-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Kerrys' got a plan -
- Thread starter rlinger
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2000
- Messages
- 5,179
Now why didn't I expect to see this this morning? 
I'm really tempted to go poking at you guys but I'm in an expansive mood and will keep off my soapbox.
I'm really tempted to go poking at you guys but I'm in an expansive mood and will keep off my soapbox.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2001
- Messages
- 3,623
O go ahead Dave and Poke, I would like to hear it. I must say, all I've heard Kerry say is he has many plans, but he never tells what these plans are.
As for the debates, I've watched both and believe the american public would get more out of them if these two were throwing rocks at each other, I know I would. Also, the word "question" should never be allowed in a politicians conversation, because they don't know what it means.
Bill
As for the debates, I've watched both and believe the american public would get more out of them if these two were throwing rocks at each other, I know I would. Also, the word "question" should never be allowed in a politicians conversation, because they don't know what it means.
Bill
What ever bricks you throw at one will also hit the other. For instance, it was intresting to see the people 'dissing' Kerry for supporting the (somewhat) assault weapons ban. Bush is also on record supporting such a ban.
Still, it's fun to see the "yellow dog" Republicans comments, even if this forum is the wrong place for it.
Ready for flameing (I think!) , Lynn
Still, it's fun to see the "yellow dog" Republicans comments, even if this forum is the wrong place for it.
Ready for flameing (I think!) , Lynn
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2000
- Messages
- 5,179
Lynn, we have a long and illustrious tradition here of discussing politics even if it is off topic. Since we're all still friends, it's a good thing since I don't frequent any of the other forums.
As to Kerry's "plans" - actually I thought he did a pretty good job of stating his propositions for many domestic issues. He doesn't seem to have anything useful to say about the war though; and who could? It's a total mess.
I tuned in late and got a huge guffaw when I heard Bush talking about all the great environmental stuff he's done - he even claimed to be a good "steward of the environment"!!!
Yeah, if you think our land would good as a wasteland. His environmental record has got to be one of the biggest offenses against our planet and our health I've ever witnessed.
I could go on, but I won't since I have valuable knife polishing to do.
As to Kerry's "plans" - actually I thought he did a pretty good job of stating his propositions for many domestic issues. He doesn't seem to have anything useful to say about the war though; and who could? It's a total mess.
I tuned in late and got a huge guffaw when I heard Bush talking about all the great environmental stuff he's done - he even claimed to be a good "steward of the environment"!!!
Yeah, if you think our land would good as a wasteland. His environmental record has got to be one of the biggest offenses against our planet and our health I've ever witnessed.I could go on, but I won't since I have valuable knife polishing to do.
Dave,
In the spirit of friendly debate, let me just say that while fair minded people may disagree about Bush's environmental stance, the facts are that his administration has NOT "trashed" the environment. If you listen to the "anti Bushies" talk about this, they never refer to ACTUAL acts, only proposed plans (drilling in Alaska) and to "global Warming" (caused by Bush, I think not). The fact is the developing countries and China contribute hugely to any increase in greenhose gases, but are not held accountable in any way. I heard Naomi Wolf, one of the prime accusers, when asked what Bush had actually done to the envirnment, sputter for 10 seconds and then say "well, the icebergs are melting!"
This type of talk ( and lots of anti-Kerry rhetoric as well) is fueled by extremist types with agendas but not much actual data, and really doesn't contribute much INHO
Bill
In the spirit of friendly debate, let me just say that while fair minded people may disagree about Bush's environmental stance, the facts are that his administration has NOT "trashed" the environment. If you listen to the "anti Bushies" talk about this, they never refer to ACTUAL acts, only proposed plans (drilling in Alaska) and to "global Warming" (caused by Bush, I think not). The fact is the developing countries and China contribute hugely to any increase in greenhose gases, but are not held accountable in any way. I heard Naomi Wolf, one of the prime accusers, when asked what Bush had actually done to the envirnment, sputter for 10 seconds and then say "well, the icebergs are melting!"
This type of talk ( and lots of anti-Kerry rhetoric as well) is fueled by extremist types with agendas but not much actual data, and really doesn't contribute much INHO
Bill
- Joined
- Nov 27, 1999
- Messages
- 3,745
What ever bricks you throw at one will also hit the other. For instance, it was intresting to see the people 'dissing' Kerry for supporting the (somewhat) assault weapons ban. Bush is also on record supporting such a ban.
and
Lynn, we have a long and illustrious tradition here of discussing politics even if it is off topic. Since we're all still friends, it's a good thing since I don't frequent any of the other forums.
Yes Dave, it is nice that there is one place on the INTERNET where a group can discuss, disagree and still go away friends.!
That said, I agree with both of you to a certain extent. I like many of the things Bush has done. Some of the others, like the attack on American Freedoms in the name of Security, are so abhorrent to me that they far outweigh any good he has done.
On the other hand, I see good intentions on Kerry's part but feel it is just lip service for the most part. Kerry is also a bigger gun grabber than Bush.
As with so many elections, I am faced with the dilemma of voting for a:
*ickhead
or an
*sshole.
My vote will begrudgingly go to the *sshole AKA Bush.
I was going to write Chuck's name in (really!) but this is going to be so close, I'm afraid every vote will really count.
The campaign slogan this year for both parties should be:
Damned if you do and Damned if you don't!
and
Lynn, we have a long and illustrious tradition here of discussing politics even if it is off topic. Since we're all still friends, it's a good thing since I don't frequent any of the other forums.
Yes Dave, it is nice that there is one place on the INTERNET where a group can discuss, disagree and still go away friends.!
That said, I agree with both of you to a certain extent. I like many of the things Bush has done. Some of the others, like the attack on American Freedoms in the name of Security, are so abhorrent to me that they far outweigh any good he has done.
On the other hand, I see good intentions on Kerry's part but feel it is just lip service for the most part. Kerry is also a bigger gun grabber than Bush.
As with so many elections, I am faced with the dilemma of voting for a:
*ickhead
or an
*sshole.
My vote will begrudgingly go to the *sshole AKA Bush.
I was going to write Chuck's name in (really!) but this is going to be so close, I'm afraid every vote will really count.
The campaign slogan this year for both parties should be:
Damned if you do and Damned if you don't!
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2000
- Messages
- 5,179
Don I've felt that in virtually every election I was able to vote in, I didn't have a good choice. I think that's true now too. For myself, this administration's assault on the Constitution is sufficient for me to vote for Kerry - in fact I already have. [Because I don't trust the whole eVoting process I wanted to ensure (as best I could) that my vote was counted the way I made it so I voted absentee. While that's not perfectly safe it's far more safe than any electronic voting system we have now. I hope this gets fixed before any more elections hinge on insecure methods.]
There's also the whole issue of Bush attempting to legislate morality. I'm talking about gay marriage, abortion, the whole emotionally loaded kit. I don't subscribe to either of these things but our Constitution does not provide the government the authority to make moral decisions for its population. The right to make these individual choices is called Freedom. Even before he was elected, Bush attempted to sidestep the First Amendment by requiring libraries to censor their materials (internet filtering). It's not the government's job to choose what people read - in fact it's the government's job to ensure that people can read whatever they choose. And on and on. Bush just wants to push his personal morality onto the country and the rest of the world, and I have no stomach for it.
As for Kerry's grand plans - yeah, right. I agree it's all political rhetoric and if he got elected I doubt much of it would come to fruition. I would not relish additional taxation (even though he says he'd tax people a whole lot richer than I am). On the other hand I would like to see the whole medical establishment, and big business in general, held accountable for its greed. I would have liked to see Microsoft pay the same price other monopolists in America have had to pay, but our business-lackey administration just gave em a kiss on the cheek. I have no clue what a Kerry admin would have done but I suspect he'd have called them to task - at least a little. In our current business environment companies have done little to pass their enhanced profitablity into the general economy; an ever larger share of business returns go to senior management and stockholders. In the traditional American capitalist economy, greater profits would have worked their way into a better life for more people. Today they result in a better life for stockholders and CEOs. Employees shoulder an ever greater burden.
Bill, I'll just give you one example of Bush single-handedly destroying the beauty and integrity of our land. He completely relaxed restrictions on mountaintop coal mining (I kick myself for not being able to use the right word for the practice, sorry) in West Virginia. You're probably familiar with the process; they blast away mountains and shove the debris into the valleys and rivers. The lucky homeowners nearby get to watch the value of their homes plummet and the natural beauty of their environement destroyed. For coal. Who benefits? Mining interests, and the politicians (Bush, personally) who enjoy their generous contributions.
That's just one example; Bush has opened national forests to logging in the snide name of protecting them. Uh-huh. I'm willing to bet Bush has never slept a single night in an old forest, one that he'd walked into for days without seeing a road. If he had he'd value it much more for its awe inspiring undisturbed beauty than for its short term value to create stick houses.
These irreplacable natural resources belong to all Americans; Bush has handed them over to industries whose enhanced this-quarter financial statements might result in a little blip in their stock price - this week. What's he going to give them next week? This whole short sighted focus on immediate gain with no consideration of the longterm value of our common resources just makes me want to puke.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, then I'll go back to polishing steel; Bush has done two things that I approve of: He upheld that our Second Ammendment right to keep and bear arms applies to individual citizens, and he took out the Taliban (then he virtually abandoned Afghanistan, and we'll live to regret it). Every other word that man has uttered has done nothing but amaze and sicken me. I wonder if he's ever read the Constitution, or knows what the Bill of Rights is?
One thing about Bush's intent in the Mideast. Why do you think he ditched Afghanistan in favor of Iraq? Afghanistan is filled with terrorists who have attacked the United States; Iraq was a bunch of starving people tortured by a twisted but internationally impotent dictator. But what does Afghanistan have? A bunch of poppy fields. What does Iraq have? I bunch of oil fields. It's not hard to figure this one out.
There's also the whole issue of Bush attempting to legislate morality. I'm talking about gay marriage, abortion, the whole emotionally loaded kit. I don't subscribe to either of these things but our Constitution does not provide the government the authority to make moral decisions for its population. The right to make these individual choices is called Freedom. Even before he was elected, Bush attempted to sidestep the First Amendment by requiring libraries to censor their materials (internet filtering). It's not the government's job to choose what people read - in fact it's the government's job to ensure that people can read whatever they choose. And on and on. Bush just wants to push his personal morality onto the country and the rest of the world, and I have no stomach for it.
As for Kerry's grand plans - yeah, right. I agree it's all political rhetoric and if he got elected I doubt much of it would come to fruition. I would not relish additional taxation (even though he says he'd tax people a whole lot richer than I am). On the other hand I would like to see the whole medical establishment, and big business in general, held accountable for its greed. I would have liked to see Microsoft pay the same price other monopolists in America have had to pay, but our business-lackey administration just gave em a kiss on the cheek. I have no clue what a Kerry admin would have done but I suspect he'd have called them to task - at least a little. In our current business environment companies have done little to pass their enhanced profitablity into the general economy; an ever larger share of business returns go to senior management and stockholders. In the traditional American capitalist economy, greater profits would have worked their way into a better life for more people. Today they result in a better life for stockholders and CEOs. Employees shoulder an ever greater burden.
Bill, I'll just give you one example of Bush single-handedly destroying the beauty and integrity of our land. He completely relaxed restrictions on mountaintop coal mining (I kick myself for not being able to use the right word for the practice, sorry) in West Virginia. You're probably familiar with the process; they blast away mountains and shove the debris into the valleys and rivers. The lucky homeowners nearby get to watch the value of their homes plummet and the natural beauty of their environement destroyed. For coal. Who benefits? Mining interests, and the politicians (Bush, personally) who enjoy their generous contributions.
That's just one example; Bush has opened national forests to logging in the snide name of protecting them. Uh-huh. I'm willing to bet Bush has never slept a single night in an old forest, one that he'd walked into for days without seeing a road. If he had he'd value it much more for its awe inspiring undisturbed beauty than for its short term value to create stick houses.
These irreplacable natural resources belong to all Americans; Bush has handed them over to industries whose enhanced this-quarter financial statements might result in a little blip in their stock price - this week. What's he going to give them next week? This whole short sighted focus on immediate gain with no consideration of the longterm value of our common resources just makes me want to puke.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, then I'll go back to polishing steel; Bush has done two things that I approve of: He upheld that our Second Ammendment right to keep and bear arms applies to individual citizens, and he took out the Taliban (then he virtually abandoned Afghanistan, and we'll live to regret it). Every other word that man has uttered has done nothing but amaze and sicken me. I wonder if he's ever read the Constitution, or knows what the Bill of Rights is?
One thing about Bush's intent in the Mideast. Why do you think he ditched Afghanistan in favor of Iraq? Afghanistan is filled with terrorists who have attacked the United States; Iraq was a bunch of starving people tortured by a twisted but internationally impotent dictator. But what does Afghanistan have? A bunch of poppy fields. What does Iraq have? I bunch of oil fields. It's not hard to figure this one out.
There are only a few things I think we can honestly state about John Kerry.
1) He consistently votes a STRONG anti-gun agenda :barf:
2) He consistently votes anti-life (pro-abortion) :barf:
3) He consistently votes pro-gay :barf:
4) He has consistently been the most liberal member of the senate :barf:
Other than the above he has CONSISTENTLY been all over the map on just about every issue. He appears to have NO real values of his own!
Do I agree with everything GW has done? NO!
GW is not my idea of a perfect President, but he IS lights years ahead of the the alternative!
Mike
1) He consistently votes a STRONG anti-gun agenda :barf:
2) He consistently votes anti-life (pro-abortion) :barf:
3) He consistently votes pro-gay :barf:
4) He has consistently been the most liberal member of the senate :barf:
Other than the above he has CONSISTENTLY been all over the map on just about every issue. He appears to have NO real values of his own!
Do I agree with everything GW has done? NO!
GW is not my idea of a perfect President, but he IS lights years ahead of the the alternative!
Mike
Dave,
I agree with some of what you mention about Bush's environmental record, at least I think I do. Not having any first hand knowledge of the coal mining issues I'll tend to agree with you on this one.
But as for the timber issues I couldn't dissagreee more! Having lived most of my 50+ years in the North West I have seen first hand what has happened when the forsests were locked up.
Thousands of families have been suffering with job/income losses for years. Millions of acres accross the west have gone up in smoke. Logging would have greatly minimized the size and destructiveness of these fires as well as giving family living wage jobs to those thousands of families.
Every time you set down to read a newpaper, or set down to do more personal business stop an think about where that paper comes from.
Yesterdays paper here (in southwest Washington) has an article on how the drastic curtailment of logging has severely curtailed the deer and elk herds here. The clear cuts were essential to maintaining the large numbers of the past.
Having spent a great many days in the wilderness areas of Idaho (I lived there for over 35 years) and Montana I can speak first hand of how special such places are. Even here it's hard to find areas where I could 'wonder for days' without seeing a road of some kind. And if I did it did NOT detract from the real value of the moment!
We need healthy forests and healthy forest industries!
Forests are a CONTINUOSLY RENEWABLE resource!
Mike
I agree with some of what you mention about Bush's environmental record, at least I think I do. Not having any first hand knowledge of the coal mining issues I'll tend to agree with you on this one.
But as for the timber issues I couldn't dissagreee more! Having lived most of my 50+ years in the North West I have seen first hand what has happened when the forsests were locked up.
Thousands of families have been suffering with job/income losses for years. Millions of acres accross the west have gone up in smoke. Logging would have greatly minimized the size and destructiveness of these fires as well as giving family living wage jobs to those thousands of families.
Every time you set down to read a newpaper, or set down to do more personal business stop an think about where that paper comes from.
Yesterdays paper here (in southwest Washington) has an article on how the drastic curtailment of logging has severely curtailed the deer and elk herds here. The clear cuts were essential to maintaining the large numbers of the past.
Having spent a great many days in the wilderness areas of Idaho (I lived there for over 35 years) and Montana I can speak first hand of how special such places are. Even here it's hard to find areas where I could 'wonder for days' without seeing a road of some kind. And if I did it did NOT detract from the real value of the moment!
We need healthy forests and healthy forest industries!
Forests are a CONTINUOSLY RENEWABLE resource!
Mike
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2000
- Messages
- 5,179
Mike we're probably not so far apart when it comes to forests. What I'm most interested in is the old growth timber. Forests are renewable, just not in a human lifetime. What sets the ancient forests apart from second growth is the diversity of their ecology. Second growth timber, the timber that is most commonly logged today, is still too young to have developed the wide variety of undergrowth and numbers of species common in the oldest stands. Those places are, for me, natural cathedrals, life among them far more uplifting and fulfilling than anything civilized. If I had my way, no one would even see them except in their boots. I've spent most of my life in the desert or plains; gigantic, quiet, deep forest means more to me than I can express.
Second growth timber is a different story; that's a sunk cost. In my job I've had occasion to finance a lot of logging equipment and have met many of our customers working in Washington and Oregon. In every case I found people who understood the timber and cared about its health. But they all hungered for the big trees. I was glad they didn't have complete access to them because the mountains would have been left berift. Sure, trees would have grown back in 50 years or so but it would take 300 years to restore the forest to its former full beauty. That's longer than I can wait.
I really believe that we need to have some areas in our country that are off limits, that can be saved, pristine, for basic human contact. Not just forest - desert, sand hills, tundra, waterways are all important to human psychology, and I believe this is more valuable than some company's stock price. This is a selfish thing but I'm being selfish for generations who are not yet born as well as for myself.
This sounds awfully soft, even to me. It's because I can't express myself well. Cripes, I was trained to be one of the hard-nosed business decision makers I'm complaining about; I know where they're coming from and why their choices make sense to them. The difference is, my timeline has expanded and quarterly results don't mean spit to me compared to the natural experiences I've had. If people like Bush have their way, we are the last generation of Americans who will have the opportunity to see what our natural world is like. That price is just too high. For me, anyway.
I bet Roger is laughing his ass off having bated me so thoroughly, or cursing me and wishing he could take a baseball bat to my bones. I'm way too easy. I wish I was too apathetic to care about this stuff and just be like everyone else and watch TV.
