It was 155 years ago when the United States signed the Black Hills Treaty of 1868 with the Sioux, indigenous Americans living in the Black Hills since times immemorial. But, backed by the U.S.
In my opinion, this is NOT about so-called climate change, it's about PROPERTY RIGHTS. I am not a member of any party because there are Republicans who represent this new "robber baron" company and Democrats who don't understand that plants, trees, etc need CO2 to live. If everyone would focus on what's more important and truly work to fix it, our $31 trillion deficit, our country will be better off. According to a 2019 report from Columbia University, not a well-known bastion of conservatism, Earth's atmosphere contains 0.04% of CO2...pretty miniscule considering all the CO2 emanating from the exhalations of John Kerry, AOC, Chuck Schumer and that world-reknown and apparently revered by many, little Greta Thunberg.
Well Lincoln county commissioners have on the agenda for Tuesday to use eminent domain to take land from a Lincoln county citizen for a driveway to the new court house that was never voted on by Lincoln county residents!!! The commissioners believe that because four commissioners want a new courthouse, they just can take citizens land by eminent domain, after all if the pipeline people can do it …. Why not our own commissioners. Who’s next?
Pretty sure Glenn Beck would be against this. And eminent domain is allowed by government for PUBLIC use. Should be very rare. THIS is a private company. And how many will use the sequestered CO2? Public use? Let’s call it what it is—stealing of land with sliced and diced laws to make a few wealthy. The PEOPLE overwhelmingly do not want this. But the lobbyists and special interests really want the 45Q and 45Z tax credits. And guess what? It will be a domino effect. Solar and wind will line up right behind them. Time to hear from the people.
So nice to have a civil debate. What was your addition to this discussion? That it's okay to rob private property, including a lot of farm land, to enrich companies getting our tax dollars to concentrate, pressurize, and bury a gas that's benign in its natural state and food for plants?
Then I hope they will longer look to ethanol producers as a source of income. I don’t like it when my taxes are increased to widen roads for the out of town traffic to our malls receiving tax breaks to expand here. I don’t like all the high rise apartment being built to house the influx of rural people because there are no jobs at home. I don’t like people who call farming a way of life. It needs to be treated like a business. A business makes decisions to improve the bottom line. If you can provide a business plan to make money off your land severs feet under the surface I might buy your argument. Remember though, any income stream will have start up and ongoing costs. Will it pencil out. A big NO because if it did you would already be doing it.
You should be required to rent out a room from your house to a stranger who finds your location convenient. No choice. You have to rent it, and you have nothing to say about what it does to your own life and plans as long as they pay what they think you should have.
Glen Beck wrote a book with you in mind, “Arguing With Idiots.” The answer to your last idiotic statement can be found in the constitution. There is also a law authorizing eminent domain.
The SCOTUS made a lousy decision in 2006 (Kelo v New London CT) by re-defining the clear Constitutional concept of "public use" to instead mean "public benefit". That allowed New London to raze a middle class neighborhood to make way for Pfizer to build there so New London could raise more taxes. Of course, Pfizer left, and the razed neighborhood is a wasteland to this day. No improved tax base. And certainly no benefit to the 70 displaced families. The biggest customer for the ethanol is currently California, which requires the carbon credits scam to sell ethanol there, but California is phasing out internal combustion autos by the year 2035. Some cities there and elsewhere are banning new service stations now. So this wonderful market disappears, but not the pipeline that cut a swath through the midwest, all so private companies can profit from the seizure of private property to theoretically do what trees do better.
This whole thing is amazing to me. Dems like Jeff usually support sensible climate issues. Sequestering CO2 is a sensible climate approach. Why do Dems here oppose this good idea?
Sequestering CO2 is an insane idea. Trees do a better job of it, and they cost a lot less. And they don't rob private property to enrich a private company (and whatever pols are also getting enriched by this). Even the founder of Greenpeace calls the CO2 hoax a hoax. https://slaynews.com/news/greenpeace-founder-anti-carbon-dioxide-agenda-hoax/
In my opinion, this is NOT about so-called climate change, it's about PROPERTY RIGHTS. I am not a member of any party because there are Republicans who represent this new "robber baron" company and Democrats who don't understand that plants, trees, etc need CO2 to live. If everyone would focus on what's more important and truly work to fix it, our $31 trillion deficit, our country will be better off. According to a 2019 report from Columbia University, not a well-known bastion of conservatism, Earth's atmosphere contains 0.04% of CO2...pretty miniscule considering all the CO2 emanating from the exhalations of John Kerry, AOC, Chuck Schumer and that world-reknown and apparently revered by many, little Greta Thunberg.
Well Lincoln county commissioners have on the agenda for Tuesday to use eminent domain to take land from a Lincoln county citizen for a driveway to the new court house that was never voted on by Lincoln county residents!!! The commissioners believe that because four commissioners want a new courthouse, they just can take citizens land by eminent domain, after all if the pipeline people can do it …. Why not our own commissioners. Who’s next?
Pretty sure Glenn Beck would be against this. And eminent domain is allowed by government for PUBLIC use. Should be very rare. THIS is a private company. And how many will use the sequestered CO2? Public use? Let’s call it what it is—stealing of land with sliced and diced laws to make a few wealthy. The PEOPLE overwhelmingly do not want this. But the lobbyists and special interests really want the 45Q and 45Z tax credits. And guess what? It will be a domino effect. Solar and wind will line up right behind them. Time to hear from the people.
Jeff once again sounding like the perennial loser he is.
So nice to have a civil debate. What was your addition to this discussion? That it's okay to rob private property, including a lot of farm land, to enrich companies getting our tax dollars to concentrate, pressurize, and bury a gas that's benign in its natural state and food for plants?
Not robbery when they receive payment.
It's robbery if they're forced. Eminent domain seizure is not a mutually agreeable transaction.
Then I hope they will longer look to ethanol producers as a source of income. I don’t like it when my taxes are increased to widen roads for the out of town traffic to our malls receiving tax breaks to expand here. I don’t like all the high rise apartment being built to house the influx of rural people because there are no jobs at home. I don’t like people who call farming a way of life. It needs to be treated like a business. A business makes decisions to improve the bottom line. If you can provide a business plan to make money off your land severs feet under the surface I might buy your argument. Remember though, any income stream will have start up and ongoing costs. Will it pencil out. A big NO because if it did you would already be doing it.
You should be required to rent out a room from your house to a stranger who finds your location convenient. No choice. You have to rent it, and you have nothing to say about what it does to your own life and plans as long as they pay what they think you should have.
Glen Beck wrote a book with you in mind, “Arguing With Idiots.” The answer to your last idiotic statement can be found in the constitution. There is also a law authorizing eminent domain.
The SCOTUS made a lousy decision in 2006 (Kelo v New London CT) by re-defining the clear Constitutional concept of "public use" to instead mean "public benefit". That allowed New London to raze a middle class neighborhood to make way for Pfizer to build there so New London could raise more taxes. Of course, Pfizer left, and the razed neighborhood is a wasteland to this day. No improved tax base. And certainly no benefit to the 70 displaced families. The biggest customer for the ethanol is currently California, which requires the carbon credits scam to sell ethanol there, but California is phasing out internal combustion autos by the year 2035. Some cities there and elsewhere are banning new service stations now. So this wonderful market disappears, but not the pipeline that cut a swath through the midwest, all so private companies can profit from the seizure of private property to theoretically do what trees do better.
THis is totally lame, Jeff.
This whole thing is amazing to me. Dems like Jeff usually support sensible climate issues. Sequestering CO2 is a sensible climate approach. Why do Dems here oppose this good idea?
Sequestering CO2 is an insane idea. Trees do a better job of it, and they cost a lot less. And they don't rob private property to enrich a private company (and whatever pols are also getting enriched by this). Even the founder of Greenpeace calls the CO2 hoax a hoax. https://slaynews.com/news/greenpeace-founder-anti-carbon-dioxide-agenda-hoax/