Confessions Of An Environmentalist

[initforme]

Clean air and water standards could never be left to each state otherwise we'd have unbeatable air and undrinkable water... kinda like China. Those who believe China has done things right in regards to their economy are blinded by the fact that the air is causing people to get sick. Then again, more people are working though. How a gov't is allowed to toxify its own people is beyond me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All of the threads being said, environmentalists are of no threat to anything, especially the economy and big business.

You could not be more wrong. You could try, but you would not be successful.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Global warming/cooling is irrelevant.

Environmental protection is the right course; pollution is the wrong course. It's really that simple.

Finding renewable energy sources and maximizing their utilization is the right course; stubbornly insisting on remaining reliant on non-renewables, until they're gone, is the wrong course. It's really that simple.

No one disagrees with your simplistic post, but you must find dragons to slay...

AGW is claimed to be about lowering CO2 emissions. Guess what? CO2 is NOT pollution and no known CREDIBLE studies prove its limitation will reduce warming...even if warming were present.

As such, the AGW cult you worship is not about reducing pollution it is about centralizing power into the hands of a small elite. When you understand this, you will have reached a level of understanding most sixth graders can achieve.

Then why do conservatives want to get rid of the EPA?

Glad you asked, but sad that you will not learn from the answer:

1. The principle of federalism has been virtually ruled out of existence. Encroachments by both the executive and by the legislature have been sanctioned by the courts. The change from the view of the framers can be seen since the New Deal

2. The reason is the creation of more and more bureaus and agencies endowed with ever broader responsibilities and discretion in defining the rules that govern our activities and our lives. And these rules have the full force of law! Congress has increased the number of rules whose infractions are criminalized, waiving the common law requirement that one knows he is breaking the law. Today, one can be jailed for violating a regulation that one had no reason to know even existed!

1. 1. While the officials in these agencies are generally good people, they become focused on their particular portfolio of duties, that, often, they cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: they have sovereign immunity in their positions.
   2. A remedy would be the ability of citizens to sue the federal government to protect their legitimate interests, for damages. While currently unconstitutional, the Congress can waive sovereign immunity,
   3. Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward defining the limits of federal authority.
   4. While not unconstitutional, regulation may be considered extra-constitutional. There may be some point where it is considered to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to an agency or bureau. Under Obamacare, or Dodd-Frank Reform we see legislation where regulators have not yet determined what the regulation should be…how can Congress allow a law without knowing what the impact will be? Senator James Buckley 3. [Yet, from the earliest of Progressive administrations, we find the belief that government bureaucrats, and technocrats, and agencies know better than those involved in the myriad voluntary transactions as to how much each should have.
2. a. “Progressives looked to insulate administrators not only from the chief executive, but from politics altogether. It is the Progressives' desire to free bureaucratic agencies from the confines of politics and the law that allows us to trace the origins of the administrative state to their political thought. The idea of separating politics and administration--of grounding a significant portion of government not on the basis of popular consent but on expertise--was a fundamental aim of American Progressivism and explains the Progressives' fierce assault on the Founders' separation-of-powers constitutionalism.” The Birth of the Administrative State Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government]

.

You could leave environmental protection up to the states if the environment were only a state by state issue.

It's not.

(See how easy it is to make an excellent point in only a few words?)

Each of us reveal our level of intellect.

No wonder you require so few words.

I can think for myself; you can't.

If you want to dispute that pollution crosses state borders and therefore makes environmental issues a national problem appropriate to be dealt with at the federal level,

let's hear it. Or we can leave my point unassailable.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Clean air and water standards could never be left to each state otherwise we'd have unbeatable air and undrinkable water... kinda like China. Those who believe China has done things right in regards to their economy are blinded by the fact that the air is causing people to get sick. Then again, more people are working though. How a gov't is allowed to toxify its own people is beyond me.

The demonization of the environmental movement has been very successful as a propaganda tool.

 

[Jroc]

Global warming/cooling is irrelevant.

Environmental protection is the right course; pollution is the wrong course. It's really that simple.

Finding renewable energy sources and maximizing their utilization is the right course; stubbornly insisting on remaining reliant on non-renewables, until they're gone, is the wrong course. It's really that simple.

No one disagrees with your simplistic post, but you must find dragons to slay...

AGW is claimed to be about lowering CO2 emissions. Guess what? CO2 is NOT pollution and no known CREDIBLE studies prove its limitation will reduce warming...even if warming were present.

As such, the AGW cult you worship is not about reducing pollution it is about centralizing power into the hands of a small elite. When you understand this, you will have reached a level of understanding most sixth graders can achieve.

Then why do conservatives want to get rid of the EPA?

