Bundy. why no interest?

[Dog Wonder]

As would anyone that's at all actually sane, or even halfway so. Perhaps that wisdom should be passed along to all who would so eagerly wish to see force used just over some cattle grazing in the desert...? 😉

Do you think Bundy would listen?

 

[eolesen]

Point of order... BLM land isn't necessarily Federal land.  Public land which could belong to any public entity; BLM simply manages what uses it can be leased out for.

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

Fair enough, but it is still public land administered using taxpayer dollars

 

[SparrowHawk]

Cliven Bundy himself is a tough guy to fully support. If guilt by association were a crime he'd be facing 20 to life. His most fervent supporters belong to the Christian Identity Movement, the KKK, Posse Commitatis, Sovereign Citizens Movement and a host of groups that make Andrew Breitbart look like a flaming Liberal.

However when one digs around at some of the Constitutional, Big Government, abuse of power issues. Then his cabal of miscreants prove that a stopped clock is right twice a day.

 

[Ms Tree]

I do not see how his associations make any difference to his guilt or innocence other than the fact that they help explain his belief system.  In my eyes his guilt come from the fact that he has lost his case in the courts and has refused to abide by the ruling.  He is grazing on public land without permission and has not paid his fees like all the other ranchers.  He has surrounded him self with armed whack jobs and who have said they will cower behind women and children.  If you jump in front of a train, you cannot complain when it hits you.

 

[southwind]

Fair enough, but it is still public land administered using taxpayer dollars

Administered? What exactly does that mean? Are my tax dollars used to make some kind of improvement to this land or is it just sitting there, being protected by the BLM Mafia?
 
I'm not saying Bundy doesn't owe grazing fee's. Hell if he's making money selling his cattle, he should be paying for whatever they eat, unless it's on his land!

 

[EastUS1]

....they will cower behind women and children. .

 
What completely lying, wholesale BS. The pictures/video of anyone cowering behind women and children must have magically been edited out?  Just asking...?
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_XqdQjTflc

 

[Ms Tree]

Richard Mack. Go watch his interview and then get back to us.

 

[SparrowHawk]

I do not see how his associations make any difference to his guilt or innocence other than the fact that they help explain his belief system.  In my eyes his guilt come from the fact that he has lost his case in the courts and has refused to abide by the ruling.  He is grazing on public land without permission and has not paid his fees like all the other ranchers.  He has surrounded him self with armed whack jobs and who have said they will cower behind women and children.  If you jump in front of a train, you cannot complain when it hits you.

The deeper issue is does the BLM even have the right to exist under the COTUS? Many would say no. If you look at the original wording it states that the Federal Government is entitled to own the 20 sqare miles that make up the District of Columbia AND such land needed for forts and the US military. This would seem to exclude the public land in the Bundy claim.

Further, IMO the Federal Government has breeched its fiduciary responsibility to citizens by renting out grazing lands at below market rates. Fact is the public land should be sold and turned into tax revenue producing property for the various states. It should NOT be used as it is now, which is crony capitalist land grabs that benefit the likes of Harry Reid (1 of an entire cast of characters)

 

[EastUS1]

Richard Mack. Go watch his interview and then get back to us.

Ms Tree, on 28 Apr 2014 - 12:53 AM, said: ....they will cower behind women and children. .
 
So against actual video of the event (which proves you a liar)...all you've got is your opinionated, pure BS to offer, coupled with a clear need to desperately cling to your personal agenda and perverse fantasies, no matter what. Sigh! I honestly feel sorry for you at this point. Do yourself a huge favor: Grow Up!


 

 

[EastUS1]

The deeper issue is does the BLM even have the right to exist under the COTUS? Many would say no. If you look at the original wording it states that the Federal Government is entitled to own the 20 sqare miles that make up the District of Columbia AND such land needed for forts and the US military. This would seem to exclude the public land in the Bundy claim.

Further, IMO the Federal Government has breeched its fiduciary responsibility to citizens by renting out grazing lands at below market rates. Fact is the public land should be sold and turned into tax revenue producing property for the various states. It should NOT be used as it is now, which is crony capitalist land grabs that benefit the likes of Harry Reid (1 of an entire cast of characters)

 
Agreed, most especially with "It should NOT be used as it is now, which is crony capitalist land grabs that benefit the likes of Harry Reid (1 of an entire cast of characters)"

 

[eolesen]

Fair enough, but it is still public land administered using taxpayer dollars

Not quite. BLM is cash positive, meaning they generate more into the general fund than they consume... So there are no tax dollars are flowing into those lands. They're reducing taxes. In theory, at least...
 

Administered? What exactly does that mean? Are my tax dollars used to make some kind of improvement to this land or is it just sitting there, being protected by the BLM Mafia?

There are no government backed improvements made on 99.9% of BLM land. Most of it is tied up in leases to private industries. Grazing is a fraction of their income. Most of it comes from coal and natural gas leases.

Approximately 50% of what the BLM brings in as revenue winds up in the state where the land sits. The rest goes into Federal general funds.

BLM's income is being put at serious risk by the EPA. As they close down coal plants, the BLM's coal leases & royalties will decline. Perhaps that's why they're having to focus on things like grazing leases.

Bundy's cattle have no negative impact on that land whatsoever. If they weren't grazing there, it would wind up growing out of control and become fodder for wildfires. Grazing keeps it from growing to a mass that would be able to burn out of control, which would in turn contribute to pollution and cost far more in having the USDA or state agencies have to show up & perform wildfire control...
 

The deeper issue is does the BLM even have the right to exist under the COTUS? Many would say no. If you look at the original wording it states that the Federal Government is entitled to own the 20 sqare miles that make up the District of Columbia AND such land needed for forts and the US military. This would seem to exclude the public land in the Bundy claim.

And this is the crux of the argument for many. BLM generates money for the Feds which should belong to the respective States.
 

Further, IMO the Federal Government has breeched its fiduciary responsibility to citizens by renting out grazing lands at below market rates. Fact is the public land should be sold and turned into tax revenue producing property for the various states. It should NOT be used as it is now, which is crony capitalist land grabs that benefit the likes of Harry Reid (1 of an entire cast of characters)

Agree in principle, but in reality, the land where Bundy's cattle are grazing is largely of zero commercial value. Most BLM land is in significantly remote places where the only practical human use might be a bombing range or a maximum security prison. Even a prison is a stretch, because there would be no place for the staff to live & shop...

We used to go shooting out on BLM land (a legal use in most places). There wasn't a town for 30 miles in any direction, no ground water, and the only stuff that grew out there was scrub that could survive on a couple inches of winter rainfall. If there weren't cattle leases, it would probably burn down every couple years from lightning or careless campers (another legal use) who can camp there fee-free for 14 days at a time, move to another site for 14 days, and then return where they were before. Not a bad lifestyle if you can afford it.

 

[Ms Tree]

 

Ms Tree, on 28 Apr 2014 - 12:53 AM, said: ....they will cower behind women and children. .
 
So against actual video of the event (which proves you a liar)...all you've got is your opinionated, pure BS to offer, coupled with a clear need to desperately cling to your personal agenda and perverse fantasies, no matter what. Sigh! I honestly feel sorry for you at this point. Do yourself a huge favor: Grow Up!


 

So you did not watch the video?

 

[delldude]

Poor guy exercises his right to free speech and the lib's pile it on.

 

[eolesen]

Someone needs to demand Justice for Clayvon....