It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Bundy Boondoggle - Nevada standoff: Yes, it’s solar-industry cronies (but NOT the Chinese)

page: 6
38
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Dutchowl
 


Very

Very

Very

V-E-R-Y Possible Indeed !!






posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


And how much water is used and destroyed by oil, coal, and natural gas?

Pathetic point.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Kay, so here's the thing. Even if Xuenchen was correct (no). What about it would be illegal?
Nothing.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by neo96
 


And how much water is used and destroyed by oil, coal, and natural gas?

Pathetic point.


Not really. It's time to start treating ALL of humanities resources with a great deal more respect.
A little here, a little more there - it all adds up.
It's time -no, past time- to focus on a more eco-friendly way of living.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   
More skiving konniving

Worth putting up...

RPT: Chinese Solar Company W/ Ties To Harry Reid's Son Wants Bundy Land - Lou Dobbs






posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Legal does not equal respectable.




posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Kali74
Kay, so here's the thing. Even if Xuenchen was correct (no). What about it would be illegal?
Nothing.


This is the second time I have seen you parrot the line that nothing was illegal about this. Well, you're wrong.

I will make the point that the video did, apparently you didn't watch it, or you would not continue to repeat, "So what's illegal about it?"

As was stated in the video, and should be obvious, using a Federal Agency to terrorize a family and seize property is illegal.

Watch the video, unless, of course, you are afraid it might actually change your mind.

The way the whole thing was handled was illegal. And keep in mind, 52 other families and ranches have already been chased off. Bundy is the last. So, this is a repititous use of Federal agencies to steal land from the people. Some were paid, poorly, some were paid nothing at all.

They actually have an excellent class action suit, considering the evidence that has been uncovered.

Also, as I pointed out in another thread, Bundy has been there since BLM even existed. He has one very powerful thing on his side.

The Grandfather Clause.

Him, and likely many of the of other families there, were likely there under homestead laws. This is one reason they cannot seize his actual property. But, they are claiming rights to property he paid Federal taxes on before the Federal government came in and laid claim to it. So, it's a matter of which came first, the chicken or the egg? The Federal government has consistantly pushed this man around, and he's had enough.

It's bad enough the cronyism is not illegal, but is it moral? That is a question left up to the individual. Many find it horribly distasteful to use your position in the government to profit off of others surreptitously. That you are fine with this speaks a lot about who you are. That others are not speaks a lot about them. Illegal, no, immoral, yes.

The illegality comes when you use that same political power and abuse the public. That's where the immoral line gets crossed to illegal.

Shame this must be explained to some people.


edit on 16-4-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 

Wow, Dirty Harry endorsed the judge that ruled against Bundy for the Supreme Court.

Paybacks, paybacks, paybacks.

Does the filth never end?



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 



Wonder where this guy got the info.


The articles he showed the snippets of were the ones in the story broken by AJ. I saw the story the day AJ broke it.

He had links below his video to both of those articles. One was a pdf. When I clicked on the pdf, it actually downloaded it from the BLM website, even though the actual physical webpage link had been removed from their site.

The first time I clicked it, I cancelled it, because I was watching the video, and it brought up the save/cancel window. I wasn't exactly sure what I was saving or cancelling.

I paused the video, and went back to click the links. That was when I saw the pdf save come up, with the actual link to the BLM site. I clicked on save, for sure!

I know what is said in the video is true, becuase a heavy scrubbing has taken place ever since. Unfortunately, you think I would have learned by now, I didn't get screenshots. I thought with all that evidence, no way they were even going to try to scrub that I mean, articles from Reuters, one from CBS, etc. But, I was wrong.

Now, obviously, all you have is my testimony of what I saw, but, that's what happened, and that's likely the same place he obtained his info. AJ really did nail this one, much to many peoples' chagrin.

He stated in his video (AJ) that he seemed to have a recollection of something about this and Harry, dating back to 2012. That was when he grabbed screenshots of the Reuter's article.

So, I will see if I can find that video, and webpage, and see if it still links to the actual BLM website.

Brb.

ETA - I also posted about this same thing a couple of days ago, in another thread. Then, I started seeing this video pop up.

Okay, I found it. I hope I can post this link...

www.infowars.com...

Below the video are the document snippets. I have not retested the links, wanted to get this here asap. Will check the links now.

Brb again.

edit on 16-4-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)


It's still there. Second document. Here is the actual link.

www.blm.gov...

edit on 16-4-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)


Now, I am going to break the same exact link, so you can read it.

[http :// www .blm .gov /pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/tech_notes.Par.29872.File.dat/TN_444.pdf]


edit on 16-4-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)


And here is the thread I posted in, about halfway down the page, about these documents on AJ's site. This was the 14th.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 16-4-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Libertygal
As was stated in the video, and should be obvious, using a Federal Agency to terrorize a family and seize property is illegal.

This was not done and even Bundy has acknowledged it.

So the question stands, "So what's illegal about it?"



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


They did seize his life, liberty and happiness;
proof here in this video.



And during that seize, they took calfs from their mothers,
and now some of them will not make it as they were newlings.

www.cbsnews.com...



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:15 AM
link   

daskakik

Libertygal
As was stated in the video, and should be obvious, using a Federal Agency to terrorize a family and seize property is illegal.

This was not done and even Bundy has acknowledged it.

So the question stands, "So what's illegal about it?"


Yes it was. Cattle are property.

So, what was that again?

The terrorizing part we will let speak for itself. The tazing and throwing people to the ground sure did happen.

I don't know who you think you're trying to fool, but at last report, he still had not gotten all his property back. He is missing around 200+ some odd cattle.

Let's also not forget. This started out as 200 Federal and local poltice against ONE. If that is not State Sponsored terrorism, I don't know what is.


edit on 16-4-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 

Yes, with a court order.

It happens and it is legal.

Bundy knew what the deal was.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:41 AM
link   

daskakik
reply to post by Libertygal
 

Yes, with a court order.

It happens and it is legal.

Bundy knew what the deal was.


So did Rosa Parks. But, she stood up for what she felt was right, regardless of what the law said.

It was already posted above in a video that Harry Reid ensorsed the judge that ruled against Bundy for the Supreme Court.

What's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong.

If they were 100% within the law, then who ordered the stand down? Why did they leave and give the cattle back? According to you, they had every right to keep them.

Bundy has tried to pay the state what he owes. He refuses to pay the Federal Government, who is turning around and using his own money against him.

Harry Reid and his son using a Federal Agency to seize cattle and teerorize a family for what turns out to be fabricated truths, and then attempting to cover up the evidence is illegal. It could well end with him being removed from office. The documents, however, have been saved by many now. It's impossible to cover this up, and I just proved the pdf came directly from the BLM itself. Though they removed the link. It has nothing to do with cattle, or tortoises. It has everything to do with stealing and dirty politicians.

This entire operation cost over 3 million already. To get a million in grazing fees? Seriously, and you cannot see something ELSE might just be going on here? Of course NOT.

But, at this point, what DIFFERENCE does it really make, right? Amiright?


edit on 16-4-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Libertygal
If they were 100% within the law, then who ordered the stand down? Why did they leave and give the cattle back? According to you, they had every right to keep them.

Politics.


Bundy has tried to pay the state what he owes. He refuses to pay the Federal Government, who is turning around and using his own money against him.

From what I gather grazing permits have been suspended. There is no one to pay the money to and nothing to buy.


This entire operation cost over 3 million already. To get a million in grazing fees? Seriously, and you cannot see something ELSE might just be going on here? Of course NOT.

Of course there is something else but it was carried out within the legal framework.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

If they were in the right and not worried about all this info coming out, why are they scrubbing websites? As far as I can tell, legal things are left online. Illegal things are scrubbed and hidden.

I see lots of scrubbing.web scrubbing is the new shredder. I imagine it takes a lot of money and power to make Google remove things.



edit on 16-4-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 

Politics, it's mostly a popularity contest and things can be unpopular without being illegal.

I'm willing to bet that if any real illegal actions took place they are not written down. Imagine if they missed a spot.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


The real shame here is that you believe Alex Jones about anything. The property was never his, never his family's and other ranchers still ranch in the area and pay the grazing permit fees. That land has always belonged to the Federal Government well since it was Mexico, anyway.

Is it fair that the government owns it? Depends on how you look at it. The government can be tyrannical or a politician motivated by money can on a whim repurpose federal land. So can a private owner. Many ranchers prefer some land be kept by the government and permits issued for grazing, others would prefer to buy up all the land and ensure they put their competition out of business.
edit on 4/16/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 



The real shame here is that you believe Alex Jones about anything.


Amazing that you must be psychic, because I never said that I believed Alex Jones about anything. I simply found a document that linked directly to the BLM from his site, and posted the link to prove it.

So, since you act like you know so much, please, entertain me and post where I said I believed anything AJ said. Go ahead. I'll wait. A loooong time, because I didn't.

Sad, you are trying everything you can to detract from the facts.

Fact. AJ posted a document directly naming Bundy, with a link to the BLM.gov site.

Fact. I posted the link both to AJ's site, and to the document.

Fact. I showed the text of the document, proving it came directly from the BLM website.

Fact. You are making up things about me, that have nothing to do with the story. This is a common distraction tactic.

Discuss the story, not me.

What I believe, or do not believe has nothing to do with the story. Attempting to put words in my mouth just makes you look small, and like you have no argument.

Still waiting on you to post where I said I believed anything AJ had to say. Please. Back up your statements, lest you look foolish.

edit on 16-4-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Grimpachi
Oh yay a Glen Beck style blame game. I knew someone would blame Obama though I am not used to seeing Reid on the blame list as much.

Honestly I don't see why they cant let the guys cattle graze there but legally they never had an obligation to allow it.


They did let his cattle graze there.

But Bundy stopped paying the grazing fee's back in 1993 from what i understand.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join