A joke?

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » August 11, 2003, 6:47 am

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/storie ... TE=DEFAULT

Headline: "Bush to Tout His Environmental Policies"

That says it all.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 11, 2003, 7:45 am

lol, prevent forest fires by clear cutting national forests. I fucking love george bush; he is almost like a comic book villain. I wonder if he steeples his fingers and cackles maniacally when he dreams these stunts up.

coming soon: solving the problem of dwindling stocks of tuna and salmon in both the atlantic and pacific by poisoning the oceans with industrial waste.

Trias · Post by **Trias** » August 11, 2003, 12:07 pm

if you now anything about fighting wild fires you would undestand that bush is correct in what he is saying...you NEED to clear large sections of forest to prevent the fires from destroying ALL of the Forest

you can't just "put out" fires of that scale...you have to take away their fuel

Trias · Post by **Trias** » August 11, 2003, 12:12 pm

never mind, bush is a bit retarded hah....20 million acres...

a bit much

but you do need to clear the fuel to stop those kind of fires, right idea, but sounds like lining of the pockets in lumber

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 11, 2003, 12:13 pm

yea but the people are complaining that his plan leaves a path for more logging, they will keep cutting more and more trees untill there isnt any forest anymore
so lose it all to fire and fertilize the earth, or have bush boy cut it all down and leave no place for new trees... tough choice

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » August 11, 2003, 12:15 pm

His next plan is to put an end to racism by killing all the blacks and hispanics.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » August 11, 2003, 12:26 pm

I live in timber country, Bush/Clinton/Bush have all 3 pissed away the #1 crop in my county, timber. The logging trucks used to hold a part of a tree (redwood or dug fir), they are now stacked with peckerpoles (trees with under a 6" "top[diameter at chest height]). Here on the coast we had 2 mills and 3 logging companies holding in excess of 650,000 acres of timber and employing over 1000 workers out of a 8,000 person workforce. Now we have no mills open, all but 1 of the companies has sold off it's land (Chuck Hurwitz at LP being the biggest offender by raping my backyard to payoff his junk bond scandel) and I have 45 year old men who were making 20 bucks an hour for 20+ years at the mill applying to wash dishes at my restaurant. The corperate logging industry has gotten a free ride for too damn long (Clinton's "salvage logging" legislation being the worst thing that ever happened to the forests), the riegns need to be pulled IN, not let out more, our forests are fucking pathetic.

*edit* our #1 legal crop, pot has always been our #1 crop up here in Mendocino

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 11, 2003, 12:40 pm

Clear cutting is an effective way to prevent fires. Understory has to be cleared out every so often or fire is the inevitable result.

The key is to do it in moderation. Sections are cut on a rotational basis, with timber left standing between. Clearing 20 million acres at a shot doesn't sound like moderation.

In other words, sounds like another bone thrown to the logging interests with no thought given to long term impact.

**EDIT**

After going through the piece again, it doesn't say a word about clearcutting or that the 20 million acres are contigous.

In other words, there isn't enough information here to make a decision about how sound the presidents plan is.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 11, 2003, 1:20 pm

Typical Republican environmental policy. Fucking shitty.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » August 11, 2003, 5:33 pm

lol, thats just fuckin terrible

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 11, 2003, 6:46 pm

Xzion wrote:lol, thats just fuckin terrible

I agree.

We should cut down the rain forest trees and leave our own alone. Screw them wetbacks.

(This sarcasm brought to you by someone who doesn't have a kneejerk socialistic reaction to every event. Read between the lines those of you too dense to get it...)

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 11, 2003, 6:52 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Clear cutting is an effective way to prevent fires.

Hey I agree. Also, killing everyone in the world is an effective way to prevent crime.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 11, 2003, 6:55 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Fallanthas wrote:Clear cutting is an effective way to prevent fires.
Hey I agree. Also, killing everyone in the world is an effective way to prevent crime.

So would having you fixed.

Silvarel Mistmoon · Post by **Silvarel Mistmoon** » August 12, 2003, 12:39 am

Pherr do they not replant trees in the areas that they go in and cut out from?
I know down here in Alabama you see replanted trees any time they have cleared areas. They clear areas then replant and it takes several years for them to grow then they recut and replant.

Is it they type of timber that they cut that decides the replanting or maybe the people in charge in the different states? Anyone know?

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 12, 2003, 2:27 am

problem is that they could leave even aged stands, they have less biodiversity and have less chance to survive well
wow and i thought high school ecology would never help me

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 12, 2003, 10:01 am

Kyou, you might want to talk to someone in forest management before you make an ass of yourself here.

Bottom line, you either rotate cutting sections or it all burns.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » August 12, 2003, 2:14 pm

Silvarel Mistmoon wrote:Pherr do they not replant trees in the areas that they go in and cut out from?
I know down here in Alabama you see replanted trees any time they have cleared areas. They clear areas then replant and it takes several years for them to grow then they recut and replant.

Is it they type of timber that they cut that decides the replanting or maybe the people in charge in the different states? Anyone know?

2 Problems with the replanting of trees. One is unique to my area, the other is NOT. FirstI am talking redwoods, trees that live upwards of 2000 years and, under a proper canopy grow INCREDIBLY slowly, this makes for strong wood, but the way things are now, the trees are growing to fast and are weak. The other thing about them is they have a root system only 6' deep, but extending 100+ yards out from the base of the tree, this creates a spiderwed of roots holding the hillsides up, young trees do not have this, so not only have the fucked the logging industry, but the rivers are full of dirt and the fish die, joy joy. The second problem is a timber industry standard, it's called monoculture. When companies replant forests, they plant 1-2 types of trees, allowing them to go back in later and take everything down and haul it off without having to worry about trees they don't want. Ask the japanese about what happened post WW2 when we replanted their forests in monoculture, their forests died due to disease and stagnation. A healthy forest is a diverse forest, but to the logging industry, that is also a pain in the ass forest to cut. Has anyone seen a clearcut, not a small one, but a good 30+ acre clearcut, it's disgusting, it looks like the damn moon. Last point then I'll shut up for now, fire feeds the soil nutrients, that is why fires are good for forests, clearcuts line pockets, nothing more.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 12, 2003, 2:32 pm

Agreed Pherr.

Monoculture sucks ass as a method of preserving an ecosystem, and the short-leafed pine everyone seems to want to use is a trash tree.

Sooner or later the American public is going to have to put up with a sharp rise in timer prices to make selective cutting more viable. I don't see any other way to encourage responsible husbandry.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 12, 2003, 5:17 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Kyou, you might want to talk to someone in forest management before you make an ass of yourself here.

Bottom line, you either rotate cutting sections or it all burns.

When I wipe my ass, what collects onto the toilet paper knows more about forestry than you will ever know about anything and everything from now until the day you accidentally shoot your head off while cleaning "yer scattergun" while both you and it are loaded.

"Aggresive logging" (clear cutting) in national forests is quite obviously not the answer to preventing the spread forest fires. Obviously there will be no forest fires if there are no forests; thanks for the tip, paul bunyan. I really don't see that as a viable solution. I'm not surprised a follower like yourself does though, given your predisposition to blindly stumble after every hare-brained get richer quick scheme your president cooks up that will ultimately fuck your country up, so you can blame it on the next democrat that goes into office.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 12, 2003, 5:23 pm

Nice one, cunt.

Unfortunately, a very good friend of mine led the forestry department here in Missouri for a number of years before his retirement, so you are basically fucked here.

Like I said, ask a forester before you go shooting your mouth off. You have three choices when dealing with large timber.

1. Leave it alone. It will burn and come back eventually.

2. Use tax money to finance selective cutting. Logging companies won't do much of this, because selective culling is damned expensive in terms of effort per board foot of lumber.

3. Clearcut on a rotational basis.

Your insistence on trying to peg me as a gun-toting redneck used to be funny. Now it's just tired. Get a new shtick you lazy-assed troll.

Christ, at least Pherr had some idea what he was talking about.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » August 12, 2003, 5:28 pm

shiiit, why dont we drop tactical nukes in places like ethiopia to whipe out "some" people, so other people will have more food and not be as starving, hell theres a solution, maybe we'll even kill a future terrorist or 2

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 12, 2003, 5:35 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Nice one, cunt.

Unfortunately, a very good friend of mine led the forestry department here in Missouri for a number of years before his retirement, so you are basically fucked here.

Well at least you used the "my friend is.." line instead of your usual "Well I own a farm and I'm a cop and I used to be a nuclear engineer and I was once and astronaut" and whatever other fucking lies you dream up to try and make your banal and stupid arguments look somehow legitimate.

YES CLEAR CUTTING CERTAINLY IS THE WAY TO MAKE SURE THERE ARE NO FOREST FIRES HURR HURRRRR.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 12, 2003, 5:41 pm

sure kyu, taking his post deliberatly out of context is a great way to win arguements

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 12, 2003, 5:50 pm

Can you argue the point, or did you want to continue making yourself look like an ass?

The guy who first introduced me to building longbows was the head of the MDC Forestry division. As a hunter, bowyer and weekend naturalist, I had a lot of interest in the area and we hit it off. I learned a hell of a lot from him. His knowledge of the properties of native woods pushed my bowyering along quite a bit.

Looks to me like that gives me about ten times the knowledge you have on the subject. Again, I said the piece quoted doesn't contain enough information to make a decision about whether the proposal is good or bad. How large an area are these acres being targetted spread over? How large are the areas targetted for clearing? What's growing there now, and what do they propose to replace the standing timber with?

But hey, don't let lack of knowledge slow you down. Please continue to make personal attacks, even though you know shit about me and even less about the thread you are posting to.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 12, 2003, 6:11 pm

awww are the personal attacks hurting your feewings?

"aggresive logging" = clear cutting in political speak. are you that fucking dense? Why don't you go ask your best friend, vietnam buddy, fellow cop, sharecropper, irrigation specialist and bow hunting partner smokey the fucking bear or whoever you are making up today what "aggresive logging" means. get back to me on that!

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 12, 2003, 6:14 pm

No, they are proving you an uneducated ass.

Again, do you have any idea how large these areas are, or how many acres they are spread over? If not, you are simply flapping your gums again.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 12, 2003, 6:38 pm

Fallanthas wrote:No, they are proving you an uneducated ass.

Fallanthas wrote:Nice one, cunt.

Fallanthas wrote:Again, do you have any idea how large these areas are, or how many acres they are spread over? If not, you are simply flapping your gums again.

what does their size have to do with anything?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 12, 2003, 6:48 pm

Because from a husbandry standpoint, there is one hell of a big difference between 200 areas of 100,000 acres each spread over a billion acres and a 20 million acre clearcut in the middle of 40 million acres of forested ground.

If you can't even see how important those two questions are, you really have no place in this discussion.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 12, 2003, 6:59 pm

clear cutting is clear cutting. national forests exist to prevent the logging of old growth forests, not give lumber corporations carte blanche to rape them. how is what you are babbling about relevant to the article or the thread?

and actually answer me this time instead of saying "well if you don't know why then you are dumb and I'm not going to tell you" like you basically _always_ do. If you don't know the answer then just say you don't and stop arguing with in another vain attempt to not look like a fucking moron.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » August 13, 2003, 1:47 am

Leaving stands of old growth is actually a viable alternative to maintaining a healthy ecosystem. We have a bird out here called the Marbled Murlet, and another called the Spotted Owl. Logers make jokes about how they taste like chicken, but behind those jokes they see more then they let on. Forests that were clearcut up to the 20's and 30's had a standardized practice of leaving 10 old growth redwoods per acre, not many but now those are the chunks that actually have these birds still living in them. Not surprisingly, these are also our healthiest forests, those 10 trees provide both stability to the soil as well as the ecosystem. The rest of the country should look to the west, and see the sad state of our forests. True clearcuts of thousands of acres will strip the topsoil and ruin the forests, selective cutting is the only LONG TERM answer. No true logger wants his kids not to be able to log the same forests he did, but a corperate logger sees nothing but dollar signs.

Henry Merlo, Former LP President

"We're chewing everything up and putting it back together."

"You know, it always annoyed me to leave anything on the ground when I log our own lands. Now the good part of a log goes to lumber and the bad part can be waferized into the sort of products that you see here. There shouldn't be anything left in the ground."

"We need everything that's out there. We don't log to a 10-inch top, or an 8-inch top, or a 6-inch top. We log to infinity. Because we need it all. It's ours. It's out there, and we need it all. Now."

"The dwindling log supply creates opportunity for those of us who have the financing."

A few quotes from my local loggers

"We're in a lot of trouble. And the management has brought us to this point. And with bad management, come bad decisions. And these people have been making bad decisions for as long as I can remember. And now they blame all their problems on environmentalists and employees where they ought to just look in the mirror, 'cause that's where all their problems really are. None of this had to come about. These mills didn't have to be shut down. The timber didn't have to be slaughtered like it was. If they would have used proper management, and done everything environmentally sound it would have been OK." --Randy Veach, L-P Millworker, Ukiah.

"I don't like clearcutting at all. I have a personal vendetta against clearcutting. Up in Trinity County they've clearcutted some areas that were totally beautiful...it was right up next to the wilderness line and I went up there to go backpacking and it was gone! It looked like somebody had dropped a bomb on the place. Management had tried to condone these types of practices by saying it's good for the forest to clearcut it. So that all the nice little trees can grow up healthy and strong because there's No big trees in the way. That's total ridiculousness. -- Don Beavers, L-P Millworker, Ukiah

"The corporate timber industry is manipulating the entire struggle. They're ready to bail out of here. They've already laid off hundreds of people. and they're going to lay off hundreds more." -- Ernie Pardini, logger, Mendocino County.

Look at our mess, and decide for yourself if you want it in your backyard

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 13, 2003, 10:40 am

It's very relevant, Kyou.

Unless you clear cut or thin old growth, it's gonna burn. Now, that wasn't an issue when those stands were isolated. With people in the same vicinity a 60,000 acre fire becomes a death trap.

Pherr is right, old growth is essential. Allowing millions of acres to stand until they fall over does NOT promote a healthy ecosystem and is detrimental to many species. Edge habitat is required for them to flourish.

Ideally, 20,000 acre tracts surrounded by firebreak areas and thinning along populated boundaries would be great. The problem is, thinning COSTS money, it doesn't MAKE money. So back to the original question.

Is the proposal many smaller firebreak-style cuts, or is it a localized raping of the timber? Until we know that, there isn't any basis to judge the idea on.

clear cutting is clear cutting

Wrong. There is a huge difference between one large clear cut and rotational cutting. There is a huge difference between cutting 20 million acres of old growth and cutting 20 million acres of artificially seeded pulp trees.

and actually answer me this time instead of saying "well if you don't know why then you are dumb and I'm not going to tell you" like you basically _always_ do. If you don't know the answer then just say you don't and stop arguing with in another vain attempt to not look like a fucking moron

I've already spent more time educating you than arguing. It's not my problem that;

A. You don't like the answers.

B. This entire discussion has proved you are making a decision based on emotion rather than fact.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » August 13, 2003, 11:28 am

Fallanthas wrote:
clear cutting is clear cutting

Wrong. There is a huge difference between one large clear cut and rotational cutting. There is a huge difference between cutting 20 million acres of old growth and cutting 20 million acres of artificially seeded pulp trees.

If I beleived for a minute that they were going to actually just get rid of their monoculture/seeded trees, I might be less inclined to be so strongly opposed to this plan. But I am not that naive or stupid, this is basic pandering to special interests by feeding on public fear. The real money is in the older forests that are on governmental land and ai can slam damn guarentee you those are the forests they have their eyes on. Old growth, sure some of it is, but I'd be willing to bet a dollar for a donut that it is the second growth that comprises at least 40% of this plan. Old growth will never come back, but it our second growth forests that are the real key to maintaining any sense of a healthy forest.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 13, 2003, 11:46 am

Which brings us back to teh real question.

