New Bush Law allows logging of Chattahoochee [Archive]

icemanat95

07-13-2004, 17:13

Take into account that all this is doing is recinding a previous executive order put in place by President Clinton, and it also puts into place additional protections that were not present prior to Clinton's executive order. All that has happened is that a regulation that arguably runs counter to the purpose of the National Forests will be rolled back. Also you can expect the usual delays in implementation due to court battles injunctions, and endless lawsuits. It ain't the end of the world folks, not by a long shot.

willyhort0w2

07-13-2004, 18:20

bush is a jackass im sorry but I can't stand republicans for that reason, they do not care about the country they care only about the dollers in theit wallets.

Connie

07-13-2004, 18:53

..and we are told, here in the western states, our states are being logged so the eastern states can increase their forests, and after all, our states are more suitable for farming (agribusiness).

time for a bouncing smiling idiot .. :jump

may i suppose all their cronies ..don't get to continue stealing billions $$$$$ from Iraq oil, reported on BBC, since the handover ..so more plundering of resources is called for.

If you haven't noticed, he does get to make laws.

The "new laws" apparently practically nobody read re-defining "patriotism" and "health" ..are at thomas.loc.gov ..if you want to like to read some real horror.

I hope the "special presidential powers" and the "new laws" are rolled back ..

Do you think lawyers will do that, for us.. :-? yeah. Aren't all the members of the Senate and the House of Respresentatives lawyers ? The Congress.

While not a requirement for lawyers in the U.S., lawyers have become members of the B.A.R.

Doesn't being a "member" of the B.A.R. mean British Accredation Registry, by order of Her Majesty the Queen, London, England.

George Bush the Younger, is a "cousin" to Her Majesty the Queen of England, from both his maternal and his paternal lineage.

Do you think all those "jokes" about King George, are not all simple-minded silliness? (another rhetorical question)

The founders of this country created a new nation ..that was against King George, and all kings, all queens, and all royal courtiers.

Hmm ..royal courtiers.

I see *them* every day !

Jack Tarlin

07-13-2004, 19:07

To Willy, who feels that Republicans "dont care about the country":

The National Forests that you are evidently so concerned about would not exist without the efforts of a Republican, Theodore Roosevelt, who was largely responsible for the creation of the Bureau of Forestry, later renamed the U.S. Forest Service. More than 200 million acres of land was saved from unregulated development by Roosevelt's unstinting efforts. He was also instrumental in the growth of our National Park Service, and in the creation of more Parks and National Monuments than I can think of.....the Grand Canyon comes to mind, for one.

That the present Administration's environmental record is pretty horrible is not something I'm going to dispute, but to damn all Republicans is both unfair and wrong. John McCain, for example, took a very prominent role in the recent efforts to prevent oil development and exploration in Alaska. For you to say that men such as McCain don't care about this country is ludicrous and insulting.

When it comes to environmental issues, there are good men and women on both sides of the aisle in Congress; to baldly state that there are no good Republicans at all is a statement as wrong as it is harsh.

While we're on the subject of unfeeling and callous Republicans who don't care about the country, try this one on for size......whaddyou think of Abe Lincoln's character?

smokymtnsteve

07-13-2004, 19:19

neo-cons..there are NO good neo-cons

JimSproul

07-13-2004, 19:19

Ever get to Springer using FS 42? Maybe forest service roads aren't all bad!

Painting with a broad brush is dangerous and not that bright. You should take a look at photos of the "North Country" of New Hampshire from the early part of this century. It was in terrible shape, over logged, overused, unmanaged. Today it is very pretty country, with roads, with logging, mixed use including (Thanks to the AMC and others) hiking and backpacking trails.

If we MUST have political debate here (and I don't think we need to) then lets keep it civil. On the whole, we are a group of mostly thinking people. Our hobby depends on public lands paid for by EVERY taxpayer, Republicans, Democrats, etc...................

icemanat95

07-13-2004, 20:33

Keep in mind folks that Wingfoot's reputation basically unravelled around unthinking, knee-jerk politics.

Many web forums I am a member of don't allow political discussions because they are so divisive.

And be aware, not all hikers are liberals, democrats, etc. There are a lot of us out there who are quietly conservative in our outlooks.

Moose2001

07-13-2004, 20:34

Geesh....if you guys want to bash politics....why don't you go over to Wingy's site!! You'd be right at home there!

smokymtnsteve

07-13-2004, 20:35

I'm a conservative..I believe in conservation...unlike the radical in the whitehouse

Connie

07-13-2004, 20:52

neo-cons ..would that be like Neo ..from The Matrix ?

I think the hidden take-over was in 1932.

When was it The Corporation of the United States of America "invented" their charter ? Laws by fiat. Nobody voted for that.

Nowadays, if you aren't a member of the World Trade Council, and that ilk, you do not get on the federal ballot.

neo ..i like that part.

cons ..more of the same stuff.

I am practicing speaking .."canadian": my grandfather was from Canada.

icemanat95

07-13-2004, 21:00

Calling someone a radical is divisive and subjective. A person significantly oriented to the left would look at a moderate and scream "radical conservative" since they view themselves as "normal" and thus "moderate." Be careful about slinging around labels, they have a nasty way of swinging back around on you.

Chip

07-13-2004, 21:04

SavageLlama, I agree ! See my post regarding the "North Shore Road" known as the "road to nowhere". Forum regarding National Parks - Great Smokies. This issue has been around for a while. Check out the web site I listed for more info.This could happen to any National Forest or Park. This country has already been logged coast to coast before and roads built out in the middle of no where.
There has to be a balance. Alot of energy and materials should be recycled to save our land, water, air and other natural resources we love to enjoy.
Greed and power, two of mankinds terrible traits rule the world....most sad!!!:(

SavageLlama

07-13-2004, 22:40

Have you guys seen this?

http://jibjab.com/thisland.html

It takes a while to d/l but it's worth it. Funny stuff. :D

FatMan

07-13-2004, 22:41

Lets stay with the facts here. First of all Bush did not create any regulation. All he simply did was reverse an executive order from the previous administration that has resulted in nothing but thousands of lawsuits that are tying up our court system. Second, this has absolutely nothing to do with National Parks. National Parks are part of the Interior Dept. Finally, the National Forest Service is part of the USDA (US Dept of Agriculture). It exists because our National Forests are recognized as a renewable resource (Fancy word for a Crop) and Forestry (logging) is exactly what they manage. Our economy requires our natural resources to grow and prosper. The Forest Service is responsible for managing the productivity of the National Forests. Managed Forestry will provide us with these resources and ensure that these resources are properly renewed for all generations to come. Not logging is not consistent the Departments Mission.

Now with that said, I certainly hope that they actively buffer our favorite recreation areas from the short term unsightly result from the logging that will occur.

TJ aka Teej

07-13-2004, 22:51

The National Forests that you are evidently so concerned about would not exist without the efforts of a Republican, Theodore Roosevelt >snip< whaddyou think of Abe Lincoln's character?

The elected Republicans from Nixon to the present have nothing in common with the Bull Moose's of T.R.'s day or the Republicans of Lincoln's era. Today's Republican party has been hijacked by extremely radical Straussians who hold the electorate in complete contempt. They believe in preserving the status quo of the upper class above all else, and at any cost. This move has many layers, not the least being the undoing of something 'Clinton'. That'll get them some votes in November, and they'll need every one they can get.

Lone Wolf

07-13-2004, 22:58

Here we go, ***n politics! Let's switch over to dykes and f**gs Then progress to abortion yea/nay. :)

Connie

07-13-2004, 23:40

Washington State - Western Washington, near Hoquiam on up the Olympic Peninsula has a "buffer" law: I think 20' or 30' from the roadway - not from the right of way.

Nevertheless that is mighty thin, in places, and driving the Lady Bird Johnson Scenic Highway on some rolling hills near the ocean lets you see "stump city".

Did I mention I am talking about the Olympic National Park "buffer"?

The 99 year lease for Japan to take lumber expired, and was renewed for another 99 years. Japan started by "pirating" trees off the National Park, using three lumber trucks per one tree trunk, and the Quinault indian reservation, using helicopters to remove cedar. Asian gatherers of boughs came in next.

The local loggers were discussing headin' out to the "rain forest" jobs to get some real trees, at Fred's Place (only restaurant) in Copalis Beach, I think was the name of the town.

On the "coast highway" Japan "clear cut" the so-called "re-forestation trees". That would be 30 year old trees, all green boughs and only a big enough trunk diameter for pole fences. Left no topsoil. Topsoil sells.

I haven't seen one tree trunk per three logging trucks, since the 1950's.

I did see sheds, bigger than the biggest hanger I ever saw at Boeing, Renton, WA plant. The sheds were at Reedsport, OR and have since been removed from Astoria, OR (there are too many tourists using the bridge between OR and WA says my Great Aunt Ann Heavensgate).

These huge sheds had a sign "Export".

A little shed had a sign "Domestic". It had some trash wood, for the local pulpmill.

I tried to take pictures, and I was warned off.

Oh, at Fred's Place, the restaurant, I was told if I went up to look at the "rain forest" up on Quinault or Elwah, there was a satanic cult up there in the forest that was killing travelers.

I said, "Oh, which one? There are five satanic cults in the neighborhood in San Francisco." That shut them up. My step-brother drove me up there to see the "rain forest", well, what is left. I saw the same area in the 1960's.

Remember: the "elite" is smarter than you, or me.

smokymtnsteve

07-14-2004, 00:14

Let's switch over to dykes and f**gs :)

you can switch if you like. :D

Israel

07-14-2004, 00:33

They believe in preserving the status quo of the upper class above all else, and at any cost.

I don't to turn this point into a major debate, but do you have any idea how much the upper income bracket pays in taxes????

Personally, I think having to pay 41% of your income to the governement for income tax is just a LITTLE too much. Think about how you would feel if you personally had to write a check to the government that equalled 41% of your yearly income. It will change your perspective I assure you. A person could do a phenominal amount of good in the world if they were given the chance to put that 41% to work in other civic minded ways.

Tim Seaver

07-14-2004, 13:29

Not logging is not consistent the Departments Mission.

......Roadless area conservation will in no way diminish our wildland firefighting capabilities, and it will in no way affect existing permits, contracts, or rights of access. Moreover, I want to emphasize that timber harvest will continue in much of the National Forest System. This rule signifies a shift away from the timber controversies of the past that were typified by cutting old growth and developing roadless areas. Today, a growing consensus is building about the eed to protect the most pristine forests while using timber harvest to make our other forests healthier, communities safer, and economies more resilient.

Roadless area conservation is a down payment on the well-being of future generations. Under this new rule, more than 58.5 million acres of roadless areas will continue to cleanse the water for downstream use by millions of Americans nationwide. They will continue to serve as a refuge for native plant and animal species and a bulwark against the spread of nonnative invasive species. As a baseline for natural habitats and ecosystems, they will continue to offer rare opportunities for study, research, and education. Finally, they will continue to offer terrific opportunities for hunting, fishing, and other dispersed forms of recreation on large, undisturbed landscapes where visitors can find privacy and solitude. As Aldo Leopold once put it, our remaining unroaded wildlands are a national treasure, a ?wealth to the human spirit.?

Mike Dombeck, Chief of the Forest Service

January 5, 2001

.....Implementation of the Roadless Rule would decrease the amount of timber harvested on NFS lands by 2% -- from 3,308 million board feet (MMBF) to 3,234 MMBF, less than 0.5% of total US production

source (http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/rule/zRULE_Facts_1-5-01.htm)

ronmoak

07-14-2004, 16:39

The Forest Service is responsible for managing the productivity of the National Forests. Managed Forestry will provide us with these resources and ensure that these resources are properly renewed for all generations to come. Not logging is not consistent the Departments Mission.

National Forest Management Act of 1976

Section 6 "National Forest System Resource Planning" of RPA, as amended by NFMA, states,
(e) In developing, maintaining, and revising plans for units of the National Forest System
pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall assure that such plans --
(1) provide for multiple use and sustained yield of the products and services obtained
therefrom in accordance with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, and, in
particular, include coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife
and fish, and wilderness; and ..

The overriding mission of the Forest Service since the "Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960" is to manage the forest for Multiple-Use as designated above. Of these uses, one is for timber harvesting. The National Forests isn’t simply tree crops that can be harvested without respect to other uses.

In fact in the West Coast all ski areas are located on Forest Service land. When not properly managed, the Forest Service has a history of failing to stick to the principle of "Sustained Yield". Through the 70's & early 80's much of Oregon and Washington was over harvested.

When the environmental movement got under way in the late 70's it was at end of peak production. The lack of sufficient timber acreage was the real reason much of the logging dried up, though the timber companies were quick to shift the blame to emerging environmental activities. Ignoring the fact that they had over cut and the Forest Service was a willing participant.

Placing more management decisions in local hands sounds good, on the surface. However, it exposes the forest to more pressure as timber companies generally have more clout at a local level. Here they have more influence over local elections, than at a National level.

It is the purpose of the National Forest to manage the assets to the benefit of all Americans. Not just those with clout.

Despite his attempts to craft a “common man” image, does anyone really believe that Bush has the interests of the “common man” in mind?

Ron Moak
Forestry Degree, OSU '81

SavageLlama

07-14-2004, 17:09

Despite his attempts to craft a “common man” image, does anyone really believe that Bush has the interests of the “common man” in mind?

Ron Moak
Forestry Degree, OSU '81
Not for a milli-second.

Lone Wolf

07-14-2004, 17:38

Oh and Hanoi Kerry does? :cool:

smokymtnsteve

07-14-2004, 17:46

[.

, does anyone really believe that Bush has the interests of the “common man” in mind?

Ron Moak
Forestry Degree, OSU '81

dubya would have to have a MIND first before he could have the "common man" in mind..so the answer is no BUSH doesn't have a mind. not even a common one

icemanat95

07-14-2004, 18:05

Talking about a political fringe group taking over a party... John Kerry and John Edwards represent the 1st and 4th most liberal senators in the US senate and Michael Moore is the standard bearer for the democratic party...talk about a party over-taken by the fringes.

Whose paying the taxes? According to the IRS, the top 5% of incomes in the US (incomes above 125,000) pay over 50% of all taxes paid in the US. The top 1% of incomes (over 300,000 per year) pay 34% of taxes. Those are IRS figures based not on theory but on actual taxes collected. So who is not paying their fair share here?

smokymtnsteve

07-14-2004, 18:15

Hike more, work less...earn less $$

pay less taxes ;)

btw
sales taxes
user fees

all take a larger % of lower income folks $$$ than of higher income folks $$$

you are still free to earn less..but are freedoms are being rapidly eroded

and since I am a conservative and believe in conservation I am against erosion. :D

ronmoak

07-14-2004, 18:20

Oh and Hanoi Kerry does? :cool:

Probably not, but then hopefully Kerry's administration won't view every decision, no matter how minute, either through the lens of ideology or whose contributions buy the best access.

Sometime science is just science and not issues of faith or good and evil. By its very nature, Multiple-Use implies competing groups vying for limited resources. The role of the Government should be to mediate disagreement and seek compromise. Is it not the Governments roll to seek the greater good and not to lean heavy on the table thus tilting it in one direction or another?

smokymtnsteve

07-14-2004, 18:43

Where Brush Creek tumbles
Off Ruby Ridge
Dissension's in the hollows

When zealots violate
The public trust
They'll injure their own cause

When the government does evil
In the name of good
The hand of the devil is exposed

www.elephantrock.com

smokymtnsteve

07-14-2004, 18:56

"I come more and more to the conclusion that wilderness, in America or anywhere else, is the only thing left that is worth saving."

THANKS BE TO ABBEY

Rain Man

07-14-2004, 19:26

Whose paying the taxes? According to the IRS, the top 5% of incomes in the US (incomes above 125,000) pay over 50% of all taxes paid in the US. The top 1% of incomes (over 300,000 per year) pay 34% of taxes. Those are IRS figures based not on theory but on actual taxes collected. So who is not paying their fair share here?

Okay, since you've told us HALF the truth (not implying anything!!!), now how about telling the REST of the story, as Paul Harvey might say?
:confused:
What is the income that the top 1% and top 5% take in? (And we won't even address the fact that through their control of the tax codes, they get to hide an obscene amount of income.)
:rolleyes:
Obviously, for several posters on here, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
:D

Rain Man

.

Israel

07-14-2004, 19:33

Okay, since you've told us HALF the truth (not implying anything!!!), now how about telling the REST of the story, as Paul Harvey might say?
:confused:
What is the income that the top 1% and top 5% take in? (And we won't even address the fact that through their control of the tax codes, they get to hide an obscene amount of income.)
:rolleyes:
Rain Man

.

Rainman,
I assure you that if 41% of your yearly income went to taxes you would not be saying what you say. THink about it...what if you had to write a personal check to gov't for 41% of your income. So if you make $50,000 you would give the gov't $20,500 each year. Would you think that was fair?? Contrary to popular belief, most people I know who live in the upper income bracket make the money they make b/c of one simple fact...they work extremely hard. Most people, unless they received an inheritance, work very hard for their living and why should our gov't take 41% of that hard work? It is a penalization for being an entreprenuer (sp??) and working hard to provide for your family. Just as the tax laws are written to discourge saving but to encourage spending.

smokymtnsteve

07-14-2004, 19:47

"Counterpart to the knee-jerk liberal is the new knee-pad conservative, always groveling before the rich and the powerful."

THANKS BE TO ABBEY

"Our "neoconservatives" are neither new nor conservative, but old as Bablyon and evil as Hell."

THANKS BE TO ABBEY

smokymtnsteve

07-14-2004, 19:52

"The rancher strings barbed wire across the range, drills wells and bulldozes stock ponds everywhere, drives off the elk and antelope and bighorn sheep, poisons coyotes and prairie dogs, shoots eagle and bear and cougar on sight, supplants the native bluestem and grama grass with tumbleweed, cow ****, cheat grass, snakeweed, anthills, poverty weed, mud and dust and flies--and then leans back and smiles broadly at the Tee Vee cameras and tells us how much he loves the West."

THANKS BE TO ABBEY

steve hiker

07-14-2004, 20:20

Who will get the trees first?

(a) The wooley algeids
(b) The new bug from the West that will level all the oaks
(c) Bush, Inc.

BeaverTrapper

07-15-2004, 00:03

I say let the liberal dipsticks take over and have their way. Then I can sit back and have a grand weenie roast when the forests go up in a giant fire fed by generations of mismanagement; just like we see out west every year. They have had their way out there and have screwed the pooch so bad it would be funny, if it weren't so sad.

It's just like the reintroduction of the mountain lion. The best part of the whole deal is that it's always liberal yuppies that end up getting eaten. You gotta love the poetic justice that mother nature dishes out.

Thats the typical modus operandi of the liberal idiot - ruin a place through failed, feminine, feel good policies devoid of logic, blame evil Republicans, move to escape the hell they've created, and repeat the process.

I almost wish Kerry would win the election, just so the whiny @ss pansies will stop crying and shut their sniveling crap up!

PS : If you don't like logging, wipe your @ss with a plastic bag. :)

A-Train

07-15-2004, 00:16

What is the income that the top 1% and top 5% take in? (And we won't even address the fact that through their control of the tax codes, they get to hide an obscene amount of income.)
:rolleyes:

Rain Man

.

I'm with you on this one. When CEO's were making 440 times what their average employees were (the number is much higher now), I can't shed too many tears over the high taxes they're dishing over. If spending your life obtaining obscene amounts of money is your goal, than suck it up and be ready to pay.

Pencil Pusher

07-15-2004, 00:28

Both Shrub and Kerry are uber rich. The uber rich invest wisely so when the 41-or-whatever-percent hits them come tax time, it is on a lesser amount. At least Kerry had the balls to serve versus daddy's boy who couldn't even last in the no-gos (my contribution to this mud fest).
On topic, I agree, this new rule will take forever to implement due to the courts and general legal blah blah. Besides, by then Kerry can just reverse it if he's so inclined:p

ronmoak

07-15-2004, 04:37

I say let the liberal dipsticks take over and have their way. Then I can sit back and have a grand weenie roast when the forests go up in a giant fire fed by generations of mismanagement; just like we see out west every year. They have had their way out there and have screwed the pooch so bad it would be funny, if it weren't so sad.

I'm not sure if you're trying to be serious, but if so, you know nothing about forest management, fire or liberals for that matter.

Large segments of the west burn each year in part due to generations of bad forest management. Management plans that was based, in part, on lack of understanding of fire in the echo system and pressures from timber, ranching (two generally pretty conservative groups) and recreational interest.

The increase in fire in forest has nothing to do with liberals or environmentalist. Neither will Bush's proposed forest plan have any effect on reducing forest fires.

You can't log your way to preventing forest fires.

Rain Man

07-15-2004, 09:05

I don't know how this messaging box got here! Sorry.

:)
.

Rain Man

07-15-2004, 09:16

I'm with you on this one. When CEO's were making 440 times what their average employees were (the number is much higher now), I can't shed too many tears over the high taxes they're dishing over.

Yes, and even the "high taxes" the rich allegedly have to pay is a myth, a fiction, a bed-time story to scare those who enjoy being scared. The rich pay less in tax than the poor, any day.

Besides which, keep in mind that the marginal tax rate used to be over 90 percent, with even FEWER loopholes than today. The uber rich have low taxes today, for sure.

The whole reason the tax code is complex rather than simple is because of special interest rules the rich bribed politicians to pass. Not only do the rich have low effective tax rates, much of their income is never called income to begin with. Why people cry for them is beyond me, but those shedding tears for the uber rich need to at least be honorable, not gullible, about the facts.

Rain Man

.

smokymtnsteve

07-15-2004, 09:18

. The rich pay less in tax than the poor, any day.

Rain Man

.

certainly true as a % of gross income...

I repent ;)

and take back all the lawyer jokes that I have told over the years :D

Israel

07-15-2004, 09:56

MOWGLI

07-15-2004, 10:18

Of course there has been some serious mismanagement of the National Forests, but it has been bipartisan. Also, there is a drought out west right now that is the worst we have experienced in the last 100-200 years. Worse in fact than the dust bowl days of the 30's. Did the liberals create the drought, or did the conservatives?

IMO, one thing that needs to be changed is the permitting of large multi-million dollar homes adjacent to the National Forests in the west (and the east - been to Highlands, NC lately?). When you choose to build a home in the high desert, near a forest that is infested with Pine Beetles, should I have to spend my tax dollars fighting fires that threaten these homes?

As far as I am concerned, if you build a house in the mountains out west, you better join your local VFD. I don't want to spend a cent defending these ill sited homes from fire, which after all, is a natural part of the ecosystem.

For those of you really interested about the issue of development, fire & water in the west, I suggest you read some of Wallace Stegner's non-fiction. Edward Abbey studied under Stegner at Stanford University, and Stegner was the source of great inspiration for Abbey.

Of course, if all you are interested in is bumper sticker slogans (Liberals=Bad, Conservatives=Good), than you probably don't read much anyway.

SavageLlama

07-15-2004, 10:29

PS : If you don't like logging, wipe your @ss with a plastic bag. :)
I'm not against all logging, just logging of my national forests.

And Jack - Teddy Roosevelt was a damn fine environmentalist that enacted major legislation, but he is far from your typical Republican.

In fact, Teddy's probably rolling over in his grave every time Bush rolls back forest regulations... which has been quite often:
http://www.sierraclub.org/wwatch/forests/index.asp

icemanat95

07-15-2004, 13:02

Yes, and even the "high taxes" the rich allegedly have to pay is a myth, a fiction, a bed-time story to scare those who enjoy being scared. The rich pay less in tax than the poor, any day.

Besides which, keep in mind that the marginal tax rate used to be over 90 percent, with even FEWER loopholes than today. The uber rich have low taxes today, for sure.

The whole reason the tax code is complex rather than simple is because of special interest rules the rich bribed politicians to pass. Not only do the rich have low effective tax rates, much of their income is never called income to begin with. Why people cry for them is beyond me, but those shedding tears for the uber rich need to at least be honorable, not gullible, about the facts.

Rain Man

.

This argument is just plain stupid, because it assumes that the government is entitled to that money, be it 90% (which was sheer robbery) or 41%. What entitles government to take 41% of one person's earnings when another pays only 5% or sometimes nothing at all (in income tax)? The fact that they are in the top income bracket in the state of Georgia? How does the amount of money they make have ANY impact at all upon what they should be forced to pay to support the country? The only way this argument works is if you place a moral value on net worth and income level.

If "all men(people) are created equal" then all should bear an equal responsibility in upholding the system. It is perfectly fair to impose this as a percentage of income rather than a per-capita value, but imposing an unequal percentage of duty upon a citizen because they have achieved greater wealth is patently unfair.