Second growth timber is a different story; that's a sunk cost. In my job I've had occasion to finance a lot of logging equipment and have met many of our customers working in Washington and Oregon. In every case I found people who understood the timber and cared about its health. But they all hungered for the big trees. I was glad they didn't have complete access to them because the mountains would have been left berift. Sure, trees would have grown back in 50 years or so but it would take 300 years to restore the forest to its former full beauty. That's longer than I can wait.
I really believe that we need to have some areas in our country that are off limits, that can be saved, pristine, for basic human contact. Not just forest - desert, sand hills, tundra, waterways are all important to human psychology, and I believe this is more valuable than some company's stock price. This is a selfish thing but I'm being selfish for generations who are not yet born as well as for myself.
This sounds awfully soft, even to me. It's because I can't express myself well. Cripes, I was trained to be one of the hard-nosed business decision makers I'm complaining about; I know where they're coming from and why their choices make sense to them. The difference is, my timeline has expanded and quarterly results don't mean spit to me compared to the natural experiences I've had. If people like Bush have their way, we are the last generation of Americans who will have the opportunity to see what our natural world is like. That price is just too high. For me, anyway.
I bet Roger is laughing his ass off having bated me so thoroughly, or cursing me and wishing he could take a baseball bat to my bones. I'm way too easy. I wish I was too apathetic to care about this stuff and just be like everyone else and watch TV.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2000
- Messages
- 5,179
One more thing. Bill I've carried your image of the candidates throwing rocks at each other all day, and it always makes me laugh out loud.
Good thing I've been working by myself!
Good thing I've been working by myself!
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2001
- Messages
- 3,623
Dave, all I can say is. I'm one of those people that votes for the man and not the party, whomever I feel will do the better job gets my vote. I've listened to Kerry and Edwards when the democratic convention was on, I've listened to the 2 Kerry and Bush debates and I listened to the Cheney and Edwards debate. And I just can't figure out any of Kerry's plans, he is a true politician and side steps the questions without a clear to the point answer. I know what Bush has done the last 4 years, but all Kerry wants to do during these debates is attack Bush. If he would tell the American public what his plans are and quit bashing Bush, he might get my vote. But as of today, Bush has it and will keep it.
As for the war in Iraq it is a mess, but there is so much good going on over there its unbelieveable. New schools, better health facilities, new freedoms to try and help themselves, the people of Iraq as a whole like us there. This isn't my observation, this is what I was told by my nephew, who was there for over 15 months, and a local boy that was there for a year. It is a dangerous place yet, and will most likely be that way after we've left, but at least the Iraqi people have a choice now, and can start to help themselves.
As for the environment, the American people need to take a lot of this responsiblity on theirselves instead of turning their heads when they see polutions happening. Logging is a good practice, I don't agree with it some times, but these older mature, adult trees need to be harvested while they are still beneificial. If done properly, the forests will continue to replenish theirselves. I don't live in an area that has the wooded pristine areas that are available out west. But I do have 25,000 arces close by,that the state owns and won't let anyone use. They don't even want people to walk though it. That said, I frequent there several times a year, its quiet and untouched, even though wal-mart is in the distance. I've seen what older adult trees turn into, sure not on the scale as out west, but I've walked on the hill tops that all the timber is broke off and piled, and as these trees broke and fell they destroyed younger replacement timber, logging would benefit these wooded areas as well as the lumber industry.
One last throught, what this country needs worse then a new and different president, is a changing of the people in congress and the senate that have made politics a life long profession. New and younger blood with new ideals for the good of all, instead of those that sway the newer younger elected folks to believe that their ways are the only ways. Get out and vote people, there's more to this government then the president. Vote out the life long politicians and make them get a real job so they can see just how tough life really is.
I'm done now,
Bill
As for the war in Iraq it is a mess, but there is so much good going on over there its unbelieveable. New schools, better health facilities, new freedoms to try and help themselves, the people of Iraq as a whole like us there. This isn't my observation, this is what I was told by my nephew, who was there for over 15 months, and a local boy that was there for a year. It is a dangerous place yet, and will most likely be that way after we've left, but at least the Iraqi people have a choice now, and can start to help themselves.
As for the environment, the American people need to take a lot of this responsiblity on theirselves instead of turning their heads when they see polutions happening. Logging is a good practice, I don't agree with it some times, but these older mature, adult trees need to be harvested while they are still beneificial. If done properly, the forests will continue to replenish theirselves. I don't live in an area that has the wooded pristine areas that are available out west. But I do have 25,000 arces close by,that the state owns and won't let anyone use. They don't even want people to walk though it. That said, I frequent there several times a year, its quiet and untouched, even though wal-mart is in the distance. I've seen what older adult trees turn into, sure not on the scale as out west, but I've walked on the hill tops that all the timber is broke off and piled, and as these trees broke and fell they destroyed younger replacement timber, logging would benefit these wooded areas as well as the lumber industry.
One last throught, what this country needs worse then a new and different president, is a changing of the people in congress and the senate that have made politics a life long profession. New and younger blood with new ideals for the good of all, instead of those that sway the newer younger elected folks to believe that their ways are the only ways. Get out and vote people, there's more to this government then the president. Vote out the life long politicians and make them get a real job so they can see just how tough life really is.
I'm done now,
Bill
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2002
- Messages
- 992
B . Buxton said:
I'm the same way Bill!
These debates are a joke in a sense...you really can't get a feel for what either of the guys plans are with the allotted time frame they have to work within. That's just the nature of the way the debates are set up. I know what G.W.B.'s plans are, due to his track record over the past four years in actually running the country, and I really don't expect things to change too much from the way he's been doing it. The question is what are John Kerry's plans. He's actually made reference to it in each of the debates I've watched so far, that people who want the detailed plans should go to http://www.JohnKerry.com . I've checked out the site and there are indeed very detailed plans on there on all of the important issues if you take the time to look around. Bush is playing the same game in the debates as John Kerry in not giving solid information, but the thing is, we know what he's done over the past four years and what he promised to do when he was running for president...most people have short memories for these things. In any case, don't anyone read anything into this post as to how I'm planning to vote, as I haven't made up my mind yet!!!
-Darren
Kerry's most well known voice is Teddy Kennedy. Listening to them it is a war for oil. I say if not why not. They say its all just tax cuts for the rich. I say good and wish it were true. They after all are the golden goose and the golden goose, which includes all employers large and small, are being buerocratically killed off. The scale is unbalanced and becomes more so as those without continue to receive the benefits of punishment of the true acheivers. With this comes an increasingly larger electorite that pays little and expects more. Global warming? It is all BULL. Period. There are no facts to back it up and it was only hyped after global cooling proved equally false and did not work for them. More damage has been caused by environmental hype scare than by man kind's production efforts. Dead timber is regulated to lay in place with sever consequences on any that dare remove a single stick. It goes on and on. The she people, the feminisation of the United States, has and is destroying liberty and responsibilty for our own actions. Abortion? Listening to them it's nothing except her wishes and the doctor's opinion. It's between her and the doctor, never her and her parents, her and her husband, her and her conscious, or - and especially - her and her minister. Only in cases of health treatening to the mother? That sure makes it easy for them. In my opinion there has only been one birth in the history of man kind that was not risky for the mother. The war is a mess? What war has not been? Should we suppose it best Roosevelt would have been retired early? Should Lincoln have given in? In short: the opposition party takes glee in their abilty to down our country and our countries efforts in this time of defense. It is perfectly fine with them to kill innocent people so long as their boy is the one that orders it (just as examples: aspirin factories, Bosnia, Hattie, Waco, Ruby Ridge). It is not okay for us to kill the enemy by protecting our country so long as their boy is not ordering it. And, it goes on and on. The man not the party? To me that is like saying I'm going to help this fellow join my enemy because I like him better than this other fellow that wants to fight with me.
RL
RL
Ebbtide
Gold Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 1999
- Messages
- 7,955
War for oil?
Look around you. Just about everything has had a ride in a truck or on a train, made with oil or uses oil in it or part of the manufacturing process.
Imagine how expensive it would all be if there was no mideast oil.
Just your food bills. Not to mention power and heat for your home.
It's not only a "kill innocents/terror war" it is an economic war too.
Just ask a business owner in downtown Manhattan.
_I don't understand why you think W abandoned Afghanistan. W sent his crack troops to Iraq, the hard chargers, the point of the sword.
There are plenty of troops in the 'stan, still looking for UBL, who BTW has been reduced to a guy with a rifle who has to look over his shoulder.
This is a war without borders. A war against the Radical Fundamental Islamics. They don't believe in borders.
Kerry said we need to find and arrest UBL. That is his war on terror. UBL, as I said before, has been reduced to a jerk with a rifle that *has* to hide.
It is the disciples of UBL that we have to worry about. The ones that can still travel freely, use their cell phones and bank accounts. They are the ones that can hurt us.
They (the RFI's) want the fight. They are killing their own women & children trying to get at us. They don't want to negotiate.
The liberal chant during VN was:
"Suppose they gave a war and nobody came."
I read this quote and should've written down the author:
Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?
The war will come to you."
We are going to have this fight. Like it or not. They brought it on and won't back down.
Now the question is: Do we have it in their backyard or ours?
Let Zarkawi & co. throw their martyrs against the Marines or our wives and kids?
That is the real reason that we are in Iraq.
8 years of Clinton rubbing his hands together and saying 'that's not nice' got us here.
Kerry and Clinton remind me of Neville Chamberlin.
W aint perfect, but at least we know what he's done and where he stands.
Have we forgotton 9/11 already? Maybe I'm oversensitive because I'm a New Yawker and I saw the pillar of smoke from my kitchen window for weeks. And the look of fear in the eyes of everyone on the street and in the subway.OK, I'll climb down now.
[DD, I quoted you because you expressed the prevailing attitude that I wanted to address, not attacking you personally. You just expressed it well
]
- Joined
- Mar 18, 1999
- Messages
- 2,112
ddavelarsen said:Mike we're probably not so far apart when it comes to forests. What I'm most interested in is the old growth timber. Forests are renewable, just not in a human lifetime. What sets the ancient forests apart from second growth is the diversity of their ecology. Second growth timber, the timber that is most commonly logged today, is still too young to have developed the wide variety of undergrowth and numbers of species common in the oldest stands. Those places are, for me, natural cathedrals, life among them far more uplifting and fulfilling than anything civilized. If I had my way, no one would even see them except in their boots. I've spent most of my life in the desert or plains; gigantic, quiet, deep forest means more to me than I can express.
Second growth timber is a different story; that's a sunk cost. In my job I've had occasion to finance a lot of logging equipment and have met many of our customers working in Washington and Oregon. In every case I found people who understood the timber and cared about its health. But they all hungered for the big trees. I was glad they didn't have complete access to them because the mountains would have been left berift. Sure, trees would have grown back in 50 years or so but it would take 300 years to restore the forest to its former full beauty. That's longer than I can wait.
I really believe that we need to have some areas in our country that are off limits, that can be saved, pristine, for basic human contact. Not just forest - desert, sand hills, tundra, waterways are all important to human psychology, and I believe this is more valuable than some company's stock price. This is a selfish thing but I'm being selfish for generations who are not yet born as well as for myself.
This sounds awfully soft, even to me. It's because I can't express myself well. Cripes, I was trained to be one of the hard-nosed business decision makers I'm complaining about; I know where they're coming from and why their choices make sense to them. The difference is, my timeline has expanded and quarterly results don't mean spit to me compared to the natural experiences I've had. If people like Bush have their way, we are the last generation of Americans who will have the opportunity to see what our natural world is like. That price is just too high. For me, anyway.
Dave,
You have struck a chord with me that is near and dear to my heart. The trees and the forests are very important to me as well and I must agree with you. There is nothing finer than to be able to walk through the woods in the early morning, enjoying it as it was intended.
Once upon a time, not too very long ago, I was able to do just that. It was great. My family and I would wake up early and go for a morning hike, walking up the grouse as we go, looking out over the picturesque vistas of Four Mile Creek, just north of Woodland Park, Colorado. Some of the best memories of my life of those times.
