>>2406568nothing was actually pointed out though.
yes, oregon has a low population density
yes, oregon has a ton of public land.
what anon (was quite rightly) reeing about was the lefty/prog/fuckface notion that unless an area is completely paved over, filled with cricket mobile and bus stations it's somehow 'lacking'. Andd it takes a progressive who was gifted insight by lord jehova on high to say that it needs more people. (preferably brown, poor, and ESL)
oregon is great (outside of pdx) precisely because of the low population and open areas. moving more people here is just ruining a great area. fuck your bullshit progressive tendencies..
find something else to despoil -- as your types always, always do with everything they touch. you are a literal cancer.