Militia Takes Over Wildlife Refuge In Oregon

[gunsisgood]

These guys are criminals, deserving to spend more than a few days in a federal prison.

Good men breaking bad laws is possibly going to happen a l o t more often in the near future,
best get started building those prisons.

 

[BugI02]

Yep. When people are moochers for generations they get a sense of entitlement and get outraged when someone says, "you know, the government doesn't owe you a living." Western ranchers have been sucking at the government teat so long they think it's a birthright.

Are you familiar with the doctrine of 'Adverse Posession'?

 

[Kutnupe14]

What is Kut's opinion of Waco ( Tragic government overreach or they got what they deserved )

Seems like private property is quite a bit different than federal property.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Good men breaking bad laws is possibly going to happen a l o t more often in the near future,
best get started building those prisons.

No need. The prisons are already built for these mooching traitors.

 

[Caleb]

No need. The prisons are already built for these mooching traitors.

I heard Obama evicted all the residence in preparation for our arrival

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't believe you have said they should either.

Kut (thinks they armed group that takes over a federal building, or ANY building, should be locked up)

I will go along with that as soon as those personnel in the federal (in)justice system who extorted a plea deal out of them that includes the right to buy their ranch should they ever sell, and then reneged, are sitting in federal prison for a significant length of time themselves.

 

[trucker777]

 

[dusty88]

I will go along with that as soon as those personnel in the federal (in)justice system who extorted a plea deal out of them that includes the right to buy their ranch should they ever sell, and then reneged, are sitting in federal prison for a significant length of time themselves.

more likely retired with Lois Lerner, getting a government pension
or Eric Holder
When WAS the last time any federal worker was prosecuted for corruption? Maybe there are some and it just doesn't make the news

 

[cobber]

Are you familiar with the doctrine of 'Adverse Posession'?

If you're meaning the ranchers, AP is generally not recognized against the government, but only between private parties.

Ranching on a government permit/lease isn't adverse, since they at some point obtained a permit, acknowledging that it was someone else's property.

They also have to AP publicly, for a period of years (many). And if they haven't been paying property tax on said land...

I know of a case in Indiana where a land owner had encroached on State property for many years. The DNR took no action, since AP was impossible. Didn't send the COs or sheriff in, or call the media, and the Dems (this was under O'Bannon) did not march in the streets calling for the owner to be prosecuted.

 

[Punkinhead]

Outstanding floor speech from the local Congresscritter highlighting the regional issues and what happened to the Hammonds. I don't know if anyone was around to hear it, but it's a good synopsis
[video=youtube;bx4ocLdWE90]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx4ocLdWE90&index=7&list=WL[/video]

It's strange that he has an (R) under his name.

I'm a small government conservative so I just can't understand the defense of welfare ranchers. Their forefathers built businesses that made them completely dependent on the government. If the land has such a poor yield that you need thousands of acres to support a small herd of cattle and private land is too expensive a good capitalist finds another business. These people chose to get solidly in bed with the federal government then get all butt hurt when it quite predictably turns out badly. In my day to day life and my professional life I try as hard as possible to minimize my interaction with the federal government. Generations of these rugged individualists chose another path. This is no different that 4 generations of welfare queens living in some Chicago projects complaining when the government reduces their welfare checks and forces them to look for a job.

 

[dusty88]

It's strange that he has an (R) under his name.

I'm a small government conservative so I just can't understand the defense of welfare ranchers. Their forefathers built businesses that made them completely dependent on the government. If the land has such a poor yield that you need thousands of acres to support a small herd of cattle and private land is too expensive a good capitalist finds another business. These people chose to get solidly in bed with the federal government then get all butt hurt when it quite predictably turns out badly. In my day to day life and my professional life I try as hard as possible to minimize my interaction with the federal government. Generations of these rugged individualists chose another path. This is no different that 4 generations of welfare queens living in some Chicago projects complaining when the government reduces their welfare checks and forces them to look for a job.

The land is too large to make it practical to own outright. Grazing rights and water rights were sometimes bought or earned, in the same way that Indiana settlers started farming here.

As far as getting in bed with the government, you could say that about most farmers but that doesn't mean it's what they want. If you don't participate in the government programs, you can't compete. It's like trying to buy a house but declining the mortgage interest deduction, but magnified. A few have broken away by going into niche businesses and marketing their product locally, but otherwise it's not practical.

I don't begrudge people that work within the system we are forced into. I begrudge those who vote to keep it that way.

 

[Punkinhead]

The land is too large to make it practical to own outright.

That's exactly my point. Capitalism says their businesses aren't viable so they turn to the government to prop them up. Similar to solar/wind energy companies.

 

[dusty88]

That's exactly my point. Capitalism says their businesses aren't viable so they turn to the government to prop them up. Similar to solar/wind energy companies.

Paying for the right to graze over a large, spare area of land doesn't make it "not viable". Whether or not they are getting a sweet deal I can't say. But the same land can have mixed uses and doesn't require fencing. Grazing hasn't been efficient compared to monoculture cropping and feedlots. But that is starting to change with new research and holistic grazing methods. That's kind of another story, though.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If you're meaning the ranchers, AP is generally not recognized against the government, but only between private parties.

Ranching on a government permit/lease isn't adverse, since they at some point obtained a permit, acknowledging that it was someone else's property.

They also have to AP publicly, for a period of years (many). And if they haven't been paying property tax on said land...

I know of a case in Indiana where a land owner had encroached on State property for many years. The DNR took no action, since AP was impossible. Didn't send the COs or sheriff in, or call the media, and the Dems (this was under O'Bannon) did not march in the streets calling for the owner to be prosecuted.

Why is it good law to allow AP to even exist?

 

[tyrajam]

It's strange that he has an (R) under his name.

I'm a small government conservative so I just can't understand the defense of welfare ranchers. Their forefathers built businesses that made them completely dependent on the government. If the land has such a poor yield that you need thousands of acres to support a small herd of cattle and private land is too expensive a good capitalist finds another business. These people chose to get solidly in bed with the federal government then get all butt hurt when it quite predictably turns out badly. In my day to day life and my professional life I try as hard as possible to minimize my interaction with the federal government. Generations of these rugged individualists chose another path. This is no different that 4 generations of welfare queens living in some Chicago projects complaining when the government reduces their welfare checks and forces them to look for a job.

WHAT?? Leasing property from the government and raising livestock on it is welfare? That literally makes no sense. They pay the value of the land. It's not much, but the land's not much. They found a use for it, which is what a true capitalist does.

 

[Kutnupe14]

WHAT?? Leasing property from the government and raising livestock on it is welfare? That literally makes no sense. They pay the value of the land. It's not much, but the land's not much. They found a use for it, which is what a true capitalist does.

When you refuse to pay, or demand it's free use; yeah it's welfare. I.E. wanting something from the govt for free.
That's the whole point of the issue, the ranchers don't want to lease anything; they simply want it handed over to them.

 

[tyrajam]

When you refuse to pay, or demand it's free use; yeah it's welfare. I.E. wanting something from the govt for free.
That's the whole point of the issue, the ranchers don't want to lease anything; they simply want it handed over to them.

No...that's simply not true. They PAID and PAY for the grazing rights. Perhaps you are confused with the Bundy situation where he was refusing to pay his grazing rights. But that has nothing to do with the situation in Oregon or the video this comment was in response to.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No...that's simply not true. They PAID and PAY for the grazing rights. Perhaps you are confused with the Bundy situation where he was refusing to pay his grazing rights. But that has nothing to do with the situation in Oregon or the video this comment was in response to.

I was specifically talking about Bundy. So you agree that in his case, it IS welfare for ranchers, then, right?

 

[tyrajam]

I was specifically talking about Bundy. So you agree that in his case, it IS welfare for ranchers, then, right?

Kind of...he was paying his grazing rights to the state, and when the feds took over that land he would still only pay to the state. He said his reason was to refuse to recognize their takover. If he didn't want to pay for the grazing rights at all, then yes, welfare, but his situation was a little different. I don't understand this fascination with this welfare rancher thing, people aren't simply refusing to pay any use fees. When they do, their grazing rights are revoked, no confusion there.

 

[jamil]

It's strange that he has an (R) under his name.

I'm a small government conservative so I just can't understand the defense of welfare ranchers. Their forefathers built businesses that made them completely dependent on the government. If the land has such a poor yield that you need thousands of acres to support a small herd of cattle and private land is too expensive a good capitalist finds another business. These people chose to get solidly in bed with the federal government then get all butt hurt when it quite predictably turns out badly. In my day to day life and my professional life I try as hard as possible to minimize my interaction with the federal government. Generations of these rugged individualists chose another path. This is no different that 4 generations of welfare queens living in some Chicago projects complaining when the government reduces their welfare checks and forces them to look for a job.

Really? THAT's what you get out of that video?