What would you say if the federal government was using snipers...

The Indian??? Are you some kind of bigot? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

No, but it is a very rich accusation coming from a racist like you.

The point of the argument was that his treaty predated any organization or rules about controlling grazing land. Without that the government can make any rule at any time and you are stuck with it. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

No, that si NOT the argument. His treaty did not predate ANY organization or rules. The treaty that gave him his land rights was between the federal government and the Indian tribe. And the state/county laws are subordinate to the federal treaty. So the state loses. Do you get it now?

The guy in Nevada is grazing on FEDERAL lands. The federal government can change the rules for grazing ANY TIME IT WANTS. It can terminate grazing rights for everyone if it so chooses.

This asshole does not have any property rights in federal land. His past grazing has been at the pleasure of the federal government.

And you are just making shit up to see what works.

JD arguing legalese ....

now that's funny, I don't care who you are

You lying piece of shit. Have you never heard of Ex post facto. For you I'll make the explanation simple; you can't make a law and hold people's earlier actions illegal because of that new law. This is the same thing but this is the insignificant part of the story. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You are an ignoramus of epic proportions. This isn't a case where ex post facto applies.

The change in the law did not punish him for his PAST grazing.

The new law prohibits him from FUTURE GRAZING. Along with everyone else.

Once again, you are just making shit up to see if anything works.

Wow, with all the other problems the world (and the U.S.) has, all this over a guy in Nevada & his cattle. Every time I get back State side, I just can't help but scratch my head & wonder...

Glad to see you made it back alright Wolf. Yep, sometimes it does make you wonder...

No, but it is a very rich accusation coming from a racist like you.



No, that si NOT the argument. His treaty did not predate ANY organization or rules. The treaty that gave him his land rights was between the federal government and the Indian tribe. And the state/county laws are subordinate to the federal treaty. So the state loses. Do you get it now?

The guy in Nevada is grazing on FEDERAL lands. The federal government can change the rules for grazing ANY TIME IT WANTS. It can terminate grazing rights for everyone if it so chooses.

This asshole does not have any property rights in federal land. His past grazing has been at the pleasure of the federal government.

And you are just making shit up to see what works. Originally Posted by ExNYer

The other word for federal is public. He has been grazing his cattle on public lands. That means they belong to everyone. Any socialist should appreciate that. This is the first time this is going to be mentioned here; why was the land not exactly placed off limits? Because of the desert tortoise. A second here. If the desert tortoise is endangered then why isn't the land off limits completely? It is only partially off limits as long as you pay a fee. It is nothing more than another federal shake down. I can't see how anyone can accept or endorse the ends that the federal government seems to be willing to go for money. That's what it is. The government says that Bundy owes them over a million dollars. It is robbery.

Of course, the mainstream media has finally discovered the story but you guys were all 36 hours ahead of them for reading my thread.

JD is dodging fro cattle to terrapins when the bottom line is none of the other cattlemen have issues with the BLM and get permits to graze there cattle there. Plus the cattlemen's assn isn't touching this issue.

The other word for federal is public. He has been grazing his cattle on public lands. That means they belong to everyone. Any socialist should appreciate that. This is the first time this is going to be mentioned here; why was the land not exactly placed off limits? Because of the desert tortoise. A second here. If the desert tortoise is endangered then why isn't the land off limits completely? It is only partially off limits as long as you pay a fee. It is nothing more than another federal shake down. I can't see how anyone can accept or endorse the ends that the federal government seems to be willing to go for money. That's what it is. The government says that Bundy owes them over a million dollars. It is robbery.

Of course, the mainstream media has finally discovered the story but you guys were all 36 hours ahead of them for reading my thread. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

If the land belongs to everyone, can I go build a house on it? Can I go graze my cattle on it? Can I hold a rock concert there? Your arguments, as usual, are superficial and silly once somebody starts breaking them down. Back to the drawing board Admiral.

The other word for federal is public. He has been grazing his cattle on public lands. That means they belong to everyone. Any socialist should appreciate that. This is the first time this is going to be mentioned here; why was the land not exactly placed off limits? Because of the desert tortoise. A second here. If the desert tortoise is endangered then why isn't the land off limits completely? It is only partially off limits as long as you pay a fee. It is nothing more than another federal shake down. I can't see how anyone can accept or endorse the ends that the federal government seems to be willing to go for money. That's what it is. The government says that Bundy owes them over a million dollars. It is robbery. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

No, ignoramus, federal and public are NOT synonyms.

However, even if they WERE synonyms, that changes NOTHING.

Because the public (ALL of us) can forbid ANY of us - including this asshole rancher - from using public lands - for grazing or any other purpose. That is why we elect governments: to make those calls for us.

And the desert tortoise issue is a red herring. The federal government does not need to justify closing off the lands to grazing. It can close it off to grazing for no reason at all.

And fees will reduce usage - at least compared to free unlimited usage. So, the tortoise will benefit.

IIFFOFRDB
Valued Poster



Join Date: Jun 19, 2011
Location: Dixie Land
Posts: 19,955

Can't believe you're willing to sacrifice 9/11 for this stupid shit.

Well it's on you, LLiarMan.

Fucking narcissistic closet queen.

its disturbing to me, and rightly it should be disturbing to all

the number of government departments that have police power and an armed cadre of enforcers

its not just the FBI, or the secret service, of the ATF, or the Postal Inspectors, or the one section of the IRS called special agents

its the BLM and the Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the parks department and all manner of these bureaucratic gobbledygooks Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I agree. AND imo, WHY Do we need so many departments anyway?
Why doesn't the Bureau of tobacco and Alcohol/firearms come under the FBI anyway> AND WHAT the flip does the Oceanographic admin need with armed troops??
Parks dept though i can understand as i have SEEN Poachers and such SHOOT cops trying to arrest them for breaking the laws..

I agree. AND imo, WHY Do we need so many departments anyway?
Why doesn't the Bureau of tobacco and Alcohol/firearms come under the FBI anyway> AND WHAT the flip does the Oceanographic admin need with armed troops??
Parks dept though i can understand as i have SEEN Poachers and such SHOOT cops trying to arrest them for breaking the laws.. Originally Posted by garhkal

What the FUCK does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

...They were being watched through telescopic sights of snipers (why does the BLM have snipers? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Who said the "snipers" were BLM employees?

The FBI, DOD, ICE/INS, and SS have "snipers"!

In addition .. most, if not all, state and major city LE departments have "snipers" as you are using that term. As I understood the facts, there's nothing wrong with the Feds having "snipers" in the area ... so long as they been sufficient trained to avoid the results of Ruby Ridge.

Another day, another bumphazi fest. It's on you, LLiarMan. ENTIRELY on you.

Notably, we've now got jerkall bumping. He obviously hasn't figured out why he's doing it, but maybe it came to him during one of his "head movies."