THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Brent on 15 Jul 2010 18:57 On 2010-07-15, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > so the EPA is really a bunch of enviro wackos and not to be trusted > for environmental policy? In the large picture the EPA serves the political interests of the insiders. The environment is just the excuse.
From: Brent on 15 Jul 2010 18:59 On 2010-07-15, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 15, 12:28�am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 2010-07-15, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >> >> >>The problem isn't that better environmental controls aren't a good >> >>thing, the problem is that rich countries like China get a pass. >> > Those are both problem things, I think, especially when "better >> > environmental controls" are unreasonably expensive, which, after years >> > and years of simply raising the standards, and raising the standards, >> > and raising the standards, all that are left _are_ unreasonable. >> >> You're missing the point. To those that fund the environmental movement, >> China is the model for the world in many ways including that the elite >> live well well while the poor live in polluted squallor. Pollution >> control isn't about achieving a reasonable amount, which is really zero >> leaving one's own property from a property rights standpoint, at least >> for standing sources, but about who gets to pollute. >> >> > And, another reason that I believe this is all part of an effort of >> > those that wish to attack the US and its industry is that NOBODY >> > mentions anything like a pollution tax, to be applied to pollution >> > from both US _and_ foreign manufacturers. �That is, if its >> > manufactured in China or Korea or whever, if they don't allow US >> > inspections and envirnomental monitoring, or if they do and fail the >> > environmental standards, they get that taxed extra for damage to the >> > environment of OUR PLANET. �It doesn't matter if they're spewing >> > (insert your favorite pollutant) in China or Korea or Japan, its all >> > still on this planet. �Screw everybody equally, and internationally, >> > with these super-expensive requirements, and I'd be inclined to be a >> > little less suspicious of the ultimate goals of these people. �But >> > right now, I think thier ultimate goals are to harm the US. >> >> Of course it is. So look who funds it and what else they fund. Then look >> at the people themselves. What they are doing is operating on the same >> principles as the foreign policy you endorse. They are crushing the >> american middle class because they view the middle class as a threat to >> themselves, their wealth, and most importantly, their power. >> >> >>A rich >> >>country like China isn't even held to mid 1970s let alone 1980s >> >>environmental standards. That level is dirt cheap now, there's no excuse >> >>for not using it from an environmental point of view. Thus the reason >> >>must lay elsewhere. >> > You bet the reason is elsewhere. �It is that nobody gives a S, 'cuz >> > what the whole thing is about is harming the US. �China, et. al., can >> > have a pass. �They don't care. >> >> China is the model. China is the future. The question to ask is why and >> who decided. Who manipulated things in this direction. The answer is >> here in the US. >> >> >>Who funds the environmentalists? >> > Left wing sources to a large extent, I believe, but I'm guessing. �I >> > don't really know. �I'd expect George Soros is one source. >> >> Look deeper. Here's an entry point:http://www.rffund.org/environment/ >> Remember where Rockefellers made their money? Getting interesting eh? >> >> >>Who pushes for the foreign and trade >> >>policies that have shaped the shift of manufacturing to China? >> > Oh, we're doing that all by ourselves with our taxation schemes. We've >> > had only ourselves to blame for that. >> >> Look deeper as to why taxation and managed trade exists the way it >> does and who it serves. >> >> >>What sort >> >>of people spend their time trying to manipulate the political and >> >>economic conditions of the world for their own benefit? >> > The Al Gore sort. >> >> Al Gore is a tool. literally. a tool. but yes he benefits, that is his >> compensation for being a tool. This goes way further up than Al Gore. >> Gores and Bushes and Obamas are tools of those who fund them. >> >> >>Who benefits >> >>from the conditions being created and has had the influence, time, and >> >>money to further the creation of those conditions? >> > The Al Gore sort. �This global warming nonsense is just another >> > attempt to bring this country down by making things ridiculously >> > expensive. � I am _sooooo_ tired of such nonsense. >> >> social darwinism at its finest. > > name two groups you support.... What possible relevance does that have? But if you want two groups, the national motorists association and the society of automotive engineers.
From: Beam Me Up Scotty on 15 Jul 2010 19:12 On 7/15/2010 6:39 PM, Larry G wrote: > On Jul 14, 9:30 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:38:00 +0000 (UTC), Brent >> >> <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On 2010-07-14, rally2xs2 <david.h...(a)navy.mil> wrote: >> >>>> The ones that are suggesting / enacting new, tighter environmental >>>> controls are all 'round the bend, over the top, etc. Yeah, they're >>>> wackos. No new / tighter controls are needed, we achieved everything >>>> we needed about 20 years ago, and those initiatives that are now in >>>> progress have as their aim the damaging of US Industry and the country >>>> in general much more than any other goal they may have. As I said, I >>>> think their mostly anti-capitalists, socialiist / communists, and are >>>> using the issue as a weapon against us, the American people. >> >>> The problem isn't that better environmental controls aren't a good >>> thing, the problem is that rich countries like China get a pass. >> >> Those are both problem things, I think, especially when "better >> environmental controls" are unreasonably expensive, which, after years >> and years of simply raising the standards, and raising the standards, >> and raising the standards, all that are left _are_ unreasonable. >> >> And, another reason that I believe this is all part of an effort of >> those that wish to attack the US and its industry is that NOBODY >> mentions anything like a pollution tax, to be applied to pollution >> from both US _and_ foreign manufacturers. That is, if its >> manufactured in China or Korea or whever, if they don't allow US >> inspections and envirnomental monitoring, or if they do and fail the >> environmental standards, they get that taxed extra for damage to the >> environment of OUR PLANET. It doesn't matter if they're spewing >> (insert your favorite pollutant) in China or Korea or Japan, its all >> still on this planet. Screw everybody equally, and internationally, >> with these super-expensive requirements, and I'd be inclined to be a >> little less suspicious of the ultimate goals of these people. But >> right now, I think thier ultimate goals are to harm the US. >> >>> A rich >>> country like China isn't even held to mid 1970s let alone 1980s >>> environmental standards. That level is dirt cheap now, there's no excuse >>> for not using it from an environmental point of view. Thus the reason >>> must lay elsewhere. >> >> You bet the reason is elsewhere. It is that nobody gives a S, 'cuz >> what the whole thing is about is harming the US. China, et. al., can >> have a pass. They don't care. >> >>> Who funds the environmentalists? >> >> Left wing sources to a large extent, I believe, but I'm guessing. I >> don't really know. I'd expect George Soros is one source. >> >>> Who pushes for the foreign and trade >>> policies that have shaped the shift of manufacturing to China? >> >> Oh, we're doing that all by ourselves with our taxation schemes. We've >> had only ourselves to blame for that. >> >>> What sort >>> of people spend their time trying to manipulate the political and >>> economic conditions of the world for their own benefit? >> >> The Al Gore sort. >> >>> Who benefits >> >from the conditions being created and has had the influence, time, and >>> money to further the creation of those conditions? >> >> The Al Gore sort. This global warming nonsense is just another >> attempt to bring this country down by making things ridiculously >> expensive. I am _sooooo_ tired of such nonsense. > > so the EPA is really a bunch of enviro wackos and not to be trusted > for environmental policy? Hey... you're pretty sharp.
From: Clark F Morris on 15 Jul 2010 22:35 On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:39:02 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 14, 9:30�pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:38:00 +0000 (UTC), Brent >> >> <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >On 2010-07-14, rally2xs2 <david.h...(a)navy.mil> wrote: >> >> >> The ones that are suggesting / enacting new, tighter environmental >> >> controls are all 'round the bend, over the top, etc. �Yeah, they're >> >> wackos. �No new / tighter controls are needed, we achieved everything >> >> we needed about 20 years ago, and those initiatives that are now in >> >> progress have as their aim the damaging of US Industry and the country >> >> in general much more than any other goal they may have. �As I said, I >> >> think their mostly anti-capitalists, socialiist / communists, and are >> >> using the issue as a weapon against us, the American people. >> >> >The problem isn't that better environmental controls aren't a good >> >thing, the problem is that rich countries like China get a pass. >> >> Those are both problem things, I think, especially when "better >> environmental controls" are unreasonably expensive, which, after years >> and years of simply raising the standards, and raising the standards, >> and raising the standards, all that are left _are_ unreasonable. >> >> And, another reason that I believe this is all part of an effort of >> those that wish to attack the US and its industry is that NOBODY >> mentions anything like a pollution tax, to be applied to pollution >> from both US _and_ foreign manufacturers. �That is, if its >> manufactured in China or Korea or whever, if they don't allow US >> inspections and envirnomental monitoring, or if they do and fail the >> environmental standards, they get that taxed extra for damage to the >> environment of OUR PLANET. �It doesn't matter if they're spewing >> (insert your favorite pollutant) in China or Korea or Japan, its all >> still on this planet. �Screw everybody equally, and internationally, >> with these super-expensive requirements, and I'd be inclined to be a >> little less suspicious of the ultimate goals of these people. �But >> right now, I think thier ultimate goals are to harm the US. >> >> >A rich >> >country like China isn't even held to mid 1970s let alone 1980s >> >environmental standards. That level is dirt cheap now, there's no excuse >> >for not