Yesterday - Bundy Ranch

[babe]

When politics is about how close you toe the party line and not the qualities of the individual is when that happens.

In the sixties I watched political conventions live on TV. Yeah, the cigar-smoking big bellies went behind their closed doors to make their deals, but it was pretty clear the results were in question until the votes were cast. . . .

Now the national conventions are pretty much extended staged "ads" and the whole show is orchestrated from the top down.

I think you've put the truth down pretty clearly, and consisely. "Greed" has always been there, but now both major parties are wholly-owned and operated "shows", and nobody really has a chance unless they are doing the part they're expected to do.

 

[sirkickyass]

Oh c'mon bro.. I said the timing was poor to share but would shortly and I did.

Did I miss the post that backed up that laundry list of assertions?

 

[babe]

Did I miss the post that backed up that laundry list of assertions?

You saw the list he was referring to the same way I did. You were, however, asking for specific facts to back up the assertions. I don't think we need to try the case in this thread.

If PKM considers it appropriate, and you could assert your willingness to give constructive help on issues of law, it might be OK to lay out some possible scenarios of assertions that could be discussed on the level of "finding of facts" as a judge would term it.

For example, what kind of definition of "property" would you consider worth defending under the fifth and fourteenth amendment? How would you approach a claim that federal government is immune from "adverse possession" claims to "property" so defined. I found an online resource from the BLM itself that makes available all the documents regarding land across the whole history of the US.

I sorta expect that PKM's issues are conflict of interest and abuse of power in specific actions taken in regard to Bundy's claim to the grazing use of land he believes, at a theoretical level to be sure, the Federal government just shouldn't be "owning".

As far as I can see, the Federal government had ongoing policies generally to dispose of land into private hands as soon as anyone could make good use of it on a continuing basis, until about 1902. Territories being admitted to Statehood routinely agreed to let the the Federal government manage the unclaimed lands and make out the deeds to claimants, but it was expected that this would happen. Over the next two decades, the policy was changed without explanation , announcement, or drama.

When this became apparent, the Utah legislature for one appealed to the Federal government for continued practice of the old policy, but it never happened.

But courts through that period were ruling that grazing rights were a valuable holding in the grazing use. My deeds to my ranch, and all the preceeding deeds, transferred a specified grazing right and were recorded in the recorders' offices as real property, and based on the value of the property so recorded, property tax has been paid all through over a hundred and twenty years.

For the federal government to say that grazing use is not a property interest in the land, though it is not outright ownership of the land, is not an actual property right is a change in language within the BLM office records in the last thirty years, or less.

Listed on those deeds is a well for watering cattle, and a water right, located within the grazing allotment.

As I see it, the federal government is on weak ground taking actual constitutionally-protected property from owners of that property, without just compensation. If Bundy's grazing allotment was curtailed arbitrarily or under false pretenses. . . to protect turtles, for example. . . or so the water could be appropriated for municipal use to a third party. . . . or so developers could come in and do something else with the land. .. it could be called "corrupt" as PKM seems to be viewing it.

 

[PearlWatson]

You saw the list he was referring to the same way I did. You were, however, asking for specific facts to back up the assertions. I don't think we need to try the case in this thread.

If PKM considers it appropriate, and you could assert your willingness to give constructive help on issues of law, it might be OK to lay out some possible scenarios of assertions that could be discussed on the level of "finding of facts" as a judge would term it.

For example, what kind of definition of "property" would you consider worth defending under the fifth and fourteenth amendment? How would you approach a claim that federal government is immune from "adverse possession" claims to "property" so defined. I found an online resource from the BLM itself that makes available all the documents regarding land across the whole history of the US.

I sorta expect that PKM's issues are conflict of interest and abuse of power in specific actions taken in regard to Bundy's claim to the grazing use of land he believes, at a theoretical level to be sure, the Federal government just shouldn't be "owning".

As far as I can see, the Federal government had ongoing policies generally to dispose of land into private hands as soon as anyone could make good use of it on a continuing basis, until about 1902. Territories being admitted to Statehood routinely agreed to let the the Federal government manage the unclaimed lands and make out the deeds to claimants, but it was expected that this would happen. Over the next two decades, the policy was changed without explanation , announcement, or drama.

When this became apparent, the Utah legislature for one appealed to the Federal government for continued practice of the old policy, but it never happened.

But courts through that period were ruling that grazing rights were a valuable holding in the grazing use. My deeds to my ranch, and all the preceeding deeds, transferred and were recorded in the recorders' offices as real property, and based on the value of the property so recorded, property tax has been paid all through over a hundred and twenty years.

For the federal government to say that grazing use is not a property interest in the land, though it is not outright ownership of the land, is not an actual property right is a change in language in within the BLM office records in the last thirty years, or less.

Listed on those deeds is a well for watering cattle, and a water right, located within the grazing allotment.

As I see it, the federal government is on weak ground taking actual constitutionally-protected property from owners of that property, without just compensation. If Bundy's grazing allotment was curtailed arbitrarily or under false pretenses. . . to protect turtles, for example. . . or so the water could be appropriated for municipal use to a third party. . . . or so developers could come in and do something else with the land. .. it could be called "corrupt" as PKM seems to be viewing it.

He claims to have you on his ignore list, so he won't read this...

 

[babe]

He claims to have you on his ignore list, so he won't read this...

sometimes he crawls out from under his little blue blanket and tries to insult me, though.

But yah, I think you're right.

Pretty cool thing for a Mod to do, huh.

I tried doing that for some on the old Tribtalk self-professed world-class outpost of civilization on the Utah Twilight Zone of culture and the premier authority on Anti-Mormonism, but realized it just made me look stupid if I didn't, or couldn't, deal with critics.

 

[PearlWatson]

sometimes he crawls out from under his little blue blanket and tries to insult me, though.

But yah, I think you're right.

Pretty cool thing for a Mod to do, huh.

I tried doing that for some on the old Tribtalk self-professed world-class outpost of civilization on the Utah Twilight Zone of culture and the premier authority on Anti-Mormonism, but realized it just made me look stupid if I didn't, or couldn't, deal with critics.

You mean stalkers in the case of tribtalk.

 

[babe]

You mean stalkers in the case of tribtalk.

Well, I might be an outlier on a lot of statistical distribution parameters, but I lack the common sense to discriminate. I might be susceptible to delusions of the sort where I don't mind stalkers as long as they are talkers. I mean, I appreciate attention from cows, for heavens' sake. If they moo, I take it serious and have learned what different moos actually mean.

Also, in my life experience, I owe a lot to my avowed enemies, who generally have been the ones who helped me out when I really needed it. . .. more so than "friends", who just figure I'll deal with it good enough on my own.

There's something to be said for folks who'll take you on and really try to set you straight. Some might consider them enemies, but sometimes I think they're your "best" friends.

The Three Stooges of Tribtalk, however, were evil. I told Janadelle not to actually post about her daily travels in real time on there because I truly feared for her safety.

.

 

[franklin]

I have a personal interest in grazing rights, and it would be financially favorable to me in a rather important way if my "grazing preference" were solidly in my hands, even to the extent that it meant I had to pay property tax on it.

I think government "management" of lands encumbered with a grazing property right is still good, provided only that it is uncorrupt and that nobody thinks I don't "own" the grazing use.

Utah, and other states, would benefit greatly if grazing, mineral, and other beneficial uses of land were taxable holdings, and I think it could be better managed locally than nationally. It is entirely true that the forage consumed by a cow in a month is worth $20 as a basic rental rate, and that a grazing right is worth about as much as five cows, that is $5000 per cow that can be fed on grazing allotment. Thus Bundy's grazing right is worth at least $5 M, and the government should pay him that much if say, a turtle or a solar plant is the higher and best use of it. The water right is additional. . . .

I could go on. Maybe it will take me twenty more years to do full disclosure.

Local land politics are the most easily and deeply corrupted cesspool there is, which is the reason I have no interest in your state's rights reasoning. It's admirable that you believe in small government deciding the destiny of the area around us, but take a look around and see how that's turned out. Brigham Young had a city plan that didn't allow building above 4000 feet in elevation, or something. Now we've built to the top of every foothill in sight.

When I was a teenager, we used to four wheel and shoot guns in the foothills of Utah County. We were always being herded off the land for fears of environmental destruction. Honest to Gordon, they used to land black helicopters up Hogs Hollow (above Alpine/Highland) and ticket the trucks not staying on established dirt roads. Now, look at that area that couldn't handle a little four wheeling. They paved a highway over it and sold off the land to developers who built McMansions on it. So much for the environment eh?

That's just one small story of thousands. Look at how the ranchers land grab of the ground underneath our rivers. That kind of b.s. is only the beginning if the state had control of this land. I want nothing to do with the local scoundrels controlling federal lands. In fact, I'd give them more back if it were up for vote.

 

[PearlWatson]

Well, I might be an outlier on a lot of statistical distribution parameters, but I lack the common sense to discriminate. I might be susceptible to delusions of the sort where I don't mind stalkers as long as they are talkers. I mean, I appreciate attention from cows, for heavens' sake. If they moo, I take it serious and have learned what different moos actually mean.

Also, in my life experience, I owe a lot to my avowed enemies, who generally have been the ones who helped me out when I really needed it. . .. more so than "friends", who just figure I'll deal with it good enough on my own.

There's something to be said for folks who'll take you on and really try to set you straight. Some might consider them enemies, but sometimes I think they're your "best" friends.

The Three Stooges of Tribtalk, however, were evil. I told Janadelle not to actually post about her daily travels in real time on there because I truly feared for her safety.

.

I don't see you as someone who allows anyone to be an enemy. For the most part you are able to frame their behavior in a positive light.

It takes a lot to deserve the word "enemy."

I don't consider people who challenge ideas or offer up good-natured razzing as "enemies" just fellow time-wasters.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uEXkmMealE

 

[sirkickyass]

sometimes he crawls out from under his little blue blanket and tries to insult me, though.

But yah, I think you're right.

Pretty cool thing for a Mod to do, huh.

I tried doing that for some on the old Tribtalk self-professed world-class outpost of civilization on the Utah Twilight Zone of culture and the premier authority on Anti-Mormonism, but realized it just made me look stupid if I didn't, or couldn't, deal with critics.

Pearl is right, I do have you on ignore (although obviously I responded to this as I saw her quote it).

The only thing I'm interested in is the allegation that I sometimes crawl out and try to insult you. I think this is the first time I've responded to any of your posts in at least a year so I'm not totally sure what it is you're talking about.

But as long as I'm responding...

I see other's commentary on your posts and that commentary essentially defines why I ignore list'd you. Virtually every post is long and steeped in hating on imagined "socialists," "leftists," pro-Communists, etc etc. Sometimes there's a paragraph about Lyndon Larouche. There's frequently something in there that's generally defamatory about anyone with specialized knowledge on a subject, particularly if it's related to governance in some way. Finally, the whole diatribe is usually laced with all sorts of factual, historical, or conceptual inaccuracies. After a number of years, I found it just wasn't worth my time. Especially since past debates appeared to have no effect on future posts. I've read that post a couple thousand times. I know what it says by now.

You also don't get reported so it doesn't affect my ability to moderate. The Ignore list seems like the perfect solution. I figure if you say anything I really have to respond to, someone will let me know.

 

[PearlWatson]

Pearl is right, I do have you on ignore (although obviously I responded to this as I saw her quote it).

The only thing I'm interested in is the allegation that I sometimes crawl out and try to insult you. I think this is the first time I've responded to any of your posts in at least a year so I'm not totally sure what it is you're talking about.

But as long as I'm responding...

I see other's commentary on your posts and that commentary essentially defines why I ignore list'd you. Virtually every post is long and steeped in hating on imagined "socialists," "leftists," pro-Communists, etc etc. Sometimes there's a paragraph about Lyndon Larouche. There's frequently something in there that's generally defamatory about anyone with specialized knowledge on a subject, particularly if it's related to governance in some way. Finally, the whole diatribe is usually laced with all sorts of factual, historical, or conceptual inaccuracies. After a number of years, I found it just wasn't worth my time. Especially since past debates appeared to have no effect on future posts. I've read that post a couple thousand times. I know what it says by now.

You also don't get reported so it doesn't affect my ability to moderate. The Ignore list seems like the perfect solution. I figure if you say anything I really have to respond to, someone will let me know.

A "good" example of coming out of the woodwork to insult you. lolz