|
0 members (),
16
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,539
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
If I read one of the articles on the matter right, some people within the BLM confesses that the ranchers make a better job of preserving the type of nature intended to be preserved. Boy, I'd sure like a specific quote rather than a vague recollection to establish this one. Can you clarify what "Type of nature" you seek to preserve? And this: The government is not obliged to charge high fares for ranchers upholding a living American culture. The vast majority of the ranchers don't find the fees, which are modest, excessive. In the United States, grazing fees are generally charged per AUM (animal unit month). (Some additional fee or fees may be charged in various jurisdictions, e.g. per application.) On US federal grazing land, the grazing fee for 2012 (as for 2011) is $1.35 per AUM.[3] As of 2015, the grazing fee has been increased to $1.69.[4] Over several decades, the fees charged on US federal rangelands have generally been substantially lower than rates charged on private lands in the US.[5] In 2006, the grazing fee on Oregon state lands was $5.60 per AUM.[6] Wikipedia. What about the cultures that pre-existed the ranchers? What about the bison that used to roam? What about the flora and fauna that are destroyed? Realistically, ranching is not dying out despite the government ownership of the land. The Bundys never owned the land their cattle graze on. What gives him a superior interest to ALL of those others? It's not so much nostalgia, Swede, as ideological blindness. We, collectively, have brought forward reams of actual evidence to support our views in contrast to...? What, really?
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,082 Likes: 134
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,082 Likes: 134 |
I'm worried about the hatred shown the ranchers by parts of the public. Often enough those parts that salute cultural diversity. Why won't they accept people who choose to continue living the way their families have for generations? If that is what you really think, then you clearly need someone to explain to you why there is so much animus displayed against the Bundy Gang i.e. domestic terrorists. THEY ARE BROKE THE LAW However if you believe they have not .... well .... did they break the law?
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
America can survive bad policy, but not destruction of our Democratic institutions
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
Again, a statement without support: "hatred toward ranchers". Really? How is this manifest? Or, more realistically, is this just another example of straw logic. "In order to support my argument,I need to employ a straw man." It makes my miscreant seem like the victim here. As the reality in Oregon showed, local ranchers supported the Malheur reserve, not the Bundy gang. CBS Ammon and his cohort were bringing their warped ideology to a place it wasn't wanted.
Last edited by NW Ponderer; 01/13/18 08:37 PM.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 323
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 323 |
If I read one of the articles on the matter right, some people within the BLM confesses that the ranchers make a better job of preserving the type of nature intended to be preserved. Boy, I'd sure like a specific quote rather than a vague recollection to establish this one. Can you clarify what "Type of nature" you seek to preserve? I have read 10 or perhaps 20 articles on the matter only since Christmas, did not make a note at the time. But from I gathered it was mainly flora that benefits from grazing, or should we say loses out evolutionary from lack of grazing. Keeping those plants alive was the desired win. There may also be certain birds and insects that benefit.
They must find the fees objectionable, or they would pay, I imagine.
[quote=NW Ponderer] What about the cultures that pre-existed the ranchers? What about the bison that used to roam? What about the flora and fauna that are destroyed? Realistically, ranching is not dying out despite the government ownership of the land. The Bundys never owned the land their cattle graze on. What gives him a superior interest to ALL of those others? What about them? There are programs for bringing back the bison. Nature is never destroyed. It is merely reshaped. Evolution makes sure of that. We sometimes help out, sometimes try to slow the natural process. Why can't you allow for those cultures you mentioned and the ranching culture? I can. It's not so much nostalgia, Swede, as ideological blindness. We, collectively, have brought forward reams of actual evidence to support our views in contrast to...? What, really? If I'm blind, then so are you. Just blind for other details. I can't seem to get the quotes right, sorry for that.
Cowardly men always plot to label Freedom as anarchy!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 323
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 323 |
That has not been confirmed in a court of law. They seem to have broken some laws, but nothing that warrants the treatment they have been subjected to. Yet again, innocent until proven guilty!
Cowardly men always plot to label Freedom as anarchy!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,004 Likes: 133
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,004 Likes: 133 |
That has not been confirmed in a court of law. Yes, it has. The 2014 Bundy standoff was an armed confrontation between supporters of cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and law enforcement following a 21-year legal dispute in which the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) obtained court orders directing Bundy to pay over $1 million in withheld grazing fees for Bundy's use of federally-owned land adjacent to Bundy's ranch in southeastern Nevada. Bundy has still not complied with the law, and a court order.
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.
R. Buckminster Fuller
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,082 Likes: 134
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,082 Likes: 134 |
They must find the fees objectionable, or they would pay, I imagine. The Bundy gangsters i.e. domestic terrorists, did not argue the fees were too high, they argued the federal government had no right to levy a fee.
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
America can survive bad policy, but not destruction of our Democratic institutions
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,082 Likes: 134
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,082 Likes: 134 |
They seem to have broken some laws, but nothing that warrants the treatment they have been subjected to. You have confused a guilty verdict with the actual commission of a crime. One can commit a crime and not be convicted. That does not make them innocent. It makes them not guilty. Their crimes have been preserved for posterity on tape and audio files. You may access the list of federal laws the Bundy Gang broke. But I have to ask this, you obviously side with the domestic terrorists because of their political philosophy, so if Muslim terrorists, who do not share the same political philosophy as you or the Bundys, did precisely the same thing as the Bundys, would you support their efforts as you do the Bundys? Now for the clincher. This is what Mr Clive Bundy said, "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don't recognize the United States government as even existing". So my question for you is, do you recognize the Federal government as legitimate?
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
America can survive bad policy, but not destruction of our Democratic institutions
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 323
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 323 |
They must find the fees objectionable, or they would pay, I imagine. The Bundy gangsters i.e. domestic terrorists, did not argue the fees were too high, they argued the federal government had no right to levy a fee. Yes, that is one way of objecting.
Cowardly men always plot to label Freedom as anarchy!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 323
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 323 |
They seem to have broken some laws, but nothing that warrants the treatment they have been subjected to. You have confused a guilty verdict with the actual commission of a crime. One can commit a crime and not be convicted. That does not make them innocent. It makes them not guilty. Their crimes have been preserved for posterity on tape and audio files. You may access the list of federal laws the Bundy Gang broke. But I have to ask this, you obviously side with the domestic terrorists because of their political philosophy, so if Muslim terrorists, who do not share the same political philosophy as you or the Bundys, did precisely the same thing as the Bundys, would you support their efforts as you do the Bundys? Now for the clincher. This is what Mr Clive Bundy said, "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don't recognize the United States government as even existing". So my question for you is, do you recognize the Federal government as legitimate? I understand the difference between "not guilty" and "not convicted". Just the same, in my opinion the authorities overreacted. In the same manner, I believe it is utterly false to call the terrorists. The Federal government is legitimate for it's prescribed purposes, not more. It is not of divine all mighty power. Muslims, if also American citizens, what difference does it make?
Cowardly men always plot to label Freedom as anarchy!
|
|
|
|
|
