# Nevada Rancher at odds with Uncle Sammy



## Ripon

Nevada rancher fighting federal cattle roundup - SFGate

It should be noted about 90% of any articles on this are from tyipcal anti government web sites with a bend
in support of the rancher. This article is from "SAN FRANCISCO" so you can imagine what side it takes - evil
rancher - good government. I don't like to jump onto a side until I know the whole story. I still don't know 
the whole story. Neighbors of mine (way north of this area) pay the grubbynutt cattle grazing fees all of the
time. We grow a lot of feed lot material on our property so I don't have any grazing going on those we have
rights for it. I can't discover through any articles how many acres this man actually owns, but I am not sure
why he thinks he has rights to use public land (commercially) without paying for it?


----------



## Inor

Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing | Fox News


----------



## ApexPredator

Is it or is it not open range land if it is I think he is due some compensation by the state because, by capping his heard the govt effectively capped his livelihood I look at it like. Sir your not allowed to have a six figure job because some poor minority(turtle) needs it and I am not going to compensate you and if you don't like it ill fine you and confiscate your property. This would be a none issue if it wasn't so close to a major population center and upset liberals.


----------



## MrsInor

Don't be demeaning turtles now. Just kidding. Don't understand how turtles or birds or lizards can usurp people. Extinction is a part of evolution.


----------



## inceptor

MrsInor said:


> Don't be demeaning turtles now. Just kidding. Don't understand how turtles or birds or lizards can usurp people. Extinction is a part of evolution.


Unless you are a liberal. Then, turtles, birds, etc. have more rights.


----------



## Titan6

This story was also on Fox News typical tyrannical government tactics......


----------



## bigdogbuc

This is how it's going to be folks. This is how the Federal Oppressor's will exert their authority. They will surround you, they will use helicopters, they will have "counter-snipers" and they will intimidate you, if not kill you, over grazing land. This really pisses me off. These are the type of tactics used in war, not over a land use dispute against senior citizens. Sorry, Senior Subjects.

I guess we're at war?


----------



## inceptor

bigdogbuc said:


> This is how it's going to be folks. This is how the Federal Oppressor's will exert their authority. They will surround you, they will use helicopters, they will have "counter-snipers" and they will intimidate you, if not kill you, over grazing land. This really pisses me off. These are the type of tactics used in war, not over a land use dispute against senior citizens. Sorry, Senior Subjects.
> 
> I guess we're at war?


They've been at war with us for a while.

Gold miners near Chicken, Alaska, cry foul over 'heavy-handed' EPA raids | Alaska Dispatch


----------



## jro1

Maybe a trip to Nevada is in order......of course, as Bob Wright said when asked by the FBI if he would muster his militia to the site of a future Waco...."Why would I do that for? There's plenty of you Federal sons of bitches right here!"


----------



## Cheesewiz

I live in Nevada and this is about The BLM ( Govt ) and open ranging cattle and fees . On the other hand there is nothing and I mean nothing in most of this state but Open BLM Land .....The tortoises have been here millions of years , nature adapts . The desert here has a rule adapt or perish . The. BLM does not tell you because of budget restraints they have been euthanizing the desert tortoise here that we're once in a tortoise camp .....Me I will take the Beef !


----------



## Montana Rancher

Ripon said:


> Nevada rancher fighting federal cattle roundup - SFGate
> 
> It should be noted about 90% of any articles on this are from tyipcal anti government web sites with a bend
> in support of the rancher. This article is from "SAN FRANCISCO" so you can imagine what side it takes - evil
> rancher - good government. I don't like to jump onto a side until I know the whole story. I still don't know
> the whole story. Neighbors of mine (way north of this area) pay the grubbynutt cattle grazing fees all of the
> time. We grow a lot of feed lot material on our property so I don't have any grazing going on those we have
> rights for it. I can't discover through any articles how many acres this man actually owns, but I am not sure
> why he thinks he has rights to use public land (commercially) without paying for it?


Gee I hardly had to change any words at all...

LAS VEGAS (AP) - A turf battle between a "prepper" and federal managers has escalated after authorities said they plan to round up all the stored food and ammunition that have been allowed for decades on public land northeast of Las Vegas.
The "prepper" has vowed, in his words, to do "whatever it takes" to keep the U.S. Bureau of Land Management from impounding his property where his family has lived since 1877.
The Feds posted notice Tuesday that having too much food and ammo is against the recently passed law in northeast of Las Vegas.
Liberals have called for taking whatever someone doesn't need in the next 3 days for food and water.
The last time federal authorities announced plans to do this was when President Obama signed the current executive order 
Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness
The plaintiff represented himself and lost two federal court rulings since obviously the constitution has been abandoned and personal rights and liberties have been nullified. 
Cannon said Bundy also owes more than $300,000 in accumulated fees and taxes as well as administrative fees, all of which are calculated by the government, which obviously makes him wrong and the government right.
Bundy's dispute with the government dates to 1993, when managers cited concern for the federally protected desert tortoise and capped Bundy's herd on the 158,666-acre Bunkerville allotment at 150 animals. 
Bundy rightly argued that listing sub-species under the federal endangered species act is in violation of the act, but that too was boo'ed down by the government.


----------



## Inor

Would you all westerners please explain this to me and Mrs Inor. We are a couple of fratlander retards and really do not understand how all this works. We have some retirement property on SE Arizona (cattle country). A friend and neighbor near our land in AZ has a cattle ranch and raises a small herd of about 300 head. AZ is an "open range" state, so if we want to keep our friend Eve's cows off our (private) land it is our responsibility to put up a fence around it - okay that sounds reasonable. But, our friend Eve tells us that it is HER responsibility to keep cattle off "FEDERAL LAND" if she does not have the appropriate permits. Now of course, the Feds put up nice easily seen signs, but Eve does not have the time to teach all of her cows to read. So they have the right to come in an rustle any of her cows that have happened beyond their stupid signs.

In other words, it is "free range" if the cows are on private land, but not so much if they are on "public" land. Have you seen how much of the Rocky Mountain states the feds own now - something like 80% of all of Utah! This is nothing but a shakedown.


----------



## Montana Rancher

Good Question and I do NOT know the particulars of this case.

Here in Montana, a lot of the property is guvment in the form of forest service or BLM. These government agencies have leases to allow local ranchers to graze the land in the summer under a lease (usually 10 or 20 years).

The land here is fenced off, IMO this isn't a issue of free grazing, it sounds like the guvment is changing the rules to appease the greenies (i.e. communists) to keep a local rancher from profiting on federal land grass.


----------



## Inor

Montana Rancher said:


> Good Question and I do NOT know the particulars of this case.
> 
> Here in Montana, a lot of the property is guvment in the form of forest service or BLM. These government agencies have leases to allow local ranchers to graze the land in the summer under a lease (usually 10 or 20 years).
> 
> The land here is fenced off, IMO this isn't a issue of free grazing, it sounds like the guvment is changing the rules to appease the greenies (i.e. communists) to keep a local rancher from profiting on federal land grass.


My argument would be: why does the rancher have to pay the government at all? They are already paying the bastards with their income taxes. If they are being taxed to "use" the federal land, and they are being taxed on their profits too, isn't that double taxation? If they are not being taxed to use the land, they are certainly being taxed for their property taxes and their income they make from their cattle. This is total bullshit and I am not even a farmer or rancher!


----------



## Montana Rancher

Haha
I am amazed you would think the government hasn't figured out a way to tax every possible concern, activity, or partnership.

Waits for it......

They do it because we let them.


----------



## Inor

Montana Rancher said:


> Haha
> I am amazed you would think the government hasn't figured out a way to tax every possible concern, activity, or partnership.
> 
> Waits for it......
> 
> They do it because we let them.


You are right. I still prefer Beach Kowboy's solution of letting a bunch of Silver Back gorillas come in and butt rape 'em.


----------



## Piratesailor

Sounds like the government owns too much property....

And uses it to control others. Go figure.


----------



## ordnance21xx

Soon it will be all of us, swat will be knocking at the door, be ready


MOLON LABE


----------



## PalmettoTree

It seems to me at many points in the past the rancher could have won an adverse possession case. This likely would have resulted in the rancher paying property tax on the land. If the state has property tax.

The rancher took no action so he has no guarantee that he would have free use of that land in perpetuity.

Suppose the land belonged to another citizen. That owner inherited the land and lived out of state or the country. Then returns to retire on the land. Does the rancher have a right to continue free use? Hell No!

Absent some open range law, I think the rancher has consumed enough welfare.


----------



## Inor

PalmettoTree said:


> Suppose the land belonged to another citizen. That owner inherited the land and lived out of state or the country. Then returns to retire on the land. Does the rancher have a right to continue free use? Hell No!


Actually, yes. In an open range state, which Nevada is, it is the land owner's responsibility to fence the cattle out. Unless it is government land; they play by a different set of rules. That is the problem.


----------



## Cheesewiz

Its simple, you have to pay Range fees, if you don't own the land , The Government owns most of the land ( BLM ) .....The big problem is land disputes, where the cattle have been grazing,but wait some environmentalist says Hey there are Tortoises( Turtles to you water folk ) and them damn Steers might step on one or eat too much of the shrubs that they eat ....!

Then the Green wacko says" some wild desert flowers ..Or a lizard, or a butterfly, or grasshoppers " Now you are in serious trouble MR ! These cattle have been here in the desert long before the BLM. Its FOOD for Humans. Pretty soon we will have to import our beef . If you have never been out west you would be amazed how much land there really is. Just sitting, doing nothing, really not fit for habitation by humans..NO Water ! Or very little .


----------



## Denton

His family has been grazing cattle in the same area long before bureaucracy made demands of fees and created regulations putting reptiles over citizens.

The government that was created to protect our unalienable rights now use agencies to control, restrict and regulate those very rights, and agents who swore to uphold and protect the constitution will either arrest or kill one or more of that family.

I would make a few quotes from the founders, but it would only be pointed out that those are archaic notions from three centuries ago.


----------



## Ripon

Yes that is pretty clear, but it was also handled before a magistrate in 1993. He's ignored the results ever since.



Denton said:


> His family has been grazing cattle in the same area long before bureaucracy made demands of fees and created regulations putting reptiles over citizens.
> 
> The government that was created to protect our unalienable rights now use agencies to control, restrict and regulate those very rights, and agents who swore to uphold and protect the constitution will either arrest or kill one or more of that family.
> 
> I would make a few quotes from the founders, but it would only be pointed out that those are archaic notions from three centuries ago.


----------



## PalmettoTree

Cheesewiz said:


> Its simple, you have to pay Range fees, if you don't own the land , The Government owns most of the land ( BLM ) .....The big problem is land disputes, where the cattle have been grazing,but wait some environmentalist says Hey there are Tortoises( Turtles to you water folk ) and them damn Steers might step on one or eat too much of the shrubs that they eat ....!
> 
> Then the Green wacko says" some wild desert flowers ..Or a lizard, or a butterfly, or grasshoppers " Now you are in serious trouble MR ! These cattle have been here in the desert long before the BLM. Its FOOD for Humans. Pretty soon we will have to import our beef . If you have never been out west you would be amazed how much land there really is. Just sitting, doing nothing, really not fit for habitation by humans..NO Water ! Or very little .


For the most part their motivation is not protecting but forcing people with something to do as those with nothing say they should.

The other part is after establishing regulations to protect things truly endangered they run out of things that need doing. Therefore they move on to being counter productive. See first statement.


----------



## Charles Martel

Montana Rancher said:


> The Feds posted notice Tuesday that having too much food and ammo is against the recently passed law in northeast of Las Vegas. Liberals have called for taking whatever someone doesn't need in the next 3 days for food and water.


I'm telling you...it won't be our neighbors, it won't be other civilians kicking in our doors to take what is rightfully ours during SHTF or martial law. It will be the police and/or the military, and they will do so under the auspices of the law.


----------



## bigdogbuc

Local government in Colorado is up to no good. Another example of the government simply taking what they want, and creating laws that allow them to do so.

'This is our heaven': Colorado couple fights to save land from eminent domain | Fox News

I am going to admit that I am totally against "eminent domain". We had a ludicrous case of it here, backed up by law, where the city was sued for failing to maintain the odor from the waste water treatment plant. It was literally a matter of the contractor not adding the right amount of chemical to control it. The city lost, had to pay a couple million dollars or so, which they passed on in rate increases. Surprise I know.

Then began an eminent domain battle for the neighborhood where the suit originated. The city came in after they lost and declared the property uninhabitable, paid pennies on the dollar for the property, forced everyone out, demolished the homes, developed the land, re-zoned it commercial, and sold it for premium to a local Ford Dealership, whose owner just so happened to be "friends" with the mayor at the time. And, magically, there hasn't been any foul odor since the last lady was forcibly removed from her home. Imagine that.

Karma being the vicious bitch she is, that mayor? He's dead now. Died from a heart attack when he found out that yes, he too was being investigated by the FBI for his part in the bank fraud, predatory lender, just sign here loans that helped cause our economy to crumble. He was on the board of directors for a local bank, had approved/forced many of the lending policies, and the bank was seized by the feds and turned over to another bank. They have already prosecuted one member of the board. The others, the ones with a lot of money, have yet to see the inside of a court room.

The government WILL DO WHAT IT WISHES to its own benefit.


----------



## Denton

Ripon said:


> Yes that is pretty clear, but it was also handled before a magistrate in 1993. He's ignored the results ever since.


Oh, well, that settles it. Yes, sarcasm.


----------



## Cygnus

This is the start of the next ruby ridge, Waco. Trust me when I say it. This will not have a happy ending. I would be protesting on the ranchers side if and when he gets the arrears paid up. He should have never quit paying the lease payments.


----------



## Ripon

But he did quit paying, 21 years ago. If anything he should challenge them as squatters rights.



Cygnus said:


> This is the start of the next ruby ridge, Waco. Trust me when I say it. This will not have a happy ending. I would be protesting on the ranchers side if and when he gets the arrears paid up. He should have never quit paying the lease payments.


----------



## Beach Kowboy

I will say this. I don't know the whole story THERE in Nevada but I do know a similar situation here in Montana. I keep hearing people say "He is not paying for it so he should not be using it.". Normally, I would say that is true. However. Here is the situation my buddy that owns this ranch in Montana has been going through for several years. From the time his family homesteaded this place back in the 1800's, they have never had much problems until the BLM came around. My friends family owned almost everything around here. Then int he early 90's it started. The feds started TAKING their land but said they could still use it to run cattle. then about 10 years ago they wanted more and my friend said to **** off. Well, the next thing you know within a year they found some kind of Sage Grouse out here and said the ranch was hurting the "habitat". So they started taking thousands of acres at a time but said they could keep their cows there. Then just a few years ago they said "Ok, no more free cows. Now you have to lease it back from us." He said **** YOU again and now keeps his cows off so he doesn't get fined. In the past year we have had cows cross the fence a few times. The first time was a ticket and the next was a fine. If one gets caught over again, he goes to jail.. How is that for government ****ing you in the ass??!! They are trying to take the entire ranch from what I have heard but he has the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation on his side now..

So everyone saying that he should be paying for it doesn't know the whole story..

Personally, it it were me. The top three guys at BLM would know me personally! I would just have to introduce myself and say hi..


----------



## Inor

What I am surprised that nobody is arguing is that Nevada is an open range state. That means it is the land owner's responsibility to fence the cattle out. That applies to all privately owned land. So if the government wanted to keep him off their land, it should be their responsibility to do so.

The more sinister part however, is the government's overreaction to a stupid land dispute. Even if the rancher is 100% in the wrong, to bring out over 200 agents, with helicopters and snipers to deal with a single old man is absolutely crazy. Now their "free-speech zones", what the hell? This whole mess is going to have much larger implications. It is starting to seem a lot like Waco and we all remember how that ended with the government murdering 70+ people then a crazy man using it as an excuse to blow up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. This is very bad indeed.


----------



## Beach Kowboy

The government can do whatever the **** they want!! The article even said, any disputed they refer to BLM anyway. So I would imagine they would find for their own side!! The reason they are making this a big deal is because this is happening all over the place. There are over a dozen ranches around here going thru the same thing that my buddy is. That is just this part of Montana. So I would imagine it is happening all over. They are using this guy as an example. They threatened my buddy since I have been here to keep the cows off or they would bring in people to confiscate them. We have been talking about that a lot since this has been going on. This in Nevada is just showing the rest of the ranches they are not bluffing. It is going to get ugly IMO..


----------



## luckyduck2

They are chipping away our freedom a little at a time. private property this month, freedom of speech next month, number of shells in a mag month after that. There all small baby steps leading us into a socialist system BE FORE WARNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Inor

luckyduck2 said:


> They are chipping away our freedom a little at a time. private property this month, freedom of speech next month, number of shells in a mag month after that. There all small baby steps leading us into a socialist system BE FORE WARNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You are absolutely correct. But they are well past the "small baby steps" phase. The masks are finally coming off. Have you seen any of the footage of Eric Holder in front of COngress the last couple days?

The really scary part is that we Americans have always been fiercely nationalistic. That is a good thing by itself. But when you combine that with Socialism you get National-Socialism. Obviously not good.


----------



## Ripon

Well we already know private property rights and states rights won't apply to the Feds. In the case you mention I'll even agree since BLM is public property. The fee imposed for grazing is largely used for BLM management, fire fighting gets some of it, and I wouldn't be shocked some isn't paying for a satellite for no one wants to patrol our deserts.

As for the 200 " officers " lets not fall for the hyperbole of those seeking to feed on anti govt hate. They gave the man notice that over 900 cattle on public land were going to get rounded up, if ID'd as his they'd be taken to auction for the $1,100,000 he has refused to pay as dictated to him in 1993. Rounding up that cattle takes a lot of people, truck drivers, a helo, and then the ole fart decided to add a failed threat of a range war so they added people to protect the contractors hired to round up the cattle and ship them off. Also they ID the cattle on site so they don't remove someone else's by mistake.

I'm no fan of our US govt. I'm more tolerant of it then many fellow prepper and I know that. My own brother falls into the soverign citizen crowd and I can't stand that realm of reality myself. I just feel those rushing off to protest for this man, or worse (fight for him) are making a sad mistake. This isn't the battle, this guy has ignored the rule of law and only for his own gain. He is no Robin Hood. He is not altruistic member of society he is a narcissist in demanding the rules (like them or not) don't apply to him. Standing for him, to me, is on the wrong side. Forget the turtle. That is an excuse on both sides the real issue is one person refusing to pay what is demanded while collecting what he wants in return. If he tried that on my NV land his steers would have met a 300WM and I'd have eaten well. He's done that on your property, mine, and everyone else's. Let's remember the grazing fees are not significant. $1.1 million for roughly 2400 head for 21 years plus interest? Do the math.



Inor said:


> What I am surprised that nobody is arguing is that Nevada is an open range state. That means it is the land owner's responsibility to fence the cattle out. That applies to all privately owned land. So if the government wanted to keep him off their land, it should be their responsibility to do so.
> 
> The more sinister part however, is the government's overreaction to a stupid land dispute. Even if the rancher is 100% in the wrong, to bring out over 200 agents, with helicopters and snipers to deal with a single old man is absolutely crazy. Now their "free-speech zones", what the hell? This whole mess is going to have much larger implications. It is starting to seem a lot like Waco and we all remember how that ended with the government murdering 70+ people then a crazy man using it as an excuse to blow up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. This is very bad indeed.


----------



## Rigged for Quiet

I saw the report with video of the free speech zone. Forget the land use issue, the entire of the United States and it's territories is a free speech zone. Pretty sure that comes along with a right to assemble.


----------



## nephilim

luckyduck2 said:


> They are chipping away our freedom a little at a time. private property this month, freedom of speech next month, number of shells in a mag month after that. There all small baby steps leading us into a socialist system BE FORE WARNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You clearly do not know what a socialist system is. France is Socialist, UK is Socialist, Germany is Socialist. Socialism is painted as a bad system, yet we have some of the best land owner rights, best weapon owner rights and freedom of speech rights in the world.


----------



## Notsoyoung

Land owner's "rights" are whatever the local, state, or Federal government decides they are. They can take ownership over anyone's property for whatever reason they want through eminent domain, through the EPA, or the endangered species act. If they take your property, THEY decided what it is worth. They can take it in hopes that a business MIGHT build at your property location and generate more tax revenue. (it happened, it was a home that the family had lived in for 3 generations and the business they hoped to attract backed out of the deal. 

They can go to a farm, and through the endangered species act tell you that you can no longer farm your land. (Happened in California. Man had been farming for 30 years, Government said that if POSSIBLY may have an endangered species called something like the golden haired mole on it, no proof that there was, and fined him a couple of hundred thousand for harming them. No proof that there were any or that he had killed any, but they fined him anyway. So now he has a farm that he can't actually farm.

The epa has decided that it has control over all bodies of water including ponds. Had a relative that decided that he was going to cover a man made pond on his property. It took him 3 years to get it cleared through the epa proving that it was man made. 

"Property" rights in the U.S. is a fallacy.


----------



## PalmettoTree

nephilim said:


> You clearly do not know what a socialist system is. France is Socialist, UK is Socialist, Germany is Socialist. Socialism is painted as a bad system, yet we have some of the best land owner rights, best weapon owner rights and freedom of speech rights in the world.


I managed a plant in the UK. that does not make me more informed about the UK than you a citizen but I would hardly consider the UK socialist. The UK does have socialized medicine but that alone does not equal socialism. Your military officers swear allege nice to the Crown but that hardly makes Monarchy. The UK is not as socialized as France. My children's time in Germany along with my visits do not give me the impression Germany is socialist either.

So clearly one of us has a different understanding of socialism.


----------



## Ripon

Everything has degrees. Nothing is all or nothing. There are some nation states that are "more socialist" and few that are less; the US we are one of the lessor socialist states and I suppose most of us want it to stay that way.

Its like this case in Nevada. The government is not right in what its doing, but the guy is not right in not paying his bill either. Grazing fees work out to about $1.37 a month. $30 worth and those animals can be worth upwards of $2k. His avoidance is nothing but money in his pocket and now he's rabbling about the "government.' He's nothing but an EBT recipient to me who wants, wants, wants and won't pay what is required of him.



PalmettoTree said:


> I managed a plant in the UK. that does not make me more informed about the UK than you a citizen but I would hardly consider the UK socialist. The UK does have socialized medicine but that alone does not equal socialism. Your military officers swear allege nice to the Crown but that hardly makes Monarchy. The UK is not as socialized as France. My children's time in Germany along with my visits do not give me the impression Germany is socialist either.
> 
> So clearly one of us has a different understanding of socialism.


----------



## Inor

Ripon said:


> Well we already know private property rights and states rights won't apply to the Feds. In the case you mention I'll even agree since BLM is public property. The fee imposed for grazing is largely used for BLM management, fire fighting gets some of it, and I wouldn't be shocked some isn't paying for a satellite for no one wants to patrol our deserts.
> 
> As for the 200 " officers " lets not fall for the hyperbole of those seeking to feed on anti govt hate. They gave the man notice that over 900 cattle on public land were going to get rounded up, if ID'd as his they'd be taken to auction for the $1,100,000 he has refused to pay as dictated to him in 1993. Rounding up that cattle takes a lot of people, truck drivers, a helo, and then the ole fart decided to add a failed threat of a range war so they added people to protect the contractors hired to round up the cattle and ship them off. Also they ID the cattle on site so they don't remove someone else's by mistake.
> 
> I'm no fan of our US govt. I'm more tolerant of it then many fellow prepper and I know that. My own brother falls into the soverign citizen crowd and I can't stand that realm of reality myself. I just feel those rushing off to protest for this man, or worse (fight for him) are making a sad mistake. This isn't the battle, this guy has ignored the rule of law and only for his own gain. He is no Robin Hood. He is not altruistic member of society he is a narcissist in demanding the rules (like them or not) don't apply to him. Standing for him, to me, is on the wrong side. Forget the turtle. That is an excuse on both sides the real issue is one person refusing to pay what is demanded while collecting what he wants in return. If he tried that on my NV land his steers would have met a 300WM and I'd have eaten well. He's done that on your property, mine, and everyone else's. Let's remember the grazing fees are not significant. $1.1 million for roughly 2400 head for 21 years plus interest? Do the math.


The more I learn about the rancher, the more I side with you that the guy is definitely in the wrong on grazing his cows on public land without paying grazing fees. But, there are still two problems I see with this:

1 - The government does not fence the cattle out of their land. If I were a next door neighbor of the rancher, I would have to fence his cows out. If went out and shot the cattle that were grazing on my land absent a fence, I would (rightfully) be arrested for rustling. Why does the federal government get to play by a different set of rules?

2 - Why the severe overreaction on the part of the government with their show of force. It is one old man; they are not going after Bonnie and Clyde. The government has hired about 20 cowboys to round up the cows that are on federal land. Fine. But why do they need snipers and over a 150 others all decked out in their tacticool garb to go after one old man. That is what a lot of the protester are reacting to and the government is only making that reaction worse than otherwise would be. Somebody is going to end up getting killed in all of this, and there is no need for it.


----------



## Ripon

Well to answer #1 the government (thank God) is not in the cattle business. They don't fence likely due to the make up of the grid system. I for instance have 5 parcels (main parcels) in NV. It'd require 20 miles of fencing or 105k linear feet - ouch. I have grazing rights for 440 and I am able to resell them to my neighbors; I pay the BLM 1.37 a month per unit (440x1.37) and I get $4 each. I have some row crop that I don't want them eating so I do fence that off - barbed wire, 3 strand across only 4.5 feet off the ground does the trick.

To answer #2 I had not read/heard or found that our govt only hired 20 ranch hands to move over 500 cattle (originally reported wrongly at 900). That seems low unless they planned on taking a long time. Its feasible though certainly. The man isn't one little ole 67 year old out there by himself though. He lofted up a web site saying come help me, and he has sons and employees too. How many were there when they started - I don't know - but he made public statements about a "range" war. Its' his turf; if I were out there I'd want to be out there in force just to prevent anyone from getting stupid. Now we all know our grubbynutt goes stupid over board all too often - that wrong doesn't make this guy right. To be honest I don't know why they didn't just lock him up for breaking court demands and not paying his bill.



Inor said:


> The more I learn about the rancher, the more I side with you that the guy is definitely in the wrong on grazing his cows on public land without paying grazing fees. But, there are still two problems I see with this:
> 
> 1 - The government does not fence the cattle out of their land. If I were a next door neighbor of the rancher, I would have to fence his cows out. If went out and shot the cattle that were grazing on my land absent a fence, I would (rightfully) be arrested for rustling. Why does the federal government get to play by a different set of rules?
> 
> 2 - Why the severe overreaction on the part of the government with their show of force. It is one old man; they are not going after Bonnie and Clyde. The government has hired about 20 cowboys to round up the cows that are on federal land. Fine. But why do they need snipers and over a 150 others all decked out in their tacticool garb to go after one old man. That is what a lot of the protester are reacting to and the government is only making that reaction worse than otherwise would be. Somebody is going to end up getting killed in all of this, and there is no need for it.


----------



## Ripon

BTW I'm very sorry to say there are a lot of libertarian type, anti government activist, gun toting Californians that are ignoring many of the realities of this case and rushing out to protest on his behalf. I can see the government escalating their position, these people escalating theirs, and it all getting blown out of proportion quite easily.


----------



## Denton

» Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!


----------



## pheniox17

to me, it looks like he has issues, but the government reaction is over the top


----------



## Denton

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

Not sure where this land falls in with the constitution. I know, archaic old document that has nothing to do with this democracy.


----------



## Denton

Here is how things go down.

Read this and look at the response of the agent who didn't know why he was sent there, what was going on or any of the pertinent information needed to make decisions in accordance to oaths of office.
BLM Rangers Brought in From Out of State for Nevada Ranch ?Emergency? | Washington Free Beacon

Also, have I been reading articles that seem to indicate federal agents are surrounding Bundy's home. Is his home on properly seated federal territory? Why would federal agents be acting in such manner off such land? I know, federal agents do that quite often, but that is not lawful in the constitutional republic built by the founders. Seems to be A-OK in the democracy that has replaced it.


----------



## Ripon

Considering Bundy has shown he can come and go as he pleases do you really think they have his home surrounded? I have my doubts.

Too many of the anti government web sites are working too hard to try and make this an issue. The issue is a dead beat that refuses to pay what everyone else pays for the right to use property which is not his to use without compensation. Period.



Denton said:


> Here is how things go down.
> 
> Read this and look at the response of the agent who didn't know why he was sent there, what was going on or any of the pertinent information needed to make decisions in accordance to oaths of office.
> BLM Rangers Brought in From Out of State for Nevada Ranch ?Emergency? | Washington Free Beacon
> 
> Also, have I been reading articles that seem to indicate federal agents are surrounding Bundy's home. Is his home on properly seated federal territory? Why would federal agents be acting in such manner off such land? I know, federal agents do that quite often, but that is not lawful in the constitutional republic built by the founders. Seems to be A-OK in the democracy that has replaced it.


----------



## Denton

I am inclined to agree with your assessment of written agitation, but not regarding the deadbeat thing for the constitutional reason annotated above.
Money isn't owed simply because the government demands it, and an agency's authority and power isn't constitutional just because the government asserts it.

We have become too accustomed to tolerating bad things. We are no different than the cattle being moved by government-hired hands.


----------



## Inor




----------



## PalmettoTree

This is pure BS. This Bum-dy has no right to that land. He would be doing the same thing if the land belonged to one of us and after many years decided to exercise our property rights. It seems to me this man's actions will hurt every other rancher with grazing agreements on state and federal land.

Federal and state land ownership is growing because of various tax agreements land owners are entering into. I would like to see the government reverse this by auctioning off land to balance and pay down the budget.


----------



## Ripon

When you see our government ignore its own rule of law on issues like Immigration I can totally see how you feel. The next question is simple; are you saying that the BLM should not exist and that all its holdings dispersed...I'm all for that if you'd please just let me get the 3 sections I already surround 



Denton said:


> I am inclined to agree with your assessment of written agitation, but not regarding the deadbeat thing for the constitutional reason annotated above.
> Money isn't owed simply because the government demands it, and an agency's authority and power isn't constitutional just because the government asserts it.
> 
> We have become too accustomed to tolerating bad things. We are no different than the cattle being moved by government-hired hands.


----------



## Rigged for Quiet

So it appears that this *isn't* on Federal land, but on State land. The government is using the endangered species act and the Desert Tortoise as grounds to sieze the cattle because they could be a danger to the little critters. Ironically, due to budget cuts and over population in a Fed built tortoise sancutary the Feds are actually culling the population.

I agree the man needs to come clean on range fees, but the area was once a thriving cattle ranch area and he is the only one left. Have the feds driven out the other ranchers and this guy is the last man standing?

I just saw a report that there are now over 1000 supporters on site and a some of them are militia from numerous states. Get the popcorn boys, this is heating up.


----------



## jmturtle

Nevada rancher stand your ground. Freedom is on it's way out of the us. We will all have to take a stand eventually. I hope the situation is resolved peacefully. The government needs to back off.


----------



## Deebo

Right or wrong, I dont know. The uni's look pretty ready to just kick the shit out of anybody, but I am only seeing what TV shows us. I hope for a peacefull ending, but sadly, I think it will "popoff" here pretty quick. Some of the "family members" that I have seen on videos look ready to pounce, and the uni-s sure are.


----------



## Beach Kowboy

Like I said. Most of these guys are the ORIGINAL land owners that the feds confiscated their land from and was ****in nice enough to charge them to use their own property... Then when he doesn't want to pay. HE is the deadbeat. Welcome to this great ****in nation!!!!


----------



## Ripon

*$1.35*

It's a buck thirty five a head a month, for a steer that will get him $800-$1000..and he pays no property taxes on the land the steer uses....



Beach Kowboy said:


> Like I said. Most of these guys are the ORIGINAL land owners that the feds confiscated their land from and was ****in nice enough to charge them to use their own property... Then when he doesn't want to pay. HE is the deadbeat. Welcome to this great ****in nation!!!!


----------



## Beach Kowboy

Ripon said:


> It's a buck thirty five a head a month, for a steer that will get him $800-$1000..and he pays no property taxes on the land the steer uses....


If it was his land to begin with and the government took it. Who cares?? That said, I don't know the whole situation on THIS one in Nevada so I can't speak like I know on it. However, I know about one personally in the same situation like my post a few pages back states upon.. But if the guy in Nevada is like the one I am talking about and he owned it before and the government found some bullshit endangered species to take it from him. Why should he have to pay? You would think in the certain species was so ****in important, they wouldn't let ANY cattle one it which is why they took it in the first place..

Oh, you have an endangered species on it so we are taking it. But if you pay us you can run the same cattle on the same property you have been running for generations!!!!

THAT MY FRIENDS IS WHY ALL THESE RANCHERS ARE GETTING INVOLVED!! It is happening all over!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you think the ranchers would be getting behind him if he was some kind of deadbeat??? NO!! The are doing it because it is happening all over the ****in place!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Inor

Ripon said:


> To answer #2 I had not read/heard or found that our govt only hired 20 ranch hands to move over 500 cattle (originally reported wrongly at 900). That seems low unless they planned on taking a long time. Its feasible though certainly. The man isn't one little ole 67 year old out there by himself though. He lofted up a web site saying come help me, and he has sons and employees too. How many were there when they started - I don't know - but he made public statements about a "range" war. Its' his turf; if I were out there I'd want to be out there in force just to prevent anyone from getting stupid. Now we all know our grubbynutt goes stupid over board all too often - that wrong doesn't make this guy right. To be honest I don't know why they didn't just lock him up for breaking court demands and not paying his bill.


I am not saying the rancher is right or is wrong. Actually, I have heard equally compelling arguments on both sides. But, what I am saying is that by escalating the situation with snipers and helicopters the BLM is taking this to a level that it does not need to go to. If the reports are true that the militias are starting to show up and the BLM is starting to taser and beat the protestors, that is WAY beyond what a land dispute over some cows should be. If the BLM are serious that this is about $1.1 million in grazing fees, they should back off and let the situation calm down. Then in a few weeks or so, go in with 4 officers (dressed normally, not in their stupid tacticool crap), arrest him peacefully and let him have his day in court.

I mean hell, $1.1 million dollars is roughly 1/8 of what we spend just to fly Obama and his family to Hawaii every Christmas. Let's get a bit of perspective here. Is that worth killing people over? I am not saying the feds should just let it go. If the statute is found Constitutional, and it is found (by a jury of his peers) that he broke the statute, then a reasonable penalty is in order. But this is insanity.

With the BLM, and by proxy the rest of the federal government, taking a stupid grazing rights dispute to a military level, they are making this whole thing into an issue of states rights, individual rights, an overbearing federal government and a myriad of other things that have NOTHING to do with the rancher or his cows. If any of the participants in this circus end up getting shot or killed, it is going to create a firestorm that goes far beyond the borders of Nevada.


----------



## pheniox17

there is still too much of a overreaction by government forces and agencies over such a minor issue, I do feel sorry for him tho, his land been taken because he works hard and some random animal is the excuse to remove him from his way of life, either side of the fence, paying rent for your own land or freeloader arguments, having the alphabet soup siege him, with all kinds of forces, is a conspiracy nuts wet dream

it shits me to tears, as any land owner is next make a honest living expect big brother to **** you up


----------



## Rigged for Quiet

On this and many thousands of other forums there are daily cries of protests about the ever expanding over reach of the government and loss of liberty and freedom. Now we have a situation where Ranchers from a neighboring Utah county are showing up and a Couny Commissioner in Nevada says they will need funeral plans if they come. Other folks, including militia are showing up as well.

The Feds are arming up, tasing people, and establishing 100 sq foot Free Speech Zones with limitations on how may people can use them at a time and when they use them. It is a disproprtionate response, which is something else we here have spoken of many times when ranting about the militarization of police forces.

For all the SHTF scenarios who would have thought a land use issue in Nevada could be a rally point for many who seem to be willing to draw a line in the sands of the Nevada desert. If this goes south will it be another Wounded Knee/Ruby Ridge/Waco, or a modern day Bunker Hill if this administration reacts on a national scale? 

With as many people as there are standing with the rancher the Feds are outnumbered, but not out gunned. One over amped individual from either side could ignite a fire storm.


----------



## 1skrewsloose

I've yet to see proof that cattle grazing impacted the turtles, Cattle do not stomp on animals blindly. What about when bison roamed the land?


----------



## Rigged for Quiet

You mean the turtles the government is euthanizing at their own refuges due to over population?


----------



## 1skrewsloose

I guess that's what really gripes me. Folks that agree with the gov to save turtles at the expense of our God given and Constitutional rights!! And it's a false argument to boot!


----------



## spokes

Wait a minute, I'm a little confused here...

The BLM is concerned that grazing cattle will damage the habitat occupied by the Desert Tortoise, but if you pay them 1.37 per head for grazing rights, the little turtles won't mind the cows tramping everywhere? Duh.

We've had cattle on our property so we know what they can do to habitat. Seems like BLM has a good racket going here along with a lot of hypocrisy.

I'd hate like hell to see blood shed over this but those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.


----------



## Ripon

It was never his land to begin with. It was the county's, then the states, and then the Feds. It was not taken from him. We elected people and it was ordered handled this way by duly elected people. The fee for grazing some are claiming is just for the turtle. We have no turtles here and we have the same fee. My understanding is the fee is so that they have the funds to manage the land without tax dollars. I see this fraud using the turtle story to drum up support.



Beach Kowboy said:


> If it was his land to begin with and the government took it. Who cares?? That said, I don't know the whole situation on THIS one in Nevada so I can't speak like I know on it. However, I know about one personally in the same situation like my post a few pages back states upon.. But if the guy in Nevada is like the one I am talking about and he owned it before and the government found some bullshit endangered species to take it from him. Why should he have to pay? You would think in the certain species was so ****in important, they wouldn't let ANY cattle one it which is why they took it in the first place..
> 
> Oh, you have an endangered species on it so we are taking it. But if you pay us you can run the same cattle on the same property you have been running for generations!!!!
> 
> THAT MY FRIENDS IS WHY ALL THESE RANCHERS ARE GETTING INVOLVED!! It is happening all over!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you think the ranchers would be getting behind him if he was some kind of deadbeat??? NO!! The are doing it because it is happening all over the ****in place!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Ripon

And it would be an exchange in defense of a millionaire unwilling to pay what everyone else pays in govt fees. If the govt violates the rule of law I'm all for the protest. When the governments rule of law is ignored the man belongs in jail.



