Big Kahunas

In article atICb.2786$pY.316@fed1read04, "R. Hubbell"
writes:


If you're so sure you can manage that forest better than them for the long
haul, then buy the forrests from them and manage them yourself, or through
some
like minded organization. If you're right, you'll make a big profit and
retire
rich.

We would need to show them that managing their forest themselves is key.
Give people responsibiliy and they'll become responsible.


In other words, tell them how to live and how to use their property.
Traditionally, the way that is done is to conquer and colonize the land those
foolish and ignorant savages live on and take control of their lives away from
them. Ask the British about that, they have more experience at it than us.

BTW retiring rich or poor is not for me. Seen too many people fall of the
radar
forever after retiring. But yeah helping other countries manage their
natural
resources wouldn't certainly be a welcome challenge for me. That's a great
idea. A steward for the planet.


And in return for your wise and benevolent stewardship, all you ask is absolute
power over the lives and property of others.


But don't tell them to literally bet their lives your way is better while
absorbing none of the risk yourself.

They've already bet their lives on the current scheme and if they don't
turn back they will lose.

Why, it worked for us?

We plundered the capital of the land and forrest to get our start and built on
that a nation that feeds and employs the world.



The market will determine who was right in the long haul.

Maybe you have not noticed the "market" that you oversimplyfyingly refer to
has decided. It won't work, it doesn't work. But from your point of view
it seems to work great. You get your $5 dollar picture frame. The get a
barren landscape devoid of life and not useful to anyone.


They get a start toward what we have.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Actually, Jay's map does tell us a great deal about the vote.

Those areas that produce more than they consume and pay more in taxes than
they
receive in federal funds voted for Bush and those that suck at the Federal
teat
voted for Gore.

Big surprise.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

A strikingly bold statement backed by vague generalities.

- Carl -


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.550 / Virus Database: 342 - Release Date: 12/9/2003

On 13 Dec 2003 22:41:09 GMT, Wdtabor wrote:

They've already bet their lives on the current scheme and if they don't
turn back they will lose.

Why, it worked for us?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

We plundered the capital of the land and forrest to get our start and built on
that a nation that feeds and employs the world.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Man, are you weired.

#m

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article jWHCb.382382$ao4.1274100@attbi_s51, "Gary L. Drescher"
writes:

Jay has apparently managed to convince himself that the extent of a
candidate's mandate is better measured by the number of *acres* that
voted
for the candidate than by the number of *people* that voted for the
candidate. When he says the "country" overwhelmingly supported Bush,
he's
referring to the country's landmass rather than its population.

Actually, Jay's map does tell us a great deal about the vote.

Yes, but not what he claims it tells us.

Those areas that produce more than they consume and pay more in taxes than
they
receive in federal funds voted for Bush and those that suck at the Federal
teat
voted for Gore.

Yeah right. Seattle, New York, Boston, most of New England, and the coast
of California are notoriously unproductive areas. Why, the national economy
would scarcely notice if those places just disappeared.

Actually, Jay's map does tell us a great deal about the vote.

First, it's not "Jay's map" -- it was published by USA Today.

Jay has apparently managed to convince himself that the extent of a
candidate's mandate is better measured by the number of *acres* that
voted
for the candidate than by the number of *people* that voted for the
candidate. When he stays the "country" overwhelmingly supported Bush,
he's
referring to the country's landmass rather than its population.

The map shows many things. First, the vast majority of citizens with
old-fashioned American values voted for Bush. Having worked and lived in big
cities for the majority of my life, I can vouch for the fact that very
little of traditional America survives in the mindless, soulless wasteland
of the inner cities. The fact that these areas recurrently (and
dim-wittedly) vote for any Democrat that runs means little to me. Or to the
Electoral College. Or to the Supreme Court.

The vast majority of productive Americans voted for Bush.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 13 Dec 2003 22:41:09 GMT ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote:

In article atICb.2786$pY.316@fed1read04, "R. Hubbell"
writes:


If you're so sure you can manage that forest better than them for the long
haul, then buy the forrests from them and manage them yourself, or through
some
like minded organization. If you're right, you'll make a big profit and
retire
rich.

We would need to show them that managing their forest themselves is key.
Give people responsibiliy and they'll become responsible.


In other words, tell them how to live and how to use their property.


No, not in other words, in those words. We teach them. You know
"give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him, he eats for a lifetime...."
Maybe useful to add... Teach him to manage the fishery and his children and
their children eat and so on and on.

Traditionally, the way that is done is to conquer and colonize the land those
foolish and ignorant savages live on and take control of their lives away from
them. Ask the British about that, they have more experience at it than us.

Ok, I see now you're caught up in traditions. Well traditions don't fit anymore.


