Folks on-line
1
Forums Albums Skins 1
Search Register Logon


You are logged in as a guest. Logon or register an account to access more features.
OTHER FORUMS:    Horse Trailers  -   Trucks   -   Cutting  -   Reining  -   Roping 
'
Rancher VS. Government
Moderators: luluwhit, gotothewhip, crossspur, ForumAdmin

Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... >
Now viewing page 7 [20 messages per page]
Last activity 2014-04-14 9:29 AM
247 replies, 15832 views

View previous thread :: View next thread
   General Discussion -> Barrel Talk
Refresh
Message format
 
rodeomom13
Posted 2014-04-10 2:35 PM (#6974100 - in reply to #6972791)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government



I'm not opinionated


Posts: 4509
20002000500
Location: Online
This isn't about a ****ing contest between a rancher and the government. It's about government control. We can argue who's right and who's wrong until our fingers bleed, it won't do any good.  Somebody needs to stand up to this overzealous government.  

We were renting some pasture from a company who was leasing from the BLM. (yes it was legal) Anyway, we were using our time and money to maintain those pastures. Keeping sucker trees down, weeds out, overseeding thin spots, maintaining the irrigation system, etc. Well some goon from the BLM came along and decided that we were over grazing. There was 5 acres total and we had 4 sometimes 5 horses grazing. For 10 years it was like that. Every year the grass was tall and healthy, it could sustain 5 horses from April well into November every year. Well this book educated goon decides that we can't have horses in there in the winter because they kill the grass. We were no longer allowed to spray weeds, we had to get approval for everything we did. For 10 YEARS we did the same thing with no issue. So we gave them the 1 finger salute and left. You should see those pastures now. The grass has died out for lack of water, they are over grown with sucker trees and weeds. Yep, the BLM knows what's right.


 
Top of the page Bottom of the page
foundation horse
Posted 2014-04-10 2:36 PM (#6974102 - in reply to #6974078)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Military family

Semper Fi


500050005000500050005000500100100100100
Location: North Texas
musikmaker - 2014-04-10 2:12 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:56 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:47 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  
Considering my neighbors husband is down there potentially risking his life to remove cattle that shouldn't be there- yes, I agree with them being armed when opposition has threatened violence. He has 3 young children that would be fatherless if something were to happen. I support city, county and state law enforcement to carry similar weapons when they are enforcing the law- why would I think the federal level shouldn't have the same protections? Several people in my little town have been assigned to this operation- all have lives that have been disrupted by a person who thinks he is above the law and all have families and friends to return to when the job is done.
Aha!  NOW we know the 'rest of the story'!  All I can say is that for those foolish enough to wear the wrong uniform...well, sorry bout' their luck.  Maybe they should get on the 'right' side.

And yes, I mean that more than you can ever know.

Why aren't the law enforcement officials who actually have authority & jurisdiction on the scene?  It's NOT their option to just hand it over to the federal goons...they take an oath to protect our property, freedom & liberty.  Nobody forced them into that job...they better be a patriot or get the he$$ outta the way.

I offer absolutely no sympathy for those standing in the way of our freedoms or those who are helping to steal those cattle! 

America better wake the heck up.


 

I believe there is more to the rest of the story.
Bscanchaser, is your neighbor part of Law Enforcement under orders to conficate these cattle? Or is He one of the Contract Cowboys who would/will divide up the proceeds of the sale(s) of these nonbrand approved conficated cattle?
Your answer (if there is one) will be telling.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
firewaterfuelsme
Posted 2014-04-10 2:37 PM (#6974103 - in reply to #6972791)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Veteran


Posts: 266
1001002525
Location: lone star state
Another waste of tax payer dollars!
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Stitch4k9
Posted 2014-04-10 2:40 PM (#6974105 - in reply to #6974102)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Holy Fruit Loops!


Posts: 1630
100050010025
Location: Colorado
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 2:36 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-10 2:12 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:56 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:47 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  
Considering my neighbors husband is down there potentially risking his life to remove cattle that shouldn't be there- yes, I agree with them being armed when opposition has threatened violence. He has 3 young children that would be fatherless if something were to happen. I support city, county and state law enforcement to carry similar weapons when they are enforcing the law- why would I think the federal level shouldn't have the same protections? Several people in my little town have been assigned to this operation- all have lives that have been disrupted by a person who thinks he is above the law and all have families and friends to return to when the job is done.
Aha!  NOW we know the 'rest of the story'!  All I can say is that for those foolish enough to wear the wrong uniform...well, sorry bout' their luck.  Maybe they should get on the 'right' side.

