# Bush removes river scientists



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Bush removes river scientists
Forum and wire reports
The Forum - 11/06/2003

WASHINGTON -- The long-running dispute over management of the nation's longest river took another twist when the Bush administration yanked government scientists off a project to study the waterway's ecosystem.

The team had been on the job for years and was within weeks of producing what could have been its final report.

Conservation groups criticized last week's unreported decision, which they said was to protect business interests at the expense of the Endangered Species Act.

The move may block changes to the Missouri River's flow. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has resisted changing river operations but is under a December deadline to come up with a new plan that meets requirements of the Endangered Species Act.

A different team of scientists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will now say whether the corps can avoid major changes -- such as a previously ordered switch to a more natural spring rise and low summer flow -- and remain in compliance with the act.

It's the latest development in a bitter battle over managing the nation's longest river, which stretches 2,341 miles from Montana to St. Louis, where it empties into the Mississippi.

North Dakota officials have been trying to get the corps to change its management of the Missouri River for more than 14 years.

Their efforts have included lawsuits against the corps in federal court.

North Dakota and other upper-basin states have been demanding the corps manage the river and dams differently so reservoirs like Lake Oahe and Lake Sakakawea stay at consistent levels.

Instead, they charge, the corps has managed the river for the benefit of downstream barge traffic.

North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven's staff said late Wednesday he will look into the decision today before making any comment.

U.S. Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., said, "It certainly raises the concern that someone in the (Bush) administration is trying to play politics with a river management plan that is fair to all states, including upstream states."

The old team of scientists said three years ago the Missouri needs a more natural spring rise and low summer levels to comply with the Endangered Species Act, and their findings were confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences.

Current operations were put into place before the river's sturgeon and shorebird species made the government's threatened and endangered species list.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Two immediate thoughts to this:

1. Is there any doubt where Bush's alliances lie? I don't think so?

2. Where is Hoeven on this issue? Does he not have any clout with folks in Washington or does he simply not oppose use of Missouri River water downstream? For whatever reason, it clinches my thoughts that we need a new governor.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

http://www.refugeforums.com/refuge/show ... ost1478052


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

I voted for Bush last election...and I won't make the SAME MISTAKE twice.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Bush has to manage the river to the best benefit of the entire country and while I'm not to impressed with the Corp of engineers we have to look at the whole picture before we render such judgements. As far as not voting for bush over this one issue when we are in the midst of a war with people who will kill us if they get a chance I suggest you reconsider that and again look at the whole picture. If we had the appeasement crowd( democrats) running things right now we probably would be sucking up to a bunch of terrorists. And many more Americans would be dead already. I agree that envirionmental issues seem to always get pushed back to the back burner but we as a country have much larger problems right now.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Pushed to the back burner? How about rolling the clock back 30 years as far as W's environmental policies go. He has made every effort to repeal many environmental laws in the name of the economy and big business. I try so hard to stay out of political discussions here as I am a suck-up liberal (more socialist actually) but this crap has got to come to an end. Perpetuating the fear of terrorism as an excuse to implement imperialism is not going to work for W this election. Bobm, you are a reasonable person and I enjoy your posts but you like to bash democrats too, and that just makes you look small minded.

Blind allegiance to Republicans just because we are hunters and gun owners is not a good idea. No one is going to take away your shotguns and rifles, maybe your Uzi and Tec-9 but not your Remington and Benelli.

We seem to forget that most of us have a common ground here as being opposed to the commercialization of the resource, ie GOs. Well, who is on your side in that issue? Who wants to sell everything in the name of the economy and business? When is enough enough? Why does it always have to be more?

Here's one for you, I asked my wife to do a little analysis of the ND legislative scorecard, she has a M.S. in Statistics so her methods are sound. Dems averaged a whole letter grade better than Reps. Go figure? There will be more to come on that later, as I hope to write an article here on the voting trends of the ND legislature if I can ever find the time.

There, that is off my chest. I feel better now. Let me go put on my nomex suit.

RC


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I don't bash Democrats give me one example of something I've said that isn't defendable. That facts are that the democrat party has been hijacked by a far left adjenda which no longer resembles the democrats of the Roosevelt era. I know politics are often underhanded both ways but I will be the first to vote democrat when they get the values and honesty respresented by middle ground conservative democrats like our Senator Zell Miller which is the only one that has the integrity to put politics aside in a time of national crisis like the war on terrorism. The current crop of Democrats and the last administration are something for the country to be ashamed of. As for you being a socialist, that says a lot, your are in favor of a system rapidly being abandoned by the rest of the world because its a failure, if that makes sense to you I guess this is probalby a waste of my time. The only people left in the world that are in favor of socialism are people that live in successful systems like ours its easy to be in favor of a system when you don't have to suffer the consequences of it. As for your wife I'm sure shes an intelligent and wonderful person but statistical analisis could probably come up with a group of questions that prove that the people that post here are against hunting. Conrad is a real winner. I am not familiar with the rest of the Dems in your state but we are getting rid of ours as fast as we can. I have no love for the republicans they are just currently a little closer to the party I favor which is libertarian.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

One more thing the only reason the liberals aren't going to take away our guns is because they don't have the political clout to pass the laws. The people that are in favor of these laws have repeatly misrepresented the facts about both types of weapons and the statics ( something your hold a lot of faith in) which have proven that states with concealed carry laws ect. have lower rates of violent crime. These anti gun fanatics are so rabid that after the guns it would be something else. They would love to have a society that was disarmed and therefore helpless to rebel. Our founding fathers included the right to bear arms specifically to allow the citizens of this country to be able to protect itself from a repressive government. The antigun crowd is the one that came up with the distortion about it being ok for hunters to own guns because they realize that hunters are a powerful political group. The right had nothing to do with hunters.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Bob why can't the Libertarian Party catch on & get serious contending Canidates ???

I'm so tired of both parties & partician politics :eyeroll:

I have respect for the Nature Conservancy (Bunch of Rich folks trying to do good for animals & Nature) DU - does not impress me - in fact that scares me for many reasons (one you mentioned) You never can be sure what motivates those kinds :roll:


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Bobm, I've said it before. You are a reasonable man. But you seem to be a little confused?



Bobm said:


> I don't bash Democrats give me one example of something I've said that isn't defendable.





Bobm said:


> If our country is stupid enough to to go along with the WTO or any global body like the world court its over for the USA. On the other hand half the country was stupid enough to vote for Gore...





Bobm said:


> I will be the first to vote democrat when they get the values and honesty respresented by middle ground conservative democrats





Bobm said:


> Anybody thats a moderate is to stupid to have an opinion.





Bobm said:


> Hey guys one thing that always indicates that a person has no logic behind their argument is when they start to call people names. Words like "immature and stubborn" are an indication of her lack of ability to make her case.





Bobm said:


> Most of the time responding to ignorance is a waste of time.





Bobm said:


> I have no love for the republicans they are just currently a little closer to the party I favor which is libertarian.


From the Official Libertarian Party Website:

The Libertarian Party is working every day to cut your taxes. By contrast, professional politicians from the other parties just want more of your money, and are busy increasing the size of government.

The second step libertarians would take to protect the environment and save endangered species would be to encourage private ownership of both land and animals.



Bobm said:


> I would pay a lot more for hunting liscenses if ALL the money was used to buy out farmers that wanted to to get out of the business and the land was truly for all licensed hunters. I think this could be a win win. IF you guys don't get on the stick securing a lot of public land you will end up like the rest of the country with no place to hunt. Don't let your state get to the condition the rest of the country is in. The pittman robinson act was a volutary tax on hunters and sportsman to save hunting and we need the same type of committment once again.





Bobm said:


> This is why the only long term answer is to make land public, I told you they really will be working hard to skin all of you!





Bobm said:


> I've made the exact point you have in many previous posts about the fact that game animals are public property and while legislation may be able to somehow enforce that, they will not be able to force the issue of access because the land is clearly not public.


Isn't public land a social (liberal/socialist) agenda? Aren't privatization commercialization conservative agendas? The public trust? The tragedy of the commons? Conservative ideas? Nope! Sell it all, use it until there is nothing left. The wise use movement (a real nice euphemism), why does everything have to be used? Can't something be saved for a change?

Now as far as me and the wife's ability to SPIN the statistics to make the regulars on this site look like antis, it is as simple as this:

1. Look at the ND legislative scorecard on this site.

2. Seperate the Dems form the Reps.

3. Look at their grades A-F.

4. Assign a number to each grade. I.E. 1=A, 2=B, 3=C, 4=D, 5=F, 1.33=A-, 1.66=B+ etc.

5. Add the numbers up for each party and take the average grade. You will find that the average grade for Dems is one letter grade higher than the Reps. Simple stuff. Although we used SAS to figure the averages, you can do the same thing with a calculator.

I would like to see your statistics on the correlation between gun ownership and violent crime. I am not saying that I disagree, but where are your numbers? If you want to know something interesting about gun ownership and violent crime, why is it that Canada has 10 million households and 70% have guns yet their violent crime rate is so much lower than ours? Do we have more poverty? Nope, their unemployment rate is double ours.

Let me rephrase my socialist leanings, I would consider myself a social-democrat. Not a socialist in the likes of the former USSR but more in the likes of Canada, the UK, and Germany.

Bobm, I hope you see this as a friendly debate and not an attack. You and I actually agree on many issues, such as public land, the public trust, commercialization, and limiting GOs. That is why I have enjoyed and agreed with 99% of what you post here. But your double-talk ranks right up there with the underhanded politicians that we both despise. And, to cap it off............



Bobm said:


> Fair enough sometimes I need a little crap.


 :beer:

RC

I feel a little like Avian Quest after that frenzy of copy and paste, right Fetch?


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I see Socialism as the only way to have any equality.

Capitalism is greedy & will always be (in the end) those that are special (Richer or born into it) get the best & when the best is in short supply --- Duh !!!

Usually these types - Next start calling those that believe in Socialism... Communist :roll: There is such a HUGE difference in a Communist Socialism, that I don't even want to think about that - I would revolt against that & want our Military to squash any thing like it.

But that is the extreme - just as Socialist can be extreme ???

Libertarians (while not really a factor) seem to be from both sides of Liberlism & Conservatism-- it's weird - Might work (some of their ideas) But they are so radical. I doubt Libertarian thinking will ever really catch on ???

So much of of the good things, in our Government are because of socialist ideals - most utilities (until they go Corporate) :roll: - Roads - Schools - infastructure - Law enforcement - Fire - National & State Parks - Lakes - etc. & I do think the only answer to Healthcare is to have a more Socialist form. Even Farming would be better & is a Capitalist form of socialism gone bad & trying to stumble through & subsidise & control it is weird....???

Look at Insurance Industry - (while it obviously works & is Huge) The ones with more Socialist Tendancies (Fraternal - coop) are some of the strongest - (But still too expensive) :roll:

Who & what will bring us to a Crash ??? Capitalism or Socialism ??? Which one will bring Revolt / Unrest ???

Sure Capitalism, for those that worked hard & had a better idea or were lucky enough to be born into it - Is Great!!! But is it whats best for the majority ??? in this country we have all benefited - But look at the world & even this country - as populations keep growing out of control ??? Scares the Hell out of me :eyeroll:

I could ramble on & even go off on a Rant. :eyeroll:

I guess what we have is the best there is - But extremes either way tend to screw things up.

Maybe a Crash is inevitable & then a re-distribution of the wealth (kinda) :roll: starts over ??? But who really wants to go thru that ??? :eyeroll:

Too bad just having good (the best ) people running things & doing the right things for all cannot just work. & ND has been a example of making the best of this weird world, with what we have. & maybe / hopefully still will.

Sure wish a party or the right people from existing parties could rise & make some changes - Thats why bouncing back & forth between parties - seems to help balance this all out :huh:

NO Robert !!! He has No personality or Common Sense what so ever !!! uke:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Robert good post and no I don't take it personal and hope you won't either. Some of my best friends are liberals. I just finished typing a lengthy And honest response and something went wrong with my computer I will try to do it again later tonight or tomorrow I have somthing else I have to do right now. 
Fetch I don't know what the heck you're smoking? You have to share it with the rest of us so we can understand what you're trying to say. 
Enjoy the banter though I'll talk to you later.
One thing Robert, I didn't like though was the double talk line...I'm not totally consistant politically( which I think represents a thoughtful person) but I am or at least strive to be totally honest.
If you see dishonesty in my post it is my inability to put my idea across clearly, because I don't and wouldn't use double talk on any issue ever.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

:lol: (I tried to make it make more sense) :idiot:

That Conservative Republicans are not all that many (especially Young) Hunters think they are. & Libertarians are (interesting) but weird.

& that ND is Unique & different & Thank Goodness for that :wink: 
& bascally Politics & politicians SUCKS !!! :roll: :eyeroll:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

You people have got to get the socialist idea out of your heads!!

Look what happens when they get their foot in the door ala Canada, England and Australia for 3 examples.

1. Gun control like they would have never dreamt. Gun registration, confiscation along with slack prosecution of violent criminals=sheeople waiting to become subjects of a regime.

2. Legalized mariquana( no crap, Canada now has made it legal).

3. Big money totally owns the party and the govt. totally owns the peoples rights. The only right the people have is they have no rights. Entitlements have made this possible.

4. Untethered infantcide, killing unborn like leafy spurge.

5. Taxation to the tune of 65-70% of the peoples gross income. Why work, let the govt. own you and take care of you.

The list could go on and on. We need to keep voting for our rights and take our victories big and small to chip away the ever lurching socialists.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I hear ya on some of that - that is why extremes in thinking, both directions are not good

You forgot wanting to make Gay marriges legal :eyeroll:

Ya can't trust politcians or people (the masses) are we just doomed to stumble on the back & forth path, we seem to be on ???

Which is the worst of the two evils - as far as Outdoors goes ???


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Bobm, you are right about the double talk line. I used that out of context. I guess what I meant is not what I said. Maybe what I am trying to get across is that you seem confused to me or....................in all actuality, you and I are a little closer than we would want to believe. Bobm you are a little more liberal than you think. Just as Fetch says though, Libertarianism is a weird mix of liberalism and conservativism. I forward to your response. I hate it when computers fart after so much typing. When I composed my last post I saved it a lot while I was working on it. It took me quite a while. 

We are neighbors, you know? I am just up the road in Durham, NC.

Fetch, although you and I have not really interracted much in the past, I have always known who you are. I have been on the waterfowling/internet for quite a while but tend more towards the lurking side of things. This is why I have been here since day one and have not posted much at all in comparison to others who have not been around long, I tend to sit back and take it all in.......................anyhow, what I am trying to say to you is..................... THANKS!! 

I have always agreed with what you have said and am right there with you. I enjoy your sarcasm and am, somehow, able to follow your rants. This should be an interesting thread if others choose to jump into the fray.

RC


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

4CurlRedleg said:


> You people have got to get the socialist idea out of your heads!!
> 
> Look what happens when they get their foot in the door ala Canada, England and Australia for 3 examples.
> 
> 1. Gun control like they would have never dreamt. Gun registration, confiscation along with slack prosecution of violent criminals=sheeople waiting to become subjects of a regime.


I guess I would need to see facts on that. What about the crime rates in these countries? Which is higher? Why?



4CurlRedleg said:


> 2. Legalized mariquana( no crap, Canada now has made it legal).


What is the big deal about that?? Regulate it, tax it, and put the enforcement and imprisonment money into something useful. Marijuana is no different than alcohol.



4CurlRedleg said:


> 3. Big money totally owns the party and the govt. totally owns the peoples rights. The only right the people have is they have no rights. Entitlements have made this possible.


How is that any different than the system we have here? Do you honestly believe that we are not already owned by big money? No rights? I believe that these people have more rights than we do here. Right to health, disability, pension, unemployment, and holiday. Face it, the quality of life is better. Look at Scandinavia, for instance. Yes, you have killer taxes. But everyone is equal and equally taken care of. There are no classes there. No super-rich no super-poor. Although that is easier to accomplish when you have so much autonomy in the population, i.e. all blonde-haired and blue-eyed. 



4CurlRedleg said:


> 4. Untethered infantcide, killing unborn like leafy spurge.


I won't go there. Abortion is too polarized and we will never convince the other.



4CurlRedleg said:


> 5. Taxation to the tune of 65-70% of the peoples gross income. Why work, let the govt. own you and take care of you.


See #3



4CurlRedleg said:


> The list could go on and on. We need to keep voting for our rights and take our victories big and small to chip away the ever lurching socialists.


I will keep voting. Just as the subjects of the socialist regimes do to keep the ever lurching neo-conservaties at bay. This is getting fun! :beer:

RC


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Ok Robert A., we are at opposite sides of the spectrum. Agree to disagree.

A couple of parting shots-Entitlements are what make those people in your eyes equal. What ever happened to the fail and succeed method to make your own way. I can honestly say the govt. did not make me what I am today. If I fail, I failed because of me. If I succeed, it is me that has made the success. Anyone who excessively uses entitlements in this country belongs on the bottom rung, oppurtunity is around every corner and success can be achieved with fortitude.

Social entitlements are not a right, they are there to keep people in line with the govt.'s line of thinking. Why would anyone sponging off the people who pay taxes ever vote for a politician that wants to force them to make their own way? If they have the masses where they want them, subjects we will become and freedom will disappear from our vocabulary as it has and is in these aforementioned countries.

That is what it is all about, FREEDOM. Ask the English hunters about freedom!!

This is always interesting to get someone elses take on the large sheme of things, but I must confess Robert, you worry me!! :lol: :beer: Stick to beer drinkin' with moderation it is legal and you never the planet.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Don't worry about me. I am the enlightened one! :beer: :beer: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:    :x :lol:   :roll: uke: :withstupid: :withstupid:

RCRCRCRCRCRC


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

OK friends I'm back to join the fray.
I'll try to take your comments about my quotes as they were listed

item1)
Bashing Democrats or Republicans for that matter is ok with me the key phrase is "if it is defendable". I believe it certainly is with the current trends in the national stance of the national demacratic party. I also personally know a lot of former and current democrats feel embarrassed by the positions held by our current crop of presidential hopefuls, because I regulary have political conversations with them. I don't want to go into specifics right now because of the sheer volume of it.
Item 2)
The WTO, the UN and the World court are enemies of the US and made up of countries which would do anything to destroy us, and Al Gore is a proponent of all the organizations. HE is also the type of politician that will and has changes his positions on abortion ( which you are correct in saying is to polarizing to even bother argueing about), national defense, tobacco, you name it based on what is politically expedient at the time. He was also part of the most corrupt admistration of my lifetime. His book on environmental issues is ridiculous based on half truths and bogus science.
Thus I think its defendable to claim that anyone that votes for him is politically stupid.
item 3&4)
I wish I wouldn't of called them middle ground, it was a poor choice of words I meant conservative period, however we all probalby have a different definition of conservative. Politicians that claim to be moderate fall into two camps. either they are uninformed ( stupid)about the issue or they are the type that waits to see which way the political opinion is blowing and go with the crowd ( politically correct ).
item5) 
I don't remember the context of the rest of the post but if I remember correctly it was the emotional women trying to defend her husband and because she couldn't use fact she started calling names. And please don't come back with the response that I'm calling someone stupid
stupid is a state of being not a name I call people in the contest I meant.
item6) 
The Ignorance line ????? was this in response to someone getting snotty instead using logic, without the context I don't know what to say.
Now on to my politics, I have no total allegiance to any party although I have voted republican for the last 25 years ( since I became a taxpayer) 
yes the libertarians would privatize all land which I don't want because of my love of the outdoors so I don't agree with them on that issue.
However I do believe in legalizing drugs, the so called war on drugs has been a miserable failure and an excuse for the government to erode our civil liberties. At the same time drug use continues to rise with the associated crime. And no I don't advocate using drugs or alcohol either but the way we are approaching the problem is not working.

I know my stand on The public land issue is a tough one to justify, so maybe you're correct I'm confused when you look at any party republican, democrat, or libertarian and all the things they claim to be infavor of who the hell would'nt be confused they are all inconsistant or actually downright dishonest, which gets back to the point I've made before that the very foremost thing in almost every politicians mind is getting elected and the second is staying in power, the truth be damned.

Your grading of politicians did not include what the grades were rated on, what issues??? just environmental and you know as well as I do how much BS is "proved" with statistics. Right now the war on terrorism is a priority and I don't believe the current leaders of the Democrats are capable of handling the job.

AS far as Canada they have a hell of a lots less violent crime because they have a mostly white homegenous population while the USA is a melting pot. Factor out the violent crime that occurs in inner cities (black on black crimes, much of it as a result of our failed drug policies) and the USA crime statistic would look a lot rosier.

Your admiration for socialist ideolgy is fine with me but the three examples you gave have confiscatory tax rates that their citizens are consistantly moving to the USA to avoid as well as a failed goverment healthcare system that makes them come to the USA when they are seriously ill. It is hard to get a MRI in Canada within 10 months for example here is Atlanta you could get one in a couple days without having to pull any strings. You don't see our citizens clamoring to move to socialist countries but do see the opposite, unfortunately socialist countries historically have both legal and physical barriers to keep their citizens captive. Which I guess is the ultimate indictment against socialism.

And lastly I said a "Little " Crap cut me some slack!!!
I get to NC fairly often we out to have a cup of coffee sometime.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

While you guys sit and argue over big money owning this and big money owning that. You need only look in the mirror to see the problem. I see and hear from people all the time about how the big guy is squashing the little guy and the big guy is influencing politics.

When we begin to talk about the big money influencing politics then we need only look at the publicly held companies that many of us are owners in. How many of you have retirement plans or investments in stocks and bonds. We are the people supporting the very things we often dislike.
We purchase the products, we loan the companies money we purchase the stock.

We as citizens ***** and moan about how we don't like how money influences our politics, yet we smile when we see that the companies we own are making money and we can buy cheap products.

4CurlRedLeg,
Thank you for bringing up the fact that each and every one of us is responsible for our own future and that opportunity is available for those who are willing to work for it. One of the main problems I see with my generation is that many feel that they deserve to have certain things without putting forth any effort to get it. It is frustrating to me and I feel that our great country is beginning to become spoiled by its own success. Many of the people I know have little drive to make a better life for themselves. Some of my friends have said that they are going to go on unemployment because they can't find the job they want. They are very capable of working but feel certain jobs are "below them" My response is that I will no longer be speaking to them untill they get a job because they are suck off the rest of us.


----------



## pjb1816 (Sep 8, 2003)

Matt Jones said:


> I voted for Bush last election...and I won't make the SAME MISTAKE twice.


Good point Matt, but lets see who he runs against first. Its a lesser of the two evil's game. Lets just say I would move to canada if a couple of the democratic candidates won.



Robert A. Langager said:


> Perpetuating the fear of terrorism as an excuse to implement imperialism is not going to work for W this election.


Absolutely right. The policies that bush has introduced to "fight terrorism" will go down in history as some of the biggest fleecing to american rights in history. If you want an example look at the patriot act. Americans have never lost thier rights to privacy so fast. Just the fact that ANYONE can be taken from their home and put in prison for an unknown (or indefinate) amount of time -- for NO REASON and never be charged is damn scary!!!



Robert A. Langager said:


> No one is going to take away your shotguns and rifles, maybe your Uzi and Tec-9 but not your Remington and Benelli.


Once again, great point. No one can take your guns away. Its in the constitution. The supreme court will always uphold our rights. They might make it harder to get a gun, but thats just keeping guns out of the hands of crazies that shouldnt have them in the first place.



Fetch said:


> I see Socialism as the only way to have any equality.


Fetch, our Nation is not built on "equality." Its built on freedoms and rights. Those are to be distributed "equally." With those freedoms/rights you should be able to CHOOSE either to work hard -- and make money; or to fall "victim" to the consequenses of your choices. Quite frankly I wouldn't want to live in a country where I could never get ahead even with hard work. Its not realistic with the human psyche.



Robert A. Langager said:


> 4CurlRedleg wrote:
> 2. Legalized mariquana( no crap, Canada now has made it legal).
> 
> What is the big deal about that?? Regulate it, tax it, and put the enforcement and imprisonment money into something useful. Marijuana is no different than alcohol. .


Marijuana will become legalized in one form or another in the next 15 years. It's inevitable. This is too big of a topic sum up just here. 



4CurlRedleg said:


> What ever happened to the fail and succeed method to make your own way. I can honestly say the govt. did not make me what I am today. If I fail, I failed because of me. If I succeed, it is me that has made the success.


Amen brotha redleg.... amen 



bobm said:


> the so called war on drugs has been a miserable failure and an excuse for the government to erode our civil liberties.


The war on drugs is a complete front. It accomplishes nothing except to raise the cost of the drug in the country. On this fact, i'm a believer in social darwinism. If someone is going to get hooked and become and addict, its going to happen wether-or-not a drug is legal -- just look at alcoholics. Please don't start the whole "its better to be an alcoholic than a crack head" argument. We don't need to go there.



gandergrinder said:


> When we begin to talk about the big money influencing politics then we need only look at the publicly held companies that many of us are owners in. How many of you have retirement plans or investments in stocks and bonds. We are the people supporting the very things we often dislike. We purchase the products, we loan the companies money we purchase the stock.


You make some good points but remember that there is a big difference between profits & being succesful as a company, and down right buying policies and agendas of our politicians. Look at Bush and Cheney. The largest oil contract in history (the rebuilding and use of Iraqi oil fields) went to the company that Cheney used run because of 500,000 of contributions! Doesn't something seem wrong about that? Don't forget about the countless other companies that were awarded huge rebuilding contracts without any competitive bidding.
see for yourself:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20912FA3E540C728FDDA90994DB404482

No I'm not a liberal

I can't even say I'm republican.

I vote for the best candidate.

Phil


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

pjb1816

One little comment about our Supreme Court upholding an individuals right to bear arms. In the mid 90's Clinton's attorney general's office file a briefing in a Louisiana case. I can't remember all the details but I will try to look for files. The case was a man who was ACCUSED by his wife of spousal battery. The courts automatically had all of his firearms consifiscated (sp?). The man appealled, the clinton administration filed a briefing that stated, in general, that the second admendment is not a private individuals right to bear arms but a states right to raise a guard unit. The individuals right to bear arms comes directly from the federal governments permission and allowance.

Now, I ask you if Clinton, or some like minded politician Democrat or Republican (think Guilani from NY) was able to put five or six justices onto the Supreme Court who believe that the US Constitution is always up for review and reinterpitation, if we would still have guns in private possesion. I really don't know what the real answer to that is, but I sure as hell don't want to test it. By the way, the federal court ruled in favor of the attorney general. Scary, huh?


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

Bobm

Glad to hear there is another libertarian on this site. I've been voting Lib. in Iowa since '92. Local level only, of course. You need to build a base before putting up a house.

IaHunter


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ia hunter you're right but I wonder if they will ever get their act together


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Pjb the only other company in the world able to handle the rebuilding of the oil fields in Irac is a French company and I sure as hell don't want to give those French bastards the business!


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

> Fetch, our Nation is not built on "equality." Its built on freedoms and rights. Those are to be distributed "equally." With those freedoms/rights you should be able to CHOOSE either to work hard -- and make money; or to fall "victim" to the consequenses of your choices. Quite frankly I wouldn't want to live in a country where I could never get ahead even with hard work. Its not realistic with the human psyche.


But it had alot less People & Lawyers & Corporations - when those ideals were made for a nation. & face it the founding Fathers were a bunch of Rich users & abusers :roll: I'm in the middle on all this & open minded & basically dislike most all of them for reasons that are polarized & I'm a Cynic to most all things :-?

"& dedicated to the propositions that all men are created equal" just a slogan huh ???

& most things about ND are leaning towards Socialism - Farming / Coops/ State Bank / Roads/ Utilities/ State Elevator/ The land was given to the people / Most all Gov. services are Socialistic ??? Get rid of most of these folks & ND would be a total ghost town (except for the months the Corporations come in & farm) :roll: :eyeroll:

We are a Republic that has Socialistic Tendencies - a Democracy would be a nightmare today (& only the ignorant masses) are confused by how our BS attempts at Democracy or thinking we are a Democracy - On the surface keeps social justice & Law Enforcement & Military & Politicians in control.

Am I getting too deep on how to manage the Missouri River


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

I was amused by the "thought" that Asscroft and Rumsfeld had immediately after 9-11. Lets reinstate the Posse Commitautis Act, a nice way of saying marshall law. They wanted the military to become the controlling law establishment in this country until "it all cooled down". The fact that they even had that thought in their heads sure as hell scared me alot more than someone trying to take me to court for my guns. This administration is on such a power trip, it is sickening. This is the first war we have ever started. No one asked for our help, no one was attacked, no one did anything to us from that country. Now we hear that the "CIA" director was responsible for the whole mess, how conveniant. That must be the same story line as Olie North masterminding the whole drugs for money, money for guns, Iran Contra scam. Democrats have sex with women and lie about it, Republicans screw up the world and lie about it, you pick your lesser of two evils. Who created the Noriaga monster in the Iran Contra thing...the republicans. Who created the Saddam/Bin Ladden monster in the Iraqi/Iran war and the Afgahn/Russian wars, we did. We build these bad guys to serve our purpose, then when they don't serve it anymore, we need to get rid of them.

In the 50's-60's-70's, they could scare you into voting republican by using the cold war threat. Then the wall fell, with nothing to use as a threat anymore, they lost the next elections. To get back in, they played the "vote for us or lose your guns" scheme, worked to perfection, because elections are about calming peoples paranoia's. Now, they have set the table for the "we are your protectors against terrorism" card. A game they have inflamed intentionally to gaurentee military spending and scared voters who can only possibly vote for them, cause the other guys can't possibly make this place safer. Well I have news for them, it was a hell of alot safer before they decided to controll the second biggest oil producing country in the world. I have no problem with going after Bin Ladden and the Taliban, they are the cause of 9-11, but it seems that after the dust has settled, we are finding out that Iraq may just have been following the rules. I vote for the lesser of two evils, I didn't vote for Gore, because he is an idiot and I didn't vote for Bush becuase he is an idiot as well. How come when Clinton "didn't inhale", it was front page news, but when it was found out that GWB was had DUI's, used cocaine and other illicit drugs, it was no big deal...I'll tell you why, because the Liberals controll the press.....wait...something is wrong with that statement. Anyway, all politicians are corrupt, without exception. Local state reps go to Bismarck with their interests in mind, it has nothing to do with what the majority wants. Vote for the person who is going to do the least amount of damage, not the person who tries to scare you then tells you that if you vote for them, they will make it all better.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Fireball, thank you very much. Very well said!

:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

RC


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

Everyone gets a choice on who they want to vote for. You can either vote for the Republicats or the Democans...your choice. Neither party will kiss you after giving you the shaft.

IaHunter


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Fireball wrote:


> Local state reps go to Bismarck with their interests in mind, it has nothing to do with what the majority wants.


I would typically agree with your generalization, but I was impressed by my local reps this past session. They seemed to work for what was right, even on issues other than hunting. They seemed to be there to work for the public good, many other reps (from DL ???) on the other hand....

Stalin, pothead: ;-)
- A=4, B=3 - how did you do your math and make your conclusions? Perhaps you came out backwards.

- And why do you think I shouldn't have an Uzi or a TEC-9? I think I should have one for the same reason I have a chess board.

M.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

MRN,
The example I gave for the scorecard may not have been the exact method that we used. I used that as an example. The numbers would work regardless of what was used. Think about it. If you take and average of the Dems (EXAMPLE) and the average was 3.1 that would be a C, right? Then if the Reps had a 4.1 (EXAMPLE) that would be a D, right. If I had the scale the other way, then the AVERAGE would show it.

You take me out of context. I never said you should not have an Uzi or a Tec-9. If I follow your logic then next to my chessboard (and bong) could be my M-60 and my Low Yield Thermonuclear Weapon and my stash of kiddie porn and my big rock of crack cocaine and so on.

Stalin was a totalitarian dictator of a communist country who killed 20 million of his own people. Get your socialists straight.

Pothead is just plain unessecary, Robert will do fine, hell if you want you can even call me RABBIT CHOKER. Should I come after you now with names? I guess I could call you whatever I wanted as long as I put a little smiley behind it. :eyeroll:

RC


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Bobm,
Sorry I took so long to respond. Classes have been kicking my butt. Anyhow, this ND legislative scorecard is something that Chris and others on this site came up with to score the ND reps with regards to how they voted in the last legislative session on certain hunting bills. I do not know exactly how Chris and company came up with their grades. I just took the scorecard and went with it. You can check it out here.

RC


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

While I have enjoyed the banter the simple fact remains that the issue of the River use should have been concluded in 98 if memory serves me well but our elected officals in Washington from the states of MT ND and SD having a Democratic Pres and control of the Senate along with a realist chance of getting meaniful legislation through the House sat on ther hands and pandered to other interests.

I am not happy with the recent events nor have I been happy with Dorgan Conrad Dashle on this issue for the last 12 years. We had this same crisis in the 80's and twenty years later we still have it. Matt if this act is the only reason you would not vote for Bush in 04 then I hope you do not vote for DOrgan or Conrad or Pomerroy also becasue they have failed us much more on this issue, while pounding themselves on the back proclaiming that they understand and are doings things to effect change.

People tend to vote there pocket book, hence the Democratic representation in Wahingtion to maintain farm subsides, and Republican in general for local candidates hence no new state emplemented tax increases out of Bismarck.

Dorgan could vote for gun control and a number of non popular bills and get relected as long as farm subsides continue. He on the other hand could vote againist these same issues and vote against farm subsides and he would be out in a heart beat.

Bob makes a good point on the war on terror, I see none of the Dem hopefuls being able to handle this issue. I may not agree with all the things that we have been given to digest since 9-11 but I sleep better knowing who is calling the shots on this in Wahington. I cannot imagine where we would be if Gore was in charge or Kerry or Clark or Gepthardt or for that matter Dean. Matt would you vote for Hillary? I could never in good faith ever put a mark next to her name on any ballot except to vote her the one to recieve the solid waste from a septic system.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Robert

Stalin labeled himself, and his goals, as socialist.

For your numbers, you state your methodoloogy (backward from customary) and then state only the conclusions that Dems are a letter grade BETTER than Reps. Since your don't give the objective results derived from your methodology, who's to know if that was backwards (or not) too. Sure, it could work out, but did it? Can't tell.

Ya, you're right - every student I've had who was in favor of the general legalization of THC did it based on their newly aquired appreciation of pharmacology, physiology, criminology theory, social justice, and their intense desire to aid the advancement of our society. Not.

An M60 would be great fun, and perhaps necessary if the reason for the 2nd came to fruition. You might not want to mention your other little fetishes on a public web board....

M.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Since the original post has degraded into a political discussion, I have only one comment. In my book, if you do not or did not vote, you have no valid basis for complaining about any party or any elected official. Get out and vote every time. Some elections these days can be decided by very few voters and your vote may be the crucial one.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fireball I'm sorry but your entire post is based on half truths and BS.
First Irac, We finally have a president with the stones to enforce the UN resolution which Sadam had thumbed his nose at for the last 10 uears while using poison gas on his own people,( poison gas is a waeapon of mass destrution by the way). Sadam had been attempting to get his hands on nuclear weapons, attacked one of our Allies (kuwait), murdered over 500,000 of his own people, and would of been the tyrant from hell in an area of the world that is a hotbed of terrorist activity and the current biggest threat to our security. If we wouldn't of acted we would eventually be fighting terrorists in our own streets. We didn't start the war but we sure needed to do what we are now doing. Your claim that we were safer before we started to control Irac is absolutely false in fact we were on a collision course with terrorists funded by Saddam a man who stated in writing that he wanted to control all the Arab Nations ( he used the word unite) and worshipped Stalin and was modeling his aspirations after him. You ever wonder why Sadamm didn't get much sympathy form the other Arab nations?? Its because they all recognized that he was a madman! If we would of taken decisive military action after the somalian debacle and the attack on the Cole we wouldn't of lost 3000 plus us citizens in 9-11. Your comments about the contras are also untrue the people of Nicaragua themselves voted them out against the wishes of all the leftist liberals in this country in the first real election that the liberal icon Jimmy Carter himself oversaw and approved I guess your info on the situation is better than the people actually living in the county. The whole thing was really the US keeping the communist influence out of this hemissphere. You don't seem to understand that bin laden, Noriega, Sadam ect were all pawns in our international cold war with the Russians. The same Russians that threatened the US with Nuclear war for thiry plus years. The Same Russians that vowed to overcome us, *what do you think overcome means in the rhetoric of a totalitarian regime that killed and took all forms of human rights from its own people*The same russians that backed the Vietnamese in ther attempt to expand their influence is Asia. The Vietnam war which we lost because of a lack of resolve did accomplish the halting of the SPREAD of the Russian influnence, something many people don't realize and appreciate. We set up Sadam and Norieaga because if was the right thing to do at the time to overcome the bigger threat of the russians. *The cold war *The wall fell because Ronald Regan had the forsight to and gumption to push the Commmunists to a armsrace that their inferior socialist economy could not sustain. In the process the whole eastern Europe was freed of a tryrannical form of government and the people of eastern Europe are very greatful of that. Their standard of living and simple freedoms you obviously don't appreciate have been restored. I know this because I do business with many eastern europeans and have had them descibe firsthand experiences that would make you reconsider your positions. Your opinions are based in the halftruths that are flying around our liberal media I suggest you read up on international history specifically the cold war. Your closing comments about Irac that we are finding that they were following the rules is one more display of your ignorance about the history of what waas going on. The liberals champion the UN, well the UN had repeately determined that Irac was not following the rules and passed the resolution which was the basis for the invasion. Bush hasn't forgotten the 3000 innocent US citizens people that the terroists killed the same terroists that were routinely traveling in and out of Irac, but your comments sure seem to indicate you have. Freedom doesn't come free there is a cost and the comments you make are a slap in the face to the soldiers dieing in Irac, dieing so you are free to make these foolish statements. You didn't vote for Gore and you didn't vote for Bush because they are idiots in your estimation. Anyone with even a modest understanding of the facts and history of these events knows who the real idiot is.


----------



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

Bob,

First, it's IRAQ, not Irac.
Second, it's "would have," not "would of."
Third, learn the truth, read www.buzzflash.com.
Last, let's get back to outdoor topics and talk politics somewhere else.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

My good buddy MRN,

I now see that you are completely unable to carry on a civilized adult discussion within the bounds of the rules of this forum.

Not only do you start out with name calling and labeling, but then you choose to justify your actions and follow them up with more bashing.

If you want to label me a pothead, then you should label fairly and refer to Bobm and Fireball as potheads too. No wait, Bobm is on your side of the political spectrum so I guess he couldn't be called a pothead, even though he has stated that the war on drugs is a complete farce. Hmmmmm.

Your logic is so skewed. I show you an example of your logic and you rebutt me by calling me a crack-smoker and pedophile.

You seem to be such an open minded teacher. Do you think that all of your students with long hair or earrings are dopers or homosexuals too? Oh darn, now that I mentioned homosexuals, I guess you will call me one of those next. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Well, I guess I am outed. I am Robert A. Langager, the pothead, crack-smoking, pedophile, homosexual, liberal, socialist, Rabbit Choker. Did I cover them all for you?

RC


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

MTPheas,

Although you may not agree with Bobm on this issue it is not advisable to bash him for his spelling and grammar. If you have something that you would like to say or debate, please feel free to do so, but do so in a civilized manner. Please read the rules on this forum before posting. Your intention was to make Bobm look like an idiot, but what you accomplished was making yourself look like a jerk.

RC


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

RL you forgot defiler of rubber ducky's!  :beer:


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Ron, 
If you have seen me shoot, you would understand that the rubber ducky is the only shot that I could hit at least 75% of the time! :beer:

RC


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Holy cow bobm, I used to think that maybe you had some meritt, but now I realize you are full of the same stuff that got us to this point in history. Why don't we invade Haiti, and some other countries that the dictators have killed MILLIONS, not hundreds of thousands of their own people. Because they don't have any oil, pretty simple, but a little more complicated than some simple minds can comprehend. Iran Contra was a big lie, Olie North took the fall for Reagan and Bush, it had nothing to do with Carter, that is one of the most uniformed comments I have ever heard. Saddam has nothing to do with 9-11, but your kind likes to justify it with that lie as well. Hell, even the Bush admin. admitted there are no links. When your hero's admitt they are wrong and you refuse to believe what they tell you, then you have a problem. You need to get the facts, and not the Limbaugh spin on things, you look small when you go on half truths and lies. I have never not welcomed an out of state hunter to this great state, but as far as I am concerned, you can stay in the south with you rebel flag and inbreeding. Let me guess, the reason for the Saddam thing right now is all Clintons fault, cause GWBsr. really didn't need to get rid of him when he had a chance. I always here the neoright montra, "except responsiblity", well maybe it is time they ate their own words and did the same. Don't make me start posting Iran Contra trial FACTS on this post, as it will become long and you will look foolish.


----------



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

No argument from me if you want to call me a jerk. My wife and others often agree with you. Yet, I apologize if I offended you or anyone else on this thread with my incivility towards BobM. I didn't realize that simple spelling and grammar corrections were more offensive than previous posts calling others "crackheads, potheads and sodomists." I suspect that a good ol' Georgia boy like BobM can take a little constructive criticism and would prefer to defend himself if he believed it was warranted. However, given the fact that I'm a guest in this forum, I'll make extra effort in the future to carefully avoid any dialogue that might offend your delicate sensitivities.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Oh yeah, bob, I would like to address your pre-emptive strike theory. If it is OK for us to attack Iraq(when, it is as we found out, they have been following the rules), because we are preventing "terrorism"; then I guess it will be OK for China and NKorea to launch nuclear weapons at us. I am sure they are pretty confident that we are on a mission to eliminate their lifestyle, so if it is OK for us to defend ourselves from imagined threats, then as the defenders of the "FREE" world, we can not blame them from a pre-emptive strike upon us. That is the dumbest logic I have ever heard, but that is where you rank. It is OK for us to smack the big stick in defense of "imagined" threats, but if someone else did it to us, would it be pre-emptive or would it be a brutal attack on the citizens. I guess I will go with your logic and say that they are just defending themselves, so it must be OK. I hear walmart has clues on sale, you might want to stop and pick one up. :sniper: :withstupid:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

My spelling and grammar sometimes need correction because when I get fired up about something I don't pay the attention to it that it correctly deserves. And for that I appreciate your comment. I don't have to go to buzz flash or anywhere else to understand the historical facts that have occured during my lifetime.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Thanks to Doral and the CLinton admistration china now has the technology to do just that. Korea doesn't yet but they are trying as hard as possible to get it. AS for your other comments you can call me southern whatever that facts are the facts and you just don't know history. Thats one of the great things about History it can't be changed no matter how badly the people that don't agree with the policies of this great country feel about it. You simply don't know what you are talking about and feel you must call me names and go off on a tangent about out of state hunters( what that has to do with this issue is consistant with your logic). You are politically and historically ignorant. THe whole world ultimately looks for help from the USA because of our demonstrated good will to other countries, the whole worlds refugees seek to come here because the people that have lived in these regimes understand something which you take for granted with your ignorance. This country isn't perfect but it and the people that run it are not the evil people that you paint them to be. I repeat you don't know history so you must resort to calling me names. Which furthers showcases your ignorance. You should study world history, the iraq situation, and educate yourself because you are making a fool of yourself.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Bob, there you go spinning again, I never said anything about not liking NR hunters, just you, so don't try and spin those words. I know plenty about history, for all you know, it is my job. I know when Rumsfeld comes out and says, "we were wrong so far and it looks like Iraq was following the UN resolutions", that is a bunch of bull. They knew all along, they just used it as a cover to lie to us and do what they wanted to do. You know, the old "what they don't know, won't hurt them" ploy. Well, now we do know, and it will hurt them. Your irrational justifcations just don't work anymore. There are tyrannts millions of deaths worse than Saddam, but what have we done about them. The only one we have stopped so far was Mischlovec(sp), and all Clinton got for that was grief, I guess he needed to connect him with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, then it would have been Okee dokee. I guess lying about oral sex is taboo in the south, but unjusitified death and destruction are OK, it figures. Here is a link for you to educate yourself on the Iran Contra scandal, it is the actual final report of independant counsel, enjoy and learn. http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/

To make this post a litte longer, here is a qoute from testimony on the Iran Contra scandal, followed by the link so you can read the whole thing and become educated and not Limbaughed.
qoute:

As DEA officials testified last July before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Lt. Col. Oliver North suggested to the DEA in June 1985 that $1.5 million in drug money carried aboard a plane piloted by DEA informant Barry Seal and generated in a sting of the Medellin Cartel and Sandinista officials, be provided to the Contras.[25] While the suggestion was rejected by the DEA, the fact that it was made highlights the potential appeal of drug profits for persons engaged in covert activity.

Lotz said that Contra operations on the Southern Front were in fact funded by drug operations. He testified that weapons for the Contras came from Panama on small planes carrying mixed loads which included drugs. The pilots unloaded the weapons, refueled, and headed north toward the U.S. with drugs.[26] The pilots included Americans, Panamanians, and Colombians, and occasionally, uniformed members of the Panamanian Defense Forces.[27] Drugpilots soon began to use the Contra airstrips to refuel even when there were no weapons to unload. They knew that the authorities would not check the airstrips because the war was "protected".[28]

The problem of drug traffickers using the airstrips also used to supply the Contras persisted through 1985 and 1986. By the summer of 1986, it became of significant concern to the U.S. Government officials who were involved in the covert Contra supply operations undertaken during the Boland Amendment period. As then-CIA Station Chief, "Thomas Castillo" testified to the Iran/Contra Committees, U.S. Ambassador to Costa Rica Lewis Tambs wanted to place guards on the secret Contra supply airstrip at Santa Elena in Costa Rica, to avoid:

having drug traffickers use that site, and this was a continuing concern during the period of June, July and August.[29]

The concern highlights the degree to which the infrastructure used by the Contras and that used by drug traffickers was potentially interchangeable, even in a situation in which the U.S. government had itself established and maintained the airstrip involved. 
http://www.webcom.com/pinknoiz/covert/c ... ke.html#II
ENJOY the TRUTH bobm, it helps if you open your eyes when you read. :sniper:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

With the Contra thing it was a shame col North had to stoop to the methods he used to fund the effort. Unfortunately the congress at the time did'nt have the will to do the right thing. But the fact that it was supported and approved by the people of the country in the following free elections ( again overseen by Jimmy Carter ) proves it was the right thing to do. We as a nation can't solve every problem in the world and can't fight every tyrant but we can go after the ones that threaten us and our allies. As for your comments about rebel flags and the south, if out of state was immaterial why did you bring up where I'm from, it has nothing to do with the topic. 
Your statements indicate you don't know squat about history and as for spinning Limbaugh this, limbaugh that, whats He have to do with history? Who is attempting to spin? liberals resort to this type of rhetoric when they are confronted with fact. If history is your job you aren't worth minimum wage. I say again, while not perfect, The USA has done more to spread freedom throughout the world than any other nation in history. The same freedom that allows you to say this anti-american BS.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Who is spreading anti american BS??? I am printing the truth. To bad that people like you can justify everything we do, becuase it is us doing it. We create these situations to justify our own ends, it has nothing to do with spreading democracy. Who in Iraq asked for our help? We are the aggressor in this war, nobody else. We ignored the UN, made our own rules and then said "oops, were sorry Hans Blikz(sp), you were right, they were following the rules, oh well to bad, we have already started, guess we can't stop now." If we were to all follow your rules, I guess it is useless to fight for our heritage here in ND, because democracy dictates that landowners, g/o's and investors have every right to take over our heritage. You sir, are a extremely poor at learning your lessons from history. Have you considered, that maybe the people that died in the Christian Crusades in the middle ages, didn't want to live that life, maybe they just wanted to live, but being they didn't agree with those in military power, they were eliminated. Being the most powerful doesn't mean being the most correct. I have great pride in this country, my family has a long history of armed service and for you to suggest anything else is ignorant. The beauty of this country is, I can give you the facts, and you can make excuses for the ignorance to the facts, but you can believe whatever you want and still live here. If anything else was evident, it wouldn't be a free country, so join the Posse Commitautis with the new reicht and make your own rules. I bet Hitler was a great beliver that he was making the world a better place, along with the Roman Empire, Napolean, etc...all the other egotistical leaders to have graced this planet. :sniper: :withstupid:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Large numbers of Iraqies (sp) ( sue me I can't spell) that were in exile here and around the world asked us and they actually know what was going on in Iraq. Of course you were'nt going to hear that from the citizens in the control of Saddam. They are still terrified of him they couldnt risk asking for our help. Having the power doesn't always make you right but it does make it incumbent on us to when possible use the power to defend the weak. The case you are making that the Iraqies didn't want help is factually incorrect. And common sense would tell you that anyone guilty of the things Saddam is guilty of( raping , maiming children to keep his people in line) of was somthing that should be stopped. Mankind has come a long way from the days of the crusades and we have taken great pains to respect both the religion and rights of the Iraq people. And the people of iraq are appreciative that we are there. Their biggest fear is in fact that we may lose our resolve and run in the face of a few casualties before we have helped the Iraqies finalize a democratically run free country... As far as your long family history of military service I never said anything about your family and wouldn't but I would suggest you talk to a family member that was serving during the Vietnam war if you have one and ask him what the effect of anti-american rhetoric had on the morale of the soldiers of the day. Ask him what he thinks of a population that gave comfort to the enemy while he was getting shot at, because when we as a country don't show solidarity behind our government at this time we undermine the saftey of our soldiers. I know first hand what its like to hold a fellow soldier and watch the life run out of his eyes I know first hand what its like to wonder why the country has forsaken their soldiers, I know first hand what it like to come back to a land that calls you all kinds of untrue things, to be ridiculed at the colledge I attended. I never forget how I felt and I'll never sit by idly and let you make these statements, my good and honorable friends died for the principles that we are now 30 some years later attempting to apply in Iraq. This is not the time for the crap you have written you are giving hope to the terrorists hope that we as a nation again don't have the unity and resolve to finish this task. Save your BS for when every soldier we have is back here safely and have some reverence for the ones that aren't coming back. I know what its like to load your friends in body bags. I hope you never do. I cannot carry on this conversation anymore.....


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Bob, I support our troops 100%, that doesn't mean I have to support the wrong decisions that get them there. I commute to work every day with a vietnam vet who was a scout in the 101st, he was front line everday. A mutual friend of ours was a ranger attached to the 182nd in Vietnam. You know what both these men say, this "police" actions is BS, we have no reason to be there, we are not defending any type threat to "freedom" on our shores. I have a hunting and fishing friends who are active and have been recently activated, you know what they tell me? The active men say that when the camera's role and the reporters ask, of course all you are going to hear is, "we will do what we can and it is good we are here." But when the men have time to themselves, the vast majority think this Iraq is a crock as well. Support our troops, but don't condone actions just becuase you are American and you have to, or else some ignorant person will label you as anti american if you don't. Everyone should stand up for their convictions, that is what America is about, and for those who say that you have to act a certain way, or you are not patriotic, I say, move to North Korea if you desire to be told how to honor your nation.

peace/out
:sniper:


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

Fireball

Please do not speak for the "vast majority" of the armed forces inside Iraq. You are a disgrace when you do such things and it really ****** people like me who actually have a brother and two friends residing in country. In all of the talks and e-mails that I have had with them I have NEVER heard them say anything that you have just mentioned. Maybe you are the one putting words into peoples mouths to justify your hatred of the fact that the US IS the most powerful nation the planet right now and DOES have a moral justification to defend the downtrodden of this planet. Maybe you would have felt better if instead of it being the US going in it had been a socialist government more to your liking like France or Russia.

IaHunter
And don't disgrace our military with your spewing, please. :eyeroll:


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

I won't even respond to your silly little rant. My father served in the armed forces for 30 yrs, I have 6 friends active and two more that where just activated, who will start their tour in Jan. Two of my best friends are Vietnam Vets, I could go on for hours dropping names and ranks, but it is senseless. I never ever said anything to disrespect our armed services, I support them every way I can. I go to send offs, coming homes and family support functions. Might don't make right, if that was the case, the school bully would be the most popular student on the playground. You can move to a communist country if you like, that way you would have a responsibility to never question your leaders.


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

Wow fireball, you know at least 6 vets and 8 active duty--do you really think that makes enough of a statistical sample to support your hypothesis of how the "vast majority" of the military feels about any subject? I support your right to have any opinion you want but don't try and speak for me and the other hundreds of thousands in the active duty military based on what your sample of 14 thinks.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fireball you are trying to send me to North Korea, signing me up for the Posse comitatis ( whatever that is), insinuating I admire Hitler, calling me a confederate flag waving ******* all tactics that are perfect indications of your total ignorance about the facts and inability to address the facts without making these lunatic remarks. First, your friends are entitlted to their opions but they like you don't understand the core reason why we are in Iraq. I will try to briefly explain the policy and the goal of our presence in Iraq but before I do I want you to ask you vet friends if 3000 innocent New Yorker civilians hideaously murdered does constitute a attack what does 5000, maybe or is it 10,000 before they feel we need to act? I guess birds of a feather ride to work together, but at least they served their country. Now on to the policy I will try to keep it brief and easy to understand.
1) terrorists want to destroy the USA and our way of life
2) terrorists recruit their people in countries like Irac and others in the middle east and Asia that are governed by dictators that hoard all the wealth of the nation and commit unbeliveable acts of cruelty to keep everyone in line. 
3)Terroists are able to recruit in these environments because the people of the countries have nothing to lose, no economies, no jobs, no freedoms, and a feeling of having a hopeless future ect . *IN short they feel they have nothing to lose*
4) The goal of our policy is to free Irac and establish a thriving democratic economy where all the people that live there are enjoying a good standard of living and can work and excell and most importantly then have a personal stake in becoming a peaceful trading partner in the world community.
5) Lastly the hope is that the success in Iraq( which again is a thriving economy of free people) will spill over into the rest of the middle east and begin the democratization and stabilization of the entire area. This is the overall reason that we are there.
If we don't solve this problem over there we will end up fighting terrorists here in the streets of the USA. The terroists are willing to come here which will be simple, look how easy it is to sneak drugs ect into this country. They will set off a dirty bomb in one of our major cities or shoot down one of our airliners with a Shoulder fired missle which will plunge our economy into a huge recession to say nothing of the human life costs. 
Ia hunters brother and all the other soldiers over there are willing to give their lives so that some Iraqie child, from a culture they don't even understand, may have the freedoms taken for granted here. This is not a "police action" it is nation building and the first step in a critical mission to defend this country from the very real terrorist threat.


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

OMG....head hurts after reading this thread.
Not going to make a long political reply here. Head hurts too much and wrong place to get into a political argument for me. Just wanted to say thanks from one Vet to another, thanks Bobm and any other Vets on here, thank you for the service to your county. I was lucky enough to be in during a time of no combat. I feel for what you had to go through Bob, watching friends get killed/wounded. My father in law was there, tells me the same kinds of stories.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Propst to you Bobm, make no mistake that you are held in the highest for service and sacrifice!!

Patriots like you have made it possible for non-serving liberals to be able speak without being capped by their govt.

Honor is everything and you have IT!


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

I forgot to mention one thing...I believe it is a crapper of a deal that Bush pulled the rivier scientist just before the publishing of the report. Our enviromental policies should deal with science, true science. That report would of helped our understanding of how our present policy is affecting the Missouri River and all of the fauna with it.

IaHunter


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I am just an old fart that likes to pheasant hunt. The point I'm trying to get across is that no matter what any of us think about the policies of the government pertaining to Iraq this is not the time to show anything but total unity so that those bastards that are shooting our boys don't have any encouragement. The real reason we lost in Vietnam was because we didn't have the untiy as a nation and the North Vietnamese realized it and new they could wear us down. This cost a lot of soldiers lives which is why most of the people my age that understand what and why of the situation hate the Jane Fondas of the era.
We are in this thing with both feet and we all need to take the time to tell our representatives in Congress to put the partisonship aside until the mission is finished Iraq is on its feet and most importantly our young servicemen have returned safely. I love our country and I believe in my heart that we are the greatest, most generous, and most decent people on the face of the earth.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Hey Bob we love ya man :wink:

& you are right on (from your perspective) & Lifes expirences k:

I just try to see things from whats best for the resources & future of hunting

Humans make all kinds of stupid mistakes (always have always will)

Just wish some new Blood, with real sincere ideals, that I can relate to - would finally come along

We finally got rid of the WWII ways of thinking (although Bob Dole turned out to be cool once he got out of politics) too bad he could not show that side of himself, while he had a shot --- Bills 8 yrs were most likely the best I have lived thru. But he had lots to be desired (maybe if he would have had a cool wife ???) But he was a prepy lying SOB. --- W is not what I'm looking for either :eyeroll:

us old farts have to stick together or these young bucks will try to run us off :bartime:


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

PS........ Bob here is another one for you - seems all get testy after hunting slows down  http://www.fishingbuddy.com/forums/topi ... 7905&rid=1


----------

