Jump to content

MtnGoat

Members
  • Posts

    739
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by MtnGoat

  1. Here is an airphoto of the region just SE of Oroville, notice the extensively scoured region of bare rock and short walls, all on NF forest. Not giant pitches, but lots of virgin couple pitch routes if the rock is good. Click in the menu box on left for photo/map view to change views. Scroll S and zoom in if you want to prowl for other areas. http://terraserver.homeadvisor.msn.com/image.aspx?t=1&s=14&x=101&y=1693&z=11&w=2 [ 09-03-2002, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]
  2. Merely take a drive between Omak and Oroville and keep your peepers peeled and you'll see big slab after big slab, some close, some far, pretty much the entire way. Prowl the backroads up by Tunk, towards Wauconda, and to a lesser extent in the Similkameen drainage and you'll find even more. The entire region has some pretty interesting topography since it was overridden by the big ice it's got lots of scoured terrain. Ad once you're north of the rezz, you're off Colville territory and back to a mix of public and private lands. Rock quality unknown, as Stefan points out, but there are some sweet looking walls. Not giant, but definiely new. I've always wondered why this area doesn't get more attention from climbers. I've prowled this area extensively due to my interest in pictographs, and had good luck with local landowners who usually have no problem visits *if* those visiting show the common courtesy of asking permission. Not one person has turned me down for permission to climb around on rocks on their property looking for pictos. [ 09-03-2002, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]
  3. "Corporate rape of natural resources has gone on long enough. Writing letters to Congressmen or having peaceful demonstrations sometimes just doesn't get it done. The corporate rape continues." That's because someone, somewhere, keeps using what they claim shouldn't be used and people shouldn't want.
  4. "pay your taxes and participate as best you can in our political system" That is what I am doing, and at the same time participating by asking that people consider - if the current paradigm for handing over control and then complaining about it's unavoidable abuse - of fancying one's own goals as somehow higher than those of other free citizens - of enabling people to escape from acting on their own stated morals, is one that actually is the best. "I bet there are a lot of things that this great nation of ours is doing with your money that you approve of, are there not? " Heck yes. Infrastructure issues for one thing, maintaing a legal structure, police force, rule of law. The closer an issue gets to social coercion for someones vision of a specific way in which people "ought" to be or act, the more I disagree, even if I agree with the goal desired. It's the method I find self defeating. "If you believe in public services, whether they be simply the basic utilities like water, sewer and police protection, or if you are "socialistic" as the term is being used here and believe in welfare and public healthcare, you have to pay for it." certainly, and i believe I've addressed the former concerns in my reply above, as well as the latter. I have no issues whatsoever with one's secular religious views of feeling they would like to contribute to health care for their fellow man, only that their own personal views on this are not binding on someone else, nor should they be. We are not tools to be used for someone elses end goals, basically. "I have always advocated participation to the greatest extent that one can" A laudable point we both agree with, at least we see eye to eye on something! "people participate in our civil and political processes - at least if the participatns are good guys (you conservatives and libertarians cause all the trouble)." I think you may be accidentally sidestepping one of my points or I have not made it clear. The other issue that exists IMO is not how "good" a public servant is, even absent fraud or bribery, but that it is impossible for anyone to evaluate "good" for someone else regardless of how pure the actions and intents of someone making decisions for millions of others. For acts with a scientific basis, such things can be quantified using methods visible and testable by any who cares to do so. But for acts and goals involving social issues, these "goods" are entirely subjective *regardless* of the intent, good or bad, of a public official. Each persons "good" is knowable only to *them*.
