How stupid can our(U.S.) goverment be:

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
No, I don't because Bush proposed more than that. However, hysterical ranting to the contrary, you haven't demonstrated where the proposal is flawed.

The proposal is flawed because it is claiming it is only going to be a saftey feature, when in reality they will cut down vast tracts of forest for money.

Logging companies are supporting this, do you think they expect to be told to only take fallen branches?

[DinoDoc]

I love idiotic cliches, Sava. Please post more.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by MacTBone
I really don't understand why the term "Raping" is used for this. I mean, who's participating in this involuntary intercourse/sodomy? Can the Earth "feel"? Does the Earth have feelings? Can we even refer to the Earth as something to which human standards can be applied?

Okay: He plans to turn the world into a craphole by destroying the enviroment.

Hows that? lol.

[Sava]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I love idiotic cliches, Sava. Please post more.

You first. Post some more morally repugnant, evil, greedy, capitalistic proposals, and I'll make fun of them while I burn your strawmen to the ground.

[drake]

However, hysterical ranting to the contrary, you haven't demonstrated where the proposal is flawed.

Isn't that the norm around here?

A: Bush sucks.
B: Why?
A: Because he's an idiot.
B: Why is he an idiot?
A: Because he is.

[red_jon]

Reminds me of that onion article where Bush plans to conserve Alaska by clearing it of oil

[Sava]

Originally posted by Vesayen


Okay: He plans to turn the world into a craphole by destroying the enviroment.

Hows that? lol.

[right wing rant]

Hey are you a communist? It's a free market! We're just trying to supply paper to people at the lowest cost!

[/right wing rant]

[DinoDoc]

BTW, let's deal with a more detailed account of the proposal:

Overgrown forests require preventive measures
By Gale A. Norton

When Lewis and Clark explored the Northwest, the forests were relatively open, with 20 to 25 mature trees per acre. Periodically, lightning would start fires that would clear out underbrush and small trees, renewing the forests.

Today's forests are completely different, with as many as 400 trees crowded onto each acre, along with thick undergrowth. This density of growth makes forests susceptible to disease, drought and severe wildfires. Instead of restoring forests, these wildfires destroy them, and it can take decades to recover. This radical change in our forests is the result of nearly a century of well-intentioned but misguided management.

The effects of the decline in forests and rangelands are in the news each day. Fires are rampaging across the West. I recently took an aerial tour over the Hayman fire that ravaged Colorado. Words cannot describe the horrific devastation caused by the fire.

The crisis threatens to worsen. Of the 470 million acres of federally managed forests, 190 million acres are at risk for catastrophic fires. With dense forests and severe drought, much of the West is a tinderbox waiting for a spark.

Firefighters have effectively battled this summer's fires, in part because we have given them the resources to get the job done: more equipment, more intergovernmental cooperation and 4,000 more firefighters than just two years ago. As of last week, firefighters had contained 490 large fires and saved several rural communities from destruction.

Fighting fires after they start, however, is not enough. We need to attack their root causes.

On Thursday, President Bush is traveling to Oregon to see the damage caused by fires that have ravaged that state this summer. He will announce steps to accelerate our efforts to restore forest and rangeland health and reduce the long-term threat of these wildfires.

Underscoring the president's plan is a basic philosophy: Restoring forest ecosystems will mean fewer excess fuels and fewer destructive fires. Prescribed burns and mechanical thinning are essential to achieving this goal. To facilitate this, we also need to make the thinning of small trees and undergrowth more cost-effective by awarding long-term contracts to private organizations.

Similarly, this spring, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and I reached an agreement with Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne and Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber on a comprehensive 10-year plan to actively manage lands at high risk for fire. That plan calls for regulatory changes to produce faster decisions on forest-thinning projects. For example, a 430-acre thinning project near Medford, Ore., involved six years, 830 pages of documentation, two environmental assessments and several lawsuits before work was allowed to continue. But where human lives are at stake, where property is at risk and where the forests and valuable wildlife habitat may be destroyed by wildfires, we simply cannot afford to wait.

There are other practical steps citizens can take as well. People who choose to build homes in forests need to take sensible precautions. This includes building with fire-resistant materials, cutting back undergrowth and maintaining firebreaks. Firefighters make an assessment of each property to see what actions are needed to defend it. If homeowners have not taken simple steps to create defensible spaces around their homes, then firefighters should not be asked to put their lives on the line to protect their property.

This summer's fires are destroying our forests and countless millions of dollars in property. Federal, state and local governments are spending billions of dollars to fight them. We can fight these fires now, but we also need to do more to restore forests and rangelands to their natural condition, which will prevent severe fires in the future.

It's time to put the adage to work: An ounce of prevention is indeed worth a pound of cure.

[SlowwHand]

This is your brain:





This is your brain on chain saw:

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Sava


[right wing rant]

Hey are you a communist? It's a free market! We're just trying to supply paper to people at the lowest cost!

[/right wing rant]

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh yesterday......I always thought he was an idiot, but now I realized he is a psychotic paranoid freak with schitzophenic delusions.......he claims that all enviromentalist groups dont care about the enviroment, but are using the enviroment for political reasons.

Yes: Im sure the sierra club is only trying to protect forests in a bid for world domination........

But besides that point, if we continue with our wonderfull free market which trashes our planet, the next generation wont have a market at all.

[mactbone]

Isn't that what they were saying in the '60s? Apparently, I have a trashed environment...

[Vesayen]

Dinodoc: I greatly doubt the truth and bias to that article, because right off the bat: What would cause a 400% growth in forest density?(as it claims in the very begining)

[Sava]

Originally posted by Vesayen



I was listening to Rush Limbaugh yesterday......I always thought he was an idiot, but now I realized he is a psychotic paranoid freak with schitzophenic delusions.......he claims that all enviromentalist groups dont care about the enviroment, but are using the enviroment for political reasons.

Yes: Im sure the sierra club is only trying to protect forests in a bid for world domination........

But besides that point, if we continue with our wonderfull free market which trashes our planet, the next generation wont have a market at all.

[right wing rant]

Yup, a dirty commie. LET'S DETAIN HIM!

[/right wing rant]

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by MacTBone
I really don't understand why the term "Raping" is used for this. I mean, who's participating in this involuntary intercourse/sodomy? Can the Earth "feel"? Does the Earth have feelings? Can we even refer to the Earth as something to which human standards can be applied?

Its a "she", her name is Gaia and she can be a real b**** if you piss her off.

[TheStinger]

I like the fact the article says the best way to proceed is to ward long term contracts to private firms.

There always gonna put the enviroment first