Politics

[IrishinSyria]

I really don't understand how you can study American history and believe that shifting power to state and local governments is a good idea.

 

[Grahambo]

Sometimes I wonder how long some of you spend on replies.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Sometimes I wonder how long some of you spend on replies.

If we focused more on what we have in common than spending all our time arguing what we don't, I think we would all be a little better off.

 

[ACamp1900]

If we focused more on what we have in common than spending all our time arguing what we don't, I think we would all be a little better off.

Learn to count titles correctly Bama trash!!!

 

[T Town Tommy]

Learn to count titles correctly Bama trash!!!

Tell me how you really feel.....

 

[Rizzophil]

I really don't understand how you can study American history and believe that shifting power to state and local governments is a good idea.

Our country is in serious trouble. 19tril in debt. Why would you trust the federal government? Its corrupt on every level

 

[Bluto]

Yes, Target, I Do Want My Daughter To Conform To Her Gender | TheBlaze.com

So according the the social norms of where I grew up anybody who
A. Has a blog
B. Strategically places a bottle of bourbon in their blog photo
C. Self identifies as a "professional truth sayer"
is a complete douche bag. Lol.

 

[wizards8507]

I really don't understand how you can study American history and believe that shifting power to state and local governments is a good idea.

Because my local rep is accountable to a few small neighborhoods. My US senators are accountable to the entire state of Connecticut. President Obama is accountable to the entire country. The further you get from the individual, the less voice each of us has. Further, municipalities know their own needs better than beaureaucrats in Washington do. It's comical to think that one-size-fits-all policies can be equally appropriate for folks in Fairbanks, Scranton, Tucson, Manhattan, and South Bend.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

 

[yankeehater]

I don't like Carson's mannerisms, seems like he is thinking through things for the first time half the time he is speaking. I guess some like the less canned response/talking point quality but I see it as unprepared and too slow of a delivery.

That being said - I agree with him completely that IF we have the tissue it is irresponsible NOT to use it for research. Fantastic, but he will be lambasted by most people who are completely incapable of sorting out the nuance of that logical argument (who will be egged on by those who purposefully twist his comments).

That's the last thing we want in The White House is someone who actually thinks

 

[yankeehater]

I can't figure out how to download a damn picture my cousin sent me of the Aminas River (the river looks like it is glowing) from a bridge over the valley it runs through. The story seems to already have left the news cycle and I find it hard to believe if it was a private company and not the EPA that caused it the shit would be hitting the fan. I saw a report it will screw with the local Eco-system for over a century. There is also an interesting letter that was published in the local papers a week before that is now circulating. It was from a local retired Geologist who predicted what would happen and feels the EPA was doing it intentionally (I am too stupid to figure out how to attach that local newspaper with the article).

 

[T Town Tommy]

I can't figure out how to download a damn picture my cousin sent me of the Aminas River (the river looks like it is glowing) from a bridge over the valley it runs through. The story seems to already have left the news cycle and I find it hard to believe if it was a private company and not the EPA that caused it the shit would be hitting the fan. I saw a report it will screw with the local Eco-system for over a century. There is also an interesting letter that was published in the local papers a week before that is now circulating. It was from a local retired Geologist who predicted what would happen and feels the EPA was doing it intentionally (I am too stupid to figure out how to attach that local newspaper with the article).

Not the EPA. They are too busy trying to ruin the coal business.

All jokes aside... the reason you don't hear more from this eco disaster is pretty simple. The liberal media won't cover it. Especially when it sheds a poor light on our current President. Just think back to the BP oil spill. After a few days of that disaster, you could hardly find anything in the major news networks about it.

 

[Bluto]

Not the EPA. They are too busy trying to ruin the coal business.

All jokes aside... the reason you don't hear more from this eco disaster is pretty simple. The liberal media won't cover it. Especially when it sheds a poor light on our current President. Just think back to the BP oil spill. After a few days of that disaster, you could hardly find anything in the major news networks about it.

I heard a report on it on NPR on the drive home today and yesterday morning as well. Maybe listen to more "liberal media"?

 

[T Town Tommy]

I heard a report on it on NPR on the drive home today and yesterday morning as well. Maybe listen to more "liberal media"?

Do the math yourself. If it had been a Republican President in office they, along with countless other liberal media outlets, would still be talking about the effects of the BP oil spill. Don't feel like debating the obvious. The media in this country is decidedly liberal. And a 30 second blurp by most of them should not be an acceptable for the huge EPA screw up here. Let us all know in a week just how many reports you here about it from the "liberal media."

 

[pkt77242]

Do the math yourself. If it had been a Republican President in office they, along with countless other liberal media outlets, would still be talking about the effects of the BP oil spill. Don't feel like debating the obvious. The media in this country is decidedly liberal. And a 30 second blurp by most of them should not be an acceptable for the huge EPA screw up here. Let us all know in a week just how many reports you here about it from the "liberal media."

Huh? Wouldn't a Liberal media want to cover the BP oil spill to blame BP? It had nothing to do with this administration after all. Shouldn't they have been covering it non-stop?

 

[T Town Tommy]

Huh? Wouldn't a Liberal media want to cover the BP oil spill to blame BP? It had nothing to do with this administration after all. Shouldn't they have been covering it non-stop?

The single largest eco disaster in our history and it hardly gets covered. That doesn't piss you off? It should. If it happens on your watch... it happens. And now we have the EPA doing this crap. What's the excuse for not giving this disaster more coverage? It's amazing that we have people in this country that won't let farmers get water in California for their crops because it may upset the fragile eco system. But not a damn word from them when this crap happens at the hands of the EPA. Typical BS.

 

[pkt77242]

The single largest eco disaster in our history and it hardly gets covered. That doesn't piss you off? It should. If it happens on your watch... it happens. And now we have the EPA doing this crap. What's the excuse for not giving this disaster more coverage? It's amazing that we have people in this country that won't let farmers get water in California for their crops because it may upset the fragile eco system. But not a damn word from them when this crap happens at the hands of the EPA. Typical BS.

The BP spill was covered by MSNBC just like all places covered it. LOL. It isn't about who's watch it was on. If anything most of the coverage focused on BP and their problems.

You want facts. Here you go.

For one thing, CNN spent the most time on the spill story. From April 20 to July 28, nearly half (42%) of the CNN airtime studied was devoted to the subject. That compares with about one-third (32%) on MSNBC and about one-fifth (18%) on Fox. And no one on CNN gave more attention to what was happening in the region than Anderson Cooper, who has gained a reputation as a disaster-scene reporter in locales ranging from hurricane-ravaged New Orleans to earthquake-battered Haiti.

The spill was a TV story, but different on cable vs. network | Pew Research Center

CNN covered it the most with 42%
MSNBC with 32%
Fox came in last with 18%

How about you should be pissed at Fox for not covering it. Do you know why Fox didn't cover it? Because BP was the big bad guy. Nice try.

Cooper’s reporting also helps explain why CNN also offered a different coverage focus than its rivals. More than half its coverage (57%) was devoted to the containment, cleanup and impact storyline, while less time was devoted to the corporate (22%) and government (12%) angles.

By contrast, 39% of the MSNBC airtime studied featured the containment, cleanup and impact coverage. And the network, with its liberal prime-time talk hosts, devoted 22% of its coverage to the government storyline and spent more time than either of its rivals on the BP/corporate storyline (31%).

The harsh light shone on BP was apparent in MSNBC host Keith Olbermann’s assertion on his June 21 show that there was evidence of “the most damning missed warning sign [by BP] yet, weeks before the disaster in the Gulf…a leak in the blowout preventer on Deepwater Horizon unfixed just weeks before BP’s cataclysm.” He then accused the company of “lying” in its earlier estimates of the amount of oil spilling from the leak.

The Fox News Channel—where conservative prime-time hosts dominate—devoted the least time to the breaking news aspect of the story (36%) and the corporate angle (17%). Instead it easily spent the most time on the government storyline (39%), and a good deal of that was critical.
On his June 7 show, Fox host Sean Hannity, noting that it was “Day 49 of the Gulf Coast disaster,” criticized the president for spending his time welcoming athletes and performers to the White House in recent weeks.

“It seems that no matter how bad this spill gets, the president just can’t seem to forego any type of recreation,” Hannity said.

Here are some other facts about the BP oil spill and the media.
100 Days of Gushing Oil – Media Analysis and Quiz | Pew Research Center


ETA: For the first 100 days they covered it for almost 1/3 of the airtime studied. That is a very different picture from your "they didn't cover it after the first week".

EETA: TTown I like you but you are just wrong with this one.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Fox? The same station who's most powerful primetime personality O'reilly stated that it wasn't Obama's fault?

There is a tremendous amount of info in your first link and goes a little deeper than the tidbits you pulled out. when I read the whole thing I can make a more appropriate comment.

 

[Cackalacky]

I never said it was a legal issue. There are lots of things that are "problems" that aren't legal issues. Being an alcoholic is a problem but it's not illegal. Weighing 600 pounds is a problem but it's not illegal. I believe it is a serious mental health problem for an eight year old boy to think he's a dinosaur just like I believe it is a serious mental health problem for an eight year old boy to think he's an eight year old girl. But that belief is independent of my libertarianism. Not every belief a libertarian holds is a direct result of being a libertarian. I love the Red Sox, but that has nothing to do with me being a Catholic. I prefer autumn to summer, but not because I'm an alumnus of the University of Notre Dame. Get it? I can have different sets of opinions of things that are consistent with the libertarian philosophy without them being a product of it.



No, that's not what the article is about. It's certain inspired by Target's decision because that's what's in the news today, and it absolutely discusses Target's decison, but the points the author makes are much broader and speak to the ideological movement behind the decision. It's like an article about race relations in America that also happens to touch on the situation in Ferguson.


First, it's not that girls MUST prefer pink and that boys MUST prefer blue, it's that they generally do, all on their own. And that's because it's in their nature, not because society forces them that way.

Second, sex reassignment surgery is dangerous. It's genital mutilation disguised as healthcare. You said yourself in the first chunk that I quoted, a kid who think's he's a dinosaur is mentally ill. So is a boy who thinks he's a girl. That hypothetical kid needs mental help, not genital mutilation. Whiskeyjack has argued this particular point much better than I can, so hopefully he chimes in.


That's EXACTLY what modern-era feminism argues. Not only is Bruce Jenner, a male, exactly the same as a female, they argue that he IS, in fact, female.


It's not about mental capacity so much as disposition. Yes, men and women can both be mathematicians, engineers, or CPAs. They both have the brain power and natural ability to succeed in any intellectual endeavor as well as the other. The difference in nature of the sexes is that men are generally more aggressive and protective while women are generally more nurturing and caring. Those are facts that modern-era feminism seeks to deny.


I told you, I don't give a flying fuck about Target's decision. I care that there are lunatics (i.e. the base of the Democrat Party) that were offended by gender-based toy separation in the first place. It wasn't me who threw a tantrum about the toys being put together, it was they who threw the tantrum that they were separate to begin with.


Libertarians are not anarchists. My right to swing my arm ends where your face begins. "Step one" of any hypothetical libertarian society is to create courts of law to enforce disputes where one individual infringes on the rights of another. Libertarian structures have police, judges, and juries.


So your argument in defense of tyranny is that every regime in history has been tyrannical, so let's just roll with it? Slavery has existed in every society ever too, that doesn't mean it's an awesome fucking idea.


I agree with all of this. The feminists were, are, and should be free to petition. Target was, is, and should be free to respond in their best interests. All I did was post an article. You're the one who brought libertarianism into it. I don't object to a single thing that happened on the grounds that "someone-did-something-they-shouldn't-be-allowed-to-do." I think ESPN made a poor decision to give the Arthur Ashe award to Bruce Jenner, but they were free to do so, and I'm free to disagree that they should have. Saying "you shouldn't do that" is not the same as saying "you shouldn't be allowed to do that." Anyone is free to say the former, whether I agree with them or not. It's the latter that I have a problem with as a libertarian. But again, that doesn't play into the Target situation at all. I think modern era feminism is bad for the country, but they're free to pursue their agenda 'til the cows come home.


The problem with you is that you're putting words in my mouth. I never said Target or the feminists should have been prohibited from doing what they did.

ETA: Regarding those ridiculous memes you posted, I'll reiterate: libertarianism is not anarchy. There's a legitimate role for law enforcement, road maintenance, public services, etc. It's just that those things are best handled at the state and local level.

Regarding the quote from Noam Chomsky, the "private tyrannies" he fears so much can only exist when they collude with the state. Without the federal leviathan concentrating so much power in Washington, there would be no way for the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, or George Soros to exercise power over the rest of us. The State is not a defender of the peple against the rich and powerful, it's the weapon that the rich and powerful wield against the people.

There is so much here that makes my head hurt. I really try to understand you. I do. I mean this as best as I can but I really dont think you understsnd the inherent outcomes of a hypothetical libertarian society. Partciularly the Right wing capitalist version of because its ONLY theoretical. There are no societies that have even attempted it. To accentuate this, I always see you post..."it SHOULD" this,... it "SHOULD" that. Thats all you can do because its nothing but an untested theory. Fantasy land.

You agreed to that as much in one of your responses. My point that you agreed with but seemed to escape you is that it is entirely implausible for disputes of economic and moral implications to be solved by Libertarian philosophy outside of a person on person interaction Your actions do not remain within the distance of your arm. Your action and the actions of corporations affect many people good and bad and corporations exponentially more so. Which is why I said Libertarians cant see decisions past their own face. You maybe inadvertenly agreed with that by posting you are free to swing to arm to the extent my face begins. You are not looking past the theoretical distance your reach travels though, it routinely seems.

But again...you say everyone should be free, but in this instance its obvious you have a problem with a group of people exercising their opinions and a very large global corporation that listened to them and made a business decision. That is wholly inconsistent. You should be applauding them in your theoretical society for exercising their freedomcand.the corpoation for their economic prowess and not be upset that a group of people (no matter the group right?) made their wishes known. But you don't. You inject into it a moral crusade of what SHOULD be. Now you are stuck with having to reconcile something you see as immoral with the perfectly acceptable expression of personal freedom in your theoretical world. That being inherently amoral on the companies part and a moral request from the opposite group.

I am not sure how we jumped into gender reassignment but there is tons of good stuff here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role#Anthropology_and_evolution and it shows gender identity issues are like most things human, while small relative to population, it is common and natural over the history of man. While reasignment is a more modern issue with legitimate concerns it doesn't negate the human condition that doesnt always line up with the sex and many other cultures have functioned quite well in lieu of the strict gender roles enforced over the last 2000 years by Western society. I find that helping these people be productive citizens and happy is far more beneficial than the mental discomfort of strangers harboring private repugnance.

As to the Athur Ashe comment... if you know Athur Ashe then you know why Catlyn Jenner received the award as well as Michael Sam, Billy Jean King, Pat Summit, Robin Roberts. Jenner probably deserved it more than anybody. I offered you a link above which talks about some of the scenarios in which a human can be of one sex and through no fault of their own end up identiying as the opposite later on or after struggling to be what they are "supposed to be" in Western Culture. In fact several of the studies followed innocent babies with certain conditions through adolescence and reported their findings. But I dont see that libertarians tend to factor in such nuanced data in their philosophy. Its funny, the more I read things from a cultural anthropology perspective the more I realise that Christianity and more so monotheism is really a major diversion from the typical human condition in many aspects.

And Noam Chomsky nailed it. That is right wing capitalism or Americsn Libertarianism. That is the end result. Which its a bit past your right arm so you might have missed it as being such.

 

[Bluto]

Do the math yourself. If it had been a Republican President in office they, along with countless other liberal media outlets, would still be talking about the effects of the BP oil spill. Don't feel like debating the obvious. The media in this country is decidedly liberal. And a 30 second blurp by most of them should not be an acceptable for the huge EPA screw up here. Let us all know in a week just how many reports you here about it from the "liberal media."

Actually it was about a 15 minute segment so yeah...lol. This isn't even close to the largest ecological disaster in this countries history. The reason the BP oil spill got so much coverage is that it effected a huge portion of the population and a large geographic region in relative terms. This is more a case of out of sight out of mind, but yeah keep clinging to the theory that large corporate media conglomerates are "liberal". If anything the lack of coverage demonstrates a pro corporate mining stance in that there are probably thousands of abandoned mines all over the country that are leaching toxins into water let alone what gets discharged from still active mining sites. The mining industry sure as hell doesn't want that to be front and center. As to this specific case NPR is actually doing really good job of covering this and is usually really good on following up on things like this. So I'll keep you posted if you are genuinely interested. Oh, here's three articles from the dastardly liberal media that took me all of 10 seconds to find.

Rivers Shut Down Over EPA's Spill Of 3 Million Gallons Of Toxic Water : The Two-Way : NPR

Colorado Businesses Struggle As Toxic Waste Flows Through Animas River : NPR

EPA Says It Released 3 Million Gallons Of Contaminated Water Into River : The Two-Way : NPR

 

[pkt77242]

Fox? The same station who's most powerful primetime personality O'reilly stated that it wasn't Obama's fault?

There is a tremendous amount of info in your first link and goes a little deeper than the tidbits you pulled out. when I read the whole thing I can make a more appropriate comment.

Nice try T Town. You said that MSNBC stopped covering the BP oil spill after a week. I showed that after 100 days that about 32% of their time was spent covering the BP oil spill. Just admit that you are wrong and moved on.

Also Fox is the same one who spent the least amount of time covering the oil spill (which was your original complaint about MSNBC which turned out to be false) and the most amount of time covering it on the government angle and the least amount of time covering the corporate angle. Talk about bias. Why don't you complain about Fox? That is right, you agree with them.

 

[wizards8507]

There is so much here that makes my head hurt. I really try to understand you. I do.

I believe you mean that, so I'll try again. I know I won't convince you to be a libertarian yourself but hopefully I can at least get you to understand it as intellectual libertarians do. You're arguing against a high school pot head's caricature of libertarianism, not the "serious thinker's" version.

I mean this as best as I can but I really dont think you understsnd the inherent outcomes of a hypothetical libertarian society. Partciularly the Right wing capitalist version of because its ONLY theoretical. There are no societies that have even attempted it. To accentuate this, I always see you post..."it SHOULD" this,... it "SHOULD" that. Thats all you can do because its nothing but an untested theory. Fantasy land.

We deal with hypotheticals all the time in political philosophy. That doesn't make them a bad idea. There has never been a society without hunger, but I'm sure you'd agree that the pursuit of such would be a noble endeavor. My beliefs are based on liberty, and I refuse to accept the fact that I should abandon the mission towards liberty just because people throughout history have not been free.

You agreed to that as much in one of your responses. My point that you agreed with but seemed to escape you is that it is entirely implausible for disputes of economic and moral implications to be solved by Libertarian philosophy outside of a person on person interaction . Your actions do not remain within the distance of your arm.

That's wrong, and it's the main thing that you just aren't understanding about libertarianism. The "rights of my arm" example is just a maxim used to illustrate the harm principle, but the harm principle is much more robust than "I'm not allowed to punch you in the face." A libertarian economy would not allow a corporation to dump waste into your lake, for example, because it's your lake. One party (whether an individual, corporation, or anything else) cannot cause harm to another or to another's property. It's as simple as that. I'd be happy to do a question-and-answer "what if..."

But again...you say everyone should be free, but in this instance its obvious you have a problem with a group of people exercising their opinions and a very large global corporation that listened to them and made a business decision. That is wholly inconsistent. You should be applauding them in your theoretical society for exercising their freedom.

Wrong. A libertarian celebrates freedom, not every use thereof. I think drug use and prostitution should be legal, but that doesn't mean I'm going to celebrate drug use prostitution. All a libertarian says in this sitution is "it should be legal." The libertarian, as a libertarian, makes no claim to whether it's good or bad. Within that framework, everyone is free to hash it out among themselves. That means they can protest and picket and complain and do whatever else. But it's in urging people to change their behavior, not trying to pass legislation to outlaw the behavior.

But you don't. You inject into it a moral crusade of what SHOULD be. Now you are stuck with having to reconcile something you see as immoral with the perfectly acceptable expression of personal freedom in your theoretical world. That being inherently amoral on the companies part and a moral request from the opposite group.

First, I don't think it's immoral but I'm sick of talking about Target so I won't. Once again, why can't you wrap your head around the fact that there is a difference in what you should be free to do, and what you should do? I believe everyone should behave morally but there shouldn't be laws to enforce morality (outside of the harm principle). As a member of a libertarian society, I would be free to express my desire for folks to behave morally. That doesn't mean I would push for laws to force them to behave that way.

And Noam Chomsky nailed it. That is right wing capitalism or Americsn Libertarianism. That is the end result. Which its a bit past your right arm so you might have missed it as being such.

Well this is one that's not just theoretical, so I can argue against it with real-world examples. You want a big government to protect you from "private tyrannies," right? Let's use Exxon as an example. Who do you think big government sides with in the battle of you versus Exxon? Spoiler alert: it ain't you. Big government doesn't protect the little guy against the big guy. Big guys USE big government as an extra tool to use against you. You think that building up the State will be a weapon to protect you, but it's been seized by your enemies. I'll give Bernie Sanders credit in this regard at least. He's a "true believer" in what you think the state's role should be. But the dirty little secret in the Democrat Party is that they're all in bed with big business and special interests, not just the Republicans.

 

[Cackalacky]

Well this is one that's not just theoretical, so I can argue against it with real-world examples. You want a big government to protect you from "private tyrannies," right? Let's use Exxon as an example. Who do you think big government sides with in the battle of you versus Exxon? Spoiler alert: it ain't you. Big government doesn't protect the little guy against the big guy. Big guys USE big government as an extra tool to use against you. You think that building up the State will be a weapon to protect you, but it's been seized by your enemies. I'll give Bernie Sanders credit in this regard at least. He's a "true believer" in what you think the state's role should be. But the dirty little secret in the Democrat Party is that they're all in bed with big business and special interests, not just the Republicans.

Wizards,
I dont think I am operating from a pot heads caricature but one derived from an understandning of actual limited practice in so far as it has been in this country and as to the more ethereal claims of its philosophy, I am glad you chose environmental pollution by a corporation to refer to as that is the basis of my schooling and most of my professional career involved in private and public harm, proving it as such in a court of law, as well as defining and determining property rights under law and responsibility past and present. I beleive after we discuss this further you will see that Libertarianism is unable to adequately deal with these everyday situations and is in fact exactly what Noam is getting at.

I will not address specific points above as it will all be addressed, I believe, by our expample here. I first however must go be a dad today so I will get back to this later.

 

[yankeehater]

Actually it was about a 15 minute segment so yeah...lol. This isn't even close to the largest ecological disaster in this countries history. The reason the BP oil spill got so much coverage is that it effected a huge portion of the population and a large geographic region in relative terms. This is more a case of out of sight out of mind, but yeah keep clinging to the theory that large corporate media conglomerates are "liberal". If anything the lack of coverage demonstrates a pro corporate mining stance in that there are probably thousands of abandoned mines all over the country that are leaching toxins into water let alone what gets discharged from still active mining sites. The mining industry sure as hell doesn't want that to be front and center. As to this specific case NPR is actually doing really good job of covering this and is usually really good on following up on things like this. So I'll keep you posted if you are genuinely interested. Oh, here's three articles from the dastardly liberal media that took me all of 10 seconds to find.

Rivers Shut Down Over EPA's Spill Of 3 Million Gallons Of Toxic Water : The Two-Way : NPR

Colorado Businesses Struggle As Toxic Waste Flows Through Animas River : NPR

EPA Says It Released 3 Million Gallons Of Contaminated Water Into River : The Two-Way : NPR

Bluto thanks for proving my original point. Your articles are from 8-10 and 8-11. It was written about and then fell off the map. The head of the EPA did not show up for almost a week....basically said there is nothing to see here and left. Maybe T-Town's BP example is not a good one, but I think his point applies here.

On a side note, how do you attach the articles?

 

[ACamp1900]

Just copy and paste the link

 

[yankeehater]

Geologist predicted EPA’s “accidental” toxic spill into Colorado river a week before | Fellowship of the Minds

 

[pkt77242]

Gold King Mine owner: 'I foresaw disaster' - CNN.com

 

[pkt77242]

Iran hearings: The congressional grilling of John Kerry and Ernest Moniz shows how unfit to lead the GOP is.

 

[Cackalacky]

Noam Chomsky on Libertarianism
Wizards,
I started to write a detailed response. But it turned into a rather long multi post response and I am choosing not to do that you and everyone else.

My two big points I want to impress is that it can be shown that Libertarianism inherently produces numerous tyrants that will be unaccountable in the absence of a strong central authority to enforce and standardize practices. In particularly with environmental problems, once the pollution leaves the property it is not their problem any more. See the Cuyahoga River Cuyahoga River Pollution. In the instance of this river it was 100 miles long and was used as a source of drinking water, industrial water, a sewer and watershed for animals and fish. By the time it made its way to Cleveland it was a dead river. No oxygen content, no life, and all waste. There was no accountability for anyone and all the risk was for everyone. What minimal rules there were in place were not being adhered to and there was no intention to.

Further its extraordinarily expensive to identify, quantify,and remediate pollution. To expect a small group of citizens or a single person to be able to determine and prove such in a court of law is unrealistic at best and damn near impossible, especially prior to the EPA. The better, least expensive alternative is to keep it from happening as much as possible in the first place through strong storage requirements, handling procedures, reporting and accountability as opposed to the shortsightedness of quarterly profits and being able to wash your hands of it once its off your property.

The Chomsky video above sums up my position very well. And I assume you have seen the news from the Chinese explosion of a chemical plant recently. Death toll from China's Tianjin port explosion crosses 100: 112 killed and over 700 hospitalised.

China is not known for its above standard envionmental policies and its my view that Libertarians would have zero enviornmental laws on the books because it somehow hinders personal freedoms.

 

[ACamp1900]

http://youtu.be/NajQTN9qhXg
Wizards,
I started to write a detailed response. But it turned into a rather long multi post response and I am choosing not to do that to you and everyone else .

Thanks.

 

[Cackalacky]

Thanks.