Completely unfiltered

[Sytes]

Independent through and true. Lean conservative though despise the rants of those politicians, puppets of, media outlets, organizations, opinion pieces, etc... to simply raise their own partisan agenda's roof and stick their chests out to the praise of their own vs sharing objective facts that may otherwise bring people on the fence one way or the other.

I dislike that certain public land / public hand organizations seek to split our public land user allies... falls right into the strategy of the PLT crews. Short sighted though, just a member that may have to sever ties. No loss to them - it's not a threat, just a statement.

 

[Irrelevant]

As a side note, I was very pleased to see a large array of qualified independents running for local offices during this years primary.

 

[BluegrassBilly]

I will just throw this out there. Rowe v Wade was decided based on fundamental freedoms under the US Constitution, but left open the door to state constitutions to restrict abortion rights. Query why no states, not even the “deep red” ones, have made an effort to amend their state constitutions. The GOP controls the legislative and executive branches (and likely the judicial as well) in 26 states.

Pro-tip (from someone who has worked in the trenches of politics): the GOP party bosses do not care about abortion except insofar as the issue reliably delivers a sizable chunk of votes. If abortion were banned and the issue put to bed, there’d be nothing left driving people to the polls to vote for them in complete disregard of every other boneheaded policy position they take. Sure, they’ll nip around the edges just to keep the issue alive and active, but they won’t take the steps to ban it outright in the 26 states where they could do so with no real resistance.

 

[socialish]

they won’t take the steps to ban it outright in the 26 states where they could do so with no real resistance.

In Texas, they've pushed the line as far as possible. If your outside of a major metropolitan area, which is most of the state, it has been effectively banned. Over and over again, the laws they pass are struck down as unconstitutional. And in the mean time we have "the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world, and the rate doubled between 2011". Once Kavanaugh gets through, I think we're looking at a rubber stamp for the Texasification (is that a word?) of most states: public land included.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I will just throw this out there. Rowe v Wade was decided based on fundamental freedoms under the US Constitution, but left open the door to state constitutions to restrict abortion rights. Query why no states, not even the “deep red” ones, have made an effort to amend their state constitutions. The GOP controls the legislative and executive branches (and likely the judicial as well) in 26 states.

Pro-tip (from someone who has worked in the trenches of politics): the GOP party bosses do not care about abortion except insofar as the issue reliably delivers a sizable chunk of votes. If abortion were banned and the issue put to bed, there’d be nothing left driving people to the polls to vote for them in complete disregard of every other boneheaded policy position they take. Sure, they’ll nip around the edges just to keep the issue alive and active, but they won’t take the steps to ban it outright in the 26 states where they could do so with no real resistance.

^^^^^^ I agree. Which is ultimately why the real work in advancing the cause of the unborn must be thru education and changing society's attitudes about the sanctity of life along with and probably even before the laws are changed to reflect those attitudes. One major strategic error of pro-lifers who are religious (especially Evangelicals) was throwing complete allegiance to the Republican Party and attempt to advance their agenda thru legislative fiat while slacking efforts to convince society of the injustice perpertrated against the most vulnerable among us.

A couple hundred years ago, racist based slavery was accepted and even defended by European and American society based on the "non-human" designation that was given to black Africans. Most people weren't slave owners, most people didn't see themselves as affected or connected to the evils of slavery and most did not care to concern themselves with the plight of someone they did not care about. Today, the concept of owning another human being and participation in the atrocities that accompanied slavery is rejected by modern society. That change of attitude and the subsequent laws that outlawed slavery in Europe and eventually America was advanced primarily by Christians concerned with the disparity of what the Bible taught about the dignity of human life and with what passed for "acceptable" practice among society both "Christian" and secular towards "inferior" races.

A study of the beliefs and advocacies of leading abolitionists and lawmakers such as William Wilberforce shows that the abolitionists also cared about the alleviation of poverty and many other social ills that plagued their commuties. Their tireless advocacy awakened the consciences of the "unaffected" and made them realize that everyone has a responsibility to help their fellow man. Eventually, that led to the passage of laws that eliminated slavery, despite incredible opposition by those who profited from slavery.

Back to the topic of abortion and political parties...

On the other side of the political aisle from the Republicans are those who bear even more responsiblity for advancing a "humane" cause that claims to hate the practice of killing the unborn yet protect a hypocritical "freedom of choice" which allows for one human shirk the responsibility of their decisions and remove all ability to ever choose from someone else. Claiming to seek a better "quality of life" they will not concede a basic and primary fundemental that the right to experience life must precede the discussion about what constitutes "quality". As much as I love many of my left leaning friends I find it to be a despicable, cowardly, approach to this discussion and one that always shifts the blame to the other side because the "right" won't support programs they think will enable a better quality of life.

 

[ErictheRed]

I will just throw this out there. Rowe v Wade was decided based on fundamental freedoms under the US Constitution, but left open the door to state constitutions to restrict abortion rights. Query why no states, not even the “deep red” ones, have made an effort to amend their state constitutions. .

As reported in the Des Moines Register May 2, 2018. "Iowa lawmakers this week advanced so-called "fetal heartbeat" legislation that would effectively ban most abortions after the first six weeks of pregnancy. If signed into law by Gov. Kim Reynolds, the law would make Iowa home to the nation's strictest abortion restrictions. And it would all but ensure a court challenge from abortion rights activists."

There will be more efforts to ban/restrict abortion and push the authority to do so to the States if Kavanaugh is confirmed. With this change at the SCOTUS significant reductions in abortion will likely occur in the years ahead as authority over the practice moves from the federal government to the States.

 

[Irrelevant]

I think "we" seem to care a helluva lot more about the unborn than the born. There's 16+ million US kids malnourished. 400k are placed into foster care, and an estimated 1 in 5 girls are sexually assaulted... I don't hear anyone saying any of these are there #1. I think there's a lot of very well-intentioned people that are extremely hypocritical when it comes to being anti-abortion but not supporting programs to actually help our youth.

 

[Sytes]

Yeouch, neffa...

I think there's a lot of very well-intentioned people that are extremely hypocritical when it comes to being anti-abortion but not supporting programs to actually help our youth.

Hypocritical because content related to pro life or... Suddenly, from your perspective, this means those who value life of beating heart within the womb do not value our young children faced w/ abuses many can not stomach to imagine?
Extremely naive of you to pose the desperate protection of one means the other is ignored. I'm surprised that came from you.

My private life is far from your business though I am daily immersed with the life of young one(s) who are directly effected from abused settings yet I am opposed to aborting life.

What an utter ignorant and baseless judgement on others. You hold no clue what passion may be held beyond a single topic of pro life considerations.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I think "we" seem to care a helluva lot more about the unborn than the born. There's 16+ million US kids malnourished. 400k are placed into foster care, and an estimated 1 in 5 girls are sexually assaulted... I don't hear anyone saying any of these are there #1. I think there's a lot of very well-intentioned people that are extremely hypocritical when it comes to being anti-abortion but not supporting programs to actually help our youth.

neffa3, this assumes that only the government can enact programs that as you put it "actually help our youth". As Sytes eloquently expressed and I would concur there is an amazing amount of involvement in quality of life programs at the volunteer/religious organizations level. Is there more that can be done to improve quality of life? Absolutely. But along with that question I ask another. What would those numbers look like without the involvement and advocacy of people who hold pro-life views? (Not just anti-abortion advocates but also those who realize being pro-life means getting involved in other areas.)


Another question I would ask rhetorically is why should we care? At what point did those kids' lives become valuable and worth protecting and stirred "our" conscience that "we" have an obligation to help? Was it when some arbitrary legal ruling conferred human status to them or was it because life is sacred from conception?

We all claim to have concern for our fellow man. For some that concern begins earlier and attempts to remind our fellow man that each person bears the responsibility to support the consequences of his or her actions. (The vast majority of abortions. I'm not addressing anomolys and extremes in the previous sentence.) This whole debate of right to life vs quality of life often has the flash point of disagreement at the junction of where desperation and permissiveness encourages a woman that it is okay and courageous to "take care of the problem."

I think that before the two sides can seriously engage in this debate we should examine our perspective on what constitutes value in human life and along with it what determines quality? I look at the numbers you quote and agree that they are way too high. But, how much of those numbers are because innocents are directly affected by the actions of parents who are steeped in the attitude that only their life has value and meaning and their "happiness" is paramount?

We teach children from the elementary level and beyond that their life has only material value. We have generations now who have no concept of a stable nuclear family unit. We have a culture that celebrates and promotes sex without responsibility and allows for the extermination of "mistakes" and then we are shocked that there are 16 million malnourished and 400k in foster care and 1 in 5 girls are sexually assaulted?

We have a values problem that precedes the situational problem.

 

[BuzzH]

This whole abortion issue is a bunch of BS...really easy to solve.

If YOU don't believe in abortion, good, don't have one...simple as that. Someone else making that decision impacts you not one bit. Spare me the crap of funding planned parenthood, lots of people fund a lot of crap they don't agree with, get over it. I don't particularly care to see gross amounts of tax dollars funding Lockheed, Boeing, lifetime pensions/insurance for Congress and Senators, but I got over it a long time ago.

Its pure BS to impose your will on others, exactly what the conservatives hate about everything else. Less government "over-reach" in nearly any other issue you want to talk about. They say they want less government intrusions into our lives...except for that one thing, well maybe two. Don't have an abortion and don't make it illegal to own any kind of firearm.

"We teach children from the elementary level and beyond that their life has only material value. We have generations now who have no concept of a stable nuclear family unit. We have a culture that celebrates and promotes sex without responsibility and allows for the extermination of "mistakes" and then we are shocked that there are 16 million malnourished and 400k in foster care and 1 in 5 girls are sexually assaulted?"

Agreed, and you know what, forcing a parent that doesn't want a kid, and has no intention of caring for a kid, to have one...isn't going to break the cycle. We already know that our Government has no intention of breaking the cycle. There are many reasons beyond personal responsibility why stable nuclear family units don't exist and plenty of blame to go around.

IMO, I think people need to butt out of others choices and quite trying to hide behind some fairy tale and song and dance that ANY political party cares about the unborn. Step into reality and wake up to the fact they don't give a chit about the living, unless you're in the 1 percentile of Americans, let alone some unorganized mass of cells...and that's a fact.

 

[Sytes]

Sorry Buzz, that's about as logical as saying, "Don't believe in slavery, don't have a slave..."

 

[warmer]

And just like that the "civil discourse" ended.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Glad we were able to fix the abortion problem so easily. Now on to poverty... Don't believe in poverty? Don't be poor.... Why do we make life's problems so difficult to solve?

 

[BuzzH]

Why do we make life's problems so difficult to solve?

According to the conservatives, too much government over-reach and telling other people what to do.

I'm no fan of abortion, but I also think the courts decided right in 1973...time to move on.

As to the original post, its all about personal priorities how a person chooses to vote, don't begrudge anyone their reasons.

 

[Gerald Martin]

The Dred Scott decision was handed down in 1857. Took a bloody civil war and 620,000 American deaths before it was time to move on. Jim Crow laws were upheld by the Supreme Court in 1896., Somebody should have passed the memo to Martin Luther King and other black Americans the issue of civil rights was settled and it was time to move on.

Just because it's declared legal doesn't mean it's right.

As to the original post and personal priorities of how a person chooses to vote.... I agree. But along with that vote comes a greater responsibility than just waving a red or blue pennant and pointing the fingers at the "other" team for standing in the way of fixing our society's problems.

 

[Big Fin]

Just in from a week of Sitka Blacktails in the drenching rain of the Tongass National Forest. Have a bit of coverage tonight, so I will try to expand on some of what the message was in the podcast. Hoped my opening remarks would clarify the intent of what I was trying to say, but maybe I did not do a good job.

Reality is this, and I preface it by saying I have always given the more conservative candidate the benefit of the doubt when things are close. But there is no denying that the Republican party is the source of all anti-public land legislation we end up fighting. I could list dozens of bills and support for that claim, most of them having been hashed on this forum in the past.

Until it becomes extremely painful for them (Rs) to make the Utah Doctrine as the mantra for their ideas on public lands, the Republicans will never change. When it costs them a few Senate seats in states where these issues are a high priority, then it will change. The party bosses will tell the Mike Lee-types to shut up, as their stupidity on an issue very important to many of their constituents has just cost them control of the Senate. Until then, expect more of the same and expect the anti-public land tone to get more rabid and the calls for sale/transfer/impairment to get more traction.

I understand the priority I place on issues will be different for others. They will still care greatly about public lands, even if we have a slightly different ranking of our top priority issues. I fully expect people will have other high priorities and still care deeply about public lands.

The Public Land issue is my highest priority issue, knowing that I can support defense of my other concerns in other manners and that some of those concerns are protected by the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent.

The point is, if we vote for an anti-public land candidate, or one who stands silent when his fellow party members are attacking public lands, what are we doing about it? Are we giving the elected official a pass because they are good on our higher priority issue(s)?

If we give them a pass, that is part of the current problem. If we have voted for someone based on other issues, we have even more connection to them and should be hammering them to let them know that we disagree with their public land stances. They expect such criticism from people who didn't vote for them. They start getting worried when their own base starts hammering them.

Unfortunately the partisan divide too often results in folks feeling that it is a binary choice; that the person cannot be good at public lands while being good on some other high priority issue. That is why I use the examples of Senator Burr (NC-R) and Congressman Simpson (ID-R) the two most glaring examples of how you can be good on public lands, good on guns, good on other things that most often appeal to right-of-center voters.

If we vote based on other issues we find higher priority, then give a free pass to the clowns wanting to sell/transfer/impair our public lands, then we are asking for the current situation. I would opine we are creating the current situation by allowing it to happen without being contested.

Voting for someone is a one-time action based on what we know at the time we vote. That does not mean we defend, give cover, or rationalize the actions of the person we voted for. The current trend to defend/rationalize/justify the actions of fools we voted for just because they seemed to be the lesser of two fools is a very disturbing trend. I think that trend is part of what some of these anti-public land folks count on for cover when they support/condone anti-public land agendas. Hell, we gave them the benefit of our vote, they should be reminded who sent them to office. Plenty of times I've voted for someone who cast a vote or took a position I disagreed with. They hear about it.

Like I said in the podcast, I have no false illusions that the other side has public lands as their highest priority, rather they just don't seem to have any plans to dismantle the public estate; they inherited some benefit on the topic due to the crazy ideas coming from the other side. I doubt Chuck Schumer gives a damn about public lands. When Nancy Pelosi is on TV, I shake my head wondering who at DNC thinks she has any appeal to a rural person like me. I suspect if the right issue came along, she would vote for her own personal political future rather than take any political risks for public lands.

As I've stated here and on the podcast, public lands are my highest priority issue. I will work to change the current situation by trying to defeat/unelect those who attack public lands or even those who stand silent while their fellow party members attack public lands. I will work to elect folks who will make public lands a high priority.

That podcast has pissed off a lot of people, based on all the emails I've gotten. I know the bell curve of our followers, listeners, viewers peaks to the right of center; the same place I end up on most issues. But, to deny the source of the problem and not go on the offensive against those who are attacking public lands or those whose silence condones the same, is a bail out on my part.

People expect me to stand up for public lands. That is what I say these platforms represent. They expect these platforms to convey what I think needs to be said to protect the public lands. If that pisses off some people, especially those who wear the R or D uniform more than they wear their own clothes, I'm not too concerned.

So, I'm going on offense. I've tired of playing defense. I hope those who voiced the very real conundrum of having other higher priorities in their life will vote for those higher priorities. And I hope when the person they vote for is bad on public lands they will give no cover or accommodation for such actions by their elected person and not complain here, rather light them up with phone calls, emails, etc.

None of us want to be in this position. The political strategists know our distaste and hesitancy to engage in the political spats. That tendency they have studied and it is how they frame topics to benefit their side. Such is the position we are painted into by the partisans (on both sides) who have taken our topics and made a political football game of them. I wish it was different. But, it is not. It is only getting worse.

Thanks for the good discussion. Hope we have heard enough on slavery and abortion.

 

[Sytes]

The priorities we hold when voting.
Public Land is within my top five though to say it is my number one of the five... No.
From State to Federal, a politician that votes closest to my top five and holds the priorities I find most value gains my vote. Neither Hillary nor Donald did that for my first write in. State, Public Lands elevates on my list though number one? No.

Glad to have you take it on as a #1 issue of all issues you find most pressing in America. If anyone, you fill the bill. I value the info shared here for communicating with Reps., Etc.

 

[idahohuntr]

So, I'm going on offense. I've tired of playing defense. I hope those who voiced the very real conundrum of having other higher priorities in their life will vote for those higher priorities. And I hope when the person they vote for is bad on public lands they will give no cover or accommodation for such actions by their elected person and not complain here, rather light them up with phone calls, emails, etc.

Is there (or have you considered creating) some sort of public lands score card for elected officials? Something like what the NRA has done where they give A+ ratings and F ratings etc. to each member of Congress? It could be very helpful for mobilizing sportsmen to know who is good on public lands and who is not...as vetted by someone very knowledgeable on the topic such as a Randy Newberg. Too often these slick talking politicians conflate guns and hunting, and my public land loving buddies assume their pro gun R candidate is looking out for their interests and love for public land hunting...when it could not be further from the truth in some cases. Anyways, something that gives each of us a one stop shop on where candidates stand on public lands...and is easily shareable for all of us with hunting buddies in various states.

 

[BrentD]

Is there (or have you considered creating) some sort of public lands score card for elected officials? Something like what the NRA has done where they give A+ ratings and F ratings etc. to each member of Congress?

As a person in a state w/o much public land, especially federal land (Iowa), it would be helpful if there were, say 1/2 dozen key bills or votes where I could check out what my senators or congress critter has voted on each of them. This would be akin to what idahohuntr has in mind I think. Public land issues, especially federal USFS and BLM land issues get exactly ZERO news play here.

 

[Irrelevant]

As a person in a state w/o much public land, especially federal land (Iowa), it would be helpful if there were, say 1/2 dozen key bills or votes where I could check out what my senators or congress critter has voted on each of them. This would be akin to what idahohuntr has in mind I think. Public land issues, especially federal USFS and BLM land issues get exactly ZERO news play here.

The problem is that a lot of times they get slipped in as an amendment at the very end of some larger piece of legislation. The League of Conservation Voters has something like that, but in reality it's more environmental. http://scorecard.lcv.org/

Sytes, to keep it on topic I'll refrain from addressing our tangential topic. But I'm very passionate about my views on that particular issue, much like I'm sure you are. Some let's grab a beer and you can try to enlighten me.