BLM stand-off in Nevada...close to 'war' or 'Range War'

[Hmac]

His biggest booster, Sean Hannity was sprinting away from him as fast as possible. Bundy has a large hole in his foot.

Hannity even out-sprinted Rand Paul.

Bundy gave a second news conference today to "clarify" his comments. He's now limping on both feet.

What a tool.

[Nougat]

hmmmm so it comes down to a question of political correctness then, eh?

well then, we shouldn't see any further issue.

[Vashjir]

hmmmm so it comes down to a question of political correctness then, eh?

well then, we shouldn't see any further issue.

Political correctness? He suggested "the negro" would be happier picking cotton, and would be better off as a slave. That goes a bit beyond political incorrectness imho.

Hes shown himself to be a racist kook, that noone in their right (even extreme right) mind can rally behind.

[Nougat]

Bundy is a "hateful racist" and a "dangerous individual" who must be renounced by all! or is he just a guy that wants to let cows stroll around and eat stuff growing out of the ground?

its the official report so its obviously true, right?... and even if it is its still got nothing to do with using public land.

seems a little too convenient for him to be slammed as such. especially after seeing the thing about us officially being subject to federal propaganda now.

do other races racists lose rights too or is it only a big deal because he's white?

http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_even ... ef-history

so is black ok to say or not?

[Hmac]

Bundy is a "hateful racist" and a "dangerous individual" who must be renounced by all! or is he just a guy that wants to let cows stroll around and eat stuff growing out of the ground?

its the official report so its obviously true, right?... and even if it is its still got nothing to do with using public land.

seems a little too convenient for him to be slammed as such. especially after seeing the thing about us officially being subject to federal propaganda now.

do other races racists lose rights too or is it only a big deal because he's white?

http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_even ... ef-history

so is black ok to say or not?

It is what it is. Yes, the guy's a racist. And stupid. No, he shouldn't lose rights over it. Yes, he just wants his cows to stroll around and eat stuff. For free. On land he doesn't own. Are those the "rights" you're talking about?

[Vashjir]

It is what it is. Yes, the guy's a racist. And stupid. No, he shouldn't lose rights over it. Yes, he just wants his cows to stroll around and eat stuff. For free. On land he doesn't own. Are those the "rights" you're talking about?

^^This^^
Even government deniers could pick a better fight.

[Nougat]

I guess. I don't understand all the laws regarding using the land obviously.. but I did see that at least at one point it wasn't outlandish at all to think that someones cows could just roam around.(you had to fence your stuff if you wanted to keep them out, in fact.) I do understand that they could do damage if there were too many trampling a small area too, but I also tend to believe that paying the ''to use fees'' probably just allows him to do more damage ''officially like'' with the money collected really not likely to be used to promote the future of the same thing being feasable.

good thing we got rid of all those bison so having cows out and about can seem weird.

heres my disclaimer: yeah I don't know the guy and I don't know everything about him or everything about this deal. I just think that some guy being painted up as ''the enemy'' for doing ''normal freedom stuff'' is a little weird. so if he really is the horrible fellow I'm supposed to believe he is, I guess I should have just believed what I was told.

[xd ED]

I guess. I don't understand all the laws regarding using the land obviously.. but I did see that at least at one point it wasn't outlandish at all to think that someones cows could just roam around.(you had to fence your stuff if you wanted to keep them out, in fact.) I do understand that they could do damage if there were too many trampling a small area too, but I also tend to believe that paying the ''to use fees'' probably just allows him to do more damage ''officially like'' with the money collected really not likely to be used to promote the future of the same thing being feasable.

good thing we got rid of all those bison so having cows out and about can seem weird.

heres my disclaimer: yeah I don't know the guy and I don't know everything about him or everything about this deal. I just think that some guy being painted up as ''the enemy'' for doing ''normal freedom stuff'' is a little weird. so if he really is the horrible fellow I'm supposed to believe he is, I guess I should have just believed what I was told.

You really don't have to take any 2nd hand information for granted . .
.
I doubt anyone on this board knows him personally, but I'm sure most of the audio and video still floats around the inter web:
From about day 2of the national attention this guy started expressing himself via the likes of Hannity and Beck.

