Advertisement
by The Lone Alliance » Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:52 pm
by Llamalandia » Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:14 pm
by Occupied Deutschland » Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:46 pm
The Lone Alliance wrote:You know I realize that this does set a dangerous precedent.
If you get enough people with guns to disagree with something you can, for a short time at least, get others to back off.
I wonder how happy these nuts would be if people decided to rally a small militia around a house foreclosure or something else to hurt their precious 'job creators'?
by The Lone Alliance » Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:55 pm
Occupied Deutschland wrote:Depends on whether it's in response to the bank/job-creator surrounding the foreclosed property with proto-soldiers and snipers.
by Tekania » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:35 pm
Occupied Deutschland wrote:The Lone Alliance wrote:You know I realize that this does set a dangerous precedent.
If you get enough people with guns to disagree with something you can, for a short time at least, get others to back off.
I wonder how happy these nuts would be if people decided to rally a small militia around a house foreclosure or something else to hurt their precious 'job creators'?
Depends on whether it's in response to the bank/job-creator surrounding the foreclosed property with proto-soldiers and snipers.
by The Serbian Empire » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:42 pm
by Tekania » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:49 pm
The Serbian Empire wrote:Neither of them is right. That is because as long as the rancher pays taxes, he is paying for the land but not as much as the government wants from him. The government is in the wrong for lack of oversight on the use of their land.
by The Serbian Empire » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:51 pm
Tekania wrote:The Serbian Empire wrote:Neither of them is right. That is because as long as the rancher pays taxes, he is paying for the land but not as much as the government wants from him. The government is in the wrong for lack of oversight on the use of their land.
Lack of oversight? They've been exercising oversight on this since the Bundy's started buying grazing permits from the BLM in the mid-1950's. And "paying taxes" does not entitle to absolute and complete use of any public land..... many uses (especially commercial ones) require permits.
by Occupied Deutschland » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:54 pm
Tekania wrote:Occupied Deutschland wrote:Depends on whether it's in response to the bank/job-creator surrounding the foreclosed property with proto-soldiers and snipers.
Usually in a foreclosure a homeowner gets 90 days to vacate and then it results in forceful removal...... BLM didn't use forceful measures till 7578 days. As such compared to private-sector they seem to be EXTREMELY kind.
by Geilinor » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:57 pm
Occupied Deutschland wrote:Tekania wrote:
Usually in a foreclosure a homeowner gets 90 days to vacate and then it results in forceful removal...... BLM didn't use forceful measures till 7578 days. As such compared to private-sector they seem to be EXTREMELY kind.
Call me when a bank uses snipers and proto-soldiers.
by Tekania » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:59 pm
The Serbian Empire wrote:The government was apparently blind to the Bundy scheme of not paying the fee. That's where the problem is. Lack of enforcement when it comes to the payment of land use fees.
by Tekania » Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:05 pm
by Sociobiology » Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:09 pm
Occupied Deutschland wrote:Tekania wrote:
Usually in a foreclosure a homeowner gets 90 days to vacate and then it results in forceful removal...... BLM didn't use forceful measures till 7578 days. As such compared to private-sector they seem to be EXTREMELY kind.
Call me when a bank uses snipers and proto-soldiers.
by Sociobiology » Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:11 pm
Llamalandia wrote:Tekania wrote:
Yes, in order to maintain consistent forage the BLM is authorized by federal law to regulate grazing on the public lands in their care, it is in fact their duty to do so. The amount he could graze could change to support forage growth if needed, however this did not prevent him from grazing within the regulated amount. As such to characterize that is "not being allowed to graze" is a falsehood (lie) as with permit he could in fact graze cattle there.
Who, is saying that he isn't allowed to graze. I never said that. He's not being allowed to graze as much as he wants/needs to that is the issue here. He's rightly hacked off here, because the feds didn't seem to have a problem not regulating in the past until well as I've said before turtles. Before all he had to do was pay the fees to use the land now, they have severely restricted his usage likely to the point of him no longer having a viable operation.
by Occupied Deutschland » Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:12 pm
by Tekania » Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:13 pm
by Sociobiology » Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:14 pm
by Occupied Deutschland » Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:14 pm
by Sociobiology » Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:15 pm
Tekania wrote:Sociobiology wrote:call me when armed people try to occupy the bank, oh wait that has happened and the answers was police and snipers.
Yes, keeping armed agents nearby when doing a removal operation that has been subject to threats of violence towards the BLM for years is obviously "wrong" for some reason.
by Salvageville » Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:19 pm
by Tekania » Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:20 pm
Occupied Deutschland wrote:Sociobiology wrote:call me when armed people try to occupy the bank, oh wait that has happened and the answers was police and snipers.
Actually the snipers and BLM ranger proto-soldiers were there prior to any militia.
In fact, photos of them is why militia went there in the first place.
by Geilinor » Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:25 pm
by Sociobiology » Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:26 pm
by Occupied Deutschland » Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:34 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Bovad, Faisol, Franovia, Google [Bot], Homalia, Kerwa, Kubra, La Xinga, Likhinia, Neo-Hermitius, Neu California, Panagouge, Saiwana, Shrillland
Advertisement