Rancher versus Feds Standoff - Page 10 - Forums at Modded Mustangs
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #181 of 223 Old April 27th, 2014, 10:49 AM
Made in U.S.A.
 
Nasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 22,435
                     
iTrader: 12 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by EFoxwell View Post
Interesting. I wonder why the Google cache was ever pulled than. I've tried to find the original BLM page when this came about and it's not there. Maybe it's something else on that page that they pulled it.
Nasty is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 223 Old April 27th, 2014, 12:22 PM Thread Starter
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,027
           
iTrader: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by EFoxwell View Post
There you go, pointing more fingers and grouping anyone who disagrees with you into the "race baiter" group. Grow up. Last I checked, the man is a racist, and nobody made him that way. Last I checked, I reiterated multiple times that this is irrelevant to the BLM argument. And last I checked, you had yet another point fly over your head.
I stand by what I said. It is a patented move for the left-wing. People on the left USE RACISIM. You know it's true. Just like now. You people treat that video like "ahhhhh, we found racism" and you're all happy and laughing about it. It doesn't take 5 seconds to dig up similar and worse racist comments from democrats on the left.

Your comments on the whole issue point to that mindset. But you keep trying this whole angle of about being irrelevant to the BLM argument, but it is the mere fact it was introduced in this thread as a distraction and to discredit any opposition to the abuse and overreach of power at the BLM. TLee dropped the video in here, but you've been all over it post after post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EFoxwell View Post
I think the big difference between what you seem to have conjured up and reality is that the humor I find in this stems from his media depiction as a noble man fighting the good fight against a tyranical government, not that I find his opinions humorous. If you weren't so damn butt hurt over the situation, I think you'd see that. Perhaps if the right wing media hadn't centered this so hard on a figure head, they wouldn't have this problem. You reap what you sow in life, John.
I assure you, I'm not butthurt.

That two parts above are the issue you keep missing. We, not the media, have been focused on the BLM's overreach and abuse of it's powers. You keep clinging to his plight personally along with the medias depiction and hype from both sides, and the racism in the video for your personal enjoyment and arguments.

Folks in this thread tried to point it out to you and TLee, we're focused on the issues we see as dangerous at the BLM. The abuse and overreach of federal powers, etc., during this armed showdown the Feds had and thought they could get away with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EFoxwell View Post

Let's just give the land back the the righful owners and call it a day.

I'm talking about the Native Americans, not Bundy.

Let me make a tally of irrelevant/misleading news lines and we'll determine whether it is of liberal or conservative agenda.

Bundy is a racist- While this one is true, it isn't relevant and obviously, the liberal media is loving it.
Harry Reid wants this land for personal gain- This story was debunked. Score one for conservative media outlets
The link between Bundy Ranch and beef price rise- Do I even need to address this? One point to Conservatives.
The 1 million owed number is made up- Actually, it was 1.1 Million, and that is the court ordered sum, not made up liberal bias. Score another to conservatism.

Just look at the ark of this discussion and how much you guys have caved from initial remarks all because one member on here actually looked into the facts versus wading through the bullshit like quite a few seemed to be content with.
We haven't caved. We're trying to get you to stop arguing about the things you claim to be irrelevant, and focus on the issue here.

Not conservative and liberal media narratives of the whole thing.

Not racism.

Not the tired old argument the left came up with long ago about giving the land back to the Indians and Mexicans. If we follow that logic, the people of this earth would have to walk in circles trying to find who's land is rightfully theirs because some ancient war was won and land was seized. Where do the Indians that mixed with whites go? Where do mixed white and Mexicans go? Do we hold criminals families guilty 200 years after they've done a crime? I've took nothing from anyone, I never owned a slave, I've worked and paid taxes for what I have. Get my drift? That whole argument you made here is INGNORANT as hell! It's just more distractions you people have picked up from the left-wing media and it distracts from the real problem, which should be an American issue, not a partisan political issue.

Are you going to continue to be closed off and go in circles over the distractions? Did you read the Tenth Amendment article I posted about federal land and the constitutional research on their power? I bet not. All I seen you responding to is the BS.

2010 CGM Camaro 2SS RS 6L90
Stage II ProCharger D1X
760rwhp @ 14 PSI

JohnC is offline  
post #183 of 223 Old April 27th, 2014, 12:23 PM
I Post Entirely Way Too Much
 
Novanutcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 6,065
               
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
Lolzzzzz

Snopes got discredited years ago for having some very wrong "facts."

I'll look it up later for you. :


Sent from AutoGuide.com App
As usual, because it doesn't agree with your conspiracy theory it's bullshit!

Nothing new here folks! Just move along!

John

SOLD - '03 GT, Max Moto Max Grip Box, Wilwood SL 6 front/DL4 rear Big Brake Kit, Corbeau Seats, MGW Short Shifter, MAC Long Tube Headers/Prochamber mid/ Flowmaster 40, FRPP 4.10, TrickFlow Diff Cover/75mm TB/Plenum, Eaton Posi, Moser 31 spl Axles
Novanutcase is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #184 of 223 Old April 27th, 2014, 12:51 PM Thread Starter
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,027
           
iTrader: 1 reviews
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Novanutcase View Post
As usual, because it doesn't agree with your conspiracy theory it's bullshit!

