- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Thousands attend Chaffetz town hall, outside crowd protest when doors close
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:19 am to cajunangelle
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:19 am to cajunangelle
Bring any evidence that these are paid protestors. Any at all. Well? Don't worry yourself - there is t any because they aren't
0
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:20 am to The Spleen
quote:
Most people were challenging him on holding Trump more accountable and Obamacare repeal.
So they wanted ObamaCare dismantled or they wanted to keep ObamaCare?
After reading this thread. I can see now the public lands issue causing some real activism. Could someone from Utah or that area explain the whole issue? The article in the OP made it basically clear it was more anti-Trump protesters.
This post was edited on 2/10/17 at 9:22 am
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:23 am to cajunangelle
quote:
So they wanted ObamaCare dismantled or they wanted to keep ObamaCare?
The ones that spoke were against full repeal and wanted them to just address the problems with it. They were met with loud cheers from the crowd, so guessing that was the overall sentiment from the attendees.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:25 am to The Spleen
quote:
The Spleen
Alabama Fan
Member since Dec 2010
15705 posts
What part of Alabama are you from, brah?
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:29 am to goldennugget
quote:
Salt Lake city is like Austin - blue patch in otherwise red state
This is the main reason. The high school where this took place last night is right in Salt Lake county. Trump won this congressional district with just 47% of the vote. But in Salt Lake county, a part of which is in this district, Clinton got 43%, Trump 33% and McMillin 19%. Chaffetz won his re-election in a landslide with 73%.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:32 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
I find it hard to believe many people want to keep so much of the west as land owned by the federal government. I understand wanting some lands to remain public, but the government owns an extremely substantial amount of land out west.
I am a small government guy all the way. I used to believe the right thing to do was to have the states own these lands. The more I read, researched, and listened, the more I realize that would be detrimental to the West.
LINK
quote:
In many ways, Roosevelt’s vision of a public land system was a response to the land and wildlife management systems of Europe. We’re all familiar with the mythical figure of Robin Hood, that swashbuckling archer who poached the king’s game with his trusty bow. The reason that Robin Hood had to steal game was because “commoners” in England were effectively barred from hunting and fishing. The aristocracy owned all of the land, and they kept the land and the land’s resources for themselves. You could have your eyes gouged out for poaching, or else you could be hanged, castrated, or killed by dogs. The notion of public land, where the lowly working class was free to roam and hunt and fish, was distasteful to the aristocracy of England. In Roosevelt’s time, this wasn’t such a distant memory as it is today. Roosevelt was forthright about his intentions to preserve land for the spiritual and physical well-being of all Americans, regardless of income, race, and political affiliation. In fact, his concerns about the longevity of American wildlife extended beyond his own immediate constituency. He kept in mind the unborn generations, or as he put it, those “within the womb of time.”
This post was edited on 2/10/17 at 9:33 am
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:32 am to mylsuhat
quote:
The public lands issue is a true bi-partisan issue.
It is pretty cool to see an issue which two very different people can fight against/for the same cause.
A gun loving southern christian and a west coast skinny-jean could literally share the same protest sign.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:34 am to Chuker
quote:EXACTLY!
A gun loving southern christian and a west coast skinny-jean could literally share the same protest sign.
If you listen to a recent Joe Rogan podcast, he's with Ryan Callaghan and Kenton Carruth and they speak of this.
This post was edited on 2/10/17 at 9:34 am
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:36 am to Vandyrone
quote:
This is the main reason. The high school where this took place last night is right in Salt Lake county. Trump won this congressional district with just 47% of the vote. But in Salt Lake county, a part of which is in this district, Clinton got 43%, Trump 33% and McMillin 19%. Chaffetz won his re-election in a landslide with 73%.
This explains a lot. Not enough establishment loons from either side to swing Chaffetz out.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:38 am to cajunangelle
quote:
What part of Alabama are you from, brah?
A little place I like to call, none of your business.
j/k, I live in Birmingham.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:38 am to mylsuhat
There's a lot of land that could be sold off, I get it. The government overreach in this area is huge, but there needs to be a balance.
About 25 years ago, the government wanted about 30 acres of land on either side of the Provo River that runs through my in-laws land in Utah. Land that had been in the family for over 115 years. The Army Corps of Engineers wanted it under eminent domain, not for flood control, but to take the land and cut in curves and bends in the river in order to create a better habitat for the trout.
They fought it for ten years and it cost them a ton of money in legal fees. Ultimately, they knew it was a losing battle, so they fought the government on pricing. This battle took another three years, but the government finally agreed to pay them handsomely for the land and the river was altered (quarter acre new home lots across the street are going for $175k - $250k, if that gives you an idea of the value and why they fought it for so long).
For me, it's great, though, because I can walk 200 yards behind their house to some of the finest trout fishing in the country. It's 3 miles in any direction before there are public inlets to the river, so there is hardly ever anyone who gets down that far to fish.
This is a recent photo I took from behind the house. The river is on the other side of that tree-line in the distance.
About 25 years ago, the government wanted about 30 acres of land on either side of the Provo River that runs through my in-laws land in Utah. Land that had been in the family for over 115 years. The Army Corps of Engineers wanted it under eminent domain, not for flood control, but to take the land and cut in curves and bends in the river in order to create a better habitat for the trout.
They fought it for ten years and it cost them a ton of money in legal fees. Ultimately, they knew it was a losing battle, so they fought the government on pricing. This battle took another three years, but the government finally agreed to pay them handsomely for the land and the river was altered (quarter acre new home lots across the street are going for $175k - $250k, if that gives you an idea of the value and why they fought it for so long).
For me, it's great, though, because I can walk 200 yards behind their house to some of the finest trout fishing in the country. It's 3 miles in any direction before there are public inlets to the river, so there is hardly ever anyone who gets down that far to fish.
This is a recent photo I took from behind the house. The river is on the other side of that tree-line in the distance.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:41 am to mylsuhat
quote:
I am a small government guy all the way. I used to believe the right thing to do was to have the states own these lands. The more I read, researched, and listened, the more I realize that would be detrimental to the West.
Admittedly, I've not done a whole lot of research into the matter. One thing I'm quite sure of is if the states get a hold of the lands then in 25years or so they absolutely could wind up in private ownership via shady political dealings. I'm sure at first the states will claim they the lands will still be public with better access and blah blah. But in a few years when the budget isn't looking too good, someone will start talking about selling just enough acres to "level the books". Then it's a slippery slope from there.
Anytime money changes hands in ANY government, there is a great potential for corruption. Leaving the lands just where they are avoids that.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:44 am to UHTiger
quote:
But you will see in the midterms.
You are gonna love when the Republicans GAIN seats in the House and Senate.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:46 am to HubbaBubba
quote:I'm not for government seizure of property in any means. It happens for interstates and all that obviously and when it does happen the owners should be paid appropriately.
About 25 years ago, the government wanted about 30 acres of land on either side of the Provo River that runs through my in-laws land in Utah. Land that had been in the family for over 115 years. The Army Corps of Engineers wanted it under eminent domain, not for flood control, but to take the land and cut in curves and bends in the river in order to create a better habitat for the trout.
They fought it for ten years and it cost them a ton of money in legal fees. Ultimately, they knew it was a losing battle, so they fought the government on pricing. This battle took another three years, but the government finally agreed to pay them handsomely for the land and the river was altered (quarter acre new home lots across the street are going for $175k - $250k, if that gives you an idea of the value and why they fought it for so long).
In this instance, you never want to lose your family land but you also were able to profit from the "selling" of the and you continue to have access. Thats a pretty good compromise.
But that argument is also totally different than the current one of releasing our lands to private owners.
I often think and wonder how it would be if Roosevelt was around to set aside more lands across the entire country.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:48 am to cajunangelle
Definitely real protesters. Public lands are very important to people out west and they were there to voice their opinion about something they feel strongly about. I have a lot of family and friends in Salt Lake and they've all been talking about this issue. It's not surprising this town hall was packed with opposition.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:53 am to mylsuhat
quote:
I'm not for government seizure of property in any means. It happens for interstates and all that obviously and when it does happen the owners should be paid appropriately.
You're just for the property they've already seized. AMIRITE?
The federal gov't should not own any land period. If the people in their respective states, counties, or cities want to use their public funds to buy property from WILLING sellers and not eminent domain, then that's fine.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:55 am to The Spleen
quote:
quote:
Do you think these protesters are real
-------------
Yes.
If you are not allowing the speaker to address your concerns or questions you are merely being obstructionists and are preventing others from exercising their rights.
I hate anyone from any point of view who does this.
If all you want to do is "protest" without thought then stand aside and hold your signs.
I suspect Chavetz would have granted them plenty of time to express their grievances and responded with his opinions.
No reasonable person engages in such despicable tactics. Which is why only DEMs engage in it.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:55 am to Aubie Spr96
quote:You should get to work without using any Federally owned highways then.
The federal gov't should not own any land period. If the people in their respective states, counties, or cities want to use their public funds to buy property from WILLING sellers and not eminent domain, then that's fine.
This post was edited on 2/10/17 at 9:58 am
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:57 am to IdahoTiger
quote:It's the same group that were up in arms protesting for Obama seizing 1.35 million acres of private land in Utah and federalizing it.
Definitely real protesters. Public lands are very important to people out west and they were there to voice their opinion about something they feel strongly about. I have a lot of family and friends in Salt Lake and they've all been talking about this issue. It's not surprising this town hall was packed with opposition.
These people want nothing more than more government control. frick 'em!
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:59 am to Aubie Spr96
quote:
You're just for the property they've already seized. AMIRITE? The federal gov't should not own any land period. If the people in their respective states, counties, or cities want to use their public funds to buy property from WILLING sellers and not eminent domain, then that's fine.
The federal government should own lands like they do out west. In the east it's more complicated because the eastern US was settled earlier and have far less rural areas. The Western US has more rugged terrain and rural areas which were sectioned off by the federal government and protected. Those federally owned lands were turned into National Forests and National Parks which the public has access to. Out west the idea of Federal Land equates to protected land used to hike, camp, fish, hunt. That's why people were so against selling off 3 million acres of federal land. Protected land is a good thing.
This post was edited on 2/10/17 at 10:01 am
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News