What are they planning to cut?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 13, 2003, 11:58 am

1. Kyoukan is Canadian, why don't you work on your politics and we will mind ours, aka STFU

2. If you leave a forrest standing for 100 years, and fight its fires, and help keep it from burning, when it does catch well from any source natural or man made it burns like a demonic SOB. Trees without human intervention burn down, land is cleared, and regrows, with our intervention piles of dead wood build up decade after decade and burn like the sun.

3. Environmentalists have adjusted some of their stances since the 60's as they themselves became better educated, why cannot those who are part time environmentalists do the same.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » August 13, 2003, 12:10 pm

Kylere wrote: 3. Environmentalists have adjusted some of their stances since the 60's as they themselves became better educated, why cannot those who are part time environmentalists do the same.

Good quotes are worth a spotlight.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 13, 2003, 1:00 pm

you dont have to clearcoat a forest to prevent it from burning. often times forest fires are not the raging infernos that you see on the news.

They are small fires that burn for months under the soil or just above the surface. It is not the trees that need to be cleared out. It is the underbrush and other biomass underneath that is the fuel for forest fires.

Many trees actually have some degree of fire resistant bark, evolved to survive this very thing. Obviously in big fires, this will fail.

it is not the large trees that are the real source or fuel for the fires. Once the fires become huge Raging Wildfires yeah, the whole trees are a part of it.

Clearcutting areas can work effectively like a moat i guess that the fire cannot easily cross, but personally i dont really buy it.

I have a friend who works for the Audobon Society in Pennsylvania who i typically defer to on matters like this, and he says its basically bullshit. His spin on it is that it is nothing more than giving the logging industry exactly what they want.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 13, 2003, 1:32 pm

Then ask your friend who si going to pay to clear the understory, Vor.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 13, 2003, 1:36 pm

Lets just spray Agent Orange all over the place, should do the job

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 13, 2003, 1:46 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Then ask your friend who si going to pay to clear the understory, Vor.

hey i realize that is an important issue.

but instead of completely capitualating to an industry lobby, you try to forge something that is a bit more of a compromise. Allow them x amount of cutting rights in turn for a portion of the proceeds going to pay for the maintenance of portions of the forest.

i mean it honestly is kind of wierd to me that companies think they shouldn't have to pay a premium to harvest lumber from public land.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » August 13, 2003, 1:57 pm

Voronwë wrote:you dont have to clearcoat a forest to prevent it from burning. often times forest fires are not the raging infernos that you see on the news.

They are small fires that burn for months under the soil or just above the surface. It is not the trees that need to be cleared out. It is the underbrush and other biomass underneath that is the fuel for forest fires.

Many trees actually have some degree of fire resistant bark, evolved to survive this very thing. Obviously in big fires, this will fail.

it is not the large trees that are the real source or fuel for the fires. Once the fires become huge Raging Wildfires yeah, the whole trees are a part of it.

Clearcutting areas can work effectively like a moat i guess that the fire cannot easily cross, but personally i dont really buy it.

I have a friend who works for the Audobon Society in Pennsylvania who i typically defer to on matters like this, and he says its basically bullshit. His spin on it is that it is nothing more than giving the logging industry exactly what they want.

Yep yep. I have done a little reading on it, and that's what I have heard.
Clearcutting is preventing the fires buy clearing the trees...so of course it will work! Why not just cut down the whole damn forest!? That will remove the problem altogether!
Bush is seriously a fucking jerkoff. Allowing unchecked logging in public lands for short term interts. All under the guise of forest fire prevention.
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 is vague (intentionally), and guess what? It circumvents environmental laws, like the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), by removing the public review process and restricting legal challenges to logging proposals. Loggers can get right to it! So much for the Endangered Species Act as well. Loggers can bypass that, too.
The undergrowth is the problem. It's called "fuel loading" and the solution for it is regular fires, that clear this undergrowth out. They occur naturally when people aren't around.
Cutting down the fucking trees is the solution? Jesus fucking christ, what a joke. Why the rest of the USA can't see right through this amazes me.
When Bush is put out of office, I'm gonna party like it's 1999.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 13, 2003, 1:59 pm

but instead of completely capitualating to an industry lobby, you try to forge something that is a bit more of a compromise. Allow them x amount of cutting rights in turn for a portion of the proceeds going to pay for the maintenance of portions of the forest.

Exactly. Before going off the deep end that this is a capitulation, one would need to know WHAT is being cut WHERE and in what size blocks.

Hell, for all the detail in that article they could be cutting 200 yard wide firebreaks from Colorado to Alaska.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 13, 2003, 4:38 pm

Skogen wrote:The undergrowth is the problem. It's called "fuel loading" and the solution for it is regular fires, that clear this undergrowth out. They occur naturally when people aren't around.
Cutting down the fucking trees is the solution? Jesus fucking christ, what a joke. Why the rest of the USA can't see right through this amazes me.
When Bush is put out of office, I'm gonna party like it's 1999.

So other than cutting out the trees, how in the hell are you going to get to the undergrowth to clear it?

Jesus Christ people it is not rocket science, you cut trees down, you plant multiple types of trees as replacements, then you go to the next strip, it is low impact on the environment, hurts no one, and at worst causes some wildlife relocation. The Germans have been doing it for decades and other than stupidly using only pine replacements they are not having too many problems.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 13, 2003, 5:09 pm

its not that simple, what is going to happen to all those bothersome root systems left behind? I doubt the trees they plant will be able to hold the ground like the bigger roots do. Doesnt suprise me though. The U.S is like idiots when it comes to Wildlife

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 13, 2003, 5:13 pm

The U.S is like idiots when it comes to Wildlife

You were doing fine until this gem, Sionistic.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 13, 2003, 5:15 pm

i encourage debate, what better way to learn more about different things

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 13, 2003, 5:23 pm

Kylere wrote:1. Kyoukan is Canadian, why don't you work on your politics and we will mind ours, aka STFU

2. If you leave a forrest standing for 100 years, and fight its fires, and help keep it from burning, when it does catch well from any source natural or man made it burns like a demonic SOB. Trees without human intervention burn down, land is cleared, and regrows, with our intervention piles of dead wood build up decade after decade and burn like the sun.

3. Environmentalists have adjusted some of their stances since the 60's as they themselves became better educated, why cannot those who are part time environmentalists do the same.

I wish I was stupid enough to hold such a simplistic world view. You must sleep like a rock at night.

Go ahead at let your president give greedy forestry companies carte blanche to annihilate your national forests. You've already proven that, as a society, you are pathetically simple to manipulate via fear-mongering. Hell he's already bent over backwards to the forestry lobby on about four different issues since becoming president at least he is showing consistancy.

If you honestly think I am some kind of environmentalist because I think turning 2000 year old forests into parking lots in order to prevent forests fires is stupid then there is no fucking hope for you.

I honestly don't even know why I waste the energy arguing with you fucking morons. It's like convincing a child.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 13, 2003, 5:34 pm

Ok, point out in the above piece, or any other for that matter where the plan is to cut old growth, make parking lots or annihilate national forest ground.

All the damn thing says is cut 20 million acres. That's it. Next to zero information.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 14, 2003, 2:22 pm

Kyoukan

Glass houses, glass houses When Canada has the best policies, corrects all its past mistakes, frees Quebec, and squares away all of it's problems, then the US will listen to you....maybe.

Until then, umm who cares what you think, you are misinformed, make kneejerk reactions, and have no direct vested interest in the issue at hand.

Post by **Sylvus** » August 14, 2003, 2:25 pm

Yeah because environmental issues have absolutely no impact on the rest of the world. Particularly not a neighboring country that we share a border with.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 14, 2003, 2:31 pm

If that is the issue Sylvus then perhaps we can start with the majority of the world that is WORSE.

Gotta attack the US though, I was in Italy for three years, the bastards still use LEADED gasoline.