I'm sure a pure stand of one type tree could be beautiful, Spruce. I think my favorite would be a pure stand of Atlantic white cypress as mentioned in the other thread, but the only type I know of that occurs naturally here is the occasional LLP savannah.
Maybe Pam can plant a little section of just one species, a mini pure stand of sorts.
Sherry

Sequoiadendron is quite good, too!
{{gwi:330110}}

Or for something weird-looking, Araucaria araucana . . .
{{gwi:330112}}
I'm sure there's some dinosaurs hiding in there somewhere!

Resin

Beautiful and interesting, Resin! :)
Sherry

Coastal redwood in natural forest don't grow in single species stands (pure stands). It is a climax species so it does dominate the stand but there are plenty of other conifers, broad leaf evergreen and deciduous trees growing among them.

And to me that is far more attractive than the monoculture tree plantations created by the timber companies.

I also think that large clear bolted old growth forest of redwood and douglas fir have that cathedral like look. But they also have layers of other plant communities under them unlike the timber companies' plantations. Their forest are a bare lifeless desert under their trees.

I suppose that if a person's view of beauty is the dollar sign then a single species forest is beautiful. But even that is changing. The timber companies in the Pacific Northwest with their ten thousand and bigger single species plantations are having problems with diseases that are not causing a problem in natural plant communities. Germany found this out years ago in the Black Forest. Their single species forest were dying and they found out that if they had multi-species forest the health returned.

Of course I am talking about thousands of acres not a few acres surrounded by other species.

I don't think a small stand of one type tree would hurt anything, and I'm sure that Spruce wasn't excluding normal undergrowth.
Sherry

As a child in VT, there were 2 areas that I especially loved. One was a grove made up primarily of paper birches, on the top of one hill, and the other, at the far end of the ridge and running up the sides of a small valley, was a grove of beeches. The beeches were obviously fairly old - looking at them with a child's eyes, they were huge, but I would say about 18-36" diameter at their bases, I couldn't reach more than half-way around most of them. The birches were more scattered, and had some undergrowth and grasses under them, but the beeches had very little - ephemeral spring flowers, as I recall - under them. The sight of the leaves underfoot and the tall, smooth, muscular trunks was part of the appeal. I've not been back in years (the farm was sold in '73 or so), so can't say what the areas look like now - the birches may have been succeeded by other trees, but I would think the beeches are still there.

Foresters, in their wisdom, consider a stand pure if it meets an 80% purity test, not neccessarily every stem being of the same species. issafish seems to dislike pure stands of trees because to him they represent dollar signs. Well, species whose nature it is to form such stands go back a long way before there were dollars or any other currency. Well, I feel sorry for anyone who cannot appreciate solid stands of such favorites of mine as ponderosa, eastern white, lodgepole, Great Basin bristlecone, or longleaf pines; red, white, or Sitka spruce; redwood or giant Sequoia; quaking aspen or white birch; or even such tropical rainforest species as Hawaii's ohia lehua. Perhaps we should interplant such stands with tree-of-heaven to get some variety?

Or native, wholly natural pure Scots Pine forests in Scotland . . . beautiful!
{{gwi:330114}}

Resin

Spruce, I agree with you. I wish we had more single species stands. I've focused on how to create mixtures of conifers and hardwoods because this is more difficult and I was at a complete loss. 100 LLP seedlings will arrive next week. The question is whether to plant them in one large stand or in two smaller ones.

Resin: That stand of Araucaria araucana is incredible. Where is it?

issafish: I'm confused about how you connected Spruce's description of the beauty of pure stands of conifers and hardwoods with money grubbing timber companies. Did I miss something?

Sherry: If the NC Nursery doesn't respond to my requests to return 200 Atlantic white cedar seedlings they sent by mistake, I'll need to find a home for most of them.

dibbit: You can see and feel the leaves under your feet and remember what it felt like to put your arms around those beech trees. I don't know why our childhood memories are so vivid but they are. Thankfully.

Pam, you said, "I'm confused about how you connected Spruce's description of the beauty of pure stands of conifers and hardwoods with money grubbing timber companies. Did I miss something?"

Yes, you did. I agreed with Spruce when I said that clear bolted old growth forest of redwood and douglas fir have that cathedral like look. I enjoy that look, but I enjoy a natural forest even more. Natural forest have mixatures of species in them. I also said that when thousands and thousands of acres of the same species are planted that is a recipe for disaster, as the Germans have found out and our timber companies are now finding out. When a disease or pest gets into these monoculture farms they go through the tree farms (can't call them forest) like wild fire. When forest are planted with different species diseases and pest can be slowed down or even stopped. For example, Sitka Spruce, Picea sitchensis, when grown away from the ocean is attacked by spruce bud worm. But when they are planted among alder and cottonwood, they grow tall and straight. The bud worm can't find them within those trees.

Even Resin's picture of the giant sequoia had hemlock and fir in it. It wasn't a pure stand as a natural forest should be.

It's all a matter of degree. I concur with Spruces initial sentiment-pure stands can be most impressive. But......I know what issafish alludes to in his response. The typical pattern in the western conifer lands seems to be to clearcut the original mixed stands and replace with Doug fir monocultures. This indeed represents a loss of diversity and a recipe for subsequent disaster. The problem isn't planting pure stands of this one species, it's doing it on such a vast scale.

+oM

issafish:

Sorry, but redwoods do grow in pure stands. I spent time off and on for many years walking through the redwood parks, and I can say first hand--been there, seen that. Also, many years ago, I lobbied Congress under the auspices of the Sierra Club--selected by them to help out because of my silvicultural knowledge of redwoods--to counter the pseudo-scientific arguments put up by the Republicans and the Reagan Administration against the bill. Remember Reagan, the "seen one redwood seen them all" president?

Anyway, if you have not seen them, here is where you go: probably the finest pure stand of redwoods is the Rockefeller forest on Bull Creek Flat in Humboldt Redwoods State Park. Another outstanding stand is the founders Grove standing on Dyerville Flat, not far away. Up the road is the Pepperwood Grove, another outstanding example. These are all on alluvial flats where the soil has been built up over many thousands of years through flooding and deposition of rich soils. There are a number of other pure stands of redwoods growing on alluvial flats.

But Redwoods also grow in pure stands on many lower coastal slopes. A number of these are in the Redwood National Park, and there are areas in other parks, including Prairie Creek State Park, and Jedediah Smith Park. You need to go see these stands--they are the most amazing stands of trees in the world.

Just for an official reference, this is quoted from the handbook of silviculture published by the USDA forest Service:

"Pure stands of redwood are found only on some of the best sites, usually the moist river flats and gentle slopes below 305 m (1,000 ft). Although redwood is a dominant tree throughout its range, generally it is mixed with other conifers and broad-leaf trees."

So, I insist pure stands of coast redwood not only exist, but are prominent in the stands of redwoods preserved in the Redwood National Park and in several California state parks.

--Spruce

Agree with everything said- Pure stands are nice, but it's a matter of degree. 20 acres of a single species is much different than a grove of 50 trees.

Disease/pest has significantly hurt or wiped out species altother in areas (american elm, scoth pine, and recently ash and lodgepole pines). I have two people near me that planted several acre monocultures - one planted sycamores, the other scotch pines. Neither look very natural. The scoth pines are about 15 yrs old. Like other scotch pines around here, they will all die within another 10 years or so. About 15 years ago everyone around here planted scotch pines - they were recommended by conservationists and were thought to be safe. Now they all make brown needled eyesores.

As Spruce mentioned, norway spruce and white pines especially look nice in groves. I have small groves of each, plus some bald cypress groves near ponds. As previously mentioned, for larger plantings, even 20% or so of other trees makes for a more natural look. Personally, I think quaking aspens look great with conifers. The apsen/logdgepole pine/spruce mix forests in Colorado are beuitiful - that is until the past couple years when beetles have killed most of the native lodgepole pines. I've driven through Virginia and seen some beutiful mixed conifer/hardwood forests - not sure the species, but they look great from the highway.

I planted 1000 aspens mixed in with my conifers to add some color contrast. Has anyone else tried this? For some reason the past couple years quaking aspen seedling prices have skyrocked??

Spruce- Do you have pics of your groves that you can post?

John

Ah,the responses from you folks are really interesting.

First, let me add about the pure stands of redwoods: I have over my desk where I am sitting now, the most beautiful picture of redwoods I have seen. It is a rather large print--I am not sure if it is original--of a photograph of a pure stand of redwoods by Ansel Adams. Have any of you seen it? It is in black and white, of course, but the way he has captured these trees and their towering height is really amazing. I know of no other picture that has he same effect. The lighting is mostly from in front (back lighting)--something some photographers think is a no-no. But the effect of this back lighting is really magical. In additiion, I can identify where this picture was taken--it is the Founders Grove in Humboldt Redwoods State Park, that I mentioned above. If any of you are nutty redwood lovers like me, I would do a web search and see where you can get this picture.

The next best redwood picture I have is color picture of a pure stand on a slope, that I think must be in Jed Smith park. My wife found this one for me at, of all places, Target. Unfortunately, no photographer identified.

As for monocultures--large stands of planted pines, etc. If they are really, really extensive, maybe they are a problem, especially if they are all grown from the same seed source. But I have seen people complain about these planted pines and spruces when the stands are a thousand acres or much smaller, and I think that is mistaken. The groves of spruces and pines I have, which are just 10 or 15 acres or so, actually increase the environmantal diversity. Much of the wildlife they support is different from what is found in the surrounding hardwood forests. They also provide an excellent environment for several native orchid species, which I have fun observing, and which I don't find much in the surrounding hardwood forests.

One complaint against Norway spruce plantations is that they cast a shade so dense that there is not much growth of ferns and other woodland plants underneath, with the exception of the orchids mentioned. But these stands keep a nice open environment underneath, which allows for the cathedral effect to be viewed without interference. White pines allow plenty of growth unerneath of just about everything, and after a while you can't see the pine forest for all the trees growing up underneath.

But if one wants to complain about clearing land for "monocultures," think of the many hundreds or thousands of square miles that have been cleared in the midwest and on the plains for growing corn and wheat. What has this done to bird populations, wildlife in general, genetic diversity, the destruction of native plants? If this kind of thing is done for wood production, which we do all need and use, it is some kind of unique evil that we all need to rail against. But I do agree that when these plantations are established, there should be some effort to protect genetic diversity, and to include some areas for native plants and trees, especially along streams and rivers. Some of the timberland owners/managers are improving their practices in this regard. But of course, if you live in an area surrounded by very extensive plantations of these pines, I can understand how you feel.

John--I am an idiot. I have not yet done any digital photography. Dax was very kind to give me some advice and help, but I am yet to move. Sorry!

--Spruce

Good points, spruce. What I was trying to describe re: Western conifers mgt. is from things I've read, wherein old growth mixed stands which do contain Doug. fir, along with hemlock, Thuja, etc....are cleared and that nearly the only species being planted is the Doug. fir.

Another point tangental to this discussion: Given time, and sufficient nearby seed source, I find that many pine plantations do become quite a bit more diversified. Not the eco-desert they'd been described as. I've also seen, and been surprised to see, prolific red pine regeneration under mid-aged plantation red pine. It seemed too shady, but the young trees were thick in one site in particular, not too far from where my land is, but in a sandy lobe.

+oM

Longleaf Pine stands are quite pretty. Almost look unnatural sometimes though. Amazing what natural fires can do!

Spruce, you said,

"Pure stands of redwood are found only on some of the best sites, usually the moist river flats and gentle slopes below 305 m (1,000 ft). Although redwood is a dominant tree throughout its range, generally it is mixed with other conifers and broad-leaf trees."

So, I insist pure stands of coast redwood not only exist, but are prominent in the stands of redwoods preserved in the Redwood National Park and in several California state parks."

Yes, I agree, that's the trouble with typing, my typing anyway, I can't get my point across. In my life time I have lived from San Diego to Seattle and I have seen many of those redwood forest you are talking about. I have see pure stand redwoods that are growing in the ideal habitat for redwoods. But these stands are not thousand acres of pure redwoods. I have seen plenty of other trees growing among the dominate redwoods just as the Forest Services quote says.

I think our disagreement is in the size of the pure stand. Yes, in the Pacific Northwest where Western Hemlock and Western Red Cedar are the climax species, there where hundreds, maybe thousands of acres of them growing as the dominate species, but because of fire, diseases, storms, and old age, these pure stands had a mosaic of pioneer and middle serial forest trees growing throughout the climax forest.

I grew up in the heart of timber country, Grays Harbor County on the coast of Washington State. My family were loggers, mill workers, timber company bosses, I studied forestry in college, and I lived in those forest and have walked through them, so I know what I saw and am now seeing. I love trees and forest. I would take a single specie tree farm over a housing development any day, so I find beauty in all forest, not just single specie stands. Like I said in another post, "...large clear bolted old growth forest of redwood and douglas fir have that cathedral like look..." With the sun shining through those trees it is like being in the house of God, and in many ways probably closer to God than in a building men built.

issafish:

I don't mean to be too argumentative here and insist on small points of accuracy, but I think this statement is, if I want to be really particular, false.

"But these stands are not thousand acres of pure redwoods. I have seen plenty of other trees growing among the dominate redwoods just as the Forest Services quote says."

If you measured the area occupied by the Rockefeller Forest on Bull Creek Flat, not including portions that may be on the surrounding hillsides whewre the redwoods are much smaller and are in a mixed Stand, you would find way more than 1,000 acres of contiguous pure redwood forest--way more. And the Rockefeller Forest was when it was saved the largest REMAINING UNCUT pure stand. Many other stands that were cut were considerably larger. The best stands of redwoods, or so I have heard, formerly stood on the flats adjacent to the Klamath River. I wish some of these stands had been saved. Some of the trees that stood on those flats and slopes maybe were much taller than those that are the tallest redwoods today.

As to the part about other species being mixed in these pure stands--well, I can't rule out that in the midst of the Rockefeller Forest, or the Founders Grove, or the Pepperwood Grove there might be a tree of some other species with a dominant crown position--dominant, co-dominant, or sub-dominant(I am not counting understory trees as something that disqualifies a pure stand from having "purity"), but I don't remember ever seeing any. These are really, literally, pure stands. And as such, have a special beauty.

And the trees in these stands are really, really tall. The tallest tree in the Founders Grove, which fell a few years ago, was 362 feet, and in the Rockefeller Forest there is one 368 feet tall. But what is really impressive is the height of the AVERAGE tree in these stands--I don't know if anyone has calculated that, but I would guess well over 300 feet--my own guess, 330 feet in some places. And these trees are often 200 feet before the first limb, and 8 to 15 feet in diameter, with some trees much larger.

Oh, by the way, the Ansel Adams photograph is available everywhere on the web. The best way to find it is to google Founders Grove.

issafish: Ah, you have a logging background. Interesting. In the summer of 1959 I worked as a choker setter for Weyerhauser on "high lead" at their Millecoma tree farm. Ah, have I stories to tell, as I would guess you do. Have you ever worked high lead? More recently I have done logging on my own land in the mountains of western MD.

--Spruce

Recent issue of KEW magazine has an item about how extensive single-species plantations may actually degrade the environment in some locations, by affecting ground water and soil pH. As usual, varies with species planted and situation.

Said soil is always acidified by the trees except where "chalky".
---------
Native stands of conifers (and vigorously reproducing seral broad-leaved trees, such as alders) often single-species when young, becoming more diverse as stand ages. So, especially with cutting and commercially-oriented stand management in redwood country there would be places where there are groves of pure or nearly pure redwood frequent.

Spruce: You write so well that people can often see what you describe in their mind's eye. But this is not always the case, especially when trying to communicate specific information. When we write, we can't see the recipient so we don't know if the person "gets it." Maybe this is the basis of the saying, "A picture is worth a thousand words."

Following up on John's suggestion, it would be a gift to see the groves and trees you describe. If you had photos, these groves would educate and inspire indefinitely. I wish you lived closer - I think I could get you up and running with a digital camera in an hour or two. A few years ago, I upgraded to a single lens reflex digital camera - the image quality is amazing. It's clear from your writing that you have a good eye. With a a little time and practice, I think you would be surprised by the photos you can create.

If you stop by a local camera store (like Ritz photo), the staff would be happy to tell you about classes and individuals who provide individualized instruction. Many people who work in these stores do so because they love photography. In addition to your forestland and groves, It would be great to have photos of your new project - taken often, so you have a photographic record from the beginning. My two cents.

Photo locations:

Sequoiadendron and Araucaria: planted, Kyloe Wood, Northumberland; 55 38' N 1° 55' W, 120m altitude.

Pinus sylvestris: wild, east slopes of Carn an 'lc Duibhe, Glen Lui, Deeside; 56° 59' 53" N 3° 32' 44" W, 400m altitude.

Resin

Pineresin the photo of the stand of Scots pine is very beautiful. I have never seen a such beautiful stand of Scots pine, in North America they are awfully horrible looking stands. The trees are horrible to look at.

Hi Xyus,

Thanks! More pics at the link below.

In much of North America it has problems with not being adapted to the climate well, and as a result suffering badly from various pests and diseases that it doesn't have the vigour to resist.

Resin

In Québec, White Pine weevil is a serious problem on Scots Pine which results on a bonsai type pine. I was curious if Pinus sylvestris ssp mongolica was more adapted in North America.

Resin:

I love your picture of the pure Sequoiadendron stand in Britain. Are there many stands of Sequoiadendron being planted there? Here in the Sierra Nevada they dont grow in pure stands naturally. There are a few places where they have been logged and the area burned, where the reproduction is approaching pure stand status. But these stands are only about 125 years old or so.

But there is one place where one could get a sense of what a pure stand might look like if it could grow for a couple of thousand years. That is the Congress Grove in the Giant Forest area of Sequoia National Park. Most specifically, the so called "House" group. This is a group of about 10 or 15 very old trees growing so close together in some places there is just enough room to walk between them. These trees actually make up a small pure grove. These trees are some of the tallest giant sequoias in the park. I think I read somewhere that they are up to 315 feet tall. Standing in the middle of this grove and looking up is one of the most awe inspiring things in all of the tree world. The trees are no where near the biggest in diameter, but the effect of them as a group is absolutely amazing. It gives me some sense, maybe, of what the grove you posted the picture of might look like in two thousand years!

--Spruce

"In Québec, White Pine weevil is a serious problem on Scots Pine"

WPW does occur here, but it is fairly rare, and doesn't cause a lot of damage. Maybe needs a more continental climate to be a problem?

"I was curious if Pinus sylvestris ssp mongolica was more adapted in North America"

It should be, at least in theory. Pests and diseases could still be a problem though, notably pine wilt nematode (Bursaphelenchus xylophilus), a minor disease of American native pines but lethal to European and Asian species.

"Are there many stands of Sequoiadendron being planted there?"

Not many - this one is the largest I know of in Britain (that's not to say there might not be larger stands I don't know about!!). They're around 45m tall, not sure what age.

Resin

Another kind of pure forest I like, although maybe now I am just talking about groves of limited size, is sycamore. With the possible exception of tuliptree, this is the largest and tallest hardwood tree that grows in the north east quadrant of the US, sometimes growing up to 180 feet tall and well over 10 feet in diameter.

These groves sometimes have rather large old trees fairly widely spaced, and at other times have a number of younger trees growing close together, very straight and tall. In winter the white bark of these trees is an outstanding feature in the landscape. These stands usually grow on river and stream bottoms.

I am thinking about planting a grove or group of these trees on my new 6 acres.

You folks that are encouraging me to get a digital camera maybe should be careful what you wish for. In my old age I have become a rather fast typist, hence my overly long and verbose entries here. Wait until I become really expert, and fast at taking pictures! It will take hours to download my postings!! Hah!! At that point you may decide to have me banned from these forums!

--Spruce

Spruce:

"In my old age"? I think all became speechless. I sure did. It passed.

I'll just say that when people can use a photo to illustrate a point, they often use fewer words. The photo provides the necessary information.

How about my other point - having photos of your forestland and groves, and the new project you are planning?

Please don't tell me you can't learn to use a digital camera because you are OLD. Being 68 is not old. I'll be 63 in June and I'm still a kid - and immature to boot! You can always tell me to "mind my own business" - I probably should on this issue.

I won't even be 60 until October - I'm a mere infant! :)
Here, here, Pam! I'm immature and childish and plan on staying that way! :)
Sherry

Sherry:

I am almost 69, but I am as young as one can be. A couple of years ago I was logging in the mountains when the high temperature was 5 above--in 18 inches of snow, charging and down steep hills with a Stihl MS44 chainsaw with a 26 inch bar felling 100 foot tall trees within a foot or two of the target!!. Get me a grizzly bear to wrestle!! My father made 98, I'll be going strong to at least 110!

Digital stuff?? I was creating websites using HTML code when half the people in this forum were barely out of the womb. Maybe it won't be too long before I post a few pictures. Anyway, thanks for the encouragement!

--Spruce

When I travel through the northern part of state I'll run across large stands of Larch (Larix laricina), which is especially impressive in fall when they create a sea of gold.

Sherry - you ARE an infant! I suspect that many folks on this forum are what used to be called "old." Things have changed. If you work hard, and most of us do that for sure, eat healthy, don't smoke, keep an open mind, and learn new things, we are biologically younger than many 30-40 year olds.

Spruce, if you can create web sites with html code, you belong to a small, select group so I'll stop teasing you about the digital camera thing. I will say that I've been stunned at the quality of the photos you can take with a SLR digital camera and the things you can do with Photoshop.

I've loved photography since I was a young kid. My dad and I used to develop film and make photos with the little red light burning. I haven't had time to indulge in this interest recently - or didn't make the time. With all these new projects, I'm making time now. I'd like to have a photographic record of the changes over time.

Take care kids,
Pam

Basic:

Yes, I can imagine--in fact, I think I have seen pictures of what you describe. I can't grow that kind of larch here, but the European, the Japanese, and the hybrid--Dunkeld, AKA marchlinsii--are amazing. I have European and Japanese at my place in the MD mts and in the fall the golden towers these trees create soaring up against a pure blue autumn sky are totally stunning. There is little the tree world can create that is more beautiful.

I would love to see the western larch, which can grow to over 200 feet tall and reach an age of about 1,000 years,in the fall.

--Spruce

I don't know how you worked in those temps, Spruce! I don't like to use much heat in the house - bad for my asthma - so if it goes below 40F degrees, I put on my flannel pajamas, get in the bed with at least two dogs and pull the covers up over my head! )
You're right, Pam, if you take care of yourself, and I do, then you can last a long time, kind of like a car will last longer with proper care and oil changes. :)
Sherry

Sherry:

How do I work in those temps? Motivation--I have an Amish farmer for a partner with an wonderful tractor and winch who can only work in the woods in winter (it is best for the woods anyway), and the right layers of clothing. I have been working outside in the winter for years, experimenting with gloves inside other gloves, special boots and special socks, longjohns and double layers of trousers, and layers and layers under the "Big Smith" or "Carhart" duck cloth coats. I go out, literally, in winter "armor." Everytime I contemplate going out in such weather I feel a little reluctant, but once out and going, it is usually wonderful. But on those 5 degree days (and I am talking about the high temp for those days--I have often gone out in the morning when it was below zero), I had a bit of a struggle keeping my hands warm when using the chain saw (which limits the thickness of gloves I can wear) and handling the choker cables, which often means digging under snow to get them set.

--Spruce

I can relate, Spruce. Not only is the clothing you describe something I wear every day on my job doing tree work for the city, but on trips to the woods, it's the same deal. Folks who never do stuff like this can never seem to believe one can be comfortable, even too warm, out in the cold, but it's true. It helps that work of this sort is vigorous and your body is easily able to handle the conditions. People think I'm weird when I tell them Winter is the best. They always assume that, since I'm horticulturist, I can't wait for Spring. Yes, Springtime is great, but I like Winter the best;^)

+oM

Tom:

It is even colder where you are, and the cold is more constant. Here in the MD mountains we have a record low of minus 40, but we get a lot of warm weather in the winter--I would guess our snow cover is about 70% of the time. For logging, we like about 6 to 8 inches of snow and for the temps to stay below freezing all day. If it gets over 32 for very long, the snow can get "sticky," making log winching a little harder. The worst is no snow with a lot of wet ground--what a mess. Sometimes in conditions like that we stop and wait for snow and cold.

A few times we have worked in snow over 2 feet deep with a layer or two of crust. Now that makes getting around difficult--and then there can be ice on the trunks where I need to cut--that can dull a chainsaw fast. So then I have to carefully go around each tree with an axe and chip the ice off. AAArrrgghh!

--Spruce

There are pure stands of Tuliptree along the Patapsco river on the Howard/Baltimore County line in Maryland, and I've seen them in other areas as well.

Drive along I-70 from the Baltimore Beltway west, and when you approach the river (which is the county line) you'll see a pure stand of beautiful and BIG Tuliptrees. As you are further from the river they quickly fade out in favor of oaks.

BTW Spruceman, Reagan was one of our greatest Presidents. He did have some shortcomings, but he was a refreshing alternative to Carter at the time.

;-)

That's the beauty of our system of checks and balances in the US, by the way.

Hairmetal, you were just being sarcastic about Reagan being a refreshing alternative to Carter, right?

Not at all.

17% inflation, unemployment out the wazoo...our citizens being held hostage since Carter hadn't the balls to solve the problem...don't get me started.

Carter was a disaster on both domestic and foreign front.

But this isn't a political forum. So I'll stop.

*grin*

Your credibility just shot way up for me.

OK, now I'm being sarcastic. LOL