Author Topic: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy  (Read 8374 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #50 on: April 20, 2014, 05:08:47 am »
And this is why most people stand with Bundy in his fight with a government organization that sends in snipers to collect back rent. and/or payment for government grass.

BLM, Bureau of Land Management, does what to "manage" this land?  Do they bring in irrigation to water the grass?  Do they plow, plant, fertilize, cultivate, cut, or bale?  Did they fence off the government territory?  Just what do they expect payment for, herding turtles?  Looks a lot like the same entitlement mentality that's destroying this country.

The farmers, ranchers, miners, drillers, loggers, fishermen, and whoever else uses "government" - read OUR - land pays taxes on what they produce.  Right now there are oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico that cannot be produced because the government won't issue drilling permits, but they damn sure collected the lease money from the oil companies.  Forest fires run rampant each summer because there is no management of "our" forests so everyone, including the animals, lose benefit of it. 

Cliven Bundy refused to pay for services that were never delivered and the responses are but a federal court ruled against him. 
Really?  Imagine that.

And now the President of the Senate declares Bundy supporters domestic terrorists.  If so, so be it for today, is the anniversary of the Battle of Lexington.

The emotion-based argument doesn't work with me.

Cliven Bundy has been running a profitable business on public land without paying either rent nor taxes for the past 20 years. So the services, the use of the land, were delivered.

Sorry.

He's no hero.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #51 on: April 20, 2014, 05:28:07 am »
And this is why most people stand with Bundy in his fight with a government organization that sends in snipers to collect back rent. and/or payment for government grass.

BLM, Bureau of Land Management, does what to "manage" this land?  Do they bring in irrigation to water the grass?  Do they plow, plant, fertilize, cultivate, cut, or bale?  Did they fence off the government territory?  Just what do they expect payment for, herding turtles?  Looks a lot like the same entitlement mentality that's destroying this country.

The farmers, ranchers, miners, drillers, loggers, fishermen, and whoever else uses "government" - read OUR - land pays taxes on what they produce.  Right now there are oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico that cannot be produced because the government won't issue drilling permits, but they damn sure collected the lease money from the oil companies.  Forest fires run rampant each summer because there is no management of "our" forests so everyone, including the animals, lose benefit of it. 

Cliven Bundy refused to pay for services that were never delivered and the responses are but a federal court ruled against him. 
Really?  Imagine that.

And now the President of the Senate declares Bundy supporters domestic terrorists.  If so, so be it for today, is the anniversary of the Battle of Lexington.

The point that you're missing is that he owes the money because he used the land. Period.

He's not paying for services, he owes money for the use of the land, even if the United States never set a foot on  it, or never did a thing to take care of the land.

It isn't his land, so he has to pay to use it.

Why is that so difficult to understand?
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline evadR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,190
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #52 on: April 20, 2014, 12:15:47 pm »
Senate hearings?

What happened after the Fast and Furious Senate hearings?

Who has been held liable, jailed, fired?

Benghazi...

Seven Congressional hearings.

Who has been held liable, jailed, fired?

The IRS persecution of conservative groups.

Five hearings and Holly Paz was fired because she didn't notify Congress that the abuses were happening?

How about the people that were carrying out the abuses. When will they be fired?

A Senate hearing...


The point was I would expect something very visible from a governor in this case, either pro or con.
I used the senate hearings as an example, just an example.

This governor has done neither, he has been effectively silent.
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #53 on: April 20, 2014, 12:42:58 pm »
Just dropped in to give you folks kudos for the intelligent and respectful debate on this thread.  Both sides represented themselves well!  While I feel some of the same emotion expressed by several here, I have to back up and check that emotion, or I'm no different from the "occupy" gangs that took over buildings, parks and other places illegally. 

Luis, you did an outstanding job of laying out the legal issues, which brought me back to reality.  If changes are to be made to the status of public lands, it has to be done by our elected officials.  I'm reminded of the tax protesters who still believe the income tax is unconstitutional.  Hopefully a lot of others read this thread too. 
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,327
  • Gender: Male

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #55 on: April 20, 2014, 01:20:51 pm »
Just dropped in to give you folks kudos for the intelligent and respectful debate on this thread.  Both sides represented themselves well!  While I feel some of the same emotion expressed by several here, I have to back up and check that emotion, or I'm no different from the "occupy" gangs that took over buildings, parks and other places illegally. 

Luis, you did an outstanding job of laying out the legal issues, which brought me back to reality.  If changes are to be made to the status of public lands, it has to be done by our elected officials.  I'm reminded of the tax protesters who still believe the income tax is unconstitutional.  Hopefully a lot of others read this thread too.

