I guess there are a few things that should be cleared up for you..first, the government land in question has always been used to grazr cattle. Thats how blm land works- its open range granted to the government by the state to ensure it can be used. Typically, several people graze their cattle on blm lands and they have two round ups a year to brand their calfs and take market cattle out. Litterally think old wild west eith modern tools.

Next, this guy and his family has used this specific land for this specific purpoee since before the state was a state. What changed was the feds demanded he cull his heard so water rights can benifit farmers in California. Some people claim there is a connection to a solar plant that just went up about 30 miles away. Next, a 1975 or 76 law waa supposed to deed the land back to the states but this plot had been skipped. He paid his fees for the use of the land except he paid it to the state instead because the feds wouldn't accept the amount over the set number of cattle they demanded he reduce the herd to.

The only unfair advantage this guy got was due to not letting the feds dictate the terms of his making a living. You can argue if that is or is not an advantage but the change of rules and quotas is a bit arbitrary and shouldn't be made by the government.

You did hit up a good point. Farmers in a libersl state do greese yhe pockets of ppliticians where ranchers likely do not. If the reason of the day is true, someone chose to send water to another state verses keeping it in state and being used how it traditionally has been.

How many times did a law officer knock on the door and ask for those they had warrants for?

You see, even if you are not defending the dividians, the entire law enforcement part was still wrong. They tried to storm the house insead of the front door. Google man dead after cops goto the wrong house. Its unreal that shit goes on. The fbi used a combination of nerve gasses on the compound knowing what it would do. There were innocent people inside that they killed on purpose.

And that was from the politics of we don't need to invade iraq because saddam was contained. But they couldn't wait out the dividians. We just had snipers and paramilitary suround a ranch ready to kill with a council man warning people to have their funeral plans while we let russia didle around with other countries and syria is using chemical weapons again. You would think a show of force would be better served elsewhere.

IE, firefox, opera, chrome, all do it. Unless you have no script or something like it running. I suppose it can be turned off in the browser settings somewhere.

Not sure what the security issue would be. You still have to click the link. It would be no more insecure than having a link present.

When a small group (say, .001%) controls the vast majority of wealth, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Plutocracy.

Bollocks. He quit to get himself out of the public eye before he was arrested, and our scumbags do the same thing all the time. My own district "representative" just quit after being busted for coke.

I don't care what country you're in: if they were capable of feeling "shame," they wouldn't be in politics.

"Who takes cloth for green leader is green leader..."

Hey, at least it'll be less bent than the current system.

You have it backwards. The republic is what we (supposedly) had before being all but completely subverted. The problem with direct democracy, which doesn't have any of this "unrepresentative representative" nonsense, is that it scales very, very badly.

But they are mean too. Their idea of safe sex is making sure they are somewhere where nobody can hear the screams.

I'll stick with the crash helmet and condoms.

At least it wasn't goatz or tubgirl.

Seriously, post the raw link and most browsers will make it a hyperlink.

Lol.. not only that, man in the middle, and that point about the NSA complaining so it isn't them strikes me odd. A lot of gay bashers are closet homosexuals complaining about the gays in order to stop you from thinking they are gay. It's one of the oldest forms of deciet- fake outrage while being behind it.

I doubt it would get that far. Without anyone to objecct, they would win on summary which is before any of that is introduced

6.1.6 was only released for devices that cannot run iOS 7. If you have a device that can run iOS 7, you had to upgrade to iOS 7 in order to get the important security fix, even if the device had iOS 6.x at the time. There was never an iOS 6.1.6 released for iPad 2 or 3, for example.

If they had released an iOS 6.1.6 for iPad 2/3, it would've allowed downgrading from iOS 7.x to iOS 6.x then jailbreaking, something Apple hates with a passion.

No one has to buy the judge off. The judge is only allowed to consider evidence presented so if no one said this is good law and defended it, the judge could only consider the evidence challenging it. Its a done deal.

Also, people with injured kids would not have standing. They can petition a new law but the challenge would be done and over with. You cannot challenge a court ruling on just any grounds. Once the ruling is made, there has to be some sort of error or prescribed circumstance to challenge the ruling. They may however be able to sue the state if it doesn't claim soverein immunity.

Not all "support specialists" are "Bob" in the callcenter talking to lusers about downloading the internet. Even medium-sized companies often have an internal support department. From some I've seen firsthand, $28 is doing pretty well, but not so well as to be in "pipe dream" territory.