dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

I think it has much pertinence. The fact that you want to give a group of people leave to act illegaly on a large scale and ignore the damage they did while villainizing someone else for far less undercuts your points.

I never made such a claim, that is your invention.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy shall remove his livestock from the former
Bunkerville Allotment within 45 days of the date hereof, and that the United States is entitled to
seize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of the date
hereof.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to
impound any of Bundy’s cattle for any future trespasses, provided the United States has complied
with the notice provisions under the governing regulations of the United States Department of the
Interior.

 Jihadin wrote:


Read it. No way in the court order to sell them.

Relapse wrote:

Not really, looking back at your comments.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:


Read it. No way in the court order to sell them.

If you read the rest of his post they don't need a court order to sell. BLM regulations allow them to offer for resale any cattle they have impounded. The court gave them permission to impound, their own regulations give them permission to sell what they have impounded (which again, this is a common practice in the US).

 Jihadin wrote:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy shall remove his livestock from the former
Bunkerville Allotment within 45 days of the date hereof, and that the United States is entitled to
seize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of the date
hereof.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to
impound any of Bundy’s cattle for any future trespasses, provided the United States has complied
with the notice provisions under the governing regulations of the United States Department of the
Interior.

Read it. No way in the court order to sell them.

Remember I mention the Black List?

Remember I mention the Governor of NV mention health concern of the cattle being sold out of state?

Nice try D-USA but there's more involve that what you want to see

nkelsch wrote:
I still see zero wrong with how they handled that video. Police legitimately need to escalate sometimes based on the situation.

nkelsch wrote:

If you were in a city, and kicked a police dog, you would get a nice arm wound and possibly a bullet in your head for your trouble... and everyone would have been happy the police did it. If you were a minority it wouldn't even make the news outside 'criminal attacks cop. now dead'

nkelsch wrote:

So what that someone illegally interfering with a federal execution of a court order was thrown tot he ground... Good? She is lucky they didn't do more and she wasn't taken away in handcuffs.
They should have done more than taze her. They should have beanbaged them to the face until they were unconscious...

nkelsch wrote:
they had the right to protest, not violently block the feds. In some states, they would have arrested her for putting her unborn baby at risk and pretty much restrained her to a hospital bed in a prison for the rest of her pregnancy to protect her unborn fetus. Then taken her baby once born and put her in jail.
There was ample legitimate ground to arrest every one of them, and to do so in such a way which used force. These protesters got away with a helluva lot, things the rest of us would not have gotten away with in similar situations. They could have shown up with crowd control methods, incapacitated all of them via multiple forceful actions and arrested them all and been perfectly justified.

nkelsch wrote:

Communities that can't operate in harmony with the rest of the world due to hate, bigotry and extreme xenophobia of the government should be destroyed.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Not really, looking back at your comments.

Which comments?

 dogma wrote:
OWS was protesting a legal practice, the Bundy supporters were supporting an illegal one. The two are miles apart and rape and murder (by protesters) have no pertinence.

 Seaward wrote:

 dogma wrote:
OWS was protesting a legal practice, the Bundy supporters were supporting an illegal one. The two are miles apart and rape and murder (by protesters) have no pertinence.

This seems to imply you believe OWS knew what they were protesting against.

 loki old fart wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
I still see zero wrong with how they handled that video. Police legitimately need to escalate sometimes based on the situation.

Absolute rubbish.

nkelsch wrote:

If you were in a city, and kicked a police dog, you would get a nice arm wound and possibly a bullet in your head for your trouble... and everyone would have been happy the police did it. If you were a minority it wouldn't even make the news outside 'criminal attacks cop. now dead'

If you believe that is acceptable, you need to seek help. Arrested and thrown in a cell maybe. Killed never.

nkelsch wrote:

So what that someone illegally interfering with a federal execution of a court order was thrown tot he ground... Good? She is lucky they didn't do more and she wasn't taken away in handcuffs.
They should have done more than taze her. They should have beanbaged them to the face until they were unconscious...

Really you think that's OK

nkelsch wrote:
they had the right to protest, not violently block the feds. In some states, they would have arrested her for putting her unborn baby at risk and pretty much restrained her to a hospital bed in a prison for the rest of her pregnancy to protect her unborn fetus. Then taken her baby once born and put her in jail.
There was ample legitimate ground to arrest every one of them, and to do so in such a way which used force. These protesters got away with a helluva lot, things the rest of us would not have gotten away with in similar situations. They could have shown up with crowd control methods, incapacitated all of them via multiple forceful actions and arrested them all and been perfectly justified.

Overkill for protesting I think

nkelsch wrote:

Communities that can't operate in harmony with the rest of the world due to hate, bigotry and extreme xenophobia of the government should be destroyed.

People trying to attack America say the same thing. As justification.

Relapse wrote:
As well as saying rape and murder should be ignored when comparing the two groups of protestors.

Relapse wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 dogma wrote:
OWS was protesting a legal practice, the Bundy supporters were supporting an illegal one. The two are miles apart and rape and murder (by protesters) have no pertinence.

This seems to imply you believe OWS knew what they were protesting against.

As well as saying rape and murder should be ignored when comparing the two groups of protestors.

nkelsch wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
I still see zero wrong with how they handled that video. Police legitimately need to escalate sometimes based on the situation.

Absolute rubbish.

nkelsch wrote:

If you were in a city, and kicked a police dog, you would get a nice arm wound and possibly a bullet in your head for your trouble... and everyone would have been happy the police did it. If you were a minority it wouldn't even make the news outside 'criminal attacks cop. now dead'

If you believe that is acceptable, you need to seek help. Arrested and thrown in a cell maybe. Killed never.

If they are violent, armed and endangering people? you bet I do... And guess what? If you were simply 'armed' in a city, you will probably be going to jail even if you legally can carry that firearm. If they were violent, breaking the law and interfering with police while armed, they would be shot.

Also, there are many stories of attacks on police animals being treated exactly the same way as if someone attacks any other cop... So if you attack, try to hurt or kill an animal unit, prepare to have deadly force applied to you the same way as if you attempted to kill any other police officer.

nkelsch wrote:

So what that someone illegally interfering with a federal execution of a court order was thrown tot he ground... Good? She is lucky they didn't do more and she wasn't taken away in handcuffs.
They should have done more than taze her. They should have beanbaged them to the face until they were unconscious...

Really you think that's OK

Yes... Anyone part of an armed, violent mob breaking the law should be beanbagged until unconscious.

nkelsch wrote:
they had the right to protest, not violently block the feds. In some states, they would have arrested her for putting her unborn baby at risk and pretty much restrained her to a hospital bed in a prison for the rest of her pregnancy to protect her unborn fetus. Then taken her baby once born and put her in jail.
There was ample legitimate ground to arrest every one of them, and to do so in such a way which used force. These protesters got away with a helluva lot, things the rest of us would not have gotten away with in similar situations. They could have shown up with crowd control methods, incapacitated all of them via multiple forceful actions and arrested them all and been perfectly justified.

Overkill for protesting I think

Check out the stories of women who put unborn fetuses 'at risk' and are kept in severe lockdown to prevent harming the fetus. The very people protesting this BLM stuff are the very people who would take a way a woman's liberty to force the state to protect her unborn baby. If she is putting her baby at risk by involving herself in illegal activities like she was doing, then there are those who would say she has lost the right to be a fit mother and the state needs to protect her baby from the mother. Freedom indeed?

nkelsch wrote:

Communities that can't operate in harmony with the rest of the world due to hate, bigotry and extreme xenophobia of the government should be destroyed.

People trying to attack America say the same thing. As justification.

Yep, and those aspects of America are not a good thing just like the rampant anti-Semitism and thousand years of imperialist colonization of Europe, the religious violence of the middle east, the power struggles and genocide of Africa and nature's war on humanity in Australia with all that crazy dangerous wildlife. I support politicians who are against hate and bigotry and try to make the world a better place through a government represented by the people, I don't resort to violent armed mobs like the horrible people supporting Bundy or terrorists. The BLM is protecting the rest of us and our interests from the actions of a violent criminal, Bundy. I do not see Violent armed mobs breaking the law and getting away with it because they are violent and armed as a 'good thing'. That behavior should not be tolerated.

 loki old fart wrote:

We probably said exactly the same thing about the Boston tea party.

nkelsch wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

We probably said exactly the same thing about the Boston tea party.

And if you want to compare these actions as 'freedom fighters in a revolutionary war' then they should not be surprised if they are treated as such, IE: Bullet to the face.

They are not freedom fighters fighting a revolution. They can pretend to be, but they are not. But if they want to pretend they are, they shouldn't complain about being knocked over when they make aggressive 'war-like' actions like violent armed militia.

Relapse wrote:
Some more fallout from the BLM's actions:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/19/western-lawmakers-strategize-on-taking-control-federal-lands/

Relapse wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

We probably said exactly the same thing about the Boston tea party.

And if you want to compare these actions as 'freedom fighters in a revolutionary war' then they should not be surprised if they are treated as such, IE: Bullet to the face.

They are not freedom fighters fighting a revolution. They can pretend to be, but they are not. But if they want to pretend they are, they shouldn't complain about being knocked over when they make aggressive 'war-like' actions like violent armed militia.

You seem awfully excited and happy at the thought of people getting killed.

nkelsch wrote:
That is at least the appropriate arena to have the discussion in and the correct way to deal with the issue... via the 3 branches of government through our representatives, not armed violent mobs of criminals breaking the law.

nkelsch wrote:
If they want no one to die, then leave the guns at home,

 Seaward wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
That is at least the appropriate arena to have the discussion in and the correct way to deal with the issue... via the 3 branches of government through our representatives, not armed violent mobs of criminals breaking the law.

This statement seems to be at odds with your earlier praise of the OWS movement. Surely you're not being selective?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
If they want no one to die, then leave the guns at home,

Pretty sure you can carry where you want down there.

Relapse wrote:
A map to go along with the story of the 90,000 acre land grab the BLM is currently pulling on ranchers in Texas:

http://offgridsurvival.com/blm-attempting-to-steal-another-ranchers-land-in-texas/

nkelsch wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
That is at least the appropriate arena to have the discussion in and the correct way to deal with the issue... via the 3 branches of government through our representatives, not armed violent mobs of criminals breaking the law.

This statement seems to be at odds with your earlier praise of the OWS movement. Surely you're not being selective?

OWS were legally protesting, non-violently without being armed, and when the courts determined they were trespassing and ordered them dispersed, they were dispersed. The difference is the BLM protestors are not peaceful, they are violent, armed, and trespassing and refusing to obey the law and let the courts implement the end result.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
If they want no one to die, then leave the guns at home,

Pretty sure you can carry where you want down there.

But it is illegal to transport guns across state lines for illegal purposes... Armed militias are illegal purposes. And just because you can carry doesn't mean you are not restricted in what you can legally do with said guns. An armed illegal militia breaking the law and assaulting federal agents is not a legal use covered by any carry permit I have ever seen.

Transfer of Public Lands
Officials from nine Western states met in Salt Lake City on Friday to discuss taking control of federal lands within their borders on the heels of a standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management.

The lawmakers and county commissioners discussed ways to wresting oil-, timber- and mineral-rich lands away from the feds. Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart said it was in the works before this month's standoff.

The BLM rounded up hundreds of Bundy's cattle, saying he hasn't paid more than $1 million in grazing fees he owes for trespassing on federal lands since the 1990s. But Bundy does not recognize federal authority on the land, which his family has used since the 1870s.

The BLM released the cattle after a showdown last weekend with angry armed protesters whom Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid referred to as "domestic terrorists."

"What's happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem," Lockhart said, according to The Salt Lake Tribune.

The Legislative Summit on the Transfer of Public Lands, as it was called, was organized by Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory and Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, addressed the group over lunch, the Tribune reported.

"It’s simply time," Ivory told reporters. "The urgency is now."

Fielder said federal land management is hamstrung by bad policies, politicized science and severe federal budget cuts.

"Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands," said Fielder, a Republican who lives in the northwestern Montana town of Thompson Falls. "We have to start managing these lands. It's the right thing to do for our people, for our environment, for our economy and for our freedoms."

Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington also were represented, but none of the other states has gone as far as Utah, where lawmakers passed a measure demanding that the federal government extinguish title to federal lands.

The lawmakers and Gov. Gary Herber have said they're only asking the federal government to make good on promises made in the 1894 Enabling Act for Utah to become a state. The intent was never to take over national parks and wilderness created by an act of Congress, said Lockhart, a Republican from Provo.

"We are not interested in having control of every acre," she said. "There are lands that are off the table that rightly have been designated by the federal government."

Ivory said federal government's debt threatens its management of vast tracts of the West and its ability to make payments in lieu of taxes to the states, the Tribune reported. He said the issue is of interest to both urban and rural lawmakers.

"If we don’t stand up and act, seeing that trajectory of what’s coming … those problems are going to get bigger," Ivory was quoted as saying.

The University of Utah is conducting a study called for by the legislation to analyze how Utah could manage the land now in federal control.

nkelsch wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
That is at least the appropriate arena to have the discussion in and the correct way to deal with the issue... via the 3 branches of government through our representatives, not armed violent mobs of criminals breaking the law.

This statement seems to be at odds with your earlier praise of the OWS movement. Surely you're not being selective?

OWS were legally protesting, non-violently without being armed, and when the courts determined they were trespassing and ordered them dispersed, they were dispersed. The difference is the BLM protestors are not peaceful, they are violent, armed, and trespassing and refusing to obey the law and let the courts implement the end result.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
If they want no one to die, then leave the guns at home,

Pretty sure you can carry where you want down there.

But it is illegal to transport guns across state lines for illegal purposes... Armed militias are illegal purposes. And just because you can carry doesn't mean you are not restricted in what you can legally do with said guns. An armed illegal militia breaking the law and assaulting federal agents is not a legal use covered by any carry permit I have ever seen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
A map to go along with the story of the 90,000 acre land grab the BLM is currently pulling on ranchers in Texas:

http://offgridsurvival.com/blm-attempting-to-steal-another-ranchers-land-in-texas/

State and county boarders change... He can take it up in court and apply pressure to his legislators to pass a bill to settle the issue in regards to the boarder moving due to the river moving. There are lots of 'laws' which need to be updated due to them being ambiguous... like county/state borders based upon odd agreements which need to be re-certified under new laws. This is actually quite common.

But good job on finding another horrible biased article which starts off strong with lots of false information and lies.

Until I can see an article with facts and not trash lies and know what is actually going on... I don't know if this Henderson has a legitimate case or not, but you know where it starts? An injunction in court which should be easy to get and a discussion in the legislature, not an illegal armed militia attacking federal agents. Changing the law to determine state borders based upon documented coordinates and science instead of an interpretation of 100 year boundary description based upon physical landmarks is a good place to start.

Relapse wrote:


Why are you so quick to dismiss the article as trash lies?

nkelsch wrote:

Relapse wrote:


Why are you so quick to dismiss the article as trash lies?

Are you really that dense?

First line - LIE: After failing in their attempt to steal a Nevada Rancher’s land last week

Biased agenda + Lie as it is confirmed he hasn't paid: where BLM officials claim Cliven Bundy has failed to pay them, what in my opinion are illegal land fees to begin with.\

On a County Supremacist website with lots of other trash articles...

Find a better source before you try to say the poor texas rancher needs to be defended or rescued as Bundy sure didn't. You might make a better case with facts from reliable sources which actually show your side favorably than posting biased articles with documented lies and boldface biases in the article which clouds the issue and makes it hard to 'give a damn'.

Minimal googling has shown he may have a case... and guess what? He is at the start of his 20 year battle, and he will probably easily get an injunction to protect him until it is sorted out. The system working as it should. But when it is sorted out, armed violence is not acceptable if he doesn't like the outcome.

Relapse wrote:

You still never answered me what you thought of their illegal attempt to sell undocumented cattle that for all they knew, could have been diseased.

nkelsch wrote:

Relapse wrote:

You still never answered me what you thought of their illegal attempt to sell undocumented cattle that for all they knew, could have been diseased.

It wasn't illegal for them to seize or sell seized cattle. If anything it was Bundy's lack of following federal regulations for documenting his cattle in regards to the health of his cows and the food supply which were the issue. When Utah saw there was a failure in documentation, they stopped the sale... So now the BLM should euthanize those cows due to Bundy's failure to follow federal regulations. Nothing BLM did was illegal, and when here was an issue, they addressed it.

Why do you continue to skate around the issue that Bundy is a criminal and breaking the law and nothing justifies that?

And BLM isn't changing the state borders... just responding to the state and federals response when they acknowledge the discrepancy and what under current laws shows a change in the border. If someone has said 'hey, due to the change in the physical landscape, this is now under a different jurisdiction, you guys need to do what is required in that jurisdiction.' then they will do it. Guess what? that is what we have a court to investigate and if required, protect people's rights and a legislature to change laws should there be a discrepancy or an ambiguous issue.

 Jihadin wrote:
Court Order says to Impound them only. It did not say to sell or execute cattle.