USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[shinRaiden 0]

Interesting comparisons on the map, but also diverging points as well. A Japanese exchange student commented that it seem to him that the Hispanic community was becoming the 'servant class' replacing the sector previously occupied by the black population.

This is impacting on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, and in Red and Blue states. There still is the cultural and religious regional aspects though similar to earlier generations.

There is a number of misleading spots on the Territories section of the pre-1850 map. The constitutional provisions establishing the option of slavery in the western and southwestern territories was done by congressional invention as part of the Compromise legislation, often in direct opposition to the will of the citizens of those territories.

[theavonlady 2]

A Japanese exchange student commented that it seem to him that the Hispanic community was becoming the 'servant class' replacing the sector previously occupied by the black population.

This is an interesting point.

However, I believe I've read that there is a distinction between the already established US Spanish speaking community versus the illegal Mexican community.

If I'm not mistaken, there was a lengthy article about this in Businessweek a few months ago.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Yesterday there was a great documentary on german TV about the train that comes from deep down in south america and crosses the border to North America. Many hispanics jump on these trains and take this illegal trip to the USA. But the train needs weeks to arrive there. Most of them dont have more than the clothes they are wearing and depend on the food and water villagers are throwing to them. The journey is very dangerous. There are hardly any places on the train to sleep and many fall down, get killed or their legs cut off by the wheels. But there is no time to sleep long anyway since they all have to watch out for patrols. A hard journey and only a minority finally arrives at the border. What still lies ahead of them is a river and a long desert.

It is incredible how many take this dangerous journey. It is said that everyone needs to try it at leas three times before being successful. But they try it over and over again. They leave children and family behind to try their luck.

Unbelievable how they dream of living in the US. They believe that the country they are entering is the paradise... they think of clean roads, expensive cars and a rich life. I may assume a quarter of a million is regularily entering the country and what they probably dont know is.. for them there is no such thing as minimum wage, or labour rights.. they got to take what they are being offered.

[shinRaiden 0]

Actually it's cheaper to pay them minimum wage rather than Minimum Wage. Thats because legal Minimum Wage has all sorts of tax and paperwork and labor laws attached. If the company (such as Walmart, Krispy Kreme, and others busted for doing this) contracts out to a temp agency (body shop) then they can cut the public expenses and don't have to file the paperwork because they're not 'their' employees. The temp agency can turn around and cop a plea of "we got scammed by a forged ID".

But for them, $5 an hour tax-free (thats the key) is worlds better than 50 cents an hour. In many US 'sanctuary' cities, police are not 'allowed' to cooperate with US Immigration and Naturalization Services. Police in many more places, and poll workers as well, are not allowed to ask people if they are citizens, let alone if they have proof of citizenship or legal visa status.

Contrast that to places like Chile where Auguste Pinochet is currently being tried, and other countries where the slash-and-burn practices of police clubbing everyone in sight and making people disappear is commonplace. You don't have the educated and employed populations crawling into boxes and under cars and running across the rugged desert in the middle of the night, it's the impoverished peasents.

When you've got situations like that, a flea-ridden apartment with cable in the ghetto is still better than a tin shack half the size with no electricity. Gravel roads to the orchards are better than mud roads and having to walk everywhere. "No hablo espanol" police are far better than rampant paramilitary brigades and the amry regularly rolling through villages on propaganda or intimidation campaigns. So even if you say that the US is such as bad place, at least it's a step up in the world. Now how about Europe start importing boatloads and give the Arab expatriate community some economic competition?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Dont get me wrong. I wasnt criticising the US in any way. I was simply astonished by the suffering these people accept just to arrive in the US one day

[denoir 0]

Now how about Europe start importing boatloads and give the Arab expatriate community some economic competition?

We do and we receive more immigrants and refugees than you.

And of course, they have the same economic protection as any Europeans. And we're talking about an order of magnitude difference relative the protection that Americans have (which we are being handsomely taxed for). The western Europe average for minimum wage is about 1,300 €/month =~ 1,800 $/month =~ 12 $/hour.

