Paul Ryan, bowhunter
- Thread starter Tom
- Start date
noharleyyet
Well-known member
dan.kirkpatrick
Well-known member
well,if he shoots a deer witha bow,hes lookin better than the democrat choices.
Tom
New member
bigeasygator
New member
Saw this one on another site as well...
rhomas
Banned
I wonder if he has a block target with Obama's picture as the bullseye????????
Rat Fink
Member
Any man willing to make cuts to entitlements, support the 2nd amendment and hunters, and start balancing the budget has my vote.
except he doesn't support hunters and wants to cut benefits to those who can't afford it while letting those who play bigger games with the tax code get off scott free.
And Mitt's hunting buddy Don Peay loves your assessment
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Aren't you tacitly approving of Magic O's running buddies? There's quite a list.
Nemont
Well-known member
Ben,
I can't stand either candidate but you do realize that the Ryan plan and the Obama plan for medicare use exactly the same formula to fund it: GDP growth plus 1.5%. Go look it up.
The difference is that Ryan gives a voucher that loses value over time and Obama cuts the providers. Already providers are dropping out of Medicare. So pick your poison.
I can't vote for Romney/Ryan and I will not vote for Obama/Biden. To me they are just different sides of the same coin. Obama has done as much for hunters as Ryan has, so that line of logic isn't going to cut it with most guys.
Ryan can hunt all he wants but if he wants to sell of public lands hunters should shun him like the plague. Obama should be shunned for what he wants to hand off to my kids and grand kids. Romney should have stayed at Bain Capital and Biden should be serving burgers and fries like the working people he supposedly represents.
If anyone thinks one ticket is better than the other you need your head examined
Nemont
I can't stand either candidate but you do realize that the Ryan plan and the Obama plan for medicare use exactly the same formula to fund it: GDP growth plus 1.5%. Go look it up.
The difference is that Ryan gives a voucher that loses value over time and Obama cuts the providers. Already providers are dropping out of Medicare. So pick your poison.
I can't vote for Romney/Ryan and I will not vote for Obama/Biden. To me they are just different sides of the same coin. Obama has done as much for hunters as Ryan has, so that line of logic isn't going to cut it with most guys.
Ryan can hunt all he wants but if he wants to sell of public lands hunters should shun him like the plague. Obama should be shunned for what he wants to hand off to my kids and grand kids. Romney should have stayed at Bain Capital and Biden should be serving burgers and fries like the working people he supposedly represents.
If anyone thinks one ticket is better than the other you need your head examined
Nemont
No.
Aren't you artfully trying to change the conversation away from Ryan's horrible record on public lands and wildlife management?
...and I didn't think I could like you (or your posts) any more than I already did!
I agree with a lot of that, especially on the Healthcare side (Romneycare v Obamacare, etc).
I would disagree that Obama has done little for hunters. His approach to public land policy through Salazar has been pretty danged good compared to past administrations. He's also pushed for increased funding for key conservation programs and has tried to end the ridiculous regulations surrounding Brucellosis (Elk are in the cross-hairs of producers, btw).
Do I agree with him on everything? No. But given the choice between two candidates who are similar in so many respects, it does come down to hunting and fishing for me. Romney and Ryan don't cut it.
dan.kirkpatrick
Well-known member
well if obama wants to hammer the gun laws,and paul wants to sell our public land,what side is the better one to vote for by us public hunters?pros and cons of both sides?
dan.kirkpatrick
Well-known member
can us sportsmen put up with obamas plans for 4 more years?I really dont know.at least paul hunts?
On guns:
We have the House solidly Republican, and the Senate, no matter what the outcome of the election, will not get to 60 votes for any new gun control leglsiation. We also have two supreme court cases that have established that individual ownership of firearms is protected under the second amendment. We also have conservative justices like Scalia telling the press that gun control is constitutional and that some limits should be in place. The likelihood of Obama appointing more SC justices is there, but given the precedent set by the Court already, I don't see them revisiting the issue in a substantive manner. Right, wrong or indifferent, the gun control issue is more of a red herring than an actual threat based on the future political climate. Obama simply doesn't have the votes or the ability to maneuver on that issue.
We have the House solidly Republican, and the Senate, no matter what the outcome of the election, will not get to 60 votes for any new gun control leglsiation. We also have two supreme court cases that have established that individual ownership of firearms is protected under the second amendment. We also have conservative justices like Scalia telling the press that gun control is constitutional and that some limits should be in place. The likelihood of Obama appointing more SC justices is there, but given the precedent set by the Court already, I don't see them revisiting the issue in a substantive manner. Right, wrong or indifferent, the gun control issue is more of a red herring than an actual threat based on the future political climate. Obama simply doesn't have the votes or the ability to maneuver on that issue.
