Presidential Candidates-2008--Who Supports Us?
- Thread starter Pol600
- Start date
I haven't heard, but you know it's not Hillary and that nut job Osama Obama!
C
"Support snowmobilers" ?
None to date that I am aware of. I think the better question would be "who is tolerant" of snowmobilers and land access.My "personal" observation in current and past politics, is that most conservative politicians seem to be much more tolerant of snowmobiling than the liberal politicians.
Also note that the House and Senate decide which bills come to the President's desk for a signature. So control of these two bodies in Congress is of equal importance.
Another important thing to remember about the President is that he/she appoints the federal judges and the secretaries of his/her cabinet. These positions control what we are allowed or are not allowed to do on public land in many more ways that one might think.
I think it is sad when people put more importance on snowmobile riding than any other topic when choosing a Presidential candidate..... I would hope energy/foreign/health care policy would be much more important than where you can ride your sled.
Special interests are killing this country, from the homophobes to the gunophiles to the abortionists. Topics that only effect a small minority of the public are being used to decide major government races. Seems the opposite of what it should be.
Special interests are killing this country, from the homophobes to the gunophiles to the abortionists. Topics that only effect a small minority of the public are being used to decide major government races. Seems the opposite of what it should be.
S
Also, which party controls the house or senate. Even if Pombo (pro-access) would have won his election, he would have been booted from his leadership position because the Democraps won majority of the house.
Every small thing can really add up.
Every small thing can really add up.
C
I think it is sad when people put more importance on snowmobile riding than any other topic when choosing a Presidential candidate..... I would hope energy/foreign/health care policy would be much more important than where you can ride your sled.
QUOTE]
I think it is pretty simple for normal thinking Americans to make a short list of the 5 or 10 most important issues to them that the President has some control over. Once you have your list of issues, if you can not decide whether the conservatives or the liberals support your issues better, it might be wise to sit at home on election day. Uneducated voters is what is one of our biggest problems.
Access for multiple-use, including snowmobiling and proper management of our natural resources is in my list of important issues. So is my right to own a gun. So is a strong military. So is less government control of my life. So is private property rights.
Any question which camp I fall in?
I should hope not.
Maybe that is the problem. We are more inclined to think about ourselves when voting and not the greater good of the US when voting. I don't think many people think, this person is the best choice for Americans, rather they think, this person is the best choice for me.
When I can't decide between the two heads of the same beast, I vote green/independent. The earth is more important than my personal wants.
Hold on, I need to get off my high horse. It is a long way down now that I look.
Ruffy
Everyone is working to make our sleds better. The two cycles now are much quieter and less smoky than 10 years ago.(Kudos to Ski-Doo for leading the effort with 2 strokes!) Anyone that believes it is okay to ban snowmobiles from the same asphalt roads that thousands of cars use in the summer is nuts. We are getting greener, along with everyone else. Anything can be banned in the name of 'green' if we turn a deaf ear to it. There are many folks here in the midwest that when the going gets tough economically they turn to Big Gov and the peace, land, bread mentality that is not good for us sledders or this country.
I am very frightenend of idea of "roadless" areas. Lame duck Clinton put these in place in 01' and Bush did something to lessen the impact. We need all of the riding areas we can get and maintain the ones we have now.
We need to get snowmobiling popular again. Snowmobiles sales may be up slightly in the West but they are way down here (MN). You guys out west do not have the numbers to stand alone and need growth in interest to occur in MN, WI, IA, IL and MI. Sled costs (I am not blaming the manufacturers here alone as raw material prices--aluminum and plastic--are way up), gas prices and weak winters have hurt us in the Midwest. The relatively weak sleds CAT and POL have put out in the last couple of years haven't helped. In West Yellow/IP last Feb, we had the best mtn riding ever. 2-3 of the six days we saw no other sleds once we went off-trail. In 98' there were so many riders in this area the trails were moguls by noon and the same is true in 99' in CDST. We need to get the interest level to where it was in 98' and 99'. The real mtn riders don't need or at least don't care about a little rough trail anyway.
But we (MN, WI, IA and UP) are off to a good start with snow (6-12") early so hopefully sales will be strong this year. i think this is a watershed year in terms of polictics, techology (DOO's are light and POL has a mtn sled again) and weather. We as a group should figure out who has the backbone to represent the Western 'hands-off' mentality and then support them.
Below is an interesting link many of you may have seen:
http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html
thanks
Robert
Everyone is working to make our sleds better. The two cycles now are much quieter and less smoky than 10 years ago.(Kudos to Ski-Doo for leading the effort with 2 strokes!) Anyone that believes it is okay to ban snowmobiles from the same asphalt roads that thousands of cars use in the summer is nuts. We are getting greener, along with everyone else. Anything can be banned in the name of 'green' if we turn a deaf ear to it. There are many folks here in the midwest that when the going gets tough economically they turn to Big Gov and the peace, land, bread mentality that is not good for us sledders or this country.
I am very frightenend of idea of "roadless" areas. Lame duck Clinton put these in place in 01' and Bush did something to lessen the impact. We need all of the riding areas we can get and maintain the ones we have now.
We need to get snowmobiling popular again. Snowmobiles sales may be up slightly in the West but they are way down here (MN). You guys out west do not have the numbers to stand alone and need growth in interest to occur in MN, WI, IA, IL and MI. Sled costs (I am not blaming the manufacturers here alone as raw material prices--aluminum and plastic--are way up), gas prices and weak winters have hurt us in the Midwest. The relatively weak sleds CAT and POL have put out in the last couple of years haven't helped. In West Yellow/IP last Feb, we had the best mtn riding ever. 2-3 of the six days we saw no other sleds once we went off-trail. In 98' there were so many riders in this area the trails were moguls by noon and the same is true in 99' in CDST. We need to get the interest level to where it was in 98' and 99'. The real mtn riders don't need or at least don't care about a little rough trail anyway.
But we (MN, WI, IA and UP) are off to a good start with snow (6-12") early so hopefully sales will be strong this year. i think this is a watershed year in terms of polictics, techology (DOO's are light and POL has a mtn sled again) and weather. We as a group should figure out who has the backbone to represent the Western 'hands-off' mentality and then support them.
Below is an interesting link many of you may have seen:
http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html
thanks
Robert
Last edited:
C
ruffryder said:
Well now, since not everyone has the same opinions and priorities on who is the "best choice for Americans", it would be completely impossible for everyone to agree on who is "the best choice for Americans". Therefor the best voters can do is educate themselves on the issues and vote for what is important to them.
"Green party"? If you truely believe in the principles of the green party, why do you chose to violate the earth through snowmobiling (in their point of view) by increasing your carbon footprint for no other reason than your personal enjoyment? :face-icon-small-con
T
maybe another question would be: who shouldn't we vote for.
I don't know of any good republican candidates, i also don't know any good democrat candidtates.
on the democratic side, obama intrigues me
on the republican side, I haven't seen anyone who is really running, educate me please.
I don't know of any good republican candidates, i also don't know any good democrat candidtates.
on the democratic side, obama intrigues me
on the republican side, I haven't seen anyone who is really running, educate me please.
The determining of the issues is what upsets me I guess. So many times I see the debates with issues that are completely out of line for a presidential debate.
Truly believe? I don't truly believe in much, especially all the beliefs of a political party, but I tend to agree with more of their platform than the rep. and dem. I guess I like their mentality that the earth was not put here for humans to use, rather we are here to coexist with the other things in the world, not dominate it. Though I don't believe everything they are about.
Pol600,
I totally understand what you are talking about in the midwest. I just moved from there a couple of months ago (4? dang time flies). Anyways, I personally saw numerous trails closed down every year. Most of it was due to urban sprawl and development. The rest was due to disrespectful snowmobilers. It was really sad to see a trail system of more than 80 miles drop to 2 in the matter of a couple of years. I doubt this is a isolated case. It gives me reason to believe the motivation for protecting areas. Protect them or they will be housing developments/condos. It is happening and most ski resorts if it hasn't happened already.
I looked at your link, only saw 4 issues that I really cared about. That is my problem exactly. Too much crap people are discussing instead of the real problems that face every American, man, woman, child. The rest I think should be up to the people to figure out, or should be up to the government to determine.
Anyone want to vote for me as president? Probably would get assasinated quickly.
W
I guess I have the opposite view as you ruffryder.
I don't understand why closing down everything is so important to all earth hugger politicians, when there are bigger problems, like you mentioned. The politicians should concentrate on real issues not a land grab. Why do they even have time to make land closure an issue? I could care less about abortions, racism, gender, sexual, or half the other things people get bent out of shape about.
I support cleaning up the environment, my list of pollutants just differs from theirs. They want to make carbon dioxide a pollutant. I want all the rivers clean, and the trash cleaned up, and energy conservation. Also, why is it OK to keep building houses out of wood, but not to cut any lumber off federal land. It's being cut somewhere. Is that really helping the earth's environment? Spotted Owl, jumping mouse, snail darter, freon, DDT, shutting down the nuclear plants, compact florescent lights, electric cars, hydrogen economy, global warming, etc, etc. I write a book out of all the crap they say, and how they were, or are, wrong. I also believe that the national forest is for the people to enjoy.
I personally think THEY have the problem, not me. It's very simple to get my vote. Promise to not take away my snowmobiling hobby, and my guns, and do your job and follow the constitution, I'm very likely to vote for you. And you know, I bet the environment won't change one bit whether I snowmobile or not. Last time I checked, they are suppose to represent me, not me change to their way of thinking. This whole environmental cause is a new religion. It's a lot of lies wrapped up in a few layers of half truths, and a couple facts.
No one represents me.
BTW, why should I be punished because of a few "disrespectful snowmobilers". I'm very respectful, why should I be punished. Should we shut permanently down the interstate because a couple of kids were racing?
Sorry dude, but telling me my passion isn't important is disrespectful.
I don't understand why closing down everything is so important to all earth hugger politicians, when there are bigger problems, like you mentioned. The politicians should concentrate on real issues not a land grab. Why do they even have time to make land closure an issue? I could care less about abortions, racism, gender, sexual, or half the other things people get bent out of shape about.
I support cleaning up the environment, my list of pollutants just differs from theirs. They want to make carbon dioxide a pollutant. I want all the rivers clean, and the trash cleaned up, and energy conservation. Also, why is it OK to keep building houses out of wood, but not to cut any lumber off federal land. It's being cut somewhere. Is that really helping the earth's environment? Spotted Owl, jumping mouse, snail darter, freon, DDT, shutting down the nuclear plants, compact florescent lights, electric cars, hydrogen economy, global warming, etc, etc. I write a book out of all the crap they say, and how they were, or are, wrong. I also believe that the national forest is for the people to enjoy.
I personally think THEY have the problem, not me. It's very simple to get my vote. Promise to not take away my snowmobiling hobby, and my guns, and do your job and follow the constitution, I'm very likely to vote for you. And you know, I bet the environment won't change one bit whether I snowmobile or not. Last time I checked, they are suppose to represent me, not me change to their way of thinking. This whole environmental cause is a new religion. It's a lot of lies wrapped up in a few layers of half truths, and a couple facts.
No one represents me.
BTW, why should I be punished because of a few "disrespectful snowmobilers". I'm very respectful, why should I be punished. Should we shut permanently down the interstate because a couple of kids were racing?
Sorry dude, but telling me my passion isn't important is disrespectful.
S
I'm impressed to see this line of thought on the snowest forum. I couldn't agree more. i love sledding, but man we have WAY bigger issues that trump sledding.
Last edited:
O
Maybe that is the problem. We are more inclined to think about ourselves when voting and not the greater good of the US when voting. I don't think many people think, this person is the best choice for Americans, rather they think, this person is the best choice for me.
When I can't decide between the two heads of the same beast, I vote green/independent. The earth is more important than my personal wants.
Hold on, I need to get off my high horse. It is a long way down now that I look.
The problem with that is...who are you to try and decide what is best for America or the greater good? That would be your opinion of what is good for me? Try to focus on yourself in a responsible light, rather than try to save the world with your vote. I am pretty sure NONE of us have nearly enough facts to decide what is best for the earth, that is pretty arrogant don't you think?
ummm, I am ruffryder, anymore questions? jfwy I guess a way to determine this is through sacrifice. Can you sacrifice you own personal beliefs so that others may prosper and lead better lives? Though I do not care anything about you, nor what is good for you individually, I care about what is good/best for us as a group. (This is not meant personally, I don't know of a better way to put it... I tried for a while and it still sounds mean.) There is a huge difference here. Can you imagine what could be possible if looking out for number one meant your country? I can and it looks really freakin good.
I guess when I vote I am expecting it to make a change for the better for everyone, thus change the world. Not sure what your reason for voting is? Keep the status quo? Seems selfish to vote for your own benefit, doesn't it?
I guess that is the pessimistic view. If you assume that no one can know, than based on that assumption can we ever move in the correct direction, let alone know what the correct direction is? Another way is to look at what is bad for the earth. Pretty easy to figure that one out right? Now do the complete opposite and make sure that it is still not bad for the earth. Problem solved?
I have a really good idea of what would be best for the world, actually I know exactly how to solve all of the environmental problems..... just have to get ride of the cause of problems.... humans. Whoa.... Whoooaaaa, dang just slipped off a very slippery slope. ha ha ha
Thanks..
Yet it is alright to do the same to environmentalists? Though, I never said it wasn't important, just that there are many things more important than driving a snowmobile in the snow..... I love snowmobiling, riding powder and all, but I don't even think about it when it comes to voting in elections. Seems like small potatoes to me compared to federal health care and social security/ retirement and energy policy.
I mean no disrespect to those that read this thread. These are just words typed in a keyboard into thoughts and ideas... nothing more... nothing less, well some might say into bullsheet.
That is the way it works. There is little recourse to snowmobilers that trespass. It is difficult to find them and ticket them. Instead homeowners just get sick of dealing with it continuously and do not allow the trail to cross there property. This happens all the time.
On the other hand with your interstate comparison, there is a recourse, cops patrol the area and give out tickets/taking your liscense... ie taking permission away from you to drive. Driving on federal/state roads is much different than driving across someones personal property that has given permission to ride.
Yes, but I believe the main purpose was preservation, not utilization. There should be areas on this planet that humans shouldn't go and screw with. Just let nature and the land be.
Is this the same type of argument that one vote doesn't matter. We need to stop thinking about me and think about us. If you said "I bet the environment won't change one bit whether we snowmobile or not." I would have to take that bet. Especially if we is the whole sledding population. It is best to think aggregate when statements are made like that. Yah changing out an incandescent light for a cf light doesn't save that much energy, but if all residential lighting in the US is changed, that comes out to a huge amount of energy savings.
I think the problem is we need stop thinking in the I. There is no I, there is only a we. We are in this together, we also can change the world together. Or we can do nothing on our own.
I think it is really interesting that "If the world is what we make of it" why have we made it this way?
Interesting read, hope you guys are enjoying this.:beer;
It's just like I said in my "greenie gal" thread, "the power has been shifted, and it seems impossible to get it back" I just hope, I just hope.... maybe I can do more??
W
OK, I'll bite.
I love the "I" attack, it shows my australiapithicus heritage, and the accusers belief in deontological ethics.
Due to such principles as biological remediation, and the misleading theories of CO2's contribution as a green house gas (IMO), we as snowmobile riders do not effect the environment in any lasting, or meaningfully measurable way. The tracks will disappear, a few trees get scraped, and signs will be stuck in the earth. The impact will be less than an equal number of skier hours in the same environment.
Your response about disrespectful snowmobilers is an interesting way of viewing the world. This is generally viewed as a NorthWest mountains forum, we don't ride private property around here very much. Most of the state is public land. As public land, my interstate pose was very precise. If that isn't very satisfying, how about this. If land should be closed on account of the actions of individuals, would not the quickest way to end snowmobiling be for ELF to pretend to be disrespectful snowmobilers?
Actually CF bulbs save a lot of energy, there produce about 60 lumen per watt as compared to incandescents 14 lumen per watt, they just contribute a lot of mercury to the environment. And no, most states do not have proper disposal procedures. Tennessee, for example, has just passed a law that CF bulbs shall be disposed of in the public landfill. Read the CF package some time, the part about what you should do if the bulb is broken within your home. LED lighting on the other hand, produces about 60 to 160 lumen per watt and don't contribute mercury to the environment. That is a negative consequentialism view of environmentalist's actions.
Utilization versus preservation. One extreme position might be dig it up, clear cut it all and plant tree farms on it, and sell it to private individuals so as to pay for health care. Another extreme might be close it all down, no one's allowed on the land anymore. How about this, we'll close down about 40% of it to hikers only, we'll only cut less than 0.5% of the public forest, and we'll let motorized users use about 10% of what's left in a way that doesn't permanently harm the environment, with summer time users primarily being restricted to roads and trails? That would be what we have today. My point being, we have both utilized and preserved the forest, it does little good to preserve what is not usable. And by preservation only, do we not actually shift the environmental damage to nations that lack the capacity to successfully manage their resources in a sustainable way? Are we not actually doing more damage than good?
I never denied environmentalist the right to vote based off their passions. I merely reversed your argument. Obviously the environment is important enough for our politicians to spend enormous amounts of effort on, and my view of the environment is just as important to me as their view is to them. I am the evangelical environmentalist's antithesis. I believe the best approach to long term preservation of the land, is by vesting all citizens in a modest utilization of the public lands.
I love the "I" attack, it shows my australiapithicus heritage, and the accusers belief in deontological ethics.
Due to such principles as biological remediation, and the misleading theories of CO2's contribution as a green house gas (IMO), we as snowmobile riders do not effect the environment in any lasting, or meaningfully measurable way. The tracks will disappear, a few trees get scraped, and signs will be stuck in the earth. The impact will be less than an equal number of skier hours in the same environment.
Your response about disrespectful snowmobilers is an interesting way of viewing the world. This is generally viewed as a NorthWest mountains forum, we don't ride private property around here very much. Most of the state is public land. As public land, my interstate pose was very precise. If that isn't very satisfying, how about this. If land should be closed on account of the actions of individuals, would not the quickest way to end snowmobiling be for ELF to pretend to be disrespectful snowmobilers?
Actually CF bulbs save a lot of energy, there produce about 60 lumen per watt as compared to incandescents 14 lumen per watt, they just contribute a lot of mercury to the environment. And no, most states do not have proper disposal procedures. Tennessee, for example, has just passed a law that CF bulbs shall be disposed of in the public landfill. Read the CF package some time, the part about what you should do if the bulb is broken within your home. LED lighting on the other hand, produces about 60 to 160 lumen per watt and don't contribute mercury to the environment. That is a negative consequentialism view of environmentalist's actions.
Utilization versus preservation. One extreme position might be dig it up, clear cut it all and plant tree farms on it, and sell it to private individuals so as to pay for health care. Another extreme might be close it all down, no one's allowed on the land anymore. How about this, we'll close down about 40% of it to hikers only, we'll only cut less than 0.5% of the public forest, and we'll let motorized users use about 10% of what's left in a way that doesn't permanently harm the environment, with summer time users primarily being restricted to roads and trails? That would be what we have today. My point being, we have both utilized and preserved the forest, it does little good to preserve what is not usable. And by preservation only, do we not actually shift the environmental damage to nations that lack the capacity to successfully manage their resources in a sustainable way? Are we not actually doing more damage than good?
I never denied environmentalist the right to vote based off their passions. I merely reversed your argument. Obviously the environment is important enough for our politicians to spend enormous amounts of effort on, and my view of the environment is just as important to me as their view is to them. I am the evangelical environmentalist's antithesis. I believe the best approach to long term preservation of the land, is by vesting all citizens in a modest utilization of the public lands.
Last edited:
N
I voted for Bush because his daughters were so much hotter than Kerry's. Whoever has the hottest daughters in the upcoming election gets my vote
That's a lie, but I will be selfish. I live in Alaska where we can sled, hunt, fish, and basically do whatever we want anywhere we want to. The friggin liberals will take that away if they get the chance. These things are important to me and it's important that my kids(when I have them) be able to enjoy them too. I don't give two sh!ts about the rest of the world, they can take care of themselves.
That's a lie, but I will be selfish. I live in Alaska where we can sled, hunt, fish, and basically do whatever we want anywhere we want to. The friggin liberals will take that away if they get the chance. These things are important to me and it's important that my kids(when I have them) be able to enjoy them too. I don't give two sh!ts about the rest of the world, they can take care of themselves.
F
From Obama's website:
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/environment/
Preserving our Forests and other National Treasures
Barack Obama believes that we have a responsibility to our children to leave this Earth better than we found it.
All Americans have an interest in the protection and proper maintenance of our irreplaceable national treasures. In 2006, more than 272 million people visited a national park. Conservation is also vitally important to providing clean drinking water, cleaning our air, and reducing greenhouse gas pollution. As president, Barack Obama will prioritize the stewardship of our forests, wetlands, and other natural treasures.
Protect National Parks and Forests. Barack Obama supports a true preservation and protection policy for our nation's parks and forests. Obama fought efforts to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). He also voted to prohibit the use of funds to construct new roads in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska for the purpose of harvesting timber by private entities or individuals. As president, he will repair the damage done to our national parks by poor funding.
Conserve New Lands. Barack Obama supported legislation to restore $2 billion in cuts to conservation programs, including the conservation reserve and wetland reserve programs. He is a long-time supporter of increased funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which federal and state governments use to purchase and protect new land and keep our parks in good condition. As president, Obama will also do more to encourage private citizens to protect the open spaces and forests they own and the endangered species that live there. He will set aside new wilderness areas, establish stronger policies to deter international deforestation and improve domestic timberlands, and encourage communities to enhance local greenspace, wildlife and conservation areas.
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/environment/
Preserving our Forests and other National Treasures
Barack Obama believes that we have a responsibility to our children to leave this Earth better than we found it.
All Americans have an interest in the protection and proper maintenance of our irreplaceable national treasures. In 2006, more than 272 million people visited a national park. Conservation is also vitally important to providing clean drinking water, cleaning our air, and reducing greenhouse gas pollution. As president, Barack Obama will prioritize the stewardship of our forests, wetlands, and other natural treasures.
Protect National Parks and Forests. Barack Obama supports a true preservation and protection policy for our nation's parks and forests. Obama fought efforts to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). He also voted to prohibit the use of funds to construct new roads in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska for the purpose of harvesting timber by private entities or individuals. As president, he will repair the damage done to our national parks by poor funding.
Conserve New Lands. Barack Obama supported legislation to restore $2 billion in cuts to conservation programs, including the conservation reserve and wetland reserve programs. He is a long-time supporter of increased funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which federal and state governments use to purchase and protect new land and keep our parks in good condition. As president, Obama will also do more to encourage private citizens to protect the open spaces and forests they own and the endangered species that live there. He will set aside new wilderness areas, establish stronger policies to deter international deforestation and improve domestic timberlands, and encourage communities to enhance local greenspace, wildlife and conservation areas.
F
Here is a link to the green party platform:
http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/2004platform.pdf
I would describe it as socialism mixed with the new "environmental religion." In my opinion, implementation of these policies would be very bad for all Americans not just me individually. Therefore I can vote against them using the logic supplied above.
Quote: "I guess a way to determine this is through sacrifice. Can you sacrifice you own personal beliefs so that others may prosper and lead better lives? Though I do not care anything about you, nor what is good for you individually, I care about what is good/best for us as a group."
Sacrificing the individual for the greater good of the group is a very dangerous road to travel.
http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/2004platform.pdf
I would describe it as socialism mixed with the new "environmental religion." In my opinion, implementation of these policies would be very bad for all Americans not just me individually. Therefore I can vote against them using the logic supplied above.
Quote: "I guess a way to determine this is through sacrifice. Can you sacrifice you own personal beliefs so that others may prosper and lead better lives? Though I do not care anything about you, nor what is good for you individually, I care about what is good/best for us as a group."
Sacrificing the individual for the greater good of the group is a very dangerous road to travel.
Similar threads
