Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

If the EPA was true to is anagram... there wouldn't be mountain top removal in Appalachians and oil digging in Colorado and the Dakotas... We wouldn't be fracking for oil... We wouldn't be destroying precious blufflands to dig for precious silicia(frak mining.. look it up if you are unfamiliar.. the midwest is just now starting to go through the exact same shit the Appalachians are going through.. removing 100's of feet of limestone to get to silicia that they use for mining oil).. we wouldn't be drilling for oil in a fucking body of water...

We WOULD have alternative energies.. solar cell cars... wind turbines.. electronic public transportation.. we would have our wetlands.. our forests.. our mountain tops.. our clean air... unfortunately we have little to none of this.. and it's not gaining popularity amongst the EPA or many others for that matter either

 

That's how bad environmental regulation is with an EPA, remember that before the EPA rivers were literally catching on fire.

 

That's the thing, people either are too young to remember or conveniently forget this fact. The EPA need fixed YES, removed.... NO fucking WAY! And don't feed me that "property rights" crap because that's not going to work.

 

Ron Paul gets glittered bombed!
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/07/ron-paul-glitter-bombed-at-rally-video/

 

Letlovin

I’m sure I won’t be the only person that’s noticed you haven’t addressed any criticisms yet besides telling me they’re not true.

For the SIXTH time can you produce evidence for your claims that these criticism have been addressed in rational and reasonable ways – I mean was it just a barefaced lie or what?

 

letlovin

Why was it set up? Are you claiming that it was set up by large corporations to directly serve the interests of large corporations? If so can you give any evidence for that?

LOL - I notice you don’t actually answer the questions.

Are you claiming that the EPA has done nothing and is doing nothing to protect the environment? If so can you produce your evidence?

I notice you don’t actually answer the questions

In many ways the EPA seems to be a monitoring body if this monitoring activity was stopped who or what would do the monitoring?

I see so someone believes that (lets say) a river is polluted and they suspect a company which denies any involvement –

First they would need to buy a whole load of monitoring equipment so that you can monitor the river at all times of the day and night for a certain period (to work out who is doing the polluting you will have to see if there are peeks and troughs in the pollution to see if correlates with anyone’s activities).
You will have to collect samples or pay someone to do it you will have to hire a laboratory or build one yourself and hire scientists or get the appropriate degrees in the disciplines you need and you will need a statistician to analyse the results or do it yourself (and make sure there are no mistakes).
You may need court orders to get hold of company records and to get on any company grounds to take samples.
Then a report would have to be made that was court proof meaning it would have to stand up in a court of law, again it might be best to hire a lawyer(s) for that of go and get a law degree.

And so on…

As I’ve said before I don’t think most people have the time, inclination, money or knowledge to do these things.

 

letlovin

I believe that the EPA has the authority to investigate and seek penalties for the violations environmental laws, who or what would undertake this often very expensive activity in its absence?

–

OK we’re getting somewhere – so the individual wouldn’t have to do it all there would be a State EPA? Fifty local EPA’s? And these local EPA’s would have jurisdiction in each state only?

A couple of questions

Why wouldn’t these weaker, smaller and locally bound EPA’s have the same defects as the national EPA?

How are these local EPA’s meant to compete against what are often multi-state or international companies on an equal footing?

 

56

It was a question “Are you claiming that it was set up by large corporations to directly serve the interests of large corporations?”
The reply seems to be no, it wasn’t set up by large corporations. “The EPA was created to permit coordinated and effective governmental action on behalf of the environment”

If corporations are receiving an unfair advantage then I say that should stop but would the total removal of the EPA help or hinder polluters? And in what way would weaker and locally bound EPA’s help this situation?

*

 

Indie

Again we’ve been through this before – for example here - But a lot of the things have come about through government sponsorship, jet population, atomic energy, space exploration, computing, the www, later the private sector might get involved but….

Then there are the big infrastructural projects financed by government, the transcontinental railroad, the road network, the dams etc.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=400136&page=24

Thing is that I don’t see things as either/or – I don’t hate private industry the same way you seem to hate public service. You seem to think ‘government’ is the source of all evil that it is almost always “inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt” with the implication that business are virtually always efficient, frugal and totally honest and transparent.

What I’ve been telling you all along is that it is about balance and aims.

In a democracy it shouldn’t be about one or the other about the interests of business and the interests of the people but about balancing the two.

The aim is to bring about what is in the best interests of everyone.

My and others criticism of right wing libertarianism is that it seems to be about serving the interests of a few not the many a charge that no follower of the ideology seems able to address let alone refute.

 

Jokerman

So you think that removing the EPA and having a deregulated ‘free market’ would improve the environmental situation?

I don’t like the sound of those things either but neoliberal ideas put money before the environment (unless it makes more money than the alternatives) it is about ‘maximising’ the short term gain.

Do you thing an ideology like right wing libertarianism that is neoliberalism on steroids is the answer?

The places in the world where alternatives are most advanced are those where governments have actively promoted them. For example the UK has the greatest potential for wind farms yet the more neoliberal approach in the UK meant that the government didn’t promote the industry so the leaders in the wind turbine field in Europe are the Danish and Germans whose governments did promote the industry.

 

Balbus.

How is your day?

 

Letlovin

Great thanks - it would be even better if you actually address the things put to you

For the SEVENTH time can you produce evidence for your claims that the criticisms you claim have been addressed in a rational and reasonable ways have actually been? Or are you going to admit you were lying?

 

The evidence is in the thread. You obviously dismiss anything that you don't agree with as "irrational" so why would I waste my time by digging around and quoting the dozens of posts throughout this 30 page thread?

You are a broken record and this isn't fun anymore.

You incorrectly referred to the US as a democracy above, I will point that out though.

 

letlovin


I’ve read the thread and its not there – and I think the fact that you can’t produce the actual evidence proves you are lying – but please prove me wrong.

And how many times have I had to asked you now - OH yes this will be the EIGHTH time.

 

Give me a 9! Give me a 10!

 

Letlovin

Not 9 or 10 but i have given you 7 days time out, maybe it will give you time to find the evidence.

 

Well even if we put Pauls idiotic environmental policies aside their is still the whole racism thing that pretty much makes him totally unelectable anyhow. Not that any of this pertains to anything though because his chances of getting the nomination are 0 so as the old SNL skit says "The question is moot".

 

I'm pretty liberal. I think we need the government to help protect citizens from people with too much power and from corporations. If the governement doesn't make any rules or enforce them (libertarian), then I think over time fewer and fewer people have power.

Maybe I could see a libertarian view if it setup rules for corporations and was just libertarian towards individuals. But to say let businesses and the free market decide everything, including how to treat the environment, how to treat their workers, etc. seems foolish. Especially when the workers and not so powerful are the ones paying taxes and building the infrastructure that allows these corporations to make so much money.

A corporation usually has a legal obligation to make it's stock holders as much money as possible (legally) in anyway possible. Although people work for corporations, the entity if not a person and does not have a concience.

There are a lot of businesses who would be a lot more profitable if they could create more pollution and treat workers worse than they already do, but that will only help a few in the short run, and hurt everyone in the long run.

I just saw a documentary about the freedom riders from the early 60s. Another great example of why we need a federal government willing to step in and ensure the safety and rights of its citizens.

I do believe in legalizing drugs, and not getting into as many wars overseas, but otherwise I think he lacks common sense.

Recently when he was asked if he would end "Head Start." He wouldn't admit that he would. He made some lame reply like: "I believe it's unconstitutional, but it wouldn't be the first thing I'd cut." And he went on to say that the changes he supports would have to happen gradually. Well, Ron, what is the plan for it to happen gradually? Why don't any of his supporters ask how we would go from were we are now to where he wants to be? I think that's short sited and naive of his supporters. What's the plan?

I don't know what the deal is with the racist comments in his newsletter. But, he could handle that a lot better. Maybe get to the bottom of it and find out who wrote the stuff and how it got in there under his name. But, he acts irritated that anyone would even bring it up. He should be the one that's mad that someone wrote that stuff in his news letter under his name, but he's not. That's very telling.

And, don't forget he's anti-choice. He believes that if a woman or child gets pregnant, that they should be forced to carry the fetus for 9 months until it is born. He believes the government has the right to force someone to do that, but not to protect people from corporations whose legal obligation is to do anything they can to make their stockholders more money. If he became president and was effective at doing what he wants, these corporations could do a lot more to make money, and it wouldn't help citizens in a lot of cases.

 

Wait did you just ban LetLovinTakeHold?

 

Well the critique can be valid. Plenty of Libretarians are against Goverment classifying people by race. The opposition states that it is not 1965 anymore and institutional racism is a thing of the past.

While I gotta admit, yeah, its not '65 anymore, How would I know about discrimination first hand?

I am certain that plenty of old fashioned nastyness should be called just that and not racism; and yeah plenty of people are working the system for advantage..................

I would go slo in dismantling the 1960's programs to fight discrimination.

Racial discrimination now is a whole diferent thing from previous generations, perhaps we need a new way to look at it now.