|
|
Post by NamelessStain on Apr 11, 2014 11:45:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Apr 11, 2014 13:26:55 GMT
I don't disagree with this rancher. It's the law that he pays those fees. Sorry, the law is the law. Petition to change it.
Now, the 1st Amendment area is absolute bullshit and he/we have a case there. Who ever set that up needs to be throw out of office and have a nice prison sentence for violations of rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by dannusmaximus on Apr 11, 2014 13:37:17 GMT
I don't disagree agree with this rancher. It's the law that he pays those fees. Sorry, the law is the law. Petition to change it. I think I made an appropriate correction to your post, but to summarize... No shit! This guy has been gaffing off grazing fees for 20 years? He doesn't seem to understand that the federal government can own and operate land within a state independent of the state? Is he stupid, greedy, or both? Bottom line, he wants something for free. Shocking. Lots of the people he probably rails against (e.g., welfare recipients) want that too. I hope a federal or local officer's wife or husband doesn't get widowed because this greedy fuck has amped up the anti-gubmint militia nutjobs for his 'cause'. |
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Apr 11, 2014 13:57:23 GMT
Sorry, you're correct DM. I DO NOT agree with the rancher. I think it's foolish and he's spoiling for a fight. I find that very stupid.
I'm not in agreement with the law but that needs to be worked out in the courts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Apr 12, 2014 13:55:27 GMT
 Some reason it cut off, but it says "We are here to save the turtles, with snipers and helicopters." This, to me, seems VERY heavy handed, entirely inappropriate and purely a show of force. Sorry, law enforcement if about enforcing the law, not intimidation. The BLM guys are over stepping their boundaries here. STAPH. |
|
|
|
Post by Gundogs on Apr 16, 2014 11:57:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Apr 16, 2014 21:41:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Apr 17, 2014 11:52:32 GMT
Actually, no I'm not up on the facts. The whole thing seems very convoluted. Like everything else. There are previous laws interacting with present laws. Seems like the feds are flexing their muscles which I think is wrong. Really, how are you supposed to protect a turtle by pointing rifles at people and setting up "free speech" zones. Just on the free speech zones someone needs to lose their jobs, that's an amazing failure of the comprehension of the Bill of Rights. If someone is failing that bad at understanding the Bill of Rights they have failed at their oath. Just saying.
If you want to protect the turtles, which I'm for, set up a sanctuary. There is plenty of desert for it instead of messing with a dood who's been grazing cattle on a piece of dirt for the last 200 years. And even if someone goes into the sanctuary I think it's better to explain why the turtle sanctuary exist rather than start ranging dope.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gundogs on Apr 17, 2014 12:27:12 GMT
Actually, no I'm not up on the facts. The whole thing seems very convoluted. Like everything else. There are previous laws interacting with present laws. Seems like the feds are flexing their muscles which I think is wrong. Really, how are you supposed to protect a turtle by pointing rifles at people and setting up "free speech" zones. Just on the free speech zones someone needs to lose their jobs, that's an amazing failure of the comprehension of the Bill of Rights. If someone is failing that bad at understanding the Bill of Rights they have failed at their oath. Just saying. If you want to protect the turtles, which I'm for, set up a sanctuary. There is plenty of desert for it instead of messing with a dood who's been grazing cattle on a piece of dirt for the last 200 years. And even if someone goes into the sanctuary I think it's better to explain why the turtle sanctuary exist rather than start ranging dope. Re the tortoises---they were fine when millions of Bison were running around for millenia |
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Apr 17, 2014 13:40:15 GMT
Yeah, maybe those turtles know how to avoid 2,000 lbs walking hamburgers. There is so much logic fail here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Apr 18, 2014 0:49:48 GMT
Gingerbread Man said: Actually, no I'm not up on the facts. The whole thing seems very convoluted. Like everything else. There are previous laws interacting with present laws. Seems like the feds are flexing their muscles which I think is wrong. Really, how are you supposed to protect a turtle by pointing rifles at people and setting up "free speech" zones. Just on the free speech zones someone needs to lose their jobs, that's an amazing failure of the comprehension of the Bill of Rights. If someone is failing that bad at understanding the Bill of Rights they have failed at their oath. Just saying. If you want to protect the turtles, which I'm for, set up a sanctuary. There is plenty of desert for it instead of messing with a dood who's been grazing cattle on a piece of dirt for the last 200 years. And even if someone goes into the sanctuary I think it's better to explain why the turtle sanctuary exist rather than start ranging dope. ^This. The way I look on it that family had an agreement with the government on grazing rights. Okay, so most of the other people have picked up and left because that lifestyle and way of life is largely disappearing, but to me am agreement is an agreement. Seems like that would be an exception to the rule for that family since they were there before the US was. The fact that a turtle takes precedence over humans and the fact that the government frequently doesn't live up to their end of the bargain with anyone, but they'll do their best to make sure that everyone else lives up to their end is the reason I'm more taking the ranchers side in this. Dude isn't looking to get anything more than what his family had always had (grazing rights), so to compare him to a welfare recipient is pretty far off base IMO. The only way politics play a part in this is because Harry Reid is looking to use his Senate position, prestige and influence to make this shit happen so that it makes his son even richer and he's the Jackass Party Majority Leader. I hope a federal or local officers spouse doesn't get widowed either, but if they had of pressed it then it would have been their own fucking fault. Do they honestly think that they're going to run around tazing and arresting people for speaking their minds and then go around pointing guns at people all the time to enforce the will of politicians thousands of miles away and that this tactic will always work out well for them? People aren't always going to piss down their leg in fear and they've (the Feds) been using that tactic for a long time for a whole spectrum of different reasons. People are kind of sick of it. That Sherriff was smart to take the middle road and negotiate and to not allow himself and his officers to be used at their pawns. They might be both law enforcement, but they both don't serve the local people. In the West the BLM is a poor steward of land management. This will give you some idea of the historical context this is all taking place in. Bundy Ranch could spark new sagebrush rebellionState's are filing suit to be able to use their own freaking land. |
|
|
|
Post by dannusmaximus on Apr 24, 2014 23:36:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by homerj on Apr 25, 2014 0:06:24 GMT
I was kinda torn on this guy until his latest outburst, for me he is the lesser of the two evils here but I don't get the fascination with him. He is not articulate, coherent, or inspiring really, I think there is a group of people out there just looking to pick a fight and at this point will rally to any cause to force an issue or make a show of force on.
I was born on a farm and come from a farming/ranching family on both sides so I get the idea of family ties to land that runs deeper than maps and boundary changes, but this guy is waay out there calling for disarming Federal Agents and his total dismissal of Federal authority. The balance between states and federal rights is walking a tight rope.
Each interview I see or hear him speak I keep thinking every time he opens his mouth he does more harm than good for his cause. His latest rant will only play into guys like Harry Reid labeling him a domestic terrorist nut.
|
|
|
|
Post by redeyes on Apr 25, 2014 1:10:22 GMT
I have not kept up on this. All I will say is the New York Times, among many other news sources, has no problem with taking people completely out of context and lying. It is possible that they are right in this case. I don't know. I do know that I do not trust them. As far as grazing fees go, I think GM's first post was right on.
|
|
|
|
Post by homerj on Apr 25, 2014 2:35:08 GMT
I think the guy just dug himself in a deeper hole, the recording of him being played in the news is verbatim of him replying to being asked to clarify what he meant about his statements about black people. There is no need to spin this, this guy just comes off as bat shit crazy and now a racist.
I don't even know what the context was of his original comment or how the topic of race is even relevant to the issue, but wouldn't be surprised if he was race baited and took the bait straight out of the media's playbook.
|
|
