarning and support to alter your operation, or compensation based on the difficulty of bringing your operation into compliance with the changing laws.
The issue is industries are put out of business all the time to new government regulations. Sometimes it is good, sometimes it is bad, sometimes it is for the greater good but terrible for a few people at a basic level. You can't please all of the people, all of the time. And often the government does subsidize people or help with the transition... Sometimes they don't. Too bad.
How many real estate and loan officers were out of business when they changed the mortgage regulations? How many coal miners were out of business when they changed the safety and pollution standards? How many trash companies and cleaning companies lost tons of money when they implemented mandatory recycling laws in some areas? Some adapted, some failed. But all probably had overall justified and needed reasons for implementation.
Industries adapt, people in those industries adapt or die or change vocations. Sometimes those changes need to be made. The way our government works, all sides get heard and people have the ability to have politicians involved, the courts looking out for people's rights and to raise issues in the court of public opinion. And when those are exhausted, it may be time to learn to deal with it. Do they want to shut down all ranching? maybe... But this is not being done in a vacuum. There are people who want these changes and justifications... While it may put them out of business, others seem to have adapted or cashed out after the changes were made.
So speaks someone who apparently knows anything about farming, ranching, or pretty much anything to do with how his food is produced outside of anecdotes.i
So? Obviously Bundy doesn't know enough about ranching if he can't do it without mooching government land without paying his taxes and fees... Other ranchers seem to be surviving...
So he should starve because he obviously can't hack it in his own industry.
(I am very aware of the farming industries on the east coast. We have lots of dairy and poultry plants here. I have family who work in both. So I don't particularly care if some Nevada ranchers can't prosper, especially bigoted violent criminal dead-beat ones)
A punch of guys/gals with guns show up somewhere that has 0 to do with their lives to have a stand off the government to help a guy whose basically been mooching off public funds for 2 decades (I thought all these militia types hated welfare, or are they just against it when they're not getting anything?).
What the protestors say; We're standing up for a freedom.
What opponents of gun rights say; People are violating the law and telling everyone else to shut up at gun point.
I'm sure the anti-gun lobby is thinking of how to use this right now. Good job America meeting my expectations
If someone sets up a livelihood based on doing something legally (and as I understand it, prior to 1993, grazing cattle on the land WAS legal) on public property, and a government agency suddenly swoops in and tells you that you can no longer make your living, then I think you would have legitimate cause for grievance. It's not unreasonable in that circumstance, to expect either the forewarning and support to alter your operation, or compensation based on the difficulty of bringing your operation into compliance with the changing laws.
The issue is industries are put out of business all the time to new government regulations. Sometimes it is good, sometimes it is bad, sometimes it is for the greater good but terrible for a few people at a basic level. You can't please all of the people, all of the time. And often the government does subsidize people or help with the transition... Sometimes they don't. Too bad.
How many real estate and loan officers were out of business when they changed the mortgage regulations? How many coal miners were out of business when they changed the safety and pollution standards? How many trash companies and cleaning companies lost tons of money when they implemented mandatory recycling laws in some areas? Some adapted, some failed. But all probably had overall justified and needed reasons for implementation.
Industries adapt, people in those industries adapt or die or change vocations. Sometimes those changes need to be made. The way our government works, all sides get heard and people have the ability to have politicians involved, the courts looking out for people's rights and to raise issues in the court of public opinion. And when those are exhausted, it may be time to learn to deal with it. Do they want to shut down all ranching? maybe... But this is not being done in a vacuum. There are people who want these changes and justifications... While it may put them out of business, others seem to have adapted or cashed out after the changes were made.
So speaks someone who apparently knows anything about farming, ranching, or pretty much anything to do with how his food is produced outside of anecdotes.i
So? Obviously Bundy doesn't know enough about ranching if he can't do it without mooching government land without paying his taxes and fees... Other ranchers seem to be surviving...
So he should starve because he obviously can't hack it in his own industry.
(I am very aware of the farming industries on the east coast. We have lots of dairy and poultry plants here. I have family who work in both. So I don't particularly care if some Nevada ranchers can't prosper, especially bigoted violent criminal dead-beat ones)
Yes, I'm sure you might have looked at a cow or two in the field as you drove past them on the interstate.
Yes, I'm sure you might have looked at a cow or two in the field as you drove past them on the interstate.
Your dispute with nkelsch is completely irrelevant to the matter of Bundy's refusal to pay Federal fees.
This is your thread, please do not derail it.
Actually, he beautifully illustrates that many Americans are ignorant of what motivates farmers or ranchers like Bundy. Your point is well taken, though.
Yes, I'm sure you might have looked at a cow or two in the field as you drove past them on the interstate.
Based on factual statements posted by both of you in this thread it seems you both have family that do something with cows and know how to use the internet to look up local newspapers and you both are able to talk to people who live somewhere and have opinions about stuff.
So you are both either subject matter experts or you both know nothing. Either way it seems your experiences and knowledge are matched.
Yes, I'm sure you might have looked at a cow or two in the field as you drove past them on the interstate.
Based on factual statements posted by both of you in this thread it seems you both have family that do something with cows and know how to use the internet to look up local newspapers and you both are able to talk to people who live somewhere and have opinions about stuff.
So you are both either subject matter experts or you both know nothing. Either way it seems your experiences and knowledge are matched.
I grew up on a farm and worked on others, vegetable, cattle, and hog. for half my life, and my wife grew up working on her family farm in East Texas.
Jimsolo wrote: While I agree that Bundy is a total tool and in no way in the right on this one, I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be.
It doesn't really matter. He stopped paying the fees to use the land. No one disputes this, not him, not anyone else. The rest is irrelevant bs. "He stopped paying the land use fees and no longer has a right to be here" - is that not wholly accurate? Sounds pretty simple to me.
He's a total tool and in no way right - then why are we even having this conversation? Why the equivocating?
Also Saturday, supporters of Bundy, some of them armed, forced a temporary shutdown of northbound lanes of Interstate 15 near his ranch, the Nevada Highway Patrol said.
"Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public," said BLM director Neil Kornze.
The highway was reopened early Saturday afternoon after protesters moved to the side of the road and stopping blocking it. But traffic was backed up for three miles in both directions, Trooper Loy Hixson told CNN. He said nobody in the crowd threatened violence.
Jimsolo wrote: While I agree that Bundy is a total tool and in no way in the right on this one, I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be.
It doesn't really matter. He stopped paying the fees to use the land. No one disputes this, not him, not anyone else. The rest is irrelevant bs.
He's a total tool and in no way right - then why are we even having this conversation? Why the equivocating?
For me, it's the methods and timing of the BLM and now the way evryone seems to be willing to give them a pass.
I don't think anyone here supports Bundy for staying on the land.
The BLM seems to be grabbing land out from under legitimate land owners elsewhere, though, and it seems that no one seems to care.
My father, back in the 60's and 70's worked for a group called the NFO( National Farmers Organization) and was as staunch a Democrat as ever existed.
His duties involved studying the farming situation throughout America and traveling the country lecturing at conferences and putting forward what he saw as the future state of things. Something he would talk about was the fact that more and more farms were going out of business and corporation were going to be the food producers in a few decades. This was something that worried and irritated him because he saw the stubborness of some farmers, others over extending themselves, not adapting to the realities of the upcoming years, and others having bs regulations thrown their way and the continual day and night harrassment from Federal agencies on others that were doing everything they could to jump through all the hoops.
He would often tell me when the day comes that it's the big corporations feeding the country and not the farmers, we would all be in a risky situation.
Instead of retrieving his cattle and caring for them, he again has put them in harm's way and is trespassing them. They need to remove those animals from public land and arrest Bundy. Any person who attempts to prevent that should be arrested as well.
Jimsolo wrote: While I agree that Bundy is a total tool and in no way in the right on this one, I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be.
It doesn't really matter. He stopped paying the fees to use the land. No one disputes this, not him, not anyone else. The rest is irrelevant bs. "He stopped paying the land use fees and no longer has a right to be here" - is that not wholly accurate? Sounds pretty simple to me.
