Accusations and the facts.

Accusations and the facts. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

jlf1961 -> Accusations and the facts. (4/20/2014 6:19:33 PM)
Accusation: quote: There are other questions raised about Reid’s involvement. Why did this assault become the #1 priority of government only days after a senior political advisor to Nevada Senator Harry Reid took over BLM? Coincidence? Why is US Senator Harry Reid so concerned with a local Nevada rancher? Fact: quote: Another project comes close. But not that close: Bundy’s home in the Mojave desert is closer to the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone, a corridor that has been slated for renewable energy development. The BLM is planning a mitigation strategy that may stretch toward the area where Bundy has been grazing his cows. But even there, the maps don’t match up closely enough to suggest that Bundy’s specific grazing land was the intended site of a solar facility. Also, the Chinese company ENN had not been planning a facility in the Dry Lake area. The timelines don’t line up: Bundy’s battle with the BLM started in 1993 when he stopped paying his grazing fees, 18 years before anyone talked about putting Chinese money into the Nevada desert for renewable energy. Talk about the Chinese solar project started in 2011 and ended in 2013. And the Bundy-BLM confrontation came this month, long after the solar project died. More on Kornze: It’s not exactly true that this was the first move of Reid’s former aide as BLM director. The roundup started April 5, and Kornze wasn’t confirmed by the Senate as BLM director until April 8. Facts that disprove conspiracy theory about Harry Reid, Cliven Bundy and solar power So, anyone want to explain why this is a Obama administration move to take the ranch, assassinate and otherwise make Bundy disappear?

BamaD -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/20/2014 6:30:07 PM)
FR Why after 18 years did they decide it was such a big deal that it justified sending an armed strike force?

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/20/2014 7:15:03 PM)
Well if you mean a few dozen (hundred?) BLM people to go out there and round up cattle - who would pack heat for common sense protection against snakes, coyotes, etc - over an area as large as some states, then, yes, it seems reasonable. Then again - seeing that these people who were duly sworn public officers upholding the law of the land were met by (according to reports) as many as a thousand armed militia types, then, yes, I'd say sending in armed reinforcements is justified. In this case, about a brigade with APCs and attack helicopters. What you right wingnuts carefully forget is that they were faced with an armed uprising - treason by force of arms. There is a point where descent does become treason. Frankly I don't see how Obama can do any less than send in the army and still maintain the sovereignty of the federal government. [sm=blasted.gif]

SadistDave -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/21/2014 12:11:35 AM)
Frankly, the bullshit about this being an operation of sworn officers upholding the law doesn't hold water. Real law enforcement would have been able to deal with something as simple as cows grazing on public land without a permit. Only a politician could have planned that debacle, and Reid seems to be the only person who is upset about it. He clearly had reasons for being upset about it, but I refuse to speculate on what his involvement might be until something more concrete developes. However, I will speculate on why he might be upset about the whole thing if he is not involved... If this operation does go all the way to Holder or Obama, it may very well turn out that Reid is simply trying to divert attention away from the administration. With Holder embattled with the GOP, the last thing Obama wants is for people to associate this with Janet Reno, Bill Clinton and Waco. That was a P.R. disaster for Clinton, but at least he managed to get the job done without his goons having to retreat and return confiscated property. The association would be bad enough, but yet another Obama failure being yet another P.R. disaster would be even worse considering how many people already percieve him to be a highly ineffectual military leader. -SD-

DesideriScuri -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/21/2014 1:57:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR Why after 18 years did they decide it was such a big deal that it justified sending an armed strike force? From what I've read, the "armed strike force" wasn't sent out until there were specific threats of violence and/or acts of violence against the BLM officials or their government property (ie. vehicles).

DomKen -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/21/2014 2:45:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave Frankly, the bullshit about this being an operation of sworn officers upholding the law doesn't hold water. Real law enforcement would have been able to deal with something as simple as cows grazing on public land without a permit. Only a politician could have planned that debacle, and Reid seems to be the only person who is upset about it. He clearly had reasons for being upset about it, but I refuse to speculate on what his involvement might be until something more concrete developes. However, I will speculate on why he might be upset about the whole thing if he is not involved... If this operation does go all the way to Holder or Obama, it may very well turn out that Reid is simply trying to divert attention away from the administration. With Holder embattled with the GOP, the last thing Obama wants is for people to associate this with Janet Reno, Bill Clinton and Waco. That was a P.R. disaster for Clinton, but at least he managed to get the job done without his goons having to retreat and return confiscated property. The association would be bad enough, but yet another Obama failure being yet another P.R. disaster would be even worse considering how many people already percieve him to be a highly ineffectual military leader. -SD- Bullshit. This asshole rancher has been sticking guns in the faces of BLM employees for 20 years. He's lost 2 courts cases and the judge in 2013 made it clear that he was going to issue an order to have the cattle rounded up. He did and BLM started doing so as soon as they got the order. The lack of information and amount of made up nonsense the right wing has on this is frightening.

SadistDave -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/21/2014 3:24:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave Frankly, the bullshit about this being an operation of sworn officers upholding the law doesn't hold water. Real law enforcement would have been able to deal with something as simple as cows grazing on public land without a permit. Only a politician could have planned that debacle, and Reid seems to be the only person who is upset about it. He clearly had reasons for being upset about it, but I refuse to speculate on what his involvement might be until something more concrete developes. However, I will speculate on why he might be upset about the whole thing if he is not involved... If this operation does go all the way to Holder or Obama, it may very well turn out that Reid is simply trying to divert attention away from the administration. With Holder embattled with the GOP, the last thing Obama wants is for people to associate this with Janet Reno, Bill Clinton and Waco. That was a P.R. disaster for Clinton, but at least he managed to get the job done without his goons having to retreat and return confiscated property. The association would be bad enough, but yet another Obama failure being yet another P.R. disaster would be even worse considering how many people already percieve him to be a highly ineffectual military leader. -SD- Bullshit. This asshole rancher has been sticking guns in the faces of BLM employees for 20 years. He's lost 2 courts cases and the judge in 2013 made it clear that he was going to issue an order to have the cattle rounded up. He did and BLM started doing so as soon as they got the order. The lack of information and amount of made up nonsense the right wing has on this is frightening. And yet mysteriously, they not only retreated from doing their alleged lawful duty because they were just helpless to enforce the law, but they also gave back the confiscated cattle even though they had an alleged legal right to confiscate it??? As I said, REAL law enforcement officers acting in the legal course of their administering their duties do not act like that. The level of denial by the left is staggering. -SD-

Tkman117 -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/21/2014 6:27:08 AM)
When you have thousands of dissenting protestors threatening to use guns against you and your vastly outnumbered colleagues, why wouldn't you stop enforcing the law? A couple cows isn't worth your life, they were scared and concerned and of course they backed down. They weren't ready and willing to fight a war like those who supported Bundy. Yes they had a job to do and a law to uphold, but I think I any of us were in their shoes, we would have done the same thing. Use some critical thinking for once ań think these situations through before trying to take a stupid jab at the left. These officers are human beings too with families and lives on their own, not super soldiers capable of fighting off thousands of protestors while herding cattle.

joether -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/21/2014 7:21:11 AM)
Regardless of recent history, this Bundy character will get dragged back into court, and for a third time, be told he has to follow the rules of society like everyone else. He'll either cough up the million or so in fees he owes the government; or his cattle will be taken. He is the criminal in this case. Anyone stepping in to use force against the US Government to defend this obviously deluded individual, are likewise, criminal. There is a time and place to protest the actions of the US Government. It is NOT while holding a firearm and/or directly threating the US Government and its employees. Curious none of these supporters of Bundy have offered to help him pay these fees to the government.... The government will get the fees, its just a matter of time and process. The guy is guilty of wrong doing. Those that take up arms against the US Government come dangerously close to being labeled traitors. Not only that, but swing many more moderate people from 'sitting on the fence' to 'siding with the Gun Controllers' in the 2nd amendment debate. Since those pseudo-militias are not REAL militias under the 2nd.

Zonie63 -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/21/2014 10:27:22 AM)
I've only been following this story on a superficial level, but there are some things that I'm not sure about. From what I've read, this family had been grazing cattle on federal land for over a century, apparently without any problem, but then, it became a problem at some point about 20 years ago. But it's only been recently that there's been actual force used and threats of violence? Apart from the use of guns and threats and other potentially "seditious" activity, just how severe of a violation is it for someone to graze their cattle on federal land? Is it one of those things where "everybody" does it and the government just treats it with a slap on the wrist (or might use it to single someone out for selective enforcement)? Is it something akin to a speeding ticket or someone smoking pot? I understand it's against the law, but I'm just not clear on the magnitude or the severity of such a violation.

DomKen -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/21/2014 12:57:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave Frankly, the bullshit about this being an operation of sworn officers upholding the law doesn't hold water. Real law enforcement would have been able to deal with something as simple as cows grazing on public land without a permit. Only a politician could have planned that debacle, and Reid seems to be the only person who is upset about it. He clearly had reasons for being upset about it, but I refuse to speculate on what his involvement might be until something more concrete developes. However, I will speculate on why he might be upset about the whole thing if he is not involved... If this operation does go all the way to Holder or Obama, it may very well turn out that Reid is simply trying to divert attention away from the administration. With Holder embattled with the GOP, the last thing Obama wants is for people to associate this with Janet Reno, Bill Clinton and Waco. That was a P.R. disaster for Clinton, but at least he managed to get the job done without his goons having to retreat and return confiscated property. The association would be bad enough, but yet another Obama failure being yet another P.R. disaster would be even worse considering how many people already percieve him to be a highly ineffectual military leader. -SD- Bullshit. This asshole rancher has been sticking guns in the faces of BLM employees for 20 years. He's lost 2 courts cases and the judge in 2013 made it clear that he was going to issue an order to have the cattle rounded up. He did and BLM started doing so as soon as they got the order. The lack of information and amount of made up nonsense the right wing has on this is frightening. And yet mysteriously, they not only retreated from doing their alleged lawful duty because they were just helpless to enforce the law, but they also gave back the confiscated cattle even though they had an alleged legal right to confiscate it??? As I said, REAL law enforcement officers acting in the legal course of their administering their duties do not act like that. The level of denial by the left is staggering. -SD- Would you rather people got hurt over some cows? Really?

DomKen -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/21/2014 1:03:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I've only been following this story on a superficial level, but there are some things that I'm not sure about. From what I've read, this family had been grazing cattle on federal land for over a century, apparently without any problem, but then, it became a problem at some point about 20 years ago. But it's only been recently that there's been actual force used and threats of violence? Apart from the use of guns and threats and other potentially "seditious" activity, just how severe of a violation is it for someone to graze their cattle on federal land? Is it one of those things where "everybody" does it and the government just treats it with a slap on the wrist (or might use it to single someone out for selective enforcement)? Is it something akin to a speeding ticket or someone smoking pot? I understand it's against the law, but I'm just not clear on the magnitude or the severity of such a violation. There is a fee and a license to graze on BLM land. In 1993 Bundy stopped paying the fee and getting the license. So BLM took him to court and he was ordered to pay the back fees, fines and to otherwise obey the rules. He refused. There was apparently some back and forth and he wound up back in court for the same thing in 2013 and that is when the judge ordered that he pay up or his cattle would be confiscated to pay the fees.

eulero83 -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/21/2014 1:11:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I've only been following this story on a superficial level, but there are some things that I'm not sure about. From what I've read, this family had been grazing cattle on federal land for over a century, apparently without any problem, but then, it became a problem at some point about 20 years ago. But it's only been recently that there's been actual force used and threats of violence? Apart from the use of guns and threats and other potentially "seditious" activity, just how severe of a violation is it for someone to graze their cattle on federal land? Is it one of those things where "everybody" does it and the government just treats it with a slap on the wrist (or might use it to single someone out for selective enforcement)? Is it something akin to a speeding ticket or someone smoking pot? I understand it's against the law, but I'm just not clear on the magnitude or the severity of such a violation. The problem is 20 years ago the governament imposed a fee to graze the cattle on federal land for enviroment preservation reasons, all other farmers in the area paid he never did, He's been discevered and fined, he challenged the fine but lost twice, for what I read the last judge ordered he had to free the land within 45 days or pay the fine, if he could not pay they would have distrained the cattle to cover it. He didn't move the cattle before the deadline, nor paid the fine.

igor2003 -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/21/2014 2:42:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I've only been following this story on a superficial level, but there are some things that I'm not sure about. From what I've read, this family had been grazing cattle on federal land for over a century, apparently without any problem, but then, it became a problem at some point about 20 years ago. But it's only been recently that there's been actual force used and threats of violence? Apart from the use of guns and threats and other potentially "seditious" activity, just how severe of a violation is it for someone to graze their cattle on federal land? Is it one of those things where "everybody" does it and the government just treats it with a slap on the wrist (or might use it to single someone out for selective enforcement)? Is it something akin to a speeding ticket or someone smoking pot? I understand it's against the law, but I'm just not clear on the magnitude or the severity of such a violation. The Bundy family had been grazing cattle on that publicly owned land for over a hundred years, but they had always bought the rights to do so by paying the necessary fees. The fees are paid at a certain amount per head of cattle. This helps to regulate the number of cattle to prevent over grazing, which causes soil erosion and can have an adverse effect on the plant and wildlife in the area. Here is a link to a letter Bundy's daughter wrote in which she explains (or makes excuses for, depending on your point of view) her father's actions. http://viralsurvival.com/2014/04/15/cliven-bundys-daughter-shiree-bundy-cox-explains-why-the-blm-came-for-her-father/ Apparently, Bundy felt that the BLM should use the fees paid for grazing his cattle only for improvements to the land upon which his cattle were grazing. When they stopped using the fees the way Bundy thought they should be used, he stopped paying, but kept grazing his cattle on public land. I couldn't help but laugh when she said her father "fired" the BLM and refused to pay any more fees to them. Anyway, you can determine for yourself as to whether the family's actions made sense or not, and whether they were legal or not.

eulero83 -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/21/2014 3:34:09 PM)
so for this lady everyone should stop paying any tax if they do not agree with how they are spent or just her family has this option?

DomKen -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/21/2014 8:30:52 PM)
So Bundy doesn't actually have ancestral rights to the land. http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ancestral-rights-come-under-scrutiny

igor2003 -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/21/2014 9:38:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 so for this lady everyone should stop paying any tax if they do not agree with how they are spent or just her family has this option? It wasn't a tax. It was a fee paid in order to use the land to graze his cattle. Basically, he was renting the land. 20 years ago he stopped paying for the rent, but kept using the land anyway.

eulero83 -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/22/2014 3:51:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 so for this lady everyone should stop paying any tax if they do not agree with how they are spent or just her family has this option? It wasn't a tax. It was a fee paid in order to use the land to graze his cattle. Basically, he was renting the land. 20 years ago he stopped paying for the rent, but kept using the land anyway. ok sorry I missused the word, I meant fee, in italian we call "tassa" a fee and "imposta" a tax, anyhow it was money due to the pubblic administration, could be a tax a fee or a fine makes no difference, also the cattle once distrained to pay his debts was no more his. What I don't understand is how taking back the distrained cattle with threat of guns was not armed robbery.

jlf1961 -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/22/2014 5:38:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So Bundy doesn't actually have ancestral rights to the land. http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ancestral-rights-come-under-scrutiny So what these articles imply is that the Bundy family was not in the area prior to the 1940's with the exception of his mothers family who showed up int eh early 1900's? But that means this "American Hero" and "Oppressed Land Owner" who has been "unfairly victimized" by the "evil, secrete Muslim, Kenyan born, illegal" President and his administration has not been telling the truth? How can this be? He is an American Conservative Farmer/rancher who believes there is no authority over the county and he has all this support from these right wing ultra conservative "we dont trust anyone" militias. Nope, this new information was manufactured by the Obama Administration and the BLM and inserted into the county records as well as the gemological data base to make him look bad. It had to be the same team that in 1961 falsified the newspaper reports in Hawaii that announced Obama's birth and created the fake birth certificate and put it in the Hawaii Department of Health's files before Obama's mom and dad brought him from Kenya. That is the only logical explanation.

Zonie63 -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/22/2014 6:39:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 The Bundy family had been grazing cattle on that publicly owned land for over a hundred years, but they had always bought the rights to do so by paying the necessary fees. The fees are paid at a certain amount per head of cattle. This helps to regulate the number of cattle to prevent over grazing, which causes soil erosion and can have an adverse effect on the plant and wildlife in the area. Here is a link to a letter Bundy's daughter wrote in which she explains (or makes excuses for, depending on your point of view) her father's actions. http://viralsurvival.com/2014/04/15/cliven-bundys-daughter-shiree-bundy-cox-explains-why-the-blm-came-for-her-father/ Apparently, Bundy felt that the BLM should use the fees paid for grazing his cattle only for improvements to the land upon which his cattle were grazing. When they stopped using the fees the way Bundy thought they should be used, he stopped paying, but kept grazing his cattle on public land. I couldn't help but laugh when she said her father "fired" the BLM and refused to pay any more fees to them. Anyway, you can determine for yourself as to whether the family's actions made sense or not, and whether they were legal or not. I get the fact that they violated the law by not paying the fee, but what I'm not sure about is how severe of a violation it actually is. Is it like a minor infraction or is it a super huge deal? Basically, what I get from the daughter's letter is that Bundy stopped paying the fees as a form of protest and civil disobedience. She wrote that the fees were originally intended to help the cattle ranchers, but now she's saying that the government switched gears and started using the fees against the cattle ranchers to buy them out (for reasons which were never really explained). But even civil disobedience has its own consequences which should not have been any shock or surprise to him. (I wonder what Ben Cartwright would have done?) Her letter seems to insinuate that the government wanted to drive the cattle ranchers out of business. But why would the government want to drive cattle ranchers out of business? The price of beef is going up lately for a variety of reasons, although I'm not sure if this incident will have any effect. Do these grazing fees present a genuine hardship to the ranchers? The letter seems to allege that the fees were designed to drive Bundy and other cattle ranchers out of business, but if that was the case, wouldn't they have been able to prove it in court? The bigger issue facing Nevada and other western states is the diminishing supply of water. I was just reading an article yesterday about Las Vegas and its primary source of water, Lake Mead, which is drying up. Overall, some hard decisions will have to be made about water usage and what kinds of industries and population sizes we can truly support in this part of the country. I don't know if the issue is really that we have too many cows. It may be that we have too many people.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.711914E-02