  5. "What about strip-mining, and that shit where they level mountains (well, hills probably) to get at whatever they're getting at? How responsible is that? The Doctor doubts anyone would consider that a responsible way of gathering minerals." Here to allay your doubt, stand I. Strip mining, while not the most esthetic way of doing things, is nonetheless often the most efficient. Large ore bodies which are differentiated through the host rock instead of concentrated in hot spots, are most effectively mined taking all the rock, since there are often not specifically concentrated areas where the ore is denser than others. Deposits known as "massive suphides" (ancient hotspring sites on a large scale, essentially) contain precious metals dispersed through the entire ore body. Where they are deep enough (and rich enough) to force tunneling to get them, they may be tunnel mined, but where near the surface, it is simply more efficient to take it all. Many other deposits of minerals are likewise naturally oriented towards strip mining, dependingn on condition, orientation with respect to the surface, and the concentration of the target within the host rock. Saying strip mining is not responsible in all cases is to ignore the physical realities of the huge range of variations found in nature which are dependent on the specifics of each case. I plead guilty to being part of the evil earth rapists, I spent 5 years as as geotech for various mining outfits and know a bit about what it takes to get this stuff out of the ground. Not everything, I'm no expert, but I do know more than your man in the street. I'm not going to claim strip mining has always been responsibly done, no, but I will claim it is not simply irresponsible in all cases, either.
  6. there's also the issue of what is irresponsible use, by definition. Given modern practices to bond and clean up sites, enforced and observed, I consider mining perfectly responsible.
  7. "That's part of the problem, yeah. But then there's the part wherein the company execs need to be able to afford gold toothbrushes and golf tees, and maybe it's cheaper to strip mine a mountain down to a molehill and skip out on cleaning up the toxic mine tailings, and hey, suddenly they're part of the problem, too!" But none of their acts will be doable if they cannot pay for them, and they cannot pay for the mining or the gold toothbrushes if there is no demand, there will be no return on that strip mine, without demand. Demand drives the *entire* system, from top to bottom! Blaming those who sell for those who buy, is putting the cart before the horse. The *want* drives the train, because the want creates the value for something others will try to provide. IMO you cannot blame anyone but the consumer. You can blame the provider for doing things in a way you may not like, sure, but they can't do that without a market anyway. ************************************ "Evaluating the "good" of what anybody does is subjective, is it not?" exactly, we agree. Thus my point. A well meaning govt employee cannot decide what is a "good" for someone else even if they are not bribed or bad.
  8. "To hand it off, expect it to go where you want it to, and to fail to watch where it goes or to participate in our political system would be asking for the shortcut. " If you do not hand off control, you do not need to watch who else deals with the cash because there is no one but *you* delegating it. How will it not go where you intend, if you are the one directing it, directly? "To pay your taxes while participating in our political system (by voting, contributing to candidates, canvassing, and yes even protesting sometimes)," But this is what results in the end results you've already said you do not like! How one expects a third party to do what you want, when you hand power to them, is something I don't understand. By handing off power you are handing off control. Either you have it, or someone else does. This is the elemental, unavoidable problem with giving your control to someone else. "to engage in community organization or to volunteer for service projects ... that is far from simply seeking a shortcut." Engaging in either of these directly retains your power, and shows you are living and acting in concert with your stated morality. I mispoke using shortcut as a description for turning overcontrol, I retract that particular word for this situation as you have shown me it was not a good description of this issue. "Where might this fit in your black and white analysis." Sometimes, some things are in fact black and white. This is one of those situations, to wit: Either you have total control of your resources, or you give it away. There is no partial total control. This is the problem with the system as organized now. There simply isn't a way to hand off power, to concentrate it in someone elses hands, and then expect those who seek that power will not gravitate to where you placed it. Once you hand it off, the scramble for control of what you have given away continues without your direct input. [ 08-28-2002, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]
  9. "We're such a rich country it's too bad we waste it on so much military and business handouts." this is precisely why it's backwards to expect to give your money to someone else who then gives it to whoever has *their* ear. When you refuse to delegate the directives of your personal morals yourself, you cannot expect that the money you support spending will go anywhere but where the person you gave it to thinks it should go. There is no way around this. No matter what the situation, either *you* retain the power to delegate your resources, or you give that power away to someone else. There are no other options. If you do not want money going where you don't want it, stop demanding you hand your personal control over to someone else and then being upset they did what they wanted with it. There is simply no shortcut, you either take responsibility for your morality and it's fiscal expression, or you hand it off and get what you get.
