|
|
Expert
Posts: 1561
  
| foundation horse - 2014-04-13 11:02 PM
Itsme - 2014-04-13 10:56 PM
Im not reading your links...
Isn't that private land theyre trying to grab?
You have the privilege of remaining ignorant. Yes, it is private land. Overbearing BLM at it again. Or I should say Overbearing Government which is what BLM actually is. Still want to 'Fire The Shot'? And be the One responsible for telling Survivors that You started The Fire Fight that claimed Their Loved Ones?
That is not something I would care to claim.
Quote me where I said to fire the 1st shot. Ill be patiently waiting. | |
| | |
  Semper Fi
 
Location: North Texas | Itsme - 2014-04-13 11:18 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-13 11:02 PM
Itsme - 2014-04-13 10:56 PM
Im not reading your links...
Isn't that private land theyre trying to grab?
You have the privilege of remaining ignorant. Yes, it is private land. Overbearing BLM at it again. Or I should say Overbearing Government which is what BLM actually is. Still want to 'Fire The Shot'? And be the One responsible for telling Survivors that You started The Fire Fight that claimed Their Loved Ones?
That is not something I would care to claim.
Quote me where I said to fire the 1st shot. Ill be patiently waiting.
On the other thread. I quoted you in regards to it....................
I found the Post(s)/Quote I was looking for! heheheeheheh
Posted 2014-04-11 8:38 AM (#6974425 - in reply to #6974347)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government
Itsme - 2014-04-10 11:30 PM The true American citizens need to arm themselves and set up "road blocks" and get behind the snipers, dont let the feds surround you. Road blocks around the feds road blocks and snipers behind their snipers.
Itsme: I am about radical as they come where The Constitution is concerned...........but I am at least halfway sensible when it comes to starting a Shooting Civil War between Americans! The guy in the Youtube Video MM posted has it right! Let The Feds fire the first shot. I really have to wonder if you have ever studied any kind of history whatsoever. Also have you ever experienced the aftermath of a shooting event? Real People with Real Families get hurt and die who leave Loved Ones behind. Did you ever think of that?
I am not against a 'Civil War' per se. I am just not particularly interested in being the party or parties who are responible for the opening round.
This is the C&P from Page #9 of The Rancher VS. Government Thread in which I specifically quoted YOU about starting a Shooting Scrape. Inciting a Civil War is rather serious business is it not?
| |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | TXBO - 2014-04-13 9:30 PM
komet. - 2014-04-13 9:23 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 9:09 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:03 PM komet. - 2014-04-13 8:56 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 8:30 PM Here ya go....someone who isn't ignorant of ranch life in the west, 2014:
Why Clive Bundy isn't WRONG.
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
-Kena Lytle Gloeckner
Btw: Did all of you 'landlords' inherit this by birth? Do you have a vested interest in it?
The fed does NOT own this land. It's in a 'reserved' status...
1) I inherited nothing. I paid my way through college by working the tobacco fields of Appalachia. My herd is not my primary source of income and every GD head was paid for from the fruits of my labor. They graze on leased private land that costs many times more that the paltry sum charged for those crony capitalist corrupt BLM grants.
2) yes the fed does own that land. Paltry?? Millions?? How many million do you make from your cows? So we go back to.. "Public Land" this man is part of the PUBLIC.... and his family has run cows there since the 1800S... and TXBO!! Maybe you would like to give your land back to the Mexicans??
Ya know.. I could understand the Obama loving Alphabet Man supporting the feds on this... But when did you start believing anything the government says? Where is TxBo and what the he!! did you do with him? | |
| | |
 BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | Here we are hearing more and more words and expressions like "civil war", "revolution", "militia", "Tea Party", "revolt", etc.... Basically this is what is required before a social utopia can, once and for all, be achieved - chaos. The idea is to overload the social welfare system so drastically that collapse is inevitible. Cloward and Piven devised this and were inspired by Saul Alinski. All of these things are forces that contribute to the necessary chaos before the collapse, so that the social utopian state can arise. I think we are at a croosroads. | |
| | |
"Heck's Coming With Me"
Posts: 10797
Location: Kansas | Finney's a hoot. "Quit sucking at the public teat" coming from a liberal? The folks who are the reason half this country is on the government dole. Come on Finney..........
| |
| | |
 Famous for Not Complaining
Posts: 8848
Location: Broxton, Ga | Frodo - 2014-04-13 9:42 AM Finney's a hoot. "Quit sucking at the public teat" coming from a liberal? The folks who are the reason half this country is on the government dole. Come on Finney..........
 | |
| | |
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| komet. - 2014-04-14 1:28 AM Ya know.. I could understand the Obama loving Alphabet Man supporting the feds on this... But when did you start believing anything the government says? Where is TxBo and what the he!! did you do with him?
LOL! Komet, I can certainly align with the sentiment of fighting an over reaching federal government. However I don't see a legitimate conservative issue on Bundy's side.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Frodo - 2014-04-14 8:42 AM Finney's a hoot. "Quit sucking at the public teat" coming from a liberal? The folks who are the reason half this country is on the government dole. Come on Finney..........
Yet Cliven most certainly is sucking on the government teet.
| |
| | |
 Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-14 8:34 AM komet. - 2014-04-14 1:28 AM Ya know.. I could understand the Obama loving Alphabet Man supporting the feds on this... But when did you start believing anything the government says? Where is TxBo and what the he!! did you do with him? LOL! Komet, I can certainly align with the sentiment of fighting an over reaching federal government. However I don't see a legitimate conservative issue on Bundy's side.
You're not 'teachable'! Did you even attempt to read the many links & gov't documents that prove juridiction & authority?
That's the 'chaos' Scott was referring to...when people refuse to let go of a pre-concieved notion...right or wrong.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| HotbearLVR - 2014-04-14 7:47 AM Here we are hearing more and more words and expressions like "civil war", "revolution", "militia", "Tea Party", "revolt", etc.... Basically this is what is required before a social utopia can, once and for all, be achieved - chaos. The idea is to overload the social welfare system so drastically that collapse is inevitible. Cloward and Piven devised this and were inspired by Saul Alinski. All of these things are forces that contribute to the necessary chaos before the collapse, so that the social utopian state can arise. I think we are at a croosroads.
I don't think we're close to the point of chaos yet but this is a great example of the growing sentiment for social disobedience against federal over reach. There are large factions that want to push back regardless of the legitimacy of the fight.
The first amendment fight with religious organizations has the potential for wide reaching yet mostly peaceful civil disobedience. What is the government going to do when when a Catholic organization refuses to comply with Obamacare or pay the fines? Are they going to close the churches and jail the Bishops and nuns? | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-14 9:40 AM TXBO - 2014-04-14 8:34 AM komet. - 2014-04-14 1:28 AM Ya know.. I could understand the Obama loving Alphabet Man supporting the feds on this... But when did you start believing anything the government says? Where is TxBo and what the he!! did you do with him? LOL! Komet, I can certainly align with the sentiment of fighting an over reaching federal government. However I don't see a legitimate conservative issue on Bundy's side.
That's the 'chaos' Scott was referring to...when people refuse to let go of a pre-concieved notion...right or wrong.
I'm teachable but I don't abandon my convictions to satisfy my personal idealism.
I also don't let a couple of op-ed pieces interfere with my constructionist view of our constitution. As much as I'd like to jump on board with your belief that the fed can't own land, I read just the opposite in the constitution. You're putting a judicial activism argument to this issue and I find that that the biggest threat of all to our liberty. | |
| | |
 Warmblood with Wings
Posts: 27846
Location: Florida.. | I just watched a video and it gave me goosebumps. I just wish we the people would take this stand and type of againist alot of issues.. if we banded together.. but instead we dont.
it does prove however that the people have more balls then the men sitting in the whitehouse labeled republicans. .. they are pure wusses | |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 1857
| jbhoot - 2014-04-13 7:57 PM
rodeomom3 - 2014-04-13 7:10 PM
FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 6:10 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-13 5:34 PM
Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-13 4:19 PM Finney, you've always gotten on my nerves, but IMO you shouldn't have felt like you had to defend your personal life that way. I'm sorry you felt like you needed to do that.
That said, this particular case has opened up some dialogue that needed to take place and brought to light some cases that are much more cut and dried where you cannot argue justice is being served. I wonder how different things would be if the ranchers had had a way to communicate like we do now, where they could have more easily banded together to say NO at the beginning of all this BLM mess and negotiated better terms for themselves. Better yet, how about if none of these agencies with no accountability had been prevented from being created in the first place. I am sick to death of being regulated to infinity and beyond by people I can't vote out. That's not how our government was supposed to work.
This is exactly how I feel about this.
And Finney...the ignorance I refer to is in the experience of dealing with the BLM. You recommended ranchers 'buying land & paying the taxes' like everyone else does...have you ever been 'out west'? Do you have any idea how many acres are required per cow? Do you think livestock & wildlife should be banned?
