http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_XqdQjTflcMy question is who would really take orders to shoot the protesters?
...BTW your Bieber avatar is awesome.-Malone
The BLM was executing a court order. One of many that Bundy has ignored over the last 20 years. Bundy was the one who escalated the confrontation to a potential shooting situation by warning that if federal agents were to try to legally execute the court order he would respond with deadly force. So, lets say you are a landlord and you have a tenant who hasn't paid rent in 20 years and you finally have a legal eviction order and the sheriff's department is going to deliver it for you. Lets say that the tenant makes it known that if anyone tries to evict them, they will be shot at. Is the sheriff going to just say, oh, well, in that case, never mind?Is the sheriff going to show up in just a shirt and badge? What do you think the appropriate response is? The federal government shouldn't own that land. But that doesn't mean that cliven bundy should be able to do with it as he sees fit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tY15BZKNZI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-vj6BhQa5w&list=PL4We4XGulWzBjyRnqq0-j73pxnzQzxbhiI see it differently. He paid for it many times over. When the fed illegally said give us more, he said no...for 20 years.I think of it more like when Hitler said it was legal to murder millions of Jewish people. Just because it was legal in his country doesn't make it correct. When the BLM says you owe us that because we staked a claim to the land in the last 25 years that you and your family have had a claim on for over 100 years before that...but our(BLM) claim is better??? If it was the eviction example you gave, and it was California, I hear they pay people to leave if they have been there less than 40 days or something. If they don't leave the state protects the tenant after a certain time period and the land lord gets nothing.I would think the appropriate response is, BLM now realizes we should not have owned this land and return all proceeds back to all who paid to use it. The land will divided among the people*not only Cliven* using it and if no one is the state of Nevada can annex the rest for a national grassland park...or something similar.
Quote from: theman53 on May 05, 2014, 07:27:09 pmhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-vj6BhQa5w&list=PL4We4XGulWzBjyRnqq0-j73pxnzQzxbhiI see it differently. He paid for it many times over. When the fed illegally said give us more, he said no...for 20 years.I think of it more like when Hitler said it was legal to murder millions of Jewish people. Just because it was legal in his country doesn't make it correct. When the BLM says you owe us that because we staked a claim to the land in the last 25 years that you and your family have had a claim on for over 100 years before that...but our(BLM) claim is better??? If it was the eviction example you gave, and it was California, I hear they pay people to leave if they have been there less than 40 days or something. If they don't leave the state protects the tenant after a certain time period and the land lord gets nothing.I would think the appropriate response is, BLM now realizes we should not have owned this land and return all proceeds back to all who paid to use it. The land will divided among the people*not only Cliven* using it and if no one is the state of Nevada can annex the rest for a national grassland park...or something similar.Yeah except that prior to the establishment of the BLM, that land belonged to the General Land Office. 20 years of court judgements have found that the Bundy family never had any claim of ownership, even prior to Nevada statehood. Again i agree that the BLM shouldn't own that land. But we have to live in the world that exists rather than the one we would prefer. The BLM does own that land, and it will take an act of congress to change that. Legally speaking, Bundy's lease terms changed, so he stopped paying. That's not generally a strong position in court. Morally speaking, I'd argue that he is abusing the land regardless. I wish i could think that the state of Nevada would have a greater sense of balance between land use and sustainable ecology, but i don't. I hate to say it but in this specific instance the BLM seems to be the lesser of several evils. I've seen what overgrazing does to deserts - typically (but not always) at the hands of BLM lessees. There's no god given or ancestral right for cliven bundy to graze his cattle in a desert. He had a gravy train and it soured. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faQs1ttAMc8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MghiBW3r65MAs I stated I don't know him personally, but from what I read he did pay way back in the day and he had some claim to the land. The lesser of 2 evils is still evil, that is why I think the libertarian platform has something right now. Sometimes the only way to change bad laws is to ignore them.
Author
Topic: Random and SAFE youtube videos. Must have a video to post reply (Read 68892 times)
