- 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re: HR 621 - Selling Off Our Public Lands - to be withdrawn
Posted on 2/2/17 at 7:38 am to PNW
Posted on 2/2/17 at 7:38 am to PNW
I'm so happy I get to keep my free shite!
Feds own 640 million acres and we can't sell 3.3 million.
Selling 0.5% of federal land would be a disastrous development for selfish snowflake "sportsmen".
Feds own 640 million acres and we can't sell 3.3 million.
Selling 0.5% of federal land would be a disastrous development for selfish snowflake "sportsmen".
Posted on 2/2/17 at 10:53 am to Gaspergou202
Responding to a couple of selloff proponents in one.
I prefer a prioritization of private entities in most of what I consume but realize the federal government is needed for certain commodities that private interests cannot provide, such as defense and, yes, preservation of wild lands. You may think you have access to the wild from private entities, but you don't. Barring a few gajillionaire eccentrics with vast holdings (think Ted Turner) most private holdings (indeed, most land in the east, unfortunately) offer a poor, overdeveloped representation of the wild. Your buddy's enlarged duck puddle? Your pine tree farm hunting camp? Your miserable industrial bayous? Might as well be Central Park with some wildlife thrown in a fence. What is left of the true wild in this country is protected by the federal government, and almost exclusively is found west of teh Mississippi. Private entities simply do not protect the wild, and with a few very notable exceptions, I find that state parks are similarly overdeveloped. Just because you don't care to enjoy it, doesn't mean you shouldn't want to protect a little bit of it for your grandsons.
More on this below, but on to the next guy:
I love your tone and use of quotation marks around the word 'sportsmen." First of all, I will just emphasize what you already (hopefully) know: calling someone a 'snowflake' or 'cuck' immediately identifies you as a brainless dolt. But since we have digressed to name calling, I'll go ahead and toss in what you are: a pussy. I don't want to make too many assumptions about you but I'm fairly certain I would find your idea of 'getting in the outdoors' to be without any effort, risk, and reward- utterly boring. You drive your fatass to your deer stand, shoot a buck, and drive it back to camp. Great, try elk hunting, pussy.
There are places I could take you in the Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico wilderness where I'm certain you would wilt and collapse long before the final destination, mentally and physically breaking down when you first tasted the feeling of truly being on your own: in a situation where making the wrong decision could easily result in losing your life. These places are never private holdings and, like I said to the guy above, just because you don't get out and enjoy them, don't take away the opportunities of your grandsons. These places are all of our birthrights, and we should protect them rigorously. In other words, stop being such a pussy.
quote:
SlapahoeTribe
quote:
But keep on thinking that only the government can give you what you need.
I prefer a prioritization of private entities in most of what I consume but realize the federal government is needed for certain commodities that private interests cannot provide, such as defense and, yes, preservation of wild lands. You may think you have access to the wild from private entities, but you don't. Barring a few gajillionaire eccentrics with vast holdings (think Ted Turner) most private holdings (indeed, most land in the east, unfortunately) offer a poor, overdeveloped representation of the wild. Your buddy's enlarged duck puddle? Your pine tree farm hunting camp? Your miserable industrial bayous? Might as well be Central Park with some wildlife thrown in a fence. What is left of the true wild in this country is protected by the federal government, and almost exclusively is found west of teh Mississippi. Private entities simply do not protect the wild, and with a few very notable exceptions, I find that state parks are similarly overdeveloped. Just because you don't care to enjoy it, doesn't mean you shouldn't want to protect a little bit of it for your grandsons.
More on this below, but on to the next guy:
quote:
Gaspergou202
quote:
I'm so happy I get to keep my free shite!
Selling 0.5% of federal land would be a disastrous development for selfish snowflake "sportsmen".
I love your tone and use of quotation marks around the word 'sportsmen." First of all, I will just emphasize what you already (hopefully) know: calling someone a 'snowflake' or 'cuck' immediately identifies you as a brainless dolt. But since we have digressed to name calling, I'll go ahead and toss in what you are: a pussy. I don't want to make too many assumptions about you but I'm fairly certain I would find your idea of 'getting in the outdoors' to be without any effort, risk, and reward- utterly boring. You drive your fatass to your deer stand, shoot a buck, and drive it back to camp. Great, try elk hunting, pussy.
There are places I could take you in the Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico wilderness where I'm certain you would wilt and collapse long before the final destination, mentally and physically breaking down when you first tasted the feeling of truly being on your own: in a situation where making the wrong decision could easily result in losing your life. These places are never private holdings and, like I said to the guy above, just because you don't get out and enjoy them, don't take away the opportunities of your grandsons. These places are all of our birthrights, and we should protect them rigorously. In other words, stop being such a pussy.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 10:55 am to Gaspergou202
quote:
Feds own 640 million acres and we can't sell 3.3 million.
Selling 0.5% of federal land would be a disastrous development for selfish snowflake "
Yep
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News