He's a total tool and in no way right - then why are we even having this conversation? Why the equivocating?
We're having the conversation because all the original reporting didn't turn up the salient facts that I had to go look up on my own. If I wasn't clear on all the facts, other people might not be as well. Saying "Oh, the government can change the rules at any time and you're just SOL" isn't acceptable. Having a conversation to clarify the issue (to clarify: that's not what happened in this case; Bundy is a moron--a thieving moron at that) is never a bad thing.
Relapse wrote: For me, it's the methods and timing of the BLM and now the way evryone seems to be willing to give them a pass.
I don't think anyone here supports Bundy for staying on the land. .
We keep saying this. Yeah, he's wrong, but... but nothing, really. And the BLM has had infinite fething patience with him. He's been pulling this gak since the Clinton administration, since before Carl on The Walking Dead was born. When the protestors are kicking police dogs and obstructing justice, and no ones even been arrested, I don't want to hear about how heavy handed the government has been.
Relapse wrote: For me, it's the methods and timing of the BLM and now the way evryone seems to be willing to give them a pass.
I don't think anyone here supports Bundy for staying on the land. .
We keep saying this. Yeah, he's wrong, but... but nothing, really. And the BLM has had infinite fething patience with him. He's been pulling this gak since the Clinton administration, since before Carl on The Walking Dead was born. When the protestors are kicking police dogs and obstructing justice, and no ones even been arrested, I don't want to hear about how heavy handed the government has been.
They were then being filmed. Before that, they weren't shy about trying to restrict people to "1st ammendment zones" or jepordizing the area's livlihood by shutting down ridiculous amounts of land that had nothing to do with the cattle drive. Their incompetence in ripping out the watering troughs, eliminating areas where cattle would automatically gather together in the middle of that desert, making it easy to round them up, was incredible to me.
Relapse wrote: For me, it's the methods and timing of the BLM and now the way evryone seems to be willing to give them a pass.
I don't think anyone here supports Bundy for staying on the land. .
We keep saying this. Yeah, he's wrong, but... but nothing, really. And the BLM has had infinite fething patience with him. He's been pulling this gak since the Clinton administration, since before Carl on The Walking Dead was born. When the protestors are kicking police dogs and obstructing justice, and no ones even been arrested, I don't want to hear about how heavy handed the government has been.
They were then being filmed. Before that, they weren't shy about trying to restrict people to "1st ammendment zones" or jepordizing the area's livlihood by shutting down ridiculous amounts of land that had nothing to do with the cattle drive. Their incompetence in ripping out the watering troughs, eliminating areas where cattle would automatically gather together in the middle of that desert, making it easy to round them up, was incredible to me.
The police had every right to pull out their guns and shoot the idiots that kicked the dog. So no, they were not heavy handed at all.
And again, none of that would have happened if some idiot wouldn't have spend the last 20 years being an idiot.
I've agreed previously and continue to agree the very concept of "first amendment zones" are offensive and ridiculous. On that, at least, there is consensus.
Relapse wrote: I agree with you about Bundy. It's the needless suffering they put on everyone else around him...
Bundy put the needless suffering on everyone else around him.
I don't blame the fire department if some idiot runs a meth lab and it catches on fire and they have to block the street while fighting the fire and I can't get home.
Relapse wrote: I agree with you about Bundy. It's the needless suffering they put on everyone else around him...
Bundy put the needless suffering on everyone else around him.
I don't blame the fire department if some idiot runs a meth lab and it catches on fire and they have to block the street while fighting the fire and I can't get home.
I disagree with the analogy because when there is a fire, there has to be immediate response. Here, the situation dragged for 20 years and could have been allowed to go another couple of months, letting the businesses in the area benifit from a peak tourist time. They had already suffered and were just starting to recover from when the parks were closed.
To use your analogy, however, when they tore out the troughs, making it far more difficult to round up the cattle, it was equivalent to the fire fighters deciding to cut the water pressure on the hoses and potentially drawing out the situation.
