BoatBanter.com - Enjoy the wild places while they last

Oci-One Kanubi wrote:
Brian Nystrom scribbled:

Keenan Wellar wrote:

[snip]

There's a big difference between civil rights and the socialist agenda
being pushed by the left.

Socialist my ass. The Democrats?!?!? Geezus man, they are so far from
socialist it ain't funny. Unlike Republicans who want more guns and more
jesus as the answer to every problem, the Democrats seem willing to actually
consider that there might be other answers. But socialists? I can't see how
people can think that applies.

Then you're blind. Democrats are the party of BIG government, BIG social
programs, BIG entitlements and "cradle to grave" government care. Give
them all your money and your freedoms and they'll take care of you for
life. That's about as socialist as one can get.

Actually, this is not remotely true. New Yorkers receive an average
return (in services) of $0.68 on every dollar paid in Federal taxes.
Los Angelinos receive $0.73 (and that return includes benefits accrued
to every company that evades taxes and takes advantage of "loophole"
subsidies). Residents of "red" states (actually, the "red" *counties*
of the "red" states) receive an average of $1.70 in various farm
subsidies, water subsidies, grazing rights, jobs in mine-giveaway and
forest-products-giveaway businesses, Federal
infrastructure-building...

While this is true, what does it have to do with the big
govenment/socialist philosophy of the Democrats? I agree with you that
some of these programs are seriously flawed, particularly mining, timber
and grazing rights.

The Republicans consistantly harp on "reducing Big Gubmint" as a
campaign theme. During the Bush administration the size of the
Federal Gubmint has grown; during the Clinton administration it
shrank. Go figger.

I agree that's troubling, but it would only get worse if the Democrats
controlled everything again. The only reason that government got smaller
under Clinton was that he wasn't able to get Hillay's outrageous health
care program through Congress. It was so outlandish that even the
Democrats wouldn't vote for it. After '94, the Republicans kept him in
check.

The Republicans will never cut the programs that provide jobs or lower
commodity and services costs for the heartland "conservatives". They
would prefer to (hypocritically) subsidize a farm family that votes
*against* Big Gubmint than to provide food and heating oil for the
children of a single mom (so what if Mom is a dirtbag; I'm talking
about her children here -- but Christians don't understand such fine
distinctions) in a big city. Personally, I don't mind subsidizing the
heartland counties, but then, I'm a "big gubmint" liberal, and
compassionate enough to want to care for my fellow Americans in the
depressed areas, even if they are stupid, uneducated, and hypocritical
enough to vote *against* the very Big Gubmint that sustains them.

Fine, feel free to donate as much of your income as you see fit. The IRS
WILL accept extra tax contributions. Just don't expect anyone with any
sense to follow your lead. If you reall want to help people, it's FAR
more efficient to donate to a charity that supports those you want to
help than it is to give it to politicians to redistribute.

There is not an economist in the country who will tell you (with a
straight face) that the Republicans are fiscally conservative (that's
why I am no longer a Republican.)

Granted, they have strayed badly and need to be reigned back in.

They will maintain the programs
that sustain the rednecks, to keep their voting base, and they will
maintain the anti-free-market policies that sustain the corporations,
to keep their financial base.

So now Democrats are supposed to be the free market party??? That's
hilarious!

What the Republicans ARE is SOCIALLY
conservative, and that is like ****ing in the wind; society will
change whether they want it to or not. People will use dope whether
it is legal or not. Homos will screw homos whether the good
Christians like it or not. And women will get abortions, whether they
are legal or not. The only way they can keep society from changing
socially is to institute police-state tactics (where is John Ashcroft
when we need him?) and to keep NeoCons in power by keeping the
Terrorist Alert level up there around Orange to keep people
frightened, whether there is any proximate cause or not.

It's funny how society backlashes against these changes periodically.
While we can never go back to the 50's, the pace of change can be slowed
so that changes can be assimilated more gradually and with less societal
trauma. The real problem is our "instant gratification" mindset. The
simple truth that we can't have it all right now.

As for health care, it's long past time that people realize that health
care is not a "right", never has been one and shouldn't be one. Despite
the flaws in our system, we still have the best health care in the
world, as evidenced by the number of people who still flock here from
other countries.

How the hell is that evidence that it's the best health care?

If it wasn't, why would people come here specifically for it? I wouldn't
go to Mexico for health care, but they come here. The same is true with
people from around the world.

If you want to see what a disaster socialized medicine
would be, all you have to do is look to the north.

Um, er... Canada has greater mean longevity than the US, and lower
infant mortality; the two best indicators of health-care quality.
Hardly a "disaster", and it cost considerably less per capita than
American health care. Jeez, what kindergarten did you flunk out of?

I daresay that it has a lot more to do with lifestyle than the health
care system. I've spent a lot of time working in Canada and there just
doesn't seem to the the same stress levels and pressures that are
typical down here. That's definitely a healthier attitude.

And while yer raving about how "liberal" the Democrats are, just
remember that Richard Nixon favored a national health care system.
Our country has just gotten more stupidly right-wing since then.

And your point would be? JFK would be considered a conservative by
today's standards. Dredging these things up is pointless.

How much further north can I go? I'm in Canada. My health care is excellent.

I'm glad you think so, but that doesn't seem to be a particularly widely
held opinion.

BTW, if you're from Canada, why the Hell you you even care about our
politics?

Nonsense! While it's definitely true that most Americans consume/waste too
much, recycle too little and don't put environmental concerns above issues
like values, security and economics, there is still enough concern to
prevent an environmental catastrophy. You watch, once the economy recovers
fully, there will be a push toward stronger environmental policies. In
some ways it's sad, but environmentalism only comes to the forefront when
we can afford it.

That perspective is sad indeed.

What can I say, that's the reality of the situation. No one in
Washington - regardless of their political affiliation - is going to
sacrifice the economy for the environment.

That's because the politicians -- and 50% of the voting public -- are
morons.

Oh, yeah, I forgot that liberals are the annointed keepers of all
knowledge and truth. Please forgive me.

"The environment" is where we live. Every householder spends
good money for a vacuum cleaner and for cleaning fluids and supplies.
We all go to the expense of building a garage or to the inconvenience
of working outside so that we won't wreck the livingroom repairing our
boats, motorcycles, or whatever. Spending money to live in a clean
house is standard; how can you dum****s not see that spending money to
live in a clean country is equally important?

It is, but would you rather be able to afford to live in your own house
or be stuck in a run-down tenement? There is a balance to be struck.
Environmental improvements much be made thoughtfully and progressively,
so that negative impacts on the economy are minimized. Right now is not
the time for draconian evironmental measures.

Thats't the perspective that is said. To see the economy and environment as
separate things. That's why we're so screwed.

They're not separate, which is the problem. They're tightly
interrelated, so one affects the other. If they were separate, one could
act on both without adversely affecting either. You've got it backwards.

That's one reason that Ralph
Nader or the Green Party will never become a substantial force in
American politics; their radical agenda would devastate the economy,
assuming they could get any of it through Congress.

The Green Party in Canada is actually quite fiscally conservative.

Good for them, but that's not really the issue down here. The problem
wit the Greens here is that they are vehemently anti-business and don't
seem to understand that you CAN have "environmentalism without fanaticism".

Not too
sure what you've got going on down south, since the US media doesn't seem
too interested in talking about anyone but the Rs and Ds.

You don't seem to be too informed about anything going on down here.

Well, really; I *do* live here, and I am totally amazed and apalled at
the phenomenal stupidity of the American public. No wonder someone
who lives outside our borders cannot understand what's going on here.
The President keeps talking about improving education (you remember --
the underfunded No Child Left Behind program?) In fact, in the second
debate, he answered four different questions (none of which were on
the topic of education) with a rant about how we need to improve
education. Notice, he kept saying "we need to improve education"; he
never said he was actually going to try to do it! After all, an
educated public is the last thing you would want if you are the head
of a deceitful Administration that relies on a public that will not
research the truth, can not see through yer lies, and does not know
how to apply a critical analysis to yer idiotic pronouncements.

Ah yes, the classic liberal response. Ever notice that when
conservatives lose an election, they become introspective and ask "where
did we go wrong", but when liberals lose, they become indignant and
immediately start pointing fingers and blaming the public for "being
stupid" and "not understanding". Afterall, they are pre-ordained to
rule, right? What liberals don't get is that you lose because people DO
understand! They absolutely get it and they're SMART enough to reject
it! As long as liberals live in a world of denial, they'll never
succeed. So, keep up the good work!

BTW, I understand that Canadians are offering sanctuary to "disaffected"
liberals from the US. You can probably get free grief councelling up
there, too. You might have to wait a few months...

Hi riverman, I am glad to hear from you, or should I say Myron, since
we're getting to know each other. I know how to use Google also, and
found some interesting post. Seems that you have a history of googling
that even others have heard of your legendary exploits....from
www.chataboutboats.com

"riverman" wrote in message
...
What about http://www.portlandrivercompany.com/ ?

--riverman

Jeez, Myron; bragging about yer googling skill aGAIN? (^BD

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty"

I remember seeing the above post, on the other board, but did not make
the connection. Glad to make the connection and to get to know you
better.

I was also interested that you are sensitive to "Messages from God",
but I wonder if you ever checked what the engine light was all about?

I copied below your original post, to start this thread, so that we
can refocus where this all started.

"I mean it. Four more years of President Bush could mean a lot of our
wilderness gets opened up to development and timber harvesting. I
haven't
been this worried for the wildlands since James Watt.

--riverman"

It also appears that you have a history of complaining about election
results, and casting them in environmental concerns. Now I am not
saying that you are not trully interested in the environment, or that
you should not be interested and concerned with election results, as
it appears that you are. But, it seems disingenuous to start a thread
like this without making your true motives clear. It appears, you
enjoy getting threads started like this one, and then offering your
superior knowledge of environmental awareness.

But then I probably need to hear it and be educated more. So if my
research doesn't scare you off, I hope that it will lure you "out"
even more. I certainly don't want to scare you off with my gloating,
because I could wish that all could read this thread and understand
what the issues are, and how you think, and why it is important to
continue voting for canidates that are not caught up in the visage of
their own elite image.

It does not matter so much to me who you are, and that I am talking to
you. Who do you think you are? Are you some super Guru, that has all
the answers, and I should just be thankful that you let me even on
this thread!

I am talking to a whole bunch of others who are reading these posts.
Some may agree with you, and some may agree with me, so I saw no
reason to get personal. So yes, I am a locksmith in Denver, and what
difference does it make how long? I research often, and read much,
even off the google-net! I don't choose to blast away with my TnT,
because I prefer to engage folks in civil conversation, and not in
some ****ing contest in which I come off as some embittered loser!

That I have poked fun with the "L" word, is sort of like using a stick
in a snake hole. You don't want to reach in with your hand to lure
them "out." If I poked you in the eye, I apologize, but then, what are
you doing down in that snake hole anyway.

Why, hello again Tinkerntom. If your plan with this post was to lure me out
again, you have succeeded. Don't get too gloaty about it.

You don't research much, do you? That statement above shows that you are so
focused on your own agenda that you aren't even considering who you are
talking to. How long have you been a Denver locksmith, by the way?

The butterfly story, was sad, not cute. It was the first and only
butterfly I saw all summer! As a kid growing up here, I use to see
lots.

Hmmm, and any theories on why that may be? Or are you happy to just not be
interested?

No I am not happy there was only one butterfly, but I was able to
enjoy even that one. I find plenty to not like, but I find it
unproductive to go through life, ranting and raving about every
perceived intrusion into my "holy ground."
Life is too wonderful, to go through Life, bitter, angry, and
resentful!

I don't know, what "Message from God," you ever got, but I would
suggest checking that engine light, and find out what is really
motivating you. You have a lot of beautful pictures and nice stories
on your website. I have tracked down many more references to your
exploits, and I actually enjoyed yur writings, and the great pictures.
I would not like to think that your positive input would be lost
because you get off on some rant.

I found much in common with you as I got to reading. As a kid in the
early 60's, I grew up fly fishing in Colorado, and surf fishing in the
Gulf. You obviously trully enjoy the great outdoors. So understand, I
probably would not disagree with a lot of what you have to say, except
the rant factor.

I do enjoy our converstion more now, and I am sorry that it is so
painful for you. But you will get stronger for the exercise.

Tinkerntom, please don't fraternize me. Its impolite, and I'm far too old to
be spoken to like a child.

I went to Colo Sch of Mines in late 60' early 70', so I tip my hand a
little to you. Studied Geophysics, physics, etc. worked for a few
years in oil field. Since you invited me, I'll stay around a little
longer if this tipping does not shut you down.

We have geology in common, as a google search will show you, although I did
not go into Petroleum, unlike my roommate who is a major environmental
researcher at ColoState. And lay off the dramatics. You're new here, so
people don't know much about you, but in time people get to know each other.
Saying that you are 'tipping' is trying to say how much in control of these
conversations you are. Again, don't be fraternizing.

I do not mean to be fraternizing, by my "tipping" comment. I was only
referring to the fact that as in a card game, you don't tip or show
your hand to the other players before the right time. I don't think of
that as dramatic or controlling, it's just how the game is played. And
are we not all playing by the same rules?

I have been lurking on this board, and others for the last 6 years.
That is when I got my first WW kayak. Since then, I picked up older FG
phoenix, that my wife uses and loves because it is so light, and
recently a Folbot. I realize that some of you have been around for a
long time. I did not know that gave anyone a leg up to post on this
board or any other, but I do look forward to getting to know all of
you better. I have not posted before, but I am coming out of my hole
as well, - somebody stuck a stick in my eye!

I realize that what I have to say may not be particularly unique or
insightful, and noone may be listening. And obviously some are
discounting what I have to say. Though it appears that they have
listened to it as well, and posted responses. However it works out, we
all get to say our piece. Now on to the body of your response!!!

Additionally, are you proposing that, because one EE could not wire a
flashlight, then its possible that hundreds of thousands of scientists
and
research organizations in dozens of countries over several decades are
all
WRONG and that there really is no danger from excess pollutants, mercury
in
our water, deteriorating air and water quality? That all that medical
evidence is wrong, that all those 'intellectual elites' are just
following a
Liberal goose chase, making all sorts of silly, useless rules that end up
hurting our country by inhibiting development and keeping companies from
making profits? Wow, now THAT is a leap....

I am saying, I do not have a lot of faith in scientific bureaucrats,
or bureaucratic scientist. They all have their personal agendas,
especially if they are tapped into the "titty" you speak of in a bit.
We all have our personal agendas, just don't ask me to pay for one
that I don't believe in, and then act like I am happy about it.

Uh huh. So it sounds like you feel that all science is biased,
discreditable and laced with a personal agenda. Sounds like you are
conveniently rejecting anything that doesn't fit into your OWN personal
bias. Funny how that cuts both ways, eh? Next time you make use of anything
at all that scientific research has produced, say a little thank you prayer
that not everyone gets to cut off funding for anything they don't believe
in. Hell, it was attitudes like that that got Galileo in trouble. It might
very well be attitudes like that that get US in trouble.

