Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-23-2017 2:56 PM
344 online now:
1.61803, DrJones*, Granny Magda, PaulK, RAZD, rstrats, Taq (7 members, 337 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*, willietern
Post Volume:
Total: 821,098 Year: 25,704/21,208 Month: 1,331/2,338 Week: 88/364 Day: 39/49 Hour: 4/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
12131415
16
17Next
Author Topic:   The Bundys and the Armed Occupation of a National Wildlife Refuge
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19099
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 226 of 254 (815601)
07-21-2017 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by New Cat's Eye
07-21-2017 9:39 AM


Re: Bundys violators of Constitutional rights of all other citizens ...
As a member of the public, they also own that land.

As a member of the public, the only "own" a share of that land, and the land is operated by the government for the benefit of all the shareholders = all the citizens of the USofA.

They can go to shareholder meetings (elections and town halls) to voice their thoughts on how things should be managed. A gun is not a vote.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-21-2017 9:39 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7198
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 227 of 254 (815605)
07-21-2017 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by New Cat's Eye
07-21-2017 2:24 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
New Cat's Eye writes:

Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is right.

Just because somebody complains about it doesn't mean it is wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-21-2017 2:24 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7198
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(4)
Message 228 of 254 (815609)
07-21-2017 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by New Cat's Eye
07-21-2017 2:25 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
New Cat's Eye writes:

I can just walk into public land, I can't do that with a fighter jet.

When you are grazing cattle on public lands you are using up resources, polluting, and destroying native habitats. If you have ever tried to walk across high plains deserts where cattle have grazed you will quickly come to realize what kind of impact they have when you can't walk 50 feet without stepping in a "land mine".

An analogous situation would be a mining operation moving in and digging a huge, ugly pit mine right in your favorite picturesque mountain meadow. You also wouldn't go into a public park and take a tree out to plant in your own yard. You wouldn't go into a pubic restroom in that park and shit all over the place.

We ALL own that land, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with people paying a user fee for using the resources on that public land, especially when it costs tax payer money to protect and repair those public lands.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-21-2017 2:25 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 9:43 AM Taq has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9998
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 229 of 254 (815637)
07-22-2017 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by New Cat's Eye
07-21-2017 2:25 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
I can just walk into public land, I can't do that with a fighter jet.

So you are complaining that there is no fence up? You can just walk onto a national park too. Are you surprised that you cannot shoot Yogi the Bear?

This has gotten beyond silly. I yield.

You are right. A seven-year-old might think he had the right not to pay fees to use public land for his commercial enterprise.

ABE:

But what if I consider calling my cows back from public land speech. Isn't it an infringement on my first amendment rights not to let my cows graze over there so I can call them back later? And since it is my land, if the army comes onto it, aren't they violating the third amendment?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-21-2017 2:25 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11772
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 230 of 254 (815768)
07-24-2017 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Taq
07-21-2017 3:28 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
We ALL own that land, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with people paying a user fee for using the resources on that public land, especially when it costs tax payer money to protect and repair those public lands.

If we're paying for the protection and repair of our land with our taxes then what are our user fees for?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Taq, posted 07-21-2017 3:28 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by ringo, posted 07-24-2017 12:06 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 234 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 12:51 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13745
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 231 of 254 (815780)
07-24-2017 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2017 9:43 AM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
New Cat's Eye writes:

If we're paying for the protection and repair of our land with our taxes then what are our user fees for?


Taxes are for the good of everybody. User fees are for the good of the users. If you get more use, you pay more.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 9:43 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 12:13 PM ringo has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11772
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 232 of 254 (815782)
07-24-2017 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by ringo
07-24-2017 12:06 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
That's a nice platitude, but it doesn't match reality. We don't charge user fees for public highways and schools, and we all pay taxes for that stuff. Why is land usage different?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by ringo, posted 07-24-2017 12:06 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by ringo, posted 07-24-2017 12:16 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply
 Message 235 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 12:54 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 236 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2017 2:30 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13745
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 233 of 254 (815783)
07-24-2017 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2017 12:13 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
New Cat's Eye writes:

We don't charge user fees for public highways and schools....


Sure we do. There are toll roads, toll bridges, etc. We "tax" gasoline, which is a form of user fee. Schools charge users for "extras" like art supplies. Etc.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 12:13 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7198
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 234 of 254 (815785)
07-24-2017 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2017 9:43 AM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
New Cat's Eye writes:

If we're paying for the protection and repair of our land with our taxes then what are our user fees for?

The same thing. It is just like public transportation where there are user fees (bus fare) as well as tax money that fund public transit. You wouldn't go on a bus and demand that you can drive it anywhere you want because it is publically owned. You also would pay the bus fare just like everyone else, even though your tax dollars also pay for that bus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 9:43 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 2:55 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7198
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 235 of 254 (815786)
07-24-2017 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2017 12:13 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
New Cat's Eye writes:

We don't charge user fees for public highways and schools, and we all pay taxes for that stuff. Why is land usage different?

3 of the local golf courses where I live are owned by the local government, and we still pay green fees. We pay bus fares for publically funded and publically owned public transit. Events pay a user fee to use local parks. People pay user fees to enter parks like Yellowstone and Yosemite. People pay for deer and elk tags. People pay for tree tags when they want fire wood off of public lands. There are tons of examples of user fees for publically held land and property resources.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 12:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9998
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 236 of 254 (815793)
07-24-2017 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2017 12:13 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
We don't charge user fees for public highways and schools, and we all pay taxes for that stuff. Why is land usage different?

Others have given examples of many some things we do pay user fees for. I'll add one more. You do pay tolls to drive on some roads. If Bundy was simply claiming not to know better, he was told differently by the government. He pressed his case in court and lost. Yet he continued not to pay. He has yet to pay.

Edited by NoNukes, : add info


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 12:13 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 2:58 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11772
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 237 of 254 (815794)
07-24-2017 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Taq
07-24-2017 12:51 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
New Cat's Eye writes:

If we're paying for the protection and repair of our land with our taxes then what are our user fees for?

The same thing. It is just like public transportation where there are user fees (bus fare) as well as tax money that fund public transit.

So it's not the same thing. Grazing requires a permit, and the permit holders are responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the land.

It'd be like me having to buy a permit to ride the bus, and then I'm responsible for changing the oil and checking the tires, and then on top of that I have to pay a usage fee (despite the costs being subsidized by taxes).

Bus fares pay for the operational cost of the buses. The operational costs of the grazing lands is the responsibility of the permit holders.

It sounds like you're just making stuff up - our taxes pay for the maintenance. Er, the usage fees pay for the maintenance.

Apparently, the permit holders pay for pay for the maintenance

If you're not just making this stuff up, where are you getting your information?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 12:51 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 3:27 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 249 by 14174dm, posted 07-24-2017 6:12 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11772
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 238 of 254 (815795)
07-24-2017 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by NoNukes
07-24-2017 2:30 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
If Bundy was simply claiming not to know better, he was told differently by the government. He pressed his case in court and lost. Yet he continued not to pay. He has yet to pay.

Well, it was claimed that it was purely greed driving this and that is the point I was responding to.

Bundy is one of those sovereign citizen wackos who thinks the feds don't have any authority on this one - I was pointing out that they may be standing by a principle (as misguided as they may be), and that it might not actually be about greed in this case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2017 2:30 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2017 3:13 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 240 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 3:24 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13231
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 239 of 254 (815796)
07-24-2017 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2017 2:58 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
Given that the "point of principle" is not paying money, and that the "Sovereign Citizen" movement is heavily into tax evasion and dubious legal manoeuvring to get out of debts it seems very, very likely that greed is behind it.

I think it more likely that the "Sovereign Citizen" stupidity is behind the assertion that. Indy is being denied access to lawyers. It's entirely possible that that comes down to Bundy rejecting lawyers who give him sensible advice rather than going along with the crazy cargo cult law he prefers..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 2:58 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 3:31 PM PaulK has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7198
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 240 of 254 (815798)
07-24-2017 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2017 2:58 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
New Cat's Eye writes:

Well, it was claimed that it was purely greed driving this and that is the point I was responding to.

It is purely greed. The claims of constitutional violations are just a fig leaf.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 2:58 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
12131415
16
17Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017