Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Harry Reid is a national disgrace and an ongoing embarrassment to the United States Senate. The fact that he is the individual that the Democrat Party selected as its leader speaks volumes about that party.
Reid is a career politician who lies, misrepresents, and smears his opponents. He is wholly uninterested in good government, helping the people, or upholding the Constitution of the United States. He exists to preserve and extend the power of the Democrat Party.
He is a despicable pig. His one redeeming trait is that his ongoing presence does nothing but damage the Democrat Party brand.
Your post is jam packed with empty accusations and no examples or facts to back up these accusations. Can you imagine if a court proceeding ran this way? We call that a witch hunt. If you think Reid should not be in office, give factual reasons as to why instead of rambling, meaningless, insults.
Harry Reed's recent comment that the Bundy's and their supporters were domestic terrorists is a declaration of war against and entire segment of the American population and should be grounds to run the traitor Harry Reed right out of office.
Any politician who labels any American citizen standing for his rights under the Constitution and resisting the tyranny of the Federal Government is committing treason against all American citizens and is unfit for office.
Harry Reeds statement is so egregious that all American's should demand Harry Reed resign or be impeached and leave office in shame.
Perhaps Harry Reed does not even understand what the United States is. The United States is the people, it is not the Federal Government and it is definitely not the BLM who acts under color of law and has no accountability whatsoever to the American people.
The Federal Government promised the ranchers of Nevada free use of public lands hundreds of years ago to entice ranchers to settle Nevada and as it has done so many times in the past is now reneging on its promises, as it has done with almost every treaty it has ever made.
It is not the ranchers of Nevada who are the domestic terrorists, it is Harry Reed and his like.
Harry Reid calling people terrorists from his position of power is very questionable thinking on his part. I think some of the people based on some government agencies definition of a terrorist are technically terrorists.
But the meaning of his words demands an armed conflict with these so called terrorists.
If Mr. Reid were asked if these terrorists should be confronted with force would he say yes?
I think no one wants this to end in violence.
The Senator could and should call them anti American criminals and right wing extremists though now that is an accurate description.
Your post is jam packed with empty accusations and no examples or facts to back up these accusations. Can you imagine if a court proceeding ran this way? We call that a witch hunt. If you think Reid should not be in office, give factual reasons as to why instead of rambling, meaningless, insults.
Odd, you didn't require any facts from Dirty Harry when he baselessly accused Mitt Romney of felony tax evasion.
In other words, your commentary isn't worthy of serious consideration or a meaningful reply. There is ample evidence out there to support my post, you simply aren't interested in it.
What rights were these ranchers standing up to? The right to be a deadbeat rancher who doesn't pay his bills?
So if you stop paying your taxes, it is no longer tax dodging, just government tyranny.
The right to use public grazing lands. The Federal government is restricted by the Constitution in what it may own land for. This entire issue goes back to Feudal England in which the King owned all property. If you are saying the Federal Government has replaced the King in being the owner of all lands instead of the public, then we fought the Revolution for nothing because the Federal Government has now become our King instead of our servant.
Find me where in the Constitution the Federal Government was given the right to confiscate property and then to rent it back to the public. The truth is that the public are the owners of the land, and need not pay the government to use it.
Odd, you didn't require any facts from Dirty Harry when he baselessly accused Mitt Romney of felony tax evasion.
In other words, your commentary isn't worthy of serious consideration or a meaningful reply. There is ample evidence out there to support my post, you simply aren't interested in it.
The right to use public grazing lands. The Federal government is restricted by the Constitution in what it may own land for. This entire issue goes back to Feudal England in which the King owned all property. If you are saying the Federal Government has replaced the King in being the owner of all lands instead of the public, then we fought the Revolution for nothing because the Federal Government has now become our King instead of our servant.
Find me where in the Constitution the Federal Government was given the right to confiscate property and then to rent it back to the public. The truth is that the public are the owners of the land, and need not pay the government to use it.
The Federal Government did not confiscate this property from Bundy. The Federal Government purchased this land from Mexico.
yep, run all the bastards out of the government you don't agree with!
So calling for someone to be thrown out for calling American citizens "terrorists" is equivalent to calling for someone to be run out of government because you don't agree with them?
Without even needing to know the specifics of the Bundy situation that Reid was commenting on, I can already surmise the nature of it purely from the disingenuous way you twist the OP.
My guess is this is yet another situation of a liberal who has nothing substantive to respond with, so he resorts to ridicule as a response instead. Can't come up with anywhere that the constitution defines marriage as a right? Call conservatives who oppose it homophobes. Can't come up with an evidence that Obama's trillion dollar stimulus worked? Call conservatives who oppose it racists. Can't come up with any valid reason that birth control, unlike all other medication, should have no copays? Call it a war on women if it does have a copay.
And by the way, throwing people out of government that you don't agree with is kind of the entire point of what we call "democracy".
The Federal Government did not confiscate this property from Bundy. The Federal Government purchased this land from Mexico.
You continue to evade the evade the question as liberals often do. There are very specific Constitutional restraints on Federal ownership of land.
Read carefully and make some attempt to understand...
The founders of America drafted the United States Constitution to form a limited federal government. It was designed to take care of only those things which were truly our national business. The state governments or the people were to keep all other powers. Article One, Section 8, Clause 17, offers the only provision in the Federal Constitution for federal ownership of land. It provides for the creation of Washington, D.C. as the seat of the federal government and allows the federal government to purchase lands in a state with “...the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.”
This is the only kind of property that the federal government is empowered to own in a state. The federal government cannot own forest lands. Why? Because no such power has ever been delegated to it and the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from assuming any power which has not been delegated to it by the Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This is the first constitutional fact of life preventing federal public land ownership within a state.
I am still wondering who Reid's secret informant is during the 2012 election? I also remember Reid saying that the tea party was going away. And he said that based on what? Could it be because he knew that the IRS was targeting the tea party ?
You continue to evade the evade the question as liberals often do. There are very specific Constitutional restraints on Federal ownership of land.
Read carefully and make some attempt to understand...
The founders of America drafted the United States Constitution to form a limited federal government. It was designed to take care of only those things which were truly our national business. The state governments or the people were to keep all other powers. Article One, Section 8, Clause 17, offers the only provision in the Federal Constitution for federal ownership of land. It provides for the creation of Washington, D.C. as the seat of the federal government and allows the federal government to purchase lands in a state with “...the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.”
This is the only kind of property that the federal government is empowered to own in a state. The federal government cannot own forest lands. Why? Because no such power has ever been delegated to it and the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from assuming any power which has not been delegated to it by the Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This is the first constitutional fact of life preventing federal public land ownership within a state.
Yes, we are aware of that, but that doesn't change the fact that the federal government still owns about 80% of Nevada.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
