Despite having Tom try to tell me to shut up for other reasons (And FAILING), I'm leaning toward that side of this argument, that Bundy is in the wrong here after looking it over.

He's "claimed" he's trying to pay his grazing fees locally, but the state of Nevada (by their own constitution) has said that it is the responsibility to collect the money falls on the rancher and the federal govt. (And to my knowledge, no offers to be an intermediary were made by the state/countY).

It's not up to Mr. Bundy to decide how his fees are spent (just like the rest of us can't tell the federal govt how to spend the tax money they collect). We can suggest to our reps what they "ought not spend it on", but we have no final say so in that regard, and how they're going to get voted out of office if they spend it wrong....

But that's the way our govt is set up. And I think the same thing hits in this case. If the BLM spends the fees money to buy out the other ranchers, so be it. Bundy doesn't have to sell (and IMO, if he continued to pay his grazing fees, the govt. can't do jack to Mr. Bundy). So pay the back money he owes and then tell the federal govt to F--- off.

(And the BLM was an IDIOTIC group for trying all the other crap they tried (Tortoises? REALLY?)) instead of just going off the letter of the law.

Now the New Mexico story ... that's an entirely different issue (and I"m still reading up on that one)

(04-15-2014 10:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 10:45 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Never should jack booted thugs show up with ARs and take your property, cattle.
Whatever happened to putting a lien on someone's real estate. Automatic weapons, really?

I highly doubt the plan was to take (read keep) his cattle. They just removed them from their land...as any land owner would.

I heard last night that a huge portion of Nevada, like 80-90% is owned by the government.

Who is "they?" The land the cows were on is state land, not federal, and the state didn't give a crap until Reid's son needed it.

Again, I will compare this to the Occupy movement that you libs defended even though there was trespassing on private and public property, property damage, rapes, drug use, and the general disruption of life for those who had to deal with it. Where were the armed federal thugs during those almost violent times?

Edit: did the occupiers pay rent?

Can someone tell me how Harry Reid (or his Chinese investors) can take this land for a solar station without Congress? How can the BLM round up cattle without Congress?

Without Congressional Action, it's Nevada's land to use however they see fit.


http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/cr...032007.pdf

Quote:No appropriation of public lands may be made for any purpose except by
authority of Congress.... Congress may limit the disposition of the public domain
to a manner consistent with its views of public policy.... It [the Property Clause]
empowers Congress to act as both proprietor and legislature over the public
domain; Congress has complete power to make those “needful rules” which in
its discretion it determines are necessary. When Congress acts with respect to
those lands covered by the [Property] clause, its legislation overrides conflicting
state laws. Absent action by Congress, however, states may in some instances
exercise some jurisdiction over activities on federal lands.

Look the guy should have been paying his grazing fees.... But the use of the turtle and rustling makes the government wrong here as well...

Harry had a timeline for this Chinese energy project and they decided to hurry things along.

Someone needs to ask Harry Reid what would get rounded-up if
undocumented immigrants were driving cattle on restricted public lands?

(04-15-2014 10:51 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 10:45 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Never should jack booted thugs show up with ARs and take your property, cattle.
Whatever happened to putting a lien on someone's real estate. Automatic weapons, really?

Wait, I thought you guys were all for the 2nd admendment and automatic weapons. Are you saying it's okay for yoi to have them and know that you could have it's not "right" for someone else to have them????????

First off....English....do you speak it?

Second, do you understand the difference between government agents and a citizen?

I believe the point being made was that while it's apparent Mr. Bundy should have paid his grazing fees, the armed response from the government was over and above what was needed. This type of response only furthers people's suspicions concerning an increasingly militarized police force in this country.

(04-16-2014 07:17 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  Can someone tell me how Harry Reid (or his Chinese investors) can take this land for a solar station without Congress? How can the BLM round up cattle without Congress?

Without Congressional Action, it's Nevada's land to use however they see fit.


http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/cr...032007.pdf

Quote:No appropriation of public lands may be made for any purpose except by
authority of Congress.... Congress may limit the disposition of the public domain
to a manner consistent with its views of public policy.... It [the Property Clause]
empowers Congress to act as both proprietor and legislature over the public
domain; Congress has complete power to make those “needful rules” which in
its discretion it determines are necessary. When Congress acts with respect to
those lands covered by the [Property] clause, its legislation overrides conflicting
state laws. Absent action by Congress, however, states may in some instances
exercise some jurisdiction over activities on federal lands.

First, no one is taking the guys land. It's not his land.

Second, the Chinese investor plant was in Laughlin, NV, nearly 200 miles away.

And the land is not being used by Harry Reid for anything. That's a lie. The land where the solar plant is already under construction is not the land where Bundy was illegally grazing. It's 10 miles away near the Moapa Indian Reservation (not on it though).

Lastly, do you even understand what you posted?

Quote:states may in some instances exercise some jurisdiction over activities on federal lands.

That says it all right there for you!

My concern with situations like this is the paramilitary approach taken by the federal government.

(04-16-2014 09:34 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  My concern with situations like this is the paramilitary approach taken by the federal government.

THIS....