free health care for everyone? you may be made of money but I and most of the country is not. in order for there to be free health care our taxes will sky rocket. I am 100% about helping my fellow neighbor and those in need but what is free heath care going to do? it will make an already lazy America even worse. how many people are out there on governments help that don't need it? millions! I mean, why work if gov will take care of you? I understand there are people that are unable to work and I will do what I can to help those out, as for the rest...... ill be damned if I have to pay to support the welfare suckers. as far as being selfish... selfish is expecting the government to support you. free school???? hell no. school prices are way high and they need to come down, but free? no. we don't have the money in this country to be giving free hand outs. there needs to be a way of filtering out the welfare suckers and then I am ok with free health care for those that truly cant work, not because they don't want to work. I remember a famous honest and true saying... "ASK NOT WHAT THE COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU, BUT WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY" I am a patriot through and through and I understand things are bad, and we don't have a whole lot to look forward to. am I making my vote based on the soul factor of transferring of public lands? no. we need to look at the big picture and at our kids future, and I sure as hell don't want my children and grandchildren growing up in a world of free hand outs. work hard, be honest and help those in need. the moment things are free we are a dependent people upon the government and that's exactly what the majority of the demos want. "majority", not all.
Cruz wins Wyoming
- Thread starter MTHunter
- Start date
and I am ok sacrificing my ss if it will create a path for a debt free stronger America for my posterity. that would be selfish. don't ya see....we all live in this life dependent on others. instead, lets teach our children the value of good honest work, teach them to save and not blow money we don't have and things they don't need. eat drink and be happy for tomorrow we all die... that's Americas mentality. not me, ill eat drink and be happy in a modest careful way.
swampokie
Veteran member
not what I meant, was lazy typing. lots of libs in that area is what I was implying, and or liberal thinking. and that's not a bad thing. its the extreme far rights and extreme far lefts that are the problem causers in the political world. I'm happy with the middle ground that's willing to move a little left or a little right when occasion is right.
and Hillary...... how anyone thinks she's the answer scares the shiz right out of me. political leaders are, no surprise, honest. but her, cmon! shes under a federal investigation, she belongs behind bars right next to our current prez. and I would love to hear a reasonable explanation from anyone anywhere why she would be the answer. based on facts not hearsay.
The democrat party has moved far to the left, there is no middle ground with that party anymore.
SunnyInCO
Member
I'm sure there are middle of the road dems and republicans alike but non of them want to run to President. There are what, 280,000,000+ that unfortunately do not want to run for president. Can we start over with a new set of 'candidates'?
There are moderate and extreme individuals in both parties but the democrat party as a whole has become a far left party. To the left of democrats are socialists and 42% of the dems currently identify themselves as such.
Matthoek21
Veteran member
tim
Veteran member
ivory tip, I would disagree, all of Idaho is home to the Christian right, That is why cruz won. But that is my opinion.
RICMIC
Veteran member
If you recall, both McCAIN AND Romney were considered by most to be "moderates", and that still didn't get them a win. The demographics have changed so much in the last 20 years that the America we once knew may never be again. Forget about race, cultures, immigrants, all you have to focus on for part of the answer is urban VS: Rural. That's where most of the threat to our hunting culture is coming from.
I agree and thought the republicans lost the last 2 elections because the GOP put up 2 milk toast nominees who didn't really speak to conservative values. Trump and Cruz are both completely different candidates than what we saw in the last 2 elections. Unfortunately the urban crowd is getting bigger all the time and rural Americans are going the way of the dinosaurs. I know you're well aware of this being a Minnesotan...the Twin Cities runs the rest of the state.
Last edited:
crzy_cntryby
Active Member
- Dec 9, 2014
- 269
- 0
The entire public lands issue is about States rights and sovereignty. That's probably why Cruz is for it. That would be constitutional. I'm very torn on the subject. I'm very libertarian, an Constitution minded. I have only two socialist things I like and mostly agree with. Public lands/parks and publicly held wildlife. The issue becomes who would manage it better. Each state or the feds?
I guess I just have a deep hope that people don't choose based on a religious belief. what's crazy is Idaho was strongly predicted to vote trump for primaries. cruz was somewhat close in prior local polls but I was surprised when he won. a local talk show guy on radio in the heart of lds community did a poll a week before the prim, listening aud includes Jackson hole. trump won easily. it doesn't matter now. I'm looking for my river gloves to go hit some browns, I just hope things play out for the benefit of our country as a whole.
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
Advocates of transfer would like people to think that the constitution favors transfer. That is not true. Article 21, Section 26 of the Wyoming Constitution states: “The people of this state do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof…” Most western states have almost exactly the same wording in their constitutions.
Also the United States Constitution does not prohibit federal land ownership. Take a look at this analysis conducted by The Congressional Research Service:
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34273.pdf
Transfer is not a legal/constitutional issue. It is a political issue. We are all entitled to our political opinion and should vote accordingly.
crzy_cntryby
Active Member
- Dec 9, 2014
- 269
- 0
Very interesting. It is really a debate of who would do a better job of management. I even jump back and forth on that. Feds get in their own way a lot sometimes that is good sometimes bad. States are closer, but look at California. Others moving that way. Not sure what the proper fix is.
People will bc it comes into play on social issues. That was one issue folks had with Romney in our Bible Belt.
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
Glad to hear you are not willing to let them throw the constitution in your face. That is the first tactic of transfer proponents. They try to intimidate us thinking we will not want to go against the constitution.
If that doesn't work they play the anti-fed card. That tactic has more impact because many of us are very unhappy with the federal government. But in my opinion we need to temper our anti-fed sentiment when it comes to public land management.
If the states get control, they won't be able to afford to manage millions of acres and will need to sell some of it. Here is a prime example from Oregon (see link below): Years ago the State of Oregon gained control of about 90,000 of federal land (now called the Elliot State Forest). Recently they discovered they can't afford to manage it. So they are offering it for sale.
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/opinion/readers/2015/09/22/time-take-modern-approach-forests/72653598/
This can and will happen throughout the west if federal lands are transferred to the states. Will it happen overnight? Probably not. But you can bet there will be a slow but steady trend in this direction, especially when the states get into a budget crunch.
By the way, I heard a rumor that Ted Cruz has arranged a deal to buy the Elliot State Forest for $1 per acre if he wins the presidency
(This is a joke...for those of you who are not familiar with my sense of humor.)
Last edited: