Romney/Ryan/GOP Platform: End Hunting in the West

[sweetnectar]

1.) I support your livestock eating Jose's grass.
2.) Sounds like it's stalled out but I've not heard anything lately. Will send an email asking.
3.)You should be able to use the high school track, just not when the girl's varsity cheerleading team in practicing.
4.) Is it Rehberg's leased land?

I wish I had some livestock eating Jose's grass...just to wind him up

Not only is the track closed but the tennis courts are locked...the nerve. Then I went for a drive up Shiloh past all the fine government landscaping and roundabouts. I saw a city employee on a new mower and another city employee picking weeds. It made me sick not just car sick from the roundabouts (this is Montana not Europe) because I could use some extra money to beautify my yard instead of Shiloh Blvd or what ever it is. I suppose the center of the roundabout is off limits as well.

If the state land I'm referring to was leased to Rehberg then I could at least ride a bike across it. Yep just because things are public doesn't mean we can use them for what we would like. Otherwise I'd be snowmobiling in wilderness study areas....well not really, but I'm sure others would.

 

[Ben Lamb]

That's where land planning gets involved: Not every piece of ground should be mined, logged, drilled, hunted on, etc.

One of the best things MT has done is the Sun River Game Preserve. Vibrant elk populations in the face of high densities of wolves, bears and lions. Funny what happens when we focus on the habitat rather than our selfish interests.

 

[Lawnboy]

Nectar, Just so you know those are My Public Round abouts. You used to bash my hyppie city but I think yours has just as many issues.

If I was a drinker this would be a good thread to both type and drink to.

 

[Lawnboy]

. Funny what happens when we focus on the habitat rather than our selfish interests.

That's just plain crazy talk!!

 

[rhomas]

Someone did mention wanting to see pictures and hunting stories. Well, I posted mine in the "deer" forums in the "whitetails" thread.

And just for Jose, this site never had anything on it that specified it was only open to Western hunters, or that people who live in other parts of the country aren't entitled to voice an opinion; especially when it concerns the entire nation!! We already know that you are an Obama lover and nothing anyone says is going to change that.....but you aren't going to convince those of us who hate the racist, muslim, son of a bitch to change our minds either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Someone did mention wanting to see pictures and hunting stories. Well, I posted mine in the "deer" forums in the "whitetails" thread.

And just for Jose, this site never had anything on it that specified it was only open to Western hunters, or that people who live in other parts of the country aren't entitled to voice an opinion; especially when it concerns the entire nation!! We already know that you are an Obama lover and nothing anyone says is going to change that.....but you aren't going to convince those of us who hate the racist, muslim, son of a bitch to change our minds either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You forgot Kenyan.

 

[TLC]

"Originally Posted by TLC
"It always amuses me when Republicans get all worked up about the Dems taking away guns. It's never going to happen, even if it is part of the "party platform."

what amuses me is that democrats are so sure that romney and ryan will sell the lands because it's part of the party platform, but when something is in the democrats party platform, there is nothing to worry about.

Maybe you think leaving your head in the sand will make it go away. But, not only is this in the Party Platform, it is a campaign promise by the VP nominee, and the Pres nominee.

To refresh:

Quote:
Let's see, we have the Ryan Plan where he wants to sell My Public Lands. so his plan will be used if they win the election? now you're a prognosticator?
We have Rmoney saying he doesn't even know why we have My Public Lands. and we have obama saying we should ban certain weapons.
And, we have Romney/Ryan and the whole GOP saying we need to sell My Public Lands." and we have the democrats with thier party plan saying we should ban certain weapons.

Josie, why didn't you answer the question? oh that's right. you THINK you are smarter than everyone else. problem is, that has proven to be wrong many times. and if you could comprehend what you read, I posted the party platform of the dems that states they want to ban guns(certain ones). as far as having my head buried in the sand. better than where you keep yours most of the time.

 

[Tom]

C. Rice's speech, sounds good, eh?

http://news.yahoo.com/condoleezza-rice-hits-obama-foreign-policy-020948614.html

 

[Ben Lamb]

"Originally Posted by TLC
"It always amuses me when Republicans get all worked up about the Dems taking away guns. It's never going to happen, even if it is part of the "party platform."

what amuses me is that democrats are so sure that romney and ryan will sell the lands because it's part of the party platform, but when something is in the democrats party platform, there is nothing to worry about.

Maybe you think leaving your head in the sand will make it go away. But, not only is this in the Party Platform, it is a campaign promise by the VP nominee, and the Pres nominee.

To refresh:

Quote:
Let's see, we have the Ryan Plan where he wants to sell My Public Lands. so his plan will be used if they win the election? now you're a prognosticator?
We have Rmoney saying he doesn't even know why we have My Public Lands. and we have obama saying we should ban certain weapons.
And, we have Romney/Ryan and the whole GOP saying we need to sell My Public Lands." and we have the democrats with thier party plan saying we should ban certain weapons.

I'm no Jose, nor do I have a strong pimp hand, but:

Suppose Ryan and Romney get in, the House stays R and the Senate swings R. Now you do have a recipe for selling off public lands. We saw what unilateral control of government has given us: unfunded wars, skyrocketing debt, etc.

It is much more likely, even if the Senate stays D, that a plan to sell off public lands would be moving forward under a Romney administration, especially since they're mouthing the Don Peay/Rob Bishop line of eliminating federal lands in favor of expedited energy development. Politically it works for them to sell those lands and eliminate a lot of acreage for you and I.

I'm far less worried about Obama getting anything substantive passed on gun control because he simply doesn't have the votes. He also doesn't have the political capitol to spend on the issue. We've got a Senate majority right now that has steadfastly refused to allow gun control bills to move forward, and right leaning Supreme Court (where Scalia has said that the 2nd, like all other amendments, has limits and is willing to consider new regulations, so the Supreme Court argument is really moot). That means that even if there is an executive order prohibiting the manufacture of military looking firearms or high capacity magazines, there will be immediate and swift repercussions for which ever party invokes new gun control measures.

So, given the political outcomes of this election, I'd say your public lands are much more at risk than my AR-15.

 

[Nemont]

I'm no Jose, nor do I have a strong pimp hand, but:

Suppose Ryan and Romney get in, the House stays R and the Senate swings R. Now you do have a recipe for selling off public lands. We saw what unilateral control of government has given us: unfunded wars, skyrocketing debt, etc.

It is much more likely, even if the Senate stays D, that a plan to sell off public lands would be moving forward under a Romney administration, especially since they're mouthing the Don Peay/Rob Bishop line of eliminating federal lands in favor of expedited energy development. Politically it works for them to sell those lands and eliminate a lot of acreage for you and I.

I'm far less worried about Obama getting anything substantive passed on gun control because he simply doesn't have the votes. He also doesn't have the political capitol to spend on the issue. We've got a Senate majority right now that has steadfastly refused to allow gun control bills to move forward, and right leaning Supreme Court (where Scalia has said that the 2nd, like all other amendments, has limits and is willing to consider new regulations, so the Supreme Court argument is really moot). That means that even if there is an executive order prohibiting the manufacture of military looking firearms or high capacity magazines, there will be immediate and swift repercussions for which ever party invokes new gun control measures.

So, given the political outcomes of this election, I'd say your public lands are much more at risk than my AR-15.

Since we get to "suppose" what the outcome of the election is:

Even if the Senate tips to the R's they have no chance of getting to 60 votes on any cloture motion to end debate on a bill to sell public lands without many Democrats voting with them. In addition that assumes that all Republicans would vote for the sell off of public lands. So while I dislike the plank in the Republican platform I would expect the Democrats, if in the minority, to obstruct anything Romney is for just like the Republicans did to Obama. Remember Politics is now tribal and there is no way the Dems are going to roll over and go along with Romney on any issue, Unless it is to cut more taxes.

The facts are neither the sale of public lands or loss of your AR -15 is going to matter much if we don't deal with our fiscal issues. Neither side is equipped to do what has to done there.

The sale of public lands will not be at the top of the list. Romney won't lead with that if elected and most likely it will be over taken by events and never come up.

Nemont

PS not saying it isn't possible but it is about as remote of coming to fruition as confiscating guns.

 

[StrutNut]

Just to throw this out there - I am pretty sure Dems have successfully been selling off public lands/WildLife Management Areas in MN for quite some time now. There are "special" guidelines that need to be followed but yes, our MN politicians are selling public lands. I believe there was a nice track of WMA land auctioned off along the St., Croix river not too long ago. So, bottom line is I guess the selling of public to private has happened and you can point fingers at both parties for this deal.

As far as wetlands in MN - Republicans were very much in favor of restoring and the Dems where very opposed. To the point of when after years of attempts is finally passed there had to be a portion of the proceeds going to the "Arts" because, theater has so much in common with the wetlands and wetland restoration.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Nemont,

I agree with most of what you say with one exception:

Selling public lands is being tied to debt reduction, and therefore rises politically to a higher level. Furthermore, it's a chit for D's to trade, especially when bigger issues are on the line, and it actually helps D's if public lands are put up for sale.

That may be cynical, but I can see the vote trading happening with D's from states with little public land, or from states like Nevada, where there are an abundance of public lands.

 

[Nemont]

Nemont,

I agree with most of what you say with one exception:

Selling public lands is being tied to debt reduction, and therefore rises politically to a higher level. Furthermore, it's a chit for D's to trade, especially when bigger issues are on the line, and it actually helps D's if public lands are put up for sale.

That may be cynical, but I can see the vote trading happening with D's from states with little public land, or from states like Nevada, where there are an abundance of public lands.

If that is the case then how on earth is one party better than the other on the issue? Wouldn't that mean that bipartisanship wins out and that is what everyone is demanding? Wouldn't that mean that the majority of the people elected to represent the people of the United States are doing the bidding of their districts and states?

If the only thing standing between the sale of public lands is voting trading, then there is zero hope of keeping it from not happening, period. A Republican, at some point, will be in the White House again and the party's will switch gavels in both the House and Senate again.

Nemont

 

[Ben Lamb]

it comes down to who influences whom on the issue.

Lobbyists run the world.

 

[Rat Fink]

Since we get to "suppose" what the outcome of the election is:

Even if the Senate tips to the R's they have no chance of getting to 60 votes on any cloture motion to end debate on a bill to sell public lands without many Democrats voting with them. In addition that assumes that all Republicans would vote for the sell off of public lands. So while I dislike the plank in the Republican platform I would expect the Democrats, if in the minority, to obstruct anything Romney is for just like the Republicans did to Obama. Remember Politics is now tribal and there is no way the Dems are going to roll over and go along with Romney on any issue, Unless it is to cut more taxes.

The facts are neither the sale of public lands or loss of your AR -15 is going to matter much if we don't deal with our fiscal issues. Neither side is equipped to do what has to done there.

The sale of public lands will not be at the top of the list. Romney won't lead with that if elected and most likely it will be over taken by events and never come up.

Nemont

PS not saying it isn't possible but it is about as remote of coming to fruition as confiscating guns.

And once again Nemont proves himself to be the ultimate voice of reason and common sense on this forum. Well said Jeff. My view on the public lands sell off is exactly the same.

 

[TLC]

Ben, as I said, selling the land is not the most important issue for me. yes, care about what happens, but if nobama gets re-elected, he will continue to make sure I will be un-employed soon. not in the construction thing anymore. drive a coal truck down here. and there has already been coal companies close and file bankruptcy because of the crap nobama has done. so, employment, or lack thereof, rates higher than land right now. if romney were to win,, and they still want to sell the land, will stand right there with you to fight that. and yes, if I need to, can put up the quotes were nobama said he was going to bankrupt the coal industry.

 

[idnative1948]

If Romney wins, will he out-source his cabinet?

 

[MNHunter]

Lobbyists ruin the world.

Fixed it for ya

 

[TLC]

If Romney wins, will he out-source his cabinet?

if nobama wins, will he continue funding companies that end up going bankrupt?

 

[noharleyyet]

If Romney wins, will he out-source his cabinet?

"That's a clown question bro." Bryce Harper: