Yahoo comments on Bundy Ranch are depressing.

[Madison320]

I've got to stop reading the comments on Yahoo and other popular sites. They're running about 95% against Bundy. It's sad.

[asurfaholic]

What are you doing on yahoo anyways? The mail sucks, the stories suck, everything sucks about it

[DamianTV]

I've got to stop reading the comments on Yahoo and other popular sites. They're running about 95% against Bundy. It's sad.

At first you will be shunned. Then you will be scorned. At the end, you will be revered.

Continue your efforts to lead by example and eventually people will follow.

[Madison320]

One of the most common comments is that Bundy is a "freeloader" just as much as any welfare recipient.

[DamianTV]

One of the most common comments is that Bundy is a "freeloader" just as much as any welfare recipient.

Willful ignorance. Nothing more, nothing less. Those people do not bother to question the opinion they are being handed. It also shows how powerful propoganda is.

[AuH20]

These are going to be the same people in 5 years pleading for us to save them.

[steph3n]

Exact same as the reception in person talking to people about the issue. I said that elsewhere here and people belittle just for stating it is the case. there is almost no one on Bundy's side in any circles.

[Dr.3D]

This is to be expected when the average IQ is 100.

:p

[Deborah K]

I've got to stop reading the comments on Yahoo and other popular sites. They're running about 95% against Bundy. It's sad.

Just do your best to bring truth to light. And remember, the Founders only had about 10% of the colonists on their side in the first years.

[heavenlyboy34]

What are you doing on yahoo anyways? The mail sucks, the stories suck, everything sucks about it
The mail works fine for me. The sports stories are occasionally good. I don't really care because I don't use mail sites for stories.

[Nirvikalpa]

I saw a couple of big-name sites post it on their facebook (and these sites are pro-farm/pro-rancher!)... the comments got me so aggravated I had to walk away from my computer for a few hours.

[dannno]

The vast majority of people are falling for mainstream media propaganda AGAIN?

I guess I'm just not surprised anymore. The only people who "get it" seem to be those who watch the news with a bias, knowing that if they are saying it and actively promoting it, they are probably lying.

[ItsTime]

Government trolls and useful idiots. Stand strong.

[klamath]

The propaganda war. It is the most important. Bundy's lose that and they are lost.

[LibertyEagle]

The propaganda war. It is the most important. Bundy's lose that and they are lost.

Agreed. I hope everyone is getting out there with the facts. If people know them, they will change their opinion. They only know the government's spin right now.

[fr33]

The rednecks I live amongst are on Bundy's side overwhelmingly. Sometimes I wish for something that could shut down the trucking of food to market just so I could watch a bunch of idiots learn a very important lesson. It's a mean thought, I know.

[steph3n]

I guess the issue is more, there are few people that believe outside of here, that it is not Federal land and able to be managed by the BLM.

Bundy could have taken this differently years ago and had a moral high ground, but by stopping the payment of BLM fees he lost it in manys eyes. He already had submitted to their management, until it didn't fit him when they reduced him to a 150 head limit.

At that point if he had kept paying for the amount of head of cattle he had on the land to the BLM, and they either refused the money, or took it, he'd have many more on his side. And he would have a balance due to him and his family with the feds as well, instead of being $300k in the hole in legit grazing fees, and 700ish k in fines. He could have then gone to court to prevent them from putting him out of business with a federal standing to beat their reduction tactics.

[LibertyEagle]

I guess the issue is more, there are few people that believe outside of here, that it is not Federal land and able to be managed by the BLM.

Bundy could have taken this differently years ago and had a moral high ground, but by stopping the payment of BLM fees he lost it in manys eyes. He already had submitted to their management, until it didn't fit him when they reduced him to a 150 head limit.

At that point if he had kept paying for the amount of head of cattle he had on the land to the BLM, and they either refused the money, or took it, he'd have many more on his side. And he would have a balance due to him and his family with the feds as well, instead of being $300k in the hole in legit grazing fees, and 700ish k in fines. He could have then gone to court to prevent them from putting him out of business with a federal standing to beat their reduction tactics.

Please tell me where you read this. From what I heard him say, he paid the county for years for grazing, then after the federal government took over the land, when he tried to pay the county, they would no longer accept it. Also from what he said, if he had offered the money to the federal government (BLM), then he would have put himself under their purvue just from that act alone.

[bunklocoempire]

One of the most common comments is that Bundy is a "freeloader" just as much as any welfare recipient.

Nobody wants to admit that they use the same dirty whore for cheap thrills at the expense of others. When the whore claims that someone stiffed her and didn't pay, human nature kicks in and everyone who by lack of restraint who continue to get into bed with the whore, will demand a scape goat.

The true ugly nature of man screams pretty loud when it's in the form of a mob.

[muh_roads]

Entitlement class gonna entitle.

[nobody's_hero]

I guess the issue is more, there are few people that believe outside of here, that it is not Federal land and able to be managed by the BLM.

Bundy could have taken this differently years ago and had a moral high ground, but by stopping the payment of BLM fees he lost it in manys eyes. He already had submitted to their management, until it didn't fit him when they reduced him to a 150 head limit.

At that point if he had kept paying for the amount of head of cattle he had on the land to the BLM, and they either refused the money, or took it, he'd have many more on his side. And he would have a balance due to him and his family with the feds as well, instead of being $300k in the hole in legit grazing fees, and 700ish k in fines. He could have then gone to court to prevent them from putting him out of business with a federal standing to beat their reduction tactics.

I copy-pasted this from my comment in another thread, but I think it's necessary to post in here since we're discussion perception, I think we should present Bundy's side of the 'grazing fee' issue:

According to Bundy—and I'd like confirmation on this claim—only 16%(!) of grazing fees actually go towards conservation of wildlife/land management. If only 16% of your tax money was returned to you in the form of government services, wouldn't you be a bit pissed off too? Bundy is the last rancher in Clark Co., Nevada, claiming that all the others have been discouraged or forced out of business by government regulation. It's not an unheard-of phenomenon. Had Bundy been paying those fees as all the other ranchers in his county, last week wouldn't have been much of a story, because there'd be no 'Bundy Ranch', you see?

This leads me to believe that all the talk about this being about a tortoise is a bunch of garbage. That'd have to be one pretty f*cking awesome tortoise when you need ballistic shields in your agency to do your job of managing wildlife.(Ninja tortoises? lol)

Rather, the grazing fees should be viewed the same way as penalties for not signing up for Obamacare. They're not designed to raise revenue—hell, they can print all the money they want and don't even really need taxes. These fees are designed to mold behavior of people to fit the will of government. The government wants people off that land so they can use it as collateral for all the loans foreigners have been making to D.C. While our money can be printed to the point of worthlessness, land value typically only goes up.

[WM_in_MO]

These are going to be the same people in 5 years pleading for us to save them.

No, they will stand against us for getting in the way of their "progress", they will snitch on us for "suspicious activities" that warrant 3am visits by the thought police.

[mrsat_98]

I've got to stop reading the comments on Yahoo and other popular sites. They're running about 95% against Bundy. It's sad.

What do you expect Boobus to do, but nod and hollar yahoo.

[limequat]

Don't forget that we now have confirmation that the government is paying shills to post crap like this.

[thoughtomator]

comments on government media sites like Yahoo are also going to be from the government, and the kinds of people who actually get news from those sites are completely indoctrinated/brainwashed

[ClydeCoulter]

Please tell me where you read this. From what I heard him say, he paid the county for years for grazing, then after the federal government took over the land, when he tried to pay the county, they would no longer accept it. Also from what he said, if he had offered the money to the federal government (BLM), then he would have put himself under their purvue just from that act alone.

I think a large part of the confusion is that the Bundy's (and others in the know) don't realize that most Americans don't know what they know or understand what they understand. It needs to be laid out in a very simple manner, but without any assumption that the reader (or listener) knows about "common" terms and conditions.

The following is from (way down) http://theunhivedmind.com/wordpress3/2014/04/11/bundy-ranch-is-real/


Mike Combs By SHIREE BUNDY COX:
I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight. Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much [more] to it, but here it is in a nut shell. My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887, around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars. These rights to the land use are called preemptive rights.

Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges, while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment, which was to be used to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches. My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM, until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead, they began using these money’s against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out, with their own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a pittance, he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down. So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.

In essence, the BLM was managing my dad out of business. Well, when buying him out didn’t work, they used the endangered species card. You’ve already heard about the desert tortoise. Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years. Now they’re desperate. It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff. Everything they’re doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.

Now you may be saying,”how sad, but what does this have to do with me?” Well, I’ll tell you. They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again. Next, it’s Utah’s turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.

Then there’s the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See, even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle do belong to him. Regardless where they are, they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed. Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it. They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Auction and sell them. All with our tax money. They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner, as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars. See how slick they are?

Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks

[otherone]

Don't forget that we now have confirmation that the government is paying shills to post crap like this.

BUMP

[ClydeCoulter]

More information ammo:

http://beforeitsnews.com/food-and-farming/2014/04/more-back-story-on-cliven-bundy-blm-war-2463050.html


A Rancher TELLS ALL:

B Hunt wrote:

I live in SW Utah. I grew up on a ranch less than 100 miles from the Bundy’s ranch. My father knows Cliven Bundy. I know Cliven’s son Ryan. This is not a hoax, it is an action of force by the BLM.

The BLM was going to sell the cattle at one of the smallest cattle markets in Utah. No cattle markets in Nevada would take the cattle without a properly signed brand inspection (which the BLM cannot obtain without Cliven Bundy’s signature). The BLM paid the owner of the Utah cattle market $300,000 to do the sale (‘R’ Livestock Connection in Monroe, Utah, owned by one Scott G. Robbins, according to the Utah Business Entity Search). Utah Governor Herbert stepped in and forbid them from bringing the cattle into Utah without the legally required health and brand inspections (which again, require Bundy’s signature) and that no feral cattle are allowed to be imported at all (per Utah statute). Because Bundy claims ownership over maybe 350-500 head of branded cattle, the other 500-700 estimated head of cattle would all be considered feral. BLM officially backed off, but we suspect they are still secretly shipping them through Utah without any permission to do so, to “private” buyers in Colorado. The contract cowboys that the BLM hired to do the roundup are from Sampson Livestock in Meadow, Utah (traitors one and all).

From what I understand, Cliven Bundy owns both the Water Rights and Grazing Rights to all of the land where his cattle run. If Bundy failed to use them, the Grazing Rights would revert to the BLM and would be retired, while the Water Rights would revert to the State of Nevada, likely to be sold to the highest bidder (which would probably be a bidding war between mineral companies that are behind this action with the BLM and the City of Las Vegas which is thirsty for water and has had multiple attempts to buy water–through eminent domain from Utah farmers and ranchers–from Utah, which were all blocked by the Utah Legislature and Utah Governor Herbert). Chances are, the BLM has already filed a claim on the water rights so that they can sell to the highest bidder (instead of the state) and are trying to get the cattle off to show that Bundy cannot use the water beneficially (much like what the US Forest Service and BLM both tried to do to Wayne Hage).

