Politics versus the Environment.

[Lord Jim]

Here's my response:

It's bullshit.

You have some Libertarian leaning Tea Party types who are opposed to the government doing just about anything (I've already said a number of times what I think about them) and others who don't believe further environmental screw tightening is necessary, and don't want the damage it would do to the economy. BFD.

Nobody hates the environment. Not being in favor of every new liberal proposal brought forward in the name of "fighting pollution" etc, doesn't make one pro-pollution. Honest disagreement about what is necessary rather than marching in lock step with the so called "progressives" or refusing to bend to their demagogic bloody shirt waving tactics doesn't mean that either.

good and important discussion

I'm terribly sorry, but this thread represents neither. It's just another one of rube's sophomoric, simple minded, intellectually dishonest, "the republicans are all doo doo heads" threads...The premise is total crap....

I'm embarrassed for those who are taking it seriously.

I'm not going to bother to read the article by Krugman anymore than I would expect Liberals to read an article written by Rush Limbaugh and take it seriously as a starting point for a discussion. Krugman is nothing but an intellectually dishonest leftie hack; (which is why rube is so fond of him; the admiration that a fifth rate hack has for a second rate hack) I'm not going to treat him as though he were a thoughtful ,fair minded person whose opinions are worthy of serious minded consideration. To do so would most certainly be "beneath me". (It ought to be beneath others too.)

This thread deserved to drop to the bottom of the page without a single response.

I don't see any liberal here making going comments about using guns on republicans

Please tell me that you don't think anyone here is really seriously suggesting that West Coast Liberals be shot...(If you do think that, then the satire must be really good...)

No, none of that is meant seriously of course. But our resident bigoted moron who started this thread calling Republicans "traitors" certainly is. It would have been nice if at least one Liberal here had taken him to task for that. But instead what we get is sanctimonious chest thumping about something satirical.

[Econoline]

edited to remove offensive stupidity

WOW.

And don't we all wish THAT would happen more often around here...? *SIGH*

[Guinevere]

First of all -- both Econo and I found something substantive and interesting in the article, *and* ask you and other republicans a far more focussed and pertinent question --without the reference to traitors or other inflammatory language. You've chosen to ignore that question --- which is your right, but your characterization of the discussion as "beneath you" and "embarrassing" is crap and nothing more than an avoidance technique.

Second -- my eyes glaze over when I read Rube's slaps-- same as when I read your slaps back. I try my best (and I admit I'm not always successful) to ignore most of the shit that flies around here. However, if you'd like me to call out and comment on every instances of flinging shit by you and rube and Gob and MGM and every other poster on this board, then sure, I'll go ahead to spend my posting time doing that -- but be careful what you wish for. Oh and really, do you think anyone on this board (other than rube perhaps, and who cares about that) truly believes that dissenters are traitors? Of course not, and you know far better than that, too.

Third -- while I don't really believe you or anyone else thinks West Coast liberals should be shot, its still not funny and its not even satirical -- which was the point of the original comments. YOU brought up the redneck/liberals making comments point -- I merely showed you how wrong you were to make it. Nice dodge though.

[Sue U]

^ What she said.

[Crackpot]

FWIW I think what gets to Jim is that by and large he is he is the only one that ever gets called out. and I'm resonably sure he gets tired of being the one that gets called on it. It doesn't seem fair.

That being said get used to it life's not fair. And being treated equally to rubato cuts both ways. Sure you may not be called out on your bullshit but you won't have the respect either.

[MajGenl.Meade]

edited to remove offensive stupidity

WOW.

And don't we all wish THAT would happen more often around here...? *SIGH*

Well, I didn't delete the inoffensive stupidity - that would leave all my posts blank apparently.

Regarding the original subject (environmental carelessness), I thought perhaps wrongly that I'd responded with some thought (at first). However, no particular "discussion" emerged. Pity

[Lord Jim]

I will give some props to my fellow forum members here...

Most of the time nowadays (especially since Dave hasn't been posting much lately; for some reason he always seemed to take the hook) when rube starts one of these threads that aren't designed to actually stimulate any discussion but are merely simplistic screeds employing incendiary language, the clear purpose of which is to troll me and any other Republicans/conservatives who happen to be about, those threads do in fact fall to the bottom of the page without response.

For some reason that didn't happen here but that does not change my view that this is precisely the fate this thread deserved.

My suggestion would be that if you want to have a serious discussion on a topic where you want opposing views and a genuine discussion (rather than just a bunch of folks who all think the same way standing around agreeing with each other.) that you start one of your own rather than trying to conduct the discussion through one of rube's spleen venting gasbag troll threads. This only encourages him to start more of them.

It is simply not reasonable for people to expect the targets of these threads to treat the thread seriously and with respect. I for one absolutely will not do so. Regardless of what else may be said, the provenance of these troll threads is so toxic and foul that they cannot serve as the basis for any serious discussion. I will simply not reward rube for posting them by dignifying them with serious response. The threads like this that he starts that for whatever reason don't die without serious responses, I will view it as an opportunity to either ignore, mock or to post satirical digressions, or to discuss rube's behavior as I see fit. I promise you that will not change.

Again if you want to have a serious discussion about something, it's really simple; start your own thread (or if it's related, make your point in somebody else's thread). Don't encourage rube to start more troll threads by participating in them.

FWIW I think what gets to Jim is that by and large he is he is the only one that ever gets called out. and I'm reasonably sure he gets tired of being the one that gets called on it. It doesn't seem fair.

Look, I do "get" why this is...

The assumption here is that I am an adult who can be reasoned with, while rube clearly is not. The view is, what's point of trying to reason with somebody like him? (Though the record clearly shows that when rube gets called out on his provocations by folks who don't generally do it, for a time his behavior improves.)

In a way I suppose this is complimentary, but as CP notes, it's still quite frustrating....

And I can also understand some people maybe not wanting to make themselves a target of rube's vitriol. However for anyone who may be motivated by that a) Frequently the only thing required to be on the receiving end of his toxic, sneering behavior is to express an opinion that deviates from his. (I have seen this happen many times with people who have never had any kind of personal dispute with rube.) and b) the silence essentially gives him a victory by allowing his bullying to succeed into keeping people quiet about it.

The other thing that I find quite annoying is when I see things posted that seems to draw some sort of symmetry or equivalence between my behavior and rube's. There is absolutely positively no equivalence whatsoever between my conduct and rube's... NONE, zero, ziltch...(Or between rube's conduct and Strop's conduct, or rube's conduct and Meade's conduct, or rube's conduct and Joe's conduct, or rube's conduct and CP's conduct)

Anybody who thinks there are such equivalences to be drawn is badly misreading the situation that has been going on for years... It puzzles me no end how anyone who is even remotely familiar with what has been posted over the years could possibly reach that conclusion. (Some over the years have even taken this to the totally bizarre Twilight Zone level of actually buying into the idea that rube is some sort of innocent victim... ...Though I have to say there seems to be a lot less of that madness in recent years.)

There is NO "equivalence" between a person who goes about insulting people without provocation day and day out, and those who stand up to him and put him in his place for it.

So when I see something like , "I wish you two would cut it out", it has the effect of fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well LJ, that's a lot of words. Of course you are not forced to respond (or to join in) any thread that has what you find to be a displeasing origin. I wasn't much fond of the Republican baiting opening and irrational invective either. But I did respond (after a naughty return bait) because I found the subsequent posts by Econo (was it you, Eco?) and even rubato to be engaging.

On equivalence, you and I have bashed heads more than once. I shall merely observe that I am no better than anyone at this, and worse than many. But the fact remains that an exchange such as this:

Republicans are dogs

....... and you're a cretinous piece of flatulence

You need education you fool

...... you're so stupid and uneducated and a total wombat arse

may not appear to be kinda the same to some folks but to any neutral (or sentient) observer



..even when I do it. Or perhaps especially, since I know better

[Lord Jim]

ETA:

may not appear to be kinda the same to some folks but to any neutral (or sentient) observer

Maybe to some "neutral (or sentient) observer" who just wandered in here for the first time, (though even in that case they would have to have seen how rube set the tone in the OP) and had absolutely no knowledge of the context or history of rube's behavior.

I don't think we have a whole lot of people around here who fall into that category....

[oldr_n_wsr]

I would guess that most hunters/fishermen are republicans or at least lean to the right politically.
That they pay millions of dollars a year for hunting and fishing licenses the money of which goes toward coonservation of woodlands and lakes,rivers and oceans.
It can be concluded that many many republicans and right leaning people care a whole lot about the environment, open space and clean water.

[Lord Jim]

That makes perfect sense oldr, and here's more evidence that the whole premise of this thread is bogus:

According to Graham Hueber, senior project manager at Opinion Research Center International, a supermajority of Americans, including more than six in 10 Republicans, disagree with Gingrich's demand.

"The poll findings reflect strong bipartisan support both for the EPA in general and also for its playing a vigorous role in fighting air pollution," Hueber announced on a teleconference with reporters Feb. 2. He noted that the polling data was collected just days after Gingrich made his eyebrow-raising statement.

"There is no evidence in the polling data to suggest that Americans have any appetite for dismantling an agency that they see as protecting the health of themselves and their families," he added.

According to Hueber, 67 percent of Americans reject Gringich's demand to abolish the EPA, including 61 percent of Republicans.

[MajGenl.Meade]

It won't help I suppose but the articles at the start (and even rubato's uber-rudeness) are directed at the leadership of the party - not really at individual repubs such as LJ or myself. We are semi-irrelevant - along with our opinions. Is there any doubt that the party at congressional level is/has turned away from previously strong environmental activism?

