Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That works in theory not necessarily in fact, The first thing is that industries that cause the greatest pollution and or cause the greatest harm have laws that protect or insulate them from law suits or limit their liability. Trial lawyers are reluctant to take those cases because of the complexities and these laws. The little homeowner has little recourse if their child dies of cancer because of toxic pollutants. The only agency that stands in the way of these corporate polluters is the EPA.
You may have a car wreck today, so you cannot drive your car.
Intervention, the ultimate grab of personal liberty, all over the world.
The courts are there for a purpose. To find fault and award damages and to punish.
The EPA causes more harm than good to the economy today. It was started with good intentions. Today it's intentions is to produce revenue for the government.
The courts don't discriminate. The EPA does. If you are big money Corp. and pay them off to do what the little guy can never afford to pay the EPA to do.
You may have a car wreck today, so you cannot drive your car.
Intervention, the ultimate grab of personal liberty, all over the world.
The courts are there for a purpose. To find fault and award damages and to punish.
The EPA causes more harm than good to the economy today. It was started with good intentions. Today it's intentions is to produce revenue for the government.
The courts don't discriminate. The EPA does. If you are big money Corp. and pay them off to do what the little guy can never afford to pay the EPA to do.
If the courts cannot award damages because of the laws then what good are courts. Would you support legislation removing protections for polluting industries?
The GOP in their ongoing war on the environment and to make us more like developing countries will soon start their assault on environmetal regulations. Republican voters will soon get their wish for a new conservative agenda as laws regulating clean air and water will come under assault, which includes the dumping of toxins into the air, rivers and streams. You would think the so-called pro-life party would want to protect children and adults from cancer and abortion inducing toxins being dumped into the environment and the public domain, but go figure, they ostensibly have different priorities. Big donors need to be repaid.
Do you support the gutting of environmental laws or against?
I bet you the OP has a fairly new computer and phone and could care less about the environmental impact the manufacture of those devices have.
Some people have no problem destroying the environment as long as they can continue to rail on about others.
This is a strawman argument and typical tactic used to divert attention form the issue at hand. But if you must know, I do recycle as much as I can and do as much as I can do to conserve. The difference between you and I is I realize the importance of environmental laws and there impact upon my family and generations to come. I will not cower or engage in blissful ignorance in face of important issues of the day but deal with them head on. Past American generations were like that... but for some reason today if there are important issues and decisions to be faced, many prefer the ostrich route.
If the courts cannot award damages because of the laws then what good are courts. Would you support legislation removing protections for polluting industries?
The EPA doesn't award damages, now. Who do you think has that power?
It is not up to the EPA to make laws. That is the job you elected your representatives to do.
If there is provable damage, nothing limits the courts to not be able to punish the guilty, through monetary damages in civil court and both monetary and incarceration in criminal cases.
I would support legislation made by both my US and my State legislators.
The fear of the non discriminating, un-biased courts, should be all the protections needed in a free society.
Today, the EPA protects the rich and powerful, allowing them to pollute, where the little guy cannot afford to pay EPA to pollute.
The little guy fears the courts, that will put them out of business and even incarcerate them for negligence.
Who went to jail for the BP oil spill?
Would you support legislation removing protections for polluting industries?
This is not a one size fits all question no matter how much you try to make it be. If you want to live in a modern society there is going to be environmental consequences, you can minimize them but can never eliminate them. On one end we can eliminate all activity that has environmental consequences but that is not helping society, on other end we can just ignore those consequences but that is not helping society either.
In between there is a happy medium with sane and practical regulations. The EPA has swung way too far out of that medium.
We like dirty water, dirty air, toxins in the soil, and contaminated food. Of course, we like nothing better than dumping toxic, industrial waste in rivers and streams. It is what we do!
Isn't it amusing to hear what liberals really believe? Only a child could be culled into believing such nonsense.
It's the same old shtick from the left, agree completely with their form of governmental tyranny, or you are the devil, and you favor complete chaos, death and destruction.
This is not a one size fits all question no matter how much you try to make it be. If you want to live in a modern society there is going to be environmental consequences, you can minimize them but can never eliminate them. On one end we can eliminate all activity that has environmental consequences but that is not helping society, on other end we can just ignore those consequences but that is not helping society either.
In between there is a happy medium with sane and practical regulations. The EPA has swung way too far out of that medium.
...and elections have no consequences, the EPA is not elected, not accountable, they are all three federal branches of government rolled into one. They make their own laws, they are judge, jury and executioner, they hand out fines and punishments, confiscate property, and even redraw state lines, all on their own.
This is a strawman argument and typical tactic used to divert attention form the issue at hand. But if you must know, I do recycle as much as I can and do as much as I can do to conserve. The difference between you and I is I realize the importance of environmental laws and there impact upon my family and generations to come. I will not cower or engage in blissful ignorance in face of important issues of the day but deal with them head on. Past American generations were like that... but for some reason today if there are important issues and decisions to be faced, many prefer the ostrich route.
I'll disagree and say that you will not practice what you preach because it's easier to call others villains.
I recognize and support sensible environmental laws.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
