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!
its about the 4 wheel crowd doing what they want and the people that enjoy elk meadows etc doing what they want ... an elk meadow is protected from 4 wheelers
I've yet to hear of a 4 wheel park needing protection from a heard of elk
"elk meadows"... you are fucking joking, right? We need protection from you faggots... LOL
[QUOTE=I B Hankering;1055219710]Once again you throw up your straw man arguments and then knock them down so you can run around in your pathetic little circles and pretend you achieved something.
Identify a strawman argument I made. Do you even know what that phrase means?
Again, who has what "power" and who doesn't have a "power" is not always the most important factor in these cases, and sometimes that factor is far less important than the people's perception that a government agency is abusing its power.
I didn't ask you about power. I asked you about Bundy's legal claim. Answer the question IBEvading.
This influences the people's willingness to rise up and stand in rebellion against such perceived abuses, and that is happening. The current perception is that the BLM was allowing Reid, et al, to proceed with the commercial development of property deemed "too fragile" for use by cattle, and that seems arbitrary. The arbitrary enforcement of laws by a government agency is illegal.
Except the BLM is not arbitrarily enforcing the law, are they IBChangingTheSubject? The BLM has required ALL of the other ranchers to pay grazing fees and is trying to do the same to Bundy. But he keeps refusing and losing in court. So where is the arbitrary enforcement, IBConfused?
All laws must apply to all citizens equally: members of Congress and their families included.
All laws do. Do you have any evidence that the BLM would not make Harry Reid pay grazing fees, IBPuttingUpASmokeScreen?
BTW, you're still dragging rear.[/QUOTE]
Actually, you're so far to the rear we can't see you any more.
I asked you a straight up question - What LEGAL claim does Bundy have to graze on federal land free of charge? - and you have YET AGAIN failed to answer the question.
Instead, you changed the subject and spouted some gibberish about public perception.
Here is MY public perception. Bundy is a deadbeat trying to get over on the system.
Kind of like a Republic of Texas asshole that thinks he doesn't have to pay income taxes because they are unconstitutional.
Except i didn't dodge the question Senile Old Guy. I answered it in Post No. 229 above.
That is why there is such a thing as federal ownership of land.
And you never responded to that except to say "Business and housing are not the only productive uses of land". But you haven't specified what.
You clearly did make up stuff. That is the only way Statists can win arguments. It is also clear that the federal government owns much more land than what is used for the purposes you described.
So, let me make it easier for you. Does the federal government own too much land, not enough land, or about the right amount of land?
