Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Armed Protestors
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Armed Protestors
Tweet Topic Started: Jan 4 2016, 09:10 AM (184 Views)
Mr Gray Jan 4 2016, 09:10 AM Post #1
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
I haven't read anything about this yet, but seems like it might be worth a discussion.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/04/armed-protesters-at-national-wildlife-refuge-say-government-force-would-risk-lives.html?intcmp=hpbt1
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jan 4 2016, 07:39 PM Post #2
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
If they were Muslim they would be called terrorists.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jan 4 2016, 09:29 PM Post #3
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Food for thought:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-armed-oregon-ranchers-who-want-free-land-are-already-getting-a-93-percent-discount/?ex_cid=538twitter
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Jan 4 2016, 11:21 PM Post #4
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
Have they even been specific in their demands?
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jan 5 2016, 11:26 AM Post #5
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Jan 4 2016, 07:39 PM
If they were Muslim they would be called terrorists.
If the were Muslims, they would have already committed suicide.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jan 5 2016, 11:31 AM Post #6
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jan 4 2016, 09:29 PM
Food for thought:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-armed-oregon-ranchers-who-want-free-land-are-already-getting-a-93-percent-discount/?ex_cid=538twitter
"In 1993, the bureau declined to renew Cliven Bundy’s grazing permits in parts of Nevada that were reserved for a threatened desert tortoise. But Bundy continued grazing his cattle there anyway and refused to pay any fines or fees. He claimed that the land really belonged to him, so why should he have to pay over $1 million in fines?"
Seriously, the threatened desert tortoise?

As a result, in 2014, grazing fees covered only 15 percent of the bureau’s costs to maintain grazing lands. The rest of the cost is made up in federal appropriations and covered by taxpayers.
How much does it cost to maintain grazing lands? Possibly the people who are out looking for desert tortoises, etc., could be given pink-slips?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rkl15 Jan 5 2016, 12:51 PM Post #7
Member Avatar
All-Star
Posts:
1,970
Group:
Members
Member
#460
Joined:
December 24, 2013
HoosierLars
Jan 5 2016, 11:31 AM
brumdog44
Jan 4 2016, 09:29 PM
Food for thought:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-armed-oregon-ranchers-who-want-free-land-are-already-getting-a-93-percent-discount/?ex_cid=538twitter
"In 1993, the bureau declined to renew Cliven Bundy’s grazing permits in parts of Nevada that were reserved for a threatened desert tortoise. But Bundy continued grazing his cattle there anyway and refused to pay any fines or fees. He claimed that the land really belonged to him, so why should he have to pay over $1 million in fines?"
Seriously, the threatened desert tortoise?

As a result, in 2014, grazing fees covered only 15 percent of the bureau’s costs to maintain grazing lands. The rest of the cost is made up in federal appropriations and covered by taxpayers.
How much does it cost to maintain grazing lands? Possibly the people who are out looking for desert tortoises, etc., could be given pink-slips?
I read the article and came away with similar thoughts.

First, how did they calculate the fines?
Over $1 million because a rancher let his cattle continue to graze on the land?
How long did this continue?
Did the grazing kill off the desert tortoise?

And grazing fees covering only 15% of the cost to maintain grazing lands???
Please break down those expenses for me.

I know I'm not from Nevada, and my father doesn't have a lot of cattle.

But he does have acreage that is used solely for cattle grazing and hay production.
And the cost to maintain it is........................next to nothing!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jan 5 2016, 02:06 PM Post #8
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
rkl15
Jan 5 2016, 12:51 PM
I read the article and came away with similar thoughts.

First, how did they calculate the fines?
Over $1 million because a rancher let his cattle continue to graze on the land?
How long did this continue?
Did the grazing kill off the desert tortoise?

And grazing fees covering only 15% of the cost to maintain grazing lands???
Please break down those expenses for me.

I know I'm not from Nevada, and my father doesn't have a lot of cattle.

But he does have acreage that is used solely for cattle grazing and hay production.
And the cost to maintain it is........................next to nothing!
20+ years grazing his cattle on land he had no lease for. How well do you think he would have fared stealing from a private land owner rather than stealing from you and me? Maybe the government needs to issue cattle hunting permits on the 600,000 acres of land land Bundy is illegally using. I know that this would lead to the loss of human life and am not really serious, but something should be done about this guy.

Do you believe this guy has any right to use this land?

Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rkl15 Jan 5 2016, 02:36 PM Post #9
Member Avatar
All-Star
Posts:
1,970
Group:
Members
Member
#460
Joined:
December 24, 2013
Clive Bundy

This article states the back fees at $300,000.
Granted the article is from 2013.
That is a far cry from over $1 million.

I do think that he has "some" right, or at least compensation from the government for
the improvements he and his family have done to the land.

What is that compensation? I don't know, but an independent judge should make that
call.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jan 5 2016, 02:45 PM Post #10
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
rkl15
Jan 5 2016, 02:36 PM
Clive Bundy

This article states the back fees at $300,000.
Granted the article is from 2013.
That is a far cry from over $1 million.

I do think that he has "some" right, or at least compensation from the government for
the improvements he and his family have done to the land.

What is that compensation? I don't know, but an independent judge should make that
call.
The fines are for grazing on land he had no lease on. The lease expired and was not renewed in 1993. He was still grazing his cattle on the land in 2014.

Why should you and I compensate him for improvements he made to land he does not own and had no right to be 'making improvements to? Imagine it like this, a guy rents a house from you and you do not renew his lease and try to throw him out but he refuses to leave. You have to go to court to evict him. If he puts in new oak floors while you are going through eviction proceedings would you willing pay your ex-tenant for his improvements?
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rkl15 Jan 5 2016, 04:35 PM Post #11
Member Avatar
All-Star
Posts:
1,970
Group:
Members
Member
#460
Joined:
December 24, 2013
eelbor
Jan 5 2016, 02:45 PM
rkl15
Jan 5 2016, 02:36 PM
Clive Bundy

This article states the back fees at $300,000.
Granted the article is from 2013.
That is a far cry from over $1 million.

I do think that he has "some" right, or at least compensation from the government for
the improvements he and his family have done to the land.

What is that compensation? I don't know, but an independent judge should make that
call.
The fines are for grazing on land he had no lease on. The lease expired and was not renewed in 1993. He was still grazing his cattle on the land in 2014.

Why should you and I compensate him for improvements he made to land he does not own and had no right to be 'making improvements to? Imagine it like this, a guy rents a house from you and you do not renew his lease and try to throw him out but he refuses to leave. You have to go to court to evict him. If he puts in new oak floors while you are going through eviction proceedings would you willing pay your ex-tenant for his improvements?
Remember BLM did not exist when the Bundy family began grazing on this land.

I don't know when the improvements happened.

But, in your scenario these types of agreements are often written in the lease
and is agreed upon and sometimes done in lieu of rent/lease payments so the
"renter" receives some benefit of the improvement.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jan 5 2016, 05:34 PM Post #12
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
rkl15
Jan 5 2016, 04:35 PM
eelbor
Jan 5 2016, 02:45 PM
rkl15
Jan 5 2016, 02:36 PM
Clive Bundy

This article states the back fees at $300,000.
Granted the article is from 2013.
That is a far cry from over $1 million.

I do think that he has "some" right, or at least compensation from the government for
the improvements he and his family have done to the land.

What is that compensation? I don't know, but an independent judge should make that
call.
The fines are for grazing on land he had no lease on. The lease expired and was not renewed in 1993. He was still grazing his cattle on the land in 2014.

Why should you and I compensate him for improvements he made to land he does not own and had no right to be 'making improvements to? Imagine it like this, a guy rents a house from you and you do not renew his lease and try to throw him out but he refuses to leave. You have to go to court to evict him. If he puts in new oak floors while you are going through eviction proceedings would you willing pay your ex-tenant for his improvements?
Remember BLM did not exist when the Bundy family began grazing on this land.

I don't know when the improvements happened.

But, in your scenario these types of agreements are often written in the lease
and is agreed upon and sometimes done in lieu of rent/lease payments so the
"renter" receives some benefit of the improvement.
BLM was created in 1946. Bundy first applied for and was granted a grazing lease in 1954. He paid and had no issue with it for 39 years. Where is his right, historical or otherwise, to use land that belongs to taxpayers?
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jan 5 2016, 07:46 PM Post #13
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Jan 5 2016, 05:34 PM
rkl15
Jan 5 2016, 04:35 PM
eelbor
Jan 5 2016, 02:45 PM
rkl15
Jan 5 2016, 02:36 PM
Clive Bundy

This article states the back fees at $300,000.
Granted the article is from 2013.
That is a far cry from over $1 million.

I do think that he has "some" right, or at least compensation from the government for
the improvements he and his family have done to the land.

What is that compensation? I don't know, but an independent judge should make that
call.
The fines are for grazing on land he had no lease on. The lease expired and was not renewed in 1993. He was still grazing his cattle on the land in 2014.

Why should you and I compensate him for improvements he made to land he does not own and had no right to be 'making improvements to? Imagine it like this, a guy rents a house from you and you do not renew his lease and try to throw him out but he refuses to leave. You have to go to court to evict him. If he puts in new oak floors while you are going through eviction proceedings would you willing pay your ex-tenant for his improvements?
Remember BLM did not exist when the Bundy family began grazing on this land.

I don't know when the improvements happened.

But, in your scenario these types of agreements are often written in the lease
and is agreed upon and sometimes done in lieu of rent/lease payments so the
"renter" receives some benefit of the improvement.
BLM was created in 1946. Bundy first applied for and was granted a grazing lease in 1954. He paid and had no issue with it for 39 years. Where is his right, historical or otherwise, to use land that belongs to taxpayers?
Well, I assume he is also a taxpayer....but I get your point. None the less, I believe his stance is that the federal government has no right to regulate that land. I don't know that for sure but I think it is based on the original use of the land and how it eventually fell into the ownership of the fed.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jan 5 2016, 08:04 PM Post #14
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Mr Gray
Jan 5 2016, 07:46 PM
eelbor
Jan 5 2016, 05:34 PM
rkl15
Jan 5 2016, 04:35 PM
eelbor
Jan 5 2016, 02:45 PM
rkl15
Jan 5 2016, 02:36 PM
Clive Bundy

This article states the back fees at $300,000.
Granted the article is from 2013.
That is a far cry from over $1 million.

I do think that he has "some" right, or at least compensation from the government for
the improvements he and his family have done to the land.

What is that compensation? I don't know, but an independent judge should make that
call.
The fines are for grazing on land he had no lease on. The lease expired and was not renewed in 1993. He was still grazing his cattle on the land in 2014.

Why should you and I compensate him for improvements he made to land he does not own and had no right to be 'making improvements to? Imagine it like this, a guy rents a house from you and you do not renew his lease and try to throw him out but he refuses to leave. You have to go to court to evict him. If he puts in new oak floors while you are going through eviction proceedings would you willing pay your ex-tenant for his improvements?
Remember BLM did not exist when the Bundy family began grazing on this land.

I don't know when the improvements happened.

But, in your scenario these types of agreements are often written in the lease
and is agreed upon and sometimes done in lieu of rent/lease payments so the
"renter" receives some benefit of the improvement.
BLM was created in 1946. Bundy first applied for and was granted a grazing lease in 1954. He paid and had no issue with it for 39 years. Where is his right, historical or otherwise, to use land that belongs to taxpayers?
Well, I assume he is also a taxpayer....but I get your point. None the less, I believe his stance is that the federal government has no right to regulate that land. I don't know that for sure but I think it is based on the original use of the land and how it eventually fell into the ownership of the fed.
The Mexican American war? I am not sure without looking there was ever private land ownership on the land the dad is squating on, but I think has always been in federal control. Interesting fact though, the combined totals of all other outstanding fines owed by ranchers to the BLM is < 250k. This family in unique.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jan 5 2016, 11:30 PM Post #15
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Jan 4 2016, 07:39 PM
If they were Muslim they would be called terrorists.
Small, efficient government and Libertarian minded folks like myself want to hear the facts before making a judgement on a case like this. We know that the Feds can be over-bearing, and with a guy like Obama in charge, it can even target political enemies, e.g. the IRS targeting conservative groups. Big government State-ists immediately take the side of big-government, and are even more outraged because guns are involved.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:54 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy