bushwhacked

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Nahhh. As a fairly environment-minded individual, the Doctor would make a concession for Congressional thinning. Could just declare open season on them; let 'em think about accepting all that money from the gun lobbyists!

[Dru]

Canadian wood exports to the US are down 50% and many mills are closing here since the US brought in softwood duties in May. thank your lumber lobby. So much for free trade right, its great when you benefit from it but when another country benefits from it, time to ditch it?

 

eat a beaver, save a tree. Its elementary!

[erik]

i know i know i know this is going to sound petty.....but um can we like spell my name right....i mean it is like right there correctly spelt next to every post.....

 

thanks for caring!! i only say this outta respect for my elders in which i carry the namesake many generations.....

 

back the hate!!!

[allthumbs]

quote:

---

Originally posted by erik:

i know i know i know this is going to sound petty.....but um can we like spell my name right....i mean it is like right there correctly spelt next to every post.....

 

thanks for caring!! i only say this outta respect for my elders in which i carry the namesake many generations.....

 

back the hate!!!

---

Derik, we'll all do our best.

[Rick_Sharpless]

Which desecrates the environment more?

 

Cutting a 500 old tree, that will take a thousand years to regenerate in its present form, to build a house OR:

 

Drilling and bolting a 30 million year old rock, that will not regenerate at all, because you don't want to learn /don't trust/ want to use trad pro?

 

Hmmm - is there a cetain hypocrisy among some sportos? Just curious

[greghinemeyer]

i am all for good management of our forests but using the logging companies is like letting the fox in the chicken coop.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rick Sharpless:

Which desecrates the environment more?

 

Cutting a 500 old tree, that will take a thousand years to regenerate in its present form, to build a house OR:

 

Drilling and bolting a 30 million year old rock, that will not regenerate at all, because you don't want to learn /don't trust/ want to use trad pro?

 

Hmmm - is there a cetain hypocrisy among some sportos? Just curious

---

How much oxygen is being produced by that 30 million-year-old rock? How many species formerly dependent on that rock can no longer exist because of the bolts in it? How widespread and prolific is the damage caused by clearcutting vs. the damage caused by bolting?

 

Chances are more than a few salmon had to suffer so dams could generate power so the aluminum for your cams, nuts, hexes (and, yes, sport climbin' biners) could be produced. Now who's impacting what?

 

Hopefully your post was a tongue-in cheek troll; if not, it's time to wake up to what actual large-scale problems there are relating to the natural world rather than sniffing out the insignificant.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rick Sharpless:

Which desecrates the environment more?

 

Cutting a 500 old tree, that will take a thousand years to regenerate in its present form, to build a house OR:

 

Drilling and bolting a 30 million year old rock, that will not regenerate at all, because you don't want to learn /don't trust/ want to use trad pro?

 

Hmmm - is there a cetain hypocrisy among some sportos? Just curious

---

How much oxygen is being produced by that 30 million-year-old rock? How many species formerly dependent on that rock can no longer exist because of the bolts in it? How widespread and prolific is the damage caused by clearcutting vs. the damage caused by bolting?

 

Chances are more than a few salmon had to suffer so dams could generate power so the aluminum for your cams, nuts, hexes (and, yes, sport climbin' biners) could be produced. Now who's impacting what?

 

Hopefully your post was a tongue-in cheek troll; if not, it's time to wake up to what actual large-scale problems there are relating to the natural world rather than sniffing out the insignificant.

[Roger]

quote:

---

Originally posted by erik:

these (our) elected officials do not listen to the layman constituant no matter what political party you belong too....both repubs and demos are whores.

they listen to what gets thier attention most, power. until we the people can come up with a way to stop this whoring of our elected officals, things like this and fee demo will continue. obviously our elected officals are not too interested in doiong this on their own(hard to pull your hand from the candy basket).

---

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!

[greghinemeyer]

i should read a posts before responding. sorry roger

[mattp]

Erik, we care. But hey, you can't even spell the most basik words rite. Have some sympathy for those of us who suffer the same affliction of chronic misspelling.

[MtnGoat]

Nothing like showing ones commitment to peace, freedom, pacifism, and the value of each person, by rioting and raising hell. How revolutionary.

 

Do you suppose anyone will ever change the paradigm of "revolution" from the Che Guevara, burn the streets mentality?

 

All these supposed pacifists, and citizens of the earth and such, and the support they claim as representing "the people". Who are the people? If so many people believe, and want, all the stuff activists claim they do, and *act* on it,why isn't society different *now*?

[Roger]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

I don't know what constitution you're reading, but mine (approved in 1787) never mentions a "level playing field."

---

That's a catchy statement, but the truth is that nobody ever gets very far with the "my copy of the constitution doesn't say that" argument... for example, my copy of the constitution (also from 1787) doesn't expressly say anything about a fundamental right to carry armor-piercing bullets. Looking to the left, it also does not expressly say anything about a right to choose to have an abortion. The fact that those exact words are not actually contained in the constitution is, not surprisingly, not really relevant to what a 200+ year-old document means today. 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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

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.

---

I think mattp's statement was only aimed at your glib comment that the constitution doesn't actually say the words "level playing field." Nobody said it did, and that really doesn't matter. The point is that intellectual or physical equality "at creation" doesn't necessarily get you very far, because the circumstances surrounding one's creation have a LOT more to do with the end results than you appear to be willing to recognize. Tonight's events in Portland make that pretty clear... do you really think that GWB would be anything but a washed-up frat guy with a bunch of failed businesses in his wake if it weren't for his pedigree and family money? Come on, the guy can barely string a coherent sentence together and he's the president of the freaking USA. I mean, he'd be fun to hang out with at muir on saturday... but that doesn't mean he should be president.

 

Lou Reed should be president:

[Off_White]

quote:

---

Originally posted by not a climber:

Aren't the parties just a reflection of their constituents and ultimately the average American? I suspect the average American has just become more average and so the parties have drifted closer together. Would a third part of any size really offer anything different? If there is no demand, then there will be no supply. For better or worse, there is less polarization in public opinion.

 

I want my, I want my, I want my MTV.

---

I think the parties are just becoming a closer reflection of their funding sources, not their constituents. While Mtn Goat is unmoved by voter apathy, I'm a fan of a vigorous democracy. I don't think there is any less polarization of the citizenry, just look at the range of opinions on this board.

[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

[Greg_W]

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

[Peter_Puget]

This is for MtnGoat:

 

Those who wish to enact campaign finance "reform" legislation simply wish to use the polic epowers of the state to for the citizens to do something they would rather not do.

[greghinemeyer]

when is american government 101 over ? i am ready for p.e.

[iain]

One listen to GWB's speech on forest planning yesterday should encourage any foreign power to invade us immediately. He has the dialect (and apparently the abstract reasoning) of a 4 year old and he does not inspire my trust, at least. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't automatically assume people are Clinton supporters just because they consider GWB an incompetent fool. However, I'd take him any day over our current cabinet. I cringe every time I think of him representing me internationally.

[greghinemeyer]

but his daughters are smokin.

[sexual_chocolate]

Where did the idea of government "by the people, for the people" come from? Is this not a direct quote from some source that I simply cannot recall?

 

"True. But that's what it's for. I work to get money so I can tilt the field my direction with better housing, food, medicine, etc."

 

It seems that is ideal is so cynical and empty of any humanitarian values. Not only does it negate the above ideal, it replaces it with "the richer you are, the more power ye shall have", which is about what we have right now. Maintain the status quo?

Access to government, OUR government, should not be based on the size of ones campaign contribution, and to not codify and legislate against it is a terrible form of cynicism. Perhaps CFR is an incomplete remedy, fraught with loopholes yet to be discovered, but at least it's a move in a direction that most people in the US seem to want-an attempt to negate control of government policy by those with the most money.

[csd345]

"...Also a big reason 80% of the timber is coming from private land is because of the land that is allowed to be logged, 72% of that is privatley owned.

 

Again, Weyerhaeuser, is good they have a recycle company and work hard to develop land.

 

Also private companies have to follow rules and regulations. Yet nobody can hold the government responsible. They can blame us. Use our money to fix problems..."

 

Alien, are you teaching Beavis and Butthead forestry 101?! Gimme a break..

[sk]

sexey, I hate to point this little thing out to you but it was not poor people who were writing our constitution. It was insainly wealthy land owners. And they ment "all men are created equal" as in MEN not women not people of diffrent colours. they ment themeslves. Capitalism is not based on a humanatarian ideal. CAPATALISM means by the money. Rich get richer poor get pooer. Sure there are amazing exceptions to that rule... and yes it is the best system out there and I would rather live in this country (where I can shoot my mouth off with out getting shot ) than any place else in the world. But we are not perfect. there is room for growth and change. But that will not happen. Because rich people don't want it to change and yes... they have MOST of the power.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by greghinemeyer:

but his daughters are smokin.

---

Save that for Health Class, Greg.

[sk]

I don't think there is any such thing as a level playing field. and the more that we as americans buy into this "idea" the more we "dumb down" the next generation. There is no such thing as fare. there is no way to make yourself sucessful in this world without being very competative. I am not saying this is "right" or "ideal" but it is true. so for instance, the more we take the compation out of childrens sports, and make it so "no one feels bad" because they don't keep score etc. the more harm we are doing our children. If they do not learn how to loose gracfully, how to accecpt when they are beaten fare and square how can they know what it is like to truly succeed? they are doing the same thing in class rooms. They make the work too easy so that the slower children don't feel bad about themselves. Okay I think I might be done ranting now