Other than the percentages being those of the pareto, looks more like
Sturgeons Law.

Coasty proclaimed:
> It is called Pareto's Principal
> Coasty
>
> "billy ray" <Kill.them.all@God.knows.his.own.com> wrote in message
> news:4a4ba$448046bf$48311525$5993@FUSE.NET...
>
>>You think that as many as 20% are the troublemakers?
>>
>>
>>"Coasty" <uscg_ret at comcast dot net> wrote in message
>>news:T46dnbTup8jCiB3ZnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>>I love hypocritical egregious extremist people, they often have a narrow
>>>view. This is evident in lumping one particular group of people into a
>>>single category and all of them being offenders and not caring what ever
>>>the cause may be also, always touting the sky is falling.
>>>
>>>There is the 80/20 rule which has been proven and measured. 80% of the
>>>people are good and do the right thing 20% of the people are dirt bags.
>>>
>>>Maybe you should target the 20% and include yourself in the 20% for your
>>>narrow minded lumping of all people in a particular group.
>>>
>>>I always laugh at the extremist what ever the cause it is better than the
>>>Last Comic show TV and it is free entertainment.
>>>
>>>Coasty
>>>Coasty
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Ain't THAT the truth!

Jeff DeWitt


Jerry Bransford wrote:
> The "good" candidates all refuse to run any more IMHO. Who in their
> right mind wants to be attacked and have all their opinions, viewss and
> thoughts spun by the opposition who have nothing more than character
> assassination on their mind?
>
> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>
>> Oh there will be plenty of need, 2008 is coming and no doubt the
>> Democrats will come up with another nutcase lefty to run, someone I
>> can use that quote against. I just hope to God the Republicans come
>> up with someone good to run against him (or her).
>>
>> Jeff DeWitt
>>
>> Mary Malmros wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>
>

R. Lander wrote:
> jeff wrote:
>
>
>>R. Lander wrote:
>>
>>>I replied to your Limbaugh-script comments using my original subject
>>>header, not your altered one.
>>>
>>>You forget that the Nazis....
>>
>>Ding Ding Ding. Gowdin's law is hereby invoked. You Loose. Now go away.
>
>
> Why not invoke Godwin's Law on the cretin who added "Nazis" to my
> original header? I was pointing out that Nazis were/are far more
> right-wing (anti-environmental) in their actions. Take it up with the
> liar, not the corrector.
>
> R. Lander
>

So Lander, your claim is that lefties take better care of the
environment than we nighties do?

Jeff DeWitt

"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_ZydnZDzes2tZx3ZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> C. E. White proclaimed:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Believe what you will, it happens all the time. Usually I only see the
> > results (tracks cut in paths and fields), but occasionally one of the
> > geniuses gets stuck. I've found trucks buried up to the axles, laying on
> > the sides in the ditches, sitting across ditches, or just not running.
> > I've tried asking the Sheriff for help - what a joke!
>
> Name of Sheriff, name of community?
>
> I'm not calling you a liar, but trespass is trespass.

Lon,

I am not a lawyer, but there is a difference between civil trespass and
criminal trespass. There are statutory guidelines and case law particular
to every jurisdiction, but in most cases the difference involves
"prosecutorial discretion", i.e. whether the police want to get involved or
not. If the complainant is perceived as a nut job by the local authorities,
there is no personal injury, and property damage is minimal, then it this
most likely going to be a civil matter.

This does not mean that the property owner has no rights, but it does mean
that it will be up to him, at his expense, to enforce them. In the remote
case that C. E. White is on the level, then the best advice to him is to
contact a lawyer, who will tell him how to protect his property in a legal
and effective manner. Maybe the local law enforcement can provide this
advice, but it is not really their job.

Earle

This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
ecologically.

http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg

That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
sustain dense cities.

Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
the land.

Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
need help from the off-road lobby.

http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/2005-11-30_wcs.jpg

R. Lander

Looks like they need a lot more roads in Canada... perhaps they could get
more people living, working, and playing up there. Ya know.. development,
homes, industry... jobs... good jobs....

good jobs= a good life.

