The Conservative Solution to... Pollution

[fj1200]

Go.

[Kathianne]

What type(s) of pollution are you referring to? Both air and water pollution have been improving. Are you addressing pollution like landfills?

[Anton Chigurh]

As opposed to the tax it, regulate it, demagogue it and lie about it and oh yeah tax it and spend even more and tax it some more "liberal" solution?

[fj1200]

What type(s) of pollution are you referring to? Both air and water pollution have been improving. Are you addressing pollution like landfills?

No particular type I suppose. I don't think landfills are pollution I guess.


As opposed to the tax it, regulate it, demagogue it and lie about it and oh yeah tax it and spend even more and tax it some more "liberal" solution?

Um, yes.

[Drummond]

Go.

... Yes, Sir !!! Immediately, Sir !!!

Anyway, to directly answer ... 'pollution' could mean a variety of things. It seems to me that the Conservative answer should be for individuals to be made as aware as possible not only of the nature of the problem, but what measures would ideally tackle it.

Consumer items creating that pollution should be discussed ... education provided as to how they pollute, to what extent, what needs to be done about them.

For the sake of individual choice, education via the media is surely the key. And, ideally, choice should be preserved and respected.

But in my part of the world, riddled as it is by bog-standard Leftieism having been ingrained in us over generations ... people are already primed to accept forms of taxation and banning orders as an answer. For landfill ... a rolling programme of a form of taxation is applied by charging people a price for items contributing. Currently true (definitely) in Wales, a nominal charge of 5 pence per bag is always charged and added to your shopping bill. England ... not yet charged, but plans are afoot to arrange it. It's only a matter of time before the English are likewise charged ... to encourage re-use of bags, cutting down on landfill wastage.

The EU is getting tough, in its Leftily dictatorial way. A series of edicts are being applied to member States to outlaw consumer items which consume more electricity than THEY feel they should. A limit on the maximum wattage of a vacuum cleaner has just been applied in the UK, banning the manufacture of 'offending' appliances .. once current stocks are sold, no more further 'illegally rated' ones can be legally delivered to outlets.

The EU has barely got started on that. They have a list of other items that'll be included in the coming year.

Incandescent light bulbs ? Here, supplies are dwindling. Their energy-efficient replacements are now MANDATED. Shops still selling old stocks are becoming few and far between.

That, folks, is the key difference - CHOICE. Under Leftieism, you get told what you MUST do, by the State, and you suffer if you disobey. Conservatives treat people with dignity and as adults. Choice exists. Responsibility for one's own life is expected.

[darin]

Dude - can I MAIL You some bulbs? Would "The Man" intercept a package containing a gift, from you to me?

[fj1200]

That, folks, is the key difference - CHOICE. Under Leftieism, you get told what you MUST do, by the State, and you suffer if you disobey. Conservatives treat people with dignity and as adults. Choice exists. Responsibility for one's own life is expected.

Disagree, it's not choice. Responsibility for one's own life is not the issue, the issue is what responsibility does an individual have for the property of others (or the community) that their choices cause. I think you were close though when discussing cost.

[Drummond]

Dude - can I MAIL You some bulbs? Would "The Man" intercept a package containing a gift, from you to me?

Thanks for the thought, much appreciated .. but your bulbs wouldn't be compatible with our power supply (... and most probably our Customs people would intercept the package and note its contents).

Yours in America, I think, is 110 volts, 60 cycles / second ? Ours is 230-250 volts (most typically 250 volts), 50 cycles / second. Any bulbs from the US I tried to use over here would probably last around 30 seconds before burning out. If they didn't explode first ? ...

[Drummond]

Disagree, it's not choice. Responsibility for one's own life is not the issue,

Why am I not surprised by your offering that answer, FJ ? Any ideas spring to mind ?


the issue is what responsibility does an individual have for the property of others (or the community) that their choices cause.

OK, accepted to a degree, since individual actions impinge on others. But only to a degree. Do you understand that your answer invites some form of 'adjudicating' power to intervene, and start laying down the law ?

I've a funny feeling that you do understand that well.

State dictators could insist that laws exist to compel standardisation of approach. Before you know it ... you've got a bunch of Lefties arbitrarily deciding - then insisting upon - what THEY say you MUST do.

Goodbye, individual responsibility. Hello, Nanny State (the EU fancies itself as one such). And, hello, the grabbing of powers which quickly grow uncontrollably.

No, I say that education is a more civilised and decent answer, with power still in the hands of the citizen. Before it's taken away.

Don't you agree, FJ ?


I think you were close though when discussing cost.

The cost of plastic bags ... a tax, INSISTED on, by Governments ? Yes ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

... Yes, Sir !!! Immediately, Sir !!!

Anyway, to directly answer ... 'pollution' could mean a variety of things. It seems to me that the Conservative answer should be for individuals to be made as aware as possible not only of the nature of the problem, but what measures would ideally tackle it.

Consumer items creating that pollution should be discussed ... education provided as to how they pollute, to what extent, what needs to be done about them.

For the sake of individual choice, education via the media is surely the key. And, ideally, choice should be preserved and respected.

But in my part of the world, riddled as it is by bog-standard Leftieism having been ingrained in us over generations ... people are already primed to accept forms of taxation and banning orders as an answer. For landfill ... a rolling programme of a form of taxation is applied by charging people a price for items contributing. Currently true (definitely) in Wales, a nominal charge of 5 pence per bag is always charged and added to your shopping bill. England ... not yet charged, but plans are afoot to arrange it. It's only a matter of time before the English are likewise charged ... to encourage re-use of bags, cutting down on landfill wastage.

The EU is getting tough, in its Leftily dictatorial way. A series of edicts are being applied to member States to outlaw consumer items which consume more electricity than THEY feel they should. A limit on the maximum wattage of a vacuum cleaner has just been applied in the UK, banning the manufacture of 'offending' appliances .. once current stocks are sold, no more further 'illegally rated' ones can be legally delivered to outlets.

The EU has barely got started on that. They have a list of other items that'll be included in the coming year.

Incandescent light bulbs ? Here, supplies are dwindling. Their energy-efficient replacements are now MANDATED. Shops still selling old stocks are becoming few and far between.

That, folks, is the key difference - CHOICE. Under Leftieism, you get told what you MUST do, by the State, and you suffer if you disobey. Conservatives treat people with dignity and as adults. Choice exists. Responsibility for one's own life is expected.




That, folks, is the key difference - CHOICE. Under Leftieism, you get told what you MUST do, by the State, and you suffer if you disobey. Conservatives treat people with dignity and as adults. Choice exists. Responsibility for one's own life is expected

^^And that is the icing on the cake my friend. The glaring difference and exactly why the Lefties/Liberals must be adamantly opposed.

And a rare day when I can correct a Brit on English language or spelling.
Correct spelling is Leftism , not Lefteism. -- ;) , :poke:
Now you citing me a few hundred times for similar error means nothing as I am just A SOUTHERN REDNECK HICK. :laugh:
And wez no speakki da King's proper englesh ta start wid.. ;). --Tyr

[tailfins]

Disagree, it's not choice. Responsibility for one's own life is not the issue, the issue is what responsibility does an individual have for the property of others (or the community) that their choices cause. I think you were close though when discussing cost.

Does that mean you support Obama's war on coal? If you add $50 to the average monthly electric bill you are TAKING that family's property.

[Drummond]

^^And that is the icing on the cake my friend. The glaring difference and exactly why the Lefties/Liberals must be adamantly opposed.:clap::clap::clap:


And a rare day when I can correct a Brit on English language or spelling.
Correct spelling is Leftism , not Lefteism. -- ;) , :poke:
Now you citing me a few hundred times for similar error means nothing as I am just A SOUTHERN REDNECK HICK. :laugh:
And wez no speakki da King's proper englesh ta start wid.. ;). --Tyr:laugh:

Heh heh. Tyr, here, I think there's a difference between British and American usage. To be honest, both spellings look around equally acceptable to me.

Happy to be corrected, though ! I'm taking it that 'Leftism' is the accepted American usage. I'll defer to it -- 'when in Rome', & all that ...

[fj1200]

Why am I not surprised by your offering that answer, FJ ? Any ideas spring to mind ?

Because you seem to be lacking in understanding the issues.


^^And that is the icing on the cake my friend. The glaring difference and exactly why the Lefties/Liberals must be adamantly opposed.

Can we keep imaginatory musings out of it??? At least for now???

[fj1200]

Does that mean you support Obama's war on coal? If you add $50 to the average monthly electric bill you are TAKING that family's property.

No. But pretend that the emissions are harmful to an onerous extent; What is the conservative solution? Hint: Acid rain.

[fj1200]

OK, accepted to a degree, since individual actions impinge on others. But only to a degree. Do you understand that your answer invites some form of 'adjudicating' power to intervene, and start laying down the law ?

I've a funny feeling that you do understand that well.

State dictators could insist that laws exist to compel standardisation of approach. Before you know it ... you've got a bunch of Lefties arbitrarily deciding - then insisting upon - what THEY say you MUST do.

Goodbye, individual responsibility. Hello, Nanny State (the EU fancies itself as one such). And, hello, the grabbing of powers which quickly grow uncontrollably.

No, I say that education is a more civilised and decent answer, with power still in the hands of the citizen. Before it's taken away.

Don't you agree, FJ ?

The cost of plastic bags ... a tax, INSISTED on, by Governments ? Yes ?

You seem to be getting off track. The discussion is what is the conservative solution to pollution. Costs are not costs mandated by government but the economic, or other, costs of pollution; think negative externalities (http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com/negative-externality.php).

Why should you be given a choice on whether to violate my property rights?

[darin]

there is no solution. People pollute because its in our nature. The solution is - We start creating people who aren't assholes to the planet. Short of that? There's NOTHING we can do.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Can we keep imaginatory musings out of it??? At least for now???

Nothing imaginary about my views on the subject, you just love to deny reality.
So far as pollution goes== modern societies have no choice but to pollute.
Civilization means usurping, controlling, using and degrading Nature. Part of it has to be destroyed in that use of it--either stay advanced or we revert back to the pre-Industrial Age.
DO --YOU-- WANT TO GO BACK TO WIPING YOUR ASS WITH YOUR HAND??????
SPEARING YOUR MEAT TO EAT AND NO SAFE/PROPER SANITATION STANDARDS???
THINK 14TH CENTURY, AND BY THE WAY --that is what Islam cries out must be reverted back to. just sayin'...
I thought the liberals were all about advancement and enlightenment..
Not very enlightening living in a hut or cave and wearing freshly killed dead animal skins is there? - :laugh:
Or do you fancy being a Native American before da evil white man came?-;)-Tyr

[tailfins]

Nothing imaginary about my views on the subject, you just love to deny reality.
So far as pollution goes== modern societies have no choice but to pollute.
Civilization means usurping, controlling, using and degrading Nature. Part of it has to be destroyed in that use of it--either stay advanced or we revert back to the pre-Industrial Age.
DO --YOU-- WANT TO GO BACK TO WIPING YOUR ASS WITH YOUR HAND??????
SPEARING YOUR MEAT TO EAT AND NO SAFE/PROPER SANITATION STANDARDS???
THINK 14TH CENTURY, AND BY THE WAY --that is what Islam cries out must be reverted back to. just sayin'...
I thought the liberals were all about advancement and enlightenment..
Not very enlightening living in a hut or cave and wearing freshly killed dead animal skins is there? - :laugh:
Or do you fancy being a Native American before da evil white man came?-;)-Tyr

Cuba does a great job conserving resources. You can see for yourself. Just go via Cancun, tell the authorities in Cuba NOT to stamp your passport and DON'T bring back any souvenirs. If you roam around on your own, not going on a supervised tour, the level of poverty is evident. Be careful: It's a $10,000 fine (which can be plea bargained down) if you get busted by Uncle Sam.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Cuba does a great job conserving resources. You can see for yourself. Just go via Cancun, tell the authorities in Cuba NOT to stamp your passport and DON'T bring back any souvenirs. If you roam around on your own, not going on a supervised tour, the level of poverty is evident. Be careful: It's a $10,000 fine (which can be plea bargained down) if you get busted by Uncle Sam.




the level of poverty is evident.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ nuff said!!!

level of primitive living and poor sanitation is evident too.
Civilized man does not want to live that way and neither does any free man.
I would never race to visit a place like Cuba. Where stupidity reigns supreme..
If I wanted to see that Id visit any of the big city ghetto's here.

still waiting for fj and his enlightening response. -Tyr

[stephanie]

Dude - can I MAIL You some bulbs? Would "The Man" intercept a package containing a gift, from you to me?

lol, they might. You will need be careful...;)

[gabosaurus]

Go.

Conservatives don't want an answer to pollution. There want more of it.
Relaxing environmental regulations will lead to more pollution. Additional drilling, fracking, etc. will lead to more pollution.

China and Mexico have few regulations restraining business growth. They also have dirty, unbreathable air.
So which do you want?

[fj1200]

... imaginary...

:roundandround: I asked nicely.


still waiting for fj and his enlightening response. -Tyr

:confused: Once you let go of your imagination and discuss the question of the day that would be cool.

[fj1200]

there is no solution. People pollute because its in our nature. The solution is - We start creating people who aren't assholes to the planet. Short of that? There's NOTHING we can do.

Of course there is.


Conservatives don't want an answer to pollution. There want more of it.
Relaxing environmental regulations will lead to more pollution. Additional drilling, fracking, etc. will lead to more pollution.

China and Mexico have few regulations restraining business growth. They also have dirty, unbreathable air.
So which do you want?

I guess I can put you into the imagination camp too.

[Drummond]

Conservatives don't want an answer to pollution. There want more of it.
Relaxing environmental regulations will lead to more pollution. Additional drilling, fracking, etc. will lead to more pollution.

China and Mexico have few regulations restraining business growth. They also have dirty, unbreathable air.
So which do you want?

Here's the whacking great problem with tackling pollution, which - 'amazingly' - the do-gooders somehow always manage to miss, and never own up to.

Many forms of pollution are what they are because of the sheer durability of the problem. Consider emissions of greenhouse gases as a good example. We're told that such emissions must be reined right back, to solve supposed 'global warming'.

But, here's the thing. Whatever pollutants are already in the atmosphere, put there by Mankind, don't just magically disappear ! Perhaps emissions can be reduced, even substantially. But what would that do, other than MERELY REDUCE THE RATE WE ADD TO WHATEVER'S THERE ALREADY.

If it were true - as opposed to being a great con - that greenhouse gases are warming the planet, they'll still do so, if further emissions were cut to ZERO immediately ! What's done is done. Emissions cuts don't clean up what's there already, they just reduce the rate you ADD to it !

But somehow, the likes of Al Gore forget to point that out in their various speeches ... 'strange', that ...

I think that this unadmitted-to logic itself strongly argues for recognition that one almighty con is being perpetrated against the world's populations.

Why ?

Well ... Governmental regulation of businesses is a lot easier if you do it on environmental grounds (see Gabby's example, above). Or ... raising tax revenues for supposed 'solutions'.

So, I have to wonder: is this all about finding excuses for power-wielding, done on the back of a con ?

Think about it ...

[revelarts]

miss post

[fj1200]

Think about it ...

Why are you avoiding proffering a conservative solution? I have my theory.

[CSM]

Reading through this thread is rather amusing. I had no idea that pollution was political ... or that there were conservative vs. liberal solutions. Of course, REAL solutions work...political pollution solutions (PPS) merely push one agenda or the other without really solving anything.

Recycling has become a huge business; profit driven with a vested interest more solid waste being generated.

Advertising and packaging of products (often the packaging is more durable than the product) is another huge profit driven business that generate tons of solid waste.

Carbon emission? How many of us are willing to give up our vehicles, air conditioners, oil/gas fired furnaces and electric powered devices? Mexico has been mentioned as generating pollution; the PPS is to pass laws for the United States .... which does nothing to solve the problem.

There are solutions. Nobody wants to implement them for fear of the impact on THEIR OWN lifestyle ... but those same solutions are or should be mandatory for everyone else. Folks like Al Gore have made millions off that philosophy.

[tailfins]

Reading through this thread is rather amusing. I had no idea that pollution was political ... or that there were conservative vs. liberal solutions. Of course, REAL solutions work...political pollution solutions (PPS) merely push one agenda or the other without really solving anything.

Recycling has become a huge business; profit driven with a vested interest more solid waste being generated.

Advertising and packaging of products (often the packaging is more durable than the product) is another huge profit driven business that generate tons of solid waste.

Carbon emission? How many of us are willing to give up our vehicles, air conditioners, oil/gas fired furnaces and electric powered devices? Mexico has been mentioned as generating pollution; the PPS is to pass laws for the United States .... which does nothing to solve the problem.

There are solutions. Nobody wants to implement them for fear of the impact on THEIR OWN lifestyle ... but those same solutions are or should be mandatory for everyone else. Folks like Al Gore have made millions off that philosophy.

You forget all the government money that gets handed out over "impact studies" and environmentalist bureaucracy. It's time to tag the left as the ideology of greed, taking money they didn't earn.

[fj1200]

Reading through this thread is rather amusing. I had no idea that pollution was political ... or that there were conservative vs. liberal solutions. Of course, REAL solutions work...political pollution solutions (PPS) merely push one agenda or the other without really solving anything.

Hmm you have a point, perhaps the thread should be just solutions to pollution. My underlying thought was that conservative solutions would work whereas liberal solutions would not at least would not without draconian limits.

[aboutime]

The LONE answer, or solution to Pollution is. Removing the occupants of the White House, and the Democrat offices located in the U.S. Capitol building. PROBLEM INSTANTLY SOLVED.

[stephanie]

Conservatives don't want an answer to pollution. There want more of it.
Relaxing environmental regulations will lead to more pollution. Additional drilling, fracking, etc. will lead to more pollution.

China and Mexico have few regulations restraining business growth. They also have dirty, unbreathable air.
So which do you want?

You've really drank the liberal Kool-Aid. Just amazing

you see a rally after liberals and their garbage and then look at one after conservatives?

nuff said

[jimnyc]

Conservatives don't want an answer to pollution. There want more of it.

Want to play the large brush game again? Fine, now once again articulate your position. Show us how and why this is what you believe. Is it even possible for you to write paragraphs? Include links? Maybe voting tallies? Historical voting and trends? Or will you sit back and rest on rhetoric alone?

And what is the liberal answer to pollution? Post specifics please, and votes and such...

[grannyhawkins]

Imma thinkin more decisions like this are the answer!!!


North Dakota Names Landfill After Obama
http://dailycurrant.com/2014/11/17/north-dakota-names-landfill-after-obama/

The state of North Dakota has named a new publicly-owned landfill after President Barack Obama.

In an overwhelming 35-10 vote, the state Senate advanced a bill naming a 650-acre site currently under construction after the nation’s 44th president. Governor Jack Dalrymple is expected to sign the measure into law Tuesday.

When completed, the Barack Obama Memorial Landfill will be the largest waste disposal site in North Dakota, and the 17th largest in the United States. It will be especially rich in toxic waste from the local petroleum and medical industries.

[aboutime]

Conservatives don't want an answer to pollution. There want more of it.
Relaxing environmental regulations will lead to more pollution. Additional drilling, fracking, etc. will lead to more pollution.

China and Mexico have few regulations restraining business growth. They also have dirty, unbreathable air.
So which do you want?

http://icansayit.com/images/koolaid.gif

The stuff gabby fills her pool with, while her neighbors haven't got a DROP TO DRINK?

[Drummond]

Why are you avoiding proffering a conservative solution? I have my theory.

Attention span difficulties always have been a problem for you, FJ ... I suspect that inflexibility from Leftie propagandist positions might be a part of it ..

Evidently I need to recap.

1. I've stated that a Conservative approach would be one of education as to what the problems were. This is distinct from the Leftie approach, which would see to it that propaganda about it was broadcast, Nation State leaders then said what THEY required to be done about it, this followed up with laws and diktats demanding that people obey .. freedom of decision by all but the most powerful taken out of the equation.

The Leftie solution in action: hefty taxes, massive business restrictions. Ways of life being dictated, power wielded by the State to unprecedented levels.

2. I've also stated that much of the problem of pollution is that what's already there will not disappear any time soon, and that all Mankind can do is regulate (and then only to a degree) the rate at which IT IS ADDED TO.

Do you get it now, FJ ?

The likes of Al Gore preach the problem and what THEY say must be done about it. They then apply laws which they say must be obeyed, since to not do so will poison Mankind's future.

They then (certainly in Gore's case, anyway) ratchet up a massive 'carbon footprint' via world travel plans, entirely at odds with what they preach.

So I ask: to what extent is this ALL about a cynical excuse to blackmail Mankind into allowing power-broker control freaks, control over everyone's lives ?

Do you agree, FJ, that the Leftie approach is wrong and deserves to be resisted ? YES or NO ?

[fj1200]

...

Evidently I need to recap.

1. I've stated that a Conservative approach would be one of education as to what the problems were. This is distinct from the Leftie approach, which would see to it that propaganda about it was broadcast, Nation State leaders then said what THEY required to be done about it, this followed up with laws and diktats demanding that people obey .. freedom of decision by all but the most powerful taken out of the equation.

...

2. I've also stated that much of the problem of pollution is that what's already there will not disappear any time soon, and that all Mankind can do is regulate (and then only to a degree) the rate at which IT IS ADDED TO.

...

Do you agree, FJ, that the Leftie approach is wrong and deserves to be resisted ? YES or NO ?

:rolleyes: For criminies sake, please try and keep up with the class.


Hmm you have a point, perhaps the thread should be just solutions to pollution. My underlying thought was that conservative solutions would work whereas liberal solutions would not at least would not without draconian limits.

I started a thread to discuss the conservative solutions to pollution, not whine about what lefties :eek: do and what they think. So far you haven't proposed anything of substance. 1. Education as to the problems? The Cuyahoga River was on fire, that doesn't take any education. 2. More pollution? Not really a solution.

What is the conservative solution?

[Drummond]

:rolleyes: For criminies sake, please try and keep up with the class.

Ah, yet more Leftie trolling from you. More post crossings-out. Better to edit out what you cannot, or will not, accept .. rather than take it on board, eh ?

Adherence to propagandist positions will do that, of course. Only deal with what your propagandist limitations will allow.


I started a thread to discuss the conservative solutions to pollution, not whine about what lefties :eek: do and what they think. So far you haven't proposed anything of substance. Education as to the problems? The Cuyahoga River was on fire, that doesn't take any education. What is the conservative solution?

And I HAVE ANSWERED YOU.

The answer is to adopt Conservative realism, and EDUCATE with it. This means not running with alarmism followed by cloud-cuckooland solutions which obscure any realistic outcomes.

I have already explained to you that much of the pollution problem - in so far as it IS one - has been created already, and all we can do is reduce our capacity to ADD to it.

So, OK, I know this defies Leftie propaganda, and my stating this truth will no doubt provoke you into more troll editing rubbish. Nonetheless, the Conservative mind FACES UP TO TRUTH. Even if yours cannot.

No ... dispensing with propaganda designed to mislead into the permitting of power-grabs is part of the Conservative solution, because such a process harms free enterprise, done on the back of A LIE. The rest is to educate in a truthful manner and to leave it up to democratic consultation, up to ORDINARY INDIVIDUALS .. to do what CAN be done.

OK, FJ .. get to the troll editing again. Because there's only so much of what I've said that you can possibly accept, without breaking ranks from your comrades ...

[fj1200]

I'm trying to keep this on topic. You can start a thread that prattles on about lefties if you like but this is about a solution to pollution.


And I HAVE ANSWERED YOU.

The answer is to adopt Conservative realism, and EDUCATE with it. This means not running with alarmism followed by cloud-cuckooland solutions which obscure any realistic outcomes.

I have already explained to you that much of the pollution problem - in so far as it IS one - has been created already, and all we can do is reduce our capacity to ADD to it.

No ... dispensing with propaganda designed to mislead into the permitting of power-grabs is part of the Conservative solution, because such a process harms free enterprise, done on the back of A LIE. The rest is to educate in a truthful manner and to leave it up to democratic consultation, up to ORDINARY INDIVIDUALS .. to do what CAN be done.

No, you haven't really answered; non-specific statements are not a solution. How do we reduce our capacity to "add to it"?

[Drummond]

By the way, FJ ... I'd never heard of the river you named in your post. Son I googled it.

The Wikipedia entry I found was instructive. From it, I discern what you're up to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River


At least 13 fires have been reported on the Cuyahoga River, the first occurring in 1868. The largest river fire in 1952 caused over $1 million in damage to boats, a bridge, and a riverfront office building. On June 22, 1969, a river fire captured the attention of Time magazine, which described the Cuyahoga as the river that "oozes rather than flows" and in which a person "does not drown but decays". The fire did eventually spark major changes as well as the article from Time, but in the immediate aftermath very little attention was given to the incident and was not considered a major news story in the Cleveland media. Furthermore, the conflagration that sparked Time's outrage was in June 1969, but the pictures they displayed on the cover and as part of the article were from the much more dangerous and costly 1952 fire. No pictures of the 1969 fire are known to exist, as local media did not arrive on the scene until after the fire was under control. The 1969 fire caused approximately $50,000 in damage, mostly to an adjacent railroad bridge ...


The 1969 Cuyahoga River fire helped spur an avalanche of water pollution control activities, resulting in the Clean Water Act, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and the creation of the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). As a result, large point sources of pollution on the Cuyahoga have received significant attention from the OEPA in recent decades. These events are referred to in Randy Newman's 1972 song "Burn On," R.E.M.'s 1986 song "Cuyahoga," and Adam Again's 1992 song "River on Fire." Great Lakes Brewing Company of Cleveland named its Burning River Pale Ale after the event.

So, then ...

1. Pollution has been a significant problem since 1868 ?

2. Only Big Government solutions have had an impact ?

Have they cured the problem, FJ ?


Despite these efforts, pollution continues to exist in the Cuyahoga River due to other sources of pollution, including urban runoff, nonpoint source problems, combined sewer overflows, and stagnation due to water impounded by dams. For this reason, the Environmental Protection Agency classified portions of the Cuyahoga River watershed as one of 43 Great Lakes Areas of Concern.

It would appear NOT.

You obviously introduced that river into discussion to 'show' whatv long-term capitalitic freedoms had done, and that solutions of a Big Government nature had made their impact. BUT, even THAT has not CURED the problems. Which, if Leftie approaches were the solution, surely, IT WOULD HAVE DONE ?

I have to assume that there's something unique about the Cuyahoga river that magnifies, concentrates, any pollution problem. Otherwise, how come even very old-fashioned activities, having nothing to do with today's industrial processes, created a severe problem in the middle of the NINETEENTH century ?

But the fact remains, FJ, that your example was one of considerable, and precedent-setting, BIG GOVERNMENT intervention. Is this your Leftie preaching (done in a covert style) coming to the fore ? Eh, FJ .. ?

[Drummond]

How do we reduce our capacity to "add to it"?

What a giveaway, FJ. Your question bypasses the reality involved pretty much entirely, doesn't it, in favour of the popular propagandist approach ...

On greenhouse gases .. I thought I'd made myself clear. And repeatedly ? But I'll try to yet again. Please PAY ATTENTION.

The greenhouse gas pollutants are in the atmosphere already, and THIS DAMAGE IS DONE. If the Leftie propaganda we hear about it is anywhere near true, then the warming agents in the atmosphere will do their progressive (forgive the word ?) damage in the decades to come.

Reducing further pollution to zero, even IF possible, WOULD NOT STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING.

Now, of course, Conservative education would correct the current propaganda, propaganda which has it that swingeing controls must be made on businesses and pollution processes in order to 'cure' a problem 'not open to being cured'.

But, FJ, you've bypassed that point. WHY ?

[grannyhawkins]

What a giveaway, FJ. Your question bypasses the reality involved pretty much entirely, doesn't it, in favour of the popular propagandist approach ...

On greenhouse gases .. I thought I'd made myself clear. And repeatedly ? But I'll try to yet again. Please PAY ATTENTION.

The greenhouse gas pollutants are in the atmosphere already, and THIS DAMAGE IS DONE. If the Leftie propaganda we hear about it is anywhere near true, then the warming agents in the atmosphere will do their progressive (forgive the word ?) damage in the decades to come.

Reducing further pollution to zero, even IF possible, WOULD NOT STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING.

Now, of course, Conservative education would correct the current propaganda, propaganda which has it that swingeing controls must be made on businesses and pollution processes in order to 'cure' a problem 'not open to being cured'.

But, FJ, you've bypassed that point. WHY ?

I think secretly, that fj1200 would like the USA and Europe to give up their sovereignty an have Ban Ki-moon an the United nations take over the entire world, because we all know that the United Nations has always been so successful with their core mission. Just ask the UN about the safe zone in Sri Lanka, or Bosnia, Kosovo, Cambodia, Haiti, and Mozambique about child sex abuse, or Bosnia about the Srebrenica Massacre, or Cambodia about the Khmer Rouge , or Rwanda and Sudan, about the UN response.

Apparently, those that have a good line a BS, are the types of folks we want makin decisions for us, as we've twice elected a leader in this country with just as weak a line of BS as the UN.

[Drummond]

I think secretly, that fj1200 would like the USA and Europe to give up their sovereignty an have Ban Ki-moon an the United nations take over the entire world, because we all know that the United Nations has always been so successful with their core mission. Just ask the UN about the safe zone in Sri Lanka, or Bosnia, Kosovo, Cambodia, Haiti, and Mozambique about child sex abuse, or Bosnia about the Srebrenica Massacre, or Cambodia about the Khmer Rouge , or Rwanda and Sudan, about the UN response.

Apparently, those that have a good line a BS, are the types of folks we want makin decisions for us, as we've twice elected a leader in this country with just as weak a line of BS as the UN.

Granny, I think you're right !!

FJ professes to be a Conservative, yet, when tested, shows no evidence of being able to think in a non-Leftie way. Globalism is pro-Leftie, and FJ has shown no capacity to absorb thinking / ideas which escape the 'Big Government must decree answers to us all' tripe.

I have answered FJ repeatedly, but he only sees the problem, and terms for a solution, in ways which conform to his way of thinking. That pollution 'IS' the threat big outfits like the UN say it is. That 'Big Solutions' 'MUST' be found, and offered.

And that individual responsibility, as HE HAS ADMITTED, he does not see as the problem -- which ONLY leaves the bigger - authority-dictated - approach to it instead.

FJ, I'll issue another of my challenges which you will duck.

You say you are a Conservative. TRY ANSWERING YOUR OWN QUESTION, THEN, AS A CONSERVATIVE WOULD. WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER TO 'POLLUTION' .. ??

[glockmail]

Go.

Nixon had the right idea when he unilaterally made the EPA. The only problem is that he did it unilaterally, and by doing so, it has become a bureaucracy unchecked.

I started my career as an environmental engineer back in the 70's. Back then pollution was a much bigger problem, and the EPA was actually helpful with research, technology transfer guidance, and the like. But, like any other FedCo program, it grew into its current nightmare.

The conservative solution is to eliminate the EPA as we know it and have Congress develop a replacement. The replacement should be a small agency that develops guidelines and coordinates research. Let the States proceed (as most do now) with their own regulatory agencies.

Stop subsidizing energy "solutions" that don't work, like sloar panels and wind turbines.

Ignore the enviro-nuts after their arguments have been debunked.

Approve the Yucca Mountain nuclear resource storage facility. Stop calling it nuclear waste since the material will be recycled once technology is available to do so.

Stop standing in the way of nuclear power.

[red states rule]

Conservatives don't want an answer to pollution. There want more of it.
Relaxing environmental regulations will lead to more pollution. Additional drilling, fracking, etc. will lead to more pollution.

China and Mexico have few regulations restraining business growth. They also have dirty, unbreathable air.
So which do you want?

Thanks Gabby for telling us the platform of the Republican Party

R's stand for polluting the air and water, killing tens of millions of people, starving millions more, then run for re-election on their accomplishments

All it takes is liberal logic to show the "truth". So what if R's have to breath the same air and drink the same water? Pesky details that really do not matter -right?

As long as America lowers our standard of living, crush the private sector with more regulations and tax the hell out the producers things will get better - eventually

[Drummond]

FJ, I'll issue another of my challenges which you will duck.

You say you are a Conservative. TRY ANSWERING YOUR OWN QUESTION, THEN, AS A CONSERVATIVE WOULD. WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER TO 'POLLUTION' .. ??

No answer to my challenge, FJ ? What a surprise ....

I think that your intention was to throw your question at Conservatives, in the hope that any answers would fail to seem credible or viable. So, naturally, you wouldn't be offering any original Conservative-minded solutions yourself.

Besides -- CAN YOU ? I contend that as you don't think as a Conservative, you are incapable of giving your own such answer. Which explains why you haven't !

Go on, FJ ... try proving me wrong. Go on .....

[tailfins]

No answer to my challenge, FJ ? What a surprise ....

I think that your intention was to throw your question at Conservatives, in the hope that any answers would fail to seem credible or viable. So, naturally, you wouldn't be offering any original Conservative-minded solutions yourself.

Besides -- CAN YOU ? I contend that as you don't think as a Conservative, you are incapable of giving your own such answer. Which explains why you haven't !

Go on, FJ ... try proving me wrong. Go on .....

You're overthinking it. I see that FJ is just bored and wants to generate posts. It's a win-win for Jim if it increases traffic.

[Drummond]

You're overthinking it. I see that FJ is just bored and wants to generate posts. It's a win-win for Jim if it increases traffic.

Regardless of what FJ's precise motivations are in creating posts / threads ... it doesn't detract from the fact that FJ is no Conservative, and posts in order to follow a non-Conservative agenda. This has been illustrated time and again.

But I don't see the problem. If I'm 'misjudging' this character, then he can post in such a way that defends a pro-Conservative mindset. Here, he has an opportunity to do so. Let him prove me wrong, if he can !

[tailfins]

Regardless of what FJ's precise motivations are in creating posts / threads ... it doesn't detract from the fact that FJ is no Conservative, and posts in order to follow a non-Conservative agenda. This has been illustrated time and again.

But I don't see the problem. If I'm 'misjudging' this character, then he can post in such a way that defends a pro-Conservative mindset. Here, he has an opportunity to do so. Let him prove me wrong, if he can !

I will withhold judgement whether or not he's a conservative, but I think he's a Republican. I don't see leftist vocabulary such as "social justice", "collective responsibility", etc. I also don't see any boosting of Obama or predicting how Republicans will destroy the country.

[Drummond]

I will withhold judgement whether or not he's a conservative, but I think he's a Republican. I don't see leftist vocabulary such as "social justice", "collective responsibility", etc. I also don't see any boosting of Obama or predicting how Republicans will destroy the country.

Withhold judgment all you like -- I'm happy with that. For myself, I'm certain of my conclusions.

What's the best way for a propagandist who believes the opposite of what you believe in, to succeed in getting his / her ideas accepted ? Answer ... to prepare the ground to make what's offered as acceptable as possible. Claiming any form of Conservatism that IS NOT TRUE, surely has to be a way. So, you sneak ideas in, 'below the radar ...'

I offer what I see as an example of this, from earlier in this thread -

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?47804-The-Conservative-Solution-to-Pollution&p=716321#post716321

My post had said ..


That, folks, is the key difference - CHOICE. Under Leftieism, you get told what you MUST do, by the State, and you suffer if you disobey. Conservatives treat people with dignity and as adults. Choice exists. Responsibility for one's own life is expected.

However, FJ disagreed (and very clearly said so), with ....


Disagree, it's not choice. Responsibility for one's own life is not the issue, the issue is what responsibility does an individual have for the property of others (or the community) that their choices cause.

So, you tell me. How does 'an individual' exert that much influence ... UNLESS ... it's done on a 'collective responsibility' basis ? Straight dictatorship should, in America, be an untenable answer. FJ - note this - tried to separate the issue of pollution solutions AWAY from consideration of 'one's own life', to immediately widen the scope .. without attempting to consider or suggest any specific context for his thinking.

I suggest this: that FJ's comment was meant to lead thoughts in the direction of indebtedness to communal responsibility (I call it a 'hive mind' psychology, one devaluing the worth of the individual) as the only acceptable approach.

And FJ has yet to offer any pro-Conservative solution of his own.

But, never mind. If I'm wrong, I can be PROVED wrong. FJ is invited (.. & has been, repeatedly ..) to try.

[fj1200]

I think secretly, that fj1200 would like...

Then secrety I think the disease of posting based on your imagination, or worse someone else's imagination, gets the better of actual thought and discussion. Case in point:


Granny, I think you're right !!

FJ professes to be a Conservative, yet, when tested, shows no evidence of being able to think in a non-Leftie way. Globalism is pro-Leftie, and FJ has shown no capacity to absorb thinking / ideas which escape the 'Big Government must decree answers to us all' tripe.

I have answered FJ repeatedly, but he only sees the problem, and terms for a solution, in ways which conform to his way of thinking. That pollution 'IS' the threat big outfits like the UN say it is. That 'Big Solutions' 'MUST' be found, and offered.

And that individual responsibility, as HE HAS ADMITTED, he does not see as the problem -- which ONLY leaves the bigger - authority-dictated - approach to it instead.

FJ, I'll issue another of my challenges which you will duck.

You say you are a Conservative. TRY ANSWERING YOUR OWN QUESTION, THEN, AS A CONSERVATIVE WOULD. WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER TO 'POLLUTION' .. ??

Given that I haven't really proposed a solution yet. ;)

[fj1200]

By the way, FJ ... I'd never heard of the river you named in your post. Son I googled it.

The Wikipedia entry I found was instructive. From it, I discern what you're up to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River

So, then ...

1. Pollution has been a significant problem since 1868 ?

2. Only Big Government solutions have had an impact ?

Have they cured the problem, FJ ?

It would appear NOT.

You obviously introduced that river into discussion to 'show' whatv long-term capitalitic freedoms had done, and that solutions of a Big Government nature had made their impact. BUT, even THAT has not CURED the problems. Which, if Leftie approaches were the solution, surely, IT WOULD HAVE DONE ?

I have to assume that there's something unique about the Cuyahoga river that magnifies, concentrates, any pollution problem. Otherwise, how come even very old-fashioned activities, having nothing to do with today's industrial processes, created a severe problem in the middle of the NINETEENTH century ?

But the fact remains, FJ, that your example was one of considerable, and precedent-setting, BIG GOVERNMENT intervention. Is this your Leftie preaching (done in a covert style) coming to the fore ? Eh, FJ .. ?

You googled it? Good, a glimmer of thought.

1. Pollution has been a significant problem since much longer than 1868
2. I don't know if "only big government" is to credit.
3. Have they cured the problem? The river doesn't catch on fire anymore but there Lake Erie does have other issues; an algae bloom caused by agricultural runoff IIRC.

And no, don't try to assume why I "obviously" introduced that river. Whether or not "BIG GOVERNMENT intervention" was responsible for cleaning it is not the issue, the issue if you'll keep up is what is the conservative solution to pollution?


What a giveaway, FJ. Your question bypasses the reality involved pretty much entirely, doesn't it, in favour of the popular propagandist approach ...

On greenhouse gases .. I thought I'd made myself clear. And repeatedly ? But I'll try to yet again. Please PAY ATTENTION.

The greenhouse gas pollutants are in the atmosphere already, and THIS DAMAGE IS DONE. If the Leftie propaganda we hear about it is anywhere near true, then the warming agents in the atmosphere will do their progressive (forgive the word ?) damage in the decades to come.

Reducing further pollution to zero, even IF possible, WOULD NOT STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING.

Now, of course, Conservative education would correct the current propaganda, propaganda which has it that swingeing controls must be made on businesses and pollution processes in order to 'cure' a problem 'not open to being cured'.

But, FJ, you've bypassed that point. WHY ?

Why are you only able to fall to your leftie crutch to answer questions? I'm asking for the conservative solution to pollution which should be possible to discuss without your imagination infecting yet another thread. As I've repeatedly told you education is not a solution; education is a matter of awareness. Solutions should be generated from there. So, do you have one?

[fj1200]

Nixon had the right idea when he unilaterally made the EPA. The only problem is that he did it unilaterally, and by doing so, it has become a bureaucracy unchecked.

I started my career as an environmental engineer back in the 70's. Back then pollution was a much bigger problem, and the EPA was actually helpful with research, technology transfer guidance, and the like. But, like any other FedCo program, it grew into its current nightmare.

The conservative solution is to eliminate the EPA as we know it and have Congress develop a replacement. The replacement should be a small agency that develops guidelines and coordinates research. Let the States proceed (as most do now) with their own regulatory agencies.

Stop subsidizing energy "solutions" that don't work, like sloar panels and wind turbines.

Ignore the enviro-nuts after their arguments have been debunked.

Approve the Yucca Mountain nuclear resource storage facility. Stop calling it nuclear waste since the material will be recycled once technology is available to do so.

Stop standing in the way of nuclear power.

I don't really disagree with any of that. Unilaterally or not I think we'd get to the same point of a government bureaucracy just like everything else. I also don't think any replacement would be much different than what it grew into.


No answer to my challenge, FJ ? What a surprise ....

I think that your intention was to throw your question at Conservatives, in the hope that any answers would fail to seem credible or viable. So, naturally, you wouldn't be offering any original Conservative-minded solutions yourself.

Besides -- CAN YOU ? I contend that as you don't think as a Conservative, you are incapable of giving your own such answer. Which explains why you haven't !

Go on, FJ ... try proving me wrong. Go on .....

Just letting the discussion proceed. :) Although I won't say any solution that I have is groundbreaking.

[glockmail]

I don't really disagree with any of that. Unilaterally or not I think we'd get to the same point of a government bureaucracy just like everything else. I also don't think any replacement would be much different than what it grew into.

It is far easier to fix a state bureaucracy than a federal one.

[grannyhawkins]

Then secrety I think the disease of posting based on your imagination, or worse someone else's imagination, gets the better of actual thought and discussion. Case in point:



Given that I haven't really proposed a solution yet. ;)

That is the MO of progressive librawls!!!

They cain't think for themselves thus are always connivin ta get the other side to commit ta somethin or another and then they just go all 180 degrees on whatever the right thinks and they figure that's got to be the solution. :laugh:

The first step in the healin process, is admittin you have a problem!!!

[Drummond]

Then secrety I think the disease of posting based on your imagination, or worse someone else's imagination, gets the better of actual thought and discussion.

Well, now, FJ. I see you've found ANOTHER Conservative to attack ?

... because .. 'you are one, yourself' .. ?


Given that I haven't really proposed a solution yet. ;)

Quite !

I refer you to my recent posts on this. You've been challenged repeatedly to propose your own Conservative solution(s) - not least to prove that you're capable of not only identifying with a Conservative way of thinking, but can show evidence of it in your own thoughts. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CONTINUE TO DUCK.

Of course you do.

QED, & all that. And 'congratulations' on adding to your tally of Conservatives to attack on this forum - it's getting to be quite a total, isn't it, FJ ?

[Drummond]

That is the MO of progressive librawls!!!

They cain't think for themselves thus are always connivin ta get the other side to commit ta somethin or another and then they just go all 180 degrees on whatever the right thinks and they figure that's got to be the solution. :laugh:

The first step in the healin process, is admittin you have a problem!!!

Sad to say, Granny, that I don't think FJ will ever do that. He has his agenda. He's not likely to deviate from it.

[Drummond]

Why are you only able to fall to your leftie crutch to answer questions? I'm asking for the conservative solution to pollution which should be possible to discuss without your imagination infecting yet another thread. As I've repeatedly told you education is not a solution; education is a matter of awareness. Solutions should be generated from there. So, do you have one?

Do YOU ?

Education LEADS to a solution. Consider cigarette smoking. We all, today, know of the dangers to health it poses. So, THROUGH EDUCATION, people learn either not to smoke, or to take steps to cease. Education, as you said (if a little inadequately), 'is a matter of awareness', but from it, solutions can be readily apparent, therefore 'doable'.

Are you telling me that nothing comparable is possible in the case of pollution ?

You've already dismissed - bafflingly so, if 'you're a Conservative' - the notion that dealing with it is or can be a matter of personal responsibility. Now, you dismiss the idea that education is of itself any sort of solution. Why ? Are you waiting for some State authority figure to come along and dictate solutions to you, that you're required to obey ?

The more people are educated, the more they can choose to cease to pollute. Word can spread. Instead of being made to do things against their will, they can choose their own actions. Throwing away fewer plastic bags, say, and reusing them repeatedly. Or, a business can be educated about any harmful actions it's taking and find its own way of coping, consistent with the maintenance of productivity.

The Leftie way would be one of compulsion, and of exercising power against businesses which may cripple their productivity and ability to expand and prosper.

I'm losing count of the number of times I've asked you, but here's one more for you ... FJ, WHAT CONSERVATIVE SOLUTIONS DO YOU HAVE TO OFFER YOURSELF ?

Want to duck this one, as well .. ?

[Drummond]

... Although I won't say any solution that I have is groundbreaking.

I won't say that you have one AT ALL, until you offer it !!!

[tailfins]

Do YOU ?

Consider cigarette smoking.


I did, but it made me sick. That's not very good advice. :smoke:

[red states rule]

I won't say that you have one AT ALL, until you offer it !!!

Drummond, it is clear DP has its own version of Professor Jonathan Gruber in FU. He considers himself the smartest man in the room, talks in circles, ignores facts that go against his posts, edits other peoples posts, and insults those who offer up a different opinion

The DP community has indeed been Gruberized by FU

[aboutime]

The One, and Only Groundbreaking solution IMO would be SIX FEET DEEP after the groundbreaking.

Like Lawyers. I love them all deeply. SIX FEET deeply.

[fj1200]

Regardless of what FJ's precise motivations are in creating posts / threads ... it doesn't detract from the fact that FJ is no Conservative, and posts in order to follow a non-Conservative agenda. This has been illustrated time and again.

But I don't see the problem. If I'm 'misjudging' this character, then he can post in such a way that defends a pro-Conservative mindset. Here, he has an opportunity to do so. Let him prove me wrong, if he can !

:facepalm99: I've proven what you are yet again in this thread. You've been unable to discuss the topic and can only blather on about lefties. I've been trying to keep it on track but you are determined to drag it away from the topic. :shrug:


Withhold judgment all you like -- I'm happy with that. For myself, I'm certain of my conclusions.

What's the best way for a propagandist who believes the opposite of what you believe in, to succeed in getting his / her ideas accepted ? Answer ... to prepare the ground to make what's offered as acceptable as possible. Claiming any form of Conservatism that IS NOT TRUE, surely has to be a way. So, you sneak ideas in, 'below the radar ...'

I offer what I see as an example of this, from earlier in this thread -

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?47804-The-Conservative-Solution-to-Pollution&p=716321#post716321

My post had said ..

However, FJ disagreed (and very clearly said so), with ....

So, you tell me. How does 'an individual' exert that much influence ... UNLESS ... it's done on a 'collective responsibility' basis ? Straight dictatorship should, in America, be an untenable answer. FJ - note this - tried to separate the issue of pollution solutions AWAY from consideration of 'one's own life', to immediately widen the scope .. without attempting to consider or suggest any specific context for his thinking.

I suggest this: that FJ's comment was meant to lead thoughts in the direction of indebtedness to communal responsibility (I call it a 'hive mind' psychology, one devaluing the worth of the individual) as the only acceptable approach.

And FJ has yet to offer any pro-Conservative solution of his own.

But, never mind. If I'm wrong, I can be PROVED wrong. FJ is invited (.. & has been, repeatedly ..) to try.

Prove you wrong? again? OK, though I know you can't admit it like when you tried, and failed, to claim something about my abortion position. I proved you wrong and you are unwilling to admit how wrong you were. That thread still awaits your answer.

Anyway, have you answered this question yet?


Why should you be given a choice on whether to violate my property rights?

At what point did I claim that "any form of Conservatism is not true"?

[fj1200]

It is far easier to fix a state bureaucracy than a federal one.

No doubt.


That is the MO of progressive librawls!!!

They cain't think for themselves thus are always connivin ta get the other side to commit ta somethin or another and then they just go all 180 degrees on whatever the right thinks and they figure that's got to be the solution. :laugh:

The first step in the healin process, is admittin you have a problem!!!

Yeah, those liberals suck.


Well, now, FJ. I see you've found ANOTHER Conservative to attack ?

...

QED, & all that. And 'congratulations' on adding to your tally of Conservatives to attack on this forum - it's getting to be quite a total, isn't it, FJ ?

That was an attack? Oh my, the humanity. :rolleyes: Please show me examples of where I "attack" conservatives.

[fj1200]

Drummond, it is clear DP has its own version of Professor Jonathan Gruber in FU. He considers himself the smartest man in the room, talks in circles, ignores facts that go against his posts, edits other peoples posts, and insults those who offer up a different opinion

The DP community has indeed been Gruberized by FU

Is this the point where you run away like a little girl?


I won't say that you have one AT ALL, until you offer it !!!

I have yet to see your plan as well. Education and choice don't count.


Do YOU ?

Education LEADS to a solution. Consider cigarette smoking. We all, today, know of the dangers to health it poses. So, THROUGH EDUCATION, people learn either not to smoke, or to take steps to cease. Education, as you said (if a little inadequately), 'is a matter of awareness', but from it, solutions can be readily apparent, therefore 'doable'.

Are you telling me that nothing comparable is possible in the case of pollution ?

You've already dismissed - bafflingly so, if 'you're a Conservative' - the notion that dealing with it is or can be a matter of personal responsibility. Now, you dismiss the idea that education is of itself any sort of solution. Why ? Are you waiting for some State authority figure to come along and dictate solutions to you, that you're required to obey ?

The more people are educated, the more they can choose to cease to pollute. Word can spread. Instead of being made to do things against their will, they can choose their own actions. Throwing away fewer plastic bags, say, and reusing them repeatedly. Or, a business can be educated about any harmful actions it's taking and find its own way of coping, consistent with the maintenance of productivity.

The Leftie way would be one of compulsion, and of exercising power against businesses which may cripple their productivity and ability to expand and prosper.

I'm losing count of the number of times I've asked you, but here's one more for you ... FJ, WHAT CONSERVATIVE SOLUTIONS DO YOU HAVE TO OFFER YOURSELF ?

Want to duck this one, as well .. ?

I don't dismiss education, that's how people will understand the changes that need to be made; it's just not a solution. I asked you a question about the personal responsibility "approach." Why do you get the choice to violate my property rights?

I do have a question though; why are you granting government the power to allow business to violate the property rights of others? It's possible that the business wouldn't care or wouldn't believe anyone telling them that they're causing harm. Or they could take the position that they can't maintain productivity and make the necessary changes.

[Drummond]

:facepalm99: I've proven what you are yet again in this thread. You've been unable to discuss the topic and can only blather on about lefties. I've been trying to keep it on track but you are determined to drag it away from the topic. :shrug:

Exactly the opposite is true. I've asked you AGAIN and AGAIN for your own solution to pollution. One reflecting a Conservative mindset. But NONE IS FORTHCOMING ... STILL.

You're just copping out. AGAIN. You know you can't do it. But you can't be honest enough to admit it.


Prove you wrong? again? OK, though I know you can't admit it like when you tried, and failed, to claim something about my abortion position. I proved you wrong and you are unwilling to admit how wrong you were. That thread still awaits your answer.

Ok, then. State what your position is. Are your views committed to opposing it ? YES or NO ..


At what point did I claim that "any form of Conservatism is not true"?

.. eh ?

[Drummond]

That was an attack? Oh my, the humanity. :rolleyes: Please show me examples of where I "attack" conservatives.

A long time ago, I posted a list of all the attacking comments you'd posted just against me.

It was an especially long list ..

.... and that was a long time ago .. and just against a single individual.

Other Conservatives here are well aware that you attack them here as well. To in any way claim you don't, is ludicrous in the extreme.

Why bother suggesting that you are innocent of such a charge, when you well know that there are many here who know better ?

Are you delusional ?:tinfoil:

[fj1200]

How an unlikely mix of environmentalists and free-market conservatives hammered out the strategy known as cap-and-trade (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/air/the-political-history-of-cap-and-trade-34711212/?no-ist)


People now call that system "cap-and-trade." But back then the term of art was "emissions trading," though some people called it "morally bankrupt" or even "a license to kill." For a strange alliance of free-market Republicans and renegade environmentalists, it represented a novel approach to cleaning up the world—by working with human nature instead of against it.Despite powerful resistance, these allies got the system adopted as national law in 1990, to control the power-plant pollutants that cause acid rain. With the help of federal bureaucrats willing to violate the cardinal rule of bureaucracy—by surrendering regulatory power to the marketplace—emissions trading would become one of the most spectacular success stories in the history of the green movement. Congress is now considering whether to expand the system to cover the carbon dioxide emissions implicated in climate change—a move that would touch the lives of almost every American. So it's worth looking back at how such a radical idea first got translated into action, and what made it work.
The problem in the 1980s was that American power plants were sending up vast clouds of sulfur dioxide, which was falling back to earth in the form of acid rain, damaging lakes, forests and buildings across eastern Canada and the United States. The squabble about how to fix this problem had dragged on for years. Most environmentalists were pushing a "command-and-control" approach, with federal officials requiring utilities to install scrubbers capable of removing the sulfur dioxide from power-plant exhausts. The utility companies countered that the cost of such an approach would send them back to the Dark Ages. By the end of the Reagan administration, Congress had put forward and slapped down 70 different acid rain bills, and frustration ran so deep that Canada's prime minister bleakly joked about declaring war on the United States.
...

The theory had been brewing for decades, beginning with early 20th-century British economist Arthur Cecil Pigou. He argued that transactions can have effects that don't show up in the price of a product. A careless manufacturer spewing noxious chemicals into the air, for instance, did not have to pay when the paint peeled off houses downwind—and neither did the consumer of the resulting product. Pigou proposed making the manufacturer and customer foot the bill for these unacknowledged costs—"internalizing the externalities," in the cryptic language of the dismal science. But nobody much liked Pigou's means of doing it, by having regulators impose taxes and fees. In 1968, while studying pollution control in the Great Lakes, University of Toronto economist John Dales hit on a way for the costs to be paid with minimal government intervention, by using tradable permits or allowances.The basic premise of cap-and-trade is that government doesn't tell polluters how to clean up their act. Instead, it simply imposes a cap on emissions. Each company starts the year with a certain number of tons allowed—a so-called right to pollute. The company decides how to use its allowance; it might restrict output, or switch to a cleaner fuel, or buy a scrubber to cut emissions. If it doesn't use up its allowance, it might then sell what it no longer needs. Then again, it might have to buy extra allowances on the open market. Each year, the cap ratchets down, and the shrinking pool of allowances gets costlier. As in a game of musical chairs, polluters must scramble to match allowances to emissions.
...
Near the end of the intramural debate over the policy, one critical change took place. The EPA's previous experiments with emissions trading had faltered because they relied on a complicated system of permits and credits requiring frequent regulatory intervention. Sometime in the spring of 1989, a career EPA policy maker named Brian McLean proposed letting the market operate on its own. Get rid of all that bureaucratic apparatus, he suggested. Just measure emissions rigorously, with a device mounted on the back end of every power plant, and then make sure emissions numbers match up with allowances at the end of the year. It would be simple and provide unprecedented accountability. But it would also "radically disempower the regulators," says EDF's Joe Goffman, "and for McLean to come up with that idea and become a champion for it was heroic." Emissions trading became law as part of the Clean Air Act of 1990.
...
Almost 20 years since the signing of the Clean Air Act of 1990, the cap-and-trade system continues to let polluters figure out the least expensive way to reduce their acid rain emissions. As a result, the law costs utilities just $3 billion annually, not $25 billion, according to a recent study in the Journal of Environmental Management; by cutting acid rain in half, it also generates an estimated $122 billion a year in benefits from avoided death and illness, healthier lakes and forests, and improved visibility on the Eastern Seaboard. (Better relations with Canada? Priceless.)
No one knows whether the United States can apply the system as successfully to the much larger problem of global warming emissions, or at what cost to the economy. Following the American example with acid rain, Europe now relies on cap-and-trade to help about 10,000 large industrial plants find the most economical way of reducing their global warming emissions. If Congress approves such a system in this country—the House had approved the legislation as we went to press—it could set emissions limits on every fossil-fuel power plant and every manufacturer in the nation. Consumers might also pay more to heat and cool their homes and drive their cars—all with the goal of reducing global warming emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels over the next ten years.

[fj1200]

Exactly the opposite is true. I've asked you AGAIN and AGAIN for your own solution to pollution. One reflecting a Conservative mindset. But NONE IS FORTHCOMING ... STILL.

You're just copping out. AGAIN. You know you can't do it. But you can't be honest enough to admit it.

Ok, then. State what your position is. Are your views committed to opposing it ? YES or NO ..

.. eh ?

As I said there's another thread awaiting your admitting being wrong. And I'm sure those who think I "attack" them can inform me of their being offended. :) Oh, and you haven't answered my question.


A long time ago, I posted a list of all the attacking comments you'd posted just against me.

You're not a conservative. You defend big government.

[fj1200]

The Libertarian Manifesto on Pollution (http://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto-pollution)

Robert Poole cogently defines pollution "as the transfer of harmful matter or energy to the person or property of another, without the latter's consent."8 (http://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto-pollution#footnote8_jnrnt0f) The libertarian — and the only complete — solution to the problem of air pollution is to use the courts and the legal structure to combat and prevent such invasion. There are recent signs that the legal system is beginning to change in this direction: new judicial decisions and repeal of laws disallowing class action suits. But this is only a beginning.9 (http://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto-pollution#footnote9_tn0m8z8)Among conservatives — in contrast to libertarians — there are two ultimately similar responses to the problem of air pollution. One response, by Ayn Rand and Robert Moses among others, is to deny that the problem exists, and to attribute the entire agitation to leftists who want to destroy capitalism and technology on behalf of a tribal form of socialism. While part of this charge may be correct, denial of the very existence of the problem is to deny science itself and to give a vital hostage to the leftist charge that defenders of capitalism "place property rights above human rights." Moreover, a defense of air pollution does not even defend property rights; on the contrary, it puts these conservatives' stamp of approval on those industrialists who are trampling upon the property rights of the mass of the citizenry.
A second, and more sophisticated, conservative response is by such free-market economists as Milton Friedman. The Friedmanites concede the existence of air pollution but propose to meet it, not by a defense of property rights, but rather by a supposedly utilitarian "cost-benefit" calculation by government, which will then make and enforce a "social decision" on how much pollution to allow. This decision would then be enforced either by licensing a given amount of pollution (the granting of "pollution rights"), by a graded scale of taxes against it, or by the taxpayers paying firms not to pollute. Not only would these proposals grant an enormous amount of bureaucratic power to government in the name of safeguarding the "free market"; they would continue to override property rights in the name of a collective decision enforced by the State. This is far from any genuine "free market," and reveals that, as in many other economic areas, it is impossible to really defend freedom and the free market without insisting on defending the rights of private property. Friedman's grotesque dictum that those urban inhabitants who don't wish to contract emphysema should move to the country is starkly reminiscent of Marie Antoinette's famous "Let them eat cake" — and reveals a lack of sensitivity to human or property rights. Friedman's statement, in fact, is of a piece with the typically conservative, "If you don't like it here, leave," a statement that implies that the government rightly owns the entire land area of "here," and that anyone who objects to its rule must therefore leave the area.

[Drummond]

Is this the point where you run away like a little girl?

Remember, FJ. You ... 'don't attack Conservatives' .... :cuckoo:


I have yet to see your plan as well. Education and choice don't count.

.. just as I have yet to see anything at all from you on the subject that was clearly a solution a Conservative mind would've produced.

... or just any solution at all ...


I don't dismiss education, that's how people will understand the changes that need to be made; it's just not a solution. I asked you a question about the personal responsibility "approach."

You clearly have a problem with such a subject being addressed to any measure by 'personal responsibility'

.. well, yes. Any Leftie, WOULD.

And you do dismiss education. I've already shown you how education can be the spur to doing the obvious and coming up with a solution .. AND through personal responsibility ! That example was people being educated to stop smoking. Education on the subject leads all too often to the obvious solution being applied .. and in circumstances where it would NOT have been applied otherwise.

Plastic bags ... pollution landfill issues. Educate people to re-use them time and time again, and far fewer such bags are then disposed of. Education, AGAIN, leading to an obvious solution, and AGAIN via personal responsibility being taken.


I do have a question though; why are you granting government the power to allow business to violate the property rights of others? It's possible that the business wouldn't care or wouldn't believe anyone telling them that they're causing harm. Or they could take the position that they can't maintain productivity and make the necessary changes.

I see where your arguments are leading, because .. adding it all up .. you can only be leading to one specific approach. That of big, overpowering authorities DICTATING WHAT PEOPLE MUST DO.

It explains your rejection of the power of education. Why educate, if dictatorship is preferred ?

It explains your last comment, about businesses 'not believing' 'anyone telling them they're causing harm'. How do you address what in any case is unsupported supposition on your part (injected into the debate to push it in your preferred direction) ? You have authorities DICTATE TO THEM WHAT THEY MUST DO.

Yes, FJ. You're inexorably steering this towards a LEFTIE approach to solution-making.

AREN'T YOU ??

Prove me wrong. Show me instead your CONSERVATIVE solution(s). Stop ducking it !!!

[fj1200]

I see where your arguments are leading,

No, you really don't. Anything on topic?

[Drummond]

The Libertarian Manifesto on Pollution (http://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto-pollution)


Are you aware that Libertarianism is seen to be Left wing in my part of the world ?

I've just skimmed your copy & paste effort (.. the sort of exercise you usually deride ME for undertaking). From what I've seen, I think we've got it right.

So, FJ. Are you, finally, ADMITTING your Left wing bona fides ? Because it's about time !!!!!!

[fj1200]

Are you aware that Libertarianism is seen to be Left wing in my part of the world ?

I've just skimmed your copy & paste effort (.. the sort of exercise you usually deride ME for undertaking). From what I've seen, I think we've got it right.

So, FJ. Are you, finally, ADMITTING your Left wing bona fides ? Because it's about time !!!!!!

:rolleyes: If you can show how Libertarians over there are the same as Libertarians over here then you might have a point but over here Libertarians are dedicated to the principles of life, liberty, and property. You should try and read without the use of your imagination and preconceived, and wrong BTW, notions for once.

When will you answer my question?

[Drummond]

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081009032008AAYGvLI


Q:What uk party mostly fits my left wing libertarian beliefs?

A: (1) Currently, the Liberal Democrats would be the best option for you.

The Lib Dems have made some good grounds in recent years, and took some of the big surprises in the last couple of Elections. They are still a long way off from ever getting into government, but it could be done.

A: (2) You could also consider the Socialist Party or the Campaign for a New Workers' Party, if the socialist party are too left wing for you.

[Drummond]

:rolleyes: If you can show how Libertarians over there are the same as Libertarians over here then you might have a point but over here Libertarians are dedicated to the principles of life, liberty, and property. You should try and read without the use of your imagination and preconceived, and wrong BTW, notions for once.

When will you answer my question?

Oh, so, Libertarians 'change', according to where they are ?

Dream on ...

Besides, you've already claimed to be a Thatcherite (Margaret was NOT a Libertarian Leader !!). Now, you're trying to sneak a change in claimed bona fides past us ?

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2013/04/margaret-thatcher-compassionate-conservative-not-a-libertarian-2.html



Margaret Thatcher, Compassionate Conservative – not a libertarian
No, FJ ... YOU try answering MY question. Instead of finding interminable ways of copping out ...

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to finally answer.

[aboutime]

FJ. Who the F died and left you here to think only you are able to be correct, all the time? Are you Al Sharpton's brother, uncle, or Dad? Cause you remind me of Al, brainless, and convinced that you alone are able to incite mutual stupidity by your words.

[red states rule]

FJ. Who the F died and left you here to think only you are able to be correct, all the time? Are you Al Sharpton's brother, uncle, or Dad? Cause you remind me of Al, brainless, and convinced that you alone are able to incite mutual stupidity by your words.

Reading FU's posts is like watching Prof Gruber bellow. We now have Prof. FU Gruber enlightening us on how we should speak, think, and behave. I swear they are two peas in a pod


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adrdmmh7bMo

[DragonStryk72]

Oh sure, why not?

Okay, first and foremost, we have to understand that we can be proactive, and still act in a conservative manner. A healthier ecosystem, after all, is good for everyone.

There are several approachs

1: Education. This part is already well underway, but there's a problem of "are we teaching the right things?"

A wonderful example of this is when it was shown that return to older schools of dairy farming actually had a larger impact
on lowering carbon levels. How? Pretty simple, the cows were out in the fields, and would of course shit a ton or two, but
with rotation, the cows would then ground the fertilizer into the ground, and move on to other pasture-land. The grass would
then get time to rest, while the herd repeated the process in another field. With time to rest and regrow, the nutrients
returned, and the grass was capable of draining more of the carbon out of the air.

2: Conservation: Conserving our ecosystems is extremely important. Nowhere was this more evident than at Yellowstone, where the reintroduction of wolves into the ecosystem quickly turned around the failing ecosystem. The wolves hunted the deer, who no longer ate away all the vegetation from the smaller herbivores, and they began to migrate according to the packs rules. As the overgrazed land got a break, it healed, leading to cleaner water in the rivers as the impurities were taken out. Beavers came back in force, creating dams, and improving the flow of the rivers, further improving growth. All of that for the presence of a single predator.

3: Technology: We're at a stage where hydrogen cars are becoming a reality, and even roadways that are also solar power generators, and can collect stormwater runoff in them. The big key here is investing in that infrastructure in a way that creates opportunities. There's no reason we can't improve the environment.

4. End Farm Subsidies: Not kidding, this is idiotic and extremely unhelpful. The problem becomes that whatever the government wants at the time gets hugely overfarmed, until there's a shortage of something else, and we overfarm the shit outta that. It's not good for the soil, and creates a systemic problem of relaying fields, as well as wasting a ton of resources. Free up farmers to have more diverse crops, and you'll see a definite improvement in local environments.

5: End HOAs: One of the most common things HOAs require is a specific kind of grass. I know, I know, it sounds stupid, but hear me out. Grass isn't supposed to be a monoculture, some of it IS supposed to be brown during periods of less water, and have different types of grass occupying the same area. This is why the home with the most diverse things growing tend to also be the healthiest lawns. monocultures are always horrible for the environment, period. HOAs don't consider this, however, they just want "curb appeal", which is a fancy term for "We want to tell you how your home, that we pay nothing on, is supposed to look."

6. The EPA: Perversely, one of the things holding us BACK, is the very institution that's supposed to be protecting the environment. How many times have we heard about them having idiotic regulations that are beyond outdated, and enforcing them in a haphazard, but bizarrely rigid manner (Remember when they were declaring places at "wetlands" that weren't on the wetlands registry at all?)? And now, they have an armed division, yeah, cause that was such a brilliant move. Sure, they do stop some actual abuses, but when was the last time that happened? Mostly, the states have their own environmental offices that take care of issues, or just call the cops.

7. Other Countries: Face it, we're pretty clean. It's why we run into issues in many non-European countries when we visit. We have almost constant access to recycling programs, santizers, etc.. Especially in places like India, and China, where they have far larger populations, at higher densities than we do, the pollution issues grow tremendously. Working with them to improve that is an enormous step, and requires little more than showing them what we've already learned.

[Drummond]

The Libertarian Manifesto on Pollution (http://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto-pollution)

Revisiting your Leftie Libertarian stuff, FJ ... I've read it in a bit more detail. I think (I'm sure) the portions of it which suggest a greater degree of compulsion as coming from CONSERVATIVES is misrepresentative of the truth of us. But, regardless ...

So, reposting the 'especially' contentious bit ..


Robert Poole cogently defines pollution "as the transfer of harmful matter or energy to the person or property of another, without the latter's consent." The libertarian — and the only complete — solution to the problem of air pollution is to use the courts and the legal structure to combat and prevent such invasion

I'm fascinated by that. It's actually insane !! Air pollution involves a multitude of issues. For example, the Left (e.g the BBC, and seemingly incessantly so ... I'm sure you have American equivalents) would insist that greenhouse gases are increasing the warming of the planet .. and that more violent weather will be the result .. more gales, more hurricanes, more flooding incidents.

Now, try using 'the courts' and 'the legal structure' to legislate against THAT !!

Consider Chernobyl. Even as far away as the UK, radiation fallout polluted our air. We spent almost a week sitting under a radioactive air mass that raised background radiation to between 4-5 times its normal level (we were told that such exposure lasting a year would've caused a public health emergency). Tell me, would 'court action' have solved that one ?!?

So it seems to me that Libertarians would seek authoritarian answers which THEY KNOW ARE USELESS .. and why ? For authoritarianism's OWN SAKE ???

Very Leftie INDEED, FJ ... !! ....

And I fail to see how you can say it wouldn't be applied that way. Your quote's wording says, I repeat ....


the only complete solution to the problem of air pollution is to use the courts and the legal structure to combat and prevent such invasion.

THE ONLY COMPLETE SOLUTION.

Says it all.

Libertarians and the Left share the same control freakery issues which define them both.

.... NUTTERS ....

[fj1200]

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081009032008AAYGvLI

:dunno:


Oh, so...

This thread is about the conservative solution to pollution; anything to add?

[fj1200]

:blah:

A banana and a little girl talked at each other; did anyone care?

[fj1200]

I'm fascinated by that. It's actually insane !! Air pollution involves a multitude of issues. For example, the Left (e.g the BBC, and seemingly incessantly so ... I'm sure you have American equivalents) would insist that greenhouse gases are increasing the warming of the planet .. and that more violent weather will be the result .. more gales, more hurricanes, more flooding incidents.

Now, try using 'the courts' and 'the legal structure' to legislate against THAT !!

Consider Chernobyl. Even as far away as the UK, radiation fallout polluted our air. We spent almost a week sitting under a radioactive air mass that raised background radiation to between 4-5 times its normal level (we were told that such exposure lasting a year would've caused a public health emergency). Tell me, would 'court action' have solved that one ?!?And I fail to see how you can say it wouldn't be applied that way. Your quote's wording says, I repeat ....

It's not often that someone attempts to tie Austrian school economists like Mises and Hayek to the left wing but not everyone has the imagination that you do. :shrug:

The courts are established to adjudicate conflicts including between private individuals, among others. Nevertheless the piece was about property rights and you have so far failed to answer my question; why should you be able to choose to violate my property rights?

Also, why have you ignored my other link?

[fj1200]

Oh sure, why not?

Okay, first and foremost, we have to understand that we can be proactive, and still act in a conservative manner. A healthier ecosystem, after all, is good for everyone.

There are several approachs

1: Education. This part is already well underway, but there's a problem of "are we teaching the right things?"

A wonderful example of this is when it was shown that return to older schools of dairy farming actually had a larger impact
on lowering carbon levels. How? Pretty simple, the cows were out in the fields, and would of course shit a ton or two, but
with rotation, the cows would then ground the fertilizer into the ground, and move on to other pasture-land. The grass would
then get time to rest, while the herd repeated the process in another field. With time to rest and regrow, the nutrients
returned, and the grass was capable of draining more of the carbon out of the air.

2: Conservation: Conserving our ecosystems is extremely important. Nowhere was this more evident than at Yellowstone, where the reintroduction of wolves into the ecosystem quickly turned around the failing ecosystem. The wolves hunted the deer, who no longer ate away all the vegetation from the smaller herbivores, and they began to migrate according to the packs rules. As the overgrazed land got a break, it healed, leading to cleaner water in the rivers as the impurities were taken out. Beavers came back in force, creating dams, and improving the flow of the rivers, further improving growth. All of that for the presence of a single predator.

3: Technology: We're at a stage where hydrogen cars are becoming a reality, and even roadways that are also solar power generators, and can collect stormwater runoff in them. The big key here is investing in that infrastructure in a way that creates opportunities. There's no reason we can't improve the environment.

4. End Farm Subsidies: Not kidding, this is idiotic and extremely unhelpful. The problem becomes that whatever the government wants at the time gets hugely overfarmed, until there's a shortage of something else, and we overfarm the shit outta that. It's not good for the soil, and creates a systemic problem of relaying fields, as well as wasting a ton of resources. Free up farmers to have more diverse crops, and you'll see a definite improvement in local environments.

5: End HOAs: One of the most common things HOAs require is a specific kind of grass. I know, I know, it sounds stupid, but hear me out. Grass isn't supposed to be a monoculture, some of it IS supposed to be brown during periods of less water, and have different types of grass occupying the same area. This is why the home with the most diverse things growing tend to also be the healthiest lawns. monocultures are always horrible for the environment, period. HOAs don't consider this, however, they just want "curb appeal", which is a fancy term for "We want to tell you how your home, that we pay nothing on, is supposed to look."

6. The EPA: Perversely, one of the things holding us BACK, is the very institution that's supposed to be protecting the environment. How many times have we heard about them having idiotic regulations that are beyond outdated, and enforcing them in a haphazard, but bizarrely rigid manner (Remember when they were declaring places at "wetlands" that weren't on the wetlands registry at all?)? And now, they have an armed division, yeah, cause that was such a brilliant move. Sure, they do stop some actual abuses, but when was the last time that happened? Mostly, the states have their own environmental offices that take care of issues, or just call the cops.

7. Other Countries: Face it, we're pretty clean. It's why we run into issues in many non-European countries when we visit. We have almost constant access to recycling programs, santizers, etc.. Especially in places like India, and China, where they have far larger populations, at higher densities than we do, the pollution issues grow tremendously. Working with them to improve that is an enormous step, and requires little more than showing them what we've already learned.

Awesome post. I'm glad someone finally took the time to put some thought into it. You make great points how in many cases government is what causes pollution to become worse while so many think that government is the automatic solution. It's clearly not. Your Yellowstone example was brilliant, I remember reading about the Aspen trees also making a comeback when they reintroduced wolves. That's the kind of thing that bureaucratic diktat would never see, they don't have the ability to know all factors inherent to any system. For that very reason the best type of conservative solution is going to involve the markets because only market driven solutions rely on new ways of thinking and new technologies to address problems.

[Drummond]

:dunno:

Not exactly a 'convincing' response. Since you've no better answer, I must take it that you're conceding the value of my post.

This is understandable ..


This thread is about the conservative solution to pollution; anything to add?

Ahem ! That has been MY question to YOU. Repeated so many times that I'm getting tired of asking.

If you cannot produce Conservative thinking on the subject, why not just ADMIT that you're incapable of doing so, and move on !!

[Drummond]

Awesome post. I'm glad someone finally took the time to put some thought into it.

Excellent !

The first point made was on the value of education !! I'm glad to see that you now see a value to it !!

With this .. and your other feeble response, to me .. to say nothing of your posting some Leftie Libertarian rubbish, can I take it that you're now, finally, 'outing' yourself as an inconsistent Leftie ??

Good man !! If you're now, FINALLY, willing to represent yourself HONESTLY, we can move on to some reasonable interactions here !!

[fj1200]

Not exactly a 'convincing' response. Since you've no better answer, I must take it that you're conceding the value of my post.

This is understandable ..

Your post was almost as comical as when you presented a student's term paper as some kind of rebuttal. Nevertheless:


Libertarianism in the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_Kingdom) is a political movement concerned with the pursuit of propertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propertarianism) libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) ideals in the United Kingdom. While not as prominent as libertarianism in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_States), after the 1980s and the economic liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism) of the premiership of Margaret Thatcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher), the libertarian movement became more prominent in British politics. In the Conservative Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)), there is a faction of libertarians based around Thatcherism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism).
...Jason Walsh, in an opinion piece, held that while the 1980s economic liberalism of Margaret Thatcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher) was "libertarianism-lite," compared to minimal state views of more modern libertarians, which were becoming more popular after ten years of New Labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK))'s "increasingly authoritarian policies." The Austrian-British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrians_in_the_United_Kingdom) libertarian and classical liberal philosopher, Friedrich Hayek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek), is considered by some to be one of the most important economists and political philosophers of the twentieth century.
The Conservative Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)) libertarian advocacy group, the Conservative Way Forward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Way_Forward), is led by Alan Duncan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Duncan).
...
The Institute of Economic Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Economic_Affairs) (IEA) is the oldest free-market think tank in the United Kingdom, and a progenitor of a large network of libertarian think tanks around the world, as well as greatly shaping the Thatcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher) government's economic policies. The Centre for Policy Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Policy_Studies) was set up by Thatcher and Keith Joseph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Joseph) for the purpose of advancing classical liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism). The Adam Smith Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith_Institute) promotes the work of Adam Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith) in explaining the working of the free market from a libertarian viewpoint.

That must be quite embarrassing for you.


Ahem ! That has been MY question to YOU. Repeated so many times that I'm getting tired of asking.

If you cannot produce Conservative thinking on the subject, why not just ADMIT that you're incapable of doing so, and move on !!

I'm still waiting for yours. As well as waiting for you to answer my question. Besides, I've provided two posts which are conservative approaches to pollution; one of which you've ignored and one of which you mischaracterized, embarrassingly so as shown above.

[fj1200]

Excellent !

The first point made was on the value of education !! I'm glad to see that you now see a value to it !!

With this .. and your other feeble response, to me .. to say nothing of your posting some Leftie Libertarian rubbish, can I take it that you're now, finally, 'outing' yourself as an inconsistent Leftie ??

Good man !! If you're now, FINALLY, willing to represent yourself HONESTLY, we can move on to some reasonable interactions here !!

I can add to what I've proven in this thread to that you are disingenuous in how you present information. Below is the whole post of which you edited down to one sentence.


Awesome post. I'm glad someone finally took the time to put some thought into it. You make great points how in many cases government is what causes pollution to become worse while so many think that government is the automatic solution. It's clearly not. Your Yellowstone example was brilliant, I remember reading about the Aspen trees also making a comeback when they reintroduced wolves. That's the kind of thing that bureaucratic diktat would never see, they don't have the ability to know all factors inherent to any system. For that very reason the best type of conservative solution is going to involve the markets because only market driven solutions rely on new ways of thinking and new technologies to address problems.

I took the liberty of copying a conservative solution.

[red states rule]

Not exactly a 'convincing' response. Since you've no better answer, I must take it that you're conceding the value of my post.

This is understandable ..



Ahem ! That has been MY question to YOU. Repeated so many times that I'm getting tired of asking.

If you cannot produce Conservative thinking on the subject, why not just ADMIT that you're incapable of doing so, and move on !!

Drummond you have to remember that Prof FU Gruber supported the "rain tax" in MD which was enacted to clean up the "pollution" of the Chesapeake Bay

Prof FU Gruber is a devoted liberal who kneels at the alter of Liberalism. He has never met a tax he did not love or a government program he did not embrace. Only uneducated hicks like us dare to question the wisdom of government and it is mission to try and reeducate us via the usual insults that libs use to win people over to their side

[fj1200]

Drummond you have to remember that Prof FU Gruber supported the "rain tax" in MD which was enacted to clean up the "pollution" of the Chesapeake Bay

Let's see... I'll prove you a liar now...


Nobody said it was the only way, in fact I think it's kind of a stupid way.

And I'll let your silence prove you a liar when you can't prove your statements below.


Prof FU Gruber is a devoted liberal who kneels at the alter of Liberalism. He has never met a tax he did not love or a government program he did not embrace. Only uneducated hicks like us dare to question the wisdom of government and it is mission to try and reeducate us via the usual insults that libs use to win people over to their side

:) BTW, I use facts and logic to win debates.

[tailfins]

Let's see... I'll prove you a liar now...



And I'll let your silence prove you a liar when you can't prove your statements below.



:) BTW, I use facts and logic to win debates.

I'm not going to jump your case, but the OP reminds me of a Republican commercial I heard for amnesty. It was paid for by "Americans for a Conservative Direction". My first thought was "Who are you trying to fool?" Just calling something "conservative" doesn't make it so.

[grannyhawkins]

This was sent ta me by my 78 year old mom and I thought this pretty much gets to the heart of the matter as it concerns the know it all progressive librawls!!!


Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older lady that she should bring her own grocery bags, because plastic bags are not good for the environment.

The woman apologized to the young girl and explained, "We didn't have this 'green thing' back in my earlier days."

The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."

The older lady said that she was right -- our generation didn't have the "green thing" in its day. The older lady went on to explain:

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day.

Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for numerous things. Most memorable besides household garbage bags was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books. This was to ensure that public property (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags. But, too bad we didn't do the "green thing" back then.

We walked up stairs because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

But she was right. We didn't have the "green thing" in our day.

Back then we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220volts. Wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.


But that young lady is right; we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day.
Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief(remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she's right; we didn't have the "green thing" back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blade in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But we didn't have the "green thing" back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family's $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the "green thing". We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the "green thing" back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart ass young person.

We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off... Especially from a tattooed, multiple pierced smartass who can't make change without the cash register telling them how much.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This was sent ta me by my 78 year old mom and I thought this pretty much gets to the heart of the matter as it concerns the know it all progressive librawls!!!



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to grannyhawkins again.

