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.
Suppose they got what they want. All of the property is turned over to the states, then the states realize they can't afford it (the feds go in the hole every year). So the states sell it by bid. Either someone like Ted Turner buys it and keeps all the cattle off it, or a corporation buys it and rents it to the ranchers at 20 times what they are now paying. Or even worse, a corporation turns it into a dump site or something like that. They need to be careful what they ask.
None of the occupiers could even afford to bid on it.
This is a pretty good account from the FBI's press conference, it doesn't contain all the details but it does provide some of the verbal commands that you cannot pick up from the video. I also thought Ryan Bundy was shot but I do see any confirmation of his injury. One of the county teams is investigating the shooting.
What is the cost to let time pass?
They do not tax themselves...
I do not see, how a State cannot afford land?
If people did live or use it, that is only revenue for the state. Both the sale and the tax.
Again, I see no scenario, where land sitting idle has cost, unless it is to control a fire.
The land is being used as if it were owned, by free range ranching that has been done for 150 years.
What would be the difference if it was sold by the state for revenue and then get revenue from taxing the property. Win-Win for the State and the County, where THE PEOPLE live and vote.
Suppose they got what they want. All of the property is turned over to the states, then the states realize they can't afford it (the feds go in the hole every year). So the states sell it by bid. Either someone like Ted Turner buys it and keeps all the cattle off it, or a corporation buys it and rents it to the ranchers at 20 times what they are now paying. Or even worse, a corporation turns it into a dump site or something like that. They need to be careful what they ask.
None of the occupiers could even afford to bid on it.
I do not see, how a State cannot afford land?
If people did live or use it, that is only revenue for the state. Both the sale and the tax.
Again, I see no scenario, where land sitting idle has cost, unless it is to control a fire.
The land is being used as if it were owned, by free range ranching that has been done for 150 years.
What would be the difference if it was sold by the state for revenue and then get revenue from taxing the property. Win-Win for the State and the County, where THE PEOPLE live and vote.
Well that explains a lot…
There are 16,000 miles of public trails on federal lands, who do you think pays to maintain them?
There are 58,150 wild horses and burros on federal land, who do you think pays to manage them?
There are 1,590 species of plants and animals most if not all inhabit federal lands, who will pay to protect them?
As for fire protection and suppression, one major fire could bankrupt a county and severely stress state budgets for years seeing how the annual cost to the federal government is in excess of $3 billion per year.
But alas I see the problem, your idea is that federal lands should be turned over to the state for the purpose of private sale. Gotcha, the exact opposite of why we have federal lands in the first place. Lands that are to be enjoyed and experienced by the American public, to protect native and wild species for posterity, not to be carved up for ranchers, miners, loggers, shopping malls and McMansion housing developers.
Any federal employee offering to harm or interfere in the normal occupations of their employers, that is, the people of this country, or to prohibit their employer's customary use of the land and resources they are heir to is acting as an Outlaw in contempt of the Public Law and the actual Constitution and is subject to arrest under the Bounty Hunter provisions of the United States Statutes-at-Large.
The customary ue of the Malheur wildlife refuge, since 1908, is to be a refuge.
Quote:
The law is there... So is the Constitution.
Yuo. Which is why the Bundys will be spending a long time in jail. Sad, but the choice was theirs.
Quote:
The people did not grant their hirelings any power to harass them, indebt them, mischaracterize them, change their political status, seize upon their property, defraud them, trespass upon them, or engage in any other criminal activity whatsoever.
Yeah, see, here's the thing: "The ranchers" is not the same thing as "The people".
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.
