Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Larry G on 18 Jul 2010 16:48
On Jul 18, 2:47 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-
> On 7/17/2010 3:35 PM, Larry G wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 2:44 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-
> > Everyth...(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
> >> On 7/17/2010 7:14 AM, Larry G wrote:
> >>> On Jul 16, 8:01 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:35:33 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
> >>>> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> so there are no environmental groups you support?
> >>>> I've never considered supporting one, so no, not currently. If I find
> >>>> one that is attempting to repeal expensive and unnecessary
> >>>> environmental rules, I might even join it.
> >>> but you'd think that a group that wants to "undo" environment laws is
> >>> a group that "supports" the environment?
> >> The Paradox is that the freedom we have has made us more
> >> environmentally aware than the USSR with all their regulation ever was.....
> >> Freedom creates Environmental awareness so you Eco-Nazis are harming the
> >> environment while believing you are saving it.
> >> Freedom is always the best way.....
> > Watching a recent report in Afghanistan - there were houses that cost
> > a million dollars - and outside of each one is an enormous pile of
> > stinking garbage,
> Shopping Malls for the poor that you are so worried about......
> > no electricity and they run generators
> I guess Wind/Solar power like you are forcing on me, is just as useless
> over there... where the choice is ZERO power.
> > and no paved
> > roads, just dirt - with Land Rovers and BMWs parked in the
> > courtyard...
> really rich people can afford dirt roads and land rovers....
> With enough money you can afford to live at the end of a goat trail.
> > and this country is going to "nation-build" them in our likeness using
> > our military.
> We can't "Nation Build" our own Cities of Chicago and Detroit. Liberal
> Bastions of Socialism and destitution.
> > No EPA over there for sure.
> Maybe they do have a chance then....
to be a nation in the likeness of us? ha ha ha... and we're paying
billions of bucks and hundreds of lives to turn goat trails into
From: Larry G on 18 Jul 2010 16:49
On Jul 18, 12:50 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-
> On 7/17/2010 9:02 PM, Brent wrote:
> > On 2010-07-18, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 17, 4:32 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On 2010-07-17, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
> >>>> The Paradox is that the freedom we have has made us more
> >>>> environmentally aware than the USSR with all their regulation ever was....
> >>> Way I see it is that pollution is a violation of property rights. In the
> >>> USSR people had no property rights, thus pollution was much more wide
> >>> spread and far more harmful.
> >>> The USA uses a model where the victims have to prove harm. Initially
> >>> this left most people SOL and companies with political power would
> >>> pollute at will.
> >>> Eventually people were able to prove harm so the system shifted
> >>> gears. Now the government decides what amounts pose a danger.
> >>> This allows for a fascist (economic sense) system where those companies
> >>> close to the government can continue to pollute under limits set for
> >>> them by the government. (new companies or small unconnected competition
> >>> is left with all sorts of compliance difficulties) Regular people are
> >>> still SOL, their property rights are still largely ignored, but the
> >>> situation is somewhat better provided someone isn't trying to start a
> >>> business that has a connected and polluting competition.
> >>> Private property brings about the long term interest of owners to
> >>> protect the value of that property and the respect/protection of it
> >>> prevents others from polluting it.
> >>> Sure, some people will want to destroy their own property, pollute their
> >>> own property. But when they are held responsible for what leaves their
> >>> property they will find the containment/clean up costs to be too great
> >>> to be so irresponsible with their own property.
> >> your view is not that different from many of the environmental
> >> groups.... they believe that people are entitled to not have to endure
> >> pollution generated by others.
> > Most environmental groups want to prevent people from using their own
> > land in unapproved ways. I do not. There is no approval required. Simply
> > there is no fouling, no destruction of other people's property
> > permitted. Someone could have their giant chemical plant but if they
> > contain, treat, and/or store their waste such that zero goes next door,
> > zero gets into the water, zero gets into the air, fine and dandy. A
> > typical environmentalist view would be to control through approvals,
> > regulations, etc. Control is the goal. essentially fascism or worse. I
> > don't want to control anyone, simply protect people's property rights.
