You may have something there.

If the liberals and Demoncrats could keep their pants zipped the population
would drop severely and decent people might again populate the earth.



"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149184562.833916.202840@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Steve Foley wrote:
>
>> It seems like you're saying that all of the land will eventually be
>> bulldozed, but until that happens, you want it 'preserved' for your
>> personal
>> enjoyment.
>
> Of course we can never pave all the land, but it shouldn't need
> constant protection from growth unless it's lucky enough to be saved as
> a park. The idea that more land must to be used all the time is
> illogical. We should lower our birthrates instead of living like cattle
> always trying to break down fences for a bigger range.
>
> Instead of making it about hikers vs. Jeepers, we need to stop pitting
> Man against nature, period. It's a philosophical thing, not a Jeep
> thing. Noise and wilderness don't mix. You can raise a ruckus in town
> or test your 4WD capabilities on a local dirt plot. We are running out
> of places where the true appeal of nature can be experienced. Nature
> is, in many ways, the absence of mechanical noise. When I hear a
> powerboat on a lake or an engine in the woods, I wonder why I traveled
> that far just to be reminded of the blasted city.
>
> R. Lander
>

R. Lander blathered:

><<<<<snip>>>>>
>
> R. Lander
>

Yaaaaaaawwwwwwnn.

Ah, another pencil necked, pimple-faced, four eyed git hiding behind
the safety of the internet, criticizing people he's afraid of.

Troll much?

Not a bad troll....

I am in the woods year round and see idiots in all manners of vehicles
and modes of transportation. That doesn't mean all the people in the
woods are idiots though...

The group I wheel with are from the rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys
newsgroup and we actually clean the trails and have been part of
organized clean ups in our local mud pit area. You should see the pits
in the spring when the snowmobile trails have melted down! What a bunch
of slobs! Are all snowmobilers slobs, no, but enough of them to really
make a mess.... Now the same snowmobilers are getting on the trails in
ATV's.... Jeepers use the trails year round in their Jeeps.

We always pack out more than we brought in and leave a clean camp. We
also like to wander along the forestry/logging/mining roads to see what
we find or where we end up. Usually to try and find a remote area to
set up a base camp and we do bring canoes and dingies and things. We
don't go trespassing on posted land nor do we tear up new trails or
fields. We have avoided winter trails when asked by the loggers so the
road would set up or freeze smooth for their big rigs. We always make a
point of talking to the folks working in the bush so we can stay out of
their way.

Unfortunately I see far too many of the slob types you are referring to
in the woods... All we can do is try to educate them. Their parents
were likely slobs too...

I have been accused of being elitest because I don't want to make all
the trails I know public domain with internet directions even, but man
the moron factor has been getting pretty bad out there lately....

I like taking out groups of new and/or young Jeep owners to show them
what their Jeep can do without either destroying their Jeep or the
environment. We lead by example eh. Our son, now 22 and his friends
turned out as responsible adults.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

"R. Lander" wrote:
>
> The "respect" for nature shown by offroad enthusiasts is documented by
> all the cans, bottles and wrappers they toss on scenic trails. The
> Rubicon near Lake Tahoe shows how these anthropocentric mouth-breathers
> view the land. They can't be bothered carrying a trash bag and packing
> it out. No room in the Jeep or some other excuse.
>
> People with a conquer-nature mentality have little respect for its
> sanctity. The show stealer is their fancy machinery, not the land.
> Nature is just another place to make noise and whoop it up. It's hard
> to prove, but the number of offroad litterers is probably at least 25%.
> It goes beyond a few rotten apples making the rest look bad.
>
> It's very simple: people who bash environmentalism don't respect the
> environment that much. They talk of "extremism" but effective
> protection will always seem extreme to those who want land UNprotected.
> Environmental problems are people problems and more people create more
> impact. Population can't continue without stealing more land. That's
> the crux of all these conflicts. It's not about shadowy entities trying
> to block your rights, it's more people fighting over less acreage.
>
> In the lower 48 states, there's no real frontier left. We don't need
> more machines, noise and trail(er) trash invading the last wild, quiet
> places. Be happy with all the trails you've got. If you find those
> trails overcrowded, blame human overbreeding, not environmentalism.
>
> R. Lander

Tis why they made rocksalt & shotguns?

Troy

The Nazi's were the "National Socialist German Workers Party", which is
hardly far right!

Jeff DeWitt

R. Lander wrote:
> I replied to your Limbaugh-script comments using my original subject
> header, not your altered one.
>
> You forget that the Nazis were far-right punks with no respect for
> "lower life forms." They shared traits with modern right-wingers who
> think nature should yield at will beneath their Jeep tires. Don't
> pretend you're operating on some higher moral plain with all your lies
> about endless frontiers.
>
> R. Lander
>
> Corey Shuman wrote:
>
>>Nice agenda, but complete bull****. Sorry, but Id like to see any proof
>>of this other than just your unsubstantiated ramblings.
>>Maybe you should define what you think an enviromentalist is, because
>>if you are talking about your average hippie hiker, out on his bike or
>>walking through the trails they leave more impact than the average 4wd
>>trail rider. Powerbar wrappers, feces and "biodegradable" toilet paper
>>to name a few, oh and the ability to turn an area upside down to
>>accomodate their extended camping stays.
>>
>>But since you are on a roll, lets explore your extremely flawed logic.
>>The "Conquer Nature" mentality is the reason you even have these spots
>>to enjoy. Mining companys, prospectors and railroad companys were out
>>here not to conquer nature but to make a living from it and make it a
>>livable space at the same time. This land is our land, not yours not
>>ours, but OUR land collectively, that means that what may be fun to
>>some is not fun to other but you tolerate or are at least respectful to
>>each other.
>>
>>Since you have so much to say about this, I assume that you have
>>positioned yourself to do something about it though, right. You are out
>>every weekend cleaning up the trails and organizing groups to monitor
>>the land, right? Id be willing to be not. You know the history and
>>geography of the lands you visit and leave them in a better state than
>>when you arrived. Right?
>>
>>Sorry, but you just really have no clue as to what you are talking
>>about here. There is plenty of wild frontier, unexplored canyons,
>>mountains and valleys. But you have to be motivated to get out there
>>and usually it is the offroader who has that drive and sense of
>>adventure. The average enviromentalist waits for an area to be opened
>>up, then wanders in and says it should be closed to the very same
>>people who found it. Great logic, if it wasnt for the explorers you
>>guys wouldnt have any areas to whine about.
>>
>>So keep this kind of unsubstatiated BS on the SUWA and other
>>short-sighted groups sites, cause it holds no water here.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Corey T. Shuman
>>cshuman@goldrushexepeditions.com
>>www.goldrushexpeditions.com
>>
>>R. Lander wrote:
>>
>>>The "respect" for nature shown by offroad enthusiasts is documented by
>>>all the cans, bottles and wrappers they toss on scenic trails. The
>>>Rubicon near Lake Tahoe shows how these anthropocentric mouth-breathers
>>>view the land. They can't be bothered carrying a trash bag and packing
>>>it out. No room in the Jeep or some other excuse.
>>>
>>>People with a conquer-nature mentality have little respect for its
>>>sanctity. The show stealer is their fancy machinery, not the land.
>>>Nature is just another place to make noise and whoop it up. It's hard
>>>to prove, but the number of offroad litterers is probably at least 25%.
>>>It goes beyond a few rotten apples making the rest look bad.
>>>
>>>It's very simple: people who bash environmentalism don't respect the
>>>environment that much. They talk of "extremism" but effective
>>>protection will always seem extreme to those who want land UNprotected.
>>>Environmental problems are people problems and more people create more
>>>impact. Population can't continue without stealing more land. That's
>>>the crux of all these conflicts. It's not about shadowy entities trying
>>>to block your rights, it's more people fighting over less acreage.
>>>
>>>In the lower 48 states, there's no real frontier left. We don't need
>>>more machines, noise and trail(er) trash invading the last wild, quiet
>>>places. Be happy with all the trails you've got. If you find those
>>>trails overcrowded, blame human overbreeding, not environmentalism.
>>>
>>>R. Lander
>
>

