Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is one thing I don't understand.......if this is Federal land how is it that the local county can sell it?
The Clark County Commission unanimously approved a critical land deal on Dec. 20, clearing the way for a massive solar power project that would bring more than 1,000 new jobs and $1 billion in new spending to Southern Nevada. The site is planned for Commission District A, represented by Commission Vice-Chair Steve Sisolak.
The commissioners voted unanimously to sell ENN the exclusive rights to purchase the 9,000 acres needed for the project.
The BLM can sell undeveloped land at its discretion, or in situations in which a democrat politician is going to make millions over the sale of that land.
Public lands have a lot of uses and energy extraction is one of them just like grazing cattle, cutting firewood, riding atv`s, etc. People paid for those leases just as ranchers pay for grazing rights.
Ah..so "enviromental wreckage" as you previously posted is subjective then ?
Fracking isn't wreckage ?
Originally Posted by gmagoo View Post
I don`t want to own any land in Nevada but I think it`s a good thing to keep people from trashing it. Environmental wreckage is not an entitlement.
Maybe twelve, at the onset, would have been better.
In none of these cases was there a disagreement about the facts. The only dispute was about the law - who legally owns the land.
The role of the jury is to be factfinder - to resolve disputes of fact between the two parties. When there are no disputes of fact, there is not need for a jury, and the judge rules on the law. That's law 101.
Not to mention the US sought an injunction - that's a remedy at equity, not law. The right to a jury trial in civil actions under the 7th Amendment applies to actions at law, not actions at equity.
Since the other thread was closed and I think this topic is important, here it goes:
Is the government response to the protesters in Nevada appropriate to the scale of the situation?
In my opinion, it is not. Whether those protesters are right or wrong, smart or stupid, rich or poor, right or left, what I have seen in the posted videos is way out of line on the part of the government. Complete overkill.
Whether the cause of those protesters was justified or not is not the issue. I believe the constitution says something about protests anyway, doesn't it? My beef is is with the response on the part of the government agents. Do you seriously feel that sending in what looks like an offshoot of the SS to rough them up was an appropriate and justified response?
If that lady was thrown to the ground, is that UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE an appropriate response by an armed soldier with a killer dog at his side? Seriously? Could he not, at most, just have grabbed the woman and moved her to wherever he wanted her to stand? Would that not have satisfied his sense of authority? It's not like she was a 250 pound UFC fighter who was any threat at all to Mr. Bigman.
It's the same story as it usually is with this sort of thing, whether the protesters are left wing, right wing, or from Mars. The SS men simply want to show their authority and they will look for whatever excuse they can find to show it. They want that adrenaline/testosterone rush. Even if it means performing a hip throw on an unarmed woman who looks like she weighed about 90 pounds. Would you have been okay with him turning the dog loose on her? How about tazing her? How about if he pulled his sidearm and put one between her eyes? Would that have been okay as well?
Where do you draw the line and decide that these people have gone too far in their response to what looked to be an unorganized bunch of... well, I don't want to insult them. But again, they didn't look to be much of a threat to the big men behind the guns and dogs to me.
We the people allow the government to exist.
We the people control the government, if only for one reason.
The 2nd amendment.
We the people allow the government to exist.
We the people control the government, if only for one reason.
The 2nd amendment.
This, of course, is an excellent example of the power of the 2nd amendment. The feds backed down, faced with a "well armed militia". Is this not what the founding fathers had envisioned?
I still need to look more into this matter, but from what I have gathered it appears that the Government definitely acted inhumanely toward the rancher and his family. Now I agree that he should have followed the law and paid his dues, his illegal grazing on Federal lands has cost the Tax payers of Nevada quite a lot of money over the years, but the way the Federal Government actually handled this situation has been completely wrong and tyrannical. They attacked his son, it looks like they beat his wife to the ground, the feds were even talking about setting up "Free Speech Zones" in the area for protesters, attack dogs on site.....all of this sounds like the making of a Police State.
I differ from my fellow conservatives on this issue as I do actually admit that the Rancher is guilty of his own transgressions, just because your ancestors had something a long time ago does not mean that you are entitled to it now. Maybe my ancestors once had land in New England, should I be allowed to go there now and kick whoever is there off of it and claim it as mine? He needs to obey The Law and pay his dues. However the transgressions of The State have been far worse here, their brutality almost came into full force and I'm glad to hear that they have withdrawn, and more importantly no one was killed.
One man with his supporters beat back the Federal Government, this broke their image, they are not as powerful as they would like us to believe. Honestly, if the Government would have handled this in a far more civilized manner then the Rancher would have probably listened and things would not have escalated to this level. Perhaps they could have made a deal with him? Their actions here have been downright scary. The Rancher didn't even throw the first punch, he did not start this. There is a hidden snake in the grass here that people should be aware of: Harry Reid. His name keeps hissing through this....it would not surprise me if he is at play in this whole mess.
But like I said earlier, I have not had the time to follow this as much as I would have liked to, so please forgive anything that I may be misinformed on. Thanks!
EDIT: One more thing, does anyone else not see the irony here? When it comes to stopping some cows from grazing, the Government sends Federal Troops in full force. But yet when it comes to defending our border from Illegals and Drug Cartels they're no where to be found? Something's not right with this picture folks!
Last edited by West Coast Republican; 04-13-2014 at 12:06 PM..
The government has a history of reneging on their promises via subsequent legislation with changes.
American Indians, for example, own a fraction of the land once promised them on paper due to "government changes" so it wouldn't surprise me in the least that this last rancher's claims are valid.
It's amazing how libs can't make that connection. A day without liberal hypocrisy would be a rare thing.
You know, I'm not one for conspiracies...although these days, you just have to wonder when it comes to our government, but this:
Quote:
They were also actively managing the media, in some cases threatening to cut off White House access to anyone covering the event.
goes right along with that little Democrat weasel who was on Greta the other day, pissing and moaning that Fox News had the audacity to air the story. This incident was his example of why he hates Fox News, and why he's declaring war on the Tea Party and Fox News.
GD liberals...they are totally in bed with the government and want to squash out all truth. The louder the shriek about it, the closer to the truth you are getting. I am truly starting to believe that liberalism really IS a mental disease after all.
The BLM can sell undeveloped land at its discretion, or in situations in which a democrat politician is going to make millions over the sale of that land.
The clause, known as the Enclave Clause, authorizes Congress to purchase, own and control land in a state under specific and limited conditions, namely “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings,” and not, as the feds now insist, to protect an endangered tortoise.
I guess I get to get my two cents worth on this subject~ this thief who stole MY money ( by stealing the use of OUR land without paying his rent) should have been arrested already. I'm one career military who will volunteer to go help clear the thugs out of the area. If all of you think its a good thing for thieves to steal what you have and then claim they are not the bad guys then any of you that own apartments feel its fine for others to live there without paying their rent of for someone to dig up your yard without compensation because its what they claim its what the forefathers of our country wished must be thinking our forefathers were all communists. Just not buying that.
Lessee...Before that became YOUR land, it belonged to HIS family for generations and he isn't stealing YOUR money.
Are you familiar with homesteading - when people first ventured out that way centuries ago? You staked a plot, worked/settled the land, registered your claim with the land office and it was yours. You are demanding they pay rent on their own land or even suggest the US federal government take military action against what has been past practice in the state of Nevada. The gubmint is overstepping it's authority and this shouldn't be a federal concern. People squatting in apts are dealt with by the law - I don't know how that example or that of another digging a hole in your yard applies here. Our forefathers had far more sense than you assume.
Maybe Neil Young can write a song entitled "Nevada" after the SS shoots one of those "thugs" in the face for the mere fact they are standing up to tyranny.
We should all be up in arms because if they can gain another Ruby Ridge or Waco feather to stick into their caps they will surely do so with pride. All American citizens are enemies of the state as we may revolt against further unconstitutional actions made by the gubmint. We are already forced into a health system most want no part of, we aren't free to travel as we once were, our food sources are compromised, gubmint controls energy and telecommunications...how much more are we supposed to accept from a rogue gubmint before a revolution commences?
I guess I get to get my two cents worth on this subject~ this thief who stole MY money ( by stealing the use of OUR land without paying his rent) should have been arrested already. I'm one career military who will volunteer to go help clear the thugs out of the area. If all of you think its a good thing for thieves to steal what you have and then claim they are not the bad guys then any of you that own apartments feel its fine for others to live there without paying their rent of for someone to dig up your yard without compensation because its what they claim its what the forefathers of our country wished must be thinking our forefathers were all communists. Just not buying that.
And who did the US steal that land from via legislation ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
