They have a name for when people refuse to change their stance regardless of their change in understanding of the facts, confirmation bias.
If you are accusing me of confirmation bias, wrong. The facts have not changed one iota. And consequently my position has not either.
Due to my research of the last year I believe it even more likely that there was slimyness on the part of Reid and the eco-scammers which I never doubted to begin with (as I've stated on this thread), but that does not change the facts about property rights.
If I am not mistaken, the "federal lands" Bundy's cattle are grazing upon were originally property of the Bundy family, given up to the federal government with the explicit condition that he, and his family, in perpetuity be allowed to graze the lands free of fees. Why is it that the rights of the federal government should be maintained, but it is ok to disregard the protections afforded to the Bundy family under that agreement?
...
Ya, well, your are mistaken. Drastically. The land was never owned by the state of Nevada and never by the inbred freaks who took up residence there. Bundy tried to make some hereditary claim that he inherited some right to the land through his ancestors. Sorry, but this is America and not some feudal middle-ages European thing we've got going here. and Bundy never did even try to cough up any paperwork to substantiate his ludicrous position. Anyway, due to the breeding patterns of the people in that neck of the woods, anyone could make the same claim that Bundy was trying to make a go of.