Clark County (Vegas) commissioner tells lawful Americans to make funeral plans

When the Iranians pay their civil judgments on the hostage crisis. Then maybe you will be able to speak all high and mighty on Bundy... till then STFU... nyH8Ter. Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

What the fuck does the Iran Hostage crisis have to do with this discussion or with me?

You are the most asshole-ish and could easily get more asshole-ish... as a matter of fact you are the KING of ASSHOLE-ish on eccie and will be the greatest ASSHOLE-ish mother fucker in the history of eccie... congratulations your asshole-ish MOFO! Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Awwww, you say the sweetest things, Billy Bob. Thank you.

Looks like Bundy got his cattle and the land back... next Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

You're an idiot.

They gave him his cattle to avoid another Waco massacre. But it ain't over yet. They will be back to get their $$$. And Bundy will pay eventually or lose his herd.

And he got ZERO land "back". Because he never owned it to begin with. The feds still own it.

Do you just make up your own "facts" when you lose?

Next...

I don't believe in federal land. I would like to see a law that forces the government to sell off, by lottery, 1% of all the land it owns every year. That would be thousands of acres every year, probably hundreds of thousands of acres. All the proceeds can be used to pay down the debt and nothing else. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

So, I guess you have given up on trying to say Bundy has any rights to the land?

Instead, you change the subject to "not believing in federal land". Which is an utterly stupid viewpoint.

Thank God huge tracts of the western US is off limits to development.

Because, if it wasn't, we would have convenience stores in the bottom of the Grand Canyon selling Slurpees to assholes in power boats, the slopes of the Rockies would be clearcut and covered by high priced McMansions, Yosemite would have shitty little motels all over it - just like South Lake Tahoe - and there would be casino hotels in Yellowstone where the bison now graze.

Not to mention all the problems caused by water shortages resulting from over development. Guys like Bundy would be engaged in shooting matches with neighboring ranchers and golf courses over water rights.

And consider the unimaginable sprawl we would have.

The federal government holds that land in trust for all of us. I hope they keep holding it instead of selling it to real estate developers.

JD doesn't believe in federal land because he's an idiot... the ONLY thing this entire dispute is about

IDIOT anti government (everything) dipshits

Crooks that broke the law Originally Posted by CJ7

Well lets see his grazing fees add up to over one million. The judge should set his bond to at least one million. He's been breaking Federal Law for about twenty years now. So twenty years in a federal pen should be a reasonable sentence. If he doesn't get at least that it's not worth pursuing.

Jim.

People always remember the famous declaration, "No taxation without representation" and the Boston Tea Party, but people forget the anger aroused in the colonies by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 wherein the king forbade the colonies, thus the colonists, from using land west of the Appalachian Mountains. "Some historians have argued that colonial resentment of the proclamation contributed to the growing divide between the colonies and the mother country" and ultimately to war.

It appears Bundy paid the necessary grazing fees until the BLM directed him to cut the size of his herd. Bundy viewed the BLM decision regarding land his family had been using since the 1870s to be bureaucratic and arbitrary (RE: "No taxation without representation"), and Bundy refused to cut his herd, evidently, because it would hurt his earnings. At that point, the BLM began imposing fines; whereupon, Bundy quit paying the grazing fees. Meanwhile, while Bundy and other ranchers are being driven off the land by the BLM, Reid, et al, were seeking to profit by developing and exploiting the land in other ways.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The phrase "bureaucratic and arbitrary" is NOT synonymous with "no taxation without representation".

Bundy has had congressional representation his entire life - Congressman and Senators.

The mere fact that you have representation does NOT guarantee you pleasing results. If you don't like the way the BLM manages land, then vote for congressman who will pass laws to force BLM to operate differently.

On the other hand, if other voters keep returning to office Congressman who WON'T change the way the BLM operates, that should tell you that most people are satisfied with the way the BLM operates even if you are not.

Contrary to popular belief, it is perfectly within the power of Congress and the states to put people out of business. No one has the right to continue to operate a business a certain way forever.

If Congress finally got around to eliminating ethanol subsidies, a whole LOT of Iowa corn farmers will go out of business. Tough shit.

The same thing is true of sugar subsidies.

If Congress closed off all federal lands to coal mining (thereby increasing prices) or greatly increased fees (also resulting in higher prices) in order to force industry to move away from coal, there is NOTHING coal producers can do about it except try to elect Congressmen who will reverse the decision.

And, of course, we all know the power to tax is the power to destroy.

And the Congress and the BLM do not need to protect the tortoise in order to justify moving ranchers off the Nevada land. Practically ANY reason will do, no matter how small.

They can simple say they are trying to improve America's diet and reduce greenhouse gases. Cattle produce far more greenhouse gas per acre than food crops. And too much beef is bad for your health. If Congress makes beef much more expensive, they can kill two birds with one stone. People will eat less beef, thereby improving their health, reducing herd size, and reducing grazing land.

You many not LIKE that policy, but Congress that that power - like it or not.

Your only remedy is to replace Congress and make them change the policy back in favor of more beef.

This is what you wrote, Ekim the Inbred Chimp!

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

This is what you wrote in bred
Slick willies willie has such appeal to me I would let his balls slap the side of my head anytime.

The phrase "bureaucratic and arbitrary" is NOT synonymous with "no taxation without representation". Oh, but it is when Congress creates a bureaucratic department and then allows that department to make policy without proper oversight (e.g., the IRS). People elect congressmen: not the bureaucrats creating and executing policy.

Bundy has had congressional representation his entire life - Congressman and Senators.

The mere fact that you have representation does NOT guarantee you pleasing results. If you don't like the way the BLM manages land, then vote for congressman who will pass laws to force BLM to operate differently. One congressman and two senators (especially one like Reid) are not enough. Congressmen east of the Mississippi have little understanding of the BLM and could care less for the anguish such a department brings citizens living in the West. Congressmen living east of the Mississippi are more likely to appease the "green-weenie-tree-hugging crowd."

On the other hand, if other voters keep returning to office Congressman who WON'T change the way the BLM operates, that should tell you that most people are satisfied with the way the BLM operates even if you are not.

Contrary to popular belief, it is perfectly within the power of Congress and the states to put people out of business. No one has the right to continue to operate a business a certain way forever.

If Congress finally got around to eliminating ethanol subsidies, a whole LOT of Iowa corn farmers will go out of business. Tough shit. Funny you should mention corn farmers. The "green-weenie-tree-hugging crowd" was on NPR the other night using the rising cost of and the "shortage" of corn in the food market as an indicator of future food shortage brought on by global warming.

The same thing is true of sugar subsidies. Yes, that Cuban sugar is so much cheaper, but tell us again how that helps the American economy?

If Congress closed off all federal lands to coal mining (thereby increasing prices) or greatly increased fees (also resulting in higher prices) in order to force industry to move away from coal, there is NOTHING coal producers can do about it except try to elect Congressmen who will reverse the decision. That would only increase unemployment and raise fuel costs to an economically catastrophic level. What benefit would that serve?

And, of course, we all know the power to tax is the power to destroy.

And the Congress and the BLM do not need to protect the tortoise in order to move ranchers off the Nevada land. But it does serve as pretext that appeases a vocal constituency.

They can simple say they are trying to improve America's diet and reduce greenhouse gases. So now you're a "Bloomberg minion" and advocating for a nanny state!?! Cattle produce far more greenhouse gas per acre than food crops. And what about the bison that roamed the prairies before the cattle? Were they constipated? And too much beef is bad for your health. Evidently you missed the reports showing where the BLM's actions have eliminated all but a few ranchers in Nevada; thus, reducing substantially many of the cattle and much of the risk to the desert tortoise. However, if the real aim is to put all Nevada ranchers out of business, then the BLM has some more work to do. BTW, as someone else already pointed out, Nevada was used as a nuclear test range, so it seems strange, that after hundreds of years of co-existence, cattle have been deemed a threat to the desert tortoise but developing the land for solar exploitation is safer?

If Congress makes beef much more expensive, they can kill two birds with one stone. Congress can make Argentinian beef more attractive to Burger King, McDonalds, etc. How does that help the American economy?

People will eat less beef, thereby improving their health, reducing herd size, and reducing grazing land.

You many not LIKE that policy, but Congress that that power - like it or not. You mean like Cummings' (Dim) power to use the IRS to persecute conservative groups?

Your only remedy is to replace Congress and make them change the policy back in favor of more beef. Did you notice how Gore wasn't elected to be president? Furthermore, returning to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, despite its "noble aims" the king's proclamation still led to war because the colonist viewed the limitation as "arbitrary" and not comporting with their needs. Originally Posted by ExNYer

.

Slick willies willie has such appeal to me I would let his balls slap the side of my head anytime.

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

So, I guess you have given up on trying to say Bundy has any rights to the land?

Instead, you change the subject to "not believing in federal land". Which is an utterly stupid viewpoint.

Thank God huge tracts of the western US is off limits to development.

Because, if it wasn't, we would have convenience stores in the bottom of the Grand Canyon selling Slurpees to assholes in power boats, the slopes of the Rockies would be clearcut and covered by high priced McMansions, Yosemite would have shitty little motels all over it - just like South Lake Tahoe - and there would be casino hotels in Yellowstone where the bison now graze.

Not to mention all the problems caused by water shortages resulting from over development. Guys like Bundy would be engaged in shooting matches with neighboring ranchers and golf courses over water rights.

And consider the unimaginable sprawl we would have.

The federal government holds that land in trust for all of us. I hope they keep holding it instead of selling it to real estate developers. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Ya know, I stayed at the Mammoth Hot Springs Hotel at Yellowstone, and we and the other guests interacted just fine with the animals. A casino among the bison sounds fine to me, as long as the money goes to maintain the park - just like all the other commercial activities there.

In Bred Hankering wrote
I love slick willie and Hillary, we do threesoms daily. I like her strapon as much as Willies willie.

Replace the word cow with tea and rewind the clock 241 years.

You should quit while you are behind.

Nothing you wrote contradicted anything I stated. And I was not advocating any positions on diet, or corn, or sugar. Just discussing OBJECTIVELY what the government has the legitimate power to do. I'm NOT saying that they should do anything.

.

Originally Posted by ExNYer
The phrase "bureaucratic and arbitrary" is NOT synonymous with "no taxation without representation". Oh, but it is when Congress creates a bureaucratic department and then allows that department to make policy without proper oversight (e.g., the IRS). People elect congressmen: not the bureaucrats creating and executing policy.

Oohh, but it ISN'T, no matter how you try to twist words. That's because words have meaning, even when they don't support your position.

Bundy had representation - EVEN IF the IRS is snooping on Tea Party groups, whatever that has to do with the BLM.

Also, the BLM is enforcing policy that Congress passed. The BLM did not invent the grazing fees itself. It has that aurthority from Congress. It doesn't natter if either of us approve or disapprove of the grazing fees. The BLM is authorized to do it. If it wasn't, Bundy would have won in court. But he didn't.

Bundy has had congressional representation his entire life - Congressman and Senators.

The mere fact that you have representation does NOT guarantee you pleasing results. If you don't like the way the BLM manages land, then vote for congressman who will pass laws to force BLM to operate differently. One congressman and two senators (especially one like Reid) are not enough. Congressmen east of the Mississippi have little understanding of the BLM and could care less for the anguish such a department brings citizens living in the West. Congressmen living east of the Mississippi are more likely to appease the "green-weenie-tree-hugging crowd."

What utter horseshit. One Congressman and two senaotrs is not enough? Why? Every state gets two Senators and Nevada's population gives them the correct number of Congressman they would have if they were, say, Vermont or Rhode Island back east.

And, Nevada doesn't vote alone. Most of the western states have the similar concerns as Nevada and they can vote together. And California is the biggest state in the union and is WEST of the Mississippi.

And, in case, you haven't heard, the general complaint is about the Senate is that it gives TOO MUCH power to the small population states out west - NOT too little. You have to be the ONLY pwerson I have ever heard complain that the small western states do not have enough clout in Congress. California has 70 times as many people as Wyoming, but Wyoming has the same number of Senators. Read here about the Connecticutt compromise:

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

Frankly, I tend to APPROVE of the small states having disproportionate clout in the Senate. But I am not delusional enough to think they do not have enough.

Also. is "green-weenie-tree-hugging crowd" supposed to be an argument? Did you even think before you wrote that?

And California is WEST of the Mississippi and is also very likely to appease the people you refer to as the "green-weenie-tree-hugging crowd"?

Also, since when was it a conservative position to ignore the environment? I have no problem with restricting land use in our wilderness areas. Not everything has to be exploited by industry.

On the other hand, if other voters keep returning to office Congressman who WON'T change the way the BLM operates, that should tell you that most people are satisfied with the way the BLM operates even if you are not.

Contrary to popular belief, it is perfectly within the power of Congress and the states to put people out of business. No one has the right to continue to operate a business a certain way forever.

If Congress finally got around to eliminating ethanol subsidies, a whole LOT of Iowa corn farmers will go out of business. Tough shit. Funny you should mention corn farmers. The "green-weenie-tree-hugging crowd" was on NPR the other night using the rising cost of and the "shortage" of corn in the food market as an indicator of future food shortage brought on by global warming.

BTW, the subsidies given to corn farmers and agri-business is yet more evidence of the outsized political clout that Iowa and other corn states with SMALL populations have in the Senate.

The same thing is true of sugar subsidies. Yes, that Cuban sugar is so much cheaper, but tell us again how that helps the American economy?

Strawman argument. That is a false choice. We can still embargo Cuban sugar.

If we cut price supports for sugar, food with high sugar content will become MARGINALLY more expensive. Again that is a GOOD thing. If ice cream, candy, and soft drinks go up 15-20% in price, people will switch to better foods. Why not give the sugar and corn subsidies to fruit and vegetable growers.

If Congress closed off all federal lands to coal mining (thereby increasing prices) or greatly increased fees (also resulting in higher prices) in order to force industry to move away from coal, there is NOTHING coal producers can do about it except try to elect Congressmen who will reverse the decision. That would only increase unemployment and raise fuel costs to an economically catastrophic level. What benefit would that serve?

IRRELEVANT ARGUMENT. The question is whether Congress has the power to do it, NOT whether or not it is a wise idea. If Congress decides to phase out all strip mining on federal lands over a ten year period, you can't go into court and look to overturn the law becuase you think it is going to raise unemployment and fuel prices. The courts will tell you that is for Congress to decide, not the judiciary.

And, of course, we all know the power to tax is the power to destroy.

And the Congress and the BLM do not need to protect the tortoise in order to move ranchers off the Nevada land. But it does serve as pretext that appeases a vocal constituency.

Is that an argument? Or are you just passing gas?

They can simply say they are trying to improve America's diet and reduce greenhouse gases. So now you're a "Bloomberg minion" and advocating for a nanny state!?!

No, I'm not. Once again, I am not advocating "FOR" anything. The issue is whether or not Congress has the POWER to push ranchers off federal lands. They DO. For pretty much any reason they want. End of argument.

Cattle produce far more greenhouse gas per acre than food crops. And what about the bison that roamed the prairies before the cattle? Were they constipated? And too much beef is bad for your health. Evidently you missed the reports showing where the BLM's actions have eliminated all but a few ranchers in Nevada; thus, reducing substantially many of the cattle and much of the risk to the desert tortoise. However, if the real aim is to put all Nevada ranchers out of business, then the BLM has some more work to do. BTW, as someone else already pointed out, Nevada was used as a nuclear test range, so it seems strange, that after hundreds of years of co-existence, cattle have been deemed a threat to the desert tortoise but developing the land for solar exploitation is safer?

All of what your wrote above is horseshit.

I am NOT arguing whether or not Congress would be right or wrong about whether we should cut back on beef consumption. I am pointing out that they have the POWER to shut down grazing on federal lands - just like they could cut back strip mining on federal lands - for pretty much any reason they want to do so.

And stating that an action or policy is a BAD idea is NOT an argument that Congress doesn't have the POWER to do it.

I think it was a BAD idea to occupy Afghanistan for 13 years - as opposed to blowing the place up for 6 months. But that does NOT mean that Congress does not have the power to deploy troops there for 13 years.

If Congress makes beef much more expensive, they can kill two birds with one stone. Congress can make Argentinian beef more attractive to Burger King, McDonalds, etc. How does that help the American economy?

Once again, that is a strawman argument. And is a false choice. We can put big import taxes on beef, too.

The point is not whether or not it helps or hurts the US economy. The point is whether or not Congress that the power. One could easily make the argument that while high beef prices might hurt the beef industry in the short (or long) term, other industries will pick up at least some of the slack (Vegetable growers? Poultry farmers?). Even more importantly, one can make the argument that it will help the economy in the long run because we will save far more money in reduced healthcare costs due to reduced obesity and heart disease than we will lose on beef production.

Those are questions of fact and policy for Congress to decide. But Congress undoubtedly has the POWER to make that decision, no matter what Cliven Bundy says about his family heritage.

People will eat less beef, thereby improving their health, reducing herd size, and reducing grazing land.

You many not LIKE that policy, but Congress that that power - like it or not. You mean like Cummings' (Dim) power to use the IRS to persecute conservative groups?

Stupid and irrelevant argument designed to change the subject. If you have an argument to make that Congress does NOT have the POWER to push ranchers of federal land, then make it. Otherwise, you are just covering up for a lack of an argument.

Your only remedy is to replace Congress and make them change the policy back in favor of more beef. Did you notice how Gore wasn't elected to be president? Furthermore, returning to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, despite its "noble aims" the king's proclamation still led to war because the colonist viewed the limitation as "arbitrary" and not comporting with their needs.

WTF?? AGAIN, this is a stupid and irrelevant argument designed to change the subject. If you have an argument to make that Congress does NOT have the POWER to push ranchers of federal land, then make it. Otherwise, you are just covering up for a lack of an argument.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You should have kept your mouth shut and be thought a fool rather than open it and remove all doubt.

Ya know, I stayed at the Mammoth Hot Springs Hotel at Yellowstone, and we and the other guests interacted just fine with the animals. A casino among the bison sounds fine to me, as long as the money goes to maintain the park - just like all the other commercial activities there. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

The problem is you can't "maintain the park" if you put a casino in it. It is ruined right away.

You don't want to draw to a pristine wilderness area tens of thousands more people whose only interest is gambling - along with their trash and polluting vehicles.

You can't have it both ways.

Question: What do we gain by having federal ownership of land?

You should quit while you are behind.

Nothing you wrote contradicted anything I stated. And I was not advocating any positions on diet, or corn, or sugar. Just discussing OBJECTIVELY what the government has the legitimate power to do. I'm NOT saying that they should do anything.



You should have kept your mouth shut and be thought a fool rather than open it and remove all doubt. Originally Posted by ExNYer

So basically you are saying, you and Bloomberg will be hanging out in the "First Amendment Zone" eating tofu...

The problem is you can't "maintain the park" if you put a casino in it. It is ruined right away.

You don't want to draw to a pristine wilderness area tens of thousands more people whose only interest is gambling - along with their trash and polluting vehicles.

You can't have it both ways. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Honestly, I don't think it would be a very successful casino - there is hardly anyone up there. The US should give the states the land - it was stolen from the Indians anyway.
Fuck, give it back to the Indians and they can put in a casino.