And yes, I mean that more than you can ever know.

Why aren't the law enforcement officials who actually have authority & jurisdiction on the scene?  It's NOT their option to just hand it over to the federal goons...they take an oath to protect our property, freedom & liberty.  Nobody forced them into that job...they better be a patriot or get the he$$ outta the way.

I offer absolutely no sympathy for those standing in the way of our freedoms or those who are helping to steal those cattle! 

America better wake the heck up.


 
I believe there is more to the rest of the story.

Bscanchaser, is your neighbor part of Law Enforcement under orders to conficate these cattle? Or is He one of the Contract Cowboys who would/will divide up the proceeds of the sale(s) of these nonbrand approved conficated cattle?

Your answer (if there is one) will be telling.

 Do you have ANY proof that is what will happen?  Or are you making this up as you go?

karen
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Whiteboy
Posted 2014-04-10 2:43 PM (#6974108 - in reply to #6974069)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Military family

That's White "Man" to You


Posts: 2818
2000500100100100
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 1:56 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:47 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  
Considering my neighbors husband is down there potentially risking his life to remove cattle that shouldn't be there- yes, I agree with them being armed when opposition has threatened violence. He has 3 young children that would be fatherless if something were to happen. I support city, county and state law enforcement to carry similar weapons when they are enforcing the law- why would I think the federal level shouldn't have the same protections? Several people in my little town have been assigned to this operation- all have lives that have been disrupted by a person who thinks he is above the law and all have families and friends to return to when the job is done.

Would you sell your soul for a nickel? 
Top of the page Bottom of the page
musikmaker
Posted 2014-04-10 2:44 PM (#6974111 - in reply to #6974095)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government



Nicknameless


Posts: 4340
2000200010010010025
Location: I can see the end of the world from here!
Stitch4k9 - 2014-04-10 1:31 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-10 2:12 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:56 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:47 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  
Considering my neighbors husband is down there potentially risking his life to remove cattle that shouldn't be there- yes, I agree with them being armed when opposition has threatened violence. He has 3 young children that would be fatherless if something were to happen. I support city, county and state law enforcement to carry similar weapons when they are enforcing the law- why would I think the federal level shouldn't have the same protections? Several people in my little town have been assigned to this operation- all have lives that have been disrupted by a person who thinks he is above the law and all have families and friends to return to when the job is done.
Aha!  NOW we know the 'rest of the story'!  All I can say is that for those foolish enough to wear the wrong uniform...well, sorry bout' their luck.  Maybe they should get on the 'right' side.

And yes, I mean that more than you can ever know.

Why aren't the law enforcement officials who actually have authority & jurisdiction on the scene?  It's NOT their option to just hand it over to the federal goons...they take an oath to protect our property, freedom & liberty.  Nobody forced them into that job...they better be a patriot or get the he$$ outta the way.

I offer absolutely no sympathy for those standing in the way of our freedoms or those who are helping to steal those cattle! 

America better wake the heck up.


 
 Right side??  They are American citizens, hired to do a job!  Bundy is the one who called for a Range war and is workin towards getting every goofy milita want a be in the country involved. 



Those cowboys who are there moving cattle are not the bad guys and they do not deserve to be shot at or treated like dirt either. 

Thanks to the Bundy family and their videos Growney Brothers Rodeo Co. is now receiving death threats.



If Bundy feels it is time for a range war he needs to be front and center.  And it is with the court system NOT a bunch of cowboys trying to make some day money to support their families!



karen

Then they should quit their job.
It certainly says a lot about their character...just doing my job...ugh.  those kinds of people are what's wrong with this world.
You know...I've been in the line of fire for things I believed in, but, NEVER for something I didn't believe in.  There is a right and a wrong.  Period.
Yeah....Bundy should do this alone...just look how well it turned out for Randy Weaver...uh huh.  AND...the court system is so dysfunctional...what do you call 2 lawyers and a judge who meet in the judge's chambers?  A conspiracy.

