Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 12, 2014, 09:55 PM   #1
G51989
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Nevada Rancher, people defend him?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...#axzz2yjMvzkdF

So, from what I can research.

This rancher was grazing his cattle on land he did not own, nor did he ever own. And he refused to pay grazing fees that every other rancher in the country pays, he engaged in court battles to avoid paying to use public land, which most ranchers pay to use.

So...he steals from the taxpayer owned land....refuses to pay grazing fees other ranchers do....and refuses to listen to court orders....sounds like a leach to me...Right wing nut jobs defend this guy? Sound like he steals more from the taxpayer than any " welfare queen " does.

I feel the feds made a mistake by backing off, I feel they need to make a statement to these people who steal from the taxpayer's land. They should be going in with tanks, helicopters, and arrest the ranchers by force, round up anyone who is in the way, and throw them all in jail. And put anyone in handcuffs who puts the peace officers in danger.

By backout out of this, the Feds are giving the right wing nutjob compound freaks a reason to show up to more legal actions. They should have been rounded up and thrown in jail.
I thought the right wingers hated people stealing from the taxpayer, well this guy is stealing from the taxpayer, and the right wingers seem to be out to defend him and his crappy beef.
G51989 is offline   6
Old Apr 12, 2014, 10:03 PM   #2
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
He said he wouldn't pay his taxes because Nevada is ... sovereign.

What?
citizenzen is offline   0
Old Apr 12, 2014, 10:09 PM   #3
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
from the article

Quote:
The government has said the cattle round-up was a “last resort” to enforce court orders ruling that Bundy has failed to pay more than $1 million in fees since 1993 for his cattle to graze on public land. Forcing him either to pay or to give up his cattle is a matter of fairness to the 16,000 ranchers who do follow the rules, U.S. officials say.
If it's solely an issue of back payments, why wasn't this resolved before it reached such a high figure? I am skeptical that it really took anywhere near 20 years for someone to notice and begin assessments to resolve the matter.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   4
Old Apr 12, 2014, 10:19 PM   #4
SLC Flyfishing
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Mr. Bundy was happily paying his fees until the federal government unilaterally changed the terms on him.

They demanded that he reduce his herd by 75% even though he had grazing rights to the land dating back to 1877. That would have put him out of business (which many feel is the real goal here anyway).

So basically, the feds came along, decided that they "owned" the land, and then started unilaterally cancelling and changing generations old agreements.
__________________
Life is a grave, and I dig it
SLC Flyfishing is offline   9
Old Apr 12, 2014, 10:27 PM   #5
G51989
Thread Starter
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekev View Post
from the article



If it's solely an issue of back payments, why wasn't this resolved before it reached such a high figure? I am skeptical that it really took anywhere near 20 years for someone to notice and begin assessments to resolve the matter.
As far as all the reading I have done is, Bundy has stalled in court via random lawsuits and appeals to avoid paying his fair share to graze on this land, he owes over 1 million dollars to the hardworking tax payers of America, once he appeals ran out, he decided to pull the " Freedom its not my land but I can steal form it legally! " Card.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
Mr. Bundy was happily paying his fees until the federal government unilaterally changed the terms on him.

They demanded that he reduce his herd by 75% even though he had grazing rights to the land dating back to 1877. That would have put him out of business (which many feel is the real goal here anyway).

So basically, the feds came along, decided that they "owned" the land, and then started unilaterally cancelling and changing generations old agreements.
The Feds did not " decide " they owned the land, they always have.

The Feds have owned this land for a very long time, the Bundy ranch has NEVER owned the land, the state of Nevada has NEVER owned the land, the federal goverment, AKA the hard working Taxpayers OWN this land. The feds have ever legal right to change terms whenever they want, as they OWN the land. Not the Bundys.

So you are saying its ok for the Bundy ranch to steal from the taxpayer?

And no, the Feds control the grazing rights, not the Bundy Ranch.

And who cares if he goes out of business? He's robbed the taxpayer of over a million dollars in grazing fees, he should be taken by force and have his assets taken and sold off to pay off his debt to the taxpayer.
G51989 is offline   7
Old Apr 12, 2014, 10:36 PM   #6
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
As far as all the reading I have done is, Bundy has stalled in court via random lawsuits and appeals to avoid paying his fair share to graze on this land, he owes over 1 million dollars to the hardworking tax payers of America, once he appeals ran out, he decided to pull the " Freedom its not my land but I can steal form it legally! " Card.
Where did you read that? Google brings up a number of things, but none of those details are mentioned in the article or video. I actually dislike asking for sources, but in some cases it's easier if I know we're both reading from the same one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
Mr. Bundy was happily paying his fees until the federal government unilaterally changed the terms on him.

They demanded that he reduce his herd by 75% even though he had grazing rights to the land dating back to 1877. That would have put him out of business (which many feel is the real goal here anyway).

So basically, the feds came along, decided that they "owned" the land, and then started unilaterally cancelling and changing generations old agreements.
Where did you find that?
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   0
Old Apr 12, 2014, 10:39 PM   #7
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
They demanded that he reduce his herd by 75% even though he had grazing rights to the land dating back to 1877.
Admittedly I need to learn more about this case.

However ...

If a contract is being renegotiated, it doesn't matter what the past history is.

Here's a basic question. Who owns the land?

Follow-up ... who gets to set the terms for those who use that land?
citizenzen is offline   1
Old Apr 12, 2014, 10:58 PM   #8
Southern Dad
macrumors 6502a
 
Southern Dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Walt Disney World
The Bundy's are the last ranch in Clark County. Chalk one more family ranch up as history. This one is a win for the corporate raised beef. Be careful not to mess with any endangered desert tortoises during the round up of this family's cattle. Round 'em, head 'em out... Rawhide.
Southern Dad is offline   3
Old Apr 12, 2014, 11:01 PM   #9
G51989
Thread Starter
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekev View Post
Where did you read that? Google brings up a number of things, but none of those details are mentioned in the article or video. I actually dislike asking for sources, but in some cases it's easier if I know we're both reading from the same one.



Where did you find that?
http://kutv.com/news/top-stories/sto...nt-10501.shtml

The Bundy family has refused to reduce the number of cattle on the land owned by the hard working American taxpayer, they have refused to pay grazing fees, and they have refused to follow the law, and have been shut down in court more than once. They have been illegal using taxpayer land to line their own coffers.

I wonder why they have not moved in with Force and arrested the family and seized their assets for robbing the taxpayer of well over a million dolllars. Force should be used in this situation, and let people like Bundy know they are not immune from the law.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
The Bundy's are the last ranch in Clark County. Chalk one more family ranch up as history. This one is a win for the corporate raised beef. Be careful not to mess with any endangered desert tortoises during the round up of this family's cattle. Round 'em, head 'em out... Rawhide.
So...ignoring facts? The Bundys never owned the land...not did the state...and they refused to pay grazing fees that every other rancher in the country pays to use public land?

So you support people leeching off the goverment? Stealing taxpayer money?
G51989 is offline   6
Old Apr 12, 2014, 11:03 PM   #10
Southern Dad
macrumors 6502a
 
Southern Dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Walt Disney World
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
http://kutv.com/news/top-stories/sto...nt-10501.shtml

The Bundy family has refused to reduce the number of cattle on the land owned by the hard working American taxpayer, they have refused to pay grazing fees, and they have refused to follow the law, and have been shut down in court more than once. They have been illegal using taxpayer land to line their own coffers.

I wonder why they have not moved in with Force and arrested the family and seized their assets for robbing the taxpayer of well over a million dolllars. Force should be used in this situation, and let people like Bundy know they are not immune from the law.

----------



So...ignoring facts? The Bundys never owned the land...not did the state...and they refused to pay grazing fees that every other rancher in the country pays to use public land?

So you support people leeching off the goverment? Stealing taxpayer money?
Not me! Seize that land, sell the cattle, toss the bum in jail. How dare he graze on what was once deemed public lands. We can do something better with that land... a little fracking perhaps. Book 'em, Dano.
Southern Dad is offline   2
Old Apr 12, 2014, 11:04 PM   #11
iBlazed
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Home of Gov. Chris Crispy
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post

So you support people leeching off the goverment? Stealing taxpayer money?
Depends, what's their ethnicity?
iBlazed is offline   10
Old Apr 12, 2014, 11:05 PM   #12
SLC Flyfishing
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
The Feds did not " decide " they owned the land, they always have.

The Feds have owned this land for a very long time, the Bundy ranch has NEVER owned the land, the state of Nevada has NEVER owned the land, the federal goverment, AKA the hard working Taxpayers OWN this land. The feds have ever legal right to change terms whenever they want, as they OWN the land. Not the Bundys.
The Bundys settled the land before there was a BLM, before the federal government had any interest in the land at all. They had been working that land for years before the federal government decided it was time to come in and charge them to use it. Why do they not have right to land they settled before there was ever a mechanism in place, or a desire on the part of the federal government to charge them?

Do you know how much land the federal government has snatched up out west? It's close to 90% in Nevada.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
So you are saying its ok for the Bundy ranch to steal from the taxpayer?
I'm saying I don't believe the Bundy ranch is stealing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
And no, the Feds control the grazing rights, not the Bundy Ranch.
The feds control the grazing rights because they decided they were going to unilaterally take control of the land the family had settled on years before. Land they previously had zero interest in and had made no attempt to control. It's not like they told the Bundys they could settle there but would have to pay a fee to use the land. No, when the Bundys settled in Nevada, it was essentially a free-for-all. It's just that the people were never given a chance to claim owership of the land they settled later on when the federal government decided they were interested in it.

Have you seen a map of "federally owned land" in the west? Why doesn't the Federal government sieze land in the east that "technically" belongs to them? I'd suggest it's only because there are too many people living there to make it feasible. But there are only a few people out west in these types of places, making it easy for the government to come in and seize control and dictate what people are then allowed to do with the land. They don't expect much resistance, well they learned the hard way that people out here aren't down with that anymore.
__________________
Life is a grave, and I dig it
SLC Flyfishing is offline   8
Old Apr 12, 2014, 11:06 PM   #13
ElectronGuru
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Oregon, USA
What it would sound like if the UPS strike went down like this:

The driver, Jairo Reyes, and hundreds of armed union members had threatened to forcefully keep UPS officials from rounding up the approximately 9000 packages. Nearly 4000 of the packages had been seized during the past week. They were being held nearby and could be sent to Utah, authorities said.
__________________
MBP, IM, MM, IPM, IP, AT
Activate the hidden screen dimmer in iOS8! -> http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1801179

Last edited by ElectronGuru; Apr 12, 2014 at 11:29 PM.
ElectronGuru is offline   1
Old Apr 12, 2014, 11:08 PM   #14
G51989
Thread Starter
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
Not me! Seize that land, sell the cattle, toss the bum in jail. How dare he graze on what was once deemed public lands. We can do something better with that land... a little fracking perhaps. Book 'em, Dano.
He has every right to graze on public land if he pays the fees, he did not pay te fee's, he is a leech and belongs in jail. Move in with tanks if the need be.
G51989 is offline   1
Old Apr 12, 2014, 11:09 PM   #15
SLC Flyfishing
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBlazed View Post
Depends, what's their ethnicity?
Exactly, our current administration has made it clear they are OK with certain folks illegally leeching off the taxpayer. "Come to the US, illegally if need be, we'll provide you with everything you need to survive, free of charge."

They've also set a precedent of "selective obedience" to the law when they've picked and chosen which laws they will enforce.
__________________
Life is a grave, and I dig it
SLC Flyfishing is offline   6
Old Apr 12, 2014, 11:10 PM   #16
Southern Dad
macrumors 6502a
 
Southern Dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Walt Disney World
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
Exactly, and our current administration has made it clear they are OK with certain folks illegally leeching off the taxpayer as well.

They've also set a precedent of "selective obedience" to the law when they've picked and chosen which laws they will enforce.
This Administration has decided what laws it will enforce and what laws it won't enforce since the beginning. This is nothing new.
Southern Dad is offline   6
Old Apr 12, 2014, 11:11 PM   #17
Zombie Acorn
macrumors 65816
 
Zombie Acorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto, Ontario
I'd rather tax money go to cows eating grass than the feed lots where they eat a mixture of corn and their own **** personally.
Zombie Acorn is offline   3
Old Apr 12, 2014, 11:16 PM   #18
G51989
Thread Starter
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
The Bundys settled the land before there was a BLM, before the federal government had any interest in the land at all. They had been working that land for years before the federal government decided it was time to come in and charge them to use it. Why do they not have right to land they settled before there was ever a mechanism in place, or a desire on the part of the federal government to charge them?

It doesn't matter, the Bundys had the choice to buy the land from the federal goverment more than once over the past century, or lease it. They did neither, and decided to leach. They wanted all the profit with none of the expenses that every other rancher pays.

Quote:
Do you know how much land the federal government has snatched up out west? It's close to 90% in Nevada.
Keep in mind, any citizen is free to make a request to purchase that land from the feds, why didn't the Bundys make a request to purchase that land? They never have, they were after a free ride.

Quote:
I'm saying I don't believe the Bundy ranch is stealing.
Grazing their cattle off legally protected federal land while refusing to pay fees many ranchers all over the the country isn't stealing?

Quote:
The feds control the grazing rights because they decided they were going to unilaterally take control of the land the family had settled on years before. Land they previously had zero interest in and had made no attempt to control. It's not like they told the Bundys they could settle there but would have to pay a fee to use the land. No, when the Bundys settled in Nevada, it was essentially a free-for-all. It's just that the people were never given a chance to claim owership of the land they settled later on when the federal government decided they were interested in it.
They may have settled there first, but it doesn't matter. They had 110 years to purchase the land, or lease it. They did neither, and illegally grazed on it without paying a dime.

Are you saying they deserve a free ride?

Quote:
Have you seen a map of "federally owned land" in the west? Why doesn't the Federal government sieze land in the east that "technically" belongs to them? I'd suggest it's only because there are too many people living there to make it feasible. But there are only a few people out west in these types of places, making it easy for the government to come in and seize control and dictate what people are then allowed to do with the land.
You do realize, the Feds do not seize privately owned land rigiht? And most of their land is for sale if you ask them, or get a pention going. The Feds only take land no one owns anyway.

The Bundies had their chance to lease or buy all of that land from the feds, as it was for sale at one point, well lets be honest, far more than one point. The Bundies were to cheap to purchase the land in their name, lease the land or pay fees like everyone else does, they belong in jail for theft.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
This Administration has decided what laws it will enforce and what laws it won't enforce since the beginning. This is nothing new.
How is that different from any administration in recent history? Or are you just spewing partisan crap?
G51989 is offline   3
Old Apr 12, 2014, 11:20 PM   #19
iBlazed
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Home of Gov. Chris Crispy
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
Exactly, our current administration has made it clear they are OK with certain folks illegally leeching off the taxpayer. "Come to the US, illegally if need be, we'll provide you with everything you need to survive, free of charge."

