Chicago Fanatics Message Board
http://chicagofanatics.com/

Bundy Family
http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=110295		 Page 3 of 4
Author:  Brick [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
The Sagebrush Rebellion is about far more than just grazing rights. it is about the fact that the lands are controlled by bureaucrats who are thousands of miles away with no local input into how they are managed. Those lands should be managed by the states or counties as they are entities which have a vested interest in seeing that the management of those lands is handled in a manner which benefits the local population.

Even if that is a fair opinion to have, you don't get to literally steal for 21 years without paying for something and have a just cause. Fight it in court, or by lobbying(The Bundy family is rich), or by a public information campaign.

If I think toll roads are wrong and mismanaged I can't refuse to pay them and then threaten to shoot anyone who tries to collect them. You know the rules when you chose to do what you do.
Author:  Seacrest [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Jbi11s wrote:
Yeah idk Ogie and Seacrest. I totally get the principle being argued for, but this guy and his ilk are not who I would want championing my cause.

and you wouldn't want John Brown championing your cause either. It still doesn't mean the cause is any less just.


Oh well.

The same folks shitting on the Bundy's have no problem with a few racist slave owners starting the US.
Author:  Kirkwood [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Jbi11s wrote:
Let us not forget after one of their "leaders" was shot and killed reaching for a gun, everyone but a few of the hardcore die for your country types basically gave up. If I'm not mistaken, even Bundy himself said it was time to turn themselves in.

What kind of armed resistance is that?

welfare queens to boot. crying because their handout terms were changed. so they went to go play pretend cowboy

From what I can tell, the "grazing rights" fees he gets are a huge financial windfall to him even if he had paid them. That's why he not only stopped paying but continued to use the lands because he was making huge money.

This just isn't a noble cause.

The Sagebrush Rebellion is about far more than just grazing rights. it is about the fact that the lands are controlled by bureaucrats who are thousands of miles away with no local input into how they are managed. Those lands should be managed by the states or counties as they are entities which have a vested interest in seeing that the management of those lands is handled in a manner which benefits the local population.

So your solution is to steal and then eventually throw a hissyfit with guns?
Author:  long time guy [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
There is a certain irony to Ogie's concerns for the "local populations" of Nevada. Haven't quite figured out what that irony is just yet. Once I have i will be sure to mention it.
Author:  FavreFan [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Nas wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Jbi11s wrote:
Let us not forget after one of their "leaders" was shot and killed reaching for a gun, everyone but a few of the hardcore die for your country types basically gave up. If I'm not mistaken, even Bundy himself said it was time to turn themselves in.

What kind of armed resistance is that?

welfare queens to boot. crying because their handout terms were changed. so they went to go play pretend cowboy

From what I can tell, the "grazing rights" fees he gets are a huge financial windfall to him even if he had paid them. That's why he not only stopped paying but continued to use the lands because he was making huge money.

This just isn't a noble cause.

The Sagebrush Rebellion is about far more than just grazing rights. it is about the fact that the lands are controlled by bureaucrats who are thousands of miles away with no local input into how they are managed. Those lands should be managed by the states or counties as they are entities which have a vested interest in seeing that the management of those lands is handled in a manner which benefits the local population.


They'll just sell it to the Russians or the Canadiens or CHINA to fill a budget hole. AMERICANS are profiting from the land at below market prices.

You think if the land was given to the state they would sell it to Russia?

Hot take.
Author:  Seacrest [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Kirkwood wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Jbi11s wrote:
Let us not forget after one of their "leaders" was shot and killed reaching for a gun, everyone but a few of the hardcore die for your country types basically gave up. If I'm not mistaken, even Bundy himself said it was time to turn themselves in.

What kind of armed resistance is that?

welfare queens to boot. crying because their handout terms were changed. so they went to go play pretend cowboy

From what I can tell, the "grazing rights" fees he gets are a huge financial windfall to him even if he had paid them. That's why he not only stopped paying but continued to use the lands because he was making huge money.

This just isn't a noble cause.

The Sagebrush Rebellion is about far more than just grazing rights. it is about the fact that the lands are controlled by bureaucrats who are thousands of miles away with no local input into how they are managed. Those lands should be managed by the states or counties as they are entities which have a vested interest in seeing that the management of those lands is handled in a manner which benefits the local population.

So your solution is to steal and then eventually throw a hissyfit with guns?


The solution is to give state and local citizens more say over their economic future. Tough to do when the feds lay claim to 85% of your state.
Author:  Nas [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
FavreFan wrote:
Nas wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Jbi11s wrote:
Let us not forget after one of their "leaders" was shot and killed reaching for a gun, everyone but a few of the hardcore die for your country types basically gave up. If I'm not mistaken, even Bundy himself said it was time to turn themselves in.

What kind of armed resistance is that?

welfare queens to boot. crying because their handout terms were changed. so they went to go play pretend cowboy

From what I can tell, the "grazing rights" fees he gets are a huge financial windfall to him even if he had paid them. That's why he not only stopped paying but continued to use the lands because he was making huge money.

This just isn't a noble cause.

The Sagebrush Rebellion is about far more than just grazing rights. it is about the fact that the lands are controlled by bureaucrats who are thousands of miles away with no local input into how they are managed. Those lands should be managed by the states or counties as they are entities which have a vested interest in seeing that the management of those lands is handled in a manner which benefits the local population.


They'll just sell it to the Russians or the Canadiens or CHINA to fill a budget hole. AMERICANS are profiting from the land at below market prices.

You think if the land was given to the state they would sell it to Russia?

Hot take.


Local governments lease land all the time to foreign companies.
Author:  Jbi11s [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Seacrest wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Jbi11s wrote:
Let us not forget after one of their "leaders" was shot and killed reaching for a gun, everyone but a few of the hardcore die for your country types basically gave up. If I'm not mistaken, even Bundy himself said it was time to turn themselves in.

What kind of armed resistance is that?

welfare queens to boot. crying because their handout terms were changed. so they went to go play pretend cowboy

From what I can tell, the "grazing rights" fees he gets are a huge financial windfall to him even if he had paid them. That's why he not only stopped paying but continued to use the lands because he was making huge money.

This just isn't a noble cause.

The Sagebrush Rebellion is about far more than just grazing rights. it is about the fact that the lands are controlled by bureaucrats who are thousands of miles away with no local input into how they are managed. Those lands should be managed by the states or counties as they are entities which have a vested interest in seeing that the management of those lands is handled in a manner which benefits the local population.

So your solution is to steal and then eventually throw a hissyfit with guns?


The solution is to give state and local citizens more say over their economic future. Tough to do when the feds lay claim to 85% of your state.

Don't they just end up selling out to corporations and land developers most of the time? Isn't conservation one of the Government's goals here?
Author:  Brick [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Seacrest wrote:
The solution is to give state and local citizens more say over their economic future. Tough to do when the feds lay claim to 85% of your state.
From what I can tell, the state doesn't want these lands. They are expensive to maintain and the federal government helps the states out with some of the lost revenue they would have from private ownership of the lands.

However, the grazing rights would likely be higher without the feds in this case.

You going to answer what land was claimed from the Bundys? Should the Bundys own 85% of Nevada?
Author:  Seacrest [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Seacrest wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Jbi11s wrote:
Let us not forget after one of their "leaders" was shot and killed reaching for a gun, everyone but a few of the hardcore die for your country types basically gave up. If I'm not mistaken, even Bundy himself said it was time to turn themselves in.

What kind of armed resistance is that?

welfare queens to boot. crying because their handout terms were changed. so they went to go play pretend cowboy

From what I can tell, the "grazing rights" fees he gets are a huge financial windfall to him even if he had paid them. That's why he not only stopped paying but continued to use the lands because he was making huge money.

This just isn't a noble cause.

The Sagebrush Rebellion is about far more than just grazing rights. it is about the fact that the lands are controlled by bureaucrats who are thousands of miles away with no local input into how they are managed. Those lands should be managed by the states or counties as they are entities which have a vested interest in seeing that the management of those lands is handled in a manner which benefits the local population.

So your solution is to steal and then eventually throw a hissyfit with guns?


The solution is to give state and local citizens more say over their economic future. Tough to do when the feds lay claim to 85% of your state.

Jbi11s wrote:
Don't they just end up selling out to corporations and land developers most of the time? Isn't conservation one of the Government's goals here?


They own 85% of the land. How much conservation is necessary?

And why can't state and local governments profit from grazing and mining rights?
Author:  Jbi11s [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
The solution is to give state and local citizens more say over their economic future. Tough to do when the feds lay claim to 85% of your state.
From what I can tell, the state doesn't want these lands. They are expensive to maintain and the federal government helps the states out with some of the lost revenue they would have from private ownership of the lands.

However, the grazing rights would likely be higher without the feds in this case.

You going to answer what land was claimed from the Bundys? Should the Bundys own 85% of Nevada?

Seriously, the Bundy's had no claim to the Bunkerville Alottment from everything I've read. He was just letting his cattle graze wherever the fuck they wanted.
Author:  Nas [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Isn't there a lot of government testing out there? What is the government hiding?
Author:  Seacrest [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Jbi11s wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
The solution is to give state and local citizens more say over their economic future. Tough to do when the feds lay claim to 85% of your state.
From what I can tell, the state doesn't want these lands. They are expensive to maintain and the federal government helps the states out with some of the lost revenue they would have from private ownership of the lands.

However, the grazing rights would likely be higher without the feds in this case.

You going to answer what land was claimed from the Bundys? Should the Bundys own 85% of Nevada?

Seriously, the Bundy's had no claim to the Bunkerville Alottment from everything I've read. He was just letting his cattle graze wherever the fuck they wanted.


The people of the state of Nevada should have more control over the land in their state. If you disagree, would you agree that should at least have more input? No one said the Bundy's were angels, but they did stand up for this.

The people of Nevada had even more land taken on Obama's way out the door.
Author:  Jbi11s [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Nas wrote:
Isn't there a lot of government testing out there? What is the government hiding?

Image

But seriously, Area 51 prolly needs a lot of space to test their toys out.
Author:  Seacrest [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Nas wrote:
Isn't there a lot of government testing out there? What is the government hiding?


Not as much is being hidden since Wikileaks, Hillary and Trump came along.
Author:  Brick [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Seacrest wrote:
The people of the state of Nevada should have more control over the land in their state. If you disagree, would you agree that should at least have more input? No one said the Bundy's were angels, but they did stand up for this.
They also stole $1 million in free livestock feed making their "stand".
Author:  Nas [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Seacrest wrote:
Jbi11s wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
The solution is to give state and local citizens more say over their economic future. Tough to do when the feds lay claim to 85% of your state.
From what I can tell, the state doesn't want these lands. They are expensive to maintain and the federal government helps the states out with some of the lost revenue they would have from private ownership of the lands.

However, the grazing rights would likely be higher without the feds in this case.

You going to answer what land was claimed from the Bundys? Should the Bundys own 85% of Nevada?

Seriously, the Bundy's had no claim to the Bunkerville Alottment from everything I've read. He was just letting his cattle graze wherever the fuck they wanted.


The people of the state of Nevada should have more control over the land in their state. If you disagree, would you agree that should at least have more input? No one said the Bundy's were angels, but they did stand up for this.

The people of Nevada had even more land taken on Obama's way out the door.


Wasn't it less than the amount that was supposed to be taken? The federal government owns most of the land out west. I assume it's for good strategic reasons. Maybe you or someone else can shed some light on that.
Author:  ZephMarshack [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Seacrest wrote:
Jbi11s wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
The solution is to give state and local citizens more say over their economic future. Tough to do when the feds lay claim to 85% of your state.
From what I can tell, the state doesn't want these lands. They are expensive to maintain and the federal government helps the states out with some of the lost revenue they would have from private ownership of the lands.

