Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
No, I asked two legitimate questions which you even acknowledged by quoting them then you came up with some attempt at, I suppose,deflecting the question, and rather than giving a legitimate answer you resort to name calling. That's fine, It gives me a better idea of the intellect of those I am conversing with.
Secondly,
You couldn't possibly know whether I support Richard Mack or the tactic of moving women and children to the front of the line. I've made no reference to any of that in any of these discussions as I believe those issues are tangential to the real issue of States Rights and Federal Government over reach.
You answer a question with a question ,usual winger response. then you don;t like what you hear so you question my IQ showing your lack of it. If you are supporting Bundy you are siding with Mack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
Then he should have stayed at home. You are talking the "U.S. finest," right?
The Bureau of Land Management claims the cattle are trespassing on fragile Gold Butte habitat set aside for the endangered desert tortoise, and that Bundy has racked up some $1.1 million in fees and penalties since 1993.
You answer a question with a question ,usual winger response. then you don;t like what you hear so you question my IQ showing your lack of it. If you are supporting Bundy you are siding with Mack.
No simple Jack.
My questions were in direct response to the quoted statement that you made. There was no question posed by you only a statement made.
Repeating that I side with Mack does not make it true. It only shows you have no answer.
My questions were in direct response to the quoted statement that you made. There was no question posed by you only a statement made.
Repeating that I side with Mack does not make it true. It only shows you have no answer.
Try to keep up I will type slow. I made a comment addressed to whirrly. You jump in and ask me a question which I answered as Mack would have as he was there and wanted to put the women and children on the front line in case the officers shot it would be on tape.
Mack supports Bundy.
You support Bundy
You and Mack are on the same side.
...I answered as Mack would have as he was there and wanted to put the women and children on the front line in case the officers shot it would be on tape.
Mack supports Bundy.
You support Bundy
You and Mack are on the same side.
I'm not going to type slow ... I can't type that slow for you to keep up.
Your "math" doesn't work .. nor does your redefinition of relationships.
I can support Bundy's criticism of the Federal government via the BLM .. while at the same time not support the threat of using women and children as shields. I can support the enforcement of the court orders by gathering up Bundy's cattle on public land, while at the same time not support the Government for arming a "militia" to confront Bundy's supporters who were demonstrating in support of his objections to taking his cattle.
But you, of course, want to lump everyone into a nice heap for your purpose.
I'm not going to type slow ... I can't type that slow for you to keep up.
Your "math" doesn't work .. nor does your redefinition of relationships.
I can support Bundy's criticism of the Federal government via the BLM .. while at the same time not support the threat of using women and children as shields. I can support the enforcement of the court orders by gathering up Bundy's cattle on public land, while at the same time not support the Government for arming a "militia" to confront Bundy's supporters who were demonstrating in support of his objections to taking his cattle.
But you, of course, want to lump everyone into a nice heap for your purpose.
+1 Very well phrased. Said it before: "Focusing only on Bundy's errors in no manner makes the BLM right or justifies its over-reaching, arbitrary actions."
I'm not going to type slow ... I can't type that slow for you to keep up.
Your "math" doesn't work .. nor does your redefinition of relationships.
I can support Bundy's criticism of the Federal government via the BLM .. while at the same time not support the threat of using women and children as shields. I can support the enforcement of the court orders by gathering up Bundy's cattle on public land, while at the same time not support the Government for arming a "militia" to confront Bundy's supporters who were demonstrating in support of his objections to taking his cattle.
But you, of course, want to lump everyone into a nice heap for your purpose.
Seeing you want to WK for bordman. The armed militia was the people armed opposing the feds, who have been putting up with this deadbeat's antics for far too long. The first time he lost in court they should have evicted the prick from federal land. Twenty some years of this crap was way too long before they took action. The first mistake they made was too round them up should have just driven them off the land.
What you seem to be missing here, or denying, is the argument that the Federal Government does not have a right to claim that land. It is part of a state. Forcing a state, by the Federal Government, to do or not do something with that land is denying that state's sovereignty.
"Inconceivable" er.... (Sovereignty) "You keep using that word. I don't think that word means what you think it means" - Inigo Montoya.
Sovereignty does not mean title.
Where do you get that contorted logic? The chain of possession was as follows:
The land comprising the modern state was inhabited by Native Americans of the Paiute, Shoshone, and Washoe tribes prior to European contact.
It was subsequently claimed (stolen) by Spain as a part of Alta California until...
The United States (yes, that federal government) gained the territory in 1848 following its victory in the Mexican-American War
The area was eventually incorporated as part of Utah Territory in 1850.
The silver leading to a population boom led to the creation of Nevada Territory in 1861 (still owned by the U.S. Federal Government except for the parts owned by private citizens).
The U.S. Federal Government made Nevada the 36th state on October 31, 1864.
Ok now all you "patriot" Constitutionalists, pay close attention and see if you can follow this. A territory becomes a state and gets sovereignty (that word again) over all the territory within its boundaries, but that does not confer ownership of anything (just like becoming a State does not mean that the State gets title to any property owned by private citizens either.)
Constitution of the United States
Under Article IV of the United States Constitution, territory is subject to and belongs to the United States (but not necessarily within the national boundaries or any individual state). This includes tracts of land or water not included within the limits of any State and not admitted as a State into the Union. The Constitution of the United States states:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
—Article IV, United States Constitution
Congress of the United States
Congress possesses power to set territorial governments within the boundaries of the United States.[4] The power of Congress over such territory is exclusive and universal. Congressional legislation is subject to no control, unless in the case of ceded territory. The U.S. Congress is granted the exclusive and universal power to set a United States territory's political divisions.
Nowhere does it mention any mechanism that would transfer title of Federal lands to the State or County when statehood was conferred.
Unless one of you geniuses shows us documentation of where the title to those federal lands were transferred I guess your argument is DEAD WRONG.
Oh, that is, I guess, unless you buy the proposal that we are NOT a nation of laws and that any Sovereign Citizen or Constitutional Sheriff or just plain pro-slavery racist should be able to ignore any precedent, court or law (or refuse to pay any debt) that he disagrees with and should be held harmless.
I have every reason to believe I have had more experience than you in dealing with the BLM and various executive orders of past Presidents, even Nixon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
Right up there with the salamanders in Barton Springs Creek.
How do you know so much about the Barton Springs Creek Salamanders?
Oh pardon me! For a brief moment I forgot that you are LexiLiar, the patriarch of the Idiot Family. And you have had more experience with the BSC Salamanders than everyone else.
While on the subject, thanks for setting us straight regarding the fact that you "have had more experience in dealing with BLM and various executive orders of past Presidents, even Nixon."
Those of us who are mere mortals need our constant and daily reminders. Otherwise we would not be "mere mortals."
Please feel free to continue sharing the daily reminder of your vast superiority. We do need our daily fix of LexiLiar bragging to everyone who will listen (on a hooker board) how superior you happen to be and how inferior the rest of us (mere mortals) are.
I am looking forward to the upcoming Salamander reminder! Please feel free to remind us daily of your superiority (and our inferiority). It doesn't matter whether it is day or night!
Seeing you want to WK for bordman. The armed militia was the people armed opposing the feds, who have been putting up with this deadbeat's antics for far too long.
#1: It's Mr. Boardman to you. #2: He needs no "WK."
#3: Didn't the Department of the Interior Militia show up first?
This Administration can send in a tactical team to round up some cows, but it can't send in a tactical team to save a U.S. Ambassador and other brave souls.
Save the Dessert Tortoises vs. Save State Department Personnel. The Decision.
The same way I am learning about the "Desert Tortoises"!
My Dad (RIP) once told that if a person constantly feels the need to tell everyone how superior he (or she) is, it is a very good indication the opposite applies.
I have to hand it to you, your name and title (LexiLiar the Inferior, Patriarch of the Idiot Clan) is certainly an attention grabber.
I suspect that your 2nd Generation Lapdog (Gonad the Turdfly), will soon be showing his displeasure. <-- Turdfly
#1: It's Mr. Boardman to you. #2: He needs no "WK."
#3: Didn't the Department of the Interior Militia show up first?
This Administration can send in a tactical team to round up some cows, but it can't send in a tactical team to save a U.S. Ambassador and other brave souls.
Save the Dessert Tortoises vs. Save State Department Personnel. The Decision.
#1 It is Mr i'va to you
#2 biggest mistake BLM made was not to get a judgement against the deadbeat awarding the cattle to them in lieu of payment. Then Bundy and his sons can go show those negros how to pic cotton.
#3 fuck you and bordman both go get up a fund to help the deadbeat pay his bills. He has been living off welfare long enough.
<-- Turdfly
