Alaska Oil Exploration Loses by Three Votes...

[amicus]

Two major pieces of legislation in the United States Senate today, one, a 50-50 vote tie, broken by Vice President Cheney.

The second, a 'procedural vote' to authorize oil exploration in Alaska defeated on mainly a partisan vote with some Republicans joining the Left.

I suggest this may come back to haunt the left as they opt to deny Americans the right to utilize resources in our own country and sentence the Nation to continued energy dependence on foreign sources.

The continued accumulation of restrictive policies by the left concerning nuclear plant and oil refinery construction in the United States, the increasing price of crude oil and natural gas, will eventually lead to higher energy prices and a lower standard of living for those who can least afford it.

The good news is that it was a close vote, perhaps the closest ever after forty years of left wing environmentalists anti business agenda.

For those of you who are politically active, it is imperative in the coming off year election next November and the 2008 General, that you increase the majority of Republicans in both the House and Senate.

The progress against the left has been slow and painful, but it is progress and needs to continue.


amicus...

 

[Liar]

Two major pieces of legislation in the United States Senate today, one, a 50-50 vote tie, broken by Vice President Cheney.

Since you mentioned it, and I don't get your domestic news much,I'm dying of suspense. What was this one about?

 

[Pure]

Senates votes, more objective account

Senate Blocks Military Bill Over Arctic Drilling



By CARL HULSE
Published: December 21, 2005
New York Times


WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 - The Senate voted today to block a Pentagon spending bill that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, preventing Congressional Republicans and President Bush from achieving their long-sought goal of allowing exploration in the Alaskan wilderness.


In the second major legislative showdown of the day, drilling supporters fell four votes short of the 60 needed to cut off debate on the $453.3 billion spending bill as the Senate voted 56-to-44 to end a filibuster. Forty-one Democrats and one independent were joined by two Republicans in opposing the drilling plan.

Democrats argued that Senate Republicans, at the behest of Senator Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who has long championed the oil drilling, were twisting the rules of the Senate by adding the drilling initiative to a military bill. Senate leaders immediately began exploring ways to save the underlying Pentagon spending bill before Congress comes to a close in the next few days. As it stands now, temporary authorization for Pentagon spending expires on Dec. 31.

Earlier today, with Vice President Dick Cheney breaking a 50-50 tie, the Senate approved a $40 billion budget-cutting measure that Republicans hailed as evidence of their determination to control federal spending.

"Victory No. 1," Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, declared after the budget measure was passed.

But Democrats won a procedural victory on the budget bill that forced it backed to the House of Representatives, delaying final approval and depriving House and Senate Republicans of a clear-cut win. The House has left the capital for the holidays and it is unclear when lawmakers could take up the minor changes.

The decisive vote by Mr. Cheney, who cut short an overseas trip to be on hand, was needed because five Republican senators joined all 44 Democrats and an independent in opposing the budget plan, which Democrats argued cut too deeply into social programs.

"This bill targets Americans with the greatest needs and the fewest resources," said Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who is the Senate minority leader.

Republicans said the budget bill would save $39.7 billion over five years. As the oil debate began, Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia and a fierce defender of Senate rules, urged his colleagues to block the military spending bill, even though he is a longtime friend of Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska and the champion of the oil drilling plan.

"I love this man from Alaska, I do," he said after clutching a bound book of Senate rules. "But I love the Senate better."

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Two major pieces of legislation in the United States Senate today, one, a 50-50 vote tie, broken by Vice President Cheney.

The second, a 'procedural vote' to authorize oil exploration in Alaska defeated on mainly a partisan vote with some Republicans joining the Left.

I suggest this may come back to haunt the left as they opt to deny Americans the right to utilize resources in our own country and sentence the Nation to continued energy dependence on foreign sources.

The continued accumulation of restrictive policies by the left concerning nuclear plant and oil refinery construction in the United States, the increasing price of crude oil and natural gas, will eventually lead to higher energy prices and a lower standard of living for those who can least afford it.

The good news is that it was a close vote, perhaps the closest ever after forty years of left wing environmentalists anti business agenda.

For those of you who are politically active, it is imperative in the coming off year election next November and the 2008 General, that you increase the majority of Republicans in both the House and Senate.

The progress against the left has been slow and painful, but it is progress and needs to continue.


amicus...

Personally, I'm glad they blocked drilling. There are some things we owe future generations that take precedence over a few barrels of oil. Conservation is not a liberal left ideal amicus. Many conservatives as well as sportsmen who are generally republicans, recognize the need to conserve the natural beauty of this nation.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Blocking the defense bill was a bad idea, but so was the whole "Alaskan oil drilling" plan.

 

[Liar]

Blocking the defense bill was a bad idea, but so was the whole "Alaskan oil drilling" plan.

Can someone explain to me this whole bundling-up-of-bills thing? It seems totally loony-bin insane to an outsider.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Can someone explain to me this whole bundling-up-of-bills thing? It seems totally loony-bin insane to an outsider.

Often, the party in power, will bundle unrelated items to a bill that it is considered political suicide to vote against. For example, the GOP will now bang Democrats in the midterms elections for "voting against supplying our toops in the field with adequate equiptment".

It's dirty politics basically. If the Dems cave, you get your drilling approval. If they fight it, you get political ammunition in the coming election.

 

[amicus]

Personally, I'm glad they blocked drilling. There are some things we owe future generations that take precedence over a few barrels of oil. Conservation is not a liberal left ideal amicus. Many conservatives as well as sportsmen who are generally republicans, recognize the need to conserve the natural beauty of this nation.

Dear Colleen: I rather love nature also, especially the great Northwest and Western Canada and Alaska, all I have visited and enjoyed.

I understand than many feel the natural resources within the continental United States is owned by the 'government' or by the 'people', and should be managed accordingly.

If that were so, then those who wish to "conserve the natural beauty", to use your words, would have a voice in how those resources are explored.

However much you may not like it, America is a Republic, the land is held in stewardship by the government to be turned over to the people as 'private property' when needed.

It was once upon a time common practice to auction off or otherwise dispose of real property for development or homesteading. The concept of a National Park, if memory serves, came about during the Roosevelt administration just after the turn of the century.

The intent of the Constitution of the United States is, as I interpret it, to facilitate private ownership of land and resources to individual citizens and to private corporations to benefit the people.

Somewhere along the line came this socialist, communal concept that the land belonged to 'all' the people and that government could set aside tracts as it chose for whatever reason it chose.

My economic philosophy is one that advocates individual rights guaranteed and protected by government. There was a time when everyone easily understood that the government could only lease land for public buildings, for military installations and other essential functions.

The idea the any level of government, local county, state or federal should own and regulate real property in the United States is alien to the Constitution and to me, personally.

Nearly fifty percent of all the land in the state I call home, Oregon, is owned by one or another government agency.

Instead of Yellowstone and all the other 'National Parks' being government owned, I would see them transferred to private ownership and managed for profit or sold to a private owner.

That is our constitutional imperative, again, like it or not. We made it that way as we did not wish the King of England to own all the land and all the deer.

It is not the Kings land or the Kings deer; it should all be in the hands of private owners.

amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Dear Colleen: I rather love nature also, especially the great Northwest and Western Canada and Alaska, all I have visited and enjoyed.

I understand than many feel the natural resources within the continental United States is owned by the 'government' or by the 'people', and should be managed accordingly.

If that were so, then those who wish to "conserve the natural beauty", to use your words, would have a voice in how those resources are explored.

However much you may not like it, America is a Republic, the land is held in stewardship by the government to be turned over to the people as 'private property' when needed.

It was once upon a time common practice to auction off or otherwise dispose of real property for development or homesteading. The concept of a National Park, if memory serves, came about during the Roosevelt administration just after the turn of the century.

The intent of the Constitution of the United States is, as I interpret it, to facilitate private ownership of land and resources to individual citizens and to private corporations to benefit the people.

Somewhere along the line came this socialist, communal concept that the land belonged to 'all' the people and that government could set aside tracts as it chose for whatever reason it chose.

My economic philosophy is one that advocates individual rights guaranteed and protected by government. There was a time when everyone easily understood that the government could only lease land for public buildings, for military installations and other essential functions.

The idea the any level of government, local county, state or federal should own and regulate real property in the United States is alien to the Constitution and to me, personally.

Nearly fifty percent of all the land in the state I call home, Oregon, is owned by one or another government agency.

Instead of Yellowstone and all the other 'National Parks' being government owned, I would see them transferred to private ownership and managed for profit or sold to a private owner.

That is our constitutional imperative, again, like it or not. We made it that way as we did not wish the King of England to own all the land and all the deer.

It is not the Kings land or the Kings deer; it should all be in the hands of private owners.

amicus...

The intent of the constituion is to frame a government.

At no point, that I can see, is there any imperative to give up public lands to private exploitation. Can you point out the pertinent clauses that call for this?

Also, could you point out the relevant court decisions that make the national parks act unconsitutional?

 

[amicus]

Often, the party in power, will bundle unrelated items to a bill that it is considered political suicide to vote against. For example, the GOP will now bang Democrats in the midterms elections for "voting against supplying our toops in the field with adequate equiptment".

It's dirty politics basically. If the Dems cave, you get your drilling approval. If they fight it, you get political ammunition in the coming election.

Colly, the Democrats filibustered the legislation, requiring a 60 vote majority rather than a simple majority.

But that's not 'Dirty Politics' to you?'

amicus

 

[amicus]

The intent of the constituion is to frame a government.

At no point, that I can see, is there any imperative to give up public lands to private exploitation. Can you point out the pertinent clauses that call for this?

Also, could you point out the relevant court decisions that make the national parks act unconsitutional?

Dear Colly, I will perhaps do a search later today and provide you with some relevant historical data. However, I was speaking in conceptual terms, based on common knowledge of those who have read some history.

As I recall, it took a Supreme Court decision to authorize national parks, as it did to authorize federal income tax.

The imperative, Colly, is a theoretical one, but I will search again for you. Land in the United States at the time the Constitution was being written, was considered not to be owned by the King or by God, or by Government, but by the people, individually.

The land was to be protected and defended and then turned over to private citizens as the need arose.

As I said, somewhere along the way that 'communal' aspect of the endeavors of man was corrupted to mean, 'public' and not private.

Trust me, turning all the land over to private owners would be a good thing. I am sure if enough of you wanted to travel to Alaska and view that reserved land, some entrepeneur would be happy to accomodate you.

As it is now, no one has ever seen that land or ever will as it is inaccessible and non productive.

amicus

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Since you mentioned it, and I don't get your domestic news much,I'm dying of suspense. What was this one about?

It gives the poorest segment of the American public the priviledge of paying for the hurricane Katrina clean-up while preserving the tax cuts for the richest 1%.

In other words, they're trying to cut the deficit by slashing student aid, welfare, Medicare, and food stamp programs for the poorest segments of society. The Bush tax cuts for the welathy stand.

 

[amicus]

Senate Blocks Military Bill Over Arctic Drilling



By CARL HULSE
Published: December 21, 2005
New York Times


WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 - The Senate voted today to block a Pentagon spending bill that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, preventing Congressional Republicans and President Bush from achieving their long-sought goal of allowing exploration in the Alaskan wilderness.


In the second major legislative showdown of the day, drilling supporters fell four votes short of the 60 needed to cut off debate on the $453.3 billion spending bill as the Senate voted 56-to-44 to end a filibuster. Forty-one Democrats and one independent were joined by two Republicans in opposing the drilling plan.

Democrats argued that Senate Republicans, at the behest of Senator Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who has long championed the oil drilling, were twisting the rules of the Senate by adding the drilling initiative to a military bill. Senate leaders immediately began exploring ways to save the underlying Pentagon spending bill before Congress comes to a close in the next few days. As it stands now, temporary authorization for Pentagon spending expires on Dec. 31.

Earlier today, with Vice President Dick Cheney breaking a 50-50 tie, the Senate approved a $40 billion budget-cutting measure that Republicans hailed as evidence of their determination to control federal spending.

"Victory No. 1," Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, declared after the budget measure was passed.

But Democrats won a procedural victory on the budget bill that forced it backed to the House of Representatives, delaying final approval and depriving House and Senate Republicans of a clear-cut win. The House has left the capital for the holidays and it is unclear when lawmakers could take up the minor changes.

The decisive vote by Mr. Cheney, who cut short an overseas trip to be on hand, was needed because five Republican senators joined all 44 Democrats and an independent in opposing the budget plan, which Democrats argued cut too deeply into social programs.

"This bill targets Americans with the greatest needs and the fewest resources," said Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who is the Senate minority leader.

Republicans said the budget bill would save $39.7 billion over five years. As the oil debate began, Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia and a fierce defender of Senate rules, urged his colleagues to block the military spending bill, even though he is a longtime friend of Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska and the champion of the oil drilling plan.

"I love this man from Alaska, I do," he said after clutching a bound book of Senate rules. "But I love the Senate better."

"...Senates votes, more objective account ..."

Pure's snide insult about objectivity. As if the New York Times could even spell the word, 'objective':

http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/MediaBiasBasics.html

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2005/09/29/1240075.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/143lkblo.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_bias


edited to add: this was to be in response to a report released this week concerning a ten year study of liberal bias in the news. I did not find the specific report I had in mind, but on the news (fox news) the report showed that 18 out of 20 leading and largest media outlets, print and broadcast, were documented to be far left of center.

ahem...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, the Democrats filibustered the legislation, requiring a 60 vote majority rather than a simple majority.

But that's not 'Dirty Politics' to you?'

amicus

I never said dems were any less likely to play dirty politics, Amicus. But the filibuster is a legitimate tool, used to keep government from becoming a tyranny of the majority. i think the Dems are abusing it in some cases, particularly for posts such as ambassadorial/Un positions.

On the other hand, drilling in the refuge should never have been attached to a defense bill. the GOP knows it won't pass on it's own, so they tried to bundle it with a "can't miss" piece of legislation.

 

[Just-Legal]

Two major pieces of legislation in the United States Senate today, one, a 50-50 vote tie, broken by Vice President Cheney.

The second, a 'procedural vote' to authorize oil exploration in Alaska defeated on mainly a partisan vote with some Republicans joining the Left.

I suggest this may come back to haunt the left as they opt to deny Americans the right to utilize resources in our own country and sentence the Nation to continued energy dependence on foreign sources.

The continued accumulation of restrictive policies by the left concerning nuclear plant and oil refinery construction in the United States, the increasing price of crude oil and natural gas, will eventually lead to higher energy prices and a lower standard of living for those who can least afford it.

The good news is that it was a close vote, perhaps the closest ever after forty years of left wing environmentalists anti business agenda.

For those of you who are politically active, it is imperative in the coming off year election next November and the 2008 General, that you increase the majority of Republicans in both the House and Senate.

The progress against the left has been slow and painful, but it is progress and needs to continue.


amicus...

So the people with the "make the scary Republican go away" buttons, and those making loud noise about their distaste for the party in general haven't made one impression on you amicus?

*shakes head*

 

[amicus]

So the people with the "make the scary Republican go away" buttons, and those making loud noise about their distaste for the party in general haven't made one impression on you amicus?

*shakes head*

*shakes head, smiles* I have not seen those buttons, but scarier still to me are the Clinton's and the Kerry's and the Kennedy's who are hell bent to socialize America for the greater good.

I like my freedom, JustLegal, and I would just as soon like to keep it, thank you.

amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Dear Colly, I will perhaps do a search later today and provide you with some relevant historical data. However, I was speaking in conceptual terms, based on common knowledge of those who have read some history.

As I recall, it took a Supreme Court decision to authorize national parks, as it did to authorize federal income tax.

The imperative, Colly, is a theoretical one, but I will search again for you. Land in the United States at the time the Constitution was being written, was considered not to be owned by the King or by God, or by Government, but by the people, individually.

