Question: What do we gain by having federal ownership of land? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
Let me restate the question. What do we gain from federal ownership of otherwise productive land? I understand about not wanting a convenience store at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, or a casino at Mt. Rushmore, but the vast majority of federal land is not a National Park or Monument. So, to make this a little easier for CBJ7 to grasp, if we take the monuments and parks out of the equation, what do we gain by federal ownership of otherwise productive land? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyWater conservation in areas that are dry (most of mountain west).
Business and housing are not the only productive uses of land. And who said anything about privatizing every last acre of federal land? Except you, of course, in your attempt to exaggerate my question well beyond its parameters, in hopes that by doing so, you will sound intelligent. You failed. But it was a nice try. The "Ayn Rand" spin was excellent, except you were the only one who brought her up. But it would fit, if it was relevant. But it's not. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyActually, no, you were pretty much advocating that privatizing every last acre of federal land.
You should quit while you are behind. Impossible, because you always bring up the rear..
Nothing you wrote contradicted anything I stated. Notice how that concept can work both ways. And I was not advocating any positions on diet, or corn, or sugar. Your whole straw man premise was endorsing a "nanny state". Just discussing OBJECTIVELY what the government has the legitimate power to do. There's nothing legitimate about a government agency running amok. I'm NOT saying that they should do anything.
Oohh, but it ISN'T, no matter how you try to twist words. A government agency running amok arbitrarily limiting income, assessing penalties and fees is effectively "taxation without representation": no one elected the bureaucrats making policy. That's because words have meaning, even when they don't support your position. Words do have meaning, but you misconstrue your straw man arguments as my position.
Bundy had representation - EVEN IF the IRS is snooping on Tea Party groups, whatever that has to do with the BLM. The IRS is an example of another government agency run amok.
Also, the BLM is enforcing policy that Congress passed. So, Congress directed government agents to throw a 57-year-old woman to the ground and attack a pregnant woman with a dog? The BLM did not invent the grazing fees itself. Never made a claim otherwise. It has that aurthority from Congress. Within prescribed legal limits. This issue is colored by the BLM's arbitrary policy of designating one type of enterprise as destructive to a tortoise' habitat -- where cattle and the tortoise have coexisted for hundreds of years -- while promoting the commercial development of that land by another commercial enterprise: solar energy with political ties. It doesn't natter if either of us approve or disapprove of the grazing fees. The BLM is authorized to do it. If it wasn't, Bundy would have won in court. But he didn't.
What utter horseshit. One Congressman and two senaotrs is not enough? Why? Every state gets two Senators and Nevada's population gives them the correct number of Congressman they would have if they were, say, Vermont or Rhode Island back east. Cite where the citizens of Vermont and Rhode Island have any daily dealings with the BLM. It doesn't natter if either of us approve or disapprove of the grazing fees. The BLM is authorized to do it. If
And, Nevada doesn't vote alone. Most of the western states have the similar concerns as Nevada and they can vote together. And California is the biggest state in the union and is WEST of the Mississippi. The western states do tend to vote together on such issues, with California being the exception.
And, in case, you haven't heard, the general complaint is about the Senate is that it gives TOO MUCH power to the small population states out west - NOT too little. Everyone knows Reid was/is elected by big labor concerns operating in Las Vegas and not the ranchers and farmers living in rural Nevada. You have to be the ONLY pwerson I have ever heard complain that the small western states do not have enough clout in Congress. California has 70 times as many people as Wyoming, but Wyoming has the same number of Senators. Only in twelve states are U.S. citizens subject to dealing with the BLM: those twelve states are definitely in a minority and at a disadvantage in Congress. Read here about the Connecticutt compromise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress
Frankly, I tend to APPROVE of the small states having disproportionate clout in the Senate. But I am not delusional enough to think they do not have enough.
Also. is "green-weenie-tree-hugging crowd" supposed to be an argument? Did you even think before you wrote that?
And California is WEST of the Mississippi and is also very likely to appease the people you refer to as the "green-weenie-tree-hugging crowd"?
Also, since when was it a conservative position to ignore the environment? I have no problem with restricting land use in our wilderness areas. Not everything has to be exploited by industry.
BTW, the subsidies given to corn farmers and agri-business is yet more evidence of the outsized political clout that Iowa and other corn states with SMALL populations have in the Senate. Much of the corn subsidy stems from "green-weenie-tree-hugging" legislation promoted and passed during Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator's administration.
Strawman argument. That is a false choice. We can still embargo Cuban sugar. That doesn't change the fact that Cuban sugar is still cheaper and that you still haven't explained how screwing with U.S. sugar production will benefit the U.S. economy.
If we cut price supports for sugar, food with high sugar content will become MARGINALLY more expensive. Again that is a GOOD thing. If ice cream, candy, and soft drinks go up 15-20% in price, people will switch to better foods. More advocacy for the "nanny state" agenda. Why not give the sugar and corn subsidies to fruit and vegetable growers. You foolishly imagine that Chiquita Brands isn't already getting a sizable subsidy?
IRRELEVANT ARGUMENT. The question is whether Congress has the power to do it, NOT whether or not it is a wise idea. If Congress decides to phase out all strip mining on federal lands over a ten year period, you can't go into court and look to overturn the law becuase you think it is going to raise unemployment and fuel prices. You never properly justified how Congress would deal with the consequences of the actions YOU proposed, and yet now you pretend to take a "victory lap"? You're doing quite well knocking down your own straw man arguments. The courts will tell you that is for Congress to decide, not the judiciary.
Is that an argument? Or are you just passing gas? So now you recognize the duplicitous actions taken by the BLM's actions for what they are!
No, I'm not. Once again, I am not advocating "FOR" anything. If you're not advocating for a "nanny state", then you are just setting up straw man arguments so you can feel good when you knock them down. The issue is whether or not Congress has the POWER to push ranchers off federal lands. They DO. For pretty much any reason they want. End of argument.
All of what your wrote above is horseshit. FACT: the BLM's actions have caused the majority of ranchers in Bundy's area to leave the business; thus, substantially reducing the number of cattle grazing in that area to a number that the tortoise has demonstrated it can coexist with, but that's not enough, for the BLM. The BLM wants Bundy gone too. FACT: millions of bison roamed the American West prior to the importation of cattle. The first cattle in that region were introduced by Spaniards in the 16th century -- 500 years ago. But after 500 years and a sprinkling of nuclear testing, the BLM, et al, are suddenly concerned for a tortoise that's demonstrated that it can coexist with cattle!?!
I am NOT arguing whether or not Congress would be right or wrong about whether we should cut back on beef consumption. That's what you were advocating. I am pointing out that they have the POWER to shut down grazing on federal lands - just like they could cut back strip mining on federal lands - for pretty much any reason they want to do so. It's your straw man argument, play with it as you will.
And stating that an action or policy is a BAD idea is NOT an argument that Congress doesn't have the POWER to do it.
I think it was a BAD idea to occupy Afghanistan for 13 years - as opposed to blowing the place up for 6 months. But that does NOT mean that Congress does not have the power to deploy troops there for 13 years.
Once again, that is a strawman argument. And is a false choice. We can put big import taxes on beef, too. Ever notice how it's the very, very poor who are still smoking even after tacking on all of the taxes? Have you ever heard of the 18th Amendment?
The point is not whether or not it helps or hurts the US economy. The point is whether or not Congress that the power. What you're describing is "misuse" of power, and ultimately that's unconstitutional, despite your equivocation. One could easily make the argument that while high beef prices might hurt the beef industry in the short (or long) term, other industries will pick up at least some of the slack (Vegetable growers? Poultry farmers?). It's obvious you're not versed in what's happening in that industry either. Even more importantly, one can make the argument that it will help the economy in the long run because we will save far more money in reduced healthcare costs due to reduced obesity and heart disease than we will lose on beef production. Still more advocacy for the "nanny state" agenda.
Those are questions of fact and policy for Congress to decide. But Congress undoubtedly has the POWER to make that decision, no matter what Cliven Bundy says about his family heritage.
Stupid and irrelevant argument designed to change the subject. Government agencies running amok is what has aroused and inspired crowds of citizens to willingly and conspicuously stand with Bundy, right or wrong, in Nevada. If you have an argument to make that Congress does NOT have the POWER to push ranchers of federal land, then make it. Otherwise, you are just covering up for a lack of an argument.
My argument is, and has been, who has what "power" and who doesn't have a "power" is less important than the people's perception of who is abusing power, and, subsequently, their willingness to rise up and stand in rebellion against such perceived abuses.
WTF?? AGAIN, this is a stupid and irrelevant argument designed to change the subject. If you have an argument to make that Congress does NOT have the POWER to push ranchers of federal land, then make it. Otherwise, you are just covering up for a lack of an argument.
You should have kept your mouth shut and be thought a fool rather than open it and remove all doubt. As stated at the beginning, you're still tail-end Charlie dragging rear. Originally Posted by ExNYer
I love slick willie and Hillary, we do threesoms daily. I like her strapon as much as Willies willie.
Originally Posted by i'va biggen
. . .
Business and housing are not the only productive uses of land. And who said anything about privatizing every last acre of federal land? Except you, of course, in your attempt to exaggerate my question well beyond its parameters, in hopes that by doing so, you will sound intelligent. You failed. But it was a nice try. The "Ayn Rand" spin was excellent, except you were the only one who brought her up. But it would fit, if it was relevant. But it's not. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
Originally Posted by ExNYer
You should quit while you are behind. Impossible, because you always bring up the rear.
Nothing you wrote contradicted anything I stated. Notice how that concept can work both ways. And I was not advocating any positions on diet, or corn, or sugar. Your whole straw man premise was endorsing a "nanny state". Just discussing OBJECTIVELY what the government has the legitimate power to do. There's nothing legitimate about a government agency running amok. I'm NOT saying that they should do anything.
Oohh, but it ISN'T, no matter how you try to twist words. A government agency running amok arbitrarily limiting income, assessing penalties and fees is effectively "taxation without representation": no one elected the bureaucrats making policy. That's because words have meaning, even when they don't support your position. Words do have meaning, but you misconstrue your straw man arguments as my position.
Bundy had representation - EVEN IF the IRS is snooping on Tea Party groups, whatever that has to do with the BLM. The IRS is an example of another government agency run amok.
Also, the BLM is enforcing policy that Congress passed. So, Congress directed government agents to throw a 57-year-old woman to the ground and attack a pregnant woman with a dog? The BLM did not invent the grazing fees itself. Never made a claim otherwise. It has that aurthority from Congress. Within prescribed legal limits. This issue is colored by the BLM's arbitrary policy of designating one type of enterprise as destructive to a tortoise' habitat -- where cattle and the tortoise have coexisted for hundreds of years -- while promoting the commercial development of that land by another commercial enterprise: solar energy with political ties. It doesn't natter if either of us approve or disapprove of the grazing fees. The BLM is authorized to do it. If it wasn't, Bundy would have won in court. But he didn't.
What utter horseshit. One Congressman and two senaotrs is not enough? Why? Every state gets two Senators and Nevada's population gives them the correct number of Congressman they would have if they were, say, Vermont or Rhode Island back east. Cite where the citizens of Vermont and Rhode Island have any daily dealings with the BLM. It doesn't natter if either of us approve or disapprove of the grazing fees. The BLM is authorized to do it. If
And, Nevada doesn't vote alone. Most of the western states have the similar concerns as Nevada and they can vote together. And California is the biggest state in the union and is WEST of the Mississippi. The western states do tend to vote together on such issues, with California being the exception.
And, in case, you haven't heard, the general complaint is about the Senate is that it gives TOO MUCH power to the small population states out west - NOT too little. Everyone knows Reid was/is elected by big labor concerns operating in Las Vegas and not the ranchers and farmers living in rural Nevada. You have to be the ONLY pwerson I have ever heard complain that the small western states do not have enough clout in Congress. California has 70 times as many people as Wyoming, but Wyoming has the same number of Senators. Only in twelve states are U.S. citizens subject to dealing with the BLM: those twelve states are definitely in a minority and at a disadvantage in Congress. Read here about the Connecticutt compromise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress
Frankly, I tend to APPROVE of the small states having disproportionate clout in the Senate. But I am not delusional enough to think they do not have enough.
Also. is "green-weenie-tree-hugging crowd" supposed to be an argument? Did you even think before you wrote that?
And California is WEST of the Mississippi and is also very likely to appease the people you refer to as the "green-weenie-tree-hugging crowd"?
Also, since when was it a conservative position to ignore the environment? I have no problem with restricting land use in our wilderness areas. Not everything has to be exploited by industry.
BTW, the subsidies given to corn farmers and agri-business is yet more evidence of the outsized political clout that Iowa and other corn states with SMALL populations have in the Senate. Much of the corn subsidy stems from "green-weenie-tree-hugging" legislation promoted and passed during Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator's administration.
Strawman argument. That is a false choice. We can still embargo Cuban sugar. That doesn't change the fact that Cuban sugar is still cheaper and that you still haven't explained how screwing with U.S. sugar production will benefit the U.S. economy.
If we cut price supports for sugar, food with high sugar content will become MARGINALLY more expensive. Again that is a GOOD thing. If ice cream, candy, and soft drinks go up 15-20% in price, people will switch to better foods. More advocacy for the "nanny state" agenda. Why not give the sugar and corn subsidies to fruit and vegetable growers. You foolishly imagine that Chiquita Brands isn't already getting a sizable subsidy?
IRRELEVANT ARGUMENT. The question is whether Congress has the power to do it, NOT whether or not it is a wise idea. If Congress decides to phase out all strip mining on federal lands over a ten year period, you can't go into court and look to overturn the law becuase you think it is going to raise unemployment and fuel prices. You never properly justified how Congress would deal with the consequences of the actions YOU proposed, and yet now you pretend to take a "victory lap"? You're doing quite well knocking down your own straw man arguments. The courts will tell you that is for Congress to decide, not the judiciary.
Is that an argument? Or are you just passing gas? So now you recognize the duplicitous actions taken by the BLM's actions for what they are!
No, I'm not. Once again, I am not advocating "FOR" anything. If you're not advocating for a "nanny state", then you are just setting up straw man arguments so you can feel good when you knock them down. The issue is whether or not Congress has the POWER to push ranchers off federal lands. They DO. For pretty much any reason they want. End of argument.
All of what your wrote above is horseshit. FACT: the BLM's actions have caused the majority of ranchers in Bundy's area to leave the business; thus, substantially reducing the number of cattle grazing in that area to a number that the tortoise has demonstrated it can coexist with, but that's not enough, for the BLM. The BLM wants Bundy gone too. FACT: millions of bison roamed the American West prior to the importation of cattle. The first cattle in that region were introduced by Spaniards in the 16th century -- 500 years ago. But after 500 years and a sprinkling of nuclear testing, the BLM, et al, are suddenly concerned for a tortoise that's demonstrated that it can coexist with cattle!?!
I am NOT arguing whether or not Congress would be right or wrong about whether we should cut back on beef consumption. That's what you were advocating. I am pointing out that they have the POWER to shut down grazing on federal lands - just like they could cut back strip mining on federal lands - for pretty much any reason they want to do so. It's your straw man argument, play with it as you will.
And stating that an action or policy is a BAD idea is NOT an argument that Congress doesn't have the POWER to do it.
I think it was a BAD idea to occupy Afghanistan for 13 years - as opposed to blowing the place up for 6 months. But that does NOT mean that Congress does not have the power to deploy troops there for 13 years.
Once again, that is a strawman argument. And is a false choice. We can put big import taxes on beef, too. Ever notice how it's the very, very poor who are still smoking even after tacking on all of the taxes? Have you ever heard of the 18th Amendment?
The point is not whether or not it helps or hurts the US economy. The point is whether or not Congress that the power. What you're describing is "misuse" of power, and ultimately that's unconstitutional, despite your equivocation. One could easily make the argument that while high beef prices might hurt the beef industry in the short (or long) term, other industries will pick up at least some of the slack (Vegetable growers? Poultry farmers?). It's obvious you're not versed in what's happening in that industry either. Even more importantly, one can make the argument that it will help the economy in the long run because we will save far more money in reduced healthcare costs due to reduced obesity and heart disease than we will lose on beef production. Still more advocacy for the "nanny state" agenda.
Those are questions of fact and policy for Congress to decide. But Congress undoubtedly has the POWER to make that decision, no matter what Cliven Bundy says about his family heritage.
Stupid and irrelevant argument designed to change the subject. Government agencies running amok is what has aroused and inspired crowds of citizens to willingly and conspicuously stand with Bundy, right or wrong, in Nevada. If you have an argument to make that Congress does NOT have the POWER to push ranchers of federal land, then make it. Otherwise, you are just covering up for a lack of an argument.
My argument is, and has been, who has what "power" and who doesn't have a "power" is less important than the people's perception of who is abusing power, and, subsequently, their willingness to rise up and stand in rebellion against such perceived abuses.
WTF?? AGAIN, this is a stupid and irrelevant argument designed to change the subject. If you have an argument to make that Congress does NOT have the POWER to push ranchers of federal land, then make it. Otherwise, you are just covering up for a lack of an argument.
You should have kept your mouth shut and be thought a fool rather than open it and remove all doubt. As stated at the beginning, you're still tail-end Charlie dragging rear.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
