airlocksniffer
Member
Excellent analogy. I'd vote for Greedo over Cruz.
Cruz on Public Lands
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
quarterhorse
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 138
Is there any sort of poll of the citizenship in regards to federal public land? I'm guessing the vast majority doesn't even know there is a discussion going on about it. Out of the ones who do know something is afoot most seem to remain silent it appears. I think the public at large doesn't have a strong opinion either way.
Here's an interesting article on part of the attack on public lands:
http://missoulian.com/news/local/u-...cle_36ce9768-6fe3-51a3-a5f7-0c3ee997241d.html
Congress has starved the agency, while mandating they do more. Not a sound management model by any stretch and it leads one to believe that the overall goal is disposing of public lands.
At this point, I'd vote for Nixon before any of these clowns.
http://missoulian.com/news/local/u-...cle_36ce9768-6fe3-51a3-a5f7-0c3ee997241d.html
Congress has starved the agency, while mandating they do more. Not a sound management model by any stretch and it leads one to believe that the overall goal is disposing of public lands.
At this point, I'd vote for Nixon before any of these clowns.
Here - https://www.coloradocollege.edu/dotAsset/e8c3962b-df68-4aa9-8039-73bd379f9022.pdf
Pretty heavily in favor of public lands held at the Federal level.
RobG
Well-known member
Yup. As I alluded to earlier, people should make their decision on who to vote for based on what the candidate can accomplish instead of some pie-in-the-sky ideology.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
And whether it is what appears today to be an arid, worthless acre or an entire national forest district, once it's gone from the public, it's gone FOREVER!
For those who equate the federal government to a business and suggest good business decisions be made, let me remind you that once a business begins to sell its assets in order to satisfy its current budget funding needs, usually it ends up a broke business with no assets. Furthermore, then it has nothing to offer its investors (in the case of the federal government ... the public.)
Zach
Well-known member
Is there a follow up that asks those in favor if they also feel that those Federally held lands should be open to all hunting?
I also see lots of percentages, but don't see the hard numbers in that survey.
Personally Cruz has never been on my list,ever. I do not believe a word he say's. Nothing.
So far I have only received positive replies to my inquiry on this subject from Sen. Martin Heinrich D-NM.
I wrote & e-mailed all Presidential Candidates and my state & local Rep's.
Rep. Pierce R-NM, basiclly said he supported sell off...he also believes Corperations are people. So it's sell/give it BACK to the people or a corperation or richest individual.
Business' have never had the Public's best interest in mind.
Talk of running Gov. like a business does not have the General Public's best interest in consideration, ever.
And I can think of no company at all I would want running my country. None could ever pull it off.
The rest of the so called issues being talked about by the candidates are not what I am most interested in his election.
The land sale/give away issue is a deal maker or breaker for me...and my cold dead hands.
So far I have only received positive replies to my inquiry on this subject from Sen. Martin Heinrich D-NM.
I wrote & e-mailed all Presidential Candidates and my state & local Rep's.
Rep. Pierce R-NM, basiclly said he supported sell off...he also believes Corperations are people. So it's sell/give it BACK to the people or a corperation or richest individual.
Business' have never had the Public's best interest in mind.
Talk of running Gov. like a business does not have the General Public's best interest in consideration, ever.
And I can think of no company at all I would want running my country. None could ever pull it off.
The rest of the so called issues being talked about by the candidates are not what I am most interested in his election.
The land sale/give away issue is a deal maker or breaker for me...and my cold dead hands.
Last edited:
I am new to the site.
6 months ago if you would have asked me about the public land transfer back to states I wouldn't have had a opinion either way. I still don't feel educated enough to have a strong opinion either way but I do lean away from the transfer.
If you were to poll every hunter throughout the country I wonder what type of results you would get?
I know of one hunting site that is based with a high percentage of hunters out of TX. I would guess a higher percentage would be for the transfer than against it.
6 months ago if you would have asked me about the public land transfer back to states I wouldn't have had a opinion either way. I still don't feel educated enough to have a strong opinion either way but I do lean away from the transfer.
If you were to poll every hunter throughout the country I wonder what type of results you would get?
I know of one hunting site that is based with a high percentage of hunters out of TX. I would guess a higher percentage would be for the transfer than against it.
"Cruz" (what a pathetic moron) he's so damn smart he's stupid! Please don't support this guy. Hey Cruz, you can't give me back something I already own you dumb a--, but then I know that's not what you meant. What you really meant was that you'll give it back to a handful of people (yet to be determined), not all the people. Sorry folks I'll stick to the other side of the aisle. One more parting thought, while it's true not all Republicans want to transfer and sell my public lands - there are plenty of people who do, and they're all Republicans! I don't think you can argue that point intelligently, but I'm sure some will.
