Trail(er) trash
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash
dan wrote:
> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>
>> Ahh the left doesn't pander to greed so that's why they've created all
>> these government handout programs?
>
>
> Exactly. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out why.
> HINT: examine the targets of the left's vs. the right's largess.
>
>> Is that why they go into absolute hysterical hissy fits when anyone
>> suggests doing anything to fix the Social Security debacle?
>
>
> Never seen this phenomenon. I DO notice that leftists do go into
> hysterics whenever REPUBLICANS introduce legislation claiming it will
> "fix" Social Security when the actual effect will be the destruction of
> SS, while divvying up the existing spoils amongst Republican donors...
You need to get out more <G>.
There have been a number of plans to do something about SS, but the
lefties always start bleating about how it's going to cut the benefits
of the poor old people (and invariably whatever the plan is does no such
thing, and doesn't effect current recipients at all). Fact of the
matter is that SS is basically a Ponzi scheme and while it CAN'T be
fixed, it can be turned into something that makes economic sense.
>
>> While both sides do it the left has done an exceptionally good job of
>> learning the lesson "He who robs Peter to pay Paul can be certain of
>> the support of Paul".
>
>
> Funny, I thought that was the operating philosophy of the Republican
> Party, with the proviso that Paul has more money than Peter to start
> with...
No, you have it backwards, that's the Democrat's philosophy, they always
want to raise taxes on the "evil rich" to give more to the "poor" (in
other words take money from one group to buy votes from the other.
Jeff DeWitt
>
> Dan
>
>> Jeff DeWitt
>>
>> R. Lander wrote:
>>
>>> billy ray wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> You may have something there.
>>>>
>>>> If the liberals and Demoncrats could keep their pants zipped the
>>>> population
>>>> would drop severely and decent people might again populate the earth.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> People with low IQs on both fringes should go the www.vhemt.org route.
>>> But the far-Right is worse than the far-Left because they get elected
>>> more often. Why? Because most people are greedy and the Right is all
>>> about pandering to greed. They created the Me Generation without really
>>> acknowledging it. Having respect for nature is the antithesis of greed,
>>> hence the strong correlation between Republican "values" and
>>> anti-environmentalism.
>>>
>>> R. Lander
>>>
> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>
>> Ahh the left doesn't pander to greed so that's why they've created all
>> these government handout programs?
>
>
> Exactly. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out why.
> HINT: examine the targets of the left's vs. the right's largess.
>
>> Is that why they go into absolute hysterical hissy fits when anyone
>> suggests doing anything to fix the Social Security debacle?
>
>
> Never seen this phenomenon. I DO notice that leftists do go into
> hysterics whenever REPUBLICANS introduce legislation claiming it will
> "fix" Social Security when the actual effect will be the destruction of
> SS, while divvying up the existing spoils amongst Republican donors...
You need to get out more <G>.
There have been a number of plans to do something about SS, but the
lefties always start bleating about how it's going to cut the benefits
of the poor old people (and invariably whatever the plan is does no such
thing, and doesn't effect current recipients at all). Fact of the
matter is that SS is basically a Ponzi scheme and while it CAN'T be
fixed, it can be turned into something that makes economic sense.
>
>> While both sides do it the left has done an exceptionally good job of
>> learning the lesson "He who robs Peter to pay Paul can be certain of
>> the support of Paul".
>
>
> Funny, I thought that was the operating philosophy of the Republican
> Party, with the proviso that Paul has more money than Peter to start
> with...
No, you have it backwards, that's the Democrat's philosophy, they always
want to raise taxes on the "evil rich" to give more to the "poor" (in
other words take money from one group to buy votes from the other.
Jeff DeWitt
>
> Dan
>
>> Jeff DeWitt
>>
>> R. Lander wrote:
>>
>>> billy ray wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> You may have something there.
>>>>
>>>> If the liberals and Demoncrats could keep their pants zipped the
>>>> population
>>>> would drop severely and decent people might again populate the earth.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> People with low IQs on both fringes should go the www.vhemt.org route.
>>> But the far-Right is worse than the far-Left because they get elected
>>> more often. Why? Because most people are greedy and the Right is all
>>> about pandering to greed. They created the Me Generation without really
>>> acknowledging it. Having respect for nature is the antithesis of greed,
>>> hence the strong correlation between Republican "values" and
>>> anti-environmentalism.
>>>
>>> R. Lander
>>>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Human footprint maps (was: Trail(er) trash)
Mike, I've been called an ------- before, but it has little to do with my
hiking. Usually, people like it when I go hiking for a few days. ;^)
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4481BD27.3ED891F8@sympatico.ca...
> Who said anything about demanding more roads? You are as bad as
> Vandeman for making up BS. Folks just want the existing roads or trails
> protected for 'all' users, not just the elite ******** of the hiking
> community. You are one, (an -------) that is so by your logic all
> hikers are ********....
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
>
> "R. Lander" wrote:
> >
> > This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
> > tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
> > indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
> > ecologically.
> >
> > http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
> >
> > That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
> > or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
> > unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
> > grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
> > support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
> > use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
> > sustain dense cities.
> >
> > Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
> > been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
> > industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
> > an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
> > need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
> > control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
> > the land.
> >
> > Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
> > Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
> > need help from the off-road lobby.
> >
> > http://www.mongabay.com/images/exter...-11-30_wcs.jpg
> >
> > R. Lander
hiking. Usually, people like it when I go hiking for a few days. ;^)
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4481BD27.3ED891F8@sympatico.ca...
> Who said anything about demanding more roads? You are as bad as
> Vandeman for making up BS. Folks just want the existing roads or trails
> protected for 'all' users, not just the elite ******** of the hiking
> community. You are one, (an -------) that is so by your logic all
> hikers are ********....
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
>
> "R. Lander" wrote:
> >
> > This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
> > tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
> > indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
> > ecologically.
> >
> > http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
> >
> > That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
> > or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
> > unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
> > grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
> > support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
> > use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
> > sustain dense cities.
> >
> > Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
> > been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
> > industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
> > an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
> > need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
> > control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
> > the land.
> >
> > Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
> > Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
> > need help from the off-road lobby.
> >
> > http://www.mongabay.com/images/exter...-11-30_wcs.jpg
> >
> > R. Lander
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Human footprint maps (was: Trail(er) trash)
Mike, I've been called an ------- before, but it has little to do with my
hiking. Usually, people like it when I go hiking for a few days. ;^)
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4481BD27.3ED891F8@sympatico.ca...
> Who said anything about demanding more roads? You are as bad as
> Vandeman for making up BS. Folks just want the existing roads or trails
> protected for 'all' users, not just the elite ******** of the hiking
> community. You are one, (an -------) that is so by your logic all
> hikers are ********....
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
>
> "R. Lander" wrote:
> >
> > This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
> > tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
> > indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
> > ecologically.
> >
> > http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
> >
> > That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
> > or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
> > unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
> > grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
> > support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
> > use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
> > sustain dense cities.
> >
> > Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
> > been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
> > industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
> > an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
> > need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
> > control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
> > the land.
> >
> > Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
> > Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
> > need help from the off-road lobby.
> >
> > http://www.mongabay.com/images/exter...-11-30_wcs.jpg
> >
> > R. Lander
hiking. Usually, people like it when I go hiking for a few days. ;^)
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4481BD27.3ED891F8@sympatico.ca...
> Who said anything about demanding more roads? You are as bad as
> Vandeman for making up BS. Folks just want the existing roads or trails
> protected for 'all' users, not just the elite ******** of the hiking
> community. You are one, (an -------) that is so by your logic all
> hikers are ********....
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
>
> "R. Lander" wrote:
> >
> > This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
> > tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
> > indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
> > ecologically.
> >
> > http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
> >
> > That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
> > or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
> > unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
> > grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
> > support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
> > use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
> > sustain dense cities.
> >
> > Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
> > been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
> > industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
> > an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
> > need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
> > control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
> > the land.
> >
> > Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
> > Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
> > need help from the off-road lobby.
> >
> > http://www.mongabay.com/images/exter...-11-30_wcs.jpg
> >
> > R. Lander
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Human footprint maps (was: Trail(er) trash)
Mike, I've been called an ------- before, but it has little to do with my
hiking. Usually, people like it when I go hiking for a few days. ;^)
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4481BD27.3ED891F8@sympatico.ca...
> Who said anything about demanding more roads? You are as bad as
> Vandeman for making up BS. Folks just want the existing roads or trails
> protected for 'all' users, not just the elite ******** of the hiking
> community. You are one, (an -------) that is so by your logic all
> hikers are ********....
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
>
> "R. Lander" wrote:
> >
> > This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
> > tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
> > indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
> > ecologically.
> >
> > http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
> >
> > That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
> > or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
> > unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
> > grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
> > support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
> > use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
> > sustain dense cities.
> >
> > Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
> > been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
> > industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
> > an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
> > need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
> > control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
> > the land.
> >
> > Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
> > Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
> > need help from the off-road lobby.
> >
> > http://www.mongabay.com/images/exter...-11-30_wcs.jpg
> >
> > R. Lander
hiking. Usually, people like it when I go hiking for a few days. ;^)
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4481BD27.3ED891F8@sympatico.ca...
> Who said anything about demanding more roads? You are as bad as
> Vandeman for making up BS. Folks just want the existing roads or trails
> protected for 'all' users, not just the elite ******** of the hiking
> community. You are one, (an -------) that is so by your logic all
> hikers are ********....
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
>
> "R. Lander" wrote:
> >
> > This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
> > tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
> > indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
> > ecologically.
> >
> > http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
> >
> > That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
> > or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
> > unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
> > grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
> > support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
> > use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
> > sustain dense cities.
> >
> > Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
> > been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
> > industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
> > an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
> > need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
> > control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
> > the land.
> >
> > Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
> > Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
> > need help from the off-road lobby.
> >
> > http://www.mongabay.com/images/exter...-11-30_wcs.jpg
> >
> > R. Lander
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash
Social Security wasn't always a Ponzi scheme. A president from what party
was responsible?
Bonus points for why he spent the cash..
"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4kmgg.19479$JW5.18828@southeast.rr.com...
> dan wrote:
>> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>>
>>> Ahh the left doesn't pander to greed so that's why they've created all
>>> these government handout programs?
>>
>>
>> Exactly. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out why.
>> HINT: examine the targets of the left's vs. the right's largess.
>>
>>> Is that why they go into absolute hysterical hissy fits when anyone
>>> suggests doing anything to fix the Social Security debacle?
>>
>>
>> Never seen this phenomenon. I DO notice that leftists do go into
>> hysterics whenever REPUBLICANS introduce legislation claiming it will
>> "fix" Social Security when the actual effect will be the destruction of
>> SS, while divvying up the existing spoils amongst Republican donors...
>
> You need to get out more <G>.
>
> There have been a number of plans to do something about SS, but the
> lefties always start bleating about how it's going to cut the benefits of
> the poor old people (and invariably whatever the plan is does no such
> thing, and doesn't effect current recipients at all). Fact of the matter
> is that SS is basically a Ponzi scheme and while it CAN'T be fixed, it can
> be turned into something that makes economic sense.
>>
>>> While both sides do it the left has done an exceptionally good job of
>>> learning the lesson "He who robs Peter to pay Paul can be certain of the
>>> support of Paul".
>>
>>
>> Funny, I thought that was the operating philosophy of the Republican
>> Party, with the proviso that Paul has more money than Peter to start
>> with...
>
> No, you have it backwards, that's the Democrat's philosophy, they always
> want to raise taxes on the "evil rich" to give more to the "poor" (in
> other words take money from one group to buy votes from the other.
>
> Jeff DeWitt
>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>> Jeff DeWitt
>>>
>>> R. Lander wrote:
>>>
>>>> billy ray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You may have something there.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the liberals and Demoncrats could keep their pants zipped the
>>>>> population
>>>>> would drop severely and decent people might again populate the earth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People with low IQs on both fringes should go the www.vhemt.org route.
>>>> But the far-Right is worse than the far-Left because they get elected
>>>> more often. Why? Because most people are greedy and the Right is all
>>>> about pandering to greed. They created the Me Generation without really
>>>> acknowledging it. Having respect for nature is the antithesis of greed,
>>>> hence the strong correlation between Republican "values" and
>>>> anti-environmentalism.
>>>>
>>>> R. Lander
>>>>
was responsible?
Bonus points for why he spent the cash..
"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4kmgg.19479$JW5.18828@southeast.rr.com...
> dan wrote:
>> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>>
>>> Ahh the left doesn't pander to greed so that's why they've created all
>>> these government handout programs?
>>
>>
>> Exactly. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out why.
>> HINT: examine the targets of the left's vs. the right's largess.
>>
>>> Is that why they go into absolute hysterical hissy fits when anyone
>>> suggests doing anything to fix the Social Security debacle?
>>
>>
>> Never seen this phenomenon. I DO notice that leftists do go into
>> hysterics whenever REPUBLICANS introduce legislation claiming it will
>> "fix" Social Security when the actual effect will be the destruction of
>> SS, while divvying up the existing spoils amongst Republican donors...
>
> You need to get out more <G>.
>
> There have been a number of plans to do something about SS, but the
> lefties always start bleating about how it's going to cut the benefits of
> the poor old people (and invariably whatever the plan is does no such
> thing, and doesn't effect current recipients at all). Fact of the matter
> is that SS is basically a Ponzi scheme and while it CAN'T be fixed, it can
> be turned into something that makes economic sense.
>>
>>> While both sides do it the left has done an exceptionally good job of
>>> learning the lesson "He who robs Peter to pay Paul can be certain of the
>>> support of Paul".
>>
>>
>> Funny, I thought that was the operating philosophy of the Republican
>> Party, with the proviso that Paul has more money than Peter to start
>> with...
>
> No, you have it backwards, that's the Democrat's philosophy, they always
> want to raise taxes on the "evil rich" to give more to the "poor" (in
> other words take money from one group to buy votes from the other.
>
> Jeff DeWitt
>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>> Jeff DeWitt
>>>
>>> R. Lander wrote:
>>>
>>>> billy ray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You may have something there.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the liberals and Demoncrats could keep their pants zipped the
>>>>> population
>>>>> would drop severely and decent people might again populate the earth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People with low IQs on both fringes should go the www.vhemt.org route.
>>>> But the far-Right is worse than the far-Left because they get elected
>>>> more often. Why? Because most people are greedy and the Right is all
>>>> about pandering to greed. They created the Me Generation without really
>>>> acknowledging it. Having respect for nature is the antithesis of greed,
>>>> hence the strong correlation between Republican "values" and
>>>> anti-environmentalism.
>>>>
>>>> R. Lander
>>>>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash
Social Security wasn't always a Ponzi scheme. A president from what party
was responsible?
Bonus points for why he spent the cash..
"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4kmgg.19479$JW5.18828@southeast.rr.com...
> dan wrote:
>> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>>
>>> Ahh the left doesn't pander to greed so that's why they've created all
>>> these government handout programs?
>>
>>
>> Exactly. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out why.
>> HINT: examine the targets of the left's vs. the right's largess.
>>
>>> Is that why they go into absolute hysterical hissy fits when anyone
>>> suggests doing anything to fix the Social Security debacle?
>>
>>
>> Never seen this phenomenon. I DO notice that leftists do go into
>> hysterics whenever REPUBLICANS introduce legislation claiming it will
>> "fix" Social Security when the actual effect will be the destruction of
>> SS, while divvying up the existing spoils amongst Republican donors...
