gslack
Senior Member
- Mar 26, 2010
- 4,527
- 356
- 48
... and i thought, that wont work from what ive seen...I'm all for environmentalism, as long as those participating in the practice do so by managing their own piece of the environment.
i dunno about mosquitos, but does this guy think that the whole country could just go about caring for the environment on their own accord? that people who spend their lives assessing environmental impact are somehow unqualified to raise concerns about environmental hazards on private property?Depends upon the brand of "environmentalism" you're talking about.
That which usurps property rights in order to protect some rare mosquito is as overbearing and tyrannical as it gets.
i guess so. this guy cant see the forest from the trees in his own neighborhood. it seems like he does believe landowners are so beneficent to the environment that they dont warrant scrutiny by a third party.
tough nut, this guy.
this is a neat story. its more about aesthetics and maintenance, than preventing damage to environments though. where the government has reserved land for nature, i dont think private owners would have the resources, wherewithal, consensus, education, time, motivation and intent to care for it like the government.
has this guy considered that there are more issues than lawn height and suburban neighborhoods at stake on a national scope?
well, i guess he has inasmuch as aesthetics and stewardship goes. he seems to say that appeals to good nature is the way to go, but mandates and laws throw a wrench in the mix. he couldnt actually believe that you could stop toxic dumpers and other criminals on this basis, or illicit compliance with best practices for the environment where homes or businesses are concerned, does he? better ask..
wtf?
gimme a break.
...i thought dude was clear about autonomy on his property this guy speaking for him seems to be a bit more reasonable, but freedom with oversight is the point i was making in the first place when i told dude:
and
"there's seeing that environmental policy has to take a seat at a table among many other concerns in our society, and then there's your take that property ownership will speak entirely on its behalf, and and be remotely effective at it. "
"dude, the presumption is that landowners know more than bureaucrats. the bureaucrats leverage well-considered environmental policy giving reasonable breadth for landowners to do what is right. ideally, unless you are doing some flagrant environmental damage, there wouldn't be any oversight intervention. "
maybe we dont really have an argument, that is, except for this post-reading sandy-snatch he's got.
this guy has a complex about this shit!what a freak.No ya didn't.... You just think you are so all-knowing you only glimpse at it... there is a difference between comprehension and assumption, and you tend to use the latter...
wait.. he's speaking for dude again...i dont think that this guy appreciates how often shit like this happens. this is not extreme at all. this is just typical of what people do with land, waste and overconsumption. im starting to sound like an environmentalist freak, here, but maybe its the better side of the coin to be on than those who dont realize that people have a net negative impact on the environment they inhabit, and that it's important to have some force to check that those effects arent taken past a certain point.That is an extreme case scenario correct? Yes it was and that was not what either dude or I was talking about.... That is the kind of thing the EPA is for, but the point dude was making was that some EPA regulations are redundant and made ineffective by the pressures of politics and activist groups.
i could tell him the story about the groundwater treatment plant i worked on when i worked for CDM, or the SNEA issue i had with parking my old trucks on my dirt lot a few months ago. he seems to like the stories. nah. i think we're on the same page afterall, and all he wants is a handjob for his contributions to the argument. better let it lay.
Why don't you try addressing me instead of everyone else douchebag?
You know what it means when a person talks to everyone else around them about a discussion with another person? It means the little twerp is more interested in how something looks than any truth at all... And that the person doing it is a weasel....
I noticed you didn't even address what I said again.... You just rambled on trying to convince someone you are right.... YO dumazz, do you really think people will believe you because you beg them to?
I told you twice now that NO ONE said anything like what you are trying to claim here. And you just posted from previous posts of dudes that not only DO NOT say what you claim, but only prove ever more what I already claimed.
Please buddy, show us where anyone said no regulation at all.... Can't can you dumazz.... Thats because no one said any such thing thats just the crap you been claiming they said.... Why not debate what they said rather than whatever you feel like making up now?
Here is a quick version of what you have done here so far...
me: the EPA can go too far sometimes...
antagon: You can't call the EPA evil!
me: I didn't say that...
antagon: (fingers in ears) Yes you did!
me: no... You are exaggerating...
antagon: (pleading with everyone else) look what a jerk he is.... he makes me want to cry.... How dare he call the EPA evil...
Now that was a very simplified example of your behavior here so far... That is what people will see if they read it, and no amount of pleading or crying from you will change that.. Now grow up junior you look idiotic...
Last edited: