quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

Interesting angle on Bundy:

Cliven Bundy's 'better off as slaves' remark about blacks draws fire

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said in comments quoted by the New York Times. He recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.”

He added: “And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-nevada-rancher-bundy-slaves-20140424,0,4670278.story#ixzz2zpP6g8N2

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There is some point to that, but there is also a lease agreement that determines, at least somewhat, the reasoning for the costs of rent. The lease cost for grazing should be kept within the BLM for BLM purposes, too.

Any lease agreement became null and void when Bundy stopped paying the fees. And again, Bundy doesn't get to dictate what is done with the fees whether he agrees with it or not. If he doesn't agree with the fees or what is done with the money, then he has the right to stop paying, but that also means he takes his cattle off of that land. As it is, he's a thief. Period. And those "patriots" that are protecting him are aiding and abetting.

No, not "period."

He absolutely does have the right to stop paying for the lease. IMO (and I've not wavered from this), he also shouldn't be grazing his cattle on the land. In his view, it's State property, and he paid the State. In the State's view, it's BLM property, and they returned his payment. The simple fact that the State returned his payment also strikes me as him not having permission to graze his cattle on the land.


So what exactly is not "period"?

I'm not so sure the militias and other supporters that showed up can be charged with aiding and abetting, though.

A grown man not being sure as to whether the feds can "charge" anyone for assaulting a federal employee while on duty.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There is some point to that, but there is also a lease agreement that determines, at least somewhat, the reasoning for the costs of rent. The lease cost for grazing should be kept within the BLM for BLM purposes, too.

Any lease agreement became null and void when Bundy stopped paying the fees. And again, Bundy doesn't get to dictate what is done with the fees whether he agrees with it or not. If he doesn't agree with the fees or what is done with the money, then he has the right to stop paying, but that also means he takes his cattle off of that land. As it is, he's a thief. Period. And those "patriots" that are protecting him are aiding and abetting.

No, not "period."
He absolutely does have the right to stop paying for the lease. IMO (and I've not wavered from this), he also shouldn't be grazing his cattle on the land. In his view, it's State property, and he paid the State. In the State's view, it's BLM property, and they returned his payment. The simple fact that the State returned his payment also strikes me as him not having permission to graze his cattle on the land.

He has never paid the state a dime. If he was paying the state this would be a big boon for both Nevada and the BLM since Nevada charges roughly 10 times as much per head of cattle as the BLM does.

http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2014/04/13/mgk-range-war-blm-withdraws-clark-county-cattle-released-stgnews-photo-gallery/

quote:

Cliven Bundy did attempt to pay his fees to Clark County, the entity he saw as the right administrator of the Gold Butte area, said Ryan Bundy, one of Cliven Bundy’s sons. The county ultimately refused to accept his payments...

The county is not the state and there is no indication of what he tried to pay the county. Like I wrote if he tried to pay the state it would be a massive winfall since the state charges over $10 a head per month rather than $1.35 a month.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The BLM should at least cover it's own expenses. It does not.
The BLM is supposed to manage the land it holds in trust for the American people. Ideally that management should allow the ranchers to use the land but not degrade it and not cost the other citizens a penny. How it actually works is we subsidize very wealthy ranchers.

The BLM is supposed to manage the land for the American people. We completely agree on that. Allowing ranchers grazing rights should bring in revenues. But, should those revenues account for all the costs of the BLM, or just the costs those ranchers grazing their cattle cause the BLM? I'm not arguing that the BLM shouldn't collect revenues, but that those revenues should be the only thing supporting the agency. Does the BLM hold any property that doesn't allow grazing, or have any other leases available, but is still being kept up? Should ranchers be the only ones paying for the BLM?

You really don't understand the BLM or what is going on in this case.
The BLM gets grazing fees and fees from loggers and miners (anyone extracting anything from BLM land). However the fees are set by a schedule setup in the 1960's and it doesn't come anywhere near covering the costs of those activities to the US government.
The BLM grazing fee is always right around $1.50 per head of cattle per month while on private land it is usually $20 per month or even much higher.
http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/rewild/commentary/2014-public-land-grazing-fee-the-same-as-2013-and-2012-and-2011.html
So like I said we subsidize these very wealthy ranchers and do not believe the lies spewed by the right wing lie machine about Cliven Bundy.

You really don't have a fucking clue what I'm saying. We really aren't disagreeing on much here at all, and yet, you seem to think that we do.

I don't know what the "right wing lie machine" is saying about Bundy. I think Bundy was in the wrong, in case you missed what I wrote. What are the costs to the Federal Government in allowing ranchers to graze cattle?

So, beyond anything else, you can blow the "right wing lie machine" horseshit out your ass.

quote:

I saw this blowing up the news feeds today, DC, and I'm curious about something. The guy holds ignorant and offensive views on a subject totally unrelated to land use regulations.

So what? Does finding a way to apply some personal destruction to him effectively negate the entire question of land use regulation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

Interesting angle on Bundy:

Cliven Bundy's 'better off as slaves' remark about blacks draws fire

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said in comments quoted by the New York Times. He recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.”

He added: “And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-nevada-rancher-bundy-slaves-20140424,0,4670278.story#ixzz2zpP6g8N2

I saw this blowing up the news feeds today, DC, and I'm curious about something. The guy holds ignorant and offensive views on a subject totally unrelated to land use regulations.

So what? Does finding a way to apply some personal destruction to him effectively negate the entire question of land use regulation?

If the NYT hadn't gotten him to reveal something stupid and ugly in his views on racial matters, would they be screaming about his views on gay marriage instead? Maybe calling him a climate change denier if he had dodged those probes?

What does this have to do with the topic, or are liberals so afraid of the topic that they need to change it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The county is not the state and there is no indication of what he tried to pay the county. Like I wrote if he tried to pay the state it would be a massive winfall since the state charges over $10 a head per month rather than $1.35 a month.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The BLM should at least cover it's own expenses. It does not.
The BLM is supposed to manage the land it holds in trust for the American people. Ideally that management should allow the ranchers to use the land but not degrade it and not cost the other citizens a penny. How it actually works is we subsidize very wealthy ranchers.

The BLM is supposed to manage the land for the American people. We completely agree on that. Allowing ranchers grazing rights should bring in revenues. But, should those revenues account for all the costs of the BLM, or just the costs those ranchers grazing their cattle cause the BLM? I'm not arguing that the BLM shouldn't collect revenues, but that those revenues should be the only thing supporting the agency. Does the BLM hold any property that doesn't allow grazing, or have any other leases available, but is still being kept up? Should ranchers be the only ones paying for the BLM?

You really don't understand the BLM or what is going on in this case.
The BLM gets grazing fees and fees from loggers and miners (anyone extracting anything from BLM land). However the fees are set by a schedule setup in the 1960's and it doesn't come anywhere near covering the costs of those activities to the US government.
The BLM grazing fee is always right around $1.50 per head of cattle per month while on private land it is usually $20 per month or even much higher.
http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/rewild/commentary/2014-public-land-grazing-fee-the-same-as-2013-and-2012-and-2011.html
So like I said we subsidize these very wealthy ranchers and do not believe the lies spewed by the right wing lie machine about Cliven Bundy.

You really don't have a fucking clue what I'm saying. We really aren't disagreeing on much here at all, and yet, you seem to think that we do.
I don't know what the "right wing lie machine" is saying about Bundy. I think Bundy was in the wrong, in case you missed what I wrote. What are the costs to the Federal Government in allowing ranchers to graze cattle?
So, beyond anything else, you can blow the "right wing lie machine" horseshit out your ass.

The federal government has to fix the damage the cattle do. They are not native to those areas. They over graze and cause significant erosion. The feds also have to actually maintain fence lines and the like. It costs a lot of money. BLM operates at a very significant loss. If you remember back in the 90's Clinton proposed reforming these fees to reflect the actual costs of grazing cattle on the land and it caused a huge controversy and he gave up the idea. The fees haven't gone up since then but 20 years of inflation have made the fees even more insignificant.
And yes, you clearly have been getting lies from the right wing crap that claims that BLM is doing things with grazing fees besides maintaining the land. If you knew even a tiny bit about the situation that question would never have even been asked. You can whine all you want but that is a simple fact.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The county is not the state and there is no indication of what he tried to pay the county. Like I wrote if he tried to pay the state it would be a massive winfall since the state charges over $10 a head per month rather than $1.35 a month.

omg...

Okay, Ken. Ya got me. It wasn't the State. It was the County. Sorry 'bout that.

The point was that he did attempt to pay who he thought was the rightful owner of the property, but that entity didn't accept payment. Why didn't that entity accept payment? That entity was working under the assumption (correct, I might add) that the rightful owner of the land was the BLM.

quote:

I haven't gotten any information from the "right wing lie machine." There's your fuck up.

All you can do is disagree with me, even when we agree. Did I say that BLM's grazing fees were too high? Did I say they were high enough? Nope. I didn't say anything in support or in opposition to the BLM fees. I have no problem with the BLM charging fees that reflect the actual costs they incur for what they are allowing (so as to not limit that statement to grazing). But, I don't believe the BLM doesn't have property it takes care of that isn't damaged by leased rights operations. That is, I'd be surprised if there wasn't any property that they don't lease out for anything. That property is still under the same upkeep requirement, and shouldn't be funded solely by fees, but by subsidization by the general taxpayer.

All you did was assume that I thought fees were high enough or too high, and that the general taxpayer should shoulder more or all of the burden.

Do you have proof that they are overgrazing the lands? Isn't the whole point of land use fees to prevent overgrazing? Your claim about Clinton shows that he thought something else was more important than charging fees that accurately (or more accurately, whichever the case may be) reflect the costs BLM incurred. I wonder what that could have been....

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The county is not the state and there is no indication of what he tried to pay the county. Like I wrote if he tried to pay the state it would be a massive winfall since the state charges over $10 a head per month rather than $1.35 a month.

omg...
Okay, Ken. Ya got me. It wasn't the State. It was the County. Sorry 'bout that.
The point was that he did attempt to pay who he thought was the rightful owner of the property, but that entity didn't accept payment. Why didn't that entity accept payment? That entity was working under the assumption (correct, I might add) that the rightful owner of the land was the BLM.

Clark County didn't accept payment because they don't own any land they lease for grazing so they have no setup for charging anyone for it. Convenient how he picked an entity that doesn't do what he thinks it should do. Bet he picked a number to pay as well.

quote:

I haven't gotten any information from the "right wing lie machine." There's your fuck up.
All you can do is disagree with me, even when we agree. Did I say that BLM's grazing fees were too high? Did I say they were high enough? Nope. I didn't say anything in support or in opposition to the BLM fees. I have no problem with the BLM charging fees that reflect the actual costs they incur for what they are allowing (so as to not limit that statement to grazing). But, I don't believe the BLM doesn't have property it takes care of that isn't damaged by leased rights operations. That is, I'd be surprised if there wasn't any property that they don't lease out for anything. That property is still under the same upkeep requirement, and shouldn't be funded solely by fees, but by subsidization by the general taxpayer.
All you did was assume that I thought fees were high enough or too high, and that the general taxpayer should shoulder more or all of the burden.
Do you have proof that they are overgrazing the lands? Isn't the whole point of land use fees to prevent overgrazing? Your claim about Clinton shows that he thought something else was more important than charging fees that accurately (or more accurately, whichever the case may be) reflect the costs BLM incurred. I wonder what that could have been....

quote:

As to cattle overgrazing, it's a frigging desert do you think the cows find enough forage like they would in some high grass pasture?

quote:

Yes, BLM has land it does not lease to anyone, it's trying to close the Bunkerville lease Bundy is using. But they do not divert grazing and other land use fees to do anything. Those fees fall far short of paying for the costs associated with allowing the uses they allow. That is a fact you can easily verify.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-869
In 2004 it was $21 million income versus $144 million in expenses.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I don't really care about Bundy.

Then why are you posting here?

I suspect he is just another person guilty of some minute infraction


Yes he ripped the taxpayers off for more than a million dollars...maybe that is a minute infraction to you but to many it seems a lot.

and about to be ground into some very fine dust.

One can only hope so

I object to a state that has the power to do so.

You object to the government of the people,by the people, and for the people exercising it's constitutional powers?...what the fuck are you doing in my country?

Are BLM fees being used to subsidize non BLM projects. Probably.

This would be a mindnumbingly stupid opinion...thanks for sharing.


Can bundy's refusal to pay be considered as civil disobedience. Probably.

If one were to actually read what is going on one would know that he can be charged with more than civil disobedience.

DomKen and others - regardless that you think everyone should just kowtow to the left's point of view

How do you get that following the law means "to kowtow to the left's point of view...is it your opinion that the constitution is a left wing conspiracy?


- Bundy is just a sympton.

No bundy is just a common criminal...a thief.

You wouldn't have a thousand people showing up to protest

A thousand people...cite please


unless this act of civil insurrection didn't strike a chord.

Make up your mind is it civil disobedience or civil insurrection? Most people with a three digit iq would not agree that the two are the same.

(in reply to Phydeaux)

quote:

ORIGINAL:
Make up your mind is it civil disobedience or civil insurrection? Most people with a three digit iq would not agree that the two are the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL:
Make up your mind is it civil disobedience or civil insurrection? Most people with a three digit iq would not agree that the two are the same.

And most people with an iq that registered would note that I didn't equate the two.
Hence your failure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL:
Make up your mind is it civil disobedience or civil insurrection? Most people with a three digit iq would not agree that the two are the same.

And most people with an iq that registered would note that I didn't equate the two.
Hence your failure.

Yes you did. Don't you even read the moronic shit you post?
Can bundy's refusal to pay be considered as civil disobedience. Probably.

Dom You wouldn't have a thousand people showing up to protest unless this act of civil insurrection didn't strike a chord.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

What claims have I made that were inaccurate?

quote:

quote:

As to cattle overgrazing, it's a frigging desert do you think the cows find enough forage like they would in some high grass pasture?

So, no, you have no actual proof. You only have anecdotal evidence. Thanks for showing your hand.

quote:

quote:

Yes, BLM has land it does not lease to anyone, it's trying to close the Bunkerville lease Bundy is using. But they do not divert grazing and other land use fees to do anything. Those fees fall far short of paying for the costs associated with allowing the uses they allow. That is a fact you can easily verify.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-869
In 2004 it was $21 million income versus $144 million in expenses.

So, once again, you decide to argue with me over something we probably agree on. That's just fucking, um... I'll just say "brilliant" and leave it at that.