Rigged for Quiet said:


> On this and many thousands of other forums there are daily cries of protests about the ever expanding over reach of the government and loss of liberty and freedom. Now we have a situation where Ranchers from a neighboring Utah county are showing up and a Couny Commissioner in Nevada says they will need funeral plans if they come. Other folks, including militia are showing up as well.
> 
> The Feds are arming up, tasing people, and establishing 100 sq foot Free Speech Zones with limitations on how may people can use them at a time and when they use them. It is a disproprtionate response, which is something else we here have spoken of many times when ranting about the militarization of police forces.
> 
> For all the SHTF scenarios who would have thought a land use issue in Nevada could be a rally point for many who seem to be willing to draw a line in the sands of the Nevada desert. If this goes south will it be another Wounded Knee/Ruby Ridge/Waco, or a modern day Bunker Hill if this administration reacts on a national scale?
> 
> With as many people as there are standing with the rancher the Feds are outnumbered, but not out gunned. One over amped individual from either side could ignite a fire storm.


----------



## Denton

Rule of law. That phrase only applies when the statute is in accordance with the constitution. It does not apply to statutes that are not. It also does not apply to regulations and codes. 
Duly elected. That title does not give carte blanche, and does not suggest all statutes passed or agencies created are good, constitutional or should be blindly obeyed.


----------



## Denton

Ripon said:


> When you see our government ignore its own rule of law on issues like Immigration I can totally see how you feel. The next question is simple; are you saying that the BLM should not exist and that all its holdings dispersed...I'm all for that if you'd please just let me get the 3 sections I already surround


Again, go back to the constitution. Does the government have the authority to own land not outlined as I already shared? No. The framework was specific in what the government is allowed to do. We seem to forget that. Why wouldn't we forget it? We've allowed the federal government out of the box built by the founders, and we now believe it to be a normal, natural thing. Anyone who doesn't see it that way is nothing more than a deadbeat who refuses to pay the same dues the rest of us are willing to pay in order to avoid confrontation.


----------



## Denton

Oath Keepers outlook on this...

Oath Keepers » Blog Archive » Coalition of Western State Legislators, Sheriffs, and Veterans Stand Vigil in Support of Embattled Nevada Rancher, Cliven Bundy ?To Prevent Another Ruby Ridge or Waco?


----------



## Inor

BLM is pulling out and ceasing the theft of the cattle.


----------



## Beach Kowboy

Ripon said:


> It was never his land to begin with. It was the county's, then the states, and then the Feds. It was not taken from him. We elected people and it was ordered handled this way by duly elected people. The fee for grazing some are claiming is just for the turtle. We have no turtles here and we have the same fee. My understanding is the fee is so that they have the funds to manage the land without tax dollars. I see this fraud using the turtle story to drum up support.


Like I said, I do not know enough on the Nevada ranch to speak in fact. But I do know of one inMontana that IS fact. The BLM found some kind of sage hen and said the ranch was damaging the habitat. That is several years AFTER they tried to take the ranch to add to their Upper Missouri River Breaks Monument Area. We are one of 3/4 ranches left that have property inside the monument area. They did take thousands and thousands of acres and said he could lease it back from them if he wants. But the reason they SAY they took the property was because of the sage hen. If the ****in bird was so important, why would they let him run cows back on it. That is whey they took it inthe first place..

Law enforcement say "I wont go against the Constitution"... But then you have stuff like this where they show up all EXCITED that they get to do something.. This my friends is how they are going to come at us when it is time. They will find some bullshit excuse and get their guys all excited and that's it, it's over..

Take these ranchers and militias, to the government, they are the enemy. Plain and simple. It will be the same thing with us.. They are chipping and chipping away at our rights... One day, we wil be ****ed and there will be people saying "I don't know how it could have happened."


----------



## Denton

Bundy is not the only one who is targeted by the feds.

This particular case is in New Mexico.

Feds seize family?s ranch


----------



## slewfoot

Rancher BLM reach a deal.














By TOM RAGAN
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL



Rancher Cliven Bundy demanded of sheriff Doug Gillespie that all national park service employees working on the cattle roundup operation be disarmed before 10:45 a.m.

He gave Gillespie one hour to comply, and added for the firearms to be brought to him. The demand comes on the heels of the Bureau of Land Management pulling the plug on the roundup due to safety concerns.

“Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public,” BLM director Neil Kornze said.

Many people in the crowd gathered in Bunkerville were demanding to know where the 500 already-gathered cattle currently are.

Gillespie was apparently involved in the deal with the BLM to stop the roundup, according to Ammon Bundy, Cliven Bundy’s son, on Saturday.

Ammon Bundy said the details are still being worked out.

Just before 10 a.m., Gillespie confirmed he was in Mesquite but didn’t comment on the roundup halt.


----------



## Beach Kowboy

Denton said:


> Bundy is not the only one who is targeted by the feds.
> 
> This particular case is in New Mexico.
> 
> Feds seize family?s ranch


This is happening all over my friend.. I don't know what I would do it it was land they were trying to take that had been in my family for over 100 years.. I know the top guys at the BLM and forest service would know who I was!


----------



## Denton

Beach Kowboy said:


> This is happening all over my friend.. I don't know what I would do it it was land they were trying to take that had been in my family for over 100 years.. I know the top guys at the BLM and forest service would know who I was!


This is utter crap. It is obvious that we lost our constitutional republic so that there would be democracy, so that there would eventually be what can be accurately described as tyranny.


----------



## Beach Kowboy

All it is now is the government taking care of the government..


----------



## Inor

But this incident does prove when we stand up to them peacefully, they will back down - until they don't. Hopefully this will encourage other farmers, ranchers and small businessmen to do the same.


----------



## Rigged for Quiet

What happens when all the people who stood against them disperse? An over the top no knock warrant with a jacked up sooper trooper SWAT team?


----------



## Beach Kowboy

Rigged for Quiet said:


> What happens when all the people who stood against them disperse? An over the top no knock warrant with a jacked up sooper trooper SWAT team?


Something is up.. They are just backing down so the others will go home. Then, they will come back under the cover of darkness and kick the door in or something when the family is all alone.


----------



## Inor

Beach Kowboy said:


> Something is up.. They are just backing down so the others will go home. Then, they will come back under the cover of darkness and kick the door in or something when the family is all alone.


That would be a VERY bad idea. I am not saying they won't do it, just that it would be an extremely bad idea.


----------



## Beach Kowboy

I hope not but I am expecting something like that to happen...


----------



## bigdogbuc

Beach Kowboy said:


> I hope not but I am expecting something like that to happen...


If it does, which it probably will, it will be the last time they will be allowed to peacefully leave.


----------



## 1skrewsloose

I agree, too many have Ruby Ridge and Waco still in mind. I High Five those who were able to go there. If we don't hang together, we shall surely hang separately.


----------



## Rigged for Quiet

It seems those that protested have not dispersed, and in fact are demanding the return of the cattle that were seized or they will go find them on their own.


----------



## Inor

They are returning the cattle. It is the lead on FoxNews.com.

Edit: My mistake. It was not FoxNews.com. It was a link at the top of Drudge:

BLM releases cattle to Bundy - 8 News NOW


----------



## Beach Kowboy

The government doesn't want to be the bad guy here..










































The government doesn't want to be the bad guy.


----------



## Inor

Beach Kowboy said:


> The government doesn't want to be the bad guy here..


As far as I am concerned, that train already left the station when they brought out snipers to deal with a "supposed" tax debt on a 72 year old rancher.

The government has become a very bad guy indeed.


----------



## Beach Kowboy

Inor said:


> As far as I am concerned, that train already left the station when they brought out snipers to deal with a "supposed" tax debt on a 72 year old rancher.
> 
> The government has become a very bad guy indeed.


They brought them out for their own "safety" though.. You hear the LEO's saying that they are for the Constitution all the time. You can bet your sweet ass if they were given the order to fire on that 72 yr old rancher. They wouldn't think twice...


----------



## PalmettoTree

All the facts spouted here cannot be true. Regardless of that one or two are...


----------



## Inor

A bit long, but worth the watch...


----------



## Inor

PalmettoTree said:


> All the facts spouted here cannot be true. Regardless of that one or two are...


Yes well, not everyone in the U.S. accepts living under the rules of a homeowners association.


----------



## Notsoyoung

Beach Kowboy said:


> Something is up.. They are just backing down so the others will go home. Then, they will come back under the cover of darkness and kick the door in or something when the family is all alone.


Does anyone really think that they are just going to forget about this? Saw an article on Info Wars (I know, allot of crazy crap there) that claims that the real reason is that they want to set up a solar farm in that area that will be owned by the Chinese and headed by Harry Reid's son. They also point out that 24 hours after the article was released the BLM backed off. I think the whole turtle think is bs. There's been cattle there since the 1870's and they are killing the same species in other parts of Nevada because there are too many of them.


----------



## Moonshinedave

Do a search for Harry Ried's son, and you find lots of interesting stuff, that isn't from Info wars. Seems Harry Ried earned his name "Dingy" Harry. Come on good people of Nevada vote that crook out of office.


----------



## PalmettoTree

Inor said:


> Yes well, not everyone in the U.S. accepts living under the rules of a homeowners association.


That is correct. Just remember covenants and land use restriction were started by large land owner that wanted to protect the value of their retained property while selling off parts of it over time. HOAs are nothing more than those property owners protecting their wealth from those that fail to abide by contracts they entered into of their own free will.

Keep in mind the rancher's refusal to recognize the government's property rights is no different than all the neighbors around you failing to honor your property rights.

Now a word about tactics and strategies. The government may have appeared to have lost a tactical battle here. But the rancher lost more than he won. Gone are the corrals and any other physical construction that he built to make use of land that does not belong to him. Not only does the government have a growing claim for unpaid grazing fees but this cost of attempting to clear the property of illegally grazing cattle. The rancher now has his cattle gathered at the expense of the legal land owner government.

Now the government has an even faster growing claim against the rancher. If the government tries this again, fewer will turn out in support and they will make it more difficult to get there. At the same time the rancher will be fighting a costly court battle. The rancher has won a Pyrrhic victory.

Even if the next administration fails to pursue this that will not settle the mounting debt caused by this. The rancher's strategy virtually guarantees his sons will lose the family's land.

