Access Fund Will Sue Federal Government to Defend Bears Ears National Monument
|
Ray Pinpillage wrote: A shrewd debater would have avoided bringing Jim Crow laws into a debate about if or not a Federal Government aught to have the power or historical precedent to interfere with a state's right to pass or enforce certain laws of it's own. You may or may not have a point, but you are pretty poor at making it. |
|
Tony B wrote: The Jim Crow laws got Federal approval when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of racial segregation in 1896 (Plessy vs Ferguson). The Federal government reversed its position and ruled it unconstitutional 58 years later. |
|
Tony B wrote: Ad Hominem isn't generally a shrewd debating tactic either but that hasn't stopped you and others that disagree with me in this thread. My point was made fine, you just don't like it. |
|
Morgan Patterson wrote: Look, I think I've been a pretty good sport with you guys. I'm getting questions from four or five people at once and it's kind of unreasonable to be demanding. I think I've answered that a page back if you would like to look. |
|
Here is an interesting current event that highlights the Federal government's inability to manage land and to act unethically when called to task. Forgive me for not believing we're better off handing control of land from one imperfect agency to another even less perfect agency. I know some won't like the source but it was the first reporting on it. |
|
Ray Pinpillage wrote: Ray, you're right. We're much off with Cliven Bundy than the BLM. Solid argument. You've convinced me. |
|
Fat Dad wrote: You were never going to change your mind. As unsympathetic as the Bundys are at least they aren't a lying corrupt bureaucracy which is what you're advocating. |
|
Ray Pinpillage wrote: Not true. I am persuaded by evidence all the time. You just haven't presented any that's relevant or persuasive. Also, are you really arguing that the Bundy's are better than the BLM, or was that just an attack of verbal diarrhea?! |
|
Fat Dad wrote: I don't think I really have to, a federal judge just said as much. The lead BLM agent got busted dealing in stolen native artifacts and the lead prosecutor was fired for prosecutorial misconduct. Or are you saying that's how it should work? Given you're the one crying about the reduction of BENM, it seems there's more than a few people that see it somewhat similar to me. Strange that you're the one stomping your feet making demands as it would appear your "side" is a bit on the ropes. Shouldn't you over on the taco anyway? That's gotta be a bit more comfortable echo chamber for your sensitivities. Edit: Want to guess which BLM office worked on the BENM project? You guessed it, the one that's chief got busted with stolen native artifacts who was also involved with the Bundy shit show in Nevada. |
|
Ray Pinpillage wrote: One, I believe you should probably look more into the specifics of why the Bundy claim was dismissed. It was before the prosecution withheld evidence that, from what I understand, didn't appear to be particularly relevant to the facts of the case. Not that the prosecutor should withhold evidence. If so, sanctions or dismissal can be an appropriate remedy. As you point out in your own reply, the BLM agent busted with artifacts has nothing to do with the Bundy's actions. You're blending different issues from unrelated matters. Stupid people will do that. Our president does it daily. Two, no one on this thread agrees with you re Bears Ears, let alone "more than a few". Imaginary friends don't count. |
|
Fat Dad wrote: It was ruled a mistrial specifically because of withheld evidence. Dismissed with prejudice. Hard to win a case when your chief agent got sacked for selling illegal artifacts. The same chief behind the BENM study. LOL. You got hammered and the best you have is a strawman and a Trump dig. No wonder you're so sour faced. |
|
JKeller wrote: To protect BE from the BLM! |
|
Ray Pinpillage wrote: I'll admit, I haven't read all 15 pages of this scintillating topic... But... if we want to talk about being a "lying corrupt" entity... The Bundy's (willingly, and without coercion) signed a contract with the BLM. And, after signing a valid, legal contract, they refused to uphold their part of the contract. The BLM held up their end of the deal... The Bundy's didn't... So, tell me, who's the "lying, and corrupt" party in this deal? ed "just the facts, m'am..." e |
|
ed esmond wrote: The Bundy's can defend themselves, I'm not advocating for them or implying they are good people. It sounds like they lucked into a government case that made their decades old bad behavior look angelic compared to the government's. It was asked if I thought the Bundy's are better than the BLM. A federal judge says they are, at least within the scope of the case. The government's case was so bad the charges were dismissed with prejudice due to prosecutorial misconduct. The judge started by declaring a mistrial and ended up dismissing the charges with prejudiced because the government refused to produce discovery. During the trial the chief agent from the SLC, UT BLM branch was dismissed when he was caught with illegal artifacts. After the mistrial the prosecutor was fired. Coincidentally, the Bundy's were acquitted in Oregon too. Also coincidentally, the FBI agents involved in the Oregon Bundy shooting were arrested over the incident. Who is the corrupt party? That's an odd question when this thread is about taking state land to give to the federal government. Perhaps if we start giving national monuments to the Bundy's we can worry about how their behavior ranching is relevant to public land management in Utah. |
|
It wasn’t ever state land. |
|
bus driver wrote: 'member those logical inconsistencies I spoke of? |
|
Ray Pinpillage wrote: So you are calling the point I made an Ad Hominem attack. |
|
anybody wanna drive 4x4 across the Continental Divide with me to go protest the O&G development in the canyon country? |
|
Max Supertramp wrote: I would, but we'd have to stop and charge every 200 miles or so. |
|
bus driver wrote: Yep, thought the majority of the land was managed at the federal level prior to becoming a national monument, but got deflected a few pages back after the “states rights” nonsense. |