Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by NEPatriot, Mar 5, 2010.
Washington Times - DEMINT: White House land grab
Blessed is our Dear Leader, Blessed Are His Ping Pong Paddle Ears, Blessed is his beautiful smile and dink toes, thank you God for Our Barack Hussein Obama.
I Walk In The Garden Alone
While The Dew Is Still On The Roses
"why is everybody kneeling down"
"our gracious dear lord and leader barack hussein abooma is about to pass dear"
"wow mom, do i have to kneel"
"yes dear, we all do"
The Washington Rag Times and Jim "Fruit Bag" Demented wow now there are a couple reliable sources.
More grist for the uneducated, unwashed masses.
The federal gubmit shouldn't be able to confiscate lands from states. I think we're going to see some legal challenges to all the land grabbing that's been going on. The land grabbing, IMO, goes beyond just the fed from the states. It goes for cities and towns confiscating the land of private citizens, so a Wallmart, or condo complex can go up, where someone's private property is. Anyhow, I would love to see this go to the Supreme Court, and have the feds lose.
This is not unique to this administration.. has been going on for a long time..
I agree with you about the last part. Government should not take land from anyone with the purpose of turning it over to another private party or corporation for the purpose of generating revenue.
It can and should do so for the purposes of resource management (water, public safety, resources vital to national security, right of way, military bases, etc.) and conservation. That's my opinion and others disagree, but I'm glad for actions like ANILCA, the National Park Act and the Antiquities Act.
How are you going to create green jobs when you seize 100 million acres?
A concerned citizen,
I totally agree.
So where is the line drawn then? At what point is it the states land, or the federal governments? What we're seeing here is an admin that hates fossil fuels, confiscating land for no other reason than to prevent that fuel from ever being harvested. I think that's a violation of a state's rights. Don't get me wrong, protecting forests and such, is extremely important, but there has to be some form of limitation, or restriction, on how much land, and under what circumstances said land can be taken. If the choice is between allowing the fed to decide, or the states to decide, and nothing in between, then I'll side with the states all day, and twice on sunday. Maybe the answer could be some formula where the fed cannot control more than 10%, or x% of the land mass inside a state.
Need more research to answer your questions...and I'm not gonna do it!
My POV is this: Feds can secure as much land as possible for conservation as far as I'm concerned. That is my self-centered view because I'm a tree-hugging nature freak. There is plenty of opposition to people like me and they have a ton of money. I'll take anything I can get because environmental victories are more important to me. I see intrinsic value in conservation and limiting as much as possible the burning of fossil fuels for a number of reasons. I side with anyone who wants to restrick the use of them, with the ultimate goal of eliminating them altogether.
That being said, I doubt that's the purpose of the government. I suspect that they are aware of the limits to this resource and intend to keep it for the future as the supply dwindles. I know that's a stretch, too, because the government has rarely shown itself to be concerned with long-term goals.
I appreciate, and honestly do share your concern for the environment. While I'm not a MMGW taxes guy (I see that for what it is, a ponzi scheme), I do support environmental protections of all kinds. Granted, everything has to be done within reason, but the point is, protecting the environment is extremely important. Part of the "within reason" for me, would have to include a protection of states rights. I just can't support the fed stealing land from states. I think that states are smart enough, or full of enough people that care about the planet, that they don't need a beaurocrat from DC forcing them too. Maybe I'm naive.
As for fossil fuels, until there is a bonafied replacement for them, we can't escape the fact that they're needed. I'd much prefer we harvest our own, keeping jobs and dollars inside our borders, while affording ourselves the ability to monitor, and regulate the process, so as to protect the environment. Do people think that Venezuella cares about the environment, or has strict regulation when they drill for oil? My guess is that we would be much more protective, and strict, in this regard. To me, destroying the environment in Caracas, is the same as destroying it in Wyoming or Iowa. For example, the Cubans will eventually be drilling off the coast of Florida. Who would you trust to be more protective of the sea, Cuba, or the US? I'd trust us more, yet we won't drill our own because of the environment, but will openly pay money to countries for their oil, that would do more damage to it. I don't see the sense in that. I'd much rather pay $50 a barrel for home grown oil, with protective restrictions on how it's harvested, than pay less concerned countries on the open market. Wouldn't you?
Where I will disagree with you, is about the admins intenions in taking these lands. Obama is an ideologue, and because of that, his administration operates stricly upon that which it beliefs as being correct. GW was much the same way. Each are/were very stubborn in their ways. They're both ideologues.
Next presidential election...I'm voting the man/woman who is most practical. I've grown tired of idealism...very, very tired.
What's practical for today may not be what's best for tomorrow's children.
Idealism is not always a bad thing. If your ideals include seeing the Big Picture over a long time period, that's a good thing, IMO.
Not so sure states would be any more responsible than the Feds in this matter. Some would, some wouldn't, I think. Look up the story of ANILCA. Alaskans were vehemently opposed to it, but today most of them see it as a good thing. They're benefitting from conservation in ways they could not have imagined thirty years ago.
Your points are very good on responsible drilling. It makes my head hurt how, as much as we try to present the example of sound practices, the developing world can't or won't use those practices.
Supreme Court already ruled on it multiple times over the past 180 years...each time going in favor of eminent domain.
They aren't going to strike it down, it's actually one of the parts of the Bill of Rights- the famous "takings clause" in the 5th Amendment that states "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Save the Children!
So I assume you won't be voting for obama in 2012 as he continues to put our kids into debt far beyond what's been seen before - but his crazy spending is practical for today
Tell your kids and grandkids that and see what they say.:singing::singing::singing:
Separate names with a comma.