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!
You can't answer the question, so you try - in vain - to substitute your own insipid question - a sure indicatoin you LOST the argument. The question that remains unanswered is one you haven't answered, you miscreant Yankee cretin, "Why does the BLM arbitrarily allow moneyed and politically connected interests to destroy any of the desert tortoise habitat through commercial development if the desert tortoise is as endangered as it claims?"
But here is the answer to your stupid question, you semen slurper: The BLM's actions were NOT arbitrary. The BLM apparently decided that the benefits of solar energy outweighed whatever harm may be done to the desert - whereas the benefits of Bundy's herd does not. Perhaps you're too fucking stupid to realize that once again you have described a scenario where the BLM is selectively -- ARBITRARILY -- choosing when and when not to protect desert tortoise habitat, you cretinous Yankee fucktard. Therefore, they have a rational basis and there actions are not arbitrary. Whereas your ignorant Yankee ass has yet to explain how bulldozers have no impact on the habitat of the desert tortoise, you moronic Yankee ignoramus. THAT is the legal standard, you tranny fuckee.
And you don't improve your position by throwing in phrases like "moneyed and politically-connected interests". That is an ad hominem argument - which seems to be all you have left. Harry Reid's project is proof that the BLM is more than willing to arbitrarily compromise its high "environmental principles" when the money and the politics are right, you ignorant Yankee cretin.
You can't answer the question, so now you try a false argument. Your ignorant Yankee ass hasn't explained how the BLM's giving free reign to bulldozers to destroy desert tortoise habitat while it asserts it is banishing cattle for destroying desert habitat is not arbitrary, you moronic Yankee jackass. There is NO requirement that the government's actions be uniform and not varied. You've once again defined "ARBITRARY", you ignorant Yankee jackass! That is a false statement. Yours is the false statement, you lying Yankee jackass!
It is the nature of many government actions that they are varied rather than uniform. Corn gets massive subsidies, but many fruits and vegetables get minor subsidies, if any. The government only needs to provide a rational basis for an action to avoid being arbitrary. Allowing bulldozers to level desert tortoise habitat while the BLM simultaneously claims that its mission is to protect desert tortoise habitat is not by any standard "rational", you ignorant Yankee fuck!
Keep trying, you legal illiterate. You need to heed your own advice, you ignorant Yankee retard, you're the one who is ignorantly using evidence that stands against your stated POV.
My FAVORITE IBIdiot post. One where he inserts a repetitive insult repeatedly. ESPECIALLY AFTER HIJACKING THE THREAD TO A TOPIC TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THE OP!
Aren't we ALL proud of him?
Don't we ALL wish he'd STFU?
Come on RWWs. Judging by the utter lack of support (outside of Slobbrin, of course), I don't see too many of you falling all over yourselves to support, defend and augment this raving lunatic.
I guess YOU'RE as embarrassed by this dipshit as we are.
Please speak up. Or have this odorous albatross hung about your necks!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (That's a fucking line in the sand. It's OK, guys, you can still be RWW's and eschew the maniacal behavior of this blithering hate monger. It'll earn you respect from the other side of the aisle.)
Give it up, shit wallower. You're more boring than the NFL draft!
You can't answer the question, so you try - in vain - to substitute your own insipid question - a sure indicatoin you LOST the argument. The question that remains unanswered is one you haven't answered, you miscreant Yankee cretin, "Why does the BLM arbitrarily allow moneyed and politically connected interests to destroy any of the desert tortoise habitat through commercial development if the desert tortoise is as endangered as it claims?"
But here is the answer to your stupid question, you semen slurper: The BLM's actions were NOT arbitrary. The BLM apparently decided that the benefits of solar energy outweighed whatever harm may be done to the desert - whereas the benefits of Bundy's herd does not. Perhaps you're too fucking stupid to realize that once again you have described a scenario where the BLM is selectively -- ARBITRARILY -- choosing when and when not to protect desert tortoise habitat, you cretinous Yankee fucktard. Therefore, they have a rational basis and there actions are not arbitrary. Whereas your ignorant Yankee ass has yet to explain how bulldozers have no impact on the habitat of the desert tortoise, you moronic Yankee ignoramus. THAT is the legal standard, you tranny fuckee.
And you don't improve your position by throwing in phrases like "moneyed and politically-connected interests". That is an ad hominem argument - which seems to be all you have left. Harry Reid's project is proof that the BLM is more than willing to arbitrarily compromise its high "environmental principles" when the money and the politics are right, you ignorant Yankee cretin.
You can't answer the question, so now you try a false argument. Your ignorant Yankee ass hasn't explained how the BLM's giving free reign to bulldozers to destroy desert tortoise habitat while it asserts it is banishing cattle for destroying desert habitat is not arbitrary, you moronic Yankee jackass. There is NO requirement that the government's actions be uniform and not varied. You've once again defined "ARBITRARY", you ignorant Yankee jackass! That is a false statement. Yours is the false statement, you lying Yankee jackass!
It is the nature of many government actions that they are varied rather than uniform. Corn gets massive subsidies, but many fruits and vegetables get minor subsidies, if any. The government only needs to provide a rational basis for an action to avoid being arbitrary. Allowing bulldozers to level desert tortoise habitat while the BLM simultaneously claims that its mission is to protect desert tortoise habitat is not by any standard "rational", you ignorant Yankee fuck!
Keep trying, you legal illiterate. You need to heed your own advice, you ignorant Yankee retard, you're the one who is ignorantly using evidence that stands against your stated POV.
Your only argument appears to be to stamp your feet and assert with NO reasoning that the government acted arbitrarily. You just repeat it over and over.
But you can never make a case for arbitrary action if you insisting on uniform action in each and every situation - which the government is NOT required to do. Particularly in the disposition of its OWN LAND.
The standard of review of government actions that don't involve suspect classes (e.g., race) or quasi-suspect classes (e.g., gender) is "rational basis".
Fun quote:
----------------------------------- "In United States Supreme Court jurisprudence, the nature of the interest at issue determines the level of scrutiny applied by appellate courts. When courts engage in "rational basis review," only the most egregious enactments – those not rationally related to a legitimate government interest – are overturned."
----------------------------------
Another:
-------------------------------------- "The rational basis review tests whether a governmental action is a reasonable means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by the government. This test requires that the governmental action be "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest. Under this standard of review, the "legitimate interest" does not have to be the government’s actual interest. Rather, if the court can merely hypothesize a "legitimate" interest served by the challenged action, it will withstand the rational basis review."
---------------------------------------
Did you fully comprehend that last part, you Confederate dick licker? The Court doesn't even have to listen to the reason offered by the government. If it can make up (i.e., hypothesize) any reason, it will find a rational basis.
Could you lose an argument any more badly, tranny fuckee?
Another:
------------------------------ "A law, when challenged, must have a rational basis without which it might violate right of a person under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Any rationally related justification will suffice, however the legislative reasoning must not be arbitrary. While a "law enacted for broad and ambitious purposes often can be explained by reference to legitimate public policies which justify the incidental disadvantages they impose on certain persons," it must nevertheless, at least, "bear a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose."
-----------------------------------
Got that, dickhead? The government action isn't even required to not be arbitrary. Only the legislative reasoning must not be arbitrary. And the government can clear THAT hurdle by simply demonstrating ANY rational basis for the action.
And finally THIS, which ought to cinch the deal:
------------------------------ "To understand the concept of rational basis review, it is easier to understand what it is not. Rational basis review is not intelligent basis review; the legislature is merely required to be rational, not smart. A court applying rational basis review will virtually always uphold a challenged law unless every proffered justification for it is a grossly illogical non sequitur (or even worse, a word salad). In 2008, Justice John Paul Stevens reaffirmed the lenient nature of rational basis review in a concurring opinion: "[A]s I recall my esteemed former colleague, Thurgood Marshall, remarking on numerous occasions: 'The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'""
------------------------------------
Bundy can never show that the federal government was acting arbitrarily - lacking in a rational basis - for not treating every threat to the tortoise equally.
That's why Bundy lost and YOU LOSE.
Stop arguing legal terms you know nothing about. "Arbitrary" government action is NOT what you thinks it means.
My FAVORITE IBIdiot post. One where he inserts a repetitive insult repeatedly. ESPECIALLY AFTER HIJACKING THE THREAD TO A TOPIC TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THE OP!
Aren't we ALL proud of him?
Don't we ALL wish he'd STFU?
Come on RWWs. Judging by the utter lack of support (outside of Slobbrin, of course), I don't see too many of you falling all over yourselves to support, defend and augment this raving lunatic.
I guess YOU'RE as embarrassed by this dipshit as we are.
Please speak up. Or have this odorous albatross hung about your necks!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (That's a fucking line in the sand. It's OK, guys, you can still be RWW's and eschew the maniacal behavior of this blithering hate monger. It'll earn you respect from the other side of the aisle.)
Give it up, shit wallower. You're more boring than the NFL draft!
Your only argument appears to be to stamp your feet and assert with NO reasoning that the government acted arbitrarily. You just repeat it over and over.
But you can never make a case for arbitrary action if you insisting on uniform action in each and every situation - which the government is NOT required to do. Particularly in the disposition of its OWN LAND.
The standard of review of government actions that don't involve suspect classes (e.g., race) or quasi-suspect classes (e.g., gender) is "rational basis".
Fun quote:
----------------------------------- "In United States Supreme Court jurisprudence, the nature of the interest at issue determines the level of scrutiny applied by appellate courts. When courts engage in "rational basis review," only the most egregious enactments – those not rationally related to a legitimate government interest – are overturned."
----------------------------------
Another:
-------------------------------------- "The rational basis review tests whether a governmental action is a reasonable means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by the government. This test requires that the governmental action be "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest. Under this standard of review, the "legitimate interest" does not have to be the government’s actual interest. Rather, if the court can merely hypothesize a "legitimate" interest served by the challenged action, it will withstand the rational basis review."
---------------------------------------
Did you fully comprehend that last part, you Confederate dick licker? The Court doesn't even have to listen to the reason offered by the government. If it can make up (i.e., hypothesize) any reason, it will find a rational basis.
Could you lose an argument any more badly, tranny fuckee?
Another:
------------------------------ "A law, when challenged, must have a rational basis without which it might violate right of a person under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Any rationally related justification will suffice, however the legislative reasoning must not be arbitrary. While a "law enacted for broad and ambitious purposes often can be explained by reference to legitimate public policies which justify the incidental disadvantages they impose on certain persons," it must nevertheless, at least, "bear a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose."
-----------------------------------
Got that, dickhead? The government action isn't even required to not be arbitrary. Only the legislative reasoning must not be arbitrary. And the government can clear THAT hurdle by simply demonstrating ANY rational basis for the action.
And finally THIS, which ought to cinch the deal:
------------------------------ "To understand the concept of rational basis review, it is easier to understand what it is not. Rational basis review is not intelligent basis review; the legislature is merely required to be rational, not smart. A court applying rational basis review will virtually always uphold a challenged law unless every proffered justification for it is a grossly illogical non sequitur (or even worse, a word salad). In 2008, Justice John Paul Stevens reaffirmed the lenient nature of rational basis review in a concurring opinion: "[A]s I recall my esteemed former colleague, Thurgood Marshall, remarking on numerous occasions: 'The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'""
------------------------------------
Bundy can never show that the federal government was acting arbitrarily - lacking in a rational basis - for not treating every threat to the tortoise equally.
That's why Bundy lost and YOU LOSE.
Stop arguing legal terms you know nothing about. "Arbitrary" government action is NOT what you thinks it means.
You lost before your ignorant Yankee ass ever started, you intellectually challenged Yankee cretin. In addition to Bundy, there are thousands of other ranchers and landowners who disagree with your ignorant Yankee ass and who view the actions of the BLM as arbitrary, you New York Yankee queer.
Quote:
These counties, and many others like them, have successfully fought implementation of restrictive regulations designed by the Interior Department to terminate rights of way, onerous law enforcement regulations designed by the BLM to evade the Congressional mandate to maximize reliance on local law enforcement and arbitrary regulations and decisions aimed at diminishing or extinguishing property rights short of an actual "taking." http://americanstewards.us/articles/...roperty-rights
Quote:
Eureka rancher may be next on BLM’s arbitrary list
Eureka area rancher Kevin Borba, for example, said he called the Ely and Battle Mountain offices of the BLM to make sure what his allotments would be before he purchased his ranch in 2012. He said he was assured the AUMs (animal units per month) would remain the same — 415 head on one allotment and about 500 on another.
With those assurances, the lifelong cattleman from California purchased his 330,000-acre ranch and named it the Borba Land and Cattle Co.
He was getting ready to turn out cattle this past fall when the federal government was shutdown by a budget impasse. He was told by a BLM official he could put his cattle on the allotment but there would be no paperwork done until the shutdown ended.
“A couple days later ... I get a call from them,” Borba recalls. “‘You didn’t turn out them cattle did you?’
“I go, ‘No, in fact, as we speak I’m throwing them hay.’ …”
“’You can’t turn out the 415....’”
Jim Baumann thought it odd that the BLM could issue a $1 million contract to remove Bundy’s cattle but claims they can’t afford to roundup the wild horses that are overgrazing the range.
BLM’s regulatory determination and implementation was very arguably, in the language of judicial review as it applies to administrative 'lawmen,' 'arbitrary and capricious' " http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...le_of_law.html
BTW, the Governor of Utah also disagrees with your dumb-fuck Yankee ass and your wiki definition, and he sees the Department of Interior and the BLM as acting "arbitrarily".
Quote:
Language of Complaint
On December 22, 2010, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and the Department of the Interior ("Department of Interior" or "DOI") issued Secretarial Order 3310 ("Order 3310"). Shortly thereafter, BLM issued Manuals 6301, 6302, and 6303 (together, "Manuals") pursuant to Order 3310.
Governor Herbert. "They can continue to do so if all stakeholders are allowed to collaborate within a proper legal framework to determine the best use for our lands. The Department of Interior, by their own admission, had no statutory authority for this order. We're seeking judicial relief so we can pick up our work where we left off rather than letting the federal government arbitrarily change the rules at the end of the game." http://www.utah.gov/governor/news_me...l?article=4745
The Texas AG disagrees with your dumb-fuck Yankee ass, and he sees the BLM as acting "arbitrarily".
Quote:
More than anything, private property must be protected from arbitrary seizure by government, which is why we are alarmed by recent reports that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) may attempt to claim approximately 90,000 privately owned acres of land in Texas as public lands under federal control. http://www.txcc.org/blog/blmlandgrab
Then there is the ESA that the BLM and other government agencies selectively and *arbitrarily enforce*, you dumb-fuck Yankee cock-sucker.
Quote:
Arbitrary and Capricious
One of the surest signs of whether a law has been created or corrupted for a specific special-interest purpose is whether it is administered fairly for all people. Although it has seriously harmed tens of thousands of rural Americans, rarely is the ESA applied within the city limits of large cities in the U.S. — especially not in our nation’s capital where its pain would be inflicted on the lawmakers themselves. file:///C:/Users/bill/Downloads/problems_esa.pdf
Further, you dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, some judges have in fact ruled that the BLM has acted "arbitrarily".
Quote:
Judge Jones determined that “The Government has abused its discretion in the present case through a series of actions designed to strip the Estate of its grazing permits, and ultimately to strip Defendants of their ability to use their water rights…”. He said the “chain of events is the result of the Government’s arbitrary denial of E. Wayne Hage’s renewal permit for 1993-2003, and the effects of this due process violation is continuing.” He added, “Substantive due process protects individuals from arbitrary deprivation of their liberty by government.” This finding of violation of due process is perhaps the most important finding by the Court, as it stands to bolster grazing permits as a property interest, not simply a revocable privilege.
The Court found, “In the present case, the Government’s actions over the past two decades shocks the conscience of the Court...” This finding, coupled with the Court’s finding that agents of the BLM and the USFS engaged in a conspiracy to deprive the Hage family of their vested property rights, opens the door to potential lawsuits against the individual agents personally for their unconstitutional actions.
BTW, below is a screen print of something you *forgot* to include from your "wiki" source -- your choice of *support documentation* doesn't even meet WIKI's minimum standards, you dick-licking Yankee mick living in exile in Dixie:
You lost before your ignorant Yankee ass ever started, you intellectually challenged Yankee cretin. In addition to Bundy, there are thousands of other ranchers and landowners who disagree with your ignorant Yankee ass and who view the actions of the BLM as arbitrary, you New York Yankee queer.
Who cares if they disagree, asshole? What is their LEGAL claim to federal land? NONE!
BTW, the Governor of Utah also disagrees with your dumb-fuck Yankee ass and your wiki definition, and he sees the Department of Interior and the BLM as acting "arbitrarily".
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Again, who cares if he disagrees, asshole? What is the governor's LEGAL argument? NONE!
The Texas AG disagrees with your dumb-fuck Yankee ass, and he sees the BLM as acting "arbitrarily".
Shithead, that is PRIVATE land that is in dispute. NOT federal land. Can't you even get the basic facts right? The law is different if a takings clause is involved. That has NOTHING to do with grazing permits on federal land. NONE!
Then there is the ESA that the BLM and other government agencies selectively and *arbitrarily enforce*, you dumb-fuck Yankee cock-sucker.
Busted link. What is that?
Further, you dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, some judges have in fact ruled that the BLM has acted "arbitrarily".
And SOME judges haven't asshole. Like the ones in the MULTIPLE Bundy proceedings. ALL of whom ruled against him. The facts of the Hage case - a 5th Amendment takings case where Hage have vested water rights - apparently don't apply to the Bundy case. So it isn't relevant, tranny fuckee.
BTW, below is a screen print of something you *forgot* to include from your "wiki" source -- your choice of *support documentation* doesn't even meet WIKI's minimum standards, you dick-licking Yankee mick living in exile in Dixie.
Shithead, the LAW is correctly stated - even if you don't know that - regardless of the support documentation. If you have some proof the law is NOT correctly stated, then post it - if you can. Otherwise shut up, CockWhisperer.
Not a single competent LEGAL argument.
Just a bunch of OPINIONS from newspapers and websites with an anti-government bent. That's as bad as quoting the NY Times on what the top tax rate should be on high income earners. A little biased maybe?
Who cares if they disagree, asshole? What is their LEGAL claim to federal land? NONE! Guess you missed the part where the BLM is illegally running 1,600 wild horses on a range that allows 78 while claiming it doesn't have the money to round up and remove 1,500 of those wild horses; yet, the BLM does have $1 million to hire rustlers to round up and remove 1,000 head of cattle owned by Bundy, you ignorant Yankee "Midnight Cowboy".
Again, who cares if he disagrees, asshole? What is the governor's LEGAL argument? NONE! The governor of Utah obviously disagrees with you asinine assertion, and he filed suit, you ignorant Yankee "Midnight Cowboy"!
Shithead, that is PRIVATE land that is in dispute. NOT federal land. Can't you even get the basic facts right? The law is different if a takings clause is involved. That has NOTHING to do with grazing permits on federal land. NONE! It's still the BLM acting arbitrarily, you mentally retard Yankee fuck.
Busted link. What is that? Look it up, you moronic Yankee dweeb, it's a direct quote!
And SOME judges haven't asshole. Like the ones in the MULTIPLE Bundy proceedings. ALL of whom ruled against him. The facts of the Hage case - a 5th Amendment takings case where Hage have vested water rights - apparently don't apply to the Bundy case. So it isn't relevant, tranny fuckee. Wrong again, you pretentious Yankee asshole, the BLM's reputation for being arbitrary is well known to all, except to dick-licking "Midnight Cowboys" like you, you dick-licking Yankee mick.
Shithead, the LAW is correctly stated - even if you don't know that - regardless of the support documentation. If you have some proof the law is NOT correctly stated, then post it - if you can. Otherwise shut up, CockWhisperer. It remains, even Wiki says your source is weak, you ignorant Yankee asshole.
Not a single competent LEGAL argument. You're a liar, you retarded Yankee cretin! Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Federal District Court of Nevada not only ruled that the BLM acted arbitrarily against ranchers, Jones also ruled that the BLM acted with criminal intent, you dick-licking Yankee mick exiled in Dixie.
Just a bunch of OPINIONS from newspapers and websites with an anti-government bent. That's as bad as quoting the NY Times on what the top tax rate should be on high income earners. A little biased maybe? Every opinion cited is a thousandfold more relevant than yours, you dick-licking Yankee mick exiled in Dixie, because everything you know about ranching and being a cowboy is based on your experiences dressed up and attending Halloween parties as a character from the "Village People"!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
Pathetic Dipshit can't take his whipping like a man.
Sick creepy bastard!
Says the pathetic lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, that takes perverse pleasure in being whipped while wearing diapers.
Says the pathetic lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, that takes perverse pleasure in being whipped while wearing diapers.
HIJACK COMPLETE -- Al Quaeda now = IBIdiot look at me threads.
You sure showed us, Corpy!
Maybe we need to change the name of this forum from The Political Forum to Mirror Mirror on the Wall....
Who cares if they disagree, asshole? What is their LEGAL claim to federal land? NONE!
Guess you missed the part where the BLM is illegally running 1,600 wild horses on a range that allows 78 while claiming it doesn't have the money to round up and remove 1,500 of those wild horses; yet, the BLM does have $1 million to hire rustlers to round up and remove 1,000 head of cattle owned by Bundy, you ignorant Yankee "Midnight Cowboy".
NOT an answer. Even if true, how is that relevant? They are enforcing the law against a law breaker - Bundy. How does too mahy horses on a range change that asshole.
Again, who cares if he disagrees, asshole? What is the governor's LEGAL argument? NONE!
The governor of Utah obviously disagrees with you asinine assertion, and he filed suit, you ignorant Yankee "Midnight Cowboy"!
Which means what? That he will LOSE? And how is his dispute relevant to Bundy? Different facts, different dispute.
Shithead, that is PRIVATE land that is in dispute. NOT federal land. Can't you even get the basic facts right? The law is different if a takings clause is involved. That has NOTHING to do with grazing permits on federal land. NONE!
It's still the BLM acting arbitrarily, you mentally retard Yankee fuck.
Asshole, if the BLM is wrong in one case, it doesn't mean they are wrong or arbitrary in all cases - even just one other case. "Perfection" is a stupid standard and you know it. But apparently that is what you are stuck with arguing. You can't show Bundy has any legal claim on federal land, so you switch to a private land dispute. Desperate.
Busted link. What is that?
Look it up, you moronic Yankee dweeb, it's a direct quote!
Fuck you, Johnny Reb. I'm not doing your work for you. If you can't produce it, it doesn't count. You lose.
And SOME judges haven't asshole. Like the ones in the MULTIPLE Bundy proceedings. ALL of whom ruled against him. The facts of the Hage case - a 5th Amendment takings case where Hage have vested water rights - apparently don't apply to the Bundy case. So it isn't relevant, tranny fuckee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Wrong again, you pretentious Yankee asshole, the BLM's reputation for being arbitrary is well known to all, except to dick-licking "Midnight Cowboys" like you, you dick-licking Yankee mick.
Reputation? Really? Is that all you have left? Does that mean you have just given up on arguing the facts or the law in Bundy's case?
Shithead, the LAW is correctly stated - even if you don't know that - regardless of the support documentation. If you have some proof the law is NOT correctly stated, then post it - if you can. Otherwise shut up, CockWhisperer.
It remains, even Wiki says your source is weak, you ignorant Yankee asshole.
My "source" is constitutional law. If you think the quotes I pasted are wrong, explain how. The secondary sources in the Wiki link, which I did not quote are irrelevant.
Not a single competent LEGAL argument.
You're a liar, you retarded Yankee cretin! Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Federal District Court of Nevada not only ruled that the BLM acted arbitrarily against ranchers, Jones also ruled that the BLM acted with criminal intent, you dick-licking Yankee mick exiled in Dixie.
And you're an idiot. You are citing opinion from a different case with different facts and ignoring the multiple opinions of judges in BUNDY's case.
Just a bunch of OPINIONS from newspapers and websites with an anti-government bent. That's as bad as quoting the NY Times on what the top tax rate should be on high income earners. A little biased maybe?
Every opinion cited is a thousandfold more relevant than yours, you dick-licking Yankee mick exiled in Dixie, because everything you know about ranching and being a cowboy is based on your experiences dressed up and attending Halloween parties as a character from the "Village People"!
Ah, now we have it. So, you are an expert on ranching and being a cowboy, is that it, you Confederate drag queen?
NOT an answer. Even if true, how is that relevant? They are enforcing the law against a law breaker - Bundy. How does too mahy horses on a range change that asshole. It is true, you dumb Yankee fuck, and it illustrates the arbitrariness of the BLM which says "Do as it says and not as it does"!
Again, who cares if he disagrees, asshole? What is the governor's LEGAL argument? NONE! He FILED his legal argument with his suit, you ignorant and pretentious Yankee jackass.
Which means what? That he will LOSE? And how is his dispute relevant to Bundy? Different facts, different dispute. It's the SAME arbitrary BLM, you dumb-fuck Yankee retard.
Shithead, that is PRIVATE land that is in dispute. NOT federal land. Can't you even get the basic facts right? The law is different if a takings clause is involved. That has NOTHING to do with grazing permits on federal land. NONE! It's still the SAME arbitrary BLM, you dick-licking Yankee cretin.
Asshole, if the BLM is wrong in one case, it doesn't mean they are wrong or arbitrary in all cases - even just one other case. "Perfection" is a stupid standard and you know it. But apparently that is what you are stuck with arguing. You can't show Bundy has any legal claim on federal land, so you switch to a private land dispute. Desperate. It's still very much the SAME arbitrary BLM, you cretinous Yankee moron.
Fuck you, Johnny Reb. I'm not doing your work for you. If you can't produce it, it doesn't count. You lose. You're the one that prefers to remain ignorant, you retarded Yankee prick: you lose!
And SOME judges haven't asshole. Like the ones in the MULTIPLE Bundy proceedings. ALL of whom ruled against him. The facts of the Hage case - a 5th Amendment takings case where Hage have vested water rights - apparently don't apply to the Bundy case. So it isn't relevant, tranny fuckee. Oh, it's quite relevant, you pretentious Yankee prick, Hage sued for his water rights and won -- Bundy has yet to do so!
Reputation? Really? Is that all you have left? Does that mean you have just given up on arguing the facts or the law in Bundy's case? BLM's reputation as being arbitrary has always been the topic, you dumb Yankee fucktard.
Shithead, the LAW is correctly stated - even if you don't know that - regardless of the support documentation. If you have some proof the law is NOT correctly stated, then post it - if you can. Otherwise shut up, CockWhisperer. Your source -- WIKI -- is the one that says your source is very weak, you dumb Yankee jackass.
My "source" is constitutional law. If you think the quotes I pasted are wrong, explain how. The secondary sources in the Wiki link, which I did not quote are irrelevant. It was your earlier contention that you're the one who had to prove it is right, you hypocritical Yankee jackass.
And you're an idiot. You are citing opinion from a different case with different facts and ignoring the multiple opinions of judges in BUNDY's case. It's already been clearly stated that your proving Bundy is wrong doesn't make the BLM right, you ignorant Yankee moron.
Just a bunch of OPINIONS from newspapers and websites with an anti-government bent. That's as bad as quoting the NY Times on what the top tax rate should be on high income earners. A little biased maybe? Newspaper articles and opinions that are a thousandfold more informed and relevant than your "Village People" Yankee cowboy POV.
You are pathetic. And always will be. You have been and always will be a moronically pretentious Yankee jackass, and the opinions of the people who know more than you, and can prove you are wrong, are a thousandfold more informed and relevant than your "Village People" Yankee cowboy POV, you dick-licking Yankee mick exiled in Dixie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
I B Idiot look at me threads.
Yes you are, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, that takes perverse pleasure in being whipped while wearing diapers. You shouldn't suck on that pacifier, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, you know where it has been!
Yes you are, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, that takes perverse pleasure in being whipped while wearing diapers. You shouldn't suck on that pacifier, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, you know where it has been!
Holy moly Buttman! That might be the brightest, most surgical strike yet.