The land was to be protected and defended and then turned over to private citizens as the need arose.

As I said, somewhere along the way that 'communal' aspect of the endeavors of man was corrupted to mean, 'public' and not private.

Trust me, turning all the land over to private owners would be a good thing. I am sure if enough of you wanted to travel to Alaska and view that reserved land, some entrepeneur would be happy to accomodate you.

As it is now, no one has ever seen that land or ever will as it is inaccessible and non productive.

amicus

Certain parcels of Land amicus, have value beyond the norm and are protected. I don't think most of us favor the home of lincon or madison or jackson being sold to a developer. I've been to Gettysburg, Shiloh, Vicksburg and other battlefields. And they need to be protected from avaricious developers who would love to use the land for such world shakingly important things like strip malls and condos.

The land isn't non productive, it supports many forms of wildlife and birds. that's why it is there.

Do you feel Gettysburg would serve us better as low rent housing and strip malls than it does as a memorial?

 

[entitled]

amicus, me dear, it's usually not in me to give my couple of cents' worth on these political things. Mainly because i don't give a rats' ass one way or the other on most of them, and find both sides to be rather delusional. They should all be heavily sedated and tucked away somewhere, as far as i'm concerned.

That being said, i feel the need to step in hip-deep with this one.

There is a reason those protected lands are national and/or state parks. There is a reason they should stay protected and safe from those who would tear them apart in the name of industry and personal gain.

It's true that when the constitution was written there was a need to put aside land to parcel out to the citizenry of the US. The government did this with as much success as the government has with anything. Shaky, at best, but with some success.

However, at that time there were relatively few citizens in a relatively small area. The resources and the land seemed boundless. It was simply a matter of beating back the 'lesser' red indians, French, and Spanish, and taking what 'rightfully' belonged to the US. It was only after expansion reached the west coast and the middle of things started filling in that there was a problem.

Enter the era of cattle barons and mining power. These are the people that cared for nothing but their own gain. An example is the Johnson County War (took place in Wyoming) - the cattle barons were tired of all those little farmers trying to scratch out a living on 'their' land and hired a band of mercenaries to wipe out the rest of the county. It didn't matter that the government had given those farmers that particular parcel of land. The big cheeses wanted them out. They exploited lives, took whatever they could, and left things in ruin.

The fall of that particular era happened not too long ago. My great uncle Al Kler would tell stories of riding cattle, and some of the things he and his friends got up to in his youth. As it was failing, people started to get curious about all things western. They went to the plains and the mountains, and in their ignorance they scarred the land and killed the creatures in it.

Mr. Roosevelt saw that when he went to visit the west himself, and decided that it would be good to put aside relatively small bits of land to be preserved as parks. They were not to be explioted for their stashes of gold, gems, oil, timber, or other natural resources. They were to be left alone so that future generations would have the chance to see what the land had once been like.

These ARE relatively small tracts. Perhaps in Oregon the government owns a large amount, but they will sell - if the price is right, and if the land is not in one of those few, small sectors put aside as parkland.

 

[amicus]

Certain parcels of Land amicus, have value beyond the norm and are protected. I don't think most of us favor the home of lincon or madison or jackson being sold to a developer. I've been to Gettysburg, Shiloh, Vicksburg and other battlefields. And they need to be protected from avaricious developers who would love to use the land for such world shakingly important things like strip malls and condos.

The land isn't non productive, it supports many forms of wildlife and birds. that's why it is there.

Do you feel Gettysburg would serve us better as low rent housing and strip malls than it does as a memorial?

"... And they need to be protected from avaricious developers who would love to use the land for such world shakingly important things like strip malls and condos...."

'...avaricious developers..." Your bias is showing my fine feathered friend.

If Gettysburg or any other parcel of land, '...with value beyond the norm...'

should be preserved for history, it should, by rights, be accomplished by people who still possess the freedom to own land and dispose of it as they choose.

If you and a group of your friends wish to purchase that or any other parcel, you should be free to compete on the open market to do so.

To use emminent domain, take the property by force and then use the force of taxation to support and maintain that property, is not the function of government.

You and so many others here, seem to yearn for a big daddy to make the rules so you can sheeplike follow along. Why?

You want government to set the standards of what we worship and preserve, respect and admire. I do not not. I would prefer that individuals make those choices.

I love the Grand Canyon, everyone should see it. But you should not force me to pay taxes to run it so you can see it. You wanna see? Pay your own damned way.

amicus...

 

[amicus]

amicus, me dear, it's usually not in me to give my couple of cents' worth on these political things. Mainly because i don't give a rats' ass one way or the other on most of them, and find both sides to be rather delusional. They should all be heavily sedated and tucked away somewhere, as far as i'm concerned.

That being said, i feel the need to step in hip-deep with this one.

There is a reason those protected lands are national and/or state parks. There is a reason they should stay protected and safe from those who would tear them apart in the name of industry and personal gain.

It's true that when the constitution was written there was a need to put aside land to parcel out to the citizenry of the US. The government did this with as much success as the government has with anything. Shaky, at best, but with some success.

However, at that time there were relatively few citizens in a relatively small area. The resources and the land seemed boundless. It was simply a matter of beating back the 'lesser' red indians, French, and Spanish, and taking what 'rightfully' belonged to the US. It was only after expansion reached the west coast and the middle of things started filling in that there was a problem.

Enter the era of cattle barons and mining power. These are the people that cared for nothing but their own gain. An example is the Johnson County War (took place in Wyoming) - the cattle barons were tired of all those little farmers trying to scratch out a living on 'their' land and hired a band of mercenaries to wipe out the rest of the county. It didn't matter that the government had given those farmers that particular parcel of land. The big cheeses wanted them out. They exploited lives, took whatever they could, and left things in ruin.

The fall of that particular era happened not too long ago. My great uncle Al Kler would tell stories of riding cattle, and some of the things he and his friends got up to in his youth. As it was failing, people started to get curious about all things western. They went to the plains and the mountains, and in their ignorance they scarred the land and killed the creatures in it.

Mr. Roosevelt saw that when he went to visit the west himself, and decided that it would be good to put aside relatively small bits of land to be preserved as parks. They were not to be explioted for their stashes of gold, gems, oil, timber, or other natural resources. They were to be left alone so that future generations would have the chance to see what the land had once been like.

These ARE relatively small tracts. Perhaps in Oregon the government owns a large amount, but they will sell - if the price is right, and if the land is not in one of those few, small sectors put aside as parkland.

Hello, Entitled...thanks for making an exception and addressing an issue.

I don't recall where you stand politically, but your tone is one that you speak truth as you know it, perhaps you do.

I am familiar with the range wars and the mining interests and the railroads and the land grabs and a rather large amount of corruption and injustice that occured there and in other areas of the growth of an industrial society.

Never before on the face of the earth was there a time or a place like early America. The few people here came to escape oppression and tyranny, came from all over the world.

Never before had the common man the 'right' to own his own home and property and seek his fortune.

As this Republic and the free market system had never been tried before, it does not surprise me, nor should it surprise anyone, that injustice occured.

The very concept that each individual could own real property and the resources on and beneath it, had never been known before.

I argue myself blue in the face on this forum defending individual human liberty and private property and still someone says otherwise.

So many seem to think that government should manage resources and allocate them according to some standard. Just how much of the land and resources should government control?

Should government own all beachfront property; lakes, rivers and oceans to keep open to the public?

Should government control the forests of the land to hopefully manage a sustainable growth and harvest for the future or leave it untouched to rot while homes are not built?

Should government decide where you live and where you work and whom you marry?

Just how much do you want government to do? And usually, once the camel's head is in the tent, the rest of him follows.

For all the criticism you have against freedom, capitalism, business, industry, all the aspects of a free society, I have a defense for the sanctity of humans being free to choose how they live.

The land and resources do not 'belong' to government to allocate as it chooses. In this country only individuals can own land and resources and government is supposed to protect those rights to do so.

amicus...

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I support private property, but that does NOT mean that some land cannot belong to the states and communities (hopefully, not too much). Teddy Roosevelt was no flaming liberal, and he saw no problem with some parks. Also, some land has ALWAYS been in federal hands (not just states), to do things like the Land Grant Act for colleges. Private property is good, but it CAN co-exist with public land.

I understand, however, the Feds own too much land out west. However, much land out west belongs to the Native American tribes, and they have the right to do with that land as they see fit, because they are essentially sovereign nations with dual citizenship.

 

[amicus]

I support private property, but that does NOT mean that some land cannot belong to the states and communities (hopefully, not too much). Teddy Roosevelt was no flaming liberal, and he saw no problem with some parks. Also, some land has ALWAYS been in federal hands (not just states), to do things like the Land Grant Act for colleges. Private property is good, but it CAN co-exist with public land.

I understand, however, the Feds own too much land out west. However, much land out west belongs to the Native American tribes, and they have the right to do with that land as they see fit, because they are essentially sovereign nations with dual citizenship.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``


That's really the point, isn't it, Severus? Just how much is too much?

Because of the dillution of the absolute rights of indidivuals to own and use property, now towns and cities have limited ownership and building rights.

Individuals are paying premium prices for building lots because environmentally friendly politicians are 'mitigating' encroachment and limiting property owners.

As we have been discussing emminent domain and the Surpreme Court decision earlier, the private owner is less and less able to exercise that basic right to property.

Where does it end?

I personally would like to see all the indian reservations returned to private ownership. It has become a silly farce for tribal gambling casinos on reservation land to be able to have special privileges that other citizens do not.

Besides, my native american friends on this forum keep saying that life on the 'Res', is not beneficial to anyone. I agree.

amicus...


(that oughta bring cloudy down to earth)

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I disagree with that Supreme Court decision. But I also disagree with Bush's conservation policy (or lack thereof). And the tribes ARE sovereign, like it or not. The Framers even originally recognized them as sovereign nations.

 

[entitled]

amicus,

There's a reason you don't know where i stand politically. i don't. i simply can not bring myself to agree with either party on most things. They're all full of hogwash and the stress of trying to figure it out simply isn't worth it.

i will agree with you on some points, but at the same time disagree with others. With this particular issue, i agree that there is a problem with private property. The government keeps chipping away at what can be defined as personal or private property, and that needs to stop.

On the other hand, it's been years since a 'new' park has been opened. i see no harm in keeping the current parks, or for paying for their upkeep. Part of that may be my personal knowledge of how expensive it can be, and how little the government actually pays for it. (Former government employee having to deal with wildlife management and such coming out here.) While i actually worked at the state level instead of the national, it is with full confidence that i can tell you the division was allowed a single dollar from the state budget to cover all the parks and wildlife areas in the entire state. The rest was made from passes to the parks, sales of fishing and hunting licenses, fees paid by those not in accordance with the laws, and things of that nature.

*ahem*
Back to the subject...

If the government were to keep JUST the areas it has already claimed as parks and wildlife areas pure and undeveloped, there would be no problem. There would be plenty of places for people to enjoy the (relatively) wild side while leaving enough land to be developed, settled, and sold to the private investor.

 

[JamesSD]

The continued accumulation of restrictive policies by the left concerning nuclear plant and oil refinery construction in the United States, the increasing price of crude oil and natural gas, will eventually lead to higher energy prices and a lower standard of living for those who can least afford it.

Right effect, wrong cause.
I agree we need to use more nuclear energy. There are costs involved, but in the long run to me it seems cheaper than the effects of fossil fuels.
Fact is, Oil is a limited resource. This isn't the 1920s or 30s when the US was bursting with oil, more than we could handle. Every barrel is becoming more and more expensive. Drilling in Alaska is like putting a band-aid over a gaping flesh wound. The problems are consumption and long-term sustainability.

And even you can agree that Oil isn't going anywhere. The only people in any sort of rush are driven by greed and profit motive.