BTW retiring rich or poor is not for me. Seen too many people fall of the
radar
forever after retiring. But yeah helping other countries manage their
natural
resources wouldn't certainly be a welcome challenge for me. That's a great



*** Actually I meant "would certainly be a welcome challenge for me." ***



idea. A steward for the planet.


And in return for your wise and benevolent stewardship, all you ask is absolute
power over the lives and property of others.

I ask for nothing in return, only the satisfaction of helping them achieve
ecological and economical balance. Costa Rica is a great example of that
right now.




But don't tell them to literally bet their lives your way is better while
absorbing none of the risk yourself.

They've already bet their lives on the current scheme and if they don't
turn back they will lose.

Why, it worked for us?

But has it? It hasn't been long enough to tell for sure. In fact I think it's
long of tooth. Why else would we spend 85 billion in Iraq? Got to keep the
money moving through the economy somehow. A jobless recovery indeed. It's
jobless in the states but there'll be plenty of jobs in Iraq.



We plundered the capital of the land and forrest to get our start and built on
that a nation that feeds and employs the world.

Interesting view point. Lucklily there are enough people that care about the
land that we just might be able to save some of the ecosystem.




The market will determine who was right in the long haul.

Maybe you have not noticed the "market" that you oversimplyfyingly refer to
has decided. It won't work, it doesn't work. But from your point of view
it seems to work great. You get your $5 dollar picture frame. The get a
barren landscape devoid of life and not useful to anyone.


They get a start toward what we have.


You mean the power to consume the world's resources at an alarming rate?
Not a very fulfilling goal.

So they can in turn exploit some other people of their natural resources
and culture? It's a cycle that they need to learn is not sustainable.
We should show them.


R. Hubbell


Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

On 13 Dec 2003 22:41:09 GMT ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote:

In article jWHCb.382382$ao4.1274100@attbi_s51, "Gary L. Drescher"
writes:


Jay has apparently managed to convince himself that the extent of a
candidate's mandate is better measured by the number of *acres* that voted
for the candidate than by the number of *people* that voted for the
candidate. When he stays the "country" overwhelmingly supported Bush, he's
referring to the country's landmass rather than its population.


Actually, Jay's map does tell us a great deal about the vote.

Those areas that produce more than they consume and pay more in taxes than they
receive in federal funds voted for Bush and those that suck at the Federal teat
voted for Gore.

That's complete nonsense. Nice try.

Don't forget Dubya has yet to turn down a spending bill in his 3 years in office.
That sure doesn't jibe with your contention.

R. Hubbell


Big surprise.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article oSTCb.3979$pY.3084@fed1read04, "R. Hubbell"
writes:

In other words, tell them how to live and how to use their property.


No, not in other words, in those words. We teach them. You know
"give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him, he eats for a lifetime...."
Maybe useful to add... Teach him to manage the fishery and his children and
their children eat and so on and on.


Wow! It must be nice to be so sure of your superiority.

But even if that were true, what gives you the right to direct their lives?

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article GmOCb.384252$ao4.1281670@attbi_s51, "Gary L. Drescher"
writes:

Those areas that produce more than they consume and pay more in taxes than
they
receive in federal funds voted for Bush and those that suck at the Federal
teat
voted for Gore.

Yeah right. Seattle, New York, Boston, most of New England, and the coast
of California are notoriously unproductive areas. Why, the national economy
would scarcely notice if those places just disappeared.



What economic activity those cities have is the result of their being ports
that get their cut by shipping what the rest of the nation produces. They
produce very little and exist on banking, shipping and commerce of the goods
grown and produced elsewhere.

If they disappeared tomorrow, fell off into the sea, we would build new ports
and go on. If, instead, they were cut off from the rest of of the country,
people would be starving within a week.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article GmOCb.384252$ao4.1281670@attbi_s51, "Gary L. Drescher"
writes:

Those areas that produce more than they consume and pay more in taxes
than
they
receive in federal funds voted for Bush and those that suck at the
Federal
teat
voted for Gore.

Yeah right. Seattle, New York, Boston, most of New England, and the
coast
of California are notoriously unproductive areas. Why, the national
economy
would scarcely notice if those places just disappeared.

What economic activity those cities have is the result of their being
ports
that get their cut by shipping what the rest of the nation produces. They
produce very little and exist on banking, shipping and commerce of the
goods
grown and produced elsewhere.

Uh, right. Banking, shipping and commerce are not productive activities.
Unlike farming, those endeavors just take advantage of nearby natural
resources. And the New England and West Coast's computer industry and
biotechnology industry (and the massive educational infrastructure needed to
support high tech) are not productive or economically significant.

It's astonishing what lengths some folks go to in order to try to make
reality fit their worldview.

--Gary