Romney/Ryan/GOP Platform: End Hunting in the West

[jryoung]

Ben, as I said, selling the land is not the most important issue for me. yes, care about what happens, but if nobama gets re-elected, he will continue to make sure I will be un-employed soon. not in the construction thing anymore. drive a coal truck down here. and there has already been coal companies close and file bankruptcy because of the crap nobama has done. so, employment, or lack thereof, rates higher than land right now. if romney were to win,, and they still want to sell the land, will stand right there with you to fight that. and yes, if I need to, can put up the quotes were nobama said he was going to bankrupt the coal industry.

You should look at any natural gas price index over the last 4-6 years. You can blame K Obama all you want but if you think he's the problem then you don't have a fracking clue (pun intended). Energy infrastructure has shifted their focus to natural gas because of how cheap it has become.

 

[d-bone20917]

If Romney wins, will he out-source his cabinet?

Only if it will put a lot of money in his pocket... or off shore accounts.

 

[idnative1948]

Only reason I threw it in the fray is because I heard it last night from a bartender over a *apple juice on the rocks*. Everybody wanted to talk politics and they know I do not discuss politics or religion. To me it's a good way to lose a friend so keep my opinions to myselt.

"That's a clown question bro." Bryce Harper:

 

[noharleyyet]

Only if it will put a lot of money in his pocket... or off shore accounts.

Gotta love the DNC & MSM's capability of creating class warfare parrots.

 

[Outdooraddict]

who hate the racist, muslim, son of a bitch to change our minds either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whoa! Was he flirtin' with your wife? Hate is a pretty strong word. He must have done something horrible to you...

 

[noharleyyet]

Only reason I threw it in the fray is because I heard it last night from a bartender over a *apple juice on the rocks*. Everybody wanted to talk politics and they know I do not discuss politics or religion. To me it's a good way to lose a friend so keep my opinions to myselt.

I try not to mix apple juice with quotes from morons.

 

[d-bone20917]

Gotta love the DNC & MSM's capability of creating class warfare parrots.

Who's the parrot?

 

[noharleyyet]

Who's the parrot?

Oh, I get it, you were kidding, right?

 

[rhomas]

....meanwhile, coal companies are sitting on train loads of coal with no where to ship it for use, and tankers are docked at unloading docks with millions of gallons of gas and oil while prices continue to rise. I guess that's Bush's fault if I were to listen to some of the liberals on here.

 

[JoseCuervo]

"Originally Posted by TLC
"It always amuses me when Republicans get all worked up about the Dems taking away guns. It's never going to happen, even if it is part of the "party platform."

what amuses me is that democrats are so sure that romney and ryan will sell the lands because it's part of the party platform, but when something is in the democrats party platform, there is nothing to worry about.

Maybe you think leaving your head in the sand will make it go away. But, not only is this in the Party Platform, it is a campaign promise by the VP nominee, and the Pres nominee.

To refresh:

Quote:
Let's see, we have the Ryan Plan where he wants to sell My Public Lands. so his plan will be used if they win the election? now you're a prognosticator?
We have Rmoney saying he doesn't even know why we have My Public Lands. and we have obama saying we should ban certain weapons.
And, we have Romney/Ryan and the whole GOP saying we need to sell My Public Lands." and we have the democrats with thier party plan saying we should ban certain weapons.

Josie, why didn't you answer the question? oh that's right. you THINK you are smarter than everyone else. problem is, that has proven to be wrong many times. and if you could comprehend what you read, I posted the party platform of the dems that states they want to ban guns(certain ones). as far as having my head buried in the sand. better than where you keep yours most of the time.

How long have you been posting on HuntTalk and are still too stupid to figure out how to quote another poster, correctly? It ain't rocket surgery.

As for you fabricated reason to attempt to remove the black president, no, I don't think re-electing Obama is going to affect my ownership of a single gun. We now have 4 years with Obama, not a single impact on my gun ownership. We do know, that Romney in his 4 years as Governor restricted the ownership of assault weapons.

Since Romney's actions to ban guns speak louder than his future promises to not, I will go with assuming Romney wants to ban guns.

Since Obama's actions to not sell My Public Lands speak louder than Romney's actions to ban guns, I will go with Obama.

Yeah, you got your head buried somewhere.

 

[JoseCuervo]

The facts are neither the sale of public lands or loss of your AR -15 is going to matter much if we don't deal with our fiscal issues. Neither side is equipped to do what has to done there.

The sale of public lands will not be at the top of the list. Romney won't lead with that if elected and most likely it will be over taken by events and never come up.

Nemont

PS not saying it isn't possible but it is about as remote of coming to fruition as confiscating guns.

Nemont, the reason Ryan wants to sell My Public Lands is because of FISCAL issues. That is the whole reason to be concerned with Romney and Ryan. Ryan put selling My Public Lands into his Ryan plan, because he thinks it is a good idea to sell the lands, raise money to provide tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires who will be hunting on My formerly Public Lands.

I would agree with you on social issues of them not getting traction, but the WHOLE reason to sell My Public Lands is for a short term fiscal boost to cover up Ryan's plan not making any serious attempts at fiscal reform.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nemont,

I agree with most of what you say with one exception:

Selling public lands is being tied to debt reduction, and therefore rises politically to a higher level. Furthermore, it's a chit for D's to trade, especially when bigger issues are on the line, and it actually helps D's if public lands are put up for sale.

That may be cynical, but I can see the vote trading happening with D's from states with little public land, or from states like Nevada, where there are an abundance of public lands.

BINGO!!!!!

We have a winner!!!

The Dem's in Mass-NY-NJ-MD-Mich-OH will quickly roll over on My Public Lands in the West if they can keep subsidies for shiny Amtrak trains in the East, or a new subway system in Boston.

Don't rely on Democrat obstructionism.

 

[jryoung]

....meanwhile, coal companies are sitting on train loads of coal with no where to ship it for use, and tankers are docked at unloading docks with millions of gallons of gas and oil while prices continue to rise. I guess that's Bush's fault if I were to listen to some of the liberals on here.

Coal it idle because of natural gas not because of whose in office. What do you mean by tankers sitting at unloading docks?

 

[JoseCuervo]

....meanwhile, coal companies are sitting on train loads of coal with no where to ship it for use, and tankers are docked at unloading docks with millions of gallons of gas and oil while prices continue to rise. I guess that's Bush's fault if I were to listen to some of the liberals on here.

What does any of that mean, other than perhaps that you started drinking even earlier than normal?

 

[Nemont]

BINGO!!!!!

We have a winner!!!

The Dem's in Mass-NY-NJ-MD-Mich-OH will quickly roll over on My Public Lands in the West if they can keep subsidies for shiny Amtrak trains in the East, or a new subway system in Boston.

Don't rely on Democrat obstructionism.

So the arguement is that we need bipartisanship but only if we do what a Democrat President wants, Republicans are just obstructionist when it comes to Obama's agenda. We should trust democrats to not sell off public lands only if they are in the White House but we can't trust them in the Senate.

We can't trust a Republican in the White House because the Democrats will trade away public lands, yet if the Democrats lose the Senate, Republicans keep the House and Obama keeps the White House we need the Republicans to compromise on everything else.

That is a piss poor arguement to reelect Obama.


Why even vote? Why is obstruction bad when there is a Democrat president but bipartisanship is bad when a Republican is president? If one side had all the answers they would always be in power.


There is no way I can in good conscience vote for Obama/Biden, too much incompetence. I won't vote for Romney/Ryan because their plan on the deficit won't balance until 2040, if then.

Nemont

 

[Tom]

Jose, I think we should write and ask they make sure it is a condition of the sale of all of your land that you get to hunt on it, especially most of Idaho, if that comes up in their considerations, eh? It would help pay the debt and protect your hunting even more. Call it the JoseCuervo amendment!

 

[JoseCuervo]

So the arguement is that we need bipartisanship but only if we do what a Democrat President wants, Republicans are just obstructionist when it comes to Obama's agenda. We should trust democrats to not sell off public lands only if they are in the White House but we can't trust them in the Senate.

We can't trust a Republican in the White House because the Democrats will trade away public lands, yet if the Democrats lose the Senate, Republicans keep the House and Obama keeps the White House we need the Republicans to compromise on everything else.

That is a piss poor arguement to reelect Obama.


Why even vote? Why is obstruction bad when there is a Democrat president but bipartisanship is bad when a Republican is president? If one side had all the answers they would always be in power.


There is no way I can in good conscience vote for Obama/Biden, too much incompetence. I won't vote for Romney/Ryan because their plan on the deficit won't balance until 2040, if then.

Nemont

I don't think we can trust eastern Democrats in NY-NJ-etc.... to be reliable obstructionists to keep the 40+ blocks in the Senate. If you want to rely on north east Democrats in the senate to protect My Public Lands in the West, we will disagree. How hard would it be to flip a Senator in MD-NY-CT who wants to keep their subway/rail subsidy going? You think a MD senator would be willing to stand with a bunch of racist, name calling hunters out west over their own constituents?

And, I do think we can trust republicans in the White House. And Romney, being the good Mormon he is, and Ryan, being the good Catholic he is, are men of principle, conviction, and honesty. And, when Romney and Ryan say they are going to sell My Public Lands, they produce budgets with selling My Public Lands, and they have their delegates approve party platforms calling for selling My Public Lands, then I have to believe Romney is honest and I trust he will sell My Public Lands.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Jose, I think we should write and ask they make sure it is a condition of the sale of all of your land that you get to hunt on it, especially most of Idaho, if that comes up in their considerations, eh? It would help pay the debt and protect your hunting even more. Call it the JoseCuervo amendment!

Tom,

I don't want a single acre to be sold in Colrado without a fight. I don't want a single acre in Wyoming to be sold. And, I don't want a single acre in Idaho to be sold.

And you know what, I will work to make sure that those acres are available to people in Texas to come hunt on, those who don't find it sporting to hunt next to a corn flinger, who don't shoot "something or nother's" off of 55 gallon drums behind high fences.

I will be more interested in a monument than an amendment!!

 

[Ben Lamb]

So the arguement is that we need bipartisanship but only if we do what a Democrat President wants, Republicans are just obstructionist when it comes to Obama's agenda. We should trust democrats to not sell off public lands only if they are in the White House but we can't trust them in the Senate.

We can't trust a Republican in the White House because the Democrats will trade away public lands, yet if the Democrats lose the Senate, Republicans keep the House and Obama keeps the White House we need the Republicans to compromise on everything else.

That is a piss poor arguement to reelect Obama.

For me, it's about the issue of public lands and conservation. I don't care one whit what party someone is affiliated with so long as they do the right thing. Unfortunately, there is one party who would rather sacrifice a great national treasure for short term goals, and that is abhorrent to me. I don't think it's far off the mark to say that President Obama has done better at managing public lands than his predecessor when it comes to resource development, finding new ways to eliminate excessive litigation and actually instituting a multiple use policy that allows for considerations of impacts to wildlife - something the previous administration, and the Republican party, steadfastly refuses to do.

Politics isn't easy. It's all subterfuge and games following the money and power. Personal gain trumps the good of the nation regardless of what party you are a part of. In my estimation, however, it's clear who the lesser of these two evils are. This would have been a much more difficult choice if former Secretary Rice had been selected as the VP candidate.

 

[Nemont]

I don't think we can trust eastern Democrats in NY-NJ-etc.... to be reliable obstructionists to keep the 40+ blocks in the Senate. If you want to rely on north east Democrats in the senate to protect My Public Lands in the West, we will disagree. How hard would it be to flip a Senator in MD-NY-CT who wants to keep their subway/rail subsidy going? You think a MD senator would be willing to stand with a bunch of racist, name calling hunters out west over their own constituents?

And, I do think we can trust republicans in the White House. And Romney, being the good Mormon he is, and Ryan, being the good Catholic he is, are men of principle, conviction, and honesty. And, when Romney and Ryan say they are going to sell My Public Lands, they produce budgets with selling My Public Lands, and they have their delegates approve party platforms calling for selling My Public Lands, then I have to believe Romney is honest and I trust he will sell My Public Lands.

I didn't say I trusted anybody, I said your arguement for a 2nd Obama term is piss poor. So are you saying we should take President Obama at his word and hold him to the same standard you hold Romney or is that you believe Obama is not honest?

What keeps a Republican House and Senate from flipping enough Dems to their side to make a veto threat a meaningless gesture?

Nemont

PS. Romney never said he would sell public lands, He said he didn't know why we have them.