Political Picture thread. (humor/memes/etc)

DoOver · Nov 27, 2021

spat said:
He would be considered alt-right these days.

I don't know many alt-righties interested in making juge parts of land into parks or being so jealous of successful of big business that they want them broken up.
Bull Moose Party Honk! HONK!!

spat · Nov 27, 2021

DoOver said:
I don't know many alt-righties interested in making juge parts of land into parks or being so jealous of successful of big business that they want them broken up.
Bull Moose Party Honk! HONK!!

Monopolies = bad.

Free markets do not exist when there are Monopolies.

You do need *some* government regulations in order to maintain a free market.

And he took land the government already owned and designated it as parks.

Pretty sure most conservatives are OK with national parks existing.

DoOver · Nov 27, 2021

spat said:
Monopolies = bad.

Free markets do not exist when there are Monopolies.

You do need *some* government regulations in order to maintain a free market.

And he took land the government already owned and designated it as parks.

Pretty sure most conservatives are OK with national parks existing.

Now do MSM and NYC buying up land in NYC watershed and NYS buying up land in The Adirondacks.

DoOver · Nov 27, 2021

Uninformed and Compliant · Nov 27, 2021

spat said:
Monopolies = bad.

Free markets do not exist when there are Monopolies.

You do need *some* government regulations in order to maintain a free market.

And he took land the government already owned and designated it as parks.

Pretty sure most conservatives are OK with national parks existing.

No such thing as a "national park".
FedGov has no legit power to cut land out of a State for the sake of a "park" or "forest".

There are forts, ports, courts, postal roads, territories and land reserved for Indians.

They can place a park on land used for those above reasons, but the park cannot be the purpose of holding the land. There's a whole section dedicated to what FedGov can do ON land it's been granted - but it cannot be granted land for those purposes. It can only be granted land for forts, ports, courts, etc, and the land must in truth be used for those purposes. Progs, of course, claim FedGov can seize land for any purpose whatsoever.

livingston · Nov 27, 2021

spat · Nov 27, 2021

DoOver said:
Now do MSM and NYC buying up land in NYC watershed and NYS buying up land in The Adirondacks.

Are they buying it from willing sellers ?

Then at worst it's a waste of tax money.

If they're not, then it's theft, and everyone involved should be in prison.

DoOver · Nov 27, 2021

spat · Nov 27, 2021

Uninformed and Compliant said:
No such thing as a "national park".
FedGov has no legit power to cut land out of a State for the sake of a "park" or "forest".

There are forts, ports, courts, postal roads, territories and land reserved for Indians.

They can place a park on land used for those above reasons, but the park cannot be the purpose of holding the land. There's a whole section dedicated to what FedGov can do ON land it's been granted - but it cannot be granted land for those purposes. It can only be granted land for forts, ports, courts, etc, and the land must in truth be used for those purposes. Progs, of course, claim FedGov can seize land for any purpose whatsoever.

The first national park (Yellowstone) was created by Ulysses S Grant.

It's almost useless to consider "ownership" for something like a national park.

Once it's use is determined, who claims ownership is almost irrelevant.

Do the feds own it ? Does the state own it and the feds just manage it ? Does it matter ?