I have the right to use government land (now with slavery!)

[Tekania]

Funny how everyone(especially the government) ignores about the constitutional limits on federal land

Article I, Section viii, Clause 17:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

Pretty sure this land doesn't fit any of the above categories. Last I checked, land doesn't qualify as a building. Funny what happens when you actually do research.

I will refer you to US v Gardner. Your interpretation is incorrect as it differs from the official interpretation of the body which has power to officially interpret this.

Your quote above outlines powers related to the acquisition of property for the purpose of forming the District of Columbia and related to the purchase of property for certain purposes from states by their consent. None of which apply in the context here as the property in question is and was owned by the Federal Government prior to the formation of Nevada having been acquired by title from Mexico, and as understood in the context of law those lands were never transferred at any point in time to Nevada ownership.

Your argument has already been dimissed by the highest court, so obviously you haven't done your studying.

[Tekania]

Arguably government land is generally meant for public use. Bundy is part o the public therefor he should be able to use the land at least intermittently (which is kinda how grazing works). But no the feds don't want to let bc/ turtles.

Also, my point is that others are arguably inconsistent. I mean liberals decry removing hippies from a privately owned park, yet have no problem saying the government should kick this good hardworking american beef produce off land no one is even using.

Bundy was allowed to use the land for grazing intermittently until he suddenly decided in 1993 to refuse to renew his grazing permit and then subsequently began grazing without permit.

[Llamalandia]

Arguably government land is generally meant for public use. Bundy is part o the public therefor he should be able to use the land at least intermittently (which is kinda how grazing works). But no the feds don't want to let bc/ turtles.

Also, my point is that others are arguably inconsistent. I mean liberals decry removing hippies from a privately owned park, yet have no problem saying the government should kick this good hardworking american beef produce off land no one is even using.

Bundy was allowed to use the land for grazing intermittently until he suddenly decided in 1993 to refuse to renew his grazing permit and then subsequently began grazing without permit.

No he was allowed to use it until the govt said, were limiting you bc turtles. Then he refused to pay. But yeah, I would prefer he just pay return all of his cows to grazing and then fight about the turtle thing. If the govt backs down on the turtles great, if not then he should by all means fight them.

But yes, I would like to him pay the bill and call the blm's bluff on this one.

[Jocabia]

Arguably government land is generally meant for public use. Bundy is part o the public therefor he should be able to use the land at least intermittently (which is kinda how grazing works). But no the feds don't want to let bc/ turtles.

Also, my point is that others are arguably inconsistent. I mean liberals decry removing hippies from a privately owned park, yet have no problem saying the government should kick this good hardworking american beef produce off land no one is even using.

It's like people see a difference between confiscating cattle and shooting people in the head with teargas canisters while burning their books.

Plus there is that whole 20 years of pursuing peaceful means that involved no force whatsoever.

[Gauthier]

So pretty much, freeloading off the nanny state is a sin unless you're a wealthy white man who doesn't believe in the legitimacy of the state.

Got it.

[Genivaria]

So pretty much, freeloading off the nanny state is a sin unless you're a wealthy white man who doesn't believe in the legitimacy of the state.

Got it.

American Libertarians ladies and gentlemen!

[Tekania]

No he was allowed to use it until the govt said, were limiting you bc turtles. Then he refused to pay. But yeah, I would prefer he just pay return all of his cows to grazing and then fight about the turtle thing. If the govt backs down on the turtles great, if not then he should by all means fight them.

But yes, I would like to him pay the bill and call the blm's bluff on this one.

WRONG, he was allowed to graze there up until the point in time when he refused to renew his permit. His permit was not revoked because of a turtle. it was revoked because he would not pay for it.

[The Rich Port]

So pretty much, freeloading off the nanny state is a sin unless you're a wealthy white man who doesn't believe in the legitimacy of the state.

Got it.

Money is speech, after all, and he has lots of money.

[Genivaria]

So pretty much, freeloading off the nanny state is a sin unless you're a wealthy white man who doesn't believe in the legitimacy of the state.

Got it.

Money is speech, after all, and he has lots of money.

And Corporations are people...sadly.

[Llamalandia]

No he was allowed to use it until the govt said, were limiting you bc turtles. Then he refused to pay. But yeah, I would prefer he just pay return all of his cows to grazing and then fight about the turtle thing. If the govt backs down on the turtles great, if not then he should by all means fight them.

But yes, I would like to him pay the bill and call the blm's bluff on this one.

WRONG, he was allowed to graze there up until the point in time when he refused to renew his permit. His permit was not revoked because of a turtle. it was revoked because he would not pay for it.

1989: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists the desert tortoise as an endangered species. A year later, its designation was changed to "threatened."

March 1993: The Washington Post publishes a story about the federal government's efforts to protect the desert tortoise in Nevada. Near Las Vegas, the Bureau of Land Management designated hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land for strict conservation efforts. "Among the conservation measures required," according to the Post's coverage, "are the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat. Two weeks ago, the managers of the plan completed the task of purchasing grazing privileges from cattle ranchers who formerly used BLM land."

Many people were not impressed by the new conservation plan. "Cliven Bundy, whose family homesteaded his ranch in 1877 and who accuses the government of a 'land grab,' are digging in for a fight and say they will not willingly sell their grazing privileges to create another preserve." People who use the desert to prospect for minerals and to race motorcycles and jeeps also feel shortchanged. "'It was shoved down our throat,' said Mark Trinko, who represents off-road vehicle users on the committee that oversees the plan."

Bundy has repeatedly been fined for grazing his cattle on the protected land, fines he has not paid since 1993. The Bureau of Land Management, which oversees about 800 grazing areas in Nevada, responded by revoking his permit. Bundy has not applied for a new one.

He stopped paying as a response (I admit not the best response he could have chosen) to the permit restriction as result of the turtle issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-long-fight-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/

[OMGeverynameistaken]

WRONG, he was allowed to graze there up until the point in time when he refused to renew his permit. His permit was not revoked because of a turtle. it was revoked because he would not pay for it.

1989: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists the desert tortoise as an endangered species. A year later, its designation was changed to "threatened."

March 1993: The Washington Post publishes a story about the federal government's efforts to protect the desert tortoise in Nevada. Near Las Vegas, the Bureau of Land Management designated hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land for strict conservation efforts. "Among the conservation measures required," according to the Post's coverage, "are the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat. Two weeks ago, the managers of the plan completed the task of purchasing grazing privileges from cattle ranchers who formerly used BLM land."

Many people were not impressed by the new conservation plan. "Cliven Bundy, whose family homesteaded his ranch in 1877 and who accuses the government of a 'land grab,' are digging in for a fight and say they will not willingly sell their grazing privileges to create another preserve." People who use the desert to prospect for minerals and to race motorcycles and jeeps also feel shortchanged. "'It was shoved down our throat,' said Mark Trinko, who represents off-road vehicle users on the committee that oversees the plan."

Bundy has repeatedly been fined for grazing his cattle on the protected land, fines he has not paid since 1993. The Bureau of Land Management, which oversees about 800 grazing areas in Nevada, responded by revoking his permit. Bundy has not applied for a new one.

He stopped paying as a response (I admit not the best response he could have chosen) to the permit restriction as result of the turtle issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-long-fight-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/

If my landlord says I need to abide by new restrictions in my apartment, my choices do not include "stop paying rent and still live in the building."

[Tekania]

WRONG, he was allowed to graze there up until the point in time when he refused to renew his permit. His permit was not revoked because of a turtle. it was revoked because he would not pay for it.

1989: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists the desert tortoise as an endangered species. A year later, its designation was changed to "threatened."

March 1993: The Washington Post publishes a story about the federal government's efforts to protect the desert tortoise in Nevada. Near Las Vegas, the Bureau of Land Management designated hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land for strict conservation efforts. "Among the conservation measures required," according to the Post's coverage, "are the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat. Two weeks ago, the managers of the plan completed the task of purchasing grazing privileges from cattle ranchers who formerly used BLM land."

Many people were not impressed by the new conservation plan. "Cliven Bundy, whose family homesteaded his ranch in 1877 and who accuses the government of a 'land grab,' are digging in for a fight and say they will not willingly sell their grazing privileges to create another preserve." People who use the desert to prospect for minerals and to race motorcycles and jeeps also feel shortchanged. "'It was shoved down our throat,' said Mark Trinko, who represents off-road vehicle users on the committee that oversees the plan."

Bundy has repeatedly been fined for grazing his cattle on the protected land, fines he has not paid since 1993. The Bureau of Land Management, which oversees about 800 grazing areas in Nevada, responded by revoking his permit. Bundy has not applied for a new one.

He stopped paying as a response (I admit not the best response he could have chosen) to the permit restriction as result of the turtle issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-long-fight-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/

That is immaterial, the Feds did not buy Bundy's grazing privileges on or before May of 1993, nor revoke them on or before May of 1993...... They in fact sent him a grazing permit renewal application in June of 1993. The reason he was no longer allowed is ONLY because he refused to renew his permit. There is no other reason. The dis-allowance was based on Bundy's actions and intent. The BLM provided him every opportunity to get his permit for grazing. The fines imposing on him now are trespass fines for continuing to trespass and imposed on him starting on November 30, 1998 by the court in the amount of $200.00 per day per head of cattle. THese are not "fines for grazing on protected lands" they are fines for continued trespass.

1998 court decision

[Llamalandia]

[/u]

He stopped paying as a response (I admit not the best response he could have chosen) to the permit restriction as result of the turtle issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-long-fight-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/

That is immaterial, the Feds did not buy Bundy's grazing privileges on or before May of 1993, nor revoke them on or before May of 1993...... They in fact sent him a grazing permit renewal application in June of 1993. The reason he was no longer allowed is ONLY because he refused to renew his permit. There is no other reason. The dis-allowance was based on Bundy's actions and intent. The BLM provided him every opportunity to get his permit for grazing. The fines imposing on him now are trespass fines for continuing to trespass and imposed on him starting on November 30, 1998 by the court in the amount of $200.00 per day per head of cattle. THese are not "fines for grazing on protected lands" they are fines for continued trespass.

1998 court decision

No, the BLM placed restrictions on permit that when he went to renew it would limit the number of his cattle that would be allowed to graze. Bundy said, hell no to this and stopped paying altogether as a response. So even if he had renewed the permit he wouldn't have been able to graze all his cows on the land.

Federal rangeland regulatory changes in 1993

The grazing rules for the land went through changes over the years, including some updated grazing rules in 1993 in the Gold Butte and Bunkerville land area of Nevada. Among other issues, the 1993 rules were changed to protect the endangered desert tortoise. Other rules included limits to the number of cattle allowed in certain areas[16] to protect the lands from the severe over-grazing caused by less regulation in previous years and to help the land recover from recent wildfires.[17] Currently there are no grazing permits on the Bunkerville allotment, and any livestock on that land are there illegally. Bundy owns land previously considered base property and paid AUM animal unit permit fees prior to 1993 for grazing on the nearby Bunkerville Allotment area. Bundy asserts that the terms of land use changes in 1993 reduced his allowed cattle by 90%, capping it to about 150 animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#Federal_rangeland_regulatory_changes_in_1993

[Jocabia]

That is immaterial, the Feds did not buy Bundy's grazing privileges on or before May of 1993, nor revoke them on or before May of 1993...... They in fact sent him a grazing permit renewal application in June of 1993. The reason he was no longer allowed is ONLY because he refused to renew his permit. There is no other reason. The dis-allowance was based on Bundy's actions and intent. The BLM provided him every opportunity to get his permit for grazing. The fines imposing on him now are trespass fines for continuing to trespass and imposed on him starting on November 30, 1998 by the court in the amount of $200.00 per day per head of cattle. THese are not "fines for grazing on protected lands" they are fines for continued trespass.

1998 court decision

No, the BLM placed restrictions on permit that when he went to renew it would limit the number of his cattle that would be allowed to graze. Bundy said, hell no to this and stopped paying altogether as a response. So even if he had renewed the permit he wouldn't have been able to graze all his cows on the land.

Federal rangeland regulatory changes in 1993

The grazing rules for the land went through changes over the years, including some updated grazing rules in 1993 in the Gold Butte and Bunkerville land area of Nevada. Among other issues, the 1993 rules were changed to protect the endangered desert tortoise. Other rules included limits to the number of cattle allowed in certain areas[16] to protect the lands from the severe over-grazing caused by less regulation in previous years and to help the land recover from recent wildfires.[17] Currently there are no grazing permits on the Bunkerville allotment, and any livestock on that land are there illegally. Bundy owns land previously considered base property and paid AUM animal unit permit fees prior to 1993 for grazing on the nearby Bunkerville Allotment area. Bundy asserts that the terms of land use changes in 1993 reduced his allowed cattle by 90%, capping it to about 150 animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#Federal_rangeland_regulatory_changes_in_1993

Other rules included limits to the number of cattle allowed in certain areas[16] to protect the lands from the severe over-grazing caused by less regulation in previous years and to help the land recover from recent wildfires.

You did notice this bit, did you not? Turtles weren't the only reason.

Plus, the reason they changes the rules is immaterial. The fact is that Bundy refused to renew, which they allowed him to do, and that is the only reason there is this dispute. He never let it become a debate of how many cattle because 10,000 or 1, he is breaking the law.

So your implication that he was no longer allowed to use the land was wrong. It's like saying I was allowed to drive on the road until the government said he could only go 55. Because everyone knows that I can't drive 55. You also implied that the limit is solely due to turtles, but your own quote doesn't say that, does it? The issue is that they are required to protect the land and the wildlife and they were doing their job. Bundy decided he didn't like their rules so his options are to stop using the land or to agree to their terms. He could also fight it in court. Only he made sure that went to court he would be in the wrong. And then he called for armed rebellion.

[Tekania]

No, the BLM placed restrictions on permit that when he went to renew it would limit the number of his cattle that would be allowed to graze. Bundy said, hell no to this and stopped paying altogether as a response. So even if he had renewed the permit he wouldn't have been able to graze all his cows on the land.

Federal rangeland regulatory changes in 1993

The grazing rules for the land went through changes over the years, including some updated grazing rules in 1993 in the Gold Butte and Bunkerville land area of Nevada. Among other issues, the 1993 rules were changed to protect the endangered desert tortoise. Other rules included limits to the number of cattle allowed in certain areas[16] to protect the lands from the severe over-grazing caused by less regulation in previous years and to help the land recover from recent wildfires.[17] Currently there are no grazing permits on the Bunkerville allotment, and any livestock on that land are there illegally. Bundy owns land previously considered base property and paid AUM animal unit permit fees prior to 1993 for grazing on the nearby Bunkerville Allotment area. Bundy asserts that the terms of land use changes in 1993 reduced his allowed cattle by 90%, capping it to about 150 animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#Federal_rangeland_regulatory_changes_in_1993

Yes, in order to maintain consistent forage the BLM is authorized by federal law to regulate grazing on the public lands in their care, it is in fact their duty to do so. The amount he could graze could change to support forage growth if needed, however this did not prevent him from grazing within the regulated amount. As such to characterize that is "not being allowed to graze" is a falsehood (lie) as with permit he could in fact graze cattle there.

[Dyakovo]

You should ptobably stick with having other people do the research for you, because you are absolutely horrible at it.
Not only is this part of the Constitution inapplicable, but "when you actually do research" or just read a little further one finds Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Funny how everyone(especially the government) ignores about the constitutional limits on federal land

Article I, Section viii, Clause 17:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

Pretty sure this land doesn't fit any of the above categories. Last I checked, land doesn't qualify as a building. Funny what happens when you actually do research.

[AiliailiA]

The Supreme Court of New York ruled that way, yes.

Do you think you're helping your argument here? Yes, "they did it too" but when a court ruled that they couldn't, law enforcement prevented them from doing it. Exactly the same should happen to Bundy's cattle.

Or if you're not making that argument (that what applies to Occupy should apply to Bundy) then stop with the off-topic drivel.



Irrelevant.

That facial tic you have is really hampering your social interactions. Talk to your doctor about it: a minor bit of neurosurgery can fix that.

Arguably government land is generally meant for public use. Bundy is part o the public therefor he should be able to use the land at least intermittently (which is kinda how grazing works). But no the feds don't want to let bc/ turtles.

Also, my point is that others are arguably inconsistent. I mean liberals decry removing hippies from a privately owned park, yet have no problem saying the government should kick this good hardworking american beef produce off land no one is even using.

That's off-topic drivel. I am not encouraging you any further.

[Llamalandia]

No, the BLM placed restrictions on permit that when he went to renew it would limit the number of his cattle that would be allowed to graze. Bundy said, hell no to this and stopped paying altogether as a response. So even if he had renewed the permit he wouldn't have been able to graze all his cows on the land.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#Federal_rangeland_regulatory_changes_in_1993

Yes, in order to maintain consistent forage the BLM is authorized by federal law to regulate grazing on the public lands in their care, it is in fact their duty to do so. The amount he could graze could change to support forage growth if needed, however this did not prevent him from grazing within the regulated amount. As such to characterize that is "not being allowed to graze" is a falsehood (lie) as with permit he could in fact graze cattle there.

Who, is saying that he isn't allowed to graze. I never said that. He's not being allowed to graze as much as he wants/needs to that is the issue here. He's rightly hacked off here, because the feds didn't seem to have a problem not regulating in the past until well as I've said before turtles. Before all he had to do was pay the fees to use the land now, they have severely restricted his usage likely to the point of him no longer having a viable operation.

[Geilinor]

Yes, in order to maintain consistent forage the BLM is authorized by federal law to regulate grazing on the public lands in their care, it is in fact their duty to do so. The amount he could graze could change to support forage growth if needed, however this did not prevent him from grazing within the regulated amount. As such to characterize that is "not being allowed to graze" is a falsehood (lie) as with permit he could in fact graze cattle there.

Who, is saying that he isn't allowed to graze. I never said that. He's not being allowed to graze as much as he wants/needs to that is the issue here. He's rightly hacked off here, because the feds didn't seem to have a problem not regulating in the past until well as I've said before turtles. Before all he had to do was pay the fees to use the land now, they have severely restricted his usage likely to the point of him no longer having a viable operation.

BLM regulations have existed since the 1930s. Turtles are not the sole reason nor are they why the BLM exists.

[Llamalandia]

Who, is saying that he isn't allowed to graze. I never said that. He's not being allowed to graze as much as he wants/needs to that is the issue here. He's rightly hacked off here, because the feds didn't seem to have a problem not regulating in the past until well as I've said before turtles. Before all he had to do was pay the fees to use the land now, they have severely restricted his usage likely to the point of him no longer having a viable operation.

BLM regulations have existed since the 1930s. Turtles are not the sole reason nor are they why the BLM exists.

No but they certainly seem to be reason for changing and restricting the permits for this area that's my point. (well maybe turtles and possibly wild horses to some degree although I find that at least as questionable.) Plus the BLM wasn't actively managing much of this land until what like the 70's or 80's?

[Tekania]

[
Who, is saying that he isn't allowed to graze. I never said that. He's not being allowed to graze as much as he wants/needs to that is the issue here. He's rightly hacked off here, because the feds didn't seem to have a problem not regulating in the past until well as I've said before turtles. Before all he had to do was pay the fees to use the land now, they have severely restricted his usage likely to the point of him no longer having a viable operation.

He's was never allowed to graze as much as he wants/needs.... the BLM has regulatory oversight in management of that land and since its inheritance of powers from teh US Grazing Service in 1946 has had regulatory control over that land, and the US Grazing Service since its inception in the DoI in 1934, and the Federal Government since its acquisition of the land from Mexico in 1848. Merely that his wants and needs may have been in line with regulatory power before.

What he wants and needs is immaterial to the question, however. The land is not his. It's ours, and by collective oversight we have dictated upon Mr. Bundy his constraints of use of our land as we have both right and power to do.

[Llamalandia]

[
Who, is saying that he isn't allowed to graze. I never said that. He's not being allowed to graze as much as he wants/needs to that is the issue here. He's rightly hacked off here, because the feds didn't seem to have a problem not regulating in the past until well as I've said before turtles. Before all he had to do was pay the fees to use the land now, they have severely restricted his usage likely to the point of him no longer having a viable operation.

He's was never allowed to graze as much as he wants/needs.... the BLM has regulatory oversight in management of that land and since its inheritance of powers from teh US Grazing Service in 1946 has had regulatory control over that land, and the US Grazing Service since its inception in the DoI in 1934, and the Federal Government since its acquisition of the land from Mexico in 1848. Merely that his wants and needs may have been in line with regulatory power before.

What he wants and needs is immaterial to the question, however. The land is not his. It's ours, and by collective oversight we have dictated upon Mr. Bundy his constraints of use of our land as we have both right and power to do.

Well yes, irealize that he could have say ten thousand cows out there, but he was basically allowed to graze as much as he thought the land could support (and more or less his permits were more in line with a reasonable amount). also I would disagree, as far as I'm concerned he can use it as much as he wants as long he's not actually going so far as to do permanent damage to the land quality I certainly don't have a problem with him using the land and I'll bet most Americans don't have a problem with him using it either. The only people who seem to have a problem is power hungry beauracrats trying to justify the very existence of their jobs.

[Dyakovo]

He's was never allowed to graze as much as he wants/needs.... the BLM has regulatory oversight in management of that land and since its inheritance of powers from teh US Grazing Service in 1946 has had regulatory control over that land, and the US Grazing Service since its inception in the DoI in 1934, and the Federal Government since its acquisition of the land from Mexico in 1848. Merely that his wants and needs may have been in line with regulatory power before.

What he wants and needs is immaterial to the question, however. The land is not his. It's ours, and by collective oversight we have dictated upon Mr. Bundy his constraints of use of our land as we have both right and power to do.

Well yes, irealize that he could have say ten thousand cows out there, but he was basically allowed to graze as much as he thought the land could support (and more or less his permits were more in line with a reasonable amount). also I would disagree, as far as I'm concerned he can use it as much as he wants as long he's not actually going so far as to do permanent damage to the land quality I certainly don't have a problem with him using the land and I'll bet most Americans don't have a problem with him using it either. The only people who seem to have a problem is power hungry beauracrats trying to justify the very existence of their jobs.

This demonstrating you have zero understanding of the issue...

[Llamalandia]

Well yes, irealize that he could have say ten thousand cows out there, but he was basically allowed to graze as much as he thought the land could support (and more or less his permits were more in line with a reasonable amount). also I would disagree, as far as I'm concerned he can use it as much as he wants as long he's not actually going so far as to do permanent damage to the land quality I certainly don't have a problem with him using the land and I'll bet most Americans don't have a problem with him using it either. The only people who seem to have a problem is power hungry beauracrats trying to justify the very existence of their jobs.

This demonstrating you have zero understanding of the issue...

Well then feel free to enlighten me if you please.

[Dyakovo]

This demonstrating you have zero understanding of the issue...

Well then feel free to enlighten me if you please.

Your been shown everything necessary to enlighten you.
Some people are just too stupid to learn.