Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

gadjitfreek

(399 posts)

28. Isn't it ironic

Reply to Tanuki (Original post)

Sun Feb 8, 2015, 09:02 AM

Feb 2015

That these people are called "conservatives"? The only thing they want to conserve is their right to exploit for profit, whether it is the commons or human beings.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No more National Parks? [View all] Tanuki Feb 2015 OP

Thank you for posting this Tanuki!! RiverLover Feb 2015 #1

Even George Bush recognized the importance of this! Tanuki Feb 2015 #2

All 3 County Commissioners AND the US Rep want it all locally owned and controlled duhneece Feb 2015 #23

The repubs must be listening to the devil on their shoulders.... snappyturtle Feb 2015 #3

Which one? BeanMusical Feb 2015 #21

True! nt snappyturtle Feb 2015 #22

And in other, unmentioned locations, as well NBachers Feb 2015 #26

It must itch as hell! BeanMusical Feb 2015 #36

Wonder if they have set a date for the land auction yet? jwirr Feb 2015 #4

Since 1980 per the Koch Libertarian platform. The wealthy need more land, wilderness is the best. freshwest Feb 2015 #17

I think we may luck out here in MN - most of our forest lands are STATE forests. However I don't jwirr Feb 2015 #24

State or federal, no matter. They want it. NOW. The last frontier for them to build a fiefdom. freshwest Feb 2015 #37

K&R handmade34 Feb 2015 #5

This same bill was submitted in 2013 as well. Dr Hobbitstein Feb 2015 #6

Why, because people were made aware that the bill was submitted SalviaBlue Feb 2015 #7

No, I believe it's because no one supported it. Dr Hobbitstein Feb 2015 #10

"No one supported it"? Actually, a similar bill passed 221-201 in the House last year Tanuki Feb 2015 #12

Good thing the president can veto GummyBearz Feb 2015 #16

You are not suggesting that if the media doesn't report on it then it is a fringe issue are you? SalviaBlue Feb 2015 #18

Important point. n/t cui bono Feb 2015 #20

No. Dr Hobbitstein Feb 2015 #32

K&R... thanks for making us aware of this! SalviaBlue Feb 2015 #8

Doesn't the president still have the option to veto? ybbor Feb 2015 #9

Yes but the right has an excellent reason to waste time writing this trash Rose Siding Feb 2015 #30

Eventually we will have a Republican president who won't want to veto this. Tanuki Feb 2015 #33

TR is going to rise out of his grave . . . Brigid Feb 2015 #11

Leave it to dumbass Don. raven mad Feb 2015 #13

K&R (OT - cool user name ! :^) ) eppur_se_muova Feb 2015 #14

What the heck is a tanuki? 8 things you didn't know about raccoon dogs yuiyoshida Feb 2015 #15

K and R etherealtruth Feb 2015 #19

There were people who seriously wanted to dam the Grand Canyon to make it a lake.... Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2015 #25

Yeah well Teddy Roosevelt rjsquirrel Feb 2015 #29

As soon as they got those rights some uranium mining company tried to kick them off their land. Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2015 #34

14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism blkmusclmachine Feb 2015 #27

Isn't it ironic gadjitfreek Feb 2015 #28

Yes! RiverLover Feb 2015 #31

I finally figured out the ONLY thing they want to conserve.... Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2015 #35