Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
and when Nevada became a state in 1864 the lands should have come under state jurisdiction...go read my thread "Should the Feds Own Nevada ?"....
" the lands should have come under state jurisdiction."
Why?
Your bit about when the feds got the land (originally you said they acquired it in 1993)
and about who got their first - feds or the State of Nevada
Has been shown to be full of shit. Why should I trust your word about what "should" have happened and why does it make any difference at all? I think I've read enough of your falsehoods here without going to the trouble of seeking out more. You are citing yourself as a reference???? Really?
Are you suggesting that Bundy himself has never acknowledged federal ownership of the land?
i think you're mixed up about what i've said...
in 1993 Bundy stopped paying grazing fees because he refused to acknowlege the new agreement about the tortoise that the EPS and the BLM decided to 'save' through micromanagement of the ranchers....although the tortoise and cows co-existed for centuries....(today they are euthanizing tortoises).....
basically they allowed Las Vegas developments to destroy tortoise habitats but the ranchers had to suck it up and limit their grazing to even things out for the tortoise and thus many went out of business...
what gives the Feds the right to pick and choose...?
You mad, bro?
Surely you jest, BRO. Not mad. Nazi's like you aren't men or women enough to make me "mad" - but you do concern me. And you concern me a great deal. This country is in deep doo doo from all sides and you liberal pussies seem to delight in it.
The last time that happened was the Bolsheviks. Trust me. don't try that again. your side WILL lose.
Have a nice day, Bro.
Now you see, that's the difference between you and me. I wouldn't go around calling you a Nazi or Fascist just because your ideology is different. Funny that you called a Jew a Nazi, but ok, it's a free country and I am not going to get in the way of you making a complete ass of yourself. That's the beauty of the 1st amendment. You get to make yourself look like a fool, and I get to laugh at you for it. Great deal!
And always these veiled threats with you. Tsk, tsk. Yes, much anger inside of you.
Have you considered taking some meditation courses?
clearly, you are far from beginning to understand anything.
you just ramble on.
Tell you what then Professor; Tell me where I'm "rambling on". Tell me how it's OK for your side to make ridiculous stupid statements yet it's wrong for anyone else to do it....
I'll be anxiously awaiting your well-thought and "reasoned" response.
your inferiority complex is acting out.
but i will tell you where you are rambling on. it is not hard to find. it is, for example, in the post to which i responded. you know, the one to toro, which had no reasonable connection to what he said. you did this earlier in this tread, too. and i saw you do it many times on this board. you just gurgle out some shit, and when called on it, you disappear.
now, the lesson is over.
He doesn't like the FEDERAL government, he's perfectly willing to accept the State or Counties control of the land.
See, this is what I don't understand about many on the American right. Government power is government power is government power, no matter if it is at the federal, state, county or city level. If you're a libertarian, or believe in individual liberty to the fullest extent, there is no such thing as "state's rights." There are only individual rights. A state government can oppress just as much as the federal government.
where he is rambling on he asks while posting "The last time that happened was the Bolsheviks."
now would be a good time to stop sniffing glue, old man.
Tell you what then Professor; Tell me where I'm "rambling on". Tell me how it's OK for your side to make ridiculous stupid statements yet it's wrong for anyone else to do it....
I'll be anxiously awaiting your well-thought and "reasoned" response.
your inferiority complex is acting out.
but i will tell you where you are rambling on. it is not hard to find. it is, for example, in the post to which i responded. you know, the one to toro, which had no reasonable connection to what he said. you did this earlier in this tread, too. and i saw you do it many times on this board. you just gurgle out some shit, and when called on it, you disappear.
now, the lesson is over.
I'm right here. Not going anywhere Professor. No "inferiority complex" as you claim. So let's go, big shot! I'm Colleg educated - I can take your "lesson" :bad grin:
I'm Still waiting.......
He doesn't like the FEDERAL government, he's perfectly willing to accept the State or Counties control of the land.
See, this is what I don't understand about many on the American right. Government power is government power is government power, no matter if it is at the federal, state, county or city level. If you're a libertarian, or believe in individual liberty to the fullest extent, there is no such thing as "state's rights." There are only individual rights. A state government can oppress just as much as the federal government.
That's just the point.
The folks yammering on about the federal government and states rights aren't interested in "individual" rights. They want to remove government protections. The "original" state's right crowd was the confederate slavers. And it's a meme that has not died.
You mad, bro?
Surely you jest, BRO. Not mad. Nazi's like you aren't men or women enough to make me "mad" - but you do concern me. And you concern me a great deal. This country is in deep doo doo from all sides and you liberal pussies seem to delight in it.
The last time that happened was the Bolsheviks. Trust me. don't try that again. your side WILL lose.
Have a nice day, Bro.
Nazis huh?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GGA_pOdn14]Cliven Bundy Neo Nazi Posse Comitatus - YouTube[/ame]
" the lands should have come under state jurisdiction."
Why?
Your bit about when the feds got the land (originally you said they acquired it in 1993)
and about who got their first - feds or the State of Nevada
Has been shown to be full of shit. Why should I trust your word about what "should" have happened and why does it make any difference at all? I think I've read enough of your falsehoods here without going to the trouble of seeking out more. You are citing yourself as a reference???? Really?
Are you suggesting that Bundy himself has never acknowledged federal ownership of the land?
i think you're mixed up about what i've said...
in 1993 Bundy stopped paying grazing fees because he refused to acknowlege the new agreement about the tortoise that the EPS and the BLM decided to 'save' through micromanagement of the ranchers....although the tortoise and cows co-existed for centuries....(today they are euthanizing tortoises).....
basically they allowed Las Vegas developments to destroy tortoise habitats but the ranchers had to suck it up and limit their grazing to even things out for the tortoise and thus many went out of business...
what gives the Feds the right to pick and choose...?
You keep saying that I'm mixed up about what you said ... and proceed to say a whole lot of new things to "support" that???
You keep veering away from who owns this land that Bundy is grazing his cattle on and when they acquired it.
Now apparently, you want to talk about the Las Vegas Wash????
1) Bundy does not own this land. He has NEVER owned this land.
2) For 20 years he paid the federal grazing fees - this shows that he acknowledged who owned the land and the appropriateness of the fees (which is a lot less than a private land owner would have charged him).
3) The owners of the land - we the people of the United States of America - authorized the Bureau of Land Management to administer the land and determine the best use of the land. (If we don't like the way they are doing that, we can make them change it).
4) Bundy got his panties in a wad and stopped paying his fees 20 years ago. There was an agreement between we the people and Bundy to allow his cattle to graze on our land. He broke the agreement - not us.
5) Bundy has had his day in court FIVE TIMES and lost every one.
6) We the people have every right to toss his cattle off our land.
The issues of the amount of land we the people hold and what is the best way to administer this land are fine discussions to be had. But they mean absolutely NOTHING in regards to the right of we the people to kick this welfare cowboy's cattle off our land.
There are more than enough cases of governmental overreach and abuse of authority to discuss. This just ain't one of 'em.
Deflection and diversion.
Doesn't mean squat on the issue of whether or not we the people have the right to toss this welfare cowboy off our land.
I don't blame the Bundites from scrambling around and trying to change the issue.
They've soundly lost - again and again on the real issue.
Deflection and diversion.
Doesn't mean squat on the issue of whether or not we the people have the right to toss this welfare cowboy off our land.
I don't blame the Bundites from scrambling around and trying to change the issue.
They've soundly lost - again and again on the real issue.
there's nothing 'wefare' about it....it's a legal dispute...
yes Bundy has lost in the courts so far and legally his ass is cooked UNLESS you take it all the way back to the issue of whether or not the Feds should be 'owning' those lands instead of the State of Nevada....Constitutionally it seems that Nevada should 'own' those lands...
Deflection and diversion.
Doesn't mean squat on the issue of whether or not we the people have the right to toss this welfare cowboy off our land.
I don't blame the Bundites from scrambling around and trying to change the issue.
They've soundly lost - again and again on the real issue.
there's nothing 'wefare' about it....it's a legal dispute...
yes Bundy has lost in the courts so far and legally his ass is cooked UNLESS you take it all the way back to the issue of whether or not the Feds should be 'owning' those lands instead of the State of Nevada....Constitutionally it seems that Nevada should 'own' those lands...
"seems" is not good enough. "seems" has not power in a court of law.
Ownership of that land by the Federal Government is enshrined in the NV Consitution. That point has already been addressed. It was all part of the deal buying up that land from Mexico long, long ago.
The Founders understood that the size of land holding was proportionally related to the perceived size of the federal government and they intentionally wanted that perception small. The Federal government was permitted to have but 10 square miles for a federal capital. The only other land that they could acquire had to be for military purposes as specified in the common defense clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 which reads: “and to exercise like Authority over all places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
there's nothing 'wefare' about it....it's a legal dispute...
yes Bundy has lost in the courts so far and legally his ass is cooked UNLESS you take it all the way back to the issue of whether or not the Feds should be 'owning' those lands instead of the State of Nevada....Constitutionally it seems that Nevada should 'own' those lands...