Now, for Cliven Bundy, he’s not fighting this for his cattle or his own livelihood. He recognizes that he will probably die before this fight is over. He has said multiple times that he is fighting this to wake people up about the tyranny of the Federal Government and also to help wake up the western states about getting the rights to their own land back from the federal government, which has repeatedly shut down ranchers and closed off land. (MO = 1st, get all the ranchers, farmers, Native Americans, and foresters that use the land for positive, sustainable production off of the land; 2nd, grab up all the resources; 3rd, close off the lands to public access including camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, boating, shooting, etc; 4th, sell off the resources to the highest bidder regardless of what that will do to the land, the local environment, or the economy; 5th, collect royalties on the resources in perpetuity; 6th, reduce and eliminate all SLS and PILT payments to the states, impoverishing them beyond belief.)

Anyway, thanks for posting about this. It is important for us to be able to raise the appropriate resistance.


PILT = Payment in Lieu of Taxes

Thomas Massie mentioned this in a post on his FB page. It's paid to states, by the federal government, on land in a state that the state cannot collect property tax on because of federal government holding. (maybe someone could word that better)

[Madison320]

These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars. These rights to the land use are called preemptive rights.

I think this is a big part of the problem. I don't like the idea of having "rights" to public land. It would be much better just to have the land privately owned. Not that I'm saying Bundy is at fault. My guess is that buying the land was never an option. I don't see any reason why the state or feds should own the majority of the land out west. I'd rather see them auction off all that land and pay down the debt.

[klamath]

I think a large part of the confusion is that the Bundy's (and others in the know) don't realize that most Americans don't know what they know or understand what they understand. It needs to be laid out in a very simple manner, but without any assumption that the reader (or listener) knows about "common" terms and conditions.

The following is from (way down) http://theunhivedmind.com/wordpress3/2014/04/11/bundy-ranch-is-real/As I pointed out about miners and loggers it is NOT a attempt at reasonable regulations, as the FEDs sell the urban public, but to drive the people out. It is a policy that has worked very well with the miners and loggers.

[klamath]

More information ammo:

http://beforeitsnews.com/food-and-farming/2014/04/more-back-story-on-cliven-bundy-blm-war-2463050.html


A Rancher TELLS ALL:

B Hunt wrote:

I live in SW Utah. I grew up on a ranch less than 100 miles from the Bundy’s ranch. My father knows Cliven Bundy. I know Cliven’s son Ryan. This is not a hoax, it is an action of force by the BLM.

The BLM was going to sell the cattle at one of the smallest cattle markets in Utah. No cattle markets in Nevada would take the cattle without a properly signed brand inspection (which the BLM cannot obtain without Cliven Bundy’s signature). The BLM paid the owner of the Utah cattle market $300,000 to do the sale (‘R’ Livestock Connection in Monroe, Utah, owned by one Scott G. Robbins, according to the Utah Business Entity Search). Utah Governor Herbert stepped in and forbid them from bringing the cattle into Utah without the legally required health and brand inspections (which again, require Bundy’s signature) and that no feral cattle are allowed to be imported at all (per Utah statute). Because Bundy claims ownership over maybe 350-500 head of branded cattle, the other 500-700 estimated head of cattle would all be considered feral. BLM officially backed off, but we suspect they are still secretly shipping them through Utah without any permission to do so, to “private” buyers in Colorado. The contract cowboys that the BLM hired to do the roundup are from Sampson Livestock in Meadow, Utah (traitors one and all).

From what I understand, Cliven Bundy owns both the Water Rights and Grazing Rights to all of the land where his cattle run. If Bundy failed to use them, the Grazing Rights would revert to the BLM and would be retired, while the Water Rights would revert to the State of Nevada, likely to be sold to the highest bidder (which would probably be a bidding war between mineral companies that are behind this action with the BLM and the City of Las Vegas which is thirsty for water and has had multiple attempts to buy water–through eminent domain from Utah farmers and ranchers–from Utah, which were all blocked by the Utah Legislature and Utah Governor Herbert). Chances are, the BLM has already filed a claim on the water rights so that they can sell to the highest bidder (instead of the state) and are trying to get the cattle off to show that Bundy cannot use the water beneficially (much like what the US Forest Service and BLM both tried to do to Wayne Hage).

Now, for Cliven Bundy, he’s not fighting this for his cattle or his own livelihood. He recognizes that he will probably die before this fight is over. He has said multiple times that he is fighting this to wake people up about the tyranny of the Federal Government and also to help wake up the western states about getting the rights to their own land back from the federal government, which has repeatedly shut down ranchers and closed off land. (MO = 1st, get all the ranchers, farmers, Native Americans, and foresters that use the land for positive, sustainable production off of the land; 2nd, grab up all the resources; 3rd, close off the lands to public access including camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, boating, shooting, etc; 4th, sell off the resources to the highest bidder regardless of what that will do to the land, the local environment, or the economy; 5th, collect royalties on the resources in perpetuity; 6th, reduce and eliminate all SLS and PILT payments to the states, impoverishing them beyond belief.)

Anyway, thanks for posting about this. It is important for us to be able to raise the appropriate resistance.



PILT = Payment in Lieu of Taxes

Thomas Massie mentioned this in a post on his FB page. It's paid to states, by the federal government, on land in a state that the state cannot collect property tax on because of federal government holding. (maybe someone could word that better)

The bolded is the reason the ranchers will probably lose. They know not who their enemies are and turn against their allies. Logger laughed and ridiculed the miners when the fed came for the miners, when it was the loggers turn there were no miners left to stand with them. Pit the basic industries against each other while the urban environments and statists:( win. Sorry to see this is still going on.

[Snew]

Yahoo comments in general are pretty depressing.

[jonhowe]

comments on government media sites like Yahoo are also going to be from the government, and the kinds of people who actually get news from those sites are completely indoctrinated/brainwashed

That's the vast majority of people.

[Madison320]

One thing about this that bugs me is the idea that not paying govt taxes is the equivalent of theft. If a mugger asks you for all your money, and you only give him what's in your wallet, not what's in your back pocket, did you steal from the mugger? Are we really that brain dead that we no longer know the difference?

[klamath]

One thing about this that bugs me is the idea that not paying govt taxes is the equivalent of theft. If a mugger asks you for all your money, and you only give him what's in your wallet, not what's in your back pocket, did you steal from the mugger? Are we really that brain dead that we no longer know the difference?The fight against human nature. "if I have to pay, you should have to pay" Never,"let us both fight having to pay."

[otherone]

The fight against human nature. "if I have to pay, you should have to pay" Never,"let us both fight having to pay."

even here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?449148-Consideration-of-a-Head-Tax

[steph3n]

Please tell me where you read this. From what I heard him say, he paid the county for years for grazing, then after the federal government took over the land, when he tried to pay the county, they would no longer accept it. Also from what he said, if he had offered the money to the federal government (BLM), then he would have put himself under their purvue just from that act alone.

Everything I have found is that he paid the BLM up until 1993 and stopped then when they reduced his allocation to only 150 head of cattle, he then went to the county, then the courts and lost every time.

He himself says it and that's where he loses me, either you don't pay them and fight from the start based on the fact that they are on county land, or you continue to pay them, pay them extra for the added head over the allocation and fight it in the courts.


"I have no contract with the United States government," Bundy said. "I was paying grazing fees for management and that's what BLM was supposed to be, land managers and they were managing my ranch out of business, so I refused to pay."

his daughter and his own words confirm, he was paying the BLM before 1993 until they did the head allocation reduction.

[klamath]

Everything I have found is that he paid the BLM up until 1993 and stopped then when they reduced his allocation to only 150 head of cattle, he then went to the county, then the courts and lost every time.

He himself says it and that's where he loses me, either you don't pay them and fight from the start based on the fact that they are on county land, or you continue to pay them, pay them extra for the added head over the allocation and fight it in the courts.



his daughter and his own words confirm, he was paying the BLM before 1993 until they did the head allocation reduction. It doesn't matter. If he would have paid, they would have gone after the extra cattle relying more heavily on the damage to the tortoise as the reason. If he would have complied with the cattle reduction he would have gone broke. They want him GONE. They drove the other 98% of the ranchers out. They spent as much rounding up the cattle as he owned. Do you think they care about the money?

[steph3n]

It doesn't matter. If he would have paid, they would have gone after the extra cattle relying more heavily on the damage to the tortoise as the reason. If he would have complied with the cattle reduction he would have gone broke. They want him GONE. They drove the other 98% of the ranchers out. They spent as much rounding up the cattle as he owned. Do you think they care about the money?
To the BLM it isn't about the money, to the other people it is about the money.

Trying to convince them that they should support Bundy and not the govt i this case is an exercise in frustration, because he 'owes so much' and has been grazing without paying, and lost in court so many times, etc. They repeatedly make the point that he has not even a moral high ground in the case because of the actions taken, and all the losses in court. I am saying that it would be immensely easier to convince people that the BLM is just trying to kill out ranching if he had continued to pay for all the head grazing, he would then have a moral high ground apparent to all, and have the mass of the country behind him minus some environmental fringe nuts.

[libertygrl]

I've got to stop reading the comments on Yahoo and other popular sites. They're running about 95% against Bundy. It's sad.

Please also keep in mind that there are paid internet shills whose job is to prevent something like the Bundy story from ever gaining positive momentum. Can't have that happening here in Amerika.

[LibertyEagle]

I think a large part of the confusion is that the Bundy's (and others in the know) don't realize that most Americans don't know what they know or understand what they understand. It needs to be laid out in a very simple manner, but without any assumption that the reader (or listener) knows about "common" terms and conditions.



That's good stuff you posted. I remember Bundy talking about preemptive rights. Did he say he bought the rights to use that land? He probably did, but I don't recall.

It's a bit different, but when I was a kid, my father bought the rights to use what was termed, "school land". He owned a bunch of property around it too. But, on the school land, there were a bunch of improvements. A house, a rustic cabin, a large pond complete with its own dam, a large stone cattle barn, horse barn, etc. Years later they decided it was time to sell it, because something changed and they were concerned that the government would just take it and of course, the improvements with it. So, they did. I should say that they didn't build any of the improvements; they were there when they bought it.

[Deborah K]

I think this is a big part of the problem. I don't like the idea of having "rights" to public land. It would be much better just to have the land privately owned. Not that I'm saying Bundy is at fault. My guess is that buying the land was never an option. I don't see any reason why the state or feds should own the majority of the land out west. I'd rather see them auction off all that land and pay down the debt.

And they'd STILL be the winners because they'd get property taxes off of it forever.

[LibertyEagle]

Google rewilding North America and follow the links.

Here's one: http://www.wildlandsnetwork.org/

[Madison320]

And they'd STILL be the winners because they'd get property taxes off of it forever.

That's true, although out of all taxes I think property taxes are the worst since it means you don't really own it, you are just renting it. But it's still a much better way than having "rights" to public land. There's so many ways that can turn into a cluster fuck.

