- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Tensions rise in Nevada-snipers,1st am zones,no fly zones used and in effect
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:57 pm to Rex
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:57 pm to Rex
twitter reports that the cell towers in the area of the bundy ranch have all been deactivated.
So we give free phones with free service to inner city deadbeats...and turn of the service of people who pay for it because they protest.
What a disgrace.
So we give free phones with free service to inner city deadbeats...and turn of the service of people who pay for it because they protest.
What a disgrace.
2
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:57 pm to CptBengal
quote:
they need the land for their remitigation for their solar project.
So? Suppose the Feds needed the land to build a fort or an ICBM silo. Would that be any different? How would that make Mr. Bundy any less a deadbeat?
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:58 pm to Salviati
quote:
There are some simple unassailable facts. 1. The land at issue is the property of the federal government. If that statement confuses you, it means that the federal government owns the land and has owned the land prior to the Bundys showing up. The federal government has held title to this land since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States of America. Nevada did not become a state until 1864, and Nevada did not acquire title to the land upon becoming a state. In short, the State of Nevada does not own the land. 2. Bundy does not own the land. Bundy does not even claim to own the land. The Bundys merely make claims that their cattle grazed on the land. However, even their claims of grazing do not precede the federal government acquiring title to the land. The Bundys also talk about walking on the land and living near the land, but they do not own it, nor do they claim to own it. 3. Bundy was afforded his day in court, multiple times, and has lost each time. There are not any issues open for debate. In a succession of court rulings, a court determined that: (1) the land is owned by the federal government, not the Bundys (Bundy did not offer any evidence or argument that he owned the land), (2) the Bundys do not have any right to have their cattle on the land, (3) the continuing presence of Bundy’s cattle on the land constituted a trespass, (4) as a result of Bundy's failure to remove his cattle, the federal government was authorized to remove the cattle, 4. This is not a recent dispute. Bundy stopped paying rent two decades ago. When he stopped paying his grazing fees, he no longer had any right to have his cattle on the property. In an order dated November 3, 1998, the United States District Court for Nevada permanently enjoined Bundy from grazing his cattle on the land, and the court ordered Bundy to remove his livestock before November 30, 1998. The court also ordered that the federal government was entitled to trespass damages from Bundy for livestock left on the property after such date.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:58 pm to CptBengal
quote:
twitter reports that the cell towers in the area of the bundy ranch have all been deactivated.
You're government at work
I'd imagine that a good number of the militia who are arriving have satellite phones and info will get out.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:59 pm to CptBengal
quote:
twitter reports that the cell towers in the area of the bundy ranch have all been deactivated.
By whom?
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:59 pm to Salviati
Another great post. Keep it up... you're bound to be hated here.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 4:02 pm to Lsut81
quote:
I'd imagine that a good number of the militia who are arriving have satellite phones and info will get out.
thats seems to be whats happening.
bad sign when feds cut communications....usually means a strike is gonna happen.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 4:03 pm to Lsut81
quote:
I'd imagine that a good number of the militia who are arriving have satellite phones and info will get out.
While the reports of federal SWAT teams and the like surrounding the property sound like a gross overreaction on the part of Fedgov, and while the militias certainly have the right to congregate on the Bundy owned property, I hope that this does not get ugly...as in bullets flying.
However, when you have SWAT teams and militia members pitted against each other - things could get ugly quick.
If they get REAL ugly, the FBI HRT will get called in and things will end swiftly and badly for Mr. Bundy and any militia that are on site.
I have made an effort to look at this objectively and as much as I believe the Fedgov has outkicked its coverage in many areas, I think they are in the right as we sit here today on this particular issue.
Oddly enough, I find myself agreeing with Rex of all people in this thread. Who woulda thunk it?
Posted on 4/11/14 at 4:07 pm to DeltaDoc
Paluka has disappeared after promising to destroy me.
Darn... it was getting to be fun.
Darn... it was getting to be fun.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 4:10 pm to Rex
quote:
So? Suppose the Feds needed the land to build a fort or an ICBM silo. Would that be any different?
Yes. Especially if Reid was cutting a deal with the Chinese to install their ICBMs. Furthermore, cows don't present problems with silos.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 4:12 pm to Rex
quote:I understand that people don't trust the federal government.
Another great post. Keep it up... you're bound to be hated here.
I understand why people believe that persons in power can and will abuse their power.
However, I don't understand why people feel compelled to post facts that are simply not true.
Argue policy all you want, but the facts are the facts.
As a matter of policy, I have absolutely no problem with what the federal government is doing in this instance. Bundy stopped paying rent. Bundy was given an opportunity to present his case in court, and he lost, repeatedly. Bundy was ordered to vacate in 1998. Bundy has refused to vacate. His cattle are causing damage. Bundy has not even attempted to offer any evidence that his cattle are not causing damage.
The court ordered Bundy to remove his cattle by November 30, 1998. He has not even attempted to remove his cattle. The feds closed the area (federal property) to remove the cattle but allowed the Bundys an area to protest. The Bundys have threatened violence and they or their supporters have attempted to physically halt the legal and court-authorized removal of the cattle.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 4:15 pm to Salviati
And their reason is to protect a desert tortoise that they wanted to extinguish a year ago???? At least they can be honest with him
Posted on 4/11/14 at 4:21 pm to fleaux
It's not just about the tortoises. The cattle have also trampled rare plants, have compromised the ability of flora to recover from wildfires, have damaged American Indian cultural sites, and have endangered the safety of recreationists.
Mr. Bundy apparently believes that his "freedom" to earn a buck selling beef using government-owned grasses trumps every other consideration.
Mr. Bundy apparently believes that his "freedom" to earn a buck selling beef using government-owned grasses trumps every other consideration.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 4:23 pm to Rex
Fair enough , just as i could hear you googling earlier i can now hear Paluka desperately calling his state Supreme Court judge friend.......
Posted on 4/11/14 at 4:24 pm to Rex
a few hundred head of cattle isnt messing up anything
This post was edited on 4/11/14 at 4:51 pm
Posted on 4/11/14 at 4:25 pm to fleaux
quote:
his state Supreme Court judge friend.......
Paluka obviously needs better legal minds as friends.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 4:37 pm to Rex
quote:
It's not just about the tortoises. The cattle have also trampled rare plants, have compromised the ability of flora to recover from wildfires, have damaged American Indian cultural sites, and have endangered the safety of recreationists.
Cattle have grazed that land for 150 + yrs dumbo, why all of the sudden are they endangering this desert's ecosystem?
Probably more illegal Mexicans scouring that tract of land than cattle.
This post was edited on 4/11/14 at 4:41 pm
Posted on 4/11/14 at 4:54 pm to Rex
I'm here Rex. I thought I'd give you and your new friend (Salviati-someone's alter from long ago) the chance to catch up (I know you need time to google).
You are predictable. I figured you'd be smack talking while I was working (unlike you).
I need to finish up but I will return in a few to place the remainder of my points here for you to attempt to dispute.
You are predictable. I figured you'd be smack talking while I was working (unlike you).
I need to finish up but I will return in a few to place the remainder of my points here for you to attempt to dispute.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 4:56 pm to Rex
Oh Rex...Pain train is coming dumbass. You do not know shite about this case.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 4:59 pm to rb
quote:
Cattle have grazed that land for 150 + yrs dumbo, why all of the sudden are they endangering this desert's ecosystem?
Evidently, the real reason is to pad the pockets of Reid, his son, and other people with special interests. Environmental reasons is more than likely the BS they're selling to the public. They're politicians.
LINK
Page 16 of 30
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News