tomato can Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 (edited) The American Cattle Rancher is thrown off public land so it can be sold at a very generous price to the chinese who are going to build a 5 billion dollar solar plant that we will be forced to purchase our energy from?....environmentalists will champion this even if it means trampling on our liberties and freeddoms because they will stop at nothing to force us to the inefficent & expensive renewable source of energy. http://www.reviewjou...ce-headquarters http://www.infowars....of-bundy-ranch/ Edited April 12, 2014 by tomato can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Retitle this: "Bundy Ranch" The Bundy's hold the right of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 I'd oppose this eminent domain taking just like I opposed eminent domain takings in Newark and Philadelphia to build malls - I'd oppose the way the protesters are being treated just like I oppose the way the occupy Wall Street protesters were treated, I'd oppose China being used to build solar power stations just because they can do it cheaper just like I opposed American companies moving jobs to China just because the labor is cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomato can Posted April 12, 2014 Author Share Posted April 12, 2014 From what I have been reading the Bundy family had grazing rights dating back many years. His family built the water sources (wells) on the land which granted them grazing and water rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 The American Cattle Rancher is thrown off public land so it can be sold at a very generous price to the chinese who are going to build a 5 billion dollar solar plant that we will be forced to purchase our energy from?....environmentalists will champion this even if it means trampling on our liberties and freeddoms because they will stop at nothing to force us to the inefficent & expensive renewable source of energy. http://www.reviewjou...ce-headquarters http://www.infowars....of-bundy-ranch/ Once eminent domain was used to rip down neighborhoods so Malls and other private industry could take the space - under the theory that increased tax revenues = public good, what can't you use it for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 It's not about turtles. Bundy Ranch, the Federal Government,and the Nevada Water Tipping Point American Thinker, by Monica Morrill Original Article . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 It's not about turtles. Bundy Ranch, the Federal Government,and the Nevada Water Tipping Point American Thinker, by Monica Morrill Original Article . I donn't want to comment on this. It would be too god damn aggravating. But the picture above from your article is !@#$ing beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 I donn't want to comment on this. It would be too god damn aggravating. But the picture above from your article is !@#$ing beautiful. Word is out the Feds backed down and gave up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Word is out the Feds backed down and gave up. Does that mean they're refunding everyone else's public land-use fees from the past 20 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Word is out the Feds backed down and gave up. I am aware. And equally speechless. Who gave up? What did they "give up?" What has already been surrendered? I applaud the Bundy families actions and results, but I am frustrated that this is only one case and defined by such extreme circumstances and has such a small impact. Nothing has been changed. This is just David putting a dent in the armor of Golliath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Does that mean they're refunding everyone else's public land-use fees from the past 20 years? Good point. I am aware. And equally speechless. Who gave up? What did they "give up?" What has already been surrendered? I applaud the Bundy families actions and results, but I am frustrated that this is only one case and defined by such extreme circumstances and has such a small impact. Nothing has been changed. This is just David putting a dent in the armor of Golliath. Why should he be allowed to graze on public land while they kicked the others off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 I am not a big enviro... But is ranching one of the worst uses for land. I know you may disagree jboyst, isn't grazing terrible for the land? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Good point. Why should he be allowed to graze on public land while they kicked the others off? It was his land to begin with before it was deemed public land. I am not a big enviro... But is ranching one of the worst uses for land. I know you may disagree jboyst, isn't grazing terrible for the land? why on earth would it be bad for the land? the whole cloven hooves thing? it's no worse then a lot of other uses for the land, if you want to go extreme. But, in reality and not being bias at all you must remember that cattle, buffalo and many other wild animals were on those plains long ago. The environment can sustain itself as long as it is not abused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 (edited) It was his land to begin with before it was deemed public land. No. Going back to the 1870's right? Now, if my memory serves me right, Nevada was admitted into the Union in 1868... Right? I don't get this whole "territory of the US" business... It is US soil first. If he thinks it is his land, then give it back to the Native Americans. EDIT: Correction--Nevada admitted to the Union in 1864. Edited April 12, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Bundy has come a long ways from the shoe store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 (edited) Source all non-origional material, please. You're currently in violation of the ToS. Edited April 13, 2014 by Beerball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 (edited) Source all non-origional material, please. You're currently in violation of the ToS. Yeah, they really should source it or @ least put in quotes. I was reading what gator wrote (I forget which news outlet) and didn't assume it was their own words. I think it is pretty obvious. Why now get ticky tacky... Yet, your are well within your right to complain. jboyst: Speaking of being hard on the land. I always though range cattle were land intensive with their grazing, etc... This is Nevada, not the Great Plains. Though Nevada is one of the most diverse state, there is fragile ecology. IMO... This guy is simply out to game the system and say eff you to any concept of public land. This nutjob doesn't even acknowledge the US as his nation. IMO, immature & selfish. It is like he never got past age 14 with regard to authority... He accepts no authority. Edited April 12, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 It was his land to begin with before it was deemed public land. why on earth would it be bad for the land? the whole cloven hooves thing? it's no worse then a lot of other uses for the land, if you want to go extreme. But, in reality and not being bias at all you must remember that cattle, buffalo and many other wild animals were on those plains long ago. The environment can sustain itself as long as it is not abused. I haven't seen a damn thing that indicates it was "his land" other than him saying "It's my land!" Not that I'm on the government's side here, either. But the guy's arguing land rights at an "I was here first!" kindergarten-level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 I haven't seen a damn thing that indicates it was "his land" other than him saying "It's my land!" Not that I'm on the government's side here, either. But the guy's arguing land rights at an "I was here first!" kindergarten-level. It did say there was some evidence showing it was given to him. My grandfather made a similar case against the county here when they took 5 acres from him. They ripped down a fence and put up one of theirs and never said a thing. 3 months later when my grandpa noticed he went to ask wtf happened and they said they were using their land. He said it was their land. We end up hiring an attorney, getting witnesses and more and prove that he had used the land, maintained it, and all for his entire life and his father had, too. The biggest tipping point is he was taxed on it, for that acreage that they ended up claiming was their land. That is going to be an issue here in this case - he did not pay because it is his land, he will claim. If it is truly his land and supported...well...crap here I am talking about it. Anyway, if he did farm the land was he responsible with it? Did he charge others? Why now is he making a big deal about it? What are the real sticking points of this story? It's all about the money but the only thing that will matter is the law and how it is read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 At some point in the past Bundy stopped paying the grazing rights fees; does anyone know why he stopped paying? Did he just decide that the land was "his" and therefore stop paying? Was the land in his family in the past, or did he just decide he's an American and the land is inside America, therefore, it's his? I've listened to him speak on the issue, but he really doesn't offer any facts to support his claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts