Propaganda/Innuendo: LWW Screams like a Stuck Pig [Archive]

View Full Version : Propaganda/Innuendo: LWW Screams like a Stuck Pig

S0Noma

12-19-2007, 04:09 PM

<blockquote>Quote LWW:<hr> <blockquote>Quote S0Noma:<hr>Sonoma <-- still trying to understand how El Dumb can compute that 24% enviro lawsuits = 100% responsibility for all forest fires (that's El Dumb's math folks, not mine).<hr /></blockquote>
That's because you are an idiot making an argument against an argument that I never presented.

Now, explain to your toady underlings how not properly husbanding the forests and allowing them to overgrow by a factor of 5 does nothing to contribute to the severity or regularity of forest fires.

Of course you can't because:

A-It isn't true.
B-You lack the intellectual skills to make a cogent point if you had one ... which you don't.

In lieu of that you may not enter into a howling moonbat rant about logging and blah blah blah blah bull shiite blah blah blah.

Better yet, let me save the forum some bandwidth and condense your thinking on every issue to it's essence ... B-B-B-B-BUT BOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!

See, wasn't that much simpler than getting your underoos all up in a wad you insolent prepubescent twit.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Ummmm not exactly. As a matter of fact your original argument was quite different than what you describe above. Did you actually think that if you let enough time pass you could rewrite history and everyone here would let you get away with it - because we don't remember?

Guess again.

Here's where it started - this was your argument - none other - this one - this one right here...

Oct. 28 , LWW makes a sweeping statement claiming that fires raging out of control in Southern California are due to environmentalists preventing the forestry service from properly husbanding the forest. 

http://i11.tinypic.com/85m502a.jpg

This smells like 'guilt by innuendo' and right wing propaganda to me so I wonder, what is this neo-leftist insanity of which he speaks? This thing that results in out of control forest fires?

I didn't have to wait too long for an explanation, well I mean if you can call a bunch of inapplicable links an 'explanation'. One must assume that being the innuendo/propaganda meister that he is, El Dumb wasn't expecting me to follow any of the links. Perhaps he wanted to impress me to death with their shear number?

<blockquote>Quote LWW:<hr>

HERE (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=54462) is where Clinton was onboard with thinning the California forests to prevent wildfires in 1997.

<blockquote>Quote S0Noma:<hr> No, not exactly, not THE CALIFORNIA FORESTS - but specifically the forests around Lake Tahoe, California. Now, why would a little detail like whether Clinton was specifically concerned with Tahoe forest versus the entire state of California matter? It matters because EL Dumb wants to use last summer's disastrous Lake Tahoe fires as an example of how environmental litigation stopped the thinning of Tahoe's forests but he also wantedto tar those evil environmentalists with responsibility for ALL the fires that happened in CA this past year.

In a nutshell - according to LDumb's innuendo: Bill C. wanted to save all the forests in CA from disastrous fires but his wishes were blocked by environmental lawsuits.<hr /></blockquote>

http://i8.tinypic.com/853z3vr.jpg

HERE (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003764016_firethin27.html) is a review explaining that pre wildfire eruption fully 25% of the forest was already dead ... and that due to thinning being reduced the forest had 5 times the trees that nature normally provided.

Class dismissed.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

The 'review' he cites dealt specifically with the fires in Tahoe. I read it thoroughly - here's the really interesting part that El Dumb left out:

http://i11.tinypic.com/7xydic6.jpg

Now, why would an honest man whose express purpose was to blame environmental lawsuits for ALL improper forest husbandry leading to ALL out of control fires leave out such an important detail? Could it be because it belied his argument? Exposed it for the baseless piece of innuendo and right wing propaganda puffery that it is?

Or... maybe it didn't? Maybe there really were lawsuits that kept the forests in Tahoe from being properly husbanded?

Maybe? So I asked:

<blockquote>Quote S0Noma:<hr>

Research indicates there were no environmental lawsuits involved prior to the Lake Tahoe fires but you would have us believe that it still doesn't matter.

Well, of course it matters bonehead. If there weren't any lawsuits to stop the thinning then you can't blame environmentalist lawsuits for that fire.

There's your D'UH!, LWW.

Why must you blame ALL fires on the environmentalists and their lawsuits when in the great majority of cases there weren't any lawsuits obstructing the forestries thinning efforts? 
------------------------------------------------------------

But you failed to answer. Why not El Dumb? Could it be that you had no answer? Could it be that there really were no lawsuits on which to place blame?

Propaganda and innuendo disintegrate when confronted with indisputable facts. 

Then Eg8r repeats the question in clearly written, impossible to misunderstand words:

http://i9.tinypic.com/6t0ylcg.jpg

& you answer with a lie (and a personal attack):

http://i5.tinypic.com/6kp1vys.jpg

Sorry pal, but 'many' weren't cited. In fact? NONE - ZIP - ZERO were cited. But... how can a man whose bent on making his points via innuendo and propaganda respond when he has no response? I suppose the answer is that he responds just as you did to Eg8r - he lies.

So in spite of your best efforts to bull$hit the forum with innuendo and right wing propaganda we must conclude:

http://i19.tinypic.com/7x3ewef.jpg

So ends today's object lesson on how LWW tries to use innuendo and propaganda to make his often dubius points.

Hope this helps.

Sonoma

hondo

12-19-2007, 05:29 PM

Your techniques have helped me. Before I put him on ignore
I was starting to see through his tactics on AZ & expose him.
Guess what he yelled? " Strawman!"
That's when I gave up & put him on ignore.
I feel so much cleaner. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

LWW

12-19-2007, 06:03 PM

-*YAWN*-

LWW

S0Noma

12-19-2007, 06:04 PM

<blockquote>Quote hondo:<hr> Your techniques have helped me. Before I put him on ignore
I was starting to see through his tactics on AZ & expose him.
Guess what he yelled? " Strawman!"
That's when I gave up & put him on ignore.
I feel so much cleaner. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Hondo, the claim he made wasn't new. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh were ranting about it five years ago - calling environmentalists 'wackos' and calling for an end to their efforts to litigate with the forestry department. A closer look showed that fully three quarters of all forestry thinning efforts move forward unimpeded by any lawsuits.

What of the 24% that was impeded? Was it permanent? - I mean did they really stop thinning efforts dead in their tracks for good? Or was the impediment temporary and resolved within the ninety day period prescribed by federal law?

Well, here's what the Sierra Club had to say about it back in 2003 when the right wing haters were clamoring for public support of the then pending (now passed) "Healthy Forests Initiative"
(There were fires going on in Southern California then too):

October 30 , 2003 CONTACT:
Annie E. Strickler (202) 675-2384

Sierra Club Statement on Southern California Wildfires, Senate Bill

The Sierra Club expresses deep concern and sympathy for the families who have lost loved ones and who have been put in harms way by the recent fires in Southern California and to the firefighters courageously working to protect homes and lives.

In the wake of this tragedy, there have been some people willing to place blame on environmental groups. There is no need to sensationalize this tragedy for political gain. Americans deserve better. The Sierra Club has long supported responsible fuel reduction around communities and fully supports any wildfire policy that makes community protection its top priority.

Experts agree that focusing on the area immediately around homes should be the first priority of any wildfire legislation, and the situation so many are facing in California today reinforces this need. The Senate is scheduled to vote today on legislation, based on the Bush Administration's "Healthy Forests Initiative" that falls short of this goal by failing to guarantee resources will be directed to the removal of small trees around homes and instead allows more logging far in the back-country.

The Administration's bill and current Senate legislation would not improve the situation in Southern California. The legislation does not address fire prevention on non-federal land, which is where most of these fires are burning. In addition, the landscape in Southern California is primarily covered by chaparral and other types of brush and grass while the President's proposal and pending legislation in Congress focuses on areas with valuable timber. In this case, the desire by Bush administration and others in Congress to protect special timber interests is compromising America's ability to deliver real relief to communities in need.

Finally, neither the Senate bill nor the House bill provides the level of resources needed for communities with high fire risk in California and across the West. Simply put, the pot of money is too small and no reallocation funds will fix that. In some of the areas in Southern California, local residents and local government officials have been asking for financial assistance yet have never received enough to protect their communities adequately. California's 17 national forests have to split a mere $46 million in annual fuel-reduction funds – a fraction of what is needed.

There is a better way. We can all agree that removing brush and small trees immediately around homes and communities will help save homes and lives, and we must dedicate the resources need to do this most important work first. Firewise and Forest Service experts have shown that this can be accomplished. Now the Congress and the Bush Administration need the will to protect communities, not the timber industry.

Regarding claims that conservation groups are responsible for the current wildfires:

National Forests: Los Padres, Cleveland, Angeles,and San Bernardino. There were NO appeals on any fuels projects for the last three years (through 2000). There was one appeal on the San Bernardino National Forest in 1999, the Bee Fire Salvage, which was appealed by Forest Guardians and San Bernardino Mtns. Group. This was the only appeal for all years listed (1997-2003) and this appeal was for a post-fire salvage, not hazardous fuels reduction.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/projects/index.shtml

According to an October 24 General Accounting Office report (GAO-04-02):

Ninety-seven percent of the 818 fuel reduction projects proposed by the Forest Service during FY 2001 and 2002 went forward without litigation. The study also revealed that 95 percent of these 818 fuel reduction projects were ready for implementation within the standard 90-day public review period.
 web page (http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2003-10-30a.asp)

So, as you can see the issue isn't nearly as simple as El Dumb would have us believe. Not quite so black and white.

He was doing his level best to sensationalize this year's catastrophic California fires for the purpose of political gain and he was doing it while parroting the same tired, worn out cliches of two of his favorite right wing mouthpieces - Limbaugh and Hannity.

But, I suspect you knew this already? Of course you did.

Hope this helps.

Sonoma

LWW

12-19-2007, 06:06 PM

-*YAWN*- -*YAWN*-

LWW

S0Noma

12-19-2007, 07:01 PM

<blockquote>Quote LWW:<hr> -*YAWN*- -*YAWN*-

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Keep yawning - if it helps get your foot out of your mouth? More power to you.