I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Geat post. I added you to my blog roll!

I never said the landowner is the last word in the matter, I simply said they should consult them. For the very least, we should figure out how big the burden will be for them so we compensate them accordingly. . . . It is only fair.

Yeah, Rog, that’s called a “taking” and takings are compensated. Remember all the ballywho about the “Kelo” decision? That was a takings case. The philosophical debate here, Rog, is not whether the landowner has any say in the matter or whether they are compensated for their losses — that happens . . . it’s required by US law. The debate here is, when making the decision whether or not there is a biological need to affect a “taking,” the information you rely on to make that decision comes from scientists (who have done objective, peer-reviewed studies) or industry representatievs (whose opinion is entirely subjective and based on the interests of those they represent — industry and $$$).

It’s not a question of being “fair” by giving the landowner a voice. It’s a question of whether the decision should be influenced by scientists, who have no ulterior motive or than scientific, or by industry shills, who have nothing but an ulterior motive — money.

Comment by Roger_Roger — October 30, 2006 @ 4:49 pm

So? There’s no law that says worldly people can’t be dorks.

THEN THIS TUMBLING WEED WAS “SELECTED” PRESIDENT. George W. Bush is a gift that is going to keep on giving for years, decades, and centuries. Thank you, George.

Now, the Republicans will be the endangered “SPECIES.” As far as I’m concerned, they are “FECES.” Pardon my language, but these scumbags are rotten to the core.

Sadly, the endangered species list is the human race–you and I. Global warming will be one of the lasting legacies of the Bush administration.

This president is just unbelievable. He’s now talking about same-sex marriage a lot. Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry their companions is not a real issue.

I’ll tell you what will be real issues. Palm trees in Fairbanks, Alaska. Ozone depletion with millions dying of skin cancer annually. Your lovely beach house is no longer there, due to the sea level rising 30, 50, 100, 1000 feet. Pikes Peak will be a coastal city.

John

How about when a corporation ruins a community’s environment. Shouldn’t the corporation compensate the community accordingly? What about when a community spends a lot of money on infrastructure and tax breaks to help a corporation build a factory in that community and then after a few years, the corporation fires everyone and moves manufacturing to the far east. Shouldn’t the corporation pay the community back for the help it got setting up?

The problem with conservatism today is that it’s turned into corporatism. Conservatives are all about personal responsibility and accountability, but they see no reason to insist on corporate accountability to a community even though they believe corporations have the same rights as individuals.

This has been in the works for a while but only made the MSM a little while back.

It took you 2 1/2 hours to post something remotely reasonable and nuanced, as opposed to your earlier nonsense. Maybe, you need to think awhile before you post your first comment.

Carol — can you tell me where you found this info?

And I just read that the EPA is closing its libraries across the nation making it more difficult to do research to force compliance with existing laws. The Bush Administration is looking more like the old Soviet Union everyday

I would be interested in learning more.

I never said the landowner is the last word in the matter, I simply said they should consult them. For the very least, we should figure out how big the burden will be for them so we compensate them accordingly. If we shut down a 1 million dollar revenue ranch to save a bird, we should be paying that rancher 1 million each and every year. It isn’t fair to strap normal citizens with unneeded burdens to save 1 bird. If the burden is very light and reasonable, then the project won’t be as hard. I am simply stating that we need to analyze the “cost” on the property owner. It is very easy to sit back and make laws and demands on property owners, but we need to be talking with them and paying them for any burden our government puts on them. It is only fair.

Your comments about waste being sprayed onto golf courses is wrong. You make it sound like untreated waste is spread, which is wrong, and that is not even close to the truth. At least be honest.

With the land owners knowing the best use for the land, you do know that out west the land owner is typically the US government (i.e. you and me, we the people if you will…) and that many of those ranchers are using our land at cut rate rates, so ultimately they are using our land. I actually trust a scientist (or expert) on something more than I trust the business person. But as a republican you have to support business over all else, so keep up the good work.