Elections have Consequences.
.
1 posted on
11/03/2007 9:00:42 AM PDT by
george76
To: thackney
2 posted on
11/03/2007 9:01:46 AM PDT by
george76
(Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
To: george76
From what I understand, Hairy Reid won’t let this bill see the light of day in the Senate. He is, of course, the son of a gold miner and Nevada the biggest mining state in the country.
I never thought I’d have anything remotely good to say about Reid, but if he foils this bill, I’ll tip my hat to him......for about 5 seconds.
3 posted on
11/03/2007 9:04:01 AM PDT by
jsh3180
To: george76
These damned democrats will be the death of us all
10 posted on
11/03/2007 9:17:16 AM PDT by
mylife
(The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
To: george76
It will be vetoed. Is an environmental wacko wish list.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
11 posted on
11/03/2007 9:17:21 AM PDT by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: george76
We need mining. However like the Ranch lands acts that basically give away federal lands to some ranchers while others pay market rates, the mining act as I understand it allows mining companies exploiting federal lands to all but avoid paying any royalties on the minerals they extract. They would have to pay if mining on private land, so they should pay into the common treasury the royalties for minerals mined on public land.
13 posted on
11/03/2007 9:20:21 AM PDT by
jdub
To: george76
The provision would “shut down coal mining in Colorado,”
That'll be good for coal mining here in Kentucky.
17 posted on
11/03/2007 9:27:49 AM PDT by
JamesP81
To: george76
Here is the $64,000.00 question.
What effect, if any, would this have on oil and gas drilling on Federal Leases?
I can just see the ecowhackos buggering that up even more.
21 posted on
11/03/2007 9:34:46 AM PDT by
Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
To: george76
eliminate land patentingNo one noticed this? Do some research on land patents and then ask yourself why they would wish to eliminate it...
24 posted on
11/03/2007 9:41:23 AM PDT by
ikka
To: george76
I’m assuming these idiots believe that we should increase our dependency on the third world and our enemies for our strategic mineral supplies. After all, we all have to get along .... but not without chromium, molybdenum and tungsten.
To: george76
To: george76
The Mining Law is still a major source of annoyance to those who want to develop mineral resources if they are little family businesses. If they are Anaconda or BP they are happy as clams.
40 posted on
11/03/2007 11:11:14 AM PDT by
RightWhale
(anti-razors are pro-life)
To: george76
46 posted on
11/03/2007 7:56:01 PM PDT by
listenhillary
(You get more of what you focus on)
To: george76
Eliminating land patenting eliminates one of the great hopes for privatizing environmental management.
Damn. I had no idea that was in the works.
48 posted on
11/04/2007 6:24:12 AM PST by
Carry_Okie
(The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
To: george76
56 posted on
11/05/2007 11:29:59 AM PST by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
