Obama Legacy. Federal Land Grab Records.

[Rustic]

Obama's land grabs are concerning, however I also don't like Trumps stand on eminent domain. So I find neither very comforting when it comes to the government deciding who gets what land and why.

Why do you call changing the designation of already owned public lands as a land grab? Who do you think the land is being grabbed from?

Why did it need to be changed if it was already public land? It seems a bureaucratic move to me.

Public lands such as BLM lands by law are available for commercial interest such as mining and grazing. Each land designation allows for various uses and commercial interests are able to demand and acquire rights to the public lands that degrade them for other future uses. Protection of those lands requires huge expenses in legal fees by the government as they challenge the commercial interest who pack the halls of Congress with lobbyists. Because the lobbyist and commercial interest will often win despite the efforts of the government to protect the lands, the Congress decided over 110 years ago to give the Executive Branch an option to bypassing the lobbyist and commercial interest by simply taking sections of threatened land off the table for exploitation,

BLM land should be sold to the states, that way it can be used in a much more efficient and local away.

 

[Rustic]

Way to go Obama!

Preserving our heritage for future generations

How much can Trump sell away?

Bragging about a Usurper Abusing Power. Perhaps you laugh when they used the IRS as a Weapon as well.

Perhaps we should audit you every few months just for the hell of it.

No abuse of power

Presidents have been doing it since Teddy Roosevelt. Which National Monument do you object to?

Teddy Roosevelt was a dictator, his progressive ways harmed America.

 

[Rustic]

No problem with that.

I have a problem with a single man, deciding on a whim, to increase the "National Treasures" list to the extent Obama did.

A few more Obamas, and there won't be any personal property left in this country

What a drama queen....

<sob>. ...any more Obama's and there won't be any more land left

Love the way you misquoted me.

Do it on purpose, or do you have short term memory loss?

Care to provide your real quote drama queen?
Or maybe we should call you Capt Hyperbole


Maybe you can point out "personal property" that was confiscated

A few more Obamas, and there won't be any personal property left in this country

Can you name some monuments where personal property was confiscated without compensation?

Always pennies on the dollar…

 

[rightwinger]

No land has been seized. This is a bullsyte thread if ever there was one. All the lands the OP is alleging to have been seized were already public lands owned by the citizens of the US via the US Government. The use and designation of the lands were changed to save them from exploitation and destruction.
Trump told another one of his lies when he called designating already US owned public lands as monuments a "land grab".

The federal government will never know what's best for the people, you do realize the federal government in the American people are not one in the same. You shiteating dip shit. Lol

We the People

The Constitution is there for the people to control the federal government when It gets out of hand. Obviously the federal government is always mis-behaving.

Actually....
We the People formed the government

 

[rightwinger]

What a drama queen....

<sob>. ...any more Obama's and there won't be any more land left

Love the way you misquoted me.

Do it on purpose, or do you have short term memory loss?

Care to provide your real quote drama queen?
Or maybe we should call you Capt Hyperbole


Maybe you can point out "personal property" that was confiscated

A few more Obamas, and there won't be any personal property left in this country

Can you name some monuments where personal property was confiscated without compensation?

Always pennies on the dollar…

Name one example

 

[Rustic]

No land has been seized. This is a bullsyte thread if ever there was one. All the lands the OP is alleging to have been seized were already public lands owned by the citizens of the US via the US Government. The use and designation of the lands were changed to save them from exploitation and destruction.
Trump told another one of his lies when he called designating already US owned public lands as monuments a "land grab".

The federal government will never know what's best for the people, you do realize the federal government in the American people are not one in the same. You shiteating dip shit. Lol

We the People

The Constitution is there for the people to control the federal government when It gets out of hand. Obviously the federal government is always mis-behaving.

Actually....
We the People formed the government

Sure, but the federal government thinks "the people" work for them… fact

 

[rightwinger]

No land has been seized. This is a bullsyte thread if ever there was one. All the lands the OP is alleging to have been seized were already public lands owned by the citizens of the US via the US Government. The use and designation of the lands were changed to save them from exploitation and destruction.
Trump told another one of his lies when he called designating already US owned public lands as monuments a "land grab".

The federal government will never know what's best for the people, you do realize the federal government in the American people are not one in the same. You shiteating dip shit. Lol

We the People

The Constitution is there for the people to control the federal government when It gets out of hand. Obviously the federal government is always mis-behaving.

Actually....
We the People formed the government

Sure, but the federal government thinks "the people" work for them… fact

Those who do are quickly voted out of office

 

[Papageorgio]

Obama's land grabs are concerning, however I also don't like Trumps stand on eminent domain. So I find neither very comforting when it comes to the government deciding who gets what land and why.

Why do you call changing the designation of already owned public lands as a land grab? Who do you think the land is being grabbed from?

Why did it need to be changed if it was already public land? It seems a bureaucratic move to me.

Public lands such as BLM lands by law are available for commercial interest such as mining and grazing. Each land designation allows for various uses and commercial interests are able to demand and acquire rights to the public lands that degrade them for other future uses. Protection of those lands requires huge expenses in legal fees by the government as they challenge the commercial interest who pack the halls of Congress with lobbyists. Because the lobbyist and commercial interest will often win despite the efforts of the government to protect the lands, the Congress decided over 110 years ago to give the Executive Branch an option to bypassing the lobbyist and commercial interest by simply taking sections of threatened land off the table for exploitation,

And I disagree with the decision. I hope they get re-designated to the old level.

 

[Auld Phart]

No land has been seized. This is a bullsyte thread if ever there was one. All the lands the OP is alleging to have been seized were already public lands owned by the citizens of the US via the US Government. The use and designation of the lands were changed to save them from exploitation and destruction.
Trump told another one of his lies when he called designating already US owned public lands as monuments a "land grab".

The federal government will never know what's best for the people, you do realize the federal government in the American people are not one in the same. You shiteating dip shit. Lol

We the People

The Constitution is there for the people to control the federal government when It gets out of hand. Obviously the federal government is always mis-behaving.

Actually....
We the People formed the government

Really?


I only saw about 40 names at the bottom of the Declaration of Independence.

How many of the thousands of citizens had input into the Constitution?

Did Crispus Attucks give his opinion on how to run the country?

 

[Rustic]

The federal government will never know what's best for the people, you do realize the federal government in the American people are not one in the same. You shiteating dip shit. Lol

We the People

The Constitution is there for the people to control the federal government when It gets out of hand. Obviously the federal government is always mis-behaving.

Actually....
We the People formed the government

Sure, but the federal government thinks "the people" work for them… fact

Those who do are quickly voted out of office

Obviously not, otherwise there would be no career politicians… Fact

 

[Camp]

Obama's land grabs are concerning, however I also don't like Trumps stand on eminent domain. So I find neither very comforting when it comes to the government deciding who gets what land and why.

Why do you call changing the designation of already owned public lands as a land grab? Who do you think the land is being grabbed from?

Why did it need to be changed if it was already public land? It seems a bureaucratic move to me.

Public lands such as BLM lands by law are available for commercial interest such as mining and grazing. Each land designation allows for various uses and commercial interests are able to demand and acquire rights to the public lands that degrade them for other future uses. Protection of those lands requires huge expenses in legal fees by the government as they challenge the commercial interest who pack the halls of Congress with lobbyists. Because the lobbyist and commercial interest will often win despite the efforts of the government to protect the lands, the Congress decided over 110 years ago to give the Executive Branch an option to bypassing the lobbyist and commercial interest by simply taking sections of threatened land off the table for exploitation,

And I disagree with the decision. I hope they get re-designated to the old level.

Well, that is in fact what the President proposed as a possibility. His EO was to examine the National Monuments to determine if some or any of them could better serve the country if the designation were changed The danger in this is that he is suggesting undoing a traditional right and duty of Presidents and he will pay a heavy price from future Presidents for showing such disdain and disrespect to his predecessors. He is attacking the legacy of past Presidents and future Presidents will attack his legacy.

 

[Papageorgio]

Obama's land grabs are concerning, however I also don't like Trumps stand on eminent domain. So I find neither very comforting when it comes to the government deciding who gets what land and why.

Why do you call changing the designation of already owned public lands as a land grab? Who do you think the land is being grabbed from?

Why did it need to be changed if it was already public land? It seems a bureaucratic move to me.

Public lands such as BLM lands by law are available for commercial interest such as mining and grazing. Each land designation allows for various uses and commercial interests are able to demand and acquire rights to the public lands that degrade them for other future uses. Protection of those lands requires huge expenses in legal fees by the government as they challenge the commercial interest who pack the halls of Congress with lobbyists. Because the lobbyist and commercial interest will often win despite the efforts of the government to protect the lands, the Congress decided over 110 years ago to give the Executive Branch an option to bypassing the lobbyist and commercial interest by simply taking sections of threatened land off the table for exploitation,

And I disagree with the decision. I hope they get re-designated to the old level.

Well, that is in fact what the President proposed as a possibility. His EO was to examine the National Monuments to determine if some or any of them could better serve the country if the designation were changed The danger in this is that he is suggesting undoing a traditional right and duty of Presidents and he will pay a heavy price from future Presidents for showing such disdain and disrespect to his predecessors. He is attacking the legacy of past Presidents and future Presidents will attack his legacy.

Baloney, your drama is almost amusing. Changing a designation is not a disrespect it is an examination to see if there is too much government overreach.

 

[Camp]

Why do you call changing the designation of already owned public lands as a land grab? Who do you think the land is being grabbed from?

Why did it need to be changed if it was already public land? It seems a bureaucratic move to me.

Public lands such as BLM lands by law are available for commercial interest such as mining and grazing. Each land designation allows for various uses and commercial interests are able to demand and acquire rights to the public lands that degrade them for other future uses. Protection of those lands requires huge expenses in legal fees by the government as they challenge the commercial interest who pack the halls of Congress with lobbyists. Because the lobbyist and commercial interest will often win despite the efforts of the government to protect the lands, the Congress decided over 110 years ago to give the Executive Branch an option to bypassing the lobbyist and commercial interest by simply taking sections of threatened land off the table for exploitation,

And I disagree with the decision. I hope they get re-designated to the old level.

Well, that is in fact what the President proposed as a possibility. His EO was to examine the National Monuments to determine if some or any of them could better serve the country if the designation were changed The danger in this is that he is suggesting undoing a traditional right and duty of Presidents and he will pay a heavy price from future Presidents for showing such disdain and disrespect to his predecessors. He is attacking the legacy of past Presidents and future Presidents will attack his legacy.

Baloney, your drama is almost amusing. Changing a designation is not a disrespect it is an examination to see if there is too much government overreach.

110 years, never been done.

 

[rightwinger]

No land has been seized. This is a bullsyte thread if ever there was one. All the lands the OP is alleging to have been seized were already public lands owned by the citizens of the US via the US Government. The use and designation of the lands were changed to save them from exploitation and destruction.
Trump told another one of his lies when he called designating already US owned public lands as monuments a "land grab".

The federal government will never know what's best for the people, you do realize the federal government in the American people are not one in the same. You shiteating dip shit. Lol

We the People

The Constitution is there for the people to control the federal government when It gets out of hand. Obviously the federal government is always mis-behaving.

Actually....
We the People formed the government

Really?


I only saw about 40 names at the bottom of the Declaration of Independence.

How many of the thousands of citizens had input into the Constitution?

Did Crispus Attucks give his opinion on how to run the country?

We the People selected our representatives to the Constitutional Convention

The process has worked for over 200 years

 

[Auld Phart]

The federal government will never know what's best for the people, you do realize the federal government in the American people are not one in the same. You shiteating dip shit. Lol

We the People

The Constitution is there for the people to control the federal government when It gets out of hand. Obviously the federal government is always mis-behaving.

Actually....
We the People formed the government

Really?


I only saw about 40 names at the bottom of the Declaration of Independence.

How many of the thousands of citizens had input into the Constitution?

Did Crispus Attucks give his opinion on how to run the country?

We the People selected our representatives to the Constitutional Convention

The process has worked for over 200 years

We the People

have voted for those the elite want in office for 200 years.

 

[Papageorgio]

Why did it need to be changed if it was already public land? It seems a bureaucratic move to me.

Public lands such as BLM lands by law are available for commercial interest such as mining and grazing. Each land designation allows for various uses and commercial interests are able to demand and acquire rights to the public lands that degrade them for other future uses. Protection of those lands requires huge expenses in legal fees by the government as they challenge the commercial interest who pack the halls of Congress with lobbyists. Because the lobbyist and commercial interest will often win despite the efforts of the government to protect the lands, the Congress decided over 110 years ago to give the Executive Branch an option to bypassing the lobbyist and commercial interest by simply taking sections of threatened land off the table for exploitation,

And I disagree with the decision. I hope they get re-designated to the old level.

Well, that is in fact what the President proposed as a possibility. His EO was to examine the National Monuments to determine if some or any of them could better serve the country if the designation were changed The danger in this is that he is suggesting undoing a traditional right and duty of Presidents and he will pay a heavy price from future Presidents for showing such disdain and disrespect to his predecessors. He is attacking the legacy of past Presidents and future Presidents will attack his legacy.

Baloney, your drama is almost amusing. Changing a designation is not a disrespect it is an examination to see if there is too much government overreach.

110 years, never been done.

So, aren't you a progressive? 100 years ago there was no gay marriage, 100 years ago we had no cell phones.

Times change for the better and we just roll with it.

 

[Camp]

Public lands such as BLM lands by law are available for commercial interest such as mining and grazing. Each land designation allows for various uses and commercial interests are able to demand and acquire rights to the public lands that degrade them for other future uses. Protection of those lands requires huge expenses in legal fees by the government as they challenge the commercial interest who pack the halls of Congress with lobbyists. Because the lobbyist and commercial interest will often win despite the efforts of the government to protect the lands, the Congress decided over 110 years ago to give the Executive Branch an option to bypassing the lobbyist and commercial interest by simply taking sections of threatened land off the table for exploitation,

And I disagree with the decision. I hope they get re-designated to the old level.

Well, that is in fact what the President proposed as a possibility. His EO was to examine the National Monuments to determine if some or any of them could better serve the country if the designation were changed The danger in this is that he is suggesting undoing a traditional right and duty of Presidents and he will pay a heavy price from future Presidents for showing such disdain and disrespect to his predecessors. He is attacking the legacy of past Presidents and future Presidents will attack his legacy.

Baloney, your drama is almost amusing. Changing a designation is not a disrespect it is an examination to see if there is too much government overreach.

110 years, never been done.

So, aren't you a progressive? 100 years ago there was no gay marriage, 100 years ago we had no cell phones.

Times change for the better and we just roll with it.

If you want to change the law, go for it. Of course, that is not likely to happen. Most states do not have huge portions of public lands in their boundaries, but they enjoy the benefits of being part owners. It is unlikely that those states will want to hand over all those resources and wealth to a handful of big western states.

 

[yiostheoy]

The Obama legacy is ACA.

He also ordered the CIA to step up their drone strikes and to find UBL.

 

[Papageorgio]

And I disagree with the decision. I hope they get re-designated to the old level.

Well, that is in fact what the President proposed as a possibility. His EO was to examine the National Monuments to determine if some or any of them could better serve the country if the designation were changed The danger in this is that he is suggesting undoing a traditional right and duty of Presidents and he will pay a heavy price from future Presidents for showing such disdain and disrespect to his predecessors. He is attacking the legacy of past Presidents and future Presidents will attack his legacy.

Baloney, your drama is almost amusing. Changing a designation is not a disrespect it is an examination to see if there is too much government overreach.

110 years, never been done.

So, aren't you a progressive? 100 years ago there was no gay marriage, 100 years ago we had no cell phones.

Times change for the better and we just roll with it.

If you want to change the law, go for it. Of course, that is not likely to happen. Most states do not have huge portions of public lands in their boundaries, but they enjoy the benefits of being part owners. It is unlikely that those states will want to hand over all those resources and wealth to a handful of big western states.

If Trump re-designates the land in question, then we don't need to change the law. If you don't like the idea that Trump will determine the fate of the land, I suggest you change the law.

 

[Camp]

Well, that is in fact what the President proposed as a possibility. His EO was to examine the National Monuments to determine if some or any of them could better serve the country if the designation were changed The danger in this is that he is suggesting undoing a traditional right and duty of Presidents and he will pay a heavy price from future Presidents for showing such disdain and disrespect to his predecessors. He is attacking the legacy of past Presidents and future Presidents will attack his legacy.

Baloney, your drama is almost amusing. Changing a designation is not a disrespect it is an examination to see if there is too much government overreach.

110 years, never been done.

So, aren't you a progressive? 100 years ago there was no gay marriage, 100 years ago we had no cell phones.

Times change for the better and we just roll with it.

If you want to change the law, go for it. Of course, that is not likely to happen. Most states do not have huge portions of public lands in their boundaries, but they enjoy the benefits of being part owners. It is unlikely that those states will want to hand over all those resources and wealth to a handful of big western states.

If Trump re-designates the land in question, then we don't need to change the law. If you don't like the idea that Trump will determine the fate of the land, I suggest you change the law.

Trump can not redesignate the land by himself. He needs Congress. Congress gave the duty of naming National Monuments to the Presidents and only Congress can change that. Trump's EO only orders a study to be made and that it be given to Congress as a guide of recommendations.
The trump cult is celebrating and cheering trump an EO regarding National Monuments, but they don't even know what it says or might do. It is like many of trump's EO's, talk with no walk.