Topic: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher - page 9. (Read 34677 times)

It is an emergent theory of gravity, meaning the entropy (degrees-of-freedom) is the fundamental. Thus 'equivalent' is a superset of 'related to'.

You fucking dolt. How much more of my time are you going to waste!

Fuck!

P.S. if you don't understand the importance and relevance of the term 'emergent' in this context, then watch some of Verlinde's Youtubes and bring yourself up to speed.

There is nothing more annoying than a student who fails to do his homework before asking stupid questions that he could have found the answer to if he wasn't so fucking obstinate and lazy.

You could spend less time fantasizing about pysops conspiracy theories and more time actually reviewing research and science. You wouldn't be making a complete fool of yourself here.

Educate yourself.  'equivalent' and 'related to' are two completely different things.

Educate yourself:

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Entropic%20derivation


The above is widely peer reviewed research from Eric Verlinde, a well respected theoretical physicist.

An engineer is not usually trained in theoretical physics.


Engineering and theoretical physics are starkly different disciplines. I am trained in both, so I am able to compare.


To a hammer everything appears to be a nail. And to an idiot, a genuis appears to be word-salad.


Your smug confirmation bias will likely evaporate 2016ish, as well as your networth and perhaps even your life.


While you are off inventing conspiracy theories, the rest of us remain grounded in the "no taxation without representation" concept.

Ya well, one can glance at your assertion and know that it is wrong.  The units don't even match.  'degrees-of-freedom' is, in fact, unit-less.

Just like I'm not inclined to crack open my Mother Goose to analyze the validity of the assertion that the moon is made of green-cheese, I'm not planning on wasting a lot of time on your more tedious rendition.  I'm simply not interested in metaphysical flights of fancy replete with newly minted Anonymintian fundamental unit systems.  Solarian is kind of a mouth-breather so maybe he'll bite.

When I choose to work, I work as an Engineer.  All of my experiences in that field demonstrate that pretty much everything is a compromise.  It's not easy to weigh the compromises sometimes or predict all of them, but I find it fun and I'm good enough at it to where I've never had to go actively looking for a job (or at least not in the past decade and a half.)  Although I've never worked as a scientist, I've been fascinated by scientific subjects since childhood and read more about them than any other subject.  I can typically parse most scientific literature relatively readily, and the processes that successful scientists employ are very familiar to me.

Everything about you screams 'absolutist' and 'fundamentalist'.  I've never known anyone displaying these features who is an effective Engineer or Scientist.  OTOH, it is a good characterization of most right-wingers and Libertarians I know.

Being the curious type I learned of Bitcoin relatively early on.  Being an analytical type I decided that it was worth taking a position.  The happy fallout is that at this point I can be unemployed and waste time on anything which happens to catch my interest.  The ground will be dry enough tomorrow that I hope to continue my road building project.

The subject under analysis here (the Bundy event) has caught my interest in part because of the three events Newtown, Boston, and Bunkerville (all quite possible fabricated psyops) Bunkerville is hands down the most damaging to the 2nd amendment and our potential to retain it (and, of course, the utility of this right in very unpleasant but increasingly possible scenarios.)

Collective management of resources lead to the death of 7.5 million in Ukraine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#Causes

Communist lefties never learn from history.

Good post AnonyMint. I've had first hand experience observing the mental gymnastics the liberal mind can embrace to justify some pretty awkward or outright contradictory positions. Illogical is an appropriate description imo.

He is not paid. This is the illogic of a lefty communist. You can't reason with them because their brain stem is not functioning. Their brains are operative and they can make semi-coherent arguments and even appear to be reasonably intelligent and articulate, yet always the logical consistency is absent.

I think it is because their philosophy is lacking an understanding of thermodynamics and the fact that only a free market of competing actors can optimize (anneal) a dynamic system. He doesn't understand that nature's optimization algorithm is simulated annealing. This is why if ice is cooled slowly, then there are less cracks because the local molecules have more time to find optimum structure.

What a lefty doesn't understand is that no entity can top-down manage resources better than the local competing actors (some perform worse and some perform better and thus the system learns). There is no way that the Feds can monitor every dynamic opportunity and problem experienced by 300 million people every day and decide on the appropriate actions in real-time. Thus every edict and requirement from the Feds is stomping on and preventing the free market of local actors from optimizing with the most degrees-of-freedom.

In the Economics Devastation thread, I explained with respected citations that degrees-of-freedom is known to be equivalent to potential energy.

In your car had no reverse gear (one less degree-of-freedom), then you need to drive in a circle (e.g. around the block) in order to go reverse, i.e. much more inefficient. Government makes the free market adaptation and optimization less efficient.

When government grows from 12% in 1930 to over 75% of GDP (once compliance with all regulations is factored in) as it is now, then we reach negative marginal utility of debt, which means adding new debt actually shrinks the real GDP. Debt reduces degrees-of-freedom too, because everyone and his half brother copies each other, because resources are declared to be free.


You attack the symptoms and not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is the power vacuum of democracy, i.e. the government grows without bound. The only way to fix that is to deny the ability of the government to tax, so that the citizens have a (individual opt-out) veto against unjust taxation. We must defund the beast. And thus why I am working on such a technological solution.

You have no idea whom you've been debating with. If you knew, you'd feel pretty stupid for stereotyping me the way you did upthread.

You nailed it with your arguments being 'in terms a 10yr old could understand'.  We often tell our kids 'because I say so'.  This is because at an earlier stage of intellectual development this is indeed an understandable justification, and not much else is.

But you run into problems when you try to employ a similar strategy with adults (or even intelligent kids for that matter.)  Indeed, when you use that strategy of argument with adults they pretty much must assume that you yourself have not progressed to a very high level of intellectual development.  There is not really much a thinking person can do when we meet someone like this so we often just sort of quietly move on.

“get rid of these armed separatists”
Not happy to see that.
Will a 2nd American Civil War start in a place called Bunkerville?

As I've mentioned, I'm a lefty and don't really mind if society gives people a hand in limited times of need.  Of course many people will take advantage of things (e.g., 'bleeding the beast') so in order to make the best use of limited resources, we do need to check up on people who are on the Government dole.  Else we end up with single women claiming more dependents than they have and folks like Cliven Bundy claiming special rights and needs.

In looking at things, it seems that a trust entity associated with the late David and Bodel (nee Jensen) own the land shown here.

This outlay does seem to include several independent areas which have been variously described as Bundy's place.  It also seems to include some of the land that the milita wackos and other riffraff are allowed to wander about.  Noteworthy is that it also includes the highly impressive manor complex which has been completely missing from any analysis in either the mainstream or the 'guerrilla' media.

If one is going to raise melons, one need have melon fields to do so.  The area describe in the map does seem to include a contiguous series of cultivated lands which is about the only likely land in the immediate area for large scale agricultural production.

The one sticking point is that it closer to 2500 arces.  Not 150 or 160.  Nor is it consistent with the 80 acres describing in shorthand one of the trust holdings property.  It's also a bit inconsistent with the $60k or so appraised value...it's almost like Bundy might have a family member in the appraiser's office or something.

---

Google Earth goes back to 1994 and shows that at that time the manor complex was already well developed (it had it's tennis court installed, for instance.)  This was a the time when Cliven was going bust from his mismanagement of the ranching side of the equation.

It is said that although the ranch was obtained by David Bundy shortly after WWII, he didn't start to dink around with cattle until the 50's.  Then he stopped for a number of year.

I'll hypothesis:

 - David focused no building up the farming end of things, and was pretty proficient at it.  Bundy melons are reputed to be the best in the state, and the estate is a work of art (ya, I am jealous!)

 - Cliven had heard stories of the families ranching days in Bundyville (the ghost-town in AZ) growing up.  Doubtless the stories included the glory days when his family amassed the wealth needed to dominate the area, but the part about where they mis-managed it into the uninhabitable wasteland that it is today were not so widely relayed.  In other words, Cliven always dreamed of ranching and didn't like farming.

 - When David Bundy kicked the bucket and Cliven took over he proceeded to embark on his foolhardy Mexican cattle drive and it nearly broke the whole thing.  Even BLM subsidies were not enough to save him and only by turning into a blatant thief was he able to continue (and indeed apparently thrive.)

