Bush or ???????? statistics

[Wally Dog]

I reckon this time the demographics will be largely the same.
WD

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul,
Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent
Presidential election:

Population of counties won by:
Gore = 127 million
Bush = 143 million
Square miles of land won by:
Gore = 580,000
Bush = 2,2427,000
States won by:
Gore = 19
Bush = 29
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore = 13.2
Bush = 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won
was most! ly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great
country.
Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in
government-owned tenements and living off government welfare." Olson
believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "complacency and "apathy"
phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent
of
the nation's population already having reached the "governmental
dependency"
phase.

Maybe this insight will help some folks realize just how much is at
stake in this Election Year and that apathy is the greatest danger to our
freedom.

 

[Oak]

What were the popular vote numbers?

Oak

 

[MarvB]

If I remember correctly the popular vote was within about one half a percentage point and the electoral vote was only about 5 more Rep. than Demo. That sound about right?

 

[Ithaca 37]

Square miles of land won by:
Gore = 580,000
Bush = 2,2427,000

"Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won
was most! ly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great
country."

So if Bush won in ID,WY, MT, NV, UT and Alaska he gets credit for all those square miles of sagebrush and tundra!

Does the professor mean the Bush land was federal and state land when he says it's "owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great
country."?

Maybe the good professor isn't too bright if he expects us not to see the BS in his data.

Hamline U. huh! Sounds like an internet college!


Here's the info on the popular vote. Looks like Gore won! I wonder why the professor didn't include that info?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

 

[Hangar18]

Originally posted by Ithaca 37:


...Here's the info on the popular vote. Looks like Gore won! I wonder why the professor didn't include that info?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

I'm guessing he didn't include the popular vote because it is the electoral vote that counts in presidential elections.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

None of the stuff in the original comparison counts - just the electoral vote. He obviously did not include it because it did not fit his purpose.

 

[Oak]

Cali, that's the point I was making. The stuff he mentioned matters just as little as the popular vote.

Oak

 

[Nemont]

Was just reading that this election may again be a case of a candidate winning the popular vote and losing the electoral vote.

Perhaps the systems need a little tweaking.

Although if Al Gore had been pres. we would most likely would still be deciding if Bin Laden was really a threat.

Ithaca,
Normally you argue your case really well and generally make a lot of sense. But that signature line of yours is one of the most idiotic things you have posted.
Give me a case of lands that have been liquidated on a wholesale basis.

You may want to listen to a little of what is on in the afternoon show on Air America Radio regarding the difference between the GOP and the Dems. The conculsion the Dems have better hair and that is it.

Nemont

 

[A-con]

All the smoke blown over the last three and a half years about Gore winning the popular vote is kinda skewed. A lot of the popular vote was never counted. They never finished counting hundreds of thousands of mail in ballets and military ballets ( once the electoral vote went to court ). These votes tradionaly lean republican about 4 to 1, so it is entirely possable that Bush DID win the popular vote.

Note to Buzz, Gunner & Ithica, no, I'm not going to provide links to back that up, look it up for yourself if you want to !

 

[BuzzH]

A-con,

I didnt have a dog in that fight...I didnt vote for either, so I wont waste any time looking it up...but I think you're probably right.

I do think each state should be able to split their electoral votes...

Seems that may just happen in Colorado.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Nemont, "But that signature line of yours is one of the most idiotic things you have posted.
Give me a case of lands that have been liquidated on a wholesale basis."

Ever hear of the sagebrush rebellion? That's what it was all about. If they could get away with it they would.

 

[Nemont]

Ithaca,
Then what your signature line then is complete based upon fear not fact. I don't think the sagebrush rebellion is still going on. Maybe the Freemen are still battling but the rebellion itself was pretty much put to rest.

Nemont

 

[Ithaca 37]

Nemont, The Sagebrush Rebellion lives! Only now they call themselves the "wise use" movement.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=sagebrush+rebellion+wise+use

 

[Nemont]

Ithaca,
Do you really believe there is ANY political momentum anywhere in this country, including within the Republican party, to liquidate public lands?

There isn't enough political clout in the all western states combined to ever get that rolling. You know, I know any sane person knows it. If you are worried about the wise use movement you may have to much time on your hands.

The wise use movement is fulfilling the same role that you enjoy so much: define the extreme end of the debate.

Nemont

 

[Ithaca 37]

Nemont, If you've been reading the topic on the Boulder-Whiteclouds compromise you've seen that part of the scheme is to GIVE public land to the county for development! That idea comes from our Republican Congressman. He's always been very anti-Fish and Game and pro-development. Now, you think he won't go thru with this giveaway if nobody raises hell? He's real good on gun rights, though.

He's a great current living example of what my signature line is about.

"One section of the proposal calls for public land within the Sawtooth National Recreation Area to be transferred to Custer County to foster possible future economic development."

http://www.huntandlodge.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=002863

Ever hear of the 1872 Mining Law? Look it up!

[ 08-03-2004, 22:44: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]

 

[Ithaca 37]

Nemont, "A bill sponsored by Senator Larry Craig of Idaho entitled "Public Land Management Responsibility and Accountability Restoration Act" is currently making its way through Congress. It is designed to turn management and even, through an application process, ownership of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management properties over to the states......"

Then the State Land Board decides what to do with it! You think they won't sell?

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~insrisg/nature/nw98/fedtostate.html

Ever hear about this?

"As Assistant Secretary, Griles strongly supported the Interior Department’s 1986 choice not to appeal a federal district court decision on patenting of oil-shale lands under the 1872 mining law. The decision resulted in the virtual giveaway of over 82,000 acres of land for $2.50/acre, a total of about $200,000. A House Appropriations Committee investigation found that the government might have received as much as $250 billion in revenue in the event the lands were developed under a leasing arrangement, as is customary for oil resources on federal lands, rather than allowing the land to be patented. One of the claimholders patented 17,000 acres of the land in question for $42,500, and then sold the same land for $37 million. [Inside Energy, July 27, 1987]"

http://www.clearproject.org/reports_griles.html

More:

http://www.ewg.org/mining/

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=who+owns+the+west

"Mining industry gains title to 3.7 million acres of lands previously owned by the public
Jump to: Patent Purchasers | Patents Listed by Decade | Pending Patents | Claims | Mines | Map

Location: -State-ALL Arizona California Colorado Idaho Montana Nevada New Mexico Oregon South Dakota Utah Washington Wyoming

The hardrock mining industry has acquired the title to an estimated 3.7 million acres of land previously owned by the public and rich in gold, silver, and other precious metals and minerals. Although a moratorium on new mining "patents" - conversion of public lands to private - has been in place since 1994, the government continues to grant pending requests. Since 2000, 15,600 acres of public lands across 12 western states have been converted to private ownership, for a price capped at $5 per acre in 1872. See who has gained title to lands since 1980, 1990, or 2000...." http://www.ewg.org/mining/patents/index.php

 

[Ithaca 37]

June 22, 2004 -- The federal government recently sold 155 acres on the top of a landmark mountain in the ski resort town of Crested Butte, Colo., for just $5 per acre under the terms of an 1872 mining law.

As NPR's Elizabeth Arnold reports, the law was designed to encourage the settlement of the West. More than a century later, many are calling for the overhaul of an antiquated law that lets mining interests buy prime real estate at dirt-cheap prices, without owing the federal government or taxpayers a penny in royalties.

The Clinton administration imposed a moratorium on claims filed under the law in 1994, but some applications were grandfathered in. The Bush administration aims to settle 55 such applications........

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1958649

 

[Nemont]

Itaca,
Did you read through your source. Patents were granted under every administration, even your hero Clinton allowed patents to be granted. It doesn't appear that the rate of patents has increased since President Bush has been in office.

Ithaca,
Why didn't Clinton, Gore, Babbitt et.al. work harder to repeal or at least significantly amend the 1872 mining law? They were in power for 8 years and, according to you, supposedly did everything right for the environment. I know Babbitt spoke passionately about the need for changing it

Babbitt pushes for mining law reform

Under current law, companies pay the U.S. government $2.50 per acre for hardrock mining rights
May 1, 1998
Web posted at: 5:29 p.m. EDT (2129 GMT)
By Environmental News Network staff

(ENN) -- In an effort to convince Congress of the necessity of revamping the 1872 Mining Law, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt signed a patent for three mining claims on Wednesday, giving away public resources covering 62 acres worth more than $80 million.

Babbitt testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to support reform of the 125-year-old law.

"We remain convinced that reform can be accomplished in a way that provides the taxpayer a fair return on publicly owned resources," said Babbitt. "We are ready to assist the Congress in accomplishing this goal."

The patent Babbitt signed deeds out of public ownership three mining claims covering 62 acres on Prince of Wales Island in Tongass National Forest in Alaska. The patentee will pay the federal government $2.50 per acre, about $155, for mineral resources with an estimated value of about $80 million. The claims contain about 2.3 million tons of iron, with recoverable copper, gold and silver.

"Until Congress steps forward to enact meaningful reform of this law, I must continue to give away America's mineral resources for unfair return to the taxpayers," Babbitt said. "We cannot, and will not, support legislation that does little or nothing to fix the problems posed by the current law."

The 1872 Mining Law, signed by President Ulysses S. Grant and still in effect today, allows patents for hardrock minerals on public lands to be mined for $2.50, or $5 per acre. Oil and gas leases on federal lands require the payment of royalties, a percentage of the value of the underground asset. Babbitt has called for similar reform for hardrock minerals.

According to the Department of Interior, since taking office in January 1993, Babbitt has signed 40 mining patents, deeding away publicly owned resources valued at more than $15 billion to individuals and private mining companies. In return, taxpayers received a little more than $24,000.

Think about it Clinton was responsible for the same thing you are accusing Bush of because he had to deal with a law from 1872. You suppose that if Kerry were elected he would have to comply with the same law?
Nemont

[ 08-04-2004, 11:00: Message edited by: Nemont ]

 

[Ithaca 37]

Nemont, You weren't commenting on any particualr administration when you said, "Do you really believe there is ANY political momentum anywhere in this country, including within the Republican party, to liquidate public lands?

There isn't enough political clout in the all western states combined to ever get that rolling. You know, I know any sane person knows it. If you are worried about the wise use movement you may have to much time on your hands."

I was merely showing you that it is happening, whether you realize it or not. Public lands are being liquidated, and some sources claim the Bush administration has increased the rate. I don't know for sure about that, but I'm sure the current atmosphere is encouraging to any mining company wanting to acquire public land.

Clinton's not a hero of mine, but it was interesting watching him on Letterman last nite. He sure is a smooth talker!

 

[Nemont]

Ithaca,

I live very close to an area deeply affected by mining and the mining law. The Zortman-Landusky mine is an environmental disaster. So I understand that issue

I was attempting to point out your signature line is wrong and makes a misleading statement. It doesn't matter who is in office if the law is still on the books and remains the rules governing the way mining patents are granted.

Look back at what happened in the last two and half years of the Clinton administration. They just quit fighting the issue of the mining law.

I did see Clinton on Letterman. He is a pretty witty guy. I still can't stand his politics.


Nemont