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

[Sibirsky]

Who said anything about BLM employees? I'm talking about Rory Reid.

What do the Reids have to do with the BLM?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Except the fact that the BLM is headed by a former Harry Reid staffer and the land is being cleared for a project by a Chinese firm represented by Rory Reid in the US.

There is absolutely no wrong doing and conflict of interest there. Not at all.

[Sibirsky]

Can't afford?

Why is the government obligated to set bargain-basement prices?

Everything that is not cost prohibitive is bargain-basement!

[Tekania]

Thousands of other ranchers are doing fine paying the fees. If you have evidence that it's cost prohibitive, present it.

There were 53 ranchers in Clark County up until 1993. After 1993, when the fees were raised, only one remained. The one that has been refusing to pay the fees.

This is... very simple really.

The fees were not raised in 1993. The AUM has varied only slightly. What happened in 1993 was an imposition of head limits. In all he would have been paying LESS for his permit after 1993 as he would be alloted less AUM's to impose the limit as he would not be allowed to graze as many cattle on the federal lands.

[Sibirsky]

There were 53 ranchers in Clark County up until 1993. After 1993, when the fees were raised, only one remained. The one that has been refusing to pay the fees.

This is... very simple really.

The fees were not raised in 1993. The AUM has varied only slightly. What happened in 1993 was an imposition of head limits. In all he would have been paying LESS for his permit after 1993 as he would be alloted less AUM's to impose the limit as he would not be allowed to graze as many cattle on the federal lands.

I apologize for my error.

The head limit is cost prohibitive because not enough cattle would be allowed to graze to make a living. Better?

150 was the limit, right?

[Tekania]

The fees were not raised in 1993. The AUM has varied only slightly. What happened in 1993 was an imposition of head limits. In all he would have been paying LESS for his permit after 1993 as he would be alloted less AUM's to impose the limit as he would not be allowed to graze as many cattle on the federal lands.

I apologize for my error.

The head limit is cost prohibitive because not enough cattle would be allowed to graze to make a living. Better?

150 was the limit, right?

Possibly, don't know. Don't have all the numbers of what is available to him. Immaterial, however. One simply does not get to steal something because it would be cost prohibitive to pay for it. That's an absolutely absurd proposition.

[Swanderfeld]

So would it be justifiable for a person to take flat screen from the shop because he can't afford the TV and its cost prohibitive for him to purchase it?

What?
Is the person dependent on the TV to make a living?

So what you are saying is a person should be able to steal/ refuse to pay for stuff it they need it to make a living?

Has the person's family been using the TV for 137 years?

How long a person has been using something is irrelevant.

[Gig em Aggies]

What do the Reids have to do with the BLM?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Except the fact that the BLM is headed by a former Harry Reid staffer and the land is being cleared for a project by a Chinese firm represented by Rory Reid in the US.

There is absolutely no wrong doing and conflict of interest there. Not at all.

your falling into the trap set up by conspiracy nut jobs. no legit source states anything to do with the Chinese and anyways if the government wanted to allow a Chinese firm build on that land its their choice but that story is far south of this location of the federal lands in question next time read up.

[Sibirsky]

What?
Is the person dependent on the TV to make a living?

So what you are saying is a person should be able to steal/ refuse to pay for stuff it they need it to make a living?

Has the person's family been using the TV for 137 years?

How long a person has been using something is irrelevant.

Nope, I never said that at all.

[Sibirsky]

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Except the fact that the BLM is headed by a former Harry Reid staffer and the land is being cleared for a project by a Chinese firm represented by Rory Reid in the US.

There is absolutely no wrong doing and conflict of interest there. Not at all.

your falling into the trap set up by conspiracy nut jobs. no legit source states anything to do with the Chinese and anyways if the government wanted to allow a Chinese firm build on that land its their choice but that story is far south of this location of the federal lands in question next time read up.

You expect the legit sources to report on something like this?

Alright, show me a legit source disproving this claim.

[Swanderfeld]

So what you are saying is a person should be able to steal/ refuse to pay for stuff it they need it to make a living?


How long a person has been using something is irrelevant.

Nope, I never said that at all.

Thats the only logical inference that line of reasoning used to defend action of the rancher: if you can't afford something which the owner has raised the price of and you depend on for livelihood, you can not pay for it.

[Occupied Deutschland]

The reason is the only thing that matters.

The reason is that it is their land and they can set the rent. You can't force an entity to sell at a price they can't afford.

Only it's NOT their land, anymore than it is Bundy's land.
The BLM is in charge of managing that land in the public interest and for the public, the owners are the public.

They are an apartment superintendent, not the owner of the building. They're there to collect rent, fix the plumbing, and keep people obeying the apartment code.

The analogy breaks down here because I can't think of a suitable allegory for the BLM restricting access to land to protect a turtle that wasn't endangered and was actively HELPED by the things they restricted to 'protect' it (cattle).

