Nevada BLM actions background

Pages

682 posts / 0 new
Last post
Longshot's picture
Longshot
Offline
Joined: 12/1/03

gst Said:

Plainsman Said:

It seems not every one is ready to cave to the Federal take over as ron wish us to believe.

I can't find that anywhere Hardwaterman said anything like that.  Would you quote  and highlight it for me?  Thanks

Just as soon as you answer the question below in red Bruce.

gst Said:

Plainsman Said:

I watched that Jimmy Sengen or whatever clip.  The lady that was on was from a ranching background so she isn't any more of a answer to end all questions than you or gst. Bruce can you prove what she says wrong????

Typical, gst the man with a million questions and demands answers who won't answer those asked of him.  And if he doesn't he will just claim they aren't comparable.  Fritz refused to answer my question also. 

I'm also still waiting for you to post were I stated that the BLM did no wrong along with where I stated I would stand up for a crooked judge. 

Now I know why you sign off on some of your posts with the word CREDIBILITY.  You're looking for some.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:

Alpine Said:
"As ticked as we get at liberals Alpine I think you can agree with me on these things."

I can live with everything you said and fly the flag for most of it.  
If I must err towards the actions of OBOZO or the actions of Bundy I'll err to the side of citizen Bundy. 

If it's Obama or Bundy I'll go Bundy too, but I don't think this country is so far gone we have to back either pile of crap. 

Indeed, 52  out of 53 ranchers being forced off these Federal lands by lawsuits from radical enviromentalists and crooked cronyism  so they can be sold to the Chinese is certainly not going too far.


gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

notnr103 Said:
I missed the last 23 pages of this thread, can somebody summarize for me or same old arguing?

The first few pages were a pretty good discussion and then the same old players as predicted from the start dragged it down to the same old arguing.

The 3rd post into the topic, Marksman nailed it.

marksman Said:
Thanks Gabe for the real facts again. I will wait for the huggers AKA plainsman and hard waterman to try to bs other people on here fishmahn will defend the socialist policy of this "president "  

Took a while for old fish to show, but damn marksman can call em.

( you might need to add old longshot to your next prediction though)

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
I can't find that anywhere Hardwaterman said anything like that.  Would you quote  and highlight it for me?  Thanks
Just as soon as you answer the question below in red Bruce.

I don't think it exists gst.  You know your just about as good for ranching public relations as Bundy.  Don't take that as a complement because reasonable people will not.

Hey, if everyone can agree that Bundy is wrong then maybe we can move on to other subjects.  Until them I don't care to talk about anything else and will not. 

The 3rd post into the topic, Marksman nailed it.

No one will ever accuse you of humbleness gst. 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:

Bruce can you prove what she says wrong???? 
 

I'm not going to waste my time trying to find the legal terms to prove what the average doorknob already understands

So then you can't?
 
I think that is something the "average doorknob already understands".

Bruce, it seems you have entered the "Everyone else that doesn't listen to me is a doorknob or dumb ass" Ron Gilmore zone.

Next thing we know you will be telling us all how to ranch even though you don;t make a living do so yourself.............oh wait a minute, you have.....

feather_duster's picture
feather_duster
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 9/10/06

 COME ON BRUCE~!!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Longshot Said:

gst Said:

Plainsman Said:

It seems not every one is ready to cave to the Federal take over as ron wish us to believe.

I can't find that anywhere Hardwaterman said anything like that.  Would you quote  and highlight it for me?  Thanks

Just as soon as you answer the question below in red Bruce.

gst Said:

Plainsman Said:

I watched that Jimmy Sengen or whatever clip.  The lady that was on was from a ranching background so she isn't any more of a answer to end all questions than you or gst. Bruce can you prove what she says wrong????

Typical, gst the man with a million questions and demands answers who won't answer those asked of him.  And if he doesn't he will just claim they aren't comparable.  Fritz refused to answer my question also. 

I'm also still waiting for you to post were I stated that the BLM did no wrong along with where I stated I would stand up for a crooked judge. 

Now I know why you sign off on some of your posts with the word CREDIBILITY.  You're looking for some.

longshot, just because you do not think a question has been answered does not mean it has not been answered.