While this is about twice as much as the minimum wage in the US, it's not the whole story. Labour laws are the key. Very strict laws that prevent the exploitation of workers are actually part of the EU constitution. So there are very clearly defined limits on how much people can be made or choose to work.

Now, how good such a system is can be debated, but that's another story. My point is: We do have lots of immigrants from third world countries. We pay dem and do not exploit them economically. And we finance that in part through delegating it to the corporations (through labour laws) and in part through taxes (i.e social security).

Our immigrant/refugee problems are not primarily economic - they are social. In that respect, the American system works better. If you wish to survive, you have to work and through that you have to integrate with the rest of the society. In Europe some minority groups choose to stay isolated and can do that because of the generous economic conditions.

[billybob2002 0]

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns....coview=

Quote[/b] ]

U.S. Christians fight against secular Christmas

MIAMI, Dec 16 (Reuters) - Disputes over carol-singing in schools, public display of nativity scenes and even the greeting "Merry Christmas" have fueled seasonal squabbling in the United States about religious references to Christmas.

Echoing disputes about the display in public buildings of monuments engraved with the Ten Commandments or about prayer in schools, the arguments are perennial.

But they have been highlighted this year by a sense of cultural and political polarization after the religious right claimed a large part in President George W. Bush's November reelection.

Barry Lynn, a church minister and director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said that if there appeared to be an escalation of disputes over religious references to Christmas, it was because of the "aggressive nature of some Christian groups demanding inclusion."

"They may feel emboldened by the election or emboldened by something else, they seem to be stirring up the waters more than ever before," he said.

But some Christians argue they are just fighting an exaggerated political correctness that they say is banishing Christ from Christmas. Local authorities, they say, can be too zealous in making sure they don't violate the Constitution and promote religion.

"We have a Taliban-like action going on among local school districts and local governments trying to eradicate anything that deals with Christianity," said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a Christian legal support group.

"It is ironic in that sense because at least 80 percent of Americans consider themselves Christian."

In the Miami area, a woman sued successfully for the right to place a nativity scene -- depicting the stable where Jesus Christ was born -- on the town of Bay Harbor Islands' main causeway alongside a municipal display of a Christmas tree and a menorah marking the Jewish holiday Hanukkah.

The Thomas More Law Center, which represented plaintiff Sandra Snowden in the Florida case, is also appealing in a suit it brought challenging New York's policy on religious displays in schools.

The center says the city's education department discriminates by permitting the display of the Menorah during Hanukkah and the Islamic star and crescent during Ramadan in city schools, but prohibiting nativity displays at Christmas.

Civil rights activists, lambasted by some conservative Christians as "anti-Christian," say they are simply protecting the constitutional ban on government promoting any religious point of view.

CHRISTIAN GROUPS EMBOLDENED?

Conservative Christians, who believe secularists take this to a point of ignoring Christian traditions, may have felt emboldened to press their points since the November election.

Votes for Bush included solid support from the religious right and his win was interpreted by some as a victory for conservative Christians on issues such as abortion and gay rights.

In this culture war, seemingly small issues can become battles.

A Christian legal and educational group called the Liberty Counsel was about to sue a local school board in West Bend, Wisconsin, over some Christmas cards, until the board decided this week to allow a group of students to distribute the cards -- which give a religious explanation for the origins of red and white candy canes.

Some Christian groups are angry not just with public bodies but businesses.

A group called the Committee to Save Merry Christmas urged a boycott of stores owned by Federated Department Stores Inc. for supposedly barring use of the greeting "Merry Christmas" by employees and in advertising.

The company, parent of stores such as Macy's and Bloomingdale's, said in a statement it had not issued any such ban. But it did indicate a preference for the more general "happy holidays" and "season's greetings," saying these were in common use in a multicultural, diverse society.

© Copyright Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of Reuters Ltd.

Time changes...

Merry Christmas!

[Colossus 2]

OMG lol!

You americans sure has a free country.

Quote[/b] ]

Christmas trees banned in public buildings

NEW PORT RICHEY· Pasco County officials have banned Christmas trees from public buildings in a move that one constitutional law group said Thursday was "the most extreme example of censorship imaginable."