Your assumption from the word go is that rich=evil and corrupt. That is patently ridiculous and clearly demonstrates your own bigotry. By that level of reasoning Kerry and Edwards are also unworthy since both are quite wealthy and make ample use of tax loopholes and shelters to protect their wealth.

Your argument is based on the idea that the rich deserve to be abusively taxed simply because they have more money. Pure ideology, no logic.

icemanat95

07-15-2004, 13:48

At least Kerry had the balls to serve versus daddy's boy who couldn't even last in the no-gos (my contribution to this mud fest).

And a particularly unworthy contribution it is. There are A LOT of names on The Wall in D.C. that belonged to men serving in National Guard units, which you so derisively label "no-gos." A lot of men served in the Guard or Reserves and fought and died so that you could act like a total ingrate and impugne their names and reputations with your B.S. I know guardsmen and women who are serving over seas right now from Guantanamo Bay to the Balkans, down to Afghanistan and Iraq and over to indonesia and the Phillippines, placing themselves in harms way to STAND for something greater than their own pleasure and recreation.

The fact of the matter is that National Guardsmen and women have always been on tap to fill roles in combat and behind the lines that cannot be filled by active duty personel, including rotating whole units into active duty or rotating individuals into active duty units as needed. While there is certainly a lower chance of being forward deployed when serving in a National Guard unit than in an active duty unit, the chance is still there.

I won't speak to President Bush's actual service or intentions in choosing that service, there is far too much controversy there and I lack anything like the degree of factual and confirmable information needed to make a substantive judgement on the subject. What I will speak of is your slur on National Guardsmen in general. Quite frankly, based on your statement, you aren't fit to polish there boots.

smokymtnsteve

07-15-2004, 13:52

there.

I won't speak to President Bush's actual service or intentions in choosing that service, there is far too much controversy there and I lack anything like the degree of factual and confirmable information needed to make a substantive judgement on the subject.

Why of course not! ;)

Jack Tarlin

07-15-2004, 15:28

Llama--

Of course I realize that Teddy Roosevelt was a rather remarkable man.....so for that matter was Lincoln. So is John McCain. So are a lot of folks who aren't registered Democrats.

The point of my post was to respond to a particularly witless comment that suggested that to be a Republican effectively prevents one from loving one's country. As I said earlier, there are good and evil men occupying positions of power and responsibility in ALL political parties, and blanket generalizations and slurs, whether they're about Republicans, National Guardsmen, or any other group, are almost always incorrect. (And no, I'm not a rabid Republican, or even a tepid one; I'm a registered Independent, and have no party allegiance; on election day I vote for the most qualified people running, and their party affiliation means very little to me).

My earlier post was merely an attempt to tone down some of the language on this thread..if we must discuss non-Trail matters here, we can at least make an attempt to be civil while doing so.

Blue Jay

07-15-2004, 17:01

Pencil Pusher

07-15-2004, 17:42

And a particularly unworthy contribution it is. There are A LOT of names on The Wall in D.C. that belonged to men serving in National Guard units, which you so derisively label "no-gos." A lot of men served in the Guard or Reserves and fought and died so that you could act like a total ingrate and impugne their names and reputations with your B.S. I know guardsmen and women who are serving over seas right now from Guantanamo Bay to the Balkans, down to Afghanistan and Iraq and over to indonesia and the Phillippines, placing themselves in harms way to STAND for something greater than their own pleasure and recreation.

The fact of the matter is that National Guardsmen and women have always been on tap to fill roles in combat and behind the lines that cannot be filled by active duty personel, including rotating whole units into active duty or rotating individuals into active duty units as needed. While there is certainly a lower chance of being forward deployed when serving in a National Guard unit than in an active duty unit, the chance is still there.

I won't speak to President Bush's actual service or intentions in choosing that service, there is far too much controversy there and I lack anything like the degree of factual and confirmable information needed to make a substantive judgement on the subject. What I will speak of is your slur on National Guardsmen in general. Quite frankly, based on your statement, you aren't fit to polish there boots.Blah, blah, blah. You'll get no sympathy from me, trying to spin my words into a different rant. That's what we called them in the army and it seemed very applicable to that Shrub idiot (which was the basis for that adjective, hint, hint).

Pencil Pusher

07-15-2004, 18:29

Can you factually prove any of the above?? I am talking about income taxes for state and federal purposes. the 41% is the rate paid for self employed individuals in the state of GA (6% state tax). Do you have any actual experience with the tax situation of high income earners or are what you saying just based on what you think may be happening or what the media has told you is happening??
Rain Man has it right. Take a class in Individual Income Taxes and learn it for yourself. The difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance is the thickness of a prison wall;)

smokymtnsteve

07-15-2004, 18:31

maybe IsraeL should hire a better accountant ;)

Rain Man

07-15-2004, 18:49

Rain Man has it right. Take a class in Individual Income Taxes and learn it for yourself.