[Madison320]

Everything I have found is that he paid the BLM up until 1993 and stopped then when they reduced his allocation to only 150 head of cattle, he then went to the county, then the courts and lost every time.

He himself says it and that's where he loses me, either you don't pay them and fight from the start based on the fact that they are on county land, or you continue to pay them, pay them extra for the added head over the allocation and fight it in the courts.

his daughter and his own words confirm, he was paying the BLM before 1993 until they did the head allocation reduction.

Maybe he couldn't afford those fees? Apparently none of the other ranchers could afford it.

I was trying to think of an analogy that people could relate to, since most of us aren't ranchers. Suppose the feds found an endangered species in your subdivision and put up a toll on the only entrance for $20. What would you do? Do you pay it until your day in court? Sell your home at a huge loss since no one wants to buy it with that toll there? I keep hearing the argument that it's not HIS land, but it's not that simple. You can have your property stolen/ ruined in other ways.

[Deborah K]

That's true, although out of all taxes I think property taxes are the worst since it means you don't really own it, you are just renting it. But it's still a much better way than having "rights" to public land. There's so many ways that can turn into a cluster fuck.

Anything the fedgov gets involved in turns out to be a cluster fuck.

[GunnyFreedom]

they are all a bunch of yahoos over there anyway.

[ClydeCoulter]

That's good stuff you posted. I remember Bundy talking about preemptive rights. Did he say he bought the rights to use that land? He probably did, but I don't recall.

It's a bit different, but when I was a kid, my father bought the rights to use what was termed, "school land". He owned a bunch of property around it too. But, on the school land, there were a bunch of improvements. A house, a rustic cabin, a large pond complete with its own dam, a large stone cattle barn, horse barn, etc. Years later they decided it was time to sell it, because something changed and they were concerned that the government would just take it and of course, the improvements with it. So, they did. I should say that they didn't build any of the improvements; they were there when they bought it.

Yes, those rights were purchased long before the BLM or EPA existed.


My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887, around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars. These rights to the land use are called preemptive rights.



Google rewilding North America and follow the links.

Here's one: http://www.wildlandsnetwork.org/

Yep, A.g.e.n.d.a

[klamath]

Maybe he couldn't afford those fees? Apparently none of the other ranchers could afford it.

I was trying to think of an analogy that people could relate to, since most of us aren't ranchers. Suppose the feds found an endangered species in your subdivision and put up a toll on the only entrance for $20. What would you do? Do you pay it until your day in court? Sell your home at a huge loss since no one wants to buy it with that toll there? I keep hearing the argument that it's not HIS land, but it's not that simple. You can have your property stolen/ ruined in other ways. Here is something to throw at them. When people hear court they think criminal court. Guilty until proven innocent, Right? The burden of proof is on the prosecution, right? Well all of these court cases involve Administrative law courts. All the government has to do is have associates degree, environmental BLM employee state that Bundy is killing turtles and the burden of proof shifts to Bundy to prove he isn't killing turtles. It is called a prima facie case. It is extremely hard to overcome a governments prima facie case as My family and friends found out the hard way.

[PRB]

What are you doing on yahoo anyways? The mail sucks, the stories suck, everything sucks about it

because i don't want to perpetuate Google's monopoly on search and news and mail

[limequat]

According to the wiki on this, Bundy has not been able to come up with any evidence of his rights. I keep reading about pre-emptive rights, grazing rights, and water rights. Seems like it was all ad-hoc. The government changes the rules and there's no paper trail.

Also, I can't quite wrap my head around the end-game. This has been going on for some time, so there is precedence. I don't buy the Reid/Solar Energy thing. That deal fell through. Obviously it's not really about the turtles. Why does the BLM REALLY want this land?

[klamath]

According to the wiki on this, Bundy has not been able to come up with any evidence of his rights. I keep reading about pre-emptive rights, grazing rights, and water rights. Seems like it was all ad-hoc. The government changes the rules and there's no paper trail.

Also, I can't quite wrap my head around the end-game. This has been going on for some time, so there is precedence. I don't buy the Reid/Solar Energy thing. That deal fell through. Obviously it's not really about the turtles. Why does the BLM REALLY want this land?It is environmentalism. They want development of any rural land stopped. Take the time to read the agendas and goals of the environmentalist organizations. They for the most part ARE in control of the federal administrative agencies. They set out to become the administrators that control policy in the 70's and have largely done so. They elect democratic politicians and hold the politicians feet to the fire.

[CPUd]

According to the wiki on this, Bundy has not been able to come up with any evidence of his rights. I keep reading about pre-emptive rights, grazing rights, and water rights. Seems like it was all ad-hoc. The government changes the rules and there's no paper trail.

Also, I can't quite wrap my head around the end-game. This has been going on for some time, so there is precedence. I don't buy the Reid/Solar Energy thing. That deal fell through. Obviously it's not really about the turtles. Why does the BLM REALLY want this land?

I never got what he was saying about pre-emptive rights either, because the issue is not over land ownership. He referenced 1877 a few times, which was the year of the Desert Land Act. Using that, along with other homestead acts, they could have claimed a couple thousand acres back then. That's why they also grow melons. There was a Preemption Act, but that basically said if you are physically set up on some land that is about to become federal land, you have a right to buy it.

Maybe 'grandfather' is what he means.

[klamath]

I never got what he was saying about pre-emptive rights either, because the issue is not over land ownership. He referenced 1877 a few times, which was the year of the Desert Land Act. Using that, along with other homestead acts, they could have claimed a couple thousand acres back then. That's why they also grow melons. There was a Preemption Act, but that basically said if you are physically set up on some land that is about to become federal land, you have a right to buy it.

