Greg_W

quote: Originally posted by iain: you suggest filling them full of lead. The primary difference here is that ELF is taking violent ACTION; whereas, I would be making a violent DEFENSE. Big difference. Read my whole post and you will see that I would only take that action in defense of my home, family, and property, as is within my natural rights (and guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment). Peace out (need peace sign graemlin, dude.) Greg W [ 08-27-2002, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Greg W ]

quote: Originally posted by iain: Agreed with DFA, I just hope they don't hurt anybody. I am sure you would change your tune if it was YOUR property they were damaging.

quote: Originally posted by iain: quote:Originally posted by Greg W: DFA; By definition, ELF uses these extreme actions to shock and scare people. I think they use extreme actions to stop what they perceive as damage immediately, rather than to intimidate and scare (which might well be a by-product of the action). Most often, their actions do damage that they are trying to stop. Case in point, they have been known to turn over cars on logging roads and set them on fire. Doesn't that endanger the forest they are trying to save and cost money when a fire crew has to come out and put it out? Nice try, Iain, but you dodged the key question: What gives them the right to destroy property that is not theirs? At the expense of others? Nothing, they are thugs. If they came on my property and tried to do that they'd leave a few ounces of lead heavier. Greg W

DFA; By definition, ELF uses these extreme actions to shock and scare people. This is terrorism - the use of terror and intimidation in order to coerce. ELF takes action to coerce the public or the government to take actions that ELF wants. Your other comments are equally scary: by what right does the ELF, or anyone, have sanction to destroy log trucks and other property that does not belong to them? No one has the right to exercise their rights (i.e., freedom of speech, assembly, etc.) at the expense of someone elses same rights. Greg W

What's a permit????

And might I add that you are looking very nice this morning. Oh, shit, that's right; that's not really you. Anyway, that was funny.

Special dyes were included on the NW Forest Pass the past few years. This enables the Forest Service to scan individuals with a black light device to see if this dye is present. If the dye is present, they attach a tracking/counter device to your vehicle and it is all captured in a database in Washington, D.C. So, no you don't need another one.

quote: Originally posted by krazy 1: so Greg, since you're living in Sultan and all, I have to ask... is that your sweet primer chick magnet of a car with the blower off the hood, your car that you are trying to sell? because someone said he wanted to buy it from ya. that thing is pretty sweet. There's no way I'm sellin' it now that I know it got you on the hook. I can feel your vibe through my monitor, you were diggin' that ride!! Greg W

quote: Originally posted by iain: Unfortunately Ralph Nadar, while extremely intelligent and thoughtful, is not "presidential material" in the traditional sense. He just doesn't have the requisite stage presence and slick self-promotional material. It is a shame. Nader is also a socialist, at heart, who wants the government to control and regulate ALL industry. His stand doesn't sound anything like what our country was founded on (and worse than we have now). I agree with MtnGoat - more liberty and personal responsibility and less governmental intrusion. Ayn Rand's writing is very refreshing. To clarify, Ralph Nader was removed from the audience of debate because he was trying to enter using someone else's credential. Greg W

quote: Originally posted by mattp: Greg, I don't quite understand your bottom line. Personal freedom has to do more with civil rights than with economic organization, doesn't it? Yes, countries that have heavily regulated economies tend to have more curbs on personal freedom, but I don't think these two are necessarily part of the same "bottom line." Read "Capitalism and Freedom", by Milton Freidman; they are interrelated.

Bottom line is that socialism (in whatever form you choose) inhibits personal freedom instead of guaranteeing it as our Founding Fathers intended. Look at the income tax (extortion) rates in some of these European countries It's bad enough that I don't get to take home all of MY earnings every week as it is. Greg W P.S. MtnGoat s

quote: Originally posted by greghinemeyer: but his daughters are smokin. Save that for Health Class, Greg.

quote: Originally posted by Roger: Jefferson and his bros probably never dreamed that there would be airplanes, abortions, or automatic weapons when the constitution was written. So if you are saying that any laws written today addressing topics that did not exist in colonial America are unconstitutional... well, you've got a lot of laws to overturn. The Constitution can be applied to legislative issues today. As you notice as you read it, it sets up a limited number of power for the Federal Government and all remaining issues to be under the umbrella of the States. Somewhere along the line this got bastardized and turned around (review the FDR and LBJ administrations). I guess this will start a whole new debate on the "living document" debate. Greg W

quote: Originally posted by Off White: Anyway, we don't live in a meritocracy that rewards intelligence, virtue, and ideals with money, so why should money decide who has influence? The United States was created as a meritocracy, in that, a man could come here and make whatever he wanted of himself. Just ask J.P. Morgan, J. Paul Getty, the Hunt Brothers, et al. Since the government started punishing successful people via taxes, regulations, etc., the meritocracy has ebbed. It looks like I need to clarify my response re: "Level Playing Field" and the Constitution. My intent was not to say that those exact words do not appear in the Constitution. My point was that the framework of our country was not set up to guarantee this. The Declaration of Independence mentions our inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. Too many people today interpret this as having a right to be happy, when really we all have the right to strive for happiness (insert your own definition of "happiness"). There are a lot of things that are not mentioned in the Constitution that are going on today, whoever mentioned this is correct; my rejoinder would be that we need to analyze these under the light of the Constitution. You people that knock Bush make me laugh. He's had more experience that your hero, Slick Willie, and seems more trustworthy IMO. I'm glad that this has stayed civil, I enjoy rousing Constitutional debate. Greg W

quote: Originally posted by mattp: Greg- Didn't Thomas Jefferson or somebody write that "all men are created equal?" The "players" may not have been the same ones that we are talking about today, but the concept of a level playing field is not new. Equal in the eyes of God and the Law. You cannot argue that all men are intellectually or physically equal. What each man does with what he has been given at creation is an entirely different matter. A level playing field makes takes everyone down to the level of the simplest and stupidest individual. Greg W

muir on saturday only without the joy of knowing that Scot'teryx will get an e-mail notification.

quote: Originally posted by Peter Puget: By the way Dru is Canada even a real country? I have some money at home with some queen on it? Who is she ruling! Canada is the bastard child of Great Britian and the red-headed stepchild of the United States! While we're on the subject, what's with Canadadians thinking they have the bestest beer in the world? Pretty young country to boast that attitude. I drank in a pub in Austria that has been serving beer since 743 A.D. Greg W

quote: Originally posted by Dru: quote:Originally posted by Greg W: quote:Originally posted by MtnGoat: "The point of such restrictions is to keep the Enrons of the world from having a significantly louder voice than everyone else." What keeps the CNN's of the world from having a sigificantly louder voice, if everyone is supposed to be equal? Why do they get to disseminate whatever "news" they wish on candidates without any scrutiny to how "loud" they are? There should be no restrictions on campaign financing whatsoever, save prohibitions against fraud and bribery. Well said. Further, remember all the talk by candidates about CFR being protection against illegal use of funding? So, basically the politicians are saying they can't be trusted with money? What's that all about? Greg W Shit man, you think politicians CAN be trusted with money? Who else - CEOs???? No, I don't necessarily. However, it struck me as funny that they would admit it. That was a red flag for me that the whole thing was kind of fishy.

quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: "The point of such restrictions is to keep the Enrons of the world from having a significantly louder voice than everyone else." What keeps the CNN's of the world from having a sigificantly louder voice, if everyone is supposed to be equal? Why do they get to disseminate whatever "news" they wish on candidates without any scrutiny to how "loud" they are? There should be no restrictions on campaign financing whatsoever, save prohibitions against fraud and bribery. Well said. Further, remember all the talk by candidates about CFR being protection against illegal use of funding? So, basically the politicians are saying they can't be trusted with money? What's that all about? Greg W

quote: Originally posted by Roger: I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "another sucker," but I'm guessing you're a fan of justice Rehnquist, who two years ago voted with a majority of the Court to uphold its 1976 ruling that - gasp - money is property, not speech, and that limitations on financial contributions to political candidates do not amount to restrictions on speech in violation of the First Amendment. The only "speech" implications of such laws were addressed in the 1976 decision, where the court held that individuals cannot be resticted from spending their own money on their own campaigns. Hence, Ross Perot. Campaign finance limitations do not restrict people from voicing their concerns to their elected representatives. Everyone is still free to write, call, picket, whatever. The point of such restrictions is to keep the Enrons of the world from having a significantly louder voice than everyone else. A slightly more level playing field is clearly an improvement, IMHO. Financial contribution is political speech (i.e., support) in my opinion. When I send my check to Candidate X, I am saying "this man carries the political ideals that I support." I don't know what constitution you're reading, but mine (approved in 1787) never mentions a "level playing field." Why shouldn't entities (corporations, individuals, etc.) have a louder voice if they are going to bear the greatest impact of legislative actions? Campaign finance reform wasn't an issue in the last election and won't be in this one. Why? Because the average voter doesn't contribute to candidates. The individuals that do, do so because they see how much the government takes from them and restricts their rights so they speak with their pocketbooks. Greg W

quote: Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing: Right-minded individuals... Nothing you've written makes me believe that you are right of center. Further, how is it that you are so fucking arrogant that you think your thinking is "right"; i.e., correct? Greg W

I don't think a sticky "hooker" would be very inviting. Greg W

quote: Originally posted by greghinemeyer: i agree with most of what you say gregw but i have trouble putting my money in the hands of dishonest people. there must be another way How do you know they are dishonest? I said support a lobby group that supports your beliefs, one you do some research on. There are dishonest/shady lobbiest out there but, like anything, that is probably the exception. Honest lobbyists don't make the evening news. DFA - You are right in your thinking that that is why we have a 2nd Amendment, but things have to get a lot more extreme to resort to that. Greg W

quote: Originally posted by Roger: amen, erik. This is why anyone who gives a damn should write John McCain a letter and tell him what a freakin' hero he is for fighting so long and hard (like ten years) for campaign finance reform, and finally winning. The fact that a majority of the house and senate finally voted to slow the flow of lobbyist $$$ into their own pockets is nothing short of amazing. Obviously, this doesn't completely solve the problem, but it's a significant first step. As a dem, I don't agree with McCain on a lot of issues, but you've got to give him some credit on this one. uhhh... oh yeah, trad rules! Wow, looks like they hooked another sucker. CFR is bullshit and an affront to 1st Amendment rights (freedom of speech, freedom to seek redress of greivances). It's called incumbent protection. As a member of the largest and most effective lobbying group in the country I feel good that I have someone in Washington addressing my representatives regarding my interests. Get involved if you don't like it. The Access Fund is a lobbying group and a lot of people on this site sing their praises; sounds pretty hypocritical. Put your money where your mouth is, support the lobbying group of your choice. All you tree-huggers decry the timber lobby yet you praise the Sierra Club or Friends of the Earth when they "win" a little victory. The governmental experiment that is the United States is unique in that we CAN directly affect the issues - contact your Reps & Senators, vote them out, give money to the lobby of your choice. I agree that the Republicans and Demos are both power-hungry whores; politicians, not statesmen. Whew, my fingers are tired. For those of you that missed it: E-R-I-K Greg W

I have it on good knowledge that, especially in Oregon, crews were prevented from clearing potential fuel from forests in recent past where this had been common management practice in the past. Removal of potential fuel (i.e., dead, down, etc.) will obviously have a direct affect on size and movement of future fires.