I haven’t paid enough attention to this story, so I don’t know all the facts.
I don’t want any conspiracy assumptions, just facts.
Why is it not a good point that the Feds owned this land, and they should be due “rent” as any other property owner?
Are we now sympathetic to deadbeat city tennants who don’t pay rent, yet (ironically) the local city government insists the landlord has no right to evict? This happens all the time - I was part of it.
If Bundy is just “borrowing” the land but knew there were fees, how is he innocent?
The question of how they treat him is beside the point. I just want to know what I am missing that his using someone else’s land without paying “rent” is a “right”.
These are honest, innocent serious questions. I haven’t looked at this much but on the surface this is what it looks like, Reid or not.
If Bundy was a self-pronounced Socialist who didn’t want to pay his legally-obliged grazing fees because he was of the OWS mind-set, none of us would support him.
Look at it this way...
What if your landlord decided to raise your rent to a point they know will break you financially. On purpose. In violation of your contract and laws that prohibit the landlord from doing so...
Further, what if your landlord, charging you these exhorbiant fees, didn’t legally own that land and was in violation of a yet older contract?
I am Montanan. The way Ive always seen it is that the cattleman has always seen him or herself as more self-sufficient and not as government-involved as the grain farmer. But this cheap grazing land has always been a less obvious subsidy. At the risk of stating the obvious, the reason they need so dang many acres is because it takes a lot of that kind of land to support an animal. I haven’t been to Nevada, but have been to Eastern Oregon, parts of Montana, E. Wash. and places that are probably similar.