Guess Who's Selling Your Property to Pay for their War?

by green | February 13, 2006 at 05:22 pm

228 views | 0 Recommendations | 5 comments

The Bush administration Friday laid out plans to sell off more than $1 billion in public lands over the next decade, including 85,000 acres of national forest land in California.

Most of the proceeds would help pay for rural schools and roads, making up for a federal subsidy that has been eliminated from President Bush's 2007 budget

"Guess Who's Selling Your Property to Pay for their War?"
You mean to say that I own federal property, wow, thanks for telling me that, you should start a campaign to tell people about the federal property they own!

Oh, wait, that's right, the federal land, and the sacred forests are home to the six-tittted tree frog , and the three headed moose that we must preserve! Millions of species are dying the US right now!!!

Nevermind the fact that approximately 50% of the land in California is owned by the government, not privately.
Bush is just trying to kill our forests so that he can fund his illegal and immoral war for oil and his rich oil Saudi buddies.

This is so shocking. It upsets me so much to see this duplicity. They know people won't object to funding rural schools - of course! - so they use that issue to stack against the sale of this beautiful wildnerness world. Isn't there anything the Americans can do to stop?

j_m08

I would respond but I have no idea what you are saying. Your attempt at Sarcasm is awesome!

And
yes you do own Federal Property. The taxes you pay support these
areas and the whole idea of a federal park system is to preserve it for
all Americans.

Remember - "this land is my land his land is your land..."

I
take it you are in the camp of the human centered kind. Let's
pave the whole world into one big concrete Wal-Mart. That will
ensure lasting sustainability for one small group of diversity
challenged morons...

Peace

Look. it's national parkland. It has had a special status for some reason - probably because it is a shared natural resource that requires protection because it is integral to the quality of life on the planet. You don't have to think about who benefits from it - we all do. So, a simple policy of " don't ruin it" shouldn't be controversial.

Why anyone would WANT to destroy it is a whole other question. It is clear that this adminstration wants to destroy it, or at base, they do not value it at all. But I personally would like to see the issues separated. Bush is terrible but the important thing is that we want someone who has nothing in common with him to be in office. It doesn't matter whether that person is him or not. As long as someone stops this from happening.

Lord, I hope this is finally true. I live in a state where over 60% of land is controlled by the federal government and a county where over 75% of the land is. Finally some of this may actually contribute to the local tax base, so we can finally pay for some of the unfunded mandates the lefties make us foot the bill for. After all, the tree huggers have so bound up sensible use of public resources (also called logging) that the rural counties have no way to keep up the roads, so they can get out and commune with nature.

The left in this country has already done so much harm in the name of the public lands, it will be nice to see less of them. In Idaho huge tracts of trees have died out from insects and disease but the hug-a-bunnies won't let us cut even these down. The people who have claimed to protect flaura and fawna have done more harm to the ecosystem than you could imagine. They have replaced science with emotion. Many naimals have been decimated because of less open space. What fire once did we could do with logging and the animals, plants and people would all benefit. They won't let us do this so fires are natures only option.

As for all the ****** who say this war is for oil. We already had the oil in the nineties and Bush Sr gave it back. Neither did we colonize Kuwait. Please, when you want to rant just rant. But when you want to sound informed check your facts first.

We were perfectly justified for going into Iraq. No need to find WMDs, no need for a link to Al Quaeda, nothing! We were justified to go in because in the nineties when Sadaam had lost he promised if we left him in power (which we did to balance against Iran) he would disarm and PROVE he had done so. Even if he disarmed, he did not prove it even with a "feel our pain" lefty in the White House. Therefore, the war was justified.

The only mistake we made was taking his word and leaving him there in the nineties. Hind-sight is twenty twenty and we have now fixed that mistake.

I know France wasn't happy, but when was the last time Frenchy liberated anyone. Last I recall he was getting his butt saved by Americans. Besides the Vietnam war that lefties are so quick to bring out was started by the French trying to reconquer Indo-china after WWII. So if the French think a war is a good idea, run don't walk to clear the area.

These members have powered this story:

war on terrr
Nada, United States

NowPublic