The biggest problem with our conservative movement is the ignorant willingness of most to settle and peruse Pyrrhic victories.


----------



## Beach Kowboy

Within the next 10 years the government will own his ranch. Or they will wait for him to die, hell he is 72 now and then the government will get it for back payments he ows them and the family will get a dick in the ass!


----------



## Slippy

PalmettoTree said:


> That is correct. Just remember covenants and land use restriction were started by large land owner that wanted to protect the value of their retained property while selling off parts of it over time. HOAs are nothing more than those property owners protecting their wealth from those that fail to abide by contracts they entered into of their own free will.
> 
> Keep in mind the rancher's refusal to recognize the government's property rights is no different than all the neighbors around you failing to honor your property rights.
> 
> Now a word about tactics and strategies. The government may have appeared to have lost a tactical battle here. But the rancher lost more than he won. Gone are the corrals and any other physical construction that he built to make use of land that does not belong to him. Not only does the government have a growing claim for unpaid grazing fees but this cost of attempting to clear the property of illegally grazing cattle. The rancher now has his cattle gathered at the expense of the legal land owner government.
> 
> Now the government has an even faster growing claim against the rancher. If the government tries this again, fewer will turn out in support and they will make it more difficult to get there. At the same time the rancher will be fighting a costly court battle. The rancher has won a Pyrrhic victory.
> 
> Even if the next administration fails to pursue this that will not settle the mounting debt caused by this. The rancher's strategy virtually guarantees his sons will lose the family's land.
> 
> The biggest problem with our conservative movement is the ignorant willingness of most to settle and peruse Pyrrhic victories.


Palmetto,
I can assure you that the Federal Government backing trillions of dollars of loans to people who couldn't pay them did more to hurt home values than any HOA did to help maintain home values.


----------



## Denton

This guy is a bit of an alarmist, but read the article and look at the information collected in it.

_Read_ the article and _analyze_ what he has found.

The Bundy Affair Is the Tip of the Iceberg To What?s Coming | Dave Hodges ? The Common Sense Show


----------



## StarPD45

Moonshinedave said:


> Do a search for Harry Ried's son, and you find lots of interesting stuff, that isn't from Info wars. Seems Harry Ried earned his name "Dingy" Harry. Come on good people of Nevada vote that crook out of office.


There is still talk that Reid didn't actually win his last election in an above board fashion. (i.e. fraud) 
I guess the folks need to triple the amount of good votes next time. Maybe they might actually win.


----------



## PalmettoTree

Slippy said:


> Palmetto,
> I can assure you that the Federal Government backing trillions of dollars of loans to people who couldn't pay them did more to hurt home values than any HOA did to help maintain home values.


My comment about HOMs have nothing to do with this topic. It was a reply to INOR's shot at me. A shot that was well off the mark.


----------



## Slippy

PalmettoTree said:


> My comment about HOMs have nothing to do with this topic. It was a reply to INOR's shot at me. A shot that was well off the mark.


Regardless of your assessment of the accuracy of anyone's shot, Home Owners Associations, in my opinion, are for fools.


----------



## Inor

PalmettoTree said:


> That is correct. Just remember covenants and land use restriction were started by large land owner that wanted to protect the value of their retained property while selling off parts of it over time. HOAs are nothing more than those property owners protecting their wealth from those that fail to abide by contracts they entered into of their own free will.


That sounds all well and good until you get some nosey busy-body on the HOA (in this case the federal government) that decides to change the terms of the agreement.



PalmettoTree said:


> Keep in mind the rancher's refusal to recognize the government's property rights is no different than all the neighbors around you failing to honor your property rights.


But the rancher DID recognize the government's property rights. He had an agreement with the state of Nevada, that by all accounts, he is living up to. The problem is, the federal government came along in 1993 and usurped the management of the land from the state of Nevada (without the consent of the state I might add). The state still owns the land. But the feds came along and decided to change the terms of the agreement that the rancher had with the state, even though the previous contract had not expired. If anything, this is a case of the federal government not recognizing the property rights purchased and paid-in-full for by the rancher.



PalmettoTree said:


> Now a word about tactics and strategies. The government may have appeared to have lost a tactical battle here. But the rancher lost more than he won. Gone are the corrals and any other physical construction that he built to make use of land that does not belong to him. Not only does the government have a growing claim for unpaid grazing fees but this cost of attempting to clear the property of illegally grazing cattle. The rancher now has his cattle gathered at the expense of the legal land owner government.
> 
> Now the government has an even faster growing claim against the rancher. If the government tries this again, fewer will turn out in support and they will make it more difficult to get there. At the same time the rancher will be fighting a costly court battle. The rancher has won a Pyrrhic victory.
> 
> Even if the next administration fails to pursue this that will not settle the mounting debt caused by this. The rancher's strategy virtually guarantees his sons will lose the family's land.


You may be right. I pray you are not. But, I do think you are absolutely wrong that there will be less people to support the rancher next time. People are becoming acutely aware of the government heavy handed overreach lately and they are responding faster, not slower. My fear is the next time the government try their stormtrooper tactics, it will result in a shootout. Actually, I am surprised it did not this time.



PalmettoTree said:


> The biggest problem with our conservative movement is the ignorant willingness of most to settle and peruse Pyrrhic victories.


You are a lot of things sir; some of them even good. But "conservative" is not a label that I would ever ascribe to you.


----------



## PalmettoTree

The rancher had no agreement with the land owner that last in perpetuity. Even trust are only good for 99 years. Just try to set up a trust for your progeny. If it is the state's land then the state should have either enforced its own rights or joined on one side or the other.

I find it strange the number of people with their shorts all on a wad over this but never a peep about the injustice of property taxes.

Anyway you cut it this fool thinks he has a right to use property that does not belong to him.

Again HOA agreements are not part of this dispute but today most HOA agreements have a sundown clause. That clause is usually renewed unless two thirds of the property owners agree to a new agreement. (Depending on state laws) I agree this could be trouble but if one enters into such a contract he accepts the risk. Seldom does one get everything they want when entering into a contract. 

You say I'm not a conservative. I say conservatives abide by the law and contracts they enter into. I say the conservative position is to let a property owner sell his property with terms he chooses. A conservative avoids laws and contracts he finds to be immoral or unfair.

Regardless anyway you cut this the rancher has put the future ownership of his inherited property at risk.


----------



## spokes

I just read on Godfather Politics that the order to retreat came from the White House itself.

UPDATE: Why the BLM is Standing Down in Cliven Bundy Dispute

Somewhere between fact and rumor lies reality.

Just a side note. Has anybody stopped to think of the possible repercussions to the Militia members who showed up to help Bundy?
If you think the FBI, BLM, CIA or the Boy Scouts (said tongue in cheek, no offense to the organization intended) wasn't out there snapping photos of the attendees and or their license plates for future reference and identification, you are either naive or living in a fools paradise.

What was the old quote from The X Files? Trust no one!


----------



## Inor

spokes said:


> Just a side note. Has anybody stopped to think of the possible repercussions to the Militia members who showed up to help Bundy?
> If you think the FBI, BLM, CIA or the Boy Scouts (said tongue in cheek, no offense to the organization intended) wasn't out there snapping photos of the attendees and or their license plates for future reference and identification, you are either naive or living in a fools paradise.


I am sure that is true. That just means it is now the time to stand up and be counted. It kind of dovetails nicely with the Dagny Taggert quote in your tag line.


----------



## jimb1972

What the hell is the federal government doing dictating land usage and fees to state land anyway? The federal government is like a rose bush gone wild, it is all thorns and no longer produces anything to inspire appreciation. Cut it back.


----------



## Smitty901

In the end they will burn him. They will find away to beat him or they will burn him out. Not like they have not done this before.


----------



## Inor

Have any of you hard about the various militias planning on meeting in Washington DC on May 16th over this?

If that is indeed true, I hope they are on their BEST behavior.


----------



## Beach Kowboy

Here is something to think about. I have an uncle that is a Full Bird Colonel that told me a few years ago that China is the one we need to watch for. China and the US are the ones going to stick it to us. Those were his words. his entire career revolved around SF. I remember as a kid in the 80's he was a green beret at Bragg, when I was in high school in the early 90's he told me he went to "the dark side" which was Delta Force. I have seen a lot of things in my time but I would imagine he has seen MUCH more than me.

He retired a few years ago and said it was the BEST decision he ever made as he just could not trust the government anymore.. I know he HATED bummer but said he "respected" the position...We were at a wedding just over a year ago in the Florida Keys and he told me that China was what we had to worry about. That our government would make a deal with them and we would be screwed. I didn't know what that meant until recently... Check out this link BLM Providing Sweetheart Deals for Chinese Investors | Greg Hunter?s USAWatchdog That is just one link I found.. I have spoken to almost a half a dozen people this year that said there are major things coming. 1 of them was with Homeland and he retired, then decided to leave the country and head to Costa Rica. Another went to Belize. I'm not sure what is going on but I know I trust my uncle with my entire families life. The others are acquaintances but I trust them as well. Something is coming people, I'm not sure of the exact situation but something is coming.....


----------



## 1skrewsloose

In my mind, what fools the chinese are. Just cause a piece of paper says they own it means nothing to me. Unless they occupy the land, its ours!!! The American people made no such agreement with a foreign nation. just my .02.


----------



## Beach Kowboy

1skrewsloose said:


> In my mind, what fools the chinese are. Just cause a piece of paper says they own it means nothing to me. Unless they occupy the land, its ours!!! The American people made no such agreement with a foreign nation. just my .02.


I agree with that but I think the politicians and 'leaders" of this country will do what they need to just to let the Chinese know they are on their side... I have no doubt our American military members will be on our side to the very end. I also believe the leaders of those men will manipulate them as they need to. jUst think, the average rank is what, an e 3 with an average ago of 19 in the military? How easy is it to manipulate a 19yr old??? They could tell them about ANYTHING and they would believe it... Our government is going to **** us in the ass and not even going to use KY!!! Just wait, within the next year there will be major changes coming.. To those of you who don't have any, but some KY and keep in your night stand. You are goin to need it!!!!!


