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

this year's trip to Sylvania Wilderness (Upper MI) included seeing a couple
of moter boats for the first time thanks to a conservative judge's
ruling...got me to vote Dems across the board for the first time...I hate
what's happening!
"riverman" wrote in message
...
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

this year's trip to Sylvania Wilderness (Upper MI) included seeing a
couple
of moter boats for the first time thanks to a conservative judge's
ruling...got me to vote Dems across the board for the first time...I hate
what's happening!

Same here... had to dodge powerboats whilst canoeing across crossing Crooked
Lake. What scares me more than Bush getting re-elected is that it looks
like the country in general has swung even further to the right. It's one
thing if the president doesn't give a **** about the environment; it's
something altogether different (and *much* worse) when the president AND the
electorate don't care.

The environment was a non-issue this time. There was almost no
mention of it in the debates. All I heard from the enviromental
organizations I follow, was, vote for the enviroment. Not- vote for x
or y because of his stand on the environment.

I hate to admit it, but most of America does not care a bit about
environmental issues.

Now that I think about it, that may be the only area where we agree
with rest of the third world- slash and burn now! I can not imagine
North Korea would have any different policies than Gee Dub in that
regard.

Or in a few other areas, too.

(wait a sec, let me find those flame proof undies)


-Dan V.
feeling slightly nauseous right now.


On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 21:14:00 -0600, "Felsenmeer"
wrote:

this year's trip to Sylvania Wilderness (Upper MI) included seeing a
couple
of moter boats for the first time thanks to a conservative judge's
ruling...got me to vote Dems across the board for the first time...I hate
what's happening!

Same here... had to dodge powerboats whilst canoeing across crossing Crooked
Lake. What scares me more than Bush getting re-elected is that it looks
like the country in general has swung even further to the right. It's one
thing if the president doesn't give a **** about the environment; it's
something altogether different (and *much* worse) when the president AND the
electorate don't care.

Felsenmeer wrote:

Same here... had to dodge powerboats whilst canoeing across crossing Crooked
Lake. What scares me more than Bush getting re-elected is that it looks
like the country in general has swung even further to the right.

Liberals will never get it. Contrary to their deluded thinking, the
overwhelming majority of people in this country are conservative and
always have been. Whenever liberalism manages to gain a toe-hold, it's
slapped down in the next election cycle. Americans don't want a
liberal/progressive/socialist country, period. Thank goodness for that!

It's one
thing if the president doesn't give a **** about the environment; it's
something altogether different (and *much* worse) when the president AND the
electorate don't care.

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. For example, we
desperately need to reinstate the gas-guzzler tax or something similar,
but to do so now would drive the economy back into recession.

Whether you believe it or not, there is nothing that prevents one from
being both conservative and pro-environment.

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
...
Felsenmeer wrote:

Same here... had to dodge powerboats whilst canoeing across crossing
Crooked
Lake. What scares me more than Bush getting re-elected is that it looks
like the country in general has swung even further to the right.

Liberals will never get it. Contrary to their deluded thinking, the
overwhelming majority of people in this country are conservative and
always have been.

I think it's the move towards puritanism that scares people.

Whenever liberalism manages to gain a toe-hold, it's slapped down in the
next election cycle. Americans don't want a liberal/progressive/socialist
country, period. Thank goodness for that!

Yeah! Who wants to be progressive! It's bad enough that black people are
free and women have the vote! Next thing you know poor people will be
accessing health care!

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.

Keenan Wellar wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
...

Felsenmeer wrote:


Same here... had to dodge powerboats whilst canoeing across crossing
Crooked
Lake. What scares me more than Bush getting re-elected is that it looks
like the country in general has swung even further to the right.

Liberals will never get it. Contrary to their deluded thinking, the
overwhelming majority of people in this country are conservative and
always have been.

I think it's the move towards puritanism that scares people.

True. However, I think that's controllable.

Whenever liberalism manages to gain a toe-hold, it's slapped down in the
next election cycle. Americans don't want a liberal/progressive/socialist
country, period. Thank goodness for that!

Yeah! Who wants to be progressive! It's bad enough that black people are
free and women have the vote! Next thing you know poor people will be
accessing health care!

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

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

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 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.

"Keenan Wellar"
I think it's the move towards puritanism that scares people.


I don't know where this came from, but sounds like someone has some
other unresolved issues. I have heard liberals blaming their loss on
everthing and everyone else than themselves, but I haven't heard this
one before. Soon we should maybe expect that it was some witches in
Salem!

Whenever liberalism manages to gain a toe-hold, it's slapped down in the
next election cycle. Americans don't want a liberal/progressive/socialist
country, period. Thank goodness for that!

Yeah! Who wants to be progressive! It's bad enough that black people are
free and women have the vote! Next thing you know poor people will be
accessing health care!

You put the emphasis on the wrong syllabis! It is not the
"progressive" part, but Liberal, and especially that which would end
in a socialist country, that is rejected by the good conservative
citizens of this great country.

You set up a false dilemna, regarding free black, and women voting, as
if those issues are still an issue, then include poor people accessing
health care as being comparable. The first has to do with the rights
of all people, not determined by the Constitution, but acknowledged by
it.

If we choose to give health care to all, that is our choice, our
Constitutional right to choose. So far, the voters have not chosen to
do so, beyond Medicare, and other present Federal and State programs.
There is no Constitutional guarantee to the right to health care. All
are presented with the privilege of working for their own dreams, if
that includes health care, they can have it. There are many insurance
companies, and health care providers who would be more than willing to
take your money, and provide the best health care in the world.

If we were to say that everyone should have health care, why not,
everyone should have a car, a house, a house in the suburbs, or why
stop there. I think everyone should have a house in Aspen, or Malibu,
or Monterrey, and I think that Uncle Sam should give them whatever
else they want. And of course everyone should have a job where they
earn at least $50.00/hr. Now that sound pretty good. I think I should
run for the Presidency on that platform. Sounds sort of familiar in
fact, promise them everything, anything they want.

Luckily most voters realized that the above program is unacceptable,
if for no other reason, than who was going to pay for it? The promise
was that taxes would be raised on the rich. That works until there are
no more rich, and then they come after you and me, or at least me! No
thankyou!

Similiarly, enviro issues are presented in the same way. If we sneak
it under the radar, make enough distracting noise, noone will realize
the finacial costs of these programs. The problem, is that we have
fallen for this before, and noone was buying it this time. Especially
considering that for the last 30 or 40 years Nader and his crowd, have
been singing the same song, but tell us the problems remain. That is
why he was ignored this time more than ever before. The fact that
Kerry, gave lipservice, to pacify the eco-warriors, only proves that
they are easily distracted!


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 is sad, is that we need you big hearted liberals to take care of
all the down and out, to protect the enviroment, to assure the rest of
us that we stay on the path, - and you have proven so ineffective!

Thanks, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis Life, Live it!

riverman wrote:

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



You said it. This summer, I went up to the Redwoods in an effort to show
my son what the forests were like once. They are so seriously depleted
that my sister said, "I can't bear to go up there any more, it's so
terrible." Did stop her from voting for Bush, sadly.

If you care about the environment, look now. It will exist only on film
in a few years.

Ruefully,

Rick

"riverman" ) writes:

.... I haven't
been this worried for the wildlands since James Watt.

Watt and Boulton built steam pumps to drain mines. You must be thinking of
someone else. If you knew them as you claim, it's amazing at your age you
have the strength to lift a paddle.

The principle threat to "wilderness" is all the paddlers and backpackers
scaring away the wildlife. I wonder why people don't stay at home to
paddle and hike. It's a fact that most people in North Amercia live in
cities and most cities are located on the shores of lakes and rivers. If
you want a pleasant place to paddle amd hike then get your city to clean
up the shoreline. If you are real wilderness enthusiasts you would stick
to your own backyard instead of ignoring it to drive long distances to
paddle in places where you contribute to the loss of wilderness. I have
paddled all afternoon within the City Of Ottawa on a weekday and not met
another person while on the saem afternoon there are traffic jams on the
portages in Algonquin Park's "wilderness".

As far as I'm concerned if you look up and see vapour trails it's not
wilderness.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-FreeNet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned