- 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 1:35 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:35 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
Okay, so that's Nevada and Alabama.
What about all the federal lands in New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska? Are all these lands held illegally? And if so, how could they get away with so much of it for so long without any support from the courts? Has no state brought suit against the feds for lands that they believe are in their purview?
What about all the federal lands in New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska? Are all these lands held illegally? And if so, how could they get away with so much of it for so long without any support from the courts? Has no state brought suit against the feds for lands that they believe are in their purview?
2
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:38 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
What is your point? Are you disagreeing with my statement that sometimes it's worth more than the back rent to remove an intransigent tenant?
Yes, unless and as I mentioned, there are VERY unique circumstances. You mentioned you have never had to remove a tenant so what are you basing your claim on? Under typical circumstances, it cost next to nothing to legally remove them. You might incur a lot of costs after removing them in repairs,etc. but you would have had those expenses anyway. I am asserting that the cost of REMOVAL in and of itself, is very little.
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 1:39 pm
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:38 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
You come off as some sort of emotional, irrational woman.
I told you to do the research why Bundy has done what he did, but you fail to do so and told me to go frick myself, now who is acting like an irrational woman?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:43 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
No sir, the SCOTUS's rulinb applies to all states.
Once the feds allow statehood, they lose their rights to the land.
Once the feds allow statehood, they lose their rights to the land.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:45 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
YES!!!! We win!
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:46 pm to Dick Leverage
quote:
My point is that aside from property taxes, you are not paying for this service out of pocket.
You're going to have to fill me in on to what you're referring. I'm having a hard time seeing the relevance of your point.
quote:
And what do you mean "How Handy"?
I thought you were backing the cost to the gov't out of the total cost to make it look cheaper.
It seems that we're dealing with the gov't as land owner here. The costs to the gov't ARE their costs. It was stated in the thread that these costs exceeded the total amount of back 'rent'. I simply said that it doesn't matter if the costs exceed what is owed when it comes to removing an intransigent tenant. I would pay more than what is owed me to remove a tenant - if I had to. I mean, what's the alternative?
...at least I think that's what you're referring to.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:55 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
I am sorry for the confusion.
In a nutshell, I disagree that it cost more to remove a tenant than what they owe you in back rent . Only in a very unique circumstance would that be so.
My tenant owed me $2600 in back rent and refused to leave. It cost me $73 to legally remove him . And really nothing because the fee was added in the judgement against him.
In a nutshell, I disagree that it cost more to remove a tenant than what they owe you in back rent . Only in a very unique circumstance would that be so.
My tenant owed me $2600 in back rent and refused to leave. It cost me $73 to legally remove him . And really nothing because the fee was added in the judgement against him.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 2:01 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:
No sir, the SCOTUS's rulinb applies to all states. Once the feds allow statehood, they lose their rights to the land.
I mean, I hear you and all, but it simply hasn't happened. Look at the map, how can the government claim all of those lands if they can't?
We're missing a piece of this puzzle.
Apparently Bundy made the same claim, but the courts disagreed with Bundy. Now you're saying they agree with him. Which is it, has the court decided in favor of Bundy and now the federal government is acting outside of the courts' decisions?
Is this another case of the Jacksonian, 'The court has no army to enforce its decision'?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 2:05 pm to Dick Leverage
quote:
Only in a very unique circumstance would that be so.
There you go, so it is possible. And since we agree that it is possible, I would say that in the vast majority of those few cases, it's still worth it in order to secure your property. That's all I was trying to say. And in that sense the gov't spending $5 million to re-coup $1 million (or whatever) in back rent - and to secure their property, is not as unreasonable as some seem to be making it out to be. Sometimes you'll pay more than what you are owed to secure your property.
ETA: Look, here it is again, "Only the government would spend 1.5 million to collect a milljon" as if there isn't more to the eviction than simply collecting on back rent - there is also the issue of securing the property.
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 2:20 pm
Posted on 4/22/14 at 2:06 pm to ninthward
quote:
I told you to do the research why Bundy has done what he did, but you fail to do so and told me to go frick myself, now who is acting like an irrational woman?
Uh, yeah, that would still be you.
And I told you to go make me a sammich...
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:28 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Uh, yeah, that would still be you.
And I told you to go make me a sammich...
sweet thanks! for bringing zero to this thread, douchebag
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:40 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
Also lest we forget that law was passed in the 70s requiring the Feds and BLM to return that land to the state of Nevada, along with thousands of acres across the country, which they have not done.
Couple that with the heavy handed military action they chose to take to collect a tax debt and you've got a mess.
Buddy broke a law, true but is the law he broke in violation of previous law?
Also remember this, the Boston massacre, which is celebrated today as the kick starter to American freedom, bears a lot of parallels to what's going on with the Bundy's. Thankfully there was no massacre..... Yet
Couple that with the heavy handed military action they chose to take to collect a tax debt and you've got a mess.
Buddy broke a law, true but is the law he broke in violation of previous law?
Also remember this, the Boston massacre, which is celebrated today as the kick starter to American freedom, bears a lot of parallels to what's going on with the Bundy's. Thankfully there was no massacre..... Yet
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:45 pm to mamoutiga
quote:
Also lest we forget that law was passed in the 70s requiring the Feds and BLM to return that land to the state of Nevada, along with thousands of acres across the country, which they have not done.
do you have a link for this?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:51 pm to mamoutiga
quote:
Buddy broke a law, true but is the law he broke in violation of previous law?
Also remember this, the Boston massacre, which is celebrated today as the kick starter to American freedom, bears a lot of parallels to what's going on with the Bundy's. Thankfully there was no massacre..... Yet
Can't believe the GOP gives the anti government nuts refuge. The same rhetoric was spewed in the early 1990's until McVeigh's bomb dialed it back a bit. Always seems like the anti-government rhetoric/confrontations gets bit louder & more extreme under Dem administrations.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:55 pm to sugar71
quote:
McVeigh's bomb dialed it back a bit.
you mean the same bomb that Eric Holder let him get in a "sting operation gone bad"?
good lord.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:59 pm to CptBengal
quote:
CptBengal
Why do you respond to Sugar71? He's a known retard.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:05 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
Why do you respond to Sugar71? He's a known retard.
I usually dont, but I always take the chance to point out that Holder, just like with fast and furious....
ran a sting operation gone wrong that killed many many people.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:07 pm to Dick Leverage
In order for someone to win, they have to challenge the federal idiots and keep these runaway federal judges from misapllying the law.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:17 pm to CptBengal
quote:
but I always take the chance to point out that Holder, just like with fast and furious....
ran a sting operation gone wrong that killed many many people.
racist
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:28 pm to ninthward
quote:
sweet thanks! for bringing zero to this thread, douchebag
Hey, don't blame me because no one seems to be able to grasp my point.
Here's my original post in the thread:
quote:
To the OP: There could be something to his claim of watering/forage rights in perpetuity at the granting of the original claim. Bundy may not be breaking the law.
HOWEVER, as far as the federal response, I don't really think you want to go in half-assed against a man who has threatened violence against federal agents, and who doesn't recognize the authority of the federal gov't. and who, in all likelihood has stockpiles of scary black assault rifles - or at least the Constitutional right to have them. ALWAYS go in with overwhelming force. In that way you may get the offender to capitulate without violence. If he believes he has a chance, he may cause unnecessary harm to others and himself. Make his situation appear hopeless.
That's pretty fricking straight forward, and yet I've gotten no end of people running around me in circles with their hair on fire.
Bundy may be right, but if he's not, the feds didn't overreact, imo.
What's so fricking hard to understand? And why, based on that post, would you need to get me to look up Bundy's motivations? I mean, wtf? And you think I didn't contribute substance to the thread?
This place is fricking WHACK.
Page 6 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News