Your response, part 1 above, boils down to what is the source of
information we use to perceive our world. I do not see through the
same eyes as you, and my requirements are not the same. So my
solutions are not the same. That does not mean that I do not care, or
that I am going to go out and destroy the environment.

You may not like everything that I do, or propose, but please do not
snub me as if you know everything, and I know nothing, and am stupid.
That attitude will not win too many elections. The jury is still out
on so many of these issues, and if you are really concerned about
these issue, then learn to teach me without disrespecting me.

I blame the current President for allowing clean air and clean water
standards to be compromised in the interest of more permissiveness for
corporations to make profits. Now, don't get me wrong....profits are
good;
our capitalist system is based on profits. But we have to weigh things,
and
find a healthy balance....compromising our water, air, and environment is
not really a good trade off in exchange for allowing companies to
increase
their profits.

Now things are getting a little more sticky, how we weigh things seems
to be an issue, and how we find a healthy balance????

Part 2, Okay, disregard the financial requirements of any program, and
financial reaction, and you end up with a program that does not work.
I don't see that Bush is proposing programs that will leave the world
a wasteland. In fact most of his envirnmental programs are similar to
previous administrations. Politics is always a matter of compromise,
and necessity.

I had a business plan back in the 70's, in which I was going to
provide a security service to the oil drilling industry across the US
and Canada. I had a plane, and a partner, and it all fell apart with
the oil embargo. We went from over 800 operators, to just a handfull.
I sold the plane! Lots of people lost their jobs, and the world
changed as we new it.

We all had to tighten our belt, and design different systems, and
change our drilling plans. Now, we find ourselves depending on foreign
oil again, and we are going to have to change again. We may have to
develope ANWR. Do some companies make money on the program, of course.
Would you invest in a program where you did not get your investment
back?

Is there a benefit to scientific research? Yes, we can find a way to
get more oil out of the ground where we have already worked. We can
develope economical processes and save. And ultimately we can develope
alternative sources of energy. But it is all going to take money, and
we will have to make real sacrifices, and accept sacrifices.

This is not nilism, or stoicism, it is realism, and the President is a
realist! Or we will all be cold, setting in the dark watching TV,
eating environmentalist raw because we have no way to cook them! Of
course if the global warming thing works out, maybe we won't be cold.

Hmm, maybe some scientific research? I'll play a game with you, Tom. You go
out and find all the research you can that supports, for example, that
Global Warming is not a real threat. And I'll go out and find all the
research that I can which says it IS. Then we compare all our data, and try
like hell to find biases and faults in each other's. We keep each other
accountable. Then we both go out and do some more investigating to prove or
disprove our claims. THAT is called 'scientific research'.

OR we can do it your way: we can declare that all this hullaballoo is really
a biased waste of time, that we don't want to listen to those silly
scientists because, since they can't agree, there really must not be a
problem. And the ones who DO agree should not be funded because we don't
agree with them. Besides, trying to reduce emissions (which isn't necessary
since there really ISN'T any pollution, and anyhow, trees cause much more
pollution than humans ever did) is just too inconvenient and puts too much
financial stress on businesses to ask them to clean up their own mess (which
isn't a mess since we don't want to believe it is), and anyway, the are more
than willing to just be careful themselves about how much they pollute.

Part 3. Or we can do it your way, run off to the Congo, and spend lots
of money studying some fish that lives in a remote tributary, where
very few live, and fewer go. But it makes us feel good, that we are
saving the world! In the meantime, it is getting darker, and I feel a
little hungry.

I blame the current majority for using unscrupulous methods to keep
themselves in power, like finger-pointing at Clinton (those cheeky
rascals),
creating a false sense of danger from terrorist attacks in the US, and by
using sensitive issues like gay marriages to divide the country and rally
more support from the conservative right. I look forward to the day the
CR
discovers that the current batch of policians are, well, politicians.

And Kerry was not a politician? I just prefer this politician to the
alternative. Kerry made all kinds of promises, but left me feeling
cold, doubting that they were nothing more than pie in the sky. At
least with Bush, I knew what I was getting, I believe he is a man of
his word, and that is the character MV part that was important to me.

Well, you're right on that. You know what you are getting....you are getting
someone who does not accept responsibility for his own decisions ("It was
the Intelligence communities fault for giving me bad data! How was I to
know?"), who has NEVER run a successful business and is completely fiscally
unresponsible (turning a positive cashflow into a record deficit, three
years in a row!), who has singlehandedly destroyed the international
reputation and goodwill of the US, who prides himself in not reading, not
taking his constituents into account when he makes decisions, and who prides
himself in making FAST decisions, and not changing his mind even in the face
of new evidence.

Part 4. The jiggalo had not run a profitable business either, unless
you count marring wealthy women a business! Give us someone we can
believe in, and the result of the election could be different. If you
complain about the credentials of the current President, you only have
yourself to blame!

And I especially blame a LOT of fundamental conseratives for pushing
their
personal religious agenda on the rest of the country, and for
deliberately
keeping themselves simple-minded 'like a child', ignoring issues that
impact
all of us, even the rest of the world, and for creating a modern America
that is too self-serving, isolationist and self-righteous to be a
constructive or cooperative world partner.

