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: Beam Me Up Scotty on 19 Jul 2010 16:11 On 7/19/2010 3:33 PM, Larry G wrote: > On Jul 19, 9:43 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 2010-07-19, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> the question is do you have a "RIGHT" to pollute? >> >> I already answered this. >> >>> Do you have to get permission to do it and the requirement is that you >>> buy "enough" land OR the permit says that no matter how much land you >>> buy that pollution will still leave your property and therefore it >>> cannot or it will be restricted to certain levels. >>> do you have an unfettered "right" to pollute as much or at any level >>> that YOU deem appropriate or do those that are impacted by the >>> pollution decide >> >> It's is simply amazing that you can ask a loaded question such as that >> when to any reader with half a clue could tell I am arguing for NO RIGHT >> TO POLLUTE THE PROPERTY OF OTHERS. >> >>> - via a govt and a govt agency (EPA) that represents >>> them? >> >> If you think the EPA represents you, you're an idiot. The EPA is a >> political body which grants permission to pollute other people's >> property. It secures a system where by those with political influence >> can pollute while those without cannot. It's a patch over the previous >> system which was those with political influence could pollute at will >> and others could do so until someone sued them and won. > > The EPA ...for example.. protects the elderly, children, and those > with compromised immune systems by limiting just how much pollution > can be released in places where people live. we call them non- > attainment areas. > We call those clean rooms..... > The EPA will relocated and compensate those whose land has been > polluted so much that they are a danger to them.. We call them > superfund sites. We call those BP payments..... > The EPA limits the amount of mercury that can be released ... that > harms kids We teach kids to NOT eat mercury.... > Without the EPA and organizations like it - you'd have no clue whether > what you ate or drank or breathed was dangerous to you or not... much > less how to stop someone from doing it. With the EPA you destroy the economy so we can't afford to eat and drink. Much less how to stop the EPA from getting crazy and saving a Smelt minnow while destroying peoples livelihood and running them off their land, we call that "Government out of control". The loss of the Smelt minnow is so Dangerous to me that I don't know how to split the difference and give water to families that need it without killing a minnow? Government and it's ignorance are what is DANGEROUS.
From: Larry G on 19 Jul 2010 18:18 On Jul 19, 4:11 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy- Everyth...(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote: > On 7/19/2010 3:33 PM, Larry G wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 9:43 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-07-19, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> the question is do you have a "RIGHT" to pollute? > > >> I already answered this. > > >>> Do you have to get permission to do it and the requirement is that you > >>> buy "enough" land OR the permit says that no matter how much land you > >>> buy that pollution will still leave your property and therefore it > >>> cannot or it will be restricted to certain levels. > >>> do you have an unfettered "right" to pollute as much or at any level > >>> that YOU deem appropriate or do those that are impacted by the > >>> pollution decide > > >> It's is simply amazing that you can ask a loaded question such as that > >> when to any reader with half a clue could tell I am arguing for NO RIGHT > >> TO POLLUTE THE PROPERTY OF OTHERS. > > >>> - via a govt and a govt agency (EPA) that represents > >>> them? > > >> If you think the EPA represents you, you're an idiot. The EPA is a > >> political body which grants permission to pollute other people's > >> property. It secures a system where by those with political influence > >> can pollute while those without cannot. It's a patch over the previous > >> system which was those with political influence could pollute at will > >> and others could do so until someone sued them and won. > > > The EPA ...for example.. protects the elderly, children, and those > > with compromised immune systems by limiting just how much pollution > > can be released in places where people live. we call them non- > > attainment areas. > > We call those clean rooms..... > > > The EPA will relocated and compensate those whose land has been > > polluted so much that they are a danger to them.. We call them > > superfund sites. > > We call those BP payments..... > > > The EPA limits the amount of mercury that can be released ... that > > harms kids > > We teach kids to NOT eat mercury.... > > > Without the EPA and organizations like it - you'd have no clue whether > > what you ate or drank or breathed was dangerous to you or not... much > > less how to stop someone from doing it. > > With the EPA you destroy the economy so we can't afford to eat and > drink. Much less how to stop the EPA from getting crazy and saving a > Smelt minnow while destroying peoples livelihood and running them off > their land, we call that "Government out of control". The loss of the > Smelt minnow is so Dangerous to me that I don't know how to split the > difference and give water to families that need it without killing a minnow? > > Government and it's ignorance are what is DANGEROUS. name a better alternative.
From: Dave Head on 20 Jul 2010 06:22 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 01:41:05 +0000 (UTC), Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >And yes, it is toxins deliberately dumped into the lake to get rid of >it. Recent article on it: >http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/BP-Gets-Pass-From-Obama-Administration-To-Potentially-Pollute-Lake-Michigan.html > >They are dumping SOLID waste into the lake. I don't have time for an entire reponse right now, but as for this: 1) I read the article and it is still unclear that they are dumping anything, but that it might be something that just escapes from them. 2) The writer does not identify the pollutants. 3) The writer is a known conspiracy theorist, according to Wikipedia, and has been at it for at least a decade. 4) There's no information that proves that the EPA is either acting on political ideology nor that the levels of pollution they allow really are harmful, or excessively harmful. 5) And again, if you're saying they can't release ANYTHING, then you're saying that they can't operate in this country, because it is not possible to do what they do and not release things. Dave Head
From: Larry G on 20 Jul 2010 07:11 On Jul 20, 6:22 am, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 01:41:05 +0000 (UTC), Brent > > <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >And yes, it is toxins deliberately dumped into the lake to get rid of > >it. Recent article on it: > >http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/BP-Gets-Pass-From-Obama-Adm... > > >They are dumping SOLID waste into the lake. > > I don't have time for an entire reponse right now, but as for this: > > 1) I read the article and it is still unclear that they are dumping > anything, but that it might be something that just escapes from them. > > 2) The writer does not identify the pollutants. > > 3) The writer is a known conspiracy theorist, according to Wikipedia, > and has been at it for at least a decade. > > 4) There's no information that proves that the EPA is either acting on > political ideology nor that the levels of pollution they allow really > are harmful, or excessively harmful. > > 5) And again, if you're saying they can't release ANYTHING, then > you're saying that they can't operate in this country, because it is > not possible to do what they do and not release things. > > Dave Head "..... but that it might be something that just escapes from them." if you generate it - then it's your responsibility guy. If you can conduct your business without "escapes' then you are still liable and ultimately will be told to stop doing what causes the "escapes". This is 1960 style reasoning where many polluters evaded responsibility by saying they had "no choice' even when they did. The law soon said - you are responsible - period... yep the nasty EPA did that.
From: Larry G on 20 Jul 2010 07:22
On Jul 20, 6:22 am, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 01:41:05 +0000 (UTC), Brent > > <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >And yes, it is toxins deliberately dumped into the lake to get rid of > >it. Recent article on it: > >http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/BP-Gets-Pass-From-Obama-Adm... > > >They are dumping SOLID waste into the lake. > > I don't have time for an entire reponse right now, but as for this: > > 1) I read the article and it is still unclear that they are dumping > anything, but that it might be something that just escapes from them. > > 2) The writer does not identify the pollutants. > > 3) The writer is a known conspiracy theorist, according to Wikipedia, > and has been at it for at least a decade. > > 4) There's no information that proves that the EPA is either acting on > political ideology nor that the levels of pollution they allow really > are harmful, or excessively harmful. > > 5) And again, if you're saying they can't release ANYTHING, then > you're saying that they can't operate in this country, because it is > not possible to do what they do and not release things. > > Dave Head ".... they can't release ANYTHING..." what they can release or not and in what concentrations is NOT their decision. That's what is meant when we ask whether or not they have an inherent "right" to pollute. They don't. Whether or not restrictions results in their inability to operate is not determined by them but by a govt entity whose mission is to protect the rights of everyone by insuring that the property owners that do pollute - do so only by permission - that's why no business can discharge ANYTHING .WITHOUT A PERMIT - that they have to request and without out it - they cannot pollute. How you would operate a process like this without govt and without a govt entity like the EPA.... how would you? If we believe the current Govt/EPA model is wrong - then where is the alternative proposals for a different/better system? We know what doesn't work and that is letting each property owner decide. We've been there and done that and the imposition of rules on property owners was, in fact, driven by other property owners who were being polluted. The Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were essentially enough property owners agreeing - and supporting their elected representatives - efforts to pass a law that took away the implied inherent right to pollute and placed the approval of pollution in the hands of those who would be affected by it. |