  10. "Well I guess if you think that a society that caters to monied interests is what you like," yes, it's what I like because *we* are the monied interests. *EACH* of us generates the capital we use to live, don't you do so? Don't you want control of your life so you can support what *you* choose? Don't you prefer to support those people you think deserve it, and not support those you think do not? Who said you can't support others who are not "monied" interests if you want to? Again, I ask why what *you* want entitles you to the lives and work of other people without their consent? Is not using me for example, for your interests, really that hard to get past? I am not seeing the problem here. No one is telling you you cannot support what you want to. No one is saying you shouldn't follow your ideals, your morals, your love for others and help them out. The only point is, your wonderful goals, most of which I probably agree with, don't place you in ownership of another person's life! Money is a representation of each of our efforts to create something with our lives. Money is not evil, it's a medium of exchange, where we each trade what we've made for what we want. Money represents *your* directed effort and a tiny, irretrievable, span of your life! Is this evil and bad? I don't see how people trading each other, by choice, for mutual gain, is some evil plot to hurt people or destroy society. Society coexists because we *choose* to trade with each other, values, ideas, and yes, products and cash. That's why it's called *trade* and products are called *goods*. A society based on money means mutual exchange, not force, recognition of value, not coercion by others, choice of values, not one set fits all. "and that letting corporations off the hook for paying thier fair share of taxes (Enron for instance paid no taxes in 2001 on 557 million in profit!)" If they are *cheating*, that's one thing and something no one can support. If like many companies they take advantage of tax breaks created as incentives, that's what the breaks are there for. Are special rates for investment in certain things supposed to be taken advantage of, or not? If you give breaks for investment in renewables, will you then complain they didn't pay enough in taxes when the breaks were created *intentionally* to lower taxes to spur investment? Are we talking fraud, or legal tax breaks, in other words? I submit no one supports fraud, but breaks are created for a reason and if they are not intended to be used they should not be created. "My opinion is that it's not fair and equatable. Seems your opinion is tuff luck!" It may seem that way, but that's because you don't seem to be getting the point I'm trying to make, I must not be doing this right. If *you* see something as not fair, it's also not fair for you to expect others, by law, to shoulder that burden for you. That's as oppressive as anything you claim buisness does. What your morals decide for you, is *your* burden and those who agree with you can choose to help you with it. There is no reason 'tuff luck situations cannot be borne by people who *want* to help, me included. What I am trying to get across, is my and your desire to help, does not automatically bind our neighbor to serve us or those we intend to help. Doing so disrespects their human rights as badly as anything you intend to fix. Why is helping people harmed by bad circumstances OK when you incur the labor of other parties without their consent? Don't they have a right to live their lives too? "Here's a recent example of how it works: Even after all the coporate crimes in the news one would think that the Bush administration would avoid even the appearance of graft. Not so - guess who got the 300 million contract to build the new, updated detention center at Guantanomo Bay, Cuba. You guessed it - Hallerburton - the company Cheny came from. So is this fair - a bunch of fat cats feeding from the public trough." Ok then, lets figure it out and end this, put it up for a fair bid and if Halliburton wins, so be it, if it's someone else, they get it. The entirely valid example you put forth, does *not* mean using your neighbors labor is any better. Just because someone else does bad things doesn't mean you need to support it too, in some other arena. It just means *both* are bad! "I don't go in for your social darwinism arguments. It's a matter of fairness. " Who's fairness? Which free individual shall you oppress, to make it "fair" for someone else? Who shall you decide you value, in your opinion, and then decide you value someone else less, then impose laws to take from one person and give to another? I simply do not see how oppression solves anything, it merely continues the cycle. BREAK IT by helping those you see fit with *your* body and life, without expecting to bind still others to do it for you. Stop playing with guns pointed at people you've decided you don't value, and admit the burden for *your* morality rests with *you*! Thanks for the posts, as always a pleasure. [ 08-27-2002, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]