Now I will tip my hand a little further, I am a Christian. Surprise!!!

No joking?? Wow, what a stunner!

Part 5. I thought I would catch you off guard!!!

but then that is a word that is probably more misunderstood than
Liberal, and a close second, Conservative fundementalist. I will try
to make some distinctions, realizing we all have our own filters.

Since we are talking about the USA, I will refraim from speaking about
Europe, or even Canada. I live in Colorado, so I should restrict
myself from even talking about the south, or the Northeast, or the
west coast. Matter of fact I can't even speak about the church up the
street that I pass everyday, and there is the rub. I can only speak
about myself, and my personal relation with God and religion. Whenever
I hear someone blaming, and pointing, and spouting about something or
someone else, especially when they lump the religious fundementalist
altogether. I get sort of defensive, if you haven't noticed.

As a Christian, I am not afraid or ashamed to share where I am at. I
do not feel that you should not talk about religion, or politics, in a
polite society. That part of arcane Victorianism should have gone away
a long time ago. Neither do I believe that I should shove my religion
down someones throat. I have a hard enough time figuring it out for
myself, than to expect anyone else to appreciate me forcing it on
them.

As a Christian, I should be a force for good in the world I live. One,
as light to see by, and to show what is good and bad. Two, as salt,
to preserve what is good, and to increase the savor of it. Three, a
soldier, to fight that which is bad. Now that is quite simplistic, and
obviously there are many shades in the spectrum of Christians.

As a Christian, I believe that God has a plan that includes me, and
where I am in the world. He uses me to fulfil his plan, and that there
are Christians everywhere. He calls us fishers of men, not that we are
fishermen, but we are the net, with which He fishes. And He has the
whole world in His net!

In the world, we are described as pilgrims, (for keenan if he reads
this, yes I have a thing for pilgrims) that this is not our home, we
are just passing through. Then we are also described as Ambassadors of
his Kingdom here in this world.

This all brings me to the connection with the current political
situation. You should not look at the fundementalist as a monolith.
There are as many kinds of fundementalist as there are fundementalist!
You could not destroy us by taking out 1, or a 100. There would be 200
to take their place. Sort of like the hammer toy that kids play with,
where when you hit one peg, two more come up. You are right on when
you say that is very frustrating, if you think you can get rid of us.

Strange that you don't employ that same filter to Liberals. But I have to
admit, that hammer analogy has some real appeal....

Part 6. I have previously mentioned of how I used the word Liberal, as
to filtering them, I have found that they just gum up the filter, and
not much worthwhile gets through! Again maybe I need a new filter,
please show me a new model!

You can not immunize against us because we are all different, and we
reproduce very rapidly and virulently. In fact, each generation, gets
stronger as they respond to the hostile environment of the world. And
we are achieveing critical mass, which should be a scary thought to
any who oppose us.

Now combine all this into a political agenda, and it becomes powerful
in this political world in which we live. This critical mass is
currently aligned with the conservative agenda of the Republican, in
opposition to the Democrats and their Liberal agenda. The issues that
are currently hot: character, abortion and gay marriage. We believe
this is not a personal agenda so much as a mandate from God. You may
not like it, you may not agree, but I am just telling you how I feel a
lot of us believe, and you are left to deal with it.

A couple side note, we have not always been aligned with the
Republican, so they should be careful themselves, to not take us for
granted, or to take advantage of us. We have not always been in
agreement amongst ourselves as to where we should align. We have not
always been correct in our alignment, and hopefully adjusted our
alignment sooner than later. So we need to be checking with HQ on a
regular basis. But woe unto the party that ignores us.

Ugh. You have described exactly what is wrong with your kind of
fundamentalism.

Part 7. The perfect number, we get to the heart of the problem. You
say its the environment, and the election, and really it is those durn
fundementalist that are in your way. Why can't liberals just eat them
for breakfast? Well if for no other reason, they would get stuck in
your craw - Chicken Little!!!

You have to 'check in with HQ on a regular basis'. Assuming
that you all don't get exactly the same fax from God, that means you have to
be led, and told what is the 'alignment' by your church leaders. The very
essence of a free society is that people get to make their own decisions,
but instead a whole lot of religious fundamentalists are happy to be sheep,
told what the current belief is supposed to be. Now, spare me all the dogma
about 'search your heart' and 'being led by the Holy Spirit'....I hate all
that code-speak that religious folks use. I was gagging at the 'light, salt,
soldier, fish, Ambassadors' analogies. And, yes, I know that your preacher
will tell you how the minions of Satan hate that kind of talk, but guess
what, the US isn't your church. even more, there are constitional boundaries
set up specifically to protect us from folks like you.

There may be constitional boundaries, whatever they are, but there are
no Constitutional boundaries that I know of, that specifically target
fundementalist. In fact, that would be un-Constitutional. (I know,
checking your spelling may be petty, and Lord knows I make plenty of
my own, but you are the teacher - granted math teachers don't really
need to know how to spell. And it was a convienent spelling error!)

