Occupy Vs Ron Paul (????)

reply to post by apacheman


Well hey, If OWS has a list of demands they sure haven't made them very clear. There's so much diversity in OWS that no-one is sure who to believe at this point. If you think they are making an impact, more power to them, that's great.

I'm not here to debate about whether OWS is right or wrong, rather what the motive behind this recent activity is and IF OWS is actually even involved. Keep getting pissed at me bro, doesn't bother me but maybe you should be angry at the media for not "getting it"" and quit yelling at Paul supporters of whom many, support OWS.

reply to post by apacheman

Fanatics?
More disinformation. Ron Paul has a dedicated network of rational, educated people. The typical Paul supporter could probably school you on government and the constitution. They normally wouldn't stoop to generalizations as you repeatedly have.
You reek of an agenda. If you disagree with a policy, fine, state as much. The most fanatic fan does not represent the entire organization, nor its people.

reply to post by NeoVain


The states? They are easier and cheaper to buy than the feds.

That is a bullcrap argument and reason to abolish the EPA, especially since most things covered by it have multi-state implications.

Moving it to the state level just creates new fortunes for lawyers and delays any effective controls.

If there are problems with it, fix the problems. Shuffling off to the states doesn't fix problems, it multiplies them.

Abolishing the EPA makes no sense: it is Pilate washing his hands.

If Paul can't offer any other solution to our environmental issues than that, then he hasn't the intellectual weight to solve many others either.

Occupy has been notoriously against Ron Paul since the beginning......

On their website they banned any talk of Ron Paul

If you said anything about Ron , Then your posts were removed and you were ejected from the website...

So its no surprise that they would do this....


Makes you really wonder who is behind the OWS movement

Well many people think Ron Paul wants to let big Corporations have their way with the environment because he wants to eliminate the EPA and deregulate. Fact is, that is not true.

Rep. Paul (R-TX) said in 2006: “The last thing we need is centralized government planning when it comes to our precious energy supplies.” Paul voted against the Clean Energy Act of 2007. He has also called for an end to “all subsidies and special benefits to energy companies.” Paul voted against the 2005 Energy Policy Act.

Paul voted in favor of the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act, which was hailed by environmentalists for its measures promoting clean energy. Paul is against government subsides for ethanol (Grist) and pro-nuclear power.

The bets part of this? The source is the CFR themselves which also has a pretty good overview of many of Ron Paul's stances. Just take a read and you know why the Establishment goes above and beyond to slander, discredit and ignore Ron Paul.

Source

reply to post by apacheman

If Paul can't offer any pother solution to our environmental issues than that, then he hasn't the intellectual weight to solve many others either.

Just so we're clear, and not to get off-topic but...So you are saying that the EPA is and has been a viable solution to our environmental issues? I think that's the problem right there. LOTS of taxpayer dollars, not a whole lot of solution. Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by Wookiep

 

lol... That is not even the occupy movement, just a few uninformed fringe protestors, looking for whatever excuse they can come up with to socialise...

How do you know this???

Kind of an odd comment to make about a group that accepts all people, has no organization, and claims to be against ALL policital parties and candidates.

How exactly do you know they aren't part of OWS??? Do you have an official roster?

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by NeoVain

 

The states? They are easier and cheaper to buy than the feds.

Seriously?

That is a bullcrap argument and reason to abolish the EPA, especially since most things covered by it have multi-state implications.

Indeed and that is part of the problem. as the environmental topoplogy differs vastly between states, some policies may not be quite as efficient in certain states, or overly stringent in others. You really need to micro-manage these things, with more independent studies and "feet on the ground" in each state. That is why bringing this to the state level is so much better.

Moving it to the state level just creates new fortunes for lawyers and delays any effective controls.

That is called "creating more jobs", and as consequence, would not only help the economy but also bring about more "legs on the ground" to more efficiently micro-manage and research environmental preferences as well as being able to better enforce and maintain individual prerogatives to help maintain a better environmental policy.

If there are problems with it, fix the problems. Shuffling off to the states doesn't fix problems, it multiplies them.

Using that same logic, it would be better if everyone had meatloaf on mondays, and ate mud the rest of the week. Why take into consideration individual preferences at all, when you can just have a "one rule fits all" policy right? easier must be better?

Abolishing the EPA makes no sense: it is Pilate washing his hands.

Deny ignorance, you come across as a frantic tree hugger that never bothered to do your homework.

If there was a shadow government. Then every political nominee is a employee of the shadow government. Therefore bad mouthing all nominee's would seem logical.

If there was NO shadow government. Then every political nominee is just another person. Therefore bad mouthing ron paul would mean that he is being singled out from all the other nominee's.

Now theres many other scenarios but I would like to bring to light another scenario, that this is all orchestrated by the Central Intelligence Agency. What if they hired hollywood writers, television writers, and other drama writers to create a script and then bring it to life on the television and internet in order to keep us looking at their "right hand" while they pull a trick over us with "their left hand" like a magician would.

What I am suggesting is what if this was a stunt created so that they could justify the creation of threads on the internet where ron paul supporters can spam the internet with reasons why ron paul is a worthy candidate and why everyone else is wrong to attack him.

What if Ron Paul is the ultimate flip flopper, who we would vote in office and then he would just do whatever he wants. Or worse yet what if Ron Paul brings about the New Monetary "World Order" written about by Lewis Lehrman. Lewis Lehrman was a Member of Yales secret society the Wolf Head Group, he was a original founder of the Project for a New American Century. And he spent quiet a bit of time with Mr. Ron Paul and they even co authored a book together called "A Case for Gold".

You see Maybe he is the False Prophet. We think hes going to bring about a fix to this financial mess. But hes just being slowly moved into the Presidential seat in order to get the public to accept the Amero or the coming world currency or ID card they talk about. I mean we should trust this man "Ron Paul" because his voting record is so great? When did we forget the age old rule that we should "trust no one". I think we need to really do our own research into who Ron Paul really us. Who the occupy movement really is. Instead of accepting what people write about him on the internet and just passing it along like the telephone game.

Food for thought.

reply to post by MrWendal


scroll down a little further from that link to see his actual stance on the environment.

the key to sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights," according to his campaign website. He says the free market prohibits pollution of one's "neighbor's land, air, or water

Paul opposes the Kyoto treaty and a carbon tax. He is also critical of the Environmental Protection Agency. "It's a bureaucratic, intrusive approach and it favors those who have political connections."

reply to post by Wookiep


Were you around when the rivers were spontaneously bursting into flame due to the untreated toxic sludge factories were pouring in them?

www.youtube.com...

"Back in the '60s ... I went on a news excursion on the river downtown to show how bad the pollution was," Ellers recalled recently. "I remember we could see a layer of crud on the water but didn't appreciate its thickness until the photog on the trip, Marv Greene, said, 'Richard, dip your hand in there and pull it out.' "

The image of a black, gooey hand coming out of the Cuyahoga like a B-movie swamp monster defined the plight of the Cuyahoga. By association, it indicted all industrial American cities -- and a culture that for a century had generally viewed natural waterways as a means to an end.

"The Cuyahoga River -- the thick pollution on the water and the fire -- became a convenient example of what 'bad' really is," said Frank Samsel, whose company aided in early 1970s cleanup efforts.

"And the more you talked down about how terrible it was, the more the press and news jumped on it. But it also made people aware of the fact that things could be different."

www.cleveland.com... a_river_fire_40_years_a.html

Or when you took your life in your hands simply by driving during rush hour due to the smog making the air literally unbreathable?

In December 1952, a deadly smog settled over London. Trapped by cooler air above, the dirty cloud enveloped the city for four days. Rich with soot from factories and low-quality home-burned coal, the Great Smog, as it came to be known, caused some 12,000 deaths that winter.

Similar, though smaller, lethal clouds choked Liege, Belgium, in 1930, killing at least 60 people, and Donora, Pennsylvania, in 1948, accounting for a score of deaths.

These disasters forced the world to face the dangers of air pollution and inspired an ongoing movement for cleaner air. The United Kingdom adopted broad air pollution regulations in 1956, the first country to do so. In 1970, the United States created the Environmental Protection Agency and passed the Clean Air Act. The act originally empowered the EPA to determine safe limits and regulate six major air pollutants, now expanded to include 189 potential threats.

“It’s a huge act,” says Jonathan Samet, an air pollution researcher and professor of public health at the University of Southern California. “We’ve had tremendous declines in major air pollutants as a consequence.”

www.smithsonianmag.com... /specialsections/ecocenter/air/EcoCenter-Air-The-Long-Fight-Against-Air-Pollution.html

Do you remember Love Canal?

library.buffalo.edu... dex.html

Or how we nearly lost the eagles?

en.wikipedia.org...

Or dioxin, remember that stuff?

www.who.int...

To say I'm uncomfortable with the idea of eliminating the one government agency that has stopped so much pollution is to understate things quite a bit.

Now, with the rampant pollution of the Gulf of Mexico ongoing, and the radioactivity released by Fukushima, and the fracking contaminating aquifers all over the country, now seems hardly the time to dissolve it. It would take years for the states to gear up and deal with issues, years that would allow rampant pollution to go unchecked, causing billions in damage and healthcare costs.

It is a really, really, really stupid and irresponsible idea.

So despite admiring him for other things, I simply can't support him as long as he keeps advocating this stupidity.

I honestly don't think he's the answer. Unfortunately, I don't think Obama is either, never did.

Frankly, I don't see anyone to support, they all suck.

reply to post by apacheman


Clearly this is a sensitive issue for you, and I'm not trying to downplay problems in the environment. If it makes you feel any better abolishing the EPA is not on Ron Paul's top "to do list". BUT I think you may be downplaying his position on the subject.

From an interview with Paul on this issue here: www.grist.org...

On environment, governments don't have a good reputation for doing a good job protecting the environment. If you look at the extreme of socialism or communism, they were very poor environmentalists. Private property owners have a much better record of taking care of the environment. If you look at the common ownership of the lands in the West, they're much more poorly treated than those that are privately owned. In a free-market system, nobody is permitted to pollute their neighbor's private property -- water, air, or land. It is very strict.

I also think NeoVain broke it down pretty good. I'm no expert on the environment, and I don't claim to be. It seems common sense should come in to play a little bit however, especially when we're talking about the Federal Government.

Now you'll have to forgive me, I don't have much else to say on this as we really have veered slightly off topic. Thanks for the discussion tho!

reply to post by Wookiep
Thanks for your response to my question, I guess it does make sense to hand that down to the states... And talking about the EPA isn't really off topic for this thread. It is after all what brought out those protesters, right? Take care.

reply to post by Sek82


Hey no worries. I guess you're right now that I think about it. It wasn't really the point of the thread but I suppose it is an element relating to the op.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by Wookiep

 

lol... That is not even the occupy movement, just a few uninformed fringe protestors, looking for whatever excuse they can come up with to socialise...

How do you know this???

Kind of an odd comment to make about a group that accepts all people, has no organization, and claims to be against ALL policital parties and candidates.

How exactly do you know they aren't part of OWS??? Do you have an official roster?

The exact point I made in the first few post here.....interesting no? Goes with what I was saying that the "Occupy" movement has no qualms with throwing anyone under the proverbial bus if it means protecting the "message".

reply to post by apacheman


Out of curiosty...were you around? Granted -- an answer either way is based on faith and trust that you were/weren't around. Regardless the points that both sides bring up are very valid; but have dire consequences as outcomes.

My point being -- No regulation (in which I am not a fan of -- rather sound regulation is my cup of tea) has lead to many disastrous situations in our environment.

Over-regulation has led to equally disastrous outcomes; for the State only wants to protect its interests and not the People -- This has been shown more times than none to be true.

But you have attacked -- so what is your solution apacheman?!

Originally posted by Wookiep


Out of ALL the GOP candidates the Occupy movement goes after Ron Paul??

Ummmmmmmmmmm......

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus Ron Paul worshippers are just too damn much.
Out of all the presidential candidates the Occupy movement is going after ALL THE CANDIDATES, including Paul and Obama.

hell, did you even read what you wrote?
"Out of all the GOP candidates..."
If you do not see the problem that starts right there then you need not worry about facts or reality anyway.

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

Originally posted by Wookiep


Out of ALL the GOP candidates the Occupy movement goes after Ron Paul??

Ummmmmmmmmmm......

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus Ron Paul worshippers are just too damn much.
Out of all the presidential candidates the Occupy movement is going after ALL THE CANDIDATES, including Paul and Obama.

hell, did you even read what you wrote?
"Out of all the GOP candidates..."
If you do not see the problem that starts right there then you need not worry about facts or reality anyway.

This isn't about worshiping anyone, including Ron Paul. Jesus, do YOU listen? Are OWSers paying attention? Don't you understand that your civil liberties are continually at stake here??? Have you NO knowledge of what the Federal Reserve is doing to this nation?? Have you no IDEA that Paul has personally spoken up against the 1% on more than one occasion? Has Obama tried to rally against the Federal Reserve? Has he tried to audit the money that has been continually printed to bail out those big corporations that OWS hates? Has OWS even TRIED to realize that the Federal Reserve along with our corrupt banking system has overtaken America (and the world, for the most part)? Really?? Grow a pair and GET_OUT_OF_PARTISANSHIP you preach so much against!

Wake up OWS!!!

Originally posted by apacheman
Abolishing the EPA is a dangerously stupid idea, one that corporate America would dearly love to see happen: no more pesky rules against fracking aquifers, no oversight of toxic waste dumps, no place to complain to about waste dumped untreated into rivers.

Admittedly veering a bit from the original topic here, I wish to comment directly towards this statement. The EPA doesn't do anything in regards to your examples today... so why would eliminating them magically free up these "concerns" for corporate America tomorrow? In case you haven't noticed, fracking is commonplace, the only time toxic waste dumps are discussed is when someone wants to do something with the land on which one already sits, and the EPA is completely redundant and unneeded in regards to clean water thanks to the Clean Water Act, other laws regulating discharge as set by Congress, and agencies like the US Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers. The EPA's entire reality is that the obfuscate State and local government's attempts at improving infrastructure and overregulate small businesses, while essentially doing little to nothing about the big players in corporate America.

Abolishing the EPA tomorrow would have absolutely NO negative impacts on the USA, a handfull of immediate positive impacts in regards to reduction of bueareaucracy and red tape, and massive improvements to scheduling, permitting processes, and overall project progress.