Fox News makes me laugh

[Rudyjohn]

This has got to be the most unkind post ever. If you have ever had the:funn: chance to meet our Kitty you would know that she is lovely.

Man, I'd hate to see what this person would think if he/she/it saw a pic. of me!! I go out to eat all the time!

 

[6thGen]

6th Gen, you state:
By definition, someone that is greedy is always wanting more, so it is not in their interest to destroy their source of livelihood. It is in their interest to replace it, to accumulate more material wealth. "

No, it is not always in the interest of greedy people to replace the source of their livelihood. They pick up and move on to the latest and greatest without regard to the environment and others.
Perhaps you would understand the quote better if you came to New York and ate a Hudson river trout if you could find one without 3 heads.

My main contention was the part about eating money. If money cannot purchase the most basic and necessary of needs, what good is it? I was going to get to that if we could have discussed it rather than responding with ?BITE ME?. As for the rest, I do believe that people have a built in incentive to make sure they still have an income down the road. The environment, and polluting rivers and the like is another issue. Let?s follow your premise. The state has an incentive to protect its natural resources, such as rivers and water supply. States can heavily fine or imprison officers and companies that dump on their land, as they could do so for someone defacing the Washington Monument. Further, consumers are not likely to patronize someone that is ruining their water supply, so it is not in the interest of the man with his mustache kneading between his index finger and thumb to ruin the waterways of his customers, or they will not offer him the business to continue to do so.

 

[Miss Kitty]

Ah well this may be the root of the problem.

You see I would never say evil things about Miss Kitty, as I know enough to stay away from any p***y.

Purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! Speaking of roots, tomorrow is hair day!

Thanks for all the kind comments about my overeating. I was more concerned with the bitter part myself. What was up with that? :roll:

 

[scooterbug44]

You are a female who disagreed so OBVIOUSLY you must be bitter and overweight. If the discussion had continued, I am sure your sexual orientation would have been the next insult.

For some reason they thought I was male, so I was just labeled a liberal full of white guilt and reverse bigotry when I disagreed.

 

[rancid]

My main contention was the part about eating money. If money cannot purchase the most basic and necessary of needs, what good is it? I was going to get to that if we could have discussed it rather than responding with ?BITE ME?. As for the rest, I do believe that people have a built in incentive to make sure they still have an income down the road. The environment, and polluting rivers and the like is another issue. Let?s follow your premise. The state has an incentive to protect its natural resources, such as rivers and water supply. States can heavily fine or imprison officers and companies that dump on their land, as they could do so for someone defacing the Washington Monument. Further, consumers are not likely to patronize someone that is ruining their water supply, so it is not in the interest of the man with his mustache kneading between his index finger and thumb to ruin the waterways of his customers, or they will not offer him the business to continue to do so.

States are run by groups of individuals who may not have an interest in said protection of resources. They may have biases one way or another. for example , they may profit from lumber which may conflict protection of parks and forests. Dessimation of these resources happens over long periods of time ( decades in cases). A 60 year old CEO of a business could care less about trees 50 years down the road.
A state may also have conflicting interests in the use of its resources. Do you preserve one at the expense of another ? Perhaps tourism ( visiting some natural resources- forests, lakes etc...) conflicts with tapping large natural gas resources below them.
As far as individuals not patronizing unsavory business, I think the record is pretty clear that we Americans are either oblivious to much that goes on or do not care very much. See our autos of choice.

 

[Mango]

States are run by groups of individuals who may not have an interest in said protection of resources. They may have biases one way or another. for example , they may profit from lumber which may conflict protection of parks and forests. Dessimation of these resources happens over long periods of time ( decades in cases). A 60 year old CEO of a business could care less about trees 50 years down the road.
A state may also have conflicting interests in the use of its resources. Do you preserve one at the expense of another ? Perhaps tourism ( visiting some natural resources- forests, lakes etc...) conflicts with tapping large natural gas resources below them.
As far as individuals not patronizing unsavory business, I think the record is pretty clear that we Americans are either oblivious to much that goes on or do not care very much. See our autos of choice.

Well said.

 

[6thGen]

States are run by groups of individuals who may not have an interest in said protection of resources. They may have biases one way or another. for example , they may profit from lumber which may conflict protection of parks and forests. Dessimation of these resources happens over long periods of time ( decades in cases). A 60 year old CEO of a business could care less about trees 50 years down the road.
A state may also have conflicting interests in the use of its resources. Do you preserve one at the expense of another ? Perhaps tourism ( visiting some natural resources- forests, lakes etc...) conflicts with tapping large natural gas resources below them.
As far as individuals not patronizing unsavory business, I think the record is pretty clear that we Americans are either oblivious to much that goes on or do not care very much. See our autos of choice.

Our autos of choice? What has Detroit done that is indefensible, other than kowtowing to the unions?

As there is dessimation of resources, the resources become scarce, and supply is far down while demand remains constant, so unless the CEO with the mustache between his index finger and thumb has truly unlimited resources, he can't do all that much relative damage before he buys the farm. Regardless, it doesn't jive with human nature. It is cheap and easy to replant trees, your example, while purchasing new land is expensive and obtaining permits is cumbersome.

The state officials comment would work if we were, say, 17th century England. In fact, we have many different elected officials on many levels (state, county, municipality, neighboring municipality, etc) with different and often conflicting interests. The vast majority of the time, their primary interest is selfish, so assuming they'd like to be re-elected or at least well thought of in retirement, they will protect state resources the public values. There are already laws in place against dumping, etc. so all they have to do is have someone enforce them, and if their opponents or superiors are not, they have selfish interest to call attention to them. To believe that politicians would ignore grave danger to their resources that is naive past the point of logic. To believe that the citizens would ignore it is just plain head-in-the-sand. There was a thread on this very forum that stopped someone from moving tires off the beach without a permit. Do you honestly believe that no one would complain if they saw a few days of runoff passing down the river?

 

[Mango]

One isolated incident reported by a savvy sowaler doesn't prove anything.

Your narrow mind is ignoring the fact that this country is part of a global economy as well, so when you come off your micro headed thinking, chew on this article for a while, then go spend some time on Wall Street with some traders.

While you're here in New York, I'll prepare you a 3 headed Hudson River Trout, and you can eat it while admiring the view of West Point whose students are getting ready to graduate, while mourning the largest share of casualties than at any time in recent military history.

 

[redfisher]

Purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! Speaking of roots, tomorrow is hair day!

Thanks for all the kind comments about my overeating. I was more concerned with the bitter part myself. What was up with that? :roll:

Wow, Miss Kitty...When I read what that person said, I thought it was some kind of inside joke I just didn't get...My sincere apologies on behalf of that hateful person...Red

 

[redfisher]

Ah well this may be the root of the problem.

You see I would never say evil things about Miss Kitty, as I know enough to stay away from any p***y.

While your sexual orientation is obvious, I would appreciate a little less vulgarity in the open forum, please...Red