Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Kay Ludlow
I was OK with Ted Nugent until I saw him on some show on an Outdoor channel repeating the bio-diversity crap the watermelon environmentalists put out. He seemed to believe it, which does not speak well for his doing his own research or forming his own opinions...

Caring about the environment is not the same as being a tree-hugging whacko. The whackos want to ban ALL development, to put us back to pre-historic times.

Responsible people realize that we are biological creatures who need a basic range of conditions to survive. We believe in not wasting resources (isn't efficiency an essential conservative principle?). And we want to go in the woods, back into G-d's creation, and hunt our supper.

Sometimes it seems people here are more interested in being anti-liberal than conservative.

63 posted on 08/26/2007 10:14:45 AM PDT by TheTruthAintPretty (G-d Bless our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, fathers and mothers in harm's way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]


To: TheTruthAintPretty
Sometimes it seems people here are more interested in being anti-liberal than conservative.

Just like a lot of liberals were more interested in being anti-Bush than pro-Kerry during the 2004 presidential election.

64 posted on 08/26/2007 10:23:17 AM PDT by Tamar1973 (Riding the Korean Wave, one BYJ movie at a time! (http://www.byj.co.kr))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

To: TheTruthAintPretty
Sometimes it seems people here are more interested in being anti-liberal than conservative.

. I believe in private ownership and control of property (the means of production), and the environmentalist movement does not. I own land, on which I practice good forest conservation principles because I too believe in taking care with God's creation. I do not believe that government is better than individuals at taking good care of land and nature - experience shows (through the tragedy of the commons) that government ownership or control is worse for the environment.

I've been deep in the belly of the green beast, and they think private ownership of property is the leading environmental problem. They are well aware that getting control of one aspect or another (saving snail darters; regulating native vs non-native plants; preserving habitat) will help them get control of all property, and that is the ultimate goal.

Do you believe there is one perfect balance of nature for each spot, and that 'environmental scientists' can determine what that balance is and what must be done to restore it? I see nature as far more chaotic with or without us, and that the nature of our natural environment is constantly changing. I would never presume to know what the appropriate number of deer, chipmunks, bear, birds and beetles on my land should be, and I'm not arrogant or godless enough to believe that I can manipulate the numbers of different species and create the 'perfect balance'. The environmentalists advancing the cause of bio-diversity believe they can and should do exactly that.

It's all about control of resources, which is at odds with a belief that capitalism works and that our freedoms come from God not man.

That's why I was disappointed to hear Ted repeating the bio-diversity talking points.

72 posted on 08/26/2007 10:42:39 AM PDT by Kay Ludlow (Free market, but cautious about what I support with my dollars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson