Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The White House is a national park. Is Trump going to sell that too?
No, it is not.
Try again.
The President of the United States lives in a National Park
President's Park (White House) (U.S. National Park Service)
Technically correct, but you just cannot walk up and into that park. Look at the mailing address:
1849 C Street NW
Room 1426
Washington, DC 20240
That's not the White House.
Actually, it is.The White House is a national park. Is Trump going to sell that too?
No, it is not.
Try again.
Ignorance is bliss......
Then you should be extremely happy!
Leaked maps reveal Trump's plan to slash national parks by 1m acres | Metro News
Donald Trump slashes size of national parks in Utah to allow drilling
Opinion: National parks under attack by Trump administration - Citrus College Clarion
President Trump Declares Major Reduction of Bears Ears Monument
I think this is caused by some illegal activity, either Trump getting paid by corporations for this, or illegally investing when his companies should be in a blind trust.
Either way, there has never been a president which has removed so much land from federal protection as he would like to.
Is it safe to say you’re an anti Trump?Actually, it is.The White House is a national park. Is Trump going to sell that too?
No, it is not.
Try again.
Ignorance is bliss......
Then you should be extremely happy!
Since I've called and proven your ignorance of fact I've proven my point.
This should have been the end of the thread. Knowing progressives however.....Does the State of Utah have finances to support the land in question? The answer is NO.
I don't see how that can reliably be assumed to be true, nor why it is even relevant. This is land which rightfully ought to belong to the state of Utah, or to individual residents of Utah. Does the federal government have the power to seize property, either from states or individuals, on the basis that the owner of that property is alleged not to have the finances to support it? Where is this power enumerated, in the Constitution?
If Utah doesn't have the finances to support all of the land that it rightfully owns, then the correct remedy is for it to sell that land. Let people build houses, and stores, and other facilities; let people live on that land, and work on that land. Let the land be used in the way that maximizes its value to humanity.
There is no good reason,and no legitimate reason, for the federal government to be hoarding for itself, such large amounts of valuable property, and preventing that property from being put to good use; and certainly no excuse for the federal government to not even offer just compensation to those from whom this property was stolen.
Is it safe to say you’re anti Trump?Actually, it is.No, it is not.
Try again.
Ignorance is bliss......
Then you should be extremely happy!
Since I've called and proven your ignorance of fact I've proven my point.
Do you support the antifa weirdos?Is it safe to say you’re anti Trump?Actually, it is.
Ignorance is bliss......
Then you should be extremely happy!
Since I've called and proven your ignorance of fact I've proven my point.
I'm against anyone that continues to screw the middle class. So yes.
The one thing that the federal government is not responsible for is social.This should have been the end of the thread. Knowing progressives however.....Does the State of Utah have finances to support the land in question? The answer is NO.
I don't see how that can reliably be assumed to be true, nor why it is even relevant. This is land which rightfully ought to belong to the state of Utah, or to individual residents of Utah. Does the federal government have the power to seize property, either from states or individuals, on the basis that the owner of that property is alleged not to have the finances to support it? Where is this power enumerated, in the Constitution?
If Utah doesn't have the finances to support all of the land that it rightfully owns, then the correct remedy is for it to sell that land. Let people build houses, and stores, and other facilities; let people live on that land, and work on that land. Let the land be used in the way that maximizes its value to humanity.
There is no good reason,and no legitimate reason, for the federal government to be hoarding for itself, such large amounts of valuable property, and preventing that property from being put to good use; and certainly no excuse for the federal government to not even offer just compensation to those from whom this property was stolen.
The only value that the vast majority of government land has is social.
The White House is a national park. Is Trump going to sell that too?
No, it is not.
Try again.
The President of the United States lives in a National Park
President's Park (White House) (U.S. National Park Service)
Technically correct, but you just cannot walk up and into that park. Look at the mailing address:
1849 C Street NW
Room 1426
Washington, DC 20240
That's not the White House.
You've posted the office of the US Department of Interior which administrates the national parks. The address of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500 is just one of the national parks.
During the national Christmas tree lighting I think that it's fitting that the head of the National Park Service reminded President dumb-ass that he lives within a national park. I took it as; Don't sell the house you're temporally living in to Putin.
Actually, it is.The White House is a national park. Is Trump going to sell that too?
No, it is not.
Try again.
Ignorance is bliss......
Then you should be extremely happy!
Since I've called and proven your ignorance of fact I've proven my point.
One of the greatest ideas in the history of America is something to do away with to these anti-American bastards.
Environment = doesn't matter
Wild life = doesn't matter
Future generation = doesn't matter
Just pure greed is all that drives these idiots.
The one thing that the federal government is not responsible for is social.This should have been the end of the thread. Knowing progressives however.....Does the State of Utah have finances to support the land in question? The answer is NO.
I don't see how that can reliably be assumed to be true, nor why it is even relevant. This is land which rightfully ought to belong to the state of Utah, or to individual residents of Utah. Does the federal government have the power to seize property, either from states or individuals, on the basis that the owner of that property is alleged not to have the finances to support it? Where is this power enumerated, in the Constitution?
If Utah doesn't have the finances to support all of the land that it rightfully owns, then the correct remedy is for it to sell that land. Let people build houses, and stores, and other facilities; let people live on that land, and work on that land. Let the land be used in the way that maximizes its value to humanity.
There is no good reason,and no legitimate reason, for the federal government to be hoarding for itself, such large amounts of valuable property, and preventing that property from being put to good use; and certainly no excuse for the federal government to not even offer just compensation to those from whom this property was stolen.
The only value that the vast majority of government land has is social.
It strikes Me as amazing that progressives continue to make the claims that they are for the people, i.e., they are holding the land in trust for the people, yet they do not trust the people to manage it.
Managing that intellectual disconnect must be quite a feat.
The irony is................... ironic.
Too funny.The one thing that the federal government is not responsible for is social.This should have been the end of the thread. Knowing progressives however.....Does the State of Utah have finances to support the land in question? The answer is NO.
I don't see how that can reliably be assumed to be true, nor why it is even relevant. This is land which rightfully ought to belong to the state of Utah, or to individual residents of Utah. Does the federal government have the power to seize property, either from states or individuals, on the basis that the owner of that property is alleged not to have the finances to support it? Where is this power enumerated, in the Constitution?
If Utah doesn't have the finances to support all of the land that it rightfully owns, then the correct remedy is for it to sell that land. Let people build houses, and stores, and other facilities; let people live on that land, and work on that land. Let the land be used in the way that maximizes its value to humanity.
There is no good reason,and no legitimate reason, for the federal government to be hoarding for itself, such large amounts of valuable property, and preventing that property from being put to good use; and certainly no excuse for the federal government to not even offer just compensation to those from whom this property was stolen.
The only value that the vast majority of government land has is social.
It strikes Me as amazing that progressives continue to make the claims that they are for the people, i.e., they are holding the land in trust for the people, yet they do not trust the people to manage it.
Managing that intellectual disconnect must be quite a feat.
The irony is................... ironic.
Interesting diatribe.
Isn't any park social?
Do I believe that we should sell our natural resources to the highest bidder? No.
Do states have the monies to manage all federal land within their state? No.
Too funny.The one thing that the federal government is not responsible for is social.This should have been the end of the thread. Knowing progressives however.....I don't see how that can reliably be assumed to be true, nor why it is even relevant. This is land which rightfully ought to belong to the state of Utah, or to individual residents of Utah. Does the federal government have the power to seize property, either from states or individuals, on the basis that the owner of that property is alleged not to have the finances to support it? Where is this power enumerated, in the Constitution?
If Utah doesn't have the finances to support all of the land that it rightfully owns, then the correct remedy is for it to sell that land. Let people build houses, and stores, and other facilities; let people live on that land, and work on that land. Let the land be used in the way that maximizes its value to humanity.
There is no good reason,and no legitimate reason, for the federal government to be hoarding for itself, such large amounts of valuable property, and preventing that property from being put to good use; and certainly no excuse for the federal government to not even offer just compensation to those from whom this property was stolen.
The only value that the vast majority of government land has is social.
It strikes Me as amazing that progressives continue to make the claims that they are for the people, i.e., they are holding the land in trust for the people, yet they do not trust the people to manage it.
Managing that intellectual disconnect must be quite a feat.
The irony is................... ironic.
Interesting diatribe.
Isn't any park social?
Do I believe that we should sell our natural resources to the highest bidder? No.
Do states have the monies to manage all federal land within their state? No.
Social issues are States issues. The Federal Govenment is not responsible for any of the social issues.
Now, I don't particularly care what you believe. If the States wish to sell the land for use by the citizens, or to corporations for resource usage, is up to the State.
There is no need for monies to manage lands that have been sitting there for billions of years. What you really mean is do the states have the monies to charge the citizens for the use of their land.
Too funny.The one thing that the federal government is not responsible for is social.This should have been the end of the thread. Knowing progressives however.....
The only value that the vast majority of government land has is social.
It strikes Me as amazing that progressives continue to make the claims that they are for the people, i.e., they are holding the land in trust for the people, yet they do not trust the people to manage it.
Managing that intellectual disconnect must be quite a feat.
The irony is................... ironic.
Interesting diatribe.
Isn't any park social?
Do I believe that we should sell our natural resources to the highest bidder? No.
Do states have the monies to manage all federal land within their state? No.
Social issues are States issues. The Federal Govenment is not responsible for any of the social issues.
Now, I don't particularly care what you believe. If the States wish to sell the land for use by the citizens, or to corporations for resource usage, is up to the State.
There is no need for monies to manage lands that have been sitting there for billions of years. What you really mean is do the states have the monies to charge the citizens for the use of their land.
According to you, we should sell our national parks for logging?
Too funny.The one thing that the federal government is not responsible for is social.This should have been the end of the thread. Knowing progressives however.....
The only value that the vast majority of government land has is social.
It strikes Me as amazing that progressives continue to make the claims that they are for the people, i.e., they are holding the land in trust for the people, yet they do not trust the people to manage it.
Managing that intellectual disconnect must be quite a feat.
The irony is................... ironic.
Interesting diatribe.
Isn't any park social?
Do I believe that we should sell our natural resources to the highest bidder? No.
Do states have the monies to manage all federal land within their state? No.
Social issues are States issues. The Federal Govenment is not responsible for any of the social issues.
Now, I don't particularly care what you believe. If the States wish to sell the land for use by the citizens, or to corporations for resource usage, is up to the State.
There is no need for monies to manage lands that have been sitting there for billions of years. What you really mean is do the states have the monies to charge the citizens for the use of their land.
According to you, we should sell our national parks for logging?
Didn't he reduce the size and give it back to the state(s)?
Why can't the states set aside that land as monument land?
Give it to the States & they will sell it off.The federal government claims ownership of nearly 64% of the land in Utah. In a contiguous group of eleven western states, the federal government claims ownership of nearly half of the land in those states. There is no good reason why the federal government should be allowed to claim so much of the land that ought to belong to the state or to the people in those states.
The Massive (and Empty) Federal Lands of the American West
Federal land ownership by state - Ballotpedia
It was always federal land you stupid shit.President Trump returned the land obama stole, back to the state of Utah. That’s a huge win for every American.