  11. "But I'm forced to pay for your opinion such as the likes of military hardware," I do not support this. "business tax breaks," how are you forced to pay for tax *cuts*? If you support what those taxes pay for, shouldn't *you* support paying the costs, instead of buisnesses? "payments to for-profit health care, etc" You are not forced to pay for health care. You choose to pay for it. No other free individual is obligated to provide services you decide you want, for whatever reason, for any less than they decide they want. "I'd rather pay for more social benefits - education, universal health care, environmental protection." Then do so! I would never, ever decide to stand in your way, your life, your labor, your mind, your morals, is all your own, not mine to use as a tool. Why does what you'd rather support, obligate me to follow your goals? I do not expect you to pay for me, what makes you want to make me pay for you? I'm not interested in universal health care, because I'd rather pay more *personally* for better care, than less communally for worse care. When I pay privately, I can change companies, buy extra insurance, do all kinds of things. When I pay communally, my choices will be limited by *law*. I'd far rather deal with paper pushers from a variety of differing viewpoints on benefits and costs and types of care, than someone with the power to impose those choices by law. People from all over the world come here to get medical care, Canada included. And England, where my aunt in law just died from cancer after being on a waiting list because you know, she was 64 and at that age, your life is prorated by the state. By the time they opened her up, it was too late. Like it or not *SOMEONE* will decide which costs are appropriate, and when it's a private company, I can change who and how. When it's govt, I'm stuck with the result. If you like the DMV or SS system, you'll love socialized care. It's not Mercedes service at Yugo prices for everyone, it's the other way around. Even if I am wrong and it didn't work out that way, I accept that risk as the price of keeping my right to my body and my labor. "Spray all you want but it's not a level field and 'sur isn't no free market." Who said it is a level field? Of course it's not! That's reality. The only thing that worries me more than dealing with the reality of non level playing fields, is that someone *else* will decide what makes it "level" using *their* values and "level" it by constraining free individuals. As for it not being a free market, there are some very good reasons for that, and 99% of them have to do with folks who says it's not a free market, while supporting the restrictions placed upon it. [ 08-27-2002, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]
  12. "So is being able to own a gun or drive a gas-guzzling SUV more important than living a long and healthy life?" I don't know. I'd have to think about it. I can have one answer and you can have another. That's the beauty of liberty, each can decide that answer for themselves and follow that answer whereever it leads them. The willingness to let other people determine and follow their values for themselves and their lives, is elemental to demonstrating respect for their self determination IMO. ******************88 "No, I think it's more that some judge a society by how they treat the lower end of the social spectrum and that money is not the end all." Then judge it at will. Everybody judges, no one is exempt from that. But not everyone insists their judgements of others, means those others must follow the morals of those doing the judging ("for their own good" of course... ) ************************* "There's lots of rights in other developed countries that don't restrict freedoms like affordable health care, education" You have the right to *pursue* health care, or education, or anything else like this. I'm not sure when having others work to provide it for you became a right. Personally, I'd never forbid anyone from joining with folks who agree to spend their own money to make whatever they choose "affordable", however they define it. I might even sign up, if benefits are good enough. Something like this is usually called insurance. Given the example of MEC, I'd expect a coop approach could well pay off. On the other hand, I definitely have a problem with folks deciding I need to be forced to buy into a collectivized scheme by law, paid for with my labor wether I agree or not. It's the age old deal, I have no disagreement with someone else and their beliefs, until they come to me and tell me theirs include me without my consent and usually at gunpoint. Of course this is glossed over by the point that when you make it a law, someone else points the guns for them and this somehow absolves them of backing the use of force. "low death rates from large caliber handguns, etc." Murder is already illegal! I think we probably agree on that. ******************************* "Individual rights or communal rights?" "Communal rights"? How can a commune have rights individuals do not hold themselves? "Do you have a right to destroy our communally owned property, namely, the environment, without the consent of thr rest of the owners?" It depends. Can you prove destruction, first of all? "Did the Inuit and other peoples living in the High Arctic consent to having their main sources of food contaminted by the PCBs and Dioxins industrialized society has generated? I bet they didn't." A valid point. "That's what your freedom of choice to choose DDT over mosquitoes has left you." DDT has been banned for decades. And tens of millions of third world folks have died because of it. Where is the democracy in that?
