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

[Trollgaard]

In his county, I believe. There used to be 53 other ranchers, I think, in his county, now its just him because the BLM fucked over everybody, and Bundy rightfully essentially went 'fuck that jazz'.

Unfortunately, he doesn't only sell meat in that county. And that county isn't an free republic independent of the United States. He is bound by US law and frankly, he's lucky that the government didn't enforce it more vehemently and much sooner. They've tried every way possible to allow him time to come to his senses. He refused. I think it's time to force him.

I think its time the BLM suck a dick and draw up fair agreements.

[Geilinor]

I know the perfect judge for this dick head.

(Image)
All hail the queen of mean ......Judge Judy.

Judge Judy is a family court judge.

[Gig em Aggies]

I did not ask any nonsensical questions. So, there is nothing to answer.

Snopes says that the Reids and Chinese companies have nothing to do with this. http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp

He ain't gonna budge Geilinor he's always gonna say its a conspiracy even when we stick the facts in front of his face.

[Gig em Aggies]

I know the perfect judge for this dick head.

(Image)
All hail the queen of mean ......Judge Judy.

Judge Judy is a family court judge.

Still she would be a great judge for him cause she won't care what crap he spews out his mouth. Don't you agree.

[Sibirsky]

I did not ask any nonsensical questions. So, there is nothing to answer.

Snopes says that the Reids and Chinese companies have nothing to do with this. http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp

This has already been posted. This was also, not a question.

[Geilinor]

Snopes says that the Reids and Chinese companies have nothing to do with this. http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp

This has already been posted. This was also, not a question.

You demanded that we disprove your conspiracy theory.

[Sibirsky]

Snopes says that the Reids and Chinese companies have nothing to do with this. http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp

He ain't gonna budge Geilinor he's always gonna say its a conspiracy even when we stick the facts in front of his face.

[Sibirsky]

This has already been posted. This was also, not a question.

You demanded that we disprove your conspiracy theory.

Demanded? Politely asked. And someone posted two links, way before you posted this. Like an hour ago.

Are you using Internet Explorer?

[Gauthier]

He ain't gonna budge Geilinor he's always gonna say its a conspiracy even when we stick the facts in front of his face.

All those facepalms can't be healthy. Might want to get screened for CTE.

[Hurdegaryp]

Unfortunately, he doesn't only sell meat in that county. And that county isn't an free republic independent of the United States. He is bound by US law and frankly, he's lucky that the government didn't enforce it more vehemently and much sooner. They've tried every way possible to allow him time to come to his senses. He refused. I think it's time to force him.

I think its time the BLM suck a dick and draw up fair agreements.

Now where would be the fun in that? The BLM should make an example out of that hick in order to show all those fuckwad teenage libertarians that the real world works according to very different and very effective principles.

[Sibirsky]

I am not sure how something like this can be avoided, at this point.


I would support you choosing to not buy his cattle.

Except, the analogy is not quite that simple. There is no competitor to the BLM to go to, in this case.

Again, he is not the only cattle rancher in the United States.

If you graze cattle on your own land, it has a cost. If you graze cattle on other people's land it has a cost. Bundy is the only one (of those we know) that gets to graze his cattle for free. As such, that gives him a market advantage over every legit rancher in the country. He's had 20 years to drum up the support to change the law if he feels it's unfair. However, to take advantage of the government not forcing him to follow the law sooner and use it to create market advantage is wrong. And the government is wrong to be complicit. More so, the government would be violating the law, and the BLM would be violating the specific responsibility they were given, by not enforcing the fees.

If what you're saying is that he's justified in armed rebellion because the government is corrupt (and it's certainly what he's claiming), then I think it should be treated as such. I'm gonna guess that the government is the odds on favorite in that one. The only reason the government doesn't treat it as such is because they aren't as corrupt as many claim. They actually have been fairly gentle with this man. This man is counting on the government being gentle and protecting him, because if he lived somewhere that had an actual tyranny, then he'd be a crater by now.

I never claimed that I expect the government to not demand their fees.

[Tekania]

Unfortunately, he doesn't only sell meat in that county. And that county isn't an free republic independent of the United States. He is bound by US law and frankly, he's lucky that the government didn't enforce it more vehemently and much sooner. They've tried every way possible to allow him time to come to his senses. He refused. I think it's time to force him.

I think its time the BLM suck a dick and draw up fair agreements.

I think it's time for Bundy to be locking in jail till such time as he follows the order of the court. I only feel sorry they can only do that in 18 month stretches now, rather than just keeping him confined till he is dead, if necessary. I'd even be happier with the NM way of just locking up and having hearings every once in awhile over the ability to carry out the order.

[Swanderfeld]

No, the other ranchers were driven out of business because one year the BLM arbitrarily decided to cut 90% or so of the number of cattle allowed to graze on the land.
Could you survive if 90% of your income was suddenly and without reason cut? I couldn't...

Irrelevant. Just like you don't get to not pay its rent because homeowner increased rent by 90%, he doesn't get to not pay the fee set to use that land. Why it was increased, how much it was increased by etc are all irrelevant to the issue that legal owner decided to increase the cost and therefore the rancher needs to pay up or stop using the land.

[Cymrea]

Scorched Earth! Burn it all and reduce everything outside of Las Vegas to a vast barren wasteland of......oh.

[Gauthier]

Scorched Earth! Burn it all and reduce everything outside of Las Vegas to a vast barren wasteland of......oh.

Time to take a break from playing Fallout.

[Cymrea]

Scorched Earth! Burn it all and reduce everything outside of Las Vegas to a vast barren wasteland of......oh.

Time to take a break from playing Fallout.

I was highlighting the fact that the overwhelming majority of Nevada is exactly that. Seems I was too subtle.

[Hurdegaryp]

Scorched Earth! Burn it all and reduce everything outside of Las Vegas to a vast barren wasteland of......oh.

Time to take a break from playing Fallout.

Well, it's an appropriate analogy. Fallout is as realistic as what that tax-evading farmer is thinking.

[AiliailiA]

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.

You WANT market forces driving the fees?

Say there were 53 ranchers in Clark County (hypothetically: there's no source for this than the deluded and often untruthful Cliven Bundy).
Say the BLM announced that grazing permits for 150 cattle were available for 2015 (again, hypothetically: the 150 limit wasn't for all of Clark, only for the Bunkerville allotment)
Now the market takes over, and the price of a permit is set by an auction.

1. How many ranchers do you think would get permits and remain in business?
2. Do you imagine the fees as set by competition between ranchers would be less than $1.50 a month per cow/calf pair?

[Occupied Deutschland]

This.

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

You WANT market forces driving the fees?

Say there were 53 ranchers in Clark County (hypothetically: there's no source for this than the deluded and often untruthful Cliven Bundy).
Say the BLM announced that grazing permits for 150 cattle were available for 2015 (again, hypothetically: the 150 limit wasn't for all of Clark, only for the Bunkerville allotment)
Now the market takes over, and the price of a permit is set by an auction.

1. How many ranchers do you think would get permits and remain in business?
2. Do you imagine the fees as set by competition between ranchers would be less than $1.50 a month per cow/calf pair?

That's the thing, the 150-head limitation isn't a market force. It's a regulatory one.

The problem is its a fucked-up bass-ackwards regulatory one, seeing as how it works contrary to its instituted purpose of conserving and easing pressures on the desert tortoise.

[Geilinor]

Again, he is not the only cattle rancher in the United States.

If you graze cattle on your own land, it has a cost. If you graze cattle on other people's land it has a cost. Bundy is the only one (of those we know) that gets to graze his cattle for free. As such, that gives him a market advantage over every legit rancher in the country. He's had 20 years to drum up the support to change the law if he feels it's unfair. However, to take advantage of the government not forcing him to follow the law sooner and use it to create market advantage is wrong. And the government is wrong to be complicit. More so, the government would be violating the law, and the BLM would be violating the specific responsibility they were given, by not enforcing the fees.

If what you're saying is that he's justified in armed rebellion because the government is corrupt (and it's certainly what he's claiming), then I think it should be treated as such. I'm gonna guess that the government is the odds on favorite in that one. The only reason the government doesn't treat it as such is because they aren't as corrupt as many claim. They actually have been fairly gentle with this man. This man is counting on the government being gentle and protecting him, because if he lived somewhere that had an actual tyranny, then he'd be a crater by now.

I never claimed that I expect the government to not demand their fees.

You don't think Bundy has to pay them if he thinks it's too expensive.

[Sibirsky]

I never claimed that I expect the government to not demand their fees.

You don't think Bundy has to pay them if he thinks it's too expensive.

Tell me more about what I think. I'm very curious.

[Jocabia]

Unfortunately, he doesn't only sell meat in that county. And that county isn't an free republic independent of the United States. He is bound by US law and frankly, he's lucky that the government didn't enforce it more vehemently and much sooner. They've tried every way possible to allow him time to come to his senses. He refused. I think it's time to force him.

I think its time the BLM suck a dick and draw up fair agreements.

Thank goodness this isn't a country where just being the most angry means you're right. He's had 20 years to change things. He hasn't even made an effort to actually do anything other than just continue to press an advantage he does not deserve to have, and making arguments that make bigfoot supporter sound grounded in reality.

[Jocabia]

Again, he is not the only cattle rancher in the United States.

If you graze cattle on your own land, it has a cost. If you graze cattle on other people's land it has a cost. Bundy is the only one (of those we know) that gets to graze his cattle for free. As such, that gives him a market advantage over every legit rancher in the country. He's had 20 years to drum up the support to change the law if he feels it's unfair. However, to take advantage of the government not forcing him to follow the law sooner and use it to create market advantage is wrong. And the government is wrong to be complicit. More so, the government would be violating the law, and the BLM would be violating the specific responsibility they were given, by not enforcing the fees.

If what you're saying is that he's justified in armed rebellion because the government is corrupt (and it's certainly what he's claiming), then I think it should be treated as such. I'm gonna guess that the government is the odds on favorite in that one. The only reason the government doesn't treat it as such is because they aren't as corrupt as many claim. They actually have been fairly gentle with this man. This man is counting on the government being gentle and protecting him, because if he lived somewhere that had an actual tyranny, then he'd be a crater by now.

I never claimed that I expect the government to not demand their fees.

And if he just refuses to pay the fees they've demanded and continues to use their land without paying, what then?

[Sibirsky]

I never claimed that I expect the government to not demand their fees.

And if he just refuses to pay the fees they've demanded and continues to use their land without paying, what then?

Then things escalate.

[Jocabia]

You don't think Bundy has to pay them if he thinks it's too expensive.

Tell me more about what I think. I'm very curious.

You didn't say that?

And if we're being pedantic, and we always are, he told you what you DON'T think.