If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salt Lake Tribune)   UT GOP Congressmen force a rider into the Hurricane Sandy relief bill that prohibits the Federal government from expanding any national parks-and then vote against the bill anyway   (sltrib.com) divider line 52
    More: Asinine, Hurricane Sandy, public access, Icing on the Cake, Jason Chaffetz, Ellis Island, party-line vote, Interior Secretary, federal government  
•       •       •

1600 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jan 2013 at 2:58 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-16 01:39:43 PM
Makes sense. You don't want something to pass, however if it does pass you can do a little good with it.
 
2013-01-16 01:42:57 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Makes sense. You don't want something to pass, however if it does pass you can do a little good with it.



Threadshiatter ... drink!
 
2013-01-16 01:55:47 PM
Sun-Drop Party.
 
2013-01-16 02:01:44 PM
Adding unrelated BS provisions to a bill is a good thing when Republicans do it
 
2013-01-16 02:09:58 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Adding unrelated BS provisions to a bill is a good thing when Republicans do it


and Ironically the reason most of the GOP memebers who voted en masse against this bill gave for doing so was all the (non-existant) pork and unrleated spending the bill contained.
 
2013-01-16 02:12:30 PM
Were we in danger of expanding Federal Parks?

// Obama did allow people to carry firearms in parks, maybe Congress is now worried that armed bands of parksgoers will attempt to conquer more land?
 
2013-01-16 02:13:24 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Adding unrelated BS provisions to a bill is a good thing when Republicans do it


well that is obvious.
 
2013-01-16 02:16:23 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Makes sense. You don't want something to pass, however if it does pass you can do a little good with it.


And what good would that be?
 
2013-01-16 02:28:46 PM

Magorn: Peter von Nostrand: Adding unrelated BS provisions to a bill is a good thing when Republicans do it

and Ironically the reason most of the GOP memebers who voted en masse against this bill gave for doing so was all the (non-existant) pork and unrleated spending the bill contained.


Yep. The GOP really is getting to be outright embarrassment
 
2013-01-16 02:31:41 PM

Lionel Mandrake: And what good would that be?


Fewer bears coming to take our guns.
 
2013-01-16 02:41:05 PM
What "good" is accomplished with a ban on expanding National Parks?
 
2013-01-16 02:51:06 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Lionel Mandrake: And what good would that be?

Fewer bears coming to take our guns.


Goddam liberal bears
 
2013-01-16 02:51:35 PM
Can't have more parks. What a terrible thing to have. *rolls eyes*

This is probably more about giving this land to mining companies so they can exploit it and extract their monies for a massive profit to them, and little ROI to land or the people who live in said state.
 
2013-01-16 03:00:29 PM

Jackson Herring: What "good" is accomplished with a ban on expanding National Parks?


Expansion of America's drilling and logging industries.
 
2013-01-16 03:00:46 PM

Jackson Herring: What "good" is accomplished with a ban on expanding National Parks?


Gives them another chance to twirl their Snidely Whiplash moustaches.
 
2013-01-16 03:00:46 PM
content.artofmanliness.com
Teddy Roosevelt frowns on your shenanigans.
 
2013-01-16 03:04:06 PM
I can see why Utah congressmen would hate national parks. The national parks in Utah are worthless and are absolutely KILLING the state's economy.
 
2013-01-16 03:06:30 PM
Expanding the national parks is done to force people from rural areas into mega cities.

It's inventory control.

Wake up sheeple!
 
2013-01-16 03:06:49 PM

Lionel Mandrake: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Makes sense. You don't want something to pass, however if it does pass you can do a little good with it.

And what good would that be?


What don't you understand? It was a failsafe move.
 
2013-01-16 03:08:20 PM
That's nice, but it has no teeth since it wasn't a budget bill
 
2013-01-16 03:10:32 PM
Republican obstructionism shouldn't surprise anyone anymore. It's a given that they'll try to block everything, including their own bills.
 
2013-01-16 03:11:32 PM
Obama is going to designate the entirety of Arizona as a park on his way out.

fark you, Mum'Ra Brewer
 
2013-01-16 03:13:33 PM
sounds like typical partisan MO to me.
 
2013-01-16 03:14:45 PM

The Dog Ate My Homework: I can see why Utah congressmen would hate national parks. The national parks in Utah are worthless and are absolutely KILLING the state's economy.


But now Rep. Bishop can say he voted against those ebil Northeastern liberals who tried to kill Utah's national parks.
 
2013-01-16 03:15:03 PM

Nadie_AZ: Can't have more parks. What a terrible thing to have. *rolls eyes*
This is probably more about giving this land to mining companies so they can exploit it and extract their monies for a massive profit to them, and little ROI to land or the people who live in said state.


Drilling and mining. Something's up----I got a call from a pollster the other day about this subject. Of course you can't tell (or you're not supposed to be able to tell) which side the caller is on, but I think it was a green group trying to find out what people thought about public lands and increased mining and drilling. How important are the public lands (in my state--VERY), do they bring in tourists, do we need more of them leased out for oil and gas exploration, should we sell off some of them to help pay off the debt?

I don't why I keep getting these calls, but whoever does these phone polls knows some things. They're always asking about subjects that won't hit the news for another six months.
 
2013-01-16 03:16:26 PM

Jackson Herring: What "good" is accomplished with a ban on expanding National Parks?


Drill baby drill
 
2013-01-16 03:18:16 PM

dynomutt: Expanding the national parks is done to force people from rural areas into mega cities.
It's inventory control.
Wake up sheeple!


No, baby, just the opposite. We lure you out here with this

www.gtlc.com

and then we take all your money, enabling us to live through another winter, and send you back to your rat's maze. Thank you!
 
2013-01-16 03:21:08 PM
They cling to their guns and their Bibles as they slide into irrelevancy.
 
2013-01-16 03:22:18 PM
Congress is broken.

//as punishment Fartbongo should sell Moab to 6 Flags.
 
2013-01-16 03:25:58 PM
Teddy Roosevelt frowns on your shenanigans.
 
2013-01-16 03:29:11 PM
Didn't GOPers originally refuse to allow Sandy aid on the grounds that the bill included unrelated content?
 
2013-01-16 03:31:29 PM

cryinoutloud: dynomutt: Expanding the national parks is done to force people from rural areas into mega cities.
It's inventory control.
Wake up sheeple!

No, baby, just the opposite. We lure you out here with this

[www.gtlc.com image 698x269]

and then we take all your money, enabling us to live through another winter, and send you back to your rat's maze. Thank you!



There's a little too many people on that mountain for my taste.

I know the article said something about conservationists concerns over the measure having to do with the USFS being able to repair damaged parking lots or add new ones.  I like the idea of more land for the national parks/forests but I don't really care for the ease of access in many cases.  The last thing they need is more parking lots.  Allow access but if you want to go back in, you have to hoof it.  I would rather not see California-like permit systems *everywhere*.
 
2013-01-16 03:40:12 PM
Adding anything to a bill should automatically cause your subsequent vote to be recorded as "Yea". It would end a lot of crap from both sides, but mostly GOPers trying to to maintain an air of "fiscal conservative" when they are anything but.
 
2013-01-16 03:51:04 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Lionel Mandrake: And what good would that be?

Fewer bears coming to take our guns.

Goddam liberal bears


The second amendment does make more sense when you parse it:

A well regulated [and totally tits-awesome bear] Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and [allow bears to] bear Arms [like cool steam-punk mechanical bear arms n' shiat. and grenade launchers], shall not be infringed
 
2013-01-16 03:54:10 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Didn't GOPers originally refuse to allow Sandy aid on the grounds that the bill included unrelated content?


Yeah but that was like 2 weeks ago. Opinions can change!
 
2013-01-16 04:29:41 PM
They should ne buried up to their eyes and left for the ants.
 
2013-01-16 04:44:21 PM
They can campaign to the more moderate people in their constituency that they did a good thing by voting against a bill to keep from expanding national parks.
 
2013-01-16 05:17:05 PM

UberDave: There's a little too many people on that mountain for my taste.
I know the article said something about conservationists concerns over the measure having to do with the USFS being able to repair damaged parking lots or add new ones. I like the idea of more land for the national parks/forests but I don't really care for the ease of access in many cases. The last thing they need is more parking lots. Allow access but if you want to go back in, you have to hoof it. I would rather not see California-like permit systems *everywhere*.


Yeah, I know. I used to backpack the backcountry when you didn't run into too many people. : (

It's getting worse and worse. I've lived close to Yellowstone for over 20 years now. They've had to do massive upgrades to all the parking lots, roads, bathrooms, just to keep up with the tourists. Grand Teton is getting lots more building too, on that inner loop road where everyone likes to go. The parks are packed. I think Yellowstone gets almost twice as many visitors per year than it did when I moved here.

They just can't handle all the people. You don't really notice the increase unless you're around it all the time, since to most visitors it's still pretty unpopulated. And you have to build the infrastructure, or they'll keep coming anyway, and just wreck everything. Well, I like to go to national parks too. But I don't go to most of them during high season anymore.
 
2013-01-16 05:22:03 PM
Guys, I'm not seeing a problem here.

He's not saying to ban the parks from buying any more land for parks. He's saying they can't use the SANDY money to repair damaged parks to buy new park land.
 
2013-01-16 06:21:31 PM
If there was a drinking game for this, I'd have to check into the Betty Ford Clinic.
 
2013-01-16 07:08:07 PM

The Dog Ate My Homework: I can see why Utah congressmen would hate national parks. The national parks in Utah are worthless and are absolutely KILLING the state's economy.


The rocks in my backyard are having the same effect on me.
 
2013-01-16 07:52:28 PM

Jackson Herring: What "good" is accomplished with a ban on expanding National Parks?


We won't preserve waste any of our natural resources for our children, and children's children for centuries to come on socialism?
 
2013-01-16 09:12:17 PM

cryinoutloud: UberDave: There's a little too many people on that mountain for my taste.
I know the article said something about conservationists concerns over the measure having to do with the USFS being able to repair damaged parking lots or add new ones. I like the idea of more land for the national parks/forests but I don't really care for the ease of access in many cases. The last thing they need is more parking lots. Allow access but if you want to go back in, you have to hoof it. I would rather not see California-like permit systems *everywhere*.

Yeah, I know. I used to backpack the backcountry when you didn't run into too many people. : (

It's getting worse and worse. I've lived close to Yellowstone for over 20 years now. They've had to do massive upgrades to all the parking lots, roads, bathrooms, just to keep up with the tourists. Grand Teton is getting lots more building too, on that inner loop road where everyone likes to go. The parks are packed. I think Yellowstone gets almost twice as many visitors per year than it did when I moved here.

They just can't handle all the people. You don't really notice the increase unless you're around it all the time, since to most visitors it's still pretty unpopulated. And you have to build the infrastructure, or they'll keep coming anyway, and just wreck everything. Well, I like to go to national parks too. But I don't go to most of them during high season anymore.



Well, if you are near Yellowstone, at least you are really close to some prime backcountry with awesome isolation....particularly in Idaho.  I have my heart set on a the area around Hell Roaring Lake (looking to attempt a climb).  It's what I should have done the year before last but I wasn't trained up so I went for Grand Teton.  While beautiful, it was really disappointing - people everywhere and the mountain guides seem to despise anyone who is not in a guide group.  And the mountain itself is practically trampled.  The trail basically ends at Garnet Canyon and there are lines everywhere (topo and gps do not help)

I like the way Colorado will often do things.  If they have a road that offers too much access and gets too much traffic, they will not go to a permit system...They just close the damn road and allow foot traffic only.  Most people think twice about making a 5-mile 3500' climb to a picturesque basin a day hike. :)
 
2013-01-16 09:24:31 PM

kmmontandon: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Makes sense. You don't want something to pass, however if it does pass you can do a little good with it.


Threadshiatter ... drink!


I bet that is the exact words that the Congressional Aides said when the rider was added.
 
2013-01-16 11:07:52 PM

Dr Dreidel: Were we in danger of expanding Federal Parks?


There's a really good reason for this that most people outside of Utah wouldn't have been exposed to. The best analysis I could find on short notice is here: The Grand Staircase Escalante Land Grab

TL:DR Clinton screwed Utah by unilaterally designating 1.7 million acres of low sulfur coal-rich Utah as a National Monument. This was potentially done to protect the business interests of the Lippo Group, a major contributor to Clinton and the Democratic party and the owners of the only other major source of low sulfur coal (in Indonesia)
 
2013-01-16 11:16:18 PM
This link is obviously INCREDIBLY biased, but has some very good objective information that I couldn't find a better source for in a short period of time.
 
2013-01-16 11:47:26 PM

Jackson Herring: What "good" is accomplished with a ban on expanding National Parks?


I believe the president has the power to create and expand national parks.

Why republicans want to take that away is something to ask them.
 
2013-01-17 12:17:35 AM
Hating national parks like those clowns do is just downright un-American. Creeps.
 
2013-01-17 12:21:00 AM

cryinoutloud: dynomutt: Expanding the national parks is done to force people from rural areas into mega cities.
It's inventory control.
Wake up sheeple!

No, baby, just the opposite. We lure you out here with this

[www.gtlc.com image 698x269]

and then we take all your money, enabling us to live through another winter, and send you back to your rat's maze. Thank you!


Wow. Which park is that?
 
2013-01-17 12:28:12 AM

moderatemormon: Dr Dreidel: Were we in danger of expanding Federal Parks?

There's a really good reason for this that most people outside of Utah wouldn't have been exposed to. The best analysis I could find on short notice is here: The Grand Staircase Escalante Land Grab

TL:DR Clinton screwed Utah by unilaterally designating 1.7 million acres of low sulfur coal-rich Utah as a National Monument. This was potentially done to protect the business interests of the Lippo Group, a major contributor to Clinton and the Democratic party and the owners of the only other major source of low sulfur coal (in Indonesia)


Why didn't Bush undesignate it?
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report