You might find it interesting just who heads up the BLM. That is probably a reason for Harry to keep butting in. On top of that, I will bet Rory is knee deep in this. And I am sorry, but neither owing fees not taxes deserve the reaction of the BLM, And I consider taxes much more serious, but I will bet you cannot name a single instance of the IRS sending 200+ armed agents to collect someones taxes. As for his owing money, please show me a single instance where either Coin or I have said or implied that he does not owe the money. However, I will bet the actual fees are not $1M, but he still owes.
If he's too lazy to look up the information himself, I'll save him the trouble. The guy's name is Neil Kornze. Before coming to the BLM, Kornze worked as a Senior Policy Advisor to... wait a minute... I want the tension to build up.... drum roll, please.... OK, I can't tolerate the anxiety... you may have guessed it already, but the answer is..... TADA!.....: U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Whoulda thunk it?
If Bundy had paid his grazing fees as ordered then this Harry Reid stuff you keep bringing up might be an issue which would give me reason to support Bundy's cause. The Federal Gov't owns the land. Powers in the Federal Gov't needs some land to relocate and save a couple of desert turtles to make way for a project elsewhere. The land Bundy is leasing fits the bill. He is 20 years behind on his rent. So the Gov't is trying to evict him and put the turtles there. Happens all the time in the real world. Well, except it usually involves somebody chaining themselves to a bulldozier or something.
I have no problem with anything you have said there. My problem comes with the rest of the story. Why not Pend Oreille Bonner Development? Why not Teri Polo? Why not Warren Buffett? Why not Ilitch? BTW, how many armed agents were involved with the Al Capone arrest? Uhm, 4 maybe?
Don't blame Clembo. After listening to the total shit of idiots and malcontents like you for any period of time, it shouldn't be unexpected that a person might loosen their otherwise tight filter. You idiots that have no filters, no rational sense, no brain cells don't have to go off the deep end, you already live there. It is only when people that have to suffer fools like you start acting outside their normal behavior in order to tolerate the nonsense you bottom feeders spew, that you sit up and finally take notice. You claim that Clembo's posts used to be something that you looked forward to. Maybe, just maybe the crap that routinely comes out of your mouth played a part in that change. Not that you have the brain matter ever consider this but that doesn't make it any less of a truth. I'm sure Clembo is just fine. He'll take a break, come back, or not, and continue to roll his eyes at the nonsense he sees no matter the source. I know because I gave up on you dead-enders years ago.
What a surprise, Bundy is a liar and a racist. Here are old Clive's words: “I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do. “And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
Calm down, little man. No need to get your panties in an uproar. Clembo can defend himself. He doesn't need any assistance from you. So, you've noticed the change too, eh? Regardless, I seriously doubt that anything I say has "played a part" in influencing Clembo or anyone else to respond in a manner that's aberrant of their usual dialogue. I'm flattered, but you're giving me too much credit. Indeed. Clembo has always struck me as middle-of-the-road when it comes to politics and has skewered both sides evenly. Lately, however, he seems to be sliding toward IQLess1 territory which includes one-sided liberalism mixed with a dash of ranting, furor and venom. How sad. We never gave up on you. Well, actually, we never cared about you in the first place.
I won't argue the guy's right to be a racist, but what does that have to do with him not paying his taxes?
But the irony of his words - being his beef with the Federal Government is about grazing his cattle on Federal Land for FREE.
Nobody has the "right" to be a racist. I agree that he probably has the ignorance to be a racist, but I'd never call it a right. When you state that ugly social characteristics are equivalent to rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you demean the value we place on legitimate rights. I would never defend someone's "right" to devalue another person based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation. That is how you and I differ.
No argument there. But, him being a racist has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he pays his taxes.
That is certainly one point where you and I differ. I would argue that a person has the right to pursue happiness however they decide to pursue it. If he decides to hate a person based simply on that person's skin color, that's his business. If he doesn't like homosexuals, it's still his business. Of course, I draw the line when anyone (racist or otherwise) chooses to harm other people. You've probably heard the old saying, "Your right stops at the tip of my nose". "Ugly social characteristics" are only one aspect of our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Fortunately, if we are going to guarantee a person's right to the pursuit of happiness, we must guarantee their right to believe as they wish. I would never take the right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness from anyone no matter how much I disagree with their beliefs. We may not like racists, sexists, homophobes, etc., but thank the Creator and our Constitution which states that our government guarantees our right to pursue happiness which includes our right to believe as we wish.
Here is where you are wrong entirely. You hold the personal freedom to be a racist, a mysoginist, a homophobe, or any other type of bigot above the actual right of people to be treated as equals. Some people will never let go of their ignorant beliefs but defending their "right" to those ignorant beliefs only serves to embolden their ignorance. A belief is much different than a right. There are countless beliefs but rights, actual rights spawn from higher ideals, human suffering, and in many cases, death. Never confuse a right with a belief. Beliefs come and go but when a right is taken away there is a huge outcry from humanity because freedom itself is under attack. Your defense of ignorance as a right misses the concept of freedom by as much as it can possibly be missed by.
Here is where you are entirely wrong. Our Constitution deals in rights and so do our laws. Bundy has the same rights as you do. You both have the right to believe you are superior to the rest of the world. It is just that you do not have the right to impose that belief (and its consequences) on the rest of the world.
This is where I disagree with you completely. A person has the RIGHT to believe whatever they want regardless of what that belief might be. One of the cornerstones of our Constitution is guaranteeing their RIGHT to the pursuit of happiness even if, as you say, their beliefs embolden their ignorance. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits being ignorant. If we don't honor the Constitution's guarantee for someone to be a "racist, mysoginist, homophobe or any other type of bigot", then we enter the realm of telling people what to think and/or how to act. What you've failed to grasp is that I'm not equating a "belief" to a "right". I'm saying that a person has the right to believe as they wish. I'm not defending ignorance as a right. However, I will defend the right of a person to believe as they wish even if their belief is ignorant. THAT is one of the very basic concepts of freedom.
Personally, I haven't looked over his income/expense statements nor do I know what he's paid and what he hasn't paid. Do you have some insight into his personal accounts other than what the government says he owes?
