masterrig

Cause one doesn't get the job done? No, because nothing much rhymes with Irish, Catholic, Muslim or Hispanic. Hell! I thought this was gonna' be about blackened steak blackened redfish, blackened chicken... Chuck

Well said! The abuse of government hand-outs is obscene. People have given-up their independence for dependence on the government. Too many of our population expect the government to take care of them. Chuck

I agree with what you posted. I think, in the Bundy case, he is obviously not Harvard educated but he seems to have a 'natural insight' and common sense. Maybe he didn't say it in a PC way but he did make his point. In regard to what he said, I don't feel he was being racist. I feel too, the over-all response to what he said was knee-jerk. You even mention the word 'slavery' in our PC world and you're suddenly labeled a racist. Same with the mere mention of non-white people. Too many people in our society have become overly sensitive. We need to lighten-up! Chuck

Sure... put everything in her name... doesn't come back on him. Chuck

Isn't that what the priests tell em... 3 hail Mary's http://www.catholictradition.org/Priests/priesthood3-8.htm Ok Back to sinning now ...and a good act of contrition! Chuck

You got that right! There's always Wednesday, too. Chuck

***Easy. Christians do as they please because they are forgiven. How do they know they are forgiven? Does someone tap them with a magic wand? Then, they can go out and sin again knowing they will be forgiven. Chuck

In the end, both sides pissed on their own pump handles. Chuck

Good point, +1 If it were true, but according to Obama, you can't realise success. Only the government can give you success. You can't build a business and succeed. Someone has to do that for you. Seems to be working for him. Chuck

I wonder what his net worth was before he took office, and what it is now. I wonder the same about Obama. You too? What gets me is, these guys run for office on 'campaign donations' and in two or four years, they're filthy rich. That certainly is not from their paycheck as a politician. Connections, connections... The only requirement is out-bull-shit your opponent. Chuck Do you guys wonder about these guys??? 1.Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) $294.21 Million 2.Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) $220.40 Million Poor ole Harry did not even crack the top 50... [url "http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.html" ]The 50 Richest Members of Congress (2011) We too have some real 'winners'. Chuck

I wonder what his net worth was before he took office, and what it is now. I wonder the same about Obama. You too? What gets me is, these guys run for office on 'campaign donations' and in two or four years, they're filthy rich. That certainly is not from their paycheck as a politician. Connections, connections... The only requirement is out-bull-shit your opponent. Chuck And not just them .. . Bill Flores, Beoner, Pelosi, most of them. Yup! Chuck

I wonder what his net worth was before he took office, and what it is now. I wonder the same about Obama. You too? What gets me is, these guys run for office on 'campaign donations' and in two or four years, they're filthy rich. That certainly is not from their paycheck as a politician. Connections, connections... The only requirement is out-bull-shit your opponent. Chuck

Reid, like many others in politics, have been in their positions too long. Reid has used his position and power for his personal agenda and has ignored why the voters put him there. Yet, people keep voting him in. Washington needs a good 'house cleaning' and they need to start with Harry Reid. Chuck

#1 Chuck

Vegas, having been established by mobsters... Reid had to deal with them and it appears, some of that rubbed-off on him. What's the old saying... 'you lay down with dogs you come up with fleas? Chuck

It appears to me that he used his position and power to fatten his own bank account. Looks like he learned quite a bit as gaming commissioner while dealing with mobsters. Similar to Lansky, Capone and others. Chuck

Every law should be like this, IMO. I wholeheartedly agree! The good ol' KISS method. Chuck

That's pretty good stuff... I found it quite informative. Plain and simple. Yet, the BLM sees it different. They're going to do whatever they want in spite of the compact. This will be real interesting to follow. Chuck

Rivers meander. Whether the boundary is the high water line, or the normal water level, or the middle of the river (the rules vary from state to state) it's to be expected that property lines will shift around over time. Surely there are laws that cover ownership of the "new" land that is deposited, just as laws apply to loss of land due to erosion. Does anybody know what the law is in Texas, or in any other state? I'm pretty sure no state would say the "new" land is federal by default. Don Maybe, this will help, Don... http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/NR/htm/NR.12.htm Chuck

Here in Texas, when a person renews their CHL, it's all done on-line and as long as your photo and fingerprints were accepted at the first application, a background check is done and you're good to go. Takes about 30-days. Chuck

The article presents only one side of the issue (the Texas Attorney General), but even so this one looks like nothing but trouble. From a second Briebart article, it seems (as far as I can understand it, without any explicit explanation of the BLM position), that the BLM is using uncertainty about the exact placement of the Texas/Oklahoma border (which the two states dispute), meandering of the Red River creating and consuming land, and legalistic arguments about whether or not Texas had authority to deed land that was covered in the Louisiana Purchase, as a basis for contemplating taking control of 90,000 acres. I think it would be a huge mistake for the BLM to attempt to use technicalities to seize land that has been deeded for 200 years. Despite the amount of smoke and noise generated by anti-federal-government hotheads over the Bundy issue, I believe most Americans see him as land-grabbing tax avoiding nutjob. If the BLM moves to take over private land, where people have deeds and actual long history with the land, I doubt there will be any sympathy at all for their position, only anger that could result in the political destruction of the BLM. Don Damn good post! I really believe the BLM does step over the bounds of their Agency. I feel too, their bottom line is power and greed with an undercurrent of gain and that gain being more than land. Chuck I saw a news story on it the other day and they're basically saying that when the river erodes the bank, that the border moves, but when the bank of the river moves north through other mechanisms (river course change, water level drop, they listed a couple of others, but I don't recall) that the border doesn't move south. I believe, I saw the same story and as I understand it, the BLM is trying to take that 'questionable' area. 90,000 acres is a good size piece of land. What I've read about it also is, the farmers and ranchers 'know' who's land is who's and as we know, some of that land has been worked since before Texas was a State. I really feel, the BLM has more up their sleeve than 'preserving land'. This case just may bring that to light. Chuck

The article presents only one side of the issue (the Texas Attorney General), but even so this one looks like nothing but trouble. From a second Briebart article, it seems (as far as I can understand it, without any explicit explanation of the BLM position), that the BLM is using uncertainty about the exact placement of the Texas/Oklahoma border (which the two states dispute), meandering of the Red River creating and consuming land, and legalistic arguments about whether or not Texas had authority to deed land that was covered in the Louisiana Purchase, as a basis for contemplating taking control of 90,000 acres. I think it would be a huge mistake for the BLM to attempt to use technicalities to seize land that has been deeded for 200 years. Despite the amount of smoke and noise generated by anti-federal-government hotheads over the Bundy issue, I believe most Americans see him as land-grabbing tax avoiding nutjob. If the BLM moves to take over private land, where people have deeds and actual long history with the land, I doubt there will be any sympathy at all for their position, only anger that could result in the political destruction of the BLM. Don Damn good post! I really believe the BLM does step over the bounds of their Agency. I feel too, their bottom line is power and greed with an undercurrent of gain and that gain being more than land. Chuck

That's what I figured this thread would be about. This article has a little more background: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/23/The-Land-Grabbing-Feds Thanks for posting that. It does add substance. Chuck

Here's another BLM 'land grab'... http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/04/22/Exclusive-Greg-Abbott-to-BLM-Come-and-Take-It Chuck

Glenn Beck... the voice of reason? Bwa-hahahahahahahahahaha... Chuck