---

Lastly I'll point out some amusing and noteworthy hypocritical behavior here:

 - The Bundy clan is all about defending their rights and loves them some 2nd amendment powers to do so.  Funny we never seem to see them armed among the bristling militia clowns (or actors+dupes.)

 - Nobody has every claimed that Bundy doesn't pay his Federal taxes, and I've heard claims that he does.  Granted, his property is valued on par with a double-wide trailer in my area so the taxes probably are not that high, but it's a matter of principle.  Right?  

 - Mormon women, and particularly those under FLDS rule, are distinctly second-class citizens.  In fact they are more akin to personal property and breeding stock of the male head of the family than they are to human peers.  Cliven and his family may or may not be polygamous fundies but there is little doubt that his immediate fore-family were.  Given this it is funny that it is from his maternal side that Cliven is trying to lay claim to a fair chunk of the state of Nevada.  Or at least that's the claim he lays out for public consumption.

 - edits: minor.

I suggest ignore. tvbcof's positions are so bizarre they don't make a lick of sense to a rational mind. When you point out the inconsistencies of his positions in clear terms a 10yr old could understand, he just ignores you and moves on to the next nonsensical rant. The bulk of his posts are little more than redneck bashing and unjustifiably arrogant judgmental rubbish. If there are any paid disrupters in this thread, he's it. If he's not being paid to post in this thread then he needs to seek counseling.   

http://rt.com/usa/156900-rep-horsford-bundy-ranch

Nevada lawmaker demands immediate action against ‘armed separatists’ at Bundy ranch

The Federal government is stealing from all of us everyday. It is a huge corruption that lines the pockets of the elite at the expense of all of us.

Bundy has said he is willing to pay the grazing fees to the local county.

In short, this is a proxy for our collective angst against the growth of the government from 12% in 1930 to over 75% of GDP (once compliance with all regulations is factored in).

You have proposed no solution to this. You propose we lay down like chattel.


The unacceptable trouble is an elephant that is exacerbated by traitors like you who help sustain the elephant in the room and then deny it exists.


You stroke your ego by ignoring Jesus's wisdom in Matthew 7.


Thanks for confirming you support the insane growth of the elephant in the room. You've just admitted you love massive corruption.


Speaking out of both sides of your mouth, doing nothing, proposing nothing viable, and all the while saying you support most of the massive corruption. The government doesn't get to 75% of GDP without massive corruption.

Don't worry, you will soon die from this, as all good Communists do. My popcorn is ready. I'll be watching it on CNN.


I am perfectly happy if the Federal government stops maintaining anything and lets the land return to wild unkept form. Then let ranchers pay their own way. This will be ultimate outcome any way, because uneconomic activities eventually cease. Given our Federal government's power to steal from us massively and a Central Bank to help them, this ongoing default takes a while and it will be horrific when this shit finally hits the fan.


Who should work that land then? The whole point is we want that land returned back to the local governments and then the local people decide what to do with their land. They can auction it off or whatever. Many competing locales, means the best practices eventually get copied and adopted. The others fail and default.


Bundy has paid his dues. He has worked that land and made it productive for a long time. This is form of ownership. You should study homesteading law sometime.

None of us have a problem with that land being reclassified such that it has to be auctioned and owned. But Bundy has investments already there, that have to be honored (fences, structures, etc).


Communists are clueless this way. And you still haven't learned how simulated annealing and degrees-of-freedom applies to economics.

Any way, there is no way to teach a Communist. We have to opt-out of their morass and let them kill themselves. All examples in history prove this is the case.


Keynes actually proposed this. But government can never limit itself to "times of need".

Communists maintain dossiers on everyone's personal life.

Should we write a some similar drivel about your hardships and learning experiences. I'm rather proud of him that he refused welfare.

Luckily Communists do a good job of killing themselves.


Lol. As I said, operative brain but it isn't functioning (normally).



Communists are sociopaths.

They sugar coat it with a veneer (or delude themselves about the true nature of their belief system) that could seem rational at first glance. But dig and you will find the interior is rotten.


+1

Most of our issues come down to some interpretations of law which sound very much reminiscent of the 'sovereign citizens' arguments that I and other's have heard for a long time now.  When you assert them as fact then you can anticipate being at loggerheads with a lot of people.  These arguments don't get far in court in part because no attorney will even try them and most judges are just irritated at the waste of time.  The absurdity of most of the arguments is matched only by the blatantly self-serving nature of the final thesis.  In short, towards me and a LOT of other people these constructs are a dog which won't hunt.

My argument here is based on my own interpretation of your previous posts and nothing more. I'm not arguing for the validity of the Second Amendment; I'm insinuating that you're being hypocritical and unfair in your generalizations.


I disagree, some of us know exactly what we would do. Some of us already put our lives on the line every single day. There are millions of people who know precisely what they would do in such a situation; people who actually possess the resolve to follow through with whatever they've decided. Many would falter but many more would not.

Rights are things that aren't negotiable. Rights are protections, people should never give up those protections; especially in dangerous times. You may give up your rights for they belong to you. My rights belong to none-other than me and I will keep them. Rights are entitlements.


When a government attacks its own people it becomes illegitimate. The people have a right to a representative government. I'm not quite clear on your stance here because you seem to support the actions you believe were taken by the head of our government. I take it you disagree with the government killing innocent people just to create the illusion of "an enemy" for the people to focus on but you don't see anything wrong with it because it's a small part of a bigger picture?

I disagree. The government has no right to murder innocent people regardless of the agenda. If it were revealed that anybody in our government were responsible for this behavior then they deserve death. This is the highest form of treason against the people. When the government becomes illegitimate it becomes the burden and responsibility of the governed to reform or abolish it.


It's not "word-salad bullshit" as you called it. It's not the same thing... It's not financial support of the government either; the government agencies are paid by Congress. The fee was not to "support the government" as the government is "non-profit". That's where the difference comes in. Neither the BLM nor any other government agency can assess taxes as it would be unconstitutional, illegal, and unlawful. They can assess "fees" for specific purposes. When the BLM stopped applying the fees towards the specific purpose for which they were collected they no longer had the authority to charge those fees.

It's not word-salad; it's a breach of contract.


You're the one who wants bloody confrontation. You've stated twice above that the government should clear them out... I've not once called for hostility. I've called for equilibrium through balance of power. The militia is necessary to have any chance of preventing bloodshed. This is a confrontation in which the government must stand down. There has been no criminal offense to cause this; only a civil claim by the government for unpaid "grazing fees". The government has no more rights than you or I with how civil matters are resolved. Just because somebody owes you money doesn't give you the right to go in and kill them; nor does it the government.

The government attempted intimidation; it didn't work. To escalate this further would be criminal on behalf of the government.


Unless you live in Nevada then you are zero percent owner. Federal land is owned exclusively by the Federal Government; you have no right to enter a Federal facility, Military base, or District without consent of the Federal Government. I understand that 84% of the land in Nevada is "owned" by the Federal Government and the Nevada State Constitution provides for it; however, the State of Nevada has the right and a very good reason to assume possession of this land. The State of Nevada is entitled to all of the land within her borders...

This is a conflict between "what should be" and "what is" because the State of Nevada has rights to the land in which it hasn't acknowledged... If I were to choose not to acknowledge my own right to free speech, that wouldn't nullify the existence of that right.

Even where a State has acknowledged the land as "Federal Land" doesn't suppress the rights of that State within the United States of America. The land is State Land for as long as it is a "part of Nevada".


I wish I could understand your perspective. I just don't see where you're coming from...

I'm not being led around anywhere by anybody. I've simply made a choice between what I believe to be right and what I believe to be wrong and I base my beliefs on logic. In a world where everybody is born with free-will there is a necessity of government. The only governmental structure thus far which preserves free-will is that if a Constitutional Republic. The will of the people must be represented honestly and effectively. When Congress relinquished the control of our money supply they severed an artery between the representatives and the represented...

Going back to one of Ryan Bundy's youtube Q&A's, I think we can get a picture of what happened here:

In the late 80's or early 90's when Ryan was a kid, Cliven had a great idea to buy 1000 cattle from Mexico.  He pulled it off, but it was a poor decision from a ranch management standpoint.  It's not clear what went wrong, but it can be inferred that that density of cattle overgrazed.   Probably the Devil made a drought and other mischief, and God was busy with some other project and wasn't Johnny-on-the-spot to help our poor hero out, but to a competent rancher that is the kind of thing that needs to be planned for.

Next the BLM stopped by and saw their destroyed land and said 'What the fuck is the matter with you, you ignorant melon farmer?  150 head is what we want grazing on the land we are allotting to you for the next lease.   And by the way, where's the check you owe us?'

Now Cliven is to broke to buy his kids food and his cattle are starving so he gets a shitty price for them.  He's fuming and frustrated, but a great idea hits him.  Why not just steal the resources and twist things around so it's morally OK in his own mind using a potent mixture of religion-based dynastic entitlement logic and sovereign-citizen word-salad nonsense!

This actually worked great for many years.  Firstly, of course, he was saving a ton on range fees.  Secondly, he could overgraze with impunity since why should he worry about the land since it isn't his?

Better yet, he was a lot more competitive than other ranchers who did pay fees so one-by-one they exited the industry leaving even more resources for him to exploit.

At the end of the day (or the end of the 20 years) he is, unsurprisingly, doing pretty well.  In his (and many other people's) mind it is not possible for a rich white guy to be a deadbeat welfare bum and a cheat.  That sad fact, however, is that that is exactly what he is.

 - edit:  The story continues...

Meanwhile, the Koch bros are thinking that it would be nice if they could put the mineral rights and other stuff belonging to the American people into their own pocket if it was not for the maddening reality that there was not 100% private ownership of land in the U.S.  The project of buying the politicians and the media is mostly complete, and now it's time for some payback on that investment.

The govt has all kinds of surveillance systems in place and population management constructs developed rapidly since the Occupy movement and would love a chance to field-test them (and an excuse to get more.)

Time to prop up the extinct militia movement!  This can solve everyone's problem...even if practically the whole thing needs to be a fabrication.

A little planning and set-up and what do we have?  The Bundy psyop!

I consider the 2nd to be not some forum post typo, but a clear indication of the author's posture that private citizens should have a means of violent resistance to provide strategic pressures offsetting the power that the Federal government may amass if they abuse it sufficiently.  And I believe that the 2nd remains valid to this day on that basis.

If you want to say that by not supporting people who brandish weapons in support of Bundy's illegal theft from the public is somehow not supporting the 2nd, go ahead.  It's a stupid argument.


None of us knows what we would do in any given hypothetical situation.  If you know for sure what you would do, then you are probably wrong about it.

I am confident that I would indeed give up my constitutional 2nd amendment rights in some circumstances.  The most likely of these would be that if the 2nd is being abused by lunatics like the militia clowns and is causing unacceptable troubles for the nation at large.

I guess I don't have some psychological need to stroke my ego by being some sort of internet tough-guy or armchair warrior.  To each his own though.


I support the government's specific efforts in areas where I think they are doing the right thing, and I believe that most of the things they do are perfectly fine.  'Terrorizing' the population is not one of these, and I speak against it all the time.  This to call attention to it which is a the most logical first step in making the problem get better.

If you try to do likewise and inform people of the problems you see and your arguments fail then that should tell you something.  If it tells you that you are right and great and everyone else is wrong and stupid, you should take a step back and analyze the situation.  Among those who marched ahead anyway one can count the Islamic fundimentalists under Zawahiri and countless others like them through history.  Also people like Kaczynski and Stack.


This is just a setup for further word-salad bullshit.  It's financial support of the government's (and thus the people's) efforts.   Fact is that ranchers who use public lands for private gain don't even come close to paying the costs of management and thus are highly subsidized.  I don't even mind that that much since I think that maintaining a not insignificant portion of the vast public land holding for ranching and grazing is an appropriate use.


Oh, OK.  Someone who is wetting themselves for a bloody confrontation between citizens and the government on BLM range land is all about 'peaceful cohabitation'.  Whatever.


I'm fine with people doing more or less whatever they like on their own land.  Nobody has convinced me yet that anyone in the U.S. should have some sort of dynastic entitlement to almost anything, and certainly not the likes of Cliven Bundy.

Since I am part owner of public lands, I've got an entitlement to it.  But since I am part owner, I don't get to use a disproportionate amount of it for private gain.  Nor does Bundy who has no more entitlement to it than I.

I believe are country will be stronger and more unified and just all around better if we do have some amount of social support to act as a safety net and backstop.  From an economies-of-scale perspective it is efficient to implement a lot of things in this way.  It should be designed, however, that it is not useful as a permanent fixture but something to be leveraged only in times of need.  Cliven Bundy is a very wealthy man asking for and receiving an enduring handout from the public.  I'm not at all in favor of this kind of support (though I would tolerate it on a modest scale and don't really mind some subsidy of open range leasing simply because I feel that land use diversity is a healthy thing.)


Thanks for preserving that.  I am particularly proud of it and stand by every word of it.


My honest opinion is that you need help.  So I guess we are even.

BTW, don't rule out the possibility that you are being led around by the nose by the 'Oathkeepers' or just about any other such group.

Bravo.


I'm still hoping for a peaceful future, but we might not be heading in that direction.

tvbcof - Your opinions are poisonous. You've stated enough of your perspective that any sane or logical person would take offense at your intentions. This is a summary of what I've read from you above:

 - You're a gun owner yet you disagree with the Second Amendment. You claim to support "your Second Amendment rights" but you disagree completely with its fundamental purpose and with any civil intervention.
 
- You've acknowledged that you'll be willing to relinquish your "right" once the government tells you to, you've also shown that you will blame the "militia" when that day comes.

 - You claim that certain government officials are directly responsible for 9/11 and the subsequent cover-up, yet you support the idea of government issued terrorism perpetrated against its own people.

 - You've asserted that the money of which Bundy refused to pay for grazing fees come at the expense of you and "the tax payer"; you're as wrong as can be here. These aren't taxes, they're "fees" and they aren't even close to being the same thing.

 - You seem intelligent enough to put pieces together yet very sinister. Your reactions toward these conclusions you draw is indicative of sociopathy. You obviously prefer pain and suffering over peaceful cohabitation. You probably don't understand why you feel this way but you would likely feel "at peace" in the event of nuclear war.

 - You speak ill of entitlements and yet assert that an injustice has occurred which adversely affects you. You're no party to any injustice here and your assertion that he pay these fees because "it hurts you and the other tax payers" is your own feeling of entitlement over what he spends his money on. His choice to pay the fees doesn't affect you at all. You can't look at this situation objectively because you feel entitled (or at least you convey the sentiments of entitlement in your word choices).

Just a quote for posterity... This is sickening.

My honest opinion is that you need help... You should try meditation, art, music, something that utilizes your right brain. Your views are sacred to you but they are wrong for the rest of the world because they will only lead to pain and death. If you can resolve your subconscious desire for destruction then I think you'll change your views. You seem like a smart person but your goals should be redefined...

To expand on another point:

The Oath Keepers is just a name; the idea for which the Oath Keepers have pledged their lives isn't. You can smear the reputation of a group but you can't stop the beliefs supported within the group. When the gauntlet comes down, the Oath Keepers will be there. There'll be no safe place for tyrants...

It's like you said above; it's not guns that change outcomes. It's the strong desire for change that affects outcomes. You can't stop innovation; removing the guns from an Oath Keeper is like bailing out the titanic with a bucket. Oath Keepers are everywhere and have tolerated the usurpation of individual and State's rights in hopes of nonviolent change.

You can stretch a rubber band to a point, but once you exceed the stress limit of a rubber band there is no more tolerance for stress... What was acceptable yesterday will no longer be acceptable. The little injustices become intolerable and the result is war on tyranny... Your consent or agreement means nothing at that point. What we have here at the Bundy Ranch is evidence that the metaphorical "rubber band" is stretched to the point where it is now showing its cracks...