GernBlansten 10 Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Yeah, kinda funny that they have to go back 100 years to find a republican conservationist. The party of Ronald Reagan and George Bush is not the party that TR would have aligned himself with. TR was more like Gore than either of them. Link to post Share on other sites
BrentAllen 10 Posted January 20, 2008 Author Share Posted January 20, 2008 "TR was more like Gore than either of them." Oh, puuuullllleeeeezzzzzzz!!!! TR tried to sell the greatest fraud in the history of mankind to our people, and to the world??? Remember, Bush's home in Crawford is a much more eco-friendly house than that energy-hog the Gore's live in. The Greenies declared that, not me. Yes, you know us Republicans - we hate clean air and clean water! Hey Lisa, it's 17 degrees here this morning (where is that global warming when you need it?) and we are going camping! Well, we are going caving, and spending the night in the cave. A cool 58 degrees in there, brrrr! :-) Link to post Share on other sites
CalicoPenn 729 Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 This was signed into law by President Bush on January 5, 2006 (which was a Thursday, by the way). It obviously hasn't had a big impact in our lives over the past two years. Since it was signed into law in 2006, that would have been a Republican-controlled Congress that allowed the law be snuck into the legislation and passed. On the other hand, all it really did was add e-mail and the internet to an existing law which already made anonymous phone calls and letters a crime so it probably could have been inserted even if Specter hadn't snuck it into the bill. Oh, and the bill it was snuck into was for the re-authorization of the Preventing Violence Against Women Act which was already coupled with the Re-authorization of the Justice Department legislation. Section 113 doesn't do really do anything other than amend the other sections of the act which deals with the criminal provisions. For the most part, you need to have intent to harrass, harm, stalk, kill etc. for the provision to be valid. Posting a random comment in a random blog or forum isn't likely to be actionable. A concerted effort to post annoying comments in a blog or forum which could be considered stalking would be actionable under tha law. Why is this just now coming up? Has someone on a cable "news" network or talk radio show run out of things to talk about and just stumbled across this information now? As for the State Park Lodge - based on what was posted, I'm guessing it was in Illinois, (and I'm guessing it was Starved Rock) where funding for the DNR has been decreasing fairly steadily for the last 15 years, under both Republican and Democratic governors and legislatures. State Park Lodges in Illinois are also run by concessionaires, not the State itself, and their contracts make clear that the Lodges are supposed to be self-sustaining, that the concessionaires are responsible for the upkeep of the lodge facilities. If you have a complaint about the upkeep of the lodge, send a letter to the state's DNR office. Complaints about the budget should be sent to the governor and the DNR office. Calico (This message has been edited by CalicoPenn) Link to post Share on other sites
Bob White 20 Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 OOOH good guess CalicoPenn but I'm afraid that Starved Rock is an incorrect answer, but thanks for playing...Please enjoy the lovely home version of our game...Johnny who is our next contestant please. Not sure what concessions this lodge could hope to use to raise those kinds of funds. The room rates are set by the state as I would bet the food costs are as well arent they? No real complaints about the place just an observation that the place is falling apart. There were three business groups meeting there the day I was there and the facilities were at capacity, so lack of use did not seem to be a problem nor was it mentioned as a cause by the management. Link to post Share on other sites
RangerT 10 Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Brent you do make a valid point about Teddy Roosevelt who developed the national park system during his tenure, but Teddy was not really a typical Republican was he. The NPS has also been victimized by the appointments of some really poor superintentdants by some even less knowledgeable Secretaries of the Interior during Republican administrations who sought to exploit rather than conserve the resources of our parks. We in the NPS have seen the budgets and staffing cut to the point where most of the parks can not even maintain basic facilities for the public to be able to enjoy their beauty. Look at what has happened at Yosemite over the last twenty years, it is a real tragedy that the public will continue to be denied access to more and more spots in our parks because of the low priority our parks have become. Bob, This is not a Republican or Democratic issue, this is a national issue for all the people and we are losing the battle to preserve our parks for future generations. WE ARE ALL TO BLAME! Do we want to save these wilderness areas or watch them become full of oil rigs and mining operations, that is the real issue, and it is going to take a real visionary to save these parks which are such a vital part of our American Heritage before it is too late. Your friends work for a state park not the NPS that is a local level issue not a national one isn't it, but it does not surprise me that state parks are in the same mess we are. It will be a truly sad day for all of us in America if your grandchild someday asks about going to see Yellowstone or Yosemite, etc. and you had to explain to them that the government and the people didn't care enough to save our parks. Link to post Share on other sites
Beavah 205 Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Yah, RangerT. If it makes yeh feel any better, da de-professionalization in favor of special interests isn't confined to the Interior Department, eh? Justice, State, and Education have all gotten clobbered. As has science policy across departments. A big "Thank You" to you and the other professionals who have stayed at their posts despite what's goin' on in your respective departments. Your fellow citizens owe you a debt of gratitude. Beavah An old-con Republican who wants to see his rivers and beavah ponds kept clean for his great-grand critters. Link to post Share on other sites
TheScout 10 Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 If there is good stuff there, the least we should do is mine and drill it out! Commodity prices are high enough and so are my taxes which support the parks! The national parks are probably unconsitutional anyway. I doubt the founders of our republic would have desired the federal government to become a vast landowner, holding large areas of land in perpetutity for conservation purposes. It isn't mentioned in the powers of Congress. I would think that according to the 10th Amendment then, the creation and upkeep of parks is a state responsibility. Fix all these problems. The federal government should forfeit the parks to the respective States. The federal government saves money. Management techniques of the parks would be under local supervision and would more conform with local desires. A single bad appointment in the great park bureaucracy would not harm the entire system. Chances are some of the states would do even better than the feds running the parks. They can't do much worst! How can one not love the local option? Link to post Share on other sites
GernBlansten 10 Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Anyone who has been to Havasu falls, Grand Canyon, Arizona has seen first hand what the local option gives. The area is run by the Havasupai and is not part of the Grand Canyon National Park system. The town of Havasupai is really stunning. Garbage fills the yards of the homes. Sewage runs down ditches next to roads. The locals don't make eye contact with hikers. Most homes have broken windows and most buildings are in disrepair. Really such a shame as the falls are probably the most beautiful in the world. Link to post Share on other sites
TheScout 10 Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 So we complain about the federal government running parks. We complain about them not running parks. What gives? Gern its a shame that you must criticize the way people keep up their homes. I won't judge yours. Link to post Share on other sites
GernBlansten 10 Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 TheScout, I find it hard to believe that if your neighbor maintained his house like those in Havasupai, you wouldn't complain about it? Link to post Share on other sites
TheScout 10 Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Gee, its too bad the people of Havasupai don't keep up their town to your standards! And then we complain about their apparent rudeness, not making eye contact. The nerve of them! Link to post Share on other sites
scoutingagain 20 Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 I'm not sure I really have a dog in this hunt and the thread seems to ramble about anyway. I'm not going to worry to much about the legislation that initiated this thread. But regarding local option of parks and land use. While Gern's example is one I offer as an alternative Baxter State Park in Maine. Try telling the folks in Maine you want to federalize that park and see what they think of that idea. SA Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 I'll go with Beavah on this one, heh, heh. Beavah, if you nudge that guy next to you in some dark foreign dungeon, it'll probably be me. Gern, I can give you a list of hundreds of waterfalls that offer really stiff competition. Wanna go on a hike sometime? Link to post Share on other sites
SSScout 1616 Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Nobody likes everthing... Let's see now,which is prefferred? "Wanna go on a hike?" "Go take a hike!" "Hike up them shorts!" "Let's take a hike." "Hike!" (pneumatically distended leatherized oblate spheroid appears in hand). usw. Link to post Share on other sites
le Voyageur 72 Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 This law serves little purpose as the Internet is Global with 5.75 billion non Americans posting off of US turf. Gonna be a lot of rendition needed enforce this turkey of a law.... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now