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

You clearly did make up stuff. That is the only way Statists can win arguments. It is also clear that the federal government owns much more land than what is used for the purposes you described.

So, let me make it easier for you. Does the federal government own too much land, not enough land, or about the right amount of land? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Again, you deflect, Whiny.

Again, you deflect, Whiny. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Nice of you to WK for ExGYer, but he can handle himself just fine. This will give you extra time to enjoy your poop and puke pics.

Enjoy! AssupRidee, DEM, DOTY 2013-2014!

You clearly did make up stuff.

Really? Name something I made up.

That is the only way Statists can win arguments.

Or they can just be right on the merits. Not that I'm a statist. But I also don't believe in giving away the public trust to real-estate developers. I'd like to keep lots of open space in this country.

It is also clear that the federal government owns much more land than what is used for the purposes you described.

Who says it is "clear"? You? Can you cite some statistics that demonstrates the federal government owns too much land? How much land do you need to conserve water, prevent erosion, and limit pollution? Be specific in your numbers.. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

See more below.

So, let me make it easier for you. Does the federal government own too much land, not enough land, or about the right amount of land? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Actually, you're trying to make it easier on yourself by shifting the burden of proof.

The federal government owns the land. You want it sold off because you think the land would be "otherwise productive". However, you don't seem to want to discuss the costs and downsides of selling the land - like pollution, sprawl, water shortages, etc.

Since you are the one who want to change status quo, the burden of proof is on YOU to make the case that the benefits of selling it would outweigh the costs.

So make the case. Otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Identify a strawman argument I made. Do you even know what that phrase means? Everyone of your "nanny state" issues was a "straw man" argument.

I didn't ask you about power. I asked you about Bundy's legal claim. Answer the question IBEvading.
Your "question" was nothing more than you setting up your straw man argument.

Except the BLM is not arbitrarily enforcing the law, are they IBChangingTheSubject? The BLM has required ALL of the other ranchers to pay grazing fees and is trying to do the same to Bundy. But he keeps refusing and losing in court. So where is the arbitrary enforcement, IBConfused? The BLM "claimed" it was setting aside public lands for the protection of the desert tortoise and forced ranchers off the land, but industries with money and political connections were given permission to develop those "protected" areas.

All laws do. Do you have any evidence that the BLM would not make Harry Reid pay grazing fees, IBPuttingUpASmokeScreen? You're willfully ignoring how the BLM first deemed the land was a "protected area" and refused to allow Bundy to run his herd before fees and fines became the issue.

Actually, you're so far to the rear we can't see you any more. "None so blind as those who will not see", as they say.

I asked you a straight up question - What LEGAL claim does Bundy have to graze on federal land free of charge? - and you have YET AGAIN failed to answer the question. That's because that's your rabbit hole, and you can go play in it as you wish.

Instead, you changed the subject and spouted some gibberish about public perception. There's no gibberish in discussing "perception" as a factor in this circumstance. Perception is often more important than other factors, and that's borne out by history: The Spanish American War began with the "perception" that the Spanish torpedoed the Maine.

Here is MY public perception. Bundy is a deadbeat trying to get over on the system. That was probably the same view King George III had of the American colonists, and you can see how well that worked out for him.

Kind of like a Republic of Texas asshole that thinks he doesn't have to pay income taxes because they are unconstitutional. Originally Posted by ExNYer

.

from now on if it has nothing to do with the OP you can kiss my ass cocksucker. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Like anyone here actually believes you will ever intelligently address what's in the OP, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

.




Like anyone here actually believes you will ever intelligently address what's in the OP, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Pucker up bitch.

(responding to COG)

Actually, you're trying to make it easier on yourself by shifting the burden of proof.

The federal government owns the land. You want it sold off because you think the land would be "otherwise productive". However, you don't seem to want to discuss the costs and downsides of selling the land - like pollution, sprawl, water shortages, etc.

Since you are the one who want to change status quo, the burden of proof is on YOU to make the case that the benefits of selling it would outweigh the costs.

So make the case. Otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Originally Posted by ExNYer

COG, I suggest you don't tease the bridge and tunnel crowd Irish Bulldog....when he gets a bone is his mouth, he never lets go.

Originally Posted by ExNYer
Identify a strawman argument I made. Do you even know what that phrase means? Everyone of your "nanny state" issues was a "straw man" argument.

In other words, you failed to identify even ONE strawman argument. I didn't raise any "nanny state" issues. You did. I said Bundy had no legal claim to the land. That is not a nanny state issue, idiot.

I didn't ask you about power. I asked you about Bundy's legal claim. Answer the question IBEvading.
Your "question" was nothing more than you setting up your straw man argument.

In other words, you can't identify ANY legal claim that Bundy has, because you cannot look it up in Wikipedia. You're a pseudo-intellect and you have been exposed.

And when you cannot respond to a straightforward question, you call it a strawman argument, because you've got nothing left and cannot bring yourself to admit you and Bundy are wrong. Heh.

Except the BLM is not arbitrarily enforcing the law, are they IBChangingTheSubject? The BLM has required ALL of the other ranchers to pay grazing fees and is trying to do the same to Bundy. But he keeps refusing and losing in court. So where is the arbitrary enforcement, IBConfused?
The BLM "claimed" it was setting aside public lands for the protection of the desert tortoise and forced ranchers off the land, but industries with money and political connections were given permission to develop those "protected" areas.

That is a lie and you know it. The solar farm that was discussed and then cancelled was located more than 200 miles away.

And even it it WAS true, it doesn't MATTER because Bundy does NOT have a legal claim to federal lands. The US government can do whatever it wants with OUR land. If the federal government decides tomorrow that it will close off that land to ranching and use it for ATV trails so that rednecks (aka Confederate sympathizers) can kill themselves, there is nothing Bundy can do about it.

All laws do. Do you have any evidence that the BLM would not make Harry Reid pay grazing fees, IBPuttingUpASmokeScreen?

You're willfully ignoring how the BLM first deemed the land was a "protected area" and refused to allow Bundy to run his herd before fees and fines became the issue.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm just stating that it is irrelevant. See above. The BLM can kick Bundy off for NO REASON AT ALL.

Actually, you're so far to the rear we can't see you any more. "None so blind as those who will not see", as they say.

I asked you a straight up question - What LEGAL claim does Bundy have to graze on federal land free of charge? - and you have YET AGAIN failed to answer the question. That's because that's your rabbit hole, and you can go play in it as you wish.

In other words, you can't identify ANY legal claim that Bundy has, because you cannot look it up in Wikipedia. You're a pseudo-intellect and you have been exposed.

Instead, you changed the subject and spouted some gibberish about public perception. There's no gibberish in discussing "perception" as a factor in this circumstance. Perception is often more important than other factors, and that's borne out by history: The Spanish American War began with the "perception" that the Spanish torpedoed the Maine.

The only perception that counts is that Bundy is a deadbeat and the only people that will stand by his side are a few hundred odd militiamen separatists toting guns.

Here is MY public perception. Bundy is a deadbeat trying to get over on the system. That was probably the same view King George III had of the American colonists, and you can see how well that worked out for him.

Don't bother hoping for some second American Revolution, dipshit. The Confederacy isn't coming back and Bundy and those militiamen types will get wiped out in a few hours. As they should. Contrary to your stupidity, they are not the modern day equivalents of minutemen standing up to the crown.

They are, by and large, racists and supremacists looking for an excuse to return America to some ethnically ideal past, that is NEVER coming back. No one take them seriously except Confederate sympathizers like you.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You hate the government reflexively, so you support ANY asshole who claims to be against it. Even deadbeats like Bundy.

As a result, you end up making ridiculous and illogical arguments because your original premise (that Bundy had legal rights) was wrong.

Buy you will go to any lengths to avoid making that admission.

So, you, IFFY and JDB end up making one irrelevant argument after another.

But I have to say that you were the dumbest of the three of you.

JDB at least realized he had to make some kind of legal argument, which is why he threw out the "ex post facto" stupidity.

And IFFY - of all people - came the closest when he tried to make out a case of adverse possession of land. He was wrong, but at least he was in the right ballpark.

But YOU? You've got NOTHING. Which is why you don't even TRY to explain Bundy's legal rights.

Wikipedia has abandoned you. And you are left mouthing stupidities about "perceptions" of tyranny and fantasizing about the people rising up to fight another revolution in support of a deadbeat squatting on public lands.

You've got NOTHING.

piss and moan the how the government fucks everyone, and it covers the fucking freeloaders like Bundy


HEY THE GOVERNMENT IS FUCKING THE PEOPLE !!! ... THATS WHY I OWE THEM 1$ MILLION DOLLARS

COG, I suggest you don't tease the bridge and tunnel crowd Irish Bulldog....when he gets a bone is his mouth, he never lets go. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

That's IBHankeringForDick you are talking about.

When he gets a bone in his mouth - or his ass - he never lets go. Just read his reviews.

COG, I suggest you don't tease the bridge and tunnel crowd Irish Bulldog....when he gets a bone is his mouth, he never lets go. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Spoken like a real Manhattan twat.

But I see you know your New York insults.

Spoken like a real Manhattan twat.

But I see you know your New York insults. Originally Posted by ExNYer

You haven't lived until you've inherited the family apartment overlooking the park, purchased 40 odd years ago, and you sold for 25 times what your old man paid for it. The taxes suck, but what are you gonna do?
I've got more insults if you like, I was born there.....but I like things better down here in good ole Texas.

You haven't lived until you've inherited the family apartment overlooking the park, purchased 40 odd years ago, and you sold for 25 times what your old man paid for it. The taxes suck, but what are you gonna do?
I've got more insults if you like, I was born there.....but I like things better down here in good ole Texas. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

More braggadocio from the king of Highland Park.

You haven't lived until you've inherited the family apartment overlooking the park, purchased 40 odd years ago, and you sold for 25 times what your old man paid for it. The taxes suck, but what are you gonna do?
I've got more insults if you like, I was born there.....but I like things better down here in good ole Texas. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

The taxes suck, but what are you gonna do?


marry $$$ so your wife can beat the shit out of you ... take me back to America you sorry bastard !!!( slap slap slap) ...... yes dear, yes dear we'll leave tomorrow, just don't hit me anymore, please sweetie ?

The taxes suck, but what are you gonna do?


marry $$$ so your wife can beat the shit out of you ... take me back to America you sorry bastard !!!( slap slap slap) ...... yes dear, yes dear we'll leave tomorrow, just don't hit me anymore, please sweetie ?

Originally Posted by CJ7

It isn't just the wife, and I could make her go if I wanted to exercise my prerogative - but unlike the vast majority of Democrats who abandon their families and get welfare, I take care of my family, and I care enough about them to want to live where they want to live. Eventually, they will want to move with me and the wife...but it takes time.
In the interim, I'm going to call out you liberals for destroying this once great country, and side with disagreeable types like COG, who I respect but dislike, who want to save it.

It isn't just the wife, and I could make her go if I wanted to exercise my prerogative - but unlike the vast majority of Democrats who abandon their families and get welfare, I take care of my family, and I care enough about them to want to live where they want to live. Eventually, they will want to move with me and the wife...but it takes time.
In the interim, I'm going to call out you liberals for destroying this once great country, and side with disagreeable types like COG, who I respect but dislike, who want to save it. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Please produce evidence that the "vast majority of Democrats abandon their families and get welfare." Additionally, please show me where Republicans don't abandon their families, as well as where welfare recipients don't vote Republican. (Careful, bubbie ... you live AWFULLY close to Arkansas and Missouri.)

While you're at it, please produce evidence that liberals destroyed this once great country. HARD FACTS, not opinion from your fellow whiny bitch crybaby RWWs.

Finally, maybe it's time you backed off a bit, JL. You're beginning to turn green.

If you can't take the heat, you ought to stay away from your wife's frying pan.