1 - 10 Next
What difference does it make, are you afraid the country will run out of hamburger if he pays the grazing charges? He doesn't own this land and hasn't paid the rent on it. Again, what's hard to understand about that scenario?
Something I think the majority of posters here forget is that this land doesn't belong to the "Federal Government" per se, it belongs collectively to us-the citizens of the US. That means that Cliven Bundy has been grazing his cattle on mine and your land w/o any payment for some time. It is the same if I decide to build a hotel on the Mall in Washington DC or a McDonalds in the Badlands. These are areas that are set aside for all of the citizens to use collectively. In the case of federal grazing lands, ranchers pay rent for the use of them. He hasn't done this for quite some time and he owes all of us, through the government, back rent. What's hard to understand about that?
Truth hurts, huh?
Actually I think this is going to be a good thing. Let a bunch of GA rednecks carry into bars, start to get a little loaded and get into an argument. Someone will pull their gun out and the shooting will start. Since like minds attract, undoubtedly his friends will retaliate with their guns and these cretins will remove their genes from the gene pool.
They most likely were registered to vote in one state and moved to another state where they registered to vote. How many of you who have changed your residence have called voter registration and taken your name off the rolls? Voters, especially younger voters, move every day.
Indeed it was. The "Laffer Curve" was the graph that showed by lowering tax rates, one could increase total revenues. To quote Bush I, Voodoo Economics!!!
What kind of an idiot are you, "phony 'trickle down' invented by Progressives"? I'm old enough to remember Reagan's trickle down economics with David Stockman as his budget director. No one had ever heard of any of that previous to Reagan. Google Reagan and trickle down and you'll find it's completely a theory by conservatives. That's why it's now referred to as Reaganomics. George HW Bush referred to it as Voodoo economics and not too long ago, David Stockman came out a said the theory is completely wrong.
Having survived the Supreme Court case, the ACA would be considered settled law. Will/can there be more cases that will perhaps change certain interpretations of the law? Of course there can be in the same sense that any legal case brought before any portion of our judiciary concerns some portion of the law. As of the Supreme Court decision (sorry don't remember the details) upholding the ACA, we have the law on the books and it's being implemented as we speak. By the time 2016 rolls around, it would be extremely difficult to repeal it in it's entirety.
I'd like to put this thought out there. ACA is settled law at this point although I do admit that it can possibly be repealed/defunded although not until after 2016 (and by then, it would be extremely difficult). By that time, I hope the bugs will be worked out of the system and the majority of the American people will decide that finding a way to cover all (or at least the vast majority) of our fellow citizens with health insurance is a good thing for our society. If that happens, the Republican party will be well on the way to the dustbin of history. It's also possible that the whole thing might blow up in the faces of the Democrats (but I personally think not)!!!
1 - 10 Next