Holy Cliven Bundy, Batman

[bendog]

Voters in U.S. West oppose transfer of public lands to states survey - Yahoo News
59 % oppose states taking over federal land.

 

[Lakhota]

Good news! That should disappoint a lot of Kochsuckers.

 

[Dot Com]

because they would despoil it and then move on.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

because they would despoil it and then move on.

What vested interest would any state have in doing such a thing?

 

[Camp]

because they would despoil it and then move on.

What vested interest would any state have in doing such a thing?

Cash, hard cold cash from those who would misuse the land by taking maximum short term profits. Vested interest be damned.

 

[HenryBHough]

If the feds want to own the land then they need to pay property taxes to the states in which they hold it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

because they would despoil it and then move on.

What vested interest would any state have in doing such a thing?

Cash, hard cold cash from those who would misuse the land by taking maximum short term profits. Vested interest be damned.

So you actually believe that state legislatures and governors would find it palatable to just sit by and let national parks and monuments deteriorate thus ruining millions of dollars in tourism revenue to their state?

 

[Camp]

because they would despoil it and then move on.

What vested interest would any state have in doing such a thing?

Cash, hard cold cash from those who would misuse the land by taking maximum short term profits. Vested interest be damned.

So you actually believe that state legislatures and governors would find it palatable to just sit by and let national parks and monuments deteriorate thus ruining millions of dollars in tourism revenue to their state?

Probably not the profit bearing parks and forest, but the BLM land would go up for grabs. Monuments are up in the air and lots of those could come under attack by private concerns.

 

[B. Kidd]

Only 200 voters in each state were polled. Very small, per state polling pool........once again proving that most polls are for sheep.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Whoo-eee, this is gonna bring out the crazy RWs.

Poor Bundy shouldn't have to pay the rent he agreed to pay. And, the feds should have to pay his legal fees too, right nutters?

So, how come I have to pay MY bills?

NO FAIR.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

because they would despoil it and then move on.

What vested interest would any state have in doing such a thing?

Cash, hard cold cash from those who would misuse the land by taking maximum short term profits. Vested interest be damned.

So you actually believe that state legislatures and governors would find it palatable to just sit by and let national parks and monuments deteriorate thus ruining millions of dollars in tourism revenue to their state?

Probably not the profit bearing parks and forest, but the BLM land would go up for grabs. Monuments are up in the air and lots of those could come under attack by private concerns.

And so what if some of them do? Is there really a need for 85% of the land in my state to be under government control?

Furthermore, what you makes you think the residents of my state or any other western state where the federal government holds a majority stake in our land would allow our state governments to start tearing them apart? Additionally, if you don't live here, how is it any of your business if we do? Oh yeah, it's not.

 

[Camp]

because they would despoil it and then move on.

What vested interest would any state have in doing such a thing?

Cash, hard cold cash from those who would misuse the land by taking maximum short term profits. Vested interest be damned.

So you actually believe that state legislatures and governors would find it palatable to just sit by and let national parks and monuments deteriorate thus ruining millions of dollars in tourism revenue to their state?

Probably not the profit bearing parks and forest, but the BLM land would go up for grabs. Monuments are up in the air and lots of those could come under attack by private concerns.

And so what if some of them do? Is there really a need for 85% of the land in my state to be under government control?

Furthermore, what you makes you think the residents of my state or any other western state where the federal government holds a majority stake in our land would allow our state governments to start tearing them apart? Additionally, if you don't live here, how is it any of your business if we do? Oh yeah, it's not.

It's every citizen's business. It's our property, not the property of the people who reside in the state. The country paid for it with blood, treasure and treaties with the people who had possession of it when we showed up with federal troops. When the state became a state they agreed all that property belonged to the federal government. Ever since that time the federal government and tax payers have paid the expenses for it's care and upkeep. Why should we give up our property and investments?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

corporate payoffs? lots of profit is made -- lots, in despoiling land and moving on

look at the GOP (with a few Dems) backing taking land away from American ranchers to give to a Canadian pipeline

follow the money on this one