Glad you asked, but sad that you will not learn from the answer:

1. The principle of federalism has been virtually ruled out of existence. Encroachments by both the executive and by the legislature have been sanctioned by the courts. The change from the view of the framers can be seen since the New Deal

2. The reason is the creation of more and more bureaus and agencies endowed with ever broader responsibilities and discretion in defining the rules that govern our activities and our lives. And these rules have the full force of law! Congress has increased the number of rules whose infractions are criminalized, waiving the common law requirement that one knows he is breaking the law. Today, one can be jailed for violating a regulation that one had no reason to know even existed!

1. 1. While the officials in these agencies are generally good people, they become focused on their particular portfolio of duties, that, often, they cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: they have sovereign immunity in their positions.
   2. A remedy would be the ability of citizens to sue the federal government to protect their legitimate interests, for damages. While currently unconstitutional, the Congress can waive sovereign immunity,
   3. Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward defining the limits of federal authority.
   4. While not unconstitutional, regulation may be considered extra-constitutional. There may be some point where it is considered to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to an agency or bureau. Under Obamacare, or Dodd-Frank Reform we see legislation where regulators have not yet determined what the regulation should be…how can Congress allow a law without knowing what the impact will be? Senator James Buckley 3. [Yet, from the earliest of Progressive administrations, we find the belief that government bureaucrats, and technocrats, and agencies know better than those involved in the myriad voluntary transactions as to how much each should have.
2. a. “Progressives looked to insulate administrators not only from the chief executive, but from politics altogether. It is the Progressives' desire to free bureaucratic agencies from the confines of politics and the law that allows us to trace the origins of the administrative state to their political thought. The idea of separating politics and administration--of grounding a significant portion of government not on the basis of popular consent but on expertise--was a fundamental aim of American Progressivism and explains the Progressives' fierce assault on the Founders' separation-of-powers constitutionalism.” The Birth of the Administrative State Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government]

.

You could leave environmental protection up to the states if the environment were only a state by state issue.

It's not.

(See how easy it is to make an excellent point in only a few words?)

Each of us reveal our level of intellect.

No wonder you require so few words.

He waits for the "smart people" to tell him what to think. the leftist love idiots like him

 

[initforme]

"You could not be more wrong. You could try, but you would not be successful."

Companies like BP are the problem. They get away with willingly and purposely leaking oil into the gulf and ruining businesses of middle class people. So big business is a threat to small business. Some tree hugger is of no threat to anyone.

 

[gipper]

Clean air and water standards could never be left to each state otherwise we'd have unbeatable air and undrinkable water... kinda like China. Those who believe China has done things right in regards to their economy are blinded by the fact that the air is causing people to get sick. Then again, more people are working though. How a gov't is allowed to toxify its own people is beyond me.

The demonization of the environmental movement has been very successful as a propaganda tool.

No such thing exists.

But again...you must find dragons to slay...to justify your foolish ideology.

The demonization is of real SCIENCE by the radical left promoting a flawed theory...and anyone who disagrees with the AGW cult.

 

[initforme]

No such thing exists? I see. I am not speaking about global warming. I am only spanking to clan air and water standards. They must be enforced otherwise we end up with air that resembles china that is making its citizens sick.. Its only common sense except for those that are only interested in the filthy buck.

 

[gipper]

No such thing exists? I see. I am not speaking about global warming. I am only spanking to clan air and water standards. They must be enforced otherwise we end up with air that resembles china that is making its citizens sick.. Its only common sense except for those that are only interested in the filthy buck.

They have been enforced for decades.

Find something else to bitch about.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I think today's American liberals are the latter. Are they willing to be used? i just think they're ignorant,and they are easily used because of that fact

Useful Idiots is what Hitler called them and when he was done he killed them. Stalin just lined them up against the wall and shot them after they surrendered their sovereignty.

There is a pattern here of what is done to these people when they are no longer useful to the current regime.

 

[mamooth]

The pattern is that almost all deniers are proud Stalinist ratfuks who want scientists banished to the gulag for daring to disagree with TheParty.

Billy won't deny it. He definitely wants climate scientists jailed.

Are there any deniers here willing to renounce such Stalinist tactics? Probably not. After all, if they oppose the purges, they risk being purged themselves.

 

[skookerasbil]

The pattern is that almost all deniers are proud Stalinist ratfuks who want scientists banished to the gulag for daring to disagree with TheParty.

Billy won't deny it. He definitely wants climate scientists jailed.

Are there any deniers here willing to renounce such Stalinist tactics? Probably not. After all, if they oppose the purges, they risk being purged themselves.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The pattern is that almost all deniers are proud Stalinist ratfuks who want scientists banished to the gulag for daring to disagree with TheParty.

Billy won't deny it. He definitely wants climate scientists jailed.

Are there any deniers here willing to renounce such Stalinist tactics? Probably not. After all, if they oppose the purges, they risk being purged themselves.

You really are a fucking moron.. You couldn't find your ass with both hands. Progressives and liberals are Marxist, Stalinist, scum! They thrive on the taking from everyone and justify it as "for the greater good"