Maybe 'grandfather' is what he means.Do you have the right to walk in the national forest? Do you believe that government has the right to restrict all visitation and viewing of federal lands except for a the agents of the US government?

[CPUd]

Do you have the right to walk in the national forest? Do you believe that government has the right to restrict all visitation and viewing of federal lands except for a the agents of the US government?

Walking in the national forest, yeah. Camping too, for people who know how to do it without leaving trash everywhere. I don't think people should be able to go in there and start chopping down trees though.

[pcosmar]

Walking in the national forest, yeah. Camping too, for people who know how to do it without leaving trash everywhere. I don't think people should be able to go in there and start chopping down trees though.

Why?

Why not?

Oh,, and people do cut trees in the national forest.. If they have the right connections and have paid the bribes.

I can get a permit to collect dead wood.

[klamath]

Walking in the national forest, yeah. Camping too, for people who know how to do it without leaving trash everywhere. I don't think people should be able to go in there and start chopping down trees though.You didn't answer the question. Does the government have the right to shut it down, remove all land from public use?

[pcosmar]

According to the wiki on this,

Not a particularly good source.

According to wiki Tim McVeigh was part of the Patriot Movement.. when in fact he was run off by every group he tried to infiltrate.

[Ender]

According to the wiki on this, Bundy has not been able to come up with any evidence of his rights. I keep reading about pre-emptive rights, grazing rights, and water rights. Seems like it was all ad-hoc. The government changes the rules and there's no paper trail.



Here's an interesting article about how the history of western US gov land grabs.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/04/us-land-claims-bundy-case-based-lie-started-treaty-violating-unlawful-war-mexico.html

Also, it is my understanding is that Bundy actually does have evidence, which is why he hasn't been allowed to take this to court. The Bundy land was originally part of the Arizona territory, and was annexed into Nevada, illegally- throwing out all the original laws that governed the Arizona frontier.

[PRB]

Not a particularly good source.

According to wiki Tim McVeigh was part of the Patriot Movement.. when in fact he was run off by every group he tried to infiltrate.

which ones?

and what constitutes a patriot movement group that he can't claim he is one himself?

[pcosmar]

which ones?

and what constitutes a patriot movement group that he can't claim he is one himself?

The point was Wiki is not a good source of facts.

Agenda driven posters and editors change it all the time.

It is a reference point at best,, but not an authoritative source.

[DamianTV]

This is to be expected when the average IQ is 100.

:p

Todays 100 is the equivilant of <70 or Moron 20 years ago. The number is skewed because of the overwhelming stupidity of too many people that do not try to think.

[PRB]

The point was Wiki is not a good source of facts.

Agenda driven posters and editors change it all the time.

It is a reference point at best,, but not an authoritative source.

I agree, so back to my question, what groups rejected him and what constitutes a patriot group which would exclude his lone wolf action as part of it?

[klamath]

I agree, so back to my question, what groups rejected him and what constitutes a patriot group which would exclude his lone wolf action as part of it?back to my question. Does the government have the right to close off all federally own public land to all use?

[PRB]

back to my question. Does the government have the right to close off all federally own public land to all use?

I think that's what ownership means, the right to close off whenever one wants, short of agreed contract to the contrary.

[CPUd]

Why?

Why not?

Oh,, and people do cut trees in the national forest.. If they have the right connections and have paid the bribes.

I can get a permit to collect dead wood.


If someone is going into the park and doing damage, I see it as infringement on the right for others to use and enjoy the park.

I know that kind of stuff happens without repercussions.




You didn't answer the question. Does the government have the right to shut it down, remove all land from public use?

I don't think they should be able to deny public access if it was otherwise open to the public, not like they did during the last 'shutdown'.





I think that's what ownership means, the right to close off whenever one wants, short of agreed contract to the contrary.

Could apply to stewardship, too.

[pcosmar]

If someone is going into the park and doing damage, I see it as infringement on the right for others to use and enjoy the park.

I know that kind of stuff happens without repercussions.


I said nothing about a park.. and the question was in regards to National Forrest. (wilderness/unimproved)

I would agree with a Park type environment..but those are usually set up and maintained by the local people,, who would also protect that local space.

[pcosmar]

I agree, so back to my question, what groups rejected him and what constitutes a patriot group which would exclude his lone wolf action as part of it?
Start another thread and don't derail this one.

[RonPaulMall]

How many of those comments are NSA sock puppets though? I get that there are a lot of Americans buying in to the MSM and Government propaganda when it comes to the Bundy story, but my guess is most of the comments are coming from the far left (which has sadly become rabidly authoritarian now that "their' guy is doing the oppression) and the bulk of the rest are coming from the government itself. I don't think the average Republican or Independent is siding against the Bundys so much.

[pcosmar]

How many of those comments are NSA sock puppets though?.

My thoughts regarding many comment sections.

[klamath]

If someone is going into the park and doing damage, I see it as infringement on the right for others to use and enjoy the park.

I know that kind of stuff happens without repercussions.





I don't think they should be able to deny public access if it was otherwise open to the public, not like they did during the last 'shutdown'.






Could apply to stewardship, too.
Why shouldn't they be able to deny public acess?

[Ender]

back to my question. Does the government have the right to close off all federally own public land to all use?

Wrong question.

The fed gov has no right to "own" any land- with the possible exception of DC.

[FloralScent]

Anyone who thinks the PTB are going to give up trying to control the narrative just because they no longer have full control of the media is naive. I'm sure they can afford to keep thousands of fake accounts active. Hell, Yahoo is probably trolling their own comments.

