|
Quote:
The "ONLY" one you do not have access to with out a special permit is the National Wildlife refuges.. Even many of those allow visitors. Then of course the Obvious you don't have free reign at the White House or other Federal buildings but that goes with out saying. Also seriously... give it back to the Indians or give it to Black people? Why Robbie so no one else could use it? Do you not get the point that the Federal land is there for people to access and use? Why would we give it to people and no longer have use of it? Do you even think this shit you say through? Serious question Robbie if you hate the way the US is run and want a Govt which does nothing for you and spends no money on the population with no taxes why not move to Afghanistan? It's pretty much exactly what you want govt wise, but I bet you don't like the idea of having mud huts, shitty power grid (if any) no law.. ect...ect. This is why your libertarian dream is a pipe dream because you want your cake and you want it for free. It doesn't work that way.. You want all the benefits of security, paved roads, water ect..ect all the benefits of paying taxes but with out having to pay for it.. You don't want the EPA but I bet you don't want arsenic dumped in your water supply. You don't want rules and regulations, but I bet you don't want your house to collapse because of no building codes. This is the problem of libertarians and in a large sense Republicans when it comes to taxes.. Both of you wake all the benefits with out having to pay for it. |
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
|
Quote:
And the extreme political left in this country wants wealth distribution. Then let's start distributing it. Are you opposed to that? |
Quote:
And how many people get to "use" the federal lands? Seriously. How many of over 300 million people in the United States actually go to "federal lands" and go fishing or hunting or camping out or watching birds or whatever? Let the Feds keep a million acres for that shit. That's plenty. 2nd paragraph I quoted: Why does it have to be "either/or". Either the govt. runs everything or I move to Afghanistan? How about a more sensible solution. The govt. gets scaled back and works for the people instead of the other way around? |
Quote:
Seriously man wtf are you smoking.. |
Quote:
According to the agency's press release, more than 282 million people visited our national parks last year, the sixth-highest year on record, and an increase of more than three million visitors from 2011. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...20year&es_th=1 Seems most of the population of our country visit the National parks Robbie. What do you have to say about that? Is it still taxes not well spent, or is that not enough of the population to satisfy you?? Why does it have to be either/or? Well you sure seem to think it has to be either/or. You seem to think because you want to live in libertarian fantasy land that everyone else should be forced to live your dream. |
Quote:
I'm saying that instead of the federal govt. owning 28% of all the land in the U.S., how about we make reparations for the slavery issue once and for all. I'd rather see that land in the hands of the citizens than a bunch of bureaucrats. I don't think I'm being "stupid" at all. I'm being serious. The Federal govt. shouldn't own all that land. Our forefathers fought a revolution to get away from that kind of monarchy-style govt. and our modern govt. fought a "cold war" against communism (state-run and state owned everything). And it would give the extreme left the "feel-good" moment they've wanted to make things "fair" through wealth distribution. Millions of new land owners. |
Quote:
Robbie can you name a single country in the world who runs a libertarian govt which you want so badly? Obviously if your idea is better, it must be working somewhere right? |
Also Robbie, since you are so worried about former Black Slaves.. You should be happy to know that Liberia was founded just for "former" black slaves.
Liberia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Quote:
|
I don't have a "dream".
And I don't think all the extreme things you are saying to me are the answer. I would just like to know what would be so wrong with the U.S. Govt. giving that land back to the actual citizens. And why not take the opportunity to right some past wrongs? As for leaving the country to chase my "dream" of a free country...I thought that was what our founding father's were trying to do right here. I just feel like the govt. is too big and is too controlling. Obviously you don't. Doesn't mean I have to be forced to move to Liberia or Afghanistan. The way our govt. is running up debt...they NEED people like me who actually make money to stay so somebody can pay the bills. |
Some of you are funnier than shit. Thanks for the laughs
|
Quote:
Lets not even get into the money these parks create the local states, counties and towns. It's not like these parks are bottomless pits, they add value in tax dollars into the system from the local ground up. It's not a one way stream of money going out the door. Meanwhile Congress just passed a tax cut for roughly 5000 Americans... So a tax cut for 5 thousand of the 300 million people in this country is a good idea according to Republicans. Meanwhile Parks which over 80% of the people in this country visit and use are a bad investment according to Republicans. Do you not see the hypocrisy of this? |
Quote:
That's a nice idea except it does't happen that way. Reforestation does not occur there because all of the soil that was once there has been removed, and the land is usually so toxic that nothing can survive there. They cause permanent loss of critical ecosystems through water pollution and the burial of headwater streams. Vegetation is lost and soil is compacted by mining equipment flooding from storm runoffs stronger and more frequent. There is also a lot more deaths due to lung cancer and chronic lung and heart disease in these areas too. Then there's the coal ash pollution, CO2, Mercury, and of course lots of lead pollution left behind in the ground. |
Quote:
I would LOVE to see that. If a coal company, oil company or whatever, would have to pay into some kind of account that would pay for the cleanup afterwards, that would be fantastic, though I don't think it happens too often, and the polluting company would only just cover-up their mess (like BP did in the Gulf) instead of actually cleaning it up. I'd love to see a new sector of business come from this. You pollute? We clean. A company could go in and not just clean up the mess left behind by the polluters, but completely restore the land or lake or river or seabed to its original beauty and cleanliness, and then give the bill to to the Government to pay. Where does the government get the money? By taxings the fuck out of the polluters. Theoretically, if the taxes were high enough, the polluters might try to find ways to reduce pollution and pay less taxes. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Other than having to pay taxes, when was the last time "the government" tried to control you? Not sure about you, but I go about my day to day business with zero interference from our government in any way, shape, or form. Come to think of it, outside of taxes, DMV, and a few traffic tickets, I've had no contact with the federal, state, county, or city government in the past twenty years or so. Oh wait, I take that back - I had to go to the Post Office once to get my passport, and I had to go to Social Security once because of a paperwork issue. Quote:
You understand we've always had national debt, right? Always. And we always will. |
Quote:
I NEVER said "give away" anything. And I NEVER said get rid of the national parks. Matter of fact I said that they are needed and a good thing of govt. You are trying to make it out like I'm saying things that are out of the norm. But I'm not. I will say it again so maybe you won't misunderstand it: The Federal Govt. has no business owning 28% of all the land in the United States Of America. And they make a fortune leasing it out to oil companies anyway. It's not "our" land. "We" the people have zero involvement in how that land is used and we certainly don't get to share in all that money that comes in from leasing it out. I think that the park system should stay in place for sure. And then give that land BACK to the people. Not a bunch of crooks in Washington D.C. You and Mark Prince think differently and seem to be saying that the bureaucrats in D.C. (most of whom have never even set foot on any of that federal land) are just looking out for the benefit of us all. That's cool if you believe it. I don't happen to share that belief. And it's astonishing to me that the Feds own all that property. The Feds shouldn't "own" any property in my opinion except for govt. administration. But I do agree with national parks. Just not with 2.2 BILLION acres of property. That's insanity. |
Quote:
I NEVER said "give away" anything. And I NEVER said get rid of the national parks. Matter of fact I said that they are needed and a good thing of govt. You are trying to make it out like I'm saying things that are out of the norm. But I'm not. I will say it again so maybe you won't misunderstand it: The Federal Govt. has no business owning 28% of all the land in the United States Of America. It should be given BACK to the citizens of the country to develop as we see fit. And they make a fortune leasing it out to oil companies anyway. It's not "our" land. "We" the people have zero involvement in how that land is used and we certainly don't get to share in all that money that comes in from leasing it out. I think that the park system should stay in place for sure. And then give that land BACK to the people. Not a bunch of crooks in Washington D.C. You and Mark Prince think differently and seem to be saying that the bureaucrats in D.C. (most of whom have never even set foot on any of that federal land) are just looking out for the benefit of us all. That's cool if you believe it. I don't happen to share that belief. And it's astonishing to me that the Feds own all that property. The Feds shouldn't "own" any property in my opinion except for govt. administration. But I do agree with national parks. Just not with 2.2 BILLION acres of property. That's insanity. |
Liberals are amazing, republicans are bad.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
No thanks. I'd rather not have a Starbucks next to El Capitan in Yosemite.
|
Quote:
The parks should just stay as they are, it is better than anything else. |
I'm not reading this thread because it's probably the same idiots making the same partisan arguments.
But surely someone mentioned that we could probably pay off the national debt if the Feds leased the land to companies at fair market rates for exploitation, right? We could be the next UAE where we have little debt, we get checks from our government and everything we need is paid for with national assets. Instead, it will go to Exxon shareholders for a couple of dollars per acre. |
Quote:
That is in no way "fair" to the tax payers but rather the govt allowing big oil & gas essentially free reign to pump out the tax payers resources and then turn around and gouge us at the gas pumps. They should be paying at the very least the land lease fee "and" a fee for every gallon they pull out of the ground. $2 don't even buy a hamburger for a park rangers whom has to clean up the mess. |
Gee, I wonder why they lease that land for such (as you claim) low lease rates?
Could it be that they all get MONEY on the downlow from their cronies in the oil companies? Wake up Crockett. That land isn't for the citizens. 28% of the entire land mass of the United States is the private money funneling plaything of politicians. I again say: Why not make reparations to black people with that land? And then give land to every poor person on welfare in the United States of America. And the rest of it...give back to the Indians. Not the National Parks. Leave them as they are. Just the other BILLIONS of acres. It won't cost the govt. anything. And it would instantly raise up the poor in this country and make them property owners. Way better than handing out welfare every year for the last 50 years since the Johnson administration declared "War On Poverty" and we have ended up with MORE poverty. Have a heart crockett. That land is supposed to belong to the people. The way I see it...all of society would be benefited by lifting poor people up by making them property owners. Maybe you would qualify and not have to live in your van anymore? lol just kidding with you. |
Quote:
as for giving back to the indians, it wasn't their's to begin with. and the USA didn't take it from them. let's not forget the indians migrated here also, couldn't care less about the land, and were wiped out by european settlers prior to the USA being formed. so absolutely no, indians don't get land "back". |
Robbie..are you just trying to ignore everything people say to only to continue on rambling?
You keep going on and on about all this land no one can use.. umm hello can you not read english? I have showed you the different categories of the national park system. I have shown you there is only 2 of those groups which you are not free to roam. Yet you keep going on and on about millions of acres "somewhere" that no on can use.. can you at least stay on the subject of national parks as what this topic is about? Quit rambling about shit that isn't related just because you don't want to admit this is an attempt by the right to fuck tax payers. |
crockett, come on man!
National Parks are fine. One thing though...they didn't get the memo about how that land "belongs" to me and you. They charged me money to go on "my" land. Secondly. I'm not going "on and on" about anything. It's YOU who is ignoring 28% of all the property in the U.S. is grabbed up by the Feds. And they use if for any damn thing they want to. And if you think you can just go on to that land...go give it a try. See what happens. National Park? Yeah, you can "use" it after you pay at the gate (I guess our taxes are too busy being spent on the military to use for park upkeep, and God knows what they do with that oil money) You should just face it...you love having the Govt. in control. Period. You see nothing wrong with them owning over 1 mile of every 4 miles in this country. You think I'm "crazy" for saying it should be available to CITIZENS to own that land. Back before the govt. took over damn near everything...things were a lot different. In the Oklahoma Land Rush...all you had to do was show up and claim a piece of land for yourself. Try that now on Govt. "property" (I put that in parenthesis because the govt. shouldn't have all of that land). As for your statement that it's an "attempt by the right to fuck taxpayers"...huh? How? I believe the "right" does fuck taxpayers every day they show up to work in Washington D.C. But unlike you...I KNOW the left does too. |
|
Quote:
NOBODY is saying get rid of "National Parks". I'm saying that the Federal Govt. has no business owning all of the other property they own. 28% of the United States land mass. And most of it they sell leasing rights out to companies and make money off of it. :( That should be CITIZENS owning all that extra property and CITIZENS being able to make that money. Get it? Not the Govt. Not bureaucrats. But the PEOPLE themselves. Again...NOT talking about Yosemite Fucking National Park. I'm talking about all of that other property that isn't open to the public but is "owned" by the Feds. I don't think anyone has a problem with the govt. having National Parks for people to view. And by the way...the OP's (crockett) original title was a lie. National Parks were NEVER in that proposal. Just some of the OTHER land (the land the govt. shouldn't have in my opinion) was being proposed to sell off. And in my opinion the Federal Govt. has no right to "sell" that land to it's own citizens. It should be GIVEN BACK to the people of the state the land is in. |
Quote:
This is what the topic is about that YES THEY ARE TRYING to do away with many of the categories of what are considered National Parks.. IE National Forests, National wildlife preserves.. ect..ect.. It's also not a fucking lie.. quit being so fucking dense..Open your eyes and read the damn information I spoon fed you. |
Quote:
In other words...NONE. Just billions of acres of property that you and I are not ALLOWED to go on. |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123