Ted Cruz - Selling of Federal Land(s)

[Odin]

We're talking about an issue that hunters are deeply concerned bout because it impacts our heritage, our sport and a multi-billion doar industry. That it's in the political realm is a part of the discussion.

Fiscally irresponsible and unconstitutional has nothing to do with the land issue.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Fiscally irresponsible and unconstitutional has nothing to do with the land issue.

With the transfer of public land, it absolutely does. As far as selling public land, fiscal responsibility is a big part of public land management. So, yeah, it applies.

 

[Odin]

With the transfer of public land, it absolutely does. As far as selling public land, fiscal responsibility is a big part of public land management. So, yeah, it applies.

How is it fiscally irresponsible?


The reason to not sell or transfer public land has nothing to do with money.

 

[BuzzH]

Has everything to do with money...and the fact a Land Transfer would sink states like Utah, Montana and Wyoming financially.

Study the facts, jack.

 

[OriginalOscar]

He's my senator so I occasionally email him voicing my opinion on keeping public land public. I get a canned response back thanking me for my input and somehow get added to his email list. It almost never fails that one of the first emails is talking about his stance on selling public land.

I keep banging away, about all I can do.

The other half of the dumb & dumber duo is my Senator Lee. At least you get a response.

 

[Odin]

..and the fact a Land Transfer would sink states like Utah, Montana and Wyoming financially.

Study the facts, jack.

Where did I say otherwise?

I said the Feds keeping or transferring land had nothing to do with money.

 

[RobG]

BigRack, is that you?

Ha ha... I was trying to remember his name...

Carry on...

 

[Gerald Martin]

Good for you. That puts you in with most rank and file republicans I know who are close to abandoning the party for going down this fiscally irresponsible and unconstitutional road. Unfortunately, party leaders still pursue to effort to their own detriment both in state houses and in congress, as well as the campaign trail.

this isn't a party issue for voters. They will support public lands at the ballot box. Every poll done on this shows it, and there are marquee elections that back it up.

Ben, I wish that Republican leadership and presidential candidates would read this and take it to heart. Unfortunately for their party and for the common good of political give and take in this country, they have taken to pandering to the loudest voices on the fringe in order to be noticed. Conservatives upset at certain liberal policies have leveraged that outrage to positions of influence and governance. Unfortunately, many of the ones holding office and in a position to make positive changes have held a position of opposing the opposition for so long they do not know how to lead. All they know how to do is keep people fired up and upset at how bad the "liberals" have been so they can cover their own dysfunction.



Odin, I don't know how long you've been following this site, but on the issue of public lands and access, the Republican party (especially in Montana and Utah) has been on the wrong side of the fence both in stance and actual bills sponsored. Trying to obfuscate and split hairs with BuzzH and others only diminishes the validity of your argument. I am certain that Buzz and others passionate about access and public land would be pro-Republican if the Republicans were on the right side of the issue. Unfortunately, the Republican party is not and we all suffer for it.



Ultimately, how serious are Ted Cruz and other candidates about following through selling or transferring public lands? I don't know, but I do know they are tone deaf to the wishes of many who would support much of their other policies.

 

[Odin]

Ben, I wish that Republican leadership and presidential candidates would read this and take it to heart. Unfortunately for their party and for the common good of political give and take in this country, they have taken to pandering to the loudest voices on the fringe in order to be noticed. Conservatives upset at certain liberal policies have leveraged that outrage to positions of influence and governance. Unfortunately, many of the ones holding office and in a position to make positive changes have held a position of opposing the opposition for so long they do not know how to lead. All they know how to do is keep people fired up and upset at how bad the "liberals" have been so they can cover their own dysfunction.



Odin, I don't know how long you've been following this site, but on the issue of public lands and access, the Republican party (especially in Montana and Utah) has been on the wrong side of the fence both in stance and actual bills sponsored. Trying to obfuscate and split hairs with BuzzH and others only diminishes the validity of your argument. I am certain that Buzz and others passionate about access and public land would be pro-Republican if the Republicans were on the right side of the issue. Unfortunately, the Republican party is not and we all suffer for it.



Ultimately, how serious are Ted Cruz and other candidates about following through selling or transferring public lands? I don't know, but I do know they are tone deaf to the wishes of many who would support much of their other policies.

I am only speaking about the US Congress because they control what actually would happen with public land.

 

[Straight Arrow]

How is it fiscally irresponsible?
The reason to not sell or transfer public land has nothing to do with money.

Absurd! This question and assertion illustrates the axiom, "Logic cannot be applied where logic does not exist."

 

[Odin]

Absurd! This question and assertion illustrates the axiom, "Logic cannot be applied where logic does not exist."

Since when has the Federal Government cared about debt?

 

[BuzzH]

Straight Arrow,

He meant "the feds" even though I guess we're all supposed to magically read what isn't written...

 

[BuzzH]

I am only speaking about the US Congress because they control what actually would happen with public land.

Damned likely it wouldn't be Congress that decides what happens to public lands.

 

[Odin]

Damned likely it wouldn't be Congress that decides what happens to public lands.

Only Congress can sell or transfer land.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Since when has the Federal Government cared about debt?

I realize he meant the "feds" which makes this question absurd and cynical .... aside from illogical.

 

[TheJason]

Ha ha... I was trying to remember his name...

Carry on...

Me too. The cryptic, one line questions without any substance are eerily similar.

 

[noharleyyet]

This thread is how you make Pavlov's dog salivate.

....fact.

 

[hank4elk]

Cruz is a caracature of a carpetbagger,and could care less about the people of TX let alone the US citizens. He is in it for his own gain.

As for my revolution comment,here's a revolutionary one. Think outside the box folks!
Vote your best interests,not what some party hacks box says.

The fact that so many of us do have the second amendment in the backs of our minds is my point.......as in number of people that have them. Weapons.
So no one is going to invade us.

They won't have to,. and Most folks will just go on not thinking for themselves.

Bundy ? Really?
Guess there is a reason I stay off most talks of politics anymore

 

[tjones]

Ha ha... I was trying to remember his name...

Carry on...

I am a warehouse of useless knowledge.

 

[JWP58]

Cruz? No way.

We need Bernie Sanders, 100% pure unadulterated socialism. Should be pretty popular around here. Because lets face it, what's yours should be mine (and vice versa).....