Thank you for the kind words. I agree that a CIVIL discussion it has been.

Lewis has made a legal case for sure! Just as one would expect expect from someone who attended law school at a time when only case law is in the curriculum. We'll see if, in the end, it stands up to Constitutional scrutiny.   

Can't treat some states differently than other states!
« Last Edit: April 20, 2014, 01:24:30 pm by Bigun »
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #56 on: April 20, 2014, 02:55:48 pm »
Just dropped in to give you folks kudos for the intelligent and respectful debate on this thread.  Both sides represented themselves well!  While I feel some of the same emotion expressed by several here, I have to back up and check that emotion, or I'm no different from the "occupy" gangs that took over buildings, parks and other places illegally. 

Luis, you did an outstanding job of laying out the legal issues, which brought me back to reality.  If changes are to be made to the status of public lands, it has to be done by our elected officials.  I'm reminded of the tax protesters who still believe the income tax is unconstitutional.  Hopefully a lot of others read this thread too.

Good to "see" you MAC.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline SouthTexas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,665
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #57 on: April 20, 2014, 03:26:00 pm »
The emotion-based argument doesn't work with me.

Cliven Bundy has been running a profitable business on public land without paying either rent nor taxes for the past 20 years. So the services, the use of the land, were delivered.

Sorry.

He's no hero.

I have never claimed he was a hero and I thought I was reasonably clear as to why I support him.   I will concede to the emotional thing, but that was last week, not now.  That is specifically why I stopped commenting on this. ^-^

There seems to be a disconnect here in exactly what the government is providing.  I listed what should be done above, but that's not the case here.  The BLM is acting like a long distance slum lord who doesn't fix a thing on there property and yet demands, with force, to be paid.   

How do you know he hasn't paid taxes in 20 years?  Do you and Elijah Cummings have something going on here the rest of us should know about?  We have had this part of the discussion before and the way you responded it implies that he does not own his ranch nor pay taxes on it's production. 

I don't know whether he pays taxes or not, I'm not privy to private information.  If you are referencing paying taxes on the property he doesn't own, then I'd have to agree, he's not paying taxes on that part.  Then again, neither are the turtles so again, what management is being done here?   What services are being rendered? 

Because a federal court ruled against him, twice, the onus is on him to surrender to what he believes is wrong?  The courts rule in error all the time, it does not make it right.  How many times has the courts ruled that it is a woman's inalienable right to kill her child?  That makes it legal, it does not make it right.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #58 on: April 20, 2014, 03:33:47 pm »
Thank you for the kind words. I agree that a CIVIL discussion it has been.

Lewis has made a legal case for sure! Just as one would expect expect from someone who attended law school at a time when only case law is in the curriculum. We'll see if, in the end, it stands up to Constitutional scrutiny.   

Can't treat some states differently than other states!

I'm guessing that you're back to your Article IV argument. That article addresses the protected rights of citizens, the duties of States, slaves, the creation of new States, and the US government's power over the administration of publicly held lands.

I use the Annenberg Institute when I want to gain a better understanding of the Constitution:

Quote
Section 1 - The Text

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 1 - The Meaning

Article IV, Section 1 ensures that states respect and honor the state laws and court orders of other states, even when their own laws are different. For example, if citizens of New Jersey marry, divorce, or adopt children in New Jersey, Florida must recognize these actions as valid even if the marriage or divorce would not have been possible under Florida law. Similarly, if a court in one state orders a person to pay money or to stop a certain behavior, the courts in other states must recognize and enforce that state’s order.

Article IV, Section 1 also gives Congress the power to determine how states recognize records and laws from other states and how they enforce each others’ court orders. For example, Congress may pass a federal law that specifies how states must handle child custody disputes when state laws are different or that sets out the process by which a person winning a lawsuit in one state can enforce the order in another state.

Section 2 - The Text

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and
be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

[No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.]10

10. Modified by Amendment XIII.

Section 2 - The Meaning

Article IV, Section 2 guarantees that states cannot discriminate against citizens of other states. States must give people from other states the same fundamental rights it gives its own citizens. For example, Arizona cannot prohibit New Mexico residents from traveling, owning property, or working in Arizona, nor can the state impose substantially different taxes on residents and nonresidents. But certain distinctions between residents and nonresidents—such as giving state residents a right to buy a hunting license at a lower cost— are permitted.

Article IV, Section 2 also establishes rules for when an alleged criminal flees to another state. It provides that the second state is obligated to return the fugitive to the state where the crime was committed. The process used to return fugitives (extradition) was first created by Congress and originally enforced by the governors of each state. Today courts enforce the return of accused prisoners. Fugitives do not need to have been charged with the crime in the first state in order to be captured in the second and sent back. Once returned, the state can charge the accused with any crime for which there is evidence.

In contrast, when a foreign country returns a fugitive to a state for trial, the state is only allowed to try the fugitive on the charges named in the extradition papers (the formal, written request for the fugitive’s return).

The fugitives from labor provision gave slave owners a nearly absolute right to recapture runaway slaves who fled to another state, even if slavery was outlawed in that state. This also meant that state laws in free states intended to protect runaway slaves were unconstitutional because they interfered with the slave owner’s right to the slave’s return. The adoption of Amendment XIII, which abolishes slavery and prohibits involuntary servitude, nullified this provision.

Section 2 - The Text

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

[No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.]10

10. Modified by Amendment XIII.

Section 2 - The Meaning

Article IV, Section 2 guarantees that states cannot discriminate against citizens of other states. States must give people from other states the same fundamental rights it gives its own citizens. For example, Arizona cannot prohibit New Mexico residents from traveling, owning property, or working in Arizona, nor can the state impose substantially different taxes on residents and nonresidents. But certain distinctions between residents and nonresidents—such as giving state residents a right to buy a hunting license at a lower cost— are permitted.

Article IV, Section 2 also establishes rules for when an alleged criminal flees to another state. It provides that the second state is obligated to return the fugitive to the state where the crime was committed. The process used to return fugitives (extradition) was first created by Congress and originally enforced by the governors of each state. Today courts enforce the return of accused prisoners. Fugitives do not need to have been charged with the crime in the first state in order to be captured in the second and sent back. Once returned, the state can charge the accused with any crime for which there is evidence.

In contrast, when a foreign country returns a fugitive to a state for trial, the state is only allowed to try the fugitive on the charges named in the extradition papers (the formal, written request for the fugitive’s return).

The fugitives from labor provision gave slave owners a nearly absolute right to recapture runaway slaves who fled to another state, even if slavery was outlawed in that state. This also meant that state laws in free states intended to protect runaway slaves were unconstitutional because they interfered with the slave owner’s right to the slave’s return. The adoption of Amendment XIII, which abolishes slavery and prohibits involuntary servitude, nullified this provision.

Section 4 - The Text

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature can-not be convened) against domestic Violence.

Section 4 - The Meaning

This provision, known as the guarantee clause, is attributed to James Madison. It has not been widely interpreted, but scholars think it ensures that each state be run as a representative democracy, as opposed to a monarchy (run by a king or queen) or a dictatorship (where one individual or group of individuals controls the government). Courts however have been reluctant to specify what exactly a republican form of government means, leaving that decision exclusively to Congress.

The section also gives Congress the power (and obligation) to protect the states from an invasion by a foreign country, or from significant violent uprisings within each state. It authorizes the legislature of each state (or the executive, if the legislature cannot be assembled in time) to request federal help with riots or other violence.

Nothing in this Article applies to the portion of the State that's made up of lands held by the Federal government, or challenges the clause in the Constitution of Nevada which cedes control of the land in question to the United States. It is yet to be seen whether that clause will hold up to scrutiny, but after several legal challenges, it has. 

The notion of "equal footing" was introduced by James Madison and included in the first draft of the Constitution:

"If admission be consented to, new states shall be admitted on the same terms with the original states."

That idea was debated and eventually became this:

"New states may be admitted by Congress into this union; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."

To your "equal footing" point. No State holds sovereign power over lands held in the public trust by the United States, and most (if not all) States have portions of their territories that are held as public lands by the United States. Further to that, Nevada has equal standing with every other State in the Union with respect to power, dignity, representation and authority over those lands not delegated to the United States by the Constitution itself.

So the question then becomes, is the Constitution of Nevada constitutional?

Or better yet, under the notion of State's Rights, does a State have a right to do what Nevada did in their Constitution?

I happen to be a big supporter of Federalism, and I believe that each State has the Constitutional power to enact its own Constitution, so long as it stays within the confines established by the US Constitution, and nothing in the US Constitution says that the State of Nevada couldn't do what it did.

That being the case, then the applicable constitutional concept becomes the following:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Seeing as to how the Constitution does not deny Nevada the power to delegate control of any portion of its territory over to the United States, their Constitution seems to be perfectly Constitutional.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2014, 04:21:28 pm by Luis Gonzalez »
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #59 on: April 20, 2014, 03:36:45 pm »
Just dropped in to give you folks kudos for the intelligent and respectful debate on this thread.  Both sides represented themselves well!  While I feel some of the same emotion expressed by several here, I have to back up and check that emotion, or I'm no different from the "occupy" gangs that took over buildings, parks and other places illegally. 

Luis, you did an outstanding job of laying out the legal issues, which brought me back to reality.  If changes are to be made to the status of public lands, it has to be done by our elected officials.  I'm reminded of the tax protesters who still believe the income tax is unconstitutional.  Hopefully a lot of others read this thread too. 

Mac, Mac, Mac!!  When are you going to come back on a more permanent basis?

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #60 on: April 20, 2014, 04:46:44 pm »
There seems to be a disconnect here in exactly what the government is providing.  I listed what should be done above, but that's not the case here.  The BLM is acting like a long distance slum lord who doesn't fix a thing on there property and yet demands, with force, to be paid.

The government is providing the land. It is making sure that there is grass for cattle to feed on, which is all that Bundy requires.

You must familiarize yourself with the reasons behind the creation of the Taylor Grazing Act.

Before that act was passed (sponsored by a Colorado rancher) the lands were "public domain", and ranchers ran their livestock freely and without need for permits on that "public land". They didn't even need a homesteaded property (ranch) in order to use those lands. Sheepmen and cattlemen fought over use of the land, and whoever found green grass for their herd first, won out.     

The Taylor Grazing Act, as enforced and maintained by the BLM, makes sure these sorts of things do not happen.

Quote
How do you know he hasn't paid taxes in 20 years?  Do you and Elijah Cummings have something going on here the rest of us should know about?  We have had this part of the discussion before and the way you responded it implies that he does not own his ranch nor pay taxes on it's production.

I don't know whether he pays taxes or not, I'm not privy to private information.  If you are referencing paying taxes on the property he doesn't own, then I'd have to agree, he's not paying taxes on that part.  Then again, neither are the turtles so again, what management is being done here?   What services are being rendered?

All that I have ever discussed has been centered around Cliven Bundy's use of public lands, so I am right in saying that he hasn't paid either taxes on that land, or fees to use it. He hasn't paid taxes on it because he doesn't own it, and the fact that he hasn't paid the fees is how he got to this point in his life.

Quote
Because a federal court ruled against him, twice, the onus is on him to surrender to what he believes is wrong?  The courts rule in error all the time, it does not make it right.  How many times has the courts ruled that it is a woman's inalienable right to kill her child?  That makes it legal, it does not make it right.

Our Constitution guarantees process not agreeable outcome. Bundy has received a full measure of process but he doesn't like the outcome.

Our laws dictate what happens next to people who will not abide by the results of that Constitutionally-guaranteed process.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2014, 04:47:11 pm by Luis Gonzalez »
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline SouthTexas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,665
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #61 on: April 20, 2014, 05:21:04 pm »
The government is providing the land. It is making sure that there is grass for cattle to feed on, which is all that Bundy requires.

There in lies the rub Luis, the BLM does nothing to "make sure there is grass" for the cattle.  Nor have they made any attempt whatsoever to separate their (read OUR) land from Bundy's.  It was said early on in this fiasco that even the BLM could not say where the lines were between properties.

As I said before, I am quite happy that Texas does not have a majority of it's land held by the feds.  There is some, but no where near what it is in Nevada.  I really find it hard to comprehend that a state is "owned" by the feds.  how the hell is it a state?

All that I have ever discussed has been centered around Cliven Bundy's use of public lands,

That may be what you meant, but it's not what you said.
Cliven Bundy has been running a profitable business on public land without paying either rent nor taxes for the past 20 years.

Our Constitution guarantees process not agreeable outcome. Bundy has received a full measure of process but he doesn't like the outcome.
Our laws dictate what happens next to people who will not abide by the results of that Constitutionally-guaranteed process.


That's a bit of a stretch right now with a government that is making up the rules/laws on health care, immigration, drugs, etc. as it goes along and an AGs office that picks and chooses which laws it wants to enforce, but that aside, no where does it say debt collection will be done at the point of a gun.

OK, have to cook now, Happy Easter.




Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,117
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #62 on: April 20, 2014, 05:39:58 pm »
Quote

That's a bit of a stretch right now with a government that is making up the rules/laws on health care, immigration, drugs, etc. as it goes along and an AGs office that picks and chooses which laws it wants to enforce, but that aside, no where does it say debt collection will be done at the point of a gun.




And that is why the people who support Bundy are CORRECTLY pissed!  They recognized the level of flim-flammery that goes on, while the "hale fellow well met, Constitutional cuckolds" dance with the angels on the head of a pin.
On this day, it's important to remember, it's not the word of the law but the INTENTION of the law.  You don't want to help your neighbor when his ox has a broken leg in the field, fine.  Just stop irritating and blocking those who would!
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #63 on: April 20, 2014, 06:23:46 pm »
And that is why the people who support Bundy are CORRECTLY pissed!  They recognized the level of flim-flammery that goes on, while the "hale fellow well met, Constitutional cuckolds" dance with the angels on the head of a pin.
On this day, it's important to remember, it's not the word of the law but the INTENTION of the law.  You don't want to help your neighbor when his ox has a broken leg in the field, fine.  Just stop irritating and blocking those who would!

This was an intelligent discussion until some ignorant POS decided to call me a "Constitutional cuckold".

I can go to that level and swing with the very best OLN, so make your hick mind up in how to go forward from here.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #64 on: April 20, 2014, 06:37:52 pm »
Ocean wrote:  "Mac, Mac, Mac!!  When are you going to come back on a more permanent basis?"

We can always debate tax policy Ocean... :beer:

Anyway, hello to everyone here, especially all my old buds. 
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,117
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #65 on: April 20, 2014, 07:11:42 pm »
This was an intelligent discussion until some ignorant POS decided to call me a "Constitutional cuckold".

I can go to that level and swing with the very best OLN, so make your hick mind up in how to go forward from here.

Actually, my comment was not directed at you.  Wasn't directed at anyone here, as a matter of fact.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2014, 07:12:18 pm by olde north church »
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #66 on: April 20, 2014, 07:16:14 pm »
Actually, my comment was not directed at you.  Wasn't directed at anyone here, as a matter of fact.

Bullshit.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline evadR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,190
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #67 on: April 20, 2014, 07:17:23 pm »
"That's a bit of a stretch right now with a government that is making up the rules/laws on health care, immigration, drugs, etc. as it goes along and an AGs office that picks and chooses which laws it wants to enforce, but that aside, no where does it say debt collection will be done at the point of a gun."

Here's the crux of the matter for me.
This is a rogue government that we live under now and the future doesn't look bright for some kind of turnaround.
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Offline evadR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,190
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #68 on: April 20, 2014, 07:21:32 pm »
This was an intelligent discussion until some ignorant POS decided to call me a "Constitutional cuckold".

Actually, my comment was not directed at you.  Wasn't directed at anyone here, as a matter of fact.

Bullshit.

LOL..and after all those civility comments.  :beer:
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,117
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #69 on: April 20, 2014, 07:32:59 pm »
Bullshit.

One more time, had it been directed at you, it would have been responded to you in one of your threads, not a carom off of someone else's comment.  Accept it.  Don't accept it.
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #70 on: April 20, 2014, 07:57:10 pm »
One more time, had it been directed at you, it would have been responded to you in one of your threads, not a carom off of someone else's comment.  Accept it.  Don't accept it.

Yes. I'm sure it was directed at all the people NOT in this forum and NOT participating in the discussion on this thread advocating the position that I am advocating, in the hopes that they would stop in and read your comment.

Now you're down to a variation of the "some of my best friends are _______" defense.

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #71 on: April 20, 2014, 07:58:16 pm »
This was an intelligent discussion until some ignorant POS decided to call me a "Constitutional cuckold".

Actually, my comment was not directed at you.  Wasn't directed at anyone here, as a matter of fact.

Bullshit.

LOL..and after all those civility comments.  :beer:

I'm not one of those cheek turning guys.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,802
  • Gender: Male
  • "...and the winning number is...not yours!
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #72 on: April 20, 2014, 09:14:22 pm »
Just dropped in to give you folks kudos for the intelligent and respectful debate on this thread.  Both sides represented themselves well!  While I feel some of the same emotion expressed by several here, I have to back up and check that emotion, or I'm no different from the "occupy" gangs that took over buildings, parks and other places illegally. 

Luis, you did an outstanding job of laying out the legal issues, which brought me back to reality.  If changes are to be made to the status of public lands, it has to be done by our elected officials.  I'm reminded of the tax protesters who still believe the income tax is unconstitutional.  Hopefully a lot of others read this thread too.


 :beer:

It's been almost exactly three years, MAC!    Good to 'see' you! 
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - David Burge (Iowahawk)

"It was only a sunny smile, and little it cost in the giving, but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living" F. Scott Fitzgerald

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #73 on: April 20, 2014, 09:27:38 pm »

 :beer:

It's been almost exactly three years, MAC!    Good to 'see' you!

Good Grief, it's been that long?  Good to see you too DC! 
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,117
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #74 on: April 20, 2014, 09:57:23 pm »
I'm not one of those cheek turning guys.

No, last time you cut and ran and didn't show up for 3 months when someone said boo to you.  Now THAT's directed at you.
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.