Merged Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher in clash with federal

[Red Baron Farms]

No, it's because he didn't pay the buck a head fee for 20 years. Bundy himself has blasted your holistic land management theory to atoms. I don't know why you can't admit you were wrong and move on. Having been wrong isn't shameful. Anyone can be wrong. Refusing to accept reality and clinging to a debunked, shattered theory like the one you've been espousing is what's shameful.

Why didn't he pay the fee? He was paying before. But he stopped. Why did he stop? Sure I can be wrong. He could have just by coincidence stopped for another reason besides the BLM telling him to remove cattle. I even am willing to look at that evidence, if it exists. I even told Kestrel that. But he also purposely obfuscated in his reply. Bundy was first ordered to remove cattle in 1993 (all but 150). He stopped paying in 1993. That is not a coincidence. It may be true that the permanent ban from all grazing of cattle on the Bunker Hill allotment didn't happen until 1998, but that order came precisely because he was engaged in civil disobedience of the previous orders.

 

[Kestrel]

Of course. Expecting a renter to pay the landowner for the use of the land is tantamount to slavery.

Bundy objected to paying only 10% of the market rate for grazing fees.

 

[desertgal]

I personally think that rather than me being the so called "misunderstood underdog" that actually many here do understand and are purposely obfuscating because they have no decent counter argument, so they prefer to argue the purely legal issue instead. (where their argument is much stronger)

Right. ALL these people secretly agree with you and, instead of simply saying so (or not saying anything), they are jumping in to argue round and round with you because...well, no reason, really. It's just what most people do when they agree with someone.

 

[halleyscomet]

Why didn't he pay the fee? He was paying before. But he stopped. Why did he stop? Sure I can be wrong. He could have just by coincidence stopped for another reason besides the BLM telling him to remove cattle. I even am willing to look at that evidence, if it exists. I even told Kestrel that. But he also purposely obfuscated in his reply. Bundy was first ordered to remove cattle in 1993 (all but 150). He stopped paying in 1993. That is not a coincidence. It may be true that the permanent ban from all grazing of cattle on the Bunker Hill allotment didn't happen until 1998, but that order came precisely because he was engaged in civil disobedience of the previous orders.

He's made his reasoning pretty clear in the statements quoted above. Why do you cling to a fantasy land holistic land management philosophy he has literally never mentioned or alluded to?

Competent conspiracy theorists come up with rationalization beyond bald assertion. You really need to step up your game if you want ANYONE to take your philosophy seriously.

 

[halleyscomet]

Right. ALL these people secretly agree with you and, instead of simply saying so (or not saying anything), they are jumping in to argue round and round with you because...well, no reason, really. It's just what most people do when they agree with someone.

The mods can lock the thread now. You've won.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Right. ALL these people secretly agree with you and, instead of simply saying so (or not saying anything), they are jumping in to argue round and round with you because...well, no reason, really. It's just what most people do when they agree with someone.

Depends on what you mean by agree. I am pretty sure they will not agree at this point with any solution that even gives Bundy the remotest option of grazing that land. But as far as understanding the root of the whole range war is BLM ecological policy for grazing public land, they would have to know that is the root issue here. They might not want to admit it due to debate purposes, but they have to know it. You'd have to be even dumber than Bundy not to know it.

 

[desertgal]

Depends on what you mean by agree. I am pretty sure they will not agree at this point with any solution that even gives Bundy the remotest option of grazing that land. But as far as understanding the root of the whole range war is BLM ecological policy for grazing public land, they would have to know that is the root issue here. They might not want to admit it due to debate purposes, but they have to know it. You'd have to be even dumber than Bundy not to know it.

A fictional, unsupported scenario created just to cast the BLM as the bad guy? I don't think even Cliven Bundy is that stupid.

 

[halleyscomet]

as far as understanding the root of the whole range war is BLM ecological policy for grazing public land, they would have to know that is the root issue here.

No, you're still the only one who believes that, especially as you've done absolutely nothing to support the thesis beyond bald assertion.

This thread has convinced me that the theory you're promoting is full of enough bovine excrement to fertilize the grazing grounds in question for the next decade. Thank you for introducing me to this comical "theory" and then so thoroughly debunking it by failing to provide any evidence to support it.

 

[halleyscomet]

A fictional, unsupported scenario created just to cast the BLM as the bad guy? I don't think even Cliven Bundy is that stupid.

Your last post was a home run and you've followed it up with a grand slam.

 

[rwguinn]

No, you're still the only one who believes that, especially as you've done absolutely nothing to support the thesis beyond bald assertion.

This thread has convinced me that the theory you're promoting is full of enough bovine excrement to fertilize the grazing grounds in question for the next decade. Thank you for introducing me to this comical "theory" and then so thoroughly debunking it by failing to provide any evidence to support it.

Fertilizer without water grows no grass--and grass is not what you want on that desert environment.
As even RBF has admitted, fires cause lots of damage to that particular environment...

 

[marplots]

It cheapens Bundy's patriotic stance to contribute money. I think the more honorable thing to do is offer prayers instead.

Dear FSM, please help Cliven in his time of need and invest him with sanity and intelligence. Amen.

 

[Corsair 115]

Colour me a pessimist if you must, but mindful of the debacle that happened almost nineteen years ago in Oklahoma City, I can't but help think all the ridiculous ideological nonsense being spouted in this affair may well end up with another truck filled with fertilizer being parked by another federal building...

 

[Ladewig]

It doesn't justify it or make it right. What I said is that it is a common reaction that humans throughout history have displayed. In fact it is exceedingly rare that a non violent resistance is put up when faced with government bullying.

Exceedingly rare? WTF?
When the EPA told every gas station in the country to upgrade their underground storage tanks no matter what the cost (1988), gas station owners did not take up arms. When the IRS seizes a business, there are not armed standoffs. Eminent Domain cases can give rise to bitter arguments, but rifles are not pointed at county officials. The vast majority of people who think that the government has placed their businesses in a "no-win situation" do NOT point guns at federal employees.

 

[DarthFishy]

As one of the silent lurkers on the thread I just want to say that the whole issue is obviously about NOT grazing rights and holistic grazing and how the BLM should manage the land (besides getting paid when people use it).

 

[ponderingturtle]

Bundy objected to paying only 10% of the market rate for grazing fees.

But subsidies to the cattle industry is what the government is for I thought.

 

[desertgal]

Your last post was a home run and you've followed it up with a grand slam.

I've never actually seen a "Everyone knows I'm right, they just won't admit it for debate purposes" approach until now. You have to admit, the blind arrogance of it is stunning.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Depends on what you mean by agree. I am pretty sure they will not agree at this point with any solution that even gives Bundy the remotest option of grazing that land. But as far as understanding the root of the whole range war is BLM ecological policy for grazing public land, they would have to know that is the root issue here. They might not want to admit it due to debate purposes, but they have to know it. You'd have to be even dumber than Bundy not to know it.

What would a principled person do in Bundy's place, were this a case of civil disobedience over an unjust policy? What would you have done?

Perhaps refusing to pay fees (as Bundy did) would be a start. Certainly, attempting resolution with the BLM, then taking the issue to court? Then, wouldn't the best way to prove the case be to do what you believed in? In this case, holistic grazing practices, to demonstrate the benefit? Imagine the data you could present to prove the BLM was wrong?

Bundy did act as he believed, and is still doing so. The results are dramatically worse than 20 years ago. He didn't care for the land, he allowed his herd to go feral. Bundy chose a scorched earth policy, "If I can't have it, no one will!", that leaves him no leg to stand on.

Case closed.

 

[Kestrel]

Colour me a pessimist if you must, but mindful of the debacle that happened almost nineteen years ago in Oklahoma City, I can't but help think all the ridiculous ideological nonsense being spouted in this affair may well end up with another truck filled with fertilizer being parked by another federal building...

A lot of effort went into demonizing BATF before the Oklahoma City bombing. A similar effort to demonize the BLM is now underway. Bogus conspiracy theories are being circulated. Huge sums are being spent on advertising campaigns spreading false information about the Bundy standoff. One effect is to pump up the militia movement just like the anti BATF campaigns did before the Oklahoma City Bombings.

 

[iknownothing]

What's your opinion on what to do when faced with a bad law? In the 1800's when a slave broke the law and fled North, and it was the law that anyone in the North, even if slavery was illegal there, could not offer refuge and had to return the slave or face jail time. What do you do? Enforce the law? Or fight a civil war to finish the issue once and for all? From the Southerners viewpoint at that time, they would say enforce the law and throw anyone who breaks the law and helps a slave in jail.

lol

He is not Gandhi or an abolitionist fighting for human rights. He's a businessman who, faced with a government regulation he disliked, has broken the law for decades. And defends his actions by insisting that the federal government has no authority to regulate his business. He's a clown.

But the root of the issue is and always was about grazing cattle on public land and how that can be done in an ecologically sound manner. Without that root ecological issue, there would be no court order.

Funny how, as much as he runs his mouth, he never gets around to mentioning your supposed root cause.

 

[NoahFence]

It doesn't justify it or make it right. What I said is that it is a common reaction that humans throughout history have displayed. In fact it is exceedingly rare that a non violent resistance is put up when faced with government bullying. I can only think of one. Gandhi and India. I am sure there are more though. I just can't think of any. But meeting force with force? That happens all the time everywhere. Part of human nature. Doesn't make it right. But you'd be very naive to think it is not part of the human condition.

And where's this government bullying taking place anyway? Surely not in Nevada.