Please Stop Selling Our National Forests (A government petition) (1023 hits)
Category: PoliticsLabels: ETS_Sociopolitical_Commentary ETS_Essays
Rating: 1.12 on 48 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-02-13 16:00:55 EST
In response to those on my last post who said I should put my money where my mouth is and start a petition, I have created the following. (I left it in the reviews, but was afraid none of you would see it.)
If, after studying the proposal, you agree with me that we should not be selling off our National Forests to generate federal revenue and should, instead, find other ways (such as repealing the massive Bush tax cuts) to fund these programs, please sign the petition through the link at the bottom of the page, and I will see that your voice is heard by Congress.
Deal?
-------------------
To: U.S. Congress
In 1908, in response to the mounting opposition of the National Forest System, Congress made a concession that would allow 25% of all revenue generated from multiple-use management of National Forest land to go toward the maintenence of roads and schools in these rural areas.
In 1937, a law was enacted and subsequently amended that allowed for 75% of revenues generated from this land to go directly to the counties in which they were situated.
This arrangement worked very well until 1986, at which time multiple-use management of National Forests has dropped by 85%, largely as a result of a reduction in timber harvesting.
In 2000, Congress enacted the "Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000", otherwise known as PL 106-393. The full language of the bill can be found here: http://wwwnotes.fs.fed.us:81/r4/payments_to_states.nsf/b21825ca706c908d88256ccb007255e6/215d26ea7223a85c88256ccc0079a649/$FILE/106-393_text.pdf (Adobe Acrobat Reader required).
The recent bill was enacted to address the revenue problems of those counties with a high percentage of National Forest out of which little revenue was being generated for schools and roads.
Unfortunately, in the FY 2006 and FY 2007 presidential budget proposals, 300,000 acres of National Forest land has been earmarked for sale to fund this legislation, generating $380 million to be put back in the U.S. treasury.
It seems imprudent to have a windfall sale of land, which will generate immediate revenue, but will fail to secure a perpetuating source of revenue over the course of decades. One might liken this action to the slaughtering the milk cow. Why consume the cow all at once when the milk produced over the life of the animal will be worth much more? What will happen when the meat from the cow runs out?
Likewise, what will happen when the revenue from this windfall sale of land has been exhausted? What other measures must the federal government resort to in order to keep this bill alive in the future? If the money has to come from the outright sale of federally-protected land, it's not difficult to see the logical end to thinking - the end of our National Forest Service.
Think about it.
If you have to keep selling land to fund roads and schools, it's only a matter of time before there is no more land to sell - land which is not only a source of financial income, but a hedge against the forces of rising carbon levels in the atmosphere that contribute to the problem of global warming.
It doesn't seem to be a problem of legislation; it seems to be a problem of budgeting and proper land mnagement.
Over 100 years ago, Theodore Roosevelt, in his forsight and wisdom, persuaded the Congress of his time to create our National Forests because he recognized the need for a piece of the American landscape - that selfsame landscape immortalized over and over again in song - to be preserved so that future generations of Americans could know the heritage of their forfathers and the natural beauty of the land that sustained them.
In a land of expanding concrete, our National Forests serve as a refuge from the soul-sucking effects and cold isolation of a modern world run amok - a world in which man is growing more and more disconnected from nature.
For every gain there is a loss, and while modern man might never reverse his course and completely embrace his natural world again, it is our duty to keep the possibility alive. This is why we humbly ask that our Congressmen reject ANY budget proposal that seeks to sell our National Forests to parties that, for reasons of immediate financial gratification, will further widen our rift with our natural world and, in the process, contribute to its overall demise at the hands of man.
It is our hope that you, the lawmakers of this great land, will search your hearts and do what's right for all of us. We're counting on you.
There has to be another way.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
http://www.petitiononline.com/godwood1/petition.html
User Reviews
Submitted by dedre (user info) at 2006-03-01 19:25:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
In a land of expanding concrete, our National Forests serve as a refuge from the soul-sucking effects and cold isolation of a modern world run amok - a world in which man is growing more and more disconnected from nature.
For every gain there is a loss, and while modern man might never reverse his course and completely embrace his natural world again, it is our duty to keep the possibility alive. This is why we humbly ask that our Congressmen reject ANY budget proposal that seeks to sell our National Forests to parties that, for reasons of immediate financial gratification, will further widen our rift with our natural world and, in the process, contribute to its overall demise at the hands of man.
+1 For a nice effort in something you believe in.
-1 For the fact that the natural world's demise began way back when Ug figured using a big rock could hit things harder than his hand, thus creating the world's first tools.
Not that you're wrong, you're just one side of a balance that's been around since the dawn of civilization. I happen to be on the other, simple as that, and good luck to you.
...Now if you'll excuse me I gotta go burn my trash
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-01 18:54:48 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You make on-line petitions.
I planted near 200 000 trees during 3 summers and got fat paychecks in return.
I wonder who contributed the most.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-15 17:24:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS -
I appreciate the effort that you put into crunching all those numbers, but here's the thing. You forgot to count all the money the people who buy the property are going to make AFTER they clearcut the forests. I hear those strip-mining operations can be quite profitable. Hell, throw a couple cell towers on there too and they'll be set.
Orrrrr, it might go like this. The title transferred on these properties will not be the fee title absolute that you are thinking it will be. Rather, title will pass subject to certain restricitve covenants. MOST LIKELY there will be covenants in any deeds written transferring this property that not only keep it under Park Service jurisdiction and regulation, but also limits the TYPES of uses to which it can be put . . . forever. And that's to say nothing of the local zoning rules and regulations to which the property will immediately become subject once it passes from U.S. Government control.
I know you really want to believe that there is no rhyme or reason to what is going on, and that obvioulsy they are corrupt because YOU can come up with ways to make BILLIONS of dollars off of a very small portion of property that the Government estimates is only worth several million, but as much as I hate to say it, I'm fairly sure that the Bureau of Land Management and the Parks Service are aware that: a) trees are worth money; and b) there are trees on the property in question.
Oh wait, it must be BIG TIMBER behind all this, right? Maybe BIG PAPER?
Didn't Bush get nailed for not knowing that he owned stock in some paper company back during the '04 debates? There you go. It all makes sense now.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 12:02:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-14 08:32:00 (#)
Ranking: 0
Filthy -
According to the National Park Service, "The Black Hills National Forest is located in southwestern South Dakota and northeastern Wyoming on 1.2 million ponderosa pine-studded acres ranging in elevation as high as 7,242 feet.
They would be selling 7,250 of those 1.2 MILLION acres. I think that is something like .6%.
----------------------------
That's 14,000 acres.
1.67% of the 1.2 million acres. You forgot the land on the Wyoming side.
And this isn't about numbers so much as it is about principle, but if you want to look at the numbers just on the Black Hills alone think of it in terms of trees.
That's like taking 1.67 out of every 100 trees.
If there were 150 trees per acre on average on the 1.2 million acres, (most forresting companies plant from 100-350 seedlings per acre), you're talking about selling the land out from under 2.1 million trees.
How much would 2.1 million trees be worth to the government?
In the Black Hills, the main growth comes from ponderosa pine.
Ponderosa Pine trees average 100' to 160' in height, with some exceeding 180'. The trees range from 2-4' in diameter, with the rate of growth depending upon altitude, soil, temperature and rainfall.
(Source:http://www.wwpa.org/ppine.htm)
Now, if we take conservative estimates of trees that are 130' tall and 3' in diameter, we can make a crude calculation of the total board feet in a forest of 2.1 million trees using the formulas from this website: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/uf/lab_exercises/calc_board_footage.htm
NOTE: There are numerous ways to estimate board feet from a log, but this is one simple and common way.
Board Feet Per Tree = 12[Area of cross section * Height / 4]
=12[7.065 * 130 / 4]
=2755.35 board feet
So our average ponderosa pine tree might contain 2755.35 usable board feet of lumber. Multiply that figure by 2.1 million and you get 5,786,235,000.
Let's again be conservative and say 5.7 BILLION board feet of lumber.
Now let's talk prices...
According to the lumber price index of 2005, which uses all the logging invoices from sawmills all over the country and is used by the government to set prices for every species, the larget price increase was coming from, you guessed it, ponderosa pine:
Differentials by Species
*Coast Index
Douglas Fir -$1.26
Hem-Fir -$1.79
Inland Index
Douglas Fir/Larch +$0.70
White Fir -$5.60
Inland Red Cedar -$68.48
Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine +$14.42******
Coast/Inland Ponderosa Pine -$28.42
Sugar Pine -$67.69
White Woods -$6.71
Source:http://www.wwpa.org/Indexes.htm
But that's just the differential of prices from the previous 24 month index. The actual price of ponderosa pine per 1000 board feet (mbf) as of December 2005 is $315-$425. (Source:http://www.inlandforest.com/log-prices.html)
Again, let's keep it conservative - taking the low end estimate - and sell our 5.7 BILLION board feet of lumber at $315/MBF.
5,700,000,000/1000 = 5.7 million MBF
5,700,000MBF * $315 = $1,795,500,000
That's $1.8 BILLION dollars in ponderosa pine for ONE HARVEST on just ONLY the tracts of land contained within the Black Hills portion of the TOTAL U.S. proposed land sale!!!
$1.8 BILLION dollars in lumber!
Compare that to the $380 MILLION the government is getting from the entire proposed sale and you can begin to see the enormity of the travesty.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-14 08:32:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Filthy -
According to the National Park Service, "The Black Hills National Forest is located in southwestern South Dakota and northeastern Wyoming on 1.2 million ponderosa pine-studded acres ranging in elevation as high as 7,242 feet.
They would be selling 7,250 of those 1.2 MILLION acres. I think that is something like .6%.
Submitted by Garrik (user info) at 2006-02-14 04:12:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
If I were Bill Gates I'd buy it all and then do something with it, and it would be sweet.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-14 03:49:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-13 17:01:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm willing to go out on a limb and bet that they aren't selling Yellowstone here. It'll be the Cletus J. Huckleberry Memorial pine tree and RV Park and other such places where people are NOT visiting.
===
Here's the list: http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/spd.html
There's quite a few on there that even I've heard of and I don't live in america. Looks like a decent chunk of the Black Hills is being put up for grabs.
Submitted by ScottPeterson (user info) at 2006-02-14 03:46:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
your solution seems to represent a lock-box approach to any future management of our forests
what you will end up with is more overgrown 'wilderness areas' that are choked to death with underbrush and vulnerable to catastrophic natural and unnatural wildfires
when these fires occur, everything is lost
even in their 'natural state' they only provide enjoyment from the air, from a roadside, or from a pretty full-color picture book circulated by the Sierra Club
you ever try to walk thru an unmanaged wilderness area before it 'cooked'?
the vast majority of our forests are around 50-60 years old.
in my state, after the gold rush (placer mining), after San Francisco was built, and rebuilt, and after we shipped millions of board ft of Redwood to God knows where, there was, essentially, nothing left
you know what? it came back!
People look at the forests in the state now and have this erroneous belief that the trees they see now are the same ones that have been there since the beginning of time!
i don't see any problem in maximizing the benefits of resource that will, in the long run, will turn into a desert or something else on it's own
Protecting areas like; The Giant Sequoias is just fine by me as long as people understand that they are an anomaly along with the other giant coastal redwoods and that most other species of trees do not become magnificent just because they are older
if your value is based on volume, that can be easily achieved nowadays and in quite a short amount of time
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-02-13 20:44:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You don't have to ask ME twice to sign. :)
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2006-02-13 17:59:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'd sign but I'm not a yank.... so just have a +2.
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2006-02-13 17:37:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Deal.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-13 17:35:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2006-02-13 17:18:54 (#)
Ranking: 2
you do know that online petitions are as useful as cheney's heart right?
-----------------
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
TOUCHE!
While you're probably right, that does not absolve me of the responsibility to TRY!
Furthermore, I want our nation's Congress to look at the signatures and voices of the people and SEE the votes they're gonna lose when they do what we already suspect they will.
I want them to know that they WILL be held accountable in November by people who care enough to get out and vote these sons-of-bitches out of OUR Capital.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-13 17:34:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
HighVoltage... This one is scary. Bart has godly internet status or something.
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=bart+cilfone&word2=HighVoltage900
And ETS, slippery slope arguements are terrible. I am against urban sprawl, personally, but the government being in control of these lands is terrible to begin with.
I'd have to say you'd be better off starting a new organization yourself and solicit donations from people to buy up land surrounding national forests, and in wide-open lands that perhaps was once farmland. Then bring in some tractors and experts to re-forest the area and keep the property off limits because it is private property.
I trust the government as far as I could throw it, so you need people to pass legislation to make that kind of property tax-exempt somehow. Hey, it could happen. Either way, donations could pay for those costs but local governments could fuck you if they want some land they deem is valuable (for their own private needs).
Private conservationists are good folks...they even saved the American Buffalo.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-13 17:26:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:49:48 (#)
Ranking: 2
But what people don't realize ETS is that nothing changes. Every generation looks at the previous and says "Look at how virtuous/smart/honorable they were! My generation is filled with morons!"
But that isn't true... Because EVERY generation thinks that. Which means that it is through the effort of people like you that we stay at that level. You need the ignorant to keep the dreamers from losing sight of reality.
You want us to transcend, which is a noble cause. But remember ETS, nothing ever really changes. Everything is just like it was 10 years ago except faster and shinier. Everything is like it was 20 years ago....30....40....
So you have a purpose. To stir up things and make people think. But don't get to ahead of yourself.
Seriously man, I could explain this much better, I am just really exhausted and beat up.
----------------------
I get what you're saying and the point is well taken. That train of thought always leads me to nihilism though.
For me, it's one of two things... Either I care or I don't.
It's easy to say "nothing really matters in the end" and as a result of what might be a true statement give up on life altogether.
I'm tired of being tired though. I happen to think the human race could do something great if it could get its fucking head out of the sand and set its sights toward the stars.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2006-02-13 17:18:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
you do know that online petitions are as useful as cheney's heart right?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-13 17:13:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:34:13 (#)
Ranking: -2
So, uh, you understand that by selling the land, and getting it out of the (exempt from local taxation) hands of the U.S. Government, it will become subject to local (county) property taxes, right?
Whoever buys it will have to pay their property taxes on it, every year. So, basically, all that talk about a windfall profits that won't be sustainable and killing milk cows and whatnot, that is all pretty much bullshit.
I just wasn't sure you knew that, so I thought I'd point it out.
-------------------------
Unless it's bought up by religious communities. :P
The long-term money-making potential for the county and state is still greater if the property remains in the public domain and is well-managed. Most rural property taxes aren't that great.
Good point, though. I concede that my previous statement was not 100% accurate. That is certainly something to consider when weighing the pros and cons - but it does not negate the essence of my argument.
The fact remains, you're taking 300,000 acres of pristine protected wilderness and selling it to private entities who are not going to have the greater good in mind. They will have every right to level the forest and put up a parking lot if they want to.
At this point, the last thing we need is another field where a wetland used to be, or another barren patch where an old growth pine forest used to be.
Our National Forests are like the Ft. Knox of our natural resources. Just like you wouldn't start selling gold out of Ft. Knox, we should resort to selling our National Forests to pay for what amounts to Bush's financial mismanagement and the war in Iraq.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-02-13 17:07:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Check your mail then.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-13 17:04:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah, for another half hour.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-02-13 17:02:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Teeph, are you available via email?
Its rather important.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-13 17:01:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No shit Bob, but even the taxes brought in from an unimproved, undeveloped property will be better than 75% of nothing, which is what the counties are probably getting now. I'm willing to go out on a limb and bet that they aren't selling Yellowstone here. It'll be the Cletus J. Huckleberry Memorial pine tree and RV Park and other such places where people are NOT visiting. Meaning that hey, the county get's SOMETHING (every year) from whoever buys the property, the Feds make a quick buck and also cut the expenses of having park rangers out there.
The only people NOT winning here are ETS. Because some mythical magical forest that he's never been to nor will he ever go to gets sold.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:58:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i only care about what's inside my body fyi.
cum and stuff.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:57:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If you're really posting all this stuff on Ubersite to wake people up and make them think or whatever, then I daresay you're barking up the wrong tree.
No one on here cares about anything that's outside of a 3-foot radius of their own body at any given time.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:53:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=electrictoothsyndrome&word2=HighVoltage900
My bad. ELECTRIC not ELECTRONIC.
I still pwn you....
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:51:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=electronictoothsyndrome&word2=HighVoltage900
I pwn you. :-p
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:49:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:44:16 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:20:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul is saying that every post is attacking another issue. You don't choose one topic and crusade for it, you choose 1,000 topics and spread them all out so I am sitting here wondering "What is ETS going to want to change now?"
Soon you are going to run out of things to change!
--------------------------
I'm not about change, dude.
"Change" just happens to be what's required to get the world back on a sane track. It's not about change or revolution so much as it is about seeing life for what it really is and seeing that truth is peerless.
I just want people to WAKE UP. I want people to look around them and, if nothing else, QUESTION what they see in the world...their leaders...their news media...their corporations...hell, even themselves.
I don't claim to be perfect. I know that I have a tendency to be a little idealistic. I know that I sometimes lack enough focus to crusade for one cause and see it through to the end, but if you notice, most of my 'causes' have common themes.
I just want people to see through the bullshit, peer through the muck, and realize what's really important and what should be a priority.
Stupidity and ignorance are NOT virtues - yet I can turn on my TV and see the soul-sucking consumerism that's slowly taking over our lives seems to hold these things in the highest esteem. People seem to be more concerned with what's going on in Paris Hilton's life than whether or not their children will grow up enjoying the most basic of rights such as privacy, or whether they will have air that is fit to breathe without wearing a gas mask.
I'm sick of seeing people who are basically sleepwalking around these issues and I'm sick of being part of the problem myself by not doing anything to wake them up.
I could come to this website and write fiction. I could come here and post my music. I could come here and write poetry till I was blue in the face, but none of that would bring me any sense of peace or purpose.
I'd rather be a crazy reject who sees the truth than a blind man who everyone welcomes.
----
But what people don't realize ETS is that nothing changes. Every generation looks at the previous and says "Look at how virtuous/smart/honorable they were! My generation is filled with morons!"
But that isn't true... Because EVERY generation thinks that. Which means that it is through the effort of people like you that we stay at that level. You need the ignorant to keep the dreamers from losing sight of reality.
You want us to transcend, which is a noble cause. But remember ETS, nothing ever really changes. Everything is just like it was 10 years ago except faster and shinier. Everything is like it was 20 years ago....30....40....
So you have a purpose. To stir up things and make people think. But don't get to ahead of yourself.
Seriously man, I could explain this much better, I am just really exhausted and beat up.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:45:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=caulaincourt&word2=electrictoothsyndrome
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:44:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:20:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul is saying that every post is attacking another issue. You don't choose one topic and crusade for it, you choose 1,000 topics and spread them all out so I am sitting here wondering "What is ETS going to want to change now?"
Soon you are going to run out of things to change!
--------------------------
I'm not about change, dude.
"Change" just happens to be what's required to get the world back on a sane track. It's not about change or revolution so much as it is about seeing life for what it really is and seeing that truth is peerless.
I just want people to WAKE UP. I want people to look around them and, if nothing else, QUESTION what they see in the world...their leaders...their news media...their corporations...hell, even themselves.
I don't claim to be perfect. I know that I have a tendency to be a little idealistic. I know that I sometimes lack enough focus to crusade for one cause and see it through to the end, but if you notice, most of my 'causes' have common themes.
I just want people to see through the bullshit, peer through the muck, and realize what's really important and what should be a priority.
Stupidity and ignorance are NOT virtues - yet I can turn on my TV and see the soul-sucking consumerism that's slowly taking over our lives seems to hold these things in the highest esteem. People seem to be more concerned with what's going on in Paris Hilton's life than whether or not their children will grow up enjoying the most basic of rights such as privacy, or whether they will have air that is fit to breathe without wearing a gas mask.
I'm sick of seeing people who are basically sleepwalking around these issues and I'm sick of being part of the problem myself by not doing anything to wake them up.
I could come to this website and write fiction. I could come here and post my music. I could come here and write poetry till I was blue in the face, but none of that would bring me any sense of peace or purpose.
I'd rather be a crazy reject who sees the truth than a blind man who everyone welcomes.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:42:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm with you on this one.
The revenues generated from the land sales would be a drop in the ocean for the federal government. Due to the fact that these lands are undeveloped, unimproved, and quite possibly undevelopable would mean that any property tax revenues generated would be minimal. Typically, property assessments are much higher on improved lots.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:41:14 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Trees don't taste nice.
Fuck trees.
Submitted by EatMeCompletely (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:41:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I signed. You do seem like a 'conspiracy theory buying' hippy, though. That's what I think our America-hating northern neighbor is trying to say through broken Engleesh.
Good looking out. Can I call you the Lorax?
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:34:13 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
So, uh, you understand that by selling the land, and getting it out of the (exempt from local taxation) hands of the U.S. Government, it will become subject to local (county) property taxes, right?
Whoever buys it will have to pay their property taxes on it, every year. So, basically, all that talk about a windfall profits that won't be sustainable and killing milk cows and whatnot, that is all pretty much bullshit.
I just wasn't sure you knew that, so I thought I'd point it out.
Submitted by the_lone_stranger (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:28:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I signed.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:26:00 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:15:08 (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul, this post is pretty direct if you ask me.
===
I'm not even referring to this post. I'm speaking in general. You just attack all problems at once in both your posts and replies and it makes you sound more like a clueless idealistic hippy than someone who has a credible message to pass. And since I'm so fucking avant-garde, I predict that the Uber populace will soon tell you the same.
I'm really just doing you a favor here. Try to focus on something or lower the dosage a bit.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:24:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Trust me man. I LIVE in DC. There is no marching. We all drive and pay $12 for parking like everyone else.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:23:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I was just asked what good a petition will do...
IT's not exactly marching on Washington, but in an election year when the people speak, Congress tends to listen more than usual.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:20:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul is saying that every post is attacking another issue. You don't choose one topic and crusade for it, you choose 1,000 topics and spread them all out so I am sitting here wondering "What is ETS going to want to change now?"
Soon you are going to run out of things to change!
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:20:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
they could always sell war bonds
Submitted by Brdn_Nkd (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:20:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
More motivation to sign. As I recall some of the biggest sales were going to be in SD: http://www.ubersite.com/m/70389
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:19:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I'm with you on your idea here ETS, I'm even going to sign your petition but I'd rather it wasn't written the way it is.
Too much 'up the ass smoke blowing', sounded like a pep rally.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:15:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul, this post is pretty direct if you ask me.
It's about the president's budget proposal. Pretty cut and dry.
The last post was a look at the consequences of rampant capitalism and its effect on world economy, particularly the American and Chinese workforce.
Make sense?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:12:46 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Regardless of the topic at hand, you attack so many issues at once that it's hard to even follow. You're firing in all directions and you act as if the world will change overnight. It's more painful to watch than inspiring.
I don't know if you think you have an audience, but your Internet crusade for utopia is tiring.
Shut the fuck up for a minute.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:08:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Im not an American so I cant sign really but Im behind you 100%...in the pooper
Submitted by userpete86 (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:07:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
That's pretty idealistic... but then now is the time for idealism, when everyone would sell out their children so they can have cheap crap from China...
Submitted by PokeyPecker (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:06:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Well done.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:06:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Name Comments (Please leave your comments) Zip Code Political Party Affiliation
15. HighV <I could use the tree cover as I am very pale and sunburn easily.> 22207 Independant
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:04:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:03:54 (#)
Ranking: 2
Do you have to be american to sign?
--------------------
You don't HAVE to be American to sign, but any signatures that include zip codes will be helpful.
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:03:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Do you have to be american to sign?
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:03:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
More power to you.