However, the grazing rights would likely be higher without the feds in this case.

You going to answer what land was claimed from the Bundys? Should the Bundys own 85% of Nevada?

Seriously, the Bundy's had no claim to the Bunkerville Alottment from everything I've read. He was just letting his cattle graze wherever the fuck they wanted.


The people of the state of Nevada should have more control over the land in their state. If you disagree, would you agree that should at least have more input? No one said the Bundy's were angels, but they did stand up for this.

The people of Nevada had even more land taken on Obama's way out the door.

Can we apply this same standard of local control and autonomy to private property as well? If a rich person who doesn't live in the area owns most of the land in one, should locals be free to take it?
Author:  good dolphin [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
The Sagebrush Rebellion is about far more than just grazing rights. it is about the fact that the lands are controlled by bureaucrats who are thousands of miles away with no local input into how they are managed. Those lands should be managed by the states or counties as they are entities which have a vested interest in seeing that the management of those lands is handled in a manner which benefits the local population.

Even if that is a fair opinion to have, you don't get to literally steal for 21 years without paying for something and have a just cause. Fight it in court, or by lobbying(The Bundy family is rich), or by a public information campaign.

If I think toll roads are wrong and mismanaged I can't refuse to pay them and then threaten to shoot anyone who tries to collect them. You know the rules when you chose to do what you do.


Youtube is full of people claiming sovereignty whenever the heavy hand of the state oppresses them with demands like driving operable vehicles in a safe fashion or paying income taxes.
Author:  Jbi11s [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Seacrest, I think the Bundy's could have gone about giving more input using legal means like petitions and demonstrations/rallies instead of stubbornly refusing to pay the land fees.
Author:  good dolphin [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Seacrest wrote:
Jbi11s wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
The solution is to give state and local citizens more say over their economic future. Tough to do when the feds lay claim to 85% of your state.
From what I can tell, the state doesn't want these lands. They are expensive to maintain and the federal government helps the states out with some of the lost revenue they would have from private ownership of the lands.

However, the grazing rights would likely be higher without the feds in this case.

You going to answer what land was claimed from the Bundys? Should the Bundys own 85% of Nevada?

Seriously, the Bundy's had no claim to the Bunkerville Alottment from everything I've read. He was just letting his cattle graze wherever the fuck they wanted.


The people of the state of Nevada should have more control over the land in their state. If you disagree, would you agree that should at least have more input? No one said the Bundy's were angels, but they did stand up for this.

The people of Nevada had even more land taken on Obama's way out the door.


Don't they elect people to represent them over such grievances?
Author:  Seacrest [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
good dolphin wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Jbi11s wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
The solution is to give state and local citizens more say over their economic future. Tough to do when the feds lay claim to 85% of your state.
From what I can tell, the state doesn't want these lands. They are expensive to maintain and the federal government helps the states out with some of the lost revenue they would have from private ownership of the lands.

However, the grazing rights would likely be higher without the feds in this case.

You going to answer what land was claimed from the Bundys? Should the Bundys own 85% of Nevada?

Seriously, the Bundy's had no claim to the Bunkerville Alottment from everything I've read. He was just letting his cattle graze wherever the fuck they wanted.


The people of the state of Nevada should have more control over the land in their state. If you disagree, would you agree that should at least have more input? No one said the Bundy's were angels, but they did stand up for this.

The people of Nevada had even more land taken on Obama's way out the door.


Don't they elect people to represent them over such grievances?


Yes, but do you really give a shit about what happens to Nevadans? Guess what, Most elected officials outside of Nevada don't give a shit either.

They tried to get a bill passed in 2016. This happened instead.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/t ... nd-grab-an
Author:  Seacrest [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Jbi11s wrote:
Seacrest, I think the Bundy's could have gone about giving more input using legal means like petitions and demonstrations/rallies instead of stubbornly refusing to pay the land fees.


