One third of our public lands
- Thread starter Nameless Range
- Start date
Southwind
New member
I guess you need to decide whether you are fighting for a cause and want to win converts or chase them off with party bashing.
There is plenty of bashing that can be dealt out to both parties on a lot of issues if that is what you want but I am saying if it is this issue you are wanting allies and converts then that is not they way to do it.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Nemont, you are incorrect concerning "open hatred" of Republicans. Many on this forum, including myself, reached out and communicated with Republican legislators. We also thanked them when they supported those positions beneficial to wildlife and hunting. I personally continue to applaud good decisions, regardless of R, D, or I.
Please don't paint with that broad brush you accuse others of using.
Please don't paint with that broad brush you accuse others of using.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
The two party system Fs everything up, taps into peoples' tribalism, turns arguments into soldiers, and reinforces our biases.
I appreciated Zinke coming out against the attack on public lands, but I readily admit that I am wary of him due to the fact that he is voluntarily part of a contingent that unanimously voted in support of transferring public lands to the states.
But my wariness isn't really fair though is it?
To play the game you gotta join one of two teams, so an individual joins the team that most represents his beliefs. To quantify an example, an individual may be 34% aligned with the Rs and 32% aligned with the Ds and 33% aligned with neither, but to win at the game their are only two pragmatic choices. R or D.
So joining the Rs or the Ds does play into the criticisms of, as Nemont put it, "the low hanging fruit". Because the low hanging fruit is on a team they want to win. Their psychology puts blinders on any information in opposition to that goal. To exacerbate the issue, we have all met people who, either an R or a D, are 100% R or D in terms of their beliefs, therefore giving a seeming justification to the criticisms of the "low hanging fruit".
To me, it says something pathetic about a man when you can tell how he stands on every issue simply by how he stands on one.
I wish everyone were Independents, and ran on a platform they wrote themselves. Or even better, as the Philosopher Richard Carrier has argued for, a random sample system of Government:
Nearly every vote I have ever cast has simply been an exercise in harm reduction, or as South Park put it, choosing between a Douche and a Turd Sandwich.
The best and most fair thing we can currently do is focus on individual policy positions and ignore the two party labeling. I think most sportsman orgs in Montana have done just that in the last week when it comes to Mr. Zinke.
Lunch break is winding down. Rant over.
I appreciated Zinke coming out against the attack on public lands, but I readily admit that I am wary of him due to the fact that he is voluntarily part of a contingent that unanimously voted in support of transferring public lands to the states.
But my wariness isn't really fair though is it?
To play the game you gotta join one of two teams, so an individual joins the team that most represents his beliefs. To quantify an example, an individual may be 34% aligned with the Rs and 32% aligned with the Ds and 33% aligned with neither, but to win at the game their are only two pragmatic choices. R or D.
So joining the Rs or the Ds does play into the criticisms of, as Nemont put it, "the low hanging fruit". Because the low hanging fruit is on a team they want to win. Their psychology puts blinders on any information in opposition to that goal. To exacerbate the issue, we have all met people who, either an R or a D, are 100% R or D in terms of their beliefs, therefore giving a seeming justification to the criticisms of the "low hanging fruit".
To me, it says something pathetic about a man when you can tell how he stands on every issue simply by how he stands on one.
I wish everyone were Independents, and ran on a platform they wrote themselves. Or even better, as the Philosopher Richard Carrier has argued for, a random sample system of Government:
Nearly every vote I have ever cast has simply been an exercise in harm reduction, or as South Park put it, choosing between a Douche and a Turd Sandwich.
The best and most fair thing we can currently do is focus on individual policy positions and ignore the two party labeling. I think most sportsman orgs in Montana have done just that in the last week when it comes to Mr. Zinke.
Lunch break is winding down. Rant over.
Last edited:
RobG
Well-known member
It received no press, but I think the real test this year was HB454 which will prevent the tea totalitarians from closing the primaries. Same with the SB 289, campaign disclosure. The ones supporting those bills had guts. Republicans need to take back their party and those were starts.
I didn't see much in the wildlife area - and I think it is because of all the hell we raised last session but I could be wrong.
Debbie Barrett wrote a column in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle that I thought was awesome. The good part was where she said "as this will be my last session..."
I didn't see much in the wildlife area - and I think it is because of all the hell we raised last session but I could be wrong.
Debbie Barrett wrote a column in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle that I thought was awesome. The good part was where she said "as this will be my last session..."
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
This is true. We seem to be talking about Repubs right now but don't forget an attaboy to the Dems who support good policy and oppose bad policy.
Nemont
Well-known member
Well all I can tell you is that an important person on this board sent me a note saying that they appreciated me posting observation. This person stated that regardless of what is put up on this board, if it is positive about Republicans, the negative messages from those who believe the only party is on the left flow freely.
If you are not one who is a poop flinging monkey then good on ya.
I have my own ideas of who is and is not able to think outside of party lines.
The truth is that the fight over transfer of public lands is going to be either won or lost on the right side of the political aisles. The left has enough bad ideas of their own, not generally supporting the transfer of public land doesn't confer upon the left sainthood.
Nemont
Nemont
Well-known member
I have sent Sen. Tester numerous positive messages about many of his positions and votes over the years.
Nemont
Nemont
Well-known member
T
tjones
Guest
Well, attaboy!
Why do legislatures need or deserve an attaboy everytime they do something right but we are suppose to bite our tongues when they don't? Aren't they just doing their jobs, the jobs they were elected to do? Does the kid sacking groceries get an attaboy everytime he double bags? A lot of folks out their do their jobs and do them well without an expectation of a pat on the back.
Well, attaboy!
Why do legislatures need or deserve an attaboy everytime they do something right but we are suppose to bite our tongues when they don't? Aren't they just doing their jobs, the jobs they were elected to do? Does the kid sacking groceries get an attaboy everytime he double bags? A lot of folks out their do their jobs and do them well without an expectation of a pat on the back.
A lot of politicians need to hear from constituents to ensure that they are following the right path. Trusting any politician to do "the right thing" means that they still have a moral compass. In order to get elected, most have to get rid of that compass and simply do what they feel the voters or donors want.
Certain exceptions apply, as we've seen. But the difference between a bag boy and a politician is that the bag boy can ruin your eggs, while the politician can ruin your hunting, the economy, national security, etc.
Nemont
Well-known member
Well, attaboy!
Why do legislatures need or deserve an attaboy everytime they do something right but we are suppose to bite our tongues when they don't? Aren't they just doing their jobs, the jobs they were elected to do? Does the kid sacking groceries get an attaboy everytime he double bags? A lot of folks out their do their jobs and do them well without an expectation of a pat on the back.
Who said hold your tongue about anything or patting them on the back every time? Who said don't hold them accountable?
I guess you can go the no positive feed back if you want but that would mean you should ascribe to no negative feedback either. If people just did their jobs because that is their job why are all those incentive and reward programs implemented? The kid bagging groceries gets a tip from me if they don't stack my beer on top of my bread and are courtesy in their service.
Legislators are human and just like any human appreciate a reward and don't enjoy a reprimand.
It is stuff like this:
Also how do you expect to change office holders votes if the people who are on the opposite side of your issues are patting the office holder on the back and all they get from you is cutting remarks? Which constituent would you listen to first? Which would be easy to ignore. It is politics.
You can hold people accountable without coming off as a foaming mouthed whack job. There are plenty of those out there on both sides but at the extremes is never where policy ends up in the long run. It is the people who can disagree without being disagreeable who get it done.
Nemont
Last edited:
T
tjones
Guest
T
tjones
Guest
bigskyblueman
Member
Over the years , on various issues, both parties have strayed into the Bermuda Triangle. Why they voted one way and who got the credit are fleeting and pale in comparison to the outcome.
RobG
Well-known member
The truth is, Nemont, at this point in time a person has to break from the Republican leadership to be a friend of habitat. Many recognize that fact here and aren't happy about it. Some get carried away with it and get off topic or maybe don't glorify the ones that break away for one bill but generally aren't helpful. (And I can't think of any MT R who really advocated for wildlife). Others here don't see it and think the states can "manage" our lands better and there is a libtard in every closet waiting to steal your guns. Yes those guys speak up here too. I think if a politician looks here he will overall see an educated bunch of guys bringing up good points with a few idiots in the peanut gallery.
Truthfully, the Rs in this state do a pretty good job of making fools out of themselves - especially on wildlife issues - but the only way the voters will see it is if we just keep pointing out what they do.
The other day you were saying I was "butt hurt" and making ridiculous claims about why I was bringing up a certain topic. There's fixin to be done all around.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
I'm relatively new here but I'll tell you the subjective feeling I got from this place when I first arrived: Mainly Republicans and Conservatives who really love hunting and love public lands. Thus, they have some hand-wringing and consternation when faced with the fact that many in their own party are adverse to their interests.
Over the months I've been pleasantly surprised to see a few posters that are somewhat further to the left than I originally thought; but overall my initial read is still my sense of things. Thus, and because it's hard for a liberal like myself to find a home on the internet where a mutual love for guns and hunting can be discussed without fisticuffs, I try to remain civil and check my natural inclination toward the administration of written beatings.
In short, I do not now and never have gotten the impression this place is full of Republican-haters. Quite the opposite. I think if someone feels put-upon, that feeling has all the foundation of a War On Christmas.
Over the months I've been pleasantly surprised to see a few posters that are somewhat further to the left than I originally thought; but overall my initial read is still my sense of things. Thus, and because it's hard for a liberal like myself to find a home on the internet where a mutual love for guns and hunting can be discussed without fisticuffs, I try to remain civil and check my natural inclination toward the administration of written beatings.
In short, I do not now and never have gotten the impression this place is full of Republican-haters. Quite the opposite. I think if someone feels put-upon, that feeling has all the foundation of a War On Christmas.
Last edited:
Nemont
Well-known member
First of all you were whining like a little girl over something Mr. Allen from the RMEF said, none of that was about an elected official. We are talking about politicians not leaders of the RMEF. If you don't like the RMEF, don't join them. I don't have the luxury to not join in what the Montana legislature decides because I am a resident of Montana. That is comparing apples to Tuesday.
Secondly I never said anything more that hold your elected officials accountable. If you think the Democrats are all that and a bag of chips that is fine. I have to deal every day with regulations and rules pushed through by Democrats and it sucks the big one. So far not a single acre of public land has been sold off through the push for State Control. So far the net effect of all the hot air is to energize the stake holders to fight it out to protect public lands. Apply the same net effect to my business of being in health insurance and see which party has affected me and my clients.
You are still butt hurt.
Nemont