"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149175697.422954.235760@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> The "respect" for nature shown by offroad enthusiasts is documented by
> all the cans, bottles and wrappers they toss on scenic trails. The
> Rubicon near Lake Tahoe shows how these anthropocentric mouth-breathers
> view the land. They can't be bothered carrying a trash bag and packing
> it out. No room in the Jeep or some other excuse.
>
> People with a conquer-nature mentality have little respect for its
> sanctity. The show stealer is their fancy machinery, not the land.
> Nature is just another place to make noise and whoop it up. It's hard
> to prove, but the number of offroad litterers is probably at least 25%.
> It goes beyond a few rotten apples making the rest look bad.
>
> It's very simple: people who bash environmentalism don't respect the
> environment that much. They talk of "extremism" but effective
> protection will always seem extreme to those who want land UNprotected.
> Environmental problems are people problems and more people create more
> impact. Population can't continue without stealing more land. That's
> the crux of all these conflicts. It's not about shadowy entities trying
> to block your rights, it's more people fighting over less acreage.
>
> In the lower 48 states, there's no real frontier left. We don't need
> more machines, noise and trail(er) trash invading the last wild, quiet
> places. Be happy with all the trails you've got. If you find those
> trails overcrowded, blame human overbreeding, not environmentalism.
>
> R. Lander

What utter bull**** !!! What makes you think any one group is any more
responsible for leaving trash on the trails ? Where I hike I see the same
trash on the trails and these are hiking trails only. It's not unusual to
hike in 6-8 miles and find beer bottles and cans, candy wrappers, plastic
bottles, empty propane cylinders and anything else you can imagine. I just
can't figure out how someone can manage to hike in with a case of beer but
can't carry the empties out. Some people are just slobs, the method of
transportation does not matter. It is a few bad apples that ruin things for
everyone else.

>

> Not a bad troll....
>

Not a good one, too many stereotypes, too long, and no "citations of
evidence".
I give it a 3.
--
Stupendous Man,
Defender of Freedom, Advocate of Liberty

You know, I used to think I knew a lot about people who enjoy motorized
outdoor activities...just like you know a lot about 'em. Then I actually
met a few...

"billy ray" <Kill.them.all@God.knows.his.own.com> wrote in
news:a47ea$447f43e8$48311525$19189@FUSE.NET:

> You may have something there.
>
> If the liberals and Demoncrats could keep their pants zipped the
> population would drop severely and decent people might again populate
> the earth.

Yeah! *belch* now get back in the kitchen and GET ME SOME PIE, BITCH!

Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in news:0kKfg.11712$Qg.4920
@tornado.southeast.rr.com:

> The Nazi's were the "National Socialist German Workers Party", which is
> hardly far right!

Right is as right does, Jeff; learn your history. The Nazis were not in
the least socialist, no matter what their name says; in fact, socialists
and other leftists were very much a persecuted group under the Nazi regime.

Oh boy are we getting way off topic however...

I don't claim to be an expert on the Nazis, but among other unsavory
things they were they WERE socialists.

A few points, Nazi's promoted the limiting of profits, abolishment of
rent and increasing social benefits, all socialist ideas.

There is an excellent essay from Nobel Prize winner Friedrich A. Hayek
titled "The Socialist Roots of Nazism"

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/hayeknaziism.html

I suspect that the reason that it's commonly accepted that Nazism isn't
really socialism is because the Socialists are (correctly) terrified to
be connected with Nazism in any way and react very strongly to any
suggestion that Nazism was socialist.

In other words it's not politically correct to link the two... but then
I'm not politically correct!

Jeff DeWitt

Mary Malmros wrote:
> Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in news:0kKfg.11712$Qg.4920
> @tornado.southeast.rr.com:
>
>
>>The Nazi's were the "National Socialist German Workers Party", which is
>>hardly far right!
>
>
> Right is as right does, Jeff; learn your history. The Nazis were not in
> the least socialist, no matter what their name says; in fact, socialists
> and other leftists were very much a persecuted group under the Nazi regime.

It was on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 01:14:21 +0000, another Dirty Dusty Delta day,
when Mary Malmros coughed up:

> Right is as right does, Jeff; learn your history. The Nazis were not in
> the least socialist, no matter what their name says; in fact, socialists
> and other leftists were very much a persecuted group under the Nazi regime.

Methinks you're in the wrong group for spouting anything like truth,
reality or anything that requires a certain level of education and ability
to indulge in critical thinking. There are exceptions here of course, but
they stand out beacon-like just as Nancy Hughes stands out as a William
Dudley Pelley fan, troglodyte and and brownshirt wannabe.

Just an opinion, of course.



--
There is nothing so agonizing to the fine skin of vanity as the application
of a rough truth.

-Edward Bulwer-Lytton, writer (1803-1873)

Everybody now knows how evil Nazi eugenics were: How all sorts of people
were exterminated not because of anything they had done but simply because
of the way they had been born. And we have all heard how disastrous were the
Nazi efforts to build up the "master race" through selective breeding of SS
men with the best of German women -- the "Lebensborn" project. Good leftists
today recoil in horror from all that of course and use their "Hitler was a
conservative" mantra to load those evils onto conservatives. But Hitler was
a socialist. As he himself said:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system
for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries,
with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and
property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all
determined to destroy this system under all conditions." (Speech of May 1,
1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)



"Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
news:Xns97D5D80CA6BA6malmros@130.81.64.196...
> Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in news:0kKfg.11712$Qg.4920
> @tornado.southeast.rr.com:
>
>> The Nazi's were the "National Socialist German Workers Party", which is
>> hardly far right!
>
> Right is as right does, Jeff; learn your history. The Nazis were not in
> the least socialist, no matter what their name says; in fact, socialists
> and other leftists were very much a persecuted group under the Nazi
> regime.

Thanks Billy, that's a great quote, I'm saving it to use later!

Jeff DeWitt

billy ray wrote:
> Everybody now knows how evil Nazi eugenics were: How all sorts of people
> were exterminated not because of anything they had done but simply because
> of the way they had been born. And we have all heard how disastrous were the
> Nazi efforts to build up the "master race" through selective breeding of SS
> men with the best of German women -- the "Lebensborn" project. Good leftists
> today recoil in horror from all that of course and use their "Hitler was a
> conservative" mantra to load those evils onto conservatives. But Hitler was
> a socialist. As he himself said:
>
> "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system
> for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries,
> with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and
> property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all
> determined to destroy this system under all conditions." (Speech of May 1,
> 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
>
>
>
> "Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns97D5D80CA6BA6malmros@130.81.64.196...
>
>>Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in news:0kKfg.11712$Qg.4920
>>@tornado.southeast.rr.com:
>>
>>
>>>The Nazi's were the "National Socialist German Workers Party", which is
>>>hardly far right!
>>
>>Right is as right does, Jeff; learn your history. The Nazis were not in
>>the least socialist, no matter what their name says; in fact, socialists
>>and other leftists were very much a persecuted group under the Nazi
>>regime.
>
>
>

Look at Hitler's quote carefully and see if its words remind you of the
actions of any current day politicians....


"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:r1Ofg.32614$Lg.29490@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> Thanks Billy, that's a great quote, I'm saving it to use later!
>
> Jeff DeWitt
>
> billy ray wrote:
>> Everybody now knows how evil Nazi eugenics were: How all sorts of people
>> were exterminated not because of anything they had done but simply
>> because of the way they had been born. And we have all heard how
>> disastrous were the Nazi efforts to build up the "master race" through
>> selective breeding of SS men with the best of German women -- the
>> "Lebensborn" project. Good leftists today recoil in horror from all that
>> of course and use their "Hitler was a conservative" mantra to load those
>> evils onto conservatives. But Hitler was a socialist. As he himself said:
>>
>> "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic
>> system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair
>> salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to
>> wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are
>> all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." (Speech of
>> May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
>>
>>
>>
>> "Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns97D5D80CA6BA6malmros@130.81.64.196...
>>
>>>Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in news:0kKfg.11712$Qg.4920
>>>@tornado.southeast.rr.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Nazi's were the "National Socialist German Workers Party", which is
>>>>hardly far right!
>>>
>>>Right is as right does, Jeff; learn your history. The Nazis were not in
>>>the least socialist, no matter what their name says; in fact, socialists
>>>and other leftists were very much a persecuted group under the Nazi
>>>regime.
>>
>>

Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in
news:H2Nfg.18873$JW5.10044@southeast.rr.com:

> Oh boy are we getting way off topic however...
>
> I don't claim to be an expert on the Nazis, but among other unsavory
> things they were they WERE socialists.
>
> A few points, Nazi's promoted the limiting of profits, abolishment of
> rent and increasing social benefits, all socialist ideas.
>
> There is an excellent essay from Nobel Prize winner Friedrich A. Hayek
> titled "The Socialist Roots of Nazism"
>
> http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/hayeknaziism.html
>
> I suspect that the reason that it's commonly accepted that Nazism
> isn't really socialism is because the Socialists are (correctly)
> terrified to be connected with Nazism in any way and react very
> strongly to any suggestion that Nazism was socialist.

I don't suppose the large number of socialists who were killed by Nazis
could possibly have anything to do with it...no, no way...

> In other words it's not politically correct to link the two... but
> then I'm not politically correct!

Yes, another bold independent thinker proudly proclaiming himself to be
"politically incorrect". Question: is thinking still truly independent if
it's also intellectually dishonest? Characterizing distortion of history
as "political incorrectness" is like calling propaganda truth.

Oh yes, that's one of the reasons I'm filing it away, should come in
useful around election time in a couple of years.

Jeff DeWitt

billy ray wrote:
> Look at Hitler's quote carefully and see if its words remind you of the
> actions of any current day politicians....
>
>
> "Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:r1Ofg.32614$Lg.29490@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
>
>>Thanks Billy, that's a great quote, I'm saving it to use later!
>>
>>Jeff DeWitt
>>
>>billy ray wrote:
>>
>>>Everybody now knows how evil Nazi eugenics were: How all sorts of people
>>>were exterminated not because of anything they had done but simply
>>>because of the way they had been born. And we have all heard how
>>>disastrous were the Nazi efforts to build up the "master race" through
>>>selective breeding of SS men with the best of German women -- the
>>>"Lebensborn" project. Good leftists today recoil in horror from all that
>>>of course and use their "Hitler was a conservative" mantra to load those
>>>evils onto conservatives. But Hitler was a socialist. As he himself said:
>>>
>>>"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic
>>>system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair
>>>salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to
>>>wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are
>>>all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." (Speech of
>>>May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns97D5D80CA6BA6malmros@130.81.64.196...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in news:0kKfg.11712$Qg.4920
>>>>@tornado.southeast.rr.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The Nazi's were the "National Socialist German Workers Party", which is
>>>>>hardly far right!
>>>>
>>>>Right is as right does, Jeff; learn your history. The Nazis were not in
>>>>the least socialist, no matter what their name says; in fact, socialists
>>>>and other leftists were very much a persecuted group under the Nazi
>>>>regime.
>>>
>>>
>

Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in
news:3sOfg.11919$Qg.8563@tornado.southeast.rr.com:

> Oh yes, that's one of the reasons I'm filing it away, should come in
> useful around election time in a couple of years.

No need, son; George W. Bush has had his two terms and can't run for a
third.

Mary Malmros wrote:
> Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in
> news:H2Nfg.18873$JW5.10044@southeast.rr.com:
>
>
>>Oh boy are we getting way off topic however...
>>
>>I don't claim to be an expert on the Nazis, but among other unsavory
>>things they were they WERE socialists.
>>
>>A few points, Nazi's promoted the limiting of profits, abolishment of
>>rent and increasing social benefits, all socialist ideas.
>>
>>There is an excellent essay from Nobel Prize winner Friedrich A. Hayek
>>titled "The Socialist Roots of Nazism"
>>
>>http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/hayeknaziism.html
>>
>>I suspect that the reason that it's commonly accepted that Nazism
>>isn't really socialism is because the Socialists are (correctly)
>>terrified to be connected with Nazism in any way and react very
>>strongly to any suggestion that Nazism was socialist.
>
>
> I don't suppose the large number of socialists who were killed by Nazis
> could possibly have anything to do with it...no, no way...

No, they weren't the right sort of socialists... to use the modern term
they weren't politically correct by the Nazi's standards. Stalin had a
lot of "good" Communists purged too, not because they weren't
Communists, but because he saw them as a threat to his power. (I put
"good" in quotes because "good Communist" is an oxymoron).
>
>
>>In other words it's not politically correct to link the two... but
>>then I'm not politically correct!
>
>
> Yes, another bold independent thinker proudly proclaiming himself to be
> "politically incorrect". Question: is thinking still truly independent if
> it's also intellectually dishonest? Characterizing distortion of history
> as "political incorrectness" is like calling propaganda truth.

What's intellectually dishonest about disagreeing with what seems to be
the accepted thought, that the Nazi's weren't socialists? Show me where
I'm wrong instead of just attacking me... or even more to the point show
were Dr. Hayek, who WAS an expert, is wrong.

Jeff DeWitt