Possible 10 million acre land grab coming.
-
Those resources are our resources that need to be available on the free-market in our domestic economy. If an investor wants to purchase some land for exploitation, there will be jobs and resources available to us that benefit us. Instead those resources are locked up, and used as collateral for China and other debt holders. We are being looted and sold off.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
But, you ignored my question. Given that you don't think there's any limit to the earths resources, why does it matter ? Just use some other parts of the infinite bounty of your nation.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
You seem to be missing that you want to sell everything off to special interests like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development. What makes those special interests any better than the ones you claim the government is serving? Can you name these special interests that the government favors? If you don't want to get labeled a nutjob, maybe some facts would be good intead or just conspiracy theories. It is funny that when George Bush used the same act to create 12.5 times as much protected area with World's Largest Marine Sanctuary Proposed by U.S.[^]he was suddenly an environmental hero and people ignored the fact that it meant no oil-drilling, commercial fishing or other economic interests would be served.
You fail to realise that he quoted an article, I doubt he's thought about half of this except to mutter something about socialism, eugenics, the Federal Reserve, and 'evil', before wiping the spittle off his chin.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Those resources are our resources that need to be available on the free-market in our domestic economy. If an investor wants to purchase some land for exploitation, there will be jobs and resources available to us that benefit us. Instead those resources are locked up, and used as collateral for China and other debt holders. We are being looted and sold off.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Those resources are our resources that need to be available on the free-market in our domestic economy.
You meant the market that was never quite free and in the 19th century drove the American bison to extinction and turn vast tracts of the American west into an environmental disaster area? Never been out of Ohio, have you, nut boy?
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
But don't you believe that the earth's resources are infinite ? Why not just go an ranch/deforest/mine somewhere else, there's an unlimited supply, right ? ". Apparently, Washington bureaucrats believe it's more important to preserve grass and rocks for birdwatchers and backpackers than to keep these local economies thriving." I often wonder if you really are so stupid that you read a line like this and regard it as unbiased reporting.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
In a sense they are. We live in a closed system, fed by energy from the sun. The amount of carbon, steel, phosphorous and so on will always remain constant (unless we build to many deep space probes).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
In a sense they are. We live in a closed system, fed by energy from the sun. The amount of carbon, steel, phosphorous and so on will always remain constant (unless we build to many deep space probes).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
This isn't necessarily a good thing in some cases... Some of the resources become harmful to the system itself and become toxins we have to deal with. Do a google search on "pacific gyre." Some estimates place this garbage heap at the size of Texas or bigger. The plastic breaks up into smaller pieces and this stuff is mistaken for eggs or other food sources by wildlife. phosphorus starts as the slowest cycle (no gas phase) and human influence on the cycle is pretty significant. Using it to make fertilizer we have plants unable to absorb all the phosphorus given to them from mining the stuff up. This extra phosphorus is run off and pollutes water bodies causing problems because it is not naturally found in such concentrations in the water. We keep binding up resources in manners that cause an environmental impact and we aren't paying attention or in some cases we have no clue as to how to fix it. You are also incorrect about the constant thing. Steel is broken down by oxyidation. The end result is a loss of that material. Unless you think we can make do with rust.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/white-house-land-grab/[^] You'd think the Obama administration is busy enough controlling the banks, insurance companies and automakers, but thanks to whistleblowers at the Department of the Interior, we now learn they're planning to increase their control over energy-rich land in the West. A secret administration memo has surfaced revealing plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job- creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development. Worse, this land grab would dry up tax revenue that's essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers. President Obama could enact the plans in this memo with just the stroke of a pen, without any input from the communities affected by it.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Don't worry. If you read the small print, they don't want the inbred, the retarded, the emotionally unstable or the blatently gulible. You'll be fine...
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
-
In a sense they are. We live in a closed system, fed by energy from the sun. The amount of carbon, steel, phosphorous and so on will always remain constant (unless we build to many deep space probes).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Carbon will remain a constant, sure... But will it be stored as rock? As carbon dioxide? As carbon monoxide? As part of methane (CH4)? In a more complicated flourocarbon, or however that's spelled? The amount of each building block may be relatively constant, but there are a lot of different forms they can take.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/white-house-land-grab/[^] You'd think the Obama administration is busy enough controlling the banks, insurance companies and automakers, but thanks to whistleblowers at the Department of the Interior, we now learn they're planning to increase their control over energy-rich land in the West. A secret administration memo has surfaced revealing plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job- creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development. Worse, this land grab would dry up tax revenue that's essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers. President Obama could enact the plans in this memo with just the stroke of a pen, without any input from the communities affected by it.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
revealing plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job- creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development.
Wait, they have job-creating jobs in those places? There are like 50 people in Montana. Both the ranchers are too busy killing anything that might be considered a predator in a 4 state radius to bother hiring ranch hands at minimum wage. Forestry is an awesome growth industry in New Mexico. I do find it really amusing that you equate this with losing jobs but ignore what happens when you make a National Park. You hire people to be Rangers. They check to make sure people aren't abusing the land and help tourists. Tourists show up. They pay money to see this pretty land (which is often something they can't at home) and go to local places to eat, shop, and sleep. They spend money and create new jobs, and often they spend money from other areas. This increases the commerce in the local area. So would more ranchers, cutting down trees, tearing up the ground, or making energy make more money and jobs than having tourists show up? And by how much?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Worse, this land grab would dry up tax revenue that's essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers.
So, you are against socialism in this post... Schools are a socialist agenda item. Capitalism wants uneducated workers for the common masses as they accept lower pay and can be more easily held as wage slaves. Having everyone pay into a system to educate people that couldn't afford a private education is pretty much 100% socialist. Firehouses are debateable. More like insurance. Don't get me started on community centers... That's like socialism on display. So what's with the mixed message? Some socialist agenda item to make more National Parks is bad, but the reason it is bad is that it halts capitalism that would fund socialist ideals... Where are you going with this?
-
This isn't necessarily a good thing in some cases... Some of the resources become harmful to the system itself and become toxins we have to deal with. Do a google search on "pacific gyre." Some estimates place this garbage heap at the size of Texas or bigger. The plastic breaks up into smaller pieces and this stuff is mistaken for eggs or other food sources by wildlife. phosphorus starts as the slowest cycle (no gas phase) and human influence on the cycle is pretty significant. Using it to make fertilizer we have plants unable to absorb all the phosphorus given to them from mining the stuff up. This extra phosphorus is run off and pollutes water bodies causing problems because it is not naturally found in such concentrations in the water. We keep binding up resources in manners that cause an environmental impact and we aren't paying attention or in some cases we have no clue as to how to fix it. You are also incorrect about the constant thing. Steel is broken down by oxyidation. The end result is a loss of that material. Unless you think we can make do with rust.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Steel is broken down by oxyidation. The end result is a loss of that material.
To be more specific, the element iron, which is used to make steel can oxidize and cause the steel to lose some of it's properties. However as this oxidation process occurs, there is no loss of material per se, since the rust, through other chemical processes, can be reverted back to it's elemental iron and subsequently made back into other steel. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
-
In a sense they are. We live in a closed system, fed by energy from the sun. The amount of carbon, steel, phosphorous and so on will always remain constant (unless we build to many deep space probes).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
You're forgetting incoming material through space debris and the like. It's not much on a year by year basis, but over time it is significant. Then there's also that whole bit where we render materials useless to ourselves through any of a number of methods, or more commonly make it impractical to recover them. And wouldn't being fed energy by the sun immediately end the closed system bit in the first place?
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I often wonder if you really are so stupid that you read a line like this and regard it as unbiased reporting.
I'm sure you regard unbiased as a paper that reports in the governments favor, portraying citizens who are upset with their policies as a minority of nutjobs. The government has looted and bankrupted this nation, they are disassembling it piece by piece, taking control over key sectors, and securing and selling off assets to special interest, domestic and abroad. We are a resource to be exploited in their eyes. We are just labor to them. If they have their way we will be paying 70-80% taxes to foreign banks. It is not their land, it is ours. They want our resources to themselves, and they use the brainwashing of climate change and all that bullshit to get us to accept slavery.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
You're forgetting incoming material through space debris and the like. It's not much on a year by year basis, but over time it is significant. Then there's also that whole bit where we render materials useless to ourselves through any of a number of methods, or more commonly make it impractical to recover them. And wouldn't being fed energy by the sun immediately end the closed system bit in the first place?
Not in this case. I don't think he is saying it is closed loop. I think he is saying that if you start with n atoms of iron, and none leave the system, you end up with n atoms of iron. Which is true. Of course, petroleum is used to generate the energy used to process the iron into something useful. That is turned into CO2, heat and H2O, so it is 'used up'. But it can be replenished, if you turn the CO2 and H2O into 'plant', bury it and wait a few million years and get lucky. Learn patience, grass hopper. :)
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
revealing plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job- creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development.
Wait, they have job-creating jobs in those places? There are like 50 people in Montana. Both the ranchers are too busy killing anything that might be considered a predator in a 4 state radius to bother hiring ranch hands at minimum wage. Forestry is an awesome growth industry in New Mexico. I do find it really amusing that you equate this with losing jobs but ignore what happens when you make a National Park. You hire people to be Rangers. They check to make sure people aren't abusing the land and help tourists. Tourists show up. They pay money to see this pretty land (which is often something they can't at home) and go to local places to eat, shop, and sleep. They spend money and create new jobs, and often they spend money from other areas. This increases the commerce in the local area. So would more ranchers, cutting down trees, tearing up the ground, or making energy make more money and jobs than having tourists show up? And by how much?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Worse, this land grab would dry up tax revenue that's essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers.
So, you are against socialism in this post... Schools are a socialist agenda item. Capitalism wants uneducated workers for the common masses as they accept lower pay and can be more easily held as wage slaves. Having everyone pay into a system to educate people that couldn't afford a private education is pretty much 100% socialist. Firehouses are debateable. More like insurance. Don't get me started on community centers... That's like socialism on display. So what's with the mixed message? Some socialist agenda item to make more National Parks is bad, but the reason it is bad is that it halts capitalism that would fund socialist ideals... Where are you going with this?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
You hire people to be Rangers. They check to make sure people aren't abusing the land and help tourists. Tourists show up. They pay money to see this pretty land (which is often something they can't at home) and go to local places to eat, shop, and sleep. They spend money and create new jobs, and often they spend money from other areas. This increases the commerce in the local area.
Yeah. But they are not 'wealth producing' jobs, just federal service jobs. :( A real problem with moving jobs from private to public sector is just that. You can not sustain a non-local economy on service jobs. Someone does have to actually produce food, cars, software.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
You hire people to be Rangers. They check to make sure people aren't abusing the land and help tourists. Tourists show up. They pay money to see this pretty land (which is often something they can't at home) and go to local places to eat, shop, and sleep. They spend money and create new jobs, and often they spend money from other areas. This increases the commerce in the local area.
Yeah. But they are not 'wealth producing' jobs, just federal service jobs. :( A real problem with moving jobs from private to public sector is just that. You can not sustain a non-local economy on service jobs. Someone does have to actually produce food, cars, software.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
That's why we have the states where all the pretty land got clearcut and replaced with farmland. ;) It's much cheaper to use them since the land is already ready to be used in this manner. Though South Dakota seems to be getting more friendly towards unrestrained capitalism with the resolution calling carbon dioxide "Not a pollutant, but helpful to plant growth." Why they use that tact, when you can't grow anything more than 2 months up there before a frost kills it all is beyond me. We can get cars and food cheaper in the spots where they alreday have an infrastructure in place to produce it. You ever driven in Montana or Colorado? It would cost too much to level the place so that you don't use up 2 gazillion gallons of gas climbing a mountain every 30 feet of horizontal travel. Software is a service industry. Even if it wasn't, who the hell needs more than a shack with an internet connection to produce it? The cost involved with getting them connected to the internet is a heck of a lot more than just letting people in California do it. Those folks at least might visit the park... That and we can use the 3rd world, cause they are cheap slave labor, duh! They grow crops for pennies because they aren't regulated, they make cars in sweat shop atmospheres, and they have programmers that come here to ask how to move info from one form to another. Perfect system that can be exploited. Don't worry, pure capitalism has an answer!
-
Not in this case. I don't think he is saying it is closed loop. I think he is saying that if you start with n atoms of iron, and none leave the system, you end up with n atoms of iron. Which is true. Of course, petroleum is used to generate the energy used to process the iron into something useful. That is turned into CO2, heat and H2O, so it is 'used up'. But it can be replenished, if you turn the CO2 and H2O into 'plant', bury it and wait a few million years and get lucky. Learn patience, grass hopper. :)
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
I think he is saying that if you start with n atoms of iron, and none leave the system, you end up with n atoms of iron. Which is true.
Oxidized iron is pretty useless though. And there is an awful lot of it. Heck, I could account for almost 2000 lbs of oxidized iron on a former car... :laugh:
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I think he is saying that if you start with n atoms of iron, and none leave the system, you end up with n atoms of iron. Which is true.
Oxidized iron is pretty useless though. And there is an awful lot of it. Heck, I could account for almost 2000 lbs of oxidized iron on a former car... :laugh:
Ah! Detroit! :confused: Wait,that's too light doesn't weigh enough! Enough sunlight, CO2 and H2O makes plants. Enough plants pressure, time and luck make petroleum. Enough petroleum, used correctly, turns rust back to iron.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
That's why we have the states where all the pretty land got clearcut and replaced with farmland. ;) It's much cheaper to use them since the land is already ready to be used in this manner. Though South Dakota seems to be getting more friendly towards unrestrained capitalism with the resolution calling carbon dioxide "Not a pollutant, but helpful to plant growth." Why they use that tact, when you can't grow anything more than 2 months up there before a frost kills it all is beyond me. We can get cars and food cheaper in the spots where they alreday have an infrastructure in place to produce it. You ever driven in Montana or Colorado? It would cost too much to level the place so that you don't use up 2 gazillion gallons of gas climbing a mountain every 30 feet of horizontal travel. Software is a service industry. Even if it wasn't, who the hell needs more than a shack with an internet connection to produce it? The cost involved with getting them connected to the internet is a heck of a lot more than just letting people in California do it. Those folks at least might visit the park... That and we can use the 3rd world, cause they are cheap slave labor, duh! They grow crops for pennies because they aren't regulated, they make cars in sweat shop atmospheres, and they have programmers that come here to ask how to move info from one form to another. Perfect system that can be exploited. Don't worry, pure capitalism has an answer!
ragnaroknrol wrote:
That's why we have the states where all the pretty land got clearcut and replaced with farmland. Wink
Sorry, I was bitching about government service jobs. I don't know enough to argue either way about the 'land grab'. But isn't 10^7 acres one small ranch in Montana?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
You ever driven in Montana or Colorado?
I flew over Montana in a light plane back in '83, up to Fort Peck Dam. The pilot made us hurry to get started, he couldn't take of after twilight with a paying fair, but if he was already up, it was ok. After it was dark, I looked out and saw one set of lights between us and the horizon.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
a mountain every 30 feet of horizontal travel.
It's not that bad, at least where I was. The land never changed altitude by more than 30 feet. It just did it every 30 feet.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Software is a service industry.
I disagree. Some IT is service, but SW development is often creating IP. Government service jobs generally eat more than they produce.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Don't worry, pure capitalism has an answer!
Well I'm glad to hear that, since the answers socialism has been coming up with are all hosed. So don't act like css from the other direction.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
That's why we have the states where all the pretty land got clearcut and replaced with farmland. ;) It's much cheaper to use them since the land is already ready to be used in this manner. Though South Dakota seems to be getting more friendly towards unrestrained capitalism with the resolution calling carbon dioxide "Not a pollutant, but helpful to plant growth." Why they use that tact, when you can't grow anything more than 2 months up there before a frost kills it all is beyond me. We can get cars and food cheaper in the spots where they alreday have an infrastructure in place to produce it. You ever driven in Montana or Colorado? It would cost too much to level the place so that you don't use up 2 gazillion gallons of gas climbing a mountain every 30 feet of horizontal travel. Software is a service industry. Even if it wasn't, who the hell needs more than a shack with an internet connection to produce it? The cost involved with getting them connected to the internet is a heck of a lot more than just letting people in California do it. Those folks at least might visit the park... That and we can use the 3rd world, cause they are cheap slave labor, duh! They grow crops for pennies because they aren't regulated, they make cars in sweat shop atmospheres, and they have programmers that come here to ask how to move info from one form to another. Perfect system that can be exploited. Don't worry, pure capitalism has an answer!
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Why they use that tact, when you can't grow anything more than 2 months up there before a frost kills it all is beyond me.
I can explain this, if you live far enough north you're actually rooting for global warming. It's friggen cold up here.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
That's why we have the states where all the pretty land got clearcut and replaced with farmland. Wink
Sorry, I was bitching about government service jobs. I don't know enough to argue either way about the 'land grab'. But isn't 10^7 acres one small ranch in Montana?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
You ever driven in Montana or Colorado?
I flew over Montana in a light plane back in '83, up to Fort Peck Dam. The pilot made us hurry to get started, he couldn't take of after twilight with a paying fair, but if he was already up, it was ok. After it was dark, I looked out and saw one set of lights between us and the horizon.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
a mountain every 30 feet of horizontal travel.
It's not that bad, at least where I was. The land never changed altitude by more than 30 feet. It just did it every 30 feet.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Software is a service industry.
I disagree. Some IT is service, but SW development is often creating IP. Government service jobs generally eat more than they produce.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Don't worry, pure capitalism has an answer!
Well I'm glad to hear that, since the answers socialism has been coming up with are all hosed. So don't act like css from the other direction.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Well I'm glad to hear that, since the answers socialism has been coming up with are all hosed. So don't act like css from the other direction.
I think we all* agree that neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism are the answer, and that a combination of the two works quite a bit better. The only question is how much of each to pour into the pot. * Except for Pillowpants. (Much funnier nickname than PWP)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
RichardM1 wrote:
Well I'm glad to hear that, since the answers socialism has been coming up with are all hosed. So don't act like css from the other direction.
I think we all* agree that neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism are the answer, and that a combination of the two works quite a bit better. The only question is how much of each to pour into the pot. * Except for Pillowpants. (Much funnier nickname than PWP)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)I was so hoping pillowpants would bite...