User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:38:34 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Providing they have actual proof. Which Bundy has never been able to provide. And, of course, it's going to be damn hard for Bundy to find any proof when he claims to have started grazing in 1877, while the Feds laid claim to that land in 1861. The BLM's creation date is a red herring. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In other words, you do not think ZMV can not decide to start a logging company on public land without paying for the wood. He must first get permission from other another entity or entities. Edit: And likewise, you would say that a rancher can not run cattle on public land without such permission. I would say that ZMV could not start a new logging company on public land without paying for the wood yes. The one sticky wicket with this is the mans family has used the range long before the BLM existed in its current form. Which doesn't mean much when the entity with the authority to make those determinations decides to modify the considerations of its permission. I lived in an apartment complex once that was sold to another management agency. I had lived in that apartment longer than the new company had owned it. That didn't mean much when they rolled out brand new lease agreements with new language and difference rent rates. Last time I checked common law is still common law. When a person has made a claim to land that predates an entity with the authority to make determinations on unclaimed land, it is theirs. Providing they have actual proof. Which Bundy has never been able to provide. And, of course, it's going to be damn hard for Bundy to find any proof when he claims to have started grazing in 1877, while the Feds laid claim to that land in 1861. The BLM's creation date is a red herring. The Feds made a claim to unused lands, so that no other nation (the south) could make the same claim. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:40:05 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Feds made claim to unused lands, so that no other nation could make the same claim. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would say that ZMV could not start a new logging company on public land without paying for the wood yes. The one sticky wicket with this is the mans family has used the range long before the BLM existed in its current form. Which doesn't mean much when the entity with the authority to make those determinations decides to modify the considerations of its permission. I lived in an apartment complex once that was sold to another management agency. I had lived in that apartment longer than the new company had owned it. That didn't mean much when they rolled out brand new lease agreements with new language and difference rent rates. Last time I checked common law is still common law. When a person has made a claim to land that predates an entity with the authority to make determinations on unclaimed land, it is theirs. Providing they have actual proof. Which Bundy has never been able to provide. And, of course, it's going to be damn hard for Bundy to find any proof when he claims to have started grazing in 1877, while the Feds laid claim to that land in 1861. The BLM's creation date is a red herring. The Feds made claim to unused lands, so that no other nation could make the same claim. And? The reason for the claim is irrelevant. You said that under common law that whoever claims it first, gets it. Well, the Feds claimed it well before Bundy's ancestors showed up, so by your own standard, the Fed's claim is legitimate and Bundy's is not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:41:08 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would say that ZMV could not start a new logging company on public land without paying for the wood yes. If he were to replant trees that would save commercial water ways and create bigger trees faster he should have to pay much less, If anything. Because his services would pay forthemselves many times over in 40 years. The one sticky wicket with this is the Bundy family has used the range long before the BLM existed in it's current form. He had water and grazing rights that predate the BLM claim. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In other words, you do not think ZMV can not decide to start a logging company on public land without paying for the wood. He must first get permission from other another entity or entities. Edit: And likewise, you would say that a rancher can not run cattle on public land without such permission. I would say that ZMV could not start a new logging company on public land without paying for the wood yes. If he were to replant trees that would save commercial water ways and create bigger trees faster he should have to pay much less, If anything. Because his services would pay forthemselves many times over in 40 years. The one sticky wicket with this is the Bundy family has used the range long before the BLM existed in it's current form. He had water and grazing rights that predate the BLM claim. One thing bothers me about this argument is it doesn't matter when the BLM was formed. The BLM doesn't "claim" the land, the federal government does. The BLM is simply an organization within the US Department of the Interior. It doesn't matter when or how the BLM was formed and that argument is a red herring. The land has been owned by the USA since 1848. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:42:10 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For those of you calling FSA on the Bundy Ranch, show me where they place on the .gov ag subsidies list. http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=32003&progcode=livestock®ionname=ClarkCounty,Nevada He hasn't paid for grazing rights since 1993. His cows have been eating for free, and he's been selling the cows for money. Free grazing = free money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:44:08 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And? The reason for the claim is irrelevant. You said that under common law that whoever claims it first, gets it. Well, the Feds claimed it well before Bundy's ancestors showed up, so by your own standard, the Fed's claim is legitimate and Bundy's is not. The claim was to all unused land, As in once someone claims it, it belongs to those who claim it. The claim the feds made was souly to keep other nations from making similar claims. Thousands of people laid claim to land in navada after 1864. Bundy being one of them. All of them were legitimate. Ironically the guy the county was named after laid claims to huge areas of Montana. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:47:03 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not sure if i posted this yet: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/16/colo-eminent-domain-case-settled-with-115000-sale/ "Summit County, which refused interviews, said in a statement Wednesday it acquired the property for $115,000 in a voluntary settlement, following court-ordered mediation. Ceil Barrie told Fox News the monetary figure just covered the couple’s legal bills and some of the land's value. She said they had every intention of taking the case to court, but the fight got to be too expensive. "The cabin was condemned on the grounds of plumbing and electricity when it doesn't even have plumbing or electricity,” she said. "All those things added up in my mind... this is ridiculous, we can never win and our money is not unlimited. I have two kids in college this year." I havent seen you feds address this yet..... (Im glad you guys came back, I thought for a minute you might have got reassigned!) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:48:32 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The claim was to all unused land, As in once someone claims it, it belongs to those who claim it. The claim the feds made was souly to keep other nations from making similar claims. Thousands of people laid claim to land in navada after 1864. Bundy being one of them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And? The reason for the claim is irrelevant. You said that under common law that whoever claims it first, gets it. Well, the Feds claimed it well before Bundy's ancestors showed up, so by your own standard, the Fed's claim is legitimate and Bundy's is not. The claim was to all unused land, As in once someone claims it, it belongs to those who claim it. The claim the feds made was souly to keep other nations from making similar claims. Thousands of people laid claim to land in navada after 1864. Bundy being one of them. Nevada became a state in 1864. The "unused land" bit, assuming it's even true, ends then, with the Nevada Constitution. "That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;" Again, 1864 vs 1877. Bundy's family came after all this went down. By your own argument, any claim Bundy might have is superseded by the United States's ownership. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:51:39 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He hasn't paid for grazing rights since 1993. His cows have been eating for free, and he's been selling the cows for money. Free grazing = free money. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
For those of you calling FSA on the Bundy Ranch, show me where they place on the .gov ag subsidies list. http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=32003&progcode=livestock®ionname=ClarkCounty,Nevada He hasn't paid for grazing rights since 1993. His cows have been eating for free, and he's been selling the cows for money. Free grazing = free money. Looks like he irrigates and bales hay around the farm and in some of the "on scene" video it looked like there were grain bins. Some of the big square bales looked like premium alfalfa. I'd say the cattle were just out snacking, not "eating" for free. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:51:59 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some animals are more equal than others. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Haven't other politicians gone to jail for doing that? Some animals are more equal than others. Most recently Jesse Jackson Jr, but Reid said oops gave the money back and it's all OK. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:53:21 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nevada became a state in 1864. The "unused land" bit, assuming it's even true, ends then, with the Nevada Constitution. "That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;" Again, 1864 vs 1877. Bundy's family came after all this went down. By your own argument, any claim Bundy might have is superseded by the United States's ownership. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And? The reason for the claim is irrelevant. You said that under common law that whoever claims it first, gets it. Well, the Feds claimed it well before Bundy's ancestors showed up, so by your own standard, the Fed's claim is legitimate and Bundy's is not. The claim was to all unused land, As in once someone claims it, it belongs to those who claim it. The claim the feds made was souly to keep other nations from making similar claims. Thousands of people laid claim to land in navada after 1864. Bundy being one of them. Nevada became a state in 1864. The "unused land" bit, assuming it's even true, ends then, with the Nevada Constitution. "That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;" Again, 1864 vs 1877. Bundy's family came after all this went down. By your own argument, any claim Bundy might have is superseded by the United States's ownership. unappropriated means unappropriated. That means all unclaimed land. That means the state can not give other countries land. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:54:21 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Looks like he irrigates and bales hay around the farm and in some of the "on scene" video it looked like there were grain bins. Some of the big square bales looked like premium alfalfa. I'd say the cattle were just out snacking, not "eating" for free. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: For those of you calling FSA on the Bundy Ranch, show me where they place on the .gov ag subsidies list. http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=32003&progcode=livestock®ionname=ClarkCounty,Nevada He hasn't paid for grazing rights since 1993. His cows have been eating for free, and he's been selling the cows for money. Free grazing = free money. Looks like he irrigates and bales hay around the farm and in some of the "on scene" video it looked like there were grain bins. Some of the big square bales looked like premium alfalfa. I'd say the cattle were just out snacking, not "eating" for free.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:55:43 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
unappropriated means unappropriated. That means all unclaimed land. That means the state can not give other countries land.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And? The reason for the claim is irrelevant. You said that under common law that whoever claims it first, gets it. Well, the Feds claimed it well before Bundy's ancestors showed up, so by your own standard, the Fed's claim is legitimate and Bundy's is not. The claim was to all unused land, As in once someone claims it, it belongs to those who claim it. The claim the feds made was souly to keep other nations from making similar claims. Thousands of people laid claim to land in navada after 1864. Bundy being one of them. Nevada became a state in 1864. The "unused land" bit, assuming it's even true, ends then, with the Nevada Constitution. "That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;" Again, 1864 vs 1877. Bundy's family came after all this went down. By your own argument, any claim Bundy might have is superseded by the United States's ownership. unappropriated means unappropriated. That means all unclaimed land. That means the state can not give other countries land.
States don't have the authority you're talking about anyway. There's no need to put it into a state constitution. That clause clearly states that unappropriated land in Nevada belongs to the US. Since the land in question is Federal land, it is safe to assume that it was unappropriated at the time of Nevada's rise to statehood. 1864. 1877. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:56:20 PM EDT
[#13]
Why not just claim squatters rights?
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:57:22 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not just claim squatters rights? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile That's basically what's he's doing with the "my grandpappy's been running cattle here forever" argument. Except it's been shot down in court. Twice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:57:22 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
States don't have the authority you're talking about anyway. There's no need to put it into a state constitution. That clause clearly states that unappropriated land in Nevada belongs to the US. Since the land in question is Federal land, it is safe to assume that it was unappropriated at the time of Nevada's rise to statehood. 1864. 1877. The Nevada Constitution is really damaging to Bundy's case. I'm glad I gave you that link all those pages ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:58:00 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
but if you had the money you could have bought the complex and bundy is boxed in and the feds keep jacking the lease conditions to the point they are unfair and do nothing but force him to get out of the cattle business. what if instead of selling your appt they told you you could only have 1 kid in the apartment and you had 2 at the time? do you lose a kid or try to fight for what's right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In other words, you do not think ZMV can not decide to start a logging company on public land without paying for the wood. He must first get permission from other another entity or entities. Edit: And likewise, you would say that a rancher can not run cattle on public land without such permission. I would say that ZMV could not start a new logging company on public land without paying for the wood yes. The one sticky wicket with this is the mans family has used the range long before the BLM existed in its current form. Which doesn't mean much when the entity with the authority to make those determinations decides to modify the considerations of its permission. I lived in an apartment complex once that was sold to another management agency. I had lived in that apartment longer than the new company had owned it. That didn't mean much when they rolled out brand new lease agreements with new language and difference rent rates. but if you had the money you could have bought the complex and bundy is boxed in and the feds keep jacking the lease conditions to the point they are unfair and do nothing but force him to get out of the cattle business. what if instead of selling your appt they told you you could only have 1 kid in the apartment and you had 2 at the time? do you lose a kid or try to fight for what's right? An apartment is rented if the new lease holder changes the rules you got to gtfo. No one has the rancher boxed in he knew this was coming for years, and if he wants to run more cows than his private land can hold he must go buy some. You do understand no one is telling him what to do with his private land right? He doesn't own enough acreage to tote a sizable healthy herd in his AO. His family should have been buying land up a century ago when the price was right. He is in the current citation on his own doing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:01:30 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nevada became a state in 1864. The "unused land" bit, assuming it's even true, ends then, with the Nevada Constitution. "That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;" Again, 1864 vs 1877. Bundy's family came after all this went down. By your own argument, any claim Bundy might have is superseded by the United States's ownership. Not true. Alaska allowed homesteading 160 acres up to the mid 1980s. They had to live on the land for 5 years and make improvements. The federal gov'ts claim can be and is superceded by states in many situations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:04:52 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not true. Alaska allowed homesteading 160 acres up to the mid 1980s. They had to live on the land for 5 years and make improvements. The federal gov'ts claim can be and is superceded by states in many situations. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nevada became a state in 1864. The "unused land" bit, assuming it's even true, ends then, with the Nevada Constitution. "That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;" Again, 1864 vs 1877. Bundy's family came after all this went down. By your own argument, any claim Bundy might have is superseded by the United States's ownership. Not true. Alaska allowed homesteading 160 acres up to the mid 1980s. They had to live on the land for 5 years and make improvements. The federal gov'ts claim can be and is superceded by states in many situations. Er.. no, they can't. Article 6, Fed law >> State law. In any case, state constitution >> state law and in the Nevada constitution, the state gives up claim to a huge swath of its territory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:09:13 PM EDT
[#19]
Some more pics..
 Protestors gather at Las Vegas P.D.          Flanked by armed supporters, rancher Cliven Bundy speaks at a protest camp near Bunkerville, Nev. Friday, April 18, 2014. (John Locher, AP / Las Vegas Review-Journal)               People gather along the Virgin River during a rally in support of Cliven Bundy near Bunkerville, Nev. Friday, April 18, 2014  Justin Giles of Wasilla, Alaska stands guard on a bridge over the Virgin River during a rally in support of Cliven Bundy near Bunkerville, Nev. Friday, April 18, 2014.  People gather along the Virgin River during a rally in support of Cliven Bundy near Bunkerville, Nev. Friday, April 18, 2014.  Jennifer Scalzo, left, and her husband Anthony Scalzo stand by the Virgin River during a rally in support of Cliven Bundy near Bunkerville, Nev. Friday, April 18, 2014   Steven Scalzo, right, and his wife Jamie Scalzo look for a place to set up their chairs during a rally in support of Cliven Bundy along the Virgin River near Bunkerville, Nev. Friday, April 18, 2014           |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:13:26 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Er.. no, they can't. Article 6, Fed law >> State law. In any case, state constitution >> state law and in the Nevada constitution, the state gives up claim to a huge swath of its territory. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nevada became a state in 1864. The "unused land" bit, assuming it's even true, ends then, with the Nevada Constitution. "That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;" Again, 1864 vs 1877. Bundy's family came after all this went down. By your own argument, any claim Bundy might have is superseded by the United States's ownership. Not true. Alaska allowed homesteading 160 acres up to the mid 1980s. They had to live on the land for 5 years and make improvements. The federal gov'ts claim can be and is superceded by states in many situations. Er.. no, they can't. Article 6, Fed law >> State law. In any case, state constitution >> state law and in the Nevada constitution, the state gives up claim to a huge swath of its territory. He is talking about the homestead act. It allowed a person to claim up to 160 acres. That includes Nevada. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:13:39 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An apartment is rented if the new lease holder changes the rules you got to gtfo. No one has the rancher boxed in he knew this was coming for years, and if he wants to run more cows than his private land can hold he must go buy some. You do understand no one is telling him what to do with his private land right? He doesn't own enough acreage to tote a sizable healthy herd in his AO. His family should have been buying land up a century ago when the price was right. He is in the current citation on his own doing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In other words, you do not think ZMV can not decide to start a logging company on public land without paying for the wood. He must first get permission from other another entity or entities. Edit: And likewise, you would say that a rancher can not run cattle on public land without such permission. I would say that ZMV could not start a new logging company on public land without paying for the wood yes. The one sticky wicket with this is the mans family has used the range long before the BLM existed in its current form. Which doesn't mean much when the entity with the authority to make those determinations decides to modify the considerations of its permission. I lived in an apartment complex once that was sold to another management agency. I had lived in that apartment longer than the new company had owned it. That didn't mean much when they rolled out brand new lease agreements with new language and difference rent rates. but if you had the money you could have bought the complex and bundy is boxed in and the feds keep jacking the lease conditions to the point they are unfair and do nothing but force him to get out of the cattle business. what if instead of selling your appt they told you you could only have 1 kid in the apartment and you had 2 at the time? do you lose a kid or try to fight for what's right? An apartment is rented if the new lease holder changes the rules you got to gtfo. No one has the rancher boxed in he knew this was coming for years, and if he wants to run more cows than his private land can hold he must go buy some. You do understand no one is telling him what to do with his private land right? He doesn't own enough acreage to tote a sizable healthy herd in his AO. His family should have been buying land up a century ago when the price was right. He is in the current citation on his own doing. but the question was what to do if they tell you now only one kid and all those years you had two there, do you just say ok and move or do you fight it because they changed the rules? The feds wont sell him the land since dirty harry needs more friends from china. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:16:01 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He is talking about the homestead act. It allowed a person to claim up to 160 acres. That includes Nevada. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nevada became a state in 1864. The "unused land" bit, assuming it's even true, ends then, with the Nevada Constitution. "That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;" Again, 1864 vs 1877. Bundy's family came after all this went down. By your own argument, any claim Bundy might have is superseded by the United States's ownership. Not true. Alaska allowed homesteading 160 acres up to the mid 1980s. They had to live on the land for 5 years and make improvements. The federal gov'ts claim can be and is superceded by states in many situations. Er.. no, they can't. Article 6, Fed law >> State law. In any case, state constitution >> state law and in the Nevada constitution, the state gives up claim to a huge swath of its territory. He is talking about the homestead act. It allowed a person to claim up to 160 acres. That includes Nevada. i wonder why he said "Alaska allowed" rather than "the US allowed" then. Odd. Anyway, it would seem that Bundy's family did not claim under the Homestead Act any of the land you think Bundy should get. If they had, then the land wouldn't currently be Federal land, now would it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:17:47 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Er.. no, they can't. Article 6, Fed law >> State law. In any case, state constitution >> state law and in the Nevada constitution, the state gives up claim to a huge swath of its territory. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Nevada became a state in 1864. The "unused land" bit, assuming it's even true, ends then, with the Nevada Constitution. "That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;" Again, 1864 vs 1877. Bundy's family came after all this went down. By your own argument, any claim Bundy might have is superseded by the United States's ownership. Not true. Alaska allowed homesteading 160 acres up to the mid 1980s. They had to live on the land for 5 years and make improvements. The federal gov'ts claim can be and is superceded by states in many situations. Er.. no, they can't. Article 6, Fed law >> State law. In any case, state constitution >> state law and in the Nevada constitution, the state gives up claim to a huge swath of its territory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:18:51 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, where did you get your degree in constitutional law? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nevada became a state in 1864. The "unused land" bit, assuming it's even true, ends then, with the Nevada Constitution. "That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;" Again, 1864 vs 1877. Bundy's family came after all this went down. By your own argument, any claim Bundy might have is superseded by the United States's ownership. Not true. Alaska allowed homesteading 160 acres up to the mid 1980s. They had to live on the land for 5 years and make improvements. The federal gov'ts claim can be and is superceded by states in many situations. Er.. no, they can't. Article 6, Fed law >> State law. In any case, state constitution >> state law and in the Nevada constitution, the state gives up claim to a huge swath of its territory. Are you arguing the clear language in Article 6? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:19:17 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
i wonder why he said "Alaska allowed" rather than "the US allowed" then. Odd. Anyway, it would seem that Bundy's family did not claim under the Homestead Act any of the land you think Bundy should get. If they had, then the land wouldn't currently be Federal land, now would it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nevada became a state in 1864. The "unused land" bit, assuming it's even true, ends then, with the Nevada Constitution. "That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;" Again, 1864 vs 1877. Bundy's family came after all this went down. By your own argument, any claim Bundy might have is superseded by the United States's ownership. Not true. Alaska allowed homesteading 160 acres up to the mid 1980s. They had to live on the land for 5 years and make improvements. The federal gov'ts claim can be and is superceded by states in many situations. Er.. no, they can't. Article 6, Fed law >> State law. In any case, state constitution >> state law and in the Nevada constitution, the state gives up claim to a huge swath of its territory. He is talking about the homestead act. It allowed a person to claim up to 160 acres. That includes Nevada. i wonder why he said "Alaska allowed" rather than "the US allowed" then. Odd. Anyway, it would seem that Bundy's family did not claim under the Homestead Act any of the land you think Bundy should get. If they had, then the land wouldn't currently be Federal land, now would it? Never said he should own the land, I said he should have grazing and water rights because his family has used the land for that purpose for generations before the BLM inserted itself into the situation. If the feds want the rights back, if he chooses to sell. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:23:55 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Never said he should own the land, I said he should have grazing and water rights because his family has used the land for that purpose for generations. If the feds want the rights back, they should buy them, if he chooses to sell. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Er.. no, they can't. Article 6, Fed law >> State law. In any case, state constitution >> state law and in the Nevada constitution, the state gives up claim to a huge swath of its territory. He is talking about the homestead act. It allowed a person to claim up to 160 acres. That includes Nevada. i wonder why he said "Alaska allowed" rather than "the US allowed" then. Odd. Anyway, it would seem that Bundy's family did not claim under the Homestead Act any of the land you think Bundy should get. If they had, then the land wouldn't currently be Federal land, now would it? Never said he should own the land, I said he should have grazing and water rights because his family has used the land for that purpose for generations. If the feds want the rights back, they should buy them, if he chooses to sell. And yet, we've already established that Federal claim to the land, including all rights, predates Bundy's claim. Under your common law argument, Feds have the rights. You might want to check the Grazing Act of 1934, by the way, especially the bit about the Feds permitting ranchers to graze/water on their land not conferring any rights to those ranchers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:24:01 PM EDT
[#27]
but the question was what to do if they tell you now only one kid and all those years you had two there, do you just say ok and move or do you fight it because they changed the rules? The feds wont sell him the land since dirty harry needs more friends from china.
You move. Anyone in that scenario has only temporary ownership under said lease. When it comes time to renew lease and it's under new ownership if you don't like the new terms don't sign it, and leave. You have nothing to win in fighting for leased\rented land. If any of this was his land deeded\titled to him it would be a whole different story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:25:27 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And yet, we've already established that Federal claim to the land, including all rights, predates Bundy's claim. Under your common law argument, Feds have the rights. You might want to check the Grazing Act of 1934, by the way, especially the bit about the Feds permitting ranchers to graze/water on their land not conferring any rights to those ranchers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Er.. no, they can't. Article 6, Fed law >> State law. In any case, state constitution >> state law and in the Nevada constitution, the state gives up claim to a huge swath of its territory. He is talking about the homestead act. It allowed a person to claim up to 160 acres. That includes Nevada. i wonder why he said "Alaska allowed" rather than "the US allowed" then. Odd. Anyway, it would seem that Bundy's family did not claim under the Homestead Act any of the land you think Bundy should get. If they had, then the land wouldn't currently be Federal land, now would it? Never said he should own the land, I said he should have grazing and water rights because his family has used the land for that purpose for generations. If the feds want the rights back, they should buy them, if he chooses to sell. And yet, we've already established that Federal claim to the land, including all rights, predates Bundy's claim. Under your common law argument, Feds have the rights. You might want to check the Grazing Act of 1934, by the way, especially the bit about the Feds permitting ranchers to graze/water on their land not conferring any rights to those ranchers. 1877, 1934... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:26:27 PM EDT
[#29]
so what's gonna happen now?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:27:01 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1877, 1934... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
i wonder why he said "Alaska allowed" rather than "the US allowed" then. Odd. Anyway, it would seem that Bundy's family did not claim under the Homestead Act any of the land you think Bundy should get. If they had, then the land wouldn't currently be Federal land, now would it? Never said he should own the land, I said he should have grazing and water rights because his family has used the land for that purpose for generations. If the feds want the rights back, they should buy them, if he chooses to sell. And yet, we've already established that Federal claim to the land, including all rights, predates Bundy's claim. Under your common law argument, Feds have the rights. You might want to check the Grazing Act of 1934, by the way, especially the bit about the Feds permitting ranchers to graze/water on their land not conferring any rights to those ranchers. 1877, 1934... 1861. Fed's water, Fed's grazing area, Fed's authority to create and dictate the way the land is managed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:32:44 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated "that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State.” The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it "conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.” The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states: "The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana. So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory. Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land – not federal." http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/19/do-the-feds-really-own-the-land-in-nevada-nope/ from page 166 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:39:57 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
from page 166 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated "that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State.” The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it "conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.” The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states: "The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana. So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory. Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land – not federal." http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/19/do-the-feds-really-own-the-land-in-nevada-nope/ from page 166 Then what happened between this 1845 ruling and the time Nevada became a state in 1864? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:40:54 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1861. Fed's water, Fed's grazing area, Fed's authority to create and dictate the way the land is managed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
i wonder why he said "Alaska allowed" rather than "the US allowed" then. Odd. Anyway, it would seem that Bundy's family did not claim under the Homestead Act any of the land you think Bundy should get. If they had, then the land wouldn't currently be Federal land, now would it? Never said he should own the land, I said he should have grazing and water rights because his family has used the land for that purpose for generations. If the feds want the rights back, they should buy them, if he chooses to sell. And yet, we've already established that Federal claim to the land, including all rights, predates Bundy's claim. Under your common law argument, Feds have the rights. You might want to check the Grazing Act of 1934, by the way, especially the bit about the Feds permitting ranchers to graze/water on their land not conferring any rights to those ranchers. 1877, 1934... 1861. Fed's water, Fed's grazing area, Fed's authority to create and dictate the way the land is managed. Looks like the cavalry arrived just in time. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:42:09 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 1861. Fed's water, Fed's grazing area, Fed's authority to create and dictate the way the land is managed. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: i wonder why he said "Alaska allowed" rather than "the US allowed" then. Odd. Anyway, it would seem that Bundy's family did not claim under the Homestead Act any of the land you think Bundy should get. If they had, then the land wouldn't currently be Federal land, now would it? Never said he should own the land, I said he should have grazing and water rights because his family has used the land for that purpose for generations. If the feds want the rights back, they should buy them, if he chooses to sell. And yet, we've already established that Federal claim to the land, including all rights, predates Bundy's claim. Under your common law argument, Feds have the rights. You might want to check the Grazing Act of 1934, by the way, especially the bit about the Feds permitting ranchers to graze/water on their land not conferring any rights to those ranchers. 1877, 1934... 1861. Fed's water, Fed's grazing area, Fed's authority to create and dictate the way the land is managed.  , you know your funny, keep digging, it's hilarious to observe...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:46:00 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you arguing the clear language in Article 6? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Er.. no, they can't. Article 6, Fed law >> State law. In any case, state constitution >> state law and in the Nevada constitution, the state gives up claim to a huge swath of its territory. Are you arguing the clear language in Article 6? It's clear you have no knowledge about ranching or the west. It's clear you have no interest in anything but making noise, bleating like a goat over and over. Repeating the same tired arguments to anyone who falls for your banal questioning. In a bowl of punch you rise above like an island, only upon further inspection (shallow at that) it is obvious you are nothing more than a turd, looking to be scooped up and put in someones glass, in order to sour them too. If even one out of ten of your posts said something of substance, it would at least be tolerable. Or if you had wit or comedy. Yet you have neither. You are as dry and bland as an MRE cracker. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:46:34 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He hasn't paid for grazing rights since 1993. His cows have been eating for free, and he's been selling the cows for money. Free grazing = free money. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
For those of you calling FSA on the Bundy Ranch, show me where they place on the .gov ag subsidies list. http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=32003&progcode=livestock®ionname=ClarkCounty,Nevada He hasn't paid for grazing rights since 1993. His cows have been eating for free, and he's been selling the cows for money. Free grazing = free money. What about the actual cash money other farmers get? Is that excusable? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:48:03 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then what happened between this 1845 ruling and the time Nevada became a state in 1864? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated "that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State.” The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it "conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.” The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states: "The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana. So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory. Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land – not federal." http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/19/do-the-feds-really-own-the-land-in-nevada-nope/ from page 166 Then what happened between this 1845 ruling and the time Nevada became a state in 1864? The difference between Nevada and Alabama is here: "The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana." Georgia use to claim all territory due west of it's borders all the way to the Mississippi river. The majority of Alabama falls into that. The decision is based on Alabama originally being Georgian land, not Federal land. Nevada, on the other, was originally Federal land. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:48:10 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Then what happened between this 1845 ruling and the time Nevada became a state in 1864? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: "The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated "that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State.” The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it "conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.” The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states: "The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana. So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory. Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land – not federal." http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/19/do-the-feds-really-own-the-land-in-nevada-nope/ from page 166 Then what happened between this 1845 ruling and the time Nevada became a state in 1864? Read all about it. It was thought Lincoln needed votes- in the deal to admit them to the union (with 20,000 less than the minimum by law needed 60,000 population) they had to sign away ownership- ina deal that could only be broken by the feds. Illegal admission to the Union paid for by an apparent illegal land grab. So if the deal was illegal- Is Nevada really a state? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:48:45 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, I'm just saying you're a try hard internet warrior bent on utilizing limited intellect in arguing a pointless endeavor, since you can bring about no change or point. That your every post reminds people why GD is nothing more than entertainment. You argue for arguments sake and do nothing to advance the discussion, while maintaining a willful ignorance that over times is indistinguishable from the regular kind. In fact, you are a detriment to the thread in that your only purpose is to distract from intelligent conversation about the direction of the country because your entire focal point is wrapped around what you can glean from Wikipedia. It's clear you have no knowledge about ranching or the west. It's clear you have no interest in anything but making noise, bleating like a goat over and over. Repeating the same tired arguments to anyone who falls for your banal questioning. In a bowl of punch you rise above like an island, only upon further inspection (shallow at that) it is obvious you are nothing more than a turd, looking to be scooped up and put in someones glass, in order to sour them too. If even one out of ten of your posts said something of substance, it would at least be tolerable. Or if you had wit or comedy. Yet you have neither. You are as dry and bland as an MRE cracker. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Er.. no, they can't. Article 6, Fed law >> State law. In any case, state constitution >> state law and in the Nevada constitution, the state gives up claim to a huge swath of its territory. Are you arguing the clear language in Article 6? It's clear you have no knowledge about ranching or the west. It's clear you have no interest in anything but making noise, bleating like a goat over and over. Repeating the same tired arguments to anyone who falls for your banal questioning. In a bowl of punch you rise above like an island, only upon further inspection (shallow at that) it is obvious you are nothing more than a turd, looking to be scooped up and put in someones glass, in order to sour them too. If even one out of ten of your posts said something of substance, it would at least be tolerable. Or if you had wit or comedy. Yet you have neither. You are as dry and bland as an MRE cracker. And yet, you have no actual argument about the legality of what I've said. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:49:28 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nevada, on the other, was originally Federal land. In an illegal "deal". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:51:39 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then what happened between this 1845 ruling and the time Nevada became a state in 1864? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated "that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State.” The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it "conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.” The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states: "The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana. So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory. Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land – not federal." http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/19/do-the-feds-really-own-the-land-in-nevada-nope/ from page 166 Then what happened between this 1845 ruling and the time Nevada became a state in 1864? A regional disagreement
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:52:06 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I havent seen you feds address this yet..... (Im glad you guys came back, I thought for a minute you might have got reassigned!) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not sure if i posted this yet: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/16/colo-eminent-domain-case-settled-with-115000-sale/ "Summit County, which refused interviews, said in a statement Wednesday it acquired the property for $115,000 in a voluntary settlement, following court-ordered mediation. Ceil Barrie told Fox News the monetary figure just covered the couple’s legal bills and some of the land's value. She said they had every intention of taking the case to court, but the fight got to be too expensive. "The cabin was condemned on the grounds of plumbing and electricity when it doesn't even have plumbing or electricity,” she said. "All those things added up in my mind... this is ridiculous, we can never win and our money is not unlimited. I have two kids in college this year." I havent seen you feds address this yet..... (Im glad you guys came back, I thought for a minute you might have got reassigned!) I'm not a FED and have been on Bundy's/'merica's side since day one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:52:46 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In an illegal "deal". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nevada, on the other, was originally Federal land. In an illegal "deal". So you say. I imagine Nevada, the US, and even Bundy himself would disagree with you. After all, Bundy thinks the state of Nevada has claim to the land he's been grazing on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:53:10 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And yet, you have no actual argument about the legality of what I've said. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Er.. no, they can't. Article 6, Fed law >> State law. In any case, state constitution >> state law and in the Nevada constitution, the state gives up claim to a huge swath of its territory. Are you arguing the clear language in Article 6? It's clear you have no knowledge about ranching or the west. It's clear you have no interest in anything but making noise, bleating like a goat over and over. Repeating the same tired arguments to anyone who falls for your banal questioning. In a bowl of punch you rise above like an island, only upon further inspection (shallow at that) it is obvious you are nothing more than a turd, looking to be scooped up and put in someones glass, in order to sour them too. If even one out of ten of your posts said something of substance, it would at least be tolerable. Or if you had wit or comedy. Yet you have neither. You are as dry and bland as an MRE cracker. And yet, you have no actual argument about the legality of what I've said. uuuuugghhhhh *click* goes to get sandwich... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:53:50 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Most recently Jesse Jackson Jr, but Reid said oops gave the money back and it's all OK. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Haven't other politicians gone to jail for doing that? Some animals are more equal than others. Most recently Jesse Jackson Jr, but Reid said oops gave the money back and it's all OK. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile He was a democrat, so how did he wind up in jail? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:54:32 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Time to take you from a dry stale MRE cracker to one soggy in ignore... uuuuugghhhhh *click* goes to get sandwich... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are you arguing the clear language in Article 6? It's clear you have no knowledge about ranching or the west. It's clear you have no interest in anything but making noise, bleating like a goat over and over. Repeating the same tired arguments to anyone who falls for your banal questioning. In a bowl of punch you rise above like an island, only upon further inspection (shallow at that) it is obvious you are nothing more than a turd, looking to be scooped up and put in someones glass, in order to sour them too. If even one out of ten of your posts said something of substance, it would at least be tolerable. Or if you had wit or comedy. Yet you have neither. You are as dry and bland as an MRE cracker. And yet, you have no actual argument about the legality of what I've said. uuuuugghhhhh *click* goes to get sandwich... Well, I guess that's one way to avoid backing up your argument. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:56:09 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, I'm just saying you're a try hard internet warrior bent on utilizing limited intellect in arguing a pointless endeavor, since you can bring about no change or point. That your every post reminds people why GD is nothing more than entertainment. You argue for arguments sake and do nothing to advance the discussion, while maintaining a willful ignorance that over times is indistinguishable from the regular kind. In fact, you are a detriment to the thread in that your only purpose is to distract from intelligent conversation about the direction of the country because your entire focal point is wrapped around what you can glean from Wikipedia. It's clear you have no knowledge about ranching or the west. It's clear you have no interest in anything but making noise, bleating like a goat over and over. Repeating the same tired arguments to anyone who falls for your banal questioning. In a bowl of punch you rise above like an island, only upon further inspection (shallow at that) it is obvious you are nothing more than a turd, looking to be scooped up and put in someones glass, in order to sour them too. If even one out of ten of your posts said something of substance, it would at least be tolerable. Or if you had wit or comedy. Yet you have neither. You are as dry and bland as an MRE cracker. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Er.. no, they can't. Article 6, Fed law >> State law. In any case, state constitution >> state law and in the Nevada constitution, the state gives up claim to a huge swath of its territory. Are you arguing the clear language in Article 6? It's clear you have no knowledge about ranching or the west. It's clear you have no interest in anything but making noise, bleating like a goat over and over. Repeating the same tired arguments to anyone who falls for your banal questioning. In a bowl of punch you rise above like an island, only upon further inspection (shallow at that) it is obvious you are nothing more than a turd, looking to be scooped up and put in someones glass, in order to sour them too. If even one out of ten of your posts said something of substance, it would at least be tolerable. Or if you had wit or comedy. Yet you have neither. You are as dry and bland as an MRE cracker. You never pose a logical argument, do you? You use as many words as possible to basically tell someone "You don't know what you're talking about," but you never form a valid argument. Often, you even claim to have studied something substantially, or to have first-hand experience, or "friends of friends" who are in the know, but you still never post a valid and logically formed argument. Even when other people have valid and logical argument, you simply claim they don't and move on without ever refuting anything they say. It's like someone gave you a dictionary and a thesaurus, but never gave you a brain that can think critically about deductive reasoning. This is fucking hilarious, since the only one bleating and making noise in this thread is you. Or are you going to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about?
You need to read this before you try to act intelligent from here on out: http://books.google.com/books?id=xL-qf5Hbkm0C&lpg=PP1&dq=critical%20thinking&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=critical%20thinking&f=false |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:57:11 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And yet, you have no actual argument about the legality of what I've said. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Er.. no, they can't. Article 6, Fed law >> State law. In any case, state constitution >> state law and in the Nevada constitution, the state gives up claim to a huge swath of its territory. Are you arguing the clear language in Article 6? It's clear you have no knowledge about ranching or the west. It's clear you have no interest in anything but making noise, bleating like a goat over and over. Repeating the same tired arguments to anyone who falls for your banal questioning. In a bowl of punch you rise above like an island, only upon further inspection (shallow at that) it is obvious you are nothing more than a turd, looking to be scooped up and put in someones glass, in order to sour them too. If even one out of ten of your posts said something of substance, it would at least be tolerable. Or if you had wit or comedy. Yet you have neither. You are as dry and bland as an MRE cracker. And yet, you have no actual argument about the legality of what I've said. Bingo. He doesn't know how to form a logical argument. He simply tells people they don't know what they're talking about, that he knows more, and then he moves on. It's a drive by fallacy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:57:51 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He was a democrat, so how did he wind up in jail? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Haven't other politicians gone to jail for doing that? Some animals are more equal than others. Most recently Jesse Jackson Jr, but Reid said oops gave the money back and it's all OK. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile He was a democrat, so how did he wind up in jail? Jackson SR said he wanted to cut Obamas Balls off on live TV. thats why he went to jail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 6:00:08 PM EDT
[#50]
What's with the really long rambling put downs? I've seen more than a few in this thread.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
