Bundy Ranch

[boyst]

It's "cattle wrestling". We've covered this already.

would you like to refer to an expert?

 

I'd be calling lawyers. Going on the offensive. For damaging property and also cattle rustling. People used to be hung for stealing cattle.

 

http://www.foxnews.c...ranch-standoff/

they shot two bulls? Why? Bulls are seldom aggressive and if these were true cattlemen they'd have known how to pacify a bull.

 

I have one of the more aggressive breeds of cattle and only one had to deal with an aggressive animal and that was simple to do because I am trained. So were they.

 

Don't !@#$ with someone's income.

[TakeYouToTasker]

would you like to refer to an expert?

No, no...

 

That would be "cattle raping".

[Gary M]

One question I have... if it was Federal territory prior to it becoming a state - how did it become Federal territory after the sovereign state was born? Was that now not state (small s) property? Sure, the Feds managed it, but did it not in fact belong to the state?

 

What's interesting to me is the story has exposed the deep seated mistrust of the Federal government - who's agents do not have municipal powers granted to them in the Constitution - by many in parts of America that city/suburban dwellers have little or no awareness of. Riparian rights is another area of great concern. Most folks are only recently hearing about things like the Colorado River water disputes and that's largely because So Californicated's swelling population demands more, but their greenies pulled the plug out of the drain to protect a snail or a moss or mosquito or some damn thing, so now the river quite literally "passes through" and goes into the sea.

 

It was about the delta smelt

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/13/us-usa-california-water-idUSBREA2C1MB20140313

[ExiledInIllinois]

One question I have... if it was Federal territory prior to it becoming a state - how did it become Federal territory after the sovereign state was born? Was that now not state (small s) property? Sure, the Feds managed it, but did it not in fact belong to the state?

 

I mentioned earlier in this thread the "Enclave Clause." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. The people on Bundy's side are claiming the same USC argument which is wrong. For over a 100 years the court has been ruling that "conservation" can be defined as "needful buildings."

 

 

[Azalin]

Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy singlehandedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.

 

in my opinion, if this is true, it tips things in Bundy's favor, at least in principle. it sounds like the feds changed the rules in the middle of the game, so to speak.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Azalin

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

I mentioned earlier in this thread the "Enclave Clause." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. The people on Bundy's side are claiming the same USC argument which is wrong. For over a 100 years the court has been ruling that "conservation" can be defined as "needful buildings."

Please point out the portion of the Constitution which authorizes the Federal government to acquire new territories.

Edited April 17, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[IDBillzFan]

It was about the delta smelt

 

http://www.reuters.c...EA2C1MB20140313

 

Should a day ever arrive when California elects another genuine conservative governor, the first people to thank will be the greenies. No one is working harder to ensure Latinos hate progressives than the greenies putting them out of work for the sake of fish bait.

Edited April 17, 2014 by LABillzFan

[Wacka]

Reid has always been a weasel. Tommy Smothers' character in Casino WAS Reid.

[Dante]

would you like to refer to an expert?

 

they shot two bulls? Why? Bulls are seldom aggressive and if these were true cattlemen they'd have known how to pacify a bull.

 

I have one of the more aggressive breeds of cattle and only one had to deal with an aggressive animal and that was simple to do because I am trained. So were they.

 

Don't !@#$ with someone's income.

More of the BLM at work.

 

And the result

http://www.infowars.com/federal-judge-blm-engaged-in-a-criminal-conspiracy-against-ranchers/

Judge pretty much calls the BLM criminals. I guess he's just another right wing lunatic extremist I guess right?

[DC Tom]

And the result

http://www.infowars....ainst-ranchers/

Judge pretty much calls the BLM criminals. I guess he's just another right wing lunatic extremist I guess right?

 

Yes.

 

InfoWars is ridiculous. Read the court decision instead.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

Please point out the portion of the Constitution which authorizes the Federal government to acquire new territories.

 

Same clause.

 

17:  To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

 

 

Obviously, the first part of the "Enclave Clause" refers to Washington D.C..

FWIW, I honestly would like to see how that land was aquired. Was it purchased w/consent of the Nevada legislature? They don't seem to be fighting it. Just Bundy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[OCinBuffalo]

You might find this interesting. Stick with it

http://scgnews.com/b...-not-being-told

I would, if they hadn't taken down the video? CIting factual error that the guy wants to get right before he re-posts. This was still the case as of this time stamp.

The amount of slack this dipshit's been cut over the past 20 years is a better example of hidebound bureaucratic inertia and government incompetence than what's happening now.

This is what I am saying. The 20 years of hidebound bureaucratic inertia and government incompetence....is what I expected. That's normal. Why not another 20 years? That would be also be: normal. I see the 20 years as supporting, not detracting, from the point that there must be some new stimulus here, that suddenly requires tasers, dogs and snipers... and to hell with what it may look like on youtube, because the reward, or greater risk, to hidebound #1-100 of the BLM management team, outweighs that risk.

 

Look, I fully expect the government clods to sit on their asses and do nothing. I don't expect them to take drastic action that almost certainly invites Congressional review/subpeonas/career ending testimony.

I also wish that people would stop comparing him to OWS. OWS protesters occupied private property, and the police eviction occurred when the owners asked the police to clear their property. Bundy is also using somebody else's property for his cattle, and he shouldn't be surprised that the owners may want him out.

Well, with that much cattle, a police car is bound to be crapped on at some point.

I think its always been about how harry reid can use that land for his own financial gain and since the liberal tactics are to just intimidate citizens and continue their power consolidation. Trouble is...this rancher didnt wsnt to give up his cattle claim on the governments land and resulted in a stand off.

I'm not there yet. I don't want to name names, because for all we know this is some constituent X, who's represented by Congressman Y, who could be a Republican, or from another state, or whatever. This could easily come from some environtologist group, who's owed a favor by Congessman Z from Florida.

 

As we see with the IRS scandal, a Congressman can apparently do all sorts of nasty stuff, and get the executive branch to go along with it. That congressman is from nowhere near the lady he persecuted.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong. I am saying: I'm not buying that this is a merely a logical progression of 20 years of nothing, to snipers on the hill, just because it just happens to be time for snipers on the hill. I'm not buying that 5 years, 3 years, 18 months, 2 months, 2 weeks ago, snipers on the hill was always part of the "what we are doing about Clive Bundy" project plan.

Are you really arguing that Harry Reed has been plotting this solar-power takeover of grazing land for 20 years, and Bundy's a willing accomplice who's now having second thoughts?

Are you arguing that going from 20 years of nothing, to suddenly snipers on the hill, is normal behavior for government employees?

 

What about the mandatory, "we need to study this for 3 months, and perhaps engage a consultant", approach that you will find at almost every step of every single thing they do? Followed by the mandatory 2 month review of the study, and the comittee that must be formed to do the review, and the selection process for the comittee, and on and on?

 

Suddenly moving at this level and pace? Nope.

[DC Tom]

I would, if they hadn't taken down the video? CIting factual error that the guy wants to get right before he re-posts. This was still the case as of this time stamp.

 

This is what I am saying. The 20 years of hidebound bureaucratic inertia and government incompetence....is what I expected. That's normal. Why not another 20 years? That would be also be: normal. I see the 20 years as supporting, not detracting, from the point that there must be some new stimulus here, that suddenly requires tasers, dogs and snipers... and to hell with what it may look like on youtube, because the reward, or greater risk, to hidebound #1-100 of the BLM management team, outweighs that risk.

 

Look, I fully expect the government clods to sit on their asses and do nothing. I don't expect them to take drastic action that almost certainly invites Congressional review/subpeonas/career ending testimony.

 

Well, with that much cattle, a police car is bound to be crapped on at some point.

 

I'm not there yet. I don't want to name names, because for all we know this is some constituent X, who's represented by Congressman Y, who could be a Republican, or from another state, or whatever. This could easily come from some environtologist group, who's owed a favor by Congessman Z from Florida.

 

As we see with the IRS scandal, a Congressman can apparently do all sorts of nasty stuff, and get the executive branch to go along with it. That congressman is from nowhere near the lady he persecuted.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong. I am saying: I'm not buying that this is a merely a logical progression of 20 years of nothing, to snipers on the hill, just because it just happens to be time for snipers on the hill. I'm not buying that 5 years, 3 years, 18 months, 2 months, 2 weeks ago, snipers on the hill was always part of the "what we are doing about Clive Bundy" project plan.

 

Are you arguing that going from 20 years of nothing, to suddenly snipers on the hill, is normal behavior for government employees?

 

What about the mandatory, "we need to study this for 3 months, and perhaps engage a consultant", approach that you will find at almost every step of every single thing they do? Followed by the mandatory 2 month review of the study, and the comittee that must be formed to do the review, and the selection process for the comittee, and on and on?

 

Suddenly moving at this level and pace? Nope.

 

Except it wasn't "20 years of nothing."

[Dante]

Yes.

 

InfoWars is ridiculous. Read the court decision instead.

Here is a link to the actual decision Tom. I skipped to the conclusion because it's very long. Government got beat up on this one. At least as far as the decision went. In reality it was the Hage family that took all the punishment. What a shame. But you will never hear Obama cry for these people. Actual productive, real hard working American citizens(not the mythical ones Barry drones on about) that contribute to our food supply and so on. Making use out of otherwise useless acreage. Kinda makes me sick.

 

http://www.scribd.co...Nev-May-24-2013

Edited April 18, 2014 by Dante

[DC Tom]

Here is a link to the actual decision Tom. I skipped to the conclusion because it's very long. Government got beat up on this one. At least as far as the decision went. In reality it was the Hage family that took all the punishment. What a shame. But you will never hear Obama cry for these people. Actual productive, real hard working American citizens(not the mythical ones Barry drones on about) that contribute to our food supply and so on. Making use out of otherwise useless acreage. Kinda makes me sick.

 

http://www.scribd.co...Nev-May-24-2013

 

I didn't need the link. I'd already read it before I told you to read it. That's how I verified that Infowars is, in fact, ridiculous.

[birdog1960]

a nice summation: http://www.salon.com/2014/04/17/fox_news_demented_poster_boy_why_angry_rancher_cliven_bundy_is_no_patriot/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[DC Tom]

a nice summation: http://www.salon.com...dium=socialflow

 

No, it's not. That's completely !@#$ing retarded, too.

[Azalin]

a nice summation: http://www.salon.com...dium=socialflow

 

from the article:

 

" Cliven Bundy, far from being a patriot, is also clearly a straight-up communist."

 

yeah, that makes sense.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Same clause.

 

17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

 

 

Obviously, the first part of the "Enclave Clause" refers to Washington D.C..

FWIW, I honestly would like to see how that land was aquired. Was it purchased w/consent of the Nevada legislature? They don't seem to be fighting it. Just Bundy.

The entire Enclave Clause refers to D.C., and never expands it further.

 

Simplifying the sentence, but holding to the exact same stucture, it literally reads: "to exclusively create legislation governing the District of Columbia, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased from the state in which DC resides, for the erection of etc., etc."

 

This gives Congress the power to purchase land in Virginia and Maryland for these purposes, but that's as far it goes for this clause.

 

Taking this even further:

 

The Property clause (Article IV, section 3) authorizes it to make legislation governing federally owned property, and to dispose of federally owned property, but never grants it the power to acquire new federally owned property.

Edited April 18, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[Azalin]

Taking this even further:

 

The Property clause (Article IV, section 3) authorizes it to make legislation governing federally owned property, and to dispose of federally owned property, but never grants it the power to acquire new federally owned property.

 

it sounds as if the antiquities act of 1906 is in violation of the property clause. I'm not trying to nitpick or argue.....I'm just curious as to how they're not in contradiction with eachother.