Please show where I said you would "stand up for a crooked judge".

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

feather_duster Said:
 COME ON BRUCE~!!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

pber Said:
EVERYONE REALLY NEEDS TO LISTEN TO WAYNE HAGE'S INTERVIEW.  HE WAS AT THE BUNDY RANCH WHEN THE BLM STANDOFF WENT DOWN. 

www1.gcnlive.com/CMS/index.php/archivespage

You will need to click on April in the archive list and go to April 22 and then go to around the 05:40 mark to start the interveiw.  He does not talk about the standoff though until the very end of the interview. 

pber, indeed everyone should listen carefully to this interview. It ill be intersting to hear the follow up interview.

How many times have ron and bruce stated Wayne Hage was right and knew well what he was doing and was in the right. And yet when this very person states Cliven Bundy was right to do what he did they dismiss these views.

Note how many times in this thread ron has claimed Wayne Hage should be the "voice" and "face" of this issue. Note how others have condemned those that exercised their 2nd amendment rights as "radicals" and yet Mr Hage states proudly when he went to support Cliven Bundy he had a weapon with him.

People such as plainsman and company spout readily about the rights granted under the 2nd amendment and how important they are to this nation yet when it is used for something they are opposed to they are quick to condemn.

The other thing I find curious is a number of actual real life lawyers that are familiar with these cases claim support of Cliven Bundy and yet the legal experts on FBO deny their opinions.

In a way, ron is right in that Wayne Hage makes a better "representation" because of his ability to articulate, but what he overlooks and what Mr. Hage points out is the simple honest nature of Cliven Bundy that resonates with the people that actually know him. (I can understand how that is lost on ron)

Instead people like plainsman and Robert Reich who have never met Mr. Bundy are quick to malign and lay accusations based on what.

I wonder if ron now thinks Mr Hage as well as Allen West and others like that  are "dumb asses" as well for making the connection to Sen Reid as he spouted of for how many pages i this thread.

ron, Bruce, longshot, listen to the interview and answer one question I have asked before.

When the rule of law is broken by the govt that is responsible for upholding the rule of law, are we as citizens not responsible to stand against that by any means necessary?
 
Or should we as citizens simply allow ourselves to b broke to the yoke of govt tyranny because to do otherwise might be in violation of the rule of law which the very govt placing the yoke about our neck has discarded?

I for one am glad we were not dependent on people like ron and bruce to stand against the "rule of law" that was the tyranny of the govt from which this nation was born. We might all still be drinking tea and eating crumpets.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03



When the rule of law is broken by the govt that is responsible for upholding the rule of law, are we as citizens not responsible to stand against that by any means 

You don't have a clue do you?  When the judge ruled against Bundy the rule of law was with the BLM.  They handled it poorly, but if the Bundy supporters had fired on the BLM they would now be running just like Gordon Kahl.
All I need to know about these people is that they hid behind tbeir womes skirts.


gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

painsman, I can see where someone like your self who does not think there should be ANY grazing on these lands would not understand WHEN the govt broke the "rule of law" or admit to it but perhaps you can go back to where ladd mentions the multiple use regulations that these lands were entered into that the govt broke by using the very fees Mr. Bundy was paying to end the multiple use of grazing on these lands.

I mean given your support of organizations such as the NWF and their agendas to end grazing on these lands and your own admission of that belief, I can see where you may not view the govt pushing cattle off these lands as breaking the regulations and agreements entered into , but regardless of your views, that is exactly what transpired back in the 90's when Mr. Bundy began to refuse to pay the Federal govt these fees after they cut his allotments by 90 % as a result of lawsuits by these radical enviromentalists.

And combine that with the Federal govt's refusal to acknowledge Nevada water rights law in this case as well as the Hage case and others and it appears that the Federal Govt was the one that initially broke the "rule of law".

How many times did the Federal govt break the "rule of law" in the Hage case before the courts overturned their actions? How many court hearings did it take to get to that point?

Once again bruce the judge ruled only on the ownership of the "naked" lands by the Federal govt, not on Mr.Bundys right to graze the forage tied to the water rights under Nevada state law.

I can also see as a life long govt employee where you beleive the Federal govt knows best and support these expansions of govt controls over private individuals and states. After all you answered to them every day of your life for decades  and you have spoken out against the states being the ones to better manage these lands instead.

It appears that after a lifetime of serving the Federal govt, the yoke seems very comfortable to you Bruce.

Comfortable enoughthat you will deny factual information and dismiss articles that show connections to the actions of the BLM tied to selling of these lands of the "people" to the Chinese.

Do you hate agriculture THAT much bruce that you will overlook all that to malign one man and those that support him falsely.

You were quick to condemn the welder in Wyoming and now just as quick to condemn this rancher in Nevada.

you support and excuse  the expansion of the over reach of the Federal govt every chance you get bruce

And yet you try to portray yourslef as an ultra conservative.

Credibility

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/ben-carson-feds-send-arms-ranch-fa...

Via The Washington Times:

The Bundy case in Nevada provides many insights into the state of our nation with respect to the relationship between the people and the government.

The Bundys appear to be honorable American citizens without adequate legal counsel to help resolve a federal land issue about which they disagree with the Bureau of Land Management. Without question, they violated some of the innumerable laws and regulations that continue to entangle every aspect of American life.

Their violations could certainly have been handled through a multitude of less brutal means than those employed by our federal government, which through the mouthpiece of Sen. Harry Reid emphasizes how important it is for the government to enforce its laws.

It is quite interesting to see, though, that the same bureaucrats refuse to enforce some of our federal border-protection laws and other domestic policies with which they disagree. Perhaps

Mr. Reid’s time could be better spent explaining why it is acceptable for the federal government to pick and choose which laws it wishes to enforce.

The senator readily referred to the Bundys and their supporters as “domestic terrorists,” but the current administration is reticent about applying the same term to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who admitted slaughtering more than a dozen people in 2009 at Fort Hood in Texas. What does this tell us about our government and its perceptions and alignments?

The massive show of federal force in the Bundy case is frightening because it gives us a brief glimpse of the totalitarian regime that awaits a sleeping populace that does not take seriously its voting responsibilities, and places in public office (and returns them to office) who do not represent traditional American values.

The fact that the ranchers were well armed and willing to literally fight for their rights probably tempered the enthusiasm of the federal forces to engage in further aggression. It was clear from the body language and some of the reported verbal responses of the government forces that they were not prepared to engage in lethal combat with fellow Americans.

Those Americans who are concerned about the possible future imposition of martial law after a financial collapse or some other event should take solace in knowing that many military and law enforcement personnel would likely refuse to obey commands inconsistent with freedom and American values. Such commands could emanate from any political party in the future, but it is likely that such a party would be one controlling an administration that selectively enforces laws and ignores or excuses corruption.

Another important lesson from this incident is the value of a well-armed citizenry. The Second Amendment was crafted by wise citizens who recognized how quickly an enemy invasion could occur or how our own government could be deceived into thinking it had the right to dominate the people.

Such domination is considerably more difficult when people have arms and can put up significant resistance. This is the reason that brutal dictators like Fidel Castro, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler and Idi Amin tried to disarm the populace before imposing governmental control. Such domination could occur in America in the not-too-distant future if we are not vigilant.

We must be reasonable and willing to engage in conversation about how to limit the availability of dangerous weapons to criminals and very violent or insane people. In light of past worldwide atrocities committed by tyrants, though, to threaten the Second Amendment rights of ordinary American citizens is itself insanity. Those wishing to ban all assault weapons fail to understand the original intent of the Second Amendment.

Ah hell, Dr. Ben Carson is likely just another "dumb ass" that does not understand the govts  willingness to break the"rule of law" when they choose or the citizens responsibility to stand up to them when they do.

Crackshot.'s picture
Crackshot.
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/09

 

 

 

 

Life is good
 

 

 

 

KurtR's picture
KurtR
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/16/07

 

fishmahn Said:
Go to the J Stewart video a few pages back.  The guy obviously is trying to get enough free diapers for his daughter Shanika's six babies via the cow grazing welfare system.

is this shanika

she looks like the calves wooped her ass
or is this her


 Adn

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Geothermal Said:
 

Is that a Pringle?

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Am watching Hannity right now about the BLM's attempted land grab along the Oklahoma Texas border. 

