Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, December 05, 2017

The outdoor outfitter Patagonia is leading an effort to oppose President Trump's unprecedented move reducing the size of two national monuments in Utah by nearly 2 million acres combined. The company's website states, "In an illegal move, the president just reduced the size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments. This is the largest elimination of protected land in American history. ... Over 2.7 million public comments poured in during the Department of the Interior's 60-day comment period -- a record-breaking response. More than 98 percent of those comments expressed support for maintaining or expanding national monuments. Shutting down a national monument, or any major portion of a national monument, could have a devastating impact on local economies and the multibillion-dollar outdoor recreation economy that America's public lands and waterways support."

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This land is NOT your land.
How can a political body with such obvious contempt for its constituents continue to garner support from them? It's mind-boggling.

#1 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-12-06 07:12 AM | Reply

I have a few Patagonia products...but I'll never buy another.

This is a crock of ----. The lands are still public, and in fact are more accessible than they were. If anyone stole the land, it was Obama, who took easily accessible public lands and made them less accessible.

Thank god for Salomon, Acteryx, Mammut, and all the other companies that will now get my business. Better products anyway.

#2 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 08:58 AM | Reply

"The lands are still public"

Except yesterday, they couldn't be sold to private interests; now they can.

Before long, we'll have The Home Depot Grand Staircase.

#3 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-06 09:03 AM | Reply

"Except yesterday, they couldn't be sold to private interests; now they can."

Do they have a different owner now? My understanding is that these lands reverted to being under BLM management. Is that not correct?

Personally, I don't think there should be federal lands unless they're being used for s defined purpose. Let the states do what they want with the lands within the confines of their borders. But I do know from a vast amount of experience that if you want to engage in outdoor activities, BLM lands offer the most freedom and flexibility by a stretch.

#4 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 09:09 AM | Reply

"Before long, we'll have The Home Depot Grand Staircase."

And that's a problem why?

#5 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 09:10 AM | Reply

I assume you've recovered completely from your surgery Dan?

#6 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 09:10 AM | Reply

"And that's a problem why?"

Have you ever seen Niagra Falls, from the America side?

"I assume you've recovered completely from your surgery Dan?"

Yes, thanks. It was my second meniscus rehab, so I had a great roadmap from last time. I got 8 rehab sessions, so I talked my PT gal into one appointment every two weeks, just to give me new exercises and keep me on track. By the end, I was hopping for one minute on the rehabbed knee.

Anyone else going through this, I have a three rules for success: rehab, rehab, rehab.

#7 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-06 09:17 AM | Reply

#2
That is the same kind of shallow thinking that resulted in the American Indians losing their land.

#8 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2017-12-06 10:26 AM | Reply

"That is the same kind of shallow thinking that resulted in the American Indians losing their land."

What exactly made it their land to begin with?

#9 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 10:46 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Have you ever seen Niagra Falls, from the America side?"

Nope. But if Verizon wanted to dump a lot of money into becoming the official carrier for Yellowstone National Park, I fail to see how it would be a bad thing.

#10 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 10:52 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Personally, I don't think there should be federal lands unless they're being used for s defined purpose.

Yeah yeah of course.

Especially if there's some poor corporation somewhere who could be profiting from that land. God knows we can always use more clear cut forests, pit mines and superfund sites.

And that's a problem why?

#5 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Because you're an idiot.

What exactly made it their land to begin with?
#9 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

What made any of the land in the west those state's lands to begin with? Why, then, do the citizens bitch so much about something that isn't there's to control?

Nope. But if Verizon wanted to dump a lot of money into becoming the official carrier for Yellowstone National Park, I fail to see how it would be a bad thing.

#10 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Have you ever interacted with Verizon?

In any case, the best thing you've said all thread is "I fail to see", because you're one of those imagination lacking corporate sycophants who apparently was born to follow.

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-06 11:01 AM | Reply

"Especially if there's some poor corporation somewhere who could be profiting from that land."

I could give a ---- about corporations...but I do care about local stakeholders who've accessed the land for years are suddenly restricted from accessing those lands because a bunch of clueless progressives think that those citizens are better served that way.

"Because you're an idiot."

Exactly the response I would expect from a clueless progressive.

"because you're one of those imagination lacking corporate sycophants who apparently was born to follow."

Spare me the paternalistic finger-wagging...trying to present yourself as some sort of intellectual or critical thinker just makes you look more pathetic. But I'm sure your handlers are pleased.