The last of the Christmas trees were removed Wednesday after the county attorney said they were religious symbols, said Dan Johnson, assistant county administrator for Public Services.

The county either had to allow all religious symbols or none, he said.

"What you allow for one you must provide for all," Johnson said.

The American Center for Law & Justice said the decision was based on a flawed understanding of the law. Senior counsel Francis Manion said Christmas trees are legally considered a secular symbol for the observance of a national holiday: Christmas.

"They don't seem to understand the law, quite frankly, especially in concern with Christmas trees," Manion said.

The center's chief counsel, Jay Sekulow, said in a press release, "this is the most extreme example of censorship imaginable."

The center asked the county Tuesday to reverse the decision.

Johnson said the decision would stand through the holidays, but it would be reviewed next year and he welcomed advice.

"If they have something, I wouldn't mind getting it," Johnson said, explaining that he would pass any information along to the county attorney.

Previously, the county allowed the display of Christmas trees, but not religious symbols, Johnson said. Recently, a man wanted to display a menorah at a public building. He said that when the county attorney investigated whether the menorah could be displayed, the attorney decided that Christmas trees were also religious symbols.

Johnson said he had talked to 30 to 40 people about the decision and he had more messages to return.

"A lot of people, as you can understand, are not happy," he said.

Pasco County is just north of Tampa on the Gulf Coast.

[theavonlady 2]

PC-ness overboard!    

EDIT: This seems to sum it up nicely:

[Colossus 2]

Hehe

The point was really that they always says it's a free country, and this makes them wrong... in a way.

Jugdes has the liberty to propose this kinds of law (hey, it's a free country) like any other.

Happy Hanukkah

[denoir 0]

It's secularism that has been pushed to absurd levels. It's funny how these people don't realize that it isn't about religion - it's about culture.

Europe and its offsprings has a very strong Christian history that has become a part of the culture and tradition, rather than having a religious meaning. It's beyond absurd to try to remove those elements.

[theavonlady 2]

Happy Hanukkah

Too late!

[Colossus 2]

Happy Hanukkah

Too late!

Damnit! I'm always late when it comes to time and dates

Happy Hanukkah... next year!

[Supah 0]

It's secularism that has been pushed to absurd levels. It's funny how these people don't realize that it isn't about religion - it's about culture.

Europe and its offsprings has a very strong Christian history that has become a part of the culture and tradition, rather than having a religious meaning. It's beyond absurd to try to remove those elements.

Being non religious myself I find it hilarious to see the secularists raise secularisme to a sort of religion in its own right Why not pay attention to religious holidays in a respectfull manner in schools? As long as you do it for all religions evenly and fairly, like christmas for christians, the end of ramadan for muslims etc. I don't see the problem?

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/17/bush.spending.ap/index.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House is telling federal agencies to expect lean budgets next year, with congressional aides and lobbyists saying President Bush appears ready to propose freezing or even slightly cutting overall domestic spending.

Targeted would be all annually approved programs except for defense and domestic security.

Excluding those two would leave a part of the budget the administration estimates will total $388 billion for the fiscal year that began October 1. Also excluded are automatically made payments like Social Security and interest on the federal debt.

Bush's stringent approach comes as record federal deficits that hit $413 billion last year hinder his ability to pay for overhauling Social Security and extending his tax cuts. He also has tied the budget shortfalls to the weakening dollar, and pledged to reduce red ink to help prop up the currency.

At his White House economic conference on Thursday, Bush said he made "good progress" in holding the growth of non-defense, non-homeland-security programs this year to about 1 percent.

"What I'm saying is we're going to submit a tough budget," he said. "And I look forward to working with Congress on the tough budget."

The president is still making final decisions about the $2.5 trillion budget for 2006 he will propose in February.

But House and Senate aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, said cuts appeared destined for such programs as housing, grants for community development, purchases of new equipment for the Federal Aviation Administration, and Army Corps of Engineers water projects.

Even the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, an administration favorite, was facing an increase of just 1 percent, pending appeals to the White House by outgoing NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe, a lobbyist said.

The zero-sum game that is federal budgeting means that if spending for next year is held flat, for every dollar increase that administration favorites like education or veterans receive, another dollar must be cut elsewhere.

Even a program receiving the same as this year would lose purchasing power due to inflation, now running about 3 percent annually.

Bush's spending blueprint would be among the toughest for domestic programs since President Reagan's budgets of the 1980s.

Overall domestic spending has grown every year but three since 1987 -- in 1995 and 1996, when Republicans first recaptured Congress, and in 2000, immediately after a one-time influx of U.S. aid to help poor and debtor countries.

Even as domestic spending growth has slowed, overall expenditures including defense and domestic security continue to climb, largely due to the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Congress approved $87.5 billion for those wars in fall 2003 and $25 billion more last spring, and Bush is expected to request another $75 billion to $100 billion early in 2005.

As word of Bush's still-evolving plans for domestic spending has seeped out, it has cheered conservative Republicans. They spent much of Bush's first term criticizing him for letting spending grow too rapidly and pressuring congressional leaders to try clamping down on spending.

Excluding homeland security and emergencies like hurricanes, domestic spending has grown by 27 percent since Bush took office in 2001.

"I really do believe that this White House gets it," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana, a leading House conservative.

Last February, Bush proposed a 0.5 percent increase for domestic programs, which Congress eventually doubled. Advocates of cutting spending are hoping for better results next year, since November's elections will bring more conservatives to the House and Senate for the new Congress.

"They've run out of excuses," said Stephen Slivinski, budget director of the conservative-leaning Cato Institute. "They can't blame anyone else."

Still, Democrats and many moderate Republicans are certain to fight for their priorities when Congress begins translating Bush' budget proposal to actual spending legislation next year.

"This tells you the administration's priority is tax cuts over fiscal responsibility and providing central services to the American people," said Thomas Kahn, Democratic staff director of the House Budget Committee.

Last May, the White House budget office distributed a memo to federal agencies warning them to anticipate an overall domestic spending cut of about 0.7 percent next year. At the time, White House officials called the document an early step in the budget process.

"The budget process is still under way," White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton said Thursday. He said the administration still intends to cut the deficit in half in five years, and the next budget "will reflect our commitment to stay on that path."

[denoir 0]

Deadlock over Kyoto's successor [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

This year's meeting on the UN Climate Change Convention is deadlocked over a proposal to start informal discussions over the next year about the future of the climate-change regime.

The Kyoto protocol, which puts concrete measures in place to combat global warming, is due to come into force in February, but it only runs to 2012.

Formal negotiations will have to start on a successor at next year's meeting. The EU and US are now engaged in a direct stand-off in the final hours of the conference in the Argentine capital Buenos Aires.

The Americans are refusing to talk about the future; the Europeans are refusing not to talk about it.

EU spokesman Pieter van Geel said they were not prepared to give way over this demand for a forward looking seminar between now and the next annual meeting.

"This seminar is a symbol of starting discussions on the future, and we are very flexible. The EU is always very flexible - but not at all costs," Mr van Geel said.

But this is less a straightforward shoot-out, more like a hostage-taking.

The other bit of important business to be settled is how to get started on measures to help the least-developed countries adapt to the changing climate. If this meeting collapses, whoever is seen to cause the failure will be blamed for blocking this help to the world's poorest and most vulnerable people.

They did however reach some form of compromise:

Future climate talks deal agreed [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

Negotiators at the UN climate change conference appear to have reached a compromise over future talks. After talking for most of the night, the EU and US settled a long-running dispute over the format of talks about steps beyond the Kyoto Protocol.

The EU wanted several informal meetings to discuss how to combat global warming when Kyoto expires in 2012. The US won its demand for one meeting, next May, but agreed it would be held over several days.

The issue has kept the governments arguing well past the scheduled close of the two-week conference in the Argentine capital, Buenos Aires. Workmen began to dismantle the conference facilities while delegates continued talking.

Possible objections

"The Americans reached a good agreement with the Europeans," Argentine diplomat Raul Estrada Oyuela said.

The meeting in May 2005 will "promote an informal exchange of information" on cutting harmful emissions and adapting to climate change, according to the draft text of the deal.

The US had resisted any talk about longer-term action beyond 2012, when the Kyoto targets on cutting greenhouse gas emissions expire. That appears to have been conceded, says the BBC's Tim Hirsch in Buenos Aires.

But the deal thrashed out by the main countries involved could still face objections from some poorer nations when it reaches the floor of the full conference, our correspondent adds.

Is it my imagination or does just about every international summit these days result in an American-European slap fight?

[DarkLight 0]

How the fuck can you not want to save our planet?

Bunch of sickos

goddamn i hate humans

[shinRaiden 0]

Because 'we' don't think 'you' want to 'save' the planet, 'your' ulterior motive is the eco-terroristic apologetic attempts to systematicly eradicate the human impact on dear mother earth... If you think my prior posts border on the inflammatory, you should see some of the emails I get...

Had an amusing chat with an "eco-terrorist" the other day, she'd never heard that the 'mega-corp slash-and-burn logging cabals' here plant so many more trees than they cut that they call their operations treefarms. Gee, if you cut all the trees down, how will you cut some more down? If you don't take care of the land and immediately replant with something that grows fast, the hillside washes away then you have no more trees and bad fish rivers.

Some chuckles from my inbox... (The issue under discussion is the recently passed King County 'Critical Areas Ordinance' extenstion to the state-mandated 'Growth Management Act', which would in effect restrict rural unicorporated property owners from doing much more than looking at up to 65% of their property without compensation, subject to criminal and civil penalties and verified by regular aerial and on-site surveillence. Passed 7-6 on party lines. One guy who spoke in favor of it - while wearing a large Kerry-Edwards button - said it was a step in the right direction towards population control. I believe he is sharing in the same generous and festive spirit so nobley epitomized by the inpenitent Ebeneezer Scrooge. )

Streaming video (rippable, 423mb, 6hr:15min) of the final public hearing here - RealMedia

Quote[/b] ]

On Thu, Dec 16, 2004, -BLANK- wrote:

>>

>> -BLANK-, I agree with you too. But we have to refer these people by

>> some name. What should we call them? I think "eco-terrorist" or

>> "environmentalist" captures the offending group most cleanly. I don't

>> think "do-gooder" serves OUR goal very well. I think "communists"

>> best tells where this is all headed. Ever heard of "collective

>> farms"? That's where we are headed. How about "City people"?

Actually the correct term is ``fascist'' because fascism ostensibly permits

private property, but negates its value as the government limits the

``owner's'' ability to use that property. There's an excellent essay on

this in Ayn Rand's book, ``Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal'', but my copies

on loan right now so I can't cite it accurately.

I think it was Frederic Bastiat who pointed out that in many cases the only

difference between a crime and a law is that a majority voted for the law.

``But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if

the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to

other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one

citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself

cannot do without committing a crime.'' -- Frederic Bastiat, The Law

Quote[/b] ]

It's true that CAO opponents should temper anti-Democrat language in our rhetoric, because we need to win support of urban Democrats on our SPECIFIC issue at hand.

But anybody who thinks the KC Council is an isolated case of the modern liberal Democrats run amok should really take a closer look. Once you become aware of the issues via the CAO, and then expand your vision to the larger picture, you might really want to re-think your party loyalties.

The CAO is not an isolated local issue. These same principles are being battled at the State & Federal levels. For example, without the big Bush win last month, we wouldn't have a prayer of having grassroots efforts like our Referenda and the Oregon initiative stand up to the Liberal Activist Federal courts. And we should all be praying (if so inclined) that the results of the Gubernatorial recount favor Dino Rossi.

There is a fundamental philosophical difference between the parties... The Liberals do not believe in private property rights -- they pander to the recipients of government handouts, they want the Government to seize our land for their benefit. They are the ones who call OUR land THEIR land. It is the Leftist agenda -- playing Robin Hood... And guess what... as a rural landowner, YOU are the evil villain whose property must be STOLEN in order to bring justice.

If you imagine you can win this battle by signing the Referenda, and then continuing to support Liberal Democrat candidates and their party, who are fundamentally dedicated to stripping us of their rights, you are providing support to your own enemies.

Quote[/b] ]

-BLANK-, I respectfully disagree.

The problem is deep rooted in the Democrat Party's "Robin Hood" ideology. I've spent 3 decades of watching the taking of private property for public use, with no compensation to the small property owner. The genesis is always in the Democrat Party. You may find one d in 10 that can get it straight, but that is the best. I have zero sympathies for any democrat that now has their property taken through CAO. They had been blindly voting for their 'd' allies, always thinking that 'someone else' would pay for their wants. Now the bill has landed at their feet. Surprise, surprise!

Bottom line, is to start supporting the candidates that have your core beliefs at heart. I've sent out the evidence, 90% of the Republican candidates respect property rights. And, frankly, with no Property Rights, the only 'right' left that is worth anything is your Second Amendment Rights. Unfortunately, that 'right' just will create a human tragedy of a lot of people hurt.

Quote[/b] ]

From all the recent chatter about parties, it would appear that some folks are concerned about hurting the feelings of those affiliated with one party or another. The truth is that the Democrats have been hijacked by the socialist-environmentalist hard-line agenda and the Republicans have been hijacked by the religious right. It's the center we need to focus on and where most of us can agree.

When I have told Democrat landowners and city folk (even in other parts of the U. S.) what transpired in King County, they can't believe it. They say that no one should have the right to steal another persons property, either by outright theft or by legislative or judicial means. It is comforting to note that some things are sacred to both sides.

But when it comes to the CAO, there is one party and one party only, that has lobbied heavily for draconian ordinances to control our private rural property with no clear public benefit or purpose. That unfortunately, is the Democrats. The Democrats in the U. S. Congress created and passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) at the urging and powerful lobbying of environmentalists. The Democrats in the Washington State Legislature created and strengthened the Growth Management Act (GMA), again under the incessant lobbying of environmentalists. In fact, our current U. S. Senator, Maria Cantwell, (a Democrat) when in the Washington State Legislature in 1990, was one of the lead sponsors of the GMA. Washington Democrats have made the GMA stronger almost every year and the GMA now mandates counties and cities to pass CAO's. Whether you live in a city or county, the CAO is on its way to you and your land in the very near future.

The GMA is partially driven by the ESA and now every city and county under the jurisdiction of the GMA, must review their critical area ordinances and their comprehensive plans and make them in compliance with the 13 major goals and objectives of the GMA. Unfortunately, King County Democrats only focused on one of the GMA goals and that was environmental protection.

It is impossible not to take note of all these facts regarding responsible political parties. If the vote for the CAO had been a few parts Democrat and a few parts Republican, the question of party affiliation would be moot. So I ask the Democrat landowners to reflect on where all these land use laws and ordinances are originating. The Republicans in the Washington State Legislature have been trying to scale back the GMA for years, but have never had the votes (much less a Republican Governor) to do it. Now the Republicans are even more of a minority and we can expect the Democrats to bring further grief to landowners through the GMA, unless all landowners (regardless of party affiliation) will rise up and convince them otherwise. Oregon passed Ballot Measure 37 to require compensation for ordinances that reduce property values. Something similar is in the works for Washington. No matter what party is responsible for these draconian land use ordinances, they must be stopped and reversed. So we can either work together in concert to accomplish this, or we can squabble over hurt feelings because of party affiliation.

Everyone has their reasons for belonging to a political party. Some reasons are well thought out and others are more based on emotion or upbringing. But if we will only use the supreme law of the land as our guide, the U. S. Constitution, we can measure our party affiliation accordingly. It just turns out that Republicans tend (and I said tend) to be a little closer to the supreme law of the land than the Democrats. As they say on Fox News, we report, you decide.

[Donnervogel 0]

Quote[/b] ]she'd never heard that the 'mega-corp slash-and-burn logging cabals' here plant so many more trees than they cut that they call their operations treefarms.

We've been there in switzerland already until we found out that that logic is faulty ;)

1. Trees take veeery much time to grow. Solution: Plant fast growing tree monocultures.

2. Tree monocultures destroy the natural fauna. Many animals lose their existencial fundament.

3. Due to missing animals varmints spread and destoy the trees. Solution: use chemicals

4. cheicals poison the ground and sometimes drinking water. Often they affect mushrooms over long time periods too which are needed for trees to grow properly. Trees begin to die because they don't get enough water. Solution: give them more water

5. The additional water is expensive. It takes the chemicals from the ground into deeper layers where they get into drinking water reservoirs. It also takes nutrients away from the ground. It oversalts the ground. Trees don't grow properly anymore.

6. Tree monocutures are much more affected by diseases. Solution: chemicals - see point 4 and 5

7. Thos tree monocultures never are able to reproduce the same quality ground that primeval forest made. The layer of good earth is thinner. It's not able to soak as much water and it doesn't adhere to the rocky ground that good. Floods and Landslides can happen more often.

8. Those trees monocultures are young and not so strong. They can be devastated by storms easily.

[shinRaiden 0]

1) Different kinds of trees take different amounts of time to grow.

Different types of trees are suitable for different markets.

Different types of trees have varying environmental preferences.

2) Suburban sprawl and the elmination of habitat, as opposed to cycling of habitat, is a more immediate theoretical concern.

3) You guys sent us all your plagues. The biggest problem is bugs, and thats on natural cycles - but more severe since TCA wouldn't let the land managers clean out the old rot.

4) Proper management eliminates the need for non-emergency pesticides, and the standard practice of pre-planting nitrogen-injecting Alder trees and dense cover vegetation takes care of any fertilizer needs.

5) Welcome to the rainiest part of the world. We've got more water than we know what to do with. Well, actually we don't know what to do with it, but that's another topic.

6) 4.5. Had a bad bug-borne pine tree disease blow through the east-side of the mountains over the past couple of years. Didn't have a big impact on private land though, since they had cleared out the rot. Public lands are coming back pretty quick though, as it was just a needle-muncher and not systemic.

7) Yet another reason why we don't do amazonian slash-and-burn. The minimum stream setbacks are 100m on each side, the official reason is so that 50m legacy trees can retain the soil. The most severe landslides and such in the past several years has been from incompetent project management by state agencies. Why should they care? They don't have any incentive to. If a business has a washout, that's immediate expenses and no future revenue.

8) That's why you leave buffers and cut and manage with the terrain you have to work with.

Quote[/b] ]

"When the government destroyed my neighbor, a small mining company, I

didn't care because I wasn't a miner.

When the government destroyed neighboring small ranchers, I continued

not to care because I wasn't a rancher.

When the government finally destroyed the independent loggers, I didn't

care because I wasn't a logger.

And when the government destroyed the family farm just down the road

from me, I didn't care because I wasn't a farmer.

Now they're coming for me...where are my neighbors?"

[Donnervogel 0]

1) Different kinds of trees take different amounts of time to grow.

Different types of trees are suitable for different markets.

Different types of trees have varying environmental preferences.

2) Suburban sprawl and the elmination of habitat, as opposed to cycling of habitat, is a more immediate theoretical concern.

3) You guys sent us all your plagues. The biggest problem is bugs, and thats on natural cycles - but more severe since TCA wouldn't let the land managers clean out the old rot.

4) Proper management eliminates the need for non-emergency pesticides, and the standard practice of pre-planting nitrogen-injecting Alder trees and dense cover vegetation takes care of any fertilizer needs.

5) Welcome to the rainiest part of the world. We've got more water than we know what to do with. Well, actually we don't know what to do with it, but that's another topic.

6) 4.5. Had a bad bug-borne pine tree disease blow through the east-side of the mountains over the past couple of years. Didn't have a big impact on private land though, since they had cleared out the rot. Public lands are coming back pretty quick though, as it was just a needle-muncher and not systemic.

7) Yet another reason why we don't do amazonian slash-and-burn. The minimum stream setbacks are 100m on each side, the official reason is so that 50m legacy trees can retain the soil. The most severe landslides and such in the past several years has been from incompetent project management by state agencies. Why should they care? They don't have any incentive to. If a business has a washout, that's immediate expenses and no future revenue.

8) That's why you leave buffers and cut and manage with the terrain you have to work with.

Quote[/b] ]

"When the government destroyed my neighbor, a small mining company, I

didn't care because I wasn't a miner.

When the government destroyed neighboring small ranchers, I continued

not to care because I wasn't a rancher.

When the government finally destroyed the independent loggers, I didn't

care because I wasn't a logger.

And when the government destroyed the family farm just down the road

from me, I didn't care because I wasn't a farmer.

Now they're coming for me...where are my neighbors?"

well I don't want to go into bio-geographical discussion since it would be off topic. You will find out one day that it doesn't work I guess.

There are much more points I did not metion and I simplified things. Like rain. Hey we've got more rain than we need too. Only the bad ground from replanted trees/forrests isn't able to take it anymore. And different trees yes. But only trees that are commercially interesting. Those are mostly similar types which doesn't rule out the problems. And even the best chemicals leave their marks on nature.

Men are not able to copy nature yet. We tried it too for something like 60 years in the late 1990's we had to admit that it was a big fuckup because one lousy storm destoryed almost 19% of our replanted trees. And we have 15% more floods than 10 years ago and we have had some landslide catastrophies which eliminated whole villages. And killed lot's of people. (Even with buffer and safezones - the extend of the catastophies just exceeded anything imaginable) Maybe your topography doesn't show the problems that fast as ours but they will appear.

[drewb99 0]

How the fuck can you not want to save our planet?

Bunch of sickos

goddamn i hate humans

Because there's still the possibility that global warming because of greenhouse gas is a bunch of hooey. The world's getting warmer for sure, but nobody can yet truely put a finger on exactly why. The world has a tendancy to get warmer every few hundred years for no good reason, this could just be one of those periods.

[denoir 0]

The world has a tendancy to get warmer every few hundred years for no good reason, this could just be one of those periods.

Yes it does, but we're talking about a bit longer perspective than 100 years:

Now the argument that past values are not reliable to predict future ones is valid on several points. The data that we have is far from perfect. We only have real reliable measurements from the last 50 years or so - before that they're rough estimates. Furthermore there is a significant natural variation in temperature trends.

That is however omitting a very important fact: the chemistry behind it and that it is very well established and shown in controlled experiments what CO2 does to the absorption and reflection of sunlight in the atmosphere. Without trying to predict based on historic data one can predict the current changes just using physical and chemical models. Furthermore, our climate models - that have served well for prediction so far - cannot reproduce the current trends without taking into account massive amounts of CO2 artificially dumped in the atmosphere.

It's also important to realize that the controversy over the green house effect, is a political one, not a scientific one. The arguments against it are based on economics. In the scientific community however, there is a clear concensus that the warming we are seeing today is human-induced. All but very few climatology experts agree on that.

And even with disagreement, nobody is denying that it is getting warmer and that we are dumping an excessive amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. So the refusal to do anything about it is a bit absurd. It's like seeing a man pass out on the street and refuse giving him CPR because there's the possibility he's having a stroke and not a heart attack.

Global warming is an undisputed fact and we have the choice of either just give up and accept is as an inevitability or we can, based on solid research, believe that we can do something about it.

To answer DarkLight's original question:

Quote[/b] ]How the fuck can you not want to save our planet?

Because it is expensive and my stocks in Exxon Mobile might drop.

[DarkLight 0]

To answer DarkLight's original question:

Quote[/b] ]How the fuck can you not want to save our planet?

Because it is expensive and my stocks in Exxon Mobile might drop.

So we are just gonna destroy everything we have

pfff i don't understand all those weirdos... sure it isn't easy to stop all the nasty fumes and stuff like that but most people don't even bother caring...

bah

disgusting

[EiZei 0]

To answer DarkLight's original question:

Quote[/b] ]How the fuck can you not want to save our planet?

Because it is expensive and my stocks in Exxon Mobile might drop.

So we are just gonna destroy everything we have

All those certain politicians and CEOs will be dead by then so it does not matter to them.