Apparently the BLM haven't seen the "Don't mess with Texas" T-shirts.  

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

gst if the issue was water rights then he should have pursued that angle in court, instead he took the stance that the US Gov did not own the land. Without payment for grazing he had no legal right to retain the use of the water rights since he had not done so in a legal manner. HENCE HE SCREWED HIMSELF FOR BEING STUPID!!! He had no documentation to prove he had pertetual grazing rights that where granted prior to 1848 he had no proof of his claim. It really is that simple.

You know as well as anyone how that law works, legal activity for use of the water is required.

So try again!!!!

His whole contention was to prove that they had no ownership of the land! He failed. Now next question because that is what was and is required, legal activity and grazing without paying fees does not constitute legal use.

You can try all you want but you and others cannot get around the fact that his actions alone removed his rights when he chose the course he did. I also have never stated that the BLM prior to his actions where acting in a proper way or possibly even legal.

You and pbrer and fritz cynical need to come to grips with the hard fact that one wrong does not give a person the right to act in a wrongful manner as well.

Think about how stupid he was, first denying the US ownership, then trying to pay the grazing fee to the State and county, of which if they did own it, had not determined the grazing fee but he was going to pay what the Fed had established!! My god even a mentally challenged person could figure out that this course of action was not and is not sound. How does one pay a fee that has never been created?

So lets look at it this way. NV is deemed the owner, and decides that the established grazing fee was not enough or that the allotment level was to high or since they owned it, grazing was not really an option? All of them where real possibility that his actions would have led to.

See he wanted the grazing rate that the Feds had determined, the allotment as well etc... it was not a very well thought out approach and the end results in court have proven that!

SO keep parading him around, oh and by the way got a couple calls from people that attended the birthday party. One had question to your response about it! When you stated that the ranchers you talked to at the bull sale said the BLM where wrong, did they say as well that Bundy was right? Seems your posts are good fodder for laughter around the coffee table in the AM.

So there it is, gst, question on water rights addressed and Bundy stupidity are the reason he is without legal standing. NO getting around that reality~~

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

So you understand my post, gst, Bundy was banking on the BLM standards of use, in his hope of moving the ownership to the state, and was thinking that those standards would be the same when in all likelihood they may very well not have been.

Real sound high brow thinking!

Another four pages and the facts remain the same, Bundy by his actions screwed himself, BLM was wrong as well. Neither wrong excuses the other or justifies illegal acts!!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Fritz the Cat Said:
Am watching Hannity right now about the BLM's attempted land grab along the Oklahoma Texas border. 

Apparently the BLM haven't seen the "Don't mess with Texas" T-shirts.  

Hannity is doing a poor job as usual!!! This is going to end badly (which is good_) for the BLM!!!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Hardwaterman Said:

gst if the issue was water rights then he should have pursued that angle in court, instead he took the stance that the US Gov did not own the land. Without payment for grazing he had no legal right to retain the use of the water rights since he had not done so in a legal manner. HENCE HE SCREWED HIMSELF FOR BEING STUPID!!! He had no documentation to prove he had pertetual grazing rights that where granted prior to 1848 he had no proof of his claim. It really is that simple.

You know as well as anyone how that law works, legal activity for use of the water is required.

So try again!!!!

ron for such a sharp legal mind, you seem to overlook one thing. Mr Bundy was not the plaintiff in the court case you keep citing.

  Ron as the self believed FBO legal expert you should know how these cases work, you can not simply bring whatever you wish into play in the court.

His whole contention was to prove that they had no ownership of the land!

Once again ron, Mr. Bundy was NOT the plaintiff.
He has not yet had his day in court to prove what Mr. Hage did regarding water rights and his unbroken chain of usage to rant him right of forage use has he?
He failed. Now next question because that is what was and is required, legal activity and grazing without paying fees does not constitute legal use.

You can try all you want but you and others cannot get around the fact that his actions alone removed his rights when he chose the course he did. I also have never stated that the BLM prior to his actions where acting in a proper way or possibly even legal.

So you NOW admit that the Federal govt may have been violating the rule of law?
 
So ron, answer the question

When the rule of law is broken by the govt that is responsible for upholding the rule of law, are we as citizens not responsible to stand against that by any means necessary?
 
Or should we as citizens simply allow ourselves to b broke to the yoke of govt tyranny because to do otherwise might be in violation of the rule of law which the very govt placing the yoke about our neck has discarded?

You and pbrer and fritz cynical need to come to grips with the hard fact that one wrong does not give a person the right to act in a wrongful manner as well.
Once again ron, when people broke the Jim Crow laws, were they justified in doing so??

You seem to have a different opinion of Mr Cooks breaking of the law here in ND ron.

How many pages have you spent arguing his actions are justified because YOU believe that law is unconstitutional????

Think about how stupid he was, first denying the US ownership, then trying to pay the grazing fee to the State and county, of which if they did own it, had not determined the grazing fee but he was going to pay what the Fed had established!! My god even a mentally challenged person could figure out that this course of action was not and is not sound. How does one pay a fee that has never been created?

So lets look at it this way. NV is deemed the owner, and decides that the established grazing fee was not enough or that the allotment level was to high or since they owned it, grazing was not really an option? All of them where real possibility that his actions would have led to. Since when did this factor into things?? An asteroid could hit Nevada tommorrow ?????

See he wanted the grazing rate that the Feds had determined, the allotment as well etc... it was not a very well thought out approach and the end results in court have proven that!

Are you saying Mr. Bundy WANTED the 90% cut in his allotment the BLM made back in the 90's? ????The same cuts that forced 52 other ranchers out of business in Clark County?

Anything else you would like to make up ron?

SO keep parading him around, oh and by the way got a couple calls from people that attended the birthday party. One had question to your response about it! When you stated that the ranchers you talked to at the bull sale said the BLM where wrong, did they say as well that Bundy was right? Seems your posts are good fodder for laughter around the coffee table in the AM.

So there it is, gst, question on water rights addressed  Really??and Bundy stupidity are the reason he is without legal standing. NO getting around that reality~~

 

I guess Ron Gilmore has decreed this over. not much left to say.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Hardwaterman at 6;50pm on KFYR they interviewed that lady that run for governor in Colorado.  They asked her what she thought of the Bundy thing.  She said it had mixed results.  She said it's good that people are finally talking about it, but the Bundy and supporters made them all look like rednecks and that hurts the cause. 

I think were in agreement that if people want to talk about those things great, but it's time to drop the Bundy is a hero and I support him nonsense.  All that does is make people look ------ well redneck.  It makes it look like if they want to battle with brains they are going to loose, and if they want to battle with guns they will loose too.

Nothing makes them look as bad as putting their women in front of them.  What countries was that we talked about a few years ago that we thought they were so barbaric because they used their women for human shields.  Do these people have no more value to their women than their cows?  What century do they think they live in?  Maybe they have property rights on their women too.

When the rule of law is broken by the govt that is responsible for upholding the rule of law

gst I just got back from law enforcement training about ten minutes ago.  When the court rules against someone you bring them into compliance any way possible.  You don't go right to lethal force, but you look at it in five steps and stay one step above the perpetrator.  You try to use as little force as possible, but when there is resistance you take it to one step above them.  If they increase force you take it to one step above that.  I will tell you the BLM didn't handle it well from a public relations standpoint, but they did not violate the rule of law.  Bundy is in the wrong. 

I would say BLM should have had an arrest warrant from the court.  Then they should have included local law enforcement, or at least tried.  Then they should have gone for a federal court order to be enforced by a law enforcement agency rather than handling it themselves which some will use to try say they were bias rather than legal.  There certainly were better alternatives. 

When dealing with radical groups it's best to take steps so the public doesn't falsely perceive any improprieties. 

pber's picture
pber
Offline
Joined: 5/19/08

The second part of Wayne Hage's interview is up and he states Bundy owns the water/forage rights.  Very interesting.  Click on April 23, 2014 and it starts around 05:00.

www1.gcnlive.com/CMS/index.php/archivespage

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:
Hardwaterman at 6;50pm on KFYR they interviewed that lady that run for governor in Colorado.  They asked her what she thought of the Bundy thing.  She said it had mixed results.  She said it's good that people are finally talking about it, but the Bundy and supporters made them all look like rednecks and that hurts the cause. 

I think were in agreement that if people want to talk about those things great, but it's time to drop the Bundy is a hero and I support him nonsense.  All that does is make people look ------ well redneck.  It makes it look like if they want to battle with brains they are going to loose, and if they want to battle with guns they will loose too.

Nothing makes them look as bad as putting their women in front of them.  What countries was that we talked about a few years ago that we thought they were so barbaric because they used their women for human shields.  Do these people have no more value to their women than their cows?  What century do they think they live in?  Maybe they have property rights on their women too.

Bruce who do you keep referring to that "put their women in front of them?"

What "lady" exactly was being interviewed Bruce?

It seems that you are now suggesting that maybe Bundy was right but is just not the best poster boy for the cause???

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

When the Fed Gov is wrong you sue them. Not take up arms, or break laws yourself!!! Our nation has had a history of gov being wrong and having people stand up and challenge it in court and win. Not go out and break laws!

So lets cut the bull shit and get down to brass tacks. Since you are siding with Bundy and his supporters, are you willing to go on record and stand behind his statement that he does not recognize the Fed Gov? Are you supporting armed acts of violence by him or his supporters?

Answer these two questions. DO so and put your name to it not a screen name. Have the balls to put your name out there since you are so willing to do so with others!! Or are you going to run away from reality again!!!

Bundy in his defense tried and failed to prove the Feds did not own the land. His actions where illegal, thus he cannot and did not legally retain any water rights that required him to act in a legal manner to sustain them. So try again!!

You are in your own bull shit over your head and simply do not want to accept his own actions are in large part why he is going to be broke and possibly in jail. I doubt that but it could happen. Wrongs on one side do not justify wrongs on the other side.

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

pber's picture
pber
Offline
Joined: 5/19/08
Plainsman Stated:  Nothing makes them look as bad as putting their women in front of them.  What countries was that we talked about a few years ago that we thought they were so barbaric because they used their women for human shields.  Do these people have no more value to their women than their cows?  What century do they think they live in?  Maybe they have property rights on their women too.

Plainsman, do you believe everything you hear on the media.  Putting the women and children in front has been debunked.   This was a statement made by Sheriff Mack who was not even at the Bundy ranch.

It was a tactical ploy that I was trying to get them to use.” says Mack. Mack goes on to clarify that the ploy was not adopted and that he was not on the scene during the standoff. He continued by saying that he would risk his own life as well in taking a stand.

Read more: http://benswann.com/truth-did-bundy-ranch-protesters-put-women-between-themselves-and-armed-federal-agents/#ixzz2zlnmZPcQ

As a woman, I can tell you I would have been right out there in the front with the men.  I don't believe any of the women there were coerced to do anything that they did not want to by the protestors.  But I did see BLM men throwing women to the ground. 

Are you saying women can't think for themselves Bruce??

 

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

I watched one of he people there (he said he was with Bundy) say that they did it.  Not the media, not the sheriff, but one of their own people.   He said if the BLM shot one of their women it would have created a public outrage against them.  I think it should create a public outrage against the crazies not the BLM.   

If the women did it on their own they have just as big a thinking problem as their men.  I guess if women volunteer to get shot so old man can get a new model oh well. 

It seems that you are now suggesting that maybe Bundy was right but is just not the best poster boy for the cause???
 

If that's what you got out of my post there isn't much hope of having a discussion with you.

There was this little bird fell from his nest.  He was getting cold and chirping away complaining.  Then a bull come along and dumped on him.  He was in it up to his eyes but nice and toasty for a while.  Then he started getting cold again and chirping.  Along came a coyote and picked him out of the crap and ate him.  The moral of the story gst is when your up to your eyes in bs keep your mouth shut. 

pber's picture
pber
Offline
Joined: 5/19/08
Plainsman stated:  I watched one of he people there say that they did it.  Not the media, not the sheriff, but one of their own people. 

WOW, there is a lot of men hiding behind the women's skirts in this video.   www.youtube.com/watch


gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Hardwaterman Said:
When the Fed Gov is wrong you sue them. Ron, has Mr.Bundy had that opportunity? Do you know how much he has spent defending himself in the first case brought forth by the Federal govt? Remember ron private ranchers can not get tax payer funding for their lawsuits like your nonprofits can. Perhaps there is not as much money in ranching as there is cleaning blinds ron. Not take up arms, or break laws yourself!!! ron, what is the purpose of the 2nd amendment?  Our nation has had a history of gov being wrong and having people stand up and challenge it in court and win. Not go out and break laws! How was this nation formed ron? You seem to be following the liberal program of rewriting or ignoring history.

So lets cut the bull shit and get down to brass tacks. Since you are siding with Bundy and his supporters, are you willing to go on record and stand behind his statement that he does not recognize the Fed Gov? Are you supporting armed acts of violence by him or his supporters? Ron you are going even further off your rocker than usual. What I "support" is what the courts ruled in Wayne Hages case. Remember that case you claimed to be so familiar with ron?

Answer these two questions. Ron, it is very impolite to DEMAND answers to your questions while dodging ones asked of yourself previously. DO so and put your name to it not a screen name.How about my initials  there "hardwaterman"?? Have the balls to put your name out there since you are so willing to do so with others!! Or are you going to run away from reality again!!!

Bundy in his defense tried and failed to prove the Feds did not own the land.

Once again ron it is not about land rights ownership, you really don;t seem to understand that. His actions where illegal, thus he cannot and did not legally retain any water rights that required him to act in a legal manner to sustain them. Do you have any legal precedence  to back up your sentence here your Honor? so try again!!

You are in your own bull shit over your head and simply do not want to accept his own actions are in large part why he is going to be broke and possibly in jail. I doubt that but it could happen. Wrongs on one side do not justify wrongs on the other side. Ron did you listen to the second part of the interview with Wayne Hage who you have admitted is right and have held up as the appropriate spokeman for this issue?

 
 

So lets get to the "brass tacks" here,

On one hand there is an actual lawyer that has successfully been to court and had the very claims he suggests Mr Bundy has upheld in court overturning the BLM claims.

This actual real lawyer is siding with Cliven Bundy and seems to think he has the same right of ownership of the water and forage as he did in his own successful case against the BLM.

Other actual lawyers that have experience in these cases are suggesting Mr Bundy has standing.

And then on the other side of the scale we have the Honorable Judge Gilmore, (void of any actual legal title of recognition) recognized legal authority here on FBO only in his own mind., and the precedence set by his honor seems to be call anyone that disagrees with him a "dumb ass".

Hmmm, let me think about that one a minute.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:
I watched one of he people there (he said he was with Bundy) say that they did it.  Not the media, not the sheriff, but one of their own people.   He said if the BLM shot one of their women it would have created a public outrage against them.  I think it should create a public outrage against the crazies not the BLM.   

If the women did it on their own they have just as big a thinking problem as their men.  I guess if women volunteer to get shot so old man can get a new model oh wellBruce you are reaching new levels of stupidity in you posts.

It seems that you are now suggesting that maybe Bundy was right but is just not the best poster boy for the cause???
 

If that's what you got out of my post there isn't much hope of having a discussion with you.

Which woman was interveiwed on kfyr Bruce?

There was this little bird fell from his nest.  He was getting cold and chirping away complaining.  Then a bull come along and dumped on him.  He was in it up to his eyes but nice and toasty for a while.  Then he started getting cold again and chirping.  Along came a coyote and picked him out of the crap and ate him.  The moral of the story gst is when your up to your eyes in bs keep your mouth shut. 

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Ron said,

He had no documentation to prove he had pertetual grazing rights that where granted prior to 1848 he had no proof of his claim. It really is that simple.
 

It's not perpetual grazing rights, they are called patented. If anyone does an exhaustive chain of title to their property they will find the very first owner received a patent.

During the Homestead Act, each individual got 160 acres and had to live there and prove up. In Nevada the land is sparse and it was decided they needed more acres. Lands surrounding those 160 were tied to the land so that the homesteader could make a livng. Patented.

They did a lot of things to settle the west. This was before the industrial revolution and the cow was the ultimate walking mini- factory. They raised horses and mules for the army. That is until 1972 when Congress passed the Wild horse and Burro Act where-by the government took over the management of wild horses. What a disaster. 

Pages