Feel the Bern, dude.

#12 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 11:28 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Have you ever interacted with Verizon?"

Best cell service seen to date...and they seem to have done pretty well with the whole Amphitheater thing.

#13 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 11:28 AM | Reply

Spare me the paternalistic finger-wagging...trying to present yourself as some sort of intellectual or critical thinker just makes you look more pathetic.

Sure thing, bomber.

But it's not my fault that every post you write drips "I'm a follower".

I could give a ---- about corporations...

Yeah right. Do you really expect anyone to believe this?

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-06 11:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

But if Verizon wanted to dump a lot of money into becoming the official carrier for Yellowstone National Park, I fail to see how it would be a bad thing.

Some people like to experience nature without seeing corporate logos everywhere they turn. If you can't even recognize that simple fact then this dialogue is useless.

#15 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-06 12:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

I can't wait to take my grandkids to see the yellowstone oil fields and the Bears Ears strip mine.

Because corporations welcome the public at their sites, right?

host.madison.com

#16 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-12-06 12:06 PM | Reply

.but I do care about local stakeholders who've accessed the land for years are suddenly restricted from accessing those lands because a bunch of clueless progressives think that those citizens are better served that way.

What kind of restriction?

No more hunting/fishing/hiking? I'm OK with changing that.

No more making a mess with their ATeeVees? Too bad. No sympathy for that.

No more extremely low cost grazing? Torn on that one as it is a revenue stream but also why should those schmucks get that benefit for next to nothing?

No drilling/mining/clear cut logging? I'm OK with targeted logging as forest upkeep and maintenance, fire prevention ect. As for for no more drilling/mining? GOOD!

#17 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-06 12:08 PM | Reply

"But I do know from a vast amount of experience that if you want to engage in outdoor activities, BLM lands offer the most freedom and flexibility by a stretch.
#4 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER"

Freedom and flexibility maybe. But I would much rather fish the Gallatin in Yellowstone or the Snake in the Teton Range than a clearcut BLM-managed forest. Something about cows wading and -------- in the river in front of me, with a backdrop of ATV's screaming and spewing exhaust behind me, ruins the experience. Weird, I know.

#18 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2017-12-06 12:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"But it's not my fault that every post you write drips "I'm a follower".

A follower of what, exactly. if anything, you're biggest critique is that I'm not a follower of whomever you're following. That would be completely true.

"Yeah right. Do you really expect anyone to believe this?"

I really don't care. Just because you've been directed to focus on nonsensical progressive boilerplate doesn't mean that I can't be disinterested.

#19 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 01:03 PM | Reply

"No more hunting/fishing/hiking? I'm OK with changing that."

I know you are. Because you don't hunt, fish, hike, ride ATV's, bikes, pogo sticks, whatever. You're doing a very good job of helping me point out that urbanites who have zero stake in that land are more than willing to prohibit those who do from accessing it.

It would not be unlike the majority of Americans voting to sell Central Park. Or give it back to the Natives who occupied the land originally so they could build a casino. Because for me, New York City is flyover country. I fly over it every time I go to Europe and look down into Central Park. I don't use Central Park...so why not give it back to the natives? It wouldn't affect me one bit.

#20 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 01:10 PM | Reply

Freedom and flexibility maybe. But I would much rather fish the Gallatin in Yellowstone or the Snake in the Teton Range than a clearcut BLM-managed forest. Something about cows wading and -------- in the river in front of me, with a backdrop of ATV's screaming and spewing exhaust behind me, ruins the experience. Weird, I know.

#18 | Posted by mOntecOre

Stay home mon, we don't want you messing with any land in the mountain west.

#21 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-12-06 01:14 PM | Reply

"Freedom and flexibility maybe. But I would much rather fish the Gallatin in Yellowstone or the Snake in the Teton Range than a clearcut BLM-managed forest. Something about cows wading and -------- in the river in front of me, with a backdrop of ATV's screaming and spewing exhaust behind me, ruins the experience. Weird, I know."

I grew up in Idaho. Have you been there? it's not a National Park. You can't drive to a convenient parking spot and walk a few minutes to whatever it is you want to see. And maybe you're one of those who has the time to hike in several days to find the perfect fishing spot, or maybe you're of sufficient wealth to fly back in to the backcountry, or maybe take a jet boat...but most aren't.

And based on your comments, I'll hazard a guess that you don't live anywhere near Wyoming or Idaho, although you may visit once in a great while, and if you do happen to show up, you don't want to be disturbed by a bunch of locals out doing those things that they've always done. Amiright?

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 01:17 PM | Reply

"Stay home mon, we don't want you messing with any land in the mountain west."

Who else is going to tell us classless flyover country idiots how to behave?

#23 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 01:18 PM | Reply

"I don't use Central Park...so why not give it back to the natives? It wouldn't affect me one bit."

Why can't you just be outraged that you can't ride your ATV in Central Park?

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 01:20 PM | Reply

Thank god for Salomon, Acteryx, Mammut, and all the other companies that will now get my business. Better products anyway.

#2 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Aren't you the adventurer with a nice budget, but you're getting ripped off big time. It's too bad Decathlon and it's signature brands hasn't entered the US market. North Face styling and quality at a quarter of the price. Half my wardrobe and accessories in ski, aquatic, bike, mountain and even sport casual is from them.

#25 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2017-12-06 01:39 PM | Reply

A follower of what, exactly.

Anyone rich or a corporation.

If a rich person or a corporation is the subject of a thread, it's 100% guaranteed that you'll be there defending them with absurd arguments no matter what the issue is.

Just because you've been directed to focus on nonsensical progressive boilerplate doesn't mean that I can't be disinterested.

Nice word salad. Translation please?

#26 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-06 01:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I know you are. Because you don't hunt, fish, hike, ride ATV's, bikes, pogo sticks, whatever. You're doing a very good job of helping me point out that urbanites who have zero stake in that land are more than willing to prohibit those who do from accessing it.

I did hunt and fish when I lived in Texas. Would like to get back to both actually.

And I was saying those activities, along with hiking, limited logging and other non-motorized recreational activities (horseback riding, white water rafting ect) should be allowed.

It's the destructive activities such as mining, drilling and ATV riding that's the problem IMO.

As for who has a stake or not in that land I have just as much as a citizen of Utah or any other western state considering I'm an equal owner as a tax payer of the US. They have no greater stake to the land than anyone else as they nor their state have ever had ownership of it.

So why don't you present it accurately; they feel they should profit from publicly owned land simply because they're there and greed knows no bounds in the "Conservative" mindset.

I'll hazard a guess that you don't live anywhere near Wyoming or Idaho

Nope. I live in the midwest.

But I have an equal stake in that land as the residents do. What I don't have is the sense of entitlement to do whatever I want with it.

#27 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-06 01:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I'll hazard a guess that you don't live anywhere near Wyoming or Idaho, although you may visit once in a great while, and if you do happen to show up, you don't want to be disturbed by a bunch of locals out doing those things that they've always done. Amiright?
#22 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER"

No, you're not right. Well, you are in part. I am able to hike, fly in, etc. But I live in Oregon, which is pretty close to Idaho. We share a border. And I've been to Idaho many times - hunting, fishing, skiing, etc. The problem with this removal of protection, is that grazing, mining, and oil and gas exploration will now be permitted (along with jeeps, ATVs, etc.) in these areas. And the companies that do that destructive resource extraction will pay pennies on the dollar for what its worth, and they will not be required to clean up after themselves (because Trump is also removing the req't that such companies show that these have the resources to do such clean up before starting their destructive activities). So we'll be back to the days when Canadian mining companies come in, ---- up our rivers, and leave behind massive pollution before going bankrupt, just to start again somewhere else with a different name.

#28 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2017-12-06 03:04 PM | Reply

"it's not a National Park. You can't drive to a convenient parking spot and walk a few minutes to whatever it is you want to see."

This statement makes me wonder how many National Parks you've been to.

Beyond that, do you think national parks won't be worse to look at when they are smeared with corporate logo feces?

I guess you like looking at corporate logos. Do you have an Apple tattoo?

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 03:10 PM | Reply

"Why can't you just be outraged that you can't ride your ATV in Central Park?"

I think it should be given back to the Native Americans...and they can decide whether or not I ride my ATV there.

"Nice word salad. Translation please?"

translation: Just because you're obsessed with wealth and corporations (I'll hazard a guess and assume inequality and social justice fall in here somewhere as well) doesn't mean that everyone else is equally obsessed.

#30 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 03:57 PM | Reply

"But I have an equal stake in that land as the residents do."

And that's where you're wrong. You have zero stake in those lands. That's your sense of entitlement talking.

It's like me saying like I have a stake in Central Park. I don't. I have no objective reason I should be able to truthfully make that claim.

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 03:59 PM | Reply

"The problem with this removal of protection, is that grazing, mining, and oil and gas exploration will now be permitted (along with jeeps, ATVs, etc.) in these areas."

I get what you are saying...and If the state of Utah wanted to expand the monuments I would have zero issue with it. In fact the Utah State government did not want this, and requested the land be pulled from monument status. The people of Utah did not want the expansion, and a majority supported pulling out the additional lands.

It's the Federal government land grab that irks me. I would be just as irate if FEDGOV appropriated a state park so they could use it for exploration or extraction. These are decisions that should be left up to the stakeholders. Not politicians located thousands of miles away, supported by people who will never step foot in Utah.

#32 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 04:04 PM | Reply

"It's like me saying like I have a stake in Central Park. I don't." - #31 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 03:59 PM

Actually, you do. All of us do.

Just like we all have a stake in Glen Oak Park in Peoria.

#33 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-06 04:07 PM | Reply

It's the Federal government land grab that irks me.

Land grab? To control that which one owns is a land grab?

These are decisions that should be left up to the stakeholders. Not politicians located thousands of miles away, supported by people who will never step foot in Utah.

The citizens of Utah have no greater stake in this land than any other citizen of the US. The citizens of Utah disclaimed, forever, all rights and title to US public land in their constitution as a condition of annexation.

ARTICLE III

ORDINANCE

[Right to public domain disclaimed. Taxation of lands. Exemptions.] Second:--The people inhabiting this State do affirm and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries hereof, ... archives.utah.gov

#34 | Posted by et_al at 2017-12-06 04:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Just because you're obsessed with wealth and corporations

No, I'm just cognizant of their disproportionate power in this country and the detrimental effects of that power.

I'll hazard a guess and assume inequality and social justice fall in here somewhere as well

And you'd be, as with most everything else, wrong.

You have zero stake in those lands. That's your sense of entitlement talking.

LOL so land that belongs to every tax payer in this country is really just the state's lands claimed by entitled people living outside said states?

Do you stretch before thinking because this looks like you might pull something.

It's like me saying like I have a stake in Central Park.

If you were a tax payer in the city or state of NY you would be.

But you're not, correct? So it's a poor analogy.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-06 04:52 PM | Reply

Et_al beat me to it.

#36 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-06 04:53 PM | Reply

"I think it should be given back to the Native Americans...and they can decide whether or not I ride my ATV there"

Just Central Park, or the entire USA?

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 05:07 PM | Reply

"Land grab? To control that which one owns is a land grab?"

Wrong wording maybe, but same intent. FEDGOV still owns the land...it's just transferred from a department that allows a greater amount of access to one that places a greater number of restrictions on access.

"No, I'm just cognizant of their disproportionate power in this country and the detrimental effects of that power."

Any power they may nor may not have is ultimately derived from the people themselves, or given them by government. People or Government. Your problem originates with one of them.

"And you'd be, as with most everything else, wrong."

And I'm happy to hear that I'm wrong.

#38 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 06:07 PM | Reply

"And that's where you're wrong. You have zero stake in those lands. That's your sense of entitlement talking.
#31 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER"

Yeah, bull. I probably pay more in federal taxes in a month than you pay in a year. My tax dollars are used to maintain those federal lands. I have a stake in them. (Arguably more of a stake than Billy Bob, who lives next to the federal land and spends his welfare check (funded by me) on fuel for his broken down ATV that he rides on the public land.)

#39 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2017-12-06 07:12 PM | Reply

"Any power they may nor may not have is ultimately derived from the people themselves, or given them by government. People or Government. Your problem originates with one of them."

This doesn't follow. Regardless of where the power comes from, one can have a problem with how it is used. If I light your house on fire using solar power, your problem isn't with the sun.

Anyway, your effort to validate corporate behavior by noting that corporations theoretically derive their power from the people (customers, etc) is only convincing to your fellow lobotomized corporate stooges. The rest of us are well aware that participation in the market is not optional (unless you consider starvation alone in the woods to be a "live option"), that corporations manipulate demand by lying to consumers and hiding misconduct and suppress competition when and where they can (thereby starving consumers of the chance to go elsewhere) and promote a moral race to the bottom when they cannot (the companies that behave worse outcompete those who behave better).

