Eco Terrorism in mainstream media

[Hunter]

This weekend, in Vanishing Freedom II: Who Owns America?,
Fox News takes a look at how some forms of environmentalism chip away at individuals' personal and property rights.

Hosted by William LaJeunesse, the special airs Saturday
May 19 at 10 p.m. ET/7 p.m. PT and Sunday May 20 at 8 p.m. ET/5 p.m. PT..

The first part was excellent. We have this on video tape. If after watching this you decide you want the first one if you e-mail me I can arrange for you to get it. All you need to do is mail a blank tape with postage paid and I wil get it to you. This is important stuff here for it tells the ultimate ramifications of the "green movement."

[fubar5]

I have always thought environmentalists take away personel rights.
I don't think of myself as an environmentalists, and I tend to laugh at them. I am not against taking reasonable measures to preserve the universe, but some of the things envrio's come up with is insane. And the underlying truth is, the earth is going to wear away, and it is in accordance with the Bible that it is deteriorating. The Bible does say the earth is Jesus's footstool and that it will fade away. So I fail to get excited about some of the enviro's claims

[MichaelW]

There is a concept of the common good. You dont own the air you breathe, but do you mind if someone else fouls it ?
The green agenda is that the earths resources should be managed for the long term, not just for the immediate benefit of a few greedy individuals or corporations.
A corporation bribing their way into a country, removing the natural wealth for the benefit of their shareholders, and leaving behind a legacy of pollution and corruption is no better than a bank robber.
The difference is that the kind of corporations which act like this are now writing the laws.

[LittleBigMan]

The Bible does say that the earth is God's footstool, and that it will fade away. But the Bible also says quite clearly that man will be held accountable for his stewardship of the earth. It is written,

"...and that [God]...shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth." Revelation 11:18

The Bible should never be used to justify the wasteful destruction of our earth's resources. According to the Bible, Adam and Eve were created to be stewards over God's creation. Today, there are people using religion to justify their own purposes, for example, the unbridled overconsumption of limited resources for quick profit.

But history will not be kind to them. How do you think our great grandchildren will view this generation if we consume to our heart's content and leave them a barren rock to live on? How do you think God will view us?

Fubar, I respect you highly, thanks for the post.

[Hunter]

Pete and Fubar,
You are both correct. Michael I actually agre with you partially. The green agenda may appear to be what you claim but bottom line is at least here in the US it is looked at as theft. There is a line between conservation and extremeism. There is a need for the products that are made form the elements of the Earth. However you are correct about the needless waste of land that get's chewed up for it. However like I have stated before not everyone builds houses and buildings out of dirt and rock. Resources were put here by God for the benefit of his children, but the worldliness of other's and the non dependence on Him, and the lack of faith in his works are the undoing of mankind. The Earth is the last thing redeemed as it is written in the Bible. The musicians are the first to go but that is another topic not fitting in here. Michael you are also corrret about big buisness and their influence on law it is pretty much a global act. Exposure is the worst enemy of what happens when they act. It is precisely that exposure is the best tool for their agenda. For it is also written that:

For thus hath the Lord said unto me, Go set a watchmen and let him declare what he seeth. Isaiah 21:6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Visualize whirrled peas.

[Hunter]

I would like to know who saw this, and what your thoughts were.

[fubar5]

Originally posted by Pete Clark

The Bible does say that the earth is God's footstool, and that it will fade away. But the Bible also says quite clearly that man will be held accountable for his stewardship of the earth. It is written,

"...and that [God]...shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth." Revelation 11:18

The Bible should never be used to justify the wasteful destruction of our earth's resources. According to the Bible, Adam and Eve were created to be stewards over God's creation. Today, there are people using religion to justify their own purposes, for example, the unbridled overconsumption of limited resources for quick profit.

But history will not be kind to them. How do you think our great grandchildren will view this generation if we consume to our heart's content and leave them a barren rock to live on? How do you think God will view us?

Fubar, I respect you highly, but I cannot agree with you here.

Pete, maybe I didn't say what I mean very clearly. I'm sorry if I offened you. I definetly agree that we are to take care of the earth, I totally agree.

[aerobat]

I guess it's a case of moderation.

We have to find a way to use the resources of the earth without depleting them, and give back to the earth as much as possible to renew those same resources.

Remember, even as we use our bikes to help conserve resources (only one of many benefits), those same bikes are manufactured using the earth's resources, by methods that put a strain on the atmosphere and non renewable resources.

There must be a balance somewhere, between using the earth for our own good, and saving it for the use of our grandchildren.

[Green Hornet]

What's so hard, here? If I have $100 and I spend $60 at Wal-Mart, I will have $40 left. There is a limited supply of resources in the Earth.

[Hunter]

Originally posted by Green Hornet
What's so hard, here? If I have $100 and I spend $60 at Wal-Mart, I will have $40 left. There is a limited supply of resources in the Earth.

Ok so what's your point? Did you see this program? The basis for it was not "limited resources." I am not trying to start an arguement but can you provide documentation for "limited resources?"

[MichaelW]

For a good summary of the arguments and evidence for limited resources see

http://www.dieoff.org/page174.htm

Its not so much that the earth will run dry of raw materials, rather that they will become too expensive to extract, and the collateral damage will impact on other vital requirements such as agriculture and the needs of nature.
The most limiting resource in the USA is water. It is being extracted from the ground faster than it is being replaced, and groundwater stores are becoming contaminated. Rivers and lakes are being stressed by human extraction, to the point of dissapearance. Yet water is cheap enough to use for irrigating golf courses in desert areas.

[Hunter]

Originally posted by MichaelW
For a good summary of the arguments and evidence for limited resources see

http://www.dieoff.org/page174.htm

Its not so much that the earth will run dry of raw materials, rather that they will become too expensive to extract, and the collateral damage will impact on other vital requirements such as agriculture and the needs of nature.
The most limiting resource in the USA is water. It is being extracted from the ground faster than it is being replaced, and groundwater stores are becoming contaminated. Rivers and lakes are being stressed by human extraction, to the point of dissapearance. Yet water is cheap enough to use for irrigating golf courses in desert areas.

MichaelW,
I am going to try to say this without being harsh. I do mean to be honest but not argumentative. The first paragraph of the link you provided caused me great concern. I almost stopped there. the number's that they provide are unprovable. The percentage's that they give are also unprovable. One must ask themselves just who measure's and studies all this. I find it near to almost impossible to derive at the figure's they gave. In short it is complete and total BS! Like always in theoretical research there is no way to prove much less document anything. Giving number's of 500 and 3000 year's such as the Cornell study you provided is totally unprovable, and undocumentable.
I also find that the wording of the study as it pertains to population control is disturbing. It would do you some good to research Agenda 21. The Cornell study fits along the same lines as Agenda 21. It disturbs and anger's me that anyone just because they see a big university title on something that it must be accurate. Please see past the facade that it presents. There is a bigger picture than meets the eye with all this globaloney.

[LittleBigMan]

History is a good teacher. The following links reveal some of the tragedies that have happened to small farmers in America:

www.discovery.com/area/history/dustbowl/dustbowlopener.html

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/hist409/dust/low.html

www.ptsi.net/user/museum/dustbowl.html

[LightBoy]

Gee Hunter, I guess I agree with you. Preserving the environment is just an evil, God-less ploy by liberal tree hugging hippies to take away our God given right to destroy everything in our path. As humans, God gave us the right...no, the responsibility to eliminate any natural life that gets in the way of our own selfish and thoughtless purposes.
Yellow bellied blue billed sap-sucking plover in the way of your favorite singletrack? No problem! Just send it the way of the dodo and the passenger pigeon (they're extinct, by the way. It was our fault. Yeah for us!). The world will be a better place for it. While you're at it, why not kill a few members of GreenPeace too!
Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go burn an old growth forrest.

[Joe Gardner]

LightBoy, welcome to the forums... I noticed that this is your first post here, just a few quick forum rules, 1) No personal flames. 2) Respect others opinions.

I know you dont agree with hunters views, and thats just fine with me, but if you want to continue to post here, please, do it with some respect. Its always a good idea to back up your posts with facts, links will help :)

Hunter, in all honestly, im clue-less of all this green-movement and eco-terrorism, its been interesting to read your posts, and links (thanks pete) posted in this thread.

[LightBoy]

Joe -

I meant no disrespect to anyone, nor did I intend to flame. I merely wished to present my opposition to Hunter's views. Rather than say, "Hunter, I disagree with you," I chose to present it in a sarcastic, satirical manner. This was not a flame. It was satire. Saturday Night Live, MAD Magazine, and "Wierd Al" Yankovic all do it too (significantly better that I do, I might add). I do, however, appologize if I have offended.

On the subject of flames, I have already seen in my limited time here several posts that are far more directly and scathingly attacking than mine. But I am not attacking. I am satirizing. I am not flaming. If I had said, "Hunter, you're an idiot," that would be a flame. I am merely disagreeing. He has his opinion, which I disagree with but still respect, and I have mine, which deserves a similar respect.

[Chris L]

There are some who would consider expressions such as "Eco-terrorists" and "tree-hugging hippies" to be quite insulting too. If one intends to use terms like that, they should expect to get responses in a similar tone. If ya' can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Chris

[KevinG]

Lightboy and Chris I could not agree more with both of your comments in this thread. I find 99.9% of hunters comments offensive.

[Grump]

I work in the timber industry in Northern California. I am not in management, sales, or any supervisory position. I'm one of the people down on the floor of a cavernous, noisy building. My job is lumber grader; i.e. marking defects in the boards which are then sent to a saw which "reads" my marks and cuts out the defective sections. I have been employed by this company for 23 years. For many years the Sierra Club called this company a "jewel" because of its commitment to sound forestry practices, such as selective logging(as opposed to clear cutting), selling or donating tracts of virgin old growth redwood to public and private institutions, and treating its employees fairly and with respect. In 1985 a hostile takeover put this once fine company into the hands of a Texas group. Under this leadership clearcutting was introduced, the cutting of redwood and fir trees was doubled and in some cases tripled, our employee pension plan was raided and replaced with one that quickly went bankrupt, pay raises are much less frequent and less generous, worker morale is awful. That's what we get from management. On the other hand, Earth!First people have advocated sabotage of machinery and tools, and have endorsed driving long steel spikes into random trees, which can have disastrous results. One worker in a nearby mill was seriously injured when a band saw he was operating struck a spike and sent shrapnel flying into his body. Earth!First claims to be a non-violent organization, and maybe they are these days, but they have advocated "monkey wrenching" (their phrase) in the past.

What am I trying to say here? I forgot! Oh, yeh, guys like Hunter make some valid points, but more "green" people do also. I would just ask that you remember the women and men who work in the woods and the saw mills. We really feel like were being squeezed between management and the more extreme enviormentalists. Because of some very lucky investments we have made, I will be able to retire in about 2 1/2 years at age 55, and can hardly wait!!!!! Thank God I'm able to bicycle some of this frustration out of my system! Didn't mean to ramble.......

[LittleBigMan]

Originally posted by Grump
I work in the timber industry in Northern California...I have been employed by this company for 23 years. For many years the Sierra Club called this company a "jewel" because of its commitment to sound forestry practices...In 1985 a hostile takeover put this once fine company into the hands of a Texas group. Under this leadership clearcutting was introduced...On the other hand, Earth!First people have advocated sabotage of machinery and tools...I would just ask that you remember the women and men who work in the woods and the saw mills. We really feel like were being squeezed between management and the more extreme enviormentalists.
I was going to make a similar point. Regarding farmers, more and more family farms are being bought up by large corporations.
Some environmental conservation efforts may be squeezing small farmers between government regulations and the large corporations who are trying to replace them. In the long run, while the battle between conservationists and big business rages over property rights, the family farm is caught in the middle, like a cottage sitting in the middle of a huge battlefield with two massive armies poised to attack each other.

I may be wrong, it's just an impression that Grump's post brought back to mind.