- 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: BLM vs. Nevada Rancher
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:01 am to CptBengal
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:01 am to CptBengal
quote:
people have rights. The government has a set number of limited, enumerated powers. Good god man, are you really this confused about basic civics?
Can you gain property through adverse possession against the state?
1
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:01 am to moneyg
quote:this is not China, stop using that terminology.
the People's
What gives the BLM the right to steal and sell the cattle and to also kill the cattle, secondly as the "People" I do not allow my tax dollars to be spent this way and finally do the research on Bundy and come back here.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:04 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
You were WAY off. You are falsely assuming that I think Bundy is in the wrong.
I didn't assume anything in those regards... I just made the comment that you must have enjoyed the confrontation in Nevada since you would enjoy a confrontation between SWAT and your Tenants
quote:
public lands that he believes he has a servitude across to access water in perpetuity?
This... I don't care how cut and dry you think it is that the Feds are in the right, its not that simple. There is so much grey area, who was managing the land, who was accepting payments, what was supposed to be done, what wasn't done, etc...
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:04 am to WildTchoupitoulas
What property did he gain?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:08 am to Lsut81
quote:
ho was accepting payments, what was supposed to be done, what wasn't done
Exactly. If you are equating the Federal government with a private citizen. Then the following holds true.
Private citizen (Bundy) enters into agreement with another private citizen (government) to perform services at an agreed upon rate. Private citizen (Government) refuses to live up to the agreement by refusal of services and mismanagement of assets. Under a private contract, private citizen (government) has breached said contract and deemed the contract null and void.
End of story.
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 10:09 am
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:12 am to moneyg
quote:
Is that what's happening? Is Bundy preventing others from using that land?
I believe that's the government's claim.
I believe Bundy's claim is that he has a servitude across public lands to access water in perpetuity.
My position is that the government may be screwing Bundy on his water rights. My position is also that if the government is in the right, the use of force to remove the offender was not unreasonable.
Hell, St. Washington used over 12,000 men to quash the Whiskey Rebellion.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:15 am to WildTchoupitoulas
would you continue to pay the BLM for management when in fact little has been done to the land, remember this is over turtles, and why will they not let Bundy pay the fee any longer? hmmm maybe dig some more before you come here with he is wrong lawbreaker bad man LOL
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:17 am to ninthward
quote:totally drive them out like Waco that went great oh yeah that Holder guy never-mind Bundy is as good as dead
the use of force to remove the offender was not unreasonable.
turtles man turtles
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:17 am to ninthward
quote:
his is not China, stop using that terminology.
frick. You.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:18 am to Lsut81
quote:
I just made the comment that you must have enjoyed the confrontation in Nevada
Why would I enjoy the government using armed force to evict someone who is in their rights?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:21 am to Lsut81
quote:
I don't care how cut and dry you think it is that the Feds are in the right, its not that simple.
Jesus.
fricking.
Christ.
I never said they were. I simply said that if they were, they were justified in using the force they did.
This thread started out with everyone assuming Bundy was in the wrong, but then claiming that the government was wrong to use the force they did. I disagree. If Bundy's in the wrong, then the feds were right to use the force they did.
The problem is that I believe Bundy may not be in the wrong. However the court has decided against him. Why aren't any of you bemoaning the court's decision? Isn't that where any injustice may be occurring?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:25 am to DR Hops
quote:
Private citizen (Bundy) enters into agreement with another private citizen (government) to perform services at an agreed upon rate.
I don't think that's the issue in Bundy's eyes. I believe he believes he has a servitude across public land in perpetuity.
If I have a servitude across my neighbor's property, and he locks me out, I'll call the sheriff and re-gain access across his property.
BUT - I have to prove I have that servitude. Apparently the court found Bundy's proof of any right of servitude lacking and judged against him accordingly.
I think it's more complicated than Bundy simply renting public lands for grazing his cattle.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:27 am to ninthward
quote:
hmmm maybe dig some more before you come here with he is wrong lawbreaker bad man LOL
You come off as some sort of emotional, irrational woman.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:43 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
This thread started out with everyone assuming Bundy was in the wrong, but then claiming that the government was wrong to use the force they did. I disagree. If Bundy's in the wrong, then the feds were right to use the force they did.
So you think the Feds were right to use the force they did in Waco?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:48 am to Lsut81
quote:
So you think the Feds were right to use the force they did in Waco?
No. What does that have to do with anything? Were the Branch Davidians squatting on public land? Did the federal government have any business being there? Did a court issue a warrant to search the grounds? Was it justified? Could they have obtained the desired result of incarcerating Koresh through other means?
Just because I can think of a situation when the government isn't necessarily wrong DOES NOT MEAN that I think the government is always right. Why does this seem so difficult for some to grasp?
So you think Bundy's in the wrong?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:56 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
So you think Bundy's in the wrong?
I don't know, I think the situation is was to convoluted and I don't trust either side. I think the truth lies somewhere in between.
Even if Bundy was 100% in the wrong, there is absolutely no reason to send in 200 armed agents with helicopters and urban assault vehicles in order to remedy the situation.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:02 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
So you think Bundy's in the wrong?
No more wrong than MLK with his civil rights marches. Remember now, MLK was marching against injustices forced on his people by the government. I think Bundy is doing the same thing.
Many people didn't like what King was doing at first but after many people starting paying attention to what his message was then people starting coming around. Bundy is doing the same thing imo.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:03 am to Lsut81
quote:
Even if Bundy was 100% in the wrong, there is absolutely no reason to send in 200 armed agents with helicopters and urban assault vehicles in order to remedy the situation.
This is my only disagreement with the thread.
If 5 agents with side arms attempted to force Bundy to acquiesce and were driven off with loss of life, that would be a worse situation than the gov't showing up with 200 agents armed with special weapons forcing Bundy to surrender without a shot or injury to any party.
Otherwise, I'm still thinking the court fricked up and that Bundy may have a legitimate claim of servitude to bring his cattle to water. In that case even one single federal agent showing up at Bundy's door armed with nothing but a notepad and pencil would not be acceptable.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:06 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
This is my only disagreement with the thread.
I apologize if I came off confrontational
My point is that I don't think the Govt should use force like that for non-violent offenders. If he had killed multiple people and was likely to do it again, ok, you go in with force.
But for a non-violent crime, you pick his arse up at the local store when he is alone or you seize his financial assets.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:06 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
No more wrong than MLK with his civil rights marches. Remember now, MLK was marching against injustices forced on his people by the government. I think Bundy is doing the same thing.
MLK and civil rights marches are an inappropriate analogy here.
For one thing, those times when MLK intentionally broke the law through Civil Disobedience, he was aware that he was breaking the law. I don't think Bundy is engaging in Civil Disobedience, I think he believes that he's on the right side of the law.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News