Originally Posted by ExNYer 
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. Your "nanny state" arguments -- where you ignorantly argued that the government can legitimately restrict or eliminate the U.S. cattle industry and U.S. sugar industry for the "health" of U.S. citizens -- were pointed out to you earlier: and yet you hypocritically cry for redundancy as you claim you don't like "repetition".
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. The only thing you've exposed is another one of your straw man arguments, because my contention has always been that who has what powers and rights isn't always as important as the perception of who is abusing power and rights.
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. That doesn't make the BLM right, asshole!
That is a lie and you know it. The solar farm that was discussed and then cancelled was located more than 200 miles away. You lie when claim it is a lie, because BOTH AREAS were designated as preserves for the desert tortoise! Yet, the BLM willingly allowed the moneyed, politically connected interest to go forward while simultaneously stymieing ranchers. Further, to underscore to a greater degree your lie, the BLM had the following statement posted on its website until March showing that the land where Bundy was grazing his cattle became a strategically important "set aside" to help "mitigate" the loss of tortoise habitat where Reid, et al, intended to build their solar complex.
Quote:
“Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle.”
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. It is true, moron, and what you describe is the very definition of acting "arbitrarily", jackass!
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. It's your POV that is irrelevant, jackass, because it's the BLM's bumbling, arbitrary actions that are behind this debacle in the first place.
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. Again you ignorantly misconstrue your straw man argument as being my position: which it never was and never will be, moron.
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. ... and other ranchers who have been bullied by the BLM.
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. ... and just as Waco was beginning to look so good on Janet Reno's résumé.
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. And you're an ignorantly prejudiced, dumb-ass Yankee!
You hate the government reflexively, so you support ANY asshole who claims to be against it. Even deadbeats like Bundy. And you're a statist who ignorantly believes the state is NEVER wrong, asshole.
As a result, you end up making ridiculous and illogical arguments because your original premise (that Bundy had legal rights) was wrong. You're a liar. That's one of your ignorant straw man arguments.
Buy you will go to any lengths to avoid making that admission. It's your ignorant folly that you believe so.
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. But you remain by far the most ignorant.
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. Bundy refused to reduce his herd by 90% as the BLM directed -- ostensibly to protect the desert tortoise from cattle: though those two creatures have coexisted for over 500 years. Subsequently, the BLM refused to take Bundy's money for grazing and began fining him for non-payment. Then the BLM duplicitously engaged with Reid, et al, to develop and exploit the "fragile" habitat they were fining Bundy for using.
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're an ignorant Yankee jackass that knows squat about dealing with the BLM.
You've got NOTHING. "Nothing" is your forte, you Yankee jackass
.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
You still have nothing but spin, liar.
Bundy's dispute with BLM goes back, what? 20 Years? That was BEFORE any issues arose with solar plants (located 200 miles away) or desert tortoises.
You can't travel backward in time, IBLying.
So all that talk about "green weenies" and Harry Reid corruption is a fig leaf to try to give cover to a deadbeat.
And it is not "arbitrary" for the BLM to close off federal lands. Government actions are only "arbitrary" with respect to infringing someone's legal rights without cause.
But Bundy has NO LEGAL rights that can be arbitrarily violated. Also, the BLM's actions applied to ALL ranchers, not just Bundy.
If the federal government decides to close all national parks except for one month each year and to end grazing, mining, and timber operations on federal land, just because they want to leave nature alone, the federal government has that POWER.
And ON ONE has a legal right that has been infringed by arbitrary government action because no individual has ANY legal rights to that land.
Do you understand that NOW?
At that point, your ONLY remedy is the ballot box. And that is where YOU and Bundy will lose. AGAIN.
That is why you spew your venom about "perceptions" that are going to lead to a rebellion. But ONLY IN YOUR MIND.
And if you think I am a statist who thinks the government is never wrong, then you are even stupider than this thread indicates. Your memory apparently doesn't go back any further than lunch yesterday.
Because you obviously don't remember anything I have posted about out-of-control cops beating up helpless people,, ending the drug war, ending the militarization of police departments (including their armored cars), and ending the nation-building bullshit in hopeless Islamic shitholes.
And you definitely don't remember the thread where we argued about the grotesquely bloated military budget we have.
You remember that thread now, don't you, IBLying?
I (the TRUE conservative and small government advocate) wanted to downsize by 100s of billions and YOU (the REAL statist) wanted to ramp up for a war with China, Iran, and Mexico, simultaneously.
Lying shithead.
Keep looking for something you can cut-and-paste from Wikipedia.
