California Fire, the Environmentalists fault? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Food Eater Lad · 10-30-2003, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Making Sense By Michael Reagan

As a friend of mine said, "If my house had burned down in the California fires I think I'd get a flame thrower and go looking for an environmentalist's house to return the favor."

He's right. These fires which have killed a number of people and devastated 800 square miles of Southern California, leaving it black and smoldering, and destroyed more than 1,600 houses are solely the fault of the tree-hugging Greens who hate humanity while claiming to love the very forests their own insanely destructive policies are burning to a crisp.

The fact is, we haven't taken care of our forests because environmentalist radicals have been winning the day in Washington for far too long. Roads going into our forests have been closed and as a result we can't access our forests and firefighters can't access them, all because the Greens want to put everything back the way it was before we evil humans arrived on the planet and began to despoil the earth the Greens worship as some kind of goddess.

If you look at the videos of what's burning in California you see that about half the trees about to go up in flames in some of the fire zones are dead from a beetle infestation because for a number of years now we haven't been allowed to go into our forests and thin them and prune them and take care of our them as we take care of a garden or farmland.

What people don't understand is that a forest is a garden - a garden of trees - and it needs to be taken care of, it needs to be pruned and thinned out so that it is kept in a healthy state. And what we are seeing now as those flames and plumes of smoke rise and blacken the sky is what happens when you don't.

If we don't go in and trim the forests you end up with what we have now - black darkened mountains with no trees, no brush, and no so-called habitats for any of those creatures that the Greens say they want to protect from nasty old humans who won't give them a place of their own.

Now where is the spotted owl going to nest? Now where are the birds and the flies and the frogs going to live, that is those who weren't all burned up in their Green-protected habitats.

The only reason why the environmentalists have been able to impose their insane policies on the rest of us is money! They give money to politicians, money to campaigns, and because money is the mother's milk of politics they end up getting what they want. And the forests burn.

In the end, the owls and the birds and the deer and the antelope die, and good people lose their homes because the environmentalists always get their way.

These horrendous fires that are burning up huge areas of California are the result of environmentalists and the politicians they buy who are preventing us from keeping our forests healthy. In some places, the dry, incendiary brush has not been cleared out for decades.

Thanks to the Green pressure on Capitol Hill the Bush administration's Healthy Forests Restoration legislation designed to restore our forests to health is being held up in the Senate. The House voted for it overwhelmingly but the Senate won't bring it to the floor for a vote.

Asked Rep. Scott McInnis, (R-Colo.), "How many homes must burn, how many people must lose their valuables, how many lives must be threatened before a couple [of] obstructionists in the Senate will relent and let a bipartisan wildfire legislation be debated and considered?"

Look at the fires we've had in the last few years, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico - it's the same thing happening over and over again. And the blame for every one of them can be laid at the doorstep of the radical environmentalist movement.

The Greens have turned everything black.

Mike Reagan, the eldest son of President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Premiere Radio Network. Comments to mereagan@hotmail.com for Mike.

The sad thing is, I used to be a Green. Now I know better.

Ustwo · 10-30-2003, 10:48 AM

I think of myself is 'green' and I'm an evil republican (not to be confused with the green party which is communist).

Basically its common sense and an understanding of the environment. Most 'Greens' lack both.

Today 'Green' means anti-technology, anti-progress, anti-people, and for many anti-bathing.

Redlemon · 10-30-2003, 11:03 AM

Damn straight... if we had just eliminated all trees, there wouldn't be anything to catch fire!

Food Eater Lad · 10-30-2003, 11:16 AM

Redlemon, I hope your joking.

eple · 10-30-2003, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo

Today 'Green' means anti-technology, anti-progress, anti-people, and for many anti-bathing.

Okay, I am sorry to burst that one, but I am a member of the national board of Norways biggest youth enviromental organization, and I can promise you that noen of the above is true as far as we are conserned.

We are above all supporting technology, as progress is the best way to manage without fossil fuels. Right now our government planned on building ancient gas plants, but partly because of the enviromental lobby, they have decided to build modern CO2-free plants instead. We also want progress in the developement of energy-saving technology.

As far as people are conserned, human civilization is the very thhing we fight to protect. The nature isn't really at risk here, it has always adapted, and humans are just a little glimpse in the billions of years of life on earth. There are thousands of factors much more important to nature than humans. When talking about global warming, we are focusing on its effect on humans, not nature. Nature experience great changes in the climate constantly, and always adapt. Humans, however, are more reliant on the current climate, and might face problems when changes are coming too fast.

Uuh....anti-bathing...I shouldn't really have to comment on that, but I shower everyday (with an energy-saving technology shower, mind you

) and so do all of my enviromentalist friends.

Ustwo · 10-30-2003, 11:40 AM

eple not all 'green' groups are 'Greens'

If yours is good thats great, but I doubt you are the 'dirty hippie' types protesting everything, and damaging property.

onetime2 · 10-30-2003, 11:40 AM

Ahh, nothing interesting there. We can't manage the potholes in our roads, how could we manage millions of acres efficiently?

Superbelt · 10-30-2003, 11:41 AM

I'd like to shove a bat down Michael Reagans throat.

This is a reply strictly to the article.

If my house had burned down in the Cali fires I wouldn't go beat up an environmentalist. I'd rather burn down a developers home or anyone else who would put their subdivision right on the edge of forest land. It's called suburban sprawl

He's not right, it's not the 'tree huggers' fault. 'Tree huggers' are one of the primary proponents of controlled burns Burns that scrub out all the underbrush, which is the real reason these forest fires start, and they try and keep developments away from the forests. We can't do the controlled burns as often anymore because the forest service's budget has become a favorite place for congress to acquire more pork funding and the logging companies don't want to see prime forest land burn down that they would rather harvest. LUMBER COMPANIES ARE BLOCKING US FROM PROPERLY MANAGING OUR FORESTS AGAINST FOREST FIRES.

If you look at pictures of Scripps ranch, you see it isn't the forests that did it. All the trees are still there, green and growing as they ever were. The rich peoples houses with banned cedar roof tiles are the ones that are burnt to the ground and are currently a smoldering pile. The fire, after getting out of the forest confines, just jumps from house to house like dominoes. Get the houses away from the forests, stop the devestating (to humans) fires.

Forests don't need to be taken care of as a garden does. Dead trees, even a mass of them, are still part of a viable ecosystem and provide habitat for forest animals.

"Black darkened mountains" are fertile ground for new growth. Many trees can only germinate after a fire. Even a fire of this magnitude, is good for the forests.

The birds and flies and frogs and owls will be back when the trees come back, and natural biodiversity among trees is back. That is something you DON'T get when you clearcut and a lumber company only plants one type of tree back or a development or Wal Mart goes in it's place.

Environmentalists are stronger than Michael Reagan and most of us understand the value of a healthy forest. Stop whining Michael Reagan.

Bush's "Healthy Forest Initiative" is an oxymoron. It allows lumber companies to build roads through and clearcut stands of old growth trees and replace them with homogenous saplings. That does not create a healthy forest.

Hey Michael Reagan, how many homes must burn, how many people must lose their valuables, how many lives must be threatened before you foolish bastards learn how to live in harmony with nature? Quit building your homes against a forest because it's picturesque and you want to live with nature. That's the fucking reason this fire turned out the way it did. Because of a few shortsighted fucks how many hundreds of homes were destroyed this week? And you have the goddamned gall to blame this on us? Fuck you.

Review:
Smokey the bear works for the lumber companies, lumber companies have successfully lobbied to stop controlled burn, this includes underbrush clearing

developments that abut our national forests provide a crucial link in the spread of fire, without them connecting the rest of a town to the forest that catches fire, the fire would never threaten a single person's life who was not inside the forest bounds.

Superbelt · 10-30-2003, 11:45 AM

p.s
Fuck you Michael Reagan.

Charlatan · 10-30-2003, 11:47 AM

Thank you for making my reply for me Superbelt.

Superbelt · 10-30-2003, 11:51 AM

You're welcome.

Superbelt · 10-30-2003, 11:54 AM

The real tragedy here is that republican bastards like Reagan and DeLay and Bush will ride this issue as a reason to thin out and cut back our forests, which makes room for new developments to take their place -and thus perpetuates the cycle-

And they are gonna try and win on this because of a situation that their kind of people - their kind of mindset - has created.

Nothing pisses me off more than this kind of blatant horseshit.

eple · 10-30-2003, 11:54 AM

BTW: Utswo and many other Americans on these borads: You need to cut down on the labelling. When I read "greens", I read "enviromentalists", which include me and many of my friends. None of the traits you gave us related too much to reality, so I suggest you cut down on that kind of harsh statements. If you advocate a more detailed view, specify which groups you are talking about. Not "liberals", "dirty hippies" "enviromentalists" etc. It's fucking bullshit. And that counts for those labelling people "conservative" etc as well. Think outside those fucking rigid bs generalizations!

Ustwo · 10-30-2003, 12:13 PM

That or maybe eple you should learn American politics before commenting on them. Its not our job to educate you. If we start to talk about Norway I would not expect to know it all, nor would I expect you to dumb it down for me.

eple · 10-30-2003, 12:19 PM

Well, we are discussing American politics, but this board is open for any nationalities. This should be taken into account when you are using certain loaded terms. What I was adressing was the use of labels and generalizations which are dominating all the debates around here. I realize that I may minsinterpret when I don't know everything about American politics, but I think it is in everybody's interest to try to debate without resorting to name-calling and labelling.

seretogis · 10-30-2003, 12:20 PM

Ustwo capitalized and put single quotes around Green, which makes it pretty obvious that it is a reference to the Green Party, not the color.

Superbelt · 10-30-2003, 12:20 PM

Hey FEL, I need the link to that article so I can spread it around the blogs and educate some more people about this man and his stupidity.

Ustwo · 10-30-2003, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Fuck you Michael Reagan.

Felt it quicker to just post that then your long reply

Always since 'logging' and 'thinning' are dirty words to liberals including the liberal senators, and the law allows ANYONE to halt a forest project like that with a simple stamp asking for a hearing, I blame the 'tree huggers'.

Also if you have ever seen a real forest fire in person, I have, you would know that looking at 'how' it burned is very deceptive. You would have green and happy trees next to totally burned out areas, and no apparent reason why that tree burned and the one next to it is barely singed.

Personally I don't think you know jack about the forests. Since there are homes in forested areas, and you don't want forest fires to burn those homes, then you can take out some of the trees and underbrush. But the 'treehuggers' don't like that, so instead they block it, NOTHING happens and then 'foom' they all go down in a fire and THEN the same people that said 'NO LOGGING" blame the home owners for being there.

Superbelt · 10-30-2003, 12:24 PM

And still, seretogis, all he did was spout lies about what the "Green's" are about.

Quote:

Today 'Green' means anti-technology, anti-progress, anti-people, and for many anti-bathing.

All of it's basically just slander, and plain wrong. Green's are none of these things anymore than "Conservatives" are part of the KKK.

The whole concept of "Green" is to protect nature to support human life. Keeping nature healthy and maintaining a stable environment keeps humans alive and healthy.
That is what a Green is.

Superbelt · 10-30-2003, 12:30 PM

Logging and thinning aren't dirty words. I know we need lumber and paper. But some people go about it the wrong way.

I have seen real forest fires in person, I have participated in setting up controlled burns in my region.

It's easy to tell what tress burn and which ones don't Eucalyptice trees don't burn easily, they are very high in water content.

Some hard wood tree's burn fairly easily, dead trees, including houses burn very easily because of low moisture content.

The reason one section of a forest burns while another is "barely singed" is because that is most likely a different type of tree with high moisture content that prevented it from getting damaged.

Personally I think you know nothing about Forests and forest fires as well. Our difference is you show a lack of knowledge, or unwillingness to admit to why a forest fire does what it does to communities.

Take the link in the chain that connects forests to towns and you have removed the problem 90% of the time. That link is forest abutting developments.

eple · 10-30-2003, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Ustwo capitalized and put single quotes around Green, which makes it pretty obvious that it is a reference to the Green Party, not the color.

In that case, he was just harassing an entire party, and not every enviromentalist, but that doesen't really change things too much. He was still slandering a big group of people in a pretty stupid way. Still a stupid, unneccesary and untrue statement in my book.

When misunderstandings like these occur, please do point it out. I am just glad to learn more, so if anyone cares, feel free to notice me or other stupid foreigners if we misinterpret messages badly

.

Ustwo · 10-30-2003, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
And still, seretogis, all he did was spout lies about what the "Green's" are about.

Sigh, by 'Greens' I ment the ultra-left wing wack job enviromentalists. The kind that tie themselves up in trees and the like, blow up hummers, and burn down housing developments.

I am sorry for the confusion about the Green Party which is a marginal communist style party with some enviromental undertones.

eple · 10-30-2003, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Sigh, by 'Greens' I ment the ultra-left wing wack job enviromentalists. The kind that tie themselves up in trees and the like, blow up a hummers, and burn down housing developments.

Well, as I said, stop using these labels, then you can avoid getting flamed like this. And who cares what you think about a group of people that nobody endorses anyways? If you really meant this incredibly marginal group (and didn't just chicken out), then what was the point of mentioning them at all?

Ustwo · 10-30-2003, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
Well, as I said, stop using these labels, then you can avoid getting flamed like this. And who cares what you think about a group of people that nobody endorses anyways? If you really meant this incredibly marginal group (and didn't just chicken out), then what was the point of mentioning them at all?

Ok you have green as a concept - Worried about the enviroment.
Green as it is really thought of - Dirty hippies and enviro-terrorists
And the Green Party - Commies.

Got it?

Ustwo · 10-30-2003, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt

It's easy to tell what tress burn and which ones don't Eucalyptice trees don't burn easily, they are very high in water content.

Its a great thought, to bad these were all Ponderosa Pines.

Maybe it was a Eucalyptice tree pretending to be a Ponderosa Pine?

eple · 10-30-2003, 12:55 PM

Yes, I get that you are unable to debate without slandering and offending people.

Now you didn't really answer me either. Why did you mention these extreme groups? What had they to do with anything here, did they start a forest fire? As I see it, you made an unneccecary and offending comment, and I think you could be much better off just debating without resorting to that kind of retardedness. I respect your opinions, and will gladly discuss if I feel I have anything to contribute, but I get pretty fed up with this kind of stupid bs.

Superbelt · 10-30-2003, 12:59 PM

Eucalyptice trees are what surrounded and were interspersed in Scripps Ranch, I was using them as an example of trees that were being barraged with flames and still would not burn down. They barely showed any signs of damage after all was said and done.

The ones that survived were Ponderosa Pines? Tell me, what kinds of trees were predominantly the ones that burned down?
Was there any disease or infestation that may have stopped at the line of live trees that you saw?

Food Eater Lad · 10-30-2003, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
And still, seretogis, all he did was spout lies about what the "Green's" are about.

All of it's basically just slander, and plain wrong. Green's are none of these things anymore than "Conservatives" are part of the KKK.

The whole concept of "Green" is to protect nature to support human life. Keeping nature healthy and maintaining a stable environment keeps humans alive and healthy.
That is what a Green is.

Yes you are wrong, the KKK are mostly democrats. Dont believe me, ask David Duke.

Ustwo · 10-30-2003, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt

The ones that survived were Ponderosa Pines? Tell me, what kinds of trees were predominantly the ones that burned down?
Was there any disease or infestation that may have stopped at the line of live trees that you saw?

Most of the trees that burned were Ponderosa pines with some aspen thrown in. As for disease/infestation I can't say, there was not an apparent problem but I didn't take samples either. The destruction was pretty much total, but you would find places with little damage surrounded by areas with major damage. Several homes were lost, none were high priced, most were aluminum siding types with either a wood or occasional tin roof. In some areas the home was left but the forest all around it was gone, in others only a small part of the forest was burned but the home was gone. Some of course was total destruction.

Ustwo · 10-30-2003, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
Yes, I get that you are unable to debate without slandering and offending people.

Now you didn't really answer me either. Why did you mention these extreme groups? What had they to do with anything here, did they start a forest fire? As I see it, you made an unneccecary and offending comment, and I think you could be much better off just debating without resorting to that kind of retardedness. I respect your opinions, and will gladly discuss if I feel I have anything to contribute, but I get pretty fed up with this kind of stupid bs.

Thats great but you don't understand American politics.

With the environment it IS the extreme groups that matter. A simple lawsuit filed by one person can stop a forest project such as a controlled burn or thinning. Its not like these are some nuts who can't do anything, they can be an impediment. I've tried to deal with these people and stand by my opinion of them. Its not slander is a sad truth.

These wacky fringe groups tend to vote for the Democratic party in this country and as such the democrats cater to them. In the 2000 election many of them switched over to the green party, which is a reason why Gore lost the election, (hence the pandering). It is amusing watching the Green Party try to avoid blame for it, they have their own explanation of it on the Green Party website.

Superbelt · 10-30-2003, 01:27 PM

FEL, cough up that link already. I need it.

RAGEAngel9 · 10-30-2003, 01:27 PM

I think you're all missing one very important point...
[q] Mike Reagan, the eldest son of President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Premiere Radio Network. Comments to mereagan@hotmail.com for Mike.[/q]

How can anyone as big as he sounds be using fucking Hotmail for his email????
I mean wtf? 200 radio stations and he uses free email? Hell even if he uses the pay version, it's still hotmail.

ohyeah green stuff... um
Tress good, clear cutting bad.
Hippies dirty, neo conservatives annoying.
This whole thread = lame.

Food Eater Lad · 10-30-2003, 01:30 PM

I love the personal attacks and no real information. Very poor tactics there Rage Angel.

Food Eater Lad · 10-30-2003, 01:32 PM

There is no link, thats the whole thing. The whole article. Cut and paste it you must. Nothing is missing. Or you can google search "Making Sense" if you want to put some effort into it.

Food Eater Lad · 10-30-2003, 01:37 PM

http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/ok...agan072203.htm

Here is another article by Him, with a harsher tone for envirnmentalists. feel free to read the rest of website all about how Environmentalists have caused Oregon to have the highest rate of unemployment in the nation.

RAGEAngel9 · 10-30-2003, 01:46 PM

FEL
Blah blah blah. Like the rest of all political arguements, nothing will be solved. So I decided to insult as many sides as possible. I was pretty fair and balanced.

Even though I joked about it, it is interesting that a man of Regan's um statue wouldn't have his own domain or work for some company.

seretogis · 10-30-2003, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RAGEAngel9
Even though I joked about it, it is interesting that a man of Regan's um statue wouldn't have his own domain or work for some company.

I think you mean "stature", and his hotmail account is most likely the spam-and-hate-mail-filtering account. I would never give my real email address to the world if I had a nationally syndicated radio show.

RAGEAngel9 · 10-30-2003, 02:06 PM

Yeah stature would be what I was looking. I will always be the first to admit me vocab and spelling are bad. (Here's to engineering)

Yeah it could be a spam and crap email, but still most of the time, the address they post in articles is that address from the company for spam and crap. Whatever guess it doesn't really matter anyway.

eple · 10-30-2003, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Thats great but you don't understand American politics.

With the environment it IS the extreme groups that matter. A simple lawsuit filed by one person can stop a forest project such as a controlled burn or thinning. Its not like these are some nuts who can't do anything, they can be an impediment. I've tried to deal with these people and stand by my opinion of them. Its not slander is a sad truth.

These wacky fringe groups tend to vote for the Democratic party in this country and as such the democrats cater to them. In the 2000 election many of them switched over to the green party, which is a reason why Gore lost the election, (hence the pandering). It is amusing watching the Green Party try to avoid blame for it, they have their own explanation of it on the Green Party website.

Why thank you for giving me your side of the story. I don't know too much about extreme enviromentalist forces in the US (it seems you seriously need some proper enviromentalist organizations). I will probably look this up later from other sources.

I don't really see the problem with people stopping projects that can't be defended in court tough...

And sorry for the anger, call it a cultural crash if you like....i would like to know more about these groups later on, and I am afraid I can't take your word all too seriously, as I suspect that we might have pretty different views on these things...

Who knows, it is California, they voted for Arnold, maybe even the enviromentalists are nutjobs.

filtherton · 10-30-2003, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Now where is the spotted owl going to nest? Now where are the birds and the flies and the frogs going to live.

Look, mr. reagan is pretending he cares about all the pretty animals.

This whole article is a troll. The man isn't an expert. He also can't really pretend to be evenhanded. He presents no facts, just blames everything on the environmentalists. Surely industry, or dry weather, or arson have something to do with these fires too. No substance at all. If everything is really the fault of the environmentalists at least he could dig up some sort of factual evidence to back it up.

10-30-2003, 10:48 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I think of myself is 'green' and I'm an evil republican (not to be confused with the green party which is communist). Basically its common sense and an understanding of the environment. Most 'Greens' lack both. Today 'Green' means anti-technology, anti-progress, anti-people, and for many anti-bathing. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-30-2003, 11:03 AM	#3 (permalink)
Redlemon Devoted Donor Location: New England	Damn straight... if we had just eliminated all trees, there wouldn't be anything to catch fire! __________________ I can't read your signature. Sorry.

10-30-2003, 11:40 AM	#6 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	eple not all 'green' groups are 'Greens' If yours is good thats great, but I doubt you are the 'dirty hippie' types protesting everything, and damaging property. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-30-2003, 11:40 AM	#7 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Ahh, nothing interesting there. We can't manage the potholes in our roads, how could we manage millions of acres efficiently? __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

10-30-2003, 11:47 AM	#10 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Thank you for making my reply for me Superbelt. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

10-30-2003, 11:16 AM	#4 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Redlemon, I hope your joking.

10-30-2003, 11:41 AM	#8 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I'd like to shove a bat down Michael Reagans throat. This is a reply strictly to the article. If my house had burned down in the Cali fires I wouldn't go beat up an environmentalist. I'd rather burn down a developers home or anyone else who would put their subdivision right on the edge of forest land. It's called suburban sprawl He's not right, it's not the 'tree huggers' fault. 'Tree huggers' are one of the primary proponents of controlled burns Burns that scrub out all the underbrush, which is the real reason these forest fires start, and they try and keep developments away from the forests. We can't do the controlled burns as often anymore because the forest service's budget has become a favorite place for congress to acquire more pork funding and the logging companies don't want to see prime forest land burn down that they would rather harvest. LUMBER COMPANIES ARE BLOCKING US FROM PROPERLY MANAGING OUR FORESTS AGAINST FOREST FIRES. If you look at pictures of Scripps ranch, you see it isn't the forests that did it. All the trees are still there, green and growing as they ever were. The rich peoples houses with banned cedar roof tiles are the ones that are burnt to the ground and are currently a smoldering pile. The fire, after getting out of the forest confines, just jumps from house to house like dominoes. Get the houses away from the forests, stop the devestating (to humans) fires. Forests don't need to be taken care of as a garden does. Dead trees, even a mass of them, are still part of a viable ecosystem and provide habitat for forest animals. "Black darkened mountains" are fertile ground for new growth. Many trees can only germinate after a fire. Even a fire of this magnitude, is good for the forests. The birds and flies and frogs and owls will be back when the trees come back, and natural biodiversity among trees is back. That is something you DON'T get when you clearcut and a lumber company only plants one type of tree back or a development or Wal Mart goes in it's place. Environmentalists are stronger than Michael Reagan and most of us understand the value of a healthy forest. Stop whining Michael Reagan. Bush's "Healthy Forest Initiative" is an oxymoron. It allows lumber companies to build roads through and clearcut stands of old growth trees and replace them with homogenous saplings. That does not create a healthy forest. Hey Michael Reagan, how many homes must burn, how many people must lose their valuables, how many lives must be threatened before you foolish bastards learn how to live in harmony with nature? Quit building your homes against a forest because it's picturesque and you want to live with nature. That's the fucking reason this fire turned out the way it did. Because of a few shortsighted fucks how many hundreds of homes were destroyed this week? And you have the goddamned gall to blame this on us? Fuck you. Review: Smokey the bear works for the lumber companies, lumber companies have successfully lobbied to stop controlled burn, this includes underbrush clearing developments that abut our national forests provide a crucial link in the spread of fire, without them connecting the rest of a town to the forest that catches fire, the fire would never threaten a single person's life who was not inside the forest bounds.

10-30-2003, 11:45 AM	#9 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	p.s Fuck you Michael Reagan.

10-30-2003, 11:51 AM	#11 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	You're welcome.

10-30-2003, 11:54 AM	#12 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	The real tragedy here is that republican bastards like Reagan and DeLay and Bush will ride this issue as a reason to thin out and cut back our forests, which makes room for new developments to take their place -and thus perpetuates the cycle- And they are gonna try and win on this because of a situation that their kind of people - their kind of mindset - has created. Nothing pisses me off more than this kind of blatant horseshit.

10-30-2003, 11:54 AM	#13 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	BTW: Utswo and many other Americans on these borads: You need to cut down on the labelling. When I read "greens", I read "enviromentalists", which include me and many of my friends. None of the traits you gave us related too much to reality, so I suggest you cut down on that kind of harsh statements. If you advocate a more detailed view, specify which groups you are talking about. Not "liberals", "dirty hippies" "enviromentalists" etc. It's fucking bullshit. And that counts for those labelling people "conservative" etc as well. Think outside those fucking rigid bs generalizations!

10-30-2003, 12:13 PM	#14 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	That or maybe eple you should learn American politics before commenting on them. Its not our job to educate you. If we start to talk about Norway I would not expect to know it all, nor would I expect you to dumb it down for me. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-30-2003, 12:19 PM	#15 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Well, we are discussing American politics, but this board is open for any nationalities. This should be taken into account when you are using certain loaded terms. What I was adressing was the use of labels and generalizations which are dominating all the debates around here. I realize that I may minsinterpret when I don't know everything about American politics, but I think it is in everybody's interest to try to debate without resorting to name-calling and labelling.

10-30-2003, 12:20 PM	#16 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	Ustwo capitalized and put single quotes around Green, which makes it pretty obvious that it is a reference to the Green Party, not the color. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

10-30-2003, 12:20 PM	#17 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Hey FEL, I need the link to that article so I can spread it around the blogs and educate some more people about this man and his stupidity.

10-30-2003, 12:30 PM	#20 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Logging and thinning aren't dirty words. I know we need lumber and paper. But some people go about it the wrong way. I have seen real forest fires in person, I have participated in setting up controlled burns in my region. It's easy to tell what tress burn and which ones don't Eucalyptice trees don't burn easily, they are very high in water content. Some hard wood tree's burn fairly easily, dead trees, including houses burn very easily because of low moisture content. The reason one section of a forest burns while another is "barely singed" is because that is most likely a different type of tree with high moisture content that prevented it from getting damaged. Personally I think you know nothing about Forests and forest fires as well. Our difference is you show a lack of knowledge, or unwillingness to admit to why a forest fire does what it does to communities. Take the link in the chain that connects forests to towns and you have removed the problem 90% of the time. That link is forest abutting developments.

10-30-2003, 12:55 PM	#26 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Yes, I get that you are unable to debate without slandering and offending people. Now you didn't really answer me either. Why did you mention these extreme groups? What had they to do with anything here, did they start a forest fire? As I see it, you made an unneccecary and offending comment, and I think you could be much better off just debating without resorting to that kind of retardedness. I respect your opinions, and will gladly discuss if I feel I have anything to contribute, but I get pretty fed up with this kind of stupid bs.

10-30-2003, 12:59 PM	#27 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Eucalyptice trees are what surrounded and were interspersed in Scripps Ranch, I was using them as an example of trees that were being barraged with flames and still would not burn down. They barely showed any signs of damage after all was said and done. The ones that survived were Ponderosa Pines? Tell me, what kinds of trees were predominantly the ones that burned down? Was there any disease or infestation that may have stopped at the line of live trees that you saw?

10-30-2003, 01:27 PM	#31 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	FEL, cough up that link already. I need it.

10-30-2003, 01:27 PM	#32 (permalink)
RAGEAngel9 Insane Location: Vermont	I think you're all missing one very important point... [q] Mike Reagan, the eldest son of President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Premiere Radio Network. Comments to mereagan@hotmail.com for Mike.[/q] How can anyone as big as he sounds be using fucking Hotmail for his email???? I mean wtf? 200 radio stations and he uses free email? Hell even if he uses the pay version, it's still hotmail. ohyeah green stuff... um Tress good, clear cutting bad. Hippies dirty, neo conservatives annoying. This whole thread = lame.

10-30-2003, 01:30 PM	#33 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	I love the personal attacks and no real information. Very poor tactics there Rage Angel.

10-30-2003, 01:32 PM	#34 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	There is no link, thats the whole thing. The whole article. Cut and paste it you must. Nothing is missing. Or you can google search "Making Sense" if you want to put some effort into it.

10-30-2003, 01:37 PM	#35 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/ok...agan072203.htm Here is another article by Him, with a harsher tone for envirnmentalists. feel free to read the rest of website all about how Environmentalists have caused Oregon to have the highest rate of unemployment in the nation.

10-30-2003, 01:46 PM	#36 (permalink)
RAGEAngel9 Insane Location: Vermont	FEL Blah blah blah. Like the rest of all political arguements, nothing will be solved. So I decided to insult as many sides as possible. I was pretty fair and balanced. Even though I joked about it, it is interesting that a man of Regan's um statue wouldn't have his own domain or work for some company.

10-30-2003, 02:06 PM	#38 (permalink)
RAGEAngel9 Insane Location: Vermont	Yeah stature would be what I was looking. I will always be the first to admit me vocab and spelling are bad. (Here's to engineering) Yeah it could be a spam and crap email, but still most of the time, the address they post in articles is that address from the company for spam and crap. Whatever guess it doesn't really matter anyway.