Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Conservatives -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sense who wrote (28110)	4/13/2014 11:34:28 AM
From: D. Long	4 Recommendations Recommended By arno bentway KLP research1234 Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 124675

You spew a lot of smoke on this thread, but shed very little light. There are only two important facts here: 1. It is federal land; 2. Bundy didn't pay the grazing fees. That's it. It wasn't his land, and he had no right to graze his cattle on federal land without complying with the terms of use imposed by the federal government for its use. The rest is just simply irrelevant conspiracy theory. You can argue the feds should transfer the land to Nevada, or sell it off, but that's arguing over future policy and doesn't change the facts as they are right now. Your post is as pointless as arguing about violating "rights" of a tenant being evicted for failure to pay his rent just because the tenant lived there a long time and the landlord raised the rent.