How many of you know that Republicans in Congress voted to sell many of our national parks?

[crockett]

They want to dump all the National Forrest & Wildlife refuges into state's hands, the state's in turn can't afford to up keep them, so they would then be auctioned off by the states to the highest bidder.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/op...for-grabs.html

Seriously is there anything at all that Republicans don't try to fuck up and Destroy? It's no wonder they hate Govt so much, because they suck at running the govt. Everything they get their hands on turns to shit.

[suesheboy]

Jesus never stood for national parks and our founding fathers did not put anything about them in the sacred constitution.

All those worthless animals sponging off the system. Most of them are black and brown too!

I say we burn down all them national parks which are put here by the devil and after we pump out the oil and dig up the coal, build us some gun and bible stores. A few crackle barrel restaurants too - none of that commie ghey vegan shit!

[MiamiBoyz]

GOOD!

I am for anything that will speed up our specie's decline to extinction.

Blacktop Every Fucking Inch Of America!

Tear down every fucking National Park (what a waste of space) and build more Wal-Marts for fine Americans to shop at and continue their march into oblivion! YES

[Jel]

did they also try and blame victims of the revenge porn guy for having the audacity to pose for naked shots with their trusted partner? Or is it just democrats that do that? you are one fucking comical cunt

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Jel

did they also try and blame victims of the revenge porn guy for having the audacity to pose for naked shots with their trusted partner? Or is it just democrats that do that? you are one fucking comical cunt

Are you really this fucking dense?

[Robbie]

I don't think that we should "blacktop" the whole country, but at the same time I don't the the Feds should own all the land that they do.

Some national parks are definitely in order. But to own millions and millions of acres of land just doesn't sit well with me.

Theoretically it's supposed to be "our" land. But we are kept off of most of it.

I think there's a balance somewhere in the middle. But at first glance, it seems to me that the Feds have seized way too much land over the last couple of hundred years.

Might not be a bad idea to get some of that out of the hands of bureaucrats and let the people have the right to own it...the way that a "free" country should be.

[Jel]

Originally Posted by crockett

Are you really this fucking dense?

this reply shows you must be.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I don't think that we should "blacktop" the whole country, but at the same time I don't the the Feds should own all the land that they do.

Some national parks are definitely in order. But to own millions and millions of acres of land just doesn't sit well with me.

Theoretically it's supposed to be "our" land. But we are kept off of most of it.

I think there's a balance somewhere in the middle. But at first glance, it seems to me that the Feds have seized way too much land over the last couple of hundred years.

Might not be a bad idea to get some of that out of the hands of bureaucrats and let the people have the right to own it...the way that a "free" country should be.

The only place we are kept out of are wild life refuges, which is rightly so. National forests you are free to go into, just don't expect it to be like a national park with paved roads and nicely kept trails. National forests are kinda free roam with-in reason when it comes to motorized vehicles. They are meant to keep land open for future generations..


Try visiting Texas for example and sew how nice it is to drive down roads with 8ft tall fences on both sides for miles and miles and miles. You realize quickly that not having access to public land sucks very badly.

You are fortunate in that you live in AZ and there is a lot of accessible land for you to enjoy. This is not the case everywhere and it's why National Parks are very important.

[Jel]

let me explain:

you make everything a 'oh noes those dirty republicans', and it's laughable to see you so myopic that you think it's only the right that are the bad guys in politics. I threw in the reference to your dumb cuntedness in the revenge porn operator gets 18 years thread as purely a reminder to yourself of your own dumb cuntedness, though foolishly guessed incorrectly that the ridiculousness of bringing in it somehow being a democrat thing would let you see the light on how retarded it is bringing in left vs right into almost everything you post.

I guess democrats are too dumb to get such subtlety though (there it was again, see if you can work it out this time).

[Jel]

ps those parks should take some responsibility for being there in the first place

[L-Pink]

You made up another headline! In your own link it clearly states "sell or give away all federal lands OTHER THAN the national parks and monuments"

Grow up dip-shit

Right or wrong on "the other lands" the fact is "national parks" aren't listed, you once again made up shit to get attention. Or just didn't read your own link.

.

[onwebcam]

I guess you weren't aware that most of them have essentially already been sold off to the UN.

[dyna mo]

That's the stupidest article I've read all day and I read one about Justin burger.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Fuck you crockett, anything to spew more hate. You made up another headline! In your own link it clearly states "sell or give away all federal lands other than the national parks and monuments"

Grow up dip-shit

Right or wrong on "the other lands" the fact is "national parks" aren't listed, you once again made up shit to get attention. Or just didn't read your own link.

.

Please pull your head from your ass, take a deep breath of fresh air before you have a heart attack and read a bit to further your education..

A national park is a park in use for conservation purposes. Often it is a reserve of natural, semi-natural, or developed land that a sovereign state declares or owns. Although individual nations designate their own national parks differently, there is a common idea: the conservation of wild nature for posterity and as a symbol of national pride.[1] An international organization, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and its World Commission on Protected Areas, has defined "National Park" as its Category II type of protected areas.

The Term National Park covers several categories with-in the umm "you guess it National Park system"

These are all...considered National Parks but just fall in different categories. Yes there is a "National Park" category with in the National Park system. That's because it was the "first" category of the National Park system, but all of them are still considered park of the National Park system.

National Military Park, National Battlefield Park, National Battlefield Site, and National Battlefield
National Historical Park, National Historic Site, and International Historic Site
National Lakeshore
National Memorial
National Monument
National Park
National Parkway
National Preserve and National Reserve
National Recreation Area4
National River and National Wild and Scenic River and Riverway
National Scenic Trail
National Seashore
Other Designations (White House, National Mall, etc.)

Besides that I specifically mentioned National Forests and Wildlife Refuges, you buffoon.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by crockett

Please pull your head from your ass, take a deep breath of fresh air before you have a heart attack and read a bit to further your education..




The Term National Park covers several categories with-in the umm "you guess it National Park system"

These are all...called National Parks..

National Military Park, National Battlefield Park, National Battlefield Site, and National Battlefield
National Historical Park, National Historic Site, and International Historic Site
National Lakeshore
National Memorial
National Monument
National Park
National Parkway
National Preserve and National Reserve
National Recreation Area4
National River and National Wild and Scenic River and Riverway
National Scenic Trail
National Seashore
Other Designations (White House, National Mall, etc.)

Always a google cut and paste to one of your stupid arguments and purposely misquoted thread titles.

.

[dyna mo]

Several spots on that "national" list are not parks, Crockett. Prolly all are not parks. They are simply maintained by the National park service.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Several spots on that "national" list are not parks, Crockett. Prolly all are not parks. They are simply maintained by the National park service.

Prepare for another long cut and paste that doesn't make sense to anyone but him.

Can you imagine having a life where all you want to do is bitch about a political party?


.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Prepare for another long cut and paste that doesn't make sense to anyone but him.

Can you imagine having a life where all you want to do is bitch about a political party?


.

According to his list the White House will soon be up for sale.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

According to his list the White House will soon be up for sale.

Well, it is in a bad neighborhood. lol

[crockett]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Several spots on that "national" list are not parks, Crockett. Prolly all are not parks. They are simply maintained by the National park service.

They all aren't the same category of park, but if they are part of the National park system then they are a national park. There is obviously going to be different categories when comparing something like Yellowstone vs say a National Forrest.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

According to his list the White House will soon be up for sale.

No it doesn't.. The article specifically states that the category National Monument & National Park wouldn't be affected. However the list I showed you is every category with-in the National Park Service. All of those categories except the two I just mentioned would go to the states and then most likely be auctioned off because no way the states can afford to run them.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

No it doesn't.. The article specifically states that the category National Monument & National Park wouldn't be affected. However the list I showed you is every category with-in the National Park Service. All of those categories except the two I just mentioned would go to the states and then most likely be auctioned off because no way the states can afford to run them.

Where are you co ming up with that? A nation all seashore is not a park. For instance.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

They all aren't the same category of park, but if they are part of the National park system then they are a national park. There is obviously going to be different categories when comparing something like Yellowstone vs say a National Forrest.

I don't see the need for the government to hang on to shithole property in west Texas.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

I don't see the need for the government to hang on to shithole property in west Texas.

Let's be real.. We aren't talking about just a shit hole piece of land in West Texas..

[oppoten]

[Rochard]

Let's think about this for a few moments.

A quick Google search tells me that the US Government owns 650 million acres, which is 28% of the land in the US. Thus, the US Government owns over a quarter of all land in the US. That's a staggering number.

The US Government could sell half of all the land it owns, and still own one eighth of all the land in the US. That's still a huge number.

A look at the map tells it all - most of the federal land is out west and in Alaska; Nearly all of Nevada seems to be owned by the federal government. (Which makes perfect sense if you've ever driven from Reno, California, to Las Vegas, Nevada.)



