I don't mean to criticize you or the many others here who think reality is determined by what gets posted at free republic. And if you can argue or insult, then somehow that enhances your reality. And the more bizarre you are, the more credible you become.
All the arguments and conflicts on Bundy are resolved in the courtroom. So maybe that is where you should go defend Bundy because the court(s) keep ruling against Bundy.
Call him up and let him know that you are available
“All the arguments and conflicts on Bundy are resolved in the courtroom.”
Unfortunately, the courts often depend on the skill of the lawyers combined with the honor of the judge, and many judges have no honor. Try reading Sotomayer’s dissent in the Michigan EEO case...
In Bundy’s original court case, at least, Bundy represented himself, which is almost always a very bad idea.
In Bundy’s case, his legal theory that the federal government cannot own dry land is a legal fantasy. He would have been better off arguing, thru a lawyer, that the BLM was acting arbitrary and capricious - something the BLM does all the time. But then, Bundy would have to pay the lawyers, while the government had dozens provided for free at taxpayer expense.
Anyone who thinks a private individual sues a federal agency on equal footing is living in fantasy land!
Calling you names? What name did I call you?
It’s OK for you to denigrate Hage and Bundy, but you can’t back up your words when challenged, can you? You don’t know squat about range management, do you? And you don’t know diddly about this case, apparently.
Care to tell me what was foolish about the BLM claims that my brother was overgrazing? You have no clue, do you? But you aren’t bashful about spouting all your garbage about how the BLM is doing such a marvelous job of range management.
Finally, why do you feel it necessary to lie about Bundy and Hage?