I worked in a field where the males were lazy, arrogant and stole consistently. I became sexist in hiring because of the sheer numbers of male failures, though I still needed some in certain technical-licensing areas. I'd never have spoke about it but it was a reality.
In the interviewing phase, I became able to almost automatically spot a trouble causing employee from their responses.
Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Where he said he has worked next to mexican people and they are hard working people, telling you the NYT really butchered his statements!
He had nothing but praise for mexican people. No matter what a white person says about blacks less then "blacks are the greatest people on earth and should be Gods." you are considered racist.
I think far too many people include this in the calculation:
I think using a racial slur can be an indication of racism, but I don't think it's necessarily indicative of racism.
I will occasionally use a racial slur as a form of profanity (I guess you'd call it) in anger.
When I use it I am directing it at a specific individual for a specific purpose.
It is a demonstration of anger, and nothing absolutely more.
Whether or not an observer would consider that an acceptable non-racist "explanation" for my use of a racial slur is pretty subjective.
True racism isn't subjective at all.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
The BLM, Cliven Bundy and Harry Reid | Investment Research Dynamics
I enlisted my attorney colleague. Here’s the short explanation: “The transaction here was trespass. The feds litigated that and could have obtained damages, but didn’t ask for them. Now it’s too late. The fed’s failure to plead correctly will operate as a waiver.”
My colleague dug up the original complaint, which you can read here: U.S. v. Cliven Bundy
Here’s his explanation as to why the only right the Government had was to remove the cattle from grazing on the BLM land:
Now I now believe, having read the complaint, that the BLM doesn’t have—and never had—the right to collect grazing fees, which were voluntary: in exchange for paying fees, cattlemen received a grazing permit. See para. 21.
When Bundy refused to apply for a permit in 1993, his cattle became trespassing chattels. That means the BLM’s only remedy against Bundy was an action for trespass. The BLM exercised that right by filing a 2-count suit in court, one count for trespass and another for a judicial declaration that Bundy’s cattle are trespassing in violation of law.
But a trespass action has never—not in 800 years of property jurisprudence—included any remedy that would grant a plaintiff any rights of dominion over the trespasser. There are but two remedies available to a plaintiff complaining of trespass. One is damages, the legal remedy. The other is an injunction, an equitable remedy. The BLM was only awarded the latter; it never even sought damages in its complaint
There was never any colorable legal justification for selling the cattle. The only cause of action available to the BLM was at all times since 1993 a trespass action, which did not, does not, and cannot transfer title.
Moreover, the fact that Bundy refused to pay the grazing fees does not mean that he owes back fees. He most certainly does not. Rather, it means that he voluntarily elected to became (via his cattle) a trespasser. The BLM filed suit for exactly this reason.
Interestingly, the BLM’s complaint does not seek any monetary damages. Thus, not only does Bundy not owe the BLM any money for the unpaid fees, Bundy doesn’t owe any damages to the BLM because the BLM simply failed to ask for any damages.
In short, the BLM’s act of attempting to sell the cattle, by entering into a $1 million contract for that purpose with a party in Utah, was a willful and wanton criminal act, as there was never any legal avenue that would have granted the BLM that right. The BLM and its lawyers had to have known that they were committing serious felonies.
What happens from here is anyone’s guess. In the current posture of this case, Bundy must keep his cattle off of federal land (Gold Butte, etc.). But he doesn’t owe the BLM and money and the cattle are still his and always were.
It is crystal clear once we learn the real facts of the BLM/Bundy dispute that the Government was NOT motivated to go after Bundy on behalf of the Taxpayer for unpaid cattle grazing fees. It also tells us that the only reason the BLM went after Bundy was to remove his cattle from BLM land, something for which I’m sure the average Taxpayer could care less. It stands to reason, therefore, that the sole motivation of the BLM actions against Bundy were taken on behalf of Harry Reid and his political and monetary interests.
SO you saying he owes any money is a blatant lie!
Last edited by votemout; 04-25-14 at 03:32 PM.