Nevada Cattle Ranch

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:…
This makes sense.

FWIW, I have a ranching background.[/quote]

Ok, I am confused. Straighten me out here.

*Mexico ceded Nevada to the People of the United States.
*The land in question, whether in Clark or other counties, has been in the control/posession of the General Land Office, until it legally ceded to the the BLM the administration of this land.
*The land in question was never owned by Rancher or his family; grazing rights were leased to his family or to him from the relevant authority.
*According to the Federal Land Management Act of 1976, the BLM is charged to manage these lands “and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.”
*The Rancher has acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in this matter–since he has put suit in them–and they have ruled against him.
*In any case, he has not paid the grazing fees the appropriate authority
*Or, the BLM had decided that the land can support fewer cattle.

Whether the BLM chooses to protect a tortoise or protect oil drillers is a challenging political issue. But the courts have ruled here, the Rancher does not hold ownership rights or rights in perpetuity, and the BLM are acting in “the interests” of the American people until the courts have decided otherwise.

So what’s his beef?

[/quote]

Bundy has already paid fees to Clark county in a pre-existing arrangement. The BLM are now changing the conditions and demanding more fees. When he refused to pay they used the specious excuse of wanting to protect a tortoise. [/quote]

that was County Tax , Why did he not object to paying his portion of his GAS tax
[/quote]

Because he already had a pre-existing arrangement with Clark county for water and grazing rights.
[/quote]

So who has jurisdiction? Clark County or BLM?
Clark County administers and enforces law, but the land is owned by the U.S. and administered through the BLM, correct?
So were is this “preexisting agreement?” What exactly does it say? Does the BLM cede its rights in perpetuity?[/quote]

I haven’t seen the arrangement however I do know that the federal government suddenly changed the rules in 1993 allowing for the protection of a tortoise and limits on the number of cattle allowed to graze. That’s when Bundy stopped paying fees. The federal government has actually owned the land since the Mexican Cession and they unilaterally changed the rules after 150+ years ostensibly to ‘protect’ tortoises by euthanising them. Just because the courts upheld it doesn’t make it right.

82

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:…
This makes sense.

FWIW, I have a ranching background.[/quote]

Ok, I am confused. Straighten me out here.

*Mexico ceded Nevada to the People of the United States.
*The land in question, whether in Clark or other counties, has been in the control/posession of the General Land Office, until it legally ceded to the the BLM the administration of this land.
*The land in question was never owned by Rancher or his family; grazing rights were leased to his family or to him from the relevant authority.
*According to the Federal Land Management Act of 1976, the BLM is charged to manage these lands “and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.”
*The Rancher has acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in this matter–since he has put suit in them–and they have ruled against him.
*In any case, he has not paid the grazing fees the appropriate authority
*Or, the BLM had decided that the land can support fewer cattle.

Whether the BLM chooses to protect a tortoise or protect oil drillers is a challenging political issue. But the courts have ruled here, the Rancher does not hold ownership rights or rights in perpetuity, and the BLM are acting in “the interests” of the American people until the courts have decided otherwise.

So what’s his beef?

[/quote]

Bundy has already paid fees to Clark county in a pre-existing arrangement. The BLM are now changing the conditions and demanding more fees. When he refused to pay they used the specious excuse of wanting to protect a tortoise. [/quote]

that was County Tax , Why did he not object to paying his portion of his GAS tax
[/quote]

Because he already had a pre-existing arrangement with Clark county for water and grazing rights.
[/quote]

So who has jurisdiction? Clark County or BLM?
Clark County administers and enforces law, but the land is owned by the U.S. and administered through the BLM, correct?
So were is this “preexisting agreement?” What exactly does it say? Does the BLM cede its rights in perpetuity?[/quote]

I haven’t seen the arrangement however I do know that the federal government suddenly changed the rules in 1993 allowing for the protection of a tortoise and limits on the number of cattle allowed to graze. That’s when Bundy stopped paying fees. The federal government has actually owned the land since the Mexican Cession and they unilaterally changed the rules after 150+ years ostensibly to ‘protect’ tortoises by euthanising them. Just because the courts upheld it doesn’t make it right.

[/quote]
Uh…by law, the BLM’s stated mission is to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

They are not obliged to support solely grazing, or solely lumber or firewood gathering or recreation or endangered species for that matter. The BLM can change its policies, and does so; perhaps favoring grazing, gas and oil under one administration, and desert tortoises under another.
(A quick visit outside of Canyonlands is an eye-opener for the fickleness of multi-use planning.)

The courts are there to resolve disputes. Notice: the Rancher case was not tried in an administrative law court only, but was denied relief by the US District Courts.
And who else determines what is right? Why is his plaint not subject to adjudication by these courts, courts he agreed to? If he is so special, well…he can prove that in court, too.

83

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:…
This makes sense.

FWIW, I have a ranching background.[/quote]

Ok, I am confused. Straighten me out here.

*Mexico ceded Nevada to the People of the United States.
*The land in question, whether in Clark or other counties, has been in the control/posession of the General Land Office, until it legally ceded to the the BLM the administration of this land.
*The land in question was never owned by Rancher or his family; grazing rights were leased to his family or to him from the relevant authority.
*According to the Federal Land Management Act of 1976, the BLM is charged to manage these lands “and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.”
*The Rancher has acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in this matter–since he has put suit in them–and they have ruled against him.
*In any case, he has not paid the grazing fees the appropriate authority
*Or, the BLM had decided that the land can support fewer cattle.

Whether the BLM chooses to protect a tortoise or protect oil drillers is a challenging political issue. But the courts have ruled here, the Rancher does not hold ownership rights or rights in perpetuity, and the BLM are acting in “the interests” of the American people until the courts have decided otherwise.

So what’s his beef?

[/quote]

Bundy has already paid fees to Clark county in a pre-existing arrangement. The BLM are now changing the conditions and demanding more fees. When he refused to pay they used the specious excuse of wanting to protect a tortoise. [/quote]

that was County Tax , Why did he not object to paying his portion of his GAS tax
[/quote]

Because he already had a pre-existing arrangement with Clark county for water and grazing rights.
[/quote]

So who has jurisdiction? Clark County or BLM?
Clark County administers and enforces law, but the land is owned by the U.S. and administered through the BLM, correct?
So were is this “preexisting agreement?” What exactly does it say? Does the BLM cede its rights in perpetuity?[/quote]

what happened to our right to free assembly , or our right to never have an unREASONable search or seizure

84

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:…
This makes sense.

FWIW, I have a ranching background.[/quote]

Ok, I am confused. Straighten me out here.

*Mexico ceded Nevada to the People of the United States.
*The land in question, whether in Clark or other counties, has been in the control/posession of the General Land Office, until it legally ceded to the the BLM the administration of this land.
*The land in question was never owned by Rancher or his family; grazing rights were leased to his family or to him from the relevant authority.
*According to the Federal Land Management Act of 1976, the BLM is charged to manage these lands “and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.”
*The Rancher has acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in this matter–since he has put suit in them–and they have ruled against him.
*In any case, he has not paid the grazing fees the appropriate authority
*Or, the BLM had decided that the land can support fewer cattle.

Whether the BLM chooses to protect a tortoise or protect oil drillers is a challenging political issue. But the courts have ruled here, the Rancher does not hold ownership rights or rights in perpetuity, and the BLM are acting in “the interests” of the American people until the courts have decided otherwise.

So what’s his beef?

[/quote]

Bundy has already paid fees to Clark county in a pre-existing arrangement. The BLM are now changing the conditions and demanding more fees. When he refused to pay they used the specious excuse of wanting to protect a tortoise. [/quote]

that was County Tax , Why did he not object to paying his portion of his GAS tax
[/quote]

Because he already had a pre-existing arrangement with Clark county for water and grazing rights.
[/quote]

So who has jurisdiction? Clark County or BLM?
Clark County administers and enforces law, but the land is owned by the U.S. and administered through the BLM, correct?
So were is this “preexisting agreement?” What exactly does it say? Does the BLM cede its rights in perpetuity?[/quote]

what happened to our right to free assembly , or our right to never have an unREASONable search or seizure
[/quote]

Different issue, different answer.
Is this the first time in your experience where an area is cordoned off from public use for demonstration? Can you demonstrate anytime you like on the White House lawn?
If the BLM was deployed jack-booted thugs to violate civil rights…sue the bastards. But that doesn’t boost the Rancher’s cause any.

85

No , I will never understand your indifference because you don’t understand mine :slight_smile: Human Nature

86

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:…
This makes sense.

FWIW, I have a ranching background.[/quote]

Ok, I am confused. Straighten me out here.

*Mexico ceded Nevada to the People of the United States.
*The land in question, whether in Clark or other counties, has been in the control/posession of the General Land Office, until it legally ceded to the the BLM the administration of this land.
*The land in question was never owned by Rancher or his family; grazing rights were leased to his family or to him from the relevant authority.
*According to the Federal Land Management Act of 1976, the BLM is charged to manage these lands “and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.”
*The Rancher has acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in this matter–since he has put suit in them–and they have ruled against him.
*In any case, he has not paid the grazing fees the appropriate authority
*Or, the BLM had decided that the land can support fewer cattle.

Whether the BLM chooses to protect a tortoise or protect oil drillers is a challenging political issue. But the courts have ruled here, the Rancher does not hold ownership rights or rights in perpetuity, and the BLM are acting in “the interests” of the American people until the courts have decided otherwise.

So what’s his beef?

[/quote]

Bundy has already paid fees to Clark county in a pre-existing arrangement. The BLM are now changing the conditions and demanding more fees. When he refused to pay they used the specious excuse of wanting to protect a tortoise. [/quote]

that was County Tax , Why did he not object to paying his portion of his GAS tax
[/quote]

Because he already had a pre-existing arrangement with Clark county for water and grazing rights.
[/quote]

So who has jurisdiction? Clark County or BLM?
Clark County administers and enforces law, but the land is owned by the U.S. and administered through the BLM, correct?
So were is this “preexisting agreement?” What exactly does it say? Does the BLM cede its rights in perpetuity?[/quote]

I haven’t seen the arrangement however I do know that the federal government suddenly changed the rules in 1993 allowing for the protection of a tortoise and limits on the number of cattle allowed to graze. That’s when Bundy stopped paying fees. The federal government has actually owned the land since the Mexican Cession and they unilaterally changed the rules after 150+ years ostensibly to ‘protect’ tortoises by euthanising them. Just because the courts upheld it doesn’t make it right.

[/quote]
Uh…by law, the BLM’s stated mission is to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

They are not obliged to support solely grazing, or solely lumber or firewood gathering or recreation or endangered species for that matter. The BLM can change its policies, and does so; perhaps favoring grazing, gas and oil under one administration, and desert tortoises under another.
(A quick visit outside of Canyonlands is an eye-opener for the fickleness of multi-use planning.)

The courts are there to resolve disputes. Notice: the Rancher case was not tried in an administrative law court only, but was denied relief by the US District Courts.
And who else determines what is right? Why is his plaint not subject to adjudication by these courts, courts he agreed to? If he is so special, well…he can prove that in court, too.[/quote]

That doesn’t make it right. Bundy had an arrangement with Clark county and was allowed grazing and water rights. He paid fees and spent his own money maintaining the land, building fences etc. Then in 93 the BLM demanded more fees. The tortoises have lived in harmony with grazers for 150+ years yet they used a specious argument of protecting them to remove Bundy’s cattle. They didn’t proffer non payment of fees as their reason, they made up a load of malarkey about protection of tortoises.

87

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
No , I will never understand your indifference because you don’t understand mine :slight_smile: Human Nature [/quote]

Your statement about search and seizure and free assembly has absolutely nothing to do with what everyone else is discussing - Bundy’s grazing and water rights.

88

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:…
This makes sense.

FWIW, I have a ranching background.[/quote]

Ok, I am confused. Straighten me out here.

*Mexico ceded Nevada to the People of the United States.
*The land in question, whether in Clark or other counties, has been in the control/posession of the General Land Office, until it legally ceded to the the BLM the administration of this land.
*The land in question was never owned by Rancher or his family; grazing rights were leased to his family or to him from the relevant authority.
*According to the Federal Land Management Act of 1976, the BLM is charged to manage these lands “and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.”
*The Rancher has acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in this matter–since he has put suit in them–and they have ruled against him.
*In any case, he has not paid the grazing fees the appropriate authority
*Or, the BLM had decided that the land can support fewer cattle.

Whether the BLM chooses to protect a tortoise or protect oil drillers is a challenging political issue. But the courts have ruled here, the Rancher does not hold ownership rights or rights in perpetuity, and the BLM are acting in “the interests” of the American people until the courts have decided otherwise.

So what’s his beef?

[/quote]

Bundy has already paid fees to Clark county in a pre-existing arrangement. The BLM are now changing the conditions and demanding more fees. When he refused to pay they used the specious excuse of wanting to protect a tortoise. [/quote]

that was County Tax , Why did he not object to paying his portion of his GAS tax
[/quote]

Because he already had a pre-existing arrangement with Clark county for water and grazing rights.
[/quote]

So who has jurisdiction? Clark County or BLM?
Clark County administers and enforces law, but the land is owned by the U.S. and administered through the BLM, correct?
So were is this “preexisting agreement?” What exactly does it say? Does the BLM cede its rights in perpetuity?[/quote]

I haven’t seen the arrangement however I do know that the federal government suddenly changed the rules in 1993 allowing for the protection of a tortoise and limits on the number of cattle allowed to graze. That’s when Bundy stopped paying fees. The federal government has actually owned the land since the Mexican Cession and they unilaterally changed the rules after 150+ years ostensibly to ‘protect’ tortoises by euthanising them. Just because the courts upheld it doesn’t make it right.

[/quote]

Oh…look here:
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2012cv00804/87613/35

This is the summary judgment, after many years of litigation, dated 7/9/2013, in which every argument posted here, is addressed and refuted.
The next step would be an appeal to the 9th District Court, I suppose. He has had months to file one.

Incidentally, Bundy’s daughter indicated that Clark County refused to accept payment offered to it instead of the BLM. (Where is this agreement we hear of, and what is its legal standing? Apparently it is not sufficient to deny summary judgment.)

Now, if Bundy had been grazing his cattle on the nearby Moapa Indian Reservation, and had not paid them for 20 years, would he still be “right” to do so? Does his right exceed that of the Moapas or that of the United States? SM–if the District Court is not empowered to judge what is right, then who?

89

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:…
This makes sense.

FWIW, I have a ranching background.[/quote]

Ok, I am confused. Straighten me out here.

*Mexico ceded Nevada to the People of the United States.
*The land in question, whether in Clark or other counties, has been in the control/posession of the General Land Office, until it legally ceded to the the BLM the administration of this land.
*The land in question was never owned by Rancher or his family; grazing rights were leased to his family or to him from the relevant authority.
*According to the Federal Land Management Act of 1976, the BLM is charged to manage these lands “and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.”
*The Rancher has acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in this matter–since he has put suit in them–and they have ruled against him.
*In any case, he has not paid the grazing fees the appropriate authority
*Or, the BLM had decided that the land can support fewer cattle.

Whether the BLM chooses to protect a tortoise or protect oil drillers is a challenging political issue. But the courts have ruled here, the Rancher does not hold ownership rights or rights in perpetuity, and the BLM are acting in “the interests” of the American people until the courts have decided otherwise.

So what’s his beef?

[/quote]

Bundy has already paid fees to Clark county in a pre-existing arrangement. The BLM are now changing the conditions and demanding more fees. When he refused to pay they used the specious excuse of wanting to protect a tortoise. [/quote]

that was County Tax , Why did he not object to paying his portion of his GAS tax
[/quote]

Because he already had a pre-existing arrangement with Clark county for water and grazing rights.
[/quote]

So who has jurisdiction? Clark County or BLM?
Clark County administers and enforces law, but the land is owned by the U.S. and administered through the BLM, correct?
So were is this “preexisting agreement?” What exactly does it say? Does the BLM cede its rights in perpetuity?[/quote]

I haven’t seen the arrangement however I do know that the federal government suddenly changed the rules in 1993 allowing for the protection of a tortoise and limits on the number of cattle allowed to graze. That’s when Bundy stopped paying fees. The federal government has actually owned the land since the Mexican Cession and they unilaterally changed the rules after 150+ years ostensibly to ‘protect’ tortoises by euthanising them. Just because the courts upheld it doesn’t make it right.

[/quote]

Oh…look here:
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2012cv00804/87613/35

This is the summary judgment, after many years of litigation, dated 7/9/2013, in which every argument posted here, is addressed and refuted.
The next step would be an appeal to the 9th District Court, I suppose. He has had months to file one.

Incidentally, Bundy’s daughter indicated that Clark County refused to accept payment offered to it instead of the BLM. (Where is this agreement we hear of, and what is its legal standing? Apparently it is not sufficient to deny summary judgment.)

Now, if Bundy had been grazing his cattle on the nearby Moapa Indian Reservation, and had not paid them for 20 years, would he still be “right” to do so? Does his right exceed that of the Moapas or that of the United States? SM–if the District Court is not empowered to judge what is right, then who?
[/quote]

I’ve already accepted that he doesn’t have the law on his side. That doesn’t mean I accept the argument made by the federal government. Obamacare is law too. Is Bundy ‘right’ to ignore court orders? Legally; no. Morally; based on what is known more than likely yes. Although if I were in his position I would do what was in my own best interests. I would probably abide by the court’s ruling.

90

This is sad but I personally think if a tax is just, you need to pay it. I wonder why the other ranchers are paying it and where they stand on this if it is frilly unjust.

The real winner here is the radical environmentalist. They got the Feds to fight their battles with our money. Pretty smart of them, huh?

92

Fuck the government, fuck that turtle and fuck these stupid taxes. I bust my ass every day at work and get to keep ~ $0.70 for every dollar I earn. For what? So they can give billions of it away to people and foreign governments who don’t earn it? So they can pass layer upon layer of bureaucratic bullshit laws that nobody voted for that makes doing just about ANYTHING a major pain in the ass and an expense? They just take and TAKE AND FUCKING TAKE.

I’m glad the rancher stood up to the the fucking government. He had a good thing going for years and then they changed up. What was he supposed to do? Just say, “OK, I’ll just stop ranching now and do something else because the gubment fucked me”? The Federal Government needs back up and get out of the way. They don’t help us, they FUCK us consistently. But the sheeple of the United States say, “thank you, can I have another”. I’m glad someone is finally standing up. Imagine if we ALL stood up… (or at least a significant enough number of us to get their attention)

Land of the free, my ass.

94

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
The militias are a fucking joke. A bunch of grown men who are playing GI Joe to distract themselves from their shallow intellects and inconsequential existences. [/quote]

lol @ how much of a self righteous, indignant, judgmental elitist you are.

It must be so hard for you to walk among us simpletons every day. [/quote]

holy fucking poo , how big of a hypocrite are you :slight_smile: Even if he was and I am not saying he is . That would be like the sun calling the moon stellar :slight_smile:
[/quote]

It didn’t turn out so well the last time a bunch of Europeans thought U.S. militias were a joke.
[/quote]

You believe that I’m a European? Does my writing give you that impression? Militias made sense when America didn’t maintain a standing army. It now maintains an extremely professional and capable standing army. Heavily armed paramilitary groups guided by ideological fundamentalism using force to undermine federal law enforcement, as the militia leader in the video is advocating, is alarming. [/quote]

Not at all, Bissy, it’s downright fantastic.[/quote]

Agreed. For many reasons

95

[quote]Bismark wrote:
You believe that I’m a European? Does my writing give you that impression? Militias made sense when America didn’t maintain a standing army. It now maintains an extremely professional and capable standing army. Heavily armed paramilitary groups guided by ideological fundamentalism using force to undermine federal law enforcement, as the militia leader in the video is advocating, is alarming. [/quote]

Why did militias only make sense when America didn’t maintain a standing army? That is an absolutely ridiculous claim. What you are saying is that militias only make sense until one group is recognized as the only lawful initiator of violence. The fact that our rulers now have such a heavily-armed military means that militia groups are more needed than ever. Checks and balances.