Nothing new here folks! Just move along!

John
Where is my conspiracy theory bullshit? Point it out in here.

Here is your fact checkers in the flesh...



There were more than one Snopes fact checks over the years that were totally and completely discredited because the evidence pointed to the contrary.

I use to fact check on Snopes, too, until those mistakes were pointed out.

The bottom line is you have to check that shit out yourself. They're not always right.

2010 CGM Camaro 2SS RS 6L90
Stage II ProCharger D1X
760rwhp @ 14 PSI

JohnC is offline  
post #185 of 223 Old April 27th, 2014, 12:54 PM
I Post Entirely Way Too Much
 
T-Lee. 30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Alabama
Posts: 11,155
                 
iTrader: 0 reviews
Send a message via Yahoo to T-Lee. 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
I stand by what I said. It is a patented move for the left-wing.

Your comments on the whole issue point to that mindset. But you keep trying this whole angle of about being irrelevant to the BLM argument, but it is the mere fact it was introduced in this thread as a distraction and to discredit any opposition to the abuse and overreach of power at the BLM. TLee dropped the video in here, but you've been all over it post after post.


Folks in this thread tried to point it out to you and TLee, we're focused on the issues we see as dangerous at the BLM. The abuse and overreach of federal powers, etc.,



We haven't caved. We're trying to get you to stop arguing about the things you claim to be irrelevant, and focus on the issue here.


Not racism.
Did you read what I said in post #164? It wasn't my intention to link that video in here as a distraction. After I started following the story on the media that's where the focus went tot so that's why i linked it in but after browsing through here I seen that this thread hasn't been on the same track in a way like the media has.

If you are completely focused on the overreach and the deeper topic and wanted to avoid talking about the racism topic period then you sure could have fooled me with that video that responds directly to the racism topic in post #169. I know you say you did it to show this or that but if you are completely focused on the other issue and and don't defend those comments in any way then posting that vid you post kinda confuse me.

So its like touch on it but don't touch on it and then again post a video from some random left wing guy that's racist. Touch on it but don't touch on and be completely focused on the main topic. I know you will come back with this long explanation about why. Or you may ignore this posting and topic and focus on the topic that you are completely focused on! Instead of touching on it here and there and then stepping back and finger pointing saying why are you talking about racism that's not the topic.

-03 GT V1S trim 5psi, 3xxhp/3xxtq
-06 TBSS LS3H,cam,f.exhaust 4xxrwhp/4xxrwtq
-03 Dakota SLT Quad cab 2wd stock

Iraq and Afghanistan War Vet . Convoys and convoy security. My Wife is also a Army and Afghanistan war vet.
T-Lee. 30 is offline  
post #186 of 223 Old April 27th, 2014, 01:21 PM
Pawsitively sexy
 
Sixpointslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Lower Sussex, DE
Posts: 10,561
                   
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
I stand by what I said. It is a patented move for the left-wing. People on the left USE RACISIM. You know it's true. Just like now. You people treat that video like "ahhhhh, we found racism" and you're all happy and laughing about it. It doesn't take 5 seconds to dig up similar and worse racist comments from democrats on the left.
Sure, they do. I've never denied that. Let me say it again. It's irrelevant to the actual topic. It is very relevant to Sean Hannity, your lover boy, who was treating this man like the second coming of Ronald Reagan. And yes, I find irony funny.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
Your comments on the whole issue point to that mindset. But you keep trying this whole angle of about being irrelevant to the BLM argument, but it is the mere fact it was introduced in this thread as a distraction and to discredit any opposition to the abuse and overreach of power at the BLM. TLee dropped the video in here, but you've been all over it post after post.
As if I've been the only one. You made a defense for the man. Obviously it seems to matter to you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
I assure you, I'm not butthurt.
You're emotionally compromised, bud.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
That two parts above are the issue you keep missing. We, not the media, have been focused on the BLM's overreach and abuse of it's powers. You keep clinging to his plight personally along with the medias depiction and hype from both sides, and the racism in the video for your personal enjoyment and arguments.

Folks in this thread tried to point it out to you and TLee, we're focused on the issues we see as dangerous at the BLM. The abuse and overreach of federal powers, etc., during this armed showdown the Feds had and thought they could get away with.



We haven't caved. We're trying to get you to stop arguing about the things you claim to be irrelevant, and focus on the issue here.
You haven't caved from your initial stance? Re-read this thread, bud. I can assure you, Sonic chipped steadily away at your emotionally inspired, hearsay defenses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
Please cite your sources where you get all these "facts" because I'm hearing and reading so many different things, I'm not even sure who to believe anymore.

I really want the truth on this. I was actually on the fence at first, but I kept hearing this and that, and seeing the show of force, etc., and well, you know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
Not conservative and liberal media narratives of the whole thing.

Not racism.
Oh really? Perhaps you should follow your own standards. How about examples(and I had 4 pages of nonsense left to pick from):

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
Supposedly this turtle is not endangered anymore, so this is all for nothing if that is true.

Why the big show of force by the Fed's at the BLM for a petty issue like this?

