Behold! Cliven Bundy and "the Negro"

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

BigTits, don't attempt to deflect the point of the discussion.

There was no attempt at deflection except by you. I have been asking you (LexiLiar) to tell me the location of those pesky WMD's for 11 years now. You still have not been able to pinpoint their location. They should be easy for you to locate.

On March 30, 2003, your hero Donald Rumsfeld boldly proclaimed the following: “We know where they are,” Rummy asserts. “They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

LexiLiar, why don't you hop on the next red eye to Baghdad (LexiLiar's destination of choice). Since Rummy has already filled you in on the approximate locations, it should not take more than a day or two for you to locate those WMD's. When you locate them, take a pic and email the coordinates so we can properly verify their existence.

Or would you prefer to continue the same lie for another 11 years?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

There was no attempt at deflection except by you. I have been asking you (LexiLiar) to tell me the location of those pesky WMD's for 11 years now.

Really? Show me a link to one post before April 2014 in which you asked.

Or do you need some "U.N. inspections" to do it?

The "deflection" is shifting from your "announcement" of no WMD's post-facto.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Or would you prefer to continue the same lie for another 11 years?

Why are you? You always wanted to continue "inspections"!!

For what? If you thought WMDs didn't exist in the first place!!!!

Maybe Hillarious will explain that in the ramp up to the primaries of 2016.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Why are you? You always wanted to continue "inspections"!!

For what? If you thought WMDs didn't exist in the first place!!!!

Maybe Hillarious will explain that in the ramp up to the primaries of 2016.

Ok, it is apparent that you want to continue the lie for another 11 years.

I will put it on my calendar to ask you again in 2025! Hopefully, you will 'fess up at that time.

I hate to be presumptuous but I suspect that you will want to continue the lie. The lying habit seems to be a difficult one for you to break!

Have a great day LexiLiar!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Why are you? You always wanted to continue "inspections"!!

For what? If you thought WMDs didn't exist in the first place!!!!

.

Weak , weak , weak LL....

I'll tell you why....so we would not go to war on the WMD lie. Without that lie , the public did not want to go to war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_an...ss_destruction

During the lead-up to war in March 2003, United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix said that Iraq made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting the "proactive" but not always "immediate" cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[5] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[6][7][8]
Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[9] President George W. Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War,[10] despite multiple dissenting opinions[11] and questions of integrity[12][13][14] about the underlying intelligence.[15] Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted.[16]
Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq,[17] while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq".[18] A key CIA informant in Iraq admitted that he lied about his allegations, "then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war".[19]

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by WTF

Weak , weak , weak LL....

I'll tell you why....so we would not go to war on the WMD lie. Without that lie , the public did not want to go to war.

LexiLiar believes that if you repeat a lie early and often, people are sooooo gullible they will eventually begin to believe his lies.

He is a despicable example of a human being!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by bigtex

LexiLiar believes that if you repeat a lie early and often, people are sooooo gullible they will eventually begin to believe his lies.

He is a despicable example of a human being!

Evidently LL believes in convicting a person on what they might do with a gun he can not find.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Actually, the federal government legitimately owns 80% of Nevada. Whether it should or not is a different story - one that would have to be voted on.

The US received most of the western US from Mexico in 1848 at the end of the Mexican American war.

That is completely different than the original 13 states which pre-dated the federal government and - for lack of a better phrase - "owned themselves" entirely.

It was also different than most of the eastern states outside of the original 13 that joined prior to the Civil War.

AFTER the Civil War, newly admitted states had to acknowledge federal sovereignty and had to negotiate over what lands would be state owned and privately owned.

So, states like Utah, NM, AZ, and Nevada were founded ON FEDERAL LANDS and they were admitted to the Union with strings attached. In the case of Utah, they also had to agree to outlaw polygamy.

So, no, there is no infringement of state sovereignty.

A condition of Nevada Statehood was that 90% of the land was to be retained by the Federal Government until that retainer was waived by Congress which Congress has never waived. However, Congress does not have the authority to place such conditions on any state. Every state that was to be formed from the territories was to be on equal footing just as the original 13.

In order to provide for the distribution of existing territory Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance in 1787. Originally this was for the territory North and West of the Ohio River but since no other law governed(or has since) it was also applied to the SCOTUS decision of Pollard v Hagar concerning "Federal Lands" in Alabama in 1845.
The Court found the following

"... if an express stipulation had been inserted in the agreement, granting the municipal right of sovereignty and eminent domain to the United States, such stipulation would have been void and inoperative: because the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted.

Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law, to the same extent that Georgia possessed it before she ceded it to the United States. To maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states, the constitution, laws, and compact, to the contrary notwithstanding ... and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights."

The Northwest Ordinance was signed into law August 7, 1789 after being reaffirmed by the newly created Congress and with slight changes to make it compatible with the Constitution.(as opposed to the Articles of Confederation) Thus, the placing of any conditions, by Congress, on a state that interferes with it's sovereignty is in violation of Article I section 8 of the Constitution and further backed up by the Supreme Court.


The following article is and excellent description of how progressives methodically attack and erode the Constitution and ignore the intent of the founders.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by WTF

I'm not missing that silly argument.

I have stated earlier that picking between the two is like you trying to convince me it is better to be eaten by a Lion than a Tiger.

If you are advocating another Civil War....I'm not sure I'm on board with that. Why you might ask? Because no matter who wins, you still will be doing wtf some form of government tells you to do.

All you are doing with that state rights crap is trying to shove your way of thinking down another's throat. Same as the other side is doing. I'll give ya that. I just wish you Johnny Reb's would realize you're no different than the other side. A Hobson Choice if you will.

Then you have conceded your liberty and are willing to be eaten by either. What else are you willing to give up? I would choose to at least fight. Fighting doesn't mean I advocate Civil War or overthrowing the government. Fighting can be as simple as standing on a stump and saying what you believe in an attempt to persuade anyone who will listen to your way of thinking.

What state bureaucratic agency brings the firepower that the BLM has. The TCEQ? The Texas Forest Service? The Railroad Commission? The Texas Workforce Commission?

Once again, placing a label on me as an anarchist or a rebel doesn't make it so. It is a typical tactic for the progressive who has run out of arguments against someone that wants a more Constitutional government.
It is also a typical tactic of the left to describe someone as a bully and then start throwing labels at them in an attempt to bully them. It makes your argument look weak.

I don't know that I've tried to shove anything down anyone's throat. If you chose to read what I've written and feel like it is being shoved it down your throat then perhaps it is being shoved down your throat. (See my comments about fighting above). I have no control over your perception.

I've tried to make my point that the Federal Government was never intended to have the reach that it has. That's it. Am I attempting to make an argument that the founders wanted smaller more limited government and have backed it up with excerpts from the Constitution, the Convention Debates and the Federalist Papers as well as case law. I have also done it in a civil and respectful manner. I have been asked questions on my opinion and have given it. I have asked questions and been answered anything but a legitimate answer.

Some of the guys that frequent this forum know my persona on other areas of the board. Perhaps I am being to serious on a SHMB but I don't and won't bring that persona into a forum like this. The topics mean too much to me for silliness, regardless of the audience.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by boardman

A condition of Nevada Statehood was that 90% of the land was to be retained by the Federal Government until that retainer was waived by Congress which Congress has never waived. However, Congress does not have the authority to place such conditions on any state. Every state that was to be formed from the territories was to be on equal footing just as the original 13.

Can you cite some authority for that?

Because new states have to be admitted by vote of Congress and Congress can stipulate conditions in advance (like Utah giving up polygamy).

It has been nearly 180 years since the US acquired the western US in the Mexican Cession. I think that BY NOW a western state would have challenged federal ownership of land and WON in court if what you wrote is true.

The rest of your post dealt with land (e.g., Alabama) that was settled by colonists PRIOR to the establishment of the US. So there were pre-existing property rights and state sovereignty in those new states.

That was not true in the Mexican Cession, in Alaska, or in Hawaii.

If Puerto Rico petitioned for statehood tomorrow, the Congress can impose conditions on it as a condition of admittance. Look it up.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by WTF

Evidently LL believes in convicting a person on what they might do with a gun he can not find.

I have often said that LexiLiar never allows the facts to stand in the way of the lies he wants to tell. Thus the name LexiLiar!

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

BigTits, don't attempt to deflect the point of the discussion.

Let me ask you: Who will score the winning points in the 2014 Super Bowl?

You are the "know-it-all" with Krypton enhanced vision.

Isn't this the point of the discussion?

That's easy.
Marshawn Lynch scored the winning points in the 2014 Super Bowl.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Can you cite some authority for that?

Because new states have to be admitted by vote of Congress and Congress can stipulate conditions in advance (like Utah giving up polygamy).

It has been nearly 180 years since the US acquired the western US in the Mexican Cession. I think that BY NOW a western state would have challenged federal ownership of land and WON in court if what you wrote is true.

The rest of your post dealt with land (e.g., Alabama) that was settled by colonists PRIOR to the establishment of the US. So there were pre-existing property rights and state sovereignty in those new states.

That was not true in the Mexican Cession, in Alaska, or in Hawaii.

If Puerto Rico petitioned for statehood tomorrow, the Congress can impose conditions on it as a condition of admittance. Look it up.

I did cite the authority. The Constitution and the Northwest Ordinance. Neither of which have been superseded by amendment which would be the proper way of going about things. Alabama was not an original colony. The territory that became Alabama was ceded back to the US as a territory by Georgia. It then became a state in 1819 and challenged federal authority over it's sovereignty and won. That is the authority.

Subsequently, The Federal Government has used additional conditions beyond their authority. They do it all the time. Doesn't make it right. I remember when they changed the speed limit to 55mph. LA refused to comply for a while until the Feds withheld money that was rightfully the State's(Money collected by the Federal Government through fuel tax, excise taxes etc that was intended to go back to the states for the express purpose of improving the roads. The government then put conditions on that money and held it over the head of the State of Louisiana until they were forced to comply. That's what I mean by too much power.

If you trace the BLM back to it's roots in the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance which were passed for the purposes of the disposition of federal land not the collection of it. The Department of the Treasury was originally charged with this task but as bureaucracies always do it morphed through several different agencies including the General land Office into what it is today.

Given free reign what government agency is going to work itself out of a job? The BLM has justified it's existence through claiming land and then charging people grazing fees and mineral leases. It claims to be one of the few agencies that actually makes a profit.(as per their website). Well, any politician that sees that isn't going near it and we as a people accept it. Hell, they're making money, right?

The problem with any bureaucratic agency is that their policies change with whoever is in control as an act of self preservation. So it's never about the American people's best interest or considering the intentions about the founders it becomes about the pleasing the voting base.

The BLM claims 245 million acres of land. How much revenue could the government generate if they disposed of land like they were supposed to do. At $100 per acre it would generate 25 billion dollars. Then what could that land generate in revenue, jobs, taxes etc. if it were owned by entrepreneurs, ranchers, farmers, guide services, oil companies, whatever. Just like anyone in power the government doesn't want to give up control. Selling that land would be giving up control so they find a way to stay in control. They find ways to become bigger so they have more control.

When people start questioning that control they start asserting themselves through harsher and harsher means up to and including the threat of shooting citizens.

Google "Johnson Space Center Security" What you'll find is propaganda about how their security staff is there to provide for the safety of it's employees. What it won's tell you is that there is an entire building housing an arsenal of fully automatic weapons with full riot gear and enough ammunition and manpower to suppress an invasion of a third world country. Fucking NASA! Does that not concern anyone other than me?

Just because Congress does something does not mean it is Constitutional. My point continues to be that the Federal Government(all branches) has way too much self imposed authority. I just can't understand the mindset of a hard working taxpayer that is OK with that.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by boardman

Then you have conceded your liberty and are willing to be eaten by either. What else are you willing to give up? I would choose to at least fight. Fighting doesn't mean I advocate Civil War or overthrowing the government. Fighting can be as simple as standing on a stump and saying what you believe in an attempt to persuade anyone who will listen to your way of thinking.

My guess is I fight more against laws I do not believe in than you. btw Standing on a stump would be leaps and bounds above preaching on a hooker board.

What state bureaucratic agency brings the firepower that the BLM has. The TCEQ? The Texas Forest Service? The Railroad Commission? The Texas Workforce Commission?

Did you see wtf they were going up against? Only citizens can bring guns? How about some squatter moved into your house and claimed it as his....lost all court cases. Would you want to law to show it with tooth picks?

Once again, placing a label on me as an anarchist or a rebel doesn't make it so. It is a typical tactic for the progressive who has run out of arguments against someone that wants a more Constitutional government.

Bullshit. I said either you are an anarchist or just another Jackal using that Constitutional government bullshit to try and get what you want. Just like the other side is doing. You are exactly like those you despise.




It is also a typical tactic of the left to describe someone as a bully and then start throwing labels at them in an attempt to bully them. It makes your argument look weak.

Wow....the right never does that. You got me there. Poor Poor Constitutional government types. Always getting picked on by the bully left.

I don't know that I've tried to shove anything down anyone's throat. If you chose to read what I've written and feel like it is being shoved it down your throat then perhaps it is being shoved down your throat. (See my comments about fighting above). I have no control over your perception.
I don't buy preaching from either the left or right. Both think they are holier than thou. I only point out that there isn't a lick of difference between the two. So my perception is that neither side is shoving anything down my throat ... no matter how loud you preach from that stump.


I've tried to make my point that the Federal Government was never intended to have the reach that it has. That's it. Am I attempting to make an argument that the founders wanted smaller more limited government and have backed it up with excerpts from the Constitution, the Convention Debates and the Federalist Papers as well as case law. I have also done it in a civil and respectful manner. I have been asked questions on my opinion and have given it. I have asked questions and been answered anything but a legitimate answer.
You are entitled to your opinion but I might add for dexterity that that is all it is. You have no way of knowing wtf the founders wanted. Nobody does.

I will say that human nature being wtf it is , our founders wanted power in the hands of like minded folks. White men with property. The fight for that power hasn't changed much in the last 230 plus years.

That you try and coat your distain in a civil and respectful manner does not mask its odor. Be likePepé Le Pew tring to convince me he is a cat. h

Some of the guys that frequent this forum know my persona on other areas of the board. Perhaps I am being to serious on a SHMB but I don't and won't bring that persona into a forum like this. The topics mean too much to me for silliness, regardless of the audience.

See this passive aggressive bullshit is wtf I'm talking about with this holier than thou attitude.

Can't fucking joke about the government!
Can't make fun of State Righters!
Can't make fun of the Tea Party!

Anarchy is the answer, all else is just politics.

Once you understand that, you then will understand my POV.

[boardman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by boardman
Then you have conceded your liberty and are willing to be eaten by either. What else are you willing to give up? I would choose to at least fight. Fighting doesn't mean I advocate Civil War or overthrowing the government. Fighting can be as simple as standing on a stump and saying what you believe in an attempt to persuade anyone who will listen to your way of thinking.

My guess is I fight more against laws I do not believe in than you. btw Standing on a stump would be leaps and bounds above preaching on a hooker board.

What difference does it make what forum I choose to express my opinions?

What state bureaucratic agency brings the firepower that the BLM has. The TCEQ? The Texas Forest Service? The Railroad Commission? The Texas Workforce Commission?

Did you see wtf they were going up against? Only citizens can bring guns? How about some squatter moved into your house and claimed it as his....lost all court cases. Would you want to law to show it with tooth picks?

I would expect a proper LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY to show up like the sheriff's department not the housing authority.

Once again, placing a label on me as an anarchist or a rebel doesn't make it so. It is a typical tactic for the progressive who has run out of arguments against someone that wants a more Constitutional government.

Bullshit. I said either you are an anarchist or just another Jackal using that Constitutional government bullshit to try and get what you want. Just like the other side is doing. You are exactly like those you despise.

Constitutional government bullshit??? So we're just going to throw the Constitution out the window? All I want is for the government to follow it and stop taking liberties.

It is also a typical tactic of the left to describe someone as a bully and then start throwing labels at them in an attempt to bully them. It makes your argument look weak.

Wow....the right never does that. You got me there. Poor Poor Constitutional government types. Always getting picked on by the bully left. Show me where I've done that here and I'll accept your argument. You've tried to label me several times.

I don't know that I've tried to shove anything down anyone's throat. If you chose to read what I've written and feel like it is being shoved it down your throat then perhaps it is being shoved down your throat. (See my comments about fighting above). I have no control over your perception.
I don't buy preaching from either the left or right. Both think they are holier than thou. I only point out that there isn't a lick of difference between the two. So my perception is that neither side is shoving anything down my throat ... no matter how loud you preach from that stump.


I've tried to make my point that the Federal Government was never intended to have the reach that it has. That's it. Am I attempting to make an argument that the founders wanted smaller more limited government and have backed it up with excerpts from the Constitution, the Convention Debates and the Federalist Papers as well as case law. I have also done it in a civil and respectful manner. I have been asked questions on my opinion and have given it. I have asked questions and been answered anything but a legitimate answer.
You are entitled to your opinion but I might add for dexterity that that is all it is. You have no way of knowing wtf the founders wanted. Nobody does.

That's right it is an opinion. One based on study of the history of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional debates and the Federalist papers. One thing is clear. The founders wanted to limit the size and scope of the Federal Government and put more power into the hands of the people. Having come out of a war against a tyrannical government it is safe to assume that they did not want to return to what they were fighting against. When you take that into consideration it makes sense that their intentions were to set up a system that would not let that happen again. The Articles of Confederation were extremely limiting in the power of the Federal Government. So much so that even the founders realized it didn't go far enough against opposition such as Sam Adams and James Monroe who were fervent Anti-federalists. Even The Federalists who were for a stronger Constitution and Federal Government were very careful in their wording to keep it within limits. For example Madison didn't like the idea of a Bill of Rights because he felt it would be later considered to be the only rights we were given. Madison felt that the Constitution properly laid out the role, duties and responsibilities of the Federal Government and that the wording in the Constitution made it apparent that what was not specified was left to the State or the People...And Madison was a Federalist.

I will say that human nature being wtf it is , our founders wanted power in the hands of like minded folks. White men with property. The fight for that power hasn't changed much in the last 230 plus years.

That you try and coat your distain in a civil and respectful manner does not mask its odor. Be likePepé Le Pew tring to convince me he is a cat. h

Some of the guys that frequent this forum know my persona on other areas of the board. Perhaps I am being to serious on a SHMB but I don't and won't bring that persona into a forum like this. The topics mean too much to me for silliness, regardless of the audience.

Originally Posted by WTF

See this passive aggressive bullshit is wtf I'm talking about with this holier than thou attitude.

Can't fucking joke about the government!
Can't make fun of State Righters!
Can't make fun of the Tea Party!

Anarchy is the answer, all else is just politics.

Once you understand that, you then will understand my POV.

Sorry I didn't know we were joking...