That green thing the stupid-ass librawls like to brag about cost us many billions in little green things called dollars.
And those are dollars we don't have as citizens nor do we have as a nation to waste on their stupidity, socialism and anti-Americanism.
Liberal engineered Education system is a cancer that has now started to kill its host. That education system simply must be eradicated or else this nation falls.
Two worst enemies of this nation are liberals and muslims. Guess what? They are allied and work the destruction as a team effort..
Obama leads the way in that right now.
The ffing maggot..-Tyr

[grannyhawkins]

That green thing the stupid-ass librawls like to brag about cost us many billions in little green things called dollars.
And those are dollars we don't have as citizens nor do we have as a nation to waste on their stupidity, socialism and anti-Americanism.
Liberal engineered Education system is a cancer that has now started to kill its host. That education system simply must be eradicated or else this nation falls.
Two worst enemies of this nation are liberals and muslims. Guess what? They are allied and work the destruction as a team effort..
Obama leads the way in that right now.
The ffing maggot..-Tyr

I've got a new name for him, "the usurpin moozlum maggot", it has a certain je ne sais quoi to it.

Thanks Tyr :laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I've got a new name for him, "the usurpin moozlum maggot", it has a certain je ne sais quoi to it.

Thanks Tyr :laugh:


aha, that it does!!! :beer: :salute: :beer: -Tyr

[Neo]

Go.

Mute Al Sharpton gets my vote.............

[Neo]

Go.

Mute Al Sharpton gets my vote............. with regards to ending pollution, that is...

[fj1200]

I'm not going to jump your case, but the OP reminds me of a Republican commercial I heard for amnesty. It was paid for by "Americans for a Conservative Direction". My first thought was "Who are you trying to fool?" Just calling something "conservative" doesn't make it so.

Do you mean my two letter OP? But I agree with your last, many things are claimed conservative but come nowhere near.

[Drummond]

Do you mean my two letter OP? But I agree with your last, many things are claimed conservative but come nowhere near.

... no comment !!!!! :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Drummond]

That must be quite embarrassing for you.

Really ?

You didn't provide a link for your quotation. Therefore, I question the biases behind it.

And as for:-


The Centre for Policy Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Policy_Studies) was set up by Thatcher and Keith Joseph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Joseph) for the purpose of advancing classical liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism).

... that's highly misleading (is THIS why there's no overall link ??)

For one thing, let me educate you on a very basic fact that's apparently escaped you. MARGARET THATCHER AND SIR KEITH JOSEPH WERE BOTH SENIOR CONSERVATIVES IN CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENTS !! Yet, you suggest they wanted to advance classical liberalism ??!?

FJ .. ignoring the conceivable possibility that you're just totally nuts .. I think you're doing what any 'good' Leftie would do, and playing with context in order to promote a propagandist falsehood.

Observe this, on the role of the CPS ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Policy_Studies


.... was co-founded by Conservatives Sir Keith Joseph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Keith_Joseph), Alfred Sherman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Sherman) and Margaret Thatcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher) in 1974 to champion economic liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism) in Britain

Got that ? ECONOMIC LIBERALISM, NOT CLASSICAL LIBERALISM. They were suggesting a particular direction for economic handling of an economy, not pushing an entire Leftie philosophy !!

Is it that you really haven't got a clue as to what Thatcher and Joseph stood for, FJ, OR, as I suspect, are you trying to undermine their Conservative credentials, as any unscrupulous Leftie would just love to manage to do ? ARE you, in fact, giving us proof of your true LEFT WING agenda ???

It would help put your 'austerity sucks' attack on modern-day Conservatives in the UK into some perspective, perhaps. Your favouring of an economic approach which modern British Conservatives see as inappropriate to today's conditions, proven so by the SUCCESS of its ALTERNATIVE ... in the pursuit of a methodology applicable to a bygone age, having its day, back THEN.

Funny, isn't it, how - as a 'conservative' - you keep coming up with inappropriate suggestions and interpretations, ones ultimately disingenuous ?


I'm still waiting for yours. As well as waiting for you to answer my question. Besides, I've provided two posts which are conservative approaches to pollution; one of which you've ignored and one of which you mischaracterized, embarrassingly so as shown above.

So now, you're trying to disguise your copping-out ? You've provided NO Conservative solution to pollution OF YOUR OWN. You've merely acknowledged the contents of another poster here in favourable terms.

As for your 'mischaracterised' jibe .. a reference to the question as to whether education forms part of a solution ? I say it does. I am not the only poster here to recognise its value. You, by contrast, were dismissive of its value.

Are you now having a rethink ? If so, be honest enough to admit it.

And if you can come up with an original Conservative thought process of your own, then so much the better ? Yes ??

[fj1200]

Really ?

You didn't provide a link for your quotation. Therefore, I question the biases behind it.

And as for:-

... that's highly misleading (is THIS why there's no overall link ??)

Of course there was a link. I'll provide the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_Kingdom) again as you seem to be confused? Do you dispute the contents?


For one thing, let me educate you on a very basic fact that's apparently escaped you. MARGARET THATCHER AND SIR KEITH JOSEPH WERE BOTH SENIOR CONSERVATIVES IN CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENTS !! Yet, you suggest they wanted to advance classical liberalism ??!?

FJ .. ignoring the conceivable possibility that you're just totally nuts .. I think you're doing what any 'good' Leftie would do, and playing with context in order to promote a propagandist falsehood.

Observe this, on the role of the CPS ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Policy_Studies

Nothing escapes me, I merely suggest that you are wrong in your characterization, and it's not surprising that you can't admit that you are wrong. You never do, you just keep digging your whole.


Got that ? ECONOMIC LIBERALISM, NOT CLASSICAL LIBERALISM. They were suggesting a particular direction for economic handling of an economy, not pushing an entire Leftie philosophy !!

Is it that you really haven't got a clue as to what Thatcher and Joseph stood for, FJ, OR, as I suspect, are you trying to undermine their Conservative credentials, as any unscrupulous Leftie would just love to manage to do ? ARE you, in fact, giving us proof of your true LEFT WING agenda ???

It would help put your 'austerity sucks' attack on modern-day Conservatives in the UK into some perspective, perhaps. Your favouring of an economic approach which modern British Conservatives see as inappropriate to today's conditions, proven so by the SUCCESS of its ALTERNATIVE ... in the pursuit of a methodology applicable to a bygone age, having its day, back THEN.

Funny, isn't it, how - as a 'conservative' - you keep coming up with inappropriate suggestions and interpretations, ones ultimately disingenuous ?

Who said that they were pushing a "leftie philosophy"? Besides, why would I want to undermine their conservative credentials, you are the one who is lacking in credentials and basic understanding of conservatism, it is you who are ignorant to so many things and are resistant to me educating you. It's really quite sad. Your centering every argument around the leftie boogeyman is really showing you to be in error. I don't know how it can be explained to you in more clear terms.

And if you want me to smoke your argument again about the failures of austerity, you've been ignoring a relevant thread for quite some time now.


So now, you're trying to disguise your copping-out ? You've provided NO Conservative solution to pollution OF YOUR OWN. You've merely acknowledged the contents of another poster here in favourable terms.

As for your 'mischaracterised' jibe .. a reference to the question as to whether education forms part of a solution ? I say it does. I am not the only poster here to recognise its value. You, by contrast, were dismissive of its value.

Are you now having a rethink ? If so, be honest enough to admit it.

And if you can come up with an original Conservative thought process of your own, then so much the better ? Yes ??

Of course I offered a solution, why you ignore it is obvious; it shows the lie of your narrative.


For that very reason the best type of conservative solution is going to involve the markets because only market driven solutions rely on new ways of thinking and new technologies to address problems.

Please dispense with your blather and provide a conservative solution if you want to take this thread seriously and you could also answer my question.

[red states rule]

Really ?

You didn't provide a link for your quotation. Therefore, I question the biases behind it.

And as for:-



... that's highly misleading (is THIS why there's no overall link ??)

For one thing, let me educate you on a very basic fact that's apparently escaped you. MARGARET THATCHER AND SIR KEITH JOSEPH WERE BOTH SENIOR CONSERVATIVES IN CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENTS !! Yet, you suggest they wanted to advance classical liberalism ??!?

FJ .. ignoring the conceivable possibility that you're just totally nuts .. I think you're doing what any 'good' Leftie would do, and playing with context in order to promote a propagandist falsehood.

Observe this, on the role of the CPS ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Policy_Studies



Got that ? ECONOMIC LIBERALISM, NOT CLASSICAL LIBERALISM. They were suggesting a particular direction for economic handling of an economy, not pushing an entire Leftie philosophy !!

Is it that you really haven't got a clue as to what Thatcher and Joseph stood for, FJ, OR, as I suspect, are you trying to undermine their Conservative credentials, as any unscrupulous Leftie would just love to manage to do ? ARE you, in fact, giving us proof of your true LEFT WING agenda ???

It would help put your 'austerity sucks' attack on modern-day Conservatives in the UK into some perspective, perhaps. Your favouring of an economic approach which modern British Conservatives see as inappropriate to today's conditions, proven so by the SUCCESS of its ALTERNATIVE ... in the pursuit of a methodology applicable to a bygone age, having its day, back THEN.

Funny, isn't it, how - as a 'conservative' - you keep coming up with inappropriate suggestions and interpretations, ones ultimately disingenuous ?



So now, you're trying to disguise your copping-out ? You've provided NO Conservative solution to pollution OF YOUR OWN. You've merely acknowledged the contents of another poster here in favourable terms.

As for your 'mischaracterised' jibe .. a reference to the question as to whether education forms part of a solution ? I say it does. I am not the only poster here to recognise its value. You, by contrast, were dismissive of its value.

Are you now having a rethink ? If so, be honest enough to admit it.

And if you can come up with an original Conservative thought process of your own, then so much the better ? Yes ??

Drummond, I do admire your continued attempts to try and have a rational discussion with Prof FU Gruber - but alas - it is a total waste of time. When countered with irrefutable facts, he turns to snarky and personal attacks like most libs

and of course he posts blatant lies to deny the truth regrading what he has previously posted and supported

For example here is the thread where he did indeed defend the rain tax in MD - I will let the folks here decide who is lying and who is telling the truth. Prof FU Gruber was joined by his former liberal buddy Logroller who has since moved on to more liberal pastures

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?40187-Dems-Push-Rain-Tax-in-MD&highlight=rain+tax

Like a child Prof FU Gruber lives in a bubble where he is right and the rest of the world is wrong (and uneducated, uninformed, and probably watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh)

[Drummond]

Drummond, I do admire your continued attempts to try and have a rational discussion with Prof FU Gruber - but alas - it is a total waste of time. When countered with irrefutable facts, he turns to snarky and personal attacks like most libs

Thanks ! It's hard work, trying to keep FJ limited to rational discussion. Between tactical put-downs, post rewrites etc ... to get one just limited to fair discussion is something of an achievement !!

Of course, FJ's problem is a mixture of monumental ego, and trying to follow a Leftie agenda through what he delusionally thinks of as successful 'stealth'.

Truly sad ...


and of course he posts blatant lies to deny the truth regrading what he has previously posted and supported

For example here is the thread where he did indeed defend the rain tax in MD - I will let the folks here decide who is lying and who is telling the truth. Prof FU Gruber was joined by his former liberal buddy Logroller who has since moved on to more liberal pastures

... Seen. Yet further proof then (as if it were needed), of FJ's LEFTIE bona fides !! And it seems his 'Conservative pollution' question is a rerun ?? Again .. I get the idea that FJ is trying to show that Conservatives are bereft of workable solutions, so he can sneak in a Leftie approach ... EXCEPT ... in your example, he PROVED his fondness for the taxation approach.

This fits with another thread some months ago, one attacking British Conservatives from departing from the 'tax and recklessly spend' approach that Labour (our Lefties) had plagued our economy with, under Blair and Brown. 2008 hit ... we were very badly placed to cope with it ... and the Conservatives' approach was a 'austerity' package, making us live within our means.

FJ posted at length against our Conservatives' plans. That's despite the fact that IT'S WORKING ...


Like a child Prof FU Gruber lives in a bubble where he is right and the rest of the world is wrong (and uneducated, uninformed, and probably watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh)

FJ is a slave to both his Leftie agenda, and his ego. He's a truly sad case. Under different circumstances I might actually pity him ! ...

[Drummond]

Of course there was a link. I'll provide the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_Kingdom) again as you seem to be confused? Do you dispute the contents?

Link seen. Its contents closely match what I thought was true for them. Note: the issue remains one of ECONOMIC Libertarianism (and I saw the 'Libertarian-lite' description given to the Conservative economic approach, as it was in the 1980's).

By the way - on the issue of Libertarianism, see this, from your link ...


There are a number of think tanks that are explicitly libertarian or espouse libertarian views. The Libertarian Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Alliance) is an early libertarian educational group still active today. It works to promote libertarianism generally, and holds no corporate view beyond that, allying together classical liberals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism), minarchists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism), anarcho-capitalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism) and even social anarchists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism).


SOCIAL ANARCHISTS. See that FJ ?

Sounds Leftie to me !!


Your centering every argument around the leftie boogeyman is really showing you to be in error. I don't know how it can be explained to you in more clear terms.

.... yeahh ......


And if you want me to smoke your argument again about the failures of austerity, you've been ignoring a relevant thread for quite some time now.

Failures of austerity ??? You're delusional. The UK now has one of the STRONGEST economies in Europe. We are very far from the meltdown you predicted, FJ.

You may hate the failure of Labour's more reckless approach, which YOU basically agreed with. But that's your problem.


Please dispense with your blather and provide a conservative solution if you want to take this thread seriously and you could also answer my question.

-- You first, LEFTIE.

[fj1200]

I will let the folks here decide who is lying and who is telling the truth.

Thanks for proving yourself to be a lying sack yet again. You can't prove it. :laugh: You're a sad excuse trying to be some sort of conservative voice. You suck at this although quite good at being a passive-aggressive little troll. If anyone did click over to that thread they would see you thrashing about having no clue about the question I asked. It was rather comical if not so sad.


... trying to keep FJ limited to rational discussion. Between tactical put-downs, post rewrites etc ...

:laugh: I've proven again how you lack the capacity to engage in debate without prattling on about lefties and completely avoiding the subject at hand. This thread is about the conservative solution to pollution and that you have no clue about the subject is readily apparent.

[fj1200]

Link seen. Its contents closely match what I thought was true for them. Note: the issue remains one of ECONOMIC Libertarianism (and I saw the 'Libertarian-lite' description given to the Conservative economic approach, as it was in the 1980's).

Do you mean the economic liberalism that shows you the lie in your libertarian as leftie claim?


Economic liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism) is the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism) lines, meaning that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by individuals and not by collective institutions or organizations.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism#cite_note-Adams-1) It includes a spectrum of different economic policies, such as freedom of movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement), but it is always based on strong support for a market economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy) andprivate property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property) in the means of production.

Yeah... that's not leftie.


By the way - on the issue of Libertarianism, see this, from your link ...

SOCIAL ANARCHISTS. See that FJ ?

Sounds Leftie to me !!

Of course anyone claiming any sort of being an anarchist is bit loony tunes IMO but you hanging your hat on "AND EVEN social anarchists" is beyond the pale. That smacks of desperation seeing as how you avoided the others in your pull quote:


Classical liberalism is a political philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy) and ideology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology#Political_ideologies) belonging to liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution) and urbanization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization) in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#cite_note-1) It advocates civil liberties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties) with a limited government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_government) under the rule of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law), private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire) economic liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism).

Nothing leftie there.


Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a political philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy) and a form of libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism). It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)) ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy)), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression), theft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft), breach of contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract), and fraud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud), and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are themilitary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military), police (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police), and courts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts).

There either.


Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#cite_note-Stringham504-2) market anarchism,[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#cite_note-3) private-property anarchism,[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#cite_note-AL-4) libertarian anarchism[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#cite_note-5)) is a political philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy) which advocates the elimination of the state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)) in favor of individual sovereignty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership), private property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property), and open markets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_(economics)). Anarcho-capitalists believe that in the absence of statute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute) (law by decree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree) or legislation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislation)), society would improve itself through the discipline of the free market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market) (or what its proponents describe as a "voluntary society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_society)").

Wow, 0 for 3. My mistake, you have "and even" in there to give you some sort of escape from being completely wrong. It must have been very hard work for you to ignore every reference to Mags and the UK conservatives in that link to keep your delusions alive.


.... yeahh ......

The evidence is clear. I've just given you some more. When will you ever learn?


Failures of austerity ??? You're delusional. The UK now has one of the STRONGEST economies in Europe. We are very far from the meltdown you predicted, FJ.

You may hate the failure of Labour's more reckless approach, which YOU basically agreed with. But that's your problem.

Yup, austerity was failing as they kept having to lengthen the expectations of austerity, but thank God that they saw their error and instituted some pro-growth (as in not austerity ;) ) tax cuts. It's all spelled out in that other thread.


-- You first, LEFTIE.

I will admit, your imagination is a sticky thing. Not correct in any sense of the term but it sure sticks around in the face of ALL evidence. :shrug:

PS: And when will you be discussing the topic and answering my question for you? Will you be "copping out" on that?

[Drummond]

Do you mean the economic liberalism that shows you the lie in your libertarian as leftie claim?

Your first claim (quote) referred to Margaret Thatcher an Sir Keith Joseph in this way:


The Centre for Policy Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Policy_Studies) was set up by Thatcher and Keith Joseph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Joseph) for the purpose of advancing classical liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism).

... which was highly misleading at absolute best ... actually A LIE. I had to correct what you were peddling at that time -- to ECONOMIC Liberalism, this having a significantly narrower context than the one you hoped to have believed.

It's in the interests of the Left to undermine, if they can, the reputable standing of Conservatives. Your claim would've divorced both Thatcher and Joseph from the truth of their CONSERVATIVE beliefs and political purpose for existing.

Sad for you and your agenda .... that I corrected the rot you were peddling, setting the proper context.


Yeah... that's not leftie.

How about this, then ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism


Left-libertarianism (or left-wing libertarianism) names several related but distinct approaches to political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political) and social theory, which stress both individual freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_freedom) and social justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice). In its oldest usage, left-libertarianism is a synonym for anti-authoritarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-authoritarian) varieties of left-wing politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics), either anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism) in general or social anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism) in particular.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism#cite_note-routledge-anarchism-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism#cite_note-bookchinreader-2) It later became associated with free-market libertarians when Murray Rothbard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard) and Karl Hess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Hess) reached out to the New Left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left) in the 1960s.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism#cite_note-3) This left-wing market anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_market_anarchism), which includes mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)) and Samuel Konkin III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Konkin_III)'s agorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism), appeals to left-wing concerns such as feminism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism), gender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender) and sexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_identity), class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class), immigration, and environmentalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalism).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism#cite_note-routledge-anarchism-1) Most recently, left-libertarianism refers to mostly non-anarchist political positions associated with Hillel Steiner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_Steiner), Philippe Van Parijs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Van_Parijs), and Peter Vallentyne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Vallentyne) that combine self-ownership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership) with an egalitarian approach to natural resources

Nothing Leftie there, FJ ? Really ?


Of course anyone claiming any sort of being an anarchist is bit loony tunes IMO but you hanging your hat on "AND EVEN social anarchists" is beyond the pale. That smacks of desperation ....

Nothing 'desperate' in this, FJ ....


While social anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism) enjoyed greater popularity in Europe and espoused communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist) and syndicalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalist) economic policies, individualist anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism) was more prominent in the USA and closely associated with the mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)) of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Josiah Warren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Warren) is widely regarded as the first American anarchist,[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism#cite_note-Slate-24) and the four-page weekly paper he edited during 1833, The Peaceful Revolutionist, was the first anarchist periodical published,[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism#cite_note-bailie20-25) an enterprise for which he built his own printing press, cast his own type, and made his own printing plates.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism#cite_note-bailie20-25) Warren was a follower of Robert Owen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen) and joined Owen's community at New Harmony, Indiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Harmony,_Indiana). Josiah Warren termed the phrase "Cost the limit of price (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_the_limit_of_price)," with "cost" referring not to monetary price paid but the labor one exerted to produce an item.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism#cite_note-26) Therefore, "[h]e proposed a system to pay people with certificates indicating how many hours of work they did. They could exchange the notes at local time stores for goods that took the same amount of time to produce."[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism#cite_note-Slate-24) He put his theories to the test by establishing an experimental "labor for labor store" called the Cincinnati Time Store (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Time_Store) where trade was facilitated by notes backed by a promise to perform labor. The store proved successful and operated for three years after which it was closed so that Warren could pursue establishing colonies based on mutualism. These included Utopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia,_Ohio) and Modern Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_and_present_anarchist_communities#Modern_Time s_.281851_to_late_1860s.29). Warren said that Stephen Pearl Andrews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Pearl_Andrews)' The Science of Society, published in 1852, was the most lucid and complete exposition of Warren's own theories.[27]

American individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker) argued that the elimination of what he called "the four monopolies"—the land monopoly, the money and banking monopoly, the monopoly powers conferred by patents, and the quasi-monopolistic effects of tariffs—would undermine the power of the wealthy and big business, making possible widespread property ownership and higher incomes for ordinary people, while minimizing the power of would-be bosses and achieving socialist goals without state action. Tucker influenced and interacted with anarchist contemporaries—including Lysander Spooner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner), Voltairine de Cleyre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltairine_de_Cleyre), Dyer D. Lum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyer_D._Lum), and William B. Greene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_B._Greene)—who have in various ways influenced later left-libertarian thinking.[28]

While, with notable exceptions, market-oriented libertarians after Tucker tended to ally with the political right, relationships between such libertarians and the New Left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left) thrived in the 1960s, laying the groundwork for modern left-wing market anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_market_anarchism)

Nothing 'desperate' in that, either. But it's all included in the Left-Libertarian piece Wikipedia has on file. Even you - surely ? - cannot help but see that a lot of recognisably Libertarian actions and linkage shows an identification with far-Left practises.

If you're trying to identify yourself as Libertarian (as opposed to 'The Utimate Thatcherite' -- a former invention of yours) .. then you're coming a lot closer to identifying yourself as Leftie.

I suppose it's progress ? You're slowly inching to the truth, I think.

I'm fascinated by your spin concerning UK austerity measures. You've twisted things. Yes -- there's growth in the economy, and it's been instituted AS A DIRECT RESULT OF SUCCESSFUL AUSTERITY MEASURES. They aren't separate ... living within our means has CREATED the conditions for growth.

Who else but a Leftie would think that reckless spending would produce real, sustainable growth ?? It's fool's gold ... and typical of the way OUR OWN LEFT HAS BEHAVED ...

... and you remain loyal to that brand of thinking. Don't you, LEFTIE ?


PS: And when will you be discussing the topic and answering my question for you? Will you be "copping out" on that?

If you can stop your own copping out, and address the subject you've raised with YOUR suggestion(s) ... that'd be progress !

To do that, though, you need a Conservative outlook, not a Leftie one. So ... we won't be seeing your ideas anytime soon ... eh ... FJ ??

[Drummond]

Thanks for proving yourself to be a lying sack yet again. You can't prove it. :laugh: You're a sad excuse trying to be some sort of conservative voice. You suck at this although quite good at being a passive-aggressive little troll.

Do you still need help with identifying Conservatives you choose to attack, FJ ?

Because, ahem .... 'you're a Conservative yourself' .. ????!!??

[fj1200]

Do you still need help with identifying Conservatives you choose to attack, FJ ?

Because, ahem .... 'you're a Conservative yourself' .. ????!!??

I didn't attack a conservative, I correctly pointed out a passive-aggressive little troll who is unable to engage in intelligent discussion and runs away when challenged.

[fj1200]

Your first claim (quote) referred to Margaret Thatcher an Sir Keith Joseph in this way:

... which was highly misleading at absolute best ... actually A LIE. I had to correct what you were peddling at that time -- to ECONOMIC Liberalism, this having a significantly narrower context than the one you hoped to have believed.

It's in the interests of the Left to undermine, if they can, the reputable standing of Conservatives. Your claim would've divorced both Thatcher and Joseph from the truth of their CONSERVATIVE beliefs and political purpose for existing.

Sad for you and your agenda .... that I corrected the rot you were peddling, setting the proper context.

:laugh: You didn't correct a thing. You don't just get to say it's a lie and be done with it. Doesn't work that way. I pointed out to you in many different ways how wrong you and it's quite sad that you can't own up to being wrong. How about you admit that you're wrong... for once...


How about this, then ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

Nothing Leftie there, FJ ? Really ?

Nothing 'desperate' in this, FJ ....

:laugh: You add left to something and then get to declare that your strawman somehow proved something? Of course in your feeble efforts to drag the original quote far from the actual discussion are another of your absolute failures. What is so comical as to be pathetic from you that your injecting something into the discussion that I never brought up and I have to defend your ignorance. Sorry, your stupidity is not my fault.


Nothing 'desperate' in that, either. But it's all included in the Left-Libertarian piece Wikipedia has on file. Even you - surely ? - cannot help but see that a lot of recognisably Libertarian actions and linkage shows an identification with far-Left practises.

If you're trying to identify yourself as Libertarian (as opposed to 'The Utimate Thatcherite' -- a former invention of yours) .. then you're coming a lot closer to identifying yourself as Leftie.

I suppose it's progress ? You're slowly inching to the truth, I think.

I'm fascinated by your spin concerning UK austerity measures. You've twisted things. Yes -- there's growth in the economy, and it's been instituted AS A DIRECT RESULT OF SUCCESSFUL AUSTERITY MEASURES. They aren't separate ... living within our means has CREATED the conditions for growth.

Who else but a Leftie would think that reckless spending would produce real, sustainable growth ?? It's fool's gold ... and typical of the way OUR OWN LEFT HAS BEHAVED ...

... and you remain loyal to that brand of thinking. Don't you, LEFTIE ?

I'm sorry, I kept this thread clean up until now but you are one stupid idiot. I never brought up "left libertarianism" and you're trying to tie it to my position. I knew you were disingenuous but now you've taken it to a whole new level.

And you keep bringing up your failing austerity argument in an unrelated thread. Further proving you to be not just the idiot that you are but the hypocritical trolling idiot that you are. Open up that other thread and point out where I suggested further reckless spending because I can show you where I posted for spending restraint and tax cuts; tax cuts that you said needed to be "afforded;" That's what you call a Democrat line on this side of the pond. But I know you can't back up your claims because you suck at this.


If you can stop your own copping out, and address the subject you've raised with YOUR suggestion(s) ... that'd be progress !

To do that, though, you need a Conservative outlook, not a Leftie one. So ... we won't be seeing your ideas anytime soon ... eh ... FJ ??

Are you truly this stupid or is it an act? I've repeated my solution a couple of times and you keep with your cop out of not offering an actual solution. You also keep copping out of answering my question; Why should you have the choice to violate my rights? If I were you I wouldn't answer it because you'll be stepping just that much closer to your natural big government position. Something you should own up to again. So why don't you HACK?

[aboutime]

Sir Drummond. Did you laugh at the irony when fj spoke of trolls?

Here's a long lasting impression of who I see when I see those two letters 'fj' here. http://icansayit.com/images/troll.jpg

[red states rule]

Do you still need help with identifying Conservatives you choose to attack, FJ ?

Because, ahem .... 'you're a Conservative yourself' .. ????!!??

Remember Drummond this is Prof FU Grubers version of keeping the thread "clean". He "respects" those who have a different opinion. Sort of like how his hut Obama has cut the deficit in half, turned the economy around, made healthcare in the US more affordable, has terrorists on the run, saved the US auto industry, and restored prosperity to America

If you are going to try and engage Prof FU Gruber you have to keep one think in mind at all times. Trying to have a debate wth Prof FU Gruber is like

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQSTklLiw_0cNxgqdLqM_pn2g7ObFjvM EcGKPECDE-144a6SD9M

[red states rule]

Sir Drummond. Did you laugh at the irony when fj spoke of trolls?

Here's a long lasting impression of who I see when I see those two letters 'fj' here. http://icansayit.com/images/troll.jpg

and Prof FU Gruber proves William F Buckley right with every post he makes\

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS9MfAGVRRfFpEqh9hLqzePcTaydqSlT wMB9GtrXhwzFyLtFfGd

[Drummond]

I didn't attack a conservative, I correctly pointed out a passive-aggressive little troll who is unable to engage in intelligent discussion and runs away when challenged.

Classic Leftieism at work, this. Denying as truth what we all know IS true. Lefties only 'believe' what they choose to.

Really, FJ, this is too tiresome for words. I'm more tired than you'd imagine (or choose to) in picking you up on the various indicators of your Leftieism, TIME after TIME after TIME. You are hostile to any Conservative here who can see through you ... and I'm far from alone amongst those who perceive the truth of you.

Your further Leftieism will be tackled as circumstances require. But the FACT of what you believe, and are loyal to, is beyond question.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Did you laugh at the irony when fj spoke of trolls?

Here's a long lasting impression of who I see when I see those two letters 'fj' here. http://icansayit.com/images/troll.jpg

More a matter of my mind boggling a bit, Aboutime.

I've always credited FJ with a sense of humour ... this is one such.

FJ revels in seeing faults in others that HE is guilty of himself. Classic redirection, courtesy of his monumental ego.

[Drummond]

and Prof FU Gruber proves William F Buckley right with every post he makes\

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS9MfAGVRRfFpEqh9hLqzePcTaydqSlT wMB9GtrXhwzFyLtFfGd

Very well put !! But this is FJ ... so a degree of outrageous arrogance is to be expected as well. Hence his 'Ultimate Thatcherite' tag (which even HE has now dropped !) .. when we all know what a Leftie he is !

I can't wait for more of his 'the UK's economy is going down the toilet because 'Austerity Sucks' ... when Margaret Thatcher was all about us living within our means as a country .. and her Conservative successor has made a SUCCESS out of his application of that principle !

In the real world, under Conservative leadership (with a smattering of help from the LibDems) the UK is one of the most stable and strong economies in Europe these days. In 'FJ World' .. we're one step from meltdown, because we're failing to follow the reckless spending (FJ considers them as 'pro-growth') ideas that Labour, OUR LEFTIES, applied which helped get us into our previous mess !!!!

FJ follows that up by claiming NOT to be a Leftie .... definite rib-tickling stuff ...

[Drummond]

Remember Drummond this is Prof FU Grubers version of keeping the thread "clean". He "respects" those who have a different opinion. Sort of like how his hut Obama has cut the deficit in half, turned the economy around, made healthcare in the US more affordable, has terrorists on the run, saved the US auto industry, and restored prosperity to America

If you are going to try and engage Prof FU Gruber you have to keep one think in mind at all times. Trying to have a debate wth Prof FU Gruber is like

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQSTklLiw_0cNxgqdLqM_pn2g7ObFjvM EcGKPECDE-144a6SD9M

YES .. perfectly put. And as I've just posted, he HAS actually taken such a delusional line with his 'interpretation' of the UK economy. In FJ world, we'll go belly-up as Greece did, any day now. In reality our Conservatives have successfully applied a firm grip on expenditure to the point that we've largely dug ourselves out of the fiscal black hole we faced, under our Socialists, in 2010.

FJ hates what our Conservatives have done .... and he doesn't want to face up to the extent of the success story it's proving to be. So, in classic Leftie style ... he doesn't ...

[red states rule]

More a matter of my mind boggling a bit, Aboutime.

I've always credited FJ with a sense of humour ... this is one such.

FJ revels in seeing faults in others that HE is guilty of himself. Classic redirection, courtesy of his monumental ego.

Notice Prof FU Gruber has not returned to this thread?

and I thought the air was clear because the smog had lifted

But you can always see more of him on any network news cast, or when Obama bellows from an open microphone

[fj1200]

Now that the little girl, the banana, and the idiot have proven that collectively they are the internet equivalent of monkeys in an experiment attacking anything that they don't understand...


FJ hates what our Conservatives have done .... and he doesn't want to face up to the extent of the success story it's proving to be. So, in classic Leftie style ... he doesn't ...

The success that they've shown after governing as true conservatives with lower taxes then yes I love what they've done. It's a shame that the UK had to undergo some ill advised austerity to get to that point. If you had a shred of intellectual honestly you'd open up the actual thread on that and take your humiliation like a man. I suspect the boy in you will prevail.

Now, do you want to get back on topic and answer the question? Why should you get to choose to violate my property rights?

[fj1200]

A nice little article that centers around property rights IMO.

Iowa farmers ripped out prairie; now some hope it can save them (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/iowa-farmers-ripped-out-prairie-now-some-hope-it-can-save-them/2016/08/07/1ff747a2-5274-11e6-88eb-7dda4e2f2aec_story.html)

...

Public opinion could turn against farmers long before the soil is gone.

Angered by nitrate pollution in two rivers that supply its drinking water, Des Moines Water Works sued three county boards of supervisors upstream for failing to regulate farm pollution that the agency pays $1 million per year to remove.

Des Moines Water Works is planning to build an $80 million facility within the next five years to manage an expected increase in nitrate pollution.

“We view it as a violation of the Clean Water Act,” Bill Stowe, the utility’s chief executive and general manager, said. Some experts estimate that nitrates in Des Moines’ water sources will spike substantially above what the Environmental Protection Agency allows.

The lawsuit has pitted Des Moines against a state that favors farmers and agriculture. Cedar Rapids Mayor Ron Corbett spoke out against it, saying, “When you file a lawsuit, that draws lines in the sand. The emotions make people harder and can develop resentment.”

Corbett said he worries that litigation could allow courts to decide how Iowans should farm or open the door to stronger federal regulation.

“If we don’t want judges deciding from the bench water policy for Iowa, and we really don’t want the EPA coming in and telling farmers what to do, the best way is to take the initiative on ourselves,” Corbett said.

For Cedar Rapids, the first step was to place several acres of prairie strip amid its corn and soy farm at the local airport, a demonstration project meant to show farmers that prairie can work. “Leading by example,” Corbett said.

Midwest states have to take responsibility for the pollution they produce, he said. “No one’s disputing that there is a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, and no one is disputing that years and years of phosphorous have made their way down the rivers of the Midwest,” he said.

...

[Kathianne]

Property rights? A bit of good news for those that don't think government has 'the best answers':

http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/06/a-manifest-abuse-of-the-eminent-domain-p


'A Manifest Abuse of the Eminent Domain Power': N.J. State Agency Gets Bench-Slapped in Court (http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/06/a-manifest-abuse-of-the-eminent-domain-p)Eminent domain abuse struck down in Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. Birnbaum.Damon Root (http://reason.com/people/damon-w-root/all)|<time datetime="2016-08-06T16:05:00+00:00" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 11.9px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">Aug. 6, 2016 12:05 pm</time>
<time datetime="2016-08-06T16:05:00+00:00" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 11.9px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">
</time>
<aside class="social clearfix" style="border: 0px; margin: 5px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, helvetica, sans-serif;">



</aside>For the past four years a New Jersey state agency known as the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) has been trying to bulldoze a family home near the Atlantic City boardwalk on behalf of private developers and a shadowy real estate scheme. On Friday this overreaching state agency finally received a well-deserved bench slap from the state courts.

The case of Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. Birnbaum first reared its head in 2012 after Atlantic City officials announced the existence of something called the "South Inlet Mixed Use Development Project." According to state officials, this project would "complement the new Revel Casino and assist with the demands created by the resort." The state never got around to detailing the "project" in any specifics, however, and the Revel Casino shortly went bankrupt. But that didn't stop the CRDA from trying to seize the family home of a man named Charlie Birnbaum. But Birnbaum fought back, retaining the services of the lawyers at the Institute for Justice, a national public interest law firm that specializes in defending property owners like Birnbaum from this sort of government bedevilment. On Friday Birnbaum and his legal team prevailed in court.

"This Court concludes that the CRDA's decision to condemn the Birnbaums' property is a manifest abuse of the eminent domain power and in this Court's opinion is not consistent with the statutory condemnation authority of the CRDA," New Jersey Superio Court Judge Julio Mendez declared (http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CRDA-v.-Birnbaum-ATL-L-589-14-Order-Opinion-8.5.2016.pdf). "The CRDA's condemnation is denied."


<aside class="ad" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 14px; text-align: center; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, helvetica, sans-serif;">
</aside>The court's ruling is a welcome victory over government malfeasance. It's also a welcome rebuke to a state agency with a long, ugly record. After all, this is the same Casino Reinvestment Development Authority that notoriously joined forces (http://reason.com/blog/2015/10/07/donald-trumps-shameful-eminent-domain-ab) with Donald Trump back in 1994 in an effort to kick an elderly widow out of her home in order to help Trump build a new limousine parking lot for the Trump Plaza hotel and casino. Happily, the CRDA's pro-Trump scheme was also struck down in court.

Friday's decision in Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. Birnbaum is available here (http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CRDA-v.-Birnbaum-ATL-L-589-14-Order-Opinion-8.5.2016.pdf).



<footer class="bio" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 14px;"></footer>

[Gunny]

A nice little article that centers around property rights IMO.

Iowa farmers ripped out prairie; now some hope it can save them (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/iowa-farmers-ripped-out-prairie-now-some-hope-it-can-save-them/2016/08/07/1ff747a2-5274-11e6-88eb-7dda4e2f2aec_story.html)

Necro much?

I will agree the Gulf of Mexico sucks. You can't or don't want to swim in it in S Texas. However, instead of playing the blame game why don't we just fix the problem? This happens over and over again and melds right in with your thinking civil suits are okay. You'll spend hundreds of thousands in court playing blame game instead of spending half that much just fixing the problem in half the time.

We just keep repeating the same old crap and accomplishing little to nothing but blowing lots of bucks keeping a bureaucracy alive. Always pointing fingers but never fixing the problem.

[Kathianne]

Gunny are you saying all civil suits are wrong or just the ones following a criminal trial where defendant is found 'not guilty?'

[Noir]

Consumer items creating that pollution should be discussed ... education provided as to how they pollute, to what extent, what needs to be done about them.

For the sake of individual choice, education via the media is surely the key


To follow up on this - which media in the UK today would do said 'education'?

[Gunny]

Gunny are you saying all civil suits are wrong or just the ones following a criminal trial where defendant is found 'not guilty?'

Look at what you just said. I'm against a legal system designed on payback. If we can't get you one way, we'll get you another.

If you're not guilty then you are not liable. That is logical. Not guilty but financially liable is NOT logical.

What I'm saying is no matter how you airbrush it or what you call it, punishing someone twice for the same crime is double jeopardy. Our legal system is a farce of what it is supposed to be.

[Kathianne]

Look at what you just said. I'm against a legal system designed on payback. If we can't get you one way, we'll get you another.

If you're not guilty then you are not liable. That is logical. Not guilty but financially liable is NOT logical.

What I'm saying is no matter how you airbrush it or what you call it, punishing someone twice for the same crime is double jeopardy. Our legal system is a farce of what it is supposed to be.

So if there are reasons that the state chooses not to prosecute, because they can't make the case based upon what they have, you're ok with a civil suit? You're problem comes with 2 trials, right?

[Gunny]

So if there are reasons that the state chooses not to prosecute, because they can't make the case based upon what they have, you're ok with a civil suit? You're problem comes with 2 trials, right?

Nope. I'm saying unless a civil suit is warranted, it is pointless. You kill my brother and I spend half a mil suing you what exactly am I gaining besides attention? Ain't bring my brother back. What real financial impact does you killing my brother have on me? None. Should I be rewarded for you killing my brother? No. I get awarded millions and you work at 7-11. Bet I'll see that.

If the state refuses to prosecute due to lack of evidence, I'll hunt you down myself. I don't want your money. I don't want to screw over your family for your stupidity. I'll take YOU.

[Kathianne]

Nope. I'm saying unless a civil suit is warranted, it is pointless. You kill my brother and I spend half a mil suing you what exactly am I gaining besides attention? Ain't bring my brother back. What real financial impact does you killing my brother have on me? None. Should I be rewarded for you killing my brother? No. I get awarded millions and you work at 7-11. Bet I'll see that.

If the state refuses to prosecute due to lack of evidence, I'll hunt you down myself. I don't want your money. I don't want to screw over your family for your stupidity. I'll take YOU.

Ok, so what would 'warrant' a civil suit? Only a rich person at cause?

[fj1200]

Necro much?

I will agree the Gulf of Mexico sucks. You can't or don't want to swim in it in S Texas. However, instead of playing the blame game why don't we just fix the problem? This happens over and over again and melds right in with your thinking civil suits are okay. You'll spend hundreds of thousands in court playing blame game instead of spending half that much just fixing the problem in half the time.

