Say whatever you want. Clive said it was the BLM who broke the contract and gave several examples of how and when.
We know what side you are on Texan - when you lie with dogs, you get fleas. I'm done rubbin' shoulders with you. I don't want fleas.
Posted on 04/10/2014 10:48:03 PM PDT by ponygirl
Clive in his own words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iygs0yURzRo#t=232
He IS very nice. You, not so much!
Neener.
I repeat again: You aren’t defending the Constitution. You are defending an increasingly lawless and corrupt administration. And you’re defending Harry Reid’s claims to these lands, too, which is truly abominable.
You might have had a case unless I changed your contract without notice.
You have no idea how close you’ve come with this analogy to being on Mr. Bundy’s side except the government was changing the rules and the government is uselessly killing and burying cows in the desert while leaving the calves to die a slow death.
That wasn’t being fair or civil to Mr. Bundy but killing them outright to take revenge. You know, like giving the property to the ex wife?
Indeed.
"I have not paid any grazing fees for 20 years. As far as I'm concerned, the BLM doesn't exist."He IS very nice. You, not so much!
I haven't said anything unkind to you. I can't say the same for you to me.
I’m not sure what you mean by “military installations and anything else”. Are you refering to the wording of Article 1 section 8? Please clarify.
As to the Desert Tortoise, the claim against Bundy has never been about the Tortoise. Bundy stopped paying to graze his cattle seveal years before the government decided to change the use of the government land from grazing to protecting the tortoise. The claim against Bundy stems from his failure to pay rent or leases for the grazing land he was using.
There were no established grazing rights for Bundy. The US government held title to that land BEFORE any of Bundy’s ancestors started grazing that land. Bundy’s family started to graze those lands without permission in the late 1800’s. With the passage of the Taylor grazing act, Congress allowed ranchers to legally continue to use the grazing ranges by paying a grazing fee to the public for their private use of public lands.
This is no different than a state owning the land which is a lake. Usually, at first there are no improvements on that land. Fishermen, recreationist etc come and enjoy the use of the lake. Later the state reasserts it’s ownership rights, makes some improvements and then charges a small fee to use the lake. Only this time, the fisherman who has been fishing that lake for years pays the fee for a while and then stops paying the fee but continues to fish in the lake - for years. The fisherman (rancher) is privately benefiting from a public resource (public lands) without paying the public for the use of that resource (grazing fees).
I am defending the US Government’s claim to these lands as they belong to the government. This is exactly what is allowed by the constitution.
Say whatever you want. Clive said it was the BLM who broke the contract and gave several examples of how and when.
We know what side you are on Texan - when you lie with dogs, you get fleas. I'm done rubbin' shoulders with you. I don't want fleas.
Non of the reasons enumerated in the Constitution cover tortoises. The 600,000 acres in question is arid semi desert which has no other use except marginal grazing. No where in the constitution does it say the US govt can retain 80%-90% of the land of any state.
This whole thing is not about grazing rights its about states rights and in the larger picture Agenda 21. Taking back rights that have been either given away or allowed to be taken away is messy.
He knows. He’s been told. On at least two other threads.
Now he’s just being a troll.
His family paid grazing fees from 1870 to 1993.
Guess what changed in 1993?
Everyone has a line at which they say “no more BS”.
Interesting to see how many here would have decried events in Boston harbor over a tax on tea... “Should have just paid the tax”...
Y’all are a bunch of short-sighted idiots.
Actually, no. You haven't.
You've been defending the CLINTON Administration that made these changes that were "intolerable" to Bundy.
Nice going Ace...
So much for honoring the Bundy’s request of “no camo”...
No need. It is already there - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Constitution says nothing about the Federal government owning or controlling land. Another amendment won't do any good with a regime that ignores The Constitution anyway.
I didn’t know they requested that.
Except the government ownership preceded the states
Good point. Thank you.
Was in Stewart’s Oathkeeper instructions. Not sure what other groups may have bothered checking with the Bundy’s first before heading to Nevada.
FReegards...
“Praying for sunshine, but it looks like a storm is coming.”
This is the clause upon which Bundy has stated his case.
Velveeta reports: Bundy family reports that the feds have shut off cell towers preventing communication and photo & video uploads.
If true, that is the action of a federal government about to do something they want to keep quiet for as long as possible. It is not the action of a federal government who wants to prevent escalation.
May the Lord bless and keep all citizens in Nevada.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.