At his earliest opportunities he was quick to expound on his opinions of all manner of social issues irrelevant to his 'cause', and then when questioned about the land use issue at hand, often contradicted himself and his previous statements as he redefined both history and current conditions. This while being interviews by people sympathetic to his cause.

He didn't need a security force, merely a PR guy.

[Hmac]

I guess. I don't understand all the laws regarding using the land obviously.. but I did see that at least at one point it wasn't outlandish at all to think that someones cows could just roam around.(you had to fence your stuff if you wanted to keep them out, in fact.) I do understand that they could do damage if there were too many trampling a small area too, but I also tend to believe that paying the ''to use fees'' probably just allows him to do more damage ''officially like'' with the money collected really not likely to be used to promote the future of the same thing being feasable.

good thing we got rid of all those bison so having cows out and about can seem weird.

heres my disclaimer: yeah I don't know the guy and I don't know everything about him or everything about this deal. I just think that some guy being painted up as ''the enemy'' for doing ''normal freedom stuff'' is a little weird. so if he really is the horrible fellow I'm supposed to believe he is, I guess I should have just believed what I was told.

The guy's been to court over this already and was found to be grazing his cattle illegally on government land without paying the grazing fees that everyone else was paying. Very clear violation of the law. You can argue the fairness of the law, or you can argue the WTF? factor of the BLM owning 75% of the land in Nevada, but you can't really argue that Bundy was breaking the law.

If you want to be outraged over the BLM, be outraged over the land-grab in Texas. There, the BLM is grabbing up land that is actually deeded, with the grabbees actually having paid taxes on the land for decades. Unlike Bundy, who never even contended that he owned the land, only that he should be able to graze it for free.

[captnviper]

At best he is ignorant worst grand dragon of the kkk. He probably falls in the middle. It would appear he is saying today's welfare system drug laws and sentencing guidelines are modern day slavery. Or maybe he is not that deep and is only concerned about what he see's as wealth redistribution. Either way " It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Mark Twain

[Nougat]

If you want to be outraged over be outraged over

ok. I don't like that either, and it does sound worse... doesn't make the other any better. Connecticut and the ACA is whats bugging me the most right now though. how come its not being broadcast as to whats happening now? the last time I saw the president he was signing executive orders for something about paying women fairly (I think there were already laws in effect they could just enforce rather than posturing?) and he said something about the seven million people who would lose care if it was repealed (ACA) {did they have insurance before what happened to it did they want to get the new kind or was it just forced? I've seen several stories of it costing people more instead of less at any rate} .

like I said before I'm no expert but I shouldn't have to be scared to say I don't like something... with ACA it sort of seems like it has to be about more support for bigger companies rather than whats good for individuals, I feel there is alot of that happening rather than enforcement of the anti trust laws I remember hearing about.

what do I know though. I'm merely a highschool graduate with no college education who doesn't put too much time into the news, sorry!

as far as his horrible opinions, I am just giving him the benefit of the doubt and chalking them up to something like Sam Jackson's character in Boys in the hood? sorry if I'm wrong on this as I don't want to watch an hour long video to find out because I don't care that much but also because my outrage isn't that extreme and I know my caring one way or the other will make no difference... just like the ''news'' I'm sure I'd just end up more po'd. official reports saying he's dangerous and extreme though? wouldn't he be in jail?

[jshuberg]

The guy's been to court over this already and was found to be grazing his cattle illegally on government land without paying the grazing fees that everyone else was paying. Very clear violation of the law. You can argue the fairness of the law, or you can argue the WTF? factor of the BLM owning 75% of the land in Nevada, but you can't really argue that Bundy was breaking the law.

I haven't been following this very carefully, but as I understand it there is more to it than this.

His family was granted grazing rights to the land way back when the BLM was first created in 1946. His families usage of the public land predated the formation of the BLM by nearly 100 years. Prior to that the land was truly public, and wasn't "managed" by anyone. Not that it was actually "managed" afterward either, other than on paper on some bureaucrats desk. There was no fee structure implemented in his grazing rights, he was expressly granted the right to use the land for grazing for free. It was much like an easement, and he had a legal right to use the public land for grazing. There were many ranchers that were granted the same rights.