Or you could go live in a cave and scavenge for sustenance.... your choice.




"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149351597.266698.230530@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
> tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
> indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
> ecologically.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
>
> That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
> or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
> unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
> grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
> support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
> use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
> sustain dense cities.
>
> Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
> been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
> industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
> an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
> need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
> control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
> the land.
>
> Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
> Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
> need help from the off-road lobby.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/2005-11-30_wcs.jpg
>
> R. Lander
>

Who said anything about demanding more roads? You are as bad as
Vandeman for making up BS. Folks just want the existing roads or trails
protected for 'all' users, not just the elite assholes of the hiking
community. You are one, (an asshole) that is so by your logic all
hikers are assholes....

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:
>
> This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
> tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
> indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
> ecologically.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
>
> That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
> or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
> unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
> grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
> support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
> use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
> sustain dense cities.
>
> Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
> been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
> industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
> an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
> need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
> control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
> the land.
>
> Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
> Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
> need help from the off-road lobby.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/2005-11-30_wcs.jpg
>
> R. Lander

billy ray did pass the time by typing:
> Looks like they need a lot more roads in Canada... perhaps they could get
> more people living, working, and playing up there. Ya know.. development,
> homes, industry... jobs... good jobs....

Canada tends more to small farm towns and BIG cities. Changes from coast
to coast but places like Calgary Alberta are huge cities where folks live
in fairly nice homes or apartments/flats. Lots of the surrounding lands
are farm but that's changing. There still are miles and miles of agriculture.

> good jobs= a good life.
>
> Or you could go live in a cave and scavenge for sustenance.... your choice.

/me thinks the OP lives in his own special world.

The OP is posting from an ISP in Northern California.
That in itself explains much. Probably one of those
uber-greenies on a mission from god or some such.

Ever been to Northern Canada? The Northwest and Yukon
Territories are islands and water in summer and islands
and ice in winter with a hell of a lot of baren rock.
Apart from hunting, fishing, or prospecting there is very
little reason to go up there.

The OP is nothing but a crossposting troll.
Not once has it ever answered even one of the
responses.

--
DougW

"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149351597.266698.230530@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
> tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
> indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
> ecologically.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
>
> That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
> or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
> unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
> grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
> support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
> use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
> sustain dense cities.

The map shows nothing. It is much too small to show anything at all. From
looking at the map, and the web site that it came from, I get the idea that
it is purposely deceitful. The map would have you believe that no
undeveloped land exists from the cetral US eastward. I know for a fact this
is wrong. I have traveled up and down the east coast and have found
wilderness areas in every state, but you wouldn't know it by your map. I
currently live in NY. According to your map you would think it all looks
like new york city. Nothing could be further from the truth. Did you know
that wilderness exists not far from the city ? Ever hear of the Catskill
mountains, they're right outside the city. How about the 6.1 million acre
Adirondack state park. But most of New York is not heavily developed once
you are north of the city. Ever been to Pennsylvania, lots of wilderness
also. Same as western Maryland, West Virginia, western Virginia, etc... I
have never had a problem finding wilderness areas no matter were I"ve been.
If fact, when hiking and backpacking, it wasn't unusual to not see anyone
else in the woods. Sounds like you need to get out more and see things for
yourself, rather that believe everything you read on the internet.

>
> Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
> been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
> industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
> an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments.


There's a reason for that. Roads existed as far back as the horse and
buggy days. People had to have some means of getting from on place to
another.Some of the roads were also created from logging. The reason trees
have been cut is so that you could lumber to build your house. But trees are
a renewable resource. The roadless debate has only been a recent concern. I
have only seen it used as a way to try and keep motorized/ wheeled
recreation out of a given area. But it is likely most of these roads have
been around for over a hundred years. As an example, I've hiked in
Shenandoah National Park which was etablished in 1935. You can still plainy
see the old roads in the backcountry even today. How old do you think they
are ????