(rubato of course loves to provoke)

[wesw]

older n wiser lives up to his name again.

after listening to the liberals here I have officially become conservative. quite a liberal one tho.

I think that RR is the only lib here who would embrace compromise.

I tried to have an intelligent discussion about the topic and offer constructive advice to the environmental community. my view was dismissed.

I like trees more than most people. the gun lobby and the green lobby should be allies on preserving ecosystems. first the left has to stop demonizing the right, which, from what I read here many days, is almost a hopeless dream. the cheering of the extinction of old white men is the left s favorite chorus around here. it is disgusting to me.

the way to success is clear. work together. compromise.

hug a tree. hug a hunter. hug my left....

and really , the kvetching about the gun jokes is silly after the nastiness about old white men that is spewed constantly here.

I worked on cape cod and drove down 50 roads trying to find a fishing spot one fine day. the rich liberals had bought everything and blocked the public from the shore in most places. disgusting.

don t catch the king s fish. tyranny. we now own what your family has depended on for generations, sorry! the same thing is happening on the eastern shore, a place remarkably similar to eastern mass

so if we make jokes about feeding the tree of liberty, deal with it, or better yet, listen and learn. the natives are restless....

the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of the left is astounding. right up there with that of rush Limbaugh.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I like trees more than most people

... and most people probably reciprocate

[wesw]

ok. time to take the piss out of republicans next.....

[wesw]

actually meade, the statement of mine that you quoted is really not the way I feel now, but it was for a long time.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I worked on cape cod and drove down 50 roads trying to find a fishing spot one fine day. the rich liberals had bought everything and blocked the public from the shore in most places. disgusting.

Similar here on Long Island. The rich (I would guess mostly left leaning) have bought up the beach in the Hamptons. There are two or three public access places but have about 4 parking spots . And I have a sneaky suspicion that the rich bordering on that public access park their cars their before the unwashed masses can get there.

We rent a house every couple of years on the outer banks. They have many public access areas. The the property ower only owns to the dune line. All else is public. I think around here the homeowner owns to the high tide line.

The only problem I have with the EPA is (from what I know) is they make rules, regulalations and "laws" yet it's congress who's duty is that. Also, the EPA sometimes gets carried away and there is no public input into what the propose. I think the best stewards of the land are those who live there and use it.

[Guinevere]

Oldr, that's absolutely incorrect. EPA does not make laws, that is, indeed, the role of Congress. EPA does issue regulations which are authorized under the laws those regulations interpret (and this is the explicit role of administrative agencies -- to administer certain laws and the applicable regulations). They also go through an intense and detailed public process -- there is public comment required on proposed rules, EPA must then respond to and incorporate those comments into the final rule. During the comment period EPA usually holds public meetings, too, to answer questions and take input from the regulated community. All of these processes and procedures are set out under federal law (the Administrative Procedures Act).

That's the quick nutshell, I could go into pages and pages of detail -- since this is the work I've been doing since I finished college --- but you'd doze off into your coffee.

[Guinevere]

Hahahaha, the rich liberals. Cape Cod has been getting redder and redder for the last decades, and its truly one of the most conservative areas of the Commonwealth.

BTW, the private ownership of tidelands (to the mean low water mark) dates back to the Colonial Ordinances of the 1640s because colonial fathers decided they wanted to encourage private ownership of tidelands to support the building of wharves and docks and piers, and encourage commerce and industry (such crazy liberals, they were). But, even along the shoreline where there are licensed structures (ie. wharves and docks and piers), which are now regulated by the state under Chapter 91 -- there is still a requirement to permit public access, even over the privately owned tidelands. Typically you will see signed beach access, walking trails, public launches, or other publicly accessible access points.

Your/residents rights to fish in the tidelands of Massachusetts are also secured under the same Colonial Ordinances of the 1640s. Residents are guaranteed access to the tidelands (up to the mean high water mark -- so across the privately owned tidelands) for "fishing, fowling, and navigation" (but not for sunbathing, or strolling, or swimming). There are supposed to be public access points along every beach, and in most places I am aware of, there are (but obviously, I haven't been to every beach in the Commonwealth).

[Guinevere]

It won't help I suppose but the articles at the start (and even rubato's uber-rudeness) are directed at the leadership of the party - not really at individual repubs such as LJ or myself. We are semi-irrelevant - along with our opinions. Is there any doubt that the party at congressional level is/has turned away from previously strong environmental activism?

(rubato of course loves to provoke)

That of course is the entire point of the article, and the red herrings about gun-toting, tree-hugging conservatives does nothing to change the fact that whatever it is those folks believe and hold dear, they consistently have elected representatives and leadership that have taken very opposite positions.

The question is, why?