>
> You need to get out more <G>.
>
> There have been a number of plans to do something about SS, but the
> lefties always start bleating about how it's going to cut the benefits of
> the poor old people (and invariably whatever the plan is does no such
> thing, and doesn't effect current recipients at all). Fact of the matter
> is that SS is basically a Ponzi scheme and while it CAN'T be fixed, it can
> be turned into something that makes economic sense.
>>
>>> While both sides do it the left has done an exceptionally good job of
>>> learning the lesson "He who robs Peter to pay Paul can be certain of the
>>> support of Paul".
>>
>>
>> Funny, I thought that was the operating philosophy of the Republican
>> Party, with the proviso that Paul has more money than Peter to start
>> with...
>
> No, you have it backwards, that's the Democrat's philosophy, they always
> want to raise taxes on the "evil rich" to give more to the "poor" (in
> other words take money from one group to buy votes from the other.
>
> Jeff DeWitt
>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>> Jeff DeWitt
>>>
>>> R. Lander wrote:
>>>
>>>> billy ray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You may have something there.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the liberals and Demoncrats could keep their pants zipped the
>>>>> population
>>>>> would drop severely and decent people might again populate the earth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People with low IQs on both fringes should go the www.vhemt.org route.
>>>> But the far-Right is worse than the far-Left because they get elected
>>>> more often. Why? Because most people are greedy and the Right is all
>>>> about pandering to greed. They created the Me Generation without really
>>>> acknowledging it. Having respect for nature is the antithesis of greed,
>>>> hence the strong correlation between Republican "values" and
>>>> anti-environmentalism.
>>>>
>>>> R. Lander
>>>>
was responsible?
Bonus points for why he spent the cash..
"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4kmgg.19479$JW5.18828@southeast.rr.com...
> dan wrote:
>> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>>
>>> Ahh the left doesn't pander to greed so that's why they've created all
>>> these government handout programs?
>>
>>
>> Exactly. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out why.
>> HINT: examine the targets of the left's vs. the right's largess.
>>
>>> Is that why they go into absolute hysterical hissy fits when anyone
>>> suggests doing anything to fix the Social Security debacle?
>>
>>
>> Never seen this phenomenon. I DO notice that leftists do go into
>> hysterics whenever REPUBLICANS introduce legislation claiming it will
>> "fix" Social Security when the actual effect will be the destruction of
>> SS, while divvying up the existing spoils amongst Republican donors...
>
> You need to get out more <G>.
>
> There have been a number of plans to do something about SS, but the
> lefties always start bleating about how it's going to cut the benefits of
> the poor old people (and invariably whatever the plan is does no such
> thing, and doesn't effect current recipients at all). Fact of the matter
> is that SS is basically a Ponzi scheme and while it CAN'T be fixed, it can
> be turned into something that makes economic sense.
>>
>>> While both sides do it the left has done an exceptionally good job of
>>> learning the lesson "He who robs Peter to pay Paul can be certain of the
>>> support of Paul".
>>
>>
>> Funny, I thought that was the operating philosophy of the Republican
>> Party, with the proviso that Paul has more money than Peter to start
>> with...
>
> No, you have it backwards, that's the Democrat's philosophy, they always
> want to raise taxes on the "evil rich" to give more to the "poor" (in
> other words take money from one group to buy votes from the other.
>
> Jeff DeWitt
>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>> Jeff DeWitt
>>>
>>> R. Lander wrote:
>>>
>>>> billy ray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You may have something there.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the liberals and Demoncrats could keep their pants zipped the
>>>>> population
>>>>> would drop severely and decent people might again populate the earth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People with low IQs on both fringes should go the www.vhemt.org route.
>>>> But the far-Right is worse than the far-Left because they get elected
>>>> more often. Why? Because most people are greedy and the Right is all
>>>> about pandering to greed. They created the Me Generation without really
>>>> acknowledging it. Having respect for nature is the antithesis of greed,
>>>> hence the strong correlation between Republican "values" and
>>>> anti-environmentalism.
>>>>
>>>> R. Lander
>>>>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash
Social Security wasn't always a Ponzi scheme. A president from what party
was responsible?
Bonus points for why he spent the cash..
"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4kmgg.19479$JW5.18828@southeast.rr.com...
> dan wrote:
>> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>>
>>> Ahh the left doesn't pander to greed so that's why they've created all
>>> these government handout programs?
>>
>>
>> Exactly. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out why.
>> HINT: examine the targets of the left's vs. the right's largess.
>>
>>> Is that why they go into absolute hysterical hissy fits when anyone
>>> suggests doing anything to fix the Social Security debacle?
>>
>>
>> Never seen this phenomenon. I DO notice that leftists do go into
>> hysterics whenever REPUBLICANS introduce legislation claiming it will
>> "fix" Social Security when the actual effect will be the destruction of
>> SS, while divvying up the existing spoils amongst Republican donors...
>
> You need to get out more <G>.
>
> There have been a number of plans to do something about SS, but the
> lefties always start bleating about how it's going to cut the benefits of
> the poor old people (and invariably whatever the plan is does no such
> thing, and doesn't effect current recipients at all). Fact of the matter
> is that SS is basically a Ponzi scheme and while it CAN'T be fixed, it can
> be turned into something that makes economic sense.
>>
>>> While both sides do it the left has done an exceptionally good job of
>>> learning the lesson "He who robs Peter to pay Paul can be certain of the
>>> support of Paul".
>>
>>
>> Funny, I thought that was the operating philosophy of the Republican
>> Party, with the proviso that Paul has more money than Peter to start
>> with...
>
> No, you have it backwards, that's the Democrat's philosophy, they always
> want to raise taxes on the "evil rich" to give more to the "poor" (in
> other words take money from one group to buy votes from the other.
>
> Jeff DeWitt
>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>> Jeff DeWitt
>>>
>>> R. Lander wrote:
>>>
>>>> billy ray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You may have something there.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the liberals and Demoncrats could keep their pants zipped the
>>>>> population
>>>>> would drop severely and decent people might again populate the earth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People with low IQs on both fringes should go the www.vhemt.org route.
>>>> But the far-Right is worse than the far-Left because they get elected
>>>> more often. Why? Because most people are greedy and the Right is all
>>>> about pandering to greed. They created the Me Generation without really
>>>> acknowledging it. Having respect for nature is the antithesis of greed,
>>>> hence the strong correlation between Republican "values" and
>>>> anti-environmentalism.
>>>>
>>>> R. Lander
>>>>
was responsible?
Bonus points for why he spent the cash..
"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4kmgg.19479$JW5.18828@southeast.rr.com...
> dan wrote:
>> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>>
>>> Ahh the left doesn't pander to greed so that's why they've created all
>>> these government handout programs?
>>
>>
>> Exactly. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out why.
>> HINT: examine the targets of the left's vs. the right's largess.
>>
>>> Is that why they go into absolute hysterical hissy fits when anyone
>>> suggests doing anything to fix the Social Security debacle?
>>
>>
>> Never seen this phenomenon. I DO notice that leftists do go into
>> hysterics whenever REPUBLICANS introduce legislation claiming it will
>> "fix" Social Security when the actual effect will be the destruction of
>> SS, while divvying up the existing spoils amongst Republican donors...
>
> You need to get out more <G>.
>
> There have been a number of plans to do something about SS, but the
> lefties always start bleating about how it's going to cut the benefits of
> the poor old people (and invariably whatever the plan is does no such
> thing, and doesn't effect current recipients at all). Fact of the matter
> is that SS is basically a Ponzi scheme and while it CAN'T be fixed, it can
> be turned into something that makes economic sense.
>>
>>> While both sides do it the left has done an exceptionally good job of
>>> learning the lesson "He who robs Peter to pay Paul can be certain of the
>>> support of Paul".
>>
>>
>> Funny, I thought that was the operating philosophy of the Republican
>> Party, with the proviso that Paul has more money than Peter to start
>> with...
>
> No, you have it backwards, that's the Democrat's philosophy, they always
> want to raise taxes on the "evil rich" to give more to the "poor" (in
> other words take money from one group to buy votes from the other.
>
> Jeff DeWitt
>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>> Jeff DeWitt
>>>
>>> R. Lander wrote:
>>>
>>>> billy ray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You may have something there.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the liberals and Demoncrats could keep their pants zipped the
>>>>> population
>>>>> would drop severely and decent people might again populate the earth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People with low IQs on both fringes should go the www.vhemt.org route.
>>>> But the far-Right is worse than the far-Left because they get elected
>>>> more often. Why? Because most people are greedy and the Right is all
>>>> about pandering to greed. They created the Me Generation without really
>>>> acknowledging it. Having respect for nature is the antithesis of greed,
>>>> hence the strong correlation between Republican "values" and
>>>> anti-environmentalism.
>>>>
>>>> R. Lander
>>>>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash and Nature *****
Earle Horton proclaimed:
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:_ZydnZDzes2tZx3ZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>>C. E. White proclaimed:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Believe what you will, it happens all the time. Usually I only see the
>>>results (tracks cut in paths and fields), but occasionally one of the
>>>geniuses gets stuck. I've found trucks buried up to the axles, laying on
>>>the sides in the ditches, sitting across ditches, or just not running.
>>>I've tried asking the Sheriff for help - what a joke!
>>
>>Name of Sheriff, name of community?
>>
>>I'm not calling you a liar, but trespass is trespass.
>
>
> Lon,
>
> I am not a lawyer, but there is a difference between civil trespass and
> criminal trespass. There are statutory guidelines and case law particular
> to every jurisdiction, but in most cases the difference involves
> "prosecutorial discretion", i.e. whether the police want to get involved or
> not. If the complainant is perceived as a nut job by the local authorities,
> there is no personal injury, and property damage is minimal, then it this
> most likely going to be a civil matter.
Most farming communities I've been around consider the simple act of
leaving a rut in a crop field more than just trespass. There may be
somewhere that local laws don't protect farmers from damage....
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:_ZydnZDzes2tZx3ZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>>C. E. White proclaimed:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Believe what you will, it happens all the time. Usually I only see the
>>>results (tracks cut in paths and fields), but occasionally one of the
>>>geniuses gets stuck. I've found trucks buried up to the axles, laying on
>>>the sides in the ditches, sitting across ditches, or just not running.
>>>I've tried asking the Sheriff for help - what a joke!
>>
>>Name of Sheriff, name of community?
>>
>>I'm not calling you a liar, but trespass is trespass.
>
>
> Lon,
>
> I am not a lawyer, but there is a difference between civil trespass and
> criminal trespass. There are statutory guidelines and case law particular
> to every jurisdiction, but in most cases the difference involves
> "prosecutorial discretion", i.e. whether the police want to get involved or
> not. If the complainant is perceived as a nut job by the local authorities,
> there is no personal injury, and property damage is minimal, then it this
> most likely going to be a civil matter.
Most farming communities I've been around consider the simple act of
leaving a rut in a crop field more than just trespass. There may be
somewhere that local laws don't protect farmers from damage....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash and Nature *****
Earle Horton proclaimed:
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:_ZydnZDzes2tZx3ZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>>C. E. White proclaimed:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Believe what you will, it happens all the time. Usually I only see the
>>>results (tracks cut in paths and fields), but occasionally one of the
>>>geniuses gets stuck. I've found trucks buried up to the axles, laying on
>>>the sides in the ditches, sitting across ditches, or just not running.
>>>I've tried asking the Sheriff for help - what a joke!
>>
>>Name of Sheriff, name of community?
>>
>>I'm not calling you a liar, but trespass is trespass.
>
>
> Lon,
>
> I am not a lawyer, but there is a difference between civil trespass and
> criminal trespass. There are statutory guidelines and case law particular
> to every jurisdiction, but in most cases the difference involves
> "prosecutorial discretion", i.e. whether the police want to get involved or
> not. If the complainant is perceived as a nut job by the local authorities,
> there is no personal injury, and property damage is minimal, then it this
> most likely going to be a civil matter.
Most farming communities I've been around consider the simple act of
leaving a rut in a crop field more than just trespass. There may be
somewhere that local laws don't protect farmers from damage....
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:_ZydnZDzes2tZx3ZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>>C. E. White proclaimed:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Believe what you will, it happens all the time. Usually I only see the
>>>results (tracks cut in paths and fields), but occasionally one of the
>>>geniuses gets stuck. I've found trucks buried up to the axles, laying on
>>>the sides in the ditches, sitting across ditches, or just not running.
>>>I've tried asking the Sheriff for help - what a joke!
>>
>>Name of Sheriff, name of community?
>>
>>I'm not calling you a liar, but trespass is trespass.
>
>
> Lon,
>
> I am not a lawyer, but there is a difference between civil trespass and
> criminal trespass. There are statutory guidelines and case law particular
> to every jurisdiction, but in most cases the difference involves
> "prosecutorial discretion", i.e. whether the police want to get involved or
> not. If the complainant is perceived as a nut job by the local authorities,
> there is no personal injury, and property damage is minimal, then it this
> most likely going to be a civil matter.
Most farming communities I've been around consider the simple act of
leaving a rut in a crop field more than just trespass. There may be
somewhere that local laws don't protect farmers from damage....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash and Nature *****
Earle Horton proclaimed:
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:_ZydnZDzes2tZx3ZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>>C. E. White proclaimed:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Believe what you will, it happens all the time. Usually I only see the
>>>results (tracks cut in paths and fields), but occasionally one of the
>>>geniuses gets stuck. I've found trucks buried up to the axles, laying on
>>>the sides in the ditches, sitting across ditches, or just not running.
>>>I've tried asking the Sheriff for help - what a joke!
>>
>>Name of Sheriff, name of community?
>>
>>I'm not calling you a liar, but trespass is trespass.
>
>
> Lon,
>
> I am not a lawyer, but there is a difference between civil trespass and
> criminal trespass. There are statutory guidelines and case law particular
> to every jurisdiction, but in most cases the difference involves
> "prosecutorial discretion", i.e. whether the police want to get involved or
> not. If the complainant is perceived as a nut job by the local authorities,
> there is no personal injury, and property damage is minimal, then it this
> most likely going to be a civil matter.
Most farming communities I've been around consider the simple act of
leaving a rut in a crop field more than just trespass. There may be
somewhere that local laws don't protect farmers from damage....
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:_ZydnZDzes2tZx3ZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>>C. E. White proclaimed:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Believe what you will, it happens all the time. Usually I only see the
>>>results (tracks cut in paths and fields), but occasionally one of the
>>>geniuses gets stuck. I've found trucks buried up to the axles, laying on
>>>the sides in the ditches, sitting across ditches, or just not running.
>>>I've tried asking the Sheriff for help - what a joke!
>>
>>Name of Sheriff, name of community?
>>
>>I'm not calling you a liar, but trespass is trespass.
>
>
> Lon,
>
> I am not a lawyer, but there is a difference between civil trespass and
> criminal trespass. There are statutory guidelines and case law particular
> to every jurisdiction, but in most cases the difference involves
> "prosecutorial discretion", i.e. whether the police want to get involved or
> not. If the complainant is perceived as a nut job by the local authorities,
> there is no personal injury, and property damage is minimal, then it this
> most likely going to be a civil matter.
Most farming communities I've been around consider the simple act of
leaving a rut in a crop field more than just trespass. There may be
somewhere that local laws don't protect farmers from damage....
