I have the right to use government land (now with slavery!)

[Geilinor]

Why the hell are the Reids involved in this?

Do they hate Tea Party activists that much?

Bundy is a trespassing secessionist who insists that Nevada is not part of the United States, not a Tea Party activist. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/

[Gauthier]

Why the hell are the Reids involved in this?

Do they hate Tea Party activists that much?

Bundy is a trespassing secessionist who insists that Nevada is not part of the United States, not a Tea Party activist. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/

Although it's not a surprise that Tea Partiers are supporting secession.

[Jocabia]

Why the hell are the Reids involved in this?

Do they hate Tea Party activists that much?

Bundy is a trespassing secessionist who insists that Nevada is not part of the United States, not a Tea Party activist. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/

The answer to both questions are obvious to anyone who actually took the time to look at it. Reid is a senator from the state this is occurring in. You addressed the other bit.

It's pretty easy to see what's going on. It's amazing the number of people who mischaracterize this case.

[Viritica]

Why the hell are the Reids involved in this?

Do they hate Tea Party activists that much?

Bundy is a trespassing secessionist who insists that Nevada is not part of the United States, not a Tea Party activist. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/

Eh, I think that's a bit of a stretch.

He is breaking the law. No argument there. But is this really such a huge deal that they need to send armed agents down there to remove his cattle? He's not hurting anyone, and that desert tortoise shit was just that - shit.

And I was saying that the people who came down there to support him were Tea Party activists.

[Viritica]

Why the hell are the Reids involved in this?

Do they hate Tea Party activists that much?

I'd imagine it may be, and I know this is a stretch and all, but that Harry Reid is one of the Nevada Senators.

And don't they have... I don't know... People to deal with this? Reid's input is really unneeded.

[Xsyne]

I'd imagine it may be, and I know this is a stretch and all, but that Harry Reid is one of the Nevada Senators.

And don't they have... I don't know... People to deal with this? Reid's input is really unneeded.

They do have people to deal with this. They are called "senators".

[Tekania]

I'd imagine it may be, and I know this is a stretch and all, but that Harry Reid is one of the Nevada Senators.

And don't they have... I don't know... People to deal with this? Reid's input is really unneeded.

Well, unfortunately the BLM can only really seize cattle in trespass on their land..... but they can't seem to do with without having to cede the ground to a mass of armed terrorists.

[Gauthier]

And don't they have... I don't know... People to deal with this? Reid's input is really unneeded.

Well, unfortunately the BLM can only really seize cattle in trespass on their land..... but they can't seem to do with without having to cede the ground to a mass of armed terrorists.

The BLM takes human lives into consideration and doesn't want another Waco or Ruby Ridge... even though that's what FOXNews seems to be trying to stir up with their constant interviews of Bundy and coverage of the incident.

[Geilinor]

I'd imagine it may be, and I know this is a stretch and all, but that Harry Reid is one of the Nevada Senators.

And don't they have... I don't know... People to deal with this? Reid's input is really unneeded.

Reid is a representative for parts of Clark County. Do you believe politicians shouldn't be concerned about their constituencies?

[Geilinor]

Well, unfortunately the BLM can only really seize cattle in trespass on their land..... but they can't seem to do with without having to cede the ground to a mass of armed terrorists.

The BLM takes human lives into consideration and doesn't want another Waco or Ruby Ridge... even though that's what FOXNews seems to be trying to stir up with their constant interviews of Bundy and coverage of the incident.

FOX is also throwing a tantrum over Harry Reid talking about an incident in the place he's from. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/04/16/why-is-us-senator-harry-reid-so-concerned-with-local-nevada-rancher/

[Viritica]

And don't they have... I don't know... People to deal with this? Reid's input is really unneeded.

They do have people to deal with this. They are called "senators".

Senators aren't meant to deal with this. I was assuming that was what the Bureau of Land Management was for.

[Shaggai]

They do have people to deal with this. They are called "senators".

Senators aren't meant to deal with this. I was assuming that was what the Bureau of Land Management was for.

But why should a senator not be allowed an opinion on stuff in his state?

[The Union of Sjaelland and Fyn]

On one hand, the ranching is a family business, but on the other hand, he used it without paying, which is illegal. I'll side more with the government on this, due to Bundy clearly breaking the law, and I really have to wonder why armed nuts are supporting a lawbreaker. Imagine if you had a bunch of land you rented to farmers to graze their cattle, then one dude shows up and starts using the land without paying rent. What would you do? You'd tell him to either pay the rent or leave. Next thing you know, he has a whole group of nuts with guns supporting him, so what do you do? You call the police and have the dude who used your land without paying arrested. This is essentially what Bundy is doing to govt. land, placed into your view.

