Thread: Bush's Immigration Comments Rile Conservatives

Yeah Crocket...why are you beating a dead horse? LOL! You made an excellent point. Crocket 2008!!

Originally Posted by Neese

Yeah Crocket...why are you beating a dead horse? LOL! You made an excellent point. Crocket 2008!!

Yeah, that's it... Put me in the crosshairs of some trinomial assassin.

I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but I think that what has him by the short and curlies is the nation's new ownership - the European banking system. He needs money to fight his War on Terrorism and they're not giving him a bump on his credit line until he provides more chattel.

Is this why he's selling off our infrastructure - he's hard up for cash to keep his war going?

Originally Posted by Kate

I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but I think that what has him by the short and curlies is the nation's new ownership - the European banking system. He needs money to fight his War on Terrorism and they're not giving him a bump on his credit line until he provides more chattel.

Is this why he's selling off our infrastructure - he's hard up for cash to keep his war going?

I think that would be happening whether we were at war or not. After all, the sell-off started in earnest during the Clinton administration. Remember the big land grab in Utah?

I don't remember the Utah land situation. What happened?

Go ahead and run crocket you now have at least 2 voters (Crocket 200 sorry about the crosshairs not much we can do about that!!!

Originally Posted by Neese

I don't remember the Utah land situation. What happened?

Clinton federalized a huge tract of prime coal-bearing land containing some 62 billion tons of coal. It was one of several virtually unprecedented federal land grabs that occurred under Clinton. In addition to the 1.7 million acres in Utah, he also designated huge tracts of land in Arizona and California as national monuments. Those areas in CA and AZ had a combined sq. mileage equal to the entire state of Florida. There were strong hints that the grab was, like the Utah land grab, meant to lock up mineral wealth. The lands in AZ and CA were said to be the greatest source of monatomic gold reserves on the planet.

Oh and Neese, I think pelosi's problem, the ugly look on her face, was because of the company she had to keep up there on the podium, or it could have been Cheney's gas!!!!! The only real time she looked happy was when they were clapping for her.

I will be vote number 3 - Crocket 2008!

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Neese

I don't remember the Utah land situation. What happened?

Clinton federalized a huge tract of prime coal-bearing land containing some 62 billion tons of coal. It was one of several virtually unprecedented federal land grabs that occurred under Clinton. In addition to the 1.7 million acres in Utah, he also designated huge tracts of land in Arizona and California as national monuments. Those areas in CA and AZ had a combined sq. mileage equal to the entire state of Florida. There were strong hints that the grab was, like the Utah land grab, meant to lock up mineral wealth. The lands in AZ and CA were said to be the greatest source of monatomic gold reserves on the planet.

I know my ignorance is showing, but I don't know so I will ask anyway.
Was this land seized by the government from private citizens?
What is wrong with a National Monument?
Wouldn't it be good for our government to keep land with natural resources in case we need them for the future?