#40 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-06 08:02 PM | Reply

And I'm happy to hear that I'm wrong.
#38 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-12-06 06:07 PM | FLAG:

People must look at you passing by and say "there goes the happiest man in the world."

#41 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-06 08:03 PM | Reply

I get what you are saying...and If the state of Utah wanted to expand the monuments I would have zero issue with it.

If you "get it," then why are you suddenly shifting from discussing the merits of protecting the land to a vague deferral to states rights?

#42 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-06 08:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Yeah, bull. I probably pay more in federal taxes in a month than you pay in a year. My tax dollars are used to maintain those federal lands. I have a stake in them."
And that means what, exactly?

Are you asserting that, the more the one pays in taxes, the greater the stake they have in society?

That's a spin I don't often see...but it's a point not without merit.

Where in Oregon, exactly, if you don't mind me asking. I graduated from high school a few miles outside Portland...or at least it used to be right outside Portland. I also lived in a tiny town called North Powder for a year, out between LaGrande and Baker City.

#43 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 10:26 PM | Reply

"Are you asserting that, the more the one pays in taxes, the greater the stake they have in society?"

Are you asserting that the rich don't have a greater stake in society than the poor?
Why bother getting rich then?

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 10:27 PM | Reply

"If you "get it," then why are you suddenly shifting from discussing the merits of protecting the land to a vague deferral to states rights?"

Because the state government of Utah, along with the people of Utah, did not want the expansion. And both again supported withdrawing those protected lands and placing them back under BLM control.

Is that somehow confusing?

#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 10:27 PM | Reply

Any power they may nor may not have is ultimately derived from the people themselves, or given them by government. People or Government. Your problem originates with one of them.

It's clearly the people.

Far too many are willing to vote against their best interests for short term gains.

However, once laws are being written to maintain or increase the stranglehold it's no longer in the People's hands.

Because the state government of Utah, along with the people of Utah, did not want the expansion. And both again supported withdrawing those protected lands and placing them back under BLM control.
Is that somehow confusing?

Not confusing but also not accurate.

thehill.com

It's basically 50/50 on both, with reduction of Bear's Ears and maintenance of Grand Staircase being the, technically, majority opinions.

So while I'm sure the government didn't want either because their corporate masters told them that that is their position, the citizens themselves are clearly quite divided on the matter.

#46 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-06 10:51 PM | Reply

This is an example of why running the country like a business is not efficient.

Trump's decision to act first and leave the people to ask questions later means your tax dollars will be spent defending this in multiple court cases, which is going to cost a lot more than the normal way.

Normally there would be hearings and public forums and grass-roots support, and it would drag on, and eventually it might ultimately get sorted out purely in the bureaucratic space, with all parties coming to an agreement.

That being said, there's no guarantees the Feds would change anything.

Enough about all that. Now that it's happened, why? Of all the lands Trump could resize, what is behind this one? Clearly, it's a real estate deal. What is the deal? Maybe this is just a trial balloon. But I also suspect someone got in his ear about it, maybe this is one of a zillion promises he made, than he can relatively expeditiously keep.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 11:06 PM | Reply

Because the state government of Utah, along with the people of Utah, did not want the expansion.

You really are dense, arent you. I'm not going to bother with someone who can't even read.

#48 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-07 08:12 AM | Reply

"Far too many are willing to vote against their best interests for short term gains."

This is the problem: You presume to know what the best interests are for the people of Utah. Unless you have psychic abilities that the rest of us lack, it's not possible for you to know that. More likely, you have what you consider to be your best interests, and you overlay those on everyone else. But to the people of Utah, expanding those lands may not have been in their interest at all. But by the virtue of the fact that a majority of Utah residents were against the expansion of the monument, and a majority support it being shrunk, I don't see how you can honestly say it's not in their best interest...because they seem to think it is.

#49 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-07 10:15 AM | Reply

"You presume to know what the best interests are"

When I do the math, and the math concludes Trump voters are going to be disproportionally hurt by the tax bill, am I presuming?

#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-07 10:20 AM | Reply

"Enough about all that. Now that it's happened, why? Of all the lands Trump could resize, what is behind this one? Clearly, it's a real estate deal. What is the deal? Maybe this is just a trial balloon. But I also suspect someone got in his ear about it, maybe this is one of a zillion promises he made, than he can relatively expeditiously keep."

I don't think you know the back story, Snoof. First off, Utah was not and is not a state that is particularly favorable towards Trump. This reduction of land in the National Monument was requested by the Governor of Utah, following the passing of a resolution that requested Trump to rescind Obama's designation of the area as a National Monument.

Trump was really only doing what the locals were asking him to do.

#51 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-07 10:24 AM | Reply

"You really are dense, arent you. I'm not going to bother with someone who can't even read."3

Not sure what you're getting at here Joe, but the simple fact is that a majority of Utah residents were against what Obama did when he designated these areas as a national Monument...is that something you want to try and disagree with?

#52 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-07 10:25 AM | Reply

"When I do the math, and the math concludes Trump voters are going to be disproportionally hurt by the tax bill, am I presuming?"

You are presuming.

If I recall, you have said that it is in the best interest of taxpayers to pay more, is that not correct?

Or are you not one of those who believes that some taxpayers should pay more?

#53 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-07 10:27 AM | Reply

That's a rhetorical question. Like I've said before, Trump got to office in large part due to the trailer park vote. I don't think that people who are paying little or nothing in taxes now will be paying little or noting in a year from now.

#54 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-07 10:28 AM | Reply

"Not sure what you're getting at here Joe, but the simple fact is that a majority of Utah residents were against what Obama did when he designated these areas as a national Monument...is that something you want to try and disagree with?"

In other news the majority of Utah residents vehemently disagreed with Obama when he said the sky is blue.

#55 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-07 10:38 AM | Reply

Mad, my only point was that you tried to get into the merits of land protection with Monte, but then as soon as he schooled you on that front, you wanted nothing to do with the details but instead reverted to a generic reliance on states rights.

#56 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-07 10:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You are presuming. "

How does math presume? It's clear, and the numbers aren't close.

"If I recall, you have said that it is in the best interest of taxpayers to pay more, is that not correct?"

I've said it's in the best interest if we pay for what we spend.

"Or are you not one of those who believes that some taxpayers should pay more?"

I freely admit I believe in a progressive income tax system. We have plenty of regressive taxes. I also believe the wealthier get a lot more out of, say, the banking system and the SEC than the minimum wage worker.

#57 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-07 10:54 AM | Reply

Trump was really only doing what the locals were asking him to do.

#51 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-12-07 10:24 AM | FLAG:

The locals or the corporate interests eager to exploit the land?

#58 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 11:06 AM | Reply

"I don't think that people who are paying little or nothing in taxes now will be paying little or noting in a year from now."

But they'll be paying more in insurance premiums than they'll be "saving" in income taxes. And in the long run, a lot more. In addition, they'll be paying off another $2 trillion in debt, and won't have as much access to education or credit as they would've without this tax bill. The change in SS to chained CPI alone will cost them more than any tax savings.

Also, stop with the "pay little or nothing in taxes" crap. You're pretending 43% of government revenues don't exist. Don't forget: Dubya based YOUR income tax cut on payroll tax overcollections.

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-07 11:11 AM | Reply

Because the state government of Utah, along with the people of Utah, did not want the expansion. And both again supported withdrawing those protected lands and placing them back under BLM control.
Is that somehow confusing?

#45 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-12-06 10:27 PM | REPLY

It is not Utah land it is federal land. The state of Utah has no standing in the issue and the people of Utah are less than 1% of the US population who collectively own that land.

#60 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-12-07 11:32 AM | Reply

Funny how the wing dings are happy to take away property rights to please the mob if the property owner is the U.S. government.

#61 | Posted by bored at 2017-12-07 11:46 AM | Reply

"Mad, my only point was that you tried to get into the merits of land protection with Monte, but then as soon as he schooled you on that front, you wanted nothing to do with the details but instead reverted to a generic reliance on states rights."

You're seeing what you want to see, Joe. As I said earlier, I would be equally irked if president Trump had, by decree, taken these lands and handed them to Anaconda mining, against the wishes of the stakeholders. But that's not the case here. the local people of Utah didn't support the expansion of the monument, they wanted it removed, the appealed to Trump to do so, and Trump did. I have zero ----- to give about the opinions of people who have never stepped foot in the state of Utah, much less one of these monuments.

#62 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-07 12:40 PM | Reply

And Monte's point was that, if he were to go to one of these places, he doesn't want to be bothered by the locals. I would be hard pressed to come up with a more elitist answer. argument.

#63 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-07 12:42 PM | Reply

"The locals or the corporate interests eager to exploit the land?"

The locals.

In this case the Utah State Legislature that requested Trump withdraw those lands from Notational Monument status. They had originally fought Obama on it, but Obama told them to screw off. This was a gift to his buddies in DC, NY, and CA. Maybe Patagonia gave him a free shirt or two in return.

"It is not Utah land it is federal land. The state of Utah has no standing in the issue and the people of Utah are less than 1% of the US population who collectively own that land."

That's correct. And this is why the people of Utah who used that land had little recourse when Obama restricted access to it. Also likely why they appealed to the current senior federal executive to reverse that ruling. I'm sure they're getting their snow machines ready as we speak.

#64 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-07 12:47 PM | Reply

'The locals. In this case the Utah State Legislature"

Make up your mind.

#65 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-07 12:52 PM | Reply

"The locals.
In this case the Utah State Legislature"

Who are so beholden to special interest they don't want the lands to be as protected as possible even if they ARE in their own backyard. Got it.

Why don't you tell us more happy tales of all the strip mines that will get to reopen now?

#66 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 12:57 PM | Reply

#63

Lie some more, you hack. You are the one who brought up having a stake in the land and when it was quite rightly thrown back in your face, you cobble together some strawman about elitism.

#67 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 01:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

www.google.com

Hear that sports fans? The largest elimination of protected land in ALL of US history! And you have the current regime to thank for it. Conservatives, THIS is your brand.

#68 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 01:12 PM | Reply

www.theindigenousamericans.com

Do native groups count as having a "stake" in the land where generations of their ancestors are buried?

#69 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 01:14 PM | Reply

"Make up your mind."

You don't count the Utah State Legislature as being local?

Not that it matters...the non-politician locals wanted the act undone as well.

"Why don't you tell us more happy tales of all the strip mines that will get to reopen now?"

So what if they do? Bring in an industry that provides jobs and local revenues? Let em.

And if you're so against it, get with your lady friends at Patagonia and pool your cash. Pay the people not to do something you disagree with.

I mean, I know that would inconvenience you. Easier to tell them to go ---- themselves than actually put your money where you mouth is.

"Lie some more, you hack. You are the one who brought up having a stake in the land and when it was quite rightly thrown back in your face, you cobble together some strawman about elitism."

This doesn't sound elitist to you?

"Something about cows wading and -------- in the river in front of me, with a backdrop of ATV's screaming and spewing exhaust behind me, ruins the experience. Weird, I know."

Who do you think it running those cows, or riding those ATVs?

#70 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-07 01:29 PM | Reply

"Do native groups count as having a "stake" in the land where generations of their ancestors are buried?"

No more so than any other resident who's ancestors are buried there...

#71 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-07 01:30 PM | Reply

"So what if they do? Bring in an industry that provides jobs and local revenues? Let em."

You are a corporate shill who has no problem with corporate interests despoiling the land.

"And if you're so against it, get with your lady friends at Patagonia and pool your cash. Pay the people not to do something you disagree with."

So, the corporate interests should be able to hold the land hostage? Pay us or we strip mine the hell out of it? Allow me to propose an alternative: we form some sort of organization, a government, say, to act on the people's behalf to curtail things like the abuse of the environment and the desecration of historic sites.

#72 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 01:40 PM | Reply

No more so than any other resident who's ancestors are buried there...

#71 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-12-07 01:30 PM | FLAG:

Clearly you have no more respect for history, religious beliefs, or rival sovereignty than you do for the environment. Sad.

#73 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 01:41 PM | Reply

I love how despite taking the worst beat down I've ever seen on the DR, bomber keeps plodding along with his made up, no basis in law or reality nonsense.

Now the ignorant fool has moved on to supporting stripmine operations because they provide jerbs and are just moving dirt around.

It's amazing, I think I've met (digitally, at least) a single person who encapsulates every single thing that's wrong with this country.

#74 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-07 01:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"And that means what, exactly?
Are you asserting that, the more the one pays in taxes, the greater the stake they have in society?
#43 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER"

No. I was refuting your claim that, unless one lives adjacent to federal land, one has no stake in it.

Along with spending my tax dollars to maintain public land in Utah, I've spent a lot of time there. Off the top of my head, I've been to Moab, Arches, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef, Bryce Canyon, Zion, Alta, Snowbird, Little Cottonwood Canyon, SLC, etc. etc.

Your argument, that only people who live in a state containing federal land have a say over how that federal land is used, is wrong.

#75 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2017-12-07 03:16 PM | Reply

It's the Federal government land grab that irks me. I would be just as irate if FEDGOV appropriated a state park so they could use it for exploration or extraction. These are decisions that should be left up to the stakeholders. Not politicians located thousands of miles away, supported by people who will never step foot in Utah.
#32 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

...it was already federal land. They just designated it a national park to protect it.

#76 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-12-07 04:36 PM | Reply

"You are a corporate shill who has no problem with corporate interests despoiling the land."

I'm a shill for the people of Utah. If they're cool with fully restricting access to these lands, I fully support. If they want to develop them economically, I'm fine with that as well. What I am un-OK with is you projecting your own ideas of how things should be on others...And I would be just as irked if they were doing it to you.

"So, the corporate interests should be able to hold the land hostage?"

It's not corporate interests, nitwit. It's the residents of the state of Utah. WTF is wrong with you?

"It's amazing, I think I've met (digitally, at least) a single person who encapsulates every single thing that's wrong with this country."

Yeah...the feeling is mutual, lil buddy.

"No. I was refuting your claim that, unless one lives adjacent to federal land, one has no stake in it."

How do you refute that?

I mean, you can. Hitler and his henchmen felt that they were stakeholders in most of Europe. The fact that the residents of these other countries was immaterial to them, just as it is to you.

"Your argument, that only people who live in a state containing federal land have a say over how that federal land is used, is wrong."

And that's a fair statement. What's unfair is to claim that the people of Utah don't really deserve any greater say in the matter than someone from California or New York. I don't think you've really been pushing that position, but it seems clear that many here have.

#77 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-07 05:31 PM | Reply

"...it was already federal land. They just designated it a national park to protect it."

And then undesignated it...at the request of the state of Utah.

#78 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-07 05:31 PM | Reply

#77 yeah you're a real man of the people I'm sure 😒

#79 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-07 06:00 PM | Reply

"#77 yeah you're a real man of the people I'm sure"

Who do you think most represents the position of the people of Utah on this matter? You or I?

#80 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-07 07:31 PM | Reply

"I mean, you can. Hitler and his henchmen felt that they were stakeholders in most of Europe. The fact that the residents of these other countries was immaterial to them, just as it is to you."

Absurd hyperbole.

The point was that he uses the land and helps to pay for it, perhaps more than those who live closer. And your response is that he is literally like Hitler? And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

#81 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 09:12 PM | Reply

Who do you think most represents the position of the people of Utah on this matter? You or I?

#80 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-12-07 07:31 PM | FLAG:

Given that you are a confessed rapacious corporate stooge who is fine with desecration and strip mining? Not you.

#82 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 09:14 PM | Reply

Who do you think most represents the position of the people of Utah 0.00944289693% of the stakeholders on this matter? You or I?

FTFY

#83 | Posted by et_al at 2017-12-07 09:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Absurd hyperbole."

I'm sure that Himmler said the exact same thing...right before ordering the SS to execute those who made the statement.

"And you wonder why no one takes you seriously."

I don't get taken seriously because I don't ramble on endlessly about income inequality and social justice and other meaningless garbage that makes of the foundation of progressive doctrine today. I'm cool with that.

#84 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-08 07:28 PM | Reply

"I don't ramble on endlessly about income inequality"

Actually you kinda do. You kinda just did, even.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-08 07:45 PM | Reply

"I'm sure that Himmler said the exact same thing...right before ordering the SS to execute those who made the statement."

And there you go doubling down! Hilarious.

"I don't get taken seriously because I don't ramble on endlessly about income inequality and social justice and other meaningless garbage that makes of the foundation of progressive doctrine today. I'm cool with that."

And there's the persecution complex.

#86 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 07:56 PM | Reply

"Actually you kinda do. You kinda just did, even."

Yeah, yeah yeah...but still not as much as the progressives...

#87 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-08 08:46 PM | Reply

"And there's the persecution complex."

I carry that Jew-Kulak blood...what can I say?

#88 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-08 08:47 PM | Reply

This is where wing dings argue that the state government can dictate to land owners how to use their land.
Hilarious.
The land is federally owned land. The state of Utah should have no more say over this land than privately owned land.

#89 | Posted by bored at 2017-12-08 09:05 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort