LOST IN MISSISSIPPI

Munith, MI

#69 Apr 14, 2014
FTW Forever wrote:
<quoted text>True.... However alcohol blended fuels can be good. Ethanol is a very poor choice. Performance wise and economically. Butanol would have been the wiser choice.
better stated, ethanol subsidies is a bigger problem
Not Progress

Oakdale, LA

#70 Apr 14, 2014
Deer Whisperer wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/justi ce/2014/04/11/3425659/armed-ri ght-wing-militias-descend-on-n evada-to-help-rancher-defy-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinkProgress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Ameri...

“Truth + context + perspective”

Since: Nov 09

informs against BS

#71 Apr 14, 2014
FTW Forever wrote:
<quoted text>You just don't get it... You're looking at the small picture... See the forest through the trees.
Your post more adequately applies to the post I replied to.
LOST IN MISSISSIPPI

Munith, MI

#72 Apr 14, 2014
LOST IN MISSISSIPPI

Munith, MI

#73 Apr 14, 2014

“ I DO WHAT I LIKE............ .”

Since: Mar 14

AND I LIKE WHAT I DO!!!!!!!!!!

#74 Apr 14, 2014
Deer Whisperer wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post more adequately applies to the post I replied to.
Not at all darlin'.... Simplies post was spot on. Your's was very narrow sighted.
Vet

Waverly, IL

#75 Apr 14, 2014
Cliven Bundy is in the wrong. He doesn't own that property and he doesn't have the right to graze his cattle on it. Former US Army special forces will be all over that place for a long time. Probably some are his bodyguards right now. But for anybody that's interested here's his blog and facebook page. He's asking for donations.

http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/bundyranch
Not Progress

Pelican, LA

#76 Apr 15, 2014
LOST IN MISSISSIPPI wrote:
<quoted text>and do you watch fox?
Hey LOST,, I never cited Fox News, what does Fox have to do with this?? I was merely revealing the sources that a previous poster cited!!

“New & Improved..”

Level 8

Since: Oct 07

Formerly From Kenya

#77 Apr 15, 2014
I saw a whole bunch of illegals grazing on several lawns in my neighborhood last weekend...they were cutting up tall grasses and chopping at all kinds of shrubbery's....odd.. not a fed in sight...Hmmm...I guess they must have paid their fees up front..

on a side note, I did notice the price of flautas had spiked about a dime up from two weeks ago..just sayin'
Orca Winfrey

Medford, NY

#78 Apr 15, 2014
All this talk about cows is making me hungry.

Steadman, fetch me 4 hamburgers!!!! Pronto!!!!

“*=* Always Thinking *=*”

Level 8

Since: Nov 12

Greensburg, IN

#79 Apr 15, 2014

“*=* Always Thinking *=*”

Level 8

Since: Nov 12

Greensburg, IN

#80 Apr 15, 2014

“Truth + context + perspective”

Since: Nov 09

informs against BS

#82 Apr 15, 2014
FTW Forever wrote:
<quoted text>Not at all darlin'.... Simplies post was spot on. Your's was very narrow sighted.
Nay, sweetpea.

The bigger picture: there is more at stake here ecologically and sustainably than just being allowed to graze cattle somewhere for free. We all want a free ride, guess what, not going to happen, when our ancestors came west they had to pay for the wagon, materials and all the things they needed to make the journey. They then paid the government who owned the territory fees for land claims and settling. He claims that his family had been there since before the federal government and that he had a right to it, try again buddy, before that land became United States Property it was owned by the Mexican Government who guess what, also had land use laws. The Mexican Government ceded us that land in 1848. Then owned by the Federal Government of the United States of America it was addressed to the newly created state of Nevada in 1864. So now tell me who rightfully owns the land?

The land may change hands at the state and federal levels depending on who wants to manage or sell the property for whatever reasons, or the state may give it to a federal agency for the care and management of endangered species. In this case the endangered Desert Tortoise. This rancher broke the law and these armed militia men looking for a fight are no patriots when the cause is nothing more than a rogue rancher not paying his bill and claiming conspiracy theories, these people down there at the protest if the video I saw from the crowd no pregnant woman was injured. The rangers were not aggressive, they were defensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#G...

**** In 1848, the United States purchased a large expanse of land in the south-western region of the United States from Mexico, known as the Mexican Cession. Nevada and the Bunkerville range are part of that land. Since then, the United States government has continuously owned the land in Nevada, which became a state in 1864. In 1933, Edward T. Taylor, a Representative from Colorado, re-introduced a bill to set up the grazing bureau or service in the Department of Interior to administer range lands.[7] The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934[b] is a United States federal law that regulates grazing on public lands (excluding Alaska) to improve rangeland conditions. However, grazing was never established as a legal right in the U.S.,[8] and the Taylor Grazing Act authorized only the permitted use of lands designated as available for livestock grazing while specifying that grazing permits "convey no right, title, or interest" to such lands.[9] The permittees are required to pay a fee, and the permit cannot exceed ten years but is renewable. Permits can be revoked because of severe drought or other natural disasters that deplete grazing lands. The Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office in 1946 to form the Bureau of Land Management.

Case studies by Phillip O. Foss on the role of local grazing advisory committees established by the Taylor Grazing Act found that such committees were often dominated by the same ranchers and cattlemen whose activities were supposed to be regulated,[10][11][12] raising questions as to whether grazing regulation had been "captured" by the regulated interests.***

“Truth + context + perspective”

Since: Nov 09

informs against BS

#83 Apr 15, 2014
The Federal Government does own the land and has continuously since it paid Mexico for it in 1848. The law is equitable. The government cannot seize your property without due process and neither can you usurp public property. He was stealing from you, the rightful owners of the land by using it without renumeration.

Never mind the feds rent land to them for 5 cents on the dollar compared to what they'd pay to graze private land. Why pay when you can steal?

Ranchers who don't have access to federal lands pay quite a bit more for feed than a $1.30 a month. This creates an unfair playing field when his cattle come to market. Continue to ignore the cost of managing the land with fences and fire suppression, and the fact that the law passed by congress requires fair market compensation. I doubt that Bundy could rent property that cheap to feed his cattle.

In addition to grazing land, should our national parks also be wide open for everyone to use however they wished? No.

Maybe he's on 'hot-line' to the Koch brothers -- if they had their way, Yellowstone National Park would be a private, personal retreat for them, their cronies, and they could host an 'appreciation bash' for their "minutemen" stooges.

“Truth + context + perspective”

Since: Nov 09

informs against BS

#84 Apr 15, 2014
The western version of a welfare queen:

The NEVADA SUPREME COURT already ruled against the rancher in 1998.

The state of Nevada told Bundy that the land isn't state owned, but rather federal owned. And that the fee's he's been told to pay are federal for allowing his animals to graze it. The problems seems to stem back to when the law was passed to require people grazing federal property to pay a fee. That said, being as we are a nation of the law, whether you like it or not, when your representatives vote for a law to be passed, you abide by it or break it; or contest it through the judicial system.

Bundy decided to break it. He took to the media and internet and played on the emotions of already angry Americans to gain their support in his breaking of the law, while misleading them to think he wasn't breaking it and was being oppressed.

There is civil disobedience; and there is civil disobedience by non-violent means as used by Thoreau (slavery was the main issue), Ghandi (self-rule of India instead of British rule), and M.L. King (Jim Crow quasi-slavery suppression of civil rights).

What happened late week was hardly a sit-in, be-in, or a march down a street or a bridge in Alabama.

The decision of the Ninth Federal Court of Appeals that Bundy has been breaking the law: The Ninth ordered him to remove his trespassing cows. He didn't. Then the 9th ordered the BLM and Parks Service to remove them.

Will other ranchers take notice and start grazing Yellowstone National Park? Will they send their cattle onto their neighbors property without compensation? There is no sympathy here. If you cannot support the herd you have, reduce the herd. If doing that doesn't allow you the lifestyle you are accustomed to, reduce your lifestyle. If that is not an option, sell your land, buy property where you can sustain the herd you want or get out of the business. How do they feel that they have any more rights to handouts than any other business that suffers due to the economy or weather or any other reason? They are no different than a gang thinking it owns the city streets for their own use. They don't and neither do these people.

If you defend this rancher you acknowledge that have little idea about how the society around you works. Fees and regulations are imposed on activities that would otherwise run completely wild and destroy themselves due to human greed. This is proven time and again throughout history. They are never perfect, they always have flaws, and someone is always gaming the system, but the alternative is feudalism where bands of powerful men essentially kill any ally with one another for their benefit at your expense.

The only reason you get to sit on the forum and crap about the government is due to the structure of laws and regulations issued by it to create the society you see around you. If it wasn't there the biggest and most powerful guy in the room would be stealing everything you have And if you mouthed off about it, you're toast-- maybe headless.

If you actually lived in a world where there was not structure, regulation, or fees there would be a few kingpins at the top and the rest of us would be dirt poor [we're not quite there yet]. Example? USA in the late 1800ís and early 1900ís of robber barons and tycoons.

Level 2

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#85 Apr 15, 2014
Deer Whisperer wrote:
The western version of a welfare queen:
The NEVADA SUPREME COURT already ruled against the rancher in 1998.
The state of Nevada told Bundy that the land isn't state owned, but rather federal owned. And that the fee's he's been told to pay are federal for allowing his animals to graze it. The problems seems to stem back to when the law was passed to require people grazing federal property to pay a fee. That said, being as we are a nation of the law, whether you like it or not, when your representatives vote for a law to be passed, you abide by it or break it; or contest it through the judicial system.
Bundy decided to break it. He took to the media and internet and played on the emotions of already angry Americans to gain their support in his breaking of the law, while misleading them to think he wasn't breaking it and was being oppressed.
There is civil disobedience; and there is civil disobedience by non-violent means as used by Thoreau (slavery was the main issue), Ghandi (self-rule of India instead of British rule), and M.L. King (Jim Crow quasi-slavery suppression of civil rights).
What happened late week was hardly a sit-in, be-in, or a march down a street or a bridge in Alabama.
The decision of the Ninth Federal Court of Appeals that Bundy has been breaking the law: The Ninth ordered him to remove his trespassing cows. He didn't. Then the 9th ordered the BLM and Parks Service to remove them.
Will other ranchers take notice and start grazing Yellowstone National Park? Will they send their cattle onto their neighbors property without compensation? There is no sympathy here. If you cannot support the herd you have, reduce the herd. If doing that doesn't allow you the lifestyle you are accustomed to, reduce your lifestyle. If that is not an option, sell your land, buy property where you can sustain the herd you want or get out of the business. How do they feel that they have any more rights to handouts than any other business that suffers due to the economy or weather or any other reason? They are no different than a gang thinking it owns the city streets for their own use. They don't and neither do these people.
If you defend this rancher you acknowledge that have little idea about how the society around you works. Fees and regulations are imposed on activities that would otherwise run completely wild and destroy themselves due to human greed. This is proven time and again throughout history. They are never perfect, they always have flaws, and someone is always gaming the system, but the alternative is feudalism where bands of powerful men essentially kill any ally with one another for their benefit at your expense.
The only reason you get to sit on the forum and crap about the government is due to the structure of laws and regulations issued by it to create the society you see around you. If it wasn't there the biggest and most powerful guy in the room would be stealing everything you have And if you mouthed off about it, you're toast-- maybe headless.
If you actually lived in a world where there was not structure, regulation, or fees there would be a few kingpins at the top and the rest of us would be dirt poor [we're not quite there yet]. Example? USA in the late 1800ís and early 1900ís of robber barons and tycoons.
Thank you DW for the time and work it took you to share that. Always good to read why another person who is in debate, chooses the side they support, without resorting to personal incendiary insults or defamation.

Level 2

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#86 Apr 15, 2014
FTW Forever wrote:
<quoted text>Not at all darlin'.... Simplies post was spot on. Your's was very narrow sighted.
Thank you, grateful for your support of my opinion. It was based on emotion without full knowledge of the facts. Non the less I still stand on it. All the brouhaha still does not explain why so many ranchers have had to close down and now, due to supply and demand, prices have soared.
I would ask DW,(With tongue in cheek)- Will the BLM be growing some cheese on that land? If so I could sure use some to replace the meat missing in my diet these days. ;)

“So it's not you, It's them?”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#87 Apr 15, 2014
This is much simplier than some folks here want us all to believe. Several questions:

1) who holds title to the land on which Bundy has grazed his cattle, for free, for years?

The Federal Government.

2) if Bundy's family, as they now claim, "owned" the land, years before the Federal Government received title to it, why did he EVER pay for grazing rights there?

I understand that Bundy has never been able to explain that to any authority's (State's, Court's, Fed's) satisfaction.

3) what event can Bundy point to, that supposedly caused the title to the land to be transferred to him?

Again, the only argument I've ever seen from Bundy was that, in spite of the fact that his family never held title to the land, they raised cattle there for years, paid to graze them there for years, then stopped paying to graze them, so Bundy has claimed he was somehow entitled to own it.

4) if, as Bundy claims, some event supposedly caused the title to the land to be transferred to his family, many years ago, why isn't he now asking the Federal Government to refund all of the grazing fees that he reportedly paid, in error, in the past?

Right is right. So if, as Bundy claims, some event caused his family to somehow "own" the land since the 1870s, shouldn't he now be asking the Federal Government to pay him back the prior grazing fees that he paid, that he now claims that he doesn't owe?

5) why should Bundy, who by his own admission, owns $1 Million+ worth of cattle, be allowed to stiff the Federal Government (you, me, even the TP folks), paying no grazing fees, after losing in every Court that rejected his claims that he somehow "owned" the land?

He shouldn't. To support Bundy here, you'd have to believe that every single Court or Government decision that went against Bundy was in error.

6) if you or I brought multiple suits to Courts and lost every one of those suits, would any of the TP folks rush to where you or I was mooching off of the Federal Government, all armed and clueless?

