Official GOP Platform: Sell America's Public Land
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
DRAFTSTUD
Well-known member
That's Cool! Later! Running over 100 degree temp for the 4 th straight day has me out of it and the Root Canal the first of last week sure didn't help................I am going offline. LOL John
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Ben, assuming Woodward's depiction veracious, do you have heartburn with the CIC brainstorming against your sensitivities? You know full well executive caprice trumps platforms.
I absolutely do. Especially given the education that his staff and advisors have had on the issue, and the short-sightedness that it shows. The President showed a lack of leadership on this issue.
Now, assuming that Woodward was correct in his assertions that the House and the TEA Party Caucus held up substantive debate on the issue for as long as they did to effect the outcome of the election, do you have heartburn with putting the country's well being at risk for a political stunt?
Now, assuming that Woodward was correct in his assertions that the House and the TEA Party Caucus held up substantive debate on the issue for as long as they did to effect the outcome of the election, do you have heartburn with putting the country's well being at risk for a political stunt?
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Tough question Ben, to be completely honest, I'm tired of my side turning the cheek to DNC win by any means legacy. It is what it is for both sides.
Nemont
Well-known member
I think the actual premise of Woodward's book is that the President marginalized himself to the point that congress quit listening to him. Boehner said he had enough votes until the President insisted on $400 Billion more in revenue. At least that is Woodward's account and Boehner's account, no doubt there are tea party members who would think default was a good thing but there were enough votes to get to 218 for a deal.
Now that doesn't excuse Republicans putting into their platform the selling of public lands. That should be a loser anyone who recreates or otherwise enjoy's public lands. It also reinforces my belief that neither of the candidate is worthy of my vote because they are just different sides of the same coin.
Nemont
You could just list Obummers "wasting" taxpayer funds... Solindra?
Going after the state of Az [ sb1070] and taking the side of a foreign country [Mexico] , Gun running [ fast & furious]...Killing 2 BP agents... Wasting 4 yrs going after [ investigating] Joe Arpaio and coming up with NOTHING!.:hump:.. .. Yet The Liberal Media loves Obama.. Yes, Border security is a "sportmans issue"
I see it a little differently. Congress acted like petulant children rather than statesmen and women. I don't see Obama acting much different on this issue. Boehner has had problems controlling his House from day 1. The TEA party caucus has been leading the country around by the nose since they formed, and if anything, it's their actions that have caused the problems we're faced with today in regards to passing a budget or having substantive debates on issues.
From a purely mechanical point of view, the TEA party caucus has turned Congress into something similar to a Balkan chess match, without the swarthy mustaches and knives.
rhomas
Banned
Since I don't live in or hunt in the West, I don't really have a horse in this race; but, I do know that clear cutting areas actually improves a lot of the habitat as well as increases game activity and hunting opportunities. At least it does down here in the South. Clear cutting and the use of fire management have always helped create a new growth of native browse, while opening up areas for several game species such as quail, turkey, and deer to feed in. It also provides more nesting sites and sanctuary areas.
Perhaps I'm missing something here that would only be relevant to the public lands out West, but based on the SC DNR, GA DNR, and Florida Wildlife and Fisheries, their attitudes of clear cutting, thinning and controlled burning is based on scientific studies of what will actually benefit the wildlife, while also acquiring some much needed funds......on top of improving hunter success!! There is also the added bonus of creating more jobs for people in those trades.
I don't advocate selling public lands, but I also don't see why the natural resources that are there shouldn't be used for the benefit of the entire country. Leasing certain areas for oil exploration and development doesn't sound like it would be taking over all of the respective lands, nor, would the harvesting of timber in select areas.
BTW, when have we ever actually witnessed a POTUS, or a legislative body, actually follow a party platform word for word???????????
Perhaps I'm missing something here that would only be relevant to the public lands out West, but based on the SC DNR, GA DNR, and Florida Wildlife and Fisheries, their attitudes of clear cutting, thinning and controlled burning is based on scientific studies of what will actually benefit the wildlife, while also acquiring some much needed funds......on top of improving hunter success!! There is also the added bonus of creating more jobs for people in those trades.
I don't advocate selling public lands, but I also don't see why the natural resources that are there shouldn't be used for the benefit of the entire country. Leasing certain areas for oil exploration and development doesn't sound like it would be taking over all of the respective lands, nor, would the harvesting of timber in select areas.
BTW, when have we ever actually witnessed a POTUS, or a legislative body, actually follow a party platform word for word???????????
Last edited:
Nemont
Well-known member
Read Woodward's book, that isn't his view of it.
Just to be clear are saying the President acted as a Statesman or as a pentulant child?
I think it is a commentary on where we in that the Tea Party platform appeals to enough people for them to be duly elected. It is not as if the Tea Party has hid their agenda or rigged elections to gain office, seems like they are able to convince enough voters that their view is the one the represents their districts. Funny how people love democracy until they disagree with the results, elections have consquences. My advice to the opponents of the Tea Party is the same one I have for the Republicans when they lose this election for President, "You should have found a better candidate instead of whining about the outcome".
We can blame whomever but whether you like it or not the buck stops at the big chair or at least it used to.
Nemont
rhomas
Banned
What many people overlook is the fact that the "Tea Party" isn't really a party at all, and they have endorsed candidates from BOTH parties. What's wrong with a group that believes in less government control over state's rights issues, taxes, and doing something about illegals?????????
JoseCuervo
New member
Problem is, the GOP primaries can be won with 30-40% of the vote, pander to the Tea Party, pander to the people who don't think Women are smart enough to decide for themselves what gets stuffed up their vaginas, and you can win the GOP nomination.
It doesn't mean you have a mandate, it just means the nutcases in the GOP have enough of a stranglehold over the party to prevent it from functioning and/or governing.
Look at Romney's problem. He can't pander enough to the Tea Party nutcases to convince them he is one of them, and the amount of pandering he has done to the nutcases has lost him the independents and moderates.
Just like the Tea Party cost the Senate with the looney-tune Witch lady from Delaware and the even more bat-shit crazy lady from Nevada.
Nemont
Well-known member
Winning the primary doesn't mean diddly, they also have to go on and win the general election. Which is why I pointed out that those House members who are Tea Party supported members won their general elections and were sent to by the voters in their districts to act on their behalf. Why didn't the Democrats run a better candidates in those House Districts?
Grover Norquist, the Tea Party, a recalcritrant Senate, etc etc, should be turning off every independent in the country because that is who decided elections, yet it remains a fairly tight race, (well except in the Electoral College which Romney almost cannot win).
I don't think the Senate can function regardless of which party controls it.
Read Woodward's book, that isn't my opinion alone that President Obama isn't a great leader, that he badly miscalculates many important. I can't support either candidate. Obama is going to win but he won't be able to govern any more effectively because he can't claim a mandate either.
JoseCuervo
New member
Not sure that it matters in some right-wing districts who the D's put up. Just like some areas of the country (the more intelligent, educated ones) will always elect Democrats.
The problem with the Witch lady and the bat-shit crazy lady in Nevada was that they were seats the GOP should have won, but the Tea Party nut cases were enough to win the primary, then not able to win any independent voters. Instead of those two seats going to the GOP, the went to the Dems for the next 6 years due to the winner of the primaries.
Look at the nutcase in Missouri that thinks you can't get pregnant if you are raped who the right-winger's are supporting. He will likely cost the GOP another senate seat that they should easily win.
The GOP's only hope is for the adults in the room (I'm looking at you Jeb Bush) to stand up to the nonsense that is Gover Norquist, the Tea Party, and a bunch of his brother's Neo-Con nutcases and take the party back from the extremists.
Nemont
Well-known member
Yeah there are no Republicans elected from districts that have an educated population
I don't expect much of anything from the Republicans because they don't really believe in smaller government and most are not conservatives in the real sense of the word. You can't beat something with nothing, when Romney offers nothing he is going to lose, that is a fact.
Crappy Platform, terrible candidate running a even worse campaign nominated in a convention run by the three stooges. Mitt is not going to win, he can't unless something major changes but I can't see it.
Still can't vote for Obama as he just is in over his head. Gives a great speech, after that pretty much an empty chair.
Nemont
I don't expect much of anything from the Republicans because they don't really believe in smaller government and most are not conservatives in the real sense of the word. You can't beat something with nothing, when Romney offers nothing he is going to lose, that is a fact.
Crappy Platform, terrible candidate running a even worse campaign nominated in a convention run by the three stooges. Mitt is not going to win, he can't unless something major changes but I can't see it.
Still can't vote for Obama as he just is in over his head. Gives a great speech, after that pretty much an empty chair.
Nemont
Last edited:
JoseCuervo
New member
Yeah there are o Republicans elected from districts that have an educated population
I don't expect much of anything from the Republicans because they don't really believe in smaller government and most are not conservatives in the real sense of the word. You can't beat something with nothing, when Romney offers nothing he is going to lose, that is a fact.
Crappy Platform, terrible candidate running a even worse campaign nominated in a convention run by the three stooges. Mitt is not going to win, he can't unless something major changes but I can't see it.
Still can't vote for Obama as he just is in over his head. Gives a great speech, after that pretty much an empty chair.
Nemont
Since you are already conceding the White House, how do you fix the GOP party?
The whole "smaller government" cry may not be the best answer. Example: Romney wants to "block grant" Medicare (and a couple of other programs) back to the states so it is cheaper.
How does it work that it becomes cheaper to have "local control" with 50 states inventing their own versions of the wheel?
Why are the health insurance needs of someone in Montana different than someone in Georgia?
Why would a Dr. in Glasgow want a different set of rules/reimbursements for his clinic he has set up in Williston?
Why should school lunch programs be local control? etc...etc..?
Do you really get "smaller government" if you re-invent the wheel 50 times?
That's my problem with Obama on this issue. He's not been as strong of a leader as I would like. Congress always tries to make the President useless. It's President's job to force them into a corner, and be a freaking leader. TO be sure, Obama is no Clinton, or Reagan. Both of those men knew how to make congress bow. Both of those men did not have the level of obstructionism and hatred that this president has, true, but as we say, adversity reveals character.
Too bad the R's can't field anyone of better character to take him on.
Nemont
Well-known member
I can't see how Romney wins, he isn't running like he even wants to run. The turn around expert can't turn around his own campaign? That isn't a winning strategy.
As for the GOP:
First thing, just like AA, would be admit you have a problem. You can return to small government, stay out of people's bedrooms, champion individual freedom and still have a place for the Federal government.
Instead of turning everything over to the states who are already stressed you can reform all of those programs. That would require that we get rid of all the stupid "risk takers" rhetoric, the fantasy that we can close the deficit without major tax reform that includes additional revenue.
A real conservative, who is a debt and deficit hawk should be clamoring for a deal that forces a reduction in the growth of medicare and other entitlements, invests in infrastructure, and somehow better matches up our labor force with the jobs of tomorrow. Only growing private sector employment will ever begin to help pull ourselves up, yet even today with 24 million unemployed or underemployed we have 3.5 million jobs open that our labor force doesn't have the skills or training to fill. A thinking conservative would champion a new "GI bill" type program to improve the skills of our labor force.
If cutting taxes was the answer then our economy would be booming, if just spending more to create demand then our economy should be booming. We have an annual Trillion deficit, we have record low tax collections as a size of the economy. Both sides should understand that neither approach works in the extreme.
As an aside if state based programs are just a Rightwing thing how come the center piece of the PPACA is state based exchanges run by all the states?
Nemont
Last edited:
Similar threads
