Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,230 Year: 5,487/9,624 Month: 512/323 Week: 9/143 Day: 9/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bundys and the Armed Occupation of a National Wildlife Refuge
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 212 of 254 (815514)
07-20-2017 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Faith
07-20-2017 9:48 AM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
Faith writes:
I don't consider the term "tyranny" to be a problem in this context where government force is used against citizens exercising their freedom of assembly to protest government ownership of land they have no right to, depriving the citizens of its rightful use, making them pay more than they can afford for that rightful use, then confiscating their cattle and arresting some of them.
Seriously?
Bundy refused to pay grazing fees for decades. He didn't own the land his cattle were grazing on. He was told to pay up. It went to court, and the courts ruled he had to pay. He got his due process. He still refused to pay. Confiscation of property to pay court ordered fees is well within the law.
He is nothing more than a greedy cheapskate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 07-20-2017 9:48 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-20-2017 9:57 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 219 of 254 (815569)
07-21-2017 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by New Cat's Eye
07-20-2017 9:57 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
New Cat's Eye writes:
If I am hungry and find a lake on public property, and I fish a meal out of it, it is well within the law for the state to confiscate my property (money) in the form of a fine for fishing without a license.
But is it right?
Yes, it is right. Those regulations were put in place by our elected officials. It is the public determining how they want their public lands run through their democratically elected officials.
Also, this bit from the Constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-20-2017 9:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-21-2017 2:24 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 220 of 254 (815570)
07-21-2017 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Faith
07-21-2017 9:33 AM


Faith writes:
Since you agree that the Federalist Papers intend to interpret the mind of the Founders, and the law you cite originated when much of the land now within particular states of the USA was undefined Territory, and the Founders should be understood as desiring the states to have sovereignty over their land, then there is plenty of cause for objecting to the current situation. The Bundy protest was a peaceable assembly by everything I've read, not an armed insurrection even if some of them were legally armed.
Again, the Federalist Papers are not law. They were written by some of the founders, but not all. Some of the ideas in the Federalist Papers were not put into the Constitution on purpose because some of the other founders disagreed with them.
The law of the land is that the US owns that land, and the US can, by law, charge grazing fees. Bundy was even allowed to have his case heard in court, and it was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Faith, posted 07-21-2017 9:33 AM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 227 of 254 (815605)
07-21-2017 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by New Cat's Eye
07-21-2017 2:24 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
New Cat's Eye writes:
Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is right.
Just because somebody complains about it doesn't mean it is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-21-2017 2:24 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(4)
Message 228 of 254 (815609)
07-21-2017 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by New Cat's Eye
07-21-2017 2:25 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
New Cat's Eye writes:
I can just walk into public land, I can't do that with a fighter jet.
When you are grazing cattle on public lands you are using up resources, polluting, and destroying native habitats. If you have ever tried to walk across high plains deserts where cattle have grazed you will quickly come to realize what kind of impact they have when you can't walk 50 feet without stepping in a "land mine".
An analogous situation would be a mining operation moving in and digging a huge, ugly pit mine right in your favorite picturesque mountain meadow. You also wouldn't go into a public park and take a tree out to plant in your own yard. You wouldn't go into a pubic restroom in that park and shit all over the place.
We ALL own that land, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with people paying a user fee for using the resources on that public land, especially when it costs tax payer money to protect and repair those public lands.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-21-2017 2:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 9:43 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 234 of 254 (815785)
07-24-2017 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2017 9:43 AM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
New Cat's Eye writes:
If we're paying for the protection and repair of our land with our taxes then what are our user fees for?
The same thing. It is just like public transportation where there are user fees (bus fare) as well as tax money that fund public transit. You wouldn't go on a bus and demand that you can drive it anywhere you want because it is publically owned. You also would pay the bus fare just like everyone else, even though your tax dollars also pay for that bus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 9:43 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 2:55 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 235 of 254 (815786)
07-24-2017 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2017 12:13 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
New Cat's Eye writes:
We don't charge user fees for public highways and schools, and we all pay taxes for that stuff. Why is land usage different?
3 of the local golf courses where I live are owned by the local government, and we still pay green fees. We pay bus fares for publically funded and publically owned public transit. Events pay a user fee to use local parks. People pay user fees to enter parks like Yellowstone and Yosemite. People pay for deer and elk tags. People pay for tree tags when they want fire wood off of public lands. There are tons of examples of user fees for publically held land and property resources.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 12:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 240 of 254 (815798)
07-24-2017 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2017 2:58 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
New Cat's Eye writes:
Well, it was claimed that it was purely greed driving this and that is the point I was responding to.
It is purely greed. The claims of constitutional violations are just a fig leaf.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 2:58 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 241 of 254 (815799)
07-24-2017 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2017 2:55 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
New Cat's Eye writes:
So it's not the same thing. Grazing requires a permit, and the permit holders are responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the land.
That screeching sound you hear is the goalposts as you drag them across the field.
You asked why there would be user fees for something that is public. I gave you an example in this post, and in other posts. It is actually a very common thing to charge user fees for using public resources.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 2:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 3:32 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 245 of 254 (815809)
07-24-2017 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2017 3:31 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
New Cat's Eye writes:
Do you know what the "change" was in 1993 that Bundy was reacting to? Something changed with the fees but I dunno what.
It seems to me like this was all a response to those changes in the form of: "that's bullshit, I ain't paying for that."
Then 15 years or so goes by and they're all: "Now you owe us a million dollars".
"Fuck that" is an understandable response - depending on the circumstances.
Just goes to show what it is really about: money.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 3:31 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 246 of 254 (815810)
07-24-2017 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2017 3:32 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
New Cat's Eye writes:
No, I asked you what the user fees for grazing lands was used for.
And you made something up and I called you out on it and now you're backpeddling.
What did I make up?
Private citizens charge grazing fees to use their private land. Why? Because grazing land IS A RESOURCE. Why shouldn't people pay when they use resources on public lands as well?
The truth of the matter is that grazing fees on public lands are a fraction of what they are on private land. The cost for public lands is $1.35 per animal per month. That's about $15 bucks per animal per year. A 600 pound steer sells for almost $1000. If someone says that the government is charging them so much they can no longer afford to raise cattle, just know that they are full of bullshit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 3:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 4:18 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 248 of 254 (815814)
07-24-2017 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2017 4:18 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
New Cat's Eye writes:
On public land, the permit holder is responsible for maintenance.
They never repair everything they damage. There is still damage left over that BLM and other agencies have to fix.
That the grazing fees are the same thing as bus fares.
They are the same. When you are on the bus, you are responsible for cleaning up after yourself and not tearing the bus apart. Still, damages occur to the bus anyway, and those fees along with public tax dollars pay for those damages. It is exactly the same.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 4:18 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024