You may not understand how we get orders form HQ, we may get a fax,
and you may think we are sheep that just follow some preacher, but you
were the one who wrote a story about getting a "Message from God."
What did he say to you, that you were to hate fundementalist. That
would not be a message from God that I would expect to hear from Him.
He says to love our enemies. Sounds to me like you have some major
issues here that go way beyond the environment or the election. You
may hate our code speak .... but the earth is the Lords, and all that
is in it, and He loves you!

Of course we love you also, as long as you keep the lights on, you
don't have to worry about us eating you. The people in dark Africa
thought the same thing, that the Christians would eat them. Amazing
how ignorance fed by hate and fear, always comes back to raise its
ugly head.

I'll even tip my hand to you.... (Will I be surprised, or shocked, I
doubt it!)

I am pretty disgusted by religious fundamentalists, and I openly
reject their kind of prosteletyzing. And guess what else? There are a LOT of
US, too. And we are already fuming pretty bad about how you snaked your way
into this last election, and my guess is that, now that you have all shown
yourselves and your agenda, it won't last. You forget, all 51% of Bush's
votes werent from the moral majority.

We are not primarily activist, but as Ambassadors we observe, and
represent an option to the world system. We influence the world
indirectly, as we present the claims of Gods Kingdom on the lives of
men and nations. We also have to ultimately answer to God for our
actions and lives that we live.

As you can see, this is not a simple thing. We are in the world, but
not of the world. We are servants of God, but also called Ambassadors
of His Kingdom. I have not said anything about going to church etc.
because I do not want to make you feel that I am pushing religion down
your throat. In fact, this has little with going to church, and more
with going to God. I have been on the receiving end, and did not care
for the treatment. I know that others may not be as sensitive, I can
not speak for them, but I will apolgize for them if you have been
offended.

You may still ask what bearing does this have on dam building, roads,
and cutting old growth forest. We are also stewards of all that we
believe God made, which is everything. We are responsible to protect
and preserve all the good things that God has blessed us with.

Part 8. Ahh, here we go. Finally.

But as
stewards, we are also responsible for the responsible use of those
same thing. We are not just to put them in a showcase, but use them
for the good of all mankind. Gods main concern is not the forest, but
the house that shelters, and even the fire that burns to warm the
cold. God loves his creation, but most of all God loves man, and all
is here for the benefit of man, so that man would acknowledge God.

So, you are 'protecting and preserving' these things by cutting them down
for the use of people. That's that doublespeak that is so disgusting. It
also implies two things that you, again, conveniently igno
a) you have an INCREASED RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that you are not polluting
the air, water, etc, since God wants you to protect it.
b) you have an INCREASED RESPONSIBILTY to ensure that the consumed resources
are, indeed, being used for the benefit of man. Somehow, lining some fatcats
pockets off the public lands doesn't seem like that was what God had in
mind, eh?

As I paddle along, I am so glad that God made water, and Kayaks, and
made me so that I enjoy them. I love clean water, and the mountains,
and the beautiful forest. I want to be able to enjoy them for a long
time to come. But I also am responsible to preserve them.

So where does tossing out the Kyoto protocol come into that? And again, how
does ignoring conservationism, which has exactly the same responsibility,
come into it? You reject those Liberal Conservationists because they are
blocking you from developing that land that you are supposed to
preserve....or was it to be a good steward of so that you can make Wise Use
of it, and develop it for nice, warm houses? But what about your kids, and
their kids?? How can they make use of it if you cut it down and develop it?
And what about the pollution? Oh, this is all so confusing...

Hey, I didn't say it was simple, so we must not be so simple, if we
manage it and you are left confused. Not that we could do it by
ourselve either, we need all the help we can get.

I am also responsible to preserve little unborn lives, babies, that
God Loves as he loves all men everywhere. Abortion is not an
acceptable alternative, when there are so many alternatives. There are
tragic situations in life, but none so tragic to justify taking a
babies life.

GAG me!! This is such hyperbole!! Never an alternative? Preventing women
from having abortions when their own lives are in danger?? Forcing children
to be born into households that cannot afford to feed themselves??
Prohibiting abortions when it is known that the fetus will be severely
deformed, or even die soon after birth?? Just because it gets difficult to
make decisions about grey areas doesn't mean that we should avoid doing it.
And hiding behind God doesn't help, either.

I am also responsible to maintain and preserve the social order that
God created in creation. Marriage between other, than a man, and a
woman, is a violation of that order.

Un huh. Your opinion, as told to you by your preacher. I bet God would want
people to marry the person they love, rather than have them live outside the
sanctity of marriage. And if a loved one dies, I bet God would want the
loved partner to have legal rights. And what if that same couple decided to
adopt a child whose parents chose not to abort them? Would God implode?

Oh, and what about those of us who DON'T believe in God? Why should some
ficticious invisible friend of yours get to make rules about someone else's
life??

I realize that there are
different situations, and difficult situations, but God established
the order for the preservation of society. Those societies that have
chosen to violate that order, are doomed.There are many ways to
violate Gods social order, same sex marriage is just the current
issue.

Yeah, that's what we are so afraid of. If you would kindly present us with a
list of all the issues, in the order you plan on bringing them up, we might
be more able to assess your agenda.

No white page, or news brief is available, you may have to wing this
one! I suppose you have some basic principle that will guide you when
you don't know what to say. If you have principles, the underline
issues are much more clearly seen. Of course if you are unprincipled
then you probably have a real problem seeing the following very
clearly!

A part of social order, is personal responsiblity.

Again, doesn't sound like it. Sounds like it is a religious responsibility
that YOU are forcing on the rest of us. That old doublespeak again.

When President
Clinton lied to us about his involvement with Monica, all kinds of
warning sirens went off. I would even say that I believe it would be
hard to find anyone that would say it was Okay.

Hell, I'll say it was OK. To evade it, that is. It was none of the countries
damn business...it had nothing to do with running the US, and you are being
led blind if you see it, and your reaction to it, as anything but a
political manipulation by the right wing. They saw their opening, created an
issue, and tried to run with it. Clinton was exponerated, get over it.

We intrinsically know
it was not. The specifics of the BJ are troubling enough, but to have
a person in such an incredible position of trust and power, unable to
exercise personal discipline, made us all feel vulnerable.

Not all of us. You *choose* to feel vulnerable. What were you so afraid of,
that in his 'lack of personal discipline' he would demonstrate the ability
to severely limit personal freedoms, make decisions based on bad evidence,
endanger the lives of American soliders in an unprovoked war, generate a
worldwide distrust and derision of the country, and drive the national debt
through the ceiling? Its strange how you overreact to someone who stuck a
cigar up a woman's vagina then declined to discuss it on national TV, but
turn a complete blind eye to someone who might very well be undermining the
US for years to come. Bush makes me feel *very* vulnerable! Not because of
what he might be capable of doing, but for what he HAS done and what he
promises to CONTINUE doing!!

We see a big difference between what one man did, and what the next
may do. So far I feel safer in my bed at night knowing that the nite
guard is not being distracted by a bimbo.

He weakend
not only himself, but the Democratic party as reflected in the last
two elections, but also the nation. We as Christians could not endorse
or sanctify his behavior, but instead have to speak out about it, for
the very sake of preserving society.

That's a bit melodramatic, don't you think? No one asked you to endorse or
sanctify his behavior. And putting Bush in office is not a solution to
whatever you feel about Clinton, because Clinton wasn't running for
president. That's like saying you voted for Eisenhower because Lincoln won
the war.

Every four years we have the opportunity to endorse, and as the case
may be sanctify, the person we put in the office. If Clinton had not
embarassed those who endorsed him, I suspect that Bush would not be
the solution in office today. Whose fault is that, if you want someone
to blame!

Now if the current Republican administration was able to tap into the
above agenda, I do not see that as being unscrupulous. The Democrats
would have done the same if they could have figured out how. It is the
political process. For them to continue to alert us to the possibility
of further terrorist attack, I hope the warning was bona fide, but
whether or not, the Dems would have done the same, if in the place to
do so. Politician manipulate to gain power. No real revelation here,
and we all know how the game is played!

This is completely nonsense, and the lowest form of defense. "Its right
because you would have done the same thing." For starters, you cannot
support that claim in any way. Secondly, that never excuses things. But at
least you are admitting that it could have all been a lie. But Conservatives
lying to get in power is somehow OK....funny that old doublespeak again.
How's the view from your moral high ground?

I hope the terror alerts were bona fide, and that we were not just
being stroked, but then I haven't heard a whole lot about missing
explosives from the news media since Nov 2nd. I wonder who was
stroking who! Politician are great at telling us what we want to hear,
and what we don't want to hear.

Considering briefly the Liberal/ Conservative issue, they are just
different sides of the political coinage of our system. Yeah I
confess it has been fun using the L word on some of you, but only
because you are so sensitive, and I promise not to stop. It is very
effective way to work some up into a real lather. (Hi Keenan) The
fact that you are so bothered shows me that it has not lost its
meaning, and you know what it means, as you try to distance yourselves
from it.

I'm not distancing myself from it. I'M A LIBERAL, THROUGH AND THROUGH.

Part 10. Well we finally are getting somewhere. There is a Liberal in
the house, another shocking surprise.

I
believe in personal freedom,

(less big Government)

I believe that the government has the responsibility to protect
social interests from self-serving interests,

(Like abortion and gay marriage}

and I believe in fiscal accountability.

(fewer government programs, and only ones that we can not afford)

I believe in protecting the environment,

(Manage the resources so they benefit us now and in the future)

So far no real problem, sounds fairly conservative.

I believe that public and private corporations and that the top 5% of
wealthholders in America have a social responsibilty to the bottom 95%, or
else they can try to get that rich in some other country.

Yeah, this sound Liberal, ( I take more of your money, no point trying
to take money from those who don't have it, and redistribute it to the
victims of our society who will vote for me next time because I am
such a great guy, social guilt for having to much, then complain
because the rich just figure out how to shelter their income some
other way, the corps outsource reducing the tax base, leaving a
growing supply of social victims with a bunch of liberal pie in the
sky.)

I believe that we all should donate time and energy to preserving
the environment,

Liberal (and we can all set around holding hands and singing we shall
over come.)

and that as a nation as a whole, we have it FAR too good

Yeah Liberal again, ( national guilt for our prosperity)

and that other nations have their own soverign rights to choose their own
governments and social systems.

