"I'm so ronery..."
Posted on 09/30/2005 4:48:23 AM PDT by sr4402
Yesterday, 158 Democrats voted not to compensate owners who had their property taken away by the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species act has been used to take away a property owners land or use of his land for as little as finding a puddle on the property (declaring it wetland) or a viewing of an endangered species around the property.
In voting against updating the Endangered Species act to compensate property owners affected by it, Democrats continue to support the erosion of property rights in America started by the disastrous Kelo U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Many Democrats have continued to vote against restricting federal funding to areas using the Kelo decision to take away personal property to give it to private developers (in many cases for the sake of raising tax revenues - greed).
As long as the Democrats continue to vote against private property rights in our constitution, private property owners may have every right to place their vote elsewhere.
Mindboggling.
Who were these lawmakers? We need to inflict some PAIN (for their own good, of course.)
Non-Ecclesiastes 1:2;
Vanitry of vanitries, saith the FReeper, vanitry of vanitries; all is vanitry.
This whole situation has been vanitrized!
Ok, but I'm still mad at the 158.
Amen!
Here's the bill that the Dems voted against.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109kh1Sfb::
It called for fair market value compensation for the forgone use of the land. It's under the 'Private Property Conservation' section. Here's the roll call vote.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll506.xml
I never knew, but am not surprised, there is a Dem in the House named 'Obey'.
This is where the effec tof the real Communists in the Demon-rat party show.
The Democrat Party is the Party of Fools and Sociopaths.
My parents, grandparents, and great grandparents were all Democrats. If they were alive today, they would repudiate the Democrat Party immediately and in no uncertain terms.
My children--I am very proud to say--are ALL Republicans.
I am strongly opposed to the "Environmentalist Movement" as it has developed. I used to be a strong supporter of it.
My family and I are environmentalists in the appropriate meaning of the word. Our property is a wildlife sanctuary. We do not allow hunting or fishing on it. We are vegetarians. We recycle regularly and faithfully. Etc.
I can well understand why anyone would kill for survival, but I cannot understand how anyone would derive pleasure from killing or subjecting an animal to pain and terror.
Nevertheless, the "Environmentalist Movement" has been commandeered by self-serving, radical, extremist bullies. My encounters with such people have left me so disgusted that I oppose them at every opportunity, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.
Like the rest of the Left, including the Democrat Party, this "Movement" has become the venue of fools, sociopaths, extremists, and other assorted bullies, and it must not be allowed to continue in its present form.
Animals, including rattlesnakes and sharks, who are not a threat, should not be harmed and, furthermore, are an important part of the ecological balance.
However, the American people must DEMAND that property owners be compensated--AT MARKET VALUE--for every bit of property--INCLUDING PROPERTY RIGHTS--taken by government. If something is important enough to seize property, then it's important enough to pay the owner for the property.
Different species have been constantly evolving since life began, and they continue to evolve. If somehow every species that ever existed were alive today, there would not be room on earth for all of them.
"Environmentalists" are just another group of Left-wing nutcase extremists who are blinded to all but their own agenda and, like other "activists", are determined to bully everyone else into submitting to their demands--as though they knew better than anyone else.
In another vein, "environmentalists"--and others as well--tend to think of nature as pristine and benevolent, disturbed only by the blundering and greed of mankind.
It's not. It's a bloodbath.
To quote one of my favorite writers and one of my favorite books:
"Wherein differ the sea and the land...As his words apply to the remorseless tribes of the sea, they also apply to those of the land."Consider the subtleness of the sea; how its most dreaded creatures glide under water, unapparent for the most part, and treacherously hidden beneath the loveliest tints of azure. Consider also the devilish brilliance and beauty of many of its most remorseless tribes, as the dainty embellished shape of many species of sharks. Consider, once more, the universal cannibalism of the sea; all whose creatures prey upon each other, carrying on eternal war since the world began."
~Herman Melville~
Moby Dick
And, furthermore, though I feel not a tinge of guilt about my lot in life and my place in the cosmos, as Melville also observed, man is a part of this eternal war, and, in fact, likely the most remorseless of the predators because, unlike the sharks and whales and rattlesnakes who kill for survival, but like mad Ahab, he is capable of killing for vengeance.
And, furthermore, the most remorseless and ruthless--and dangerous!--of mankind are those who know what's best for everyone else and are determined to force their beliefs on others.
This includes religious fanatics, and the Left--including "environmentalism"--is de facto a religion.
Who's spamming all the keywords?
I noticed that too. I guess some kitty bait is getting kicked where it hurts today.
It's pretty pathetic when you are so far into the koolaid you attack on that side no matter what the circumstances.
My brother is a liberal. But he sure didn't like it when the enviro's started trying to tell him what to do with his land. He told me he wanted to cut down every tree on it just to spite them.
Lifted from the SF Chronicle:
The bill passed on a 229-193 vote, which did not break along traditional party lines. Thirty-six Democrats, many representing rural areas in the West and South, voted for the bill, while 34 Republicans, mostly moderates from the East Coast and the Midwest, opposed it.
Also, (C/O Carry Okie)
Check here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1490580/posts
Was this the soul issue of the bill or just one of the long list of things in it? I ask because you might be conveniently using this one part of the bill and falsely labelling democrats with it. That's kind of disingenuous to do, don't you think? Could it just be dems voted against the bill because of the bigger issue of not wanting to change the Endangered species act all together? Could it be that if this bill came up with only the one issue of properly reimbursing people that they'd vote for it? My guess is most would.
And don't have a knee jerk reaction to this post. I am no fan of democrats but I don't falsely label them. This was a complex bill with tons of amendments. You knew it yet you decided to unfairly finger them on one part of the bill.
Now we all have verification of what we all suspected - Democrats are from another universe. Somebody should tell ol' Serpent head to stop recruiting in the Star Wars bar.
Mad-as-hell:
Here's the bill that the Dems voted against.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109kh1Sfb::
It called for fair market value compensation for the forgone use of the land. It's under the 'Private Property Conservation' section. Here's the roll call vote.
your link isn't working. I had looked it up prior to my first post. the part you are writing about is just one of other provisions of the bill. the bill it self isn't completely dedicated to reimbursment.
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.