Azalin

thanks....there's a good deal of info there that I hadn't heard or read before, much of it pretty damned significant in light of what's being reported elsewhere. although it would appear that this particular ranch has no actual bearing on the case, this is obviously executive-level thinking. were we to receive paychecks for posting, ideas like this would earn you a raise, and possibly even a corner office.

they don't seem to like it too much when you offer them $50 after they pull you over for a traffic offense, either.

much of what I've seen is indeed inflammatory, either painting Bundy as being a poor, simple cattle farmer who's being invaded by an oppressive federal government, or a militant, anti-government redneck inciting militias to revolution. the rest has been inconsistent, and even contradictive. it's usually not so difficult to get to what appear to be the facts by sifting through various reports on a given subject, but this story, depending on where you choose to get your information from, is being spun one way or another by just about everyone who's reporting it.

the way I understood it, the feds didn't come into play with regard to that land until 1993, and his family claims to have grazing rights dating back to 1870 or so. I guess my question would be 'from whom did did they obtain the grazing rights?' and for the record, if Bundy is indeed trespassing, then he needs to back off and relinquish his claims on the land. that being said, the sight of armed feds moving in on citizens, especially when they're using snipers and apache helicopters, will always give me chills.

same here....I've read and heard several different things involving state, county, and federal government ownership of the land. I try to get my information from diverse sources in order to get a clearer picture of events, but this time the multitide of sources have been widely ranging in what they had to say. that's why I worded my previous post to include caveats for whichever situation was most correct. I'm not sure what it was in my earlier post that mastergator found so repugnant, but it was an extremely weak, if not typical display of his intellectual prowess. the way I understand it, 'pwned' derrived from 'owned' due to the ease in which people accidentally hit the 'p' key instead of the 'o' key. pop/tech culture took it from there.

absolutely right. exactly how many African-Canadians have ever been allowed to play on any Canadian hockey teams, NHL or minor league? it's racism, pure & simple. where the hell are Jessie & Al when you really need them?

I was under the impression that the land belonged to the state of Nevada, and that the deal for grazing rights was with the state, not the feds. I can't remember where I heard or read that, though. either way, if there was a deal that he could use the land to graze his cattle, then he should be able to do so. if he owes any government agencies money for using the land per the agreement, then he should pay what he owes. if the feds don't have an ownership stake in the land, then they should be held accountable for moving in on a private citizen under force of arms.

this is one of those statements that has the potential to inspire some seriously legendary humor.

agreed 100%. I don't share their political views in many cases, but comedy is still comedy, and I'm guaranteed at least one good, hearty belly laugh every time I watch either one of them. I wish Colbert nothing but success.

yes, he most certainly was. what ever happened to him....does anyone know?

there's a difference between bloviation and substance, and you're giving yourself an awful lot of credit when referring to your own words as 'substantive'. you look to the republican party for ' STRONG, pragmatic, executable proposals that were developed without lobbyists'? no party is going to take a pragmatic approach on any meaningful legislation. why? because they're partisans. if you know anything about politics at all, you know that each party plays to their base, and only tries to court the middle/independents during the general election, and then only as far as the presidential race is concerned. as far as getting lobbyists out of the picture, good freaking luck with that. you can pontificate all you want about pragmatism and legislation uninfluenced by lobbies, but that's just not going to happen, no matter how much you, I, or anyone else would like to see it. look to the balance and separation of powers to keep that in check, if even that has a meaningful effect. you need to get over yourself. pointing out an inconsistency in what you say is not a 'gotcha' moment. if you don't like your words and ideas being challenged, this is not a good place for you.

I'm of similar mind. Jackson is no idiot, and I would imagine (or so I would hope, anyway) that he's more reasonable in private. my reply to Tom was meant as friendly, tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, but I guess that wasn't as obvious as I had assumed it to be.

you're not implying that the Reverend Jackson might not be genuine, are you?

read it again, Albert.

it would be even better if Jackson would say that in front of television cameras from time to time. sure, there will always be racism to one extent or another, but the racist/segregationist element in our society has largely been eliminated, and it would go a long way toward relieveing some of the unnessary racial tension that exists in our society today.

then it's apparent that you weren't paying attention when you were 12 - 16, because the state of the nation after GW was still miles above where it was after Carter. and while you were just teling like it is, you say you didn't vote for BO, and then a couple posts later, you say you voted for him in 2008. you aren't being consistent.

another factor in the pay disparity that I rarely see mentioned is the high-risk nature of some professions that tend to be exclusive to men, such as working on oil rigs, mining, demoltiton, highway construction, etc. the potentially hazardous nature of some of these jobs is reflected in the higher wage they offer.

well now, that makes it even more interesting...... it might explain why his shirt is so wet.

this raises an intresting question about a possibility of being a philanthropee.

this is so sad. I'm very sorry for your loss.

hey Einstein, it says philanthropist, not philanthropy. and it fills a bigger void than if people had simply waited for the government to spring into action.

and on the subject of health care, more from those evil Koch brothers: from the article: 'No, the only thing the liberal interest groups didn’t like about the new hospital wing was its funding source: the philanthropist known as David H. Koch. The new wing was gratefully to be named after Koch, who along with his brother Charles stands as one of today’s great philanthropists.' http://nypost.com/2014/03/16/loopy-liberals-freak-over-koch-brothers-100m-hospital-gift/