Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 91 to 102 of 102
  1. #1

    Default Do we need national parks and momuments?

    Is a bunch of fallow land off limits to corporate interests a waste of time?

  2. Sponsored Links


  3. #91
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kingdom of Ends
    Posts
    19,449
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samm View Post
    No, Iím so correct.

    Apparently I was right, you cannot distinguish between need and want. If you would change your argument to we want them, we like having them, they add to our quality of life, they enhance wild ecosystems, we desire them ... Iíll side with you. But as long as you keep insisting that we need them, I will continue to disagree with you.
    Preserving them is a moral imperative.

  4. Sponsored Links


  5. #92
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kingdom of Ends
    Posts
    19,449
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaDef View Post
    When a president takes large swaths of land away from states arbitrarily I have a problem with it. It doesn't matter what party they belong to.
    They were not taken.

  6. Sponsored Links


  7. #93
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    WRX heaven
    Posts
    12,713
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samm View Post
    You completely missed the point about Vatican City. The claim was that we NEED national parks so that we won’t become mouth breathing cave men with no culture. Having Parks is a wonderful and desirable thing, but we do NOT NEED them in order to be a sophisticated society with great culture.

    Besides, NOBODY is trying or even talking about doing awaynwith ANY Park. The discussion is about reversing the flagrant abuse of the Antiquities Act that grossly expanded two National Monuments (not Parks) in Utah. This is not about either the need or the desire to have such protected places, it is about Government overreach and blatant abuse of power.
    the OP specifically asks if the parks are waste of time to which i responded.
    yes we do need them to be as you " sophisticated society with great culture. ". to protect historical and natural treasures. it is a need, an imperative. you then decided to use the Vatican because you thought they had none even though it seems more then half of their country are exactly that, beautiful, ancient green spaces, that have been protected and maintained for future generations.

    Apocalypto is one cool cat

  8. Sponsored Links


  9. #94
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Posts
    97,717
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samson Corwell View Post
    Preserving them is a moral imperative.
    Donít be so dramatic. Nobody is suggesting getting rid of them.

    But regardless, we still donít need them.

    "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

  10. Sponsored Links


  11. #95
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Posts
    97,717
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mobiusptc View Post
    the OP specifically asks if the parks are waste of time to which i responded.
    yes we do need them to be as you " sophisticated society with great culture. ". to protect historical and natural treasures. it is a need, an imperative. you then decided to use the Vatican because you thought they had none even though it seems more then half of their country are exactly that, beautiful, ancient green spaces, that have been protected and maintained for future generations.
    Clearly your idea of what constitutes need differs from mine. And apparently, so does your definition as to what constitutes a National Park.
    Last edited by Samm; December 7th, 2017 at 3:16 am.

    "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

  12. Sponsored Links


  13. #96
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,937
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gimpmaker View Post
    You need to vacate where you live. I'm sure someone owned it before you.
    Hey, don't look at me. I'm not the one complaining about federal land grabs. It seems the other poster was fine with federal land grabs as long as they were grabbing it from someone else.

  14. Sponsored Links


  15. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samson Corwell View Post
    They were not taken.
    If you say so.

  16. Sponsored Links


  17. #98
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    45,825
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samm View Post
    You completely missed the point about Vatican City. The claim was that we NEED national parks so that we wonít become mouth breathing cave men with no culture. Having Parks is a wonderful and desirable thing, but we do NOT NEED them in order to be a sophisticated society with great culture.

    Besides, NOBODY is trying or even talking about doing awaynwith ANY Park. The discussion is about reversing the flagrant abuse of the Antiquities Act that grossly expanded two National Monuments (not Parks) in Utah. This is not about either the need or the desire to have such protected places, it is about Government overreach and blatant abuse of power.

    We do NEED these protected lands to remain the america we are today.

    It's weird the way conservatives often fail to recognize certain elements of america. Well, it's not weird, it's just....shortsighted? Dumb? Willfully ignorant? Deceptive? not sure of the word.

    But here, because large corps want to exploit the land, suddenly america doesn't NEED vast expanses, the get wide open west, unrivaled natural beauty....

    Well, we do. This land is part of america. Without it, we would be something else. Our culture, our identity, our way of life would be fundamentally different.

    Cons do the same thing with entitlements all the time - they just fail to admit that they are actually part of the fabric of the america we - at least I - love today.

    Why? Because by denying them their due, they hope to profit. In the case of the parks, through mining and logging, and development, in the case of entitlements, through lowering their tax obligation and directing federal spending to their own profitable enterprises.

  18. Sponsored Links


  19. #99
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    across your supply lines
    Posts
    41,177
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samm View Post
    That's an awful lot of emotional outpouring about something that is not happening and will never happen. NOBODY is allowing National Parks to be exploited for resources by large corporations ... unless you want to consider the National Park Service a large corporation, that is.
    The language in the Antiquities Act is pretty clear and has oft en just been flat-out ignored. The Act can be used to preserve areas of particular natural beauty or historic significance. It should NOT be used to grab 10X as much land as necessary just to appease environmental extremists. There is a National Monument just up the road from me. It's a show cave run by the Park service and it's about the size of a large family farm. They didn't swipe half of Southern Indiana under the guise of protecting it.

  20. Sponsored Links


  21. #100
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Posts
    97,717
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tnt View Post
    We do NEED these protected lands to remain the america we are today.

    It's weird the way conservatives often fail to recognize certain elements of america. Well, it's not weird, it's just....shortsighted? Dumb? Willfully ignorant? Deceptive? not sure of the word.

    But here, because large corps want to exploit the land, suddenly america doesn't NEED vast expanses, the get wide open west, unrivaled natural beauty....

    Well, we do. This land is part of america. Without it, we would be something else. Our culture, our identity, our way of life would be fundamentally different.

    Cons do the same thing with entitlements all the time - they just fail to admit that they are actually part of the fabric of the america we - at least I - love today.

    Why? Because by denying them their due, they hope to profit. In the case of the parks, through mining and logging, and development, in the case of entitlements, through lowering their tax obligation and directing federal spending to their own profitable enterprises.
    That's an awful lot of emotional outpouring about something that is not happening and will never happen. NOBODY is allowing National Parks to be exploited for resources by large corporations ... unless you want to consider the National Park Service a large corporation, that is.

    "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

  22. Sponsored Links


  23. #101
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    central Illinois
    Age
    55
    Posts
    6,374
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toreyj01 View Post
    That its not just a Democratic thing, which is what he was implying.

    Look, if Conservatives want to not have National Parks, thats fine with me. We can just leave the land as is and fence it off. No one allowed on it.

    Fine with me.

    But I don't want anyone to ask to exploit our property for their financial gain. If anyone wants to mine on, cut lumber on, hunt on, graze their cattle on or extract oil from Federal land, they can get bent. Thats all of our land, not just the people who live in that state.
    Both parties are pretty screwed up in my opinion. I think what most people don't like about Trump is he is not towing the establishment line...not R or D, establishment as a whole, And they don't really like having their boat rocked.
    "The struggle of the Left to rationalize its positions is an intolerable, Sisyphean burden. I speak as a reformed liberal."
    David Mamet

  24. Sponsored Links


  25. #102
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Posts
    97,717
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wildmouse View Post
    The language in the Antiquities Act is pretty clear and has oft en just been flat-out ignored. The Act can be used to preserve areas of particular natural beauty or historic significance. It should NOT be used to grab 10X as much land as necessary just to appease environmental extremists. There is a National Monument just up the road from me. It's a show cave run by the Park service and it's about the size of a large family farm. They didn't swipe half of Southern Indiana under the guise of protecting it.
    Don't I know it! Jimmy Carter locked up 56 million acres in Alaska through the most extreme abuse of the Antiquities Act ever committed. In addition, he created several new National Parks, including three of the four largest Parks in the Country (his additions to Denali made it no. 3. No.s 1,2 and 4 were new, totaling ~ 19.5 million acres.) with virtually no input from anyone except environmentalists. That set the precedent ... now every Democrat President that comes along seems to think its in their job description to try to emulate Jimmy.

    "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

  26. Sponsored Links


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •