Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 64

Thread: BLM Stands Down

  1. #41
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,444
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Is that what the protesters were there to do? Help him remove his cows and equipment?

    ---------- Post added at 01:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 AM ----------



    You mean by giving him due process across 20 years?





    It's not his land.
    So, just to be clear... you believe the government acted appropriately?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  2. #42
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,934
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    I see no evidence they stepped foot on private property.

    I don't believe the point was to collect a debt, rather to remove the offending cattle.

    ---------- Post added at 04:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, just to be clear... you believe the government acted appropriately?

    If the decision to convert the land from grazing to conservation was a correct decision, then yes.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  3. #43
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Challenge to support a claim.Since you raised it, please support or withdraw that there are crimes regarding Benghazi that someone is supposed to have been held accountable for? Might I also remind you that you left a thread dangling because you couldn't defend this point, when you couldn't name a single crime and even defended a felon for breaking parole.
    I refuse to sidetrack this thread by going here... but if you want me to address the thread about Benghazi, please link the relevant post and I will support it. I've been relatively busy at the hospital and may have dropped threads due to unreasonable objections, but it doesn't mean I have conceded them or that I don't feel I can defend them. If I concede a point, I make that clear, as is my custom. If I haven't conceded the point explicitly, you can be sure that I still hold to it, and if I haven't addressed something, I have probably gotten overwhelmed with work. Please refrain from hijacking threads with irrelevant trivia. Even if I weren't able to support the claim about Benghazi, it has nothing to do with the rest of my points, which still stand and have not been contested.

    This administration has been the most lawless and corrupt in my lifetime, and probably our parents' lifetime as well. Possibly in all of our history, and their selective enforcement of the laws is just one brick in the wall of evidence against them. You can't get away with trying to wish away the facts by sticking on one solitary point of objection and ignoring the rest. If you don't want to talk about the issue in the OP, then kindly refrain from interrupting those who do.


    So, aside from a (now) failed attempt to hijack this thread, do you have anything substantive to add to this discussion about Cliven Bundy and the situation going on with the BLM?

    ---------- Post added at 11:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You mean by giving him due process across 20 years?
    Ok... semantics aside, I think my intention was pretty clear when I made my statements that I intended to say that I believe that the Federal government has handled this particular incident poorly from the start, beginning with the point where they posted snipers and brought a significant force of heavily armed police with attack dogs to prosecute a guy for a civil matter.

    I may not agree with Bundy on his position... but I don't think that the Federal government was right to handle the situation how they did. Escalating this into an armed standoff was THEIR idea, and it was nothing more than a naked intimidation move by the Administration to make an example out of Mr. Bundy that those who dissent will be silenced by every means necessary, and with great prejudice. This is not the action of a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. This is the action of a tyrant, and virtually every action and inaction that this Administration has taken with regards to its enforcement of the laws in this nation - and their selective failure thereof - supports this.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX
    It's not his land.
    It doesn't matter. They're his cows, and those are heavily armed Federal police with sniper and air support brought against a private citizen. Cliven Bundy has gotten more of a reaction out of this administration than Nidal Hassan. Bundy's somehow a "domestic terrorist," but Hassan, who explicitly killed American soldiers on a military installation while yelling Allahu Akhbar is classified as "workplace violence." Orwellian to the hilt.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  4. #44
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    I refuse to sidetrack this thread by going here... but if you want me to address the thread about Benghazi, please link the relevant post and I will support it. I've been relatively busy at the hospital and may have dropped threads due to unreasonable objections, but it doesn't mean I have conceded them or that I don't feel I can defend them. If I concede a point, I make that clear, as is my custom. If I haven't conceded the point explicitly, you can be sure that I still hold to it, and if I haven't addressed something, I have probably gotten overwhelmed with work. Please refrain from hijacking threads with irrelevant trivia. Even if I weren't able to support the claim about Benghazi, it has nothing to do with the rest of my points, which still stand and have not been contested.
    Funny, because you ended up derailing the Christie thread with your knee jerk rage against all things Obama on this very topic. The relevant post is summarized here http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post532559.

    And you didn't bow out because you were busy but because you had completely exaggerated the situation to the point you could no longer defend it. Also, you had enough time to post hit and runs about gay marriage, all of which remain in defended.


    This administration has been the most lawless and corrupt in my lifetime, and probably our parents' lifetime as well. Possibly in all of our history, and their selective enforcement of the laws is just one brick in the wall of evidence against them. You can't get away with trying to wish away the facts by sticking on one solitary point of objection and ignoring the rest. If you don't want to talk about the issue in the OP, then kindly refrain from interrupting those who do.
    For someone that doesn't like derailing threads, you certainly like the soap box when you you do. Otherwise, taking advantage of a racist to forward your unsubstantiated claims against the Obama administration, does need addressing since your the one raising the issue. That you cannot separate the two events shows your desperation to end up with at least have a long list of grievances that have yet to bear any real fruit.

    If you don't want something discussed then don't mention it! Adding Bundy to your growing list of failed scandals might be something you're proud of but it's a bit icky to show it and then declaim others from discussing it.

    So, aside from a (now) failed attempt to hijack this thread, do you have anything substantive to add to this discussion about Cliven Bundy and the situation going on with the BLM? .
    If you yourself stick to topics and not have to trot out your increasingly embarrassingly long list non-scandals at every opportunity then I wouldn't have to keep you in line with your new habit of hit and runs.

    Otherwise, on Bundy, you can carry on defending an open racist's claims against the government he doesn't even recognize but I would like to think there are worthier people to spend your time on. That Republicans have spent the last day or so extricating themselves from their own poor choice of causes is yet another indication of their lack of ability to govern. Names have already been taken, walk backs noted and may be the subject of a future post.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; April 25th, 2014 at 11:06 AM.

  5. #45
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Oh, yes... Now I remember. Your rank arrogance and abrasive manner has brought it all back.
    And your repeated repeating of old talking points isn't arrogant either? Especially since you never substantiate them.


    I hadn't stopped responding to your posts due to being busy, though I certainly have been. I stopped responding to you because I refuse to engage with you on any topic at all because of your repeated insults, rudeness, and incoherence.
    I accept your apology.

    I do not retract any point, but I refuse to address any objections you have made because I refuse to engage with you at all.
    Good trick but I suspect that your poor reasoning is more to blame. But there are rules as to continuing to make unsubstantiated statements when there are open challenges to support them. Please do so or withdraw the point - ODN isn't your kingdom to do with as you wish is it?

    ---------- Post added at 09:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie View Post
    Some people who support Bundy are upset that people are starting to realize how evil and antisocial their ideology is.

    Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
    And in associating it with all the other weird conspiracies that Republicans *still* harp on about, it does appear that there are two visceral realities at play.

  6. #46
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I accept your apology.
    No apology has been made, and none will ever be forthcoming... but until you give me one for your repeated insults and rudeness toward me, you can expect no meaningful interaction with me.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones
    Good trick but I suspect that your poor reasoning is more to blame. But there are rules as to continuing to make unsubstantiated statements when there are open challenges to support them. Please do so or withdraw the point - ODN isn't your kingdom to do with as you wish is it?
    I know the rules very well, thank you very much... I don't need to accept a challenge if I haven't chosen to debate with you. The only reason that you're not on ignore is because my duties as a moderator require that I be able to see eveyrone's posts. Otherwise, you wouldn't even be a relevant part of my experience here... which is honestly how I would prefer it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie
    Bundy is a racist and corporate welfare con man.
    Yep... he probably is. Which is why it's sad that he's been the most vocal person to speak out about states' rights in a long time. It really puts a bad face on that idea, which is awfully convenient for people who don't like the idea in the first place. Makes a great place to start ad hominem attacks...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie
    Some people who support Bundy are upset that people are starting to realize how evil and antisocial their ideology is
    Like this one, possibly.

    Before I commit to that characterization of your statement, would you please clarify which ideology you are referring to as "evil" and "antisocial," and who precisely is guilty of holding to such an ideology?
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  7. #47
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    No apology has been made, and none will ever be forthcoming... but until you give me one for your repeated insults and rudeness toward me, you can expect no meaningful interaction with me.
    I'm not really intending to be rude, and never really have, but you do keep repeating unsubstantiated points and not properly defending them.

    It is entirely fair to point them out and do so in a manner that shames you for continuing to do so. But it is shame I am looking to achieve, not insult.

    I know the rules very well, thank you very much... I don't need to accept a challenge if I haven't chosen to debate with you.
    Except that you did debate me on that point and quite substantively too. It was only until you realized that you had no points to support that you'd pulled out.

    Since you raised the point in another forum you need to defend that point or withdraw it. If we can just pull of debates just because we have personal issues between us then what kind of forge of reason is this?

    I find some of the race baiting here very offensive yet I continue to attack those points when they come up. I don't see your aversion to being called out for poor reasoning as a good excuse in this specific case.

    The only reason that you're not on ignore is because my duties as a moderator require that I be able to see eveyrone's posts. Otherwise, you wouldn't even be a relevant part of my experience here... which is honestly how I would prefer it.
    We has a great civil debate on the chivalry thread. I thought that I had been forgiven for my prior trespasses and we had moved on. I don't think bearing grudges are healthy for debate.

  8. #48
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Before I commit to that characterization of your statement, would you please clarify which ideology you are referring to as "evil" and "antisocial," and who precisely is guilty of holding to such an ideology?
    Right wing authoritarian ideology.

    Oune group (Bundy) doesn't feel he should pay to use a service to run his business. While at the same time complaining others mooch.

    He doesn't view non whites as equal or deserving equality. This duplicity is spread on places like Facebook where his supporters claim blm should be rounding up children of illegals and send them to a war zone to die while letting this cheat steal forever.

    There is much right wing duplicity.

  9. #49
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,934
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Ok... semantics aside, I think my intention was pretty clear when I made my statements that I intended to say that I believe that the Federal government has handled this particular incident poorly from the start, beginning with the point where they posted snipers and brought a significant force of heavily armed police with attack dogs to prosecute a guy for a civil matter.

    I may not agree with Bundy on his position... but I don't think that the Federal government was right to handle the situation how they did. Escalating this into an armed standoff was THEIR idea, and it was nothing more than a naked intimidation move by the Administration to make an example out of Mr. Bundy that those who dissent will be silenced by every means necessary, and with great prejudice. This is not the action of a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. This is the action of a tyrant, and virtually every action and inaction that this Administration has taken with regards to its enforcement of the laws in this nation - and their selective failure thereof - supports this.

    It doesn't matter. They're his cows, and those are heavily armed Federal police with sniper and air support brought against a private citizen. Cliven Bundy has gotten more of a reaction out of this administration than Nidal Hassan. Bundy's somehow a "domestic terrorist," but Hassan, who explicitly killed American soldiers on a military installation while yelling Allahu Akhbar is classified as "workplace violence." Orwellian to the hilt.

    It doesn't matter? It's not his land and he is being evicted, the same as people are everyday. The government also had to expend resources on hiring wranglers and then protecting them to do their work.

    and Hassan is in custody.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  10. #50
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    It doesn't matter? It's not his land and he is being evicted, the same as people are everyday. The government also had to expend resources on hiring wranglers and then protecting them to do their work.

    and Hassan is in custody.
    Most people who get evicted aren't evicted at gunpoint with snipers, attack dogs, and aerial support. This was escalated far out of proportion by a virtually irrelevant Federal agency given far too much latitude in how it is allowed to interact with citizens, and it was done to make an example out of this man. The only reason it didn't work is that people who have had enough of Federal overreach came to protest and made a big deal of it. It's just a shame that they chose this guy instead of some other rancher being evicted.

    I disagree with Bundy, both about the merits of his case and the other positions he has expressed about black people. I still think that the BLM was wrong for their ostentatious and overtly threatening show of force, because if cooler heads hadn't prevailed, it could have been a real tragedy. There was no need to risk something like that over making an example of "what happens to people" when they stand up to this administration. It doesn't matter that he is wrong. It doesn't make the BLM right.



    Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

    ---------- Post added at 05:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:00 PM ----------

    Also, it doesn't matter that Hassan is in custody. That's not my point. Leading Democrats have come out and called Bundy and his supporters "domestic terrorists" when they wouldn't even call Hassan that.

    It's nothing but incendiary rhetoric meant to paint dissent as treason or terrorism, and it sends a clear message to people who disagree with this administration: if you disagree, you will be dealt with harshly. If you resist, you are a terrorist.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  11. #51
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,934
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Indeed, most times it's just a marshal or two. But if you interfere you're getting arrested.

    The difference here, as I take it you see it, is of scale?

    Your claim being that the protesters wouldn't have been there if there was just a marshal and the wranglers. No?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  12. #52
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Indeed, most times it's just a marshal or two. But if you interfere you're getting arrested.

    The difference here, as I take it you see it, is of scale?

    Your claim being that the protesters wouldn't have been there if there was just a marshal and the wranglers. No?
    Yes, my primary problem with the whole situation is the inappropriate application of force and the scale of that force. I can't say for sure that the protesters wouldn't have come otherwise, but it probably wouldn't have made so much news if they hadn't tried to make an example of Bundy of what happens when you disagree with the administration. But when you start posting snipers and mobilizing helicopters against private citizens engaged in peaceful protests (and they had been, to that point as far as I know), you are going to get a lot of people who take a strong objection to that and move to defend the guy. There are always troublemakers looking for an excuse to make trouble, and some of the people who came were of that sort. They are the ones who, in their heart of hearts, truly wish for a bloody revolution. That was not the bulk of the protesters, I think, and this is borne out by looking at how many people have left once they figured out how nutty this guy is and that he's not exactly the innocent victim he claims to be.

    All that aside, I also have a serious problem with the fact that while all of this was going on, some of the same people calling Bundy a domestic terrorist were calling for the Federal Government to let several million people who are known felons be rewarded for breaking the law. The selective way the administration has chosen to uphold the law so that their friends are untouchable and their enemies are punished harshly for any imagined crime makes me seriously worried about the future of our country. If over 11 million illegal immigrants and several hundred thousand drug offenders could get away with breaking the law and even be rewarded for it, I really don't see why every single one of us shouldn't get a chance to break a law of our choice with impunity, including Bundy.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  13. #53
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,934
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    it probably wouldn't have made so much news if they hadn't tried to make an example of Bundy of what happens when you disagree with the administration.
    Your support for this is?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  14. #54
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Your support for this is?
    That there are other ranchers who have had similar situations that have not made nearly as much news. The difference between them and him is that they didn't make a point of making public resistance to the effort.

    As for the allegation that this is the Administration making an example out of someone: there are numerous examples of this administration making examples out of people when those people dare to speak out against the policies that they are pushing. I've mentioned all of them before, some of them in this thread, I think. It's nothing new.... this is a well-established pattern of Chicago-style retribution politics. Favor your friends, punish your enemies. Obama's even said similar things himself.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  15. #55
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,934
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    That there are other ranchers who have had similar situations that have not made nearly as much news. The difference between them and him is that they didn't make a point of making public resistance to the effort.
    Well, yeah, the right-wing media played it up.

    ---------- Post added at 12:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    As for the allegation that this is the Administration making an example out of someone: there are numerous examples of this administration making examples out of people when those people dare to speak out against the policies that they are pushing. I've mentioned all of them before, some of them in this thread, I think. It's nothing new.... this is a well-established pattern of Chicago-style retribution politics. Favor your friends, punish your enemies. Obama's even said similar things himself.
    This is a decision that goes back 20 years.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  16. Likes JimJones8934 liked this post
  17. #56
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Springfield, Illinois
    Posts
    68
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Is the BLM's standing down in the face of law breaking a sign of "weakness" on our government's part?

    Conservatives often trot out this argument in our foreign policy decisions, recently during the Crimea crisis.

    Story here.

    Was this the right decision to diffuse a tense and dangerous situation?

    First you must look at the situation objectively.
    This man's family has been on this land for a very long time.
    The BLM nosing it's way into the affairs of ranchers like this is nothing new.
    In fact, the BLM is invading this persons property. Perhaps this can be argued, but Mr. Bundy has pre-emptive rights to that land.
    I have friends that were there supporting Bundy (I'm originally from Nevada and this is not a new issue there.)
    They stood up against the government for their property.
    If anything, the BLM standing down showed a sign of strength amongst citizens who wish to protect their rights in this country.
    The government cannot be a victim and supposedly works in the interest of the people, so how can a person standing up for rights "weaken" the government?
    If that is the case, perhaps more people should stand against the government.
    If you think the Bundy family situation is over because the government stood down at the time, you are mislead.


    I found it an inspiring notion that people will come together to stand against victimless laws.
    Clive Bundy wasn't hurting anyone. Therefore I believe he may have weakened the illusion that government can take away our rights without finding resistance.
    It didn't weaken the government itself.
    I cannot see how one rancher defending his land weakened government control.
    It didn't change anything.

  18. #57
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Patriot Dani
    When you say his family has been on that land, does that mean they held title to it?

    I don't see how if you don't own the land you get much of a say in if you can use it or not and how. If you own it and it was taken away, that is a rather different question. But if its simply not yours, then its hard to say how you have much right to graze it.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  19. #58
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Springfield, Illinois
    Posts
    68
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Patriot Dani
    When you say his family has been on that land, does that mean they held title to it?

    I don't see how if you don't own the land you get much of a say in if you can use it or not and how. If you own it and it was taken away, that is a rather different question. But if its simply not yours, then its hard to say how you have much right to graze it.

    Hello Sigfried

    Cliven Bundy's family homesteaded that ranch in 1877 and have been there ever since.
    His family was there before the federal government had labeled it as federal land.
    This is not an uncommon issue between the ranchers and the BLM. This issue between the Bundy family actually began in 1993 when Bundy would not willingly sell his grazing rights to the BLM. He is not by any means, the only rancher that fought against this.

    So, looking at this objectively.
    This man's family has claimed, lived and used this land to support themselves since 1877.
    There was never an issue until 1989 (I believe. That year is strictly from memory.) when the desert tortoise was considered an endangered species by the US Fish and Wildlife service.
    Then began the issue of grazing rights in 1993, in which The Bundy Family did not comply.

    Therefore, what The Bundy Family has is pre-emptive rights to that land. These land grabs have been happening to rancher's for years, the difference is that most of them comply because they feel they have to other choice. Instead, Mr. Bundy stood for what he felt (and what I feel, along with many others) is his.

    There is nothing to show Clive's cattle or ATV's are a danger to the desert tortoise population on his land.
    The desert tortoises have been there long before the government got involved.

    So, you're living on land that you and your family have always had.
    This is how you make money to support yourself.
    All of the sudden in 1993, the government states that you need to sell your grazing rights or pay a hefty fine.

    So, sell us the rights to your property or we will steal money from you.
    If you do not give us the money we claim we are owed, we will take your land.

    Does that not sound like a criminal trying to take someone's property?
    It's no different if one individual uses force against someone or if the government does.
    It is never justified simply because the government does it.

    I apologize if I deterred away from your original question a bit but does this answer your inquiry?
    Last edited by PatriotDani91; June 4th, 2014 at 09:12 AM.

  20. Likes MindTrap028, Talthas, Squatch347 liked this post
  21. #59
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by PatriotDani91 View Post
    Hello Sigfried
    Hi Patriot Thanks very much for the explanation, its nice to get a rather clear description and it helped me do further research to understand the issue.

    The problem here is Bundy and the Bundy family don't own the land they are grazing on. They don't hold a legal title to it and they never have. They don't have any legal right to it. They own their ranch of course, but not the land in question here. That land is owned by the federal government and pretty much always has been.

    There is a long tradition of allowing ranchers to graze public land and later that was codified by leasing it to prevent disputes and over grazing. but never at any time have the ranchers had any legal claim to it or to determine how it is used. They have simply been allowed to graze there. They also lease land for timber harvest, oil extraction and many other uses.

    The family may feel entitled due to the long history of leasing and using that land but they have no true legal right to it. That isn't to say there is no argument at all, but when push comes to shove if you don't own it you don't control it and the family doesn't own the land nor ever did they. They use it and had a contract to do so that has been in the family for some time. But a contract is not a guarantee the contract will never end.

    Its one thing to disagree with the policy and argue that we should continue to have the family use the land and lease it for grazing, but as with all things in the government you have to contend with what everyone else wants as well. It is public land controlled by the public, not just by the local ranchers.

    But they have used the threat of force to effectively control the land use for themselves even though it is not theirs by legal right and that strikes me as wrong whatever the traditional practices are. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of traditions.

    Cliven Bundy's family homesteaded that ranch in 1877 and have been there ever since.
    His family was there before the federal government had labeled it as federal land.
    Unless they were there prior to state hood that would not be true. Public land was designated when statehood was established. (1864)

    I can certainly sympathize with them and I'm not really all that much of a conservationist, but I think if you decide to make a stand and break the law then you have to take on the label of a lawbreaker willingly. Not pretend the law is something it's not.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  22. #60
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Unless they were there prior to state hood that would not be true. Public land was designated when statehood was established. (1864)
    Small historical point, I think the land's ownership should actually be dated to 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe. There isn't a formal change in land designation at statehood, the federal government just retains rights to owned land during the process. Now you could argue (as some have) that such a purchase via treaty is illegal, but it would be an uphill fight.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


 

 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 97
    Last Post: July 4th, 2011, 12:58 PM
  2. ODN Survey on Stands
    By Trendem in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2006, 04:13 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 5th, 2004, 11:45 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •