[URL="http://youtu.be/0kUhLMi97dg"]http://youtu.be/0kUhLMi97dg[/URL]
Printable View
[URL="http://youtu.be/0kUhLMi97dg"]http://youtu.be/0kUhLMi97dg[/URL]
Cynic's viewpoint: If there are any profitable natural resources in these areas to be exploited, I don't think there would be any restriction of access for that.
[QUOTE=walterK75;746557]Cynic's viewpoint: If there are any profitable natural resources in these areas to be exploited, I don't think there would be any restriction of access for that.[/QUOTE]
so, what's up with that Keystone Pipeline? :dunno
< mod >
Careful... C A R E F U L . . .
Let's not get into politics here...
< /mod >
Lord knows we don't want to get into a discussion in a section called "off the beaten path" over a federal agency trying to keep us centered up [B]on[/B] the beaten path.
Nothing to see here folks move along, this forest is closed.
[QUOTE=Visian;747301]so, what's up with that Keystone Pipeline? :dunno[/QUOTE]
that pipe would make a nice service road cross country.
[QUOTE=Rob Nye;747386]Lord knows we don't want to get into a discussion in a section called "off the beaten path" over a federal agency trying to keep us centered up [B]on[/B] the beaten path.
Nothing to see here folks move along, this forest is closed.[/QUOTE]
Rob, I don't see how the Keystone pipeline has anything at all to do with off road riding, and has every likelihood of getting into politics.
We are not trying to prevent discussion about offroad policies, but we don't want politics flame wars. There's a large gray zone in there, and if posters can keep this in mind, we probably won't have to moderate the thread.
As soon as it gets into this party vs. that one and this political philosophy vs. that one, this thread will get closed and put away. If the discussion instead stays on topic about this specific policy, who to write to, etc., then it will remain open.
We've tried to have political discussion areas on this forum twice before, even "letting the inmates run the asylum" once, and it just didn't work out. Even the inmates threw in the towel. People cannot seem to remain respectful of other's viewpoints. We are just not going to go there again.
[QUOTE=Rob Nye;747386]Nothing to see here folks move along, this forest is closed.[/QUOTE]
Good.
S i g h . . .
[QUOTE=DarrylRi;747351]
Careful... C A R E F U L . . .
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Rob Nye;747386]Nothing to see here folks move along, this forest is closed.[/QUOTE]
Well, perhaps this thread should be closed, just like all the "wilderness" that's getting closed for political reasons. :scratch
is there anything one can say about this subject that doesn't have some political aspect?
ian
[QUOTE=Visian;747766]is there anything one can say about this subject that doesn't have some political aspect?[/QUOTE]
Of course there is.
Once a law is passed it is no longer "political" as there is agreement by the majority.
I rather suspect those that want it ok for motorized vehices to tear up the environment will remain a minority. If you're a forever minority, it's no longer "political," it's rather simple attention seeking, i.e. not particularly healthy behaviour.
There's also "practical," e. g. it's lots more efficent to police an oil company's treatment of the environment than it is to police a bunch of motorized environment marauders. More practical to just close the gate on them.
[QUOTE=lkchris;747803]Of course there is.
Once a law is passed it is no longer "political" as there is agreement by the majority.
I rather suspect those that want it ok for motorized vehices to tear up the environment will remain a minority. If you're a forever minority, it's no longer "political," it's rather simple attention seeking, i.e. not particularly healthy behaviour.
There's also "practical," e. g. it's lots more efficent to police an oil company's treatment of the environment than it is to police a bunch of motorized environment marauders. More practical to just close the gate on them.[/QUOTE]
I can't tell you how disappointing it is to read things like
"I rather suspect those that want it ok for motorized vehices to tear up the environment will remain a minority."
from a fellow motorcyclist.
I really like what appears to be the "I don't ride in the woods so I'm holier than thou attitude", it's easy to follow with "I wear a helmet so helmet laws are not an issue to me."
Go ahead give the government the right to control all the activities you don't choose but remember this when they decide to control one you do.
Get a GS and come out in the woods with us. You'll soon see we do no more damage than horses without the steaming piles of poo.
I personally don't care about politics in general until they start to affect my way of life . And I don't care what party is doing it as long as I still have the right to fight what I consider wrong.
I have never understood why people fight each other because of political affiliation, if the problem affects us all the help don't hinder, and if you have nothing positive to add just go away quietly.
[QUOTE=lkchris;747803]Of course there is.
Once a law is passed it is no longer "political" as there is agreement by the majority.
I rather suspect those that want it ok for motorized vehices to tear up the environment will remain a minority. If you're a forever minority, it's no longer "political," it's rather simple attention seeking, i.e. not particularly healthy behaviour.
There's also "practical," e. g. it's lots more efficent to police an oil company's treatment of the environment than it is to police a bunch of motorized environment marauders. More practical to just close the gate on them.[/QUOTE]
Boorish and Hypocritical.
Easy now guys.
Remember we're on the same side.
Let's see if we can set an example of how to discuss / debate a hot issue.
I'm going to munch some :lurk