Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on September 23, 2009 at 9:39

Calm down.

Looks like he is calling for a new board to regulate energy policy, not to expropriate mineral rights.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on September 23, 2009 at 9:55

I dont see any mention of any kind of language that even hints at expropriation?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on September 23, 2009 at 10:02

IMO, you can't read any better than you type. Kieth, please move to politics section.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on September 23, 2009 at 10:04

Citizens for Affordable Energy has a poll: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=4LNUoLy8Wh%2fZISB7qnIBhA%3d%3d

Here is part 2 of question 7)

Americans must (here's that word I'm hearing so often these days) accept what is good for the community to support new infrastructure even if it encroaches on individual properties.


I find this disturbing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on September 23, 2009 at 13:12

A question in a poll is disturbing? Obviously, you have not been subjected to the "push" polling which is designed to elicit not your answer, but to stir up the questionee on a particular issue. Actually, encroaching on individual property for new infrastuctire for the public good sounds a lot like eminent domain by which most public highways and other projects have been built for decades.

Have you driven on I-49 lately?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martin on September 23, 2009 at 14:28

It's called immanent domain. It's been around for centuries. It's how a political entity gets right of way for roads, canals, etc

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martin on September 23, 2009 at 14:50

spelling error --"immanent" should be "eminent" -- live by the spell checker, die by the spell checker....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on September 23, 2009 at 23:27

It is spelled the way I spelled it. I am very familiar with eminent domain. That's why I brought it up to counter his stupid post. Irony is a very old concept.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martin on October 2, 2009 at 11:38

Mr. Frank -- It was my error, not yours. I caught my mistake after re-reading your post and making my first post. I didn't realize that my second post was ambiguous. I knew it was my error when I made the second post. I just didn't catch the ambiguity in the second post. My apologies for the error. It's irony when you are older that 19. If you're 19 or less it's sarcasm..... It's a joke>

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack B2 on September 23, 2009 at 13:18

I didn't bring this to disscussion as an alarmist or any thing else in that line. If it belongs in the political section, so be it, if that is where it needs to be, or just delet it all together. It was a question reguarding a statement from a very influential person to a forum of the same that would have wide ranging affects on the rights of the people in this country when you give that power to appointed officials, my opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on September 23, 2009 at 14:00

Jack B2, I spent some time reading up on Citizens for Affordable Energy. I have not seen anything that hints at expropriation of privately owned minerals. I did hear a presentation by Mr. Hofmeister in which he pointed out that we have large reserves of oil and gas (off shore) which are presently not accessible. He didn't even get into why they are not accessible, just that they would help make us energy independent if we could develope them.

Mr. Frank I am not much into polls as a rule. That particular poll irked me because it appeared to me that on some of the questions, the answer choices were not broad enough to show an opposing point of view while on others you have a clear cut choice of FOR, AGAINST or NOT SURE. There were several that I would have answered "None of the above" if given the opportunity. I don't like this sort of manipulation.
And I think you are right that the language sounds a lot like Imminent Domain. What they may be aiming at is using a Federal Energy Board "for the good of the public" to get at the outer continental shelf and around the environmentalists without a required vote by the House and Senate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack B2 on September 23, 2009 at 14:41

jffree1, sometimes I have a tendency to read "between the lines", so to speak, when I shouldn't, and that is a triait I will refrain in the future, but to parallel the the proposal of a Federal Energy board places a enormous power in the hands of a few and that is what it is. You may very well be right and I hope I am completely off base.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page