Someone who frequently mentions that politics is nothing but the pursuit of power should certainly realize that voluntarily giving one group a monopoly on violence is not a good idea.

96

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
You believe that I’m a European? Does my writing give you that impression? Militias made sense when America didn’t maintain a standing army. It now maintains an extremely professional and capable standing army. Heavily armed paramilitary groups guided by ideological fundamentalism using force to undermine federal law enforcement, as the militia leader in the video is advocating, is alarming. [/quote]

Why did militias only make sense when America didn’t maintain a standing army? That is an absolutely ridiculous claim. What you are saying is that militias only make sense until one group is recognized as the only lawful initiator of violence. The fact that the U.S. now has such a heavily-armed and professional military means that militia groups are more needed than ever. Checks and balances.

Someone who frequently mentions that politics is nothing but the pursuit of power should certainly realize that voluntarily giving one group a monopoly on violence is not a good idea.[/quote]

Bismark is King George III great, great great great Grandchild. I didn’t think they were so pissed after all those years.

97

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Fuck the government, fuck that turtle and fuck these stupid taxes. I bust my ass every day at work and get to keep ~ $0.70 for every dollar I earn. For what? So they can give billions of it away to people and foreign governments who don’t earn it? So they can pass layer upon layer of bureaucratic bullshit laws that nobody voted for that makes doing just about ANYTHING a major pain in the ass and an expense? They just take and TAKE AND FUCKING TAKE.

I’m glad the rancher stood up to the the fucking government. He had a good thing going for years and then they changed up. What was he supposed to do? Just say, “OK, I’ll just stop ranching now and do something else because the gubment fucked me”? The Federal Government needs back up and get out of the way. They don’t help us, they FUCK us consistently. But the sheeple of the United States say, “thank you, can I have another”. I’m glad someone is finally standing up. Imagine if we ALL stood up… (or at least a significant enough number of us to get their attention)

Land of the free, my ass.[/quote]

  1. Taxes?

In dispute here are not taxes but grazing fees and who has the right to set them. Taxes on production were not raised; the fees charged by the BLM agency were.

  1. Federal Government?

I did some homework on this so-called agreement with Clark County. It turns out that Clark County had bought the water rights in the Bunkerville zone, and it was Clark County which then withdrew the water rights from the private rancher. It was Clark County which put this zone out of reach of ranchers, for the benefit of…Las Vegas, casinos, golf courses, but not for the marginal beef industry.
So Mr Bundy may have sued Clark County, or the people of Clark County could have voted, or…never mind. Fuck the Government.

  1. The BLM is obliged to continue established practices forever?

OK, AG. We know you are in the oil business. Perhaps you or the company you work for leases drilling rights on BLM territory. The BLM raises the fees–the market for oil allows it–you pay them because the profit still is there, but your competitor does not pay them. For twenty years. IF the BLM does not apply the fees uniformly, it is exercising favoritism…against you. Should the BLM just back out of the way and allow your competitor to push you out of the market?

98

What is the end game here for the feds? Once he has reduced his herd or just gives up then what? Drilling? Mineral extraction of some type?

Or do they really want a relatively insignificant (to them) grazing fee?

99

http://godfatherpolitics.com/15161/harry-reid-sons-solar-power-scheme-connected-bundy-ranch-standoff/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/us-usa-china-reid-solar-idUSBRE87U06D20120831

I am surprised no one has mentioned this. Harry Reid and Chinese interests working together. He is such a fucking cocksucking treasonous bastard.

100

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
What is the end game here for the feds? Once he has reduced his herd or just gives up then what? Drilling? Mineral extraction of some type?

Or do they really want a relatively insignificant (to them) grazing fee?
[/quote]

Control of the populace: “You will do as we say, because we say so.”

Did the government really need the possible small gain from imprisoning Randy Weaver? No, but if it lets one person get away with disobeying its rules, others might follow. Was there really any reason to raid the Branch Davidian compound and kill 76 men, women, and children? Did the possible weapons rule violations and arrests really justify that?

I also loved hearing the Republican radio show hosts speak out against this, as if they wouldn’t defend it if it was done under Republican leadership and under the guise of fighting a foreign bogeyman.