"seems" is not good enough. "seems" has not power in a court of law.
Ownership of that land by the Federal Government is enshrined in the NV Consitution. That point has already been addressed. It was all part of the deal buying up that land from Mexico long, long ago.
'seems' that there is a question about who should own that land.....that's the essential question...
the U.S. Constitution limits the Federal ownership of land to specific purposes...that kinda negates owning 85% of Nevada don't you think...?
The Founders understood that the size of land holding was proportionally related to the perceived size of the federal government and they intentionally wanted that perception small. The Federal government was permitted to have but 10 square miles for a federal capital. The only other land that they could acquire had to be for military purposes as specified in the common defense clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 which reads: and to exercise like Authority over all places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock Yards, and other needful Buildings.
"seems" is not good enough. "seems" has not power in a court of law.
Ownership of that land by the Federal Government is enshrined in the NV Consitution. That point has already been addressed. It was all part of the deal buying up that land from Mexico long, long ago.
'seems' that there is a question about who should own that land.....that's the essential question...
the U.S. Constitution limits the Federal ownership of land to specific purposes...that kinda negates owning 85% of Nevada don't you think...?
The Founders understood that the size of land holding was proportionally related to the perceived size of the federal government and they intentionally wanted that perception small. The Federal government was permitted to have but 10 square miles for a federal capital. The only other land that they could acquire had to be for military purposes as specified in the common defense clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 which reads: and to exercise like Authority over all places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock Yards, and other needful Buildings.
You can feel free to open a thread about that question and see what responses may come in.
there's nothing 'wefare' about it....it's a legal dispute...
yes Bundy has lost in the courts so far and legally his ass is cooked UNLESS you take it all the way back to the issue of whether or not the Feds should be 'owning' those lands instead of the State of Nevada....Constitutionally it seems that Nevada should 'own' those lands...
"seems" is not good enough. "seems" has not power in a court of law.
Ownership of that land by the Federal Government is enshrined in the NV Consitution. That point has already been addressed. It was all part of the deal buying up that land from Mexico long, long ago.
'seems' that there is a question about who should own that land.....that's the essential question...
the U.S. Constitution limits the Federal ownership of land to specific purposes...that kinda negates owning 85% of Nevada don't you think...?
The Founders understood that the size of land holding was proportionally related to the perceived size of the federal government and they intentionally wanted that perception small. The Federal government was permitted to have but 10 square miles for a federal capital. The only other land that they could acquire had to be for military purposes as specified in the common defense clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 which reads: and to exercise like Authority over all places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock Yards, and other needful Buildings.
'seems' that there is a question about who should own that land.....that's the essential question...
the U.S. Constitution limits the Federal ownership of land to specific purposes...that kinda negates owning 85% of Nevada don't you think...?
You can feel free to open a thread about that question and see what responses may come in.
already did.....nobody can prove it wrong...
Tell you what then Professor; Tell me where I'm "rambling on". Tell me how it's OK for your side to make ridiculous stupid statements yet it's wrong for anyone else to do it....
I'll be anxiously awaiting your well-thought and "reasoned" response.
your inferiority complex is acting out.
but i will tell you where you are rambling on. it is not hard to find. it is, for example, in the post to which i responded. you know, the one to toro, which had no reasonable connection to what he said. you did this earlier in this tread, too. and i saw you do it many times on this board. you just gurgle out some shit, and when called on it, you disappear.
now, the lesson is over.
I'm right here. Not going anywhere Professor. No "inferiority complex" as you claim. So let's go, big shot! I'm Colleg educated - I can take your "lesson" :bad grin:
I'm Still waiting.......
"seems" is not good enough. "seems" has not power in a court of law.
Ownership of that land by the Federal Government is enshrined in the NV Consitution. That point has already been addressed. It was all part of the deal buying up that land from Mexico long, long ago.
'seems' that there is a question about who should own that land.....that's the essential question...
the U.S. Constitution limits the Federal ownership of land to specific purposes...that kinda negates owning 85% of Nevada don't you think...?
The Founders understood that the size of land holding was proportionally related to the perceived size of the federal government and they intentionally wanted that perception small. The Federal government was permitted to have but 10 square miles for a federal capital. The only other land that they could acquire had to be for military purposes as specified in the common defense clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 which reads: and to exercise like Authority over all places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock Yards, and other needful Buildings.
So now you are arguing that the Nevada Constitution is null and void because from day one it has been in error ????
Oh what a tangled web we weave .......
Like I said - deflection and diversion
The issue of the welfare cowboy and his "right" to free feed for his cattle has been settled.