  13. "If you think it might be measurable by lifespan or quality of life index Sweden, Norway, Canada, Japan etc. doing much better than USA." I think it's measured by personal liberty and the ability to set one's *own* goals for their life, and this includes the risk to make mistakes and poor choices *regardless* of how your neighbors feel, because they don't own your life, *you* do. This means you can take risks here, without their approval or OK, and succeed, or fail, and yes, die in some cases. I've never understood how a community as comfortable with the rewards and benefits of risk as the climbing community is, can have so many people with risk averse social and political goals. How people so geared to *voluntary* assumption of risk, and freedom of action, can be so supportive of philosophies that intrinsically depend on reducing individuals to secondary players in their own lives who depend on permission from others to live their own lives and make choices that are theirs, until taken by the state. [ 08-27-2002, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]
  14. "youre only free to take your business elsewhere when 1) the co. you hate aint a monopoly, or 2) you have a real choice of different companies, Im not talking Burger thing vs. McDead or Coke vs Pepsi here...." Not buying *anything* is also an option. Withholding your buisness altogether is just as valid as choosing between competing products. Wether a "real" choice exists is likewise a value judgement.
  15. "cooperative can outcompete corporation - look at MEC in Canada dominating outdoor retail market..." Great point!. They still have the structure of a buisness, after all, right? The key to me is MEC is a *voluntary* cooperative, using it's strengths to compete in a free market against others with differing techniques and aims. MEC is a great biz, and does great service with good prices. There's a place for all buisness models, let the consumer decide! It may be cooperative models win out in many areas, and if that's the case that's how it goes. No one has a corner on how a buisness should be run, after all!
  16. Just cracks me up. *WE* are corporate America. We have lives, families, dreams, goals, and beliefs like all our fellow citizens. We each work for companies that work with and for other companies. We each use products daily, no matter how simple or insignificant, which have value to *us* based on our personal needs and desires, products based in an enormous, complex infrastructure in which we each play a role both as creator, and consumer. Corporate America means *you* are responsible for what you value, because they can't sell it if you don't want it. We're not children, or pets of the state, we're free adults with the *right* to determine what we exchange with others, and for what. Wether it's a nice new rack of pro, top ramen or freeze dried, a polypro hat, band aids, vitamin I, lithium batteries in an LED headlamp, or the GPS system that gets someone who's run out of luck into that chopper and back the the folks that love them, capitalism and corporate America rocks. This wonderful system relies on each person to decide for themselves what they value and why, which is the realization of personal determination of values, beliefs and goals. Why this is a bad thing or how "corporate America" is seen as some separate evil entity when it is composed of *US* is something I will never understand.
  17. I can see corporate America doesn't do any good for you, running that PC supported by literally hundreds of nasty corporate engineers like myself who designed and tested it, who use parts from hundreds or thousands of other evil corporate drones. Using the internet run by still more corporations and using fiberoptic and microwave backbones developed by other nasty corporations, network switches and servers developed by still more selfish capitalists, and running from the power derived by still other hundreds of other corporations for generation, instrumentation, troubleshooting, and all the infrastructure used there. Yup, what's good for corporate America has never done a damned thing for anyone else. They make their money in a trade vacuum by offering nothing anybody wants or values, when you pay for something you get nothing you want. [ 08-27-2002, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]
  18. hey off white, good post , I'll come for you later! got work to do.
  19. "Why is it that when a group of decidedly wealthy individuals turns out to hobnob with the President and Gordon Smith, they get police protection, essentially acting as armed guards?" Because as you can see, they need it. Private citizens have the right to gather and support whom they choose *regardless* of their social status, rich or poor. Protestors do *not* have the right to impede travel or gathering of citizens wether they disagree with them, or not. Police protect abortion facilities from some Christian militants, they protected civil rights marchers from racists and nazi's from demonstrators elseswhere, just as they protect wealthy donors from protestors here. There is no open season on citizens because some don't like them or what they support. Weathly citizens have *every* right to attend such functions as they see fit, without interference, just as the protestors do, and singling them out because they need protection, due to the actions of others is kind of odd to me. "Where are you getting this idea that peaceful protestors "always cause riots?" It does not make sense that the city should prepare for violence from peaceful demonstrators, because they rarely incite violence. " WTO, Genoa, DC last summer, violence is the common thread with progressive agenda. Cities are in a no win sitation. If they prepare for violence, they are accused of inciting it. If they do not, and it occurs, they are *rightfully* attacked for not being prepared, as in Seattle. The burden for this issue lies with those who come and incite violence, *not* those people tasked to prepare for it to protect the rest of us. "Seattle only had a few instances of "violence," and as the Doctor recalls, that violence was against some windows and newspaper boxes." Some see property destruction as legitimate, I am not sure how you view it but I do not. Protecting property means protecting the hard work of those people who invest their lives to create their capital and property, and damage to property is damaging to them. "This is people exercising their right to peaceably assemble. This is the police keeping people from getting within several blocks of the people they disagree with." I'm not sure I understand where the right to demonstrate became a right to interfere with other people. Putting forth your views on something peacefully respects your rights to free speech, but getting in the way of *others* legally assembling to observe *their* free speech rights is not. An example is the WTO where protestors *illegally* blocked access to the meetings. The police have learned from this, obviously, and demonstrators are kept where they can demonstrate, but will not interfere with the actions of other free citizens to observe their rights to assemble. In short, one persons right to protest does *not* eclipse anothers right to assemble. "These people weren't there to hurt wealthy political donors, but to voice their opinion of the "president" and what he stands for." They did so. "You keep calling these people violent and rioters, but look at the pictures, and tell the Doctor who showed up with pepper spray, clubs, and shotguns?" Are you going to tell me you want your brother, son, mom, dad out in front of a crowd of hundreds with no pepper spray, helmets, armor, etc? Cops are *supposed* to be prepared, I don't understand why this is so contentious a point. "Are the protestors beating up the cops and smashing windows? Hmmm ... no, they're not." Could this have to do with the fact the cops are prepared to take action? What should we do, underprepare cops and allow them to return home to their families in bags, or overprepare them so the worst event of the day is some pepper spray and that's it? "How many of those people do you think claim to be mainstream, or want to be? They know that as protesters they are in the minority." Then why do they claim to represent "the people"? How can they claim non action on their issues represents oppression, if the real reason for non action is they don't represent anyone but a minority? I see lots of claims that they represent everyone. I see claims that "the system" is rigged because they all "know" most people support them. I don't agree. I think they don't get action on their ideas not because we're oppressed, but because they are a very loud 1% and the reason people don't flood downtown with more protestors is because they simply don't want to. Not cynicism, not greed, not underenlightenment, just realization that a loud minority can tell itself it's oppressed, when it's really just being ignored. "Yeah, it would be understandable if these people were causing havoc and wrecking shit, but that's not what was happening, so why should they get treated like criminals?" At least we agree on the violence part, I'll contend that this action is appropriate to forestall further violence. Even the reporter at that site admits the police issued orders no less than three times to clear out. I understand the technical aspects in the pure sense of your objections to this crowd control, but I also understand the position of the cops given the nature of these crowds and their tendency to get into face to face showdowns with police. We'll have to agree to disagree on these points I think. thanks for the chewy posts and your comments, even though we're on opposites sides we can try and demonstrate some civility ourselves! [ 08-26-2002, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]
  20. "At least the progressives have not begun targeted assasinations, unlike the anti-abortion crowd." Are you saying all anti abortion protestors support assasinations? "that "stormtroopers" is a kneejerk phrase, but the outfits do suggest it." Are cops supposed to go home to their families with crushed skulls, broken limbs, or missing eyes, so protestors don't feel threatened? I can't understand why someone who is supposed to stand in front of hundreds of people is supposed to do so without appropriate protection. They're *supposed* be to hard to hurt, they're *supposed* to be able to do their jobs without worrying about bricks they don't see flying above the crowd. "Fact is, a lot of people are unhappy with our "President" who is planning on a little October war to help out with the November elections." So they're unhappy. OK. Lots of people are unhappy, only some feel this makes it OK to fill the streets and threaten cops. Maybe they need to do some work on why their unhappiness means they need to display it in public in threatening ways. Peaceful protestors walk *by* cops, they don't turn and confront them. "What do you want them to do, go volunteer at Head Start and adopt kittens?" That would be a start. *Choosing* to stop buying consumer goods, taking vacations using fuel swilling jets, ceasing to buy hi tech corporate products like music devices, computers, outdoor gear, eating foods trucked thousands of miles, etc. Anti globalists who use global trade, anti loggers who live in wood houses and wipe their spoiled hinies with paper, anti oil kids who vacation in Costa Rica by jet, it goes on and on. Yes, they ought to live what they preach *first*. If they *really* have the numbers they claim to, the support of the "people" they self decide they represent, these simple choices by all those people would *instantly* change an economy in ways no nasty old capitalist could do anything about. "Bush is also an opportunistic bastard, using Southern Oregon's fear, misery, and double digit unemployment to advance his pro-industry/anti-environment ideolgy," What is it called when "progressives", use the same places to campaign for more govt programs? Is that opportinism too? Seems to me this "opportunism" is decided by political reasons. "in the same way he used the terrorist attacks to justify other bits of unpopular lunacy like the Missle Defense Corporate Welfare plan and the erosion of civil liberties (which should alarm any Libertarian as much as anyone on the Progressive side)" I agree with you here, on the civil liberties, I'm all for missile defense. "So what do you want people to do? Write letters to their representatives? Yeah, I just love form letter response. Shut up and vote?" Yes. Or protest, but by walking *past* cops with your signs, instead of intentionally standing face to face and toe to toe so you feel like your facing down "the man". All you're doing is being an ass and getting in the face of a normal guy with a family just like you, who's job means he wears a lot of gear so his daughter will have a dad come home in one piece. What a bastard, huh? "but I'm also no fan of the "don't bother me, I'm comfortable" stance others seem so fond of." Protest all you like. Don't riot, *don't* block travel of other free citizens, *don't* self assume your viewpoints is so important you need to shout at people who don't agree. It's pretty simple, closely held beliefs do not entitle the bearer to do whatever they want because they feel caring or enlighted. I do not agree with these protesters on nearly anything they say, I agree they have the right to protests, but when I see people *stay* at a barrier and *intentionally* face cops for long periods of time, they're not choosing the peaceful route IMO. [ 08-26-2002, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]
  21. That site never once addresses the realities of what police officers face when dealing with a large crowd composed of the same people who have initiated violence in other cities. The police owe it to *NO* political viewpoint to stand unprotected in front of a mob and risk being killed by something as simple as a thrown rock from one of hundreds milling about. Their armor and their horses are entirely justifiable purely on the basis of what they face. The horses are excellent for crowd control as they give mounted officers a vantage point those on foot do not have. If those at this "independent" site find horses dangerous, the tack most people take is, don't get near the horses, listen to the cops, and don't go looking for confrontation when you *claim* you're just there to demonstrate. The danger is caused by thousands of people *looking* for confrontation, if you are just protesting peacefully you do not need to stare cops down or try and push them around. What part of carrying a sign and protesting peacefully, means one needs to go up to cops and try to push them back? Seems to me if you weren't interested in trouble, you'd raise your banner and just walk on by the cops, no confrontation needed. And yet here we have people heading for the cops, standing face to face, with full intent, bent on making a statement by getting in the cops faces, and then complaining the man is hassling them. They go to protest, *they* make the choice to go confront police officers, *they* bear full responsibility for dangers they have chosen to risk when they could just walk on by and *actually* protest peacefully. Changing course to stand face to face with an officer is not avoiding trouble. Read the captions to those photos and you see this repost is hardly unbiased. "sadistic" smiles on one cops face, calling them "stormtroopers" who'd use their deadly weapons "without mercy". [ 08-26-2002, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]
  22. "Peaceful demonstration has brought about a lot of possitive change in our country's history, and of that I am proud." No disagreement there, the problem is these particular group of folks rarely manage a peaceful demonstration anymore. There are many, many groups who protest and march in this nation on any given year. If rioting was merely a target of opportunity for a few bad apples looking for a crowd to incite, and there was no ideological linkage, you'd see troublemakers in the other protests too, which you don't. Of all the gatherings, only the "progressive" protests draw these bad apples, there is clearly an idelogical component to this, some reason they find "progressive" gatherings ripe ground for riots. Wether or not "progressives" condone these acts, and most do not, the fact is something in their platform and views *repeatedly* draws rioters to their events. This ought to make them think about who they are appealing to, IMO. Why do the bad apples think it's fertile territory, in peace marches? "But I'm only saying that because they ruin anything and everything gained by demonstration. Oh well." They really do and I feel bad for honest, peaceful, folks just trying to make a point as well. Personally, I think part of the problem is the hyperbole used by progressives and protest organizations, to stir up support. Press releases and news stories tell of "war" on poor people, how we're "killing" the earth, how hopeless everything is, how the capitalists are making slaves of people, how they want to jail this minority and enslave that one, how money rules everything, how horrible it all is, then after painting this horrible picture, article after article, time after time, day in day out, they're suprised when this rhetoric has upped the ante to violence. What do they expect when every comment about what they wish to address, is a 'crisis' that "cannot continue", that the entire earth and society is about to collapse, and on and on and on? You use language of hopelessness, war and conflict to get support by inducing crisis feelings, and are suprised when people react in chaotic ways evidencing violence, hopelessness, cyncism, etc? [ 08-26-2002, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]
  23. "Obviously the police are there to serve and protect. Big-money political donors, that is." So, are they not supposed to protect, even if it *is* big money donors? When a mob turns out to break things and hurt people, are the police just supposed to step aside because oh, these rioters "care", and are showing "democracy"? This criticism makes no sense whatsoever. The police are supposed to keep the streets safe no matter who is rioting and trying to cause problems. And thats wether it's rioters who "care" and are threatening people for "peace" and "progressive" values, or anybody else. Funny thing is, it's the folks who *claim* to be oh so caring, and oh so peaceful, throwing bricks and causing problems. And they wonder why they get pepper sprayed. If it always seems to be the folks rioting for peace getting treatment from the cops, maybe that ought to tell us something. It's because of all the folks in the nation who hold vigils, demonstrations, and marches, only those who describe themselves as the most caring and peaceful do the worst damage and lately always cause riots. Not the pro gun crowd, not the million moms, not even the reparations folks, when you see it's the pro peace, social justice, anti globalization folks coming downtown to show us how "democracy" should work, prepare for violence. Makes sense, huh? "Does this make anyone else want to puke?" It certainly does. We have folks claiming "democracy" is shown by rioting. "peace" is pursued by violence in the streets, and police protecting citizens some others disagree with is somehow outrageous. Because apparently if you're a rich donor, rioters should be able to harm you on the sidewalks, you have no life, no rights, no kids at home or people who love you. You're just a cartoon figure, not a real person, and pissed off "progressives" should be able to do what they want to you on the street. yeah, it makes me puke alright. When you have a political disagreement with someone, you *don't* get mad because the cops keep you from harming them. You *don't* show up and cause riots. Demonstration is a public right, causing harm is not, and if "progressives" cannot keep their demonstrations from turning into riots maybe they ought to grow up and take a look at who they are, who they attract, what they condone, and maybe, just maybe, *actually* *LIVE* what they claim to believe. Fat chance. Is not rioting for peace really all that hard? And they wonder why they are viewed as fringe, while they claim to be mainstream. one casual look at claims vs actions is all it takes to explain why. ****************************8 Poor babies got pepper sprayed. Call the Waaaaaambulance for them. Pepper spray is an appropriate low intensity responce to rioters. They have no "right" to riot, they are committing a crime and threatening others. If you don't want to be pepper sprayed, with the attendant risk of allergic reactions in some, it's pretty simple, really...don't riot! Don't hang around when told to leave! Don't threaten people for peace! Do these "progressive" folks really have a difficult time with such basics? [ 08-26-2002, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]
  24. you mean dems used to be even *more* socialist? wow!
  25. "Ralph Nader seems to espouse many noble qualities of socialism, akin to some European and Canadian customs" what's noble about imposing a secular religion on people and making them serve it? Who decided all humans should serve the same end goals, and that our fellows are just tools to be used in someone elses pursuit of *their* vision of society? I see noble qualities when people take *personal* actions, at *personal* cost, to make changes they believe in. I don't see a whole lot noble about assuming everyone around you will not only pay for, but be forced to serve someone else's specific ends. helping people when you have a gun to your head isn't noble, because there's no choice involved. "and, suffice it to say, more industry regulation is needed, as has so amply been proven following the dereg and privatization scandals of the last ten years." what, scandals don't happen in regulated industries? scandals don't happen in govt and effect millions of people forced to comply?
×
×
  • Create New...