KaskadskyjKozak

You are attributing a motive and characterization of individuals rather than identifying concrete problems and how you desire they be redressed. When you say "greed" I can interpret that many ways. Wanting a good life? Wanting a good salary? What exactly is this "greed"? One could view the left as greedy - greedy for power. Or those who desire handouts as "greedy" - give me more, for doing nothing. Bad choice of words. Not productive.

The colonial populace was split roughly 50/50, as I recall. Brits were commandeering the homes of revolutionary/sympathizers for garrisoning officers and soldiers, etc. It's not as simple as you paint it. Your example is poorly chosen.

I agree with this statement. I don't believe it's the government's job to fund health care. Transportation and education are a mixed bag. Effective, appropriate spending, I agree with; social engineering I disagree with. I disagree with the term "greed". It's inflammatory and unnecessary. What exactly is this greed, anyways? Class warfare has become tiresome and ridiculous. I don't think many CEO's are motivated by greed as much as by other measures of success (performance in the market, growth, market share, etc). Driven people living in a competitive environment trying to excel according to the measures they are given. I agree that we should not fuck the future over for the next generation through huge deficits and destruction of the environment. I'll stop here on the point by point. The deal here is that lefties constantly broad-brush stroke the right, and manufacture positions that we/they currently hold, and use language that is bound to divide and bring conflict rather than find common ground. And few are willing to compromise. I can agree with some points above. So can many "conservatives", so instead of attacking them, think of a way to work together.

Hmm. Interesting. Terrorists: and how did the Boston Tea Party instill terror into the populace? I used to work in Biotech, and there were days where we were on alert because of groups like ELF. There was a threat of being bombed or attacked because we "experimented on animals". Yes, we had some fucking mice on the facility. If this incident was indeed conducted by ELF, and there are more bombings like it, then there will be a feeling of fear amongst those who are building these homes, considering buying them, or who already live in them.

terrorists try to instill terror into the populace, in the hopes of preventing people from doing what they are, using violence and threats. arson (and bombing) meets this definition. they do not have to kill people or try to. And in any case the *threat* is there. They may not have planned to kill anyone, but just as easily could have.

Using the word "True" was a bad choice. I read part of it. A bit long winded. What I read was interesting.

I really take offense to these comments. I support the ultimate goal of limited rural development and "urban sprawl." That makes me a terrorist? Contrariwise, that must make you a developer. Dude, your reaction to this story was "hurrah, fuck the developers". You definitely sympathize with the goals of ELF (the ends) - if they were responsible for this, and you didn't condemn the means to their ends.

OK, I'll admit I am uncouth. :-)))

I don't have time to read the whole thing. What I protest about the piece the most is the use of the term "true patriot". This is alienating, and attacks everyone who has already defined or thought about what patriotism means to them. A better title might have been "Rethinking Patriotism" or "Revisiting Patriotism" or something like that.

Vitriolic hatred? Sorry, but your attempts at slanderous mischaracterization (for what end? rhetorical? blindness?). Outrage is not hatred, my friend. My outrage as expressed in this thread is more towards the reaction of those who actually applaud this type of misdeed, gleefully, joyfully, probably with a hard-on - "yeah yeah, burn it down, destroy, that's the way". This attitude threatens civilization. It's dangerous. Just because you disagree with the way others live, and can not effect change as you want does not justify throwing rule of law out the window. It's exactly what we've seen in all violent revolutions, and totalitarian regimes. And BTW, this is exactly what Islam - you know moderate Islam - is accused of regarding terrorist acts. Tacit support. Support. At least sympathizing with the goals. It is extremely discomforting knowing we have the same types of folks in our midst.

The people who will be feeling this particular pain is the poor, who will be forced to move to transportaionly (made that up) undesirable areas ...shacks in the hinterlands so to speak. Someone paying 2 mill for a home will be driving past the shacks in the Hummer and still paying $5 a gallon for gas. You dumb mf prick assholes who support this thing: I find your attitude: that the rule of law is not good enough for you, and that it's fine with you that any angry asswipe with a bic lighter gets to make the rules and risk like and property, abhorrent of the first order. Had the fire spread to the nearby woods then houses with low income families and burned some poor child or killed some of the firefighters who responded.....Jesus H Christ you dudes are fucked in the head. So when some other disagreeable shithead comes to burn your house down for some other imagined "offense" in his head, I hope you remember these words. If you really think increasing inner city density is a good thing, as I do, then put your money where you mouth is. Build inner city yourselves, and get involved to increase density and exclude growth on farmland. As for SS's original fears about the right using this story to further marginalize environmentally-conscious folks. Looks like some of the posters on this site, by applauding this disgusting criminal act - have done just that. No need for a Rush or O'Reilley to do it - just call on Prole and TTK.

STFU you crackhead.

Either that or he's partying too hard on New Year's Eve. :-) (I've got two kids born in Oct, and no, my bday is not in Jan)

Wrong is wrong chuckie - this is wrong. Rush should be ashamed of this stunt. It's complete and total bullshit. Rush = Marylou

you mean go manzier-less?

Hey, Rob - what if the owners of the 4400 sq ft mcmansions are paying carbon offsets, you know, like Al Gore?

so, you don't feel exactly the same way about new developments in say, Snohomish county, where 1700-2000 sq ft family homes are crammed onto 6000 sq foot lots - you know affordable housing for families?

an emoticon would have helped

You're right, I am now inspired to resist it. So what size house should we set as the standard, above which all should be burned? Should we check to see if anyone's inside, or should we resist population overload also? I'm going to go slash SUV tires and key some Hummer doors tonight- anyone want to join? OMFG, you're so off the sidewalk and into the weeds that I can't even see your head up yr ass anymore. I never said we should go around burning shit, and I never advocated violence as a solution to anything. I think I remember saying it was a pretty stupid demonstration. All I said was I don't feel any sympathy for the developers. You do, apparently? I'm sure they're crying all the way to the bank. Maybe you can meet them halfway and comfort them. 8D yeah, fuck those developers. trying to make a living and shit.

this introduces a conundrum. who's house do you burn down first? the family of 5 in a 3000 square foot house, who are overpopulating the world, or the 1-2 occupancy, suburban yuppy or retiree 4000 sq ft mcmansion.

easy to say, now that you've got yours Now that I've got my 4,400 sqft multi-million dollar mansion? this thread has gone beyond the 4400 sq ft mansion, has it not? from bemoaning urban sprawl (that would include 2000 sq ft family homes, would it not?) to the loss of childhood "secret places".

easy to say, now that you've got yours

the Microsoft campus sure has fucked up some pristine NW wilderness area.

does the rooster approve of choking his chicken?

that's not true.