• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Cows eating grass.

Status
Not open for further replies.
#81
Ironbar said:
I cannot fully comment on this thread topic without receiving a third strike, but suffice to say from some the responses on this thread, those of you that think this rancher is in the wrong have been duped.
Click to expand...

No.

Just no.

You deserve strikes for even saying things like this on this non-political message board.

I think for myself, and am not easily duped.

The groupthink appears to be in those who are stridently trying to make the case that this rancher has been wronged by a government run amock.
 
#83
IIRC, of the money he owes, about $300,000 is unpaid fees. The rest is penalties and interest. Divide that by 20 years = $15,000/year. He has approximately 1,000 cattle = $15 cow/year, or $1.25 cow/month, or about $0.04 cow/day. That's a bargain!
 
#84
GregC said:
Link? This reads like no actual news story I've ever read. No sources, vague terms like "much later" instead of actual dates and plenty of editorializing. I'm pretty sure even Fox has better reporting standards than this. Sounds like you C&P'd an editorial--or a quote from the story without telling us who said it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's exactly what I did.
Dana Loesch said it. Conservative radio host, political commentator on all the major networks, Fox, CNN, etc...
Here is the bit from the Fox broadcast that was "updated".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSYkWShlOXs
 
#86
Turock said:
I agree, it was the perfect response, which you failed to answer. Who do think a police officer works for?
Click to expand...

Takes quite a bit of audacity to believe that because you paid 1/5000th of a police officer's salary he works for you. The guy standing next to you who pays 1/5000th of his salary as well might be damn skippy with him bouncing this guy off Federal land. See how it works? You're not the only one on the planet. Wooo...man, the world exists outside of my biases.
 
#87
GregC said:
Link? This reads like no actual news story I've ever read. No sources, vague terms like "much later" instead of actual dates and plenty of editorializing. I'm pretty sure even Fox has better reporting standards than this. Sounds like you C&P'd an editorial--or a quote from the story without telling us who said it.
Click to expand...

Surprise!

I always respond (and hinted earlier) to these stories with links to the past - history reveals much. The Whiskey Rebellion is a good example. The greatest president in history marched on civilians.

I would presume the reason the Feds pulled back was because they aren't as tyrannical as some would like us to believe. If it was a more unreasonable nation, they would likely have pumped missiles in so fast Bundy would be part of the pasture his cattle are grazing.
 
#88
GregC said:
Link? This reads like no actual news story I've ever read. No sources, vague terms like "much later" instead of actual dates and plenty of editorializing. I'm pretty sure even Fox has better reporting standards than this. Sounds like you C&P'd an editorial--or a quote from the story without telling us who said it.
Click to expand...

i always get a laugh when people who obviously don't watch Fox presume they know all about it. fox has presented this story, as they do all their stories, professionally and with both sides given time to present their sides

the consensus of the commentators (as opposed to the hard news reporting) is that the Feds are probably in the right, but their gestapo-like tactics (sorry, Godwin) have really hurt them in the court of public opinion

michael_atw said:
....I would presume the reason the Feds pulled back was because they aren't as tyrannical as some would like us to believe. If it was a more unreasonable nation, they would likely have pumped missiles in so fast Bundy would be part of the pasture his cattle are grazing.
Click to expand...

oh....they ARE as tyrannical, it's just that how they chose to enforce their position has eroded public support

and, BTW, wth are the bureau of land management doing having their own army with M16's and uniformed agents capturing the guy's cattle, not taking good care of them and then finally releasing them, minus the one's that died while in their control?

i don't really have a position on this, and am largely uninformed, except what i've heard on Fox and other news outlets. it seems that the Feds are probably in the right on the overall issue, but the way they have gone about enforcing their rights seems suspect

suspect, as well, is the fact that Harry Reid seems to have a real financial stake in the government's coming down on this guy. his son (son-in-law?) is up to his neck in some kind of solar-farm deal with a chinese company.....this is the tip of a very ugly iceberg, and i believe that the reason the feds have backed off is they don't want the whole ugly mess coming to light


davesignatureII-1.png
 
#90
nukes_da_bass said:
Most of the base of American laws derive from English Common Law.
In colonial times and early in our countries history it was legal to graze livestock on Common Land.
Click to expand...

Public land grazing in the USA is a purely western phenomenon that almost 100% post-dates the Civil War and absolutely didn't exist in Colonial settlements.

And so, without passing a statute, or taking any affirmative action on the subject, the United States suffered its public domain to be used for open range. There thus grew up a sort of implied license that these lands, thus left open, might be used so long as the government did not cancel its tacit consent.

Light v. US, US Supreme Court 1911
Click to expand...
 
#92
aborgman said:
Public land grazing in the USA is a purely western phenomenon that almost 100% post-dates the Civil War and absolutely didn't exist in Colonial settlements.
Click to expand...

true!...but, Nukes is also right....there was common ground in colonial times, and the general rule seemed to be that people could graze their livestock on it as long as it wasn't being used for something else....at least, that is my understanding....please correct me if i am wrong

davesignatureII-1.png
 
#96
Lonesomedave said:
true!...but, Nukes is also right....there was common ground in colonial times, and the general rule seemed to be that people could graze their livestock on it as long as it wasn't being used for something else....at least, that is my understanding....please correct me if i am wrong

davesignatureII-1.png
Click to expand...

From everything I've read - it isn't true.

There are numerous references in colonial sources to the "poorer" people not eating significant quantities of livestock meat (Beef and pork mostly) because they were "tenant farmers" who did not have "adequate grazing land".
 
#100
Lonesomedave said:
true!...but, Nukes is also right....there was common ground in colonial times, and the general rule seemed to be that people could graze their livestock on it as long as it wasn't being used for something else....at least, that is my understanding....please correct me if i am wrong

davesignatureII-1.png
Click to expand...

You are aware colonial times were over 200 years ago, and by definition under a different government?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back