[at-l] A Question Of Trail

[spiriteagle99@hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Those who don't delete NOW -- don't complain later -

Bob Cummings wrote:
>"... I have to assume that you view "property rights" as something 
>negotiable at the whim of the government rather than as protected 
>individual  rights guaranteed by the Constitution.  Am I wrong?" asks Jim 
>&/or....
>
>Yes. And let me suggest you read that constitution.

Yes to WHAT, Bob?  "Yes", Jim's assumption about you is wrong and "property 
rights" are sacrosant?

Or "Yes", you believe that the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights?) 
is negotiable at the whim of the government and that any "rights" enumerated 
therein are null and void when it suits your purpose?  What about when it 
suits the purpose of others (maybe those who have other agendas - like 
horse, snowmobile or ATV trails)?  You can't have that just one way.

My copy of the Constitution is in the basement - it's been there since we 
moved into the house last July.  But I've read it more than once. If you 
have something specific to discuss, I can find it and we can talk about it.  
Now, what's your question again?

And I spell Constitution with a Capital "C".  I think it rates that.


>"...for starters, "property rights" isn't an "ultra right" thing , claims 
>Jim
>
>Not always, obviously. But often as anyone who has fought these wars for 40 
>years knows.
>
>Five years ago when we were trying to keep alive a program that sought to 
>preserve "Land For Maine's Future," a member of the Legislative committee, 
>commented, "government should own no land. We should sell or give away all 
>public land. Public land is unconstitutional."
>
>Tell, me Jim. Is this guy ultra right, or just nutty.

The guy is an ignoramus, but his ignorance is no dumber than the idea that 
ALL private land should be subject to public taking at the whim of the 
government (in particular for the creation of "wilderness") particularly (as 
RnR seems to believe it should be) without compensation or justification.  
And THAT is what we were talking about. Your equating the two ideas is 
logically dysfunctional.  Or are you playing the "misdirection" game?  Your 
choice.


>"... how about that the government now owns over 32% of the US land mass? " 
>asks Jim &/or...
>
>Well the bulk of it is arid desert or rocky mountain tops that no one 
>wanted when government was in the business of giving away most of the 
>nation's public domain.

I've walked a lot of that "arid desert and rocky mountain tops" - and it's 
neither as "arid" nor as "rocky" nor as "unwanted" as you'd like us to 
believe.


>  Tell us, Jim. Which or the remaining lands do you propose the government 
>sell.

I made no such suggestion - you're the one who's doing that.  Why?
Never mind - we'll get to that.


>  During the first Bush administration and the early Clinton Years 
>Republicans tried to create a "Park Closing Commission" to get rid of 
>unimportant public lands. What would be your candidates for public land 
>disposal -- Yoaemite, Yellowstone, Glacier, the AT???

I made no such argument, Bob - but I did ask some questions that you, in 
spite of taking "four" posts to answer my "one" post, failed to address 
because you spent too much time trying to "misdirect" the "discussion".  So 
let's try again with a couple of those questions.       Tell me -

how much (land) do you think they (the government) "should" own?  And why do 
you think that doesn't qualify as "accumulation of property in few hands" -- 
with the twist that it's not private individuals, but the government that 
comprises the "few hands".  And why does that make it less heinous?

Do you have answers, Bob?


>  I suspect your state (Pennsylvania ?) ranks close the the American 
>average. Tell us which of these lands do you want to get rid of in the 
>interests of constitutional purity?

Let's see now - first you quote some idiot from a Maine Legislative 
committee who said  "Public land is unconstitutional."

Then you translate that into "Jim" said ---

Really, Bob -  if you're gonna be that obvious about misquoting me, do it 
off list. I'm  embarrassed for you.  I said no such thing --- and you know 
it.

You've spent a lot of time over the last month or so (year or so?) 
misquoting and "misinterpreting" much of what I've had to say.  And I've 
said very little about it.  But I haven't missed seeing it - in spite of the 
fact that you actually WORK at making sure I don't get those posts directly. 
  Maybe you "hope" I won't see them and therefore won't answer them?  And 
don't tell me you don't know what the "Reply All" button does - I wouldn't 
find that believable.

>  In Maine only 5 percent of our land is owned by the government -- and 
>half of that came about only because someone discovered that government had 
>forgotten about 400,000 acres it had preserved when it sold another 8 
>million acres.

Yeah - I know.  You keep telling us all about it.  How many times so far?


>  Does this violate our constitution, in your opinion, Jim?

I think we've answered that, haven't we?  If not, try again and I'll clarify 
it.


>"... your post was in support of RnR " claims Jim &/or...
>
>Well, sort of. He was responding to the prattle of someone who struck me as 
>a private property nut case. I urged him to desist, because he was getting 
>involved in a debate that would have no ending, and I wanted him to 
>concentrate on more sensible and useful matters.

Given the context and wording of your post, you're playing the "politician 
game" here.  As for the "private property nut case", he made some legitimate 
comments that you should have answered if you had a legitimate argument to 
present.

Specifically, he said:  "Property rights are not incompatible with 
protecting the trail from development so long as you're willing to bear
the true cost of preserving wilderness."

What part of that statement do you have a problem with?  The payment or the 
property rights?  Or the compatibility?  If I were to venture a guess, 
compatibility doesn't fit your agenda, does it?

He also said: "It is also equally true that trail advocates
appealed to greed and *lost.* They acted in the hope that
if enough of them petitioned the government, they'd get the
mountain and a chunk of the surrounding viewshed without
having to pay for it. If the Trailplace campaign was any
indication, most petitioners couldn't even restrain their
*greed* to limiting the use of eminent domain to condemning
only the minimum amount of land "mandated" by "law.""

That may be subject to difference of opinion, but what specific part of that 
labels him as a "private property nut case"?  And what specific part of it 
do you believe is wrong?  Why?

Then he said: "Don't try to dignify the acquisition of Saddleback by
calling it a trade. Trade is not coerced."

What specific part of that do you disagree with, Bob?

Just one more for now - he said: "But that doesn't mean that his property 
rights are forfeit and shouldn't be defended."

Is your problem that Breen should have no rights because he's "rich"?  Or 
because he's an a$$h**e?  Or is it just that he should have no rights 
because he opposed what you wanted?  I've recently found the latter bit of 
stupidity to be common among certain groups.

Or do you believe that, not just Breen, but ALL Americans have NO property 
rights when faced by those who believe that "wilderness" is more important 
than "people"?

Almost a year ago, you came to at-l from atml, claiming that the membership 
of at-l was made up of "atml refugees".  And that actually became true when 
you and RnR (and others) subscribed to at-l.  You then spent a lot of time 
beating up on the list for its unwillingness to "debate serious subjects".  
But, even when invited to do so, you failed to introduce those "serious 
subjects" for open discussion on the list.  Well - now you've got your 
"serious subjects" - and your response so far has been to slide into 
personal attacks and misdirection, ignore the questions and retreat behind 
RnR's rhetoric.

You've spent a year looking for this discussion.  You've badgered, whined, 
carped and complained about how nobody would get into this kind of 
discussion with you. Well, now you've got it.  So where are you?  Where's 
your argument?  Where are your answers to the questions?

I'll be looking for your answers, Bob  :-))

Walk softly,
Jim






_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com