Should States take control over Federal lands?

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby dudejcb » Mon Apr 21, 2014 6:41 pm

beretta24 wrote:Most the folks I know is WI are happy with the economic impact. Walker has made big changes in a largely blue state. WI is in a fiscally stronger position and all but some hippies deadbeats in Milwaukee and Madison seem to support him. Granted, he's given less money to the deadbeats, but I half support that. :hi:
Wisconsin was fiscally stronger before Walker became governor. He promptly gave away the surplus to large donor to create a fiscal problem he then exploited because very few understood what he did.

He also put a real estate developer (and, wait for tit, donor) in charge of the DNR to weaken long standing environmental regs and make it easier for his cronies to develop and denude. But, like most of his ilk he lies very effectively and an awful lot of people swallow it hook, line, and sinker without much if any thought.

BTW: No one in my family is a hippie or a dead beat. They live in places like Stevens Point, Appleton, Green Bay, and about 15 miles west of Madison. I have many friends in those place and others (Rhinelander) who are not at all pleased with Walker.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho


Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Apr 21, 2014 6:53 pm

MNGunner wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
MNGunner wrote:Given that most of where I hunt is all Federal public land (Chippewa and Superior National Forest and the Upper Mississippi National Wildlife Refuge), and how I see how much people down south have to pay to lease hunting spots (sometimes $1000's/year), I'd rather see it stay Federal and public.

Minnesota has less than 6% of their land in the hands of the feds. Nevada on the other hand has almost 85% of its land in the hands of the feds. The MN fraction of 6% seems like a good target number too me. I am not talking about going to zero. I'm talking about 10% max or more than 50% more land in federal hand than currently exists in MN. We are talking about a very different situation. Apples and Oranges. Just think what MN would look like if 85% of the land was owned by the feds or even 30% as in WA. Would you really want that? I doubt it.



So you're saying I'd have have 14 times as much hunting land if I lived in Nevada along with legalized gambling and prostitution??? Where do I sign up? :lol3:

Well, the feds have controlled that land since long before these were states as I posted earlier. A lot of these settlers got incentives including free land to homestead that area. If it weren't for the Federal gov't, those Nevadans would currently be in a part of Mexico (maybe battling it out with the cartels). If they don't like it, they never should have moved west. They knew the deal when they went out there that the Feds owned the majority of that land--it was like that when these states were admitted to the Union.

Why would they be in Mexico? :huh: Granted they aren't the near lily white state like MN, but they are not even close to majority Mexican descent.

And you don't have to sign up, just pack up and move. I was just out there last week, there is nothing to stop you at the border. If you think it is so great, I expect you will be on your way before the years end. Good luck and post up some pictures.

Why did Minnesota get benefits, but the new states are out of luck?

http://www.ehow.com/list_6777058_minnesota-land-grants.html
I don't know the details, but I''m sure you are correct that a lot of incentives were given to move to Minnesota. We should do the same thing for western states.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16128
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby On the X » Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:27 pm

like most of his ilk he lies very effectively and an awful lot of people swallow it hook, line, and sinker without much if any thought.

I could make a remark about Obama now but I'm gonna ask you a question instead dude...."after making this statement can you really still claim to support our current POTUS, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Harry Reid etc. etc. etc. ?
On the X
hunter
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby dudejcb » Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:53 pm

On the X wrote:
like most of his ilk he lies very effectively and an awful lot of people swallow it hook, line, and sinker without much if any thought.

I could make a remark about Obama now but I'm gonna ask you a question instead dude...."after making this statement can you really still claim to support our current POTUS, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Harry Reid etc. etc. etc. ?
They are what they are, and I still think they're better than the alternatives we had to choose from.

Let's face it, both parties (rather all parties) have their fair share of problems and no one is perfect. In fact, they killed the last perfect person and we just celebrated that event this weekend. Jesus, the original liberal progressive.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:54 pm

dudejcb wrote:
On the X wrote:
like most of his ilk he lies very effectively and an awful lot of people swallow it hook, line, and sinker without much if any thought.

I could make a remark about Obama now but I'm gonna ask you a question instead dude...."after making this statement can you really still claim to support our current POTUS, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Harry Reid etc. etc. etc. ?
They are what they are, and I still think they're better than the alternatives we had to choose from.

Let's face it, both parties (rather all parties) have their fair share of problems and no one is perfect. In fact, they killed the last perfect person and we just celebrated that event this weekend. Jesus, the original liberal progressive.

Say what?
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57008
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby MNGunner » Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:02 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
MNGunner wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
MNGunner wrote:Given that most of where I hunt is all Federal public land (Chippewa and Superior National Forest and the Upper Mississippi National Wildlife Refuge), and how I see how much people down south have to pay to lease hunting spots (sometimes $1000's/year), I'd rather see it stay Federal and public.

Minnesota has less than 6% of their land in the hands of the feds. Nevada on the other hand has almost 85% of its land in the hands of the feds. The MN fraction of 6% seems like a good target number too me. I am not talking about going to zero. I'm talking about 10% max or more than 50% more land in federal hand than currently exists in MN. We are talking about a very different situation. Apples and Oranges. Just think what MN would look like if 85% of the land was owned by the feds or even 30% as in WA. Would you really want that? I doubt it.



So you're saying I'd have have 14 times as much hunting land if I lived in Nevada along with legalized gambling and prostitution??? Where do I sign up? :lol3:

Well, the feds have controlled that land since long before these were states as I posted earlier. A lot of these settlers got incentives including free land to homestead that area. If it weren't for the Federal gov't, those Nevadans would currently be in a part of Mexico (maybe battling it out with the cartels). If they don't like it, they never should have moved west. They knew the deal when they went out there that the Feds owned the majority of that land--it was like that when these states were admitted to the Union.

Why would they be in Mexico? :huh: Granted they aren't the near lily white state like MN, but they are not even close to majority Mexican descent.


And you don't have to sign up, just pack up and move. I was just out there last week, there is nothing to stop you at the border. If you think it is so great, I expect you will be on your way before the years end. Good luck and post up some pictures.

Why did Minnesota get benefits, but the new states are out of luck?

http://www.ehow.com/list_6777058_minnesota-land-grants.html
I don't know the details, but I''m sure you are correct that a lot of incentives were given to move to Minnesota. We should do the same thing for western states.


Because the land that is currently they occupy used to be part of Mexico until the Federal government won it in the Mexican American War in 1848.

Almost all the Western states got the benefits, not just MN (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_Land_Claim_Act):

Donation Land Claim Act

"The Donation Land Claim Act of 1850, sometimes known as the Donation Land Act, Ch 76–9 Stat. 496 was a statute enacted in late 1850 by the United States Congress. It was intended to promote homestead settlements in the Oregon Territory in the Pacific Northwest (comprising the present-day states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho and part of Wyoming). The law, a forerunner of the later Homestead Act, brought thousands of white settlers into the new territory, swelling the ranks of settlers traveling along the Oregon Trail. 7,437 land patents were issued under the law, which expired in late 1855.

The passage of the law was largely due to the efforts of Samuel R. Thurston, the Oregon territorial delegate to Congress.[1] The act, which became law on September 27, 1850, granted 320 acres (1.3 km2) of designated areas free of charge to every unmarried white male citizen eighteen or older–and 640 acres (2.6 km2) to every married couple–arriving in the Oregon Territory before December 1, 1850.[2] In the case of a married couple, the husband and wife each owned half of the total grant in their own name. The law was one of the first that allowed married women in the United States to hold property under their own name.[1] Half-blood Native Americans were also eligible for the grant.[3] A provision in the law granted half the amount to those who arrived after the 1850 deadline but before 1854.[3] Claimants were required to live on the land and cultivate it for four years to own it outright.[2]"

This was jus one of several Homestead Acts in which te Fed Gov't gave land away to settlers:

Between 1862 and 1934, the federal government granted 1.6 million homesteads and distributed 270,000,000 acres (420,000 sq mi) of federal land for private ownership. This was a total of 10% of all land in the United States.[2] Homesteading was discontinued in 1976, except in Alaska, where it continued until 1986.
Last edited by MNGunner on Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MNGunner
hunter
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 5:43 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby dudejcb » Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:07 pm

Spinner,

part of the reason why so much western land is BLM, Forest Service, or Bureau of Reclamation is no one wants to pay taxes on the pretty much worthless property. Believe me, most of good spots (where there's reliable year round water and forage) are already in private hands. The settlers were smart that way when they picked out their homesteads.
Last edited by dudejcb on Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby MNGunner » Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:14 pm

Rat Creek wrote: Dude, why do you put so much trust in a Big Fed Gov, which has proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted, yet you put so little faith in local governments where you can actually get an appointment to go meet with your representative? :huh:


If you think local government is so superior to federal, you haven't spent any time in Detroit, D.C, Chicago or the entire bankrupt state of Illinois.
MNGunner
hunter
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 5:43 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby dudejcb » Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:46 pm

^^^ :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

Where's Spinner now?
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby On the X » Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:45 pm

Jesus, the original liberal progressive.

The liberal movement has accepted way to many sinful agendas for Jesus to be happy......matter of fact, because of it all, he's coming back.
On the X
hunter
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:41 am

MNGunner wrote:If you think local government is so superior to federal, you haven't spent any time in Detroit, D.C, Chicago or the entire bankrupt state of Illinois.

I don't think they are superior at all. I think they are just as likely to be a disaster. When local government is a disaster, the disaster is limited in scope and magnitude. No way in hell am I living inside the city limits of Detroit, D.C., or Chicago. I do live in Illinois and trust me, I am not committed to stay and could at any time simply move if it gets too bad.

It's the old adage, don't put all your eggs in one basket :thumbsup:

Local governments are not superior. In some ways they are and others they are not, but when you get a bunch of morons in charge at the state or local level, one solution that millions have taken in those cities you list and that is Image

One reason local governments are better is just that. They do not have an effective monopoly. You can easily leave their jurisdiction. Leaving the jurisdiction of the federal government on the other hand is much more difficult for most people.

Do everything at the lowest level possible? Let the people decide when they are capable. If that is not possible, then let the local government decide since they are closest to the people, but don't give them too much power (see all your examples and a lot more). If the local government can't handle it, then raise it to the state level. And only when it is not possible, doesn't mean they won't Image it up sometimes (see your example of Illinois and many others), then the central government has to step in such as wars, etc. The list in the Constitution is pretty good to stick to and interpret in the most constraining way possible on the government. Of course, the central government will Image it up and while Chicago, Detroit, and DC are bad, look what happened when the German government Image it up, or the Japanese, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or the Zimbabwean, or the Venezuelan, or the Cuban, or the ...

All level of government is but a necessary evil. We just need to constrain them to what is absolutely necessary. It is not even close to absolutely necessary for the federal government to own all that land. It is not even close to absolutely necessary for the state government to own all of that land. It is not even close to absolutely necessary for the local government to own all of that land. So the people should be the ones to own all of that land and the local, state, and federal government regulate its use when it is absolutely necessary. What is absolutely necessary is subjective and I am much looser with my definition at lower levels? Parks, recreation, etc. fit into that in a limited scope. Yellowstone is a unique national treasure, so it fits. Vast tracts of forest, scrub land, etc. obviously do not.

dudejcb wrote:^^^ :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

Where's Spinner now?

That's exactly where I am. Same place as I have always been.

BTW, where is the Republican disaster in that list? They are all Democrat strongholds. One of them is where Obama learned his craft. What do you think he learned? How to do it right? :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

dudejcb wrote:Spinner,

part of the reason why so much western land is BLM, Forest Service, or Bureau of Reclamation is no one wants to pay taxes on the pretty much worthless property. Believe me, most of good spots (where there's reliable year round water and forage) are already in private hands. The settlers were smart that way when they picked out their homesteads.

I don't know how they tax out there, but that is easy to fix.

If the tax rate is proportional to the property value, the total tax on worthless land is exactly $0.00. That of course, gives lie to the argument that this land has significant value as a hunting and recreational asset. If it is valuable for that, the land will have some value and you package that with the limited grazing or whatever other uses are possible, you come up with the fair market value. Granted that may only be $5/acre and not the $200,000 per acre or whatever land goes for around here, but it is what it is.

The tax on $5/acre is still more than no tax at all is it not :yes:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16128
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby beretta24 » Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:31 am

dudejcb wrote:...wait for tit...

BTW: No one in my family is a hippie or a dead beat. They live in places like Stevens Point, Appleton, Green Bay, and about 15 miles west of Madison. I have many friends in those place and others (Rhinelander) who are not at all pleased with Walker.

Still waiting by the way.

I was just joking the hippies and deadbeats thing.

Do you really see Jesus as a liberal progressive? I honestly don't get that. There are numerous examples in the good book, both including and excluding Jesus himself, that would suggest he's neither liberal or conservative in mindset.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5808
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby dudejcb » Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:35 pm

On the X wrote:
Jesus, the original liberal progressive.

The liberal movement has accepted way to many sinful agendas for Jesus to be happy......matter of fact, because of it all, he's coming back.

You realize that speaking for Jesus or God is blasphemy, right. that's a sin.

BTW: From what I recall, Jesus was tolerant of sinners but exhorted them to become better, more thoughtful, more tolerant, more giving to others. What really riled him up were hypocrites clothed in religious garb (that's a metaphor) as a means to stick it to others.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby Indaswamp » Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:04 pm

dudejcb wrote:
On the X wrote:
Jesus, the original liberal progressive.

The liberal movement has accepted way to many sinful agendas for Jesus to be happy......matter of fact, because of it all, he's coming back.

You realize that speaking for Jesus or God is blasphemy, right. that's a sin.

BTW: From what I recall, Jesus was tolerant of sinners but exhorted them to become better, more thoughtful, more tolerant, more giving to others. What really riled him up were hypocrites clothed in religious garb (that's a metaphor) as a means to stick it to others.

pot meet kettle....
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57008
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby On the X » Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:08 pm

dudejcb wrote:
On the X wrote:
Jesus, the original liberal progressive.

The liberal movement has accepted way to many sinful agendas for Jesus to be happy......matter of fact, because of it all, he's coming back.

You realize that speaking for Jesus or God is blasphemy, right. that's a sin.

BTW: From what I recall, Jesus was tolerant of sinners but exhorted them to become better, more thoughtful, more tolerant, more giving to others. What really riled him up were hypocrites clothed in religious garb (that's a metaphor) as a means to stick it to others.

Love the sinner hate the sin, I get that dude, but what I said wasn't speaking for Jesus. I was making a statement I believe to be true and according to your confessed beliefs you agree with me. Jesus did not condone sin and the sins of man is why he will return. The liberal agenda has accepted, embraced many beliefs, ideas and ways of life that according to the Bible and Jesus' word are sins. Oh, and by, the liberal agenda has embraced the ultimate sin, which is the denial of God. No, I don't speak for Jesus so all I can do is ask (even though I probably know the answer), I wonder how Jesus feels/ would feel about another piece of the liberal movement agenda which is abortion?
On the X
hunter
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby dudejcb » Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:20 pm

X: are you for personal freedom or not?

No one is pro abortion except maybe the devil. The decision to abort is personal for the woman with the advice of her doctor. The only thing that make legal abortion tolerable is the undeniable fact of dangerous illegal abortion where both the baby and the mother die horribly.

But let's not hijack this thread.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:30 pm

dudejcb wrote:X: are you for personal freedom or not?

No one is pro abortion except maybe the devil. The decision to abort is personal for the woman with the advice of her doctor. The only thing that make legal abortion tolerable is the undeniable fact of dangerous illegal abortion where both the baby and the mother die horribly.

But let's not hijack this thread.

The decision to drown ones children in the bathtub seems like it would be a quite personal decision as well, would it not? :huh:

Only one question is relevant, when is it a baby? If it is not a baby, sure, it's still personal like any other growth being removed from your body. If it is a baby, IT IS A BABY and whether conceived by rape, incest, intentionally, or whatever way is totally irrelevant. If it is not, then none of that is relevant either. If it is not a baby until first breath, then very late term abortions are no different than abortions 30 seconds after conception. All this crap about it being personal or treating babies conceived by rape differently is just a distraction from the only relevant question, when is a human and if it is not a human at some point, then what is it and how does it transform to a human?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16128
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby On the X » Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:08 pm

dudejcb wrote:X: are you for personal freedom or not?

No one is pro abortion except maybe the devil. The decision to abort is personal for the woman with the advice of her doctor. The only thing that make legal abortion tolerable is the undeniable fact of dangerous illegal abortion where both the baby and the mother die horribly.

But let's not hijack this thread.

Should I have the personal freedom to kill the time by having sex with my Chesapeake when the ducks aren't flying ? Abortion is a sin whether it is a personal freedom or not. Two people can decide to have sex out of wedlock, that's a sin. The argument of personal freedom is irrelevant to the discussion started by you when you brought Jesus into it. You're either pro or anti-abortion dude.....if you accept a woman choosing to have an abortion as her personal freedom then you are pro abortion. If you are in support of a politician who supports abortion you in turn have supported abortion which makes you pro abortion. I didn't hi-jack the thread, it just has evolved with the latest twist being brought on by you.
On the X
hunter
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby dudejcb » Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:24 pm

On the X wrote:
dudejcb wrote:X: are you for personal freedom or not?

No one is pro abortion except maybe the devil. The decision to abort is personal for the woman with the advice of her doctor. The only thing that make legal abortion tolerable is the undeniable fact of dangerous illegal abortion where both the baby and the mother die horribly.

But let's not hijack this thread.

Should I have the personal freedom to kill the time by having sex with my Chesapeake when the ducks aren't flying ? Abortion is a sin whether it is a personal freedom or not. Two people can decide to have sex out of wedlock, that's a sin. The argument of personal freedom is irrelevant to the discussion started by you when you brought Jesus into it. You're either pro or anti-abortion dude.....if you accept a woman choosing to have an abortion as her personal freedom then you are pro abortion. If you are in support of a politician who supports abortion you in turn have supported abortion which makes you pro abortion. I didn't hi-jack the thread, it just has evolved with the latest twist being brought on by you.

I didn't bring it up for it's own sake. Rather I simply pointed out that you are for personal choice and freedom as long as it conforms with your dogma by citing a topic I knew you would not be for personal choice. That is: you pick and choose what freedom of choice you (and many like you) wish to support depending on YOUR view, not the individual's view or circumstance.

Chessies are tough dogs who will endure quite a bit of abuse from their masters.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby On the X » Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:51 pm

dudejcb wrote:
I didn't bring it up for it's own sake. Rather I simply pointed out that you are for personal choice and freedom as long as it conforms with your dogma by citing a topic I knew you would not be for personal choice. That is: you pick and choose what freedom of choice you (and many like you) wish to support depending on YOUR view, not the individual's view or circumstance.

Chessies are tough dogs who will endure quite a bit of abuse from their masters
.

dude, what you brought up was Jesus. I followed by bringing up sins and the sins the liberal movement has accepted. No where and I mean NO WHERE did I even begin to delve into MY personal thoughts on "personal freedoms" I know its human nature to spin a subject in the direction that best suits you and its also human nature to read what you want to see but come on, you're smarter than this.
Chessies ARE tough and can endure quite a bit from a harsh environment, but don't take abuse from the masters well at all. They will completely fold up on you or bolt (run or swim away from the situation). I've worked with 'em for 20 years. Labs are the breed who will take the handlers beating and keep going, not the peakes.
On the X
hunter
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby clampdaddy » Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:04 pm

dudejcb wrote:
On the X wrote:
dudejcb wrote:X: are you for personal freedom or not?

No one is pro abortion except maybe the devil. The decision to abort is personal for the woman with the advice of her doctor. The only thing that make legal abortion tolerable is the undeniable fact of dangerous illegal abortion where both the baby and the mother die horribly.

But let's not hijack this thread.

Should I have the personal freedom to kill the time by having sex with my Chesapeake when the ducks aren't flying ? Abortion is a sin whether it is a personal freedom or not. Two people can decide to have sex out of wedlock, that's a sin. The argument of personal freedom is irrelevant to the discussion started by you when you brought Jesus into it. You're either pro or anti-abortion dude.....if you accept a woman choosing to have an abortion as her personal freedom then you are pro abortion. If you are in support of a politician who supports abortion you in turn have supported abortion which makes you pro abortion. I didn't hi-jack the thread, it just has evolved with the latest twist being brought on by you.

I didn't bring it up for it's own sake. Rather I simply pointed out that you are for personal choice and freedom as long as it conforms with your dogma by citing a topic I knew you would not be for personal choice. That is: you pick and choose what freedom of choice you (and many like you) wish to support depending on YOUR view, not the individual's view or circumstance.

Chessies are tough dogs who will endure quite a bit of abuse from their masters.

Silly argument. Dude, should I be afforded the "personal freedom" to end your life if I were to decide that you are an inconvenience to me?  The rights religion actually has less to do with it than does the left's hipocracy.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3628
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Apr 24, 2014 1:30 am

macdaddy wrote:
dudejcb wrote:
Rat Creek wrote:I have no issues with national parks, but the federal government owns entirely too much land that would be better served by the states. Dude, why do you put so much trust in a Big Fed Gov, which has proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted, yet you put so little faith in local governments where you can actually get an appointment to go meet with your representative? :huh: Seems like very odd logic if you are truly trying to preserve land and be better represented. :huh:

And as the Federal Government has proven a horrible steward of financial responsibility, I say it is time to repossess these lands and auction them off to the highest bidder. :hammer:

It's not that I have so much faith in the Feds, rather, I have even less faith in the states, and when the Feds are in charge there are many more folks (nationwide) scrutinizing them than there would be if it were left up to individuals, or poorly funded state watchdog groups.

Same thing with local governments. Bad as the Feds can be they are not quite as susceptible to corruption, and less susceptible to discovery than state, county and
Just cuz you can get an appointment with a representative doesn't mean they won't blow you off after you have your say. I had that happen just recently here in Idaho. They thanked me for my concern and went the other way anyway because the issue at hand helped a small but influential group over the interests of the general public.

Anyone watching what the State of Wisconsin has done (and is doing) to dismantle their environmental laws to aid a big, very big, political contributor with taconite mining? Think Kock brothers and American's for Growth/Prosperity .... what a euphemism.


I'll take the Koch Bros. over Soros & Terri Heinz-Kerry any day.

And you're welcome to 'em, macdaddy! :thumbsup:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10833
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:40 am

dudejcb wrote:It's not that I have so much faith in the Feds, rather, I have even less faith in the states, and when the Feds are in charge there are many more folks (nationwide) scrutinizing them than there would be if it were left up to individuals, or poorly funded state watchdog groups.

How is that possible that there are more people scrutinizing them? Who are they? How do the people of Nevada scrutinize the people in DC? Most of them have never been to DC. Sure they can go to their U.S. representatives office, maybe even their Senator, but they will never interact with bureacrats in DC, nor cabinet secretaries, and certainly not the White House. I work in the government and I have had almost no interaction with the White House, tons of it with DoE, and some with Congress, but this is extremely rare.

At the state level, your kids will likely go to school with local government officials. You will know the cops. You will interact with these people and they are accessible.

AND, they are subject to federal oversight. Who oversees the feds? NOBODY!!! Look at the IRS and their withholding of information from Congress. This is routine regardless of who is in power. There is no effective oversight of the feds. That is a joke.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16128
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby boney fingers » Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:12 pm

Looks like this thread has found its way back home again, so I have to ask; what have the Kochs done that is so bad???
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:38 am

boney fingers wrote:Looks like this thread has found its way back home again, so I have to ask; what have the Kochs done that is so bad???

Supported the wrong side. And worse then that, did so effectively. They dared to challenged those anointed by God to run the world. So now they must be destroyed for such a sacrilegious act on their part. You don't debate the enemy. You destroy them by any means necessary.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16128
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests