Yeah, President Theodore Roosevelt knew nothing about being a Republican.

Sen. Leach is the main driver of the BBB in order to sell public land.

The new GOP fake conservatives.

If you care about debt, well.

Did you see how much THE MAGA ARSEHOLE is adding to the debt??

five republicans say they won't vote to sell public land

https://www.google.com/search?...IB0Y&sclient=gws-wiz

Senate begins open votes to present this monster to the Floor.

It appears that the public land sale provision was removed from the bill. Senator Lee had plenty of push back from hunters, anglers and other users of our public lands. I am delighted to see that this has been defeated.

It says a lot that it was even on the table.

I can't think of a single redeeming republican quality, especially considering their down-side.

Republicans no longer stand for conservation, liberty or even decency. They adore liars, bullies and traitors to the Constitution. They are as bankrupt as the Democrats when it comes to core values shared by most Americans.
A pox on both their vile houses.

Medicaid cuts clear first hurdle for tax cuts that will not benefit anywhere near the majority of individuals nor increase hiring.

Fake conservatives rejoice.

Oh, and a GOP Congress and President passed and signed Medicaid.

Blocked but not stopped:

But, the Utah Republican indicated in his post on Saturday that he would work with President Donald Trump to find uses for what he described as “underutilized” lands.

“President Trump promised to put underutilized federal land to work for American families, and I look forward to helping him achieve that in a way that respects the legacy of our public lands and reflects the values of people who use them most,” he wrote.

While the measure had some GOP support, it also received pushback from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

Opponents included a group of five House Republicans who said they would vote no if the final bill contained the measure.

I always thought it would be Dems who would try to develop our public lands to build housing projects in rural red states to move urban overpopulation to red states.

How the world turns.

Let’s not pay, maintain correctly, and improve upon our conservation legacy. Let us let it lay dormant, unmanaged, turn into fire hazards then sell it off for development. The fake conservative way.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
It appears that the public land sale provision was removed from the bill. Senator Lee had plenty of push back from hunters, anglers and other users of our public lands. I am delighted to see that this has been defeated.

Is the Government that hard up for money or do they want it to go to pre-determined buyers who will use it for financial gain or to consolidate their existing land holdings?

and yet some followers of the cult of the supreme leader agree with that ...

quote:

Originally posted by medved:
and yet some followers of the cult of the supreme leader agree with that ...

We get it, you are an under informed foreigner.. nancy is NOT a conservative.. poor thing

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
It appears that the public land sale provision was removed from the bill. Senator Lee had plenty of push back from hunters, anglers and other users of our public lands. I am delighted to see that this has been defeated.

Is the Government that hard up for money or do they want it to go to pre-determined buyers who will use it for financial gain or to consolidate their existing land holdings?

The author was from Utah. Of course those buyers are pre-determined.

Nobody is selling NF lands or BLM for that matter
There have a,ways been voices for selling lands owning by Feds/us
Exchanges have been going on for years yes
All this screaming and crying and accusations are just political posturing, nothing more and nothing less
Ultimately nothing is going to happen

Trump is for it, and at least 1 R Senator.

Do not list lies get in the way of narrative.

Make sure not to mention Biden approving of the sale of land to Clark County Nevada for houses.
Or that he signed legislation introduced by D. Susie Lee, to speed up land transactions in the Dept of the Interior.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

Do not list lies get in the way of narrative.

If you meant "let" rather than list, then, yeah words to live by

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Trump is for it, and at least 1 R Senator.

Do not list lies get in the way of narrative.

And, just like that.. its gone

quote:

Mike Lee preemptively drops 'big beautiful bill' provision to sell federal lands

Senate removes provision that would sell off public lands from megabill https://share.google/KlYvoucdepKwANXsM

I started this video at the place where the narrator talks about Elon Musk's objections to the Bill.

https://youtu.be/CWq7u9rJVh8?s...9_1DEyPK3e-6uW&t=505

(the ads are easy to skip over)

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Make sure not to mention Biden approving of the sale of land to Clark County Nevada for houses.
Or that he signed legislation introduced by D. Susie Lee, to speed up land transactions in the Dept of the Interior.

Completely true:

https://www.blm.gov/press-rele...re-housing-and-lower

A bipartisan effort endorsed by members of both parties.


https://problemsolverscaucus.h...n-efforts-aace-act-0


The sale in Nevada of 20 acres seems like a more targeted effort than Senator Lee's proposal to sell of 3,200 square miles I would say.

It is a matter of how things are done as much as it is the goal at hand, that much should be clear at this point. A scaled down effort of select properties in urban interfaces would likely have been received better than what was proposed.

Senator Lee's plan was terrible and was justly rebuked.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Trump is for it, and at least 1 R Senator.

Do not list lies get in the way of narrative.

And, just like that.. its gone

quote:

Mike Lee preemptively drops 'big beautiful bill' provision to sell federal lands

Senate removes provision that would sell off public lands from megabill https://share.google/KlYvoucdepKwANXsM

No shit Sherlock, that was pointed out much earlier in the thread by myself. Please try to follow along Honey.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Make sure not to mention Biden approving of the sale of land to Clark County Nevada for houses.
Or that he signed legislation introduced by D. Susie Lee, to speed up land transactions in the Dept of the Interior.

Completely true:

https://www.blm.gov/press-rele...re-housing-and-lower

A bipartisan effort endorsed by members of both parties.


https://problemsolverscaucus.h...n-efforts-aace-act-0


The sale in Nevada of 20 acres seems like a more targeted effort than Senator Lee's proposal to sell of 3,200 square miles I would say.

It is a matter of how things are done as much as it is the goal at hand, that much should be clear at this point. A scaled down effort of select properties in urban interfaces would likely have been received better than what was proposed.

Senator Lee's plan was terrible and was justly rebuked.

If President Biden were president and trying to pass a bill to do it now, I would say so.

Keep talking about Biden. It makes you feel better then confront the matters of the day.

M shy said it has been going on for years eggbert.
You revert it to R only. shy was right, that was my point.
I dont like any of it. 20 acres here, add another 40 there, keep going. If it is not allowed at all, it would be far better.
But, keep on with the ranting and the egg price lies.

Again, keep taking about President Biden while this guy and a group of politicians scheme to sake off public lands.

I was making this a point years ago.


Keep trying to distract folks.

When President Biden or a Dem in 2025 or beyond stumps and pressures for the sale off of public lands to private developers, we will object to that too.

Until then, some of us will discuss what matters, thst bring the current GOP attempt to destroy our legacy of conservation inherited by the GOP from President Theadore Roosevelt.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
M shy said it has been going on for years eggbert.
You revert it to R only. shy was right, that was my point.
I dont like any of it. 20 acres here, add another 40 there, keep going. If it is not allowed at all, it would be far better.
But, keep on with the ranting and the egg price lies.

Some exchanges and sales of small parcels in urban areas make sense. I see a very big difference between targeted sales of small pieces and Senator Lee's proposal to sell off approximately 2 million acres.

Both sides might support sales of public land in certain circumstances, it was a GOP senator who proposed the mass sell off, credit where credit is due.

And which of them actually sold land as opposed to talking about it?
Things that dont go anywhere do not upset me like they do you, I guess.
The selling of smaller parcels should concern people too. It is all chipping away at federal land. I brought it up when it happened under Biden, but no response from anyone.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
And which of them actually sold land as opposed to talking about it?
Things that dont go anywhere do not upset me like they do you, I guess.
The selling of smaller parcels should concern people too. It is all chipping away at federal land. I brought it up when it happened under Biden, but no response from anyone.

I responded that sales of smaller parcels often make senses, especially in urban areas. I also pointed out that was legislation that came from a bipartisan committee and had support from plenty of people on both sides of the aisle, not just Biden.

So we should wait until the sale is complete to voice our displeasure? Nah, I don't think so. Mike Lee had strong push back from the public, that and the Senate parliamentarian ruled the proposed sale to not meet the Byrd rule led to his withdrawal of the proposal.

It was a shit idea to sell off 2 million acres of public land, it just so happens that it was a GOP Senator that made the proposal.

I brought up in it's own thread, Biden executive order on green energy. He fast tracked or by-pass the epa.
The huge transmission lines cut through Az to Ca, went through designated tribal sacred lands. They started before the tribes could even get into court to present their case. Not a word against it from any of you.
I, at least am consistent. I have called out all of this.
What if you bought a house on the edge of Federal land, being told, you have no more building roads beyond you. The feds up and sell your selective quiet. Fuck you people, we changed our minds!

The Feds should dispose of holdings in urban environments, it just makes sense.

I am fine with select transfers of smaller parcel and those needed for infrastructure projects, bypassing the EPA and the approval process, not so much.

The location of the parcels being sold and the size of them is extremely relevant.

Buying next to Federal land in a city an assuming it won't be developed might be a little naive.

The devil is in the details Tony, or in the case of Senator Lee's proposal, the devil was in the size and scale of the proposed sale.

Read my lips, no selling of public lands.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Read my lips, no selling of public lands.

Great bumper stick, poor policy though.

The reality is that the Feds own plenty of land in places that they should not, that is the history of the West. Targeted sales in urban environments simply make sense, as do many of the land swaps. It is hard to grasp just how broken up many of the Feds properties are, I had no idea until I moved out West and started accessing these properties.


As a general statement, I agree that we should not be divesting of our public lands. I do support certain small transfers though.

I'm on board 100% Heym.
I have sent letters to my reps years ago. Stewardship of fed lands, not sales.
Open land next to urban areas is not a bad thing.
I look at Denver, Aurora, Parker, endless blacktop and houses. Any small open parcel has a sign telling about the next batch of buildings coming soon. A grasshopper has to pack a lunch to go through there.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
I'm on board 100% Heym.
I have sent letters to my reps years ago. Stewardship of fed lands, not sales.
Open land next to urban areas is not a bad thing.
I look at Denver, Aurora, Parker, endless blacktop and houses. Any small open parcel has a sign telling about the next batch of buildings coming soon. A grasshopper has to pack a lunch to go through there.

Look West young man......literally millions of acres of Federal land to enjoy West of the metro area.

A fair bit North, South and East as well, usually located in the less inhabited places.

Development has to happen somewhere, I would rather see it in the urban corridor.

Read my lips, “No selling of public lands.”

I would argue those pockets of public near metro areas are needed just as much as the tracts out west.

There is enough to re-develop in metro areas, reclaim in metro areas, or fix in metro areas.

They could build up. Restrictions put on building height means endless urban sprawl. You think it will stop Steve? or just as long as it's not next to you it doesnt matter?
Loosen regulations on approving the selling of fed lands, and watch it all disappear.

Complex issues require complex solutions, one liners are catchy, usually not the answer though.

The development in Sparks is a perfect example, bipartisan solution supported by a R Governor, congress members from both parties and signed by a D POTUS.

I'm all for sensible solutions.

Land use issues in the West are far different from those East of the Mississippi.

Those pockets inside of urban areas and owned by the Feds are usually just left blighted, they are not being used as parks, trails or places to hunt or fish.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
They could build up. Restrictions put on building height means endless urban sprawl. You think it will stop Steve? or just as long as it's not next to you it doesnt matter?
Loosen regulations on approving the selling of fed lands, and watch it all disappear.

Did I suggest loosening regulations Tony? I don't recall suggesting that. Did I say development didn't matter if it was not next to me? I don't think that I did.

Endless urban sprawl has more causes than just height restrictions.

We could go the route of Japan and South Korea, demographics look to be pointing in that direction. First it was the lost decade, I believe that they are now entering a second lost generation.

Growth needs to be managed, I prefer it in the cities. Where is it that you find growth appropriate Tony?

You didnt speak out about Bidens exec order when I started that thread. Silence is agreeing.
Multi story units, not skyscrapers is the answer.
That has been happening in the east for some time. They tear down older existing units, that dont meet code anyway, rebuild multi family 3-4 story buildings.
I'm surprised Trump isnt all over selling more land, being a real estate developer.

There are plenty of inner city, metro areas that need reinvestment to meet the needs you describe so selling off the only green in the metro area.

Yes, they are complex. The answer is investment and proper management. Not to ignore and leave these areas unsupported West to East is not the answer.

That is exactly what the Sparks project did....invested in affordable housing in an area that needed it.

The only green areas in a metro are Federally owned?? Not around here, our city and counties own literally tens of thousands of acres of green space.

20K of parks in Denver

https://www.denvergov.org/Gove...nd%20natural%20areas.

104K in Boulder

https://landtrustalliance.org/...nty-parks-open-space

The only green spaces??? Really? I think not.