Fox News makes me laugh

I wasn't referring to the ugly post about you. That was uncalled for and untrue, and the offender has been banned. Probably should be deleted.

I vote yes, it should be.

Because we love your gay self. ;-)

Ah well this may be the root of the problem.

You see I would never say evil things about Miss Kitty, as I know enough to stay away from any p***y.

Ah well this may be the root of the problem.

You see I would never say evil things about Miss Kitty, as I know enough to stay away from any p***y.

:shock: :funn: :rofl:

Ah well this may be the root of the problem.

You see I would never say evil things about Miss Kitty, as I know enough to stay away from any p***y.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :funn: :funn:

This has got to be the most unkind post ever. If you have ever had the:funn: chance to meet our Kitty you would know that she is lovely.

Man, I'd hate to see what this person would think if he/she/it saw a pic. of me!! I go out to eat all the time!

6th Gen, you state:
By definition, someone that is greedy is always wanting more, so it is not in their interest to destroy their source of livelihood. It is in their interest to replace it, to accumulate more material wealth. "

No, it is not always in the interest of greedy people to replace the source of their livelihood. They pick up and move on to the latest and greatest without regard to the environment and others.
Perhaps you would understand the quote better if you came to New York and ate a Hudson river trout if you could find one without 3 heads.

My main contention was the part about eating money. If money cannot purchase the most basic and necessary of needs, what good is it? I was going to get to that if we could have discussed it rather than responding with ?BITE ME?. As for the rest, I do believe that people have a built in incentive to make sure they still have an income down the road. The environment, and polluting rivers and the like is another issue. Let?s follow your premise. The state has an incentive to protect its natural resources, such as rivers and water supply. States can heavily fine or imprison officers and companies that dump on their land, as they could do so for someone defacing the Washington Monument. Further, consumers are not likely to patronize someone that is ruining their water supply, so it is not in the interest of the man with his mustache kneading between his index finger and thumb to ruin the waterways of his customers, or they will not offer him the business to continue to do so.

Ah well this may be the root of the problem.

You see I would never say evil things about Miss Kitty, as I know enough to stay away from any p***y.

Purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! Speaking of roots, tomorrow is hair day!

Thanks for all the kind comments about my overeating. I was more concerned with the bitter part myself. What was up with that? :roll:

You are a female who disagreed so OBVIOUSLY you must be bitter and overweight. If the discussion had continued, I am sure your sexual orientation would have been the next insult.

For some reason they thought I was male, so I was just labeled a liberal full of white guilt and reverse bigotry when I disagreed.

My main contention was the part about eating money. If money cannot purchase the most basic and necessary of needs, what good is it? I was going to get to that if we could have discussed it rather than responding with ?BITE ME?. As for the rest, I do believe that people have a built in incentive to make sure they still have an income down the road. The environment, and polluting rivers and the like is another issue. Let?s follow your premise. The state has an incentive to protect its natural resources, such as rivers and water supply. States can heavily fine or imprison officers and companies that dump on their land, as they could do so for someone defacing the Washington Monument. Further, consumers are not likely to patronize someone that is ruining their water supply, so it is not in the interest of the man with his mustache kneading between his index finger and thumb to ruin the waterways of his customers, or they will not offer him the business to continue to do so.

States are run by groups of individuals who may not have an interest in said protection of resources. They may have biases one way or another. for example , they may profit from lumber which may conflict protection of parks and forests. Dessimation of these resources happens over long periods of time ( decades in cases). A 60 year old CEO of a business could care less about trees 50 years down the road.
A state may also have conflicting interests in the use of its resources. Do you preserve one at the expense of another ? Perhaps tourism ( visiting some natural resources- forests, lakes etc...) conflicts with tapping large natural gas resources below them.
As far as individuals not patronizing unsavory business, I think the record is pretty clear that we Americans are either oblivious to much that goes on or do not care very much. See our autos of choice.

States are run by groups of individuals who may not have an interest in said protection of resources. They may have biases one way or another. for example , they may profit from lumber which may conflict protection of parks and forests. Dessimation of these resources happens over long periods of time ( decades in cases). A 60 year old CEO of a business could care less about trees 50 years down the road.
A state may also have conflicting interests in the use of its resources. Do you preserve one at the expense of another ? Perhaps tourism ( visiting some natural resources- forests, lakes etc...) conflicts with tapping large natural gas resources below them.
As far as individuals not patronizing unsavory business, I think the record is pretty clear that we Americans are either oblivious to much that goes on or do not care very much. See our autos of choice.

Well said.

States are run by groups of individuals who may not have an interest in said protection of resources. They may have biases one way or another. for example , they may profit from lumber which may conflict protection of parks and forests. Dessimation of these resources happens over long periods of time ( decades in cases). A 60 year old CEO of a business could care less about trees 50 years down the road.
A state may also have conflicting interests in the use of its resources. Do you preserve one at the expense of another ? Perhaps tourism ( visiting some natural resources- forests, lakes etc...) conflicts with tapping large natural gas resources below them.
As far as individuals not patronizing unsavory business, I think the record is pretty clear that we Americans are either oblivious to much that goes on or do not care very much. See our autos of choice.

Our autos of choice? What has Detroit done that is indefensible, other than kowtowing to the unions?

As there is dessimation of resources, the resources become scarce, and supply is far down while demand remains constant, so unless the CEO with the mustache between his index finger and thumb has truly unlimited resources, he can't do all that much relative damage before he buys the farm. Regardless, it doesn't jive with human nature. It is cheap and easy to replant trees, your example, while purchasing new land is expensive and obtaining permits is cumbersome.

The state officials comment would work if we were, say, 17th century England. In fact, we have many different elected officials on many levels (state, county, municipality, neighboring municipality, etc) with different and often conflicting interests. The vast majority of the time, their primary interest is selfish, so assuming they'd like to be re-elected or at least well thought of in retirement, they will protect state resources the public values. There are already laws in place against dumping, etc. so all they have to do is have someone enforce them, and if their opponents or superiors are not, they have selfish interest to call attention to them. To believe that politicians would ignore grave danger to their resources that is naive past the point of logic. To believe that the citizens would ignore it is just plain head-in-the-sand. There was a thread on this very forum that stopped someone from moving tires off the beach without a permit. Do you honestly believe that no one would complain if they saw a few days of runoff passing down the river?

One isolated incident reported by a savvy sowaler doesn't prove anything.

Your narrow mind is ignoring the fact that this country is part of a global economy as well, so when you come off your micro headed thinking, chew on this article for a while, then go spend some time on Wall Street with some traders.

While you're here in New York, I'll prepare you a 3 headed Hudson River Trout, and you can eat it while admiring the view of West Point whose students are getting ready to graduate, while mourning the largest share of casualties than at any time in recent military history.

Purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! Speaking of roots, tomorrow is hair day!

Thanks for all the kind comments about my overeating. I was more concerned with the bitter part myself. What was up with that? :roll:

Wow, Miss Kitty...When I read what that person said, I thought it was some kind of inside joke I just didn't get...My sincere apologies on behalf of that hateful person...Red

Ah well this may be the root of the problem.

You see I would never say evil things about Miss Kitty, as I know enough to stay away from any p***y.

While your sexual orientation is obvious, I would appreciate a little less vulgarity in the open forum, please...Red

One isolated incident reported by a savvy sowaler doesn't prove anything.

Your narrow mind is ignoring the fact that this country is part of a global economy as well, so when you come off your micro headed thinking, chew on this article for a while, then go spend some time on Wall Street with some traders.

While you're here in New York, I'll prepare you a 3 headed Hudson River Trout, and you can eat it while admiring the view of West Point whose students are getting ready to graduate, while mourning the largest share of casualties than at any time in recent military history.

One isolated incident proves everything. If a backhoe on the bay in a very sparsely populated area in a small town can be stopped in a matter of hours, massive dumping over many years cannot be detected or stopped? What kind of reasoning is that?

And who is narrow minded here? You've completely changed the subject. I understand that we are part of a global economy, but that has nothing to do with Indians eating money. Nor does the war. Try, just try to stay on topic.

Here, try this - what is your answer for stopping companies from dumping, stopping trees from being cut down, etc? You've attacked my position with red herrings that are insults to red herrings. "Oh yea, the Cree Indian statement lacks an understanding of basic economics - WILL WHAT ABOUT THE BOYS AT WEST POINT??? HUH???" Are we even having the same conversation here? What is your solution to "greed"? I am waiting with baited breath.