Due to lawsuits posed by environmental groups, the forestry department was not able to properly manage the forest. The reason for the lawsuits? They wanted to maintain the forest as "pristine". Not being able to have controlled burning this is what happened to "my little slice of Colorado"...
This was 3 years ago. It doesn't look too much different today. We still own the property. If anyone is interested in 10 acres of free standing Ponderosa pine charchoal, let me know.
Who knows, with all these forest fires around the country they may have to put the pine bark beetle on the endangered species list now.
Craig
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2000
- Messages
- 5,179
Cripes, when I stopped writing yesterday I swore I was done. It's not like I think I'm going to convince anyone one way or the other. This election is so polarized that those who have made up their minds ain't changing them for nothin. I think that's just fine. We are exceptionally lucky to live in a country where we can criticise our government without fear of being jailed or worse for it. (Not that Bush hasn't tried, right here in Des Moines; but the rest of the country made him and Ashcroft back way off real quick.)
For the record, I'll say this again: I'm a Republican and have voted pretty much along party lines all my lfe. I'm making an exception in this case though, because I don't think W is rational. I think he has his mind made up and come hell or high water he ain't changing it for nothin. Despite the facts. The truth is, principals on both sides of the divide can find "facts" to support their dogmas. It's hard to know what to trust.
But I've been reading a lot since 9/11, in both conservative and liberal media, scientific journals, political journals, medical research, and on and on. I haven't selected what I've read based on who wrote it - in fact I've gone out of my way to read as much as I can on both sides of each issue. This is important. Too important to let my own emotions or voting history or religious faith impose a bias on my rational thinking. It's not been easy or comfortable. Often I feel less informed than more; the more I learn the more obvious it is I cannot learn enough to really know what is best. I'd hate to have W's job; and anyone who wants it is a total nutcase IMHO.
I'm going to address a couple of y'all's arguments, then I really am going to shut up.
War in Iraq.
It is about oil. There weren't any terrorists in Iraq until we gave them a nice easy target. (Our own men and women; yes it's their job, and yes they've done a fantastic job - my heart and soul goes out to each soldier and I support each one with everything I have. Anyone who blames our troops for the war in Iraq risks getting their teeth knocked down their throat behind my hard and rightious fist.) Do we need Mideast oil? Yes, we do. Do I personally want to pay high prices to support our industrial complex running on expensive oil? Of course not. My argument has nothing to do with whether we need the oil, "deserve" it, how not having it would affect our lifestyles, or any of that. My issue is with the corrupt reasons behing the war in Iraq. It's not about terrorism; it's about oil and cronyism, unimaginable profits for a few good companies, and about some self-rightious neoconservative a$$wipe's (Wolfowitz) hardon for Saddam. I think Wolfowitz and his buddies led W down a glory road and W doesn't know how to look at it from another perspective; he'd have to admit what to him is weakness - that he made an error of judgement. (In the debate the other night one of the questions to Bush was to name three mistakes he'd made and what he would have done differently; he didn't answer the question in any way. He just stammered something about Iraq and waved the Flag. For just a moment there I had a little hope but he let me down again. That man is a dangerous child with no sense of the consequences of his acts.) Someone asked whether we should have pulled out of WWII and other wars; that's a good argument. Actually I don't think we'd better be pulling out of Iraq either, or we will have terrorists coming for our families. We started it, we'd better mop it up. Thoroughly.
Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is rife with terrorists, the Taliban is not dead, warlords rule everywhere but Kabul. What the f#*%? We have about 16,000 troops in Afghanistan; maybe they are the point of the spear and the best we have. But as far as I can tell they're not being particularly effective in rooting out the real danger to America and western civilization. That's because 16,000 troops, however potent, are just not enough. Afghanistan is a very big place with some of the toughest terrian in the world. Any fight against terrorism would have been better served with all of our might concentrated on its greatest stronghold until it was sterilized. But there's no real economic incentive to be there and once our administration thought they had UBL on the run they went where the money is. Big mistake; if we don't get back in there and fix it we're going to pay for that one for a very long time. UBL has been marginalized but he and all of the other fanatics we've taken out of circulation have been replaced. Are they hiding in Afghanistan now? Who could know? We're being distracted by flash and glitter and rhetoric.
Logging.
I'll concede this one, for the most part. I've lived in both ancient and second growth forests and they're universally awesome. I don't know whether judicious logging of old growth trees has longterm value so I'll assume it does. My only concern, really, is who determines which and how much timber is culled? I don't have any faith in anyone who has an economic interest, making these decsions.
Abortion, gay "rights" and that whole emotional miasma.
Personally abortion, homosexuality, etc make me uncomfortable. Abortion for birth control particularly strikes me as something deeply wrong. But so what? That's me. I will not assume the right to impose my morality on anyone and I know that our government does not have that right. We must not legislate morality or we risk becomming what we fight. Let's keep the Constitution and individual liberty at the front. I am totally aghast at Bush's desire to amend the Constitution to curtail American freedom. At the same time I don't think the government has an obligation to support anyone's personal choices or lifestyle.
Corporate responsibility.
The current administration has bent over backwards to pander to corporate interests. To some degree this is why I'm a Republican; capitalism is what has made America wealthy and strong. Unfettered capitalism though, has only a single result: one company, and it's the government. We see this every day. Companies have ever more control over our culture and individuality. Employees assume a greater burden while corporate officers enjoy the financial benefit. The DOJ looks the other way when corporations commit criminal acts. Our legislators trade corporate benefits for political contributions. Of course it's always been this way but I've been watching the whole process spin out of control. I'd like to see lobbiests put out of work entirely; or maybe (in a dream world) only allowing lobbying for constituent's rights. This would put the NRA (I'm a life member) out of Washington - fine; let it do what only it can do, educate people about firearms. And so on. I'm sick to death of companies sucking me dry and delivering their vanilla culture like it's a blessing.
Healthcare.
