NationStates

Occupied Deutschland wrote:

Sociobiology wrote:3 bombings of BLM offices
that alone would make me want to go armed.

And how recent were these bombings?
Because the only thing I can find that even REFERENCES them is a timeline of the BLM story that mentions them in passing, from the MID to LATE 90s.

Well fuck, on that outstanding logic all our soldiers in Japan better walk around in full combat kit.
Because you know. They bombed us.

Bundy has been resisting the fines since 1993.

Occupied Deutschland wrote:

Sociobiology wrote:3 bombings of BLM offices
that alone would make me want to go armed.

And how recent were these bombings?
Because the only thing I can find that even REFERENCES them is a timeline of the BLM story that mentions them in passing, from the MID to LATE 90s.

Well fuck, on that outstanding logic all our soldiers in Japan better walk around in full combat kit.
Because you know. They bombed us.

The BLM planned removal operations in April 2012 as well but shelved them due to threats of violence from Bundy'. The simple fact is that having armed agents at these operations makes perfect sense based upon the context of the situation. This was actually why the order was modified as well to include ordering Bundy not to interfere with removal operations in the Trespass lands by the court in the 2013 decision. The reason why they were there is they expected a potential violent confrontation because Bundy verbalized as much before.

A little bit disappointing. Why can't they just seize the assets using the IRS who are better at this kind of thing and perfectly capable of getting fees from people. It is after all taxes.

Collaborative Commonalist Memecracy wrote:A little bit disappointing. Why can't they just seize the assets using the IRS who are better at this kind of thing and perfectly capable of getting fees from people. It is after all taxes.

No, it isn't a tax.

Geilinor wrote:

Occupied Deutschland wrote:And how recent were these bombings?
Because the only thing I can find that even REFERENCES them is a timeline of the BLM story that mentions them in passing, from the MID to LATE 90s.

Well fuck, on that outstanding logic all our soldiers in Japan better walk around in full combat kit.
Because you know. They bombed us.

Bundy has been resisting the fines since 1993.

the bombings started in 1995, and with the office dealing with Bundy.

Although Cliven Bundy's at fault for not paying the fees,
the Government is equally at fault for being negligent, for not doing anything about this until far too long time (20 years?) has passed.

Governement should have kept a more watchful eye and should have stopped Bundy much much earlier on.
It's totally unfair to entirely shift the blame to the rancher while the government proclaim ignorance / innocence.

So I'd say : Cliven Bundy must pay the grazing fees FROM now on.
But Government must forfeit all that outstanding fees. It's their own fault after all.

The nature of these kind of things is that someone resists a fee, then there is another agency that steps in and takes care of the problem with another mechanism. Right now, I bet there is all kinds of forensic accounting going on on everything Bundy does. The IRS is often the way people are gotten..., then as an afterthought the fee is collected.

Banyakhutang wrote:Although Cliven Bundy's at fault for not paying the fees,
the Government is equally at fault for being negligent, for not doing anything about this until far too long time (20 years?) has passed.

they did something about it on multiple occasions, they only recently resorted to force.

Governement should have kept a more watchful eye and should have stopped Bundy much much earlier on.
It's totally unfair to entirely shift the blame to the rancher while the government proclaim ignorance / innocence.

strawman, read the article he has been taken to court multiple times over this.

Tekania wrote:

Occupied Deutschland wrote:And how recent were these bombings?
Because the only thing I can find that even REFERENCES them is a timeline of the BLM story that mentions them in passing, from the MID to LATE 90s.

Well fuck, on that outstanding logic all our soldiers in Japan better walk around in full combat kit.
Because you know. They bombed us.

The BLM planned removal operations in April 2012 as well but shelved them due to threats of violence from Bundy'. The simple fact is that having armed agents at these operations makes perfect sense based upon the context of the situation. This was actually why the order was modified as well to include ordering Bundy not to interfere with removal operations in the Trespass lands by the court in the 2013 decision. The reason why they were there is they expected a potential violent confrontation because Bundy verbalized as much before.

If Bundy made threats of violence, he could have been, and should have been, arrested for them.
The system doesn't work if our solution to someone threatening law-enforcement officers is just arming the law-enforcement officers more so that if violence does break out they kill all those who oppose them. It works by keeping the influence of those threatening violence to the minimum. If Bundy threatened the BLM agents, he should've been arrested.

Sociobiology wrote:

Geilinor wrote:Bundy has been resisting the fines since 1993.

the bombings started in 1995, and with the office dealing with Bundy.

Bombing federal office-buildings was kind of in style in the 90s, in case you forget. If that's the extent of the basis for your judgement, I'll take this opportunity to disregard it, because it's useless.

Llamalandia wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Your been shown everything necessary to enlighten you.
Some people are just too stupid to learn.

Good for you resorting to petty name-calling now i see great way to support your argument.

My argument has been supported dozens of times throughout this thread by the likes of Tekania and others. You ignored them when they presented you with the reality of the situation. I have no reason to believe your willful ignorance has suddenly disappeared.

Sociobiology wrote:

Occupied Deutschland wrote:Please do point me to the Bundy's armed resistance.

3 bombings of BLM offices
that alone would make me want to go armed.

You know I deal with the BLM all the time, they do their job well considering everything they have to do, and Bundy is just pissed because the government stopped subsidizing his cattle business, if he doesn't have enough land thats his problem, he should not have built a business that only works as long as it is sucking off the government tit.

You know on that note, and I apologize if this sounds stupid or if someone's already asked, but why exactly can't Bundy, just switch his cows to a mostly corn fed diet and graze them a little (while paying of course) I mean isn't most beef in the US corn fed anyway?

Occupied Deutschland wrote:

Sociobiology wrote:the bombings started in 1995, and with the office dealing with Bundy.

Bombing federal office-buildings was kind of in style in the 90s, in case you forget. If that's the extent of the basis for your judgement, I'll take this opportunity to disregard it, because it's useless.

Translation: Nothing should be done about it because I support bombing government buildings.

Dyakovo wrote:

Occupied Deutschland wrote:Bombing federal office-buildings was kind of in style in the 90s, in case you forget. If that's the extent of the basis for your judgement, I'll take this opportunity to disregard it, because it's useless.

Translation: Nothing should be done about it because I support bombing government buildings.

Don't use Google translate, because that's not what I said.

Socio referenced nothing linking Bundy to the bombings but coincidence. Considering the number of people the BLM office in Nevada undoubtedly serves, and the spat of OTHER unrelated bombings of government buildings, the only basis for tying it to the Bundy's is fallacy.

Until more proof is provided a Bundy is responsible the bombings must be discounted as being related. Especially considering that they suddenly and mysteriously stopped whilst the Bundy's contention remained.
The notion that the Bundy's were involved in the bombings, at this point, is just as substantiated as that they were not. Because the entire BASIS of Socio's conclusion was that the Bundy's dispute and the bombings coincided. The problem is we also have fifteen years+ when the Bundy's dispute and the bombings DIDN'T coincide, making the assessment of blame to them based on the former coincidence rather empty.

Of course, I'll freely withdraw any such defense if anyone points me to actual evidence of Bundy responsibility. It's common knowledge the dude's been involved in stirring up enough shit, it isn't a huge leap to see him directly involved in causing shit.
But we can't assign that to him based on 'hurr durr coincidence' when 'hurr durr coincidence' just as strongly (if not more so) points to his innocence in the bombings.

Banyakhutang wrote:Although Cliven Bundy's at fault for not paying the fees,
the Government is equally at fault for being negligent, for not doing anything about this until far too long time (20 years?) has passed.

Governement should have kept a more watchful eye and should have stopped Bundy much much earlier on.
It's totally unfair to entirely shift the blame to the rancher while the government proclaim ignorance / innocence.

So I'd say : Cliven Bundy must pay the grazing fees FROM now on.
But Government must forfeit all that outstanding fees. It's their own fault after all.

It's interesting that you consider sending permit renewal application forms, multiple notices to cease and 6 court proceedings "nothing".

Occupied Deutschland wrote:If Bundy made threats of violence, he could have been, and should have been, arrested for them.
The system doesn't work if our solution to someone threatening law-enforcement officers is just arming the law-enforcement officers more so that if violence does break out they kill all those who oppose them. It works by keeping the influence of those threatening violence to the minimum. If Bundy threatened the BLM agents, he should've been arrested.

The BLM is not a law enforcement agency. They themselves have no power of arrest and the particular orders are civil judgements, not criminal courts. Not to mention an arrest would rile up the armed thugs who support him just as much. They rallied all around his son who did in fact attack, imagine what they would do if Bundy himself were arrested.

Tekania wrote:

Occupied Deutschland wrote:If Bundy made threats of violence, he could have been, and should have been, arrested for them.
The system doesn't work if our solution to someone threatening law-enforcement officers is just arming the law-enforcement officers more so that if violence does break out they kill all those who oppose them. It works by keeping the influence of those threatening violence to the minimum. If Bundy threatened the BLM agents, he should've been arrested.

The BLM is not a law enforcement agency. They themselves have no power of arrest and the particular orders are civil judgements, not criminal courts. Not to mention an arrest would rile up the armed thugs who support him just as much. They rallied all around his son who did in fact attack, imagine what they would do if Bundy himself were arrested.

They'd probably get a taste of lead or electricity curtesy of the National Guard

Llamalandia wrote:

Sociobiology wrote:3 bombings of BLM offices
that alone would make me want to go armed.

You know I deal with the BLM all the time, they do their job well considering everything they have to do, and Bundy is just pissed because the government stopped subsidizing his cattle business, if he doesn't have enough land thats his problem, he should not have built a business that only works as long as it is sucking off the government tit.

You know on that note, and I apologize if this sounds stupid or if someone's already asked, but why exactly can't Bundy, just switch his cows to a mostly corn fed diet and graze them a little (while paying of course) I mean isn't most beef in the US corn fed anyway?

Something you need to understand is Bundy believes that the Federal gov't has no authority or jurisdiction over that land, despite the fact that the Federal Courts and county gov't of Clark county have informed him otherwise, and that he has every right to use that land as he sees fit. His viewpoint is based on his incorrect legal views informed by his own ideology related to the situation. So while your ideas would make sense to reasonable people, Mr. Bundy is not a reasonable person. He is a fringe ideologue disconnected from reality.

Tekania wrote:

Llamalandia wrote:
You know on that note, and I apologize if this sounds stupid or if someone's already asked, but why exactly can't Bundy, just switch his cows to a mostly corn fed diet and graze them a little (while paying of course) I mean isn't most beef in the US corn fed anyway?

Something you need to understand is Bundy believes that the Federal gov't has no authority or jurisdiction over that land, despite the fact that the Federal Courts and county gov't of Clark county have informed him otherwise, and that he has every right to use that land as he sees fit. His viewpoint is based on his incorrect legal views informed by his own ideology related to the situation. So while your ideas would make sense to reasonable people, Mr. Bundy is not a reasonable person. He is a fringe ideologue disconnected from reality.

I admit I'm not a huge fan of Bundy, he's been souting some of that sovereign citizens bs on fox lately. That said, regardless of the actual situation the BLM has clearly acted in a manner far worse and more disturbing to me, by setting up free speech zones and having police dogs and snipers I mean really WTF. Even if the guy is in the wrong which legally he seems unquestionably to be you still can't tell people they are only allowed to protest in these small areas you've set aside.

Llamalandia wrote:

Tekania wrote:
Something you need to understand is Bundy believes that the Federal gov't has no authority or jurisdiction over that land, despite the fact that the Federal Courts and county gov't of Clark county have informed him otherwise, and that he has every right to use that land as he sees fit. His viewpoint is based on his incorrect legal views informed by his own ideology related to the situation. So while your ideas would make sense to reasonable people, Mr. Bundy is not a reasonable person. He is a fringe ideologue disconnected from reality.

I admit I'm not a huge fan of Bundy, he's been souting some of that sovereign citizens bs on fox lately. That said, regardless of the actual situation the BLM has clearly acted in a manner far worse and more disturbing to me, by setting up free speech zones and having police dogs and snipers I mean really WTF. Even if the guy is in the wrong which legally he seems unquestionably to be you still can't tell people they are only allowed to protest in these small areas you've set aside.

Source?

Tekania wrote:

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.

No, they were not. Bundy's last permit expired end of February 1993, mid -February 1993 BLM sent notice of pending need to renew. Again in June of 1993 BLM sent renewal form to Bundy for the new grazing season. When he still did not renew they began sending notices to cease grazing in July of 1993. After repeated notices BLM took issue to court and got a Judgement against Bundy in 1998 reslting in tresspass fees being imposed by the court starting end of November 1998, then returned to court again in 1999 modifying the trespass fees further after Bundy's failure to comply. Between 1999 and 2012 they made two plan attempted and removing cattle but were presented with threats and never implemnted. In 2012 and again 2013 they took mater to court again this time with a formal order for Bundy to remove cattle in 45 days and an court authorization for BLM to remove Cattle stil there at Bundy's expense.

Goverment was never blind to Bundy not paying this fee. You just never really informed yourself on this issue or read subsequent information and are speaking an opinion based on ignorance of the situation.

They sure didn't stop him amply. When all one can do is offer fines and not place a lien on the cattle I find it comedic that the government agencies like the BLM and the IRS didn't work together to ravage Bundy's cattle operation.

The Serbian Empire wrote:

Tekania wrote:
No, they were not. Bundy's last permit expired end of February 1993, mid -February 1993 BLM sent notice of pending need to renew. Again in June of 1993 BLM sent renewal form to Bundy for the new grazing season. When he still did not renew they began sending notices to cease grazing in July of 1993. After repeated notices BLM took issue to court and got a Judgement against Bundy in 1998 reslting in tresspass fees being imposed by the court starting end of November 1998, then returned to court again in 1999 modifying the trespass fees further after Bundy's failure to comply. Between 1999 and 2012 they made two plan attempted and removing cattle but were presented with threats and never implemnted. In 2012 and again 2013 they took mater to court again this time with a formal order for Bundy to remove cattle in 45 days and an court authorization for BLM to remove Cattle stil there at Bundy's expense.

Goverment was never blind to Bundy not paying this fee. You just never really informed yourself on this issue or read subsequent information and are speaking an opinion based on ignorance of the situation.

They sure didn't stop him amply. When all one can do is offer fines and not place a lien on the cattle I find it comedic that the government agencies like the BLM and the IRS didn't work together to ravage Bundy's cattle operation.

Why would they work together? There duties do not in any way overlap.

Dyakovo wrote:

Llamalandia wrote:
I admit I'm not a huge fan of Bundy, he's been souting some of that sovereign citizens bs on fox lately. That said, regardless of the actual situation the BLM has clearly acted in a manner far worse and more disturbing to me, by setting up free speech zones and having police dogs and snipers I mean really WTF. Even if the guy is in the wrong which legally he seems unquestionably to be you still can't tell people they are only allowed to protest in these small areas you've set aside.

Source?

In Arizona, state Rep. Bob Thorpe of Flagstaff said he and state legislators were upset the BLM initially restricted protesters to so-called free speech zones.

After the areas were removed Thursday, Sandoval issued a statement.

"Although tensions remain high, escalation of current events could have negative, long lasting consequences that can be avoided," it said.

Amy Lueders, BLM state director in Nevada, said Friday that two protesters were detained, cited for failure to comply with officers at a barricade on Thursday and released.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cliven-bundys-fight-in-nevada-with-federal-government-takes-turn/

Other sites have pictures, but I figured you'd probably consider CBS more "reputable" than fox news.

Llamalandia wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Source?

In Arizona, state Rep. Bob Thorpe of Flagstaff said he and state legislators were upset the BLM initially restricted protesters to so-called free speech zones.

After the areas were removed Thursday, Sandoval issued a statement.

"Although tensions remain high, escalation of current events could have negative, long lasting consequences that can be avoided," it said.

Amy Lueders, BLM state director in Nevada, said Friday that two protesters were detained, cited for failure to comply with officers at a barricade on Thursday and released.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cliven-bundys-fight-in-nevada-with-federal-government-takes-turn/

Other sites have pictures, but I figured you'd probably consider CBS more "reputable" than fox news.

Unfortunarelty, for some reason the cbs news site isn't loading for me...

Edit: Nevermind, on the third try it loaded...

Edit the second: I'm going to need more than Rep. Bob Thorpe's word on it happening...

Dyakovo wrote:

Llamalandia wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cliven-bundys-fight-in-nevada-with-federal-government-takes-turn/

Other sites have pictures, but I figured you'd probably consider CBS more "reputable" than fox news.

Unfortunarelty, for some reason the cbs news site isn't loading for me...

Edit: Nevermind, on the third try it loaded...

Huh, the link works fine for me. anyone else having trouble?

Dyakovo wrote:

Llamalandia wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cliven-bundys-fight-in-nevada-with-federal-government-takes-turn/

Other sites have pictures, but I figured you'd probably consider CBS more "reputable" than fox news.

Unfortunarelty, for some reason the cbs news site isn't loading for me...

Edit: Nevermind, on the third try it loaded...

Edit the second: I'm going to need more than Rep. Bob Thorpe's word on it happening...

Well there's also the BLM lady amy leuders who confirms two protesters were briefly detained, us google it there's plenty of pics unless you believe they were staged.