Relapse wrote: I disagree with the analogy because when there is a fire, there has to be immediate response. Here, the situation dragged for 20 years and could have been allowed to go another couple of months, letting the businesses in the area benifit from a peak tourist time.
This is a legitimate argument. This, I can agree with. I know the argument about whether or not tourism is a big deal or not in that area was a fact in dispute and I don't know enough to weigh in on it but, presupposing that's true, it's compelling. I'm sure they have to service the sewer lines at Disneyworld, but they don't necessarily need to do them on July 4th, for example.
d-usa wrote: I agree that there are idiot decisions being made. Such as free speech zones and screw ups during the round up.
None of which would have happened if the main idiot would have followed the rules.
I now have this image in my mind of the buch of us sitting at a circus watching a clown show going on with Bundy, center stage as pratfalls abound throughout.
Betcha this gets turned into a movie, though, with latger than life heroes and villains.
Relapse wrote: I disagree with the analogy because when there is a fire, there has to be immediate response. Here, the situation dragged for 20 years and could have been allowed to go another couple of months, letting the businesses in the area benifit from a peak tourist time.
This is a legitimate argument. This, I can agree with. I know the argument about whether or not tourism is a big deal or not in that area was a fact in dispute and I don't know enough to weigh in on it but, presupposing that's true, it's compelling. I'm sure they have to service the sewer lines at Disneyworld, but they don't necessarily need to do them on July 4th, for example.
A friend of mine drove through that on the way back from Disneyland on Saturday and told me there were gak loads of people on all sides of I15 with just about any kind of gun you could imagine.
It took him 4 hours to go from Vegas to Mesquite, a drive which usually only takes about an hour. The mass of people in the area really slowed things down.
My sister was in the middle of it taking pictures and said the same thing.
Relapse wrote: there were gak loads of people on all sides of I15 with just about any kind of gun you could imagine.
It took him 4 hours to go from Vegas to Mesquite, a drive which usually only takes about an hour. The mass of people in the area really slowed things down.
Now I realize the only mistake OWS made was not being heavily armed. If they had been, the police would have let them break whatever laws they like and they would have been heroes.
Whoa now. Them there Ranchers look serious. From what I've seen there's no good looking female in need of a soaking from water cannon along that highway.
Relapse wrote: there were gak loads of people on all sides of I15 with just about any kind of gun you could imagine.
It took him 4 hours to go from Vegas to Mesquite, a drive which usually only takes about an hour. The mass of people in the area really slowed things down.
I hope that doesn't "impact the regions economy"
They drove out the BLM, so I guess it did, in a good way!
Relapse wrote: there were gak loads of people on all sides of I15 with just about any kind of gun you could imagine.
It took him 4 hours to go from Vegas to Mesquite, a drive which usually only takes about an hour. The mass of people in the area really slowed things down.
I hope that doesn't "impact the regions economy"
They drove out the BLM, so I guess it did, in a good way!
Fabulous, and now they slow down traffic. I wonder how that will help the region.
Relapse wrote: there were gak loads of people on all sides of I15 with just about any kind of gun you could imagine.
It took him 4 hours to go from Vegas to Mesquite, a drive which usually only takes about an hour. The mass of people in the area really slowed things down.
I hope that doesn't "impact the regions economy"
They drove out the BLM, so I guess it did, in a good way!
Fabulous, and now they slow down traffic. I wonder how that will help the region.
If they hadn't done what they did, the BLM still would have been down there messing with the area.
Relapse wrote: there were gak loads of people on all sides of I15 with just about any kind of gun you could imagine.
It took him 4 hours to go from Vegas to Mesquite, a drive which usually only takes about an hour. The mass of people in the area really slowed things down.
I hope that doesn't "impact the regions economy"
They drove out the BLM, so I guess it did, in a good way!
Fabulous, and now they slow down traffic. I wonder how that will help the region.
If they hadn't done what they did, the BLM still would have been down there messing with the area.
No, without interference the whole problem would have been solved much faster. Instead the BLM or some other law enforcement organisation have to come back and inconvenience everyone anew.