Bundy Ranch

[3rdnlng]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-long-fight-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/

The case of cattle rancher Cliven Bundy burst into the national news cycle over the past week, captivating conservative media outlets with its protagonist, a firm believer of states' right with an armed group of supporters backing him. The stand-off between Nevada rancher and federal government officials trying to push cattle off of protected federal land has paused for now, but officials plan to renew their efforts soon.

This most-recent skirmish is only the latest in a decades-long fight between the federal government and Cliven Bundy, however. Here's a timeline that proves just how complicated this case is — as well as the power that the media still retains to elevate a local political issue into a national one.

[Deranged Rhino]

http://www.washingto...ral-government/

 

The case of cattle rancher Cliven Bundy burst into the national news cycle over the past week, captivating conservative media outlets with its protagonist, a firm believer of states' right with an armed group of supporters backing him. The stand-off between Nevada rancher and federal government officials trying to push cattle off of protected federal land has paused for now, but officials plan to renew their efforts soon.

This most-recent skirmish is only the latest in a decades-long fight between the federal government and Cliven Bundy, however. Here's a timeline that proves just how complicated this case is — as well as the power that the media still retains to elevate a local political issue into a national one.

From the article:

“I think Cliven is taking a stand not only for family ranchers, but also for every freedom-loving American, for everyone,"

 

...Sure he is. So long as those freedom loving Americans are white and... not Americans since he does not believe in the Federal Government's very existence.

 

:lol:

[3rdnlng]

From the article:

“I think Cliven is taking a stand not only for family ranchers, but also for every freedom-loving American, for everyone,"

 

...Sure he is. So long as those freedom loving Americans are white and... not Americans since he does not believe in the Federal Government's very existence.

 

:lol:

 

Are you practicing up to play gatorman in some play we don't know about?

 

You read the article that was basically about the time frame of his disputes and all you could come up with was to try to revert this thread back to race?

 

Who said he doesn't believe in the federal governments existence?

[Trump_is_Mentally_fit]

 

 

 

Who said he doesn't believe in the federal governments existence?

Wow!

[Deranged Rhino]

Who said he doesn't believe in the federal governments existence?

BUNDY said it himself. Holy crap, it's like you know nothing about this man you're claiming to be supporting.

 

Which, considering your repeated defense of the man is not shocking. Learn about who you're supporting, my friend.

[Deranged Rhino]

You asked for this 3rd. You made me post it and you should watch it all... it'll be painful for you. This was made prior to Bundy's racist rant, btw.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/22/jon_stewart_mocks_hannity_conservative_media_for_defending_cliven_bundy.html

[3rdnlng]

BUNDY said it himself. Holy crap, it's like you know nothing about this man you're claiming to be supporting.

 

Which, considering your repeated defense of the man is not shocking. Learn about who you're supporting, my friend.

 

Are you talking about the federal government's right to own 85% of Nevada rather than the state's right to own it? Isn't that where he mentioned that he didn't recognize the Feds right to own it?

 

You asked for this 3rd. You made me post it and you should watch it all... it'll be painful for you. This was made prior to Bundy's racist rant, btw.

 

http://www.realclear...iven_bundy.html

 

You have now brought yourself down to posting a comedian's video as somehow refuting anything? Who are you going to quote next, Bill Nye?

[Deranged Rhino]

You have now brought yourself down to posting a comedian's video as somehow refuting anything? Who are you going to quote next, Bill Nye?

Cowardly response unless you watched it.

 

I have brought myself to a new low? Who's the one here defending a man (and getting thoroughly trounced in our own discussions) who everyone else on the planet has distanced themselves from? Who's the one who claims to be so knowledgeable about the issue yet has repeatedly shown his own ignorance about what that man actually stands for? It ain't me, bud. That's all on you. So far in the past few pages of this thread you've done nothing but deny the reality that everyone else clearly sees -- while offering no supporting evidence.

 

Say what you want about Stewart, the man is a satirist. A comic and jester. And when the jester is the only one making sense, it's time to start rethinking your own positions.

 

Isn't that where he mentioned that he didn't recognize the Feds right to own it?

No, that's not what he said or when he said it.

 

Again, it helps to actually know the material you're defending before you start to defend it. It'll save you plenty of heartache.

[GG]

Are you talking about the federal government's right to own 85% of Nevada rather than the state's right to own it? Isn't that where he mentioned that he didn't recognize the Feds right to own it?

 

Federal government owns over 90% of Nevada property. Too bad that was the pact the state agreed to when it was admitted to the Union. Nevada can always try to secede and rejoin Mexico to get the land back.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

Yes - it is so unjust to ask for rent......there is a system for determining what is not just....called the courts, appellate courts....SCOTUS....commonly called the rule of law.....

This is nothing more than a tremendous ball of logical fallacies.

 

Rent is only just if the land owner can demonstrate actual upkeep/maintainence/proper ownership free of other superceding contracts (ie. indefinite custodial grazing rights assumed free and clear, squatters rights, ownership via uncontested improvement, etc.)

 

Further, justness is not determined by the courts; legality is. The two are anything but synonymous. Unless you're a proponent of the Divine Right of Kings, are you a proponent of the Divine Right of Kings?

 

There is nothing about this case worth defending.....and the more anyone defends this case the less credibility they have....

I can see how someone might think that's true, if they were a complete moron with a ghettoized mind, who belives that government has the right of way assuming what the government wants to do was determined to be legal by the government who wants to do it; and has absolutely no handle on Rights Theory, or any related philosophies.

[GG]

This is nothing more than a tremendous ball of logical fallacies.

 

Rent is only just if the land owner can demonstrate actual upkeep/maintainence/proper ownership free of other superceding contracts (ie. indefinite custodial grazing rights assumed free and clear, squatters rights, ownership via uncontested improvement, etc.)

 

Further, justness is not determined by the courts; legality is. The two are anything but synonymous. Unless you're a proponent of the Divine Right of Kings, are you a proponent of the Divine Right of Kings?

 

 

I can see how someone might think that's true, if they were a complete moron with a ghettoized mind, who belives that government has the right of way assuming what the government wants to do was determined to be legal by the government who wants to do it; and has absolutely no handle on Rights Theory, or any related philosophies.

 

So now you're borrowing a page from Marx? If a private land owner owned the land, and Bundy was pulling that crap on the private land owner, I imagine you would have a different tune. What is this garbage that rent is only due if the owner can demonstrate actual upkeep maintenance?

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

So in your view, my attempting to clarify the position you espoused in this thread is an attempt to derail the thread. How exactly does that work?

A horse **** response. You didn't ask for clarification, you asked what you believed to be a loaded question; but you didn't understand the ramifications of being doubled down on, because your question steers you into an area your responses lead me to believe you don't understand. Start the thread about Rights Theory and justness, and I'll give you all the clarification you want.

Edited April 26, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[Trump_is_Mentally_fit]

This is nothing more than a tremendous ball of logical fallacies.

Rent is only just if the land owner can demonstrate actual upkeep/maintainence/proper ownership free of other superceding contracts (ie. indefinite custodial grazing rights assumed free and clear, squatters rights, ownership via uncontested improvement, etc.)

 

Further, justness is not determined by the courts; legality is. The two are anything but synonymous. Unless you're a proponent of the Divine Right of Kings, are you a proponent of the Divine Right of Kings?

I can see how someone might think that's true, if they were a complete moron with a ghettoized mind, who belives that government has the right of way assuming what the government wants to do was determined to be legal by the government who wants to do it; and has absolutely no handle on Rights Theory, or any related philosophies.

dude, you just need to let this go.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

So now you're borrowing a page from Marx? If a private land owner owned the land, and Bundy was pulling that crap on the private land owner, I imagine you would have a different tune. What is this garbage that rent is only due if the owner can demonstrate actual upkeep maintenance?

This goes all the way back to English Common Law, which is the basis for the entire structure of our system of law. The only way you could possibly arrive at your flawed understanding of what I said is if you don't understand basic sentence structure, or if you don't know anything about the organic structure of our legal system and property rights.

 

Which is it?

[GG]

This goes all the way back to English Common Law, which is the basis for the entire structure of our system of law. The only way you could possibly arrive at your flawed understanding of what I said is if you don't understand basic sentence structure, or if you don't know anything about the organic structure of our legal system and property rights.

 

Which is it?

 

I'm sorry, a strict Constitutionalist citing British common law in support of Bundy's position?

[Trump_is_Mentally_fit]

 

This goes all the way back to English Common Law, which is the basis for the entire structure of our system of law. The only way you could possibly arrive at your flawed understanding of what I said is if you don't understand basic sentence structure, or if you don't know anything about the organic structure of our legal system and property rights.

 

Which is it?

Can you show us any laws, court rulings, legal theorizing or anything that supports this?

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

I'm sorry, a strict Constitutionalist citing British common law in support of Bundy's position?

Sucks for you when you assume to understand the positions of someone whom you've never had a conversation about the subject matter with, doesn't it? Perhaps you should do yourself a favor and stop doing that.

[GG]

Sucks for you when you assume to understand the positions of someone whom you've never had a conversation about the subject matter with, doesn't it? Perhaps you should do yourself a favor and stop doing that.

 

Are you saying you're not a strict Constitutionalist?

 

Suck to have bad reading comprehension too.

[RI Bills Fan]

A horse **** response. You didn't ask for clarification, you asked what you believed to be a loaded question; but you didn't understand the ramifications of being doubled down on, because your question steers you into an area your responses lead me to believe you don't understand. Start the thread about Rights Theory and justness, and I'll give you all the clarification you want.

 

Talk about pure Bullshidt! You made the statement about "Unjust Laws." I asked for clarification of your position (i.e. WHO gets to decide which laws fit the Unjust definition) and you responded with a nonsensical rant. Methinks someone realized just how indefensible their stated position actually is and went directly to obfuscation mode as a fall back.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

Are you saying you're not a strict Constitutionalist?

 

Suck to have bad reading comprehension too.

What's a strict Constitutionalist? Do you mean strict constuctionist?

 

 

 

 

Talk about pure Bullshidt! You made the statement about "Unjust Laws." I asked for clarification of your position (i.e. WHO gets to decide which laws fit the Unjust definition) and you responded with a nonsensical rant. Methinks someone realized just how indefensible their stated position actually is and went directly to obfuscation mode as a fall back.

Anyone. Anyone at all gets to decide if a law is unjust for themselves.

 

And far from falling back, I've done the exact opposite and asked for a separate thread to discuss this matter to completeness.

 

I'd start the thread myself, but I doubt you have the balls or background to join me.