thge unfair advantage was also taken off land that does not belong to him. If this was a private citizen would you be as up in arms that they wanted to change the deal when it was up for renewal? If not there is a problem with your logic. IT IS NOT HIS LAND, he does not get to dictate how he pays another owner, if he does not like the terms he needs to take his cows elsewhere.
No, it was a freeloader, who refused to pay his grazing fees, because he does not recognize the federal government, oh and he could not make as much money if they did.
I keep seeing news clips from sources like MSNBC who are apparently on a mission to frame Bundy in that light (thief, welfare mooch, etc. etc.).
If you look at it a little further though, I don't think it's quite that clear....
First off, the entire argument centers around his letting his cattle roam and graze on the grass on all of the otherwise unused land that the Feds are NOW putting up a fuss about. Do animals not roam and graze on land in nature anyway? This isn't a case of Bundy building physical structures on govt. land, or even so much as parking vehicles on it. The government's main defense here is a claim that he owes them a large amount of money for unpaid "grazing rights". Ok... except if you look at the history of grazing rights? All they were was a way for ranchers to avoid having to deal with the hassles of maintaining grazing lands themselves -- repairing broken fences and so forth. A govt. agency offered to make things easier on them by performing those services centrally and collecting grazing fees to fund it, and they agreed. Bundy was actually doing the fence repairs and maintenance himself... so his failure to pay these fees is little more than a technicality.
So much information, but lets make your vision a little clearer., shall we? First it does not matter if animals graze on land in nature, you would not like it if I let my heard of cows on your land to graze. Secondly Bundy is building physical structures on the land, unless you dont call trenches that he is building to provide water physical structures, on the land. As for grazing fees, it does not matter if he decides to do the repairs to fenses himself, he owes those fees, he is using the publics land, he does not get to decide unilaterally if he wants to stop paying.
Additionally, I think many folks supported him primarily as a way to "poke a proverbial stick in the eye of big government", as opposed to a direct interest in seeing justice done for Bundy and his family/relatives/friends. As a taxpayer myself, I have a big problem with government buying up large tracts of land and then just sitting on them, as they clearly did here. That's a huge waste of our money! Government's purpose is to serve the public -- so any land it purchases should be clearly towards that end. In this case, Bundy's ancestors had cattle grazing on the same land for over 100 years... and it didn't bother anybody. Only *now* is it such a big deal, govt. felt the need to use helicopters, vans with SWAT teams and more, to basically invade the area and put on a show of force -- even attempting to seize the man's cattle.
The government did not just buy up that huge track of land, atleast not anytime in our generation, or our parents generation, or even thiers. They have owned the land for just as long a Bundy's family has been using it. They just formed the BLM to manage it. Also the government owning land is one of the ways they offset taxes. As for why it did not bother anyone, it is because until 20 years ago they were paying the fees, until he stopped. Also they did not want to sieze the cattle, they wanted it off the public land...major differnece
Lastly, there's the issue of govt. clearly lying about its intentions. A claim was initially made about the land being purchased for the purpose of preserving an endangered species of tortoise. Interestingly enough, there are records showing the boundaries of the protected land were re-drawn in the past, to accommodate other government projects - when they were found inconvenient. So the idea Bundy has to go for endangering these animals now is ludicrous.
it is not Bundy's land, he has to go for what the owners say, or he can find other grazing land.
Bottom line? If the guy owes the IRS back taxes and keeps refusing to pay, fine... Collect it from him the usual way. Seize his bank account or garnish some of
Lets remove the tortoises for the equation. This man has been using public lands to graze his cattle subsidized off our dime for 20 years. The price the BLM charges is way cheaper then it would be if he had to pay private owners/companies to let him graze..
Next they were not arresting him from what I saw, they were removing his cows from PUBLIC land, where they had a lawful court order to remove them, yet he and his "friends" blocked and threatened those officers with violence.
If this had been almost any other group the conservatives would have been calling them all sorts of names like welfare queens, lazy, whatever.
no, netflix paid for the bandwidth they were using, otherwise they would of went with a different provider. The problem was comcast wanted to double dip, seeing as they are a content owner and netflix competes with them. If netflix was using more bandwidth then they were paying for ALL ISPs would have had the same issue that comcast an other large ISPs are having.
Yes, because I am sure it was Clinton herself that lost the files and no one else would have been capable of losing them if they were in charge...But dont let logic stop you from being completely asinine.
What google is doing may be ok, however if the teachers use it, and discriminate, then they would be breaking the law, as they are not allowed to discriminate.
The girl scouts and boy scouts are private, and sometimes religious clubs, which have different rules then public businesses or the government, and even still the girl scouts have allowed transgender members.
Why would girls continue to fall behind? The teachers have a limited number of students, and an even more limited number of students who want to code, if it was equal, then in most cases it should still bring the students up, especially since there is an unlimited number of codes.
Grant money for the disabled is to help care for their special needs. There is no grant that go directly to schools for minorities, however there is for the poor, which is used to offset the cost of their free lunch.
Ever heard of a strawman? Look it up.. Not all minority issues attempt restrict the rights of others, in fact most do not, making your statement completely and utterly false.
So the fact that it came after the act itself does not mean it is after the fact? Are you in some sort of non linear space time bubble the rest of us dont know about?
That is not necessarily true, and is just an assumption about a statement taken after the fact, not before hand. There are other possibilities, such as Brendan came to that conclusion himself and voluntarily stepped down, and Baker was just making the statement. There is no evidence that he was forced out by the leadership of the company.
Slashdot Mirror
I know you know that is not in any way what he stated.
thge unfair advantage was also taken off land that does not belong to him. If this was a private citizen would you be as up in arms that they wanted to change the deal when it was up for renewal? If not there is a problem with your logic. IT IS NOT HIS LAND, he does not get to dictate how he pays another owner, if he does not like the terms he needs to take his cows elsewhere.
I think you are referring to yourself there.
this has been discredited by almost everyone, including fox news...
The guy does NOT own the land. The land has been owned by the government for as long as he has been using it. He owns 160 acres, that is it.
No, it was a freeloader, who refused to pay his grazing fees, because he does not recognize the federal government, oh and he could not make as much money if they did.
I keep seeing news clips from sources like MSNBC who are apparently on a mission to frame Bundy in that light (thief, welfare mooch, etc. etc.).
If you look at it a little further though, I don't think it's quite that clear....
First off, the entire argument centers around his letting his cattle roam and graze on the grass on all of the otherwise unused land that the Feds are NOW putting up a fuss about. Do animals not roam and graze on land in nature anyway? This isn't a case of Bundy building physical structures on govt. land, or even so much as parking vehicles on it. The government's main defense here is a claim that he owes them a large amount of money for unpaid "grazing rights". Ok ... except if you look at the history of grazing rights? All they were was a way for ranchers to avoid having to deal with the hassles of maintaining grazing lands themselves -- repairing broken fences and so forth. A govt. agency offered to make things easier on them by performing those services centrally and collecting grazing fees to fund it, and they agreed. Bundy was actually doing the fence repairs and maintenance himself ... so his failure to pay these fees is little more than a technicality.
So much information, but lets make your vision a little clearer., shall we? First it does not matter if animals graze on land in nature, you would not like it if I let my heard of cows on your land to graze. Secondly Bundy is building physical structures on the land, unless you dont call trenches that he is building to provide water physical structures, on the land. As for grazing fees, it does not matter if he decides to do the repairs to fenses himself, he owes those fees, he is using the publics land, he does not get to decide unilaterally if he wants to stop paying.
Additionally, I think many folks supported him primarily as a way to "poke a proverbial stick in the eye of big government", as opposed to a direct interest in seeing justice done for Bundy and his family/relatives/friends. As a taxpayer myself, I have a big problem with government buying up large tracts of land and then just sitting on them, as they clearly did here. That's a huge waste of our money! Government's purpose is to serve the public -- so any land it purchases should be clearly towards that end. In this case, Bundy's ancestors had cattle grazing on the same land for over 100 years ... and it didn't bother anybody. Only *now* is it such a big deal, govt. felt the need to use helicopters, vans with SWAT teams and more, to basically invade the area and put on a show of force -- even attempting to seize the man's cattle.
The government did not just buy up that huge track of land, atleast not anytime in our generation, or our parents generation, or even thiers. They have owned the land for just as long a Bundy's family has been using it. They just formed the BLM to manage it. Also the government owning land is one of the ways they offset taxes. As for why it did not bother anyone, it is because until 20 years ago they were paying the fees, until he stopped. Also they did not want to sieze the cattle, they wanted it off the public land...major differnece
Lastly, there's the issue of govt. clearly lying about its intentions. A claim was initially made about the land being purchased for the purpose of preserving an endangered species of tortoise. Interestingly enough, there are records showing the boundaries of the protected land were re-drawn in the past, to accommodate other government projects - when they were found inconvenient. So the idea Bundy has to go for endangering these animals now is ludicrous.
it is not Bundy's land, he has to go for what the owners say, or he can find other grazing land.
Bottom line? If the guy owes the IRS back taxes and keeps refusing to pay, fine... Collect it from him the usual way. Seize his bank account or garnish some of
Lets remove the tortoises for the equation. This man has been using public lands to graze his cattle subsidized off our dime for 20 years. The price the BLM charges is way cheaper then it would be if he had to pay private owners/companies to let him graze..
Next they were not arresting him from what I saw, they were removing his cows from PUBLIC land, where they had a lawful court order to remove them, yet he and his "friends" blocked and threatened those officers with violence.
If this had been almost any other group the conservatives would have been calling them all sorts of names like welfare queens, lazy, whatever.
One can argue anything, however nothing I have seen about the NV incident shows anything other than Bundy being a thieving welfare king.
no, netflix paid for the bandwidth they were using, otherwise they would of went with a different provider. The problem was comcast wanted to double dip, seeing as they are a content owner and netflix competes with them. If netflix was using more bandwidth then they were paying for ALL ISPs would have had the same issue that comcast an other large ISPs are having.
Yes, because I am sure it was Clinton herself that lost the files and no one else would have been capable of losing them if they were in charge...But dont let logic stop you from being completely asinine.
What google is doing may be ok, however if the teachers use it, and discriminate, then they would be breaking the law, as they are not allowed to discriminate.
Yes, the protected class in these laws is gender, not women, meaning "Sexual discrimination is not legal"
The girl scouts and boy scouts are private, and sometimes religious clubs, which have different rules then public businesses or the government, and even still the girl scouts have allowed transgender members.
Why would girls continue to fall behind? The teachers have a limited number of students, and an even more limited number of students who want to code, if it was equal, then in most cases it should still bring the students up, especially since there is an unlimited number of codes.
Grant money for the disabled is to help care for their special needs. There is no grant that go directly to schools for minorities, however there is for the poor, which is used to offset the cost of their free lunch.
And that matters how? Sexual discrimination is not legal no matter if you are the government site or something else.
Never heard of the SCOTUS have we?
Ever heard of a strawman? Look it up.. Not all minority issues attempt restrict the rights of others, in fact most do not, making your statement completely and utterly false.
Well not necessarily idiots, but illogical.
In what way does 2 gay men being married have any affect on others, hint it has absolutely 0.
So the fact that it came after the act itself does not mean it is after the fact? Are you in some sort of non linear space time bubble the rest of us dont know about?
That is not necessarily true, and is just an assumption about a statement taken after the fact, not before hand. There are other possibilities, such as Brendan came to that conclusion himself and voluntarily stepped down, and Baker was just making the statement. There is no evidence that he was forced out by the leadership of the company.
Except they did not get rid of him, and actively tried to keep him after he started the resignation process....
Why? if there is nothing wrong with HFT then why would there be shock waves?
You assume the regulation does not require them to upgrade.