@ScanIAm, You must not be a fan of private property... are you? Or because you believe something to be valuable you feel you can dictate it's use and/or seize it from its owners?
3 hours ago, ScanIAm wroteI suggested that you don't give unrestrained stewardship of a public resource to someone who profits from the destruction of that resource.
3 hours ago, ScanIAm wrote
I suggested that you don't give unrestrained stewardship of a public resource to someone who profits from the destruction of that resource.
Was anyone talking about 'giving'? Or just 'stewardship' (ie not ownership)?
In fact... what I was hearing was talk of ownership and the owner having a vested interest in maintaining the property... just in this thread from Maddus we've heard:
If it was the lumberjacks property, he would treat it differently.
You are not willing to trust a lumberjack to take care of his forest, but you are willing to hand over a forest to a politician, I suggest you trust the guy with the axe.
... things which are quite different than what you are accusing him of.
Misrepresent arguments much?