Also, I haven't yet the time to read the article, but scanning it, how many of those countries pictured have open, liberal economies? I know, I just look at the pictures, but I'm kind of tied up right now. Why don't you give me a list of countries with centrally controlled and regulated economies vs. the countries with free economies. I'm guessing your article will prove my point.

One isolated incident proves everything. If a backhoe on the bay in a very sparsely populated area in a small town can be stopped in a matter of hours, massive dumping over many years cannot be detected or stopped? What kind of reasoning is that?

And who is narrow minded here? You've completely changed the subject. I understand that we are part of a global economy, but that has nothing to do with Indians eating money. Nor does the war. Try, just try to stay on topic.

Here, try this - what is your answer for stopping companies from dumping, stopping trees from being cut down, etc? You've attacked my position with red herrings that are insults to red herrings. "Oh yea, the Cree Indian statement lacks an understanding of basic economics - WILL WHAT ABOUT THE BOYS AT WEST POINT??? HUH???" Are we even having the same conversation here? What is your solution to "greed"? I am waiting with baited breath.

Can you explain the "red herring and "straw man" references you use frequently. I get the basic point but am unfamiliar with their origins.

Can you explain the "red herring and "straw man" references you use frequently. I get the basic point but am unfamiliar with their origins.

Sure. Basically a straw man is distorting someone's argument to something you can easily knock down. An example would be along the lines of:

Person A: "I believe that invading Iraq and forcing regime change is vital to national security."
Person B: "Why? Saddam Hussein didn't fly the planes into the building."

A red herring is completely changing the subject, for example the Chewbacca defense on South Park.

Person A: "I believe that government meddling is harmful to economic growth."
Person B: "I really like chocolate pudding, and purchasing JELLO products is good for the economy."

While your sexual orientation is obvious, I would appreciate a little less vulgarity in the open forum, please...Red

Dear Red,

Until you can prove minors are viewing SoWal?s political forum and that a moment of levity wasn?t badly needed here, a little less prudishness would be appreciated.

Thanks, 30-gAy

Can you explain the "red herring and "straw man" references you use frequently. I get the basic point but am unfamiliar with their origins.

Rancid, let me see if I can help clarify with a few specific examples.

A good example of a Straw Man argument is 6thGen?s post #12, ?As for the Falwell death announcement, he is, in effect, the founder of the Religious Right. I assume if anyone was upset about the alert, then they'd also be upset if an alert popped up for, say, Rand, Marx or FDR.?, since clearly Marx or FDR are much larger historical figures.


A good example of a Red Herring would be 6thGen?s response in Post #35, to kathydwells quote regarding greed:

?Maybe if American Indians looked to solutions other than the way of the buffalo, they'd get a handle on their people's problem of alcoholism.?, Since alcoholism was never part of the original discussion.


But my favorite flawed debating tactic is Tunnel Vision Arguments, you know like ?All arabs are violent and war-like, because every war in the mid-east has involved arabs?.? Any guesses as to who is the master of these?

Dear Red,

Until you can prove minors are viewing SoWal?s political forum and that a moment of levity wasn?t badly needed here, a little less prudishness would be appreciated.

Thanks, 30-gAy

I wouldn't think I would need to prove anything...I would simply appreciate your "tolerance"...I don't consider it levity, I consider it vulgar...Red

In all fairness I believe 30-gAys post was a double entendre since he was referring to Miss Kitty. There are no rimshots on message boards. Oops, there's another one.

Dear Red,

Until you can prove minors are viewing SoWal?s political forum and that a moment of levity wasn?t badly needed here, a little less prudishness would be appreciated.

Thanks, 30-gAy

I'd say that the fact that you can't type out the word for a female dog without it being starred out sets the standard for what is considered vulgar by the owner of the site.

Dear Red,

Until you can prove minors are viewing SoWal?s political forum and that a moment of levity wasn?t badly needed here, a little less prudishness would be appreciated.

Thanks, 30-gAy

I got the joke. I was not offended and I've been seen in Sunday school on more than one occasion. (teaching even)

I'd say that the fact that you can't type out the word for a female dog without it being starred out sets the standard for what is considered vulgar by the owner of the site.

It stars out the word for an illegitimate child as well, believe me I tried to use it a couple of times.