Then came the environmentalists and their tortoises. The BLM decided that even though the ranchers had grazing rights to the area, that they could now charge a grazing fee as the land was now reclassified as a habitat for these (supposedly) endangered tortoises. They told the ranchers that they would either have to pay the new grazing fees because of the tortoises, or that the BLM would buy their grazing rights back from them, effectively buying them out of business. Bundy was the only one who didn't sell his grazing rights to the BLM, and also refused to pay the newly imposed fees.

Then the courts got involved and agreed that the BLM could in fact begin charging a grazing fee despite the Bundys grazing rights because of the tortoise habitat declaration. Many people see this story as being very similar to when a piece of land is declared a wetland to lower it's commercial value, so that a government body could purchase or seize the land at less than previous market value.

Bundy's argument that the land should belong to Nevada is interesting, if not slightly kooky, but not the main point of the story. Nor is the fact that he's a racist. The main point of the story should be that his family has been grazing there for over 100 years, and was explicitly granted the right to do so free of charge nearly 70 years ago. The real story is that the BLM reclassified the land, giving them the legal ability to impose a fee despite the terms of the ranchers grazing rights, and then forced all but one rancher out of business. And when the one refused to pay these fees after nearly two decades of lawsuits and counter lawsuits, they sent in a militarized force to remove him, the cost of which was more than the monies owed in grazing fees.

Yes, he lost in court. Yes, he didn't pay his grazing fees. Yes, he's an inarticulate racist who himself seems to be making a crude and kooky argument as to why he's in the right. And yes, the BLM used a underhanded legal trick to effectively nullify the ranchers grazing rights in order to put them out of business.

The real question is why is the BLM attempting to force anyone with a right to the land off it via the introduction of previously nonexistent fees?

[Hmac]

Yes, he lost in court. Yes, he didn't pay his grazing fees. Yes, he's an inarticulate racist who himself seems to be making a crude and kooky argument as to why he's in the right.

Bottom line, for me.

[20mm]

Yes, he lost in court. Yes, he didn't pay his grazing fees. Yes, he's an inarticulate racist who himself seems to be making a crude and kooky argument as to why he's in the right.

Bottom line, for me.

The issue is the BLM who makes the law. If you disagree, hopefully you'll get on the list of people the federal government decides to screw over.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texa ... e-on-Texas

[Randygmn]

I guess. I don't understand all the laws regarding using the land obviously.. but I did see that at least at one point it wasn't outlandish at all to think that someones cows could just roam around.(you had to fence your stuff if you wanted to keep them out, in fact.) I do understand that they could do damage if there were too many trampling a small area too, but I also tend to believe that paying the ''to use fees'' probably just allows him to do more damage ''officially like'' with the money collected really not likely to be used to promote the future of the same thing being feasable.

good thing we got rid of all those bison so having cows out and about can seem weird.

heres my disclaimer: yeah I don't know the guy and I don't know everything about him or everything about this deal. I just think that some guy being painted up as ''the enemy'' for doing ''normal freedom stuff'' is a little weird. so if he really is the horrible fellow I'm supposed to believe he is, I guess I should have just believed what I was told.

The guy's been to court over this already and was found to be grazing his cattle illegally on government land without paying the grazing fees that everyone else was paying. Very clear violation of the law. You can argue the fairness of the law, or you can argue the WTF? factor of the BLM owning 75% of the land in Nevada, but you can't really argue that Bundy was breaking the law.

If you want to be outraged over the BLM, be outraged over the land-grab in Texas. There, the BLM is grabbing up land that is actually deeded, with the grabbees actually having paid taxes on the land for decades. Unlike Bundy, who never even contended that he owned the land, only that he should be able to graze it for free.

Not just grazing fees. They demanded he reduce his herd from 900 to 150. He's the last cattle rancher in the county. Want to know why? The BLM put the other 52 RANCHERS OUT OF BUSINESS.