----------



## Beach Kowboy

Now you have Reid saying "It's not over".. How much I I would love to see someone walk up and put a bullet in his head on national television... He is in the top 20 people that are enemies of this country... I would like to see that cocksucker put into a ****ing wood chipper on national television!!!!!!!!!! Sen. Harry Reid on Nevada Ranch Battle: ?It?s Not Over? | Video | TheBlaze.com Him,pelosi,feinbitch and several other piece of shit politicians that are ruining this country..


----------



## Inor

Beach Kowboy said:


> Now you have Reid saying "It's not over".. How much I I would love to see someone walk up and put a bullet in his head on national television... He is in the top 20 people that are enemies of this country... I would like to see that cocksucker put into a ****ing wood chipper on national television!!!!!!!!!! Sen. Harry Reid on Nevada Ranch Battle: ?It?s Not Over? | Video | TheBlaze.com Him,pelosi,feinbitch and several other piece of shit politicians that are ruining this country..


Hey Buddy!

Glad the Beach Kowboy we all love is back! When you did not comment on the Pelosi thread about the minimum income, I was wondering if you decided you had had enough of us. Thank God you are back!

-I-


----------



## Beach Kowboy

Inor said:


> Hey Buddy!
> 
> Glad the Beach Kowboy we all love is back! When you did not comment on the Pelosi thread about the minimum income, I was wondering if you decided you had had enough of us. Thank God you are back!
> 
> -I-


I was just tryin to be good. I decided if people don't like what I say, they can lick my balls!! And I am sober, how bout that!


----------



## shotlady

1skrewsloose said:


> In my mind, what fools the chinese are. Just cause a piece of paper says they own it means nothing to me. Unless they occupy the land, its ours!!! The American people made no such agreement with a foreign nation. just my .02.


im sad when I say this the American people did make the agreement. they elected the policy and law makers. so in a back door way they did.


----------



## PalmettoTree

shotlady said:


> im sad when I say this the American people did make the agreement. they elected the policy and law makers. so in a back door way they did.


You are correct. That is what happens in a Republic.

Many today are into libertarian ideas. What they fail to understand about libertarianism is it is incompatible with a Constitutional Republic.


----------



## luckyduck2

Beach Kowboy said:


> Now you have Reid saying "It's not over".. How much I I would love to see someone walk up and put a bullet in his head on national television... He is in the top 20 people that are enemies of this country... I would like to see that cocksucker put into a ****ing wood chipper on national television!!!!!!!!!! Sen. Harry Reid on Nevada Ranch Battle: ?It?s Not Over? | Video | TheBlaze.com Him,pelosi,feinbitch and several other piece of shit politicians that are ruining this country..


 George Bush had that deck of cards of most wanted. Maybe we should get a preppers deck of cards most HATED. Obama be the Ace spades, Nancy P. Queen of spades,


----------



## StarPD45

Reid says "It's not over".

He's right. The question is, which way will it end? Another Ruby Ridge?


----------



## Denton

Taken from this article. Y'all might want to read it. Well, those who don't believe the government can do whatever it wants. The rest might find it highly objectionable.
BLM declares Texas is Oklahoma land :: Northern Colorado Gazette



> But ignoring all the developments since 1993, a critical issue still remains. The United States government - we the people - gave 1870′s settlers a promise of an open range for cattle if they would homestead and ranch on the land recently annexed from Mexico. The Bundy family answered that call and have honored their part of the contract ever since. In 1993 the Clinton administration unilaterally decided to completely rewrite the original promise conditions and, like so many treaties the U.S. has signed with so many, we simply threw the original promises in the trash and told the Bundy family to take it or leave it! In this case one and only one rancher, Bundy, told the government he was holding the government to its word. What we have seen then since 1993 is that the word of our government isn't worth a damn. It seems those 1870′s settlers were told, "If you like your ranch you can keep it."





> Today, the alternative media has begun to cover another BLM land grab. In Texas, rancher Tommy Henderson is being told the government is confiscating his 90,000 acre ranch along the Red River. Henderson is also told that once the BLM takes his ranch for public land, he might be able to arrange a grazing contract; you know, like Cliven Bundy and his neighbors used to have in Nevada.
> Henderson has a clear deed to his land in the state of Texas. He has no back taxes or fines or other issues pending. So how is the BLM taking his family ranch? The BLM has decided to declare that his land is now in Oklahoma and therefore his Texas deed became invalid when the Red River moved its banks south.
> If one more federal agent takes one more legal gun from one more American, the rest of us need to put a stop to it - before none of us can!


----------



## slewfoot

so true.


----------



## Inor

Maybe we need to start playing a game called Cowboys and Revenuers...


----------



## Denton

PalmettoTree said:


> You are correct. That is what happens in a Republic.
> 
> Many today are into libertarian ideas. What they fail to understand about libertarianism is it is incompatible with a Constitutional Republic.


Considering the constitutional republic has been replaced by democracy, it is a moot point.

Considering the understanding of the two's differences has been erased and those who are working for the subjugation of the citizenry are in control of everything from the government to the education system to the media, I don't see any cohesive resistance to what is coming down the pike.

I know, I am a buzz-kill. Been that way for years, I've been told.


----------



## Alpha-17

PalmettoTree said:


> You are correct. That is what happens in a Republic.
> 
> Many today are into libertarian ideas. What they fail to understand about libertarianism is it is incompatible with a Constitutional Republic.


I know I've been gone for a while, but holy cow, are you on crack? Libertarianism is nothing more than an evolved form of Classical Liberalism. Classical Liberalism is what gave us our Constitutional Republic in the first place. There are some Libertarian ideas that wouldn't work well with our Constitutional Republic, mostly the extreme fringe Socialist and Anarchist sides, but for the most part, Libertarian ideas are what the country was supposed to be founded on.


----------



## shotlady

Denton said:


> Considering the constitutional republic has been replaced by democracy, it is a moot point.
> 
> Considering the understanding of the two's differences has been erased and those who are working for the subjugation of the citizenry are in control of everything from the government to the education system to the media, I don't see any cohesive resistance to what is coming down the pike.
> 
> I know, I am a buzz-kill. Been that way for years, I've been told.


 What I wonder is how we can get cohesive in resistance-


----------



## 1skrewsloose

To me one of the big things is the so-called "1st amendment zones", 3 miles from the Bundy ranch. Now the gov to tell us where we are able to excersise our rights? Don't mean to hi-jack this thread, but follows with folks being arrested for taking videos of certain folks in public.


----------



## Beach Kowboy

1skrewsloose said:


> To me one of the big things is the so-called "1st amendment zones", 3 miles from the Bundy ranch. Now the gov to tell us where we able to excersise our rights? Don't mean to hi-jack this thread, but follows with folks being arrested for taking videos of certain folks in public.


Like I said before. They make their own ****ing rules and change them when they need to.


----------



## PalmettoTree

Denton said:


> Considering the constitutional republic has been replaced by democracy, it is a moot point.
> 
> Considering the understanding of the two's differences has been erased and those who are working for the subjugation of the citizenry are in control of everything from the government to the education system to the media, I don't see any cohesive resistance to what is coming down the pike.
> 
> I know, I am a buzz-kill. Been that way for years, I've been told.


I wish I could say you are wrong.


----------



## PalmettoTree

Alpha-17 said:


> I know I've been gone for a while, but holy cow, are you on crack? Libertarianism is nothing more than an evolved form of Classical Liberalism. Classical Liberalism is what gave us our Constitutional Republic in the first place. There are some Libertarian ideas that wouldn't work well with our Constitutional Republic, mostly the extreme fringe Socialist and Anarchist sides, but for the most part, Libertarian ideas are what the country was supposed to be founded on.


No there is no libertarian form of government.

The Decoration of Independence is largely an argument against the corruption of government specifically the Crown.

The Articles of Confederation was an attempt to let people apply a very limited governments. It failed and demonstrated that libertarian philosophy could not grow in the face of a government (state government) in control. It also demonstrated that under a states dominated form of government there was an unequal willingness to cooperate and support matters of common good. Defense and paying for it chief amount these.

Our Constitutional Republic is fashioned after Roman rule of law. It did not even, at the start include the basics of libertarian rights or freedoms. Only the bill of rights clued some of these. Even some of the Bill of Rights re contrary to libertarian philosophy. The Second Amendment is the primary reason we continue to be as free as we are. However the implied use against oppressors is contrary to libertarianism. Within the original writing, slavery, proves libertarianism is not primarily what the founders compromised on.

Absent slavery and the war fought to keep the states rights to continue slavery, we would still have a states rights driven government. In my opinion.

Just as our representatives have largely sold their soul for votes promising entitlements and violations of property rights. Libertarian politicians have bastardized libertarianism so that they might serve in that same government grandstanding to no good end. These bogus libertarians fall into two camps.

First amount these are the ones that could care less about libertarianism as long as that brand keeps them in office.

The second, like Ron Paul, are against defense of country, for open borders, against any drug laws, for gay marriage, against criminal punishments, etc. They are against all laws that prohibit individuals from doing anything. Their biggest plus is pro-property rights.

The long and short of it is you are wrong from your ad hominem opening statement to your last clause.


----------



## Denton

The Articles of Confederation failed in a very important way - it gave no way for taxes to be collected in order to pay the large debt burden incurred during the war. We even owed Britain!

The founders were very educated, well read men, knowledgeable in Greek, Roman and English manners of governance, and were certainly aware of the origin of English governance. Their understanding of legal process was Common Law, and their understanding of the origin of the rights of man (the word man is gender neutral, so don't get up in arms, ladies) being from our Creator, and that Creator being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Libertarian doctrine attempts to ignore or declare the basic precepts of rule and culture as outdated. This unhinges us from the foundation of the nation, but no more than today's mess, I suppose. Government is already behaving as if it is the ultimate authority, as if it is the creator of all things, the ultimate Judge and author of morality and criminality and rightful owner of all things, living as well as manufactured.

Shotlady, cohesive resistance would require common knowledge, culture and goal. I fear we no longer possess any of those things in today's so-called society. While we do see incidents of resistance, even they cause more division that unity.

It seems to me that "They" played their cards masterfully. Subtle changes in societal thinking, how and what to think, while perverting our very understanding of rights and responsibilities while slowly building a larger and more powerful federal government, all have led us to a point where we have a lawless and arbitrary government that is accepted and condoned by many of our countrymen. Many of those who do not agree with today's administration and congress do so because they believe government has not gone far enough off the rails.

I'm not sure how to combat that, except by education. Considering this is a nation of immediate carnal gratification with no interest in what we, here, often discuss, I see educating the public to be a most difficult task.


----------



## pharmer14

shotlady said:


> What I wonder is how we can get cohesive in resistance-


The best thing IMO is to fight one battle at a time...

Case in point, this guy would have had a ton more support if the militia members left their guns at home. What happened when they brought them was the alienation of everybody who agrees on land, but disagrees on guns.

And I'm a 2nd amendment guy... will proudly stand up to defend it if it comes to that.

Conservatives an libertarians have winning arguments. We just struggle with imaging. Ask yourself what would have been a more powerful image? A supporter facing down a water cannon or police dog without a gun or a militia member with a federal agent in their crosshairs?


----------



## pharmer14

Denton said:


> Libertarian doctrine attempts to ignore or declare the basic precepts of rule and culture as outdated. This unhinges us from the foundation of the nation, but no more than today's mess, I suppose. Government is already behaving as if it is the ultimate authority, as if it is the creator of all things, the ultimate Judge and author of morality and criminality and rightful owner of all things, living as well as manufactured.


Ha. You must misunderstand the terms "basic precepts" and "foundation."

Libertarianism is all about the Bill of Rights. Period. Beyond those, the basic tenant of Libertarianism is "Quietly plotting to take over the world to leave you alone."

If anyone is ignoring or declaring aspects of our culture outdated, it's the progressives on both the left and the right.


----------



## Denton

pharmer14 said:


> Ha. You must misunderstand the terms "basic precepts" and "foundation."
> 
> Libertarianism is all about the Bill of Rights. Period. Beyond those, the basic tenant of Libertarianism is "Quietly plotting to take over the world to leave you alone."
> 
> If anyone is ignoring or declaring aspects of our culture outdated, it's the progressives on both the left and the right.


Notice, I didn't give them a pass, either.


----------



## PalmettoTree

The problem can be seen in polls. When a poll says 80% (or what ever the current number is) thinks Congress is doing a poor job. That likely means 40% think it is too oppressive and 40% to oppressive. The actual poll number is useless.


----------



## Denton

PalmettoTree said:


> The problem can be seen in polls. When a poll says 80% (or what ever the current number is) thinks Congress is doing a poor job. That likely means 40% think it is too oppressive and 40% to oppressive. The actual poll number is useless.


Danged perfect way of saying it.


----------



## Inor

pharmer14 said:


> Ha. You must misunderstand the terms "basic precepts" and "foundation."
> 
> Libertarianism is all about the Bill of Rights. Period. Beyond those, the basic tenant of Libertarianism is "Quietly plotting to take over the world to leave you alone."
> 
> If anyone is ignoring or declaring aspects of our culture outdated, it's the progressives on both the left and the right.


Pharmer -

I think you either need to change your capitalization of the word "libertarian" or change your terminology. What you are saying is spot-on. But, using the capital "L" Libertarian word, you are associating yourself as a guy that follows the party line of the Libertarian party. Sorry if I offend, but those people are nucking futs! As near as I can tell, their entire platform is legalizing drugs, prostitution and decimating our national defense - and nothing more. Those are really BAD planks to run on (or govern on) in my arrogant opinion.

But, everything you have said so far in regard to governance is classical liberalism. I.E. Maximum freedom, maximum responsibility. That is a philosophy I am 1000% behind.

I consider myself a (lowercase L) libertarian. But, I would not vote for a candidate from the Libertarian *Party* to save my soul.


----------



## PalmettoTree

Inert arias philosophy is an excellent study. It gives one a good sense of absolute freedom. Thus you get an understanding what must be given up to have justice. It also gives you an understanding why it will never work because there is no method for protection against evil-doers.

True libertarian philosophy is anti-self-defense. A concept I find crazy but the rational is that would beget vengeance.

Try to imagine the difficulty of travel in a true libertarian ration or road construction. With absolute property rights there would always be some one that would refuse travel through or would refuse to sell right-of-way for highways.

The bottom line is there is almost no transaction sequence that would not lead to extortion.


----------



## pharmer14

PalmettoTree said:


> The problem can be seen in polls. When a poll says 80% (or what ever the current number is) thinks Congress is doing a poor job. That likely means 40% think it is too oppressive and 40% to oppressive. The actual poll number is useless.


I contend the problem is not in the polls. The problem is outside of them. Even in 2008... one of the highest turnout years of all time, we got about 57% of those old enough to vote. Out of that 57%, it only takes 50% +1 to win (not true, but a decent approximation). So the people who voted for the POTUS amount to 29% of the vote-eligible public.

The problem isn't at the polls. The problem is the people who stay home from the polls.


----------



## Alpha-17

PalmettoTree said:


> True libertarian philosophy is anti-self-defense. A concept I find crazy but the rational is that would beget vengeance.


That's blatantly not true. Libertarian philosophy, at it's core, can be summed up as "your rights extend until they interferr with somebody else's". You have a right to life, and can defend yourself, up to and including lethal force, if your life is threatened. Not sure where you're getting your ideas on libertarian thought, but I'd be willing to bet it's from the far radical side of the spectrum.



PalmettoTree said:


> Try to imagine the difficulty of travel in a true libertarian ration or road construction. With absolute property rights there would always be some one that would refuse travel through or would refuse to sell right-of-way for highways.
> 
> The bottom line is there is almost no transaction sequence that would not lead to extortion.


OK. And this is an excellent example of where you just build your road around the person's property. No force, and the guy lost out on the money he could have made selling it. No force was used, and everything is okey dokey. I fail to see the major problem here. Worse case scenario is that nobody in the area wants a road though their property, and thus, the road isn't built. I still fail to see the problem.


----------



## PaulS

Libertarians believe only in the constitutional powers of the federal government. They are not for "abortion", "drug use" or "gay rights" they are simply against the federal government making universal laws governing such things that they have no constitutional power over.

The concept of libertarians being for those things is simply talking points by the two major parties to attempt to keep people from understanding that they are really for the constitution. You remember, it's the document that was intended to provide only 30 powers to the federal government and allow the states and the people to retain their rights and freedoms. The federal government has so exceeded their rightful powers that to the average person returning to those limitations sounds like a radical concept. Under a libertarian federal government the states would retain the powers not given to the federal government - as it was intended. The people in each state could make decisions that affect the way the state was run so long as it does not interfere with the republican form of government or the rights and freedoms of the people.

I suggest you quit listening to the talking points and actually look into the Libertarian platform. It is promoting the constitutional republic that we used to have.

Their home page with links to information: Libertarian Party | Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government


----------



## Beach Kowboy

Now the Rancher has claimed that the BLM has killed at least 8 of his cows and 2 of them are bulls. They found a shallow grave with several in it and then a few others at other locations on the ranch so far. The BLM admitted to killing them saying they were 'aggressive" or something of the like. I have been in the cattle business one way or another almost my entire life. You have to expect some of them to be "aggressive" You don't ****ing shoot them.. Even though I have wanted to myself on a few occasions. Apparently, they found one with over 7 gunshots in the belly... How is that for our wonderful government?!!


----------



## retired guard

Beach Kowboy said:


> Now the Rancher has claimed that the BLM has killed at least 8 of his cows and 2 of them are bulls. They found a shallow grave with several in it and then a few others at other locations on the ranch so far. The BLM admitted to killing them saying they were 'aggressive" or something of the like. I have been in the cattle business one way or another almost my entire life. You have to expect some of them to be "aggressive" You don't ****ing shoot them.. Even though I have wanted to myself on a few occasions. Apparently, they found one with over 7 gunshots in the belly... How is that for our wonderful government?!!


Cruelty to animals is horrible. Unless they do it then it's OK.


----------



## sparkyprep

Beach Kowboy said:


> Now the Rancher has claimed that the BLM has killed at least 8 of his cows and 2 of them are bulls. They found a shallow grave with several in it and then a few others at other locations on the ranch so far. The BLM admitted to killing them saying they were 'aggressive" or something of the like. I have been in the cattle business one way or another almost my entire life. You have to expect some of them to be "aggressive" You don't ****ing shoot them.. Even though I have wanted to myself on a few occasions. Apparently, they found one with over 7 gunshots in the belly... How is that for our wonderful government?!!


Of course you shoot them when they are aggressive, but only if you are stealing someone else's.


----------



## Beach Kowboy

Exactly.. Don't get me wrong, I have shot a few cattle in my day but there was absolutely no need for them to shoot his. With all the manpower they had, it is crazy to be killing cattle like that. They were just being **** sticks.. Then to bury them makes it worse!! Beef is at a premium and he lost a whole shit load of money from the cows alone. Odds are, they were bred so now he will lose out on the calf too. Bulls are not cheap either. We have 17 right now and the absolute cheapest one was about $5k and a few are inthe $10-$20k range. Those cows he lost could have brought him a nice chunk of change. I would be raising HELL over it if I were him. The BLM and Cocksucker Reid should have to pay big time for it.. They wanted to make it a big deal, I would as well..


----------

