Bundy Ranch

[Dante]

Most of the article was from other sources, the euthanizing stat was from the Huffington Post.

And really no less reliable than CNN, MSNBC and so on.

[DC Tom]

Most of the article was from other sources, the euthanizing stat was from the Huffington Post.

 

If you believe that, you clearly didn't read the other sources.

[OCinBuffalo]

You think there is something else going on here, don't you! Tell us! Why did the govt turn to cattle wrestling??

No no gatorman: you have a lot of questions to answer first.

 

Start answering questions like: why here, why now, what government manager pokes their head out this far, only to run and hide almost immediately.....while Harry Reid starts talking about the rule of law?

 

And then? Perhaps I might tell you what I believe is going on here.

 

Not before.

[DC Tom]

No no gatorman: you have a lot of questions to answer first.

 

Start answering questions like: why here, why now, what government manager pokes their head out this far, only to run and hide almost immediately.....while Harry Reid starts talking about the rule of law?

 

And then? Perhaps I might tell you what I believe is going on here.

 

Not before.

 

That's simple. They poked their head out this far because after 20 years of bull **** they finally got the court order that the state required. And they ran and hid because they're a bunch of pussies who don't know "leadership" from "pandering to the masses."

[OCinBuffalo]

 

Ut oh...

 

http://www.msnbc.com...andoff-not-over

 

I wonder:

 

Lois Lerner violated the law. It's a provable fact. Does she get to walk away?

 

Does the guy who intentionally changed the Benghazi talking points, and then intentionally lied via omission, under oath(um, the "whole truth" part of that oath)? Does he get to walk away?

 

If what Harry Reid says is true, and the rule of law is inviolate, then before this administration is over: a whole lot of them don't get to walk away, starting with Eric Holder.

 

Of course, that's only if we apply Harry Reid's standard, along with the "equal protection under the law" concept, properly.

 

From where I sit, all of the above need to do some time, including Harry Reid. Especially including Harry Reid, once the truth about this thing comes out.

[Tiberius]

No no gatorman: you have a lot of questions to answer first.

 

Start answering questions like: why here, why now, what government manager pokes their head out this far, only to run and hide almost immediately.....while Harry Reid starts talking about the rule of law?

 

And then? Perhaps I might tell you what I believe is going on here.

 

Not before.

Why here? The law was being broken, Why Now, why not? They ran because a bunch of people with guns showed up and they put women and children out in front of them as human shields so they had to back down. Is that good enough?

 

I wonder:

 

Lois Lerner violated the law. It's a provable fact.

 

Proved in what court???

[OCinBuffalo]

That's simple. They poked their head out this far because after 20 years of bull **** they finally got the court order that the state required. And they ran and hid because they're a bunch of pussies who don't know "leadership" from "pandering to the masses."

Finally? They finally got the order? Somehow, 20 years and the word "finally" don't fit, do they?

 

It's just an amazing coincidence that this had to be done immediately, with snipers and riot gear. And, why not arrest the rancher? Why go after the cattle instead?

 

You know, if we are concerned about "the rule of law"...why not go after the law-breaker? What laws have the cattle broken?

 

It's a bit odd, that clearing the land, was more important than arresting the man? They started with the land.

 

Something about the land...says it is more important than anything, or anybody, else.

[DC Tom]

Finally? They finally got the order? Somehow, 20 years and the word "finally" don't fit, do they?

 

It's just an amazing coincidence that this had to be done immediately, with snipers and riot gear. And, why not arrest the rancher? Why go after the cattle instead?

 

You know, if we are concerned about "the rule of law"...why not go after the law-breaker? What laws have the cattle broken?

 

It's a bit odd, that clearing the land, was more important than arresting the man? They started with the land.

 

Something about the land...says it is more important than anything, or anybody, else.

 

It's not immediate, it was 45 days after the court order.

 

And the court order wasn't for Bundy's arrest, it was to clear his cattle off the land.

[GG]

Finally? They finally got the order? Somehow, 20 years and the word "finally" don't fit, do they?

 

It's just an amazing coincidence that this had to be done immediately, with snipers and riot gear. And, why not arrest the rancher? Why go after the cattle instead?

 

You know, if we are concerned about "the rule of law"...why not go after the law-breaker? What laws have the cattle broken?

 

It's a bit odd, that clearing the land, was more important than arresting the man? They started with the land.

 

Something about the land...says it is more important than anything, or anybody, else.

 

Two operative issues - one, he owes $1 million in fees & fines, two, there are still a lot of cows grazing on unapproved federal land. My guess is that now they will go after him.

[OCinBuffalo]

Why here? The law was being broken, Why Now, why not? They ran because a bunch of people with guns showed up and they put women and children out in front of them as human shields so they had to back down. Is that good enough?

Oh please, the law is broken all the time. People get off/get over, largely due to the dicretion of those who enforce the law...or did you forget all about Eric Holder...and his record of enforcing the law?

 

Why not? Please. Either you are a child, or you are acting like one intentionally. After 20 years of this, and the turtle going by the wayside, suddenly this becomes worthy of an assualt force?

 

They ran because they were ordered to, by the same guy who ordered them there to begin with.

 

You haven't answered the most important question: where did both orders originate? Both orders make so little sense, one after the other, that it looks a hell of a lot like somebody with just enough power to be threatening, but not enough to not be ignored once the PR battle was lost, gave them.

 

Proved in what court???

 

Oh I see. For anything to be a fact, it has to be done in court?

 

Smart phones/tablets have supplanted PCs as their primary internet device, for 68% of 18-32 demographic market.

 

But, since that hasn't been proven in a court, it cannot be a fact?

 

Moronic.

 

It's not immediate, it was 45 days after the court order.

 

And the court order wasn't for Bundy's arrest, it was to clear his cattle off the land.

Two operative issues - one, he owes $1 million in fees & fines, two, there are still a lot of cows grazing on unapproved federal land. My guess is that now they will go after him.

I understand. The problem is: it still doesn't wash.

 

If either of you were put in charge of this situation, and there was no sudden and undue influence from an external source, would things have gone down even kinda how they have?

 

Of course not. This is a debacle. Plain and simple. And what's worse? The Federal government isn't wrong here. The rancher is, but, the immediacy and the tactics have combined to say: somebody's agenda is at work here.

 

This is a CF that is the result of sudden, rash activity, that clearly wasn't thought through.

Edited April 15, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[Tiberius]

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy said Monday that his standoff with the feds isn’t just about cattle: It’s about an “overpowering” bureaucracy in the U.S. that needs to be disarmed.

“I only want to talk to one person in each county across the United States, and here’s what I want to say: County sheriffs, disarm U.S. bureaucracy. County sheriffs, disarm U.S. bureaucrats,” Bundy said on Glenn Beck’s radio show on TheBlaze on Monday.

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/cliven-bundy-disarm-blm-105678.html#ixzz2yynA16LD

Sounds reasonable

[DC Tom]

If either of you were put in charge of this situation, and there was no sudden and undue influence from an external source, would things have gone down even kinda how they have?

 

Of course not. I wouldn't have backed down.

 

Of course not. This is a debacle. Plain and simple. And what's worse? The Federal government isn't wrong here. The rancher is, but, the immediacy and the tactics have combined to say: somebody's agenda is at work here.

 

Same agenda they've been showing: squeeze people with money, and who owe them money. See the other thread about Social Security. Or ask Jamie Dimon. Or the GM bondholders. This administration believes all money is public domain, owned and controlled by the government, and if they decide they're entitled to what you have, they'll take it.

 

This is a CF that is the result of sudden, rash activity, that clearly wasn't thought through.

 

Golly, this administration almost NEVER does that.

 

 

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy said Monday that his standoff with the feds isn’t just about cattle: It’s about an “overpowering” bureaucracy in the U.S. that needs to be disarmed.

“I only want to talk to one person in each county across the United States, and here’s what I want to say: County sheriffs, disarm U.S. bureaucracy. County sheriffs, disarm U.S. bureaucrats,” Bundy said on Glenn Beck’s radio show on TheBlaze on Monday.

 

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz2yynA16LD

 

Sounds reasonable

 

 

!@#$ing retard. He's been dicking around the feds for 20 years, and the federal bureaucracy is overpowering?

 

I happen to think that federal bureaucracy is hidebound, overpowering, irresponsible, and self-serving only to perpetuate itself. 20 years of illegally grazing unbranded cattle on public land under the half-assed excuse that a turtle doesn't engage in foreign commerce is not an example of such.

 

Proved in what court???

 

The court of public opinion, which is why she hired a defense attorney.

 

[Tiberius]

 

The court of public opinion, which is why she hired a defense attorney.

 

The right wing media isn't the court of public opinion. But what would you call her attorney? A an independent counsel?

[GG]

I understand. The problem is: it still doesn't wash.

 

If either of you were put in charge of this situation, and there was no sudden and undue influence from an external source, would things have gone down even kinda how they have?

 

Of course not. This is a debacle. Plain and simple. And what's worse? The Federal government isn't wrong here. The rancher is, but, the immediacy and the tactics have combined to say: somebody's agenda is at work here.

 

This is a CF that is the result of sudden, rash activity, that clearly wasn't thought through.

 

Except I don't see how this is sudden. The court battles have been going on for 20 years, and there was a recent victory that precipitated this action. Why the heavy armored fed presence? Because Bundy certainly gave every indication that he's ready to use force. So he won the PR battle now, but there's still the little matter of the $1 million tab, which is next on the docket.

[OCinBuffalo]

Except I don't see how this is sudden. The court battles have been going on for 20 years, and there was a recent victory that precipitated this action. Why the heavy armored fed presence? Because Bundy certainly gave every indication that he's ready to use force. So he won the PR battle now, but there's still the little matter of the $1 million tab, which is next on the docket.

I don't know. But, I do know to look for seemingly unrelated info and see if it has any implications for what we are looking at. It's patterns in my work. Always patterns.

 

The information we've been presented thus far makes little sense. And, as we get more, the explanations for this chain of events are even more strange.

 

Everything I know about this says: there's something else going on here besides a dumbass rancher and some, suddenly way overzealous bureaucrats.

 

My experience with Federal employees says they don't take risks to their turf like this without a very good reason, or somebody ordering them to do it. and either threatening that turf, or promising more turf and/or protection.

[GG]

I don't know. But, I do know to look for seemingly unrelated info and see if it has any implications for what we are looking at. It's patterns in my work. Always patterns.

 

The information we've been presented thus far makes little sense. And, as we get more, the explanations for this chain of events are even more strange.

 

Everything I know about this says: there's something else going on here besides a dumbass rancher and some, suddenly way overzealous bureaucrats.

 

My experience with Federal employees says they don't take risks to their turf like this without a very good reason, or somebody ordering them to do it. and either threatening that turf, or promising more turf and/or protection.

 

While those are all true, what hasn't been reported is the stuff in the intervening 20 years. You're acting as if this came up suddenly because it got picked up in the press. I have a feeling a lot more has been going on over the years, and while to the rest of the world it seems sudden, from DLM's standpoint, it's simply the next stage in the escalation. Could be as simple as that.

[Dante]

No no gatorman: you have a lot of questions to answer first.

 

Start answering questions like: why here, why now, what government manager pokes their head out this far, only to run and hide almost immediately.....while Harry Reid starts talking about the rule of law?

 

And then? Perhaps I might tell you what I believe is going on here.

 

Not before.

You might find this interesting. Stick with it

http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-youre-not-being-told

[DC Tom]

While those are all true, what hasn't been reported is the stuff in the intervening 20 years. You're acting as if this came up suddenly because it got picked up in the press. I have a feeling a lot more has been going on over the years, and while to the rest of the world it seems sudden, from DLM's standpoint, it's simply the next stage in the escalation. Could be as simple as that.

 

A lot of it's summarized in the court publications. Bundy's been asked repeatedly to remove his herd himself, and stalled/prevaricated/bullshitted each time. Apparently a good portion of his herd isn't even branded, which he seems to think means he can claim or disclaim ownership as is convenient for him (he claims they're not his when BLM tells him to remove them, but bitches about "his cattle" when BLM tries to remove the unbranded - legally feral, so BLM's well within their rights to remove them - cattle).

 

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.

[Dante]

A lot of it's summarized in the court publications. Bundy's been asked repeatedly to remove his herd himself, and stalled/prevaricated/bullshitted each time. Apparently a good portion of his herd isn't even branded, which he seems to think means he can claim or disclaim ownership as is convenient for him (he claims they're not his when BLM tells him to remove them, but bitches about "his cattle" when BLM tries to remove the unbranded - legally feral, so BLM's well within their rights to remove them - cattle).

 

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.

Besides Bundy and whatever shinanigans Reid and his mob are up to, don't you think it's alarming how much land the feds either own or control? Personally I really like the idea of state sovereignty and that would seem hard to maintain when the feds own almost all the land. Just wondering what your opinion is on that. Edited April 15, 2014 by Dante

[GG]

A lot of it's summarized in the court publications. Bundy's been asked repeatedly to remove his herd himself, and stalled/prevaricated/bullshitted each time. Apparently a good portion of his herd isn't even branded, which he seems to think means he can claim or disclaim ownership as is convenient for him (he claims they're not his when BLM tells him to remove them, but bitches about "his cattle" when BLM tries to remove the unbranded - legally feral, so BLM's well within their rights to remove them - cattle).

 

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.

 

The hilarity is that this is starting to resemble a plot out of Big Love, with pious Mormons battling each other with shady deals. There's enough sticky tape out there to tie Harry Reid & family to whatever is going on, and I hope that more truth comes out if there's influence peddling going on. But that also doesn't mean that Bundy hasn't flaunted the law.

 

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.