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

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.

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!

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

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 :1orglaugh

Are you really this fucking dense?

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.

this reply shows you must 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.

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).

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

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.

.

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

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

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...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.

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

.

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?


.

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

Well, it is in a bad neighborhood. lol

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.

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.

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..

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.)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...deral_Land.jpg

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.

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.

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...

http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/coal/benefits.jpg

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..

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.

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?

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.

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

:2 cents:

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.

http://www.gotbaddog.com/wp-content/.../utah_8905.jpg

http://www.gotbaddog.com/wp-content/.../utah_8907.jpg

http://www.gotbaddog.com/wp-content/.../utah_8910.jpg

The Rockies have a lot of minerals.

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..

Is it even possible to go more off topic?

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.

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. :(

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

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..