Posted on 04/10/2014 11:32:07 AM PDT by xzins
I’m sure that the Bundy clan feel that they have been wronged. But her own statement shows that not to be the case. From the article “... These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads...”
Their ancestors paid the government to use that land.
“...My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve....”
Bundy himself paid grazing fees but when he disagreed with how those fees were used, he quit paying. Of course, to make his position sound better, he says he “fired” the BLM. Guess what, he doesn’t get to fire the BLM because the BLM was established by the land owner (US government) to manage the land that the US government owns. They did not work for him in the first place.
Once he stopped paying his fees, he stopped having access rights to that land. No different than a renter who stops paying rent.
I didn’t say he acted logically.
Fear of government never spawns logic.
No WAY could Lois Lerner be doing anything wrong; if she had done anything wrong the REPUBLICAN Congress would have ousted her years and years ago. She would have been arrested before her little thought could even make it onto an email to be sent out. Her co-workers in the regime would have jumped on her so badly that she would never have been able to do a thing! Because the system works. Really, really, REALLY it works (and I don’t even have my fingers crossed behind my back when I say that either!). It stops all the bad guys before they do bad things. Nothing truly bad can ever happen in America. No corruption. No crimes. No conspiracies to do anything but love people and honor the Constitution, here in this country. There is no battle for the soul of America and the free world. That’s all just a big lie made up by crazy people who need to get a life.
There are no cats in America and the streets are paved with cheese. Everybody knows that.
Only freak conspiracy theorists would say otherwise. And if you want to peddle that kind of conspiracy nonsense you better go someplace else.
Regardless of the powers with which they have been entrusted by the People, it is reasonable to demand that our government exercise those powers in a reasonable manner.
There is NO reason whatsoever for the federal government to own any more land than is absolutely necessary to construct and maintain those types facilities, and only those types of facilities, enumerated in the constitution.
Your argument is really nothing more than acquiescence to an unnecessary expansion of power by the federal government - and I oppose ALL unnecessary expansions of the federal government.
Need I remind you that you called the argument “nonsensical sophistry”. Sorry, but that is name calling.
So if you want to even have a chance of wining the debate, you need to stop this series of name calling and return to debate the facts.
1) The land is owned by the US Government
2) The government charges grazing fees to use that land that Bundy has not paid
3) Bundy has court orders against his grazing the cattle on the government land
4) and just like any other squatter, he is being evicted from land that he does not own or have any access right to.
I was thinking that this is probably the wrong hill to die on.
No bet!
However, since a donut now costs darn near a dollar, you’re not offering very good odds... ;-)
Only to an illiterate man.
Ask him who that land is held for, under what, and who manages it. All unconstitutional.
So, if that land is held as a trust, for the American people, and it is managed by the BLM. Then is it held for the Bundys since they are American?
If I were the Judge in this case, and as the Bundys say, that they own that land. I would say. OK, then since 1993 you owe taxes on that land to your state/local government. If you pay an average of those years taxes by said date, then you will get clear title to that land.
But a Judge cant do that..because it is considered BLM land. Question then becomes, who the hells land is it? Answer, if the state of Nevada never gave that land to the federal government, then it is the state of Nevadas land. If not Nevada, then the people.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Nor was there playful banter to make the sarcasm evident. It was dead serious.
I was reading that thread for entertainment.
I saw the remark you reference, and I agree with it, coming as it did in response to your talk of wax dummies substituted for bodies in coffins.
I notice you're not saying WHO the remark came from...
I have to wonder if you have ever spent time in this area. Desolate and remote, very dry, little vegetation. A few hundred cows spread across hundreds of square miles. Dirt bikes roar across this desert at 80MPH. There are no fences, it is open range.
A person can drive on two lane roads and not see another car or a building for many miles.
Well, out here in the West, the government does that. It tries to grab up thousands / millions of acres. Per the Constitution, that land has to be granted to the US by the state and must be paid for by the US Government (Article 1 section 8).
Now, should there be a constitutional limit on the holding of the US government within a state. Sure, I can support that. How about a limit of 20%. But that is a different conversation that does Bundy have the right to graze on public lands without paying the usage fees required by law?
Again with the name calling
;-)
Did Bundy claim to own the land? I hadn’t seen or heard that. I think he’s just claiming the right to use it. He should use eminent domain to claim it and then he would own it. Then the state could rightfully impose a property tax.
The deployment of so many officers was excessive. Likely this could have been handled by half a dozen sheriff’s deputies.
Are you so uneducated that you don’t know the difference between name calling and a characterization of the content of your words? If you’re that stupid you’re not worth talking to.
I’m anti-government and think a revolution/civil war is the only thing that will save America, but I’m not convinced by this woman’s statement. It sounds like he quit paying mandatory fees because he didn’t like what the government was doing with the money. I’m not sure that’s a good idea. Granted, when my 0care penalty comes do, I’ll do whatever I can to not pay it, and the people who come to collect will have to kill me.
I’ve been near there and it is all that you described. However, it is obviously suitable for grazing. It should be noted though, that Bundy stopped paying before the gov’t stopped grazing on that land.
If you look back though the thread, I think you will find that I never said he does.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.