In your [Mr Rogers] numerous discussions of the Wayne Hage case, you did The Progressive Thing - you left out stuff that you didn't want the other reader knowing.
Most people call it "lying by omission". It's one of the reasons I became a dedicated enemy of politicians in general, and Democrats in particular.
In post #200, Mr Rogers wrote:
I did not leave it out. I have mentioned it in numerous posts. For example: [Hage case posting]
Mr Rogers - you either have reading comprehension problems, or else the King's Shilling compels you to continue your baseless attacks, ala the Black Knight.
As we can clearly see from the exchange above, I wrote about your "numerous discussions of the Wayne Hage case".
I specifically said that you discussed the Wayne Hage case. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
You then accuse me of saying that you "left it out".
What I did was explain that you left out specific parts in your postings about the Hage case - the parts that show the government actors for the criminals that they are.
I then explained that this is the Progressive tactic of "lying by omission" - when they don't want their fanboys to know certain facts that make them look bad.
I think our readers here know who is the desperate liar (YOU).
Wipe the foam off your chin, you're making a spectacle of yourself.
“What I did was explain that you left out specific parts in your postings about the Hage case - the parts that show the government actors for the criminals that they are.”
What part of this did you not understand:
““In the present case, the Government’s actions over the past two decades shocks the conscience of the Court...”
“THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the denial of E. Wayne [*192] Hage’s renewal grazing application for the years 1993—2003 was an abuse of discretion, as well as a violation of due process”
“A more productive course of action might be for the state of Nevada to sue the BLM, arguing the BLM is violating public law by trying to eliminate grazing on public land in violation of federal law.”
” It is possible to sue the BLM successfully for arbitrary and capricious changes to an allotment - Hage did, and won.”
“Hage - a guy with more smarts than Bundy IMHO - lost his legal arguments in court last year (his estate, since he died), but the court also said the behavior of the BLM “shocks the conscience of the court”. It pointed out that the BLM went looking for a fight and created a problem where there did not need to be one.”
“The court DID, however, also attack the feds for creating a fight where none was needed - as I have pointed out.”
IOW, you consistently lie about what I have posted.
Hage’s legal theory that the feds cannot own land sucks. It sucks by definition, because a legal theory that loses every time it is tried sucks.
His argument that the BLM was “arbitrary and capricious” prevailed, in part, as I said it did.