"He said he would continue holding a daily news conference; on Saturday, it drew one reporter and one photographer, so Mr. Bundy used the time to officiate at what was in effect a town meeting with supporters, discussing, in a long, loping discourse, the prevalence of abortion, the abuses of welfare and his views on race.
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”"
Any of the Bundy defenders want to catch this hand grenade? What about this gentleman and his followers is worthwhile again? Come on, guys! Let's see you spin this gak!
Any of the Bundy defenders want to catch this hand grenade? What about this gentleman and his followers is worthwhile again? Come on, guys! Let's see you spin this gak!
So we find out that not only he's breaking current laws, but he's an donkey-cave?
If you follow the main Bundy thread there is a certain group who seems to be fine with not only this man's actions (past and present), but also seem to hold him up as a sort of hero sticking it to the evil Feds. Well, we just got some more insight into this "folk hero" so, I want to see those same champions of Bundy explain how this guy deserves the accolades he is getting from certain elements of our population. Because this just seems to confirm the larger theory that Bundy and his followers are dangerous lunatics who need to be dealt with.
So I want to hear the justification for why this guy isn't a huge pile of gak.
If your meaning me I could care less I just want to see how far this guy can go with his stance I know damn well he is going to get hammered
I do get pissed when the government screws up but that's more on my professionalism side. Its like the LEO stepped up the Hooah-ness being they didn't have something like OEF and/or OIF for them.
But if we're going to make the Bundy the brand of Tea Party or something negative about the Republicans lets not For the Militia's that backed him are "Seperatist" (sp)
DarkTraveler777 wrote: If you follow the main Bundy thread there is a certain group who seems to be fine with not only this man's actions (past and present), but also seem to hold him up as a sort of hero sticking it to the evil Feds. Well, we just got some more insight into this "folk hero" so, I want to see those same champions of Bundy explain how this guy deserves the accolades he is getting from certain elements of our population. Because this just seems to confirm the larger theory that Bundy and his followers are dangerous lunatics who need to be dealt with.
So I want to hear the justification for why this guy isn't a huge pile of gak.
So... What then??!
I have a weird respect for bundy simply because he's trying to stand up to the Feds...
Just as I respect the OWS Crew for doing their spiel....
DarkTraveler777 wrote: If you follow the main Bundy thread there is a certain group who seems to be fine with not only this man's actions (past and present), but also seem to hold him up as a sort of hero sticking it to the evil Feds. Well, we just got some more insight into this "folk hero" so, I want to see those same champions of Bundy explain how this guy deserves the accolades he is getting from certain elements of our population. Because this just seems to confirm the larger theory that Bundy and his followers are dangerous lunatics who need to be dealt with.
So I want to hear the justification for why this guy isn't a huge pile of gak.
Why do you want to hear justification for something that there is no reason to justify? Just because some people might have supported him before for something unrelated to this, doesn't mean they should support him being a racist.
If someone does something you agree or disagree with, that doesn't mean that you have to agree/disagree with everything that person does. If that person later turns out to be either a horrible person or a saint, that doesn't mean that you were necessarily wrong for agreeing or disagreeing with whatever you did before due to limited information, as long as you acknowledge the new information.
I was somewhat torn on the Bundy case before, but if this story is true, then he's turned out to be an idiot. Sorry if that isn't the justification you want to hear.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: If you follow the main Bundy thread there is a certain group who seems to be fine with not only this man's actions (past and present), but also seem to hold him up as a sort of hero sticking it to the evil Feds. Well, we just got some more insight into this "folk hero" so, I want to see those same champions of Bundy explain how this guy deserves the accolades he is getting from certain elements of our population. Because this just seems to confirm the larger theory that Bundy and his followers are dangerous lunatics who need to be dealt with.
So I want to hear the justification for why this guy isn't a huge pile of gak.
So... What then??!
I have a weird respect for bundy simply because he's trying to stand up to the Feds...
Just as I respect the OWS Crew for doing their spiel....
If nothing sparks, it sparks debates....
I think you could find better champions to "respect" but I will agree that respecting Bundy is weird.
Now if Harry Ried shuts the Hell up and stop calling it a Domestic Terrorist Group" or someone on here calling it a "Armed Insurrection" then his time in the "sun" will fade away. Fed's put a Lien on his house. He dies. House and property becomes the property of the government minus the time of the Legal Battles of the Family to get it back and six month we forget about it.
Any of the Bundy defenders want to catch this hand grenade? What about this gentleman and his followers is worthwhile again? Come on, guys! Let's see you spin this gak!
who was defending him?
my only comment on the subject has been
"hey bundy, the natives were first in line with that argument. wait your turn."
I am not surprised to hear when one of the leaders of 'county supremacy' movements is an unabashed bigot or a rich land developer using ignorant pawns to attempt to wrestle land away from the Feds into the hands of private owners in order to steal the land from them.
The slogan of the town Bundy did his town hall meetings at.
"We are dedicated to maintaining our rural lifestyle and rural quality of life in our valley"
If I saw that on a town sign, I would keep on driving as that screams bigots and racism.
The question is: Which rich developer has a vested interest in this Bundy situation. We know why the hate groups and white supremacists were mobilized to support him.
Nevada is a scary place in regards to the neo-Nazi movement.
"We are dedicated to maintaining our rural lifestyle and rural quality of life in our valley"
If I saw that on a town sign, I would keep on driving as that screams bigots and racism.
The question is: Which rich developer has a vested interest in this Bundy situation. We know why the hate groups and white supremacists were mobilized to support him.
Nevada is a scary place in regards to the neo-Nazi movement.
There's two towns near Ft Bragg NC that's like that.
One in GA we drove through on way to JOTC.
One up around a National Guard MPRC in Kentucky
Basically I could care less. I know where they are and they can stay there
DarkTraveler777 wrote: If you follow the main Bundy thread there is a certain group who seems to be fine with not only this man's actions (past and present), but also seem to hold him up as a sort of hero sticking it to the evil Feds. Well, we just got some more insight into this "folk hero" so, I want to see those same champions of Bundy explain how this guy deserves the accolades he is getting from certain elements of our population. Because this just seems to confirm the larger theory that Bundy and his followers are dangerous lunatics who need to be dealt with.
So I want to hear the justification for why this guy isn't a huge pile of gak.
Why do you want to hear justification for something that there is no reason to justify? Just because some people might have supported him before for something unrelated to this, doesn't mean they should support him being a racist.
If someone does something you agree or disagree with, that doesn't mean that you have to agree/disagree with everything that person does. If that person later turns out to be either a horrible person or a saint, that doesn't mean that you were necessarily wrong for agreeing or disagreeing with whatever you did before due to limited information, as long as you acknowledge the new information.
I was somewhat torn on the Bundy case before, but if this story is true, then he's turned out to be an idiot. Sorry if that isn't the justification you want to hear.
The support for Bundy defied reason, and yet there was no shortage of supporters both on here and throughout the country who championed this lunatic. This article highlights what a lot of the non-Bundy supporters saw from the start--a backwards lunatic with a grudge flaunting laws with other lunatics and backing up their insanity with firearms. Now you get an extra sprinkle of bona fide old, old, old-school racism added to the Bundy gak pie which makes this development so delicious I feel like I should be using the Raging Heroes .gif in this post.
I was waiting for this kind of hate speech development. It usually goes hand-in-hand with the fringe who talk about states rights, seceding, and mention Waco and Ruby Ridge as rallying cries
"We are dedicated to maintaining our rural lifestyle and rural quality of life in our valley"
If I saw that on a town sign, I would keep on driving as that screams bigots and racism.
The question is: Which rich developer has a vested interest in this Bundy situation. We know why the hate groups and white supremacists were mobilized to support him.
Nevada is a scary place in regards to the neo-Nazi movement.
There's two towns near Ft Bragg NC that's like that.
One in GA we drove through on way to JOTC.
One up around a National Guard MPRC in Kentucky
Basically I could care less. I know where they are and they can stay there
We have those near me too... And they have a nice little restaurant called 'Klassic Kountry Kitchen' which the local army base has to tell all soldiers 'not to go to' due to the known 'ties' to certain organizations in the area and risk of violence.
The codes are not hard to break in many of these areas because they are not worried about hiding true agendas. That is why I always suspect the 'county supremacy' movement's agendas.
Truely, Bundy stands for all that is right in the world. Shame on BLM for enforcing the laws of the United States of America against a man who clearly knows better than them.
Any of the Bundy defenders want to catch this hand grenade? What about this gentleman and his followers is worthwhile again? Come on, guys! Let's see you spin this gak!
I cannot wait for the day that someone can speak or act in such a way in which that one action performed by said person is judged upon its on merits, and not by other actions.
That said, I am strongly indifferent about this individual and his cause on any level. Attacking someone's character to also attack his actions is just lazy though.
whembly wrote: I have a weird respect for bundy simply because he's trying to stand up to the Feds...
So now you also admire Che Guevara then, of course.
Did bundy kill anyone???
That wasn't the criteria given, just that they have to stand up to the Feds. Though if that is your thing he and his separatist buddies aren't carrying around guns and threatening law enforcement for fun, much like Che wasn't either. Well, going by the video some of them may be doing it for fun. Perhaps it is Cesar Chavez's poster that adorns your walls?
"I've lived my lifetime here. My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley here ever since 1877. All these rights that I claim, have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water and the access and range improvements," Bundy said.
Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt.
Water rights were transferred too, but only to the ranch, not the federally managed land surrounding it. Court records show Bundy family cattle didn't start grazing on that land until 1954.
The Bureau of Land Management was created 1946, the same year Cliven was born.
What I think is funny is when you go to 'rural' areas with good 'down home country' philosophies, they tout things like:
*Our front door is always open
*Porch sitting with family and kids
*Relaxing and 'doing nothing'
As examples of good living... But when 'negros' do it, it is because they are poor, lazy , ignorant slaves of the government? And he knows this by driving by them or his extensive experience with specific population's personal situations?
I guess the government is bad in Bundy's eyes... except when it is locking up black males at alarming rates.
I thought it was nice when he was proclaiming that there was no Federal government while proclaiming the greatness of the Founding Fathers, who created a Federal government, and carrying an American Flag, not a Nevada flag.
nkelsch wrote: What I think is funny is when you go to 'rural' areas with good 'down home country' philosophies, they tout things like:
*Our front door is always open
*Porch sitting with family and kids
*Relaxing and 'doing nothing'
As examples of good living... But when 'negros' do it, it is because they are poor, lazy , ignorant slaves of the government? And he knows this by driving by them or his extensive experience with specific population's personal situations?
I guess the government is bad in Bundy's eyes... except when it is locking up black males at alarming rates.
"Rural quality of life in our valley" indeed.
When I go to the "rural" areas in MIssouri, I see poverty stricken tar-paper shacks with confederate flags out front. I wish I was making that up. Somehow, I'm guessing the general population there did not have ancestry from Africa in the last 600 years.
Goddamn shame too. It's some beautiful countryside there.
I say this not to prove any particular point. Simply toss my anecdote into the fray.
Sure, becuase you should be to busy with your studies to know what is happening in the outside world. BACK TO WORK
This is a good point. Isn't it finals time? You should be writing papers about people, not posts about people!
Actually I just got done with my presentation. Didnt go well, I was going to show a video of a guy reading poetry, but the projector didnt have Audio :(
Sure, becuase you should be to busy with your studies to know what is happening in the outside world. BACK TO WORK
This is a good point. Isn't it finals time? You should be writing papers about people, not posts about people!
Actually I just got done with my presentation. Didnt go well, I was going to show a video of a guy reading poetry, but the projector didnt have Audio :(
Ouch. Oh well, I'm sure people enjoyed the video of the mute man making faces at them
They certainly would've enjoyed it more than if you'd had audio of Bundy, that's for sure
If your quoting from a source and an individual does not make one right in the using the term. Its a one of those "If he can so can I...." type of thing. The more one use it as an example of "leeway" given. Nip it in the bud. If someone outside this forum looks at the word usage then "bingo" your a racist and we allow it.
The more he use the word and the fact he standing by his "words" you can can watch who flocks to his banner and those he leave his banner. Bet your sweet arse the be facial pics of those who stand by him and background checks of them.
Like I said. I want to see how far he can go and right now I do believe he put the final nail in his coffin and whatever inheritance his kids might have
Anyone (like myself) who read his tirade against the BLM after he lost his court case could tell that this guy is completely unhinged.
I've said it numerous times in the last Bundy vs. BLM thread that the guy is wrong on almost every level. I even included various examples of how his claim was wrong and it violated the Nevada State Constitution and it just fell on deaf ears (or blind eyes I guess). Are we somehow supposed to be surprised that a man who wants to steal from the government he doesn't "believe in" even though the document he believes in is what created the government (that he doesn't recognize) while at the same time professing loyalty to the state whose founding document expressly forbids all of his actions also turns out to be a good, old-fashioned racist curmudgeon?
I said from the first Bundy was wrong, but DitchWinsAll came out with his "Mormons are all in it together with Bundy to overthrow the government remarks", so I give him the respect he deserves.
He was calling the all people down there racist, not the man. Just another of his comments on par with the ones in which he so bravely said those towns and people should be destroyed.
Anyone (like myself) who read his tirade against the BLM after he lost his court case could tell that this guy is completely unhinged.
I've said it numerous times in the last Bundy vs. BLM thread that the guy is wrong on almost every level. I even included various examples of how his claim was wrong and it violated the Nevada State Constitution and it just fell on deaf ears (or blind eyes I guess). Are we somehow supposed to be surprised that a man who wants to steal from the government he doesn't "believe in" even though the document he believes in is what created the government (that he doesn't recognize) while at the same time professing loyalty to the state whose founding document expressly forbids all of his actions also turns out to be a good, old-fashioned racist curmudgeon?
Where is Relapse to swoop in and defend him now?
Scooty, reading comprehension os so important in this busy world we live in. Could I direct you to my comments where I said he was wrong, but I despised the BLM for what they were doing?
Relapse wrote: I said from the first Bundy was wrong, but DitchWinsAll came out with his "Mormons are all in it together with Bundy to overthrow the government remarks", so I give him the respect he deserves.
You also heaped blame on the BLM for enforcing federal law while trying, and failing, to demonstrate that they had broken it.
Relapse wrote: I said from the first Bundy was wrong, but DitchWinsAll came out with his "Mormons are all in it together with Bundy to overthrow the government remarks", so I give him the respect he deserves.
You also heaped blame on the BLM for enforcing federal law while trying, and failing, to demonstrate that they had broken it.
I could go through all of this again about my feelings on the BLM, and started a thread about the strong possibility of it preparing to grab 90,0000 acres of land in Texas from the ranchers there, but it somehow disappeared.
Anyone (like myself) who read his tirade against the BLM after he lost his court case could tell that this guy is completely unhinged.
I've said it numerous times in the last Bundy vs. BLM thread that the guy is wrong on almost every level. I even included various examples of how his claim was wrong and it violated the Nevada State Constitution and it just fell on deaf ears (or blind eyes I guess). Are we somehow supposed to be surprised that a man who wants to steal from the government he doesn't "believe in" even though the document he believes in is what created the government (that he doesn't recognize) while at the same time professing loyalty to the state whose founding document expressly forbids all of his actions also turns out to be a good, old-fashioned racist curmudgeon?
Where is Relapse to swoop in and defend him now?
Scooty, reading comprehension os so important in this busy world we live in. Could I direct you to my comments where I said he was wrong, but I despised the BLM for what they were doing?
No, you danced around with this "I think he's wrong but I agree with what he is doing because... blah" which is the ultimate cop-out. You have waffled between Bundy is wrong but the BLM is more wrong so that makes Bundy kind of innocent but he should still remove his cattle but also the BLM is tyrannical. You were even asked multiple times by multiple people to give a clear statement and were unable to do so.
You have simply ignored the facts of the entire case as pointed out by myself, Ouze, D-usa, Nkelsch, Lordofhats, and others time, and time, and time again. I will run them by you once again:
1. Man uses government subsidized land for grazing cattle
2. Government changes grazing lease because of tortoise
3. Man unhappy with changes takes government to court
4. Man loses
5. Man upset with losing, ignores court
6. Man told to pay fees and comply with new lease or remove cattle
7. Man disagrees and then loses... again
8. Man ignores court orders, begins stealing from government
9. Government cancels lease over nonpayment, court orders man to remove cattle
10. Man threatens violence against government in rambling written tirade
11. Government begins to remove cattle
12. Multiple people threaten government employees and contractors because they were prepared to defend themselves and the interests of the United States government against previous threats of violence 13. Government leaves before they are gunned down by militia members
14. Man claims "ancestral rights" and is wrong
15. Man claims to only recognize sovereignty of Nevada... and is wrong
16. Man goes on rambling, racist diatribe... and is wrong
17. Man defends rambling, racist diatribe with another rambling, racist diatribe... and is wrong
The bottom line is this: Bundy was wrong and has been wrong for 20 years and every time he opens his mouth he is just more wrong and he has no right to complain about armed federal LEO agents because he was the first person to threaten violence. Period.
Relapse wrote: I could go through all of this again about my feelings on the BLM, and started a thread about the strong possibility of it preparing to grab 90,0000 acres of land in Texas from the ranchers there, but it somehow disappeared.
That is a shame too because I gave you a very detailed explanation on how there was absolutely nothing of journalistic merit in the hyperbole-ridden excuse for an article.
You have simply ignored the facts of the entire case as pointed out by myself, Ouze, D-usa, Nkelsch, Lordofhats, and others time, and time, and time again. I will run them by you once again:
1. Man uses government subsidized land for grazing cattle
2. Government changes grazing lease because of tortoise
3. Man unhappy with changes takes government to court
4. Man loses
5. Man upset with losing, ignores court
6. Man told to pay fees and comply with new lease or remove cattle
7. Man disagrees and then loses... again
8. Man ignores court orders, begins stealing from government
9. Government cancels lease over nonpayment, court orders man to remove cattle
10. Man threatens violence against government in rambling written tirade
11. Government begins to remove cattle
12. Multiple people threaten government employees and contractors because they were prepared to defend themselves and the interests of the United States government against previous threats of violence
13. Government leaves before they are gunned down by militia members
14. Man claims "ancestral rights" and is wrong
15. Man claims to only recognize sovereignty of Nevada... and is wrong
16. Man goes on rambling, racist diatribe... and is wrong
17. Man defends rambling, racist diatribe with another rambling, racist diatribe... and is wrong
The bottom line is this: Bundy was wrong and has been wrong for 20 years and every time he opens his mouth he is just more wrong and he has no right to complain about armed federal LEO agents because he was the first person to threaten violence. Period.
Personally, I've always been a Sith fan. So I read this and can only enthusiastically say;
I could go through all of this again about my feelings on the BLM, and started a thread about the strong possibility of it preparing to grab 90,0000 acres of land in Texas from the ranchers there, but it somehow disappeared.
How is that relevant to the Bundy case? Has he started putting cattle on Federal land in Texas?
I could go through all of this again about my feelings on the BLM, and started a thread about the strong possibility of it preparing to grab 90,0000 acres of land in Texas from the ranchers there, but it somehow disappeared.
How is that relevant to the Bundy case? Has he started putting cattle on Federal land in Texas?
This is just another example of the BLM overstepping. It doesn't have a thing to do with Bundy, but it is a reason why I have been so vocal against their methods.
You have simply ignored the facts of the entire case as pointed out by myself, Ouze, D-usa, Nkelsch, Lordofhats, and others time, and time, and time again. I will run them by you once again:
1. Man uses government subsidized land for grazing cattle
2. Government changes grazing lease because of tortoise
3. Man unhappy with changes takes government to court
4. Man loses
5. Man upset with losing, ignores court
6. Man told to pay fees and comply with new lease or remove cattle
7. Man disagrees and then loses... again
8. Man ignores court orders, begins stealing from government
9. Government cancels lease over nonpayment, court orders man to remove cattle
10. Man threatens violence against government in rambling written tirade
11. Government begins to remove cattle
12. Multiple people threaten government employees and contractors because they were prepared to defend themselves and the interests of the United States government against previous threats of violence
13. Government leaves before they are gunned down by militia members
14. Man claims "ancestral rights" and is wrong
15. Man claims to only recognize sovereignty of Nevada... and is wrong
16. Man goes on rambling, racist diatribe... and is wrong
17. Man defends rambling, racist diatribe with another rambling, racist diatribe... and is wrong
The bottom line is this: Bundy was wrong and has been wrong for 20 years and every time he opens his mouth he is just more wrong and he has no right to complain about armed federal LEO agents because he was the first person to threaten violence. Period.
Personally, I've always been a Sith fan. So I read this and can only enthusiastically say;
Spoiler:
Because sometimes people deserve the hate
In retrospect, I suppose I could have summed the whole thing up with this:
This is just another example of the BLM overstepping. It doesn't have a thing to do with Bundy, but it is a reason why I have been so vocal against their methods.
So upon being unable to explain how they've overstepped in the Bundy case, you use the good old fashion "they did bad stuff in other places" excuse. I am a fan of the classics.
I could go through all of this again about my feelings on the BLM, and started a thread about the strong possibility of it preparing to grab 90,0000 acres of land in Texas from the ranchers there, but it somehow disappeared.
How is that relevant to the Bundy case? Has he started putting cattle on Federal land in Texas?
This is just another example of the BLM overstepping. It doesn't have a thing to do with Bundy, but it is a reason why I have been so vocal against their methods.
Except this is ZERO PROOF that the BLM is doing anything in Texas to steal land from people. None. At all.
You have simply ignored the facts of the entire case as pointed out by myself, Ouze, D-usa, Nkelsch, Lordofhats, and others time, and time, and time again. I will run them by you once again:
1. Man uses government subsidized land for grazing cattle
2. Government changes grazing lease because of tortoise
3. Man unhappy with changes takes government to court
4. Man loses
5. Man upset with losing, ignores court
6. Man told to pay fees and comply with new lease or remove cattle
7. Man disagrees and then loses... again
8. Man ignores court orders, begins stealing from government
9. Government cancels lease over nonpayment, court orders man to remove cattle
10. Man threatens violence against government in rambling written tirade
11. Government begins to remove cattle
12. Multiple people threaten government employees and contractors because they were prepared to defend themselves and the interests of the United States government against previous threats of violence 13. Government leaves before they are gunned down by militia members
14. Man claims "ancestral rights" and is wrong
15. Man claims to only recognize sovereignty of Nevada... and is wrong
16. Man goes on rambling, racist diatribe... and is wrong
17. Man defends rambling, racist diatribe with another rambling, racist diatribe... and is wrong
Scooty says Relapse didn't give a direct answer, and is wrong.
Kilkrazy wrote:
@Relapse, a very simple question, has Bundy complied with the court orders handed down by a 21 year legal process?
Not that I know of and I don't support him in this.
But I despise the heavy handed methods the BLM is using in this matter and others throughout the western United States. Why don't we hear more about them going after far more serious offenders, like those with big drug farms on public land or other offences of that nature? We know they have gakloads of equipment to come down on what they assumed was a lone, defensless rancher, in effect firing the first shot by posting snipers on people filming their cattle being rounded up, trying regulate them to "free speach or 1st ammendement zones" then beating up Bundy's son and taking him away with no word of charges or even where he was taken.
This is just another example of the BLM overstepping. It doesn't have a thing to do with Bundy, but it is a reason why I have been so vocal against their methods.
You don't feel that a person who has violated court orders and federal law for many year deserves a heavy handed response after threatening Federal agents who tried to end the matter civilly?
I could go through all of this again about my feelings on the BLM, and started a thread about the strong possibility of it preparing to grab 90,0000 acres of land in Texas from the ranchers there, but it somehow disappeared.
How is that relevant to the Bundy case? Has he started putting cattle on Federal land in Texas?
This is just another example of the BLM overstepping. It doesn't have a thing to do with Bundy, but it is a reason why I have been so vocal against their methods.
Except this is ZERO PROOF that the BLM is doing anything in Texas to steal land from people. None. At all.
So there's that I guess.
Remember you said that if I get proven right. It had been reported in a reputable news source as a strong possibility, which I linked in the thread which seems seems to have been subsequently deleted for whatever reason.
Hordini wrote: Why do you want to hear justification for something that there is no reason to justify? Just because some people might have supported him before for something unrelated to this, doesn't mean they should support him being a racist.
I might be playing devils advocate here, but was it really intended to be racist? Ultimately he said that people traded one set of chains for another (real for financial), and there is more than a grain of truth in that statement. Admittedly he said it in such a weird "antiquated" way that it just sounds ignorant and racist to us modern folk (I assume he has been frozen in ice since the 1890s right?). However he didn't seem to be inciting ill will towards black people (well aside from assuming that they all live in the ghetto). In a weird way he actually appeared to have their best interests at heart, wanting them to have things like family, meaning in their lives, and 'more' freedom. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he wasn't advocating slavery by pointing out that there are worse things.
This is just another example of the BLM overstepping. It doesn't have a thing to do with Bundy, but it is a reason why I have been so vocal against their methods.
You don't feel that a person who has violated court orders and federal law for many year deserves a heavy handed response after threatening Federal agents who tried to end the matter civilly?
Do you think the innocent people of the surrounding area and Utah deserved having their livlihoods put at risk by having their herds exposed to feral cattle, being disallowed from their property, having to deal with the carrion left by the BLM, so they could get one man?
Their herds were already risking exposure to feral cattle because Bundy wasn't controlling his herd at all. Other ranchers are present in that area with leases from the government.
I could go through all of this again about my feelings on the BLM, and started a thread about the strong possibility of it preparing to grab 90,0000 acres of land in Texas from the ranchers there, but it somehow disappeared.
How is that relevant to the Bundy case? Has he started putting cattle on Federal land in Texas?
This is just another example of the BLM overstepping. It doesn't have a thing to do with Bundy, but it is a reason why I have been so vocal against their methods.
Except this is ZERO PROOF that the BLM is doing anything in Texas to steal land from people. None. At all.
So there's that I guess.
Remember you said that if I get proven right. It had been reported in a reputable news source as a strong possibility, which I linked in the thread which seems seems to have been subsequently deleted for whatever reason.
It was a poorly written article filled with hyperbole, baseless speculation, and spelling errors that happened to be on the Fox News website. No claim the author wrote has been verified by any source.
Again, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!
This is just another example of the BLM overstepping. It doesn't have a thing to do with Bundy, but it is a reason why I have been so vocal against their methods.
So upon being unable to explain how they've overstepped in the Bundy case, you use the good old fashion "they did bad stuff in other places" excuse. I am a fan of the classics.
I guess if you don't mind that they were breaking regulations by shipping cattle out of state where they could be mingled with other herds, possibly injuring other cattle or spreading disease, shooting cattle and leaving them to rot, attractting vermin and coyotes to infest the area and attack livestock of other ranchers, beating up women, they were just angels incapable of wrong.
I guess if you don't mind that they were breaking regulations by shipping cattle out of state where they could be mingled with other herds, possibly injuring other cattle or spreading disease, shooting cattle and leaving them to rot, attractting vermin and coyotes to infest the area and attack livestock of other ranchers, beating up women, they were just angels incapable of wrong.
I guess if you ignore any facts, all those things might seem totally true and sure signs of evil
I could go through all of this again about my feelings on the BLM, and started a thread about the strong possibility of it preparing to grab 90,0000 acres of land in Texas from the ranchers there, but it somehow disappeared.
How is that relevant to the Bundy case? Has he started putting cattle on Federal land in Texas?
This is just another example of the BLM overstepping. It doesn't have a thing to do with Bundy, but it is a reason why I have been so vocal against their methods.
Except this is ZERO PROOF that the BLM is doing anything in Texas to steal land from people. None. At all.
So there's that I guess.
Remember you said that if I get proven right. It had been reported in a reputable news source as a strong possibility, which I linked in the thread which seems seems to have been subsequently deleted for whatever reason.
It was a poorly written article filled with hyperbole, baseless speculation, and spelling errors that happened to be on the Fox News website. No claim the author wrote has been verified by any source.
Again, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!
Wrong again, Scooty, I also posted an article from this source:
You don't feel that a person who has violated court orders and federal law for many year deserves a heavy handed response after threatening Federal agents who tried to end the matter civilly?
Do you think the innocent people of the surrounding area and Utah deserved having their livlihoods put at risk by having their herds exposed to feral cattle, being disallowed from their property, having to deal with the carrion left by the BLM, so they could get one man?
I'll take that as a no.
As LordofHats said, Bundy was already putting the herds of other ranchers at risk by letting his cattle go feral.
Also, who was prevented from accessing their property? To my knowledge the BLM only closed Federal property to access while rounding up cattle.
I guess if you don't mind that they were breaking regulations by shipping cattle out of state where they could be mingled with other herds, possibly injuring other cattle or spreading disease, shooting cattle and leaving them to rot, attractting vermin and coyotes to infest the area and attack livestock of other ranchers, beating up women, they were just angels incapable of wrong.
I guess if you ignore any facts, all those things might seem totally true and sure signs of evil
Here's some bunnies
Are you saying they weren't beating up women, leaving cattle to rot or putting other herds at risk by trying to mix Bundy's cattle in with them through auction? Read much news?
You don't feel that a person who has violated court orders and federal law for many year deserves a heavy handed response after threatening Federal agents who tried to end the matter civilly?
Do you think the innocent people of the surrounding area and Utah deserved having their livlihoods put at risk by having their herds exposed to feral cattle, being disallowed from their property, having to deal with the carrion left by the BLM, so they could get one man?
I'll take that as a no.
As LordofHats said, Bundy was already putting the herds of other ranchers at risk by letting his cattle go feral.
Also, who was prevented from accessing their property? To my knowledge the BLM only closed Federal property to access while rounding up cattle.
Property owners could not get to their land because the BLM closed off the access to it.
I will take you non answer to my question as a no.
I'm saying that bunnies are adorable. And look at them. They're in cups! That's like, quadruple the cuteness.
^^^ The above statement, being most rhetoric based solely in personal opinions on the adorability of baby rabbits, is as accurate as your view of the Bundy case.
I could go through all of this again about my feelings on the BLM, and started a thread about the strong possibility of it preparing to grab 90,0000 acres of land in Texas from the ranchers there, but it somehow disappeared.
How is that relevant to the Bundy case? Has he started putting cattle on Federal land in Texas?
This is just another example of the BLM overstepping. It doesn't have a thing to do with Bundy, but it is a reason why I have been so vocal against their methods.
Except this is ZERO PROOF that the BLM is doing anything in Texas to steal land from people. None. At all.
So there's that I guess.
Remember you said that if I get proven right. It had been reported in a reputable news source as a strong possibility, which I linked in the thread which seems seems to have been subsequently deleted for whatever reason.
It was a poorly written article filled with hyperbole, baseless speculation, and spelling errors that happened to be on the Fox News website. No claim the author wrote has been verified by any source.
Again, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!
Wrong again, Scooty, I also posted an article from this source:
There is nothing in that article that is verifiable. It's just a bunch of quotes of people saying what the BLM "might" do and what the BLM "claims" with nothing backing it up. In case it escaped you, here is the BLMs official statement concerning the matter: "The BLM is categorically not expanding Federal holdings along the Red River."
Property owners could not get to their land because the BLM closed off the access to it.
I will take you non answer to my question as a no.
Was it Federal land they were not allowed to pass through? If so, then there is no issue as the local residents should have been well aware of such a possibility; especially Cliven Bundy's presence.
More importantly if someone else had to deal with carrion left by the BLM on their land, then Bundy wasn't making an effort to contain his cows to his land; threatening other herds. Cliven Bundy offended them, he put their livelihoods at risk; not the BLM.
Seaward wrote: You guys sure do take grazing fee disputes seriously.
I think it's a pool going on to see how many pages this thread will last before lock.
For myself, I see it's pointless trying to say anything to people that seemingly know jack all about farming or ranching to explain why there are the attitudes against the BLM from farmers and ranchers. Most posters on this thread think it doesn't matter if other herds could be ruined by mixing in cattle with no documents, or the vermin draw that piles of dead cattle left in the desert are.
Like trying to tell a blind man about color, I guess.
With that, I withdraw from this thread because I have better things to do.
Seaward wrote: You guys sure do take grazing fee disputes seriously.
I think it's a pool going on to see how many pages this thread will last before lock.
For myself, I see it's pointless trying to say anything to people that seemingly know jack all about farming or ranching to explain why there are the attitudes against the BLM from farmers and ranchers. Most posters on this thread think it doesn't matter if other herds could be ruined by mixing in cattle with no documents, or the vermin draw that piles of dead cattle left in the desert are.
Like trying to tell a blind man about color, I guess.
With that, I withdraw from this thread because I have better things to do.
Why would farmers and ranchers dislike the government agency responsible for regulating major aspects of their business, often in ways which might impede their ability to make profit or otherwise behave in whatever manner they see fit? [deadpan]Crikey, what a conundrum, somebody call Sherlock Holmes.[/deadpan]
I am quite surprised to find out what a total liar Bundy is.
I thought the virtues of the rancher life traditionally included honesty, and it turns out he is basically a fake, his claims are fakes, and he is calling for support under false pretences.
Why are the militias supporting him? Is it just that anything the Federal Government does is automatically worse than anything anyone else does?
For myself, I see it's pointless trying to say anything to people that seemingly know jack all about farming or ranching to explain why there are the attitudes against the BLM from farmers and ranchers.
I freely admit to knowing very much at all about either farming or ranching, or how mastery of either somehow makes you immune from our rule of law.
So Bundy willingly breaks the law, lies about having claims to the land since before statehood when it turns out that his family purchased the farm long after it was federal land and didn't purchase water rights and didn't even out cattle on federal land until after the BLM was a thing, ignores court orders for 20 years, doubles down on his racist remarks, calls up militias that show up bragging about using women as human shields, and the BLM is the bad guy even though they didn't violate any rules or guidelines?
Welcome to "Whose Dakka Is It Anyway: where the truth is made up, and the facts don't matter."
You guys must really love the Mexican drug cartels, with their standing up to the federal government regarding imigration and drug enforcement and such. Truly libertarian heroes those folks are, and pure capitalists as well.
it's pointless trying to say anything to people that seemingly know jack all about farming or ranching .
Oddly enough that's how the BLM felt with regards to discourse with Mr Bundy.
I don't usually do this, but on account of this escalating so quickly...
Kilkrazy wrote: I am quite surprised to find out what a total liar Bundy is.
I thought the virtues of the rancher life traditionally included honesty, and it turns out he is basically a fake, his claims are fakes, and he is calling for support under false pretences.
Why are the militias supporting him? Is it just that anything the Federal Government does is automatically worse than anything anyone else does?
You pretty much nailed it in one, KK. A lot of these "militias" are just groups that before the 1990s and Waco/Ruby Ridge(and to a lesser extent, Timothy McVeigh) would have been best considered rednecks sitting on their porches bellyaching.
Now though with the ratcheting up of rhetoric and the founding of the Tea Party, they have been given a measure of legitimacy by Republican politicians that is disturbing.
d-usa wrote: So Bundy willingly breaks the law, lies about having claims to the land since before statehood when it turns out that his family purchased the farm long after it was federal land and didn't purchase water rights and didn't even out cattle on federal land until after the BLM was a thing, ignores court orders for 20 years, doubles down on his racist remarks, calls up militias that show up bragging about using women as human shields, and the BLM is the bad guy even though they didn't violate any rules or guidelines?
Welcome to "Whose Dakka Is It Anyway: where the truth is made up, and the facts don't matter."
You guys must really love the Mexican drug cartels, with their standing up to the federal government regarding imigration and drug enforcement and such. Truly libertarian heroes those folks are, and pure capitalists as well.
Kanluwen wrote: Now though with the ratcheting up of rhetoric and the founding of the Tea Party, they have been given a measure of legitimacy by Republican politicians that is disturbing.
And let's not forget that the Tea Party is also responsible for the rise of neo-Nazism, the gang violence problem in Chicago, the disappearance of flight MH370, the Haiti earthquake, and the Seahawks' victory over the Broncos.
On another note, I predict that within ten years, nobody's even going to bother to type on fora anymore. They'll just post video clips and image memes at each other.
Kanluwen wrote: Now though with the ratcheting up of rhetoric and the founding of the Tea Party, they have been given a measure of legitimacy by Republican politicians that is disturbing.
And let's not forget that the Tea Party is also responsible for the rise of neo-Nazism, the gang violence problem in Chicago, the disappearance of flight MH370, the Haiti earthquake, and the Seahawks' victory over the Broncos.
Touched a nerve, did I?
The Tea Party when it was founded could have been a good thing. But it ended up becoming a disjointed mess where the lunatic fringe has an echo chamber effect going in there. It is fascinating to look at the membership of the Tea Party and the ideology of its members.
On another note, I predict that within ten years, nobody's even going to bother to type on fora anymore. They'll just post video clips and image memes at each other.
And so it will be as it was in the beginning. When the internet was a place where nerds made vague references to one another that no one else understood (and watched porn).
MrDwhitey wrote: It would be good of them to admit to all that, yes.
I agree. I can't promise anything, but I'll suggest it at the next joint "Klan/Tea Party/veteran/innocent lacrosse player/whatever else North Carolina progressives don't like," meeting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: It is fascinating to look at the membership of the Tea Party and the ideology of its members.
We all can agree that he never had a legal leg to stand on... All he really had was the public's empathy of a rancher in the face of BLM's bullying tactic.
But now after his racist rant.... he's PR poison as folks won't be able to separate his rant from BLM's actions.
Interestingly though... now the left is warming up to him for his pro-amnesty views.
"Now let me talk about the Spanish people," Bundy said in a new video unearthed by New York magazine, right after he concluded his thoughts on "the Negro."
"I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders," he says. "But they're here and they're people. I worked side-by-side a lot of them. Don't tell me they don't work, and don't tell me they don't pay taxes. And don't tell me they don't have better family structures than most of us white people."
"When you see those Mexican families, they're together. They picnic together. They're spending their time together," he said. "I'll tell you, in my way of thinking, they're awful nice people. We need to have those people join us and be with us."
This story continues to be fethed up in every which way to thy kingdom come.
Seaward wrote:I agree. I can't promise anything, but I'll suggest it at the next joint "Klan/Tea Party/veteran/innocent lacrosse player/whatever else North Carolina progressives don't like," meeting.
His public empathy hinged on a lie to begin with: his claim of "my family has been herding cattle here and using his land before the federal government was ever here".
What difference does it make at this point? *haven't I been?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: His public empathy hinged on a lie to begin with: his claim of "my family has been herding cattle here and using his land before the federal government was ever here".
But now after his racist rant.... he's PR poison as folks won't be able to separate his rant from BLM's actions
Or you know, we can all just admit to the basic reality that he's a nut case, who can't even prove wrong doing on the part of BLM beyond some other nutcases who showed up to agitate a comparatively minor dispute and now people want to completely ignore his actions and focus on a fictional narrative where BLM is the bad guy.
When one side can't even get basic facts straight because they're too busy trying to turn a turd into gold, the only solution is the bombard them meme's, because actually talking about anything is pointless.
But now after his racist rant.... he's PR poison as folks won't be able to separate his rant from BLM's actions
Or you know, we can all just admit to the basic reality that he's a nut case, who can't even prove wrong doing on the part of BLM beyond some other nutcases who showed up to agitate a comparatively minor dispute and now people want to completely ignore his actions and focus on a fictional narrative where BLM is the bad guy.
When one side can't even get basic facts straight because they're too busy trying to turn a turd into gold, the only solution is the bombard them meme's, because actually talking about anything is pointless.
And so it continues.
Haven't I said that? o.O
So... you don't like Harry Reid either...right*?
Don't forget, he said this:
To whom he described as a "light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one".
And we have "but the guy somebody else likes said negro too once" response that completely ignores the actual meat of the racist statement and tries to rally his enemies behind the "can't we all just agree that everybody sucks even though I usually talk about how your guy sucks worse" banner.
I go into threads complaining about how politics in the US is a complete cluster feth oriented around ranting idealogues devoid of any perspective or factual validty. Do you think I like any US politicians?
P.S. I kind of liked Bush Jr. but come on, he's so hapless and tried so hard. I think all he ever needed was a hug.
d-usa wrote: And we have "but the guy somebody else likes said negro too once" response that completely ignores the actual meat of the racist statement and tries to rally his enemies behind the "can't we all just agree that everybody sucks even though I usually talk about how your guy sucks worse" banner.
Hey... everyone does suck... but your guy is worst! I can definitely do that.
I go into threads complaining about how politics in the US is a complete cluster feth oriented around ranting idealogues devoid of any perspective or factual validty. Do you think I like any US politicians?
Good point.
P.S. I kind of liked Bush Jr. but come on, he's so hapless and tried so hard. I think all he ever needed was a hug.
Totally agree... You should've seen me during the Bush's presidency... he just drove me nuts.
Frankly I see the senate leader's comment as an old-fashioned form of words fairly typical of an older person, unfortunate to the modern ear but not indicating any malicious thinking.
Frankly I see the senate leader's comment as an old-fashioned form of words fairly typical of an older person, unfortunate to the modern ear but not indicating any malicious thinking.
Oh... so, because he's on your team, it's okay.... is that it?
Think about it for a bit: Reid was remarking apparently with some amazement on the nation's highest-ranking black Democrat at the time as being notably "light-skinned" and having "no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one."
Let that sink in for bit. If you don't see it, then there's no point in discussing further.
EDIT: if it wasn't a big deal, why did he apologize? (which, we should applaud Reid for doing so)
Hordini wrote: Why do you want to hear justification for something that there is no reason to justify? Just because some people might have supported him before for something unrelated to this, doesn't mean they should support him being a racist.
I might be playing devils advocate here, but was it really intended to be racist? Ultimately he said that people traded one set of chains for another (real for financial), and there is more than a grain of truth in that statement. Admittedly he said it in such a weird "antiquated" way that it just sounds ignorant and racist to us modern folk (I assume he has been frozen in ice since the 1890s right?). However he didn't seem to be inciting ill will towards black people (well aside from assuming that they all live in the ghetto). In a weird way he actually appeared to have their best interests at heart, wanting them to have things like family, meaning in their lives, and 'more' freedom. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he wasn't advocating slavery by pointing out that there are worse things.
No, he isnt. And I can tell you this, It is OUR fault people are stuck like that. With Redlining of black neighborhoods, Denying Black GIs the ability to buy homes in suburbs after the war. Alot of Racist policies created urban blight.
Interestingly I didn't see Senator Reid's comments as terribly racist, or certainly not intended to be as such.
It's not surprising that Bundy is a racist, he's old. Old enough to be brought up in a segregated environment, or at least still with those attitudes remaining from those around. Doesn't justify it though mind you. Perhaps he has dementia? He seems demented.
It would be interesting to know the circumstances of how his parents acquired the farm. Why the farmers had to sell it and the circumstances surrounding the ending of that tradition.
I'm more disappointed that there's not been some kind of shootout. Why isn't your federal government putting their jackboots to the neck of this farmer and his patriotic buddies?
d-usa wrote: "He doesn't sound like a black guy" vs. "black people are aborting kids and are lazy and don't have any goals because we quit keeping them as slaves".
If you can't see a difference there it is only because you don't want to see it.
One's quite racist, one's even more racist.
"He doesn't sound like a black guy," is some good water-carrying for, "He speaks with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," by the way.
We have Paul Ryan, Tea Party darling and recipient of welfare.
Nothing in your article indicates that they don't get any government handouts nor that they are self serving. It doesn't address racist tendencies either.
More than three in four Tea Party supporters (78 percent) have never attended a rally or donated to a group; most have also not visited a Tea Party Web site.
Well gak guys, get it together. I'm not a Tea Party member and I've been to rallies to see what was up.
d-usa wrote: "He doesn't sound like a black guy" vs. "black people are aborting kids and are lazy and don't have any goals because we quit keeping them as slaves".
If you can't see a difference there it is only because you don't want to see it.
One's quite racist, one's even more racist.
"He doesn't sound like a black guy," is some good water-carrying for, "He speaks with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," by the way.
You will notice I did some "good water-carrying" for both sides by using black instead of negro.
And I have yet to say that one is not racist. I am saying that one is so much more racist that it is stupid to even try to compare the two or to say that the more racist one is okay because somebody else said that the negro talks good.
I don't know about that one specifically, but I could believe it. I've seen some pretty dumb protestor signs in my limited time
It also makes sense from the perspective of the Tea Party. As Seaward showed, many Tea Partiers are older, so we can assume some are on Medicare and the ACA kicked up around that same time.
LordofHats wrote: I don't know about that one specifically, but I could believe it. I've seen some pretty dumb protestor signs in my limited time
It also makes sense from the perspective of the Tea Party. As Seaward showed, many Tea Partiers are older, so we can assume some are on Medicare and the ACA kicked up around that same time.
Seaward also showed they make more than average, so while Medicare's a possibility, welfare seems dubious.
It would be nice to try and get the thread on track. I've got a gutsy feeling that Mr. Bundy has more insights to share with us, I'd like to discuss them here, and the off-topic comments, while obviously useful for those who wish us to concentrate elsewhere (anywhere else) , only serve to get the thread locked (again)
Yeah but the thing that makes the statement funny is that is says government shouldn't be using medicare money for welfare socialized medicine, ignoring that medicare is welfare socialized medicine. EDIT: Sorry sidetracking myself.
LordofHats wrote: I don't know about that one specifically, but I could believe it. I've seen some pretty dumb protestor signs in my limited time
It also makes sense from the perspective of the Tea Party. As Seaward showed, many Tea Partiers are older, so we can assume some are on Medicare and the ACA kicked up around that same time.
Seaward also showed they make more than average, so while Medicare's a possibility, welfare seems dubious.
Well, I'm sure none of them ever got any kind of welfare or government handout or government program...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: It would be nice to try and get the thread on track. I've got a gutsy feeling that Mr. Bundy has more insights to share with us, I'd like to discuss them here, and the off-topic comments, while obviously useful for those who wish us to concentrate elsewhere (anywhere else) , only serve to get the thread locked (again)
d-usa wrote: Well, I'm sure none of them ever got any kind of welfare or government handout or government program...
Are we moving the goalposts from "welfare" to "any government program" already?
They're the same thing. People have simply convinced themselves they're not to justify taking government handouts when it suits them and pretend they're different from the lazy layabouts who want free money/stuff.
LordofHats wrote: They're the same thing. People have simply convinced themselves they're not to justify taking government handouts when it suits them and pretend they're different from the lazy layabouts who want free money/stuff.
They're really not, is the thing. There's quite a difference between, say, TANF and social security benefits.
Medium of Death wrote: It's probably not a photoshop if this video is any kind of indicator. This was posted in a thread from many months back.
It's the natural result of everything good about the whole mess being labeled "ACA" while everything bad about it being labeled "Obamacare". Even if you haven't seen it occur in the media, you can tell from their consistent responses throughout the video.
A cynical person might think that was not by accident.
Ouze wrote: It would be nice to try and get the thread on track. I've got a gutsy feeling that Mr. Bundy has more insights to share with us, I'd like to discuss them here, and the off-topic comments, while obviously useful for those who wish us to concentrate elsewhere (anywhere else) , only serve to get the thread locked (again)
Cliven Bundy Racism Exposes The “Cattle Battle” Fraud
After weeks of spouting off about land rights and the constitution Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy popped the cork on the racism bubbling right beneath the surface of his stand – off with the federal government. And in barely a few hours everyone on the right wing from Senators to political pundits who days ago called him a ‘hero’ have been running from him faster than a stampede from a brush fire. Which is telling, because Bundy’s racial beliefs should have nothing to do with the validity of his protests. But his words, and the rapid evaporation of his support from the political and pundit class shows that racial animus was always at the heart of this entire conflict.
During a recent press conference with a few reporters Bundy decided to get philosophical about “The Negro”
I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
I bet Solomon Northrup would disagree. Now to be fair, he had plenty of nice things to say about Hispanics, but I think the die has already been cast. Bundy’s attitude is not surprising for a man of his race and age. More importantly his belief that African Americans were happier, more noble, thrifty, hard working or responsible, in some mythical past time period (when discrimination against African Americans was legal, and socially acceptable) has been echoed by various other public figures in the last year from celebrity chef Paula Deen, Duck Dynasty Star Phil Robertson and most recently by former Republican VP pick Paul Ryan (R-WI) . However, Bundy being a racist should have no bearing on whether or not you believed in his claim that the federal government had no authority to actually require him to pay grazing fees. Unless of course you’re a racist too and Bundy’s rant just blew the cover off of your covert rant against Obama.
Cliven Bundy, like George Zimmerman, like Phil Robertson, like Paula Deen is a dog whistle, a cultural cudgel with which to attack the United States, and specifically the first African American president who sits in the White House. The right wing in America, whether it be Sean Hannity or Alex Jones, realized during the “Birther” debacle that blatantly screaming “There is no way I will suffer the authority of a negro in the White House” gains them no favor with mainstream America. Obama got elected, twice, by a lot of Blacks, Asians, Latinos and whites, and blatantly attacking the president racially is offensive to a good many Americans. However, hiding that racism by championing the actions of undeclared bigots is a perfect veil under which to express hostility towards Obama and African Americans while still retaining plausible deniability.
You think all black teens are thugs and potential criminals, but are afraid to say it out loud, for fear of being exposed as a racist? Just claim you’re a gun rights advocate who strongly empathizes with George Zimmerman. Think African Americans have a degraded ‘culture’ but know what will make a pariah at dinner parties? Say you’re a free speech supporter who stands by Phil Robertson. The list goes on and on. Public, politicians and pundits will support men and women who have done something obviously wrong as a way to launder racial beliefs into something more palatable to the mainstream, at least until the truth gets exposed.
Cliven Bundy’s ‘protest’ against grazing fees has been going on longer than Obama has been in office. However he openly welcomes supporters who view his protest as an act of rebellion against the illegitimate presidency of Barack Obama. If race were not one of the underlying motivations bolstering Cliven Bundy’s actions, why would did he feel the need to go off on some Freudian rant about “the Negro” to begin with? It is impossible to separate Bundy’s protest (and to a lesser extent the government’s tepid response) and his sense of white male privilege. As Chris Hayes pointed out on MSNBC, if a group of Hispanic Americans banded together and threatened INS agents who wanted to deport illegal aliens what do you think would happen? Ask Elian Gonzalez. As Jamelle Bouie pointed out in Slate.com when African Americans defy the law and don’t pay taxes on grounds of moral or historical rights they end up dead in Philadelphia, or in jail like Wesley Snipes. If Cliven Bundy were anything other than white male rancher in Nevada he would’ve been in jail years ago.
So now Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Sean Hannity know they can’t publicly support Cliven Bundy’s ‘cause’ without being exposed as supporting the racism that undergirds it. Exposed being the key term, since in a couple of months they’ll all find another ‘victim’ to conveniently support. And they will gleefully and disingenuously throw that cudgel at Obama and Black America as well, at least until the next exposure comes along.
Dr. Jason Johnson
It is true... A lot of these 'movements' are racism wrapped up in a consumable package. Lots of the supporters are unwitting or naive pawns being manipulated by people with agendas which no normal person could get behind. You can try to break apart the issue but this whole battle revolves around the concept of "We are white people, things like this shouldn't happen to white people, so let's resort to armed violence!" You can't separate the 'county supremacy' movement from the leaders who are white supremacists and the militias founded under the flag of white supremacy.
LordofHats wrote: I seem to remembering saying in the old thread Bundy wasn't going to win this *ego swells*
I think he has been winning so far, though. He's not paying his dues, he's a hero to the folk, and the BLM backed down (granted, for the moment). Frankly if it hadn't been for his extemporaneous dissertation on race in America, I think that political office would be a foregone conclusion.
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he (Cliven Bundy) said.
.
If he would have called them “descendents of slaves” instead of “the Negro”, would it have made any difference?
.
Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.”
.
These three sentences are a totally valid criticism of the government’s policies and social programs … and explains one of the reasons why the “descendents of slaves” haven’t gotten any further ahead in American society, than they have.
.
“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” … he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
.
No one is “better off” being a slave. But the “descendents of slaves” in America today are still in slavery. The difference is today’s “slavery” is much more physically comfortable, than the pre-civil war days.
But it’s still slavery, none the less.
They accept an impoverished standard of living, for free … in exchange for voting Democrat. But the standard of living for inner-city “descendents of slaves” is still impoverished.
.
The “descendents of slaves” living in the inner city have got to learn how to pick cottonwork, or otherwise be productive. And Only then I’ve often wondered, are they will they be better off. as slaves, picking cotton
Worth noting; the same thing goes for the young people living a higher standard of living in suburbia.
If they don’t learn how to do real work, they’ll end up like the inner city people.
LordofHats wrote: I seem to remembering saying in the old thread Bundy wasn't going to win this *ego swells*
I think he has been winning so far, though. He's not paying his dues, he's a hero to the folk, and the BLM backed down (granted, for the moment). Frankly if it hadn't been for his extemporaneous dissertation on race in America, I think that political office would be a foregone conclusion.
@nkelsch, while I think there's some interesting points in that article, I'd have rephrased it slighty. It's not that overt racism underlies these events, but rather the desire to ardently deny things like privilige exist. It's the bootstraps myth. The taking of individualism and self-reliance to such an extreme it becomes a satire of itself. That makes up a huge bulk of conservative politcs in America. That's the underpinning of it all. It is racist, but its the kind of insititutional racism, not overt racism, that is still commonplace today and that people on one side of politics feel completely dedicated to saying doesn't exist and that racism plays into a much larger picture concern the class debates and wealth inequality.
Regardless of whether or not you think BLM was heavy handed once this thing kicked off;
If Cliven Bundy were anything other than white male rancher in Nevada he would’ve been in jail years ago.
I think this is completely true.
@Ouze. We all know how this is going to end. BLM is gonna wait for the rage to die down, then they're going to rush in and finish the job. Bundy's probably just dug himself a much deeper hole now as his crimes arguably go beyond just refusing to pay his fees and now enter obstruction of justice and inciting a riot.
It's federal land, they can do what they want. My plan for action if I am appointed Czar of Land Management:
1) Declare that all Bundy Cattle Lands are now Military Training Grounds.
2) Initiate Strategic Napalm Exercises.
3) Give everybody in the area 24 hours notice to vacate.
4) Send in the bombers and drop Napalm.
5) Invite everybody over for a BBQ.
d-usa wrote: It's federal land, they can do what they want. My plan for action if I am appointed Czar of Land Management:
1) Declare that all Bundy Cattle Lands are now Military Training Grounds.
2) Initiate Strategic Napalm Exercises.
3) Give everybody in the area 24 hours notice to vacate.
4) Send in the bombers and drop Napalm.
5) Invite everybody over for a BBQ.
d-usa wrote: It's federal land, they can do what they want. My plan for action if I am appointed Czar of Land Management:
1) Declare that all Bundy Cattle Lands are now Military Training Grounds.
2) Initiate Strategic Napalm Exercises.
3) Give everybody in the area 24 hours notice to vacate.
4) Send in the bombers and drop Napalm.
5) Invite everybody over for a BBQ.
Cool!
Will there be alcohol or is this BYOB?
There will be no government handouts, strictly boot-strap moonshine distilled from the finest Cactus Juice stolen cultivated and maintained for generations.
d-usa wrote: You will notice I did some "good water-carrying" for both sides by using black instead of negro.
Negro isn't necessarily an offensive term. Organizations like the United Negro College Fund still use it, as did Martin Luther King in his "I have a dream" speech. According the Wikipedia it was still used on the last US census because a lot of people self-identify as Negro.
It does sound a bit antiquated now, but ironically it used to be the more polite term (with "black" being considered a pejorative). That could easily still be the case in whatever backwards place Bundy is from.
d-usa wrote: It's federal land, they can do what they want. My plan for action if I am appointed Czar of Land Management:
1) Declare that all Bundy Cattle Lands are now Military Training Grounds.
2) Initiate Strategic Napalm Exercises.
3) Give everybody in the area 24 hours notice to vacate.
4) Send in the bombers and drop Napalm.
5) Invite everybody over for a BBQ.
Cool!
Will there be alcohol or is this BYOB?
There will be no government handouts, strictly boot-strap moonshine distilled from the finest Cactus Juice stolen cultivated and maintained for generations.
Hmmm... Cacti Moonshine sounds yummy.
You've got a beer making operation... any chance you can tweak it to make some shine?
I've had Dandilion Shine... tasted much better than you'd expect.
But in a contentious interview Friday on CNN's "New Day," Bundy stood by his remarks, saying he's not a racist but only somebody who spoke his mind, perhaps using politically incorrect language.
"Maybe I sinned, and maybe I need to ask forgiveness, and maybe I don't know what I actually said, but when you talk about prejudice, we're talking about not being able to exercise what we think. ... If I say Negro or black boy or slave, if those people cannot take those kind of words and not be (offended), then Martin Luther King hasn't got his job done yet," he told anchor Chris Cuomo on Friday, adding, "We need to get over this prejudice stuff."
Of course it shows how out of touch he is if he thinks that the word "negro" is the problem and not his statement that they were better off as slaves.
Of course the guy doing the interview gave the best advice, which he should have followed from the start:
In one exchange with Cuomo, Bundy said, "I don't know how to talk about these ethnic groups ..."
That could easily still be the case in whatever backwards place Bundy is from.
Unless he's been living under a rock since the 1970's and literally has never watched TV since then, I highly doubt it. While there's an arguable double standard in reactions to that word, I don't think there's any question that Bundy was using it in the way most of us are thinking he was.
I think what he said was racist, but because of the ideas behind what he said, not his specific word usage. I too think the word Negro is archaic and should be avoided because it's obsolete. but in and of itself not racist; especially when coming from a man who grew up when schools were still segregated. I feel the same way about Harry Reid - the problem wasn't the word itself, it was that someone could choose not to sound like one, and that is desirable. So I don't count Mr. Bundy's use of Negro against him, nor anyone else that is approximately 70 years old or older and who grew up in the rural west.
In one exchange with Cuomo, Bundy said, "I don't know how to talk about these ethnic groups ..."
"Then don't," Cuomo said.
Talking out of your ass is the most 'murican of things to do, next to shooting off an AR-15 with one hand while holding an American flag in the other, and the point tip of the flagpole being used to each a cheeseburger, because you only have 2 hands.
So, I was pretty sure that the BLM argument had been decided by the courts a long time ago. Is Bundy and his followers actually dismissing the idea of Judicial Supremacy in interpreting the law, and do they have an alternate interpretation of the role of the Judiciary in the Constiutional system?
Ouze wrote: I think what he said was racist, but because of the ideas behind what he said, not his specific word usage.
May I ask what ideas specifically you felt were racist? I didn't feel that what he said was racist (at least not the idea behind it), especially given the context of his age, schooling etc... His comments about Hispanic people underlined that.
Ouze wrote: I think what he said was racist, but because of the ideas behind what he said, not his specific word usage.
May I ask what ideas specifically you felt were racist? I didn't feel that what he said was racist, especially given the context of his age, schooling etc... His comments about Hispanic people underlined that.
If he's not racist... he's at the very minimum guilty of bad stereotypes.
whembly wrote: If he's not racist... he's at the very minimum guilty of bad stereotypes.
Maybe, but impoverished black people living in the ghetto, and black men in prison isn't just some "mythical" stereotype. It is a genuine social problem that is driven by "real" racism. Arguing that he was talking about all black people, is putting words in his mouth. He was talking about black people in 'plight' who have basically been forgotten by the government. Which is an argument that serves his purpose.
whembly wrote: If he's not racist... he's at the very minimum guilty of bad stereotypes.
Maybe, but impoverished black people living in the ghetto, and black men in prison isn't just some "mythical" stereotype. It is a genuine social problem that is driven by "real" racism. Arguing that he was talking about all black people, is putting words in his mouth. He was talking about black people in 'plight' who have basically been forgotten by the government. Which is an argument that serves his purpose.
When he says that he will say something about "the negro" he is talking about all black people.
If I said that I will say something about all "the whites", the implication is that I am talking about the whole race.
A Town Called Malus wrote: When he says that he will say something about "the negro" he is talking about all black people.
If I said that I will say something about all "the whites", the implication is that I am talking about the whole race.
Only if you take it out of context. He put his words in context prior to that in his preamble about the government and also afterwards when he talked about specific black people in social housing. If you want to take it out of context and twist it so you can scream "Oh snap! he's a racist!", which is exactly what the media wants to do because scandal and sensationalism is their meal ticket. I'm not going to buy into that.
What I heard was a fairly old man, arguing that the situation for black people (generalization) in America is still diabolical, and hardly an improvement on slavery. AND that Hispanic people are nice people who deserve more respect.
A Town Called Malus wrote: When he says that he will say something about "the negro" he is talking about all black people.
If I said that I will say something about all "the whites", the implication is that I am talking about the whole race.
Only if you take it out of context. He put his words in context prior to that in his preable about the government and also afterwards when he talked about specific black people in social housing. If you want to take it out of context and twist it so you can scream "Oh snap! he's a racist!" which is exactly what the media wants to do because scandal and sensationalism is their meal ticket. I'm not going to buy into that.
What I heard was a fairly old man, arguing that the situation for black people (generalization) in America is still diabolical, and hardly an improvement on slavery. AND that Hispanic people are nice people who deserve more respect.
I don't know how prevalent racism is in the UK, but you usually don't really give stuff like that the benefit of the doubt here. For one, slavery is too much of dark part of history even still. For another, we DO have entire rural communities that are openly and disgustingly racist against people who aren't of the "right" race.
CNN's Dan Simon noticed Jason Bullock, a black [<---whembly] six-year Army veteran who serves as one of Bundy's bodyguards, hanging around at the Nevada ranch. Simon asked Bullock whether he found Bundy's remarks about blacks and slavery offensive.
"Mr. Bundy is not a racist," he told CNN. "Ever since I've been here, he's treated me with nothing but hospitality. He's pretty much treating me just like his own family."
A Town Called Malus wrote: When he says that he will say something about "the negro" he is talking about all black people.
If I said that I will say something about all "the whites", the implication is that I am talking about the whole race.
Only if you take it out of context. He put his words in context prior to that in his preamble about the government and also afterwards when he talked about specific black people in social housing. If you want to take it out of context and twist it so you can scream "Oh snap! he's a racist!", which is exactly what the media wants to do because scandal and sensationalism is their meal ticket. I'm not going to buy into that.
What I heard was a fairly old man, arguing that the situation for black people (generalization) in America is still diabolical, and hardly an improvement on slavery. AND that Hispanic people are nice people who deserve more respect.
The current situation is because of racism, just as it was then. That is the only comparison you make.
You certainly don't say comments like
"And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom."
Tell me, what family life did slaves have? What "things" were they allowed to do? Get lynched if a white man didn't like the way they looked at a white woman or hell, even if a white man didn't like the way a white woman looked at the black man?
CNN's Dan Simon noticed Jason Bullock, a black [<---whembly] six-year Army veteran who serves as one of Bundy's bodyguards, hanging around at the Nevada ranch. Simon asked Bullock whether he found Bundy's remarks about blacks and slavery offensive.
"Mr. Bundy is not a racist," he told CNN. "Ever since I've been here, he's treated me with nothing but hospitality. He's pretty much treating me just like his own family."
daedalus wrote: I don't know how prevalent racism is in the UK, but you usually don't really give stuff like that the benefit of the doubt here. For one, slavery is too much of dark part of history even still. For another, we DO have entire rural communities that are openly and disgustingly racist against people who aren't of the "right" race.
To be honest, given where he is from and his age, I think it is kind of admirable that he isn't waaay more racist and ignorant. What he said about Mexicans was just plain nice, and probably a much more 'tolerant' position that most liberals take... That's why I give him the benefit of the doubt.
CNN's Dan Simon noticed Jason Bullock, a black [<---whembly] six-year Army veteran who serves as one of Bundy's bodyguards, hanging around at the Nevada ranch. Simon asked Bullock whether he found Bundy's remarks about blacks and slavery offensive.
"Mr. Bundy is not a racist," he told CNN. "Ever since I've been here, he's treated me with nothing but hospitality. He's pretty much treating me just like his own family."
Exit question: Why the feth does Bundy need body guards? Did it really escalate that much?
No. After all, Calvin Candie was friendly to his black butler in Django Unchained. Doesn't change the fact he was racist. It was an evil genius who tricked people into thinking that racists couldn't be friendly to people of different races.
CNN's Dan Simon noticed Jason Bullock, a black [<---whembly] six-year Army veteran who serves as one of Bundy's bodyguards, hanging around at the Nevada ranch. Simon asked Bullock whether he found Bundy's remarks about blacks and slavery offensive.
"Mr. Bundy is not a racist," he told CNN. "Ever since I've been here, he's treated me with nothing but hospitality. He's pretty much treating me just like his own family."
Maybe. I can go make some blatantly racist remarks and then ask how he feels
I guess he's one of those militia guys?
You don't undestand. If Bundy pays his bills, the government wins. The same government that impounds other people's property for not paying their bills and gets trapped in a standoff with crazy people who are protecting other people who don't pay their bills. We can't let that happen so the morally responsible thing to do, is not to pay our bills.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Tell me, what family life did slaves have? What "things" were they allowed to do? Get lynched if a white man didn't like the way they looked at a white woman or hell, even if a white man didn't like the way a white woman looked at the black man?
No I'm not going to argue with you about the merits of slavery. that is a ridiculous misrepresentation of what is being discussed. The subject was downtrodden black people on welfare in 2014. Are you trying to say that just because they aren't being lynched anymore, there is nothing more to be done with regard to civil rights?
whembly wrote: Oh... so, because he's on your team, it's okay.... is that it?
Think about it for a bit: Reid was remarking apparently with some amazement on the nation's highest-ranking black Democrat at the time as being notably "light-skinned" and having "no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one."
Let that sink in for bit. If you don't see it, then there's no point in discussing further.
Sadly, being a light-skinned black guy still wasn't enough. I am ashamed to admit that I know more than one life-long Democrat that refused to vote for him solely because of the color of his skin. The fact that Harry Reid pointed out that Obama code-switches (which is common in public speaking) is end all, be all but that never stopped conservatives from pointing out when he does (and attacking him for it) it and it being okay?
Like this?:
This is not the way Obama talks. At least it is not the way he talked in the scores of speeches I’ve watched him give, the public appearances I’ve seen him make. This is a put on. This is phony.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past week, by now you’re familiar with the standoff between the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 67 year-old rancher Cliven Bundy. Why did this happen? We’ve heard stories from the Bundy’s not paying the feds their grazing fees, to protecting desert tortoises, to Harry Reid’s efforts to build massive solar facilities. But what I wanted was to get down to basics. Was this land grab even constitutional? I decided to find out.
The following are excerpts from my interview with Guy Maisnik, a 30 year real estate lawyer and Constitutional law real property expert, regarding the Bundy’s case against the United States concerning Bundy’s rights to use real property adjacent to his ranch to graze his cattle over the objection of the United States.
AG: We just witnessed the standoff between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Bundy supporters with the BLM retreating. Regardless of what we all witnessed, do you believe Bundy has an uphill legal battle against the United States Government?
Guy Maisnik: Unfortunately I do, particularly in the Ninth Circuit. This case will need to get to the Supreme Court for Cliven Bundy to achieve judicial relief, and it will be a challenge getting there. However, I would encourage those who care about freedom to understand the critical importance of Mr. Bundy’s plight and how it impacts every American and America’s future. Because this case is complex and does not have the emotional appeal of a civil liberties case or a criminal case, it may not get long-term attention. But it’s one of the single most important cases impacting Americans today. This case hits America’s heart and the basic underpinnings of a free society.
AG: You’ve heard Bundy and his supporters repeatedly claim that the federal government had no right to remove his cattle or impose fees and that the federal government has no right to that land. Is there any validity to this claim?
GM: The United States District Court of Nevada disagreed with Bundy, and so will the 9th Circuit. The linchpin of the U.S. Government’s case is United States v. Gardner, 107 F.3d 1314 (9th Cir. 1997), where the federal government prevailed on facts similar to Bundy’s. In Gardner, the US Forest Service issued a ten-year permit allowing the Gardners to graze their cattle in the Humboldt National Forest. Because of a fire that burned over 2000 acres of land, the Forest Service and Nevada Department of Wildlife closed off the land to grazing for two years. Nevertheless, after a short period of time, the Gardners ignored the closure and resumed grazing. The Forest Service revoked the Gardner’s permit. The Gardners argued that the federal government was not the land owner, and that the land belonged to the state of Nevada. The federal district court disagreed, and the 9th Circuit court affirmed the district court’s holding.
AG: What were the key arguments made by Bundy and the Gardners?
GM: Bundy’s and Gardners’ arguments were similar, and they both lost. The courts ruled: 1) that the federal government was authorized to retain public lands for its own purposes, and was not required to hold land for the establishment of future states; 2) that the Equal Footing Doctrine did not operate to give the state title to the public lands within its boundaries; and 3) that federal ownership of public lands did not encroach upon the core powers reserved for the states under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. There were other arguments and discussions, but these were central.
AG: Can you explain the basis of the courts’ ruling?
GM: The Gardners argued that the United States obtained the land from Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, but that it had a duty to hold that land in trust for the creation of future states; that the federal government had no authority to retain the land once the state was created; and that when Nevada became a state, all lands within its boundaries became Nevada property. The Gardners argument was based on an 1845 U.S. Supreme Court case known as Pollard. Pollard addressed the issue of land that was ceded to the federal government by Virginia and Georgia to discharge debts each incurred during the Revolutionary War. Eventually, the federal government created the new state of Alabama out of a portion of the state of Georgia, and the issue was whether certain shoreline property in question belonged to the federal government or Alabama. The court’s verdict: Alabama. The Pollard court concluded that the federal government had no rights to the property in question.
AG: Do you agree with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Gardner regarding federal land ownership and its impact on the Bundy case?
GM: I do not. The Ninth Circuit distinguished the Pollard case because Virginia and Georgia were part of the original thirteen colonies which had independent claims to sovereignty before their statehood, and that Nevada never had pre-statehood sovereignty. This is a twisted and absurd result. The fact that the federal government was the initial owner of the land that later became Nevada is irrelevant. The Ninth Circuit created an unsupportable distinction essentially out of thin air (very thin, one might add) by reasoning that Pollard did not apply to Gardner. And once the Ninth Circuit decided that the property in question never belonged to Nevada, it was easy for the Court to invoke the Property Clause of the Constitution that Congress has the power “to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States and all the broad powers associated.” In other words, the federal government can do whatever it wants with its own property.
AG: Tell us how the Ninth Circuit applied the Equal Footing Doctrine?
GM: You mean how the Ninth Circuit misapplied the Equal Footing Doctrine? The Equal Footing Doctrine requires that upon admission to the Union, a new state possesses the same powers of sovereignty and jurisdiction as did the original thirteen states. The Gardners argued to be on equal footing, Nevada had to have title and eminent domain of all lands within its boundaries to satisfy the Equal Footing Doctrine. A reasonable conclusion. However, the Gardner court didn’t think so, and imprudently and improperly held that the Equal Footing Doctrine only applies to the “shores of and land beneath navigable waters” because the particular dispute in the Pollard case was only over shore land. The Ninth Circuit concluded that because the Supreme Court has not extended the Equal Footing Doctrine to “fast dry land,” the federal lands in question were not reserved for the state of Nevada. That is a misapplication of the Equal Footing Doctrine and a complete misreading of Pollard. Here is what the Pollard Court said about federal land: “When Alabama was admitted into the union, on an equal footing with the original states, she succeeded to all the rights of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and eminent domain… the United States ha[s] no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere…..”
The Ninth Circuit misconstrued Pollard, misapplied the Equal Footing Doctrine and along the way stepped on virtually every western state’s rights and freedoms of persons within those states.
AG: Is it your review that the 10th Amendment also applies to the Bundy’s claims?
GM: If the District court had gotten the Pollard case right, there would be no reason even to address the 10th Amendment. However, the Ninth Circuit seems to believe that the 10th Amendment doesn’t apply to real property rights, concluding a state may exercise jurisdiction over federal lands within its state so long as its exercise of power does not conflict with federal law. Really? The 10th Amendment provides that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Looks like the court got turned around on that one in Gardner and Bundy. Oh well, maybe next time…
AG: Maybe this will serve as a wakeup call for all Americans, because your little piece of the American dream could very well be the next land-grab on the Fed’s radar.
Or we can accept that for someone talking about consitutionallity, GM is a moron.
What Bundy and Gardner tried to do was walk into a court and say the United States doesn't own federal land because federal land is public land held in the public trust which is completely nonsense argument. The United States is the public trust and they do own the land. Their entire view of state's rights makes 0 sense even from the perspective of really conservative judges (who are the ones who decided both those cases).
Their argument boils down to the US Government doesn't own the land because it's not the US Government.
A Town Called Malus wrote:When he says that he will say something about "the negro" he is talking about all black people.
Yes, exactly. I know Smacks think's that's out of context, but I disagree. Let me list the relevant bit:
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
He isn't speaking about the specific people in that house project, the first line clearly establishes that he is using the subsequent anecdote to describe The Negro, all of them, as Malus says. There is no different context present unless he got Sherrod'd and there is more before and after showing this as an example of how he though in a previous time, but not now. Which, of course, is possible.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Tell me, what family life did slaves have? What "things" were they allowed to do? Get lynched if a white man didn't like the way they looked at a white woman or hell, even if a white man didn't like the way a white woman looked at the black man?
No I'm not going to argue with you about the merits of slavery. that is a ridiculous misrepresentation of what is being discussed. The subject was downtrodden black people on welfare in 2014. Are you trying to say that just because they aren't being lynched anymore, there is nothing more to be done with regard to civil rights?
I'm saying that blaming black peoples current predicament on welfare, as Bundy is, is ignoring the reason why they are in that predicament: racism.
LordofHats wrote: Or we can accept that for someone talking about consitutionallity, GM is a moron.
What Bundy and Gardner tried to do was walk into a court and say the United States doesn't own federal land because federal land is public land held in the public trust which is completely nonsense argument. The United States is the public trust and they do own the land. Their entire view of state's rights makes 0 sense even from the perspective of really conservative judges (who are the ones who decided both those cases).
Their argument boils down to the US Government doesn't own the land because it's not the US Government.
Government by the people for the people.
If the government owns the land for the people, and on behalf of the people. Then the people own the land.
LordofHats wrote: Or we can accept that for someone talking about consitutionallity, GM is a moron.
What Bundy and Gardner tried to do was walk into a court and say the United States doesn't own federal land because federal land is public land held in the public trust which is completely nonsense argument. The United States is the public trust and they do own the land. Their entire view of state's rights makes 0 sense even from the perspective of really conservative judges (who are the ones who decided both those cases).
Their argument boils down to the US Government doesn't own the land because it's not the US Government.
Yeah... I think I agree with you.
I can't quite fit GM's argument on the equal footing doctrine with this.
There's a distinct possibility that this'll go to the SC. Not that it'll help Bundy though...
LordofHats wrote: Or we can accept that for someone talking about consitutionallity, GM is a moron.
What Bundy and Gardner tried to do was walk into a court and say the United States doesn't own federal land because federal land is public land held in the public trust which is completely nonsense argument. The United States is the public trust and they do own the land. Their entire view of state's rights makes 0 sense even from the perspective of really conservative judges (who are the ones who decided both those cases).
Their argument boils down to the US Government doesn't own the land because it's not the US Government.
Government by the people for the people.
If the government owns the land for the people, and on behalf of the people. Then the people own the land.
Interesting thought eh
Right, but people need to pay to use the land because by using it, it means that the other people who own it cannot.
LordofHats wrote: Or we can accept that for someone talking about consitutionallity, GM is a moron.
What Bundy and Gardner tried to do was walk into a court and say the United States doesn't own federal land because federal land is public land held in the public trust which is completely nonsense argument. The United States is the public trust and they do own the land. Their entire view of state's rights makes 0 sense even from the perspective of really conservative judges (who are the ones who decided both those cases).
Their argument boils down to the US Government doesn't own the land because it's not the US Government.
Government by the people for the people.
If the government owns the land for the people, and on behalf of the people. Then the people own the land.
Interesting thought eh
That theory was proven wrong the first time somebody tried to walk on a military base because he wanted to drive the tank he owns because he is "the people".
LordofHats wrote: Or we can accept that for someone talking about consitutionallity, GM is a moron.
What Bundy and Gardner tried to do was walk into a court and say the United States doesn't own federal land because federal land is public land held in the public trust which is completely nonsense argument. The United States is the public trust and they do own the land. Their entire view of state's rights makes 0 sense even from the perspective of really conservative judges (who are the ones who decided both those cases).
Their argument boils down to the US Government doesn't own the land because it's not the US Government.
Government by the people for the people.
If the government owns the land for the people, and on behalf of the people. Then the people own the land.
Interesting thought eh
Right, but people need to pay to use the land because by using it, it means that the other people who own it cannot.
He was running cattle on it, not dumping radioactive waste.
Yeah, that's what a public trust is. The US government manages that land for use. Bundy refused to abide by the laws that the government i.e. the people, established as necessary for using that land.
Of course, this just goes back to my point. Bundy failed Civics and tried to argue the US government isn't the US government.
LordofHats wrote: Or we can accept that for someone talking about consitutionallity, GM is a moron.
What Bundy and Gardner tried to do was walk into a court and say the United States doesn't own federal land because federal land is public land held in the public trust which is completely nonsense argument. The United States is the public trust and they do own the land. Their entire view of state's rights makes 0 sense even from the perspective of really conservative judges (who are the ones who decided both those cases).
Their argument boils down to the US Government doesn't own the land because it's not the US Government.
Government by the people for the people. If the government owns the land for the people, and on behalf of the people. Then the people own the land.
Interesting thought eh
Right, but people need to pay to use the land because by using it, it means that the other people who own it cannot.
He was running cattle on it, not dumping radioactive waste.
Point still stands, especially with his cattle. With his cattle on that land, other ranchers couldn't use it.
Some Nevada Specific Histories of Federal Land Ownership from the previous document:
The Sagebrush Rebellion was a collection of efforts to force the federal
government to divest itself of federal lands. These efforts took the form of state and
local legislation, court challenges, federal administrative changes, and efforts at
federal legislation. The target was usually BLM lands, but sometimes included
national forests. These efforts failed for a number of reasons. A fundamental
obstacle was that Nevada, and other states, agreed as a condition of statehood to
disclaim forever “all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within
said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition
of the United States.”42 This language was part of the enabling act creating the states
and was incorporated into their constitutions; therefore the state laws asserting title
to those federal lands appeared to contravene their own constitutions.43 At any rate,
the state laws were not enforced.44 The rebellion was more effective as a political
movement than a legislative one
On the symbolic date of July 4, 1993, Nye County (NV) took action on federal
lands, using a bulldozer to open closed roads, based on the assertion that Nevada held
title to the lands. The United States filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that it
owned and had authority to manage the disputed lands within Nye County and that
the county resolution regarding roads and right of way was invalid. The United
States prevailed in federal court.50
whembly wrote: There's a distinct possibility that this'll go to the SC. Not that it'll help Bundy though...
No way. Those lazy bastards love nothing more then to punt when it's controversial, unless they absolutely can't get out of it.
Lazy basterds?!??!
You.
Do.
Have.
A.
Point.
I'm trying to find if a petition has been submitted yet.
Maybe Chief Justice will find a tax somewhere in there...
I fail to see what his views on any subject other than public land and his ranch have to do with anything, other than as a smear tactic in attempt to deflect the issue.
Yeah, he could have tried to pay the fees, and reduced his herd by 90% as BLM demanded, and then he would be out of business like the 72 other ranchers who used to graze on these lands. And we wouldn’t have heard any more about him than we did about them, would we?
The point is, that’s open range that isn’t being used for anything. BLM’s only real interest in the area at all is their statutory obligation to humanely manage the wild mustangs/turtles/whathaveyous, but they don’t do that because they say they don’t have the funding (but calling up a small army is in the budget, apparently).
Cattle pose no threat to tortoises or other small creatures. They don’t harm the land. They graze... and leave some fertilizer for future grass to grow. That’s it. In effect, they cut the grass on land the government doesn’t use.
Public land does not “belong” to the government. It is OURS, and the government is supposed to managed it for our benefit, NOT to appease environmental wackos or benefit deep pocket political investors.
First they came for Bundy, and "the public" spoke up and stopped them (for now).
Then folks labelled him “racist,” and look what we're discussing now.
It ain't the use of public land or BLM's tactics anymore.
*shrug*
Par for the course?
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: Just read d's last post.
whembly wrote: There's a distinct possibility that this'll go to the SC. Not that it'll help Bundy though...
No way. Those lazy bastards love nothing more then to punt when it's controversial, unless they absolutely can't get out of it.
Lazy basterds?!??!
You.
Do.
Have.
A.
Point.
I'm trying to find if a petition has been submitted yet.
Maybe Chief Justice will find a tax somewhere in there...
I fail to see what his views on any subject other than public land and his ranch have to do with anything, other than as a smear tactic in attempt to deflect the issue.
Yeah, he could have tried to pay the fees, and reduced his herd by 90% as BLM demanded, and then he would be out of business like the 72 other ranchers who used to graze on these lands. And we wouldn’t have heard any more about him than we did about them, would we?
The point is, that’s open range that isn’t being used for anything. BLM’s only real interest in the area at all is their statutory obligation to humanely manage the wild mustangs/turtles/whathaveyous, but they don’t do that because they say they don’t have the funding (but calling up a small army is in the budget, apparently).
Cattle pose no threat to tortoises or other small creatures. They don’t harm the land. They graze... and leave some fertilizer for future grass to grow. That’s it. In effect, they cut the grass on land the government doesn’t use.
Public land does not “belong” to the government. It is OURS, and the government is supposed to managed it for our benefit, NOT to appease environmental wackos or benefit deep pocket political investors.
First they came for Bundy, and "the public" spoke up and stopped them (for now).
Then folks labelled him “racist,” and look what we're discussing now.
It ain't the use of public land or BLM's tactics anymore.
*shrug*
Par for the course?
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: Just read d's last post.
That's pretty damning...
Good find!
I see words I have not seen on dakka before is the swear filter working ????
whembly wrote: There's a distinct possibility that this'll go to the SC. Not that it'll help Bundy though...
No way. Those lazy bastards love nothing more then to punt when it's controversial, unless they absolutely can't get out of it.
Lazy basterds?!??!
You.
Do.
Have.
A.
Point.
I'm trying to find if a petition has been submitted yet.
Maybe Chief Justice will find a tax somewhere in there...
I fail to see what his views on any subject other than public land and his ranch have to do with anything, other than as a smear tactic in attempt to deflect the issue.
Yeah, he could have tried to pay the fees, and reduced his herd by 90% as BLM demanded, and then he would be out of business like the 72 other ranchers who used to graze on these lands. And we wouldn’t have heard any more about him than we did about them, would we?
The point is, that’s open range that isn’t being used for anything. BLM’s only real interest in the area at all is their statutory obligation to humanely manage the wild mustangs/turtles/whathaveyous, but they don’t do that because they say they don’t have the funding (but calling up a small army is in the budget, apparently).
Cattle pose no threat to tortoises or other small creatures. They don’t harm the land. They graze... and leave some fertilizer for future grass to grow. That’s it. In effect, they cut the grass on land the government doesn’t use.
Public land does not “belong” to the government. It is OURS, and the government is supposed to managed it for our benefit, NOT to appease environmental wackos or benefit deep pocket political investors.
First they came for Bundy, and "the public" spoke up and stopped them (for now).
Then folks labelled him “racist,” and look what we're discussing now.
It ain't the use of public land or BLM's tactics anymore.
*shrug*
Par for the course?
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: Just read d's last post.
That's pretty damning...
Good find!
I see words I have not seen on dakka before is the swear filter working ????
whembly wrote: There's a distinct possibility that this'll go to the SC. Not that it'll help Bundy though...
No way. Those lazy bastards love nothing more then to punt when it's controversial, unless they absolutely can't get out of it.
Lazy basterds?!??!
You.
Do.
Have.
A.
Point.
I'm trying to find if a petition has been submitted yet.
Maybe Chief Justice will find a tax somewhere in there...
I fail to see what his views on any subject other than public land and his ranch have to do with anything, other than as a smear tactic in attempt to deflect the issue.
Yeah, he could have tried to pay the fees, and reduced his herd by 90% as BLM demanded, and then he would be out of business like the 72 other ranchers who used to graze on these lands. And we wouldn’t have heard any more about him than we did about them, would we?
The point is, that’s open range that isn’t being used for anything. BLM’s only real interest in the area at all is their statutory obligation to humanely manage the wild mustangs/turtles/whathaveyous, but they don’t do that because they say they don’t have the funding (but calling up a small army is in the budget, apparently).
Cattle pose no threat to tortoises or other small creatures. They don’t harm the land. They graze... and leave some fertilizer for future grass to grow. That’s it. In effect, they cut the grass on land the government doesn’t use.
Public land does not “belong” to the government. It is OURS, and the government is supposed to managed it for our benefit, NOT to appease environmental wackos or benefit deep pocket political investors.
First they came for Bundy, and "the public" spoke up and stopped them (for now).
Then folks labelled him “racist,” and look what we're discussing now.
It ain't the use of public land or BLM's tactics anymore.
*shrug*
Par for the course?
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: Just read d's last post.
That's pretty damning...
Good find!
I see words I have not seen on dakka before is the swear filter working ????
What word?
o.O
PM me it... I'll fix it.
Bastards, I assume.
Also people are calling him racist because he is. It's not some elaborate plot to change the subject.
Well, it appears that imprisonment, slavery, rape, and abuse is preferable to a life of freedom because some old guy thinks that they should have learned to pick cotton...
d-usa wrote: Well, it appears that imprisonment, slavery, rape, and abuse is preferable to a life of freedom because some old guy thinks that they should have learned to pick cotton...
d-usa wrote: Idiots like these guys do more damage to gun rights than any liberal politician could every hope to do.
Yep. Said as much in the last thread.
This is not going to be a victory for conservatives. When the dust settles they're going to come out of it with a lot of broken eggs on their faces.
I fail to see what his views on any subject other than public land and his ranch have to do with anything, other than as a smear tactic in attempt to deflect the issue.
Any attempt to set aside the fact he's a nutjob is an attempt to deflect the issue. None of this would have happened absent a crazy Nevada Rancher.
Yeah, he could have tried to pay the fees, and reduced his herd by 90% as BLM demanded, and then he would be out of business like the 72 other ranchers who used to graze on these lands. And we wouldn’t have heard any more about him than we did about them, would we?
They demanded 90% of his herd because the herd was too large under regulation and out of control.
BLM isn't putting the ranchers in Nevada out of business. Major food manufactures who have found cheaper ways than free grazing are putting them out of business (a lot of them are in China btw). Family run ranches and farms across the world are being obliterated because they can't compete. This not news.
They don’t harm the land
You might want to look up why BLM was created in the first place. Also the Dust Bowl and miniature wars between cattle barons. There's a reason open range grazing was put under regulation.
Public land does not “belong” to the government. It is OURS, and the government is supposed to managed it for our benefit, NOT to appease environmental wackos or benefit deep pocket political investors.
Read the Preamble damn it; "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The federal government is not an alien that just popped one day and started telling all the free people what to do. The government is established by the people to protect their interests and manage the public trust. Federal lands are public lands and the United States government in our interests does own them. Those environmental wackos are US citizens too. The government isn't beholden to just the things that matter to you and me (I don't really care about turtles either, bunnies are cuter in cups). Bundy is attempting to steal public land, but because he's not the government that's a-okay I guess.
Thought it was the Separatist Militia groups. I haven't heard of any Conservatives or Tea Party group backing him. Under the impression it was against BLM handling the situation
U.S. Sen. Dean Heller
“What Sen. Reid may call domestic terrorists, I call patriots,”
handler Smith, a spokesman for Heller, said the congressman “completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way.”
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott
I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations," Abbott wrote in a letter to the BLM this week. The letter echoed Bundy's language, as he argued his family has also owned the land for generations.
Laura Bean, Abbott's spokeswoman, told the Times that the letter “was regarding a dispute in Texas and is in no way related to the dispute in Nevada.”
He screwed the Pooch there
Nevada State Assemblywoman Michele Fiore
ayes spoke with Fiore over video, as she was attending the Bundy ranch barbecue. She stopped short of saying that she agreed with Bundy in not recognizing the authority of the federal government, but questioned the heavy handedness of the BLM. "I'm not saying I agree with Cliven Bundy, what I'm saying is, the way this was handled was really suspicious." Fiore doesn't believe Bundy owes the government $1 million in unpaid grazing fees — it's probably closer to a couple hundred thousand.
Fiore said Bundy "has said things I don’t agree with," but "we cannot let this divert our attention from the true issue of the atrocities BLM committed by harming our public land and the animals living on it.")
Lady, we run over desert tortoise's in Cali at NTC every month..in tanks and armored vehicles.
U.S. Sen. Rand Paul
Paul focused more on the policy issue. "There is a legitimate constitutional question here about whether the state should be in charge of endangered species or whether the federal government should be," Paul told Fox News earlier this week. "But I don't think name calling is going to calm this down," he added, referring to Reid's "domestic terrorists" remark.
“His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him,” Paul said in a statement.)
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz
Ted Cruz called the Bundy standoff the "the unfortunate and tragic culmination of the path that President Obama has set the federal government on.” He added that the reason he believed the story was "resonating" was that the Obama administration has put American liberty "under assault...we have seen our constitutional liberties eroded under the Obama administration."
Cruz's Press Secretary Catherine Frazier said of Bundy's remarks, "Those comments are completely unacceptable.”
IRS, NSA, name a few I see where he is coming from
Texas Governor Rick Perry ,
Perry gave a mild defense of the broader issues driving the Bundy standoff: "I have a problem with the federal government putting citizens in the position of having to feel like they have to use force to deal with their own government," he told Fox News.
In response to a question from CBS This Morning on the remarks, Perry said, "I don't know what he said, but the fact is Clyde (sic) Bundy is a side issue here compared to what we're looking at in the state of Texas. He is an individual. Deal with his issues as you may. "
Nice
2012 Presidential Hopeful Herman Cain
Cain sympathized with Bundy, because the government was trying to intimidate him. "The complicated nature of the law is a huge problem here, as it is when we deal with things like tax law," Cain wrote on his website last week. "That’s why I have sympathy for Mr. Bundy. His issue with the BLM reminds me of one I had 20 years ago with the IRS."
Ouch...IRS battle is a up hill fight
Thought the Tea Party peeps are "fight" against democrats and the republicans.
Though I have notice Tea Party groups are called Racist
Ted Cruz
Marco Rubio
Gov. Jindal
Ben Carson
Alan Keyes
Herman Caine
David Cohen (Freaking Samoan descent of all things I never knew that)
Must be traitors to their ethnicity
Conservatives are old angry white men
Colin Powell
Condolezza Rice
Allen West
Good thing I don't hold anything against Senate Democrats for having a former Senator of KKK ties.
Hey it's not the Repubs fault that LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act. I mean, where else are the racists going to go if they cant be Democrats anymore
She stopped short of saying that she agreed with Bundy in not recognizing the authority of the federal government, but questioned the heavy handedness of the BLM. "I'm not saying I agree with Cliven Bundy, what I'm saying is, the way this was handled was really suspicious."
I just love this kind of BS. "I don't agree with him, but I don't agree with BLM enforcing the laws of the United States with a court order either." WTF does she agree with? The statement's an oxymoron. The kind of pedantic pandering that turns political discourse into nonsense statements that contradict themselves.
I saw her on Hannity. Let's say she was "lost in the sauce" mode.
I don't care who you are, what party you are, and what manner you are. If your going to make a hard line stance. Fer Gawdsake do everyone a favor and know the issue 20 ways to Sunday
What gets me with Harry Reid making the Domestic Terrorist comment. POTUS Bush/Obama was using drone strikes to kill "American" AQ members.
whembly wrote: Yeah, he could have tried to pay the fees, and reduced his herd by 90% as BLM demanded, and then he would be out of business like the 72 other ranchers who used to graze on these lands. And we wouldn’t have heard any more about him than we did about them, would we?
Well then too bad for him. You don't get to break the law just because it would hurt your business if you don't. Don't like it? Don't invest your life in a business that requires illegal activity to be profitable.
The point is, that’s open range that isn’t being used for anything.
Remind me again what the legal justification for "if I don't think you're using your property effectively enough I can come take it for myself" is?
The fight involves a 600,000-acre area under BLM control called Gold Butte, near the Utah border. The is the habitat of the protected desert tortoise, and the land has been off-limits for cattle since 1998.
Five years before that, when grazing was legal, Bundy stopped paying federal fees for the right. 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.
"Years ago, I used to have 52 neighboring ranchers," he said. "I'm the last man standing. How come? Because BLM regulated these people off the land and out of business."
Nevada, where various federal agencies manage or control more than 80 percent of the land, is among several Western states where ranchers have challenged federal land ownership.
LordofHats wrote: Even if he was right, "I was here first" is one of the worst arguments in the book.
I was more engaged buy the remarks about 1st amendment zones. HOW IF YOU STAND HERE YOU CAN PROTEST, but if you stand there you have no rights to speak so be quiet. What a stupid concept. Also watched another video where BLM was threatening to arrest police officers. lol.
I was more engaged buy the remarks about 1st amendment zones.
1st Amendment Zones were ruled Constitutional, which shouldn't surprise anyone as the government has always had the power to limit the right to protest (hence why you usually get permits to do it).
whembly wrote: Yeah, he could have tried to pay the fees, and reduced his herd by 90% as BLM demanded, and then he would be out of business like the 72 other ranchers who used to graze on these lands. And we wouldn’t have heard any more about him than we did about them, would we?
What do you think should happen when you lease land for a purpose, and then the owner doesn't want to continue leasing you that land for that purpose?
Cattle pose no threat to tortoises or other small creatures. They don’t harm the land. They graze... and leave some fertilizer for future grass to grow. That’s it. In effect, they cut the grass on land the government doesn’t use.
Cattle, being large creatures with hard hooves that move in a pack have a massive impact on land they move through. They trample young desert tortoises and crush burrows, and out compete tortoises for food. The impact isn't something people are just making up for fun. You think the bureaucrats in the BLM want to spend their days dealing with Bundy?
Public land does not “belong” to the government. It is OURS, and the government is supposed to managed it for our benefit, NOT to appease environmental wackos or benefit deep pocket political investors.
Sure, and because government is a human and therefore imperfect institution, sometimes the best decision is missed in favour of the decision made by the loudest or best connected special interest.
But the answer to that isn't to start pretending that government is no longer able to decide how federal land is to be used.
First they came for Bundy, and "the public" spoke up and stopped them (for now).
They didn't 'come' for Bundy. They ground this through the courts as the guy argued his case ineffectually for decades, losing every single time. And when after all that had played out and the guy still wouldn't comply with the law, they took action.
Then folks labelled him “racist,” and look what we're discussing now.
He said racist things. Its only sensible that people who say racist things get called racist. I mean, should we just pretend he didn't say what he said?
What's interesting is that so many conservatives were willing to stand by this guy when he said crazy nonsense about government and BLM, but when he said crazy racist things they all backed off real quick. It's interesting how someone can embrace and touch on all kinds of crazy, but racism is an absolute no-no.
I was more engaged buy the remarks about 1st amendment zones.
1st Amendment Zones were ruled Constitutional, which shouldn't surprise anyone as the government has always had the power to limit the right to protest (hence why you usually get permits to do it).
Doesn't needing a permit, and only been able to speak your mind in certain places. Nullify the first amendment.
Freedom of speech, does not mean freedom to speak where and when we say so.
I,m sure the founding fathers meant free to speak anywhere in the country.
loki old fart wrote: Doesn't needing a permit, and only been able to speak your mind in certain places. Nullify the first amendment.
That's really not a black & white, yes or no question.
First, the freedom to speak is not absolute. We all know that, you and I both. Our country would be literally unworkable if every speech was completely protected. The usual example is that you are not free to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. So, use that as a baseline to establish that yes, the government can restrain you speech in principle, and we go from there.
It also can restrain you when your words are likely to cause a clear and present danger to the public. This ranges from the extreme (inciting a riot) to the mundane (disorderly conduct for screaming obscenities at 3am).
So, permitting. You have to balance out the rights of the people to speak to their government at a large rally, vs the compelling rights of the government to have peace and productivity - for example, not shutting down a major bridge, or rallying inside the Pentagon or whatever. The test is that it has to be reasonable. Usually it is, often it's totally bogus - either there is a large fee for the permit, or it gets shot down with little or no reason or appeal. However, the principle is sound.
I generally agree with you that free speech zones are garbage. However, I also recognize a compelling government need to perform lawful work unimpeded by protesters. Let me repeat that word - unimpeded. Not unseen, hidden away in some bs "first amendment zone" jail.
I don't know if their first amendment rights to redress their government with grievances was unfairly suppressed here. Prior experience allows me to speculate and say "probably". This is the sole argument from the Bundy crowd where I can likely find common ground.
The fascinating thing is that if they hadn't gotten physical, had gotten more eyeballs on what was going on, and had peacefully protested with civil disobedience; they probably could have won significantly more support from a wider slice of America. I suspect a great many liberals immediately bristle at the phrase "free speech zone", remembering how they were deployed previously.
Not that his case would have been any more righteous, I mean at the end of the day he's still essentially stealing government resources predicated on deciding that America doesn't actually exist and that's a hard tune to dance to. But it would be a much different narrative.
Frankly, I think the proper things to have done would have been in, in this order:
1.) Anyone who impeded the roundup should have been arrested for obstructing justice. I'm talking about you, ATV guy, and anyone else who touched a law enforcement officer.
2.) Anyone who unholstered or unslung a firearm should have been charged with brandishing and/or menacing, as local statute dictates.
3.) If the crowd was heavily armed, and impeding the roundup, the governor should have deployed the national guard to keep the peace.
4.) If the governor refuses to do so, the federal government should deploy the US Army to keep the peace, pursuant to the Insurrection Act. But oh man, it would have needed to have gone a lot farther than it did for this to have happened. I mean, riot-level violence. And if that had happened, I can't imagine the governor would refuse to do so.
The least desirable outcome would have been surrendering the rule of law in the face of extremism, as of course was actually chosen. "These colors don't run", unless it's politically expedient, I guess. Well, as Breotan noted, it's a election year, and no one wants a Waco right before the midterms.
BUNKERVILLE, Nevada -- At the Bundy camp last week, pundits and politicians descended on Bunkerville, Nevada, to throw in their American flag hats with the BLM protestors. A FOX news van had been parked by the side of the road for days. Up on the ridge, militia snipers kept a trained watch as Bundy held court, and disciples from far and wide came to share their personal theories as to why the government was enforcing a court order.
But on Thursday, we witnessed a mainstream exodus from Bundy’s flank. Sean Hannity, Bundy’s biggest booster, called his racist remarks “beyond despicable,” but maintained that they should not taint the supporters who “for the right reasons saw this case as government overreach.”
Exactly how difficult was it, though, to determine pretty early on that Bundy and his followers were using the threat of force to back up some terrifyingly misguided beliefs?
During the few hours I visited last week, this was what was said.
In the background, a singer with an American-flag guitar warms up the stage with a raspy hollering he explains as Tibetan throat singing. Suddenly noticing a man off to the side shaking maracas, he stops and grips the mic:
"Is there really a black man in the house?” A lone “whoo” goes up from the folding chairs. "You’re with the media, right?” The cameraman nods, and the singer returns his focus to the folding chairs. “So, are we racists here today? That’s how they’re trying to spin this one — this is good. Channel 13 came at me the other day — a cute little blonde, of course. They sent her at me, y’know, go get the story! Go get the radical…” The generator cuts out, silencing the mic, and the story about how he isn’t a racist is lost.
A militia member with the group Oath Keepers named Mark, who drove in from out of state by way of Zion National Park (“which was absolutely beautiful — you should go”), offers to explain to me the truth behind public land management.
“The assumption is that the BLM is part of the federal government. But we need to check the facts on that one. The BLM doesn’t work for the government: they work for the United Nations. They might as well be wearing blue helmets. If we find out there’s money being exchanged between Harry Reid and the Chinese government, no one should be surprised.”
A self-trained lawyer tells me the same. He adds that Bar-certified lawyers, like the ones who prosecuted Bundy, have sworn loyalty to the British government, whose statutes encourage sex with clients. “That’s what they do with all their clients.”
It’s dizzying and hot at the camp, and a very friendly man named Roy, wearing an Obama t-shirt with a joker smile painted on, hands me a cold bottle. He's from nearby Mesquite and has been a close friend and supporter of Bundy's these last few years. When I tell him I’m from New Mexico, the former cop says he has a very good buddy who used to work as a sheriff in my area.
“He got in a bit of trouble,” he chuckles. “He pulled over a carload of illegals one night, didn’t have room to haul ‘em all, so he put a chain around their neck and put a padlock through it, went to the next one, then he chained ‘em to a tree!”
He buckles with laughter as the story heats up. “Then he left ‘em and went to town to get his pickup to haul ‘em all back in. So, you might imagine, that didn’t play well — ha! You’re a young’un, but everything wasn’t against the law, way back when.”
He says it's now being proved that the BLM acted on orders from Troy and Harry Reid, who want to build a solar farm on the land — or a wind farm, he says. He recommends that I look up a Fox News segment that explains how the government is trying to put people out of work, “’Enemy of the State’, it’s called.”
Soon enough, a handful of junior politicians and the Bundy family are ushered on stage with a full compliment of assault-weaponed militia and a man with binoculars.
The crowd, fresh off their victory at the Battle of Bunkerville, gives Bundy a standing ovation. But he doesn’t seem pleased. He reproaches the crowd for failing to follow the word of God – to the letter – which he says is being delivered through him. They failed, for example, to follow his instructions to tear down the toll booths at Lake Mead and disarm the Park Service.
"The message I gave to you all was a revelation that I received. And yet not one of you can seem to even quote it.”
Cliven continues, sermon-like: "The records of our bible — how long have they been kept? Thousands of years. They’ve been turned over generation after generation, buried, and all kinds of things happen to ‘em. And yet, here, something I felt was inspired [by God] and yet we haven’t even carried it forth for even a couple of days. Shame on us.” Smattering of clapping.
He goes on to explain that, although they managed to deter the BLM, they failed to do it "within one hour," as the revelation had prophesied. So when an hour passes, he decides to get in his bulldozer and march on the BLM himself. The dozer gets stuck in the mud and he receives another revelation.
“It come to my mind real plain — the good Lord said, ‘Bundy, it’s not your job, it’s THEIR job.’ So we come back over here and heard that they had brought some cattle back. So I want you to understand,” addressing the crowd, "This is not my job, it’s YOUR job.
"This morning, I said a prayer, and this is what I received. I heard a voice say, 'Sheriff Gillespie, your work is not done. Every sheriff across the United States, take the guns away from the United States bureaucrats.’” Lots of clapping for this.
Bundy goes on for a good while and militia members are forced to leave their chairs to walk around and get water.
A former Arizona sheriff turned Texas political candidate, Richard Mack, speaks next.
“I don’t believe the BLM has any authority whatsoever — they have no law enforcement authority in Clark County.” In conclusion he yells into the microphone, “(William Wallace!) FREEEDOOOOOM!"
After the speeches, Nevada Assemblywoman Michelle Fiore steps off the stage. Wearing a diamond-studded pistol pendant, she raises her eyebrows in the direction of a shadowy government operation. "When you really look at this, it’s not about the environmental stuff — it’s a lot deeper than what’s coming out in the media.”
In the downtime, a group of men laments the way the world has changed. Obama, a Muslim Kenyan, doesn't let kids say the pledge in school anymore. Steve, from Beaver, Utah, says it’s all down to regulation and changes that happened during Vietnam. “I want it to be like it was growing up in the fifties. I want it to be just like that — for [the kids]. Though it can’t be just like that, because they have the internet.”
"That's what's wrong: the Internet," agrees another.
Behind us, an older man, whose face is cut up from tumbling down a hill during the protest, gets into his beige sedan to leave. It's covered in lettering:
IF YOU WERE BORN IN 1980 AND AFTER. YOU MAY BE IMPLANTED WITH A GOVERNMENT MICROCHIP WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE: GOOGLE DOCTORS THAT REMOVE MICROCHIPS.
"Google MKUltra,” he says cryptically, “Then you’ll find what I’m about.”
Before leaving the Bunkerville trenches, I watch Sean Hannity's Bundy segment that aired the day before the militias took up arms against the BLM. Hannity mistakenly asserts that the federal government is trying to kick him off state land — and then he says something that only makes sense in the context of the Bundy camp.
“I’m worried about the lies that are told to us about the NSA, about the IRS, about what happened in Benghazi, and the lies that sold healthcare. I’m frankly concerned that the government is making a deal over,” he says as he tacks to the center. “I don’t know why they’re taking a stand here. Has anyone given you any information why?”
Welfare negroes, the United Nations, sexually devious lawyers, satan, a Chinese solar farm, microchips, secret-agent NPS, a Muslim-Kenyan president, hippies, illegals. Take your pick.
A self-trained lawyer tells me the same. He adds that Bar-certified lawyers, like the ones who prosecuted Bundy, have sworn loyalty to the British government, whose statutes encourage sex with clients. “That’s what they do with all their clients.”
No, when we saw we got fethed by our lawyer, that's not what we mean.
Steve, from Beaver, Utah, says it’s all down to regulation and changes that happened during Vietnam. “I want it to be like it was growing up in the fifties. I want it to be just like that — for [the kids].
.. well ... least Putin's doing his part ! What are you doing to bring about once again the impending threat of nuclear annihilation huh ?!?
4.) If the governor refuses to do so, the federal government should deploy the US Army to keep the peace, pursuant to the Insurrection Act. But oh man, it would have needed to have gone a lot farther than it did for this to have happened. I mean, riot-level violence. And if that had happened, I can't imagine the governor would refuse to do so.
Well...um....HELL NO.....not only Hell no but HELL F'ing NO...
Combat Troops, DESERT, Visible Weapons around in DESERT, and live ammo....reliving a combat deployment scenario
One idiot on the protester side squeezing a round...or a Park Ranger squeezing one off
Combat mode kicks in. Protesters zip cuff, Park Rangers bundle to the side, K9 unit secured back in trucks, and shooter(s) neutralized. Only one side will matter and that's the Army.
4.) If the governor refuses to do so, the federal government should deploy the US Army to keep the peace, pursuant to the Insurrection Act. But oh man, it would have needed to have gone a lot farther than it did for this to have happened. I mean, riot-level violence. And if that had happened, I can't imagine the governor would refuse to do so.
Thats illegal.
Its impressive that you want to start a massacre over what is effectively a civil dispute about rental fees that is potentially driven by a crony contract with Reid's kid.
d-usa wrote: It's a completely irrelevant distraction since Bundy has zero claim to the land and has not paid his bills.
Its not actually.
Reid's kid arranged a sweetheart land deal for a Chinese investor on the order of tens of millions of dollars. That investment would impact the turtle, so they need land to offset and mitigate the enviro impact. Guess where the land is...
Again, BLM did the smart thing. Getting into a gun battle over rental fees is an impressively stupid idea when there are other ways to handle it. In most areas, dare I say even Texas, you can't shut up your opposition because they aren't paying rent. Maybe in California. When Frazzled is saying the Obama adminstration/federal government did somethign right then you know the world has gotten weird.
Now there's news that Toyota is moving its headquarters from California to Dallas. Lock and Load boys, the Zombies er Californians have breached the Austin Quarantine Zone!
Poor Texas, so far from God, so overwhelmed by Californians...
d-usa wrote: It's a completely irrelevant distraction since Bundy has zero claim to the land and has not paid his bills.
Its not actually.
Reid's kid arranged a sweetheart land deal for a Chinese investor on the order of tens of millions of dollars. That investment would impact the turtle, so they need land to offset and mitigate the enviro impact. Guess where the land is...
Did the Chinese steal Bundy's check for the grazing fees?
Perhaps that's what has spurred it on, but it hardly makes it particularly corrupt or sinister.
Bundy has had more than a fair chance to prove it's his land, which he hasn't. Time for him to give it back, well more accurately and to use a phrase well worn... get off the BLMs lawn.
d-usa wrote: It's a completely irrelevant distraction since Bundy has zero claim to the land and has not paid his bills.
Its not actually.
Reid's kid arranged a sweetheart land deal for a Chinese investor on the order of tens of millions of dollars. That investment would impact the turtle, so they need land to offset and mitigate the enviro impact. Guess where the land is...
Again, BLM did the smart thing. Getting into a gun battle over rental fees is an impressively stupid idea when there are other ways to handle it. In most areas, dare I say even Texas, you can't shut up your opposition because they aren't paying rent. Maybe in California. When Frazzled is saying the Obama adminstration/federal government did somethign right then you know the world has gotten weird.
Now there's news that Toyota is moving its headquarters from California to Dallas. Lock and Load boys, the Zombies er Californians have breached the Austin Quarantine Zone!
Poor Texas, so far from God, so overwhelmed by Californians...
Is there any news on the BLM and the Texas ranchers along the Red River? It would be interesting to see what is going on with that and what the local news says.
4.) If the governor refuses to do so, the federal government should deploy the US Army to keep the peace, pursuant to the Insurrection Act. But oh man, it would have needed to have gone a lot farther than it did for this to have happened. I mean, riot-level violence. And if that had happened, I can't imagine the governor would refuse to do so.
Thats illegal.
No, you're wrong. It's totally legal, and in fact we deployed troops in Los Angeles in 1992 during the riots when the local law enforcement was unable to restore order, a situation which seems somewhat similar to this, in that, law enforcement is pulling out because they feel unsafe.
Frazzled wrote: Its impressive that you want to start a massacre over what is effectively a civil dispute about rental fees that is potentially driven by a crony contract with Reid's kid.
Don't make up gak I didn't say and pretend that's what I said. I said they should go to keep the peace.
Frazzled wrote: Reid's kid arranged a sweetheart land deal for a Chinese investor on the order of tens of millions of dollars. That investment would impact the turtle, so they need land to offset and mitigate the enviro impact. Guess where the land is...
1.) Unless it's two decades ago, it's irrelevant
2.) The grazing area is in the little Florida shaped area under the protest site.
And of course, there is this. It's also on Snopes. The whole Harry Reid angle is just, 110%, made up bs that even 20 seconds of cursory googling shows.
Please, tell me more. Because, I know there are all these pesky facts, but, BLM.
Well, to me there is not even any reason to debate he validity of it since it has nothing to do with Bundy not having an claim and not paying his bills.
d-usa wrote: It's a completely irrelevant distraction since Bundy has zero claim to the land and has not paid his bills.
Its not actually.
Reid's kid arranged a sweetheart land deal for a Chinese investor on the order of tens of millions of dollars. That investment would impact the turtle, so they need land to offset and mitigate the enviro impact. Guess where the land is...
Did the Chinese steal Bundy's check for the grazing fees?
If they didn't then it doesn't matter.
It does if thats why the BLM started pushing so hard all of a sudden.
Again the use of gunmen to settle a rental agreement, while the subject of men chopsaki classics, is not typically how you handle that in a civilized society.
The guy does have a point in that the federal government is selectivly picking which laws on the books to enforce.
Just to reiterate from earlier posts, I think both sides are wrong, but I think the greater blame is on the side of the BLM in the incompetent way they handled this. About the only intelligent thing they did was to withdraw before shots were fired.
They certainly alienated most of the people there with the over the top methods they used.
On side note is the fact that not far from Laughlin is a small ghosttown in Arizona called Oatman, where wild burros roam the street in fair sized herds.
Took my family there and the kids loved it. If ever you go make sure you buy a big bag of carrots. We did and the critters followed us all over the place
I had a five pound bag of carrots and people were offering to buy theem at a buck each so they could feed the burros. I didn't have the heart to take advantage, so I just gave them out. On this particular visit to my sister, we stayed in Laughlin at a casino and were swimming at night in the rooftop pool that we had to ourselves, since it was off season, explored all over Hoover Dam and had a general great time. After that we went back to Overton and hiked all over the desert and target shot with bb guns for a couple days, coming back at night to my sister's place.
It is actually quite an incredible area.
This is extremely close, and we always go all through this place as well as check out the museum at the end of town:
d-usa wrote: It's a completely irrelevant distraction since Bundy has zero claim to the land and has not paid his bills.
Its not actually.
Reid's kid arranged a sweetheart land deal for a Chinese investor on the order of tens of millions of dollars. That investment would impact the turtle, so they need land to offset and mitigate the enviro impact. Guess where the land is...
Did the Chinese steal Bundy's check for the grazing fees?
If they didn't then it doesn't matter.
It does matter if thats whats driving the urgency on this and the whole Reid ":they're domestic terrorists!!! But that got who shouted ALLAH AKBAR and shot all the troops at Fort Hood, thats just workplace violence."
I'll restate, bringing in riflemen to settle your rent bill is generally illegal to anyone else. The BLM did a good thing in backing off and cooling the situation. THIS IS WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE AT WACO.
d-usa wrote: It's a completely irrelevant distraction since Bundy has zero claim to the land and has not paid his bills.
Its not actually.
Reid's kid arranged a sweetheart land deal for a Chinese investor on the order of tens of millions of dollars. That investment would impact the turtle, so they need land to offset and mitigate the enviro impact. Guess where the land is...
Again, BLM did the smart thing. Getting into a gun battle over rental fees is an impressively stupid idea when there are other ways to handle it. In most areas, dare I say even Texas, you can't shut up your opposition because they aren't paying rent. Maybe in California. When Frazzled is saying the Obama adminstration/federal government did somethign right then you know the world has gotten weird.
Now there's news that Toyota is moving its headquarters from California to Dallas. Lock and Load boys, the Zombies er Californians have breached the Austin Quarantine Zone!
Poor Texas, so far from God, so overwhelmed by Californians...
Is there any news on the BLM and the Texas ranchers along the Red River? It would be interesting to see what is going on with that and what the local news says.
Abbott has sent official letters. Senator Cornyn has sent official letters. I think there will be major lawsuite if its tried. This is actually owned land and at best it would be Okie state land. The BLM is claim jumping no matter how you look at it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: You don't send in gunmen to handle trespassing cattle.
You send in gunmen to handle the idiot militia that brought guns to a steak fight.
NO. you back and let the situation settle down, and put a lien on all his property so he can't sell .
if he actually did something illegal you bust him at the local diner.
LordofHats wrote: Even if he was right, "I was here first" is one of the worst arguments in the book.
I was more engaged buy the remarks about 1st amendment zones. HOW IF YOU STAND HERE YOU CAN PROTEST, but if you stand there you have no rights to speak so be quiet. What a stupid concept. Also watched another video where BLM was threatening to arrest police officers. lol.
Then all land should belond to the chinese the first settlers in america.
No, you're wrong. It's totally legal, and in fact we deployed troops in Los Angeles in 1992 during the riots when the local law enforcement was unable to restore order, a situation which seems somewhat similar to this, in that, law enforcement is pulling out because they feel unsafe.
You deployed the state guard to protect rich people in Hollywood from their rightoues comeuppance DOWN WITH THE 1%!!! . You didn't start a war. Quit talking nonsense.
Don't make up gak I didn't say and pretend that's what I said. I said they should go to keep the peace.
Keeping the peace Russian style. I like that.
1.) Unless it's two decades ago, it's irrelevant
Its now and why the BLM was in a hurry all of a sudden.
Please, tell me more. Because, I know there are all these pesky facts, but, BLM.
I'm going to tell a little story that this made me think of. Rosa Parks. We all know her name, but we don't know the names of the 3 other people who did exactly what she upwards of a year before her in the same town of Montegomery Alabama. Why don't you know their names? Because one was a drunk (who probably refused because he was too intoxicated), the other a black panther, and the last an unwed teenage mother.
The lesson? The NAACP picked its battle. They waited until there was someone irrefutable to get behind and rose them up. Now we only know Rosa Park's name and often associate her solely with a long practice that had been regularly used to protest Jim Crow for over 30 years.
It was obvious from day 1 that Bundy was crazy. That pretty much everyone who showed up at the protest was some kind of crazy. But it didn't stop all kinds of people from jumping behind him, buying into the crazy without any thought, and now look what happened. This has been a problem that I find particularly damaging for Republicans and conservative minded voters in the US for awhile now. They don't look before they leap. They jump on the bandwagon with somebody* and end up with a whole wagon of crazy.
The Reid thing doesn't make any sense. That land is completely unrelated to the Bundy dispute and made up only because Reid is an evil Democrat. Bundy obviously doesn't understand the basic principles behind Federalism, and seemingly, doesn't even work as a rancher anymore. He just dresses up and fights pointless legal battles with the US government while nearly 1000 head of cattle go unmanaged for two decades and become a public health hazard. I get that people don't like the government and think it should be smaller, but rallying around this guy isn't really winning anyone over.
*Democratic and Librel minded voters have their own issues, not saying they're perfect
On side note is the fact that not far from Laughlin is a small ghosttown in Arizona called Oatman, where wild burros roam the street in fair sized herds.
My eyes read "wild burritoes," and I suddenly filled with childlike sense of wonder.
On side note is the fact that not far from Laughlin is a small ghosttown in Arizona called Oatman, where wild burros roam the street in fair sized herds.
My eyes read "wild burritoes," and I suddenly filled with childlike sense of wonder.
I could hear them walk pretty close, popped off a flash, and saw 30 eyeballs reflecting back at me about 15 feet away. Quick dash to the car and I was out. Territorial devils!
Frazzled wrote: Again the use of gunmen to settle a rental agreement, while the subject of men chopsaki classics, is not typically how you handle that in a civilized society.
Sure, except for the countless numbers of armed Sheriffs and their deputies who are enforcing civil eviction and foreclosure orders in every city in this country every day. I mean, don't you work in the banking industry? Surely you must know this. What's with the feigned ignorance?
Frazzled wrote: You deployed the state guard to protect rich people in Hollywood from their rightoues comeuppance DOWN WITH THE 1%!!! . You didn't start a war. Quit talking nonsense.
You need to actually read the words. They deployed US Marines and regular US army in addition to federalized National Guard.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Today I learned that there are herds of wild donkeys roaming some parts of the US.
For example; "Troops used under the order of the President of the United States pursuant to the Insurrection Act, as was the case during the 1992 Los Angeles Riots."
d-usa wrote: I could hear them walk pretty close, popped off a flash, and saw 30 eyeballs reflecting back at me about 15 feet away. Quick dash to the car and I was out. Territorial devils!
d-usa wrote: I could hear them walk pretty close, popped off a flash, and saw 30 eyeballs reflecting back at me about 15 feet away. Quick dash to the car and I was out. Territorial devils!
d-usa wrote: I could hear them walk pretty close, popped off a flash, and saw 30 eyeballs reflecting back at me about 15 feet away. Quick dash to the car and I was out. Territorial devils!
Hey when even sweet baby Jebus calls them an ass, that might say something...
Frazzled wrote: Again the use of gunmen to settle a rental agreement, while the subject of men chopsaki classics, is not typically how you handle that in a civilized society.
Sure, except for the countless numbers of armed Sheriffs and their deputies who are enforcing civil eviction and foreclosure orders in every city in this country every day. I mean, don't you work in the banking industry? Surely you must know this. What's with the feigned ignorance?
Don't know where you live at, but around here they don't come in with machine guns, well unless Yankees are involved of course. Or Zombies.
Frazzled wrote: You deployed the state guard to protect rich people in Hollywood from their rightoues comeuppance DOWN WITH THE 1%!!! . You didn't start a war. Quit talking nonsense.
You need to actually read the words. They deployed US Marines and regular US army in addition to federalized National Guard.
Thats illegal, and no they didn't not outside of military installations.
Is there any news on the BLM and the Texas ranchers along the Red River? It would be interesting to see what is going on with that and what the local news says.
Yeah... it's going to court as those lands are actually owned.
I really don't understand BLM's justification for doing that though... does anyone have a good source?
hotsauceman1 wrote: y'know, Im taking a page from frazzled and going to act insane for a bit. Off to go blame the poor in my urban sociology for their own poverty
If the homeless REALLY wanted to not be homeless anymore, why wouldn't they just have their limo drivers take them back to their summer homes?
hotsauceman1 wrote: y'know, Im taking a page from frazzled and going to act insane for a bit. Off to go blame the poor in my urban sociology for their own poverty
Wo wo wo Act???
Hey I'm the guy who, when the waiter at Alamo Drafthouse switched up the order and gave me Genghis Connie's milkshake and gave her my Jim Beam on the rocks tried to keep the shake. It was GOOD!
Easy E wrote: So, can someone tell me how this is different from Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion?
This incident is not that much like Shay's Rebellion. That was bigger and based heavily in horribly regulated currency environment of the Articles of Confederation (It was also directed against the Massachuetts government).
The Whiskey Rebellion is a little closer (does Bundy pay his income taxes?). It's most comparable to the utter idiocy. The Whiskey Rebllion was launched by a bunch of guys who basically argued they were not represented in Federal government, apparently ignoring that whole election thing that had just happened. So they said they didn't have to pay any taxes on whiskey (blame Alexander Hamilton, the man child of early America). Much like with Bundy, the government tries resolving the incident peacefully at first, but unlike with Bundy the rebels started getting really violent.
Think the mentallity of US Troops in '92 was Peace Time Army. I remember being DRF in the 82nd (combat BDE gone in six hours) and being on locked down for that stupidity in LA
Now you want to send a Combat harden unit into a protest area where they have weapons.no riots...no gun fire....so respond in kind with their weapons and combat troops so we can escalate it to a massacre on the protesters.....
Now the issue of the National Guard unit if activated for 29 days....30 days or more then its a Federal Activation Title 10. Choose carefully which unit you send in.
Remember the OWS thread where we discuss US Troops, COMBAT TROOPS shooting on Americans. Remember their Americans till a shot rings out then the individual is a threat and the protesters are the obstacle. Park Rangers are a liability in what now has become literally a combat operation till the threat is removed.
"This morning, I said a prayer, and this is what I received. I heard a voice say, 'Sheriff Gillespie, your work is not done. Every sheriff across the United States, take the guns away from the United States bureaucrats.’” Lots of clapping for this.
What happened to that Most Holy of Sacred Texts, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America? Is he really this dumb for real?
Frazzled wrote:You deployed the state guard to protect rich people in Hollywood from their rightoues comeuppance DOWN WITH THE 1%!!! . You didn't start a war. Quit talking nonsense.
Frazzled wrote:Thats illegal, and no they didn't not outside of military installations.
Holy gak, you are unbelievable. Facts? Hah, I just pretend they don't exist and reiterate my (wrong) opinion! At this point I realize you are either trolling, or just being immune to reality in this thread, and in either case not really worth further engaging, but I want to make sure I point out how poor your arguments are for everyone else that might be reading, your cheap brand of refusing to to listen and goalpost moving.
Example one:
1.) You state that you don't send gunmen to enforce civil rental agreements.
2.) I state that we send armed sheriffs and deputies to enforce evictions and foreclosures in every city in the country, every day.
3.) You state "not with machine guns". Goalposts moved! See, I can try and say, "well, I didn't see any machine guns on the BLM, either" but then you will just move it to something else while being wrong, wrong, wrong.
Example two:
1.) I say it's legal to deploy troops for insurrection
2.) You say it's illegal
3.) I point out not only is it legal, we did it in 1992 in los angeles, and give an example, and LordofHats reiterates this later
4.) You say well, it wasn't troops, it was just state national guard. Goalposts moved! And, also, wrong. I pointed out that they were federalized national guard (which are, by definition, not state troops), and US Army and US Marines besides.
5.) You say well., they only deployed them to military installations. Goalposts moved! And also, wrong. Again, I can show more links of how, indeed, Army and Marines were deployed, but I know exactly how you will respond. You'll say, well, most of them stayed in a staging area! And while that is true, many did not, and the point is then made that we did indeed deploy troops in 1992, and that it is lawful to do so, and that we probably will do so again - both Bush and Obama signed various legislation actually expanding the scope of how regular troops can be deployed.
That's the Frazzled experience in this thread. Make a point, be wrong, move the goalposts, be wrong, and then reiterate your original point. I won't even get into the debunked Harry Reid story, which 20 seconds of googling shows is not true.
The Government is reluctant to deploy troops not because it's illegal* but because as Frazzled has aptly shown, Americans tend not to like the idea of US Troops marching into their community and pointing boom sticks (we only like doing that to other countries ).
*it totally is legal and the criteria is basically just the President thinks he should do it and Congress is willing to go along with it.
Now granted, in 1992 the heavy lifting was done by the National Guard, but the 2nd Brigade 7th ID and elements of 1st Marines were deployed to LA fully armed and able. The US Military has maintained contingency plans for domestic deployment for over a century Operation Garden Plot was the original plan devised following the 1967 Detroit Riots and was executed numerous times in the 60s and 70s. EDIT: The domestic deployment of troops following the 9/11 attacks, while so brief no one noticed, was called Noble Eagle, cause we come up with the most bad ass code names ('Murica).
While the US Military has never been mass deployed domestically since the Civil War, there is nothing in the law that says they can't be.
Does anything think that the amount of land owned by the United States, especially in Nevada, is nothing less than obscene?
Why do they own that much land?
Is it because the feds have the land... because they want to?
Here's the danger... Federal ownership often brings with it federal sovereignty:
The Federal government is the single largest holder of real estate in the United States. Federal custody and control over this property brings with it a host of responsibilities, including in some cases federal criminal jurisdiction
So if left unchecked... this can have the affect of pushing aside the sovereignty of the states in favor of the federal government. Whether you value state sovereignty or not, it is not what the founders wanted.
I'm not saying the Feds should never own lands... I'm saying that we should think about this a bit and question why the Feds have all these lands.
To me, based on that image above, the Feds ought to justify holding those lands. If they can... great, let's move on. If not, then it should be reverted back to the states.
When Texas was admitted into the union, the prior sovereign was the Republic of Texas. And as an independent republic, Texas claimed some rights that no other state claimed and claimed that they continued to hold those rights even after joining the union. That's the inverse of what's going in my eyes.
So... this rancher's case... it's likely that the Ninth Circuit has got it wrong... but, I haven't seen anything if there's any way this is going to the SC.
Who do you think acquired it? We didn't just get some land and be like, lets go colonize this bitch. We bought it in the Louisiana Purchase and won it following the Mexican-American War. Pretty much every piece of land west of Kansas was at one point owned by the United States government and sold to citizens through programs like the Homestead Act. And they owned it even before those lands became territories, let alone states.
As you may know, much of the South West is a desert. No one wants to buy land in a desert (not 100 years ago anyway). That means the US government kept all that land because they never sold it to anyone.
Area 51 is out there to be hidden (well it is) it's out there because the government has so much land in that region and no one was using it for anything else. More land was bought up in the 20th century along the east than the west back when the government was pushing the national park programs.
In the end, The government owns all land, they can take it as they please.......Oh god, I got an Idea. Have the congress use imminent domain on the bundy rance and say it is for a highway
Wait...there their own Soverign Nation I believe within our Nation. Remember the debate we had on the Iriqoues Lacross team awhile back? They had their issue passport from the Rez but did not meet Federal Standards
Does anything think that the amount of land owned by the United States, especially in Nevada, is nothing less than obscene?
Why do they own that much land?
Is it because the feds have the land... because they want to?
Here's the danger... Federal ownership often brings with it federal sovereignty:
The Federal government is the single largest holder of real estate in the United States. Federal custody and control over this property brings with it a host of responsibilities, including in some cases federal criminal jurisdiction
So if left unchecked... this can have the affect of pushing aside the sovereignty of the states in favor of the federal government. Whether you value state sovereignty or not, it is not what the founders wanted.
I'm not saying the Feds should never own lands... I'm saying that we should think about this a bit and question why the Feds have all these lands.
To me, based on that image above, the Feds ought to justify holding those lands. If they can... great, let's move on. If not, then it should be reverted back to the states.
When Texas was admitted into the union, the prior sovereign was the Republic of Texas. And as an independent republic, Texas claimed some rights that no other state claimed and claimed that they continued to hold those rights even after joining the union. That's the inverse of what's going in my eyes.
So... this rancher's case... it's likely that the Ninth Circuit has got it wrong... but, I haven't seen anything if there's any way this is going to the SC.
I actually gave a somewhat detailed explanation as to how and why the federal government owns so much of Nevada in the last Bundy thread.
The land was acquired as a result of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. There was a bunch of territorial claims and federal troops had to step in. Eventually, they achieved statehood in 1864 and in doing so any unclaimed land was transferred to the federal government, as dictated in the Nevada State Constitution.
I agree, there is an issue to be made with how much the federal government owns in the western states and it is something that should be address, but it needs to be done by the rule of law, not with guns. However, it is unlikely Congress with ever take it seriously.
Jihadin wrote: Wait...there their own Soverign Nation I believe within our Nation.
From what I can tell the land is held as a trust by the Tribe who exercises sovereign authority on the land, but the lands themselves are still (I think, it's apparently super complicated) owned by the US government via the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Remember the debate we had on the Iriqoues Lacross team awhile back? They had their issue passport from the Rez but did not meet Federal Standards
That was the UK that rejected their passports. We could have gotten them in, because the UK wanted assurances from the US that the passports valid, but we totally dragged our toes on vouching for the passports and that the team would be able to return to the US. The problem I think was that the 'Iroquois Nation' is not a body recognized internationally outside the US and Canada.
The irony of course being the Iroquois invented Lacross
I destroyed that word.....Great Spirit.I'm sorry
It's okay. Like most French words we commonly use as English speakers, Iroquois sounds nothing like it's spelled (I believe the French pronounciation is 'Ear-eh-quah').
This. This is what the Bundy lot should have been focusing on. Not the internet, not the government. This is what is tearing our Western society apart.
Frazzled wrote:You deployed the state guard to protect rich people in Hollywood from their rightoues comeuppance DOWN WITH THE 1%!!! . You didn't start a war. Quit talking nonsense.
Frazzled wrote:Thats illegal, and no they didn't not outside of military installations.
Holy gak, you are unbelievable. Facts? Hah, I just pretend they don't exist and reiterate my (wrong) opinion! At this point I realize you are either trolling, or just being immune to reality in this thread, and in either case not really worth further engaging, but I want to make sure I point out how poor your arguments are for everyone else that might be reading, your cheap brand of refusing to to listen and goalpost moving.
Example one:
1.) You state that you don't send gunmen to enforce civil rental agreements. 2.) I state that we send armed sheriffs and deputies to enforce evictions and foreclosures in every city in the country, every day. 3.) You state "not with machine guns". Goalposts moved! See, I can try and say, "well, I didn't see any machine guns on the BLM, either" but then you will just move it to something else while being wrong, wrong, wrong.
Example two:
1.) I say it's legal to deploy troops for insurrection 2.) You say it's illegal 3.) I point out not only is it legal, we did it in 1992 in los angeles, and give an example, and LordofHats reiterates this later 4.) You say well, it wasn't troops, it was just state national guard. Goalposts moved! And, also, wrong. I pointed out that they were federalized national guard (which are, by definition, not state troops), and US Army and US Marines besides. 5.) You say well., they only deployed them to military installations. Goalposts moved! And also, wrong. Again, I can show more links of how, indeed, Army and Marines were deployed, but I know exactly how you will respond. You'll say, well, most of them stayed in a staging area! And while that is true, many did not, and the point is then made that we did indeed deploy troops in 1992, and that it is lawful to do so, and that we probably will do so again - both Bush and Obama signed various legislation actually expanding the scope of how regular troops can be deployed.
That's the Frazzled experience in this thread. Make a point, be wrong, move the goalposts, be wrong, and then reiterate your original point. I won't even get into the debunked Harry Reid story, which 20 seconds of googling shows is not true.
I don't know. Put me on ignore? off? Whatever you desire. I say option 2 is Best Korea. No one I knew at the time of the riots saw any Army or Marine troops. There were some guard troops. If they were there they were protecting the elites.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: In the end, The government owns all land, they can take it as they please.......Oh god, I got an Idea. Have the congress use imminent domain on the bundy rance and say it is for a highway
No one I knew at the time of the riots saw any Army or Marine troops. There were some guard troops
Well first off, it's probably not that hard to mistake a Guardsmen for standing Army XD
Second, there weren't that many of them. 7th Infantry was being wound down as part of the post-Cold War restructuring of the armed forces. 2nd Brigade probably wasn't brigade sized anymore. I can't find how many marines were sent, so it probably wasn't many. Most likely they were command elements with equipment needed for coordination more than guys in tanks waiting to start blowing stuff up.
Does anything think that the amount of land owned by the United States, especially in Nevada, is nothing less than obscene?
Keep in mind that the graph also shows Federal Parks as owned land (because the Federal Government does, in fact, own that land). Yellowstone is ~2.2 million acres on its own. There are about 52 million acres of National Parks scattered throughout 27 states in the US, mostly in the west. Now throw in areas dedicated to Military bases, Airports, federal government offices and you can see the area owned by the federal government stacking up. It's being utilized or used by/for the people (ala National Parks), so this isn't just a case of "Dat Eeevil Federal Gubmint".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Uh. so apparently the Bundy supporting militias have allegedly set up checkpoints, to verify residency of people passing through the area.
Co'tor Shas wrote:I'm pretty sure that's illegal. Why have they not sent in the NG at this point?
whembly wrote:That's very illegal. Impersonation of officials is a bad thing y'know.
The local police need to deal with it first.. if not, send in the NG.
From the sound of the article it doesn't sound like they're technically impersonating an officer; they're basically setting up their own checkpoints on/around Bundy's property ,rather than pretending to be LEOs. It also sounds like from the article that they're not actually detaining anyone or doing anything illegal just yet. I don't know how long that will continue though.
Capitalism Baby!
.
