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: Larry G on 16 Jul 2010 14:09 On Jul 16, 1:57 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-07-16, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 12:08 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:57:25 +0000, Brent wrote: > >> > On 2010-07-15, Larry G <gross.la...(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. > > >> Yet another conspiracy. > > > so there are NO Environmental groups in the private sector and NO > > parts of the govt that look after the Environment that can be > > trusted .... eh? > > > that's the drift I was getting. > > > so..whether we are talking about mercury, ozone holes, GW, dioxin, or > > even hurricanes... the scientists involved are liberal loonies... > > who.. stand to make a lot of money convincing the gullible to do > > things to restrict pollution... eh? > > Look at how regulation is done. The method is conceptionally set up such > that it is political. That is those with political power benefit at the > expense of those who do not and it allows for the furthering of the > agendas of various control freaks to shape society as they desire. > > When I hear environmental groups demanding a property rights approach to > pollution control (effectively as close to zero pollution seen by > anyone else as we will ever be able to get) and putting their money > where their mouth is by purchasing land and keeping it clean and > development free then I'll believe they care more about the environment > than they do in shaping the way other people should live. > > Instead we have global warming the seas will rise we need carbon taxes > Al Gore who emits more CO2 through his activities than some third world > countries by the sound of it and buys a 9 million dollar beach front > home... Actions speak louder than words. The actions routinely point > clearly to restrictions and poverty for the masses, everything for the > rulers. so there is no entity that you trust, govt or private when it comes to saying what needs to be done to protect the environment? ...or you also do not believe that the environment needs to be protected anyhow? How about Foods and Drugs? Same deal?
From: Dave Head on 16 Jul 2010 19:48 On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 04:28:43 +0000 (UTC), Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 2010-07-15, Dave Head <rally2xs(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. Now, I _can_ believe that. There's no rhyme or reason to a lot of this minutia of ever more restrictive emissions. Its not about the emissions, its about the damage it does to US businesses to meet them. >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. Its about draining dollars from the USA, although I agree the elite think they can do anything they want. Look at the house that Al Gore has that uses 6X the average energy of a typical home, and look at George Bush's home, that is the model of efficiency. >> 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. I wouldn't know how to trace that. Its not like they advertise it. If they did, I'd figure they're lying anyway. >Then look >at the people themselves. Al's pretty tough to look at. If they're all like that, the ugly stick salesmen must be retired on a south seas island somewhere. >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. Oh, yeah, they're power grabbers alright. >>>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. I think a civil war is in their future if they keep it up. I mean, people are not going to put up with this nonsense forever. >The question to ask is why and >who decided. Who manipulated things in this direction. The answer is >here in the US. Yes, we're doing it to ourselves, that's for sure. >>>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? I'm definitely not interested in the Rockefellers. And global warming is a crock, BTW. >>>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. It certainly works to impoverish the US. Why is a good question. You'd think the politicians would work to make this country rich, but they seem to be working to make it poor. >>>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. Hmmm... I think he's his own particular strain of malevolence. >>>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. Uh huh.
From: Dave Head on 16 Jul 2010 19:50 On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:39:54 -0700 (PDT), 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: >name two groups you support.... IEEE and ARRL. So what? You won't find any environmental groups in there unless I find one that is attempting to repeal unnecessary and costly environmental excesses.
From: Dave Head on 16 Jul 2010 19:52 On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:39:02 -0700 (PDT), 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? Wacko or malevolent, take your pick. They are impeding this country's competitiveness in the international marketplace as well as making things unnecessarily expensive here at home.
From: Dave Head on 16 Jul 2010 19:56
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:35:59 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >so who do you trust? A few close friends. The military. After those, I'm kinda drawing a blank. |