TL;DR: If Bundy didn't want his ranch raided, he should've paid the fines.

[Jocabia]

Bundy is a trespassing secessionist who insists that Nevada is not part of the United States, not a Tea Party activist. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/

Eh, I think that's a bit of a stretch.

He is breaking the law. No argument there. But is this really such a huge deal that they need to send armed agents down there to remove his cattle? He's not hurting anyone, and that desert tortoise shit was just that - shit.

And I was saying that the people who came down there to support him were Tea Party activists.

He is hurting people, though. One, he's encouraging armed rebellion. And if the government ignores it, they'll be encouraging it as well.

In addition, he's stealing a competitive advantage over other ranchers who are honest. He's lowering his operating costs by refusing to pay to for land other ranchers either pay the government for or operate themselves. Every honest rancher is harmed, just like someone selling stolen goods hurts both the person they stole from and the honest business who sell those goods legally. His crime is not victimless.

[Jocabia]

On one hand, the ranching is a family business, but on the other hand, he used it without paying, which is illegal. I'll side more with the government on this, due to Bundy clearly breaking the law, and I really have to wonder why armed nuts are supporting a lawbreaker. Imagine if you had a bunch of land you rented to farmers to graze their cattle, then one dude shows up and starts using the land without paying rent. What would you do? You'd tell him to either pay the rent or leave. Next thing you know, he has a whole group of nuts with guns supporting him, so what do you do? You call the police and have the dude who used your land without paying arrested. This is essentially what Bundy is doing to govt. land, placed into your view.

TL;DR: If Bundy didn't want his ranch raided, he should've paid the fines.

To be fair, he didn't just show up. He had established himself on this land over generations. That doesn't make what he's doing legal, of course. He's still an asshole. However, it's good to be clear about the facts of the case.

[Tekania]

On one hand, the ranching is a family business, but on the other hand, he used it without paying, which is illegal. I'll side more with the government on this, due to Bundy clearly breaking the law, and I really have to wonder why armed nuts are supporting a lawbreaker. Imagine if you had a bunch of land you rented to farmers to graze their cattle, then one dude shows up and starts using the land without paying rent. What would you do? You'd tell him to either pay the rent or leave. Next thing you know, he has a whole group of nuts with guns supporting him, so what do you do? You call the police and have the dude who used your land without paying arrested. This is essentially what Bundy is doing to govt. land, placed into your view.

TL;DR: If Bundy didn't want his ranch raided, he should've paid the fines.

To be fair, he didn't just show up. He had established himself on this land over generations. That doesn't make what he's doing legal, of course. He's still an asshole. However, it's good to be clear about the facts of the case.

The "established over generations" is questionable. His Father is from AZ, and according to BLM records the ranch in question did not start purchasing grazing permits from the BLM till the mid 1950's.

[New Chalcedon]

Because?

Because it is Public. As part of the Public, one ought to be able to freely enjoy and use the land if they so choose.

The use of public land for personal enjoyment without payment, particularly in a manner that doesn't harm the land or impede others from enjoying it, is fair.

The use of public land for personal enrichment without payment, in such a manner as does not harm the land or impede others from enjoying it, is dubiously fair - once you are deriving monetary benefit from your use of public land, you ought to pay for it, but you're not damaging the land or reducing the ability of others to enjoy/use it.

The use of public land for personal enrichment without payment, particularly in a manner that does harm the land or impede others from enjoying it (i.e., overgrazing, as someone grazing their cattle on public land has zero incentive to stop them overgrazing it), is not fair.

Do you understand the distinction between these three kinds of activity and why Bundy's actions fall into the third category, or does it escape you?

[New Chalcedon]

Bundy is a trespassing secessionist who insists that Nevada is not part of the United States, not a Tea Party activist. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/

Eh, I think that's a bit of a stretch.

He is breaking the law. No argument there. But is this really such a huge deal that they need to send armed agents down there to remove his cattle?

Yes.

He's not hurting anyone,

Yes, he is. Besides the damage done to the public land by overgrazing, he's dishonestly grabbed an advantage over his fellow ranchers who are honest. By stealing the grazing from that land, he's (a) preventing another rancher who pays the fees for using that land from grazing their own cattle, (b) cutting his production costs in ways that no-one else can *legally* match and (c) encouraging other grazers to also start competing to steal grazing from public land, leading to overgrazing of same.

He's hurting *lots* of people - mind you, he's doing it in a way which would greatly please the Koch brothers (misappropriations of public lands for private gain). Hence why the right-wing media has covered this so extensively.

and that desert tortoise shit was just that - shit.

Er, no it isn't. Biodiversity is important, in case you didn't know that.

[Gig em Aggies]

As much as some small corner of my person would find some modicum of satisfaction in just eliminating Bundy and/or his supporters...... no. No matter how much he owes that would not be a justification for an assassination.

Plus that would be giving him what he wants, to be a martyr for another "Waco" to rally anti-government extremists.

Who said he wanted to be a martyr. All he wants is to think he runs the government and use stuff while not having to pay for it.

[Llamalandia]

It's not really a victory when officers leave because of the armed protestors. It's not over property rights it's over the guy not paying grazing fees for his cattle on federally protected lands. He's being an ass and you know it.

I'd actually agree. Bundy is being a massive ass, and wasn't doing much to ease the situation when it began to become more inflamed (and was, in fact, actively encouraging it), and should pay grazing fees or should pay some form of compensation for using public land to graze his cattle.

The sticking point is the BLM was an ass as well. Most recently in the rather poor manner they handled the situation ("First Amendment Areas"? Yeah, THAT'S not going to inflame tensions, not to mention the application of massive disproportional force to the situation) but historically as well in their management of the land Bundy's cattle were trespassing on in a naive attempt to conserve the desert tortoise in direct contravention of the evidence available at the time that related to what the desert tortoise benefited from environmentally (cow-poop, being the major one). One could then bring up their modern hypocrisy in the situation thanks to shutting down the turtle conservancy they manage and euthanizing hundreds/thousands of the things while attempting to round-up the Bundy's cattle based on fees apportioned to him for breaking the law and allowing them to run on land populated by the desert tortoise all because doing such was (in their incorrect view) harmful to the desert tortoise rather than holding no effect or being actively beneficial.

The reason the situation got so inflamed is because of the massive power and authority the BLM and the federal government wields with the Endangered Species Act in regards to Western land (where they own wide swathes of it). That, in particular, is a phenomenon that has been going on for decades in the West, and one that unfortunately gets passed-over somewhat because of Bundy's assholish rhetoric.

Yeah, I guess Obama's decision to have this kid head the BLM wasn't such a great idea after all:

[Greed and Death]

Bundy is a trespassing secessionist who insists that Nevada is not part of the United States, not a Tea Party activist. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/

Eh, I think that's a bit of a stretch.

He is breaking the law. No argument there. But is this really such a huge deal that they need to send armed agents down there to remove his cattle? He's not hurting anyone, and that desert tortoise shit was just that - shit.

And I was saying that the people who came down there to support him were Tea Party activists.

Generally the police seize property whether they are seizing it for private or public claims. There are exceptions of course, normally to do with contracts.

Now why he is upset yes I agree with him. It makes no sense for Nevada to be 85% federally owned, it is a waste of federal tax payer money ( federal government has to duplicate services already provided at the state level), and it limits Nevada's property tax revenue ( a large part of why they turned to casinos).

IT is the manner of his protest that is wrong. Pay your grazing fee or stop grazing your cattle on federal land.

[Greed and Death]

Eh, I think that's a bit of a stretch.

He is breaking the law. No argument there. But is this really such a huge deal that they need to send armed agents down there to remove his cattle?

Yes.

He's not hurting anyone,

Yes, he is. Besides the damage done to the public land by overgrazing, he's dishonestly grabbed an advantage over his fellow ranchers who are honest. By stealing the grazing from that land, he's (a) preventing another rancher who pays the fees from using that land for grazing their own cattle, (b) cutting his production costs in ways that no-one else can *legally* match and (c) encouraging other grazers to also start competing to steal grazing from public land, leading to overgrazing of same.

He's hurting *lots* of people - mind you, he's doing it in a way which would greatly please the Koch brothers (misappropriations of public lands for private gain). Hence why the right-wing media has covered this so extensively.

and that desert tortoise shit was just that - shit.

Er, no it isn't. Biodiversity is important, in case you didn't know that.

Texas is plenty biodiverse without 85% of the land being held by the federal government.

[AiliailiA]

The Federal government should give all that land back.

To Mexico.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The Federal government should give all that land back.

To Mexico.

Never fails to come something like this

Truth is Mexico sold the land to the U.S.; Santa Ana got a lot of shit for selling it, too.

[AiliailiA]

I'd actually agree. Bundy is being a massive ass, and wasn't doing much to ease the situation when it began to become more inflamed (and was, in fact, actively encouraging it), and should pay grazing fees or should pay some form of compensation for using public land to graze his cattle.

The sticking point is the BLM was an ass as well. Most recently in the rather poor manner they handled the situation ("First Amendment Areas"? Yeah, THAT'S not going to inflame tensions, not to mention the application of massive disproportional force to the situation) but historically as well in their management of the land Bundy's cattle were trespassing on in a naive attempt to conserve the desert tortoise in direct contravention of the evidence available at the time that related to what the desert tortoise benefited from environmentally (cow-poop, being the major one). One could then bring up their modern hypocrisy in the situation thanks to shutting down the turtle conservancy they manage and euthanizing hundreds/thousands of the things while attempting to round-up the Bundy's cattle based on fees apportioned to him for breaking the law and allowing them to run on land populated by the desert tortoise all because doing such was (in their incorrect view) harmful to the desert tortoise rather than holding no effect or being actively beneficial.

The reason the situation got so inflamed is because of the massive power and authority the BLM and the federal government wields with the Endangered Species Act in regards to Western land (where they own wide swathes of it). That, in particular, is a phenomenon that has been going on for decades in the West, and one that unfortunately gets passed-over somewhat because of Bundy's assholish rhetoric.

Yeah, I guess Obama's decision to have this kid head the BLM wasn't such a great idea after all:

Picspam in spoilers please.

Obama nominated Neil Kornze it's true. But the Senate confirmed him.

Every Democrat and the 2 Indies voted Yea. 28 Republicans voted Nay. But 17 voted Yea (and 1 did not vote). The ones who voted Yea, to confirm Kornze, were not moderates. Well, maybe one was: Susan Collins from Maine. Three at most have a voting record showing support for conservation.

Alexander (R-TN)
N: Water protection (May 2013) Y: $2 bil more for Cash for Clunkers (Aug 2009) N: prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land. (Dec 2007) HSLF (2012): 0% League of Conservation Voters rating: 5% Social 20 Economic 80 (Right Conservative)
Ayotte (R-NH) Y-Immigration N-Minimum Wage N-Kagan Y?-Sotomayor Y: CfC Pro-gun Soc 20 Eco 60
Blunt (R-MO) Blunt Ammendment Y:no habitat for endangered species Y: CfC LCV: 0% HSLF 40% Soc 20 Eco 80
Chambliss (R-GA) Y:water protection (May 2013) N: CfC LCV: 0% HSLF: 0% No EPA permits req logging runoff N: CfC Soc: 10 Eco 80
Coats (R-IN) N: Water protection N: Desert protection Cali Y: Transport demo N: reduced roads in Nat Forests HSLF: 20% Soc 10 Eco 80
Collins (R-ME) Y: Water protection Y: CfC Y: Transport demo N: reduced road NF LCV: 68% HSLF: 100% Soc: 60 Eco 50
Corker (R-TN) N: Water protection Y: CfC Y: prohibit eminent domain for parks or grazing HSLF: 20% Soc: 30 Eco 50
Crapo (R-ID) N: Water protection N: CfC Y: prohibit eminent domain N: EPA permits for forest runoff pro Clean Water Act LCV: 0% Soc 20 Eco 80
Flake (R-AZ) N: Water protection N: CfC Y: no habitat for endangered species Y: speed up forest thinning approval LCV: 5% HSLF 25% Eco 40 Eco 80
Hatch (R-UT) N: Water protection N: CfC Y: prohibit eminent domain Y: transport demo LCV: 5% HSLF: 20% Topic 8: -3 Soc 20 Econ 80
Heller (R-NV) N; Water protection N: CfC N: outdoor education HSLF: 20% Topic 8: 0 (neutral) Soc 50 Eco 60
Hoeven (R-ND) N: Water protection Prevention & states for Endangered Species HSLF: 0% Soc 30 Eco 70
Isakson (R-GA) Y: Water protection Y: prohibit eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land. Topic 8: 0 LCV: 5% Soc 20 Econ 80
Murkowski (R-AK) Y: Water protection Y: prohibit eminent domain Topic 8 (human over animal rights) +2 LCV: 11%
Portman (R-OH) N: Water protection. Sponsored matching grants for wetlands. Sponsored International Conservation Strategy. Topic 8: +2 LCV: 15% Soc 30 Econ 90
Risch (R-ID) Established water rights; delist wolves; N: water protection N: CfC No EPA permits for forest runoff Sponsored no permits for pesticide runoff topic 8: -3 Soc 30 Econ 70

Info from On The Issues

Kornze had been the deputy head of BLM for a year, and of course worked in Harry Reid's office for years before that. If the above Republicans didn't know who they were voting to confirm that would be their fault not Obama's.