It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by RussianScientists
I would like to see Arizona keep their lands open to the public instead of wanting to sell off all of that land.
Selling that land is not right, it is public land, for public use.
Taking back the land just to sell will let other countries like China come in and buy up all of that land with the trillions of US dollars that they have that is otherwise worthless.
As much as YOU or I may not like it, the citizens of Arizona have the right to decide what they do with the lands in their state. If those lands can be turned into a profit (Alaska is a good example) and the citizens benefit then more power to them (literally )! The quality of life and affordable energy that can be provided from utilizing their land in a productive way can benefit everyone in Arizona and Utah.
Maybe the FED shouldn’t be solely responsible for the fate of US citizens? Could that be what the founders had in mind?
edit on 25-4-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
reply to post by seabag
Oh it's a Republican backed bill
Translation;
They are going to turn the Grand Canyon into Garbage Pit...
All makes sense now
That is a highly subjective statement.
Based on what rate of consumption?
According to President Obama, the United States contains only 2 percent of the planet’s proven oil reserves, Of course, he’s right — to a point. In classic fashion, he’s using a technicality to skirt the facts and keep the myth of energy scarcity alive. The reality is that the U.S. has enough recoverable oil for the next 200 years, despite only having 2 percent of the world’s current proven oil reserves.
Originally posted by detachedindividual
Originally posted by RussianScientists
I would like to see Arizona keep their lands open to the public instead of wanting to sell off all of that land.
Selling that land is not right, it is public land, for public use.
Taking back the land just to sell will let other countries like China come in and buy up all of that land with the trillions of US dollars that they have that is otherwise worthless.
Do you not think that the people of that state should be the one to make that kind of decision?
If they want to protect their land, they should be able to fight their LOCAL government to protect it. This is a battle that should be fought state by state.
The federal government is just as corrupt as regional government - of not more so. If I were in the USA, I would want my state to be answerable to their citizens on the protection or sale of land. It's much easier for the people of that state to fight corruption and corporatism and protect their natural resources if the people they have to fight are just down the road, and you don't need millions of $'s in lobbying either.
I have no doubt that those in state government have little "secret deals" with developers here, they are seeing an opportunity to make money. But it's up to the people of that state to fight it.
Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
Oh it's a Republican backed bill
Translation;
They are going to turn the Grand Canyon into Garbage Pit...
All makes sense now
If Obama keeps them it’ll be used for FEMA camps!
Bottom line is that the FED has no right to ‘occupy’ a state’s land without approval from the citizens of that state. Apparently the ‘citizens’ of Arizona have seen, heard and experienced enough BS from the FED! More power to them!!!
Originally posted by The Old American
Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
reply to post by seabag
Oh it's a Republican backed bill
Translation;
They are going to turn the Grand Canyon into Garbage Pit...
All makes sense now
At least it's not the entire left coast, which the liberals turned into one.
Good job, Arizona. Things are looking up there finally.
/TOA
Originally posted by detachedindividual
Originally posted by RussianScientists
I would like to see Arizona keep their lands open to the public instead of wanting to sell off all of that land.
Selling that land is not right, it is public land, for public use.
Taking back the land just to sell will let other countries like China come in and buy up all of that land with the trillions of US dollars that they have that is otherwise worthless.
Do you not think that the people of that state should be the one to make that kind of decision?
If they want to protect their land, they should be able to fight their LOCAL government to protect it. This is a battle that should be fought state by state.
The federal government is just as corrupt as regional government - of not more so. If I were in the USA, I would want my state to be answerable to their citizens on the protection or sale of land. It's much easier for the people of that state to fight corruption and corporatism and protect their natural resources if the people they have to fight are just down the road, and you don't need millions of $'s in lobbying either.
I have no doubt that those in state government have little "secret deals" with developers here, they are seeing an opportunity to make money. But it's up to the people of that state to fight it.
I personally don't want to see any of those lands sold to anybody, any corporation or any country. I'd like them to stay open and free
Originally posted by seabag
It doesn’t matter what WE WOULD LIKE unless WE live in ARIZONA.
The people of Arizona won't be able to fight off the selling of their lands. More deals for the land will be made under the table than above it.
Originally posted by KillThePoor
reply to post by onthedownlow
If someone supports this, at least argue honestly. It has nothing to do with freedom from the federal government, democracy, or state's rights. It is all about private corporations wanting the land. Once again, private profits and socialized losses. (Health, money, land, environment)
This bill has nothing to do about freedom, or liberty, or democracy, or state's rights, or any other political talking point they are using to sell this. It is all about private corporations wanting to drill on this land. Arizonans won't benefit at all from this.
The Alaska Permanent Fund is a constitutionally established permanent fund, managed by a semi-independent corporation, established by Alaska in 1976, primarily by the efforts of then Governor Jay Hammond. Shortly after the oil from Alaska’s North Slope began flowing to market through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, the Permanent Fund was created by an amendment to the Alaska Constitution to be an investment for at least 25% of proceeds from some mineral (such as oil and gas) sales or royalties. The Alaska Permanent Fund sets aside a certain share of oil revenues to continue benefiting current and all future generations of Alaskans.
If someone supports this, at least argue honestly. It has nothing to do with freedom from the federal government, democracy, or state's rights. It is all about private corporations wanting the land. Once again, private profits and socialized losses. (Health, money, land, environment)