Cliven Bundy Is On His Way To Oregon And He’s Not Going Alone

a reply to: Gryphon66

I am not the topic. The majority of your post illegitimately states nothing more than your opinions about me (as usual).

The post has nothing to do with you other than ego telling you it does.....the poster was referring to a mindset that many people have, it is possible that is your mindset as apparently it offended you

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Gryphon66

I am not the topic. The majority of your post illegitimately states nothing more than your opinions about me (as usual).

The post has nothing to do with you other than ego telling you it does.....the poster was referring to a mindset that many people have, it is possible that is your mindset as apparently it offended you

Which is why they addressed the post to me and used the pronoun "you" so many times I take it?

/shrug Play the ball.

a reply to: dragonridr

Perfect summation of the facts.

You clearly decimate these self-contradictory arguments made by the Bundys and their supporters!

Good job!

a reply to: diggindirt

Since you want to take quotes out if context in Jefferson figured I'd help.
It is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property
is derived from nature at all. It is agreed by those who have
seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural
right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By a
universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs
to all men equally and in common is the property for the moment of
him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the
property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law,
and is given late in the progress of society." --Thomas Jefferson
to Isaac McPherson, 1813.

And here's what he thought about locals self interests.

"A government regulating itself by what is wise and just for the
many, uninfluenced by the local and selfish views of the few who
direct their affairs, has not been seen, perhaps, on earth. Or if
it existed for a moment at the birth of ours, it would not be easy
to fix the term of its continuance. Still, I believe it does
exist here in a greater degree than anywhere else; and for its
growth and continuance... I offer sincere prayers." --Thomas
Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816.

So I think he would say the ranchers selfish view for their own gain its the governments job to stay above that.

a reply to: dragonridr

So I think he would say the ranchers selfish view for their own gain its the governments job to stay above that.

I must be way off here but do the ranchers not have cattle that is sold for public consumption ? Isnt this how they make their living by selling their livestock ?...

What happens when there are no more ranchers ?...i think we end up here on an even larger scale..

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: dragonridr

So I think he would say the ranchers selfish view for their own gain its the governments job to stay above that.

I must be way off here but do the ranchers not have cattle that is sold for public consumption ? Isnt this how they make their living by selling their livestock ?...

What happens when there are no more ranchers ?...i think we end up here on an even larger scale..

In that area wouldn't make the slightest difference that land isn't for raising cattle. Cattle where never meant to be raised in a dessert. Real ranches keep huge beards and can rotate the cattle some in Texas have as much as 700000 acres and produce most ofh the beef we eat. Nevada is 37th state in cattle production being a dessert not a big money maker. Number one if course is texas. Top 10 is

Texas
Nebraska
Kansas
California
Oklahoma
Missouri
Iowa
South Dakota
Wisconsin
Colorado
Here's a shocker new York state produces more cattle they are 21. The only reason cattle could be raised there was the federal government spending money by planting so the ranchers could graze tgseit cattle. When they started charging for it they didn't like that. They prefer the government tax payers to help fatten up their cows so they can make money.

originally posted by: dragonridr
The only reason cattle could be raised there was the federal government spending money by planting so the ranchers could graze tgseit cattle. When they started charging for it they didn't like that. They prefer the government tax payers to help fatten up their cows so they can make money.

Deadbeat ranchers trying to hide their inability to make a living without Government Assistance under the Constitution.

Hundreds of men and women work their butts off every day under the same conditions, and don't cry for welfare ... but the Bundys are special.

You nailed it ...

This all feels like a big vanity project for some disgruntled old conservatives trying to rustle up more support in an effort to create a scenario where they can be seen as martyrs to a cause against a tyrannical government. You may not like the government, but it's not tyrannical. You want to see tyranny go to the Middle East or North Korea you are a republican democracy, where you choose your leaders from candidates chosen by the constituents. It's a republic , but still a democracy however you want to spin it and if it's not the republic democracy you wanted, you have no one else to blame but yourselves, not the "left wing media" or liberals. It's an effort to whip up key board warriors to go and join them and risk their lives backing a bunch of guys who don't really know what they want apart from freedom , liberty something and stuff.

a reply to: CharlesT
So let me understand you here. Because some lobbying group of which you disapprove has contributed to another lobbying group of which you disapprove and are voicing support for the return to Constitutional government, you are now of the belief that the call for returning to the blueprint laid out by the founders is somehow void?
How many activist actions have you been a part of?
How many people contributed toward those activist actions?
Do you know personally every one who contributed and their sources of income?
Did you do background checks on the donors with which you weren't personally acquainted?
Would you personally vouch for every contributor to those activist actions to which your allied yourself?

I understand that people who have never been involved don't know the intricacies of activism. But as a dear friend of mine who was often told he was a pawn in some game used to point out, "Well, pawns are quite useful in some situations, aren't they?"
If you think differently, watch this video.
www.youtube.com...

It isn't the Bundys or their supporters who have fallen into a trap. Not at all.
It isn't the Bundys or their supporters who are attempting to suppress speech, they are promoting it.
It isn't the Bundys or their supporters who are shooting at people and setting fires that burn up their cattle.
It wasn't the Bundys and their supporters who built a concrete barricade around the county courthouse in Burns and moved in military-style equipment and a small army to occupy more building in the town than the protesters at the refuge. The people of the town know the protesters are peaceful, they've been interacting with them quite peacefully, hundreds have turned out to their meetings.
It isn't the Bundys who are saying how the land should/should not be used. Indeed they are saying it is up to the people of the state and county to make those decisions. Unlike the Authoritarian Cult of Complete Control of Every Citizen's Life which seeks to regulate our food, yet fails to protect us from harm from corporate food supplies, regulates our water, yet failed to protect the people of Flint, MI from the state government's misdeeds, and indeed that same Cult is the one who ruined the Animas River in Colorado.

I simply do not understand how it is that when people are speaking the truth---as these people are---about the abuses at the hands of over-reaching federal authority, how is it that we can be swayed so quickly and easily by propaganda hit pieces like these. Half-truths and innuendo. Open your eyes. Please. I'm very sincere here, please don't fall for their "divide and conquer" tactics.
Ask yourself these questions:
1. Are people being abused by government authorities under color of law?
2. Why should I care if people are being abused by government's agents?
3. Could there come a time when I am abused by government's thugs?
4. What will I do, to whom will I turn should I find myself their victim?
5. Am I worthy of having my rights defended by others if the government violates my rights?

Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about our rights and the law. Think on his words.

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

You know, the founders pondered on these very issues, examined them at length, over many, many years. They saw the pitfalls ahead and attempted to find ways by which we could avoid them. On the issue of property rights here is more food for thought from one of the architects of the Constitution.

"It is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all... It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:333

"A right of property in moveable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands, not till after that establishment. The right to moveables is acknowledged by all the hordes of Indians surrounding us. Yet by no one of them has a separate property in lands been yielded to individuals. He who plants a field keeps possession till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession. Till then, the property is in the body of the nation, and they, or their chief as trustee, must grant them to individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:45

"The laws of civil society, indeed, for the encouragement of industry, give the property of the parent to his family on his death, and in most civilized countries permit him even to give it, by testament, to whom he pleases." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Earle, 1823. ME 15:470

famguardian.org...

It isn't those of us supporting the Constitution who have been deluded. We will fight the big money guys when they attempt to to do their dirty deeds just as fiercely as we now must fight the federal thugs. It is all the same fight---can you not see that?
It's not left nor right---it is liberty and justice for all.

a reply to: diggindirt

Great post.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Don't you want American beef served when you go out to eat for dinner?

Or do you want imported Chinese beef, or wherever it comes from next...

So, is racist nutjob Bundy off to Oregon or not? I take it that remaining whackdoodles are still there, despite the fact that the locals want them gone?

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

So many emotions yet so little substance!

Can't attack the argument so immediately attack the individual!

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

So many emotions yet so little substance!

Can't attack the argument so immediately attack the individual!

Oh come off it. Cliven Bundy is a racist - his own damn words condemn him as a racist. Remember that interview he gave before the cameras, in which he said that African-Americans were better off when they were slaves? After that even the GOP ran a mile rather than offer their support.
As for this wildlife fiasco - the locals want them gone. My wife's from Oregon, she knows people in the area and they are all adamant on one thing - that the last whackdoodles need to get the hell out. They have no place there, they are not wanted and the Hammonds (about whom this was all originally about) want nothing to do with them. They're only still there because they want the nasty old FBI to stop being mean by threatening to prosecute them on eleventy billion charges of being idiots on Federal property.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

This tired argument of what the locals want and link the video with the racist comment.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie
The first job is to get the government back on the Constitutional tracks. Or as one broadcaster used to say, "Before the creek can clear up, we've got to get the hogs out of it." www.pbs.org...

We must fight one battle at time. Getting the country back on the Constitutional path is going to be hard and a lot of work for a lot of people. A lot of people would much rather hire slick-talking media consultants to put their cause out there because it is hard as hell for an average Joe Public to stand before a microphone or tv camera and take a stand.
Have you ever noted a problem that nobody was addressing and tried to get it worked out? Been rejected by people who are supposed to be handling this particular problem? (Think about the people of Flint, Michigan. The government was allowing poisoned water to be sold to the people. The same government that was supposed to be protecting their water supply, the same government that won't allow them to drill a well and access the abundant, clean water that lies under the property which they own. Here's an explanation of why we must first get the government back into the small box envisioned by the founders. krisannehall.com...)
Imagine how these people who were being poisoned by their government must have felt! Sick. And unable to access any help at all from the very people they trusted to provide one of the necessities of life---water.

See---it isn't just a ranchers and farmers issue---or a land use issue---it's a clean up the government issue. And it is hard work, work most of us are reluctant to undertake and will use any, any excuse to not do it. I beg you, don't let the defeatists derail your support of those who support liberty and justice.
Here is what Jefferson had to say about supporting liberty as a common cause:

"We are bound, you, I, and every one to make common cause, even with error itself, to maintain the common right of freedom of conscience." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803.

"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. It behooves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith, which the laws have left between God and himself." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1803.

famguardian.org...
What a radical that guy was! A radical, Constitution promoter long after the document had been amended and ratified, he is still harping on liberty and warning against any attempt at encroachment.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

This tired argument of what the locals want and link the video with the racist comment.

"Tired argument of what the locals want"???????????????
So, you're saying that you and the whackdoodles hiding on the nature reservation know what's best for those poor ignorant locals who have been living there??? I think that what the locals want is the most important thing about this whole insane affair. They want them gone!
And if you want a link to Bundy and his dribblingly stupid racism, two seconds on Google would have found you this. The man's an ass. And that's me being polite.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I think local want the FBI to stop using their town as home base.

Some issues are bigger than what a small town wants and the government owning more than half of the Midwest is a big deal.

I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I think local want the FBI to stop using their town as home base.

Some issues are bigger than what a small town wants and the government owning more than half of the Midwest is a big deal.

I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

Which is why they want the whackdoodles gone. So that the FBI will also leave. Bundy's people are not wanted. That's the issue that the locals are fixated on. They do not share Bundy's minority view. Which is a good thing, as it means that they're not racists, as Cliven Bundy is very clearly. I note that you have dropped any mention of the latter. Watch the video did you?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Did you miss the part where Jefferson argued that tyranny could be clothed in law?
I join him in that argument.

"A strict observation of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lost the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." --Thomas Jefferson to John Colvin, 1810.