If he owed money for unpaid grazing fees, why not just take him to court and garnish his earnings or something? Why screw with his cattle and cause all that drama out there?

This whole things is a huge overreach by the Feds and the BLM imho.

Let's look at this from some other angles...

Where is this show of force for border security? :shrug:

See video:

He sounds lie he's so stressed he's losing his voice or something...

Authorities Seize Nevada Rancher's 134 Cattle in Land Use Standoff - Fox Nation

---------- Post added at 11:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 PM ----------

Megyn Kelly discusses Cliven Bundy's Ranch 4/10/2014 - YouTube
Quote:
Originally Posted by navyman8903 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
The argument was about law and he said nothing gives folks reason to break a law, good or bad. So I gave him an example and asked where he stood. Case closed.

So you don't want that man producing food so Americans can eat, and help contribute to keeping beef prices down (supply/demand)? The more beef in the market, the lower the prices. Not affordable care, but affordable dinner. I'm for cheaper beef so more Americans can afford to eat burgers and steak!

Have you seen how much beef prices have gone up?

You noticed the trend lately?

What about Cali and cutting water off because of those stupid smelt, turning farms in to desert, causing farmers to bankrupt and leave, and farm workers lose jobs?

---------- Post added at 02:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 AM ----------



Yup!

---------- Post added at 02:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:00 AM ----------

Judge has an opinion on this....

Feds To Pursue Effort To End Dispute With Rancher In Nevada - Judge Andrew Napolitano Stuart Varney - YouTube


Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
Not the tired old argument the left came up with long ago about giving the land back to the Indians and Mexicans. If we follow that logic, the people of this earth would have to walk in circles trying to find who's land is rightfully theirs because some ancient war was won and land was seized. Where do the Indians that mixed with whites go? Where do mixed white and Mexicans go? Do we hold criminals families guilty 200 years after they've done a crime? I've took nothing from anyone, I never owned a slave, I've worked and paid taxes for what I have. Get my drift? That whole argument you made here is INGNORANT as hell! It's just more distractions you people have picked up from the left-wing media and it distracts from the real problem, which should be an American issue, not a partisan political issue.

Are you going to continue to be closed off and go in circles over the distractions? Did you read the Tenth Amendment article I posted about federal land and the constitutional research on their power? I bet not. All I seen you responding to is the BS.
I don't respond to your articles because I often don't take them seriously. No less then you treat myself, T-Lee, John, or Nile, or any other person posting about something you don't like. I do read them, JohnC. I do actually give your stories the light of day and yet time after time I'm disappointed. I went through my stage of debunking your articles only for you to post 4-5 more pieces of rubbish and I'm done. I only addressed you because of your audacity to criticize T-Lee for posting an off topic video when you have done it yourself in this very thread on more then one occasion.

---------- Post added at 01:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
Where is my conspiracy theory bullshit? Point it out in here.

Here is your fact checkers in the flesh...



There were more than one Snopes fact checks over the years that were totally and completely discredited because the evidence pointed to the contrary.

I use to fact check on Snopes, too, until those mistakes were pointed out.

The bottom line is you have to check that shit out yourself. They're not always right.
You promised evidence, not a camp fire story.

---------- Post added at 01:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:20 PM ----------

Snopes 'Exposed' - Is Snopes.com Biased? - Urban Legends

2012 CTS-V

Not stock


Sixpointslow is offline  
post #187 of 223 Old April 27th, 2014, 02:05 PM Thread Starter
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,027
           
iTrader: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Lee. 30 View Post
Did you read what I said in post #164? It wasn't my intention to link that video in here as a distraction. After I started following the story on the media that's where the focus went tot so that's why i linked it in but after browsing through here I seen that this thread hasn't been on the same track in a way like the media has.

If you are completely focused on the overreach and the deeper topic and wanted to avoid talking about the racism topic period then you sure could have fooled me with that video that responds directly to the racism topic in post #169. I know you say you did it to show this or that but if you are completely focused on the other issue and and don't defend those comments in any way then posting that vid you post kinda confuse me.

So its like touch on it but don't touch on it and then again post a video from some random left wing guy that's racist. Touch on it but don't touch on and be completely focused on the main topic. I know you will come back with this long explanation about why. Or you may ignore this posting and topic and focus on the topic that you are completely focused on! Instead of touching on it here and there and then stepping back and finger pointing saying why are you talking about racism that's not the topic.
We'd been on track to discussing the real issues had you not posted that video, which derailed the whole thread. But I don't believe you intentionally did it because you have been an honest person in every thread I've seen you comment in, so I believe you meant well. I just wish you had started another thread to discuss his racist comments.

For EFaux, we can't get back on topic because he keeps trying to defend himself post after post over his enjoyment of this media circus and racism. I'm just trying to point out the obvious to him and then get back to the BLM and the land rights issue (see my Tenth Amendment Center post in the quote he totally ignored and went right back to the stupid distractions).



---------- Post added at 01:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by EFoxwell View Post
Sure, they do. I've never denied that. Let me say it again. It's irrelevant to the actual topic. It is very relevant to Sean Hannity, your lover boy, who was treating this man like the second coming of Ronald Reagan. And yes, I find irony funny.
You just can't stop!

What on this earth makes you think I like Hannity?