Better yet ... earn a post-doctorate in Taxation from N.Y.U.
:sun
Thanks for supporthing this bigoted, stupid hiker!
:jump
Rain Man

.

smokymtnsteve

07-15-2004, 20:32

yea..da rainman is da man :D

icemanat95

07-15-2004, 20:38

I could have sworn I posted on this thread. Clearly there is a Republican Wingfoot. For those of you who will read this before it is deleted. Remember four buildings came down at the World Trade Center. The two smaller ones also went absolutely straight down, something buildings rarely do if not controlled. The two larger ones were hit by planes, one of the smaller ones was hit by debris. One was not hit by planes or debris, yet it still went straight down. One thing the other posters are correct about is Kerry is clearly also bought and paid for. The Coup d Etat has already occured and you never saw it happen.

Blue Jay, you need to check back into the mental ward you came out of because your medication is seriously out of whack.

I knew a young woman on that first plane, I went to her funeral, I watched her family and friends and fiance cry. That was real, it happened. I know people who saw those planes hit those towers and watch the buildings come down from close range. I also know people who worked on the rescue and recovery operations and engineers who analyzed how the buildings came down. It's called gravity you stupid twit and those buildings didn't fall exactly straight down either, they fell in pieces some of which landed over a block away, pouring down on other buildings and overloading their structural integrity. Then what happens is that the more lightly built upper floors collapse on the lower floors setting up a domino effect of stresses that take down the building following the path of least resistance in line with gravity. It is clear you haven't got the faintest idea about physical science.

I am tempted to just walk away from this because there is no reasoning with a deranged and paranoid fool like you, but in this case your insults and outright luncatic accusations need to be answered. I'm sick and tired of pussyfooting around you in the interests of keeping things peaceful. You just outright don't deserve the courtesy.

You are either the biggest troll I've ever encountered or a totally worthless and stunningly stupid waste of life.

I'd apologize to the forum for this, but I just can't be bothered anymore.

Pencil Pusher

07-15-2004, 20:57

So what do you think Alan Jackson would say on this Bush ruling, affecting the Chattahoochee? Is it gonna get hotter than a hoochie coochie?

Israel

07-15-2004, 21:31

maybe IsraeL should hire a better accountant ;)

You all still have failed to give any solid evidence of what you accuse regarding the tax situation of the upper income bracket. If you will take a step back and think about the words coming out of your mouth and the ideas in your head, you will see the origination of the ideas you propogate do not come from your own personal experience but come from a stereotypical idea that you have learned from the propaganda machine of those that would have you believe that you are the victum and the upper income individuals are the perpetrators. Unless you have first hand experience how can you consider yourself knowledgable about this topic??? Please stop and think.

Pencil Pusher

07-15-2004, 21:42

Israel, between you and me, you're right. I've been brainwashed by the ultra-secret Bean Counter's guild, Northwest chapter. It is our duty to give false information in regards to both corporate and individual tax law. But keep this secret between you and me on the hush hush, okay? It's all part of the propaganda machine we secretly interlace with everyday living...

c.coyle

07-15-2004, 21:49

... IMO, one thing that needs to be changed is the permitting of large multi-million dollar homes adjacent to the National Forests in the west (and the east - been to Highlands, NC lately?). When you choose to build a home in the high desert, near a forest that is infested with Pine Beetles, should I have to spend my tax dollars fighting fires that threaten these homes?

As far as I am concerned, if you build a house in the mountains out west, you better join your local VFD. I don't want to spend a cent defending these ill sited homes from fire, which after all, is a natural part of the ecosystem...

Buy cheap, insure heavily

Connie

07-15-2004, 21:53

I know something about forests. Many species of trees have an "adolescent growth" surge, when they draw considerably more amounts of water up and out. If the "adolescent trees" are not getting partial shade during this growth surge from mature trees, the adolescent trees turn orange and die.

This is what has destroyed the Illinois "Wild and Scenic" River in southern Oregon. The forest is orange, and dying. The fish are dead. The fish do not return. Fish hatchery fish die. There is no foliage over the river edges to keep the water temperature in the right range for fish.

Forestry management rhetoric did that.

In Colorado, bugs attacked the forests. Smart people figured out, if they cut and cover the affected trees right away, the bugs are killed by the heat of the sun under the plastic cover. The worm holes made the wood have "textural interest". Result: alive forest.

The wood was actually harder, as lumber. The wood as lumber was a beautiful color: bugs do that. Many million dollar cabins were constructed, using that formerly bug-infested wood.

However, at Lake Tahoe ..the story was different. The forestry would not allow the same action taken in Colorado, insisting there needed to be "more research" meanwhile going out and blaze spray painting really excellent trees, as lumber. Then, allowing "cronies" to "harvest selectively". Result: dead forest.

Remember: feds are superior people, "elite". ordinary people are stupid.

Here's a better example: The forest ranger was giving a hike talk. He said: the curious thing about this tree is the bugs that are destroying this tree, by eating it, elsewhere eat another specie of tree, altogether. We will do nothing to interfere with nature. That is our policy. We will allow the tree to die. But we are studying why this particular bug will eat this specie of tree here.

I said, Is the favorite food of this particular bug already eaten up, in the park?

The forest ranger said, Yes.

I said, so ..having eaten their favorite food, these particular bugs have now moved on to their "second-most favorite" food.

I don't think he repeated that to any of the ranger biologists there either, because the ranger said he only repeats what he has been told.

He did say he is studying biology for his degree.

I said that his "education" was only "indoctrination" if he doesn't ask questions, so he can't find answers.

But remember: feds are "elite" ..and people are stupid.

Lone Wolf

07-16-2004, 00:21

Connie is jaded.

A-Train

07-16-2004, 00:41

At least she put some thought into a post, more than I can say for yourself, Mr. Wolf

smokymtnsteve

07-16-2004, 08:21

You all still have failed to give any solid evidence of what you accuse regarding the tax situation of the upper income bracket. If you will take a step back and think about the words coming out of your mouth and the ideas in your head, you will see the origination of the ideas you propogate do not come from your own personal experience but come from a stereotypical idea that you have learned from the propaganda machine of those that would have you believe that you are the victum and the upper income individuals are the perpetrators. Unless you have first hand experience how can you consider yourself knowledgable about this topic??? Please stop and think.

shows what you know,before I retired in the early 90's my trucking business generated over a quarter million dollars a year in revenue.

If you are so fortunate as to have such income then you should be grateful that our economy has allowed you to be so prosperous as to allow you to support our great country through your taxes. of course you always have the option of not generating so much income and placing yourself in a lower tax bracket,
the choice is yours...along with the the taking/earning of HIGH income from our economy and systems come HIGH RESPONSIBILITIES back to the systems.
Obviously if you have such high income the system/economy has been good to you...why are you so ungrateful that you don't want to give back to a system and country that has allowed you to prosper so well. without supporting our nation's infrastructure you would not be able to earn such income...are you not grateful for our nations infrastruture that allows you to participate in our economy???? WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA SO MUCH?
Why do you not want to support our Troops? WHY DO YOU NOT WANT TO SUPPORT FREEDOM??? FREEDOM IS NOT FREE!

Israel

07-16-2004, 09:41

Blue Jay

07-16-2004, 09:54

Thank you for your post Iceman. Coming from you, your statements are an honor. As for structural integrity, I worked for 8 years in a steel mill, testing both structural integrity and trace elements. It takes a lot more than 43 minutes to melt the volume of steel that was in those buildings, even if the planes were completely filled with airline fuel and the heat was contained in a containment vessel, which it was not. You have spend your entire life believing what lawyers have told you. I would not expect anything different from you.

smokymtnsteve

07-16-2004, 12:38

great post smokymthsteve! I like a little bit of morning humor.

So if I am reading your reply correctly, you are trying to tell me that you do in fact have experience with upper income earners and the fact that they do not pay taxes as has been suggested???

My entire point is that it is a joke to state that higher income earners do not pay MORE than their share of taxes when you should know that that is not the case at all.

So you think that someone who makes money should be willing to give away 41% of their income to support the government? Why should the lower income earners not give as much since it is obviously our freedom that supports the decisions they make?

Anyway, enough said.

HUMOR???

No one has said that "upper income" earners do not pay taxes...
the tax codes are in fact filled with advantages for business and "upper income earners" (maybe you need to consult with someone who understands tax code like RAINMAN)

It is a joke to think that upper income earners pay MORE than thier fair share of taxes...higher income earners are receiving/taking/earning a higher % of the GNP why should the tax structure not reflect this.

<<Why should the lower income earners not give as much since it is obviously our freedom that supports the decisions they make?>>

do you not have a equal vote and say ..why do you think that it is decisions that "they" make??? it is decisions that we as a nation make. WHY DO YOU HATE THE AMERICAN WAY SO MUCH??? You can always leave America if you hate it so much and do not wish to support it. You should be grateful for the oppourtunity and enviornment that has allowed you to prosper so.

Israel

07-16-2004, 13:37

Steve,
Thanks for helping to shed light on the hate for america I have been harboring inside myself. I didn't realize it had been festering in me so, yet you have opened my eyes.

I considered your offer to leave the states, but in my reflective moment, I have come to the conclusion that I will first attempt to seek therapy and change my ways. If that fails I may have to ask you for further advice.

I am going to be calling Lone Wolf to be my certified councelor. I hope his schedule is open enough to accomodate me.

Happily, there are more important and more beneficial things to discuss than taxes. I am glad to see you are happy with your taxation situation.

Rain Man

07-16-2004, 15:45

yea..da rainman is da man :D

[Elvis Impersonation Mode ON HIGH]
Thank you. Thank you.
:jump
LOL

I'd let any of these, er, ... commentators, set my tax rate for me, up to 100%, and I'll gladly pay the amount of tax that results in to Uncle Sam ...

... SO LONG AS I get to determine what is and is not included in my Gross Income, its characterization, and all subtractions to get my Adjusted Gross Income and finally, my Taxable Income. Heck, by the time I got done, I've have all my wealth and income intact and the government would owe me a refund. WAIT A MINUTE!!!... isn't that where those sorrowful "high tax rate" taxpayers and corporations often wind up anyway?!!!
:banana
Oh heck, why am I wasting my time and breath on folks who want to cry for the uber rich?

:sun

Rain Man

.