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

[Ducbutter]

Here's an interesting look at the subject.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...wn-land-nevada

From the article:

"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."

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Here's an interesting look at the subject.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...wn-land-nevada

From the article:

"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."

It is also wrong because you are taking the quote out of context.

For starters, as the author slyly indicated, it was a comment made "in dictum", which means it is not part of any holding in the case.

Second, the Court was observing in 1845 that the federal government did not have any claim in Alabame, probably because it was settled by colonists prior to the founding of the US.

But the US owned the entire Mexican Cession as a result of the Mexican-American War in 1848. And any state that joined the Union during and after the Civil War was forced to acknowledge the supremacy of the federal government and the US Constitution as a condition of admittance.

So, no, the federal government does not give up all claims to land once a state is admitted.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Here's an interesting look at the subject.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...wn-land-nevada

From the article:

"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."

Here's an interesting look at the subject... you're another moron yammering about the government

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

I'll summarize my evidence thusly: People vote their pocketbook - those who get from the gummint tend to vote Democrat, those that don't want the gummint to give away their tax dollars, vote Republican.
Do you deny that Democratic voters tend to get more non-business gummint assistance than Republicans? I'm talking about food stamps, subsidized housing, Medicaid, etc - all that shit lazy mo fo's get.
Who is in favor of ending it? Who gets pilloried every time that propose cutting it?

Unacceptable response. You answered a question with a question. Made a broad generality.

You shot your mouth off, JL, period.

Prove it or take it back.

third option, STFU!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Liar. His troubles began when he refused to pay his grazing fees.

Keep beating that OLD lie about desert tortoises.

ANYTHING but admit you picked up the cause of a deadbeat.

Bundy's troubles began when the BLM directed him to reduce the size of his cattle herd, ostensibly to protect the habitat of the desert tortoise, you dumb as fuck Yankee retard!


"In an open letter, Bundy’s neighbor, Kena Lytle Gloeckner, explained why ranchers are supporting Bundy. Her letter, which has been posted on numerous blogs, said:

'In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non-ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us.'"

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I never knew the term "Mick" growing up. Or "Paddy."

I did hear the term .... Buttman, by toothless, inbred, mouth breathing rednecks

. . .

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

.
Bundy's troubles began when the BLM directed him to reduce the size of his cattle herd, ostensibly to protect the habitat of the desert tortoise, you dumb as fuck Yankee retard!

"In an open letter, Bundy’s neighbor, Kena Lytle Gloeckner, explained why ranchers are supporting Bundy. Her letter, which has been posted on numerous blogs, said:

'In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non-ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us.'"

Wow. An open letter from Kena Lytle Gleockner.

That settles it then, right? Who would dispute such a thing from such an expert?

Let me guess. Kena Lytle got all of her "facts" from Bundy, right? So I'm sure she is not biased in any way, right?

Because nothing says "reliable" better than a second hand account from a biased source.

And what about the reports from Bundy supporters that was Bundy trying to pay his fees to Clark County rather than the federal government?

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by CJ7

Here's an interesting look at the subject... you're another moron yammering about the government

To begin with, I never endorsed anything from the article I only commented that it was an interesting take and quoted what was it's summation. If you had any reading comprehension at all you'd have realized that.
Secondly, you're a dolt.

[Yssup Rider]

Typical Buttman response... Doctored quotes, lies and jokes that don't work. of course you didn't try and address or refute any if my points, for a change. A big shock that is!

You must be a real hit at the parties... american Nazi, that is.

However, it was kinda cute that you sang the theme song from your new TV series.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Wow. An open letter from Kena Lytle Gleockner.

That settles it then, right? Who would dispute such a thing from such an expert?

Let me guess. Kena Lytle got all of her "facts" from Bundy, right? So I'm sure she is not biased in any way, right?

Because nothing says "reliable" better than a second hand account from a biased source.

She got all of her facts from HER first hand experiences with the BLM over the same time period, you dumb Yankee fuck-tard.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Typical Buttman response... Doctored quotes, lies and jokes that don't work. of course you didn't try and address or refute any if my points, for a change. A big shock that is!

You must be a real hit at the parties... american Nazi, that is.

However, it was kinda cute that you sang the theme song from your new TV series.

Another ignorant, inane, non-substantive response from the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

It is also wrong because you are taking the quote out of context.

For starters, as the author slyly indicated, it was a comment made "in dictum", which means it is not part of any holding in the case.

Second, the Court was observing in 1845 that the federal government did not have any claim in Alabame, probably because it was settled by colonists prior to the founding of the US.

But the US owned the entire Mexican Cession as a result of the Mexican-American War in 1848. And any state that joined the Union during and after the Civil War was forced to acknowledge the supremacy of the federal government and the US Constitution as a condition of admittance.

So, now, the federal government does not give up all claims to land once a state is admitted.

I would disagree with you only on the "out of context" aspect of my post. I merely included it as a summation to the article. Otherwise, a fine rebuttal to it.
See how that's done CJ?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

To begin with, I never endorsed anything from the article I only commented that it was an interesting take and quoted what was it's summation. If you had any reading comprehension at all you'd have realized that.
Secondly, you're a dolt.

I said you were yammering about the government, and you were . Nothing more nothing less

pay attention ... duuuuurrrrrr

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

She got all of her facts from HER first hand experiences with the BLM over the same time period, you dumb Yankee fuck-tard.

Learn to read fuckhead.

She wrote about what Bundy did or did not do and what happened to some other rancher who supposedly has his permits reduced 90%.

That is NOT firsthand experience, dimwit. Those things happened to other people.

And from the text of her letter, it looks like her family and other families were losing out because of water rights, NOT tortoise shit.

Lots of businesses and families lose the use of LEASED property (and even owned property) if there are water rights restrictions.

It is a big problem in the American west. Water is a shared resource and upstream businesses often lose rights when downstream consumption increases. You can always move a herd. You can't move Las Vegas.

Bottom line - The BLM sets the terms and conditions for use of federal lands (they are the OWNER'S agent) and you have to accept them. If the term become less favorable, for whatever reason (water, pollution, desert tortoise, open space conservation) your only remedy is the ballot box.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Learn to read fuckhead.

She wrote about what Bundy did or did not do and what happened to some other rancher who supposedly has his permits reduced 90%.

That is NOT firsthand experience, dimwit. Those things happened to other people.

You're in full retard mode, you dumb Yankee fuck.

This year’s recipients are the Lytle Ranches in Lincoln County, established in 1865; and the Day-Annett-Costa Ranch in Lyon County, established in 1905.

The Lytle family arrived in 1865 when Brigham Young sent members of the family to settle in Eagle Valley.

Charles Lytle eventually bought out his brothers and other settlers and continued to expand his cattle operation. The ranch contains private meadows, alfalfa fields, irrigated crop lands, and grazes on Bureau of Land Management allotments. The ranch is currently owned by Kenny and Donna Lytle, and Patrick and Kena Lytle Gloeckner.

Mrs. Kena Lytle Gloeckner is writing from first-hand knowledge, asshole!

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by CJ7

I said you were yammering about the government, and you were . Nothing more nothing less

pay attention ... duuuuurrrrrr

Still haven't looked up civil I see.
Quote me where I even mentioned the government you twit. I simply said the article had an interesting take on the subject.
Clearly you are butt- hurt.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're in full retard mode, you dumb Yankee fuck.

This year’s recipients are the Lytle Ranches in Lincoln County, established in 1865; and the Day-Annett-Costa Ranch in Lyon County, established in 1905.

The Lytle family arrived in 1865 when Brigham Young sent members of the family to settle in Eagle Valley.

Charles Lytle eventually bought out his brothers and other settlers and continued to expand his cattle operation. The ranch contains private meadows, alfalfa fields, irrigated crop lands, and grazes on Bureau of Land Management allotments. The ranch is currently owned by Kenny and Donna Lytle, and Patrick and Kena Lytle Gloeckner.

Mrs. Kena Lytle Gloeckner is writing from first-hand knowledge, asshole!

Asshole, I repeat: Learn to READ.

I said her statements about Bundy and the "90% loss rancher" were second hand accounts.

I didn't say anything about her statements about herself and her family.