Boy, what we have is sure broken. For my family medical deductibles will go up 300% in 2005. Because my wife is chronically ill we'll use it all. We are at risk of bankruptcy. And in 2006 they will triple again. We may lose everything. At the same time my company is enjoying record profitability. This just pisses me off. I don't think my own problems should be a model for reform but it makes me poignantly aware how corporate greed drives our culture. Do I think the government should step in and do something? I sure wish they would but again that's a personal thing. I cannot see this one from an objective view because my wife's wellbeing and our whole life is at stake. What I observe is members of the healthcare community reaping record profits while individual people suffer more. Bush's policies only serve businesses; making Medicare an HMO seems like a step backwards. I have a number of coworkers who live in Canada where they have socialized medicine. They say it doesn't work - that people wait, often too long, for medical services that we take for granted. And it's expensive! So I don't favor socialized medicine. What's the answer? I don't know. I want to kick someone's ass.
Bush.
You all know what I think of Bush; that he's nothing but a stuborn cowboy pandering to his buddies best interests, who thinks his own morality trumps the Constitution. After 9/11 I was euphoric with his strong position against terrorism. Too bad he got led astray into Iraq. The only comfort - if I can be so callous as to call it comfort - is that our enemies have a much easier target now in our troops than in our families. But they'd be as good a target in Afghanistan as they are in Iraq, and they'd be doing much more for our nation's security. One thing about Bush: we do know where he stands and can rely on what he's likely to do. To the extent anyone thinks he'll make the right decisions there could be no other choice who to vote for. But think who his decisions are "right" for.
Kerry.
Here's a man who actually thinks about what he's doing. That has led him to adjust his position occasionally, and his detractors take this as weakness or indecisiveness. I don't see it that way; I'd rather the most powerful man on Earth be one to engage in rational thought and deliberation than one who'd lash out self righteously at anyone who poses a threat - or might some day. Kerry's sure a liberal and many of his ideas, however well intended, could not be implemented the way he's formed them. For one thing, we'd all have to pay for them with money, and people in general are so rooted in today's problems (as you've seen I am) that they won't make the hard longterm choices. At least Kerry is willing to think about the consequences of his ideas. You can say that our world is no place for hand-wringing and waffling; you are right. When push comes to shove I think Kerry's as willing to stomp on those who'd destroy our way of life as as Bush is. I hope so anyway. Because push has come to shove and this is no time to try to enlist the goodwill of countries like France, Russia and Germany who had an economic incentive in preventing the war in Iraq, or the UN who wants to be a liberal world government. Kerry says he won't let other countries push him around; I'm willing to give him the chance. Feeding someone a handful of nails and making them think it's ice cream is the heart of diplomacy. I think Kerry's the only one who might pull that off. Kerry understands our Constitution and will stand by it.
Bill, you are right.
What our country needs more than a change in its President is a change in its legislature. I am informed, and I voted accordingly. Over the last few years I've taken to writing my own reps, mostly about technology issues. I don't require that they agree with me, only that they listen to me. I used to get form responses; now they send letters that expressly address my concerns and they sign them themselves. Every voter should become involved in our government, every day. Hold our government responsible for its decisions. Let your legislators know that you are informed of their positions, and what yours are. Remind them that you vote. It's the only way we can continue to have the America that the Founders died for. If we let apathy and comfort put us to sleep we deserve what we get.
One great thing about this group is there's no apathy and no willingness to wallow in comfort or selfindulgence. I really respect and admire everyone who's taken the time to think about the issues we face. I'm thankful to be an American, and I'm thankful you all are too.
It's not like I think I'm going to convince anyone one way or the other. This election is so polarized that those who have made up their minds ain't changing them for nothin. I think that's just fine. We are exceptionally lucky to live in a country where we can criticise our government without fear of being jailed or worse for it. (Not that Bush hasn't tried, right here in Des Moines; but the rest of the country made him and Ashcroft back way off real quick.)For the record, I'll say this again: I'm a Republican and have voted pretty much along party lines all my lfe. I'm making an exception in this case though, because I don't think W is rational. I think he has his mind made up and come hell or high water he ain't changing it for nothin. Despite the facts. The truth is, principals on both sides of the divide can find "facts" to support their dogmas. It's hard to know what to trust.
But I've been reading a lot since 9/11, in both conservative and liberal media, scientific journals, political journals, medical research, and on and on. I haven't selected what I've read based on who wrote it - in fact I've gone out of my way to read as much as I can on both sides of each issue. This is important. Too important to let my own emotions or voting history or religious faith impose a bias on my rational thinking. It's not been easy or comfortable. Often I feel less informed than more; the more I learn the more obvious it is I cannot learn enough to really know what is best. I'd hate to have W's job; and anyone who wants it is a total nutcase IMHO.
I'm going to address a couple of y'all's arguments, then I really am going to shut up.
War in Iraq.
It is about oil. There weren't any terrorists in Iraq until we gave them a nice easy target. (Our own men and women; yes it's their job, and yes they've done a fantastic job - my heart and soul goes out to each soldier and I support each one with everything I have. Anyone who blames our troops for the war in Iraq risks getting their teeth knocked down their throat behind my hard and rightious fist.) Do we need Mideast oil? Yes, we do. Do I personally want to pay high prices to support our industrial complex running on expensive oil? Of course not. My argument has nothing to do with whether we need the oil, "deserve" it, how not having it would affect our lifestyles, or any of that. My issue is with the corrupt reasons behing the war in Iraq. It's not about terrorism; it's about oil and cronyism, unimaginable profits for a few good companies, and about some self-rightious neoconservative a$$wipe's (Wolfowitz) hardon for Saddam. I think Wolfowitz and his buddies led W down a glory road and W doesn't know how to look at it from another perspective; he'd have to admit what to him is weakness - that he made an error of judgement. (In the debate the other night one of the questions to Bush was to name three mistakes he'd made and what he would have done differently; he didn't answer the question in any way. He just stammered something about Iraq and waved the Flag. For just a moment there I had a little hope but he let me down again. That man is a dangerous child with no sense of the consequences of his acts.) Someone asked whether we should have pulled out of WWII and other wars; that's a good argument. Actually I don't think we'd better be pulling out of Iraq either, or we will have terrorists coming for our families. We started it, we'd better mop it up. Thoroughly.
Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is rife with terrorists, the Taliban is not dead, warlords rule everywhere but Kabul. What the f#*%? We have about 16,000 troops in Afghanistan; maybe they are the point of the spear and the best we have. But as far as I can tell they're not being particularly effective in rooting out the real danger to America and western civilization. That's because 16,000 troops, however potent, are just not enough. Afghanistan is a very big place with some of the toughest terrian in the world. Any fight against terrorism would have been better served with all of our might concentrated on its greatest stronghold until it was sterilized. But there's no real economic incentive to be there and once our administration thought they had UBL on the run they went where the money is. Big mistake; if we don't get back in there and fix it we're going to pay for that one for a very long time. UBL has been marginalized but he and all of the other fanatics we've taken out of circulation have been replaced. Are they hiding in Afghanistan now? Who could know? We're being distracted by flash and glitter and rhetoric.
Logging.
I'll concede this one, for the most part. I've lived in both ancient and second growth forests and they're universally awesome. I don't know whether judicious logging of old growth trees has longterm value so I'll assume it does. My only concern, really, is who determines which and how much timber is culled? I don't have any faith in anyone who has an economic interest, making these decsions.
Abortion, gay "rights" and that whole emotional miasma.
Personally abortion, homosexuality, etc make me uncomfortable. Abortion for birth control particularly strikes me as something deeply wrong. But so what? That's me. I will not assume the right to impose my morality on anyone and I know that our government does not have that right. We must not legislate morality or we risk becomming what we fight. Let's keep the Constitution and individual liberty at the front. I am totally aghast at Bush's desire to amend the Constitution to curtail American freedom. At the same time I don't think the government has an obligation to support anyone's personal choices or lifestyle.
Corporate responsibility.
The current administration has bent over backwards to pander to corporate interests. To some degree this is why I'm a Republican; capitalism is what has made America wealthy and strong. Unfettered capitalism though, has only a single result: one company, and it's the government. We see this every day. Companies have ever more control over our culture and individuality. Employees assume a greater burden while corporate officers enjoy the financial benefit. The DOJ looks the other way when corporations commit criminal acts. Our legislators trade corporate benefits for political contributions. Of course it's always been this way but I've been watching the whole process spin out of control. I'd like to see lobbiests put out of work entirely; or maybe (in a dream world) only allowing lobbying for constituent's rights. This would put the NRA (I'm a life member) out of Washington - fine; let it do what only it can do, educate people about firearms. And so on. I'm sick to death of companies sucking me dry and delivering their vanilla culture like it's a blessing.
Healthcare.
Boy, what we have is sure broken. For my family medical deductibles will go up 300% in 2005. Because my wife is chronically ill we'll use it all. We are at risk of bankruptcy. And in 2006 they will triple again. We may lose everything. At the same time my company is enjoying record profitability. This just pisses me off. I don't think my own problems should be a model for reform but it makes me poignantly aware how corporate greed drives our culture. Do I think the government should step in and do something? I sure wish they would but again that's a personal thing. I cannot see this one from an objective view because my wife's wellbeing and our whole life is at stake. What I observe is members of the healthcare community reaping record profits while individual people suffer more. Bush's policies only serve businesses; making Medicare an HMO seems like a step backwards. I have a number of coworkers who live in Canada where they have socialized medicine. They say it doesn't work - that people wait, often too long, for medical services that we take for granted. And it's expensive! So I don't favor socialized medicine. What's the answer? I don't know. I want to kick someone's ass.
Bush.
You all know what I think of Bush; that he's nothing but a stuborn cowboy pandering to his buddies best interests, who thinks his own morality trumps the Constitution. After 9/11 I was euphoric with his strong position against terrorism. Too bad he got led astray into Iraq. The only comfort - if I can be so callous as to call it comfort - is that our enemies have a much easier target now in our troops than in our families. But they'd be as good a target in Afghanistan as they are in Iraq, and they'd be doing much more for our nation's security. One thing about Bush: we do know where he stands and can rely on what he's likely to do. To the extent anyone thinks he'll make the right decisions there could be no other choice who to vote for. But think who his decisions are "right" for.
Kerry.
Here's a man who actually thinks about what he's doing. That has led him to adjust his position occasionally, and his detractors take this as weakness or indecisiveness. I don't see it that way; I'd rather the most powerful man on Earth be one to engage in rational thought and deliberation than one who'd lash out self righteously at anyone who poses a threat - or might some day. Kerry's sure a liberal and many of his ideas, however well intended, could not be implemented the way he's formed them. For one thing, we'd all have to pay for them with money, and people in general are so rooted in today's problems (as you've seen I am) that they won't make the hard longterm choices. At least Kerry is willing to think about the consequences of his ideas. You can say that our world is no place for hand-wringing and waffling; you are right. When push comes to shove I think Kerry's as willing to stomp on those who'd destroy our way of life as as Bush is. I hope so anyway. Because push has come to shove and this is no time to try to enlist the goodwill of countries like France, Russia and Germany who had an economic incentive in preventing the war in Iraq, or the UN who wants to be a liberal world government. Kerry says he won't let other countries push him around; I'm willing to give him the chance. Feeding someone a handful of nails and making them think it's ice cream is the heart of diplomacy. I think Kerry's the only one who might pull that off. Kerry understands our Constitution and will stand by it.
Bill, you are right.
What our country needs more than a change in its President is a change in its legislature. I am informed, and I voted accordingly. Over the last few years I've taken to writing my own reps, mostly about technology issues. I don't require that they agree with me, only that they listen to me. I used to get form responses; now they send letters that expressly address my concerns and they sign them themselves. Every voter should become involved in our government, every day. Hold our government responsible for its decisions. Let your legislators know that you are informed of their positions, and what yours are. Remind them that you vote. It's the only way we can continue to have the America that the Founders died for. If we let apathy and comfort put us to sleep we deserve what we get.
One great thing about this group is there's no apathy and no willingness to wallow in comfort or selfindulgence. I really respect and admire everyone who's taken the time to think about the issues we face. I'm thankful to be an American, and I'm thankful you all are too.