Skip to main content

View Diary: Cliven Bundy's Son, Ammon Bundy, is a Liar & I Can Prove It (65 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Supporters have the most crazy arguments (5+ / 0-)

    I actually looked up the state Constitution and when I saw what it said I proudly posted it on a forum, figuring the argument was solved. WRONG! One guy argued that since the federal Constitution had these rules about how to buy land from the state that the Nevada Constitution is invalid since it violates the law. I told him that it seems to me that the people who drafted the Nevada Constitution were probably not idiots and understood the laws regarding this better than he did.

    Another guy insisted that the part where the Nevada Constitution says that they give up the rights ot that land was aimed at Mexican nationals living there who might try to take it back for Mexico. Hmmm...then why does it not SAY THAT? It clearly states that ALL THE PEOPLE inhabiting this new state hold no claim to it. Besides, since the US had BOUGHT the land from Mexico and they ceded it to the US then it would be rather redundent to repeat the same thing in a contract THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MEXICO.

    I also told this guy that since the US PAID FOR THAT LAND then it seems that if Nevada wanted it then they should have paid the government the amount they paid for it. He insisted that it automatically belonged to Nevada when the state was formed.

    I happen to think that probably it is excessive for the US to own 85% of the land there and I would not mind if they sold some of that land to private owners. But that probably would go against the Nevada Constitution. But regardless the people of Nevada MADE A CONTRACT to relinquish that land PERMANENTLY so if anyone bears the blame for this it would be the people who agreed to this around 150 years ago.

    "Patriots" (or rather treasonous nutcake terrorists) just love to MANGLE the Constitution to make it say whatever they want it to.

    If billionaires can afford to spend millions of dollars so that they can avoid paying taxes and fair wages, then they *can afford* to pay taxes and fair wages!

    by Pixie5 on Fri May 16, 2014 at 02:17:12 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  short answer to the first argument: what he was (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yonit, The Marti, Pixie5, TeamSarah4Choice

      describing was about purchasing the land to site DC on so it was not housed in any state but in a purely federal district.  THAT IS ALL THAT MEANT.  It was purely to establish DC and has nothing to do with any other federal acquisition of land, whether it refers to the LA Purchase to Alaska's purchase.  According to these nuts, the only land owned by the feds is DC.

      I note that while 85% may seem excessive in the US (though actually all of the land was originally federal until opened by homestead acts of various years), in Canada even more of the land is owned by the government compared to total acreage owned by our federal government.

      If the guy had checked, Nevada was a territory first and then was a state.  Whom did the land belong to when the state was only a territory?

    •  And that's the whole thing about right-wingers (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      You can actually show them the law and explain how it works and they will still claim it says something else.  I have been arguing and debated with these kinds of people for 50 years now and I finally had to conclude that their hopeless.  They just cannot be educated and one might as well except that fact and move on.  Until the point they become a real threat, and that is a point I think we are at, and then we they just have to be dealt with them. Firmly and permanently.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site