ChristsSoldier115
Mabaho na Kuya
- Jul 30, 2013
- 6,765
- 1,601
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Does it make anymore sense to give billions to Egypt and Iran?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why don't we throw in a couple billion dollars to boot, for "inconvenience"?
You need to check your facts. We don't send money to Iran, and Egypt is an ally. Native Americans were given millions by the U.S. government at the time they signed treaties with us. Any other questions?Does it make anymore sense to give billions to Egypt and Iran?
OK, so let Bundy furnish the deed and pay the back taxes on the land to the last date paid, give him 20 yrs to pay it off, and if he can, then he can keep it. If not......up for auction.Bundy's land was in his family, he does have a deed from 1868 that the government doesn't recognize, and the effort to deprive him of his legal right to use the land as he sees fit is pure fascism.
It's not back taxes, it's fees he doesn't owe because no one can charge him to graze cattle on his own land.OK, so let Bundy furnish the deed and pay the back taxes on the land to the last date paid, give him 20 yrs to pay it off, and if he can, then he can keep it. If not......up for auction.
It's not "his own land". It's the American people's land and the people's representation has placed a price for those who choose to graze on their land.It's not back taxes, it's fees he doesn't owe because no one can charge him to graze cattle on his own land.
It is his own land. You need to read the history of this long, drawn out dispute. It is a case study in government avarice. The Bundys did have title to the land. The government arbitrarily ruled the title "faulty" and took the land because they could. The title was granted under Nevada's "prior usage" law which states that untitled land used for seven consecutive years without challenge belongs to the user. That event happened over 120 year ago, though the title wasn't requested or granted until sometime around WWII. It is Bundy's land. No government has the right to say "it isn't" simply because no purchase was made to acquire it. That's how Oklahoma was settled, if you recall.It's not "his own land". It's the American people's land and the people's representation has placed a price for those who choose to graze on their land.
If it's HIS OWN LAND.........he owes us tens of millions of dollars in back taxes.It's not back taxes, it's fees he doesn't owe because no one can charge him to graze cattle on his own land.
How do you know he hasn't paid property taxes? He's perfectly willing to pay so-called "grazing fees" to the county? Why wouldn't he pay property taxes? You make wild-hair accusations with no basis whatsoever.If it's HIS OWN LAND.........he owes us tens of millions of dollars in back taxes.
If he's grazing on public land, as he now claims, he owes us permit fees.
Either way....he's a deadbeat taxcheat.
How do you know he hasn't paid property taxes? He's perfectly willing to pay so-called "grazing fees" to the county? Why wouldn't he pay property taxes? You make wild-hair accusations with no basis whatsoever.
It's not his land. It is the American taxpayer's land. And Bundy is a welfare queen in a cowboy hat.
It is his own land. You need to read the history of this long, drawn out dispute. It is a case study in government avarice. The Bundys did have title to the land.
Are you paying any attention to the news media accounts of this fiasco, or are you just chiming in without having any real input?Where is your evidence that he's WILLING to pay his fees?????
He'll pay the fees to Clark County, feeling the BLM is not properly acting within its empowerment. In other words, it's exceeding its authority.KTNV-TV:Sen. Dean Heller calling on Cliven Bundy to pay grazing fees
Cliven Bundy's response to the senator was the same as it has been to the BLM over the past two decades, "Well you tell them I am not going to pay them. They are not the proper form of government. If I am going to pay anything, if I owed anything I would pay it to Clark County Nevada."
Which is irrelevant to his claim, isn't it, given he says the BLM is not the proper authority for managing the land in the first place?Isnt that what started this whole mess???
According to court docs, this he's been dodging these fees since 1995, totaling in excess of a million bucks.
Your characterization of him is not only inaccurate, but it is deliberately disingenuous. This goes much deeper than one rancher and one section of land. I'd suggest you educate yourself.He's a welfare rat driving a cadillac. No better than the pimp in the purple suit with the peacock feather toking a cohiba on the public dole.
Bundy probably isn't the best poster boy for the fight against the U.S. government's land-grab efforts, which have been going on largely unnoticed for the last 15 years and have truly become frighteningly escalated under the White House clown's administration. But because Bundy is a bit extreme is no reason to claim he is a free loader, a tax dodge, or a "welfare cheat." He's not. He's an American trying to use the land that's been in his family for over a hundred years as he sees fit, without government interference. It's something we all need to worry about, because we could be the next victim.Fox News:'Bigger than Bundy': Land agency's battles go beyond rancher dispute
The Bureau of Land Management, the nation's biggest landlord, found itself in the spotlight after a high-profile brawl with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and another dispute with state officials over the Texas-Oklahoma borderlands.
But the seemingly obscure agency, which is in charge of millions of acres of public land, is no stranger to controversy. History shows the power struggle over property rights and land use is one that's been fought -- fiercely -- ever since the bureau was created.
In the nearly seven decades of its existence, the BLM has struggled to find its footing and exert its power, pitted against a vocal states' rights movement.
"The federal government already owns too much land," Texas Gov. Rick Perry, one of the champions of that modern-day movement, recently told Fox News. He called for the federal government, and by extension the BLM, to "divest itself of a huge amount of this landholdings that it has across the country."
When are you going to get it that the Bundy ranch is over 150 miles away from the land which the Chinese want to build their solar panel factory?Do you know that he has been harassed for years about this simply because Reid LLC and another Reid company owns the land his cattle are grazing on? They are the corporate fat cats and they want to make millions off of this land by selling it to the Chinese for solar panel production.
Are you paying any attention to the news media accounts of this fiasco, or are you just chiming in without having any real input?He'll pay the fees to Clark County, feeling the BLM is not properly acting within its empowerment. In other words, it's exceeding its authority.Which is irrelevant to his claim, isn't it, given he says the BLM is not the proper authority for managing the land in the first place?Your characterization of him is not only inaccurate, but it is deliberately disingenuous. This goes much deeper than one rancher and one section of land. I'd suggest you educate yourself.Bundy probably isn't the best poster boy for the fight against the U.S. government's land-grab efforts, which have been going on largely unnoticed for the last 15 years and have truly become frighteningly escalated under the White House clown's administration. But because Bundy is a bit extreme is no reason to claim he is a free loader, a tax dodge, or a "welfare cheat." He's not. He's an American trying to use the land that's been in his family for over a hundred years as he sees fit, without government interference. It's something we all need to worry about, because we could be the next victim.
The Bundy's, though they lived in the area did not purchase the land which the ranch is on until 1948, according to property records in Nevada. No deed exists before that date.
The Bundy's, though they lived in the area did not purchase the land which the ranch is on until 1948, according to property records in Nevada. No deed exists before that date.
That land belonged to the Palute Indians until the US government forced them off of the land in 1875. All of the Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico territories was purchased by the US Government from Mexico 1848 so all of that land belonged to the US. There were laws which covered either homesteading or direct purchases of tracts of land, of which the Bundy's had none.
You need to really read the history of Nevada before believing what some mixed up old man claims is the real story. Below is an article from a Las Vegas TV station showing some history of the Bundy family, Very interesting to see that he may not have any family there when he claimed. Especially the Bundy's.
An abbreviated look at rancher Cliven Bundy's family history - 8 News NOW
[/SIZE][/FONT]
Yeah, well that comment explains a lot, doesn't it?And I see Fox news.....which is a den of thieves and liars.
<--- those guys are kinda cute, so guess I'll use 'em too.
You didn't consider the prior use laws in posting this, did you? I explained why there is no deed prior to WWII in an earlier post, but that does not invalidate Bundy's rightful claims to the land prior to that time. Prior use entitles him to claim the land, given there was no other ownership, the Piute Tribe gave up its right to the land in exchange for a sizeable payment from the government at the time they signed a treaty with the U.S. They were not "forced off." They were bought out.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?