What is Digg?162 Comments
- retral, on 10/12/2007, -17/+127Wouldn't it just be better to withdraw from Iraq, cut the losses, and use the money that they'd otherwise be spending on the war?
- aptmunich, on 10/12/2007, -4/+56Is it :
- unpopular?
- environmentally devestating?
- Irreversible?
- Destroying a national treasure?
- Good for a quick buck?
Great - let's do it! - ima9rd, on 10/12/2007, -8/+52Selling our national forests for destruction is only slightly worse than closing road access? It seems to me that closing the roads in national forests would help preserve the habitats for the animals, while this plan aims to destroy them.
- diggityiggity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+42Your sarcasm needs work then. I missed it too.
- allaboutdatiki, on 10/12/2007, -5/+46" The president's new fiscal 2007 federal budget calls for the bureau to raise $1 million in 2007 land sales, $28 million in 2008, $40 million in 2009, $42 million in 2010 and $71 million in 2011."
"Dave Alberswerth, a Wilderness Society senior policy adviser, said that would be "way more than they have been selling in recent years." From 2000 to 2004, the bureau sold 13,160 acres for an average price of $320 an acre, he said. At that rate, the government would have to sell more than half a million acres to garner $182 million."
Is the average Joe allowed to buy this land or just big corporations?
I'd love a nice 40 acre spread for chump change! - jetsetgo, on 10/12/2007, -11/+45Why does Bush hate America?
- bcasper1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36Is it me or does anyone get the feeling that bush is like a sick joke, everyday its something else that tops the previous ridiculousness of this administration. He keeps pushing the American people, I'm just waiting for someone to pop out from behind the curtain laughing and slapping his knee at the shenanigans of the last seven years.
- Cloned, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36In this case, it doesn't matter that it's a year old. This plan is coming into effect NOW, so it's relevant.
Here in Flagstaff, Arizona, we are surrounded by one the largest pine forests in the US. This forest is home to many species of animals such as elk, mountain lion, some species of deer, coyote, wolf, fox, rabbit, and many many species of birds. The forest is also enjoyed by the locals, many of which moved to Flagstaff because of the natural serenity that it offers.
But now Bush wants to sell off our forest. I agree that the schools could use some more money, but destroying our forests is NOT the way to go about it. - brishchik, on 10/12/2007, -8/+33Because Jesus told him so
- erkokite, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31Nobody expects the US to be loved around the world, especially after what they did in Iraq. Let alone radical Muslim groups who hated us anyway. The question is, is the War on Terror really effective? Certainly the war in Iraq is not helping. A government study found that the war in Iraq was actually putting America in more danger. Should we combat terrorism? Of course. Is the war in Iraq helping? Of course not.
And on a note more related to the story, I'm not surprised at all at this proposal. The Bush administration has an awful environmental record. Just one more reason to get him and his buddies out. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees....
BUSH SUCKS!!! - mateo60, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28Can't we save money in Iraq instead of giving up forest? Is our strategy in Iraq "Once we kill them all, they'll start loving us"? Forest can't easily be "un-ruined". Soldiers can't be un-killed. Start slowly withdrawing. The longer we're in Iraq, the more likely it is that we're going to go to war with Iran. All of that money gained from the land sale can be made up for in one day of the Iraq war. There are more terrorists there now than when we started, if we leave now maybe we won't make more. I have to admit, I was 100% for the war when it started, until I realized that we were lied to.
All that to say, don't sell the damn forest. Save money elsewhere. - Dustin00, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23While they're cutting the trees, can they cut down the bushes?
- Tippis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18@ charlotte_web
"Oh, right, because the War on Terror is over ..."
Exactly - it isn't. So why not stop wasting money on Iraq, and spend some of that money on _actually fighting terrorism_, rather than mucking about in an area that is completely unrelated, thereby improving the terrorists' recruitment ground? - ptsd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17"How the hell did people vote this retard into power?"
they didnt... - Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -14/+29It bears worth noting that one of Clinton's final acts before leaving office was to expand the national forest protection plan on 58.5 MILLION acres, an area roughly the size of Oregon:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/14/forestprotection.ap/index.html
Bush is only proposing the sale of 200,000 acres. - kakwakas, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Going for a new negative digg record...?
- ima9rd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16@Lyph4
Because lumber corporations have a much larger resource pool than small environmental conservation groups. - RatTrap, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18NO, BAD BUSH go away no one likes you.
- TheOther1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Maybe you can get a mule too...
- calvmari, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Don't kid yourself. The Bush administration is proposing to sell it. What do you think they intend this land to be used for hrmmm...?
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15This administration holds nothing sacred (except money). Not our constitution, our environment, or our lives. Everything is fair game to them in the pursuit of money and power. It's sickening.
- ithon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8if the Californian forest would be sold, I hope that the Californian state government would somehow buy the land.
- masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8For comparison reasons, 200 000 acres is roughly equal to about one 17mi x 17mi (27km x 27km, for everyone not in the US) patch of land.
- brishchik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Yes GWB you go girl! Sell everything you can to make some bucks, only 2 years left
- leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10No need to worry, it's only 312.5 square miles of untouched forest and the access roads needed to get to it. And don't get and ideas, no one is going to get rich from this deal. Nothing to see here.
- miken32, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"Responsible forest management includes planting and HARVESTING. So, we sell small portions of forests to companies that will make useful goods like, houses, pencils, toilet paper and the friggin poster board you use for your picket signs!"
Nobody's complaining about responsible resource usage here, rather about the potentially unrestricted sale of the resource to anyone with the money to buy it. - sansalvation, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The problem is that it will go to logging companies that will clear-cut it, then developers, then ultimately to the "people" for outrageous prices. Guess who will benefit from this. Not the people that need housing. There is already plenty of housing in CA for people that can afford it.
- necromancerr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I really ***** hate this man.
- Niteryder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Bush and the ***** around him are not welcome in California nor are they welcome to our woods.
- brishchik, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10And the ignorants will be pleased, so what's the point.
- funkspiel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Going out of business sale?
- aclements, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Or we could raise several times that amount of money by say, not sending an additional 20000 troops to a war that is illegal anyway.
- yournamehere, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5yeah, they are going to sell the land with the stipulation of the buyer not being able to do anything with it.
- allaboutdatiki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Here's the "Lands Potentially Eligible for Sale by State and National Forest" ...
http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/spd.html
Google Maps mashup, anyone? - kerryhall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's a really sick ***** joke. Every day I am almost afraid to go on digg and see the new ***** that this administration has come up with.
- BGFeltenink, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Yeah, ***** tha animals that we eat, ***** tha plants and trees that give us that nasty oxygen, ***** those stupid environmental nazis, they should buy it if they care so much. Same goes for cancer research, let those idiots pay for it, why should I pay for God's Will (tm)?
- Tmacman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10This might be a year old, but this year the miserable bastard wants to try it again:
Bush again proposes selling national forest land
Source: Copyright 2007, Associated Press
Date: February 6, 2007
Byline: Matthew Daly
http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=68848 - writekelly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Not yet.
- spannage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The story is important, but why, anytime the environmental movement want to scare people, they strongly imply (see the picture) that the Bush Admin is going to sell off Giant Sequoias. This is preposterous and totally untrue and untenable. False claims are false claims and being one of the "good guys" or being on the "moral high ground" does not excuse lies and deception. I am tired of it, coming from everyone. Real dialog and debate is not easy when everyone lies, exaggerates, and tries to scare everyone into radicalism. The giant sequoias are safe from logging or selling off folks, and if you don't get why this is, you are not paying attention to the real political situation and would rather make everything into a morality play, as usual.
- archfiend001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I agree with eggins; America is literally BLEEDING money due to the "war on terror," and the only solution he can come up with for funding america's schools is by selling off our nation's natural treasure. What a weak cop-out. SOMEONE THIS EGOCENTRIC SHOULD NOT BE IN OFFICE. He is NOT fulfilling the nation's best interest. Take a look at his popularity rate; only 30% of Americans agree with his actions in office. Does this not mean anything?? I cannot wait for the day when this ass's term is over.
bababooey. - hiPpymIck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6you could do the Hobbit thing from 2 days ago
http://digg.com/world_news/People_living_like_hobbits - Starflyer59, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Where is Treebeard and the Ents when you need them?
- seanny19, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@ Lyph 4
Except that big corporations are willing to pay top dollar for good land. - counterstriker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5ah yes the Bush administration selling national forest land to corporate america. Is anyone suprised?
- jdmCrush, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Oh you got me..a tyop, erm, typo...
Maybe if we weren't spending so much money on the war, we wouldn't have to sell land to build schools and whatnot. - bonmot5, on 04/08/2009, -0/+3He might not be selling the Giant Redwoods in the Sierras but he is selling land in the Sierras, and in Humboldt, and Shasta, and in the Sequoia's and Tahoe. All pristine Forrest. Are you in the mood to argue, or are you just an *****!
- nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Damn man, I had forgotten about the Lorax! Very appropriate...
- andyrobo60, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Why would they sell it? Its not like they need the money for a war or something.
Opps never mind maybe they do. - kennyboy019, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"The problem with schools isn't money; teachers make plenty good money. The problem is the retarded curriculum and an academic culture which actively punishes teaching/learning."
Not sure where that came from, but let me tell you that teachers most places dont even make a living income, at least here in Ca.
And dont even get me started on that NCLB Bush-*****.
Schools are given money based on how many students they have, and they only get money for the days the kids show up. In rual areas where there may only be 10-20 kids at a school, that barely pays for upkeep, let alone the teachers and staffs pay. Selling land like this is how they have been paying for the teachers and whatnot for years. As the cost of living goes up, expect to see more of this. -
Show 51 - 100 of 160 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is