For the record, my wife and I do not like Hannity. His voice annoys us enough, but the real issue is that he comes off as a mouthpiece for the republican party establishment.



Quote:
Originally Posted by EFoxwell View Post
As if I've been the only one. You made a defense for the man. Obviously it seems to matter to you.
Wrong. You're hung up on Bundy as the issue. We keep trying to tell you we're focused on THE ISSUES with the BLM, etc.



Quote:
Originally Posted by EFoxwell View Post
You're emotionally compromised, bud.

I respond I'm not butthurt and this is your response? I think you're getting a bit confused in your own thoughts here.



Quote:
Originally Posted by EFoxwell View Post
You haven't caved from your initial stance? Re-read this thread, bud. I can assure you, Sonic chipped steadily away at your emotionally inspired, hearsay defenses.
I'm still reading up and trying to get to the bottom of the land rights issues, hence why I posted the Tenth Amendment Center's Constitutional study on this land rights issue that you totally ignored to continue on your stupid tirade of distractions in here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by EFoxwell View Post
I don't respond to your articles because I often don't take them seriously. I do read them, JohnC. I do actually give your stories the light of day and yet time after time I'm disappointed. I went through my stage of debunking your articles only for you to post 4-5 more pieces of rubbish and I'm done. I only addressed you because of your audacity to criticize T-Lee for posting an off topic video when you have done it yourself in this very thread on more then one occasion.
So it doesn't support your political ideology, it's rubbish?

Point to where the Tenth Amendment center is wrong. Where is Judge Napolitano wrong in that the fed BLM should have put a lien on his property instead of a show of force, taking his cattle, etc.? Do you have anything to refute what was said in those articles and research at TTAC over land rights?

Again, this is what I really want to discuss. Let's hash it out and figure this out without partisan politics, race bating, attacks and other distractions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by EFoxwell View Post
You promised evidence, not a camp fire story

Snopes 'Exposed' - Is Snopes.com Biased? - Urban Legends
Sorry that's not he smoking gun. What I was referring to was some facts that turned out to be wrong on some of their fact checks, which had nothing to do with those political conspiracies posted in that article you found in a quick google search.



I'll look for it later. Got to mow the grass, wash the GT and grill some burgers.

2010 CGM Camaro 2SS RS 6L90
Stage II ProCharger D1X
760rwhp @ 14 PSI

JohnC is offline  
post #188 of 223 Old April 27th, 2014, 03:13 PM
I Post Entirely Way Too Much
 
Novanutcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 6,065
               
iTrader: 0 reviews
So because an organization isn't 100% correct anything they say should be discounted? Imagine if we used that same standard in politics.

I checked their facts(Yes JohnC I even check the fact checkers! They are, in a sense, media too after all and we know how much media can be trusted to report the truth.) in regards to the debunking of the Harry Reid issue. They are correct. ENN, the chinese company that Harry Reids son, Rory, was trying to get to finance a solar power plant in Northern Nevada, pulled out of the deal back in June 2013 along with the proposed site for the build being no where near the public lands Bundy was grazing his cattle on so any connection people are trying to make is purely fantasy or twisting the facts to villify someone unjustifiably just because they don't like his or her political views. More than likely someone like you that, while passionate in their beliefs, has a fervent dislike of anything liberal so they lap up whatever conservative fear mongering the conservative media decides to put out that day to rile up the constituency disregarding whether it might actually be true or not. That doesn't matter to the media outlet. What matters is that you tune in and are able to be a positive statistic on their Neilsen/Soundscan report so that they can charge their advertisers more. Follow the money. That usually will yield the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
What on this earth makes you think I like Hannity?

For the record, my wife and I do not like Hannity. His voice annoys us enough, but the real issue is that he comes off as a mouthpiece for the republican party establishment.
Maybe because some of your posts eschew the same idiotic BS that he spews nightly? That there are times that your posts are almost word for word what he says on his show? You can say you don't like him all you want but I can tell you that you hold many of the same views he does. Just like your claim that you don't support Ted Cruz or Rand Paul yet you prop them up and defend them anytime anyone speaks about them in anything but glowing terms. I try and ignore most of the rhetoric that you so joyfully eat up and post on here but there are times that one has to speak out when someone is just spewing one sided rhetoric and representing it as the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
Wrong. You're hung up on Bundy as the issue. We keep trying to tell you we're focused on THE ISSUES with the BLM, etc.
Which seems to be the difference maker in all the debates we seem to have on here. I think we all feel the same way in this particular issue. Bundy was wrong in not paying his fees just like the BLM was wrong in trying to collect them in the manner they did. I feel it's equally wrong that Mr. Bundy has decided to break the law continually and thumb his nose at the government for his own personal gain whereas you feel that it's no big deal but the BLM....now THAT'S a big deal! The difference is in where you put the emphasis as to what the more pressing issue is. While I feel the BLM is wrong and I agree with you that there needs to be an inquiry into why they did what they did, you have already indicted them moreso out of your anti-government feelings than a real desire to know the truth.

Once again, to date, you can't, with any credibility, present a case with any factual basis to condemn the BLM for their actions at this point yet one could certainly present a compelling case against Bundy as he has years of defying federal law that has been documented in official court documents. So.....rather than continue trying to assassinate the character of a government department simply because you don't like bloated government how about you continue your research, taking ALL sides of the story into consideration, then put away any bias you have and try and look at the issue in as sober a manner as possible. Once you have concluded your research and have finally arrived at the truth or as close as you can come to it, then post up why you feel the way you do and the research that has lead you to those feelings. Can you do that JohnC?

John

SOLD - '03 GT, Max Moto Max Grip Box, Wilwood SL 6 front/DL4 rear Big Brake Kit, Corbeau Seats, MGW Short Shifter, MAC Long Tube Headers/Prochamber mid/ Flowmaster 40, FRPP 4.10, TrickFlow Diff Cover/75mm TB/Plenum, Eaton Posi, Moser 31 spl Axles

Last edited by Novanutcase; April 28th, 2014 at 02:09 PM.
Novanutcase is offline  
post #189 of 223 Old April 28th, 2014, 01:15 AM
Pawsitively sexy
 
Sixpointslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Lower Sussex, DE
Posts: 10,561
                   
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
For EFaux, we can't get back on topic because he keeps trying to defend himself post after post over his enjoyment of this media circus and racism. I'm just trying to point out the obvious to him and then get back to the BLM and the land rights issue (see my Tenth Amendment Center post in the quote he totally ignored and went right back to the stupid distractions).

I'm still reading up and trying to get to the bottom of the land rights issues, hence why I posted the Tenth Amendment Center's Constitutional study on this land rights issue that you totally ignored to continue on your stupid tirade of distractions in here.

So it doesn't support your political ideology, it's rubbish?
No, it's rubbish because it's rubbish. Unbelievably biased arguments lacking factual basis by extreme right wing figures. Is everything you post as I just described? No, but unfourtunately, much of it is, and it leads to big credibility issues on your part. I get tired of reading 9 stupid articles for every 1 you post that may offer valid arguments. I'd also like to point out that I'm far from a closed book on many(not all) of the issues we talk about here. I've been more then willing to accept that my conclusions were wrong on a given topic, something I have failed to see from you. Almost always, when I do present you with cold hard evidence in support of a position you disagree with, you always reply with a "I'll have to look into it, but it's time to go do real life things". Naturally, days or even weeks later you will post some right wing media story about the same issue, showing me your lack of follow up on the evidence provided to you previously.

You've admitted in this very thread that you;ve been reading so many things you don;t know what to believe, yet you have a firm stance that the BLM is absolutely wrong. Think about that. You admit to issues with the actual facts being hazy, yet still maintain a firm position regardless. This is where you lose my respect and this is where I stop addressing the issue with you, because it is a waste of time. Why repeat the same process over and over expecting varied results? That is insanity. All of that said, I'm not the most sane person in the world, and boredom often defeats me, so here you go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
Where is Judge Napolitano wrong in that the fed BLM should have put a lien on his property instead of a show of force, taking his cattle, etc.? Do you have anything to refute what was said in those articles and research at TTAC over land rights?
For starters, a lien on the property doesn't stop Mr. Bundy from illegally grazing cows on public land. It also fails to return what Mr. Bundy owes to the public.

Perhaps had this been an issue that hadn't been going on for over two decades, I'd have sympathy. The fact of the matter is the Federal Government does exist, contrary to Mr. Bundy's beliefs. If a man lights up a doobie in front of a cop and says to said cop that he doesn't recognize laws banning marijuana, that cop is going to give zero fucks about what this guy does or does not recognize. Laws are not governed by a single opinion. This isn't imagination land.

Now lets get into the "show of force" and why a certain local government official called these men "domestic terrorists".
  • April, 1995- A small bomb is set off in the U.S. Forest Service office in Carson City, Nevada as retribution for the agency overseeing BLM land. Between this time and March of 98', two more pipe bombs will be set off in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management offices.
  • April, 2014- In an interview with Fox News, protester Richard Mack(a former sheriff) tells them the following- “We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

Am I blaming the bombings on Bundy? No. I'm blaming them on the very movement that attracts people like Richard Mack. People who want to tote guns around in defense of a law breaking asshole like Bundy, because they personally don't like the federal government, not over the actual issue at hand. The man has on multiple occasions been ordered to stop his operation, he has been handed numerous fines he has failed to pay, and he has been given amble time to comply. At what point is enough enough? There are things that happened that I'm not in agreement with, but I do think it was time to round up his cattle. He has broken the law long enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
Sorry that's not he smoking gun. What I was referring to was some facts that turned out to be wrong on some of their fact checks, which had nothing to do with those political conspiracies posted in that article you found in a quick google search.



I'll look for it later. Got to mow the grass, wash the GT and grill some burgers.
Famous last words. I have no trust in you to follow up on this, as well as correlate to how it invalidates the evidence presented in the very specific case that the Reid story was a hoax.

2012 CTS-V

Not stock


Sixpointslow is offline  
post #190 of 223 Old April 29th, 2014, 05:02 AM Thread Starter
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,027
           
iTrader: 1 reviews

2010 CGM Camaro 2SS RS 6L90
Stage II ProCharger D1X
760rwhp @ 14 PSI

JohnC is offline  
post #191 of 223 Old April 29th, 2014, 06:17 AM
Pawsitively sexy
 
Sixpointslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Lower Sussex, DE
Posts: 10,561
                   
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
Again, this is what I really want to discuss. Let's hash it out and figure this out without partisan politics, race bating, attacks and other distractions.


---------- Post added at 06:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 AM ----------

Peaceful protesting 101: Aim your rifle, just don't shoot it.




2012 CTS-V

Not stock


Sixpointslow is offline  
post #192 of 223 Old April 29th, 2014, 06:35 AM Thread Starter
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,027
           
iTrader: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by EFoxwell View Post


---------- Post added at 06:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 AM ----------

Peaceful protesting 101: Aim your rifle, just don't shoot it.



They showed up AFTER the Feds made an armed standing to run off with cattle, etc.

EFaux and Nova/John, you both are pointless to try and discuss this with. You keep going right back to the distractions. I'm going to ignore those type of posts from this point forward. Maybe someone else with nothing better to do will argue in circles with you.

Back on topic of Federal BLM, Public and Private Land Rights and the Constitution....

Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding

Ownership of Federal Land: Answers Suggested by the Bundy Standoff | Tenth Amendment Center

Quote:
The Bundy stand-off in Nevada has induced several people to ask me about the extent to which the federal government can own land, at least under the Constitution’s intended meaning. As it happens, in 2005 I studied the issue in depth, and published the following article: Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding, 76 U. Colo. L. Rev. 327 (2005).

In a nutshell, here’s what I found:

(1) Most commentators on the issue have staked out one of two polar positions. One position, which is current U.S. Supreme Court doctrine, is that the federal government may acquire and own any land it wishes for any governmental purpose, not just for its enumerated powers. The other polar position is that the federal government may own land only for the purposes enumerated in the Enclave Clause (the national capital and “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”) and that the “equal footing doctrine” requires that all other federal land within a prospective state be handed over the state government upon statehood.

(2) In fact, both polar positions are false—and very clearly so. This shines through when you study the Constitution’s text, meaning, and background. By “background,” I mean its drafting history, the ratification debates, 18th century law, and so forth. However the constitutional text alone should be sufficient to cast both polar claims into doubt. The text of the Constitution grants the federal government no plenary power to hold land, only to dispose. A general power to hold is just not in there. The second polar position is also contradicted by the text: The equal footing doctrine is not there either. (It was a feature of certain pre-constitutional documents, such as the Northwest Ordinance.)

(3) The Constitution grants the federal government authority to acquire real estate and other property to carry out any enumerated purpose, either in the exercise of a core power (such as “maintain a Navy”) or through the implied powers memorialized in the Necessary and Proper Clause. Thus, Congress may acquire land to build “post Roads” (limited access highways), house tax collectors, and build lighthouses under the Commerce Power.

(4) Further, the Constitution’s Treaty Power authorizes the federal government to acquire territory.

(5) However, land acquired—through, for example, the Treaty Power—may be held only for enumerated purposes. Land not needed for such purposes must be disposed of within a reasonable time. The federal government should have disposed of BLM grazing land long ago.

(6) In fact, for the federal government to own a large share of American real estate (currently about 28 percent) is directly contrary to certain values the Constitution was designed to further.

(7) “Disposal” does not require handing real estate over to state government. On the contrary, in many situations doing so would conflict with federal officials’ duties of trust. In each instance, disposal should be effectuated so as to further the general welfare. In the case of some parcels, it may mean transferring to state government. But it may also require selling to the highest bidder, or, in the case of environmentally sensitive lands, transferring to perpetual environmental trusts, as is commonly done in England.

(8) The Enclave Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) is really more about governmental jurisdiction than ownership. The federal government can have an enclave in which much of the territory is titled to private parties—as is true of Washington, D.C. It’s just that in an enclave, federal rather than statejurisdiction is supreme. Enclaves may be held only for enumerated purposes (as signaled by the use of the 18th century legal term “needful”). State consent to creation of an enclave is required, and consent can be conditional upon the federal government honoring particular terms.

(9) The Enclave Clause was sold to the ratifying public on the basis that enclaves would be relatively small. Holding massive tracts of undeveloped land (such as in Yosemite National Park, nearly 750,000 acres) as enclaves is not what the Founders had in mind.

(10) This is signaled by the Constitution’s use of the word “Building.” In the 18th century, the term did not have to mean an enclosed space, but it did have to refer to a fabricated construction of some kind, since as a dockyard or (in modern terms) an airport runway.

(11) But not every parcel of federal land need be an enclave: In fact, most are not and should not be. Non-enclave land owned by the federal government is held under the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), and should be held only for enumerated purposes. Grazing, for example, is not an enumerated purpose.

(12) Non-enclave federal property within states is subject to state law. Contrary to current Supreme Court doctrine, when the federal government owns non-enclave land, the federal government usually should be treated like any other landowner, so long as the state respects the discharge of legitimate federal functions.
PDF: Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding : Our American Constitution

2010 CGM Camaro 2SS RS 6L90
Stage II ProCharger D1X
760rwhp @ 14 PSI

JohnC is offline  
post #193 of 223 Old April 29th, 2014, 06:36 AM
Pawsitively sexy
 
Sixpointslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Lower Sussex, DE
Posts: 10,561
                   
iTrader: 0 reviews


Emphasis on that last part.

2012 CTS-V

Not stock


Sixpointslow is offline  
post #194 of 223 Old April 29th, 2014, 06:39 AM Thread Starter
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,027
           
iTrader: 1 reviews
This has been ignored.... Where is the response?



Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding

Ownership of Federal Land: Answers Suggested by the Bundy Standoff | Tenth Amendment Center

Quote:
The Bundy stand-off in Nevada has induced several people to ask me about the extent to which the federal government can own land, at least under the Constitution’s intended meaning. As it happens, in 2005 I studied the issue in depth, and published the following article: Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding, 76 U. Colo. L. Rev. 327 (2005).

In a nutshell, here’s what I found:

(1) Most commentators on the issue have staked out one of two polar positions. One position, which is current U.S. Supreme Court doctrine, is that the federal government may acquire and own any land it wishes for any governmental purpose, not just for its enumerated powers. The other polar position is that the federal government may own land only for the purposes enumerated in the Enclave Clause (the national capital and “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”) and that the “equal footing doctrine” requires that all other federal land within a prospective state be handed over the state government upon statehood.

(2) In fact, both polar positions are false—and very clearly so. This shines through when you study the Constitution’s text, meaning, and background. By “background,” I mean its drafting history, the ratification debates, 18th century law, and so forth. However the constitutional text alone should be sufficient to cast both polar claims into doubt. The text of the Constitution grants the federal government no plenary power to hold land, only to dispose. A general power to hold is just not in there. The second polar position is also contradicted by the text: The equal footing doctrine is not there either. (It was a feature of certain pre-constitutional documents, such as the Northwest Ordinance.)

(3) The Constitution grants the federal government authority to acquire real estate and other property to carry out any enumerated purpose, either in the exercise of a core power (such as “maintain a Navy”) or through the implied powers memorialized in the Necessary and Proper Clause. Thus, Congress may acquire land to build “post Roads” (limited access highways), house tax collectors, and build lighthouses under the Commerce Power.

(4) Further, the Constitution’s Treaty Power authorizes the federal government to acquire territory.

(5) However, land acquired—through, for example, the Treaty Power—may be held only for enumerated purposes. Land not needed for such purposes must be disposed of within a reasonable time. The federal government should have disposed of BLM grazing land long ago.

(6) In fact, for the federal government to own a large share of American real estate (currently about 28 percent) is directly contrary to certain values the Constitution was designed to further.

(7) “Disposal” does not require handing real estate over to state government. On the contrary, in many situations doing so would conflict with federal officials’ duties of trust. In each instance, disposal should be effectuated so as to further the general welfare. In the case of some parcels, it may mean transferring to state government. But it may also require selling to the highest bidder, or, in the case of environmentally sensitive lands, transferring to perpetual environmental trusts, as is commonly done in England.

(8) The Enclave Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) is really more about governmental jurisdiction than ownership. The federal government can have an enclave in which much of the territory is titled to private parties—as is true of Washington, D.C. It’s just that in an enclave, federal rather than statejurisdiction is supreme. Enclaves may be held only for enumerated purposes (as signaled by the use of the 18th century legal term “needful”). State consent to creation of an enclave is required, and consent can be conditional upon the federal government honoring particular terms.

(9) The Enclave Clause was sold to the ratifying public on the basis that enclaves would be relatively small. Holding massive tracts of undeveloped land (such as in Yosemite National Park, nearly 750,000 acres) as enclaves is not what the Founders had in mind.

(10) This is signaled by the Constitution’s use of the word “Building.” In the 18th century, the term did not have to mean an enclosed space, but it did have to refer to a fabricated construction of some kind, since as a dockyard or (in modern terms) an airport runway.

(11) But not every parcel of federal land need be an enclave: In fact, most are not and should not be. Non-enclave land owned by the federal government is held under the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), and should be held only for enumerated purposes. Grazing, for example, is not an enumerated purpose.

(12) Non-enclave federal property within states is subject to state law. Contrary to current Supreme Court doctrine, when the federal government owns non-enclave land, the federal government usually should be treated like any other landowner, so long as the state respects the discharge of legitimate federal functions.
PDF: Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding : Our American Constitution

2010 CGM Camaro 2SS RS 6L90
Stage II ProCharger D1X
760rwhp @ 14 PSI

JohnC is offline  
post #195 of 223 Old April 29th, 2014, 07:03 AM
Pawsitively sexy
 
Sixpointslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Lower Sussex, DE
Posts: 10,561
                   
iTrader: 0 reviews
Scumbag Steve moment... Wants you to respond to every detail. Responds to none of your arguments. But let me go ahead and give you my response. I need not delve further then numero uno.

"Most commentators on the issue have staked out one of two polar positions. One position, which is current U.S. Supreme Court doctrine, is that the federal government may acquire and own any land it wishes for any governmental purpose, not just for its enumerated powers. The other polar position is that the federal government may own land only for the purposes enumerated in the Enclave Clause (the national capital and “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”) and that the “equal footing doctrine” requires that all other federal land within a prospective state be handed over the state government upon statehood."

Perhaps we need to return to grade school for what surely was taught to every kid going through school. Let me start with a quote from Alexander Hamilton:

"A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute."

For those that don't get that, it is Hamilton(a Founding Father) effectively saying that the court must have the power to interpret the Constitution. In the legal system of the United States, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law. It is black and white. The courts have sided against Bundy habitually for over two decades. Why bother addressing this any further when the people behind the 10th Amendment Center ignore what is cold hard fact in order to make a foundation to begin their argument? It's rubbish, John. Not because you posted it, but because they, like Bundy, seem to be in la la land picking and choosing what they decide to acknowledge as law.

The next time a meth lab is raided, I hope they don't bring guns, because god forbid officers carry guns in a situation they expect possible violent backlash.

2012 CTS-V

Not stock


Sixpointslow is offline  
post #196 of 223 Old April 29th, 2014, 08:56 AM Thread Starter
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,027
           
iTrader: 1 reviews
I'll have to respond to that^ when I get back home.

Found this interesting...

United States v Hage

Elko County commissioner, Nevada rancher, and conservative Republican political activist Demar Dahl notes that Bundy might benefit from following Nye County rancher Wayne Hage, who won a protracted battle with the federal government by successfully arguing that he had the right to graze his cows within two miles of water sources he developed. In a similar case[89] to Bundy’s, ranchers in 2007 were sued by the Justice Department for trespassing on public domain lands in Nevada.[89][90] The ranchers are alleged to have repeatedly grazed livestock without federal permits despite repeated trespass notices from the BLM and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service.[90] The court found in favor of the ranchers for all other charges, including water rights,[89] grazing rights and all but two livestock trespass charges in United States v. Wayne Hage (2013). In the ruling, the judge said, “government officials … entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights. This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm to support the injunction described at the end of this Order.”[91

2010 CGM Camaro 2SS RS 6L90
Stage II ProCharger D1X
760rwhp @ 14 PSI

JohnC is offline  
post #197 of 223 Old April 29th, 2014, 01:21 PM
Administrator
 
TheUNZippee!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Hoose
Posts: 83,767
Blog Entries: 1
                     
iTrader: 0 reviews
Send a message via AIM to TheUNZippee!
Friendly neighborhood admin reminder... we've been down this road more than once, gentlemen. Keep it civil, and leave name calling and condescending silliness out of this forum section please.



TheUNZippee! is offline  
post #198 of 223 Old April 29th, 2014, 03:48 PM
FBGM
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Londonderry NH
Posts: 6,177
         
iTrader: 0 reviews
Anyone else see both sides of the argument?

Saleen SuperCharged, C500 Side Exhaust, Cervinis Ram Air IV Hood, Hurst Short Throw Shifter, Chrome GT500 Replica wheels, GT500 Front Splitter ModBMR 1.25 Lowering Springs, ADJ Panhard Bar, CHE Torque Limiters and K Member Brace
kmac1622 is offline  
post #199 of 223 Old April 29th, 2014, 05:30 PM
MM Fanatic
 
Woodman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 4,562
               
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmac1622 View Post
Anyone else see both sides of the argument?
Yes.

I understand the BLM has the court ordered ability to charge and get paid for the use of the land. That isn't being questioned by me.

I understand Bundy's side of the argument, and agree that the Federal government according to the constitution doesn't have the right to maintain "public" lands. It is like the 2nd Amendment. It states clearly the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This means all FEDERAL gun laws are in fact unconstitutional. But these are arguments for a separate thread.

My issue, as was stated above, was the amount of force used.

Does the BLM have the right to protect their people? Of course they do. Does that mean they need to send mercenaries in armed with submachine guns, sniper rifles, and body armor to get some cows off of a plot of land? No, I don't think so. If they expected armed resistance, they call in the LOCAL sherrif's office and have them escort the ranchers away from the area or contain them in their property while the offending cattle are removed. That didn't happen, that would have been a reasonable and less costly approach, but it didn't give the ability to see what would stick to the wall when the shit hit the fan.

I have a very low amount of trust for the federal government at this stage in the game. Our rights are trampled on continuously, and we keep saying, "But they had justification" when they really didn't. No matter how you feel about Bundy or his situation, the amount of force used far exceeds the crime committed. We wouldn't allow this if the federal government sent in gun toting mercs to extract any other person that owes over $1 Million to the federal government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWAL View Post
woodman: achieving the impossible since 1967. 1973? 1980? 1985? 1976? whatever, you get my point
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWAL View Post
ford's advertising slogan was literally "you can pay for all of it today or you can go fuck yourself"
Woodman is offline  
post #200 of 223 Old April 29th, 2014, 05:46 PM
FBGM
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Londonderry NH
Posts: 6,177
         
iTrader: 0 reviews
I would have to say both are wrong.

Saleen SuperCharged, C500 Side Exhaust, Cervinis Ram Air IV Hood, Hurst Short Throw Shifter, Chrome GT500 Replica wheels, GT500 Front Splitter ModBMR 1.25 Lowering Springs, ADJ Panhard Bar, CHE Torque Limiters and K Member Brace
kmac1622 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Forums at Modded Mustangs forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome