Owl GORE "Shmuck"

P

PEA SHOOTER

New member
Excuse me while I go pound my head against a brick wall for a few minutes.

Why is that?

It's because the off-road and the Pro gun community is dumber than pig-tracks when it comes to figuring out what the real problem is, and who the real enemy is.

We're constantly asked by well-meaning organizations to send letters to our Congressmen, or to attend meetings by the BLM, Forest Service, or whatever. They tell us that we must make our voices heard.

Let me tell you the cold, hard truth. It's waste of time. Want to hear it again?

IT'S A WASTE OF TIME!

I put it in caps to get the attention of the thinking-impaired out there.

THE REAL ENEMY

The Clinton administration is your real enemy. Led by Bubba himself, they are completely ignoring all the rules, laws, regulations and guidelines of the Department of the Interior, and doing whatever the hell they want to do. Bubba says something must be protected because it's a national heritage, and like a king on a throne, says so, and the wheels get set in motion. Nothing you can say or do will change what he does when it comes to taking land away from you!

Absolutely nothing!

Why do I say that?

It's because this group of left-wing, tree-hugging, eco-freaks knows that for us to fight them through the legal system, is an exercise in futility on our part. And here's why:

1. First off, very few organizations can afford the legal costs
2. Next, it's horribly time-consuming
3. Even if you do win, after years in court, they can simply slightly re-write another land grab and make you do it again
4. They know that eventually you'll get burned out and go away
5. They are smarter than you
6. They have a battle plan
7. They are constantly attacking
8. They use professionals to do their dirty work
9. They have unlimited funds: our tax dollars
10. This administration does what the eco-freaks demand
Why are we losing land and rights constantly?


1. The off-road and gun industry has ignored the land use problem to the point where they ought to be ashamed of their inaction.
2. All they give a damn about is selling another bike, ATV, jet-ski, snowmobile or 4x4 to someone.
3. The few organizations that we do have, are under-funded.
4. The leaders of these organizations are well-intentioned amateurs up against pros.
5. We have no battle plan. All we do is defend.
6. These organizations waste time, energy and money preaching to the industry.
7. By and large, the average off-roader doesn't even know they exist, or what they try to do.
8. We have factions within the off-roading sport who dislike each other. The snobbish attitude of the mountain bikers comes readily to mind.
9. The off-roading community does not have a clue how to fight the land grabbers.
10. The off-road community doesn't realize that the key to stopping the land grabs is to get the Democrats out of any sort of control.
THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT CAN BE DONE TO STOP THE LAND GRABBING, IS TO DO DEFEAT AL GORE THIS SEPTEMBER!
If we fail to do this, Al and his Sierra Club pals will continue to play the same game Bubba is now playing. He'll act like a King, and declare this a national heritage, and that a national monument and something else as endangered and off-limits.

If you people fail to understand this, then you deserve to be politically castrated in the truest sense of the word. Hear this:

The eco-freaks hate you
They hate your sport
They will not play fair
They will bury your sport
They are liberal democrats
They control this administration
So, please, people. Put everything else on the back burner and concentrate of getting George W. Bush elected.
Hell, I'm not completely happy with Bush and I think there's some of the wishy-washy attitude of his old man in there. But at least he's not controlled by the wishes of the Sierra Club. And if he's elected, he can undo the damage being done by The Slickster.

I hate the American political system, and the nightmare it's become. Right now, once a person gets in a position of authority, the average person can do nothing at all about a horrible decision of unfair law. You're being told to work within the system, and if you don't like the person who made the unfair regulation, well then, vote him/her/it out of office.

While that sounds good on paper, in the real world, if you actually do try to get some change working through the system, it'll be years before you can even begin hope for results. The sad fact of the matter is that the system is designed to keep you busy until you get burned out and quit in disgust. And while you're spinning your wheels, the injustice is still in force.

The land is still closed to you and your friends.

Please forget all those next-to-useless letter writing campaigns and senseless meetings. You would be far better off working in some way to make sure Gore does not get elected, and that more conservative people get elected to office, and the liberals are kicked out in droves.

It's as simple as that.
And as complicated as that.
we're doing everything we can so expose Gore for what he is:
A wide-eyed eco-radical
A humorless lying scumbag
An ultra-left leaning liberal socialist
A tattered copy of Clinton's political treachery
A classic liar - Yup, he invented the Internet
A person willing to spend your money on deadbeats
A clear and present danger to off-roading as we know it
Do everything you can to spread the word. Send emails on our Gore-material to anyone and everyone. Get the country laughing at this feeble excuse for a man. Make a mockery of him and his nut-case, mind-rotting theories.
Once he becomes an object of scorn, not even the Patagonia-wearing crowd will want to be within a hundred yards of this stiff-necked, humorless, fanatical boring piece of fecal matter called Al Gore.

Perhaps I'm being far too kind. But think about this for a moment:

Al Gore stated that, in his opinion, "Bill Clinton will go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents of our century."

Nothing more needs to be said after that.


PS... DC? You can relate!


[This message has been edited by PEA SHOOTER (edited June 11, 2000).]
 
There are no rules for Clinton.

And don't trust the Republipukes either. I believe Nixon designated the first monument under the Antiquities Act (same one Clinton uses) and Carter currently holds the record (for now) BUT Reagan and Bush both used the act too.

I just came back from rural Idaho. People there are positively pissed. What will happen is loggers will just set fires to make money as fire fighters (happens now more than the Feds will admit).

What's really, really funny is that the Pinko-Greenies want EVERYONE out of the woods, including these love-child Sierra Club hiker types.
 
All of this will continue for years to come. Long after clinton is out of office he can still control congress because he knows all about them from the FBI files. Why do you think he is still in office? He beat the impeachment because he had the goods (or bads) on a whole lot of senators.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Pea Shooter, you are 100% correct. I've been preaching the same for years. King Klinton is the "at-long-last" Marxist Socialist put into the presidency, to destroy this country.

Hey, Jack66, how did you like Idaho? Where did you go??

The Locomotives Continue Racing Toward Each other. J.B.

[This message has been edited by Jay Baker (edited June 11, 2000).]
 
Yea, Pea... I do relate. Can't add to what you say, other than repeat...Agore wins, America is screwed blue forever.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
barf.gif
barf.gif
barf.gif


How right you are, Pea!! I am scared to death about what's gonna happen if Gore gets elected... :mad:

------------------
"At last we shall reveal ourselves to the Gun-Grabbers, at last we shall have revenge at The TFL End of Summer Meet on August 12 & 13, 2000..."

"Pray as if your life depends on God, Act as if it all depends on you..." -Texas Preacher
 
The problem with the Gore-Bush choice is that with Gore in we'll have a borderline lunatic pathological lying macadamia nut in the White House, and Bush will spend four years trying to get all of Gore's supporters on his team by not being confrontational and being the the most gosh-darned nicest guy you could ever meet.

They're both poison for the country.

BTW, the great thing about pounding your head against a brick wall is that it feels so good when you stop!

:D :D



[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited June 12, 2000).]
 
Left or right, I think it makes sense for everyone to vote for third and forth parties (I'm planning to vote Nader myself). Yes, in the short term leftists say "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush," while rightists say "a vote for Buchanan is a vote for Gore." Hell, in the short run both statements may be correct.

But in the long run, what we all need - right or left - is more democracy. And we can't have that until the two-party system (seems more like a one-party system to me) is overturned in favor of a system that allows more parties representing a greater range of Americans' views.

--Amp
 
Ampersand, I really like your cartoons, expecially Death running for President, so I hope you don't mind this swipe:

Fie on you, Sir!

Read the Green party platform:
http://www.greens.org/gpusa/plat/p_toc.html

and you'll see that it's
"Hogwash and hokum. And heinous. It's a vile vilification perpetrated by vilifiers out to vilify vilely. It's a lachrymose lie, a laughable, lamentable, ludicrous lollapalooza launched by the lunatic left."

--Vice-President What'sisname, from Philip Roth's "Our Gang," responding to reports that President Trick E. Dixon had been drowned in a giant baggy by Eagle Scouts. The reports proved to be true later in the novel.

Seriously though, the Greens are dangerously nuts. They're something right out of the Weimar Republic.
Be careful of the society you want to create. You might have to live in it some day.



[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited June 12, 2000).]
 
That aside, Monroe, what do you think of my general point - that we'd all be better off if both leftists and conservatives voted their beliefs, rather than putting a bag over their heads and voting for the lesser of two lessers?

Anyway, I've read a lot of the Green Party platform over the years, although probably not all of it (that sucker is long!). Are there any particular bits of it that you especially object to? For the most part, their views don't exactly match mine, but they come closer than the libertarians, the republicans, or the democrats.

By the way, I don't mind this swipte at me at all - it was funny, and good-natured, and how could I mind someone who says something nice about my cartoons? :) But it's hard for me to reply to someone who says that "Talking with... most liberals, is a waste of time." I don't want to talk to people who don't want to talk to me.

--Amp

P.S. Actually, I consider myself to the left of liberal, but I think by TFL standards I'm a liberal. ;)
 
Just a few statements from the Green Party platform...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>from the Green Party
The Green vision calls for a global community of communities-affirming the immense diversity of heritages, life-styles, and peoples, but also recognizing the necessary emergence of a shared global perspective, kinship, and concern. We support the activities of an effective global organization that will encourage the development of such a community. The basis of a healthy community is the nurturing of a healthy ecosystem. We recognize our interdependence with non-human members of our community-the four-legged and crawling, those who swim in the water and fly through the air, members of the plant kingdom, and the land that supports us all.

Green communities are supported by the implementation of land trusts, intentional communities, shared ownership, and other alternatives to traditional individual land and property ownership. We insist on strict control through community action, to reduce or eliminate all forms of pollution, including noise pollution, for the health and well-being of all community members. Noise and traffic should be eliminated, for example, in sensitive areas and wilderness.

...

The benefits of vegetarianism for the environment, the alleviation of world hunger, and personal health should be taught in all public health education programs. Vegetarian meals should be made available at all government and public institutions, including primary and secondary schools.

...

Taxation
Variable taxation on production:
This tax will fund the Workers' Superfund. It will be varied like a value-added tax according to the social and ecological priorities we choose. We advocate "true-cost" pricing to reflect our democratic choices about individual and collective consumption and ecological balance. This tax will be a democratic means of internalizing social and ecological costs in production.
Progressive wealth tax:
There is no reason for wealth to escape taxation while production, sales, and income are taxed. A progressive wealth tax on the richest 1% of Americans could more than pay for the $200-billion annual federal deficits of the last decade. We therefore propose a progressive wealth tax on the 1% of the population with more than $1 million.
Peace tax fund:
Until military expenditures are ended, we support the U.S. Peace Tax Fund, which allows citizens to direct their tax payments away from funding the military in a manner analogous to provisions for conscientious objection to military service.

...

Decentralized public sector industries and services
Rejecting all dogmatism as to either private or public ownership of productive wealth, we support a maximum of free initiative for individuals, cooperatives, and small companies, enabling them to earn a decent living in useful, meaningful vocations within an economy based on the goals of meeting human needs and protecting the environment. Diversity is a prime principle of ecology; we believe it should be a guiding principle of economics as well. Today our economy entails nearly total domination by for-profit corporate enterprise. The corporate sector has failed to meet human needs and has consistently abused the environment. Therefore we will work to promote alternative economic structures that put human needs ahead of profits and that are accountable to the communities in which they function.
[/quote]

This is just a few of the insane ideas supported by the Greens. If they wish to have a place to practice their rediculous ideas, let it be Germany and Britian, please.

As for the question on 3rd Parties. Fine in the local theatre of politics. Get your 3rd Party candidates elected to local offices and build some grass roots support. Then move to the national scene. Otherwise, you are just making alot of noise over nothing.



------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

~USP

"... I rejoice that America has resisted [The Stamp Act]. Three millions of people, so dead to all feelings of liberty as to voluntarily submit to being slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest of us." -- William Pitt, British Parliament, December 1765
 
Ampersand,

The political center these days can be expressed in one phrase: "No friends to the right, no enemies to the left." The socialist/liberal cultural iconography is now the mainstream.
I think you'd consider most of us here to be extremely extreme right wing extremists, and by today's standards, you'd be right.

By 1964 standards most of us are just normal Goldwater Republicans who see no essential difference between the socialism of Hitler or Stalin, and look at the welfare state as a very slippery slope to totalitarianism.

I personally despise FDR, JFK, and the current President and his supporters. I see Clinton and his minions as..., as..., as...well, something vile and unprintable.

This disgust which I think you share has lead you into the fiendish clutches of Nader and his Greens. That really is leaping from the frying pan into the fire.

You may well find more raw material for your cartoons by comparing the Green Party platform, linked above, with the first three principles of National Socialism, listed here:
http://www.propatria.org/motstand/nsdap/principles_of_ns.htm

------------------
ALARM! ALARM! CIVILIZATION IS IN PERIL! THE BARBARIANS HAVE TAKEN THE GATES!

[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited June 13, 2000).]
 
USP: The greens, like most third parties, runs people at local as well as national levels. Certainly there are always local green candidates to vote for where I live, but it may be that there's not as organized a party where you are.

Some of the Green party's platform is extreme, although I wouldn't say insane (what on Earth is wrong with school lunches being available in a vegetarian option, for instance?). But merely quoting bits of it isn't the same as actually making an argument for your views. What's your point?

Munro:

The political center has moved steadily to the right, as everyone in the country but extreme right-wingers can see. Our current "liberal" president is not only to the right of Carter and Johnson, he's also arguably to the right of Nixon: look at NAFTA (a proposal supported by Clinton and the vast majority of congressional republicans - most of the opposition in congress was from democrats), welfare reform, pro-China economic policies, pro-free trade policies, etc. He's based his economic policies around making bond traders happy (hence the big emphasis on reducing inflation and reducing the deficit).

These aren't policies which the far right necessarily supports, I know; but they are policies much more typical of republicans than democrats, and that's where the political center has moved. A mainstream democrat now is where a mainstream republican was in the 1970s.

Lydon Johnson's economic policies, in comparison, would now be seen as so far left as to be impossible in congress. And you may hate "the welfare state" (although if you seriously want to argue it leads to facism, you have to explain all those non-facist countries with extensive welfare systems) but face it - Reagan and Bush didn't do half as much to eliminate welfare as Clinton has (for the same reasons that only Nixon could have gone to China).

No one outside of the far left (that's me) and far right (that's you) even questions US foreign policy anymore. Weekly bombings of Iraq don't even make mainstream newspapers. But I think that's always been the case, and doesn't show a move left or right; the US press, other than a brief moment during Vietnam, hasn't seriously questioned the US's military activities since before WW2.

I do think the political center has moved to the left on gay rights; outright bigotry against gays is now acceptable only amongst social conservatives (and not even all of them). That's the only case of a move to the left I can see, though. And even so, everyone in the political mainstream still believes that gays shouldn't have equal rights (which is why everyone in Washington, including Clinton and the democrats, supported the Defense of Marriage Act).

Finally, I don't remember reading anything in the Green Party platform about how important racial purity was, about how environmentalism is less important than racial purity, or about how vile the Jews are. Perhaps you could point out where the Green party platform says these things, exactly? (Surely you're not meaning to imply that racism isn't an essential factor in making the Nazis exceptionally vile?)

Oh, well. At least we agree that Clinton's a scumbag.

--Amp

[This message has been edited by Ampersand (edited June 13, 2000).]
 
Ampersand,

The Nazi and Green parties are ethically the same: both advocate altruism. The good of others is the highest good. The Nazis preach worship of the race, the Commies the worship of the state, and the Greens the worship of the planet.

All these political philosophies reject the value of the individual and reduce humans to economic animals.

You seriously can't see the similarities in the first three principles of the NSDAP and the overall tone of the Greens?

BTW, your perception of Clinton as being a conservative proves my point about the political center proceeding further and further left. What else is this "Third Way" gibberish but more and more mixed economy politics? The history of mixed-economy politics is simple: one of the components withers away. That component is not the state.

National Socialist Germany is the best example. Hitler said something to the effect that he didn't care what people owned. He was not concerned with socializing banks, property, or whatever. He said "We socialize people!"

Hitler was a combination of Bob Dylan, Hank Williams, and John Lennon to Weimar Germany. He was everything to everyone. He had no self. He was made for TV.



[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited June 13, 2000).]
 
Munro, I'll leave the objectivist explanations to you (you tell it better than I can).

However, Ampersand calling Clinton conservative. . . .

He signed welfare reform after vetoing it a bunch of times, then being told that if he didn't sign it he'd lose an election.

NAFTA? Anything for Mexico - with the emergence of one world government, and that government practicing socialism, opening borders means nothing.

Clinton eliminating welfare - sheesh.

Battler.

[This message has been edited by Battler (edited June 13, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Battler (edited June 13, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top