• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama Administration plotting to seize Western Lands

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
30,241
Reaction score
1,423
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
This was posted in PB, but since not everyone reads PB, I thought
it should be moved over here so EVERYONE is aware of this:


Interior Dept. documents detail Obama admin plotting to seize Western lands without congressional approval
By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
08/11/10 4:00 PM EDT

Back in February, a leaked memo from the Department of the Interior showed that the Obama administration was considering designating as many as 17 new national monuments throughout the West, effectively closing off huge swaths of land to development. That this was being done without the input of Congress or local authorities angered many. Now Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, Chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus and Ranking Member on the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands has uncovered 14 more pages from the document that were previously unavailable.

The new pages show a federal bureaucracy that has contempt for the legislative process and the input of elected representatives. "Should the legislative process not prove fruitful, or if a nationally significant natural or cultural land resource come under threat of imminent harm, the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] would recommend that the Administration consider using the Antiquities Act [to designate a national monument]," reads the new document.

In a statement, Bishop unloaded on the Obama administration. "These 14 pages are further evidence of this Administration's efforts, under the guidance of Secretary Salazar, to control western lands by unilaterally locking them up without input from local residents and stakeholders nor the approval of Congress. Their plotting behind closed doors is disingenuous at best and flies in the face of this Administration's so-called 'transparency'," said Bishop. "Thousands of westerners whose livelihoods depend upon access to our public lands stand to be affected by these decisions and yet this document blatantly goes out of its way to exclude their input or participation. If there was any question about whether or not this Administration has declared a war on the West, these new documents are evidence enough."



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/interior-dept-documents-detail-obama-admin-plotting-to-seize-western-lands-without-congressional-approval-100463554.html#ixzz0wS0BgwaD
 
The last Democrat who was President land grabbed hundreds of thousands of land here in Utah and called it a National Monument. It basically ruined grazing, mining and logging for 2 dozen small towns in south central Utah. Why would this bunch of tree huggers be any different? I do recall something vague about CHANGE but i forgot what that was all about. :wink: How you can ranch and be a Democrat is beyond me but he's your President! :wink: So's Pelosi and Reid! :wink:
 
Well said H. The only change he wants is for to be dependant on the the government for everything. I am willing to bet you that he thinks his food comes from a store and all of us ranchers and farmers have nothing to do with the food source of this country. I know Rep. Bishop I will give him a call and see how we can help stop this idiot from screwing up this country any more.
 
We are being faced with a "New National Monument " in our area. We the ranchers are getting the urban users of the lands excited about it and getting the to join in the fight against this land grab. The hard cold reality is that one precinct in San Francisco cancels all of North Eastern California's votes.
 
If they put his face on Rushmore, I guess they'll be contacting one of the coal mines over here for the material.
 
Here isthe latest e-mail I received from SenatorJon Tester after I questioned him onthe subject....

Thank you for contacting me with concerns about a draft memo regarding possible national monument designations bythe United States Department ofthe Interior. I share your concerns about this important issue.

When I heardthese rumors, I immediately spoketo Secretary Ken Salazar. Itold himthat decisions about public lands need public input. It is absolutely criticalthat folks onthe ground are involved in any public lands decisions. Secretary Salazar assured methat there will be a public process and local input for any proposed monument designations. Later, at a Senate committee hearing, Salazar made it clearthat there are no plans inthe works for national monument designations in Montana. Be assuredthat I will workto ensurethat federal land decisions are based on atransparent, public process which solicits input from Montanans and includes Montana-based solutions.

I appreciate youtakingthetimeto be involved inthis issue. Please don't hesitateto contact me again if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Jon Tester United States Senator
 
Oldtimer said:
Here isthe latest e-mail I received from SenatorJon Tester after I questioned him onthe subject....

Thank you for contacting me with concerns about a draft memo regarding possible national monument designations bythe United States Department ofthe Interior. I share your concerns about this important issue.

When I heardthese rumors, I immediately spoketo Secretary Ken Salazar. Itold himthat decisions about public lands need public input. It is absolutely criticalthat folks onthe ground are involved in any public lands decisions. Secretary Salazar assured methat there will be a public process and local input for any proposed monument designations. Later, at a Senate committee hearing, Salazar made it clearthat there are no plans inthe works for national monument designations in Montana. Be assuredthat I will workto ensurethat federal land decisions are based on atransparent, public process which solicits input from Montanans and includes Montana-based solutions.

I appreciate youtakingthetimeto be involved inthis issue. Please don't hesitateto contact me again if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Jon Tester United States Senator

I wouldn't put a lot of faith in a politicians promise Oldtimer. The green movement has tons of power on the left side of the isle. They used to find a spotted owl or desert tortise to push on us as proof of the NEED for protecting vast amounts of public land. Now they just run to their fellow treehugging pals they have elected in congress and if that doesnt work they run to a liberal judge appointed by a democrat president. Just another repercussion of the election. Wonder if McCain would of done something in Arizona? Or on healthcare? Or decided to destroy more small town economys by making more national anti-grazing monuments? HMMMMM? :???: Change is great! :wink:
 
leanin' H said:
Oldtimer said:
Here isthe latest e-mail I received from SenatorJon Tester after I questioned him onthe subject....
Thank you for contacting me with concerns about a draft memo regarding possiblenational monument designations bythe United States Department ofthe Interior. I share your concerns about this important issue. When I heardthese rumors, I immediately spoketo Secretary Ken Salazar. Itold himthat decisions about public lands need public input. It is absolutely criticalthat folks onthe ground are involved in any public lands decisions. Secretary Salazar assured methat there will be a public process and local input for any proposed monument designations. Later, at a Senate committee hearing, Salazar made it clearthat there are no plans inthe works fornational monument designations in Montana. Be assuredthat I will workto ensurethat federal land decisions are based on atransparent, public process which solicits input from Montanans and includes Montana-based solutions. I appreciate youtakingthetimeto be involved inthis issue. Please don't hesitateto contact me again if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Jon Tester United States Senator
I wouldn't put a lot of faith in a politicians promise Oldtimer. The green movement has tons of power on the left side of the isle. They used to find a spotted owl or desert tortise to push on us as proof of the NEED for protecting vast amounts of public land. Now they just run to their fellow treehugging pals they have elected in congress and if that doesnt work they run to a liberal judge appointed by a democrat president. Just another repercussion of the election. Wonder if McCain would of done something in Arizona? Or on healthcare? Or decided to destroy more small town economys by making morenational anti-grazing monuments? HMMMMM? :???: Change is great! :wink:

Well unlike you- I don't automatically accept that because a person has an (R) by their name it means they are truthful or credible- or conservative.... Same as a (D) doesn't automatically mean they are Liberal... They are all politicians and most are bought out.. I will say Tester is probably one of the straighter shooters so far- can't say about Salazar...

But as far as your Arizona comment you seem to forget who was the co-sponsor of the last Amnesty Bill along with Ted Kennedy and GW Bush...Remember Bush/Kennedy/MCCAIN Amnesty Bill :???:

And did you see who appointed the Federal Judge (Walker) that thru out the California Gay marriage ban-- the evilist of liberal Democrats- President Ronald Reagan..... :wink: :p :lol:

As far as healthcare reform- prior to the Bush Bust- it was the single biggest issue requested by the voters (70%)- the #1 campaign issue of GW- and even most Republican politicians were saying that doing nothing on healthcare reform was "not an option" anymore - until a bill got written- and everyone wasn't happy that their lobbyiests got everything they wanted and then partisan politics took over- and then politics took precedent to statesmanship....

On this issue of the enviro folks- if you have read all the other threads about it- like I said- its been going on around here for years- with the green weeny groups buying up the land- one place at a time - or putting up big money to get ranchers to put their lands into conservation easements, that move them one step closer to greeny control....

As I also posted before- this Bittercreek Wilderness area has been under discussion for 30+ years- and the study for Congress has been done for years and years , but Congress (in its years of do nothing but spend mode) has done nothing to move forward with it- or remove it from Wilderness contention.... The "leak" of this so called memo is probably good- be it legit or not- because it awakened a lot of folks that had pretty much forgotten about the issue...And made several others that had been sleeping- aware to what was going on around them for years and years with big money from back east- and conservation groups either buying up or gaining control of a lot of this land already....

Not much difference between (D's) and (R's)- only difference is where they want to spend your money....Last bunch of (R's) sent too much of mine to build sandpiles in the desert and support oil cartels.... As long as they both are going to blow it like it grows on trees- I'd just as soon seen its spent in America- for folks that live here....

H if you are concerned on this monuments issue you should go to the meeting with the BLM head nut in Malta Mt coming up next month....Horseless posted the details....
 
And did you see who appointed the Federal Judge (Walker) that thru out the California Gay marriage ban-- the evilist of liberal Democrats- President Ronald Reagan.....

:lol: :lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_R._Walker


Walker was originally nominated to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987. However, this nomination stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics".[2] Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his perceived "insensitivity" to gays and the poor.[3]

On September 7, 1989, Walker was re-nominated by President George H. W. Bush to the seat on the federal district court vacated by Spencer M. Williams.[1] Walker was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November 21, 1989, on unanimous consent and received his commission on November 27, 1989.
 
hypocritexposer said:
And did you see who appointed the Federal Judge (Walker) that thru out the California Gay marriage ban-- the evilist of liberal Democrats- President Ronald Reagan.....

:lol: :lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_R._Walker


Walker was originally nominated to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987. However, this nomination stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics".[2] Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his perceived "insensitivity" to gays and the poor.[3]

On September 7, 1989, Walker was re-nominated by President George H. W. Bush to the seat on the federal district court vacated by Spencer M. Williams.[1] Walker was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November 21, 1989, on unanimous consent and received his commission on November 27, 1989.

I was quite aware of that Hypocrit...So what are you trying to prove- that both Reagan and GHW Bush were evil liberal Democrats.... :???: :wink: :p :lol:
 
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
And did you see who appointed the Federal Judge (Walker) that thru out the California Gay marriage ban-- the evilist of liberal Democrats- President Ronald Reagan.....

:lol: :lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_R._Walker


Walker was originally nominated to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987. However, this nomination stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics".[2] Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his perceived "insensitivity" to gays and the poor.[3]

On September 7, 1989, Walker was re-nominated by President George H. W. Bush to the seat on the federal district court vacated by Spencer M. Williams.[1] Walker was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November 21, 1989, on unanimous consent and received his commission on November 27, 1989.

I was quite aware of that Hypocrit...So what are you trying to prove- that both Reagan and GHW Bush were evil liberal Democrats.... :???: :wink: :p :lol:


I have said for quite some time that the whole political spectrum in the US has shifted left.

Are you agreeing with me?

Pretty hard for you to say that Repubs. are against gays when you post stuff like this, isn't it?
 
Oldtimer, you are truly amazing. I've never seen anyone like you. Ever. I've seen some allegiances in my life, but never anyone as madly in love with an administration as you are with this one.

With all due respect, it really does make you look a little goofy.
 
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
:lol: :lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_R._Walker

I was quite aware of that Hypocrit...So what are you trying to prove- that both Reagan and GHW Bush were evil liberal Democrats.... :???: :wink: :p :lol:


I have said for quite some time that the whole political spectrum in the US has shifted left.

Are you agreeing with me?

Pretty hard for you to say that Repubs. are against gays when you post stuff like this, isn't it?

Nope- in most issues it has shifted the direction of whoever stuffs which parties/politicians pockets with the most money....

Their social platform has came about because of the adoption of the right wing evangelicals as a base- which has not helped the party....Many in this country don't think issues involving gays- or abortion- or the right to die with dignity should even be political issues and should be left to the individuals, their doctors, and their God to decide... The reason I support the majority of the Libertarian platform....

I still think President Reagans former economic advisor- David Stockman- summed up the Repub change best when he said that before 81 Repubs knew that along with cutting taxes, came cutting costs...But after that they got this idea that you could cut taxes and spend too... Have your cake and eat it too !!!!

Reagan insider: 'GOP destroyed U.S. economy'


ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- "How my G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy." Yes, that is exactly what David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse."

Get it? Not "destroying." The GOP has already "destroyed" the U.S. economy, setting up an "American Apocalypse."

Yes, Stockman is equally damning of the Democrats' Keynesian policies. But what this indictment by a party insider -- someone so close to the development of the Reaganomics ideology -- says about America, helps all of us better understand how America's toxic partisan-politics "holy war" is destroying not just the economy and capitalism, but the America dream. And unless this war stops soon, both parties will succeed in their collective death wish.

But why focus on Stockman's message? It's already lost in the 24/7 news cycle. Why? We need some introspection. Ask yourself: How did the great nation of America lose its moral compass and drift so far off course, to where our very survival is threatened?

We've arrived at a historic turning point as a nation that no longer needs outside enemies to destroy us, we are committing suicide. Democracy. Capitalism. The American dream. All dying. Why? Because of the economic decisions of the GOP the past 40 years, says this leading Reagan Republican.

Please listen with an open mind, no matter your party affiliation: This makes for a powerful history lesson, because it exposes how both parties are responsible for destroying the U.S. economy. Listen closely:

Reagan Republican: the GOP should file for bankruptcy
Stockman rushes into the ring swinging like a boxer: "If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation's public debt ... will soon reach $18 trillion." It screams "out for austerity and sacrifice." But instead, the GOP insists "that the nation's wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase."

In the past 40 years Republican ideology has gone from solid principles to hype and slogans. Stockman says: "Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts -- in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses too."

No more. Today there's a "new catechism" that's "little more than money printing and deficit finance, vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes" making a mockery of GOP ideals. Worse, it has resulted in "serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy." Yes, GOP ideals backfired, crippling our economy.

Stockman's indictment warns that the Republican party's "new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one:"


Stage 1. Nixon irresponsible, dumps gold, U.S starts spending binge
Richard Nixon's gold policies get Stockman's first assault, for defaulting "on American obligations under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts with the world." So for the past 40 years, America's been living "beyond our means as a nation" on "borrowed prosperity on an epic scale ... an outcome that Milton Friedman said could never happen when, in 1971, he persuaded President Nixon to unleash on the world paper dollars no longer redeemable in gold or other fixed monetary reserves."

Remember Friedman: "Just let the free market set currency exchange rates, he said, and trade deficits will self-correct." Friedman was wrong by trillions. And unfortunately "once relieved of the discipline of defending a fixed value for their currencies, politicians the world over were free to cheapen their money and disregard their neighbors."

And without discipline America was also encouraging "global monetary chaos as foreign central banks run their own printing presses at ever faster speeds to sop up the tidal wave of dollars coming from the Federal Reserve." Yes, the road to the coming apocalypse began with a Republican president listening to a misguided Nobel economist's advice.


Stage 2. Crushing debts from domestic excesses, war mongering
Stockman says "the second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40% of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970." Who's to blame? Not big-spending Dems, says Stockman, but "from the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."

Back "in 1981, traditional Republicans supported tax cuts," but Stockman makes clear, they had to be "matched by spending cuts, to offset the way inflation was pushing many taxpayers into higher brackets and to spur investment. The Reagan administration's hastily prepared fiscal blueprint, however, was no match for the primordial forces -- the welfare state and the warfare state -- that drive the federal spending machine."

OK, stop a minute. As you absorb Stockman's indictment of how his Republican party has "destroyed the U.S. economy," you're probably asking yourself why anyone should believe a traitor to the Reagan legacy. I believe party affiliation is irrelevant here. This is a crucial subject that must be explored because it further exposes a dangerous historical trend where politics is so partisan it's having huge negative consequences.

Yes, the GOP does have a welfare-warfare state: Stockman says "the neocons were pushing the military budget skyward. And the Republicans on Capitol Hill who were supposed to cut spending, exempted from the knife most of the domestic budget -- entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects. But in the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the Republicans' fiscal religion."

When Fed chief Paul Volcker "crushed inflation" in the '80s we got a "solid economic rebound." But then "the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts." By 2009, they "reduced federal revenues to 15% of gross domestic product," lowest since the 1940s. Still today they're irrationally demanding an extension of those "unaffordable Bush tax cuts [that] would amount to a bankruptcy filing."

Recently Bush made matters far worse by "rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures." Bush also gave in "on domestic spending cuts, signing into law $420 billion in nondefense appropriations, a 65% percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier. Republicans thus joined the Democrats in a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy." Takes two to tango.

Stage 3. Wall Street's deadly 'vast, unproductive expansion'
Stockman continues pounding away: "The third ominous change in the American economy has been the vast, unproductive expansion of our financial sector." He warns that "Republicans have been oblivious to the grave danger of flooding financial markets with freely printed money and, at the same time, removing traditional restrictions on leverage and speculation." Wrong, not oblivious. Self-interested Republican loyalists like Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner knew exactly what they were doing.

They wanted the economy, markets and the government to be under the absolute control of Wall Street's too-greedy-to-fail banks. They conned Congress and the Fed into bailing out an estimated $23.7 trillion debt. Worse, they have since destroyed meaningful financial reforms. So Wall Street is now back to business as usual blowing another bigger bubble/bust cycle that will culminate in the coming "American Apocalypse."

Stockman refers to Wall Street's surviving banks as "wards of the state." Wrong, the opposite is true. Wall Street now controls Washington, and its "unproductive" trading is "extracting billions from the economy with a lot of pointless speculation in stocks, bonds, commodities and derivatives." Wall Street banks like Goldman were virtually bankrupt, would have never survived without government-guaranteed deposits and "virtually free money from the Fed's discount window to cover their bad bets."

Stage 4. New American Revolution class-warfare coming soon
Finally, thanks to Republican policies that let us "live beyond our means for decades by borrowing heavily from abroad, we have steadily sent jobs and production offshore," while at home "high-value jobs in goods production ... trade, transportation, information technology and the professions shrunk by 12% to 68 million from 77 million."

As the apocalypse draws near, Stockman sees a class-rebellion, a new revolution, a war against greed and the wealthy. Soon. The trigger will be the growing gap between economic classes: No wonder "that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1% of Americans -- paid mainly from the Wall Street casino -- received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90% -- mainly dependent on Main Street's shrinking economy -- got only 12%. This growing wealth gap is not the market's fault. It's the decaying fruit of bad economic policy."

Get it? The decaying fruit of the GOP's bad economic policies is destroying our economy.

Warning: this black swan won't be pretty, will shock, soon
His bottom line: "The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will not have a conventional business recovery now, but rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and downsizing ... it's a pity that the modern Republican party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach -- balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline -- is needed more than ever."

Wrong: There are far bigger things to "pity."

First, that most Americans, 300 million, are helpless, will do nothing, sit in the bleachers passively watching this deadly partisan game like it's just another TV reality show.

Second, that, unfortunately, politicians are so deep-in-the-pockets of the Wall Street conspiracy that controls Washington they are helpless and blind.

And third, there's a depressing sense that Stockman will be dismissed as a traitor, his message lost in the 24/7 news cycle ... until the final apocalyptic event, an unpredictable black swan triggers another, bigger global meltdown, followed by a long Great Depression II and a historic class war.

So be prepared, it will hit soon, when you least expect.
 
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
I was quite aware of that Hypocrit...So what are you trying to prove- that both Reagan and GHW Bush were evil liberal Democrats.... :???: :wink: :p :lol:


I have said for quite some time that the whole political spectrum in the US has shifted left.

Are you agreeing with me?

Pretty hard for you to say that Repubs. are against gays when you post stuff like this, isn't it?

Nope- in most issues it has shifted the direction of whoever stuffs which parties/politicians pockets with the most money....

Do you mean like cooperation between big business/unions and Government? Sounds like Corporatism to me. Look it up, it is a left of center ideology.

Their social platform has came about because of the adoption of the right wing evangelicals as a base- which has not helped the party....Many in this country don't think issues involving gays- or abortion- or the right to die with dignity should even be political issues and should be left to the individuals, their doctors, and their God to decide... The reason I support the majority of the Libertarian platform....

So are you saying the rights of women, gays etc have not progressed over the years? A libertarian platform is right of both Conservative and liberal, is is not? Would you say that the US over the years has moved closer towards or further away from the libertarian platform?

I still think President Reagans former economic advisor- David Stockman- summed up the Repub change best when he said that before 81 Repubs knew that along with cutting taxes, came cutting costs...But after that they got this idea that you could cut taxes and spend too... Have your cake and eat it too !!!!

So before '81, the Repubs. were more Conservative than they are now? Have they moved left or right of where they were pre 1981?


One more question?

Is the Tea Party closer to the Libertarian platform or the furthest right of the 2 other parties (which you say are pretty much the same in their spending etc.)?
 
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
I have said for quite some time that the whole political spectrum in the US has shifted left.

Are you agreeing with me?

Pretty hard for you to say that Repubs. are against gays when you post stuff like this, isn't it?

Nope- in most issues it has shifted the direction of whoever stuffs which parties/politicians pockets with the most money....

Do you mean like cooperation between big business/unions and Government? Sounds like Corporatism to me. Look it up, it is a left of center ideology.

Their social platform has came about because of the adoption of the right wing evangelicals as a base- which has not helped the party....Many in this country don't think issues involving gays- or abortion- or the right to die with dignity should even be political issues and should be left to the individuals, their doctors, and their God to decide... The reason I support the majority of the Libertarian platform....

So are you saying the rights of women, gays etc have not progressed over the years? A libertarian platform is right of both Conservative and liberal, is is not? Would you say that the US over the years has moved closer towards or further away from the libertarian platform?

I still think President Reagans former economic advisor- David Stockman- summed up the Repub change best when he said that before 81 Repubs knew that along with cutting taxes, came cutting costs...But after that they got this idea that you could cut taxes and spend too... Have your cake and eat it too !!!!

So before '81, the Repubs. were more Conservative than they are now? Have they moved left or right of where they were pre 1981?


One more question?

Is the Tea Party closer to the Libertarian platform or the furthest right of the 2 other parties (which you say are pretty much the same in their spending etc.)?

According to the political scientists- Montana is one of the most Libertarian states....One of the reasons it can go either party and often does because of some of these social issues- and is no longer listed as red or blue - but considered a "purple state".....

The Tea Partiers seem to be the furthest right- mainly because so many of their followers seem to believe in the radical rights beliefs on social issues....Not sure about the other issues- as locally they are pretty much unheard of....
Personally while I agree with the Libertarian social issues platform--I don't agree with any parties stand on many of the issues....Probably follow Teddy Roosevelts beliefs the closest on business, trade, legal enforcement, and the economy...
 
Oldtimer said:
According to the political scientists- Montana is one of the most Libertarian states....One of the reasons it can go either party and often does because of some of these social issues- and is no longer listed as red or blue - but considered a "purple state".....

The Tea Partiers seem to be the furthest right- mainly because so many of their followers seem to believe in the radical rights beliefs on social issues....Not sure about the other issues- as locally they are pretty much unheard of....

Personally while I agree with the Libertarian social issues platform--I don't agree with any parties stand on many of the issues....Probably follow Teddy Roosevelts beliefs the closest on business, trade, legal enforcement, and the economy...


So have the 2 main parties moved left on the political spectrum or not?

All States should be as Libertarian as Montana and vote for less Centralized Government. Let the more local state governments have the power enumerated to them in the Constitution, don't you agree?

Every time there is a transfer of money, there is the chance of "skimming", waste and duplication So why would anybody vote for a party or candidate that believes in "bigger Government"?

As far as the Tea Party goes, you have now admitted that you don't know much about their platform, because "Not sure about the other issues- as locally they are pretty much unheard of...."

So do you think it might be prudent to check out their platform before you show your bigotry, when refering to them?

Myself, I have not read much about their "social platform", but more about their "fiscal platform"
 
So do you think it might be prudent to check out their platform before you show your bigotry, when refering to them?

Which of the dozen or so Tea Party groups is the real group? Which ones platform is "their" platform? Which of the dozen or so folks that proclaim themselves to be the Party leader do you listen to?
 
Oldtimer said:
So do you think it might be prudent to check out their platform before you show your bigotry, when refering to them?

Which of the dozen or so Tea Party groups is the real group? Which ones platform is "their" platform? Which of the dozen or so folks that proclaim themselves to be the Party leader do you listen to?



If you can't determine who is the leader, is there a leader? Research and investigate the one that you have the input towards.

You have just admitted that they are not all the same.

So why do you paint them all with the same brush?


Looking from the outside in, most on this forum will tell you that your opinons match the Tea Party more so than they do with the Repubs. or Dems.

but that takes into account that you r opinion does not change over the next 24 hours. :wink:

Being here as long as I have been, I know pretty much what you believe. Sometimes you take the other side, just to start a debate or controversy, but it's come to the place that you have damaged your reputation.

When you railed against Bush, in most cases, I agreed with you. But now you have contadicted yourself so many times that it's hard to believe that you were sincere then or now.
 

Latest posts

Top