I hope we cam all agree at least that what they did brought the most attention to the issue of federal control over state's land.
Author:  pittmike [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
long time guy wrote:
There is a certain irony to Ogie's concerns for the "local populations" of Nevada. Haven't quite figured out what that irony is just yet. Once I have i will be sure to mention it.


I see what you did there.
Author:  Nas [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
If any one of us took over a federal "building" with guns, we would be shot and killed and everyone but Ogie would agree with the government. That didn't happen here. I have no sympathy for them amd they should pay what they owe.
Author:  good dolphin [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
pittmike wrote:
long time guy wrote:
There is a certain irony to Ogie's concerns for the "local populations" of Nevada. Haven't quite figured out what that irony is just yet. Once I have i will be sure to mention it.


I see what you did there.


I get the feeling in the pit of my stomach that long time guy actually has figured out the irony he wants to highlight.
Author:  pittmike [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
I think they could have avoided all the trouble if they just organized and called the grazing civil disobedience.
Author:  Kirkwood [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Seacrest wrote:
good dolphin wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Jbi11s wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
The solution is to give state and local citizens more say over their economic future. Tough to do when the feds lay claim to 85% of your state.
From what I can tell, the state doesn't want these lands. They are expensive to maintain and the federal government helps the states out with some of the lost revenue they would have from private ownership of the lands.

However, the grazing rights would likely be higher without the feds in this case.

You going to answer what land was claimed from the Bundys? Should the Bundys own 85% of Nevada?

Seriously, the Bundy's had no claim to the Bunkerville Alottment from everything I've read. He was just letting his cattle graze wherever the fuck they wanted.


The people of the state of Nevada should have more control over the land in their state. If you disagree, would you agree that should at least have more input? No one said the Bundy's were angels, but they did stand up for this.

The people of Nevada had even more land taken on Obama's way out the door.


Don't they elect people to represent them over such grievances?


Yes, but do you really give a shit about what happens to Nevadans? Guess what, Most elected officials outside of Nevada don't give a shit either.

They tried to get a bill passed in 2016. This happened instead.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/t ... nd-grab-an

If I recall correctly, another round of this event, I believe it's called an "election", was held last year and a new representative was elected. He, in turn, partially reduced the action of his predecessor.
Author:  Seacrest [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Nas wrote:
If any one of us took over a federal "building" with guns, we would be shot and killed and everyone but Ogie would agree with the government. That didn't happen here. I have no sympathy for them amd they should pay what they owe.


I think that they should pay what they owe,

I also think they were able to shine a bright light on federal law and its enforcement arm doing whatever they want until they were stopped.
Author:  good dolphin [ Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bundy Family
Seacrest wrote:
good dolphin wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Jbi11s wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
The solution is to give state and local citizens more say over their economic future. Tough to do when the feds lay claim to 85% of your state.
From what I can tell, the state doesn't want these lands. They are expensive to maintain and the federal government helps the states out with some of the lost revenue they would have from private ownership of the lands.

However, the grazing rights would likely be higher without the feds in this case.

You going to answer what land was claimed from the Bundys? Should the Bundys own 85% of Nevada?

Seriously, the Bundy's had no claim to the Bunkerville Alottment from everything I've read. He was just letting his cattle graze wherever the fuck they wanted.


The people of the state of Nevada should have more control over the land in their state. If you disagree, would you agree that should at least have more input? No one said the Bundy's were angels, but they did stand up for this.

The people of Nevada had even more land taken on Obama's way out the door.


Don't they elect people to represent them over such grievances?


Yes, but do you really give a shit about what happens to Nevadans? Guess what, Most elected officials outside of Nevada don't give a shit either.

They tried to get a bill passed in 2016. This happened instead.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/t ... nd-grab-an


but then there is the rest of the story where Trump significantly reduced the area, so someone is listening
Page 3 of 4 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/