> In America you have to break a law before you are found guilty and have
> your rights taken away..... Fascists simply take away the rights and
> regulate so as to prevent any chance of breaking a law..... Fascists
> and Socialists micromanage people and unconstitutionally take our rights
> to force their ideology onto "We The People"
yep... when I rank the countries of the world for their "fascist"
qualities .. we rank near the top, eh?
From: Brent on 18 Jul 2010 22:55
On 2010-07-18, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 12:50�pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-
>> In America you have to break a law before you are found guilty and have
>> your rights taken away..... �Fascists simply take away the rights and
>> regulate so as to prevent any chance of breaking a law..... �Fascists
>> and Socialists micromanage people and unconstitutionally take our rights
>> to force their ideology onto "We The People"
> yep... when I rank the countries of the world for their "fascist"
> qualities .. we rank near the top, eh?
Economically, very much so. Just look at health insurance and health
care in general for a recent example. The government will dictate how
business is done. Private ownership technically still exists.
From: Dave Head on 19 Jul 2010 05:19
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 03:32:13 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>On 2010-07-18, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote:
>>>You have no right to pollute your neighbor's property. Expect to pay
>>>damages if you go ahead and do it anyway.
>> Is that an absolutist position or a, "You can do it for a price"
>> position? I mean, you can't build a refinery that doesn't smell.
>I am for private property. Obviously you're not, at least when it comes
>to certain things.
I like private property too, but anything can be taken to an extreme.
Some things cannot be done this way, and you would make them
impossible to do, yet they must be done.
>> can always smell a refinery, and that is pollution. So, can you build
>> no refineries in the USA with your approach?
>I already described a way. It would simply require buying enough land.
So, "The solution to pollution is dilution", eh? Just get it so you
can't smell it at the property edge and everything is OK? I don't
think so. You either have to accept that something emits, or shut it
>> How is that different
>> from the oppressive EPA that is out to harm America with their
>> envirowacko requirements that help chase all our jobs overseas?
>I've already explained that. I'm not going to go in circles with you any
>more because you didn't understand it.
You don't care any more about American jobs than the envirowackos, I
>>>Note, I am discussing CO2 or
>>>any other typical component of the atmosphere.
>> Did you mean to say you are NOT discussing CO2 or any other typical
>> component of the atmosphere?
>Yes, not, a typo.
>>>However, as I stated
>>>earlier, if it is just combustion it better be practically zero.
>> Now, wait a minute. Any particular modern car emits "practically"
>> Yet, the envirowackos want to make it emit even less. This was
>> a true statement 20 years ago. Where's the limit? Is it arbitrary in
>> your mind, or are there measurable criteria you'd like to use, such as
>> the supposed amount of damage to health, and how do you measure that?
>> In dollars? Can you quantify in dollars someone's death, assuming
>> that you can show it at all?
>Evironwackos are going after CO2 now. Remember, their goal is not the
>environment, it's political control, it's telling people how to live.
>When technology beats them they find new angles of attack. CO2 and H2O
>is basically all that comes out of tailpipes these days. So they had CO2
>politically classified as pollution.
>>>the pollution that the EPA allows is simply willful and there's no
>>>reason for it.
>> If it's expensive to implement, which is almost always a true
>> statement, then there is a reason for it, which is its expense. The
>> American people are not made of money. Make this stuff expensive at
>> every nook and cranny of everyone's life and you bankrupt America,
>> which is what is going on anyway. Mostly I think it is the income
>> taxes, but environmental extremism can't be ignored either.
>Of course it is more expensive to deal with waste than simply dumping it
>into the great lakes. There is no excuse for poisoning one of the
>world's largest sources of fresh water. I don't care how much it costs
>to deal with the waste properly,
Of course you don't. You don't care how many million people are
thrown out of work, how the country sinks further into serfdom. You
just have some industry to hate.
>the great lakes water is worth more.
No its not.
>I'll wager the government has rather stiff penalties for boaters who
>dump something into the lake water, yet connected corporations can just
>dump toxins by the ton.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
>>>> Why don't you sue 'em? Don't you have a couple-3 people around
>>>> Chicago that would join a class action suit?
>>>Being below EPA limits absolves them of blame. THat's part of the point
>>>of the EPA's existing.
