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.

nkelsch wrote:

Relapse wrote:

As far as Bundy goes, I said from the first he was wrong, but I despised the way the BLM screwed the whole thing up. Have you even been reading anything I wrote, or were you so jazzed on your slaughter everyone down there line that you totaly overlooked that?

The only thing the BLM screwed up was not going in with more force and fully enforcing the court order.

You continue to make excuses and justifications for Bundy and all the horrible violent criminals down there. This is an open and shut case. The cattle should not be illegally trespassing on public land, Bundy should pay all his back fees and have his property seized to cover his debts. Done. That was not enforced because of violent, armed, illegal mobs and the cattle are still illegally trespassing and Bundy is still not paying fees.

The people down there deserve every bit of 'badness' which happens to them. If they didn't want it, then they shouldn't support a violent criminal and stop being involved in the racist and dangerous county supremacy movement.

How is saying Bundy is wrong making excuses for him?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racist now? I'll have to inform them that they have been elevated to racist. They are already laughing their asses off at the things I've quoted you on, tjhis will take it to a whole new level of hilarity for them.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
They were wondering, bloodthirsty as you are, if you'll appear, leading the charge to wipe the town out.

They hold your comments with all the respect they have for Dutch saying it's the Mormon church behind all of this.

Whew. Talk about justifying ones action to escalate the situation. No one wants a fire fight and if one ever experience a fire fight then you know dang well you don't want to be in another one.

Courts and BLM knew they had a Wild Card on their hands. The Park Rangers screwed the pooch on the round up. The Court Order should have been lock tighter then the Virgin Mary Chastity Belt.

Alot of you all sound like you never handle protestors and armed individuals in a uniform capacity

Edit

Don't wait for a reply from me. Firing up Elder Scroll Online to check it out......NO SPOILERS!!!!!

 d-usa wrote:

Interesting, I just always figured it the other way around.

A good analogy for the relationship between Executive departments is the relationship between military branches. They work together because they have to, but they don't especially like it, and one is always vying for supremacy over another.

To go back a bit:

 d-usa wrote:

But I do think that some federal departments have to follow regulations of other federal departments. I work for the Department of Veterans Affairs, but our pharmacy still has to follow the rules set forth by the FDA and our providers still have to get Federal provider numbers in order to practice.

I should have mentioned laws as well.

If a statute or court order requires Department X to adhere to the regulations established by Department Y, then yes; Department X must follow them. This is the case regarding the VA and HHS. This is not, to my knowledge, the case with DOI and AOG, meaning AOG regulations are not relevant to BLM.

One thing I have been told in the past is that federal agencies cannot bill each other. We can bill insurance for patients we treat, but we cannot bill Medicare or any other federal source of payment. I don't know if that has to do with the apperant "federal agencies don't mess with each other" thing or if it is a rule that prevents federal agencies from ignoring budgets and shifting money back and forth.

Another question about the whole BLM thing and following Department of Agriculture rules:

Let's say that the BLM doesn't have to follow the regulations for interstate transport of cattle. That wouldn't exempt the eventual buyer of the cattle from having to follow the guidelines though, at least I wouldn't think that it would. So even though the BLM may be able to shuffle cattle around all they want, the person that buys the cattle (and eventually sells it for slaughter) would have to have all the required paperwork. So a potential buyer in Utah would want to make sure that they have all the required documents to track the cattle and sell it. So even if the BLM doesn't have to follow the rules, it might be in their best interest to follow them to make sure that somebody actually buys the things once they go to auction.

Reading through the case and the actual regulations (again, focused on Utah as that was one of the states that was given as an example of not following the guidelines) it seems like everything was done correctly:

1) Both Nevada and Utah allow branding to track origin of the cattle, as long as the mark is registered and inspected prior to movement. Bundy has a registered brand and from reading the articles it does seem like the brands were inspected as they were rounded up.
2) They usually would require a veterinary inspection prior to interstate movement so that they can be issued a interstate certificate of veterinary inspection. I have not read any articles that said that this was already done, but they would still be in compliance with the standards if they rounded up the cattle and transported them somewhere else to be inspected prior to leaving the state. There are exceptions to requiring an ICVI though:
2.1) (a) Cattle consigned directly to slaughter at an approved slaughter establishment; or (b) Cattle consigned directly to a State or Federal approved Auction Market.

So even if the BLM doesn't have to follow the regulations, it does seem like they did (or at least were in the process of doing so).

 Seaward wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Unless they were conflating Jesus and America while getting skinheads to nod in approval it wasn't a Tea Party rally.

I'm surprised the rampant infiltration of the Tea Party by skinheads hasn't been reported on more.

It isn't rampant, but if we are going to pretend that OWS was a criminal group because of a few I don't see why the Tea Party deserves any less. Every rally I went to there were a few there, but much like the people doing bad things in OWS they don't really represent close to the majority of the members.

 Ahtman wrote:
It isn't rampant, but if we are going to pretend that OWS was a criminal group because of a few I don't see why the Tea Party deserves any less. Every rally I went to there were a few there, but much like the people doing bad things in OWS they don't really represent close to the majority of the members.

I think we're going to acknowledge that the OWS occupations were in fact illegal. It's illegal to take over parks and camp out because you happen to (foolishly) believe it will change US financial industry regulations.

But if we want to get down to more "serious" crimes, we can go to major news outlets and find plenty of support for the notion that many OWS sites around the country experienced difficulty with assaults, sexual and otherwise, theft, vandalism, etc. I had a tough time digging up info on skinheads regularly attending Tea Party rallies.

Not that I don't doubt your unbiased word, or anything.

 Seaward wrote:
Not that I don't doubt your unbiased word, or anything.

And your insight is as balanced and thoughtful as ever.

 Seaward wrote:
It's illegal to take over parks and camp out because you happen to (foolishly) believe it will change US financial industry regulations.

Unless it is as d-usa claimed it was in OKC.

 dogma wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
It's illegal to take over parks and camp out because you happen to (foolishly) believe it will change US financial industry regulations.

Unless it is, as d-usa claimed it was in OKC.

Unless it's legal, you mean?

Yes, it can be legal provided you get the proper permitting. Most Occupy movements did not, to the best of my recollection, which is why the police kicked them out. This rather belies the notion that the Occupy movement and the Tea Party movement were moral equivalents on different sides of the aisle, as Ahtman claimed, both with tiny minorities that committed crimes - the well-documented assaults and thefts of the Occupy movement, and the seemingly far more mythical Neo-Nazi element of the Tea Party.

The fact is, Occupy was broadly engaged in illegal activity the moment it started. Hardly serious illegal activity, but illegal activity all the same. Meanwhile, the Tea Party was not, and has worked within the system, getting candidates elected, funding policy initiative studies and PACs, etc. They're not comparable, and wishing won't make it so.

 d-usa wrote:

So even if the BLM doesn't have to follow the regulations, it does seem like they did (or at least were in the process of doing so).

Good argument, I agree.

 Seaward wrote:
This rather belies the notion that the Occupy movement and the Tea Party movement were moral equivalents on different sides of the aisle, as Ahtman claimed, both with tiny minorities that committed crimes - the well-documented assaults and thefts of the Occupy movement, and the seemingly far more mythical Neo-Nazi element of the Tea Party.

Ahtman never claimed OWS and the Tea Party were morally equivalent.

 Seaward wrote:

They're not comparable, and wishing won't make it so.

So you agree that OWS is not comparable to the Bundy supporters?

I'd support Bundy and occupy wall street. What unjust law was ever got rid of, without protest.

 loki old fart wrote:
I'd support Bundy and occupy wall street. What unjust law was ever got rid of, without protest.

Let me be clear on this specific argument: I wholly support Mr. Bundy's right to protest. I don't agree the law that is applying here is unjust., and he's in the wrong legally on the cattle situation, and I think some of his supporters should have been arrested when they started crossing the line into obstructing justice and assaulting law enforcement personnel; but the right of the people to protest is indeed the cornerstone of our democracy and when the BLM put up those first amendment areas, that was 110% bs.

With the deep felt feelings on exibit here, I can see easily how the Civil War and Revolution started.

Jihadin was right about the dog. In the video you can clearly see it lunges for the guy and he tries to fend it off by kicking at it (kinda lamely, really). He doesn't just walk up and kick it or something. I love dogs but I'm not about to say you can't try to defend yourself from one if it attacks you (or, even worse, that you should be executed for doing so).

Otherwise, yeah, Bundy seems to be very clearly in the wrong here and it's amazing they've let it go on this long. If they really are backtracking then that's sort of terrible.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Jihadin was right about the dog. In the video you can clearly see it lunges for the guy and he tries to fend it off by kicking at it (kinda lamely, really). He doesn't just walk up and kick it or something. I love dogs but I'm not about to say you can't try to defend yourself from one if it attacks you (or, even worse, that you should be executed for doing so).

Otherwise, yeah, Bundy seems to be very clearly in the wrong here and it's amazing they've let it go on this long. If they really are backtracking then that's sort of terrible.

But is he? That's the point.
Timeline as follows
Bundy family was paying the state.
The BLM comes into being, with promises of improving the land, ETC.
Bundy and all the other ranchers pay the BLM.
The BLM restricts the number of cattle per ranch that can be grazed on their land, making cattle ranching unsustainable.
The other ranchers go out of business. The BLM buys their land for pennies on the dollar.
Using the money they paid as rent.
Bundy stops paying rent to the BLM, And attempts to pay the state instead. Whilst challenging the BLM in court
The courts not surprisingly(being the government) sides with the BLM (also the government).
This goes on for years, until now.
Have I missed anything out ?

@Relapse, a very simple question, has Bundy complied with the court orders handed down by a 21 year legal process?

No he has not.

Before the blow up with BLM how many of us was aware of it?

 Jihadin wrote:
No he has not.

Before the blow up with BLM how many of us was aware of it?

So you're aware of every single legal battle going on?

 Jihadin wrote:
No he has not.

...

Why should Bundy not have to comply with the court order?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
@Relapse, a very simple question, has Bundy complied with the court orders handed down by a 21 year legal process?

 Jihadin wrote:
No he has not.

To comply with the order, would suggest you think the other side is possibly correct.
If you believe you are right, why would you comply.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/civilian-militia-remain-bundy-ranch-standoff-ends/story?id=23394097
I admire their guts but not much else. The fact that they brought their kids with them shows either a lack of understanding of what their doing or lack of caring about if their kids get killed. I agree about the US government getting more authoritarian but they picked a crappy issue to make a stand on.

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/19/cliven_bundys_ailing_america_what_a_wingnut_ranchers_rise_says_about_our_waning_democracy/
As Salon makes the point of where the hell were these guys during all the other abuses of power. Where were they when medical marijuana patients were handcuffed to hospital beds? What about the "kids for cash" scandal when kids were being literally sold to privatized prisons by judges? Why don't they go threaten the local cops where I live that are infamous for doing things like shooting an old lady? Or the Swat team in the country north of mine that shot the 15 year old that no one cares about? I find it strange that the media criticizes Anonymous who don't threaten anyone just change the codes of websites and invade privacy lives who actually fight for the rights of people who can't fight themselves like that girl in Steubenville.

 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.


The attitudes of some of the posters here, such as DutchWinsAll, who claims it's a Mormon church plot and that I support Bundy because he's Mormon, despite me saying Bundy is wrong, as well as Nkelsch, saying my family and friends down there should be wiped out, shows some true ignorance on the part of some of those that are against Bundy.

If you want, I can repeat myself on the other reasons I have nothing but disgust for the BLM in this incident, but I assume you've already seen those posts.

So you're aware of every single legal battle going on?

Kan


I let you figure in what context I put that in. From the sound of it Kan you were aware of it from 98 on up to 2014. You "Clark Kent"?

To comply with the order, would suggest you think the other side is possibly correct.
If you believe you are right, why would you comply.

Loki

First off. I am only siding with him just to see how far he can take it. I know he is going to get hammered regardless of outcome. Yet he broke the laws. Same as OWS yet we, well the government did not crack down on them. Yet he broke the laws and everyone wants to crush him because he broke the "LAWS" I called Double Standards.

Why should Bundy not have to comply with the court order?

KillKrazy

He doesn't have to being its his choice. A Court Order issued needs to be details as I mention earlier to prevent a "Loop Hole". The Court Order issued has a Loop Hole in it being "Impounded". Now the situation open up more over a slew of legal issues. If they have updated last year with a IAW clause then "Bingo" BLM is totally in the right.

Right now with the situation the BLM put themselves in due to the actions of two Park Rangers they are the bad guys. Right now with the wording of the Court Order BLM violated the Court Order.

Even if they try to sell the cattle that are healthy in the state many other ranchers fear to being "Black Listed" for having the perception of buying "stolen cattle"

Only thing BLM can do to make this go away and resolve the issue is to "Fence" off the Federal lands. Put a lien on Bundy house. Bundy tax returns for Federal is held.

If this continue with confrontation with BLM and other Federal Agency with Bundy someone going to get "stupid" and fire a real round.

Relapse wrote:

 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.

I'll give Bundy the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not saying he's right, but I think he believes he's right.
And he deserves credit for standing up for what he believes in.

Ironclad Warlord wrote:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/civilian-militia-remain-bundy-ranch-standoff-ends/story?id=23394097
I agree about the US government getting more authoritarian but they picked a crappy issue to make a stand on.

From what I have seen in the media, you are not alone in those thoughts.
Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy, taken from BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.

So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.

I'll give Hitler the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not saying he's right, but I think he believes he's right.
And he deserves credit for standing up for what he believes in.

Sorry. I just had to Godwin this XD

 LordofHats wrote:

I'll give Hitler the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not saying he's right, but I think he believes he's right.
And he deserves credit for standing up for what he believes in.

Sorry. I just had to Godwin this XD

Made me laugh. but think comparing Bundy to Hitler is a bit OTT

 loki old fart wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

I'll give Hitler the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not saying he's right, but I think he believes he's right.
And he deserves credit for standing up for what he believes in.

Sorry. I just had to Godwin this XD

Made me laugh. but think comparing Bundy to Hitler is a bit OTT

Oh of course. It's just that I read that and my thought was "omg Chamberlain probably said something like this"

 LordofHats wrote:


Oh of course. It's just that I read that and my thought was "omg Chamberlain probably said something like this"

Probably did.
The thing that sours me towards politicians is they profess to believe in something. And as soon as elected, you find they believe in nothing.
Nick Clegg is a prime example.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the other western states. There is already more support for booting the feds.

Relapse wrote:
It will be interesting to see what happens in the other western states. There is already more support for booting the feds.

I thought the BLM were park rangers, do they have the power of arrest then?