They've also set a precedent of "selective obedience" to the law when they've picked and chosen which laws they will enforce.
Yeah, that's not exactly where I was going with that comment. I was more pointing out the hypocrisy of the right wing and their hatred of "welfare queens".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
This Administration has decided what laws it will enforce and what laws it won't enforce since the beginning. This is nothing new.
Please, tell us which laws you feel this administration is not following and how previous administrations followed them more closely.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
How is that different from any administration in recent history? Or are you just spewing partisan crap?
I'll take partisan crap for $100, Alex.
iBlazed is offline   6
Old Apr 12, 2014, 11:21 PM   #20
SLC Flyfishing
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
The Bundies had their chance to lease or buy all of that land from the feds, as it was for sale at one point, well lets be honest, far more than one point. The Bundies were to cheap to purchase the land in their name, lease the land or pay fees like everyone else does, they belong in jail for theft.
Do you think they could purchase the land now, if they could afford it?

I think the Sierra Club types would prevent that land from ever going up for sale.

And perhaps the federal government should consider who really has legitimate claim to ownership, if not the Bundys.


Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
How is that different from any administration in recent history? Or are you just spewing partisan crap?
So the administration (whichever administration that happens to be) can pick and choose which laws they will follow, but the common man needs to be hauled of to the clink, with tanks and soldiers if necessary (per your ranting) when he does the same?

You're way off on this one.

And the Obama administration has been pretty overt about announcing which laws they are choosing not to enforce. That's the main difference as I see it.
__________________
Life is a grave, and I dig it
SLC Flyfishing is offline   7
Old Apr 12, 2014, 11:33 PM   #21
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
The Bundys settled the land before there was a BLM.
Native Americans settled the land before there were any colonials.

Sooo ...?
citizenzen is offline   4
Old Apr 12, 2014, 11:39 PM   #22
SLC Flyfishing
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Native Americans settled the land before there were any colonials.

Sooo ...?
I think you should reference my comment in the post above yours:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
And perhaps the federal government should consider who really has legitimate claim to ownership, if not the Bundys.
__________________
Life is a grave, and I dig it
SLC Flyfishing is offline   2
Old Apr 12, 2014, 11:49 PM   #23
SLC Flyfishing
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBlazed View Post
Yeah, that's not exactly where I was going with that comment. I was more pointing out the hypocrisy of the right wing and their hatred of "welfare queens".
I'll bet you never saw that coming, did you?

The right wing may not approve of "welfare queens" but I don't think you'll find them claiming they're doing anything illegal. You certainly will see them rail against the idea of giving welfare to illegal immigrants.
__________________
Life is a grave, and I dig it
SLC Flyfishing is offline   4
Old Apr 13, 2014, 12:05 AM   #24
Southern Dad
macrumors 6502a
 
Southern Dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Walt Disney World
Raw video from the Bundy Ranch

The LINK in case it won't work



Local New Media Coverage - LINK in case it doesn't work

Southern Dad is offline   0
Old Apr 13, 2014, 05:37 AM   #25
satcomer
macrumors 601
 
satcomer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Upstate NYS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
Raw video from the Bundy Ranch

The LINK in case it won't work

YouTube: video

Local New Media Coverage - LINK in case it doesn't work

YouTube: video
Don't you know how to post Youtube links so they play on the site?
__________________
Mac Pro Dual 2.8 Quad(Rev B.), 16 G RAM, OS X 10.9, 23'' LCD
Mac Book Pro Core 2 Duo 2.16Ghz, SuperDrive, 2G RAM, OS X 10.7.5
iPad 3, 32 black
satcomer is offline   0


Closed Thread
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Middle School Shooting - Reno/Sparks, Nevada bradl Politics, Religion, Social Issues 258 Oct 26, 2013 04:02 PM
Reno Summit - Nevada (iPhone 5) g35riderz iPhone Launch Meetups 0 Sep 21, 2012 09:00 AM
[FREE GAME] Faunia Rancher mirapop iPhone and iPod touch Apps 0 Jun 2, 2012 04:50 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:01 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC