Gilligan, got to ask you some things.

smoke_the_dank · 02-09-2006, 03:49 PM

Hey, Ive read that you are against the Gov. owning massive amounts of land. you said it all should be privatized, or something like that. I remember you saying that it was illegal for them to own more than a certain amount.

50% or more of Oregon is owned by the forest service, or BLM.
I fuckin love it. If they didnt own the land, it wouldnt be here for me to explore and use at my own free will. I can camp anywhere I want, and can even live on that land if I so desired. Big brother, in a sense, has given it to me.

what would it be like if all that land was private?

It would no doubt be logged, and mined. any inch of land that is owned privately gets pretty much raped. The gov. is responsible for our Wild steelhead and salmon, as well as our pristine forest. Actually Clinton is responsible for saving alot of our wilderness that was on the literal chopping block. Logging companies lobbied to buy a very large chunk of old growth, but clinton shut them down by adding it to a nearby "wilderness area".

what is your stance on this?

falnsenseofpryde · 02-09-2006, 03:51 PM

i love roaming through woods and shit. honestly, can anyone say they wouldnt love to go camping for a weekend. hot boxing tents exploring shit swimming in random rivers. i would fucking kill a nig if it was all privatized.

Mustard · 02-09-2006, 03:52 PM

Sounds like I need to venture down your way this summer dank.

smoke_the_dank · 02-09-2006, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by Mustard

Sounds like I need to venture down your way this summer dank.

word.

falnsenseofpryde · 02-09-2006, 03:57 PM

PARTY AT DANK'S HOUSE

AnnonUSA · 02-09-2006, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by smoke_the_dank

Hey, Ive read that you are against the Gov. owning massive amounts of land. you said it all should be privatized, or something like that. I remember you saying that it was illegal for them to own more than a certain amount.

50% or more of Oregon is owned by the forest service, or BLM.
I fuckin love it. If they didnt own the land, it wouldnt be here for me to explore and use at my own free will. I can camp anywhere I want, and can even live on that land if I so desired. Big brother, in a sense, has given it to me.

what would it be like if all that land was private?

It would no doubt be logged, and mined. any inch of land that is owned privately gets pretty much raped. The gov. is responsible for our Wild steelhead and salmon, as well as our pristine forest. Actually Clinton is responsible for saving alot of our wilderness that was on the literal chopping block. Logging companies lobbied to buy a very large chunk of old growth, but clinton shut them down by adding it to a nearby "wilderness area".

Amen to that, I agree.

Pigwax · 02-09-2006, 04:56 PM

giligan's views mostly have a "fuck everyone else" stance

JamaicanHerb · 02-09-2006, 05:12 PM

gilligan's a liberal that doesn't want to admit it.....

everything the gov't does is scrutinized by the other side, so as long as its owned by them it won't beable to be logged mined and all that to many people will go after them... privatize it and the second it is the gov't can't stop them from messing w/ their own land, so its gettin sold off to the highest bidder for any reason under the sun

AnnonUSA · 02-09-2006, 06:47 PM

Having young children, I've been doing the vacation thing every year. National Parks and Forests, Zoo's Museums etc.

I will say this. The National parks must be kept out of public hands for some of the reasons mentioned earlier.

I have been in many Museums, some of the best in the Country, and When looking at some of the Hatural History exibits, Wildlife and things, I can't help thinking how truely sad it would be if this were the only place to see a Polar Bear, or a Grizzly, or Bighorn sheep.

Visiting Zoo's have given me the same feelings, I enjoy seeing some of the new modern exibits in the Zoo's, but am saddened that for many species, captivity is their only chance of survival. There is a very big difference seeing a Bald Eagle perched in an avairy exibit, or taking flight from the tip of a Pine tree, and picking a fish out of a crystal clear lake. That difference for me is the hair standing up on the back of my neck watching nature in nature.

The inherent beauty of nature is hard to comprehend without being able to actually be "in it". To touch it, and breathe in the Mountain air, dip a foot in a Mountain creek or stream. Sit and listen to the silence of a mountain top, feel, hear, and smell the whistle of the wind through hundred year old lodge pole pine forests. See Wildlife roaming in their natural environment, or not seeing them, but just knowing that they are there....

Sorry if this changes the topic of this thread a little, but I value preservation of all the land humanly possible. Almost no Private owner would keep this priority .

TheBagman · 02-09-2006, 06:54 PM

Yes, this is true. But I dont think gilligan ever said get rid of 100% of public land. The government owns alot more than just the forests, parks, and other public lands that we all enjoy taking advantage of. They rent our grazing land that because it is being rented the renters don't take care of it as good as if it were their own land. Also, there are other lands that would be better taken care of if they were privately owned, and maintained. Selling them would generate a revenue, and help keep the land better maintained.

AnnonUSA · 02-09-2006, 06:57 PM

I understand that, and I'm not really commenting to the Gil thing. Just wanted to say it.

TheBagman · 02-09-2006, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by AnnonUSA

I'm not really commenting to the Gil thing. Just wanted to say it.

I understand that. Just wanted to say it.

JamaicanHerb · 02-09-2006, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by da420

Yes, this is true. But I dont think gilligan ever said get rid of 100% of public land. The government owns alot more than just the forests, parks, and other public lands that we all enjoy taking advantage of. They rent our grazing land that because it is being rented the renters don't take care of it as good as if it were their own land. Also, there are other lands that would be better taken care of if they were privately owned, and maintained. Selling them would generate a revenue, and help keep the land better maintained.

maintained? you don't maintain the land you let the animals fuckin live like they should beable to.... you want disney land to buy it and put in a huge park but thats OK cause they cut the lawn? fuck man, half those places don't have a single road thats how it needs to stay, you don't maintain shit

gilligan · 02-09-2006, 07:01 PM

The govt owns 40% of the country, some if really nice some is nuclear testing grounds. i dont know what ur talking about being illegal to own X amount or even that ALL land should be private either. Hell i go to a public lake to fish all the time. Im against alot of govt interaction in alot of areas, and i think the massive amounts of land the govt owns and CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH is a little extreme. To be perfectly honest with you if national parks were run by a company like theme parks or zoos are, they would be just as nice.

also, please understand the difference between a state and a federal govt and their roles.

Boondock · 02-09-2006, 07:13 PM

there are quite a few places in this country that i am not to thrilled about. nuclear bomb rest facilities and i think there is a place out where they are storing thousands of metric tons of nuclear waste.

i guess it has to go somewhere but i wish it wasn't anywhere around here

gilligan · 02-09-2006, 07:14 PM

we could turn iraq into our nuke wasteland. nothing we need there aside from oil.

Boondock · 02-09-2006, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by gilligan

we could turn iraq into our nuke wasteland. nothing we need there aside from oil.

i think it would look good with a surface of glass