• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nevada Ranch Armed Standoff - Everyone vs The Feds

Page 39 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Fern said:
Are these regulations enacted by bureaucrats or specific laws passed by Congress?

Because if it's the former it isn't "lawfully enacted regulations put in place by a democratically elected legislature".

Fern
Click to expand...

Does it matter?
 
IGBT said:
lots of typical liberal selective indignation here. They want to throw a land owner off his property over "grazing" and turtles which are no longer endangered..but put on their blinkers and blinders when it comes to the thousands of law breakers running across the southern border causing millions of dollars in damage to private / public properties in the course of their illegal alien activity. Typical liberal selective indignation.
Click to expand...

Well, now that you've found your outrage, you should try to find the facts. People generally do it the other way.

Noone was trying to kick him off HIS land.
 
CanOWorms said:
Nope. They're domestic terrorists and secessionist rebel scum.

Bundy is the most dangerous man in America and probably more dangerous to American national security than Osama bin Laden ever was. He's becoming the poster boy for heterosexual conservative white males fighting to maintain their privileges over equality.
Click to expand...

I would agree they are domestic terrorists.

If (and possibly when) you have some militant splinter group from Occupy Wall Street start physically roughing up, threatening or worse those they see as the enemy I would call them domestic terrorists as well. When I was kid in the 1970s, the SLA used the same catch phrases as sovereign citiizens do. They are all criminals.
 
Fern said:
A quick recap:

In 1993 the BLM ordered him to limit his cattle to 150. I'm not sure how many he had on that exact date but he seems to usually ranch about 900-1,000.

This would mean a business reduction of +80%. Businesses can't take +80% haircut in revenue and continue to survive. Accepting that is tantamount to going out business and quite possibly bankruptcy. He wouldn't even be able to sell his ranch. You can't sell a cattle ranch if the ranch can't have cattle (or at least enough to be viable).

Then the next year, 1994, the BLM reduced him down to zero cattle.

This seems very heavy handed to me. Very very heavy handed. They're forcing him out of business.
Click to expand...
I'll stipulate to all of this for the time.

That said, so what? It was their land to limit. They were the representatives of the duly elected government charged with managing that land. They determined that the land in question couldn't support more than 150 cattle. They don't owe it to him to make sure his business is viable, that isn't what we elect people to appoint people to do.

You wouldn't suggest that if it were a private land owner who wanted to limit his use of their land the private holder would have to let someone graze on their land forever just because they would lose the business if they didn't.

The speed of the BLM's move from 1993 to 1994 wouldn't appear to offer him much chance in court. Court cases usual take longer than that. On top of it, with no cattle how was he to afford a lawyer to defend himself?
Click to expand...
Wait, what? He had cattle at that time, hundreds of them, each worth over a thousand by themselves. It seems unlikely he couldn't afford a lawyer for those initial cases. Further, there were actions he could have taken to prevent the immediate loss of the cattle such as an injunction while it played out in court. That he was able to make it to court and lose twice in the 20 years it took the government to do anything to enforce the ruling makes this portion of your post extremely inaccurate. He had his day in court. He lost. He then had his day in court again. Then he lost again. On the legal battlefield he was hardly denied an opportunity to defend himself.

Well, it seems that through extreme incompetence or down malevolence the BLM was working to drive him out of business and render him defenseless in the same process.
Click to expand...
Again, twenty years to get a legal remedy if they were in the wrong. While you attribute it to malevolence or incompetence, it could just as easily be apathy or a careful determination of the facts determined that sparing the land to keep him in business was not the best use of the area when looking at it from a national perspective. Tell me why, if you believe in the market, we should be keeping around individual businesses if they are incapable of making it without government subsidies which is what this amounts to?
BTW: I've heard from another (real estate) lawyer that Bundy had to try to defend himself because didn't have the money for a lawyer. So, we also have an extremely unfair fight, but that's usually the case when is fighting the federal govt, no?
Click to expand...
He could sell three cows and get a lawyer and then pursue legal costs in a counterclaim if he had a valid case. He had the assets to afford a lawyer, if he chose not to use them, that is on him.
This whole thing was very unfair. I bet it was quite a hardship, and an unnecessary one, on a lot of people and families. All the ranchers were forced out of business. I imagine they were a good source of employment for the small community. I imagine the feed and supply stores went out-of-business. The negative effects probably rippled through restaurants, cafes, clothing store, veterinarians, auto dealerships, you name it.
Click to expand...
So why is it so many on the right don't care when a business goes overseas or closes a plant and the exact same thing happens on a bigger scale, because hey, that's business and that makes people money, but when a few ranchers have their government welfare ended and go under because of it it is a national tragedy because suddenly it is the governments job to keep private sector workers employed and choosing other things, like protecting the biodiversity of the continent and the quality of the land is monstrous?
Over turtles? The ones the govt had to kill because of an overpopulation?

Fern
Click to expand...

I have not been able to find a reputable source for this. It appears to me a misrepresentation of a situation in which a tortoise refuge near Las Vegas was closing a few months ago and some tortoises were set to be euthanized because they could not be returned to the wild. This was not due to overpopulation but because the shelter ran out of money.
 
CanOWorms said:
Nope. They're domestic terrorists and secessionist rebel scum.

Bundy is the most dangerous man in America and probably more dangerous to American national security than Osama bin Laden ever was. He's becoming the poster boy for heterosexual conservative white males fighting to maintain their privileges over equality.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what you need to keep saying if you are planning to be sued for defamation of character.
 
Stewox said:
That's exactly what you need to keep saying if you are planning to be sued for defamation of character.
Click to expand...

Sorry, opinion constitutes a valid defense against that. Keep championing free speech though, it really lends credibility to your being a defender of freedom and liberty.
 
Incorruptible said:
The only ones who the hate the Constitution are you and the liberals.
Click to expand...

I'd say I admire your persistence but I would be lying. Since your cover as an alt/sock puppet parody account has been blown, would at least have the decency to re-roll or go and harass another board that hasn't caught on to you yet? Thanks.
 
CanOWorms said:
Nope. They're domestic terrorists and secessionist rebel scum.

Bundy is the most dangerous man in America and probably more dangerous to American national security than Osama bin Laden ever was. He's becoming the poster boy for heterosexual conservative white males fighting to maintain their privileges over equality.
Click to expand...

..delusional selective indignation. Liberalism is a mental disorder.
 
Incorruptible said:
They were classical liberals you moron. Why are you distorting their views?
Click to expand...

You didn't differentiate between classical liberals and non-classical liberals, you just said liberals hate the constitution. I guess you think the founding fathers hate the constitution. Or the character you play when trolling these forums does, in any case.
 
Incorruptible said:
They were classical liberals you moron. Why are you distorting their views?
Click to expand...

tumblr_mau6q6rrd71ruxzhv.gif
 
Have any conservatives made any substantive arguments of why Bundy is not in violation of the land mgmt agreements and is not as acting like a freeloader?

All I'm seeing is generalized and tangential ideological musings of how the gov is too big and the constitution derp something something.

Need to know ASAP. I want to harvest firewood in a nearby park and the fascists at the state Forestry service are telling me I'm not allowed to. I offered to buy a firewood permit even, and the scumbags said that park is protected. This is bullshit. Next time I'm taking my rifle along with my chainsaw and I'll do whatever the fuck I want because that's what the founding fathers did.
 
Once again people are twisting themselves into knots to try to support their side. This should be simple. Who owns the land? If the government owns the land they can do what they want. Tough luck to the rancher. If I rent a house and the owner decides to quadruple the rent, what can I do? It might not be 'fair' that he is kicking me out on the street because I can't pay but it is his house. Am I supposed to get my friends with a bunch of guns and tell him I'm not moving? I thought the courts and property rights were some of the cornerstones of this country. Maybe that's different now that Obama is president.
 
Last edited:
Bird222 said:
Once again people are twisting themselves into knots to try to support their side. This should be simple. Who owns the land? If the government owns the land they can do what they want. Tough luck to the rancher. If I rent a house and the owner decides to quadruple the rent, what can I do? It might not be 'fair' that he is kicking me out on the street because I can't pay but it is his house. Am I supposed to get my friends with a bunch of guns and tell him I'm not moving? I thought the courts and property rights were some of the cornerstones of this country. Maybe that's different now that Obama is president.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the libertarian thought process....
 
I really think Incorruptible and Spatial are trolling this thread. Page after page after page and they have not made a coherent argument yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top