Buzzword
New member
Full Story
Just when I think I'm finished being surprised or truly disgusted with the Republicans in Congress...
Republicans Vote to Sell Off National Parks
- Thread starter Buzzword
- Start date
Full Story
Just when I think I'm finished being surprised or truly disgusted with the Republicans in Congress...
It may be related to the Cliven Bundy nonsense. Stupid, on many levels.
GFR7
New member
No, but what would happen to these parks under the republican plan? I was afraid to read it....
But does this sound OK? ( And when has the government ever denied access to these sites? )
For over a hundred years, conservation has been a value held in high regard by a majority of Americans. But if Republicans have their way, all the lands we have fought to protect as National Parks will be handed over to private industry.
Last month, nearly every Republican in the US Senate voted on a budget amendment allowing states to seize public lands, which means every National Park in the country would be subject to the whims of state lawmakers who could authorize the selling of these lands to private industries for exploitation.
And by exploitation, that means deforestation of lumber resources, the privatization of freshwater sources, drilling and mining for oil and minerals, or used as dumping grounds for hazardous materials. In short, Republicans would be allowing private industries to buy and rape our public land reserves until they are unrecognizable.
The amendment, known as SA 838, was introduced by Alaska GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski. And it sailed through the Senate by a 51-49 vote with all but three Republicans in favor while every Democrat voted against it. A rival bill that would stop the effort to sell public lands was prevented from coming up for a vote.
I have to say I agree with the following:
“Public lands are the fabric that binds America together, and last night’s vote by the Senate sends an alarming message to sportsmen and -women – along with every citizen who values our publicly owned resources. Nationally, an organized, concerted movement is underway to sell off and limit access to America’s public lands and waters. These are not merely the actions of a lunatic fringe. Now is the time to double down and fight back against this ill-conceived idea.”
“The preservation of parks, wilderness, and wildlife has also aided liberty by keeping alive the 19th century sense of adventure and awe with which our forefathers greeted the American West. Many laws protecting environmental quality have promoted liberty by securing property against the destrutctive trespass of pollution. In our own time, the nearly universal appreciation of these preserved landscapes, restored waters, and cleaner air through outdoor recreation is a modern expression of our freedom and leisure to enjoy the wonderful life that generations past have built for us.”
i harken back to TEDDY. it doesn't take a genius to understand the necessity for "protected" public, accessible natural, untouched land. as a teenager "cruising" around, visiting national and state "Parks", i saw immediately the "value" of the land, and imagined how many "sub-divisions" and houses could fit - MONEY - GREED - POWER = SELF
GFR7
New member
Wow, it is a radical, radical notion. Absolutely the opposite of conservatism. It is really a postmodern notion. Akin to gay marriage and gender-neutral bathrooms. Really alienated and grotesque. Like Shelly's Frankenstein (your avatar maybe speaks volumes :chuckle
----I agree with this quote:"Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of insuring the safety and continuance of the nation." — Theodore Roosevelt
Why is it OK with you?
musterion
Well-known member
Why is it OK with me?
It's OK with me because I grew up in the middle of the Shawnee Nat'l Forest. Beautiful area, but economically dead. LOTS of natural resources but much of it is untouchable. You question my conservatism? Fine. If I'm less than conservative for having a problem with the federal government controlling vast tracts of our country and resources simply so they can sit "pristine" and unused, then so be it. But I would rather those lands be put into the hands of private U.S. citizens (and made illegal to sell or resell to foreign interests), so they can be tapped for their potential, creating jobs and stimilating the economy, instead of sitting as pretty but essentially wasted land.
It's OK with me because I grew up in the middle of the Shawnee Nat'l Forest. Beautiful area, but economically dead. LOTS of natural resources but much of it is untouchable. You question my conservatism? Fine. If I'm less than conservative for having a problem with the federal government controlling vast tracts of our country and resources simply so they can sit "pristine" and unused, then so be it. But I would rather those lands be put into the hands of private U.S. citizens (and made illegal to sell or resell to foreign interests), so they can be tapped for their potential, creating jobs and stimilating the economy, instead of sitting as pretty but essentially wasted land.
GFR7
New member
Well, I see where you're coming from. But the land is hardly wasted, and I'd rather see it sit there and have jobs created in the myriad other ways they can be. Your conservatism is strong and I didn't mean to sound judgmental, so I apologize.. I view this legislation as radically ill-conceived but probably should stop thinking about it....
lain:
GFR7
New member
Well, I like you, too; and NO, this also is not OK on any level. Agreed.
Actually, I was unaware of Obama's having done most of these things. I would agree that this is pernicious as well.
musterion
Well-known member
Well, I like you, too; and NO, this also is not OK on any level. Agreed.
Actually, I was unaware of Obama's having done most of these things. I would agree that this is pernicious as well.
That is exactly what the vote was in response to.
If this is true, it's a race to the bottom for ethics in the republican party.
Disgusting. A multi-trillion giveaway to special interests, paid for by the taxpayers, who own that property.
Delmar writes:
I hope your skepticism is justified. A few years ago, I'd be outright incredulous. But given the decline in decency among Congresspeople in the last few years, I wouldn't be surprised.
(Barbarian checks)
Well, it's not quite as bad as some might have assumed. It doesn't allow states to seize national parks or national monuments. It does however, allow seizure of national forests, national wildernesses, and national wildlife refuges.
And, the resolution has no force of law as written. But it does mean that even senators who previously presented themselves as moderates, fell into party line when "Americans for Prosperity" (the guys who wrote the language for this amendment) gave the word.
There was a bit of overreach, apparently. Hunters tend to vote republican, but this one was a bit too much for them:
MISSOULA, Mont. – Following a flurry of votes during last night’s budget deliberations in the U.S. Senate, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers sharply criticized the passage of a measure that would enable the sale or transfer of federal public lands, including national forests, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges and other places relied up by sportsmen and outdoor recreationists.
SA 838, introduced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski and passed in a 51-49 vote, would support and fund state efforts to take possession of federal public lands.
“Public lands are the fabric that binds America together, and last night’s vote by the Senate sends an alarming message to sportsmen and -women – along with every citizen who values our publicly owned resources,” said BHA Executive Director Land Tawney. “Nationally, an organized, concerted movement is underway to sell off and limit access to America’s public lands and waters. These are not merely the actions of a lunatic fringe. Now is the time to double down and fight back against this ill-conceived idea.”
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/...ands-seizure-drawing-criticism-from-sportsmen
Disgusting. A multi-trillion giveaway to special interests, paid for by the taxpayers, who own that property.
Delmar writes:
I hope your skepticism is justified. A few years ago, I'd be outright incredulous. But given the decline in decency among Congresspeople in the last few years, I wouldn't be surprised.
(Barbarian checks)
Well, it's not quite as bad as some might have assumed. It doesn't allow states to seize national parks or national monuments. It does however, allow seizure of national forests, national wildernesses, and national wildlife refuges.
And, the resolution has no force of law as written. But it does mean that even senators who previously presented themselves as moderates, fell into party line when "Americans for Prosperity" (the guys who wrote the language for this amendment) gave the word.
There was a bit of overreach, apparently. Hunters tend to vote republican, but this one was a bit too much for them:
MISSOULA, Mont. – Following a flurry of votes during last night’s budget deliberations in the U.S. Senate, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers sharply criticized the passage of a measure that would enable the sale or transfer of federal public lands, including national forests, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges and other places relied up by sportsmen and outdoor recreationists.
SA 838, introduced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski and passed in a 51-49 vote, would support and fund state efforts to take possession of federal public lands.
“Public lands are the fabric that binds America together, and last night’s vote by the Senate sends an alarming message to sportsmen and -women – along with every citizen who values our publicly owned resources,” said BHA Executive Director Land Tawney. “Nationally, an organized, concerted movement is underway to sell off and limit access to America’s public lands and waters. These are not merely the actions of a lunatic fringe. Now is the time to double down and fight back against this ill-conceived idea.”
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/...ands-seizure-drawing-criticism-from-sportsmen
GFR7
New member
Well, then it makes more sense than I had originally thought - there must be some middle ground; perhaps a synthesis will come from this.... :think:
Closing federal parks because the republicans shut down the government is hardly the same as plotting to let the states seize them for private businesses.
Awww, are we now blaming Obama for Teddy Cruz's actions?
Cruz is trying the Bratty Kid defense; "yeah, I broke the lamp, but you made me do it, when you wouldn't buy me that toy!"