Assuming we could get a decent price for some of that land, let's sell it. We can pay down the national debt. Win win.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

Let's be real.. We aren't talking about just a shit hole piece of land in West Texas..

Originally Posted by Rochard

Let's think about this for a few moments.

A quick Google search tells me that the US Government owns 650 million acres, which is 28% of the land in the US. Thus, the US Government owns over a quarter of all land in the US. That's a staggering number.

The US Government could sell half of all the land it owns, and still own one eighth of all the land in the US. That's still a huge number.

A look at the map tells it all - most of the federal land is out west and in Alaska; Nearly all of Nevada seems to be owned by the federal government. (Which makes perfect sense if you've ever driven from Reno, California, to Las Vegas, Nevada.)



Assuming we could get a decent price for some of that land, let's sell it. We can pay down the national debt. Win win.

exactly. except for the paying down the national debt part.

[L-Pink]

There are some priceless waterfront properties with military bases that probably could bring in a fortune ..... And some may not be needed in todays military.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Let's think about this for a few moments.

A quick Google search tells me that the US Government owns 650 million acres, which is 28% of the land in the US. Thus, the US Government owns over a quarter of all land in the US. That's a staggering number.

The US Government could sell half of all the land it owns, and still own one eighth of all the land in the US. That's still a huge number.

A look at the map tells it all - most of the federal land is out west and in Alaska; Nearly all of Nevada seems to be owned by the federal government. (Which makes perfect sense if you've ever driven from Reno, California, to Las Vegas, Nevada.)



Assuming we could get a decent price for some of that land, let's sell it. We can pay down the national debt. Win win.

Go drive through the Rockies, look around, then go drive around the Appalachians.. see what coal strip mining and what private industry has done to unprotected land in this country.

Tell me if you would like the mountains of Cali, Co, New Mexico ect..ect.. to look like this...



There is a reason the govt has bought up much of this land. It's to protect it from what has happened on the East Coast.. Not to mention to keep people from living in places we can't afford to irrigate.. It's a shame that some of you are so short sighted..

[midfinger]

I'm surprisingly OK with the lower pic of the stripmine. After all we need those resources and once we get them we will leave and reforestation will take place. Perhaps the mining company should foot the bill to re-terraform it...but just a few years after it will look like we were never there. I may not see it look like that but my grand children will. Or is that to shortsighted.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by midfinger

I'm surprisingly OK with the lower pic of the stripmine. After all we need those resources and once we get them we will leave and reforestation will take place. Perhaps the mining company should foot the bill to re-terraform it...but just a few years after it will look like we were never there. I may not see it look like that but my grand children will. Or is that to shortsighted.

The mountains don't grow new dirt and rock.. In most cases they leave the sides exposed which causes even more loss due to washouts. In best case scenario they might sod some locations, but most of the time once they have taken what they can take its just left as a shitty eye sore.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by crockett

see what coal strip mining and what private industry has done to unprotected land in this country.

Isn't strip mining already forbidden? So that won't happen again.

Don't you think it's kind of fucked up that the Feds own 28% of all the land here in the U.S.?

I do.
It wasn't supposed to be like this.

"The Great Experiment" that our founding fathers created wasn't supposed to have a central govt. this powerful and rich.

Think about it for a second. It's not much different than when Kings owned most of the land.

How about GIVING that land back to the American PEOPLE. We could start with reparations. "40 acres and a mule" was promised but never delivered. How about that?
40 acres of land for every black family in America.

I'm for it. It wouldn't "cost" the govt. anything (though they would try to say it did by estimating the value of all that land.), and it would put some real wealth in the hands of black folks and put an end to this culture war.

Think about it Crockett...why on Earth do a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington D.C. get to have all that land and "we the people" do not?

EDIT: Found the link on strip mining: Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks like it can still be done? But the EPA stands over the whole thing watching it and keeping it under control?

[midfinger]

I said reterraform the land. That would be a lot more than just sod it...plant trees, shrubs, flowering plants.... In other words extreme landscaping it. I don't think that's much to ask a mining company to do. And I'm even ok with them writing it off as a cost of business for taxes. How would you suggest we get the minerals we need to advance? I agree industrial pollution is a problem. I want clean water and air who doesn't? But we need to mine and we need to drill. We don't need to use toxic chemicals to do these things but we need to do these things.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by crockett

Try visiting Texas for example and sew how nice it is to drive down roads with 8ft tall fences on both sides for miles and miles and miles. You realize quickly that not having access to public land sucks very badly.

Okay, I have driven all over Texas; where did you see this? Some refinery/plant?

Originally Posted by Rochard

Let's think about this for a few moments.

A quick Google search tells me that the US Government owns 650 million acres, which is 28% of the land in the US. Thus, the US Government owns over a quarter of all land in the US. That's a staggering number.

The US Government could sell half of all the land it owns, and still own one eighth of all the land in the US. That's still a huge number.

A look at the map tells it all - most of the federal land is out west and in Alaska; Nearly all of Nevada seems to be owned by the federal government. (Which makes perfect sense if you've ever driven from Reno, California, to Las Vegas, Nevada.)



Assuming we could get a decent price for some of that land, let's sell it. We can pay down the national debt. Win win.

Originally Posted by crockett

Go drive through the Rockies, look around, then go drive around the Appalachians.. see what coal strip mining and what private industry has done to unprotected land in this country.

Tell me if you would like the mountains of Cali, Co, New Mexico ect..ect.. to look like this...



There is a reason the govt has bought up much of this land. It's to protect it from what has happened on the East Coast.. Not to mention to keep people from living in places we can't afford to irrigate.. It's a shame that some of you are so short sighted..

Are you suggesting there is coal in the Rockies or something else that is easily retrievable? You do realize highways were built over and through them so if there was anything of value, we would know.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by baddog

Okay, I have driven all over Texas; where did you see this? Some refinery/plant?







Are you suggesting there is coal in the Rockies or something else that is easily retrievable? You do realize highways were built over and through them so if there was anything of value, we would know.

The Rockies have a lot of minerals.

Abandoned mines with their wakes of mine tailings and toxic wastes dot the Rocky Mountain landscape. In one major example, eighty years of zinc mining profoundly polluted the river and bank near Eagle River in north-central Colorado. High concentrations of the metal carried by spring runoff harmed algae, moss, and trout populations. An economic analysis of mining effects at this site revealed declining property values, degraded water quality, and the loss of recreational opportunities. The analysis also revealed that cleanup of the river could yield $2.3 million in additional revenue from recreation. In 1983, the former owner of the zinc mine was sued by the Colorado Attorney General for the $4.8 million cleanup costs; five years later, ecological recovery was considerable.[28]

That was damage from just a single zinc mine.. There is everything from lead, copper, gold, silver and yes even coal. They were mined in the past, if you have traveled there much at all then yes you would see the left overs of this mining. The reason it's not worse is because the Federal govt bought up most of the land to protect it from becoming what has happened in the East..

As for Texas and the Fences? Try driving the back roads some and not their highways. It's not too bad in Central Texas but hell just look at the map posted in this topic about public land. Look at what a small amount Texas has..

[epitome]

Originally Posted by Jel

did they also try and blame victims of the revenge porn guy for having the audacity to pose for naked shots with their trusted partner? Or is it just democrats that do that? you are one fucking comical cunt

Is it even possible to go more off topic?

[dyna mo]

crockett, should the government also stop leasing land to private entities for oil, gas, minerals, raising cattle, etc et al? or you're just against selling some land on account of you know, the government knows better, business are bad owners so we'll lease them rights.

[Robbie]

I think the bottom line is this: The Federal govt. is a huge bloated monster.
It really has no business owning 28% of the land in this country.

It's nothing more than a land grab by the rich and powerful. And they justify it by claiming they are "protecting" it from...the rich and powerful.

And what exacty are they protecting it for? A place to hide nukes? A place to park 100,000 unused tanks that are rusting away in the desert?
Or is all just to have nice beautiful picture perfect land for people to admire...that is IF people are even "allowed" on the property.

Doesn't sound like "This land is my land, this land is your land" as it says in the song.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Or is all just to have nice beautiful picture perfect land for people to admire...that is IF people are even "allowed" on the property.

Doesn't sound like "This land is my land, this land is your land" as it says in the song.

We have this.

"The freedom to roam, or everyman's right is the general public's right to access certain public or privately owned land for recreation and exercise. The right is sometimes called the right of public access to the wilderness or the right to roam."

"Ancient traces provide evidence of the freedom to roam in many European countries, suggesting such a freedom was once a common norm. Today, the right to roam has survived in perhaps its purest form in Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Here the right has been won through practice over hundreds of years[1] and it is not known when it changed from mere 'common practice' to become a commonly recognised right."

Freedom to roam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[crockett]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

crockett, should the government also stop leasing land to private entities for oil, gas, minerals, raising cattle, etc et al? or you're just against selling some land on account of you know, the government knows better, business are bad owners so we'll lease them rights.

No I think in certain situations it makes sense to lease public land to farmers for example or even oil & gas operations. However I do think we the tax payers should be getting one of two things out of those leases.

We should either be getting subsidized fuel costs or more money from the leases. I think we as tax payers are getting a very shit deal when it comes to oil & gas leases. These companies are making massive profits while the govt not only leases them land for pennies but also further subsidizes their operations in other areas as well.

This entire thing is just a ploy to hand over public land for pennies on the dollar to big oil and gas. The reason they are doing this is because big oil & gas are locked out of certain public lands. The GOP's new angle is to give the land back to states whom can't afford it, then let the big oil and gas companies buy it up. This is all this is an attempt to transfer public lands to big oil & gas..

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I think the bottom line is this: The Federal govt. is a huge bloated monster.
It really has no business owning 28% of the land in this country.

It's nothing more than a land grab by the rich and powerful. And they justify it by claiming they are "protecting" it from...the rich and powerful.

And what exacty are they protecting it for? A place to hide nukes? A place to park 100,000 unused tanks that are rusting away in the desert?
Or is all just to have nice beautiful picture perfect land for people to admire...that is IF people are even "allowed" on the property.

Doesn't sound like "This land is my land, this land is your land" as it says in the song.

You are allowed on almost all publicly owned land which is part of the national park services. The only places you usually aren't allowed to go are protected wild life habitats.

Again.. when you see a state forest or a national forest marked on a map. Just because you don't see a marked trail head or even a convenient park, doesn't mean you can't go there. It's your land just the same as anyone else's.

Now BLM which is a different animal from the National Park services often has different rules. Often they keep people of tracts of land, often because it's leased by say ranchers for example or even being preserved as natural habitats.

This country's public lands are a national treasure and should be treated as such..

[crockett]

Originally Posted by aka123

We have this.

"The freedom to roam, or everyman's right is the general public's right to access certain public or privately owned land for recreation and exercise. The right is sometimes called the right of public access to the wilderness or the right to roam."

"Ancient traces provide evidence of the freedom to roam in many European countries, suggesting such a freedom was once a common norm. Today, the right to roam has survived in perhaps its purest form in Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Here the right has been won through practice over hundreds of years[1] and it is not known when it changed from mere 'common practice' to become a commonly recognised right."

Freedom to roam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is freedom to roam in the US as well but ironically it's not in the places whom love to scream about their freedom.. Take Texas for instance.. One of the biggest states in the union and very little public land and everyone has this "get off ma land" mentality.

Meanwhile in the evil socialist New England.. places like CT for example every lake in that state has a public access point. In both MA & CT you can legally walk off in the woods and even hunt as long as there are not any "no trespassing or no hunting signs".

In FL it's kind of the same way. As long as a lake is not land locked by private land you are allowed to access it, even if it's just by public right of way using a ditch line. There are very few places in the state this doesn't hold true.

Undeveloped land is much the same way in FL, as long as it's not posted no trespassing you can go on that land with out fear of being arrested for trespassing. The owner has the right to kick you out at any time, but unless it's posted no trespassing he can't have you arrested unless you are damaging something.

It was quite a shocker to me to see how stingy much of the Western states are being I've grown up mostly on the East Coast. You always see people in many of the Western states rambling on about freedom and shit, but after visiting quite a few of them, it's amazing how oppressed they have made themselves under their own state govt's.

[aka123]

I just wanted to point out than in here, the right to roam applies to every land, unless it is a yard, planted field (crops on it) or something like that.

"Ironically" just some state parks have restrictions to lessen the impact of high traffic (like hiking). Basically the restrictions are that you have to hike within marked paths.

Otherwise, if you see forest or lake in here; it is free to go, camp temporaly, pick berries and mushrooms and fish with a pole and line and icefishing. Though we have fishing permits that cover the whole country excluding some special fishing spots, like popular river areas and such. If you own water rights, you get compensated from the paid fishing permits (based on surface area or something like that).

[Jel]

Originally Posted by epitome

Is it even possible to go more off topic?

Is it even possible for you to not see the obvious fact I was calling him out on another issue (he ducked elsewhere)? And throwing in the ridiculousness of making everything a 'dirty republicans' issue?

[Barry-xlovecam]

Truth is no one will buy most of this land -- it's crap.

10,000 acres in the Nevada dessert, semi arid tumbleweed lands in Wyoming -- used for ? Oil leases maybe.
The land that is valuable the BLM actively manages. That land should not be sold it's a government asset. Both business and the government profits from it, indirectly: the people are the government -- the government will just tax us for what they no longer get from those lands -- WE NEED MORE!

This is more of a publicity stunt. Obama vetoes the bill, Congress can't override and there is a new election issue ... (<case closed>)

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by crockett

Go drive through the Rockies, look around, then go drive around the Appalachians.. see what coal strip mining and what private industry has done to unprotected land in this country.

Tell me if you would like the mountains of Cali, Co, New Mexico ect..ect.. to look like this...



There is a reason the govt has bought up much of this land. It's to protect it from what has happened on the East Coast.. Not to mention to keep people from living in places we can't afford to irrigate.. It's a shame that some of you are so short sighted..

That's odd. I've driven from California to Montana dozens of times in the past decade, and yet never seen this... Not even once.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Rochard

That's odd. I've driven from California to Montana dozens of times in the past decade, and yet never seen this... Not even once.

Exactly, because the govt owns much of the land in and around the mountains to stop that from happening. See govt action in work.. Now go drive through the Appalachians as I said to do in the first place.. up around Penn, WY and some of the other states in which they do mountain top removal..

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by crockett

You are allowed on almost all publicly owned land which is part of the national park services. The only places you usually aren't allowed to go are protected wild life habitats.

I wasn't talking about Yellowstone Park and other national parks. I think that's a good thing.

But 28% of the country owned by the Federal Govt?

Do you really think that is the role of govt. to be the biggest landowner of them all?
And I can tell you that there are plenty of places you can't go that are Federal owned because they have all their nukes and military secrets on them. Which makes sense I suppose if you are going to have the biggest overbloated military the world has ever seen.

But why should the govt. own 28% of the entire country? That just isn't right when it's supposed to be the opposite of monarchy style govt.

Hell, the Feds own 84% of Nevada. Maybe instead of rounding up the wild horses in Nevada (stupid fucking Washington bureaucrats) they could maybe take a little bit of money from their latest trillion dollars of military shit and build solar panels across the desert that would power the entire country.

Right now it's private companies doing it. But they don't have the land mass that the Feds have.

I don't know...I just don't understand how it's somehow "better" to have corrupt bureaucrats in Washington D.C. deciding these kinds of things for people living 2,000 miles away from them like I do here in Vegas.

Like I said earlier...how about "reparations"? We could start there with some of that 2.27 BILLION acres of land that the Federal govt. "owns".

And if you don't think that's too much, and you believe the Feds know "best" for all of us...then why not make ALL property belong to the govt.? Then they could decide all of it. If it's such a great thing for those billions of acres, then certainly it would be even better if they owned it all.

Then they could assign each citizen their own home and designate areas for bureaucrats to manage throughout the entire country!

What form of govt do they call that again? Starts with a "C" and rhymes with "fist"?

EDIT: How about this crockett...that 2.27 BILLION acres...give it back to the American Indian tribes?

[Robbie]

You know the more I think about it...the more I think the Feds should give 40 acres of that land to every black person for reparations. And the remainder of it should go to the Native American tribes.

Democrats and socialists seem to enjoy "wealth redistribution" so much. Here's their chance to finally do it.
Their is no bigger source of money than the Feds. And no bigger land owner. All the oil companies put together don't even come close to the money the U.S. govt. takes in every year.

So let's redistribute the wealth!
Except instead of taking it from citizens. Let's take it BACK from the feds.

I'll bet you not ONE power hungry politician or lifetime/career Democrat (or Republican) would EVER vote for that.
And not for any of their bullshit excuses either.
They simply would never vote to lose THEIR source of power and wealth.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

You know the more I think about it...the more I think the Feds should give 40 acres of that land to every black person for reparations. And the remainder of it should go to the Native American tribes.

Democrats and socialists seem to enjoy "wealth redistribution" so much. Here's their chance to finally do it.
Their is no bigger source of money than the Feds. And no bigger land owner. All the oil companies put together don't even come close to the money the U.S. govt. takes in every year.

So let's redistribute the wealth!
Except instead of taking it from citizens. Let's take it BACK from the feds.

I'll bet you not ONE power hungry politician or lifetime/career Democrat (or Republican) would EVER vote for that.
And not for any of their bullshit excuses either.
They simply would never vote to lose THEIR source of power and wealth.

Alright, that went right off the deep end..