It's the ignorance of those who have no clue to what it takes to survive out here, yet, think they should have an opinion...one that is not educated...that is creating hardship for those who are fighting this battle. Get educated to ALL the facts...better yet, just watch and learn.
Here's what I know. It takes at least 20 acres to run a cow in Nebraska w/ supplemental feed. Land prices have increased to $1000-$1500 per grass acre. A 250 cow place would require at least 5000 acres of range land costing up to $7.5 million dollars. There is next to no federal and state grazing land in this state and what there is (besides school land ) never, I repeat never, comes up for lease. Most real estate people will tell you that if you pay more than $10,000/cow, or $2,500,000, you can't make it pay. That is a $5 million dollar difference in making it and not.
"Out West", you can own 150 acres costing (@ $1500/ac ) $225,000, pay a grazing permit for a thousand head of cattle (AUM ) costing $1350, have the same 250 head as the Nebraska (and many other states ) and laugh all the way to the bank. Then, it must be written in the contract somewhere, complain ad nauseum about the indignities you suffer.
If you don't like living "out west", move to somewhere that takes less grass per cow. It's not a hard concept, many people have done it, bought land and paid taxes. It's gotten so fashionable for ranchers to complain about the goverment interferring in their lives, they forget about the times they complain about the governement not helping them enough (SD Blizzard ).
When people sign a BLM or State lease anywhere, they are read each page individually so there is no misunderstandings about their obligations as well as the government's. Sometimes people have been someplace for so long, it feels just like it IS theirs, just like my Dad's story, but it isn't, and if they forget that, sometimes bad things happen.
From a contractual perspective, Bundy agreed to the BLM terms and demonstrated so by the years he did pay his grazing rights. Even if unhappy, I don't know how he can say sorry changed my mind but I am going to keep using your land. I agree about the over regulation by agencies who have total power and no oversight but they are regulating land they own. If preemptive rights give him the rights to the land why did he pay the BLM to begin with?
He did not change his mind The BLM changed the lease. That's when this 21 year mess started. He has never claimed he owns the land only the lease which his father and his grandfather owned and transferred to him. Since the lease predates the BLM by about 60 years he feels he has preemptive rights to the lease. Some where along the way BLM revoked the lease and transferred the lease to the county without his signature. To me Bundy needed a much better attorney.
| |
| | |
 Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | TXBO - 2014-04-14 9:46 AM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-14 7:47 AM Here we are hearing more and more words and expressions like "civil war", "revolution", "militia", "Tea Party", "revolt", etc.... Basically this is what is required before a social utopia can, once and for all, be achieved - chaos. The idea is to overload the social welfare system so drastically that collapse is inevitible. Cloward and Piven devised this and were inspired by Saul Alinski. All of these things are forces that contribute to the necessary chaos before the collapse, so that the social utopian state can arise. I think we are at a croosroads. I don't think we're close to the point of chaos yet but this is a great example of the growing sentiment for social disobedience against federal over reach. There are large factions that want to push back regardless of the legitimacy of the fight.
The first amendment fight with religious organizations has the potential for wide reaching yet mostly peaceful civil disobedience. What is the government going to do when when a Catholic organization refuses to comply with Obamacare or pay the fines? Are they going to close the churches and jail the Bishops and nuns?
We've been wanting to flip the Feds the bird for so long that it doesn't take much of an excuse. We are already waaaaay past the standards of the original patriots. | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-14 9:46 AM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-14 7:47 AM Here we are hearing more and more words and expressions like "civil war", "revolution", "militia", "Tea Party", "revolt", etc.... Basically this is what is required before a social utopia can, once and for all, be achieved - chaos. The idea is to overload the social welfare system so drastically that collapse is inevitible. Cloward and Piven devised this and were inspired by Saul Alinski. All of these things are forces that contribute to the necessary chaos before the collapse, so that the social utopian state can arise. I think we are at a croosroads. I don't think we're close to the point of chaos yet but this is a great example of the growing sentiment for social disobedience against federal over reach. There are large factions that want to push back regardless of the legitimacy of the fight.
The first amendment fight with religious organizations has the potential for wide reaching yet mostly peaceful civil disobedience. What is the government going to do when when a Catholic organization refuses to comply with Obamacare or pay the fines? Are they going to close the churches and jail the Bishops and nuns?
I see an increasing level of agitation across the spectrum. I also see an evolving chaos as a result. "Survivalism" is increasingly popular for a reason. The dependent sector of our society is feeling pressure. The producers are feeling pressure. People are seeing our status in the world decline. Moral relativism is the norm. The family unit is in a state of steady decline....it really is. Many feel our economy is fragile and ready to implode. People are seeing freedoms being usurped by an overreaching government. Nothing seems to make sense anymore. People are itching for a fight. That's how I see this Nevada incident. It's a symptom of a large segment of our society that is saying "I just want to hit someone!" We don't have a leader who strives to unite us. On the contrary, we have one whose goal it is to divide us, create chaos, and rebuild a socialist utopia. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-14 10:18 AM TXBO - 2014-04-14 9:46 AM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-14 7:47 AM Here we are hearing more and more words and expressions like "civil war", "revolution", "militia", "Tea Party", "revolt", etc.... Basically this is what is required before a social utopia can, once and for all, be achieved - chaos. The idea is to overload the social welfare system so drastically that collapse is inevitible. Cloward and Piven devised this and were inspired by Saul Alinski. All of these things are forces that contribute to the necessary chaos before the collapse, so that the social utopian state can arise. I think we are at a croosroads. I don't think we're close to the point of chaos yet but this is a great example of the growing sentiment for social disobedience against federal over reach. There are large factions that want to push back regardless of the legitimacy of the fight.
The first amendment fight with religious organizations has the potential for wide reaching yet mostly peaceful civil disobedience. What is the government going to do when when a Catholic organization refuses to comply with Obamacare or pay the fines? Are they going to close the churches and jail the Bishops and nuns?
Couldn't agree more. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-14 8:54 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 9:40 AM TXBO - 2014-04-14 8:34 AM komet. - 2014-04-14 1:28 AM Ya know.. I could understand the Obama loving Alphabet Man supporting the feds on this... But when did you start believing anything the government says? Where is TxBo and what the he!! did you do with him? LOL! Komet, I can certainly align with the sentiment of fighting an over reaching federal government. However I don't see a legitimate conservative issue on Bundy's side.
That's the 'chaos' Scott was referring to...when people refuse to let go of a pre-concieved notion...right or wrong.
I also don't let a couple of op-ed pieces interfere with my constructionist view of our constitution. As much as I'd like to jump on board with your belief that the fed can't own land, I read just the opposite in the constitution. You're putting a judicial activism argument to this issue and I find that that the biggest threat of all to our liberty.
I've never denied a certain idealistic view...not so much the pacifist, but I don't 'get' people who refuse to study & dig for the truth...no different than people saying we're a Democracy! Say something enough times and people believe it.
I never said the fed can't 'own' land...they can within the perimeters set forth by the Constitution...it does not include large tracts of land such as we are now dealing with, granted, a state can abandon land to fed, however, the fed is not in the position of accepting as it undermines the basic rights of the citizens.
The Eisenhower Report of 1962 lists ALL lands that the fed is affiliated with, the year it was 'acquired' and the jurisdictional code applied. My issue with the federal judicial authority concerning these lands is that it's been determined that the authority lies with the state. These are issues that people need to understand so we may get on the same page...I also take issue wth the many corrupt instances of judicial overreach. It happens. And I'm not the threat...apathy is.
Anyhow...I've posted all the info I have in this & other threads...for those who are interested in the letter of the law...it's there.
| |
| | |
 Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| I don't understand the concept of Goverment owned anything. The role of this Goverment is not to OWN anything that has been fought for by our men and women in uniform. The role they are supposed to take have nothing to do with impossing borders within borders. Of the People, by the People...
There is also the question of what is reasonable enforcement. Do any of you think the Feds were reasonable in the way they treated this American? I'm late to party and I need to read this thread throughly but this is my take on things as of now. | |
| | |
 Angel in a Sorrel Coat
Posts: 16030
Location: In a happy place | I'm like Ridden....I am late to the party and on top of that I am not intelligent enough to join this discussion. I need to read more. But I can tell you I lived in Waco when the Branch Dividian fiasco happened. I got to see first hand what the government can do. And it can be very scary. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1857
| RidenFly - 2014-04-14 10:31 AM
I don't understand the concept of Goverment owned anything. The role of this Goverment is not to OWN anything that has been fought for by our men and women in uniform. The role they are supposed to take have nothing to do with impossing borders within borders. Of the People, by the People...
There is also the question of what is reasonable enforcement. Do any of you think the Feds were reasonable in the way they treated this American? I'm late to party and I need to read this thread throughly but this is my take on things as of now.
There's a larger thread "Rancher vs Government" that has lots more info and pages. Good luck! | |
| |
| |
Folks on-line