Explain why I should take this seriously?

aggiealum

aggiealum

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/397516/explain-why-i-should-take-this-seriously/40#post_3544213
ROFLMAO! So the fact he began his tax evasion before 0bama was elected somehow makes it no big deal?
ROFLMAO. No it doesn't. But your Obama Hatin' Tea Bagger spin trying to make it look like Obama condoned his actions is laughable at best. I see you keep ignoring the fact that Bush welcomed him with open arms, WHEN HE WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INDICTMENT. You claim I'm this Obama lovin' Liberal, well you're the epitome of the conspiracy thinking, right-wing "living in the bubble" Conservative clan. Pull your head out of the sand, and put it back into that orifice most people of your political persuasion put it in.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

Riiight.  Now reports show Harry Reid have been receiving "threats".  Militia people? NAW.
This has been going on since 1993!!!!  You're actually going to say that the DOI hadn't tried to handle this "administratively and judicially" for over 20 YEARS?  Why shouldn't they show up in force?  They didn't know how this guy would react to having his cattle repossessed.  Maybe a little excessive?  Considering some of the statements he's made against that organization over the course of this debacle, they had justification to protect themselves by any means.  The militia didn't have to fire a shot.  That's where that INTIMIDATION comes into play.  Fifty or so gun nuts walking around with sniper rifles and semi-auto weapons.  Oh yeah, that's right.  Where you come from, that's normal accessories to your wardrobe.
So arrest him. Dont let him roam free to make a spectacle of a situation. If he owes taxes arrest him. Thats what the did with Wesley snipes. But instead the blm makes a spectacle by allowing him to still be free and try to round up cattle while he spouts his ignorant mouth off. The blm agency did it wrong! Period. This has been going on for twenty years because the fed cant handle a situation properly apparently.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397516/explain-why-i-should-take-this-seriously/60#post_3544227
ROFLMAO. No it doesn't. But your Obama Hatin' Tea Bagger spin trying to make it look like Obama condoned his actions is laughable at best. I see you keep ignoring the fact that Bush welcomed him with open arms, WHEN HE WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INDICTMENT. You claim I'm this Obama lovin' Liberal, well you're the epitome of the conspiracy thinking, right-wing "living in the bubble" Conservative clan. Pull your head out of the sand, and put it back into that orifice most people of your political persuasion put it in.
I don't think the Tea Bagging you refer to in the political sense means the same thing you hope it does, you will have to go hang out in Democrat circles to find that kind of satisfaction.

Only the name has changed LOL!
 
aggiealum

aggiealum

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397516/explain-why-i-should-take-this-seriously/60#post_3544233
So arrest him. Dont let him roam free to make a spectacle of a situation. If he owes taxes arrest him. Thats what the did with Wesley snipes. But instead the blm makes a spectacle by allowing him to still be free and try to round up cattle while he spouts his ignorant mouth off. The blm agency did it wrong! Period. This has been going on for twenty years because the fed cant handle a situation properly apparently.
Here's a timeline from the inception of this debacle since 1993. You tell me where the issue fell through the cracks...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-long-fight-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Here's a timeline from the inception of this debacle since 1993.  You tell me where the issue fell through the cracks...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-long-fight-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/
I have read that. Pick a point anywhere in the past twenty years where they did not arrest him. That is the mistake. Like I said, they didn't even arrest him this time. They tried to confiscate property, allowing him to remain free to run his mouth to the media. He is a criminal, we are suppossed to arrest criminals. I don't see this occurring once in the twenty year history of this.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397516/explain-why-i-should-take-this-seriously/60#post_3544279
I have read that. Pick a point anywhere in the past twenty years where they did not arrest him. That is the mistake. Like I said, they didn't even arrest him this time. They tried to confiscate property, allowing him to remain free to run his mouth to the media. He is a criminal, we are suppossed to arrest criminals. I don't see this occurring once in the twenty year history of this.

IMO he has not had a trial of any type so should not be considered a criminal.

He clearly owes a debt but even that needs a hearing which has not yet happened.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

IMO he has not had a trial of any type so should not be considered a criminal.
He clearly owes a debt but even that needs a hearing which has not yet happened.
An arrest usually precludes the trial.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

I completely disagree.
Every tax evasion/ significant fine case i have read does. But either way. Due process has not been followed
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
We can disagree and yet agree due process has not been correctly followed. Going from an allegation directly to killing cattle is certainly inappropriate.

Just food for thought, how many CEOs are arrested prior to the business paying a federal fine?
 
aggiealum

aggiealum

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397516/explain-why-i-should-take-this-seriously/60#post_3544279
I have read that. Pick a point anywhere in the past twenty years where they did not arrest him. That is the mistake. Like I said, they didn't even arrest him this time. They tried to confiscate property, allowing him to remain free to run his mouth to the media. He is a criminal, we are suppossed to arrest criminals. I don't see this occurring once in the twenty year history of this.
As reef stated, he was never brought up on official charges. The error they made was simply continuing to send him a tax bill knowing well he had no intention on paying it. There was nothing wrong with trying to confiscate the property to pay the tax arrears due. We have property taxes here in Houston. I get a tax bill every year for the accessed value of my home. If I don't pay my property taxes on the date due, the county tax accessor can put a lien on my home, and if I continue to refuse to pay them, they can foreclose on my home and take ownership of it. There's no criminal charges filed because I didn't break any laws. They wouldn't send me to jail because my tax liens were resolved when they 'confiscated' my home. This issue is no different. The only rationale I could see why they took so long to finally go through with the confiscation was they were concerned about the safety of their officers after they had multiple bomb threats throughout the years.
 
2quills

2quills

Well-Known Member
The bigger question here isn't Bundy. It's about the apparent history of these so called "land grabs" by the BLM since it's inception.
Put yourself in Bundys shoes. Federal law grants your family the right to build a ranch and graze your cattle on public lands out in the middle of the desert. Basically wasteland that no one wants. So your family does so for over a century raising cattle and paying your fees. The family clearly dependant on their ranching and way of life. And then some new agency shows up and says you have to get off. Their excuse?...You're cattle who have been there for ages are endangering turtles that have just been placed on the endangered species list (cough, cough). So with no other option left to this family they refuse to move and decide to no longer pay but fight.
This isn't the same as a private land plot and a mortgage. It's an issue of land being granted and then taken away. But then again, that's what you get when you deal with government and their vast swath of agencies that each have their own swat teams.
This Cruz, cracks me up sometimes..http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/04/25/Ted-Cruz-Challenges-BLM-on-Texas-Land-Grab
 
aggiealum

aggiealum

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/397516/explain-why-i-should-take-this-seriously/60#post_3544328
The bigger question here isn't Bundy. It's about the apparent history of these so called "land grabs" by the BLM since it's inception.
Put yourself in Bundys shoes. Federal law grants your family the right to build a ranch and graze your cattle on public lands out in the middle of the desert. Basically wasteland that no one wants. So your family does so for over a century raising cattle and paying your fees. The family clearly dependant on their ranching and way of life. And then some new agency shows up and says you have to get off. Their excuse?...You're cattle who have been there for ages are endangering turtles that have just been placed on the endangered species list (cough, cough). So with no other option left to this family they refuse to move and decide to no longer pay but fight.
This isn't the same as a private land plot and a mortgage. It's an issue of land being granted and then taken away. But then again, that's what you get when you deal with government and their vast swath of agencies that each have their own swat teams.
This Cruz, cracks me up sometimes..http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/04/25/Ted-Cruz-Challenges-BLM-on-Texas-Land-Grab
Where was it stated that the government gave him ownership of the land? Bundy claims he has rights to the land because his Mormons ancestors were using the land before the federal government claimed authority over it. So he claims ownership of public land because his ancestors squatted on it?
 
2quills

2quills

Well-Known Member

Where was it stated that the government gave him ownership of the land?  Bundy claims he has rights to the land because his Mormons ancestors were using the land before the federal government claimed authority over it.  So he claims ownership of public land because his ancestors squatted on it?
Where'd you see that? Try looking up the Desert Land Act of 1877. The federal government granted people the right to use public land for a small grazing fee. It was designed to encourage development in some of these barren rural areas. He is part of the public so in a sense he does have some claim to ownership. This is a concept that is foreign to most city folk or midwesterners as most don't understand how public lands work in the west in those regards. People depend on those lands and at the same time have to share them. So when does it behoove somebody to squash your livelihood without due process?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top