 
Top of the page Bottom of the page
musikmaker
Posted 2014-04-10 2:46 PM (#6974112 - in reply to #6972791)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government



Nicknameless


Posts: 4340
2000200010010010025
Location: I can see the end of the world from here!
Here's another video...I rather like this one!  Haven't found it except on FB...yet!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=691822670875219


 
Top of the page Bottom of the page
3canstorun
Posted 2014-04-10 2:49 PM (#6974117 - in reply to #6974105)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government



Hugs to You


Posts: 6309
50001000100100100
Location: In The Land of Cotton
Stitch4k9 - 2014-04-10 3:40 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 2:36 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-10 2:12 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:56 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:47 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  
Considering my neighbors husband is down there potentially risking his life to remove cattle that shouldn't be there- yes, I agree with them being armed when opposition has threatened violence. He has 3 young children that would be fatherless if something were to happen. I support city, county and state law enforcement to carry similar weapons when they are enforcing the law- why would I think the federal level shouldn't have the same protections? Several people in my little town have been assigned to this operation- all have lives that have been disrupted by a person who thinks he is above the law and all have families and friends to return to when the job is done.
Aha!  NOW we know the 'rest of the story'!  All I can say is that for those foolish enough to wear the wrong uniform...well, sorry bout' their luck.  Maybe they should get on the 'right' side.

And yes, I mean that more than you can ever know.

Why aren't the law enforcement officials who actually have authority & jurisdiction on the scene?  It's NOT their option to just hand it over to the federal goons...they take an oath to protect our property, freedom & liberty.  Nobody forced them into that job...they better be a patriot or get the he$$ outta the way.

I offer absolutely no sympathy for those standing in the way of our freedoms or those who are helping to steal those cattle! 

America better wake the heck up.


 
I believe there is more to the rest of the story.

Bscanchaser, is your neighbor part of Law Enforcement under orders to conficate these cattle? Or is He one of the Contract Cowboys who would/will divide up the proceeds of the sale(s) of these nonbrand approved conficated cattle?

Your answer (if there is one) will be telling.
 Do you have ANY proof that is what will happen?  Or are you making this up as you go?



karen

Kristen Cannon, a spokesman of the BLM said this (and sorry it is copy and paste from a news article) - The bureau last week announced the area would be closed through May 12 while contractors conduct the roundup using helicopters, vehicles and temporary pens. Cannon said the agency paid the contractors $966,000.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
bscanchaser
Posted 2014-04-10 2:51 PM (#6974120 - in reply to #6974089)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government




100252525
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 2:25 PM

musikmaker - 2014-04-10 2:12 PM

bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:56 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:47 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  
Considering my neighbors husband is down there potentially risking his life to remove cattle that shouldn't be there- yes, I agree with them being armed when opposition has threatened violence. He has 3 young children that would be fatherless if something were to happen. I support city, county and state law enforcement to carry similar weapons when they are enforcing the law- why would I think the federal level shouldn't have the same protections? Several people in my little town have been assigned to this operation- all have lives that have been disrupted by a person who thinks he is above the law and all have families and friends to return to when the job is done.

Aha!  NOW we know the 'rest of the story'!  All I can say is that for those foolish enough to wear the wrong uniform...well, sorry bout' their luck.  Maybe they should get on the 'right' side.
And yes, I mean that more than you can ever know.
Why aren't the law enforcement officials who actually have authority & jurisdiction on the scene?  It's NOT their option to just hand it over to the federal goons...they take an oath to protect our property, freedom & liberty.  Nobody forced them into that job...they better be a patriot or get the he$$ outta the way.
I offer absolutely no sympathy for those standing in the way of our freedoms or those who are helping to steal those cattle! 
America better wake the heck up.

 

In my original response I told bscanchaser I hoped she or he and theirs liked being a subject. Turns out I was closer than I thought! ETA Hail to The Feds!
As Me and Mine: We like Our Freedom! And don't need the Feds!

LOL- I guess the rest of the story is that he is LSD, knows the Bundy family well from growing up near them but isn't going to quit his paying job to support the cause because he is the only source of income. I don't really know these people because I'm not Mormon and like wine- I just happened to ask how she was when I was doing some fence work yesterday and she was walking by our place. Btw- her husband works for the US forest service... Usually manned the cleanup/prison crews so I'm sure he's a spotter down there.

Wait- you're going to have to educate me- I thought the "right" side represented the people that actually worked to afford to pay for what they have and dont expect free services. He seems to be more to the left in my opinion as he comes off as a welfare rancher that is wanting free grazing. BTW- he could have protected his property by removing them himself. Maybe a lawyer on here can chime in but basically the BLM/Clark county did their due diligence by trying to get him to remove his herd for the last 20 years. Since he didn't and seems to have abandoned his cattle- does that truly fall under the definition of theft? Especially since a large number aren't branded- how can he prove he actually owns them? If my memory serves me right, the BLM did give him the option to purchase his back cattle with his brand prior to the auction.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
foundation horse
Posted 2014-04-10 2:52 PM (#6974123 - in reply to #6974095)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Military family

Semper Fi


500050005000500050005000500100100100100
Location: North Texas
Stitch4k9 - 2014-04-10 2:31 PM

musikmaker - 2014-04-10 2:12 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:56 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:47 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  
Considering my neighbors husband is down there potentially risking his life to remove cattle that shouldn't be there- yes, I agree with them being armed when opposition has threatened violence. He has 3 young children that would be fatherless if something were to happen. I support city, county and state law enforcement to carry similar weapons when they are enforcing the law- why would I think the federal level shouldn't have the same protections? Several people in my little town have been assigned to this operation- all have lives that have been disrupted by a person who thinks he is above the law and all have families and friends to return to when the job is done.
Aha!  NOW we know the 'rest of the story'!  All I can say is that for those foolish enough to wear the wrong uniform...well, sorry bout' their luck.  Maybe they should get on the 'right' side.

And yes, I mean that more than you can ever know.

Why aren't the law enforcement officials who actually have authority & jurisdiction on the scene?  It's NOT their option to just hand it over to the federal goons...they take an oath to protect our property, freedom & liberty.  Nobody forced them into that job...they better be a patriot or get the he$$ outta the way.

I offer absolutely no sympathy for those standing in the way of our freedoms or those who are helping to steal those cattle! 

America better wake the heck up.


 

 Right side??  They are American citizens, hired to do a job!  Bundy is the one who called for a Range war and is workin towards getting every goofy milita want a be in the country involved. 

Those cowboys who are there moving cattle are not the bad guys and they do not deserve to be shot at or treated like dirt either. 
Thanks to the Bundy family and their videos Growney Brothers Rodeo Co. is now receiving death threats.

If Bundy feels it is time for a range war he needs to be front and center.  And it is with the court system NOT a bunch of cowboys trying to make some day money to support their families!

karen

No one (yet) has provided information in regards to how and who will profit by the sale of Cliven Bundy's confiscated cattle. There is question and reason to believe that the 'contract cowboys' very well may share in these proceeds beyond day wages. Stolen Property laws obviously do not apply when it comes to The Feds.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Whiteboy
Posted 2014-04-10 2:53 PM (#6974124 - in reply to #6974117)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Military family

That's White "Man" to You


Posts: 2818
2000500100100100
3canstorun - 2014-04-10 2:49 PM
Stitch4k9 - 2014-04-10 3:40 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 2:36 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-10 2:12 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:56 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:47 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  
Considering my neighbors husband is down there potentially risking his life to remove cattle that shouldn't be there- yes, I agree with them being armed when opposition has threatened violence. He has 3 young children that would be fatherless if something were to happen. I support city, county and state law enforcement to carry similar weapons when they are enforcing the law- why would I think the federal level shouldn't have the same protections? Several people in my little town have been assigned to this operation- all have lives that have been disrupted by a person who thinks he is above the law and all have families and friends to return to when the job is done.
Aha!  NOW we know the 'rest of the story'!  All I can say is that for those foolish enough to wear the wrong uniform...well, sorry bout' their luck.  Maybe they should get on the 'right' side.

And yes, I mean that more than you can ever know.

Why aren't the law enforcement officials who actually have authority & jurisdiction on the scene?  It's NOT their option to just hand it over to the federal goons...they take an oath to protect our property, freedom & liberty.  Nobody forced them into that job...they better be a patriot or get the he$$ outta the way.

I offer absolutely no sympathy for those standing in the way of our freedoms or those who are helping to steal those cattle! 

America better wake the heck up.


 
I believe there is more to the rest of the story.

Bscanchaser, is your neighbor part of Law Enforcement under orders to conficate these cattle? Or is He one of the Contract Cowboys who would/will divide up the proceeds of the sale(s) of these nonbrand approved conficated cattle?

Your answer (if there is one) will be telling.
 Do you have ANY proof that is what will happen?  Or are you making this up as you go?



karen
Kristen Cannon, a spokesman of the BLM said this (and sorry it is copy and paste from a news article) - The bureau last week announced the area would be closed through May 12 while contractors conduct the roundup using helicopters, vehicles and temporary pens. Cannon said the agency paid the contractors $966,000.

There is also a ton of money in drug dealing and human trafficking, but that doesn't make it right! 
Top of the page Bottom of the page
foundation horse
Posted 2014-04-10 2:55 PM (#6974125 - in reply to #6974105)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Military family

Semper Fi


500050005000500050005000500100100100100
Location: North Texas
Stitch4k9 - 2014-04-10 2:40 PM

foundation horse - 2014-04-10 2:36 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-10 2:12 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:56 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:47 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  
Considering my neighbors husband is down there potentially risking his life to remove cattle that shouldn't be there- yes, I agree with them being armed when opposition has threatened violence. He has 3 young children that would be fatherless if something were to happen. I support city, county and state law enforcement to carry similar weapons when they are enforcing the law- why would I think the federal level shouldn't have the same protections? Several people in my little town have been assigned to this operation- all have lives that have been disrupted by a person who thinks he is above the law and all have families and friends to return to when the job is done.
Aha!  NOW we know the 'rest of the story'!  All I can say is that for those foolish enough to wear the wrong uniform...well, sorry bout' their luck.  Maybe they should get on the 'right' side.

And yes, I mean that more than you can ever know.

Why aren't the law enforcement officials who actually have authority & jurisdiction on the scene?  It's NOT their option to just hand it over to the federal goons...they take an oath to protect our property, freedom & liberty.  Nobody forced them into that job...they better be a patriot or get the he$$ outta the way.

I offer absolutely no sympathy for those standing in the way of our freedoms or those who are helping to steal those cattle! 

America better wake the heck up.


 
I believe there is more to the rest of the story.

Bscanchaser, is your neighbor part of Law Enforcement under orders to conficate these cattle? Or is He one of the Contract Cowboys who would/will divide up the proceeds of the sale(s) of these nonbrand approved conficated cattle?

Your answer (if there is one) will be telling.

 Do you have ANY proof that is what will happen?  Or are you making this up as you go?

karen

Do YOU have any documentation to prove otherwise? Remember the current cattle is at record levels. And should the offered deal been 'You (contract cowboys) round em up you split the proceeds'? Not the first time something like this has happened in history.......................And History has a habit of repeating itself.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
FlyingJT
Posted 2014-04-10 2:57 PM (#6974127 - in reply to #6974112)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government



Elite Veteran


Posts: 739
50010010025
musikmaker - 2014-04-10 2:46 PM

Here's another video...I rather like this one!  Haven't found it except on FB...yet!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=691822670875219


 

Top of the page Bottom of the page
Stitch4k9
Posted 2014-04-10 2:57 PM (#6974128 - in reply to #6974123)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Holy Fruit Loops!


Posts: 1630
100050010025
Location: Colorado
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 2:52 PM
Stitch4k9 - 2014-04-10 2:31 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-10 2:12 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:56 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:47 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  
Considering my neighbors husband is down there potentially risking his life to remove cattle that shouldn't be there- yes, I agree with them being armed when opposition has threatened violence. He has 3 young children that would be fatherless if something were to happen. I support city, county and state law enforcement to carry similar weapons when they are enforcing the law- why would I think the federal level shouldn't have the same protections? Several people in my little town have been assigned to this operation- all have lives that have been disrupted by a person who thinks he is above the law and all have families and friends to return to when the job is done.
Aha!  NOW we know the 'rest of the story'!  All I can say is that for those foolish enough to wear the wrong uniform...well, sorry bout' their luck.  Maybe they should get on the 'right' side.

And yes, I mean that more than you can ever know.

Why aren't the law enforcement officials who actually have authority & jurisdiction on the scene?  It's NOT their option to just hand it over to the federal goons...they take an oath to protect our property, freedom & liberty.  Nobody forced them into that job...they better be a patriot or get the he$$ outta the way.

I offer absolutely no sympathy for those standing in the way of our freedoms or those who are helping to steal those cattle! 

America better wake the heck up.


 
 Right side??  They are American citizens, hired to do a job!  Bundy is the one who called for a Range war and is workin towards getting every goofy milita want a be in the country involved. 



Those cowboys who are there moving cattle are not the bad guys and they do not deserve to be shot at or treated like dirt either. 

Thanks to the Bundy family and their videos Growney Brothers Rodeo Co. is now receiving death threats.



If Bundy feels it is time for a range war he needs to be front and center.  And it is with the court system NOT a bunch of cowboys trying to make some day money to support their families!



karen
No one (yet) has provided information in regards to how and who will profit by the sale of Cliven Bundy's confiscated cattle. There is question and reason to believe that the 'contract cowboys' very well may share in these proceeds beyond day wages. Stolen Property laws obviously do not apply when it comes to The Feds.

So you are just making it up as you go.  Cool!

karen 
Top of the page Bottom of the page
foundation horse
Posted 2014-04-10 2:57 PM (#6974129 - in reply to #6974117)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Military family

Semper Fi


500050005000500050005000500100100100100
Location: North Texas
3canstorun - 2014-04-10 2:49 PM

Stitch4k9 - 2014-04-10 3:40 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 2:36 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-10 2:12 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:56 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:47 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  
Considering my neighbors husband is down there potentially risking his life to remove cattle that shouldn't be there- yes, I agree with them being armed when opposition has threatened violence. He has 3 young children that would be fatherless if something were to happen. I support city, county and state law enforcement to carry similar weapons when they are enforcing the law- why would I think the federal level shouldn't have the same protections? Several people in my little town have been assigned to this operation- all have lives that have been disrupted by a person who thinks he is above the law and all have families and friends to return to when the job is done.
Aha!  NOW we know the 'rest of the story'!  All I can say is that for those foolish enough to wear the wrong uniform...well, sorry bout' their luck.  Maybe they should get on the 'right' side.

And yes, I mean that more than you can ever know.

Why aren't the law enforcement officials who actually have authority & jurisdiction on the scene?  It's NOT their option to just hand it over to the federal goons...they take an oath to protect our property, freedom & liberty.  Nobody forced them into that job...they better be a patriot or get the he$$ outta the way.

I offer absolutely no sympathy for those standing in the way of our freedoms or those who are helping to steal those cattle! 

America better wake the heck up.


 
I believe there is more to the rest of the story.

Bscanchaser, is your neighbor part of Law Enforcement under orders to conficate these cattle? Or is He one of the Contract Cowboys who would/will divide up the proceeds of the sale(s) of these nonbrand approved conficated cattle?

Your answer (if there is one) will be telling.
 Do you have ANY proof that is what will happen?  Or are you making this up as you go?



karen

Kristen Cannon, a spokesman of the BLM said this (and sorry it is copy and paste from a news article) - The bureau last week announced the area would be closed through May 12 while contractors conduct the roundup using helicopters, vehicles and temporary pens. Cannon said the agency paid the contractors $966,000.

Close to $1 Million. That is a lot of Cash to divvy up.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Stitch4k9
Posted 2014-04-10 3:00 PM (#6974131 - in reply to #6974120)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Holy Fruit Loops!


Posts: 1630
100050010025
Location: Colorado
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 2:51 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 2:25 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-10 2:12 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:56 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:47 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  
Considering my neighbors husband is down there potentially risking his life to remove cattle that shouldn't be there- yes, I agree with them being armed when opposition has threatened violence. He has 3 young children that would be fatherless if something were to happen. I support city, county and state law enforcement to carry similar weapons when they are enforcing the law- why would I think the federal level shouldn't have the same protections? Several people in my little town have been assigned to this operation- all have lives that have been disrupted by a person who thinks he is above the law and all have families and friends to return to when the job is done.
Aha!  NOW we know the 'rest of the story'!  All I can say is that for those foolish enough to wear the wrong uniform...well, sorry bout' their luck.  Maybe they should get on the 'right' side.

And yes, I mean that more than you can ever know.

Why aren't the law enforcement officials who actually have authority & jurisdiction on the scene?  It's NOT their option to just hand it over to the federal goons...they take an oath to protect our property, freedom & liberty.  Nobody forced them into that job...they better be a patriot or get the he$$ outta the way.

I offer absolutely no sympathy for those standing in the way of our freedoms or those who are helping to steal those cattle! 

America better wake the heck up.


 
In my original response I told bscanchaser I hoped she or he and theirs liked being a subject. Turns out I was closer than I thought! ETA Hail to The Feds! As Me and Mine: We like Our Freedom! And don't need the Feds!
LOL- I guess the rest of the story is that he is LSD, knows the Bundy family well from growing up near them but isn't going to quit his paying job to support the cause because he is the only source of income. I don't really know these people because I'm not Mormon and like wine- I just happened to ask how she was when I was doing some fence work yesterday and she was walking by our place. Btw- her husband works for the US forest service... Usually manned the cleanup/prison crews so I'm sure he's a spotter down there. Wait- you're going to have to educate me- I thought the "right" side represented the people that actually worked to afford to pay for what they have and dont expect free services. He seems to be more to the left in my opinion as he comes off as a welfare rancher that is wanting free grazing. BTW- he could have protected his property by removing them himself. Maybe a lawyer on here can chime in but basically the BLM/Clark county did their due diligence by trying to get him to remove his herd for the last 20 years. Since he didn't and seems to have abandoned his cattle- does that truly fall under the definition of theft? Especially since a large number aren't branded- how can he prove he actually owns them? If my memory serves me right, the BLM did give him the option to purchase his back cattle with his brand prior to the auction.

Unless it is in the form of a pay check?  Or are the Marines not funded through the"Feds"?

karen

Top of the page Bottom of the page
bscanchaser
Posted 2014-04-10 3:02 PM (#6974132 - in reply to #6974108)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government




100252525
Whiteboy - 2014-04-10 2:43 PM

bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 1:56 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:47 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  
Considering my neighbors husband is down there potentially risking his life to remove cattle that shouldn't be there- yes, I agree with them being armed when opposition has threatened violence. He has 3 young children that would be fatherless if something were to happen. I support city, county and state law enforcement to carry similar weapons when they are enforcing the law- why would I think the federal level shouldn't have the same protections? Several people in my little town have been assigned to this operation- all have lives that have been disrupted by a person who thinks he is above the law and all have families and friends to return to when the job is done.

Would you sell your soul for a nickel? 

Might do it for 4 pennies if it meant I was doing what I felt was right. I don't believe in blatantly breaking the law and will support those that uphold the law. As far as my neighbor- I can't answer that for him- I'm not sure.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
cyount2009
Posted 2014-04-10 3:02 PM (#6974133 - in reply to #6974095)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government



Expert


Posts: 1340
100010010010025
Stitch4k9 - 2014-04-10 2:31 PM

musikmaker - 2014-04-10 2:12 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:56 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:47 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  
Considering my neighbors husband is down there potentially risking his life to remove cattle that shouldn't be there- yes, I agree with them being armed when opposition has threatened violence. He has 3 young children that would be fatherless if something were to happen. I support city, county and state law enforcement to carry similar weapons when they are enforcing the law- why would I think the federal level shouldn't have the same protections? Several people in my little town have been assigned to this operation- all have lives that have been disrupted by a person who thinks he is above the law and all have families and friends to return to when the job is done.
Aha!  NOW we know the 'rest of the story'!  All I can say is that for those foolish enough to wear the wrong uniform...well, sorry bout' their luck.  Maybe they should get on the 'right' side.

And yes, I mean that more than you can ever know.

Why aren't the law enforcement officials who actually have authority & jurisdiction on the scene?  It's NOT their option to just hand it over to the federal goons...they take an oath to protect our property, freedom & liberty.  Nobody forced them into that job...they better be a patriot or get the he$$ outta the way.

I offer absolutely no sympathy for those standing in the way of our freedoms or those who are helping to steal those cattle! 

America better wake the heck up.


 

 Right side??  They are American citizens, hired to do a job!  Bundy is the one who called for a Range war and is workin towards getting every goofy milita want a be in the country involved. 

Those cowboys who are there moving cattle are not the bad guys and they do not deserve to be shot at or treated like dirt either. 
Thanks to the Bundy family and their videos Growney Brothers Rodeo Co. is now receiving death threats.

If Bundy feels it is time for a range war he needs to be front and center.  And it is with the court system NOT a bunch of cowboys trying to make some day money to support their families!

karen

What is Growney's affiliation with this whole mess? I thought his crew was in Logendale putting on a rodeo?
Top of the page Bottom of the page
foundation horse
Posted 2014-04-10 3:04 PM (#6974134 - in reply to #6974131)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Military family

Semper Fi


500050005000500050005000500100100100100
Location: North Texas
Stitch4k9 - 2014-04-10 3:00 PM

bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 2:51 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 2:25 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-10 2:12 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:56 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:47 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  
Considering my neighbors husband is down there potentially risking his life to remove cattle that shouldn't be there- yes, I agree with them being armed when opposition has threatened violence. He has 3 young children that would be fatherless if something were to happen. I support city, county and state law enforcement to carry similar weapons when they are enforcing the law- why would I think the federal level shouldn't have the same protections? Several people in my little town have been assigned to this operation- all have lives that have been disrupted by a person who thinks he is above the law and all have families and friends to return to when the job is done.
Aha!  NOW we know the 'rest of the story'!  All I can say is that for those foolish enough to wear the wrong uniform...well, sorry bout' their luck.  Maybe they should get on the 'right' side.

And yes, I mean that more than you can ever know.

Why aren't the law enforcement officials who actually have authority & jurisdiction on the scene?  It's NOT their option to just hand it over to the federal goons...they take an oath to protect our property, freedom & liberty.  Nobody forced them into that job...they better be a patriot or get the he$$ outta the way.

I offer absolutely no sympathy for those standing in the way of our freedoms or those who are helping to steal those cattle! 

America better wake the heck up.


 
In my original response I told bscanchaser I hoped she or he and theirs liked being a subject. Turns out I was closer than I thought! ETA Hail to The Feds! As Me and Mine: We like Our Freedom! And don't need the Feds!
LOL- I guess the rest of the story is that he is LSD, knows the Bundy family well from growing up near them but isn't going to quit his paying job to support the cause because he is the only source of income. I don't really know these people because I'm not Mormon and like wine- I just happened to ask how she was when I was doing some fence work yesterday and she was walking by our place. Btw- her husband works for the US forest service... Usually manned the cleanup/prison crews so I'm sure he's a spotter down there. Wait- you're going to have to educate me- I thought the "right" side represented the people that actually worked to afford to pay for what they have and dont expect free services. He seems to be more to the left in my opinion as he comes off as a welfare rancher that is wanting free grazing. BTW- he could have protected his property by removing them himself. Maybe a lawyer on here can chime in but basically the BLM/Clark county did their due diligence by trying to get him to remove his herd for the last 20 years. Since he didn't and seems to have abandoned his cattle- does that truly fall under the definition of theft? Especially since a large number aren't branded- how can he prove he actually owns them? If my memory serves me right, the BLM did give him the option to purchase his back cattle with his brand prior to the auction.

Unless it is in the form of a pay check?  Or are the Marines not funded through the"Feds"?

karen


The Marines also swore an Oath to Defend The Constitution from ALL Enemies Foreign and DOMESTIC! As LEOs are also required to do.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
FlyingJT
Posted 2014-04-10 3:05 PM (#6974135 - in reply to #6974131)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government



Elite Veteran


Posts: 739
50010010025
Stitch4k9 - 2014-04-10 3:00 PM

bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 2:51 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 2:25 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-10 2:12 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:56 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:47 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  
Considering my neighbors husband is down there potentially risking his life to remove cattle that shouldn't be there- yes, I agree with them being armed when opposition has threatened violence. He has 3 young children that would be fatherless if something were to happen. I support city, county and state law enforcement to carry similar weapons when they are enforcing the law- why would I think the federal level shouldn't have the same protections? Several people in my little town have been assigned to this operation- all have lives that have been disrupted by a person who thinks he is above the law and all have families and friends to return to when the job is done.
Aha!  NOW we know the 'rest of the story'!  All I can say is that for those foolish enough to wear the wrong uniform...well, sorry bout' their luck.  Maybe they should get on the 'right' side.

And yes, I mean that more than you can ever know.

Why aren't the law enforcement officials who actually have authority & jurisdiction on the scene?  It's NOT their option to just hand it over to the federal goons...they take an oath to protect our property, freedom & liberty.  Nobody forced them into that job...they better be a patriot or get the he$$ outta the way.

I offer absolutely no sympathy for those standing in the way of our freedoms or those who are helping to steal those cattle! 

America better wake the heck up.


 
In my original response I told bscanchaser I hoped she or he and theirs liked being a subject. Turns out I was closer than I thought! ETA Hail to The Feds! As Me and Mine: We like Our Freedom! And don't need the Feds!
LOL- I guess the rest of the story is that he is LSD, knows the Bundy family well from growing up near them but isn't going to quit his paying job to support the cause because he is the only source of income. I don't really know these people because I'm not Mormon and like wine- I just happened to ask how she was when I was doing some fence work yesterday and she was walking by our place. Btw- her husband works for the US forest service... Usually manned the cleanup/prison crews so I'm sure he's a spotter down there. Wait- you're going to have to educate me- I thought the "right" side represented the people that actually worked to afford to pay for what they have and dont expect free services. He seems to be more to the left in my opinion as he comes off as a welfare rancher that is wanting free grazing. BTW- he could have protected his property by removing them himself. Maybe a lawyer on here can chime in but basically the BLM/Clark county did their due diligence by trying to get him to remove his herd for the last 20 years. Since he didn't and seems to have abandoned his cattle- does that truly fall under the definition of theft? Especially since a large number aren't branded- how can he prove he actually owns them? If my memory serves me right, the BLM did give him the option to purchase his back cattle with his brand prior to the auction.

Unless it is in the form of a pay check?  Or are the Marines not funded through the"Feds"?

karen


We, as taxpayers, pay for all government expenses, including the military in exchange for services and security. so no Karen, the marines are not funded by the feds, they are funded by the people.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... >
Now viewing page 7 [20 messages per page]
Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread
Message format
 


Registered to: Barrel Horse World
(Delete all cookies set by this site)
Running MegaBBS ASP Forum Software
© 2002-2014 PD9 Software