Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
__________________________________________________ _______________
What kind of genetic marker is present in a person who will pay money to watch people get into a ring and beat the dog out of each other, and say that it's a great sport? or say it's wrong to kill an animal, yet support abortion? Say it's wrong to drink, yet ok to smoke dope? Demand the constitutional right of free speech to degrade anothers right to exercise an admendment of the same constitution? How can some believe that whatever they agree to is Ok but whatever they disagree with is wrong? Why do some always want to control the freedom of others to pursue the life style they wish? The list can go on and on. Bottom line is; People have a right to choose what they like to do. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong, (that is, as long as it's lawful).
Nothing you said above pertains to what Kele's comments and questions addressed. Additionally, if you read back to yourself what you wrote, you'll find you're doing to her what you're accusing her of doing to you. This type of activity is common in online forums when people do not think critically before writing.
Unless I'm WAY off base, the comments in the post to which you refer regard people who ENJOY killing living things. If that does not apply to you, then why are you so fired up that you bang away at your keyboard with disjointed thoughts?
Fringe environmental activists- People who appear to believe a police state is the answer to environmental protection. These individuals often appear to think that they have all of the answers on environmental issues, and that it is their responsibility to control everybody else.
The new "global warming" craze is a glaring example of this... the sad thing is that most of the environmentalists engaged in this cause are now just tools of those who crave power on a global level. What better way to control people than to create a doomsday scenario and then put yourself in charge of fixing the problem?
Quote:
If your description includes helping to prevent massive degradation of the environment, you will be thankful
I am a firm advocate of the responsible use of everything; this is not limited to the environment. I am not of the persuasion that we should operate under the assumption that we do not impact the world, but I am not narcissistic enough to believe that I should be in charge of "saving people from themselves" by creating new laws for anything I don't like. The environmental issue has gone completely out of control; while it is not prudent to destroy our natural resources they are there for our use.
Quote:
California has a governor who seems quite reasonable and will accomplish many tasks that were once considered at cross purposes.
Our governor is apparently under the impression that he has to play nice with people who have based their careers on slinging mud; and he is a lefty posing as a righty. I have no problem with people having their own opinions... that is what this country is supposed to be about. I do have a problem with people running on a certain premise to get elected and then doing another thing once in office. The restrictions here are incredibly draconian.... they are running the businesses out of business or out of the state. This "greenhouse gas" thing that Schwarzenegger has introduced is completely out of touch.
Quote:
Define socialist. If you don’t include the Bush administration...
I wish I could go somewhere and NOT run into people who always have to bring the argument down to this level. The ad hominem Bush arguments are tailor-made for career Bush-bashers, and they do not lend credibility to any argument.
The Bush administration is not classic socialist.....wealth redistribution to the masses is not on their agenda, and this is one of the classic traits of a socialist. They are a lot of other things, and I would appreciate it if you do not insult my ability to think by associating me with any sort of Bush-bots. Lower taxes are good, constitutional-minded justices on the court are good, and the lapse of the "Brady ban" is good. These are the few main points that I am happy with Bush on; other than that he is only mildly discernible from the other side, and I have little use for him.
If you want to get into the "conservative" vs "liberal" debate please do it with somebody else. The "liberals" of today are statists and do not even vaguely resemble their libertarian-minded nemeses of the 60's and 70's. The "conservatives" like to label themselves as such during an election so they can get elected and be charged with money/control. Goldwater and Reagan (two true conservatives) would be ashamed of today's "conservative" politicians. IMO 95% of politicians at the federal level are self-righteous, selfish, hypocritical liars, and it makes little difference which side they're on.
I hold more of a conservative/libertarian view, and very few of the leaders we've had lately are willing to abide by the Constitution. My concern lies not with party, but with preserving the Constitutional Republic that the US was built on. The Founders would be hanging people in the streets today over the treasonous acts occuring on both sides.
Quote:
Maybe you’re one of those with the bizarre notion that California became grossly overpopulated, overbuilt, overburdened, and over-a-whole-bunch-of-other-stuff because of socialists (I’m shocked you didn’t say liberals). I frequently ask people who make comments such as yours if they truly believe that all the developers working in conjunction with various governmental representatives at all levels over all those decades to obtain legislative largesse are all socialists; I need to know more about this new form of socialism.
This new form of socialism is "we're socialists but we have to bring it in slowly because most people won't want it if we tell the truth" socialism. And yes, CA has become grossly overpopulated due in part to many of the social programs....you may want to examine the illegal alien problem here and the corresponding services that help to drive it. Free medical, free education, free checks.... why wouldn't it become a problem? Well, it really is no problem; there are plenty of businesses and workers to foot the bill.
CA did not initially become successful because of socialist-minded politicians. It is rich in natural resources and has assets such as ports and major business hubs. It is being destroyed by the socialist-oriented form of government that is now in control.
With regards to the developers - of course they're working with politicians. There are few things that politicians love more than money and power, and the tax revenue that is created from the developments and other businesses are helpful when creating new regulations and social programs. Socialism creates a distinct ruling class that has privileges unique to that ruling class; why do you think it is so popular with politicians, and why do you think they won't come right out and state their intent in this area?
Today I hunted flies in my kitchen and living room---stalked them with a fly swatter, I did! Darned things were driving myself and my dog crazy.
How nice that you're so pleased with yourself. That fly swatter added to the length of your arm makes your hunt and stalk for the flies compare to a rifle shoot on prairie dogs of what, say a couple hundred yards? It's no wonder you're so pleased.
I agree 100% sopuinds like were of the same opinion about California. People in Wyoming don't understand how good they have it. I got such a kick out of reading the controversy over controlling ground varmits. Those who have never had to deal with the rodent problem, just can't seem to understand it. I wonder if they set mouse traps in their house when they get infested or just live with the little creatures? It only takes a person one time to experience the devistation ground varmits can do to your property and livestock to change ones opinion. Shooting them is the best way to contol them. Using posion will sure enough do the job but it also effects any other birds or animals who will eat them.
By the way have you ever shot a .204 I have both the 223 and 204. In my opinion, the .204 out performs the 223 . It's an amazing cal. I'm shooting a 32grn sierra blitz king with 26.5 grans of H335. simple amazing results.
I LOVE the .204..... outstanding accuracy and tailor-made for varmints. I'm not generally a bug fan of Ruger, but they've outdone themselves on this one. Any time you get Hornady involved the outcome is likely to be solid..... now if Ruger's QC could only get up to snuff......
How nice that you're so pleased with yourself. That fly swatter added to the length of your arm makes your hunt and stalk for the flies compare to a rifle shoot on prairie dogs of what, say a couple hundred yards? It's no wonder you're so pleased.
Oh please.... Have a sense of humor, for Pete's sake. I'll hunt what I want when I want for my own reasons---with or without your approval. Whether with a fly swatter or my 30-06 or anything in between, I do everything within the bounds of the law. I don't need the help of any self-appointed thought police. The comment above was tongue-in-cheek---for your edification---but if it made you feel better then that's what's important....
Location: My heart is in Wyoming, my body is soon to follow.....
745 posts, read 4,065,276 times
Reputation: 333
To all of the "tree hugger's":
I can understand people having a problem with animals suffering, I don't understand having a problem with killing them. You say you eat meat, you're not against hunting for food, what's the difference where the animal is concerned? They both die the same way, with a gun shot wound that hopefully kills them instantly. I guarantee you the guys that are shooting the prairie dogs with 22-230's and such are killing them instantly.
I'm surprised that no one has brought up the fact that God gave us dominion over all animals.
I LOVE the .204..... outstanding accuracy and tailor-made for varmints. I'm not generally a bug fan of Ruger, but they've outdone themselves on this one. Any time you get Hornady involved the outcome is likely to be solid..... now if Ruger's QC could only get up to snuff......
Yeah, I don't care much for Rugers, except for their Red Label. My .204 is in Remington 700 SPS. My 223 is Remington 700 VSSFII. Both sport the HS precission pro-series stock. nice firearms. I'm about to purchase a 20 VarTarg in Coopers' Montana Varminter. Looking forward to seeing how it performs.
Nothing you said above pertains to what Kele's comments and questions addressed. Additionally, if you read back to yourself what you wrote, you'll find you're doing to her what you're accusing her of doing to you. This type of activity is common in online forums when people do not think critically before writing.
Unless I'm WAY off base, the comments in the post to which you refer regard people who ENJOY killing living things. If that does not apply to you, then why are you so fired up that you bang away at your keyboard with disjointed thoughts?
You definitely have the right to your opinion. Have a nice day!.
Your definition of tree huggers is typical oh-so-broad-brushed. I’ve been a member of many environmental organizations for many years and they don’t promote police-state actions; in fact just the opposite. The anti-environment types want absolute freedom to subjectively decide the best course of action for America’s citizens. You speak in your post of our founders; their desires were the prevention of the violation of the equal rights of another while exercising one’s own. There can’t be any greater infringement on a person’s rights than to deny her/him clean air, water, and many other environmental conditions he/she believes are vital to survival.
Admittedly, extremists want far too much, but this is how extremism by the other camp is fought. I think of analogy to Atlas Shrugged; a socialism so extreme it could only be fought by a capitalism at least as extreme. As always, the answer is between the two.
The problem with your use of labels is that neither you nor anyone else I’ve witnessed thus far can bring yourselves to find an expression that separates tree-huggers of my sort from the extremes.
Laws are for the unreasonable among us; reasonable people don’t need them. Unfortunately, there are far too many unreasonable among us, and those with the most power are unreasonable corporatists with claims on and future plans for government. And those claims and future plans affect ALL of us. I, too, envision what grandeur could be in a libertarian world; it just isn’t going to happen quickly and the problems have to be dealt with now. Without regulation, though it’s a shame to mention it, many areas that still are forested now would have been clear-cut and many not replanted. You may think that such a thing is exercising one’s rights and the natural resources are there for our use, but such activities affect the health and well-being of a large populace. Yet, had the clear-cutting been done, it would have been to the advantage of a very small group who subjectively decided it was “in the best interest of the people.”
The “greenhouse gas thing” is your opinion of course, and you are in a very small minority. There are pockets of population throughout the US that hang on to the conspiracy theory, but by your theory, the small group would do as it pleased while dramatically affecting the large group’s health and well-being. It doesn’t matter if you think the “greenhouse gas thing” is legit or not; until you can come up with a cylinder arrangement that contains whatever garbage you spew into the air or dump in the ground that leads to water or the water itself, you are going to affect others in large numbers—you will violate their equal rights to have a cleaner environment.
Of course the current administration doesn’t openly fit the “classic socialism” scenario. They’ve learned how to do it in ways using government in conjunction with mega-business that are not scary to the public; it’s insidious. But the overall effect is the control of production and distribution. In my opinion, it’s undeniable. And this administration wouldn’t know a free market if it bit any one of them in the a##.
No! Absolutely NO would “[t]he Founders . . . be hanging people in the streets today over the treasonous acts occuring on both sides.” It’s unlikely we’d have strayed as far as we have, but there would be no hanging if the people were exercising the rights given them by The Constitution. Yes, many are stretched, but are not hanging offenses.
Yes, I know of the immigration problems. I’m sure I’d go further than you’d be willing to go as I’m against ALL immigration for at least the next five years. I post in the immigration forum quite regularly. My concerns are not only for the illegal activities the immigrants are engaging in; my greatest concern is for overpopulation and the damage that will become much more prevalent to the environment and resources, natural and otherwise. This problem, too, is insidious and the populace isn’t cognizant of its implications.
Your last sentence:
“Socialism creates a distinct ruling class that has privileges unique to that ruling class; why do you think it is so popular with politicians, and why do you think they won't come right out and state their intent in this area?”
I submit that what you describe is exactly what is occurring now in America under the rule of this administration and it is not openly named socialism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Darned things were driving myself and my dog crazy.
