- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bundy/BLM: Sheriff: "Feds Strategizing for Raid"
Posted on 4/15/14 at 9:59 am to son of arlo
Posted on 4/15/14 at 9:59 am to son of arlo
quote:
quote:
It's about environmental activists using the federal government to steal land from the citizens.
It could be about rich interests using politicians that use environmental activists using the federal government to steal land and water rights from citizens.
Bingo. Check the environmental groups involved in this issue and who funds them. GEORGE SOROS.
1
Posted on 4/15/14 at 10:03 am to son of arlo
quote:Could be.
It could be about rich interests using politicians that use environmental activists using the federal government to steal land and water rights from citizens.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 10:06 am to Jbird
Richt has lost control of Nevada
Posted on 4/15/14 at 10:09 am to dante
quote:The issue that the BLM has with Bundy is not so much that he owes money. He does, and it's a problem Bundy has with the BLM, but that's not why the BLM is impounding his cattle.quote:Can some address this please?
Secondly, why has the BLM not gone through the proper legal channels and filed a lien against the Bundy assets, instead of stealing private property. If he owed the IRS $1million dollars, would they have stolen his cows?
The BLM is impounding his cattle because the cattle constitute a trespass on federal land. The cattle are causing damage. The seizure of the cattle is to remove them from federal land.
The BLM has been authorized by federal court order to impound the cattle since 1998. The BLM has planned impoundments of the Bundy cattle in the past, but it has canceled those plans because Bundy threatened violence.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 10:12 am to Salviati
that makes more sense....trespassing not debt owed.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 10:42 am to Salviati
My main tipping point which I'm still not 100% on is whether or not the federal government (BLM) held up their end of the agreement.. Did they mismanage the land? Did they not appropriate the funds to that endeavor?
Posted on 4/15/14 at 10:55 am to TROLA
Getting back to the OP about a feint by the feds to set up a less violent surprise raid. This reminds me of the Elian Gonzalez raid. The family set up a vigil to stop the feds from taking the child and returning him to Cuba.
The feds waited and watched until the family supporters let their guard down in the middle of the night. Then they attacked.
The feds waited and watched until the family supporters let their guard down in the middle of the night. Then they attacked.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 11:20 am to wickowick
quote:
The Feds know what is on the line, they can't afford to lose, so does Bundy and his supporters. Neither will back down and it will be a blood bath before everything is said and done and the Feds will win. Then the Feds will use this to put a wedge between the "regular" gun owners and "militia types" gun owners. The Feds win if violence occurs, they control the message...
This. 100% this.
Don't be stupid people.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 11:23 am to Salviati
quote:
The BLM has been authorized by federal court order to impound the cattle since 1998. The BLM has planned impoundments of the Bundy cattle in the past, but it has canceled those plans because Bundy threatened violence.
So, who is "right"?
I really don't know.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 11:24 am to Blakely Bimbo
quote:
Blakely Bimbo
quote:
GEORGE SOROS
Ahhhh.... Now we have it all figured out.
It's Soros and Reid, in bed with the Chinese....
BRILLIANT!!!!
Posted on 4/15/14 at 11:29 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Yet another that doesn't get it.
Oh, I get it, trust me. I got some last night.
But instead of trying to be your usual condescending self, why don't you spell out what exactly it is?
Because the quote you provided really doesn't say anything. He's certainly not a shining example. Just because someone speaks up about oppression by the government doesn't mean I necessarily support them.
"Enough" of what is "enough"? The government upholding its laws? The government responding with force to a lawbreaker who threatened force?
Jesse James got a lot of popular support as well, but he was still a murderous bank robber.
Don't we still have property rights? What about the rights of the property owner?
Posted on 4/15/14 at 12:21 pm to Layabout
Layabout = Harry Reid Dick Rider
Posted on 4/15/14 at 12:43 pm to TROLA
quote:Bundy has stated to the press and public that the BLM is managing him out of business. When he says that, he means only that the BLM is enforcing the Endangered Species Act. He believes that the federal government has no authority to enforce the ESA because the federal government does not own the land and the federal government has no authority to enforce the ESA on state land.
My main tipping point which I'm still not 100% on is whether or not the federal government (BLM) held up their end of the agreement.. Did they mismanage the land? Did they not appropriate the funds to that endeavor?
He does not argue that the BLM is failing to do some act or fulfill some obligation that they promised to do.
Again, there is no contract in this case. There is no set of obligations or duties that the BLM agreed to perform on the property that Bundy uses for grazing his cattle.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 12:48 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Don't we still have property rights?
That's arguable. Maybe it would be more precise to say the govt allows you to own whatever property that's defined in the local courthouse as long as you pay your taxes. Otherwise, they'll take ownership and sell it to someone who will. Do you call that property rights?
quote:
What about the rights of the property owner?
Which specific rights are you talking about? That's a question too big for one thread.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 12:49 pm to Salviati
To me, Bundy has a good argument that the BLM is seeking to appease special interests by forcing out ranchers.
Unfortunately, this encroachment on livelihood is not violating any rights of Bundy, but rather simply enforcing rights of the federal government which happen to interrupt an existing use of Bundy.
To me, this case works as an example of how our government badly prioritizes, and ends up screwing us all for the sake of special interests that really benefit few or none.
BUT, I do not agree that some kind of armed conflict is justified here. I can understand why emotions run high when livelihood is on the line, but I've heard no cogent arguments for why the stand of Bundy and the militia folks is justified.
Unfortunately, this encroachment on livelihood is not violating any rights of Bundy, but rather simply enforcing rights of the federal government which happen to interrupt an existing use of Bundy.
To me, this case works as an example of how our government badly prioritizes, and ends up screwing us all for the sake of special interests that really benefit few or none.
BUT, I do not agree that some kind of armed conflict is justified here. I can understand why emotions run high when livelihood is on the line, but I've heard no cogent arguments for why the stand of Bundy and the militia folks is justified.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 12:51 pm to Salviati
quote:
there is no contract in this case.
Granted. However, Bundy claims that three generations of his family has grazed that land. At what date did the feds start alleging that the Bundys were grazing on the land illegally?
Posted on 4/15/14 at 12:51 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
You own nothing. Fail to pay the state its tax and see who actually owns the property you believe to be yours.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 12:56 pm to dante
quote:
why has the BLM not gone through the proper legal channels and filed a lien against the Bundy assets, instead of stealing private property.
This is what has me thinking. It seems that they aren't as interested in the money as much as they need that land...
They are willing to spend many millions of dollars for a small payout. Putting a lien on Bundy's assets would be the cheapest and easiest way to recoup the money.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 12:58 pm to dante
quote:
If he owed the IRS $1million dollars,.......
I see ads on TV where people only paid pennies on the dollar for huge amounts of back taxes. Maybe Bundy needs to hire one of those companies.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 1:01 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
Unfortunately, this encroachment on livelihood is not violating any rights of Bundy, but rather simply enforcing rights of the federal government which happen to interrupt an existing use of Bundy.
If you back up one layer of abstraction, would you consider capricious laws written by "the fed govt" giving "the fed govt" rights that trump the rights Bundy has from his family working the land for 3 generations?
Page 4 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News