[Occupied Deutschland]

Nope, I never said that at all.

Thats the only logical inference that line of reasoning used to defend action of the rancher: if you can't afford something which the owner has raised the price of and you depend on for livelihood, you can not pay for it.

More "Government shouldn't get to set arbitrarily high prices for you for unclear or possibly actively corrupt reasons".

[Geilinor]

This isn't about Bundy thinking the fee is prohibitive. This is about Bundy thinking Nevada is its own country and his refusal to accept the existence of the federal government. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/

[Swanderfeld]

Thats the only logical inference that line of reasoning used to defend action of the rancher: if you can't afford something which the owner has raised the price of and you depend on for livelihood, you can not pay for it.

More "Government shouldn't get to set arbitrarily high prices for you for unclear or possibly actively corrupt reasons".

Why government set those prices is irrelevant. They could have wanted to clear that area to create underground alien landing platform for all I care; the legal owner set the price and that price should be paid or use of the ground stopped.

[Sibirsky]

Thats the only logical inference that line of reasoning used to defend action of the rancher: if you can't afford something which the owner has raised the price of and you depend on for livelihood, you can not pay for it.

More "Government shouldn't get to set arbitrarily high prices for you for unclear or possibly actively corrupt reasons".

This.

Even if my Reid claim is wrong, there are no market forces driving the fees.

[Occupied Deutschland]

More "Government shouldn't get to set arbitrarily high prices for you for unclear or possibly actively corrupt reasons".

Why government set those prices is irrelevant. They could have wanted to clear that area to create underground alien landing platform for all I care; the legal owner set the price and that price should be paid or use of the ground stopped.

No it's not.
The BLM manages public-access lands because the public can't be bothered to.
They are not empowered to restrict access to those grounds for no reason.
The reason they have given in this case is bullshit (pun intended).

[Tekania]

your falling into the trap set up by conspiracy nut jobs. no legit source states anything to do with the Chinese and anyways if the government wanted to allow a Chinese firm build on that land its their choice but that story is far south of this location of the federal lands in question next time read up.

You expect the legit sources to report on something like this?

Alright, show me a legit source disproving this claim.

The ENN pulled out of any Nevada plant proposals 2 years ago. The current plant project is located over 100 miles away and is not related to he ENN plant at all.... it's actually much larger. link. Even Breitbart.com debunked the ENN bullshit.

[Trollgaard]

What do the Reids have to do with the BLM?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Except the fact that the BLM is headed by a former Harry Reid staffer and the land is being cleared for a project by a Chinese firm represented by Rory Reid in the US.

There is absolutely no wrong doing and conflict of interest there. Not at all.

Impeach Reid.

[Geilinor]

your falling into the trap set up by conspiracy nut jobs. no legit source states anything to do with the Chinese and anyways if the government wanted to allow a Chinese firm build on that land its their choice but that story is far south of this location of the federal lands in question next time read up.

You expect the legit sources to report on something like this?

Alright, show me a legit source disproving this claim.

Why should we disprove a claim that might as well not exist? Do you have any sources implicating the Chinese?

[Geilinor]

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Except the fact that the BLM is headed by a former Harry Reid staffer and the land is being cleared for a project by a Chinese firm represented by Rory Reid in the US.

There is absolutely no wrong doing and conflict of interest there. Not at all.

Impeach Reid.

Rory Reid doesn't have a position to be impeached from.

[Tekania]

More "Government shouldn't get to set arbitrarily high prices for you for unclear or possibly actively corrupt reasons".

This.

Even if my Reid claim is wrong, there are no market forces driving the fees.

The permit fees are calculated from a 1966 base AUM and adjusted for market prices so the the fees increase in better markets and decrease in worse ones.... so it is in fact "market driven". source. The formula is outlined in this US Code.

[Sibirsky]

You expect the legit sources to report on something like this?

Alright, show me a legit source disproving this claim.

Why should we disprove a claim that might as well not exist? Do you have any sources implicating the Chinese?

Why should I answer your nonsensical analogies?

[Gauthier]

Libertarians cheerleading for a freeloading secessionist. Shocker.

[Swanderfeld]

Why government set those prices is irrelevant. They could have wanted to clear that area to create underground alien landing platform for all I care; the legal owner set the price and that price should be paid or use of the ground stopped.

No it's not.
The BLM manages public-access lands because the public can't be bothered to.
They are not empowered to restrict access to those grounds for no reason.
The reason they have given in this case is bullshit (pun intended).

If the owners (public) feel that the land has been mismanaged, they can withdraw power to manage granted to current BLM staff by removing the general managers of the public estates (government) as per bylaw (elections on 2016).
None of which detract from the ranchers responsibility to pay the legal price set by body indirectly empowered by the owners.

[Trollgaard]

Impeach Reid.

Rory Reid doesn't have a position to be impeached from.

Harry.