notdonhunting
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,294
I know a few of you guys have been pretty vocal against Senator Lee, what do you think about Cox getting involved?
Cox Not a Federal Land Guy
- Thread starter notdonhunting
- Start date
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,723
If this part were true (and it would take literally one sentence in the statute to make it so) then I'd support it.
Because I've read the entire Utah Transfer of Public Lands Act, I know for 100% certain that the goal of the Act is to sell public land. It's codified in the law and a bank account to receive the funds from the sale of public land already has been formed.
Tweets mean nothing. Emails mean nothing. Read the damn law. The goal and plan, as plainly stated in the Act, is to sell public land.
I will never support an elected official who wants to sell public land. Ever.
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,723
You guys realize if there was a referendum that stated no public land received from the federal government could ever be sold, that it would pass with probably 70% approval rating.
There is only ONE reason that verbiage isn't in there. The plan is to sell public land. It's in the literal law. Your elected officials know nobody will actually read it though, it's a lot easier to lie to you in a tweet and trick you later.
There is only ONE reason that verbiage isn't in there. The plan is to sell public land. It's in the literal law. Your elected officials know nobody will actually read it though, it's a lot easier to lie to you in a tweet and trick you later.
notdonhunting
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,294
Grizz, this was a question about "Initiative Public Land Lawsuit" and Governor Cox not about "Transfer of Utah Public Lands Act".
This tweet is straight from the horses mouth, so yes it means something.
Have you read the the whole "Public lands lawsuit"?
Do you know for sure that Governor Cox is 100% committed to keep 100% of the BLM land public property?
You yourself said tweets mean nothing but you are pointing to a sentence in a tweet.
This tweet is straight from the horses mouth, so yes it means something.
Have you read the the whole "Public lands lawsuit"?
Do you know for sure that Governor Cox is 100% committed to keep 100% of the BLM land public property?
You yourself said tweets mean nothing but you are pointing to a sentence in a tweet.
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,723
They're suing to take possession of federal public lands. The UTPLA is already the law of the land and demands the transfer to the State. The UTPLA, which, again, is ALREADY the law of the land, spells out exactly what happens if the land is transferred to the State... as the lawsuit seeks.
There is absolutely NOTHING in the lawsuit (or current law; UTPLA or otherwise) that requires public land to remain public. All we have is a tweet, which carries no weight of law or policy.
We also have history, which shows 30% of ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY on the state of Utah was once state-owned. That's how much state land has already been sold. There is ZERO reason to believe future state land will remain public, whether by precedent or statute.
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,723
No it doesn't. Name a politician with Twitter and I'll show you where they lied on it.
elkassassin
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 39,650
A F'N Politician Lieing To Us?
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
They wouldn't Do That!
CROOKED SOB'S!
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
They wouldn't Do That!
CROOKED SOB'S!
