If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Info Wars)   The Bureau of Land Management brought snipers to the Bundy Ranch to protect the desert tortoise. And by desert tortoise, I mean they want his land for a $5B Chinese solar farm deal   (infowars.com) divider line 373
    More: Followup, solar farms, Ted Bundy, Bureau of Land Management, Bundy Ranch, Chinese, land management, Environmental Impact Statement, Dana Loesch  
•       •       •

8988 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Apr 2014 at 7:12 PM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



373 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-11 04:32:03 PM
From what I understand it was never his land but whatever. Like Israel and Palestine, both sides are complete assholes here.
 
2014-04-11 04:33:51 PM
Well, the land belongs to the BLM so...
 
2014-04-11 04:44:11 PM
No, they want him to graze his cattle on his own land, because he currently lets them just wander hither and yon, trespassing on other farmers' lands, federal lands, roadways, golf courses, and anywhere else they damn well please.  If he doesn't get his herd back onto his own land, where he has grazing rights, there's going to be an even bigger problem when they put solar arrays on the land he's trespassing on now.

Sounds like he's completely unable or unwilling to manage his herd.  Is it cattle rustling if you slaughter and eat any bovine caught on your land?
 
2014-04-11 04:47:06 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Is it cattle rustling if you slaughter and eat any bovine caught on your land?


What say we have a Farkbbq and find out? Just get Fark to buy some land next door first. All the income from new TF subscriptions in response to today's generosity should cover it.
 
2014-04-11 04:49:57 PM
The federal government should be restricted to owning no more than 25% of a state. States and counties own and manage public land pretty well.
 
2014-04-11 04:53:37 PM

Triumph: The federal government should be restricted to owning no more than 25% of a state.


Why?
 
2014-04-11 05:09:01 PM

James!: Triumph: The federal government should be restricted to owning no more than 25% of a state.

Why?


Because it creates a scenario where the East Coast states are taxed to maintain the West Coast states and also dictate terms to the West. Like I said, states run their own lands pretty well. Baxter State Park in Maine compares favorably to any National park you care to name from a land management and wilderness preservation point of view.
 
2014-04-11 05:12:02 PM

Triumph: James!: Triumph: The federal government should be restricted to owning no more than 25% of a state.

Why?

Because it creates a scenario where the East Coast states are taxed to maintain the West Coast states and also dictate terms to the West. Like I said, states run their own lands pretty well. Baxter State Park in Maine compares favorably to any National park you care to name from a land management and wilderness preservation point of view.


Arizona's budget problems have caused them to close down all their state parks and even highway rest stops. We should give them more land to maintain?
 
2014-04-11 05:12:20 PM
Am I missing something, or are there different Laughlin and Gold Butte Nevadas that aren't 250 miles apart?
 
2014-04-11 05:25:14 PM

James!: Triumph: James!: Triumph: The federal government should be restricted to owning no more than 25% of a state.

Why?

Because it creates a scenario where the East Coast states are taxed to maintain the West Coast states and also dictate terms to the West. Like I said, states run their own lands pretty well. Baxter State Park in Maine compares favorably to any National park you care to name from a land management and wilderness preservation point of view.

Arizona's budget problems have caused them to close down all their state parks and even highway rest stops. We should give them more land to maintain?


THIS. I came in to basically make the same argument. We're at the point where we're actually renting our own state buildings.
 
2014-04-11 05:30:21 PM

James!: Arizona's budget problems have caused them to close down all their state parks and even highway rest stops. We should give them more land to maintain?


Should New Yorkers foot the bill for AZ rest stops? People may get shot in Nevada this weekend in part because 85% of their state is outside local control and it's coming to a head.

25% would cause a huge land shift, but 50% is not unreasonable. There's only 4 states over that mark.
 
2014-04-11 05:35:02 PM

Triumph: Should New Yorkers foot the bill for AZ rest stops?


I keep trying to start typing a response to this, but you have so fundamentally misunderstood James!'s statement that I keep false starting.

Triumph: People may get shot in Nevada this weekend in part because 85% of their state is outside local control and it's coming to a head.


People may get shot because one douche thinks he can graze his cattle on land that doesn't belong to him. It used to happen all the time in the old west, too. Who owns that land has no bearing on the situation, expect for who might be involved on the other side of the shooting.
 
2014-04-11 05:35:43 PM

Triumph: People may get shot in Nevada this weekend in part because 85% of their state is outside local control and it's coming to a head.


No, people might get shot because a cattle rancher is too cheap to pay his usage fees and tricked a bunch of morons into thinking it's a freedom issue.

You think he'd pay up if it was Nevada land?
 
2014-04-11 05:53:30 PM

James!: Triumph: People may get shot in Nevada this weekend in part because 85% of their state is outside local control and it's coming to a head.

No, people might get shot because a cattle rancher is too cheap to pay his usage fees and tricked a bunch of morons into thinking it's a freedom issue.

You think he'd pay up if it was Nevada land?


These people are not angry because of usage fees. They're angry because some unelected bureaucrat running  BLM has more power than their state's Governor. I'm not saying one side is dead right and the other is dead wrong. I'm saying there should be an attempt to find some balance between federal and local interests.
 
2014-04-11 05:55:07 PM
Meant to link THIS.
 
2014-04-11 05:56:35 PM

Triumph: I'm not saying one side is dead right and the other is dead wrong.


Mr. Bundy is dead wrong.
 
2014-04-11 05:57:35 PM
Oh, and there was a balance: You want to use land federal land? Pay $1.50/head/day.
 
2014-04-11 06:03:24 PM

Gecko Gingrich: Pay $1.50/head/daymonth.

 
2014-04-11 06:03:53 PM

Triumph: The federal government should be restricted to owning no more than 25% of a state. States and counties own and manage public land pretty well.


Location: Baltimore, MD.

Jesus Christ.
 
2014-04-11 06:05:30 PM

BSABSVR: Location: Baltimore, MD.


Hey, as a native Baltimoran, I can say with absolute authority that Druid Hill Park is a lovely place to take you kids. Especially after dark.
 
2014-04-11 06:08:09 PM

Triumph: James!: Triumph: The federal government should be restricted to owning no more than 25% of a state.

Why?

Because it creates a scenario where the East Coast states are taxed to maintain the West Coast states and also dictate terms to the West. Like I said, states run their own lands pretty well. Baxter State Park in Maine compares favorably to any National park you care to name from a land management and wilderness preservation point of view.


You know what the states really want to do? Deal with a big old unfunded mandate that they start maintaining wilderness areas.
 
2014-04-11 06:14:04 PM

Gecko Gingrich: BSABSVR: Location: Baltimore, MD.

Hey, as a native Baltimoran, I can say with absolute authority that Druid Hill Park is a lovely place to take you kids. Especially after dark.


Ha ha. I'm more thinking along the lines of people from very small states (sq mileage wise) and very densely populated states who just get how the rural mountain west should be run. It's as laughable as the "why can't your urban city be run like my county in SD with 10,000 people in it, libs".

The clown at the heart of this has decided to use thousands of acres of federal land because he wants to and he isn't going to pay the going rate because fark you that's why. This isn't a grey area. This is no different than me deciding to annex Old Faithful.
 
2014-04-11 06:38:38 PM
Anyone got a non-Infoderp link for this story?
 
2014-04-11 06:41:47 PM

jigger: From what I understand it was never his land but whatever. Like Israel and Palestine, both sides are complete assholes here.


Considering an earlier article says that he has been letting his cattle graze illegally for two decades beating the government for over a million dollars I don't think your "both sides are bad" bullshiat is going fly this time captain. On top of that there was apparently a confrontation of some kind with some teabagging inbreds that have congregated outside of this mongoliod's house.
 
2014-04-11 06:47:34 PM

Triumph: James!: Triumph: People may get shot in Nevada this weekend in part because 85% of their state is outside local control and it's coming to a head.

No, people might get shot because a cattle rancher is too cheap to pay his usage fees and tricked a bunch of morons into thinking it's a freedom issue.

You think he'd pay up if it was Nevada land?

These people are not angry because of usage fees. They're angry because some unelected bureaucrat running  BLM has more power than their state's Governor. I'm not saying one side is dead right and the other is dead wrong. I'm saying there should be an attempt to find some balance between federal and local interests.


See my previous post. I think two decades and $1mil+ of slack is more than enough for anybody super patriot.
 
2014-04-11 06:54:03 PM
Its my understanding that rancher is an anti government nut and hasnt paid his grazing fees for decades.
 
2014-04-11 06:54:37 PM

fusillade762: Anyone got a non-Infoderp link for this story?


Yeah, but "Man defrauds Government" doesn't sell in The HeartlandTM.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79846678/
 
2014-04-11 06:56:55 PM

Triumph: These people are not angry because of usage fees. They're angry because some unelected bureaucrat running  BLM has more power than their state's Governor. I'm not saying one side is dead right and the other is dead wrong. I'm saying there should be an attempt to find some balance between federal and local interests.


They're angry because anger is their entertainment. It gives them a sensation of power, of pending violence that they love to experience and will gladly watch 24-hour news cycles to help maintain it.

If Fox News told them they were justified to hate a 3-year-old innocently eating a popsicle, they'd bind together and do it.
 
2014-04-11 06:57:13 PM

fusillade762: Anyone got a non-Infoderp link for this story?


No kidding.

Here is another site.
 
2014-04-11 07:06:03 PM

Triumph: James!: Triumph: The federal government should be restricted to owning no more than 25% of a state.

Why?

Because it creates a scenario where the East Coast states are taxed to maintain the West Coast states


Yeah, no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

All your east coast tax dollars are going to Florida.
 
2014-04-11 07:10:50 PM

haemaker: Triumph: James!: Triumph: The federal government should be restricted to owning no more than 25% of a state.

Why?

Because it creates a scenario where the East Coast states are taxed to maintain the West Coast states

Yeah, no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

All your east coast tax dollars are going to Florida.


Actually, as a Marylander, all of his tax dollars (and some from other states) are staying in Maryland.
 
2014-04-11 07:13:17 PM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-04-11 07:14:55 PM

James!: Well, the land belongs to the BLM so...


No, it belongs to the state of nevada
 
2014-04-11 07:15:03 PM

BSABSVR: Gecko Gingrich: BSABSVR: Location: Baltimore, MD.

Hey, as a native Baltimoran, I can say with absolute authority that Druid Hill Park is a lovely place to take you kids. Especially after dark.

Ha ha. I'm more thinking along the lines of people from very small states (sq mileage wise) and very densely populated states who just get how the rural mountain west should be run. It's as laughable as the "why can't your urban city be run like my county in SD with 10,000 people in it, libs".

The clown at the heart of this has decided to use thousands of acres of federal land because he wants to and he isn't going to pay the going rate because fark you that's why. This isn't a grey area. This is no different than me deciding to annex Old Faithful.


Yeah, this Ranch asshole is an asshole. I deal with these farks all the time and they are seriously some of the most entitled assholes ever. They receive massive Federal subsidies yet biatch about "the  guberment" all the time. They park their huge fark-off trucks as to block off traffic because.

fark this guy. I hope snipers take him out. Good riddance.
 
2014-04-11 07:15:55 PM

Triumph: The federal government should be restricted to owning no more than 25% of a state. States and counties own and manage public land pretty well.


They don't have the money to manage what they already have.
 
2014-04-11 07:16:30 PM
Whooooooaaaah BUNDY!
 
2014-04-11 07:17:41 PM
When it's Infowars and disclose.tv running with a story, you can be sure you're only getting one side. (That side is "Hurrrrr, gummint bad, tyranny here!")
 
2014-04-11 07:18:06 PM
It doesn't matter why the BLM is kicking this deadbeat rancher off their land. The BLM owns the land and can do with it whatever the f*ck it wants to. Crybaby deadbeat rancher can suck a bag his teaparty friends' dicks.
 
2014-04-11 07:18:17 PM

Devil's Playground: James!: Well, the land belongs to the BLM so...

No, it belongs to the state of nevada


Pretty sure it's BLM land.
 
2014-04-11 07:18:35 PM
Hey, fark Infowars!
 
2014-04-11 07:19:17 PM

"Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch"


Never grab land from a serial killer.

 
2014-04-11 07:19:23 PM

meat0918: Triumph: The federal government should be restricted to owning no more than 25% of a state. States and counties own and manage public land pretty well.

They don't have the money to manage what they already have.


BLM folks are actually trained to deal with anti-Government nutballs shooting at them. Seriously. This ranch-fark is your typical menace to people trying to do their job because of some retarded bullshiat. fark this guy, people might die because this asshole has a stick up his butt about "da guberment". Meanwhile he probably receives a load and half of subsidies for his ranch.
 
2014-04-11 07:21:11 PM
I'm assuming that adverse possession doesn't apply to federal land.
 
2014-04-11 07:21:43 PM

Triumph: They're angry because some unelected bureaucrat running BLM has more power than their state's Governor.


You mean the local judge who issued the get-off order, after Mr. Local Freedom Hero had an opportunity to fully litigate his claim?
 
2014-04-11 07:21:47 PM

trotsky: meat0918: Triumph: The federal government should be restricted to owning no more than 25% of a state. States and counties own and manage public land pretty well.

They don't have the money to manage what they already have.

BLM folks are actually trained to deal with anti-Government nutballs shooting at them. Seriously. This ranch-fark is your typical menace to people trying to do their job because of some retarded bullshiat. fark this guy, people might die because this asshole has a stick up his butt about "da guberment". Meanwhile he probably receives a load and half of subsidies for his ranch.


Are you aware that it is not federal land and actually state land?
 
2014-04-11 07:22:30 PM

Gecko Gingrich: Yeah, but "Man defrauds Government fellow taxpayers" doesn't sell in The HeartlandTM.


Call it what it is.
 
2014-04-11 07:23:02 PM
I read that headline as  Bunny Ranch, which made it take on a whole different meaning at first.

Kind of disappointed in this thread now.
 
2014-04-11 07:23:17 PM

bigsteve3OOO: trotsky: meat0918: Triumph: The federal government should be restricted to owning no more than 25% of a state. States and counties own and manage public land pretty well.

They don't have the money to manage what they already have.

BLM folks are actually trained to deal with anti-Government nutballs shooting at them. Seriously. This ranch-fark is your typical menace to people trying to do their job because of some retarded bullshiat. fark this guy, people might die because this asshole has a stick up his butt about "da guberment". Meanwhile he probably receives a load and half of subsidies for his ranch.

Are you aware that it is not federal land and actually state land?


When it comes to anti-government nutballs, it hardly matters. This guy sounds like one based on his statements.
 
2014-04-11 07:24:12 PM
Infoderp or not, no one is actually commenting on the document that infoderp dug up, and now it seems it has "disappeared" from the blm fed web site. The whole thing does seem very fishy.

here's the google cache
 
2014-04-11 07:24:16 PM
The dude's family had rights to the land before the BLM was founded.

/Whar deed, whar?
 
Displayed 50 of 373 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report