[GunnyFreedom]

You didn't answer the question. Does the government have the right to shut it down, remove all land from public use?


To be fair, the best I can do here is "a qualified maybe."

The first question you have to ask is if a given piece of land is legitimately (legally, Constitutionally) owned and the vast majority of it is not.

If it is not legitimately owned by DC, then they have no authority to shutter it. This applies to the Bundy Ranch debacle.

Property that IS legitimately owned by Washington DC, I think is use-context dependant. A Federal Courthouse, for example is an example of a property they could shutter. An open air monument on public (federal!) land is again further conditional on whether the monument is undergoing maintenance or subject to a credible threat. Otherwise, largely, no they still wouldn't have the power to shutter it. A military base or a DOD R&D facility, a CIA spook warehouse, such things I would think would require being shut, on account of the purpose and maintenance of a military force, but to the extent authorized under 2 year Army appropriations and a non-standing army policy.

[CPUd]

Why shouldn't they be able to deny public acess?

I don't know of anything that gives them the power to do that.

They could restrict access, on the basis that without the restriction, one person would be infringing on the right of another. But that is a slippery slope.

[klamath]

I don't know of anything that gives them the power to do that.

They could restrict access, on the basis that without the restriction, one person would be infringing on the right of another. But that is a slippery slope.That slippery slope is the exact point I Am making. They believe they DO have the power to restrict use of those lands all the way up to public access. All they have to do is to say it is harming the land. I HAVE seen it stated that people walking or visiting is harming the land a wildldlife. To Bundy running those cattle that his family has been doing for over a hundred years is their same right you feel you have walking or visiting the public lands. I have been almost exactly in Bundy's shoes. It is NOT just a federal attempt at reasonable regulation to manage the land for everyone. They wanted us gone. Protecting the public land is the catchphrase they use. In a heartbeat they will do far more damage in the name of managing the land. If you want examples I can relate them.

[Madison320]

You didn't answer the question. Does the government have the right to shut it down, remove all land from public use?

Which is farther, to Los Angeles or by bus?

I don't think the question has a good answer. The problem is that the land is owned by government. It should be private. I think you are trying to make logic out of an illogical situation.

[klamath]

Which is farther, to Los Angeles or by bus?

I don't think the question has a good answer. The problem is that the land is owned by government. It should be private. I think you are trying to make logic out of an illogical situation.
No I am dealing with the realities of the country and trying to explain western land use policies to people that aren't familiar with it. The government for years has had the upper hand at selling to the general public what they are doing. What they say and what they are doing are two different things and it is very complicated to explain.

[jonhowe]

Start another thread and don't derail this one.

You brought it up. Can you at least tell us where to find such info?

[pcosmar]

You brought it up. Can you at least tell us where to find such info?

Google, Bing, Library, Newsprint microfilm.
History.

I use my memory. and "bringing it up" was just in reference to Wiki being a poor source.

[Madison320]

No I am dealing with the realities of the country and trying to explain western land use policies to people that aren't familiar with it. The government for years has had the upper hand at selling to the general public what they are doing. What they say and what they are doing are two different things and it is very complicated to explain.

I agree with you that the environmentalists are trying to remove everyone. My guess is that the environmentalist movement is going to take a big hit when the dollar collapses along with our standard of living. People aren't going to give a crap about endangered tortoises when they are struggling to find food and shelter. Look at socialist places like Greece and Russia, they can't even feed their pets anymore.

[pcosmar]

I agree with you that the environmentalists are trying to remove everyone. My guess is that the environmentalist movement is going to take a big hit when the dollar collapses along with our standard of living. People aren't going to give a crap about endangered tortoises when they are struggling to find food and shelter. Look at socialist places like Greece and Russia, they can't even feed their pets anymore.

Turtles make good soup.

[tod evans]

Turtles make good soup.

Exactly what I was thinking....

[Carlybee]

back to my question. Does the government have the right to close off all federally own public land to all use?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18038-bundy-s-case-feds-do-not-own-the-land-where-his-cattle-grazes

[Deborah K]

Todays 100 is the equivilant of <70 or Moron 20 years ago. The number is skewed because of the overwhelming stupidity of too many people that do not try to think.


http://i45.tinypic.com/oa6ttk.jpg

[MelissaCato]

I dunno, but this Bundy Ranch deal is getting the attention of alot of retired police officers in support of the Bundy's. I handed out all my literature I had on the OathKeepers and I could use some more. I waitress at a small local diner ... of all things to get their attention and in the conversation .. the Bundy's did it.

I need more literature but don't want to wait weeks for it. The conversation is NOW !!!

If anyone can send me more literature within a couple days - let me know !! Please.

I have a paypal account.

[FloralScent]

Todays 100 is the equivilant of <70 or Moron 20 years ago. The number is skewed because of the overwhelming stupidity of too many people that do not try to think.

I'd be much happier if my brain would shut-the-fuck-up and just let me enjoy the mind-numbing 'entertainment' that all the other stupids seem to enjoy. I see an agenda in everything now, which pretty much squashes 99% of movies, TV and small talk. I see why they try not to think. I wish I had that 'gift'.

[tod evans]

I'd be much happier if my brain would shut-the-fuck-up and just let me enjoy the mind-numbing 'entertainment' that all the other stupids seem to enjoy. I see an agenda in everything now, which pretty much squashes 99% of movies, TV and small talk. I see why they try not to think. I wish I had that 'gift'.

Lobotomy has proven effective....:eek:

2341

[FloralScent]

Lobotomy has proven effective....:eek:

2341

If I jab it in there far enough perhaps it'll give me an appreciation for rap music, Jerry Springer, and Time magazine.

[osan]

Willful ignorance. Nothing more, nothing less. Those people do not bother to question the opinion they are being handed. It also shows how powerful propaganda is.


Powerful only because those upon whom it works are so stupid or stoopid. This may seem a semantic nit, but I believe it is always important to phrase ideas correctly down to the... well, nits. It is the human at fault here, not the propaganda. Were people not rotten to their innermost cores, propaganda would have zero power. Right and clued-in humanity would ignore those who spread their lies and deceit, perhaps going so far as to even beating them on occasion, but never falling for the tricks.

Propaganda is nothing without the people whose responses the perpetrators seek.

[osan]

These are going to be the same people in 5 years pleading for us to save them.

Uncharitable sounding as this may be, I will likely leave such people to their fates... assuming I manage to survive that long. I see no virtue in saving the willfully stupid and corrupt of spirit and thought from the consequences of the choices they made when it was well within their power to have chosen otherwise. Such people have no excuses for their idiotic opinions and leanings. I believe such people are not fit to survive. If others wish to aid and abet their stupidity, I will do nothing to stand in their ways, but I doubt I would lift a finger for them because one thing I have come to understand that such brands of rottenness are eternal and once those people are restored to "normalcy", rest you assured they will return to their lousy ways and to biting the hands that pulled their grossly sub-par bacon from the fire. They will once again endeavor to rise to advocate for the violation of the sovereignty of every man on the planet.

Let them burn to the man.

[FloralScent]

Uncharitable sounding as this may be, I will likely leave such people to their fates...

Mother Nature would approve and so would I.

[Athan]

What are you doing on yahoo anyways? The mail sucks, the stories suck, everything sucks about it

You forgot the horrendous reputation for having misleading article titles and lack of photos for stories that clearly need photos.

[Madison320]

I'd be much happier if my brain would shut-the-fuck-up and just let me enjoy the mind-numbing 'entertainment' that all the other stupids seem to enjoy. I see an agenda in everything now, which pretty much squashes 99% of movies, TV and small talk. I see why they try not to think. I wish I had that 'gift'.


That is too funny! I have the same problem. I'll be watching some movie and they'll make some subtle little comment about evil corporations or global warming and it'll ruin it for me. My wife will yell at me, "WHO CARES!!!"

[FloralScent]

That is too funny! I have the same problem. I'll be watching some movie and they'll make some subtle little comment about evil corporations or global warming and it'll ruin it for me. My wife will yell at me, "WHO CARES!!!"


The girlfriend and I do the same thing. The only thing we can watch together is Andy Griffith and Game of Thrones.

[Philhelm]

Todays 100 is the equivilant of <70 or Moron 20 years ago. The number is skewed because of the overwhelming stupidity of too many people that do not try to think.

It's a depressing revelation when you realized that the difference between your IQ and the average IQ is greater than the difference between the average IQ and that of a bona fide retard.

[WM_in_MO]

Uncharitable sounding as this may be, I will likely leave such people to their fates... assuming I manage to survive that long. I see no virtue in saving the willfully stupid and corrupt of spirit and thought from the consequences of the choices they made when it was well within their power to have chosen otherwise. Such people have no excuses for their idiotic opinions and leanings. I believe such people are not fit to survive. If others wish to aid and abet their stupidity, I will do nothing to stand in their ways, but I doubt I would lift a finger for them because one thing I have come to understand that such brands of rottenness are eternal and once those people are restored to "normalcy", rest you assured they will return to their lousy ways and to biting the hands that pulled their grossly sub-par bacon from the fire. They will once again endeavor to rise to advocate for the violation of the sovereignty of every man on the planet.

Let them burn to the man.

And if you do save them don't be surprised when they go right back to their old ways... something about a frog and a scorpion.

[Deborah K]

http://i61.tinypic.com/2u59p44.jpg

[osan]

http://i61.tinypic.com/2u59p44.jpg

The minor irony here being that this is the precise reason they call for the disarming of all, save police and military, of course.

Same planet, different worlds.

[Deborah K]

The minor irony here being that this is the precise reason they call for the disarming of all, save police and military, of course.

Same planet, different worlds.

Yeah, that damned old document!!! To HELL with it!!!

[Weston White]

If the mainstream media would work so vigorously to deceive the truth about 9/11 from the public so that government would obtain expanding justification for addressing the clearly non-existent threat of terrorism on America’s soil, how could they ever be relied upon again as a valid source for anything, let alone as a median to provide balanced debates?

After all, is there really any coming back from committing oneself to devilish deeds?

[Weston White]

Are there not constitutional issues to be realized when:

The penalties are vastly disproportionate to the sums in dispute.

There are even penalties issued in cases of legitimate disputes where no other noticeable loss or damage is apparent.

What is the point in penalizing somebody to the benefit of a government agency? Generally, there is no any actual loss noted or experienced by entities of the government. The government does not have any right to punitive compensation, and seeking gain or profit or exculpation is not a function or necessity of governmental bureaucracies.

Rather than the government depending on a combined penalty system of (1) being paid the amount due in full, (2) being paid interest upon the amount due, (3) being paid additional penalties and fines, and (4) reimbursed court fees and costs (and as applicable costs associated with law enforcement actions), would not a system of being paid only (1) and (2) be more fundamentally justified? Being that citizens seeking due process and redress should be encouraged in all cases as the highest and most pertinent issue and employees of the government are going to be paid regardless, agree to jointly-pool their resources as needed, and are normally over-funded for a reason.