Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

An interesting explanation of the way the BLM does business.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tAwALTdrMZ8&feature=youtu.be

Lost me at 2 min in when he wouldn't stop yelling.

Penn Jillette grew a real beard? Good for him.


Anyway, the guy's argument is gak. This part (It is at about 2:10), in particular, stood out for me: "Our elected representatives surrendered their entire legislative authority to unelected agents." This is obviously not the case, as the BLM cannot actually make law.

Grossly ignorant and ranty video. He lacks basic understanding of how the 3 branches of the government work if you believe all branches of the government are ';elected' so you can rail against essentially the entire executive branch simply because they were appointed by someone you didn't vote for. If he complains about 'unelected agents' one more time, you can't have all aspects of the government pandering for votes... sometimes you need them to enforce laws without a political bent. If the legislators feel they overstep their boundaries, they can legislate restrictions, hence the separation of powers and the 3 branches of government.

His comparisons of private companies dictating regulations and laws to government agencies is invalid.

This guy is so wrong on so many levels. I see no problem with the BLM or how they have acted. It is their land, not the ranchers land. They can do what they want... Remember, there are some of us in this country who 'support' the changing of use of land for conservation. I have read up a lot on the people pushing for conservation and I support them. Remember, this is not just 'the evil government VS ranchers' this is 'the government and lots of other citizens who also want what the BLM is doing to be done VS the ranchers.'

Without due process... if 20 years of appeals and discussion is not due process then we can never prosecute anyone. He is just throwing buzzwords. They reject the BLm can come in and change stuff 'because they say so'... yes, they can. That is how the executive branch works. You can then appeal it in the judicial branch and vote in representatives to change it in the legislative branch. 20 years, they have lost... Government working as intended.

Fail on so many levels.

I hope Bundy's personal livelihood is totally destroyed and anyone who supported him suffers.

From when the BLM released the cattle. Yes, I know it's Infowars, but it's the only up close video of the final release that I know of.

http://toprightnews.com/?p=2479

I heard some talking head off-handedly mention Harry Reid (or one of his associates) having some kind of business development adjacent to the land, implying that there was some form of ulterior motive for the change. (Even though the reclassification happened in 1993.) I can't find it again, or even who said it. Has anyone else heard this? Is it conveniently ignored fact, or instigatory speculation?

We discussed this previously and decided on page 7 that it's made up garbage. (There is a deal but it's wholly unrelated and in a different location nearly 200 miles away).



The derposphere continues to report it as fact because they are the derposphere and stoking outrage is substantially more important than accuracy in reporting.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I heard some talking head off-handedly mention Harry Reid (or one of his associates) having some kind of business development adjacent to the land, implying that there was some form of ulterior motive for the change. (Even though the reclassification happened in 1993.) I can't find it again, or even who said it. Has anyone else heard this? Is it conveniently ignored fact, or instigatory speculation?

Stories like this have begun circulating that made the timing of the BLM open to suspician for some people. The initial farm that I read about is seems to be slated down in Laughlin, which is to hell and gone away from the action with Bundy, but I believe other farms are planned for all over Nevada.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/shocking-allegations-link-harry-reid-nevada-ranch-standoff/

Of course, any plans to build a solar plant on the land, a protoype moonbase, a left-handed midget brothel, or a desert tortoise day spa are all totally seconday to the fact Bundy has no right to be there. Again, it's like my refusing to pay my rent for 20 years and complaining that the bank is in cahoots to build a Pollo Locos on my land once they finally get me off it. The main gist is I haven't paid rent for 20 years so it's not my land.

A little more detailed report on the Reid angle, true, it's Info Wars, but it can be a springboard for fact checking.


http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Of course, any plans to build a solar plant on the land, a protoype moonbase, a left-handed midget brothel, or a desert tortoise day spa are all totally seconday to the fact Bundy has no right to be there. Again, it's like my refusing to pay my rent for 20 years and complaining that the bank is in cahoots to build a Pollo Locos on my land once they finally get me off it. The main gist is I haven't paid rent for 20 years so it's not my land.

While I agree Bundy should have been out of there long ago, I don't think Reid or the BLM should be given a pass, either.

 Ouze wrote:
Of course, any plans to build a solar plant on the land, a protoype moonbase, a left-handed midget brothel, or a desert tortoise day spa are all totally seconday to the fact Bundy has no right to be there. Again, it's like my refusing to pay my rent for 20 years and complaining that the bank is in cahoots to build a Pollo Locos on my land once they finally get me off it. The main gist is I haven't paid rent for 20 years so it's not my land.

While I agree that Bundy is a total tool and in no way in the right on this one, I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be.

If someone sets up a livelihood based on doing something legally (and as I understand it, prior to 1993, grazing cattle on the land WAS legal) on public property, and a government agency suddenly swoops in and tells you that you can no longer make your living, then I think you would have legitimate cause for grievance. It's not unreasonable in that circumstance, to expect either the forewarning and support to alter your operation, or compensation based on the difficulty of bringing your operation into compliance with the changing laws.

To reiterate, the land was reclassified back in 1993, over twenty years ago. They didn't start prosecuting him until five years after THAT, and didn't start trying to seriously enforce it until relatively recently. Bottom line is that Bundy is a total screwball.

 Ouze wrote:
Of course, any plans to build a solar plant on the land, a protoype moonbase, a left-handed midget brothel, or a desert tortoise day spa are all totally seconday to the fact Bundy has no right to be there. Again, it's like my refusing to pay my rent for 20 years and complaining that the bank is in cahoots to build a Pollo Locos on my land once they finally get me off it. The main gist is I haven't paid rent for 20 years so it's not my land.

SO? They can and should build power plants wherever they feel there is need for it. And to offset the land needed for solar plants, if they want to isolated and reserve other land for conservation... that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I hope they seize Bundy's personal property due to owed money and build a solar plant on his land. Screw him.

If the ranchers don't like it... they can ranch on their own lands... If they can't handle that because they need 600,000 acres of desert to support their cattle opposed to 200 acres of lush grassland, then maybe they shouldn't be ranching in a desert and should pack up and move elsewhere because their livelihood relies on mooching off government land and is looking like it is unsustainable both financially and environmentally.

The guy I buy my meat from seems to be able to raise his cattle on his own personal property which he owns and pays taxes on... Seems reasonable that everyone should be able to handle their own stuff and not expect to get away with not paying and then throw a tantrum like a criminal and expect charity to pay his debts.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Of course, any plans to build a solar plant on the land, a protoype moonbase, a left-handed midget brothel, or a desert tortoise day spa are all totally seconday to the fact Bundy has no right to be there. Again, it's like my refusing to pay my rent for 20 years and complaining that the bank is in cahoots to build a Pollo Locos on my land once they finally get me off it. The main gist is I haven't paid rent for 20 years so it's not my land.

While I agree that Bundy is a total tool and in no way in the right on this one, I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be.

If someone sets up a livelihood based on doing something legally (and as I understand it, prior to 1993, grazing cattle on the land WAS legal) on public property, and a government agency suddenly swoops in and tells you that you can no longer make your living, then I think you would have legitimate cause for grievance. It's not unreasonable in that circumstance, to expect either the forewarning and support to alter your operation, or compensation based on the difficulty of bringing your operation into compliance with the changing laws.

To reiterate, the land was reclassified back in 1993, over twenty years ago. They didn't start prosecuting him until five years after THAT, and didn't start trying to seriously enforce it until relatively recently. Bottom line is that Bundy is a total screwball.

There are several ranchers in Texas with what looks on the face of it anyway, a legitimate claim to 90, 000 acres that theBLM is taking away from them based on a precident set in a 30 year old case. They took a Rancher's land with no compensation. What I hope for here is that they stand up to this seizure and get the support Bundy did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Of course, any plans to build a solar plant on the land, a protoype moonbase, a left-handed midget brothel, or a desert tortoise day spa are all totally seconday to the fact Bundy has no right to be there. Again, it's like my refusing to pay my rent for 20 years and complaining that the bank is in cahoots to build a Pollo Locos on my land once they finally get me off it. The main gist is I haven't paid rent for 20 years so it's not my land.

SO? They can and should build power plants wherever they feel there is need for it. And to offset the land needed for solar plants, if they want to isolated and reserve other land for conservation... that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I hope they seize Bundy's personal property due to owed money and build a solar plant on his land. Screw him.

If the ranchers don't like it... they can ranch on their own lands... If they can't handle that because they need 600,000 acres of desert to support their cattle opposed to 200 acres of lush grassland, then maybe they shouldn't be ranching in a desert and should pack up and move elsewhere because their livelihood relies on mooching off government land and is looking like it is unsustainable both financially and environmentally.

The guy I buy my meat from seems to be able to raise his cattle on his own personal property which he owns and pays taxes on... Seems reasonable that everyone should be able to handle their own stuff and not expect to get away with not paying and then throw a tantrum like a criminal and expect charity to pay his debts.

So speaks someone who apparently knows nothing about farming, ranching, or pretty much anything to do with how his food is produced outside of anecdotes.

 Jimsolo wrote:


If someone sets up a livelihood based on doing something legally (and as I understand it, prior to 1993, grazing cattle on the land WAS legal) on public property, and a government agency suddenly swoops in and tells you that you can no longer make your living, then I think you would have legitimate cause for grievance. It's not unreasonable in that circumstance, to expect either the forewarning and support to alter your operation, or compensation based on the difficulty of bringing your operation into compliance with the changing laws.

The issue is industries are put out of business all the time to new government regulations. Sometimes it is good, sometimes it is bad, sometimes it is for the greater good but terrible for a few people at a basic level. You can't please all of the people, all of the time. And often the government does subsidize people or help with the transition... Sometimes they don't. Too bad.

How many real estate and loan officers were out of business when they changed the mortgage regulations? How many coal miners were out of business when they changed the safety and pollution standards? How many trash companies and cleaning companies lost tons of money when they implemented mandatory recycling laws in some areas? Some adapted, some failed. But all probably had overall justified and needed reasons for implementation.

Industries adapt, people in those industries adapt or die or change vocations. Sometimes those changes need to be made. The way our government works, all sides get heard and people have the ability to have politicians involved, the courts looking out for people's rights and to raise issues in the court of public opinion. And when those are exhausted, it may be time to learn to deal with it. Do they want to shut down all ranching? maybe... But this is not being done in a vacuum. There are people who want these changes and justifications... While it may put them out of business, others seem to have adapted or cashed out after the changes were made.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:


So speaks someone who apparently knows anything about farming, ranching, or pretty much anything to do with how his food is produced outside of anecdotes.i

So? Obviously Bundy doesn't know enough about ranching if he can't do it without mooching government land without paying his taxes and fees... Other ranchers seem to be surviving...

So he should starve because he obviously can't hack it in his own industry.

(I am very aware of the farming industries on the east coast. We have lots of dairy and poultry plants here. I have family who work in both. So I don't particularly care if some Nevada ranchers can't prosper, especially bigoted violent criminal dead-beat ones)

I'd just like to point out the following;

A punch of guys/gals with guns show up somewhere that has 0 to do with their lives to have a stand off the government to help a guy whose basically been mooching off public funds for 2 decades (I thought all these militia types hated welfare, or are they just against it when they're not getting anything?).

What the protestors say; We're standing up for a freedom.

What opponents of gun rights say; People are violating the law and telling everyone else to shut up at gun point.

I'm sure the anti-gun lobby is thinking of how to use this right now. Good job America meeting my expectations

nkelsch wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:


If someone sets up a livelihood based on doing something legally (and as I understand it, prior to 1993, grazing cattle on the land WAS legal) on public property, and a government agency suddenly swoops in and tells you that you can no longer make your living, then I think you would have legitimate cause for grievance. It's not unreasonable in that circumstance, to expect either the forewarning and support to alter your operation, or compensation based on the difficulty of bringing your operation into compliance with the changing laws.

The issue is industries are put out of business all the time to new government regulations. Sometimes it is good, sometimes it is bad, sometimes it is for the greater good but terrible for a few people at a basic level. You can't please all of the people, all of the time. And often the government does subsidize people or help with the transition... Sometimes they don't. Too bad.

How many real estate and loan officers were out of business when they changed the mortgage regulations? How many coal miners were out of business when they changed the safety and pollution standards? How many trash companies and cleaning companies lost tons of money when they implemented mandatory recycling laws in some areas? Some adapted, some failed. But all probably had overall justified and needed reasons for implementation.

Industries adapt, people in those industries adapt or die or change vocations. Sometimes those changes need to be made. The way our government works, all sides get heard and people have the ability to have politicians involved, the courts looking out for people's rights and to raise issues in the court of public opinion. And when those are exhausted, it may be time to learn to deal with it. Do they want to shut down all ranching? maybe... But this is not being done in a vacuum. There are people who want these changes and justifications... While it may put them out of business, others seem to have adapted or cashed out after the changes were made.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:


So speaks someone who apparently knows anything about farming, ranching, or pretty much anything to do with how his food is produced outside of anecdotes.i

So? Obviously Bundy doesn't know enough about ranching if he can't do it without mooching government land without paying his taxes and fees... Other ranchers seem to be surviving...

So he should starve because he obviously can't hack it in his own industry.

(I am very aware of the farming industries on the east coast. We have lots of dairy and poultry plants here. I have family who work in both. So I don't particularly care if some Nevada ranchers can't prosper, especially bigoted violent criminal dead-beat ones)

Yes, I'm sure you might have looked at a cow or two in the field as you drove past them on the interstate.

Relapse wrote:

Yes, I'm sure you might have looked at a cow or two in the field as you drove past them on the interstate.

Your dispute with nkelsch is completely irrelevant to the matter of Bundy's refusal to pay Federal fees.

This is your thread, please do not derail it.

 LordofHats wrote:
I thought all these militia types hated welfare, or are they just against it when they're not getting anything?

I think the correct term is "hands of my government handout to pay for someone elses government handout".

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Yes, I'm sure you might have looked at a cow or two in the field as you drove past them on the interstate.

Your dispute with nkelsch is completely irrelevant to the matter of Bundy's refusal to pay Federal fees.

This is your thread, please do not derail it.

Actually, he beautifully illustrates that many Americans are ignorant of what motivates farmers or ranchers like Bundy. Your point is well taken, though.

Relapse wrote:

Yes, I'm sure you might have looked at a cow or two in the field as you drove past them on the interstate.

Based on factual statements posted by both of you in this thread it seems you both have family that do something with cows and know how to use the internet to look up local newspapers and you both are able to talk to people who live somewhere and have opinions about stuff.

So you are both either subject matter experts or you both know nothing. Either way it seems your experiences and knowledge are matched.

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Yes, I'm sure you might have looked at a cow or two in the field as you drove past them on the interstate.

Based on factual statements posted by both of you in this thread it seems you both have family that do something with cows and know how to use the internet to look up local newspapers and you both are able to talk to people who live somewhere and have opinions about stuff.

So you are both either subject matter experts or you both know nothing. Either way it seems your experiences and knowledge are matched.

I grew up on a farm and worked on others, vegetable, cattle, and hog. for half my life, and my wife grew up working on her family farm in East Texas.

 Jimsolo wrote:
While I agree that Bundy is a total tool and in no way in the right on this one, I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be.

It doesn't really matter. He stopped paying the fees to use the land. No one disputes this, not him, not anyone else. The rest is irrelevant bs. "He stopped paying the land use fees and no longer has a right to be here" - is that not wholly accurate? Sounds pretty simple to me.

He's a total tool and in no way right - then why are we even having this conversation? Why the equivocating?

Also Saturday, supporters of Bundy, some of them armed, forced a temporary shutdown of northbound lanes of Interstate 15 near his ranch, the Nevada Highway Patrol said.

"Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public," said BLM director Neil Kornze.

The highway was reopened early Saturday afternoon after protesters moved to the side of the road and stopping blocking it. But traffic was backed up for three miles in both directions, Trooper Loy Hixson told CNN. He said nobody in the crowd threatened violence.

source

Unbelievable.

 Ouze wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
While I agree that Bundy is a total tool and in no way in the right on this one, I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be.

It doesn't really matter. He stopped paying the fees to use the land. No one disputes this, not him, not anyone else. The rest is irrelevant bs.

He's a total tool and in no way right - then why are we even having this conversation? Why the equivocating?

For me, it's the methods and timing of the BLM and now the way evryone seems to be willing to give them a pass.
I don't think anyone here supports Bundy for staying on the land.
The BLM seems to be grabbing land out from under legitimate land owners elsewhere, though, and it seems that no one seems to care.
My father, back in the 60's and 70's worked for a group called the NFO( National Farmers Organization) and was as staunch a Democrat as ever existed.
His duties involved studying the farming situation throughout America and traveling the country lecturing at conferences and putting forward what he saw as the future state of things. Something he would talk about was the fact that more and more farms were going out of business and corporation were going to be the food producers in a few decades. This was something that worried and irritated him because he saw the stubborness of some farmers, others over extending themselves, not adapting to the realities of the upcoming years, and others having bs regulations thrown their way and the continual day and night harrassment from Federal agencies on others that were doing everything they could to jump through all the hoops.
He would often tell me when the day comes that it's the big corporations feeding the country and not the farmers, we would all be in a risky situation.

 Ouze wrote:

source

Unbelievable.

Instead of retrieving his cattle and caring for them, he again has put them in harm's way and is trespassing them. They need to remove those animals from public land and arrest Bundy. Any person who attempts to prevent that should be arrested as well.

 d-usa wrote:
Send in the damn national guard...

Is that the Lost and the Damned National Guard? Now we know what they've been doing at area 51!

 Ouze wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
While I agree that Bundy is a total tool and in no way in the right on this one, I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be.

It doesn't really matter. He stopped paying the fees to use the land. No one disputes this, not him, not anyone else. The rest is irrelevant bs. "He stopped paying the land use fees and no longer has a right to be here" - is that not wholly accurate? Sounds pretty simple to me.

He's a total tool and in no way right - then why are we even having this conversation? Why the equivocating?

We're having the conversation because all the original reporting didn't turn up the salient facts that I had to go look up on my own. If I wasn't clear on all the facts, other people might not be as well. Saying "Oh, the government can change the rules at any time and you're just SOL" isn't acceptable. Having a conversation to clarify the issue (to clarify: that's not what happened in this case; Bundy is a moron--a thieving moron at that) is never a bad thing.

I wonder now what is going to happen in Texas with the ranchers there that are dealing with the government land grab.

Texas doesn't have similar government lands like that to a great extent. Plus much of what they have have tanks or cartels on them

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Send in the damn national guard...

Is that the Lost and the Damned National Guard? Now we know what they've been doing at area 51!

Isn't the National Guard lost alot?

Relapse wrote:
For me, it's the methods and timing of the BLM and now the way evryone seems to be willing to give them a pass.
I don't think anyone here supports Bundy for staying on the land. .

We keep saying this. Yeah, he's wrong, but... but nothing, really. And the BLM has had infinite fething patience with him. He's been pulling this gak since the Clinton administration, since before Carl on The Walking Dead was born. When the protestors are kicking police dogs and obstructing justice, and no ones even been arrested, I don't want to hear about how heavy handed the government has been.

Just as a point of interest, what are people's opinions on this?

http://www.rfdtv.com/story/25206377/oklahoma-texas-border-dispute-has-ranchers-worried