Pinging Arnie's Angels... ;-)
Posted on 06/20/2004 10:15:39 PM PDT by farmfriend
You obviously haven't read either bill.
One bill puts the land entirely in the hands of the unelected and gives them legislative and punitive authority. The other says that 50% of the board is made up of elected supervisors, but even in that case there can be no majority of elected officials on the board. Read the bill and try to understand what it says please.
I did think that detail need specific mention.
If one entity of government sells land to another government organization it is like taking money from one pocket and putting it in the other and saying now I am richer.
I absolutely do not support this.
I will be making my opinion known to all of our conservative state representitives. It is up to them to see that this bill never reaches Arnold's desk. They did not make campagin promises to support this garbage. It is up to them to put a stop to it. If they let this thing get to Arnold's desk they don't deserve to be called conservatives.
Tommy? Are you listening?
Here you go -
“Soviet: Council that was the primary unit of government in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and that officially performed both legislative and executive functions at the all-union, republic, province, city, district, and village levels.”
In these soviets, unelected and unaccountable commissars and their useful idiots, without help from citizens or the messy give and take of democratic meetings or popular voting, developed utopian plans for the peasants. With the master blueprint in hand, the commissars clanged the meeting bell for all peasants to gather to form a “consensus.” Those who agreed with the plan would be in the “consensus.” Those who disagreed were ignored. This is how a soviet operates.
The Russian people had a name for this kind of people control. They called it soviet socialism.
Good post.
Jeff Gordon, do you see the relationship between the consensus built Sierra Nevada Conservancy and a soviet council? Because if you don't , I will be happy to explain further.
Give me a break. I will do the right things.
The only reason I am in this debate is because some people want to lay the total responsibility for this trash in the lap of Arnold.
Don't bother. You are preaching to the choir.
He backed down on the spending cap, a vital necessity.
Backing down on this would be a more appropriate move for an (R).
At what point do you say enough?
Excellent Post!
He IS responsible. I can't help it if these things were ignored before he was elected. I'm just doing what I always do, FIGHTING FOR OUR RIGHTS. That is what I did as Legislative Director for the Grange and that is what I still do as a member of the Conservation Committee.
The eight are:
This thread has been pulled from the "activism" topic.
Why?
This thread is all about activism... and we need some quick!
If this isn't appropriate for the activism category, what is?
Can you direct me to guidelines that define this category, 'cause I must be missin' something!
(I looked for guidelines, but couldn't find them).
The Conservancy is happening with the support of a Republican governor. If it flies, the precedents will be quickly applied to urban voters too. The only good thing is that, after ten years or so and countless regulatory takings against landowners (primarily conservative Repblicans), it will in all likelihood be thrown out as unconstitutional.
Thanks for the PING.
Bingo!!!!!
Once the land is under government control, political bosses will disperse mineral and land usage rights to their own special interests, and for monetary gain. These rights were once owned by individuals, but both major parties find it difficult to conform with the rigid boundaries of morality and responsibility individuals set. It's much easier to use the government to steal the land and direct it to political cronies that can be held accountable to make political donations.
Remember back to the days when labor unions were chided for the control they exerted over our politicians? Well, now it's corporations pulling the strings of the puppets in government. Welfare and entitlements to individuals have seen few reductions, and corporations have been added to the list of beneficiaries.
The country is ripe for a renewed government model that is beholden to local communities, as it was when our country was first founded. Special interests of all sorts must be restored to their proper role in society. I don't expect either major political party to introduce change that damages their cash cow.
Indeed. When this country was founded corporations could not own land. The founders, after witnessing the behavior of the corporations of European royalty, rightly feared the principal of limited liability.
You might enjoy this post. It provides a perfect example of what this is about and some history to boot.
Pinging Arnie's Angels... ;-)
Arizona is 83% non-deedable land. Between National Forests, Indian reservations, and military ranges, most of the state is off limits. Does that equal a complete state? Arizona is the fifth largest state in the country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.