Mostly liberal,(especially the talk about rights, talk is cheap, where
most of the peole that live under oppresive goverments, have no right
to choose)

I believe that other people are entitled to be just as misled by
their religions as our people are, and I believe that fundamentalists of all
flavors ought to have their asses kicked by a fat lesbian named Bruno.

Again a good Liberal takes a parting shot, they don't understand, so
they exercise their last act of defiance but it makes them feel good.

I am just sick of hearing people destroy the multi-party system by using the
term derogatorily. Do some research on how that term got to be villified,
and you'll discover that you are just a puppet, being played by the
political strategists who make you think that you actually believe, or
understand, what you are saying. Its precisely the same strategy that make
the Japanese 'gooks', the Germans 'krauts', the Russians 'commies' and the
Chinese 'chinks'. Prejudice....very Christian of you. And why do you hate
America so much?

You must be confused again... I don't hate America. America is the
greatest country ever, anywhere! I have more freedom than I have ever
had anywhere else, to choose what and who I believe, and who I will
vote for. That does not destroy the multiparty system, but infact
exercises it, and I promised you that the exercise would be good for
you as well.

I cannot fathom how the conservative
right gets off saying that the liberals are 'elite'....the eliteness of
the
CFR is staggering!

When you win, you are in an elite crowd, you don't have to pretend!
That is reality also. That does not mean you are right, but it does
feel good.

Ah ha. Thank you for admitting that you are not right.

No I did not admit any such thing. Just that being right, is not based
on whether you win or not. You liberals do try to twist things. Maybe
that is why you are so confused, you have been twisting things for so
long, you don't even know what things are supposed to be like.

The reality of the environment, physical reality, has
always to deal with the political, and political with spiritual. You
tried to separate them, and that is probably part of the explanation
for the lost election. If you disassociate the issues, you will
present yourself to the voter as disassociated, and you will attract
disparate and unintegrated voters (the 2004 Democratic Party.) If on
the other hand, you can intergrate the issues, you will draw people to
together who are able and willing to integrate their voice (the 2004
Republican Party.)

Originally the conservationist were involve
in conserving our resources, and protecting our heritage, and then
along came the Liberals who federalized the projects as a financial
boon-doggle. The conservatives eventually distanced themselves, and
the programs became the sole realm of the Liberal.

Hmm, thats a pretty convenient theory, but its a lot of BS. Another way
to
look at it is to say that we NEED to federalize certain projects to
ensure
that they are enforced and protected. Leaving the protection of the
environment in the hands of local forces means that the people with the
money and local power....often the lumber yards, timber barons, factory
owners, and developers, for example....will be able to do what they want,
even if it harms the interests of the general population. Modern
developers
are becoming expert at twisting meanings....clear-cutting and calling it
'Fire Prevention', dumping measured amouts of pollution and saying that
they
are proving 'cleaner water' (because they aren't dumping MORE
pollutants),
but it doens't change the realities. Federalizing conservation projects
was
Teddy Roosevelt's idea of how to ensure that things were protected 'for
the
common good'. Now, don't get me wrong. Timber companies can do whatever
they
want on their OWN land, but one of the rich heritages of the US is the
common ownership of national forests and parks. Those, I want them to
stay
the hell out of, and I need Federal clout to do it, but I'm not getting
it
from THIS government. That's what is so disenfranchising. Personally, I
cannot understand why you want to give some private timber company all
your
trees in YOUR national forest, and get pretty much _nothing_ in return.
Seems pretty foolish to me.

Now we are getting to the heart of the issue for you, and I have
little to disagree, if you could just stay here. Understand, I believe
that this President has very little to to with these issue, or for
that matter whomever is in the Whitehouse.

No, I disagree wholeheartedly and with passion and concern. This president
has a tremendous responsibity to stop sitting on his hands and saying 'aww,
there ain't no problem' and 'if there IS a problem, the Dems caused it!" and
to be wise, a good steward, and DO something about it. Wisely. If he's too
stupid or stubborn to make decisions, he should employ a LOT of scientists
and let them advise him. But what he IS doing is making it worse. He has the
worse environmental record of the last 50 years, just when the research and
evidence is showing us that things are starting to get quite bad.

I knew that you would not be able to stay there. The resourses belong
to us all, and are administered for our mutual good, by the President.
Sometimes showcased, sometimes managed, but always prserved. No matter
who is at the wheel, you have the right and resposibility to be
concerned.

This whole thread reminds me of walking in the cowpasture on the
ranch, sometimes you step in it with the right foot, and sometimes
with the left, but you are guaranteed to step in it if you get to
looking around at the pretty country in which we live!

"ensure that things were protected 'for the common good'... In looking
over your previous statement, I think that this is where we get in
problem. Most of the other thing you say are illustrative of what you
think is for the good. I would not draw all the lines in the same
place as you, and I would not draw them in permant ink. I would like
to go into this more, but will save it for our next conversation.

We'll see.
--riverman

and yes, we will see, give us a few years! in the meantime keep on
paddling.

Peace, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis, Life, Live it!