We just keep repeating the same old crap and accomplishing little to nothing but blowing lots of bucks keeping a bureaucracy alive. Always pointing fingers but never fixing the problem.

Don't get all flustered, it's my thread. How does the downstream fix the problem of what happens upstream without some sort of action? BTW, the courts are a well known way of initiating action. I think it's even in the Constitution that disputes between the States is a court issue.


The judicial Power shall extend to ...Controversies between two or more States....

Yup, there it is. ;) Besides this thread is about solutions not whining about the problems.

[Gunny]

Don't get all flustered, it's my thread. How does the downstream fix the problem of what happens upstream without some sort of action? BTW, the courts are a well known way of initiating action. I think it's even in the Constitution that disputes between the States is a court issue.



Yup, there it is. ;) Besides this thread is about solutions not whining about the problems.

Flustered? No. One, I didn't know anyone owned threads around here. You open your mouth, everyone else is free to chime in.

Second, your ideal of upstream/downstream I understand REAL well. They drill it into our heads twice a year in the Corps. But this sounds an awful lot like your civil lawsuit stance, not to mention who you want to vote for.

Everyone else should suffer for the few. It's nonsensical. We have the capability to keep our water clean. So instead of bitching, do something. Your hot air and words ain't going to fix jack shit. Neither is a wasted vote on a bigger idiot than the one you don't like.

Start with your city council and work your way up.

[aboutime]

The one, and only conservative solution to pollution would be removing all of the contaminated LIBERAL policies, thinking in lies, speaking in lies, and believing in lies.

LIES from liars, no matter where they come from is...POLLUTION that is contaminating an entire society of crybabies, whiners, and illiterate, dependent nobody's who demand EVERYTHING for nothing.

[fj1200]

Flustered? No. One, I didn't know anyone owned threads around here. You open your mouth, everyone else is free to chime in.

Second, your ideal of upstream/downstream I understand REAL well. They drill it into our heads twice a year in the Corps. But this sounds an awful lot like your civil lawsuit stance, not to mention who you want to vote for.

Everyone else should suffer for the few. It's nonsensical. We have the capability to keep our water clean. So instead of bitching, do something. Your hot air and words ain't going to fix jack shit. Neither is a wasted vote on a bigger idiot than the one you don't like.

Start with your city council and work your way up.

Of course it's my thread; people do plenty of whining when I don't open threads so I'll use what I started especially when it's on topic. :poke: And of course I welcome people to chime in and debate some policy don't ya know. ;)

Second, upstream/downstream is the essence of a conservative solution to pollution IMO because it makes people responsible for their actions. But yes, sometimes it takes a lawsuit to force changes.

Third, the article I posted was exactly about keeping water clean and actual actions that can help without lawsuits.

Sometimes the city council doesn't want to do anything and sometimes legal action is the only action that Des Moines Iowa or the gulf states can take.

[Gunny]

Of course it's my thread; people do plenty of whining when I don't open threads so I'll use what I started especially when it's on topic. :poke: And of course I welcome people to chime in and debate some policy don't ya know. ;)

Second, upstream/downstream is the essence of a conservative solution to pollution IMO because it makes people responsible for their actions. But yes, sometimes it takes a lawsuit to force changes.

Third, the article I posted was exactly about keeping water clean and actual actions that can help without lawsuits.

Sometimes the city council doesn't want to do anything and sometimes legal action is the only action that Des Moines Iowa or the gulf states can take.

The government all ALL levels doesn't want to do anything period that may upset the status quo. A lawsuit is not going to change thing. It just rearranges who gets the money. Mostly the lawyers are the winners.

Your answer however is no solution. Do I have to move to Alaska to make sure I'm upstream of everyone else? Where do you draw the line? Everyone upstream of you needs to sit home on the sofa and not move?

It goes to personal responsibility -- a lost art nowadays -- and frivlous lawsuits mean nothing anymore than some "carbon tax". I pay money but you ain't fixing jack. The people have to want it and people are so self-absorbed and self-centered now they are pathetic. All about me.

You get caught polluting in Texas and you get hammered. Period. Good luck with your lawsuit. We're lost in the sauce because we don't just hold people accountable for their actions.

When you figure out how to get the American people to grow up and be considerate of others, I'll vote for you. Until then, your words speak to ears of spoiled ass brats.

[fj1200]

The government all ALL levels doesn't want to do anything period that may upset the status quo. A lawsuit is not going to change thing. It just rearranges who gets the money. Mostly the lawyers are the winners.

Your answer however is no solution. Do I have to move to Alaska to make sure I'm upstream of everyone else? Where do you draw the line? Everyone upstream of you needs to sit home on the sofa and not move?

It goes to personal responsibility -- a lost art nowadays -- and frivlous lawsuits mean nothing anymore than some "carbon tax". I pay money but you ain't fixing jack. The people have to want it and people are so self-absorbed and self-centered now they are pathetic. All about me.

You get caught polluting in Texas and you get hammered. Period. Good luck with your lawsuit. We're lost in the sauce because we don't just hold people accountable for their actions.

When you figure out how to get the American people to grow up and be considerate of others, I'll vote for you. Until then, your words speak to ears of spoiled ass brats.

Try reading a link every once in awhile, there's solution in there to the particular problem in question. And sometimes lawsuits will happen because not everyone acts altruistically. I'm also not quite sure how you get to have no solution while telling me I have no solution. :confused:

[Gunny]

Try reading a link every once in awhile, there's solution in there to the particular problem in question. And sometimes lawsuits will happen because not everyone acts altruistically. I'm also not quite sure how you get to have no solution while telling me I have no solution. :confused:

There is no solution. People need to accept that sometimes. If I live upstream of you and use the water, then it's used water. What about our government that dams the rivers and screws everyone below them over?

I asked a question. I also presented a solution. Sit home on your sofa. Realistic? In THIS country? Not a chance. Nobody cares what you get nor about screwing you over to get what they want.

Come up with something reasonable. I live in the SW. I can't even go swimming in the river here. All we get is everyone else's leftovers.

[fj1200]

There is no solution. People need to accept that sometimes. If I live upstream of you and use the water, then it's used water. What about our government that dams the rivers and screws everyone below them over?

I asked a question. I also presented a solution. Sit home on your sofa. Realistic? In THIS country? Not a chance. Nobody cares what you get nor about screwing you over to get what they want.

Come up with something reasonable. I live in the SW. I can't even go swimming in the river here. All we get is everyone else's leftovers.

You offered no solution outside of move to AK. I didn't see a point in answering rhetorical questions.

[Gunny]

You offered no solution outside of move to AK. I didn't see a point in answering rhetorical questions.

Pay attention much? :slap: There IS no solution. You trying to be Capt Kirk and do the Kobiyashi Maru? The entire premise of your argument is a red herring. You can't legislate personal responsibility. You teach it. Our society wants to shift blame no matter what.

Fix the problem.

[fj1200]

Pay attention much? :slap: There IS no solution. You trying to be Capt Kirk and do the Kobiyashi Maru? The entire premise of your argument is a red herring. You can't legislate personal responsibility. You teach it. Our society wants to shift blame no matter what.

Fix the problem.

I'm paying attention it's just so hard to deal with all of your conflicting statements. Earlier in this thread there was a solution to acid rain, the recent article is about a potential solution to farmland runoff and soil erosion. Acid rain was solved with cap and trade signed by Bush I. Farmland runoff and soil erosion might be minimized by planting prairies again.

[Gunny]

I'm paying attention it's just so hard to deal with all of your conflicting statements.

You can call me a lot of things, but my statements don't conflict. I say the same thing each and every time. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean I am wrong.

Spend more time reading what's being said than trying to prove me wrong.

[fj1200]

You can call me a lot of things, but my statements don't conflict. I say the same thing each and every time. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean I am wrong.

Spend more time reading what's being said than trying to prove me wrong.

I try to read what you've said but we can agree to disagree. I also added some to my earlier post. :)


I'm paying attention it's just so hard to deal with all of your conflicting statements. Earlier in this thread there was a solution to acid rain, the recent article is about a potential solution to farmland runoff and soil erosion. Acid rain was solved with cap and trade signed by Bush I. Farmland runoff and soil erosion might be minimized by planting prairies again.

[Gunny]

I try to read what you've said but we can agree to disagree. I also added some to my earlier post. :)

Can't you just ever agree to agree? You're worse than my brother. All you want to do is argue for the sake of arguing.

[fj1200]

Can't you just ever agree to agree? You're worse than my brother. All you want to do is argue for the sake of arguing.

Of course, but if I think you're wrong I'll endeavor to explain why you are wrong. Besides I argue to make a point. :)

[Gunny]

Of course, but if I think you're wrong I'll endeavor to explain why you are wrong. Besides I argue to make a point. :)

Okay ... your thread right? Look at your thread title. I'm against pollution. I also realize we all have to live. There's nothing about that that is wrong. Being stuck on unrealistic ideology is what is wrong.

You take a good gander at a map. The SW. Everything we do and have is predicated by water. Most of us that have a brain know where the nearest water is. DO I want your kid pissing in my damned water? No. Do I think it's okay for you to build some stupid dam in a state north of here and shut off my water? F*ck no. Get some realism into your idealism.

If we are alive, we pollute the environment. Period. You go to the bathroom, right? You think your leftovers just magically disappear with the Lucky Charms little guy? What you can't do here is differentiate between the users and the abusers.

[Elessar]

I hate littering and detest pollution. Go after the ones doing them rather than try to legislate them.
There is the big mistake...there are plenty of laws and statues on the books in regards to both.
The EPA and USCG Marine Safety People do not sit around idly twiddling their thumbs!

[fj1200]

Okay ... your thread right? Look at your thread title. I'm against pollution. I also realize we all have to live. There's nothing about that that is wrong. Being stuck on unrealistic ideology is what is wrong.

You take a good gander at a map. The SW. Everything we do and have is predicated by water. Most of us that have a brain know where the nearest water is. DO I want your kid pissing in my damned water? No. Do I think it's okay for you to build some stupid dam in a state north of here and shut off my water? F*ck no. Get some realism into your idealism.

If we are alive, we pollute the environment. Period. You go to the bathroom, right? You think your leftovers just magically disappear with the Lucky Charms little guy? What you can't do here is differentiate between the users and the abusers.

Yes, my thread. The first part is "Conservative Solution..." It's essentially about realism not whining about us all polluting. If you don't have a solution then there isn't really any reason to keep posting. :)

If you don't like dams you can partner with the Patagonia guy (https://www.patagonia.com/on/demandware.static/Sites-patagonia-us-Site/Library-Sites-PatagoniaShared/en_US/PDF-US/DamNation_Statements_v1.pdf) to advocate for removing them. Watch out though, pretty sure he's a lefty.


I hate littering and detest pollution. Go after the ones doing them rather than try to legislate them.
There is the big mistake...there are plenty of laws and statues on the books in regards to both.
The EPA and USCG Marine Safety People do not sit around idly twiddling their thumbs!

Of course there have to be laws for them to go after them but in plenty of cases there is a lack of a law. Is there a law against farmland runoff? I'll guess that there is not so at that point what does Des Moines or the gulf states do?

[Gunny]

Yes, my thread. The first part is "Conservative Solution..." It's essentially about realism not whining about us all polluting. If you don't have a solution then there isn't really any reason to keep posting. :)

If you don't like dams you can partner with the Patagonia guy (https://www.patagonia.com/on/demandware.static/Sites-patagonia-us-Site/Library-Sites-PatagoniaShared/en_US/PDF-US/DamNation_Statements_v1.pdf) to advocate for removing them. Watch out though, pretty sure he's a lefty.



Of course there have to be laws for them to go after them but in plenty of cases there is a lack of a law. Is there a law against farmland runoff? I'll guess that there is not so at that point what does Des Moines or the gulf states do?

You've got no solution junior. You sound like these Greenpeace goofs. My solution is common sense and responsible use. Yours is cut everyone off upstream. THAT is no solution. Why don't you just buy everyone a firearm and they can go home and put one to the temple and get out of YOUR way.

Why people think it's "all about me" just slays me. That goes for people like you, and the abusers who have no consideration for others and their impact on them. Might as well file personal responsibility away with the T-Rex as extinct.

[fj1200]

You've got no solution junior. You sound like these Greenpeace goofs. My solution is common sense and responsible use. Yours is cut everyone off upstream. THAT is no solution. Why don't you just buy everyone a firearm and they can go home and put one to the temple and get out of YOUR way.

Why people think it's "all about me" just slays me. That goes for people like you, and the abusers who have no consideration for others and their impact on them. Might as well file personal responsibility away with the T-Rex as extinct.

I guess there's no point in posting when you don't bother to read.

[Gunny]

I guess there's no point in posting when you don't bother to read.

I can say the same about you, bubba. I read just fine. YOU are easy to read. You get in one of your little moods and look for someone to pick a fight with. Well, Mr Wisdom, got a newsflash for you...

I may be trained to fight but it was on my own time. I'm trained to kill. Your tactics are so simplistic you'd be the first casualty. Always a flanking movement from you. Never meet the enemy head on. You make it about us, not the topic. And now you're trying to play victim.

So this is what I suggest: If you want to discuss the actual topic, I'm game. If you're just looking to pick a fight, we have the Steel Cage. I WILL oblige you. We also have one on one debates that someone else will moderate.

Otherwise, stop wrecking threads with personal crap. This thread's about pollution. I hate pollution. Politicizing it is ridiculous.

[fj1200]

I can say the same about you, bubba. I read just fine. YOU are easy to read. You get in one of your little moods and look for someone to pick a fight with. Well, Mr Wisdom, got a newsflash for you...

I may be trained to fight but it was on my own time. I'm trained to kill. Your tactics are so simplistic you'd be the first casualty. Always a flanking movement from you. Never meet the enemy head on. You make it about us, not the topic. And now you're trying to play victim.

So this is what I suggest: If you want to discuss the actual topic, I'm game. If you're just looking to pick a fight, we have the Steel Cage. I WILL oblige you. We also have one on one debates that someone else will moderate.

Otherwise, stop wrecking threads with personal crap. This thread's about pollution. I hate pollution. Politicizing it is ridiculous.

:rolleyes: Moving on.

[Gunny]

:rolleyes: Moving on.

See your PM.

[Elessar]

Yes, my thread.
Of course there have to be laws for them to go after them but in plenty of cases there is a lack of a law. Is there a law against farmland runoff? I'll guess that there is not so at that point what does Des Moines or the gulf states do?

Well... where are the locals that are supposed to head off this kind of stuff? Fix this first, fj1200.
Waiting on the Feds to come in and do it? Like the Disaster Preparedness Plan (Federal),
such things have be first handled locally. Only the USCG can intervene immediately on waters
and marine environments when in joint jurisdiction with EPA and States.

[Kathianne]

Well... where are the locals that are supposed to head off this kind of stuff? Fix this first, fj1200.
Waiting on the Feds to come in and do it? Like the Disaster Preparedness Plan (Federal),
such things have be first handled locally. Only the USCG can intervene immediately on waters
and marine environments when in joint jurisdiction with EPA and States.

I agree with local, whenever possible. The problem with 'run off' is that the pesticide/fertilizers runs into streams, that run into rivers, eventually into the Mississippi, then into the Gulf.

So, while the action should start locally, eventually the fed will be involved because the waters are interstate.

I can't really speak with authority regarding IO or IN or farming for that matter. I don't know what regulations are already in place and if they are being adhered to or enforced.

While chemical companies and such have been fined huge amounts for dirty dumping, I wouldn't want to see small or family owned farms regulated into oblivion through beyond affordable 'solutions'. Commercial farms, with the money should do what is necessary.

[Gunny]

Well... where are the locals that are supposed to head off this kind of stuff? Fix this first, fj1200.
Waiting on the Feds to come in and do it? Like the Disaster Preparedness Plan (Federal),
such things have be first handled locally. Only the USCG can intervene immediately on waters
and marine environments when in joint jurisdiction with EPA and States.

New Orleans was a disaster because of the locals. The Feds can't step in without a request which Bush begged Blanco for. She was too busy being a leftwinger to save her people. When you request Federal assistance after it's too late, it's on you.

[Kathianne]

New Orleans was a disaster because of the locals. The Feds can't step in without a request which Bush begged Blanco for. She was too busy being a leftwinger to save her people. When you request Federal assistance after it's too late, it's on you.

You're referring to Katrina?

[aboutime]

How long does it take for common Americans to finally recognize how the most dangerous cities, the least taken care of cities, the cities with the highest unemployment, cities with the highest crime rates, cities with highest murder rates, and highest taxes where poverty, and homelessness thrives....generally have all been proven to be DEMOCRAT Controlled, and DEMOCRAT Senate, and House of Representative members??????

The proof was in New Orleans, and still is. Even after the 11 years since Katrina..the DEMOCRATS are still in charge, and none of the political promises have been kept to the EASILY-LED, generally Black citizens who always vote for DEMOCRATS....because Dems control their inability to be informed, and educated?????

Anyone who doubts the factors I mentioned should do your own checking. FACTS do not Lie. If not New Orleans. Check out DETROIT.

[Kathianne]

Now we're really rolling, Katrina! Corrupt democrats in LA, corrupt democrats everywhere! Damn, they probably laid the pesticides, right?

[Gunny]

You're referring to Katrina?


How long does it take for common Americans to finally recognize how the most dangerous cities, the least taken care of cities, the cities with the highest unemployment, cities with the highest crime rates, cities with highest murder rates, and highest taxes where poverty, and homelessness thrives....generally have all been proven to be DEMOCRAT Controlled, and DEMOCRAT Senate, and House of Representative members??????

The proof was in New Orleans, and still is. Even after the 11 years since Katrina..the DEMOCRATS are still in charge, and none of the political promises have been kept to the EASILY-LED, generally Black citizens who always vote for DEMOCRATS....because Dems control their inability to be informed, and educated?????

Anyone who doubts the factors I mentioned should do your own checking. FACTS do not Lie. If not New Orleans. Check out DETROIT.


Now we're really rolling, Katrina! Corrupt democrats in LA, corrupt democrats everywhere! Damn, they probably laid the pesticides, right?

The fact is, in the case of katrina, it IS a Democrat's fault. Blanco refused to request Federal aid because Bush was a Republican. The mayor of NO refused to call for an evacuation for fear of losing tourist money. Bush was begging her on Fri and Sat to to put in the request. She puts it in Sun night and Katrina hit Mon morning.

So yeah, THAT is a Dem's fault. Then her dumbass sister in Congress threatened Bush. He had enough class to not respond. I'd have stomped a mudpuddle in her ass. You know how how many lives she cost because of her partisan politics?

[aboutime]

Now we're really rolling, Katrina! Corrupt democrats in LA, corrupt democrats everywhere! Damn, they probably laid the pesticides, right?



Kathianne. Sounds like you are still blaming BUSH for Katrina. Say it isn't so....Please?

[Elessar]

New Orleans was a disaster because of the locals. The Feds can't step in without a request which Bush begged Blanco for. She was too busy being a leftwinger to save her people. When you request Federal assistance after it's too late, it's on you.

I am fully aware of that incident. The locals and state did not do SQUAT pre or post storm!

Our States Rights Laws prohibit the Feds from intervening unless formally requested. That debacle
in New Orleans is fully the fault of the liberal Democrats in control there at the time. The National
Disaster Preparedness Plan instituted after 9/11 laid out the proper steps and procedures. That came
from the GWB Administration. New Orleans and the state of Louisiana were not compliant with that
Law.

The NWS (NOAA) recommended evacuation 72 hours out. The GWB White House advised them
to follow the NWS warning. That was all the Feds could do prior to landfall. All of the rest is on
the laps of that idiot mayor and idiotress governor.

Only the USCG and Air Force could respond post landfall, and the Air Force got the Navy, Marines,
and Army to respond as well as is their edict in the National Search and Rescue Plan. The DOD
took that request and ran with it. The USCG has fewer limitations, because it is not under DOD.
As soon as our helos could launch, they were in the air over the devastation.

[Gunny]

I am fully aware of that incident. The locals and state did not do SQUAT pre or post storm!

Our States Rights Laws prohibit the Feds from intervening unless formally requested. That debacle
in New Orleans is fully the fault of the liberal Democrats in control there at the time. The National
Disaster Preparedness Plan instituted after 9/11 laid out the proper steps and procedures. That came
from the GWB Administration. New Orleans and the state of Louisiana were not compliant with that
Law.

The NWS (NOAA) recommended evacuation 72 hours out. The GWB White House advised them
to follow the NWS warning. That was all the Feds could do prior to landfall. All of the rest is on
the laps of that idiot mayor and idiotress governor.

Only the USCG and Air Force could respond post landfall, and the Air Force got the Navy, Marines,
and Army to respond as well as is their edict in the National Search and Rescue Plan. The DOD
took that request and ran with it. The USCG has fewer limitations, because it is not under DOD.
As soon as our helos could launch, they were in the air over the devastation.

People just blow me away with their dumbshitness. OH look, the waters receded a half mile, let's go get some sea shells. How about get the f*ck out of Dodge and head for high ground? There ain't anything good coming out of that.

BUt .. and wait for it .... good thing y'all were around to save Sean Penn in his rescue pleasure craft. Does any of these morons understand it's the tidal surge that kills your ass? You're going to go save people in a 25' ski boat in a tidal surge. Brilliant. Y'all should have let him sink.

[Kathianne]

The fact is, in the case of katrina, it IS a Democrat's fault. Blanco refused to request Federal aid because Bush was a Republican. The mayor of NO refused to call for an evacuation for fear of losing tourist money. Bush was begging her on Fri and Sat to to put in the request. She puts it in Sun night and Katrina hit Mon morning.

So yeah, THAT is a Dem's fault. Then her dumbass sister in Congress threatened Bush. He had enough class to not respond. I'd have stomped a mudpuddle in her ass. You know how how many lives she cost because of her partisan politics?


Kathianne. Sounds like you are still blaming BUSH for Katrina. Say it isn't so....Please?


I am fully aware of that incident. The locals and state did not do SQUAT pre or post storm!

Our States Rights Laws prohibit the Feds from intervening unless formally requested. That debacle
in New Orleans is fully the fault of the liberal Democrats in control there at the time. The National
Disaster Preparedness Plan instituted after 9/11 laid out the proper steps and procedures. That came
from the GWB Administration. New Orleans and the state of Louisiana were not compliant with that
Law.

The NWS (NOAA) recommended evacuation 72 hours out. The GWB White House advised them
to follow the NWS warning. That was all the Feds could do prior to landfall. All of the rest is on
the laps of that idiot mayor and idiotress governor.

Only the USCG and Air Force could respond post landfall, and the Air Force got the Navy, Marines,
and Army to respond as well as is their edict in the National Search and Rescue Plan. The DOD
took that request and ran with it. The USCG has fewer limitations, because it is not under DOD.
As soon as our helos could launch, they were in the air over the devastation.


People just blow me away with their dumbshitness. OH look, the waters receded a half mile, let's go get some sea shells. How about get the f*ck out of Dodge and head for high ground? There ain't anything good coming out of that.

BUt .. and wait for it .... good thing y'all were around to save Sean Penn in his rescue pleasure craft. Does any of these morons understand it's the tidal surge that kills your ass? You're going to go save people in a 25' ski boat in a tidal surge. Brilliant. Y'all should have let him sink.


I agree with all of you, I seriously do! I did at the time I do now.

Here's the deal, start a new Katrina thread-yeah the topic is a bit dated, but you could start it with a title of best example of democrat incompetence or something.

What it has zero to do with is the topic. It's not a bit off, it's way off. Usually I'd explain why, but you all know why.

[Gunny]

Because Katrina is about the politics as much as it is the water. With all 4 or so of us posting, why a new thread?

You got me and 2 squids. We grew up and lived on the water. Don't take a whole lot of common sense. We blame the government at the local level. That we sidetrack off to people being dumbasses with water is irrelevant. Ain't like it's the 1st thread.

[Kathianne]

Because Katrina is about the politics as much as it is the water. With all 4 or so of us posting, why a new thread?

You got me and 2 squids. We grew up and lived on the water. Don't take a whole lot of common sense. We blame the government at the local level. That we sidetrack off to people being dumbasses with water is irrelevant. Ain't like it's the 1st thread.

Politics, water, fire, damnation. Some of these may or may not have anything to do with pollution in general, runoff of chemically treated land specifically.

No, not the first that has gone totally off the rails, not by a long shot. The thing is that it's the x to the nth of fj's that one would almost think it was intentional to keep him from starting threads.

[Gunny]

Politics, water, fire, damnation. Some of these may or may not have anything to do with pollution in general, runoff of chemically treated land specifically.

No, not the first that has gone totally off the rails, not by a long shot. The thing is that it's the x to the nth of fj's that one would almost think it was intentional to keep him from starting threads.

First off, I like FJ. I know some don't but he doesn't bother me. My PM I referred to was about a concern for HIM, not his posts. Remember? You like to make fun of my logic but I can pick up patterns and strays. He's never been this tempermental. When your behavior changes I will notice it in a heartbeat.

Second, it ain't like we're running Union Station here. Going off-kilter in a thread means nothing. But there's no selectivity in it. You don't get to pick and choose which one is and which one isn't bound to the title. We DO have a One on One debate forum.

The Gulf is polluted as Hell. Doesn't really matter who does it. I'll return to my theme ... fix it. And when I lived in TX I went down to the coast 6 or so times a summer. When my daughter lived in Corpus, I was there. Nobody swims in the Gulf. We get rooms where there are pools to swim in.

Point here is FJ's trying to pick a fight and now he's acting like a brat.

[Elessar]

Kathi...It was you who asked about Katrina.
I just expounded on it and laid out the facts of it.

[fj1200]

See your PM.

As I said, I'm moving on.


Well... where are the locals that are supposed to head off this kind of stuff? Fix this first, fj1200.
Waiting on the Feds to come in and do it? Like the Disaster Preparedness Plan (Federal),
such things have be first handled locally. Only the USCG can intervene immediately on waters
and marine environments when in joint jurisdiction with EPA and States.

Are you paying attention or reading links? The runoff issue can be handled to some extent locally but there is resistance to implementing the option discussed. That it is not being handled well enough becomes a problem for Des Moine; they could take legal action or look to their state legislature. That it hasn't been handled for such a long time leads to problems downstream and into the gulf; States could begin to sue each other or the EPA becomes the entity to start regulating run off.

[fj1200]

Point here is FJ's trying to pick a fight and now he's acting like a brat.

Oh for F sake. Look in a mirror.

[Gunny]

Oh for F sake. Look in a mirror.

Well WTF, junior? You think I come on a board that has DEBATE in the title to agree with people? I can go down to the VFW and listen to war stories if I wanted to just be a back-slapping buddy. I'll argue with the tree out back if it don't move too much.:laugh:

Thing is, when I send rounds down range, I got on my flak and helmet and am waiting for incoming. I am responsible for what I post and I will man the line. Words mean things; especially, on a message board where everything is words on a screen.

Man your damned line. One of the things I've always liked about you whether or not we agree. Looks like now you want to cut and run.

[fj1200]

I'll wait for the debate to start back up.

[Gunny]

I'll wait for the debate to start back up.

Soon as you're ready for another beatdown, bro. Bring it.:slap:

[fj1200]

Soon as you're ready for another beatdown, bro. Bring it.:slap:

:confused:

[Gunny]

:confused:

I'm just wondering where you are trying to go. Apparently nowadays anyway I am conservative, and I've been discussing pollution. Your thread title, right?

You got 5 pages here. How many posts discuss the thread title? I'm not going to go count but you can.

[Elessar]

Everyone here has agreed on pollution and littering. I cannot be sure why you
are trying to cause a scrap.:cuckoo:

[aboutime]

I'm just wondering where you are trying to go. Apparently nowadays anyway I am conservative, and I've been discussing pollution. Your thread title, right?

You got 5 pages here. How many posts discuss the thread title? I'm not going to go count but you can.


Gunny. The pollution goes far beyond trash, dirt, heat, oil, waste as we know it here. The pollution on this forum has extended to the addition of some members who POLLUTE nearly every thread with their self-inflicted stupidity, and arrogance of feeling as if somebody died, and left them in charge.

[Elessar]

I'm just wondering where you are trying to go. Apparently nowadays anyway I am conservative, and I've been discussing pollution. Your thread title, right?

You got 5 pages here. How many posts discuss the thread title? I'm not going to go count but you can.

Fucking not worth your time or remaining hair...just wants to stir up shit.
Put him in the pit if he wants to play tough boy.:laugh:

[Gunny]

Several issues at play here.

1. The second you hit submit there is no "my thread". It becomes the intellectual property of the board.

2. If one wishes to stay on topic, then stay on topic. Use your scroll button if you don't like a response. You are not required to respond.

3. Which thread has 5 pages without everyone going all over the place like a preschool classroom? You don't get to pick and choose. You pitch that ball and someone's going to hit it.

[fj1200]

I'm just wondering where you are trying to go. Apparently nowadays anyway I am conservative, and I've been discussing pollution. Your thread title, right?

You got 5 pages here. How many posts discuss the thread title? I'm not going to go count but you can.

Key word: Solution.


Fucking not worth your time or remaining hair...just wants to stir up shit.
Put him in the pit if he wants to play tough boy.:laugh:

Pot, meet kettle. :)

[Elessar]

Key word: Solution.
Pot, meet kettle. :)

Weak. Very weak. You started the topic yet cannot recognize that folks
identify with the problems. Yet you still attack?

Weak! Take your pot and kettle, wash them, then shove them.

[fj1200]

Weak. Very weak. You started the topic yet cannot recognize that folks
identify with the problems. Yet you still attack?

Weak! Take your pot and kettle, wash them, then shove them.

Thank you for not being on topic. Clearly it's all my fault.

[Gunny]

Key word: Solution.



Pot, meet kettle. :)

There is no solution. And you cannot divorce the politics from it. We've got more laws that just screw us over while the rest of the world just laughs at us. China is the nastiest place I've ever been. Middle East is second. Only reason Africa isn't on the list is because they have remained too primitive to develop much industry. They don't care.

Yet we have all these laws and summits and stupid taxes. Does paying a carbon tax take the carbon you created out of the air? No. Does the fact that you exhale make you a polluter? How about using the little boy's room? All those non-biodegradable wrappers you toss in the trash? I could go on but the point is your very existence creates what you call pollution.

We have to live. SO unless we just commit mass seppuku; which, would be pollution as well, there is no answer. As elessar said previously, we're all saying the same thing.

It's about personal responsibility and we got a criminal leading in the polls. So at least half the people don't give a crap. If you were around in the 60s, you'd know our highways were just lined with sh*t. People just threw stuff out the window and no one cared.

There is a BIG difference between responsible use of resources and abuse. It's intertwined with Fed's not knowing where to and not to interfere. You can't take the politics out of any solution you may think you have.

[Abbey Marie]

Whatever we do , it cannot be worse than the EPA. Mine runoff for $200 Alex.

[Gunny]

Whatever we do , it cannot be worse than the EPA. Mine runoff for $200 Alex.

The EPA is actually a Nixon construct. Call him Dr Franken-Nixon. He had no idea the monster he created. The intent was good. The result not so much.

[fj1200]

There is no solution. And you cannot divorce the politics from it. We've got more laws that just screw us over while the rest of the world just laughs at us. China is the nastiest place I've ever been. Middle East is second. Only reason Africa isn't on the list is because they have remained too primitive to develop much industry. They don't care.

Yet we have all these laws and summits and stupid taxes. Does paying a carbon tax take the carbon you created out of the air? No. Does the fact that you exhale make you a polluter? How about using the little boy's room? All those non-biodegradable wrappers you toss in the trash? I could go on but the point is your very existence creates what you call pollution.

We have to live. SO unless we just commit mass seppuku; which, would be pollution as well, there is no answer. As elessar said previously, we're all saying the same thing.

It's about personal responsibility and we got a criminal leading in the polls. So at least half the people don't give a crap. If you were around in the 60s, you'd know our highways were just lined with sh*t. People just threw stuff out the window and no one cared.

There is a BIG difference between responsible use of resources and abuse. It's intertwined with Fed's not knowing where to and not to interfere. You can't take the politics out of any solution you may think you have.

Of course there is. I've listed at least two. And we're not saying the same thing, a conservative solution is not defeatist.


The EPA is actually a Nixon construct. Call him Dr Franken-Nixon. He had no idea the monster he created. The intent was good. The result not so much.

Nixon, not a conservative so therefore not a conservative solution. ;)

[fj1200]

No-Till Farming: What’s the Deal? (http://modernfarmer.com/2013/08/7-facts-till-farming/)



Like clean water and fresh air, fertile soil ensures our continued survival — and we're destroying it in mass quantities.

According to geologist David Montgomery, author of Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations (https://www.amazon.com/gp/aws/cart/add.html/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_til?SubscriptionId=D68HUNXKLH S4J&AssociateTag=modefarm-20&ASIN.1=0520272900&Quantity.1=1&adid=14PYK4N460TKZ0EGXZXR&linkCode=as1&OfferListingId.1=c1qbqha6q1Ks2xf4R4JPaMrE5sER%252F LsWXHquPKo37sX6YaDfqNqaQDgZu3bZY4W37I0rwSYfDzt%252 Bg0Jb6kRTpLBgIj0KXkdTedTdFYDBeqU%252Bpr7DHgwtcw%25 3D%253D&submit.add.x=37&submit.add.y=14&submit.add=Buy+from+Amazon.com), the world loses roughly 23 billion tons of good soil each year. At this rate, it will all be gone within 150 years. But a soil-based crisis could happen much sooner than that; we’ll need all available cropland to stave off animpending hunger crisis (http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/07/impending-crisis-earth-to-run-out-of-food-by-2050/).

One of the biggest contributors to land degradation is the simple process of plowing fields. Plowing’s essential purpose is to bury crop residue (http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=480), manure and weeds, while aerating and warming the soil. This method of agriculture has been practiced for thousands of years, and many farmers know no other way. But over time, the tilled soil will become ruined, infertile.

There is, of course, another way to farm. No-till farming is a practice that started to gain traction in the late ’70s, and has slowly picked up steam since then. Roger Claassen, agricultural economist with the USDA, says only 5 percent of U.S farmers were no-till in 1988. In 2008, that figure had jumped to 25 percent (and is likely higher now). But there are drawbacks to the no-till way — it’s not as simple as it seems. Here’s a short list of no-till pros and cons.

...

[Gunny]

Of course there is. I've listed at least two. And we're not saying the same thing, a conservative solution is not defeatist.



Nixon, not a conservative so therefore not a conservative solution. ;)

And fixing things you can't is not conservative. It's leftwing.

[fj1200]

And fixing things you can't is not conservative. It's leftwing.

:confused: Plenty of things have been fixed. Free markets and capitalism are wonders at solving problems with the correct incentive.

[Gunny]

No-Till Farming: What’s the Deal? (http://modernfarmer.com/2013/08/7-facts-till-farming/)

Sounds to me like you and Mr Peabody don't know sh*t about dirt and farming.

[fj1200]

Sounds to me like you and Mr Peabody don't know sh*t about dirt and farming.

Well, gee, you got me there. Thanks for playing.

[Gunny]

Well, gee, you got me there. Thanks for playing.

Dude, farmers have more respect for the land than some city slicker and a cohort professor who's probably never seen a farm. You argument reeks of man-made global warming.

I know how to rotate crops and tilling the fields don't make that dirt go anywhere. Tilling just moves it. You thin a farmer is going to give up his dirt? Don't know many farmers, do ya?

[jimnyc]

"Rock N Roll ain't noise pollution" https://i.imgur.com/qYISIbt.gif

[fj1200]

Dude, farmers have more respect for the land than some city slicker and a cohort professor who's probably never seen a farm. You argument reeks of man-made global warming.

I know how to rotate crops and tilling the fields don't make that dirt go anywhere. Tilling just moves it. You thin a farmer is going to give up his dirt? Don't know many farmers, do ya?

Where did I say that they did not? The link was from modernfarmer.com, something tells me that they are farmers. :dunno:

[Elessar]

Thank you for not being on topic. Clearly it's all my fault.

Yes...your fault. You opened the topic, cannot take the responses, and are all over the map
with your replies. Just picking fights again.

I hate pollution and littering....isn't that what the point of the topic was to begin with?
You're the one who went off topic.

[fj1200]

Yes...your fault. You opened the topic, cannot take the responses, and are all over the map
with your replies. Just picking fights again.

I hate pollution and littering....isn't that what the point of the topic was to begin with?
You're the one who went off topic.

Clearly you have no clue if the thread title has you confused. A summary of the purpose of the thread:

1. See pollution
2. Propose conservative solution
3. Analyze proposed conservative solution
4. Does it solve the problem?
5a. Yes -> Done
5b. No -> Return to 2

[Gunny]

Where did I say that they did not? The link was from modernfarmer.com, something tells me that they are farmers. :dunno:

So your excuse is you posted a link without checking it out and now you're backpedaling? I come from a long line of farmers, junior. Back to the 1700s. We do not disrespect the land. It's what keeps us alive.

[fj1200]

So your excuse is you posted a link without checking it out and now you're backpedaling? I come from a long line of farmers, junior. Back to the 1700s. We do not disrespect the land. It's what keeps us alive.

I read it. I posted it. I made no comment. How am I supposed to backpedal from a comment I didn't make?

You're whacked out lately man.

[Gunny]

I read it. I posted it. I made no comment. How am I supposed to backpedal from a comment I didn't make?

You're whacked out lately man.

See. this the sh*t you do. YOU posted the comment. You can't disclaim it just because the going gets rough. I got your name and I got your number, private. You want to debate a topic then debate it. You spin more than the rings of Saturn.

[fj1200]

See. this the sh*t you do. YOU posted the comment. You can't disclaim it just because the going gets rough. I got your name and I got your number, private. You want to debate a topic then debate it. You spin more than the rings of Saturn.

Oh for F sake. Make a rational point regarding it and then we can discuss it. You can't just make some stupid comment and think that's debating. Oh, and for future reference, pointing out that I didn't make a comment that you somehow think I made is not disclaiming a post.

[Gunny]

Oh for F sake. Make a rational point regarding it and then we can discuss it. You can't just make some stupid comment and think that's debating. Oh, and for future reference, pointing out that I didn't make a comment that you somehow think I made is not disclaiming a post.

My points have all been completely rational. Problem with you is can't back your own sh*t and turn it personal. Last I looked, the OP doesn't say "Gunny". So why don't YOU discuss the topic you btiched about no one discussing?

The premise of your OP is a fallacy to begin with. You create some sh*t and throw it against the wall. The biggest slobs I know of are leftwingers, not conservatives. The word "conservative" has a definition. You can't just pick 2 words and make sense.

And I will repeat. The answer to your question is personal responsibility and everyone has repeatedly said the same and you have deflected at every one. More legislation to "do something" solves nothing. We've more meaningless legislation already just so someone can say "I did something".

Our economy has been crippled by it. Companies leaving the country and people out of work. We have to import crap like coal and steel because we aren't allowed to mine for it. We have to send our oil overseas to be refined because we can't build refineries. Yet the people that made the mess refuse to see the cause and effect.

[fj1200]

My points have all been completely rational. Problem with you is can't back your own sh*t and turn it personal. Last I looked, the OP doesn't say "Gunny". So why don't YOU discuss the topic you btiched about no one discussing?

The premise of your OP is a fallacy to begin with. You create some sh*t and throw it against the wall. The biggest slobs I know of are leftwingers, not conservatives. The word "conservative" has a definition. You can't just pick 2 words and make sense.

And I will repeat. The answer to your question is personal responsibility and everyone has repeatedly said the same and you have deflected at every one. More legislation to "do something" solves nothing. We've more meaningless legislation already just so someone can say "I did something".

Our economy has been crippled by it. Companies leaving the country and people out of work. We have to import crap like coal and steel because we aren't allowed to mine for it. We have to send our oil overseas to be refined because we can't build refineries. Yet the people that made the mess refuse to see the cause and effect.

That's because it's a dumb answer. Blurting out personal responsibility is not a solution. There are plenty who have not exercised personal responsibility in controlling pesticide runoff.

[Gunny]

That's because it's a dumb answer. Blurting out personal responsibility is not a solution. There are plenty who have not exercised personal responsibility in controlling pesticide runoff.

So I'll say again. Stop breathing. THAT is a solution. We have to live. Nothing dumb about it. The question is what is dumb.

Ship yourself to Mars. You won't be a waste of space nor polluting the planet that way. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

So I'll say again. Stop breathing. THAT is a solution. We have to live. Nothing dumb about it. The question is what is dumb.

Ship yourself to Mars. You won't be a waste of space nor polluting the planet that way. :rolleyes:

:thumb: