Democrats versus Republicans

[sailaway21]

Originally Posted by craigimass

Well, you asked - but I really doubt you want to know. Here is one of them. The plant shut down over 30 years ago, and the area is still known as Toxic Town.

Pine River Superfund Site - Great Lakes Wiki

In a normal world, folks like you who sail SHOULD be stewards of the environment. In your bizzarro world, you defend the indefensible.

The poison has not only shut down the river and area as recreation, but now entered the towns drinking water. This is one of hundreds or thousands of similar problems that her firm was working on.

OH, it wasn't Nader who was behind the environmental attorneys and their actions. IT WAS THE CITIES AND STATES WHERE YOU AND I LIVE THAT ARE PAYING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS TO GET THE POISON OUT OF THEIR DRINKING WATER....

But, yeah, I know...facts are for pinheads. Why actually care when you can just rant? It's much easier and doesn't require any education.

You might have slipped up on that one, Sport.

A careful reading of your supplied source reveals that the contamination level in the drinking water is below EPA and DEQ limits. Now I know you probably don't know anything much about groundwater, much less pollution thereof, and you probably don't know much about drinking water standards either, but you're in luck, 'cause I do.

If there was a serious concern about the levels of contamination, and all water is contaminated to one degree or another depending on what you're looking to call contamination, the state of Michigan would have shut those wells down. Those are municipal wells mind you. There is absolutely nothing preventing you from drilling a new well in the area, for residential use, based upon the pollution found to date. That's from the Michigan DEQ which generally has higher standards than the EPA. In fact, when the EPA has questions about groundwater, they often consult with the Michigan DEQ since we drill more water wells than anyone other than Florida year in and year out.

'Notherwords, Sport, the water is safe to drink.

Now, no one is in favor of pollution of any sort but, as usual, you just don't know what in the heck you're talking about. And, I believe that you mentioned something about irretrievably harmed? In tha case of groundwater, depending on the type of contamination, it may be self-remediating through the hydrological cycle or it may required remediation involving pumping and centrifuging/decanting but that is not the same as saying that it cannot be remediated or that the damage is anything near permanent.

Ask your daughter why the pollution there isn't spreading. Bet she doesn't know. Betcha' I do.

But then I wouldn't know much about any of that other than being a licensed water well driller in the State of Michigan.

Lest any out of staters be concerned over much, the Pine River is one of the most beautiful rivers in the state. It offers world class canoeing as well as some of the best trout fishing in the state. I canoe it, I eat the fish, and oh yeah, I drill water wells.

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

Just don't tell me we should place our lives and our families futures and our nations economy on some government mandated hope and change.
I build my castles on rock solid technology...not castles in the air.

Yep,

Make sure you don't build your life around government mandated change like railroads, navigational waterways, interstates, nuclear power, dams, satellites, mandatory education, public health or all those other programs of no good.

Never let the facts get in the way of talking points...hear?

Remember, everything the rich capitalists do is good and everything the government does is bad. Now repeat after me.....

Oh, turn off your internet connection since the big bad government created that also....

[camaraderie]

Change the subject again why don't ya.
I did NOT say government mandated PROGRAMS...I said government mandated HOPE and CHANGE to unproven, unscalable, unaffordable technology.

AND...most of the things on your list do NOT require the government....just people who put their money and brains where their mouths are and have the WILL to succeed. Capitalists.

[PBzeer]

craig -You seem singularly unfamiliar with the difference between government programs, regulation, and mandates. You also, despite repeated reminders, seem unaware that no one is advocating a complete halt of all government programs.

There are certain and specific functions for government, as set out in the Constitution. And the only time the verb provide is used, is for the common defense. Social programs, which would fall within the area of general welfare are not to be provided, but promoted. Many of us are aware of the difference between promote and provide.

FYI, sarcasm should be left to those who are able to infuse it with a certain degree of bite and wit, rather than petulant whining.

[sck5]

"no one is advocating a complete halt of all government programs."

See the quote from Grover Norquist

"Our goal is to shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub. "

Grover is one of the leaders of the modern conservative movement. See here -

Grover Norquist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You cant have it both ways my friend. If you campaign and get elected on rhetoric that stresses the evil of ALL government then you cant turn around and complain when it comes back to bite you.

[PBzeer]

I wasn't aware Grover was a member of the forum. But, even if he were, he doesn't speak for the larger conservative community any more than Jesse Jackson speaks for the larger liberal community.

Beyond that though, it should be clear to any thinking person that he was being allegorical, as no one believes government could be shrunk that small in the first place. Not even Grover.

Name me a candidate who has run on a platform of eliminating government, or that has said all government is evil. Neither of which is contained within the quote you used.

[PBzeer]

Back in Febuary, when we POSITIVELY, ABSOLUTELY HAD to have the stimulus, we were told that without it, unemployment would reach 8.7% by June. Well, it's June and unemployment is 9.4%. That's a million more people unemployed than if we'd done nothing. Take out the mythical 150k jobs "saved or created" and it's still 850K. No wonder they tout it's success.

[PBzeer]

Another little thought exercise, boys and girls.

No one disputes that overall, seatbelt usage saves lives and reduces injuries. So a government mandate for seatbelts and their use would seem to be acceptable government intervention into private behavior. Where instead of making you aware of the advantages, they force them on you.

Now, you might say, this is a good thing. But, if seatbelts and their use had a direct effect on your (forced to buy) insurance premiums, people would demand them in their vehicles and use them, MINUS any government interference.

So let's take a further step into this benign benevolent legislation. Que bono? Who is it that really benefits from the legislation? The insurance companies. Follow the money.

[craigimass]

Yep, insurance companies can offer lower rates because seat belts and air bags make it so that less people need to be hooked up to tubes for the rest of their natural life.

And people like lower insurance rates - at least I do.

Once again, both sides of the mouth. I hear the righties say that the answer to our health care costs is for people to take care of themselves. Of course, that is that PARTIAL solution so that is a true statement.....

Well folks, you can't argue that folks should stop eating junk and getting obese on one hand, and then on the other say we should take away air bag and seat belt mandates in the cause of freedom. Who pays for those people in wheelchairs? We do.

Having had my sons life saved by the combo of a seat belt and an airbag, I would think that only those with no experience would argue against them.

Perhaps we should be allowed to not use seat belts on airplanes also. That way when we hit bad turbulence, we could hit the ceiling and break our necks. Who cares? That's our individual right, right?

The right in this country is VERY CLEAR on their talking points about government doing nothing right. It is virtually every sentence they speak.

And we are supposed to believe that is not what they think? Well, I'll give you that one. It probably ISN'T what most think, but they DO think they can bring the huddled masses to vote for them by using it as a talking point. And it might even work...it has before...with disastrous consequences.

Of course, any insinuation that the GOP is a party of small government is a complete myth anyway. Those of libertarian bent can at least claim they walk the walk (to some degree).....but I recently asked a libertarian friend to tell me if he gets Masscare (our socialized state health care)...and he refused to answer. Hmmmmmm.

Will anyone who is not a complete hypocrite please raise your hand and tell us how so?

[PBzeer]

Once again we get a mismash of overgeneralizations, mischaracterizations, and invective disguised as reasoned and civil discourse. All while swinging wide of the point. We do though get the usual, people are stupid and have to be told what to do, talking point.

As for your liberitarian friend, get back to me when you drive the most fuel-efficent car available Mr CAFE.