Almost certainly, they wouldn't. You abide by and respect the law, pay the grazing fees that you owe, you act like a responsible citizen, or you ignore or openly break the law and act like Bundy appears to be acting.

7) if Bundy's seeming land grab is allowed, where does it end and why would any other guy who's grazing cattle on other land owned by the Federal Government pay another cent of grazing fees?

It doesn't. Federal Laws and Regulations aren't optional. You either abide by them and respect them, or you talk to your County Commissioners, Congressmen, Senators and try to convince them that the Laws and Regs are oppressive, silly, unfair, or unnecessary and should be changed. That doesn't/shouldn't matter whether your President, Senator and/or Congressman is CON or DEM.

I'll bet a number of folks here will offer on-point, reasoned, well-supported replies to the questions above.*grin*

“Truth + context + perspective”

Since: Nov 09

informs against BS

#88 Apr 15, 2014
SimplyLoveYou wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you, grateful for your support of my opinion. It was based on emotion without full knowledge of the facts. Non the less I still stand on it. All the brouhaha still does not explain why so many ranchers have had to close down and now, due to supply and demand, prices have soared.
I would ask DW,(With tongue in cheek)- Will the BLM be growing some cheese on that land? If so I could sure use some to replace the meat missing in my diet these days. ;)
Simply, thank you for the previous post -- therein which you simply could have asked me rather that deflecting to simply FTW, the poster to which I refuted his simply hilarious assertion of my narrow view point.

I'll answer your question, simply. Eat more fish -- with a focus on red herring.

"Simply yours". DW

“Truth + context + perspective”

Since: Nov 09

informs against BS

#89 Apr 15, 2014
Chilli J wrote:
This is much simplier than some folks here want us all to believe. Several questions:
1) who holds title to the land on which Bundy has grazed his cattle, for free, for years?
The Federal Government.
2) if Bundy's family, as they now claim, "owned" the land, years before the Federal Government received title to it, why did he EVER pay for grazing rights there?
I understand that Bundy has never been able to explain that to any authority's (State's, Court's, Fed's) satisfaction.
3) what event can Bundy point to, that supposedly caused the title to the land to be transferred to him?
Again, the only argument I've ever seen from Bundy was that, in spite of the fact that his family never held title to the land, they raised cattle there for years, paid to graze them there for years, then stopped paying to graze them, so Bundy has claimed he was somehow entitled to own it.
4) if, as Bundy claims, some event supposedly caused the title to the land to be transferred to his family, many years ago, why isn't he now asking the Federal Government to refund all of the grazing fees that he reportedly paid, in error, in the past?
Right is right. So if, as Bundy claims, some event caused his family to somehow "own" the land since the 1870s, shouldn't he now be asking the Federal Government to pay him back the prior grazing fees that he paid, that he now claims that he doesn't owe?
5) why should Bundy, who by his own admission, owns $1 Million+ worth of cattle, be allowed to stiff the Federal Government (you, me, even the TP folks), paying no grazing fees, after losing in every Court that rejected his claims that he somehow "owned" the land?
He shouldn't. To support Bundy here, you'd have to believe that every single Court or Government decision that went against Bundy was in error.
6) if you or I brought multiple suits to Courts and lost every one of those suits, would any of the TP folks rush to where you or I was mooching off of the Federal Government, all armed and clueless?
Almost certainly, they wouldn't. You abide by and respect the law, pay the grazing fees that you owe, you act like a responsible citizen, or you ignore or openly break the law and act like Bundy appears to be acting.
7) if Bundy's seeming land grab is allowed, where does it end and why would any other guy who's grazing cattle on other land owned by the Federal Government pay another cent of grazing fees?
It doesn't. Federal Laws and Regulations aren't optional. You either abide by them and respect them, or you talk to your County Commissioners, Congressmen, Senators and try to convince them that the Laws and Regs are oppressive, silly, unfair, or unnecessary and should be changed. That doesn't/shouldn't matter whether your President, Senator and/or Congressman is CON or DEM.
I'll bet a number of folks here will offer on-point, reasoned, well-supported replies to the questions above.*grin*
Prop!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 7 min mr goodwrench 8,277
motorcycle traveling stories 8 min BarBexMollyBlackOk 252
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min Denisova 159,225
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 22 min _FLATLINE-------- 7,879
Make a Story / 4 Words Only (Nov '08) 35 min Cyan in CA 25,951
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... 44 min Good-Evil 707
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 47 min Crazy Jae 789
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 47 min OB Historical Soc... 40,133
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Good-Evil 161,012
News Watch adorable video of clever dog faking injur... 4 hr TALLYHO 8541 4
More from around the web