Republicans Realize That Maybe a Scofflaw Rancher Isn't the Symbol They Should Be Rallying Around

Comments

2
it's just part of the daily poop-flinging of the VRWC. gotta fuel the outrage machine.
3
Darkly fascinating to watch the vanguard dynamics, the notably low intelligence right-wing run their mouths while the more Machiavellian hold-back. ..happens on both sides, of course; with far less potential lethality on the left.

Here's my dumb question: why not just arrest Bundy himself? don't 'arrest' his cows! arrest him. then set the bail at what he owe for grazing fees.
4

Bundy phrased his challenge in an interesting way.

He said he was fighting to keep his "ancestral grazing grounds".

Why is he any different from a Native American seeking the same access to land he enjoyed previously before government's eminent domain?

(And yes...that's definitely a stance that will piss off almost anybody.)

5
Yep, Bundy is no "Joe The Plumber", that's for sure...
6
@4, he still has access to his grazing lands, if he just pays the fucking fee to the appropriate body and obeys the fucking law. The comparison to Indian rights is ridiculous.

@1, some have: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fr…
7
Kill his cattle and throw him in jail.
8
Where's The Beef?
9
@4, the fundamental difference between Native Americans tribes and Bundy in claiming ancestral rights is that the tribal claims are based on treaties with the US government, treaties the courts have found to be valid and binding. Many of these treaties grant access for fishing, hunting, gathering, and religious purposes within a given tribe's "usual and accustomed" areas, which often extends well outside later established reservation boundaries. In Bundy's case he is arguing that since his family has been ranching the land since the 1880s it somehow isn't federal land. Nevada entered the Union in 1864, and the land he has been ranching would have become federal land at that time, well before his supposed ancestral claim. He's just another iteration of the sagebrush rebellion BS that crops up in NV from time to time.
10
@9 You should register. Many users don't see unregistered comments.
11
I like @7's answer but thanks @6 for the TPM link...same thought ran through my head.
12
@4: does bundy have a treaty with the united states? I don't believe he's a tribe. is he a tribe?
13
@12, the tribe of Douche-wallahs is a strong tribe.
14
@9,

You've barely scratched the surface of Bundy's idiocy though. It's not just that he doesn't recognize the feds' ownership of the land; he refuses to acknowledge the existence of the federal government.
15
Bundghazi! Bundghazi! Bundghazi! Bundghazi!
16
I'll be fine with forcing this man to pay for his cattle if the Federal Government would pay for the damage they caused conducting NUCLEAR TESTS in the same state. This image says it all: http://thewe.biz/thewe_/images_6/----/he…
17
Just an aside, this topic came up during the tail-end of a work meeting, and my InfoWars-reading coworker chimed in that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to own land in a state. I called her out on that, so she changed it to: the feds have no right to own land they're not "using". Is there any validity to this claim, like a single clause in the Constitution that even somewhat supports it, or can I continue to dismiss her as a freak?
18
@14
That's awesome! More people should stop recognizing the right of the State to jail people for what they do to their own bodies, conduct endless wars of overseas aggression, criminalize people for trading voluntarily, build borders staffed with men with guns to prevent people from working in other areas etc.

Scratch a "liberal" and you'll find a statist.
19
@17
Ultimately, no government on Earth has any right to exist. They should all be, eventually, destroyed, their national armies disbanded, and we should live in a system of voluntary agreements. Constitution or no, this is wrong. If land is not owned by anyone it is owned by everyone.
20
@19,

If land is not owned by anyone it is owned by everyone.


I thought you hated "collectivism", dumbass.
21
Scratch a "liberal" and you'll find a statist.


Of course liberals are statists. What a stupid fucking thing to say. That's the very core of the philosophy. Governments are THE defining element of civilization.

I've spent a reasonable amount of time in and around war zones and failed states. And you know. These stateless Anarchist/Libertarian utopias? They are fucking nightmarish hell-scapes of violence and suffering.

You should go live in one.
22
@21:

Armchair warriors like CS wouldn't last five minutes in a place like Somalia.

Not that that's necessarily a BAD thing...
23
@17 - You should continue to dismiss her as the freak she is. She is talking out of her ass.

@19 - If this is some sort of wacky performance art where your dumbshittery is a competition between yourself and Bailo, then I say Bravo! to you. If not, please be advised that CSITDMFOTP.
24
@21 But were these stateless countries intentionally stateless? If not, it's a moot point. The difference between being in a country that's been thrown into stateless chaos and an intentionally stateless culture is the difference between someone being thrown into the wilderness unprepared vs someone going camping.
25
@17: The federal government is actually EXPLICITLY ALLOWED to own land. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Your misinformed coworker is probably thinking of a phrase in the enumeration of Congress's powers:
[Congress shall have power] To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
This says that the District of Columbia can't be more than ten miles square...but then again it also says that the federal government can own state land for federal installations so long as the purchase is approved by the state. (Maybe that's where she got the idea that the land has to be in use.) Whatever the source of that notion, it's thoroughly incorrect and your coworker needs her head examined.

@16: You dumb shit, Uncle Sam HAS compensated people for exposure to radiation from nuclear tests. http://www.justice.gov/civil/common/reca…
Sorry to rain on your parade with any facts, numbnuts.

@19: One: if people communally decide to establish a governing body for themselves, why does that government not have a right to exist? Basically, you're telling people that they aren't allowed to govern themselves communally because it's against your principles.
Two: does the phrase "the tragedy of the commons" mean anything to you? I mean, I'm not particularly well-read on economics but hot damn, you're exhibiting some gnarly ignorance of basic game theory.
26
@24 "Intentionally stateless countries?" Where are they? Golly, they sound awesome.

We have over 10,000 years of human civilization. You'd think in all that time this magically elusive "intentionally stateless nation" (a total contradiction, btw), if it was so awesome, would have stuck.

But it hasn't. And it won't. Because it's called chaos. I've seen it.

It's called "the guys with the biggest axes or guns fill the void and throw their weight around until anything resembling civilization is smoking suffering ruin or becomes a coercive authority themselves." THAT'S what happens without a government.

But, by all means, Anarchists, go give it try somewhere.

Oh. What? You can't, you say? Governments won't LET you? Darn.

So, until the entire world achieve the impossible and all 7 billion people bend to your way of thinking -or- there is some sort of James Bond Super-Villain world collapse, you won't ever have your anarchist utopia?

Oh. Shucks.
27
@24 "Intentionally stateless countries?" Where are they? Golly, they sound awesome.

We have over 10,000 years of human civilization. You'd think in all that time this magically elusive "intentionally stateless nation" (a total contradiction, btw), if it was so awesome, would have stuck.

But it hasn't. And it won't. Because it's called chaos. I've seen it.

It's called "the guys with the biggest axes or guns fill the void and throw their weight around until anything resembling civilization is smoking suffering ruin or one brute wins and becomes a coercive authority themselves."

THAT'S what happens without a government. History is rife with examples.

But, by all means, Anarchists, go give it try somewhere.

Oh. What? You can't, you say? Governments won't LET you? Darn.

So, until the entire world achieves the impossible and all 7 billion people bend to your way of thinking -or- there is some sort of James Bond Super-Villain world collapse, we won't ever have this anarchist utopia?

Oh. Shucks.
28
oops. That was the SLOG engine. Not me.