If I have an armory full of guns and stupid unnecessary open carry laws so I take them to church, the bank, the grocery store, the bar, or City Brew; but no public lands to hunt and fish, what's the damn point?
If I have an armory full of guns and stupid unnecessary open carry laws so I take them to church, the bank, the grocery store, the bar, or City Brew; but no public lands to hunt and fish, what's the damn point?
Gevock
Well-known member
Here he was in the shadow of Grand Tetons
http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/...cle_bf68eb4f-a1be-5e86-abf4-1d130d22011d.html
This story from last summer came from the Jackson Hole News and Guide, nestled in the shadow of the Grand Tetons. Just another case of saying the same thing.
http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/...cle_bf68eb4f-a1be-5e86-abf4-1d130d22011d.html
This story from last summer came from the Jackson Hole News and Guide, nestled in the shadow of the Grand Tetons. Just another case of saying the same thing.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
Somewhat off topic, but in the same vein, getting their foot in what we might have thought as a vault door, this what Cruz and his ilk are all about:
"Delaware North Companies and its subsidiaries recently filed applications to trademark the names of historic buildings they manage in Yosemite National Park under a Federal contract thought the National Park Service.
Delaware North Companies, through subsidiary DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite Inc., is now requesting compensation of $51 million dollars for the use of named buildings and places that are owned by the American People including: Yosemite National Park, Ahwahnee Hotel, Curry Village, Badger Pass Ski Area, Wawona Hotel, and the Yosemite Lodge.
In a similar effort, Delaware North, which also runs concessions at the Kennedy Space Center has a trademark application for "Space Shuttle Atlantis".
Justice Department attorney John Robertson has written that Delaware North "apparently embarked on a business model whereby it collects trademarks to the names of iconic property owned by the United States."
This behavior on the part of Delaware North Companies runs counter to their contractual obligations with the National Park Service and amounts to theft of property of the American People. and while this case has yet to be decided by the Courts, the National Park Service has preemptively changed the names of the Ahwahnee Hotel, Curry Village, Badger Pass Ski Area, Wawona Hotel, and the Yosemite Lodge to avoid infringing on the Delaware North Companies trademarks."
Change.org
"Delaware North Companies and its subsidiaries recently filed applications to trademark the names of historic buildings they manage in Yosemite National Park under a Federal contract thought the National Park Service.
Delaware North Companies, through subsidiary DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite Inc., is now requesting compensation of $51 million dollars for the use of named buildings and places that are owned by the American People including: Yosemite National Park, Ahwahnee Hotel, Curry Village, Badger Pass Ski Area, Wawona Hotel, and the Yosemite Lodge.
In a similar effort, Delaware North, which also runs concessions at the Kennedy Space Center has a trademark application for "Space Shuttle Atlantis".
Justice Department attorney John Robertson has written that Delaware North "apparently embarked on a business model whereby it collects trademarks to the names of iconic property owned by the United States."
This behavior on the part of Delaware North Companies runs counter to their contractual obligations with the National Park Service and amounts to theft of property of the American People. and while this case has yet to be decided by the Courts, the National Park Service has preemptively changed the names of the Ahwahnee Hotel, Curry Village, Badger Pass Ski Area, Wawona Hotel, and the Yosemite Lodge to avoid infringing on the Delaware North Companies trademarks."
Change.org
The next president will appoint possibly 3 SCOTUS Justices. Two more than needed to overturn Heller.
Keep that in mind when voting for Democrats. Both guns and public lands are no compromise, non debatable issues to me.
But isn't transferring lands kind of a pie-in the sky right wing utopia more than an imminent reality? Maybe its not, and I'd love for someone to fill me in, if I'm incorrect.
Also, the commenter above, pointing out we've had a D president for 8 years and also had expanding gun rights is being a bit disingenuous, if not intentionally misleading. We've also had a fracking boom and increasing 'income inequality' under Obama, and under Bush we had expanded environmental protections, but those things have come in spite of said administrations, not because of them.
The Obama Administration has done everything in their power, and possibly overstepped their constitutional authority on the gun issue. We have a separation of powers that is stopping the furthering of the agenda.
Keep that in mind when voting for Democrats. Both guns and public lands are no compromise, non debatable issues to me.
But isn't transferring lands kind of a pie-in the sky right wing utopia more than an imminent reality? Maybe its not, and I'd love for someone to fill me in, if I'm incorrect.
Also, the commenter above, pointing out we've had a D president for 8 years and also had expanding gun rights is being a bit disingenuous, if not intentionally misleading. We've also had a fracking boom and increasing 'income inequality' under Obama, and under Bush we had expanded environmental protections, but those things have come in spite of said administrations, not because of them.
The Obama Administration has done everything in their power, and possibly overstepped their constitutional authority on the gun issue. We have a separation of powers that is stopping the furthering of the agenda.
Transfer & Sale of public land are part of the platform, and have made it in the last few budget proposals. Congress also voted on a amendment that basically said they'd like to transfer public lands in January of 2015. So I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that congress could pass a mass transfer, and that a few certain candidates, if elected, would go along with it in the executive branch.
SCOTUS is a great thing to bring up as well. The mega-donors want more justices that limit the right of the people in terms of increased corporate giving (like the Wilks Brothers $15 million to a Super PAC would go to a candidate themselves). A further right court could also rule that public lands were not meant to be held in perpetuity.
So I'd rather have a SCOTUS that values the voice of the people and can withstand the onslaught of the anti-public land advocates over the possibility that Heller would be over turned, which I doubt.
Remember as well that Scalia has said the 2nd amendment is not inviolate. Limitations on the right exist, and are constitutional. I doubt that we'll go backwards much in terms of constitutional law on the 2nd amendment. Opponents will focus more on local and state level changes based on what is politically achievable, rather than trying for the hail mary of Supreme Court decision reversal.
At one time, I thought it to be a pie-in-the-sky idea, but no more. We have Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, who put together a budget in 2012 (?) that had a big part of revenue from selling public lands. We have Cruz, Rubio, Paul, and both UT Senators pushing usch in the Senate. I know they would have plenty of other support in the House from Bishop (UT), McClintock (CA), Lummis (WY), and other places of ID, AZ, NV, and UT.
If you added to that mix a President who, if elected. had made a campaign promise to some of his biggest donors that he intended to get these lands into private hands, I no longer think it is pie-in-the-sky. It is very real possibility under a Cruz Presidency and a Republican House and Senate. I would suggest that anyone who is concerned about this start beating the drum now and beating it loud with your Congressional Delegation.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
The number one tactic for those selling the shell game of land transfer to their constituents is emotionally charged anti-federal government sentiment. The average person who considers themselves conservative has moved from being an "issues" voter to a "personality" voter with the only requirement being that the personality they represent must spew anti-Obama rhetoric and promise to undo all the mistakes of he past.
Personally, I deplore much of the President's agenda and the direction he's taken the country, but I 'd like to think that I'm smart enough not to throw uncritical support behind someone who has made clear their intentions to dispose of something I hold very dear. It really does come down to who has the most influence over Republican candidates, the majority of constituents or the big money donors. In Cruz's case, I'm afraid that his ideology places him firmly in the camp of the big money donors even if they aren't funding his campaign in an effort to influence his votes. He believes in it himself.
I get the feeling that in our political system the American sportsman is the chicken in the hen house with a coyote guarding the door and defending his importance to us chickens by warning us there's a wolf out in the yard and if he's not there to protect us the wolf is going to eat us. Either that or it's a wolf warning us of a coyote in the yard.... Sometimes I'm not sure.
At any rate, until we can get back to focusing on the issues and pressuring politicians of both sides to represent us, we'll continue with the see-saw back and forth of who's in office while our concerns fall on deaf ears.
Personally, I deplore much of the President's agenda and the direction he's taken the country, but I 'd like to think that I'm smart enough not to throw uncritical support behind someone who has made clear their intentions to dispose of something I hold very dear. It really does come down to who has the most influence over Republican candidates, the majority of constituents or the big money donors. In Cruz's case, I'm afraid that his ideology places him firmly in the camp of the big money donors even if they aren't funding his campaign in an effort to influence his votes. He believes in it himself.
I get the feeling that in our political system the American sportsman is the chicken in the hen house with a coyote guarding the door and defending his importance to us chickens by warning us there's a wolf out in the yard and if he's not there to protect us the wolf is going to eat us. Either that or it's a wolf warning us of a coyote in the yard.... Sometimes I'm not sure.
At any rate, until we can get back to focusing on the issues and pressuring politicians of both sides to represent us, we'll continue with the see-saw back and forth of who's in office while our concerns fall on deaf ears.
bigskyblueman
Member
Additionally, the loss of our federal lands in Montana would be disastrous to our # 2 industry, tourism. The hospitality sector should pay attention.
Rancho Loco
Well-known member
There you go..
And that's petty cash to those boys. Imagine what they'll start kicking out to the state level hacks when the time comes.