using it from an environmental point of view. Thus the reason >> >must lay elsewhere. >> >> You bet the reason is elsewhere. �It is that nobody gives a S, 'cuz >> what the whole thing is about is harming the US. �China, et. al., can >> have a pass. �They don't care. >> >> >Who funds the environmentalists? >> >> Left wing sources to a large extent, I believe, but I'm guessing. �I >> don't really know. �I'd expect George Soros is one source. >> >> >Who pushes for the foreign and trade >> >policies that have shaped the shift of manufacturing to China? >> >> Oh, we're doing that all by ourselves with our taxation schemes. We've >> had only ourselves to blame for that. >> >> >What sort >> >of people spend their time trying to manipulate the political and >> >economic conditions of the world for their own benefit? >> >> The Al Gore sort. >> >> >Who benefits >> >from the conditions being created and has had the influence, time, and >> >money to further the creation of those conditions? >> >> The Al Gore sort. �This global warming nonsense is just another >> attempt to bring this country down by making things ridiculously >> expensive. � I am _sooooo_ tired of such nonsense. > >so the EPA is really a bunch of enviro wackos and not to be trusted >for environmental policy? Some are, some aren't just as in any major operation. There probably some wackos in the EPA that got hired because they were wacko going the other way (the environmental harm of x isn't that great). Sometimes the wackos are overridden in any government organization, sometimes not. In whatever organization you were or are in, did or do you have always confidence in the competence and sanity of management? Clark Morris
From: Larry G on 16 Jul 2010 10:35
On Jul 15, 10:35 pm, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:39:02 -0700 (PDT), Larry G > > > > > > <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Jul 14, 9:30 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:38:00 +0000 (UTC), Brent > > >> <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >On 2010-07-14, rally2xs2 <david.h...(a)navy.mil> wrote: > > >> >> The ones that are suggesting / enacting new, tighter environmental > >> >> controls are all 'round the bend, over the top, etc. Yeah, they're > >> >> wackos. No new / tighter controls are needed, we achieved everything > >> >> we needed about 20 years ago, and those initiatives that are now in > >> >> progress have as their aim the damaging of US Industry and the country > >> >> in general much more than any other goal they may have. As I said, I > >> >> think their mostly anti-capitalists, socialiist / communists, and are > >> >> using the issue as a weapon against us, the American people. > > >> >The problem isn't that better environmental controls aren't a good > >> >thing, the problem is that rich countries like China get a pass. > > >> Those are both problem things, I think, especially when "better > >> environmental controls" are unreasonably expensive, which, after years > >> and years of simply raising the standards, and raising the standards, > >> and raising the standards, all that are left _are_ unreasonable. > > >> And, another reason that I believe this is all part of an effort of > >> those that wish to attack the US and its industry is that NOBODY > >> mentions anything like a pollution tax, to be applied to pollution > >> from both US _and_ foreign manufacturers. That is, if its > >> manufactured in China or Korea or whever, if they don't allow US > >> inspections and envirnomental monitoring, or if they do and fail the > >> environmental standards, they get that taxed extra for damage to the > >> environment of OUR PLANET. It doesn't matter if they're spewing > >> (insert your favorite pollutant) in China or Korea or Japan, its all > >> still on this planet. Screw everybody equally, and internationally, > >> with these super-expensive requirements, and I'd be inclined to be a > >> little less suspicious of the ultimate goals of these people. But > >> right now, I think thier ultimate goals are to harm the US. > > >> >A rich > >> >country like China isn't even held to mid 1970s let alone 1980s > >> >environmental standards. That level is dirt cheap now, there's no excuse > >> >for not using it from an environmental point of view. Thus the reason > >> >must lay elsewhere. > > >> You bet the reason is elsewhere. It is that nobody gives a S, 'cuz > >> what the whole thing is about is harming the US. China, et. al., can > >> have a pass. They don't care. > > >> >Who funds the environmentalists? > > >> Left wing sources to a large extent, I believe, but I'm guessing. I > >> don't really know. I'd expect George Soros is one source. > > >> >Who pushes for the foreign and trade > >> >policies that have shaped the shift of manufacturing to China? > > >> Oh, we're doing that all by ourselves with our taxation schemes. We've > >> had only ourselves to blame for that. > > >> >What sort > >> >of people spend their time trying to manipulate the political and > >> >economic conditions of the world for their own benefit? > > >> The Al Gore sort. > > >> >Who benefits > >> >from the conditions being created and has had the influence, time, and > >> >money to further the creation of those conditions? > > >> The Al Gore sort. This global warming nonsense is just another > >> attempt to bring this country down by making things ridiculously > >> expensive. I am _sooooo_ tired of such nonsense. > > >so the EPA is really a bunch of enviro wackos and not to be trusted > >for environmental policy? > > Some are, some aren't just as in any major operation. There probably > some wackos in the EPA that got hired because they were wacko going > the other way (the environmental harm of x isn't that great). > Sometimes the wackos are overridden in any government organization, > sometimes not. In whatever organization you were or are in, did or do > you have always confidence in the competence and sanity of management? yes... but is NONE of the EPA and NO Environmental Group believable/ acceptable in environmental issues? do you believe or trust NONE of them? |