Another thing Sleeve and I probably agree on...

[BraveUlysses]

Maybe I should rephrase my question. Why did the BLM conspire to deprive at least one Nevada rancher of his rights?

Lay out your argument instead of this 'just asking questions' shit. I'm not up to date on whatever conspiracy theory you're talking about.

[frankenbeemer]

If someone knows the answers, why does he ignore the question?

Maybe I should rephrase my question. Why did the BLM conspire to deprive at least one Nevada rancher of his rights?

[z31maniac]

Why would a federal judge accuse the BLM of conspiracy if it wasn't true?

If someone knows the answers, why does he ignore the question?

[frankenbeemer]

I'll ask again, do you understand why he lost the case in 98? Did you even try to research it?


Maybe I shouldn't waste my time replying to someone who believes in BLM conspiracies and refuses to educate themselves.

Why would a federal judge accuse the BLM of conspiracy if it wasn't true?

[BraveUlysses]

What am I equating? I'm not asking if he signed it, I'm asking for evidence that he did.

I remain more concerned about the BLM officials who engaged in conspiracy than Bundy's despicable racism.

I'll ask again, do you understand why he lost the case in 98? Did you even try to research it?


Maybe I shouldn't waste my time replying to someone who believes in BLM conspiracies and refuses to educate themselves.

[frankenbeemer]

I'm not sure how quotes from a 300-year-old dead guy are relevant to this in any way. Also, please post a source. Otherwise it's completely useless. AFAIK you could have written that.



Again, I would like to see a source on the words that you've posted. Without a source it's all just hearsay.

They are easily found. How about your hearsay on Bundy signing an agreement with the conspiratorial BLM?

[frankenbeemer]

Why do you keep asking if he signed it as if it matters? educate yourself on this situation and stop using false equivalency fallacies.

What am I equating? I'm not asking if he signed it, I'm asking for evidence that he did.

I remain more concerned about the BLM officials who engaged in conspiracy than Bundy's despicable racism.

[CorvallisBMW]

Here's a new gem from Mr Bundy:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy 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.
“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.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/24/cliven-bundy-on-blacks-are-they-better-off-as-slaves/

Some lawmakers have offered statements supportive of Bundy. One of them, Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), quickly distanced himself. A Heller spokeswoman told the Times that the senator "completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way.” ...a comment from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has also been supportive of Bundy's cause: "His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him."

[CorvallisBMW]

In his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, Joseph Story, certainly no friend of Anti-Federalism, emphasized the "importance" of the Second Amendment. He went on to describe the militia as the "natural defence of a free country" not only "against sudden foreign invasions" and "domestic insurrections," with which one might well expect a Federalist to be concerned, but also against "domestic usurpations of power by rulers.""The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered," Story wrote, "as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power by rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

Because legal does not necessarily mean moral or ethical (see Dred Scott decision). I don't know whether the actions of the BLM were ethical or not, and I don't know Cliven Bundy. Charismatic scofflaw or legitimate victim of usurpation? I'm guessing somewhere in between.

I'm not sure how quotes from a 300-year-old dead guy are relevant to this in any way. Also, please post a source. Otherwise it's completely useless. AFAIK you could have written that.

The statutes in Nevada may actually favor embattled cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and his cattle business in Clark County Nevada,where his ranch is located just Northeast of Las Vegas. The BLM seems to realize this based on an earlier case BLM lost which they have under appeal against a now deceased Nye County,Nevada cattle rancher by the name of Wayne Hage.
Mr. Hage signed his 1993 BLM agreement subject to an amended statement which Hage attached which confirmed his entrenched water and grazing tights under Nevada law. Mr. Bundy did not sign his BLM agreement that same year due to sharply reduced cattle unit grazing rights designed to decimate his cattle business, and stopped paying grazing fees to the government.
Even though continuing to graze since rejecting his 1993 renewal contract permit , Mr. Bundy has never since paid grazing fees which he most likely does not even owe to BLM based of the success of the Hage case against BLM.

I don't know if it's factual, do you have evidence he did sign?

Again, I would like to see a source on the words that you've posted. Without a source it's all just hearsay.

[BraveUlysses]

My main point was that the BLM is not blameless. The signature question was directed at Corvallis. Why claim he signed it if it doesn't matter?

Why do you keep asking if he signed it as if it matters? educate yourself on this situation and stop using false equivalency fallacies.

[frankenbeemer]

Do you know if it matters, legally, if he signed it or not?

My main point was that the BLM is not blameless. The signature question was directed at Corvallis. Why claim he signed it if it doesn't matter?

[BraveUlysses]

PS good job tea party, rand paul, fox news and mr scumbag sleeve. You've hitched your wagon to this racist shithead:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?_r=1

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy 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.

“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.”

[BraveUlysses]

The statutes in Nevada may actually favor embattled cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and his cattle business in Clark County Nevada,where his ranch is located just Northeast of Las Vegas. The BLM seems to realize this based on an earlier case BLM lost which they have under appeal against a now deceased Nye County,Nevada cattle rancher by the name of Wayne Hage.
Mr. Hage signed his 1993 BLM agreement subject to an amended statement which Hage attached which confirmed his entrenched water and grazing tights under Nevada law. Mr. Bundy did not sign his BLM agreement that same year due to sharply reduced cattle unit grazing rights designed to decimate his cattle business, and stopped paying grazing fees to the government.
Even though continuing to graze since rejecting his 1993 renewal contract permit , Mr. Bundy has never since paid grazing fees which he most likely does not even owe to BLM based of the success of the Hage case against BLM.

I don't know if it's factual, do you have evidence he did sign?

Do you know if it matters, legally, if he signed it or not? You're doing a bang up job playing farbin's role of meaninglessly questioning everything.

Why did he lose his court case in 98?

[frankenbeemer]

Because it weakens whomever argument it is when there is a clear agenda behind it.

That statement alone shows the bias of the author.

That's true enough. In this case the authors conjecture is shared by United States District judge Robert C. Jones:

....government officials, and perhaps also Mr. Snow, 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.....

[z31maniac]

Why? It's not my conjecture, it's not even the point.

Because it weakens whomever argument it is when there is a clear agenda behind it.

That statement alone shows the bias of the author.