I'm having a real hard time seeing what's so complicated about this. Whether or not someone else has designs on the property is immaterial. He hasn't paid his grazing fees in 2 decades and refused to reduce his herd size when told to. He's a mooch. A welfare bum.

Unfounded and unhinged?:confused::eek: So you get all wrapped around the axle because I innocently used a term that YOU declared as insulting and then you call a different forum member UNHINGED.:eek: Unfreakingbelievable!

This makes me wonder if maybe you were just jerking my chain getting me to apologize for that. Were you just making a chump out of me?

Please don't call honorable members of this forum "unhinged" again.

As I read more about the issue, there is legitimate gray area when it comes to whether or not he has paid grazing fees. He has indeed paid his fees to the state and it is state owned land. The Feds are poking their nose in the states business. State sovereignty seems to be going out the window more and more.

EXCELLENT and accurate contrast!

Okay, what's sharptons excuse then?

I stopped following the number of unborn babies that have been murdered, but the number is in the millions.

Apparently you didn't read the copy I posted, twice, from the Nevada constitution that clearly shows the transfer of public lands to the federal government AND the rule that the state CANNOT tax them. He hasn't paid any tax to the state. He tried to, but the state government, understanding it's constitution, refused to accept his payment. It isn't state land. Hasn't been for a very long time.

I wonder if anyone else has noticed that when our left leaning members represent a statement is fact, the other left leaning members accept it as fact. If OTOH a right leaning member presents something as fact, they are immediately prompted for a link. Of course regardless of the link, it will be claimed to not be a credible source, or not enough participants in the study, etc.

Just an interesting point that some people have conveniently not noticed.

Nonsense. You're really reaching here.

Oh! Well then. Just send some federal officers out there and murder his two best bulls and kill the family then.

Now you're sounding a bit more like yourself.:rolleyes:

Is the Google not working for you? :rolleyes:

That is what we did to the "savage" Native American Indian:rolleyes:.

It would not surprise me if the IRS audits every one of the militiamen/women that they took pictures of during the disagreement. It would also not surprise me if all the ones they can id with the weapons end up an untimely, early death over the next year or so. The tank running over them is a lot quicker but does not play out very well in the media.

Why? Why would I reward an ill mannered child throwing a tantrum regardless of how reasonable the request is if made in an unreasonable fashion? If you came to me as a subordinate and told me that people in your position are paid $2 an hour more, I would be more than happy to investigate it and if necessary, make the changes or come to some sort of compromise depending on the situation. OTOH, if you come barging into my office, screaming and yelling, demanding a raise of $0.50, I'd tell you to pack your stuff in a box and get out of my office and employment.

Similarly, why would anyone want to reward such behavior is beyond me. All it does is set up the table for the next unreasonable demand and so on. Much like a kid that demands candy and threatens to hold his breath. Why would I reward him by listening, not even giving in, simply listening to his demand regardless of how reasonable it might be?

How so? Did you or did you not pay the fees to the authorities as requested? Did you or did you not get orders from the court that you felt was a "request"? Did you or did you not get a court date? Seems like the answer was "No", "Yes" and "Yes", respectively. Where is the gray area? You either paid what was asked or you did not. You either got orders from the court or you did not. You either got a court hearing or did not. It is pretty black and white.