U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Montana
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-18-2010, 09:50 AM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
6,488 posts, read 7,496,695 times
Reputation: 1994

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhouse2001 View Post
What natural habitat? Conservatives destroy natural landscapes for their own benefit and they don't want anyone telling them otherwise. They want no regulation or interference even if what they're doing is destructive to others. Combining "conservative" with "natural habitat" is like attempting to mix oil and water.
That's about the most... uneducated statement I've seen in a long time.

Go out to farm and ranch country and tell me how they could continue to make a living, raising food for the rest of us, if they destroyed the land that they need to make a living. Go out to forest land and tell me how logging can continue if all the trees are cut and never replaced.

Oh, you don't want the "natural landscape" altered for ANY reason? Then where do you propose that we get our food? China? They certainly don't have any problem destroying THEIR natural landscape. I guess it's okay if it's not done where you can see it, right?

As to the "unnaturalness" of grazing cattle, those grasslands evolved to be grazed. If it's not grazed down regularly, the health of the grass begins to suffer, and eventually it gets taken over by invasive weeds. Research on the subject indicates that the best and most natural way is intensive short-term grazing -- graze it down hard and then move on. This is exactly what bison do, and what modern cattlemen do as well.

But the grazing MUST be done, either by bison or by cattle -- the grassland doesn't care which. The main reason we raise cattle instead of bison is because cattle have been bred to be easier to handle and more consistent as meat producers, but the fact is that from a conservation standpoint it doesn't matter if the grassland is grazed by bison or by cattle.

Turns out the overgrown riverbanks we see in some areas aren't natural either; they're the result of insufficient grazing, whether by wildlife or by cattle, it doesn't matter which but it needs to be done.

As to forests, they evolved to handle wildfires. But now we try to prevent or halt forest fires (lest they burn out the treehuggers who've built McMansions in the woods). BUT -- If you don't have wildfires thinning the under-canopy on a regular basis, then to keep the forest healthy, you need to log out the deadwood and the surplus trees, so the rest can get enough water. If you don't do that, every time there's a short-term drought you get a big die-off, and then when you do inevitably get a wildfire, it takes out ALL the trees instead of just clearing the underbrush as nature intended. Thanks to decades of fire prevention, most forests now have 5 times as many trees as nature intended, and that's why we have overstressed trees (since there's not enough water to support that many trees) succumbing to bark beetles and dying en masse. (In some forests the die-off rate presently exceeds 80%.)

So -- you need to have either wildfires, or you need to have logging -- one way or the other the forests need to be kept thinned down, so the normal population of trees can stay healthy. Contrary to popular belief, a healthy forest isn't thick or brushy; it consists of well-spaced trees with very little growing between them above waist-high, exactly as they evolved so as to survive in a natural wildfire area, and new seedlings only survive sufficient to fill in when old trees die. In turn this preserves the natural habitat of the browsing animals (deer etc.) that evolved to live in the forest, which then help keep the brush trimmed down and keep seedling trees (which they also eat) from filling in all the open space -- which in turn helps keep wildfires from getting out of hand.

There's good research on all of this, and doubtless many other examples that I don't know about. But these are the two big natural environments that well-managed ranching and logging (the two usual "big evils" in the eyes of the classical treehugger) help preserve in as near to their natural state as the modern world can achieve. Indeed, they must do so, or as I point out up front, they'll soon go out of business.

And THAT is the conservative viewpoint, in every sense of the word.

 
Old 09-18-2010, 09:59 AM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
6,488 posts, read 7,496,695 times
Reputation: 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickers View Post
Headstones Galore
Good one! (what does it say across the top?)

And that must have been a marriage made in hell
 
Old 09-18-2010, 02:32 PM
 
Location: In The Outland
6,040 posts, read 6,747,649 times
Reputation: 3535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac View Post
Good one! (what does it say across the top?)
I wrote; If they don't go away fast enough, there is always plan "B" (s.s.s.), but a hog stye works better, no shoveling and ammo is pricey !
 
Old 09-18-2010, 06:40 PM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
6,488 posts, read 7,496,695 times
Reputation: 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickers View Post
I wrote; If they don't go away fast enough, there is always plan "B" (s.s.s.), but a hog stye works better, no shoveling and ammo is pricey !
Earlier today I was reading about how the most economical way to dispose of organic garbage is to use it as hog feed. Coincidence?
 
Old 09-18-2010, 11:24 PM
 
9,343 posts, read 16,737,554 times
Reputation: 4221
Quote:
Originally Posted by lndigo View Post
What the hell is wrong with living alongside liberals?

Liberals are proponents of socialism because they want to make everyone equal: equally poor!
 
Old 09-18-2010, 11:40 PM
 
Location: Montana
1,219 posts, read 2,026,727 times
Reputation: 635
Tried to rep several on this one... so just so you know... Rez, Rickers, and Walter... Take a proverbial rep point from me. I don't have much time to be on and real all these days... but it's great to see you guys on here, every time!

Reziac... When you get back here I want to be first in line to buy you a beer, coffee, pop or whatever you prefer.. Excellent post above my friend.
 
Old 09-19-2010, 12:56 AM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
6,488 posts, read 7,496,695 times
Reputation: 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Greenspan View Post
Liberals are proponents of socialism because they want to make everyone equal: equally poor!
To use the common paraphrase of Margaret Thatcher (to whom we should all have listened more closely decades ago), "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

The original statement (near the bottom):
TV Interview for Thames TV This Week | Margaret Thatcher Foundation

Her philosophy is quite well-aligned with the foundations Montana was built on, principally non-interference in average people's lives (and paychecks).
 
Old 09-19-2010, 10:44 AM
 
Location: In The Outland
6,040 posts, read 6,747,649 times
Reputation: 3535
Default Flag Left ~ Flag right ~♥~

Flag "Left" today ~~~~~ Flag "Right" tomorrow ~~ and back and forth we go ! I always "picture" it blowing the other way. ♥
I "Draw" my picture of our country's flag in the voting booth with a chad puncher.


http://lh3.ggpht.com/_9a8nDInPVGE/TGLN4EH0i0I/AAAAAAAAENo/3kikTFQ7i44/s512/IMG_0865.JPG (broken link)
 
Old 09-19-2010, 11:27 AM
 
369 posts, read 247,431 times
Reputation: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by lndigo View Post
The way I see it, friends don't compromise friendship due to something silly like politics just the way a good neighbour is a good neighbour whether they're Christian or Jewish. What's the difference between living with a liberal and living with a conservative if politics are never discussed, after all? But that's just me. Maybe somebody can shed some light onto this?
Ugh, it would be money. If big government supporters, liberals, socialist "conservatives", progressives, whatever, want a huge government, that costs money. Maybe folks are sick of constantly having to bailout idiots. So I live frugal, save my money (because by the time I am able to get social security, it will either be gone, or the age pushed back to 75), practice family planning, etc. and these liberals want more of my money to take it and give it to single mothers, public schools, etc. etc.

I am sick of the "compromise" and "civil discussion." Now when liberals talk, I tell them about my plans to let my kids do whatever they want. Who cares if my "should know better" middle to upper middle class European-American daughter starts popping out bastard kids at 16. If it is OK with millions of others, why isn't it OK for my kids? It is funny when liberals talk to their working middle to upper middle class to rich friends about all the government should be doing. Then you tell them your plans on joining the layabout and bum welfare hordes, or not caring if your kids become productive members of society and they get a crazed look in their eyes. Well, again, if it is OK for one group, why not others? What kind of idiot will work hard to bring home $50K+/year when government just keeps taking more and more and more and more. Why aren't billionaires like Pelois offering a 5% millionaire tax to help get things in order? A five year, 5% wealth tax on anyone worth over $10M? Rich and well-off liberals seem to be OK with taking other people's money, but it is only when their money is taken at a much larger cut do they start complaining.

I am sick of socialists of both parties constantly trying to pry more and more of my money out of my wallet. My wife and I are single, no kids..yet, but because we have lived frugal making about $70K/year combined over the last five years, people view us as "rich" and we should shut-up about paying our "fair share." Give me a break. I know liberals making $200K+/year, and they don't want to pay anymore than anyone else. Sorry, but taking $1,000 out of my savings is vastly different than taking $3,000 out of their savings.

Right now, I have my local school district asking for more money. Big city (Indy) politicians wanting us suburban folks to bail them out. Mass transit folks wanting tax hikes. The list goes on and on. There is always some socialist out there demanding more of my money. I don't care what these folks call themselves, I'm not going to be friendly to them. They want to steal my wealth which means I have less to spend on food, less to save for my kids education, less to spend to pay down my debt, etc..

I am so sick of the constant need for more of my money, that I have made copies of my property tax bill. When school kids come to the door trying to raise money for the school, I just give them a copy and tell them to ask their teacher where the money went. It is getting to the point that "doing the right thing" (ie: Not having tons of kids out of wedlock, going to school, then on to trade school or college, starting a business, providing jobs to people, living within your means, etc.) is for fools if you live in the US. Just live like an animal and live off all the government welfare benefits. Be accountable to no one and do whatever you want to do. Sounds good to me.
 
Old 09-19-2010, 12:31 PM
 
Location: 112 Ocean Avenue
5,706 posts, read 4,792,953 times
Reputation: 8664
Not only liberals, but homosexuals as well. Some very strange things start to happen to people when they put on a cowboy hat, and slip into a pair of cowboy boots.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Montana
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:16 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top