>> Uh, no it doesn't, not if you can prove harm. Can you prove harm?
>Doesn't matter if harm can be proven when it is UNDER EPA limits. One
>would have to prove harm _AND_ that the company knew it caused harm.
They don't have to know it caused harm. Look at the asbsetos
industry. Nobody knew about that. Yet Monsanto got screwed anyway.
Did they get sued all the way out of business? I think so.
>company can just intentionally remain ignorant and stay under EPA limits
>and it will not have to pay a dime.
>>>It is my belief that if someone figured out a zero point energy device
>>>that was very cheap and safer than gasoline it would be opposed by
>> Of course, OTOH, wind power ISN'T free, it costs more than coal fired
>> power, by a lot. What do you think about requiring clean power? Yours
>> seems to be a fairly absolutist stance, and would shut down coal fired
>> power overnight.
>No, it wouldn't. There really isn't any reason all that stuff has to be
>spewed into the air.
There absolutely is. There's just no other way. Stuff burns, you
have millions of cubic feet of hot gasses you have to get rid of
immediately. There's no technology other than to release it into the
> Many of the gases and solids are likely valuable
>for other industrial uses and could be sold.
If they could sell 'em, they would. They're businesses, remember?
>Sulfur dioxide has a number
Too common to make it valuable enough to be worth the price of
>although probably not enough to cover how much that would be
>regardless, I have trouble with the 'right to pollute' that a
>special few get to excerise through the political process.
Did YOU ever want to do anything significant? If so, your own ideas
would keep you from doing pretty much anything but telling fortunes.
Everything involves generating pollution somehow.
>Also, electric generation from coal is pretty ancient technology that
>should either operate a lot better or go away.
Its cheap. That's what people want. Wanna go thru summer in Georgia
without air conditioning? 30 cents a KwH would do that for millions
of people. That's probably what you'd get if you tried to suddenly
convert everything over to something else. We have WAY more natural
gas than we need, but not the production facilities to flow that much.
THe idiot envirowackos keep the real solution, nuclear, from being
implemented. Wind and solar would probably exceed 30 cents per KwH if
you constructed the storage necessary to make them a baseload
>If electricity wasn't a
>government granted monopoly system perhaps the free market would have
>put coal generation out of business by now for the same reason Ford no
>longer makes the model T.
Nope. Its still the cheapest thing around. Whatever is cheap is going
to rule the marketplace.
>That's another part of my view you ignore. The free market would also
>exist. This would mean the people who have break throughs could knock
>these current companies out through competition.
Not if they can't beat 3 1/2 cents per KwH. That's what all the
coal-fired electricity in Indianapolis costs, or recently did. If
they had a price increase, I haven't heard of it. My mostly
coal-fired electricity, with some nuclear mixed in, is 8 1/2 cents per
KwH, still way cheap compared to most anything else.
>> With a stance like that, we don't need the
>> envirowackos to ruin America, you'd do it for them, if I read you
>> right. I mean, it is IMPOSSIBLE to generate all our power today
>> without pollution. The coal fired plants pollute, and there's nothing
>> you can do about it except turn them off.
>Absolutely incorrect. Also they can pollute their own property as they
>desire, just don't foul other people's property.
Like I said, overnight shutdown of most industry.
>It is possible to generate all of the electricity the US needs as people
>thought it would be in the 1950s... with nukes. Completely contained
>on company property.
Sure it is, but there's the envirowackos.
From: Larry G on 19 Jul 2010 07:07
On Jul 18, 10:55 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2010-07-18, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 18, 12:50 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-
> >> In America you have to break a law before you are found guilty and have
> >> your rights taken away..... Fascists simply take away the rights and
> >> regulate so as to prevent any chance of breaking a law..... Fascists
> >> and Socialists micromanage people and unconstitutionally take our rights
> >> to force their ideology onto "We The People"
> > yep... when I rank the countries of the world for their "fascist"
> > qualities .. we rank near the top, eh?
> Economically, very much so. Just look at health insurance and health
> care in general for a recent example. The government will dictate how
> business is done. Private ownership technically still exists.
and we ranks tops in the world on this?