We
> need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
> control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
> the land.


What an ignorant statement ! Do you really believe that ? Do you really
believe that nobody should be allowed to raise a family ? Why not take it a
step further and end your life for the good of the world ? Doesn't make
sense, does it ?




>
> Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
> Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
> need help from the off-road lobby.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/2005-11-30_wcs.jpg
>
> R. Lander
>

> Looks like they need a lot more roads in Canada...

Got most of what we need and want, thanks.

> perhaps they could get
> more people living, working, and playing up there.

Have plenty of that as well, especially living and playing.


> Ya know.. development,
> homes, industry... jobs... good jobs....

Not perfect, but more than satisfactory, much more -- and we don't
outsource the good stuff.


> good jobs= a good life.

Generally, yes, always, no -- but Americans generally have trouble with
concepts beyond yes/no.

Good life? Yep, we already have that, and plenty of it -- it's not that
far away from the Cincy area, take a peak over the border sometime. But
please, just look, entering isn't necessary.



> Or you could go live in a cave and scavenge for sustenance.... your
> choice.

Dat's what I mean -- yes/no you understand, but nothing in-between (except
Nancy, that is)



> "R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149351597.266698.230530@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
>> tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
>> indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
>> ecologically.
>>
>> http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
>>
>> That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
>> or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
>> unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
>> grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
>> support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
>> use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
>> sustain dense cities.
>>
>> Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
>> been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
>> industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
>> an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
>> need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
>> control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
>> the land.
>>
>> Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
>> Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
>> need help from the off-road lobby.
>>
>> http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/2005-11-30_wcs.jpg
>>
>> R. Lander
>>

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

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

Ahh the left doesn't pander go greed so that's why they've created all
these government handout programs?

Is that why they go into absolute hysterical hissy fits when anyone
suggests doing anything to fix the Social Security debacle?

While both sides do it the left has done an exceptionally good job of
learning the lesson "He who robs Peter to pay Paul can be certain of the
support of Paul".

Jeff DeWitt

R. Lander wrote:
> billy ray wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> People with low IQs on both fringes should go the www.vhemt.org route.
> But the far-Right is worse than the far-Left because they get elected
> more often. Why? Because most people are greedy and the Right is all
> about pandering to greed. They created the Me Generation without really
> acknowledging it. Having respect for nature is the antithesis of greed,
> hence the strong correlation between Republican "values" and
> anti-environmentalism.
>
> R. Lander
>

Jeff DeWitt wrote:
> Ahh the left doesn't pander to greed so that's why they've created all
> these government handout programs?

Exactly. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out why.
HINT: examine the targets of the left's vs. the right's largess.

> Is that why they go into absolute hysterical hissy fits when anyone
> suggests doing anything to fix the Social Security debacle?

Never seen this phenomenon. I DO notice that leftists do go into
hysterics whenever REPUBLICANS introduce legislation claiming it will
"fix" Social Security when the actual effect will be the destruction of
SS, while divvying up the existing spoils amongst Republican donors...

> While both sides do it the left has done an exceptionally good job of
> learning the lesson "He who robs Peter to pay Paul can be certain of the
> support of Paul".

Funny, I thought that was the operating philosophy of the Republican
Party, with the proviso that Paul has more money than Peter to start with...

Dan

> Jeff DeWitt
>
> R. Lander wrote:
>
>> billy ray wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> People with low IQs on both fringes should go the www.vhemt.org route.
>> But the far-Right is worse than the far-Left because they get elected
>> more often. Why? Because most people are greedy and the Right is all
>> about pandering to greed. They created the Me Generation without really
>> acknowledging it. Having respect for nature is the antithesis of greed,
>> hence the strong correlation between Republican "values" and
>> anti-environmentalism.
>>
>> R. Lander
>>

dan wrote:
> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>
>> Ahh the left doesn't pander to greed so that's why they've created all
>> these government handout programs?
>
>
> Exactly. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out why.
> HINT: examine the targets of the left's vs. the right's largess.
>
>> Is that why they go into absolute hysterical hissy fits when anyone
>> suggests doing anything to fix the Social Security debacle?
>
>
> Never seen this phenomenon. I DO notice that leftists do go into
> hysterics whenever REPUBLICANS introduce legislation claiming it will
> "fix" Social Security when the actual effect will be the destruction of
> SS, while divvying up the existing spoils amongst Republican donors...

You need to get out more <G>.

There have been a number of plans to do something about SS, but the
lefties always start bleating about how it's going to cut the benefits
of the poor old people (and invariably whatever the plan is does no such
thing, and doesn't effect current recipients at all). Fact of the
matter is that SS is basically a Ponzi scheme and while it CAN'T be
fixed, it can be turned into something that makes economic sense.
>
>> While both sides do it the left has done an exceptionally good job of
>> learning the lesson "He who robs Peter to pay Paul can be certain of
>> the support of Paul".
>
>
> Funny, I thought that was the operating philosophy of the Republican
> Party, with the proviso that Paul has more money than Peter to start
> with...

No, you have it backwards, that's the Democrat's philosophy, they always
want to raise taxes on the "evil rich" to give more to the "poor" (in
other words take money from one group to buy votes from the other.

Jeff DeWitt

>
> Dan
>
>> Jeff DeWitt
>>
>> R. Lander wrote:
>>
>>> billy ray wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> People with low IQs on both fringes should go the www.vhemt.org route.
>>> But the far-Right is worse than the far-Left because they get elected
>>> more often. Why? Because most people are greedy and the Right is all
>>> about pandering to greed. They created the Me Generation without really
>>> acknowledging it. Having respect for nature is the antithesis of greed,
>>> hence the strong correlation between Republican "values" and
>>> anti-environmentalism.
>>>
>>> R. Lander
>>>

Mike, I've been called an asshole before, but it has little to do with my
hiking. Usually, people like it when I go hiking for a few days. ;^)

Earle

"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4481BD27.3ED891F8@sympatico.ca...
> Who said anything about demanding more roads? You are as bad as
> Vandeman for making up BS. Folks just want the existing roads or trails
> protected for 'all' users, not just the elite assholes of the hiking
> community. You are one, (an asshole) that is so by your logic all
> hikers are assholes....
>
> 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:
> >
> > This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
> > tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
> > indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
> > ecologically.
> >
> > http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
> >
> > That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
> > or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
> > unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
> > grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
> > support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
> > use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
> > sustain dense cities.
> >
> > Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
> > been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
> > industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
> > an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
> > need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
> > control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
> > the land.
> >
> > Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
> > Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
> > need help from the off-road lobby.
> >
> > http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/2005-11-30_wcs.jpg
> >
> > R. Lander

Social Security wasn't always a Ponzi scheme. A president from what party
was responsible?

Bonus points for why he spent the cash..



"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4kmgg.19479$JW5.18828@southeast.rr.com...
> dan wrote:
>> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>>
>>> Ahh the left doesn't pander to greed so that's why they've created all
>>> these government handout programs?
>>
>>
>> Exactly. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out why.
>> HINT: examine the targets of the left's vs. the right's largess.
>>
>>> Is that why they go into absolute hysterical hissy fits when anyone
>>> suggests doing anything to fix the Social Security debacle?
>>
>>
>> Never seen this phenomenon. I DO notice that leftists do go into
>> hysterics whenever REPUBLICANS introduce legislation claiming it will
>> "fix" Social Security when the actual effect will be the destruction of
>> SS, while divvying up the existing spoils amongst Republican donors...
>
> You need to get out more <G>.
>
> There have been a number of plans to do something about SS, but the
> lefties always start bleating about how it's going to cut the benefits of
> the poor old people (and invariably whatever the plan is does no such
> thing, and doesn't effect current recipients at all). Fact of the matter
> is that SS is basically a Ponzi scheme and while it CAN'T be fixed, it can
> be turned into something that makes economic sense.
>>
>>> While both sides do it the left has done an exceptionally good job of
>>> learning the lesson "He who robs Peter to pay Paul can be certain of the
>>> support of Paul".
>>
>>
>> Funny, I thought that was the operating philosophy of the Republican
>> Party, with the proviso that Paul has more money than Peter to start
>> with...
>
> No, you have it backwards, that's the Democrat's philosophy, they always
> want to raise taxes on the "evil rich" to give more to the "poor" (in
> other words take money from one group to buy votes from the other.
>
> Jeff DeWitt
>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>> Jeff DeWitt
>>>
>>> R. Lander wrote:
>>>
>>>> billy ray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People with low IQs on both fringes should go the www.vhemt.org route.
>>>> But the far-Right is worse than the far-Left because they get elected
>>>> more often. Why? Because most people are greedy and the Right is all
>>>> about pandering to greed. They created the Me Generation without really
>>>> acknowledging it. Having respect for nature is the antithesis of greed,
>>>> hence the strong correlation between Republican "values" and
>>>> anti-environmentalism.
>>>>
>>>> R. Lander
>>>>

Earle Horton proclaimed:

> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:_ZydnZDzes2tZx3ZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>>C. E. White proclaimed:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Believe what you will, it happens all the time. Usually I only see the
>>>results (tracks cut in paths and fields), but occasionally one of the
>>>geniuses gets stuck. I've found trucks buried up to the axles, laying on
>>>the sides in the ditches, sitting across ditches, or just not running.
>>>I've tried asking the Sheriff for help - what a joke!
>>
>>Name of Sheriff, name of community?
>>
>>I'm not calling you a liar, but trespass is trespass.
>
>
> Lon,
>
> I am not a lawyer, but there is a difference between civil trespass and
> criminal trespass. There are statutory guidelines and case law particular
> to every jurisdiction, but in most cases the difference involves
> "prosecutorial discretion", i.e. whether the police want to get involved or
> not. If the complainant is perceived as a nut job by the local authorities,
> there is no personal injury, and property damage is minimal, then it this
> most likely going to be a civil matter.

Most farming communities I've been around consider the simple act of
leaving a rut in a crop field more than just trespass. There may be
somewhere that local laws don't protect farmers from damage....

Earle Horton did pass the time by typing:
> Mike, I've been called an asshole before, but it has little to do with my
> hiking. Usually, people like it when I go hiking for a few days. ;^)

People are allways telling me to take a hike.

--
DougW

billy ray wrote:
> Social Security wasn't always a Ponzi scheme. A president from what party
> was responsible?

Close enough, they set the retirement age at about the same age most
people died!

Jeff DeWitt

>
> Bonus points for why he spent the cash..
>
>
>
> "Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4kmgg.19479$JW5.18828@southeast.rr.com...
>
>>dan wrote:
>>
>>>Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ahh the left doesn't pander to greed so that's why they've created all
>>>>these government handout programs?
>>>
>>>
>>>Exactly. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out why.
>>>HINT: examine the targets of the left's vs. the right's largess.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Is that why they go into absolute hysterical hissy fits when anyone
>>>>suggests doing anything to fix the Social Security debacle?
>>>
>>>
>>>Never seen this phenomenon. I DO notice that leftists do go into
>>>hysterics whenever REPUBLICANS introduce legislation claiming it will
>>>"fix" Social Security when the actual effect will be the destruction of
>>>SS, while divvying up the existing spoils amongst Republican donors...
>>
>>You need to get out more <G>.
>>
>>There have been a number of plans to do something about SS, but the
>>lefties always start bleating about how it's going to cut the benefits of
>>the poor old people (and invariably whatever the plan is does no such
>>thing, and doesn't effect current recipients at all). Fact of the matter
>>is that SS is basically a Ponzi scheme and while it CAN'T be fixed, it can
>>be turned into something that makes economic sense.
>>
>>>>While both sides do it the left has done an exceptionally good job of
>>>>learning the lesson "He who robs Peter to pay Paul can be certain of the
>>>>support of Paul".
>>>
>>>
>>>Funny, I thought that was the operating philosophy of the Republican
>>>Party, with the proviso that Paul has more money than Peter to start
>>>with...
>>
>>No, you have it backwards, that's the Democrat's philosophy, they always
>>want to raise taxes on the "evil rich" to give more to the "poor" (in
>>other words take money from one group to buy votes from the other.
>>
>>Jeff DeWitt
>>
>>
>>>Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeff DeWitt
>>>>
>>>>R. Lander wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>billy ray wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>People with low IQs on both fringes should go the www.vhemt.org route.
>>>>>But the far-Right is worse than the far-Left because they get elected
>>>>>more often. Why? Because most people are greedy and the Right is all
>>>>>about pandering to greed. They created the Me Generation without really
>>>>>acknowledging it. Having respect for nature is the antithesis of greed,
>>>>>hence the strong correlation between Republican "values" and
>>>>>anti-environmentalism.
>>>>>
>>>>>R. Lander
>>>>>
>
>
>

Good one..... I meant what President after 1935.


"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vfogg.19486$JW5.3559@southeast.rr.com...
>
>
> billy ray wrote:
>> Social Security wasn't always a Ponzi scheme. A president from what
>> party was responsible?
>
> Close enough, they set the retirement age at about the same age most
> people died!
>
> Jeff DeWitt
>
>>
>> Bonus points for why he spent the cash..
>>
>>
>>
>> "Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:4kmgg.19479$JW5.18828@southeast.rr.com...
>>
>>>dan wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ahh the left doesn't pander to greed so that's why they've created all
>>>>>these government handout programs?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Exactly. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out why.
>>>>HINT: examine the targets of the left's vs. the right's largess.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Is that why they go into absolute hysterical hissy fits when anyone
>>>>>suggests doing anything to fix the Social Security debacle?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Never seen this phenomenon. I DO notice that leftists do go into
>>>>hysterics whenever REPUBLICANS introduce legislation claiming it will
>>>>"fix" Social Security when the actual effect will be the destruction of
>>>>SS, while divvying up the existing spoils amongst Republican donors...
>>>
>>>You need to get out more <G>.
>>>
>>>There have been a number of plans to do something about SS, but the
>>>lefties always start bleating about how it's going to cut the benefits of
>>>the poor old people (and invariably whatever the plan is does no such
>>>thing, and doesn't effect current recipients at all). Fact of the matter
>>>is that SS is basically a Ponzi scheme and while it CAN'T be fixed, it
>>>can be turned into something that makes economic sense.
>>>
>>>>>While both sides do it the left has done an exceptionally good job of
>>>>>learning the lesson "He who robs Peter to pay Paul can be certain of
>>>>>the support of Paul".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Funny, I thought that was the operating philosophy of the Republican
>>>>Party, with the proviso that Paul has more money than Peter to start
>>>>with...
>>>
>>>No, you have it backwards, that's the Democrat's philosophy, they always
>>>want to raise taxes on the "evil rich" to give more to the "poor" (in
>>>other words take money from one group to buy votes from the other.
>>>
>>>Jeff DeWitt
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jeff DeWitt
>>>>>
>>>>>R. Lander wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>billy ray wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>People with low IQs on both fringes should go the www.vhemt.org route.
>>>>>>But the far-Right is worse than the far-Left because they get elected
>>>>>>more often. Why? Because most people are greedy and the Right is all
>>>>>>about pandering to greed. They created the Me Generation without
>>>>>>really
>>>>>>acknowledging it. Having respect for nature is the antithesis of
>>>>>>greed,
>>>>>>hence the strong correlation between Republican "values" and
>>>>>>anti-environmentalism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>R. Lander
>>>>>>
>>
>>

Don't bait the troll.