Are you post padding, or are you going to make several responses to the same post, then run with the one that gets the most likes? It looks like Country might be right on at least one point: you don't seem to be paying attention to the threads.
The right of first refusal was part of the deal the ranchers struck with the government to lower the fines. The ranchers were able to lower their $1 million fine to $400 thousand. How convenient for them. FWIW, the family paid the $400 thousand fine before 12/31/15.
Yes the Hammonds want nothing to do with the Bundy's or the take over of the refuge.
Yup. Even the other nut job "patriot" groups disagree with these nut job "patriots".
I probably should just ignore this ignorant post among your continued line of many ignorant posts. But I enjoy making you look like the dumbass that you are. So I'll respond. First, you called me out as a poser in the world of golf. Then it was revealed that I not only had a competitive record in golf and was past president of my golf club, but I also moonlighted for Golf Digest magazine. So much for your ever-knowing claim. Now, not only are you babbling about my education (which includes two degrees-one of which is a doctorate) you apparently think I'm not very successful financially. While I'm not going to divulge my income, I'll say that I make enough to own and live in a nice home, own other real estate including an office building, have a nice retirement nest egg, send my kids to college with no debt, go wherever I want whenever I want, and give enough to my alma mater to sit in the AD's box at Mountaineer Field occasionally. Looks like you've struck out again, Einstein.
These mandatory sentencing requirements are a joke. I find it hypocritical that many on the right are now appalled that these guys will serve a mandatory sentence which they see as excessive. While there is little outrage about the minimum required sentences many drug offenders get. I wonder why they have this double standard. If these nuts in Oregon were Black, that place would've been stormed by the cops on day 1. And we all know it.
I think the lunatic is mad that Neil and robeert has out -crazy him so far in 2016.
I wonder what ever happened to the king of crazies, MountainBill....talk about nuts. Maybe he just changed his name.
I mentioned yesterday that I got my daily dose of Fox news while at the gym. One of the stories I saw was a middle-aged white guy in FL who was looking at 6 counts of 20 years minimum each if convicted for shooting his gun in the air. I don't know the particulars other than what they reported (it is Fox afterall), other than he woke up in the middle of the night after taking Ambien which was apparently legitimately rxed and the guy apparently had no memory of the incident and had no other criminal history. That is completely unfair. The judge is not a robot. He or she is there to administer justice. This would not be justice given that the judge has no option but to follow the law which was passed by a bunch of reactionary politicians. And as an aside, I can't imagine Fox taking up the mandatory sentencing issues which have placed many low income people in the slammer for drugs.
You posted 2 different responses to the same post at least twice in this thread, mine being at least the second occurrence. Both responses to the individual posts were similar in nature and back-to-back. If you aren't paying attention, then you are doing that on purpose. Maybe you can explain that reasoning to me.
Their initial trial was plea-bargained...but then the Feds didn't like the sentence and appealed it....again, after they agreed to a plea bargain.
Don't know...I think it's just for the charges...I guess there might something said about sentencing, but ultimately the judge doesn't have to go along with that.
Do you think it might be possible that the costs reported for somethings like your gas station are adjusted to cover the costs of some things they can't put on a budget that is released publicly?
If the agreed upon charges have a mandatory minimum, he's hamstrung by that mandate. That's why I don't like mandatory minimums - they take away the discretion of the judge.
Should they have been charged under the Anti-Terror act? That's at the base of the argument as well. The jury had found them guilty or arson and acquitted them of other charges...while the jury was still deliberating they reached a deal with the Feds...maybe their attorney should have done a better job of educating them on the possible circumstances. Then again did the Feds have to appeal?