Inauguration thoughts we should all be able to agree on

[Flybrick]

I believe that we must start putting environmental concerns first.

Then welcome back to the 18th century...

[SportsFan68]

I believe that we must start putting environmental concerns first.

Then welcome back to the 18th century...

What a great non sequitur!

Thanks, Brick!

[Appa23]

As part of my job, I have had to work with federal and state regulators from Colorado. I now have a better viewpoint of Sprot's opinions based on the fact that they seem influenced, at least in part, with what she is being told by someone working for EPA.

[Jeemie]

I believe that we must start putting environmental concerns first.

Then welcome back to the 18th century...

What a great non sequitur!

Thanks, Brick!

The problem is...it's true.

Or, at the very least, severe economic dislocation.

Appa is right- whoever you are talking to is unrealistic and pie-in-the-sky.

You guys will head us to the very world you say you wish to avoid.

[SportsFan68]

Then welcome back to the 18th century...

What a great non sequitur!

Thanks, Brick!

The problem is...it's true.

Or, at the very least, severe economic dislocation.

Appa is right- whoever you are talking to is unrealistic and pie-in-the-sky.

You guys will head us to the very world you say you wish to avoid.

I don't know what you thought HD said, but I am confident that it wasn't that my friend in unrealistic and pie-in-the-sky. She tells us stories about her current cases -- no more, no less. That's all I said, and what I read HD to say is that he thinks my opinions are influenced by what I hear about actual cases in the EPA. He is correct about that. When she tells me about a case of illegal hazmat dumping where the five illegal dumpers were dead by the time their case would have come to trial, that has a very definite influence on my opinions. I don't see anything unrealistic or pie in the sky about a story where a property owner illegally failed to disclose a hazardous materials situation about the property, and the new owners are dying because they didn't take precautions when they remodeled. I hope the former owner goes to jail for murder, or felony indifference or whatever Jack McCoy calls it.

I don't know who it is you're referring to when you say "you guys," but I know for sure it isn't my EPA friend. She is definitely one of the good guys, and while she was in the middle of trying to bring those five people to trial, not knowing they had already signed their own death warrants with careless asbestos handling, she was also trying to help assure a safe and proper cleanup of the site. She is part of the world I want.

[Jeemie]

What a great non sequitur!

Thanks, Brick!

The problem is...it's true.

Or, at the very least, severe economic dislocation.

Appa is right- whoever you are talking to is unrealistic and pie-in-the-sky.

You guys will head us to the very world you say you wish to avoid.

I don't know what you thought HD said, but I am confident that it wasn't that my friend in unrealistic and pie-in-the-sky. She tells us stories about her current cases -- no more, no less. That's all I said, and what I read HD to say is that he thinks my opinions are influenced by what I hear about actual cases in the EPA. He is correct about that. When she tells me about a case of illegal hazmat dumping where the five illegal dumpers were dead by the time their case would have come to trial, that has a very definite influence on my opinions. I don't see anything unrealistic or pie in the sky about a story where a property owner illegally failed to disclose a hazardous materials situation about the property, and the new owners are dying because they didn't take precautions when they remodeled. I hope the former owner goes to jail for murder, or felony indifference or whatever Jack McCoy calls it.

I don't know who it is you're referring to when you say "you guys," but I know for sure it isn't my EPA friend. She is definitely one of the good guys, and while she was in the middle of trying to bring those five people to trial, not knowing they had already signed their own death warrants with careless asbestos handling, she was also trying to help assure a safe and proper cleanup of the site. She is part of the world I want.

None of these examples have anything to do with fuel production.

[SportsFan68]

The problem is...it's true.

Or, at the very least, severe economic dislocation.

Appa is right- whoever you are talking to is unrealistic and pie-in-the-sky.

You guys will head us to the very world you say you wish to avoid.

I don't know what you thought HD said, but I am confident that it wasn't that my friend in unrealistic and pie-in-the-sky. She tells us stories about her current cases -- no more, no less. That's all I said, and what I read HD to say is that he thinks my opinions are influenced by what I hear about actual cases in the EPA. He is correct about that. When she tells me about a case of illegal hazmat dumping where the five illegal dumpers were dead by the time their case would have come to trial, that has a very definite influence on my opinions. I don't see anything unrealistic or pie in the sky about a story where a property owner illegally failed to disclose a hazardous materials situation about the property, and the new owners are dying because they didn't take precautions when they remodeled. I hope the former owner goes to jail for murder, or felony indifference or whatever Jack McCoy calls it.

I don't know who it is you're referring to when you say "you guys," but I know for sure it isn't my EPA friend. She is definitely one of the good guys, and while she was in the middle of trying to bring those five people to trial, not knowing they had already signed their own death warrants with careless asbestos handling, she was also trying to help assure a safe and proper cleanup of the site. She is part of the world I want.

None of these examples have anything to do with fuel production.

Neither did HD's remark, but it didn't stop you from glomming onto it and promulgating a completely false interpretation of it.

[Jeemie]

Neither did HD's remark, but it didn't stop you from glomming onto it and promulgating a completely false interpretation of it.

Not glomming onto it at all...but somebody has fed you a line that producing fossil fuels has to be a messy business that will destroy the environment...or that those that support it must be "unconcerned with environmental issues".

Which is decidedly untrue. They just look at the issues differently from you.

[kusch]

I am not trying to be snarky, I am trying to be funny.

It seems to me that whenever Jeemie and Sprots start bantering it winds up being like a tennis match volley that never ends.

[MarleysGh0st]

I am not trying to be snarky, I am trying to be funny.

It seems to me that whenever Jeemie and Sprots start bantering it winds up being like a tennis match volley that never ends.

I wonder if this thread will be able to continue agreeing on these thoughts until the next inauguration?

[Thousandaire]

It'll be a lot longer than 30 years if we continue to "balance off environmental concerns with keeping our technological civilization going." I believe that we must start putting environmental concerns first.

Unless you live in Pakistan. Are missiles good for the environment?

[SportsFan68]

Neither did HD's remark, but it didn't stop you from glomming onto it and promulgating a completely false interpretation of it.

Not glomming onto it at all...but somebody has fed you a line that producing fossil fuels has to be a messy business that will destroy the environment...or that those that support it must be "unconcerned with environmental issues".

Which is decidedly untrue. They just look at the issues differently from you.

Your definition of "glomming on to" and mine are different. No problem there. It happens.

I still think you glommed -- — glom on to : to grab hold of : appropriate to oneself <glommed on to her ideas> -- but I don't mind that you don't think so.

No one has fed me a line "that producing fossil fuels has to be a messy business that will destroy the environment...or that those that support it must be 'unconcerned with environmental issues.' " Besides, those aren't exactly the arguments I've been making, but to explicate at this point would be counterproductive. I don't mind that Jeemie thinks they are.

Even if someone had fed me a line like that (which no one has, I hasten to repeat), it wouldn't have been my EPA friend, because she does not do that.

I will agree that Jeemie and I look at the issues differently and attempt to start bringing this discussion to an end on that agreeable note.

[SportsFan68]

I am not trying to be snarky, I am trying to be funny.

It seems to me that whenever Jeemie and Sprots start bantering it winds up being like a tennis match volley that never ends.

LOL!

Kusch, you are so right. I did literally LOL when I read this.

[Rexer25]

I will agree that Jeemie and I look at the issues differently and attempt to start bringing this discussion to an end on that agreeable note.

What? And end this blatant, gratuitous, obvious post count increase?

[SportsFan68]

I will agree that Jeemie and I look at the issues differently and attempt to start bringing this discussion to an end on that agreeable note.

What? And end this blatant, gratuitous, obvious post count increase?

Ack! I am so busted!



I LOLed at this too, Rexer.

[lilclyde54]

Must remember....avoid all threads with a political topic

[peacock2121]

Must remember....avoid all threads with a political topic

That is where the fun is!

[Jeemie]

Neither did HD's remark, but it didn't stop you from glomming onto it and promulgating a completely false interpretation of it.

Not glomming onto it at all...but somebody has fed you a line that producing fossil fuels has to be a messy business that will destroy the environment...or that those that support it must be "unconcerned with environmental issues".

Which is decidedly untrue. They just look at the issues differently from you.

Your definition of "glomming on to" and mine are different. No problem there. It happens.

I still think you glommed -- — glom on to : to grab hold of : appropriate to oneself <glommed on to her ideas> -- but I don't mind that you don't think so.

No one has fed me a line "that producing fossil fuels has to be a messy business that will destroy the environment...or that those that support it must be 'unconcerned with environmental issues.' " Besides, those aren't exactly the arguments I've been making, but to explicate at this point would be counterproductive. I don't mind that Jeemie thinks they are.

Even if someone had fed me a line like that (which no one has, I hasten to repeat), it wouldn't have been my EPA friend, because she does not do that.

I will agree that Jeemie and I look at the issues differently and attempt to start bringing this discussion to an end on that agreeable note.

Then if those weren't the arguments you were making, next time do not call former President Bush "unconcerned with environmental issues" because he supported drilling in ANWR and developing oil shale in Colorado.

[SportsFan68]

Then if those weren't the arguments you were making, next time do not call former President Bush "unconcerned with environmental issues" because he supported drilling in ANWR and developing oil shale in Colorado.

This is why we can't go on with this, Jeemie. OK, I can't. My earlier remarks about Bush don't say that. Here's what I said:

All of Brick's forefathers left Europe for a reason, mine too. I just want to note that's not true of all Americans. I work with people whose ancestors crossed the land bridge or got here in other ways from Asia long before Europeans even knew the continent existed, not to mention the people whose ancestors were dragged away from their African homes into slavery. I think there's no danger of our becoming more European with Obama at the helm. I think it was far more likely with Bush and his disregard of environmental issues, such as pushing for drilling in the ANWR and developing oil shale in Colorado, measures that would displace wild animals, eventually to the point of extinction, and create a more developed European-type countryside.

And here are the arguments you claim I'm making, and I claim aren't exactly.

Not glomming onto it at all...but somebody has fed you a line that producing fossil fuels has to be a messy business that will destroy the environment...or that those that support it must be "unconcerned with environmental issues"

I could take about an hour and explain how they differ, but I'm not going to.

I propose again, let's agree that we see things differently and move on.

[BigDrawMan]

That's my problem too.

And I understand the history of the moment, but this thing is also costing about $140 million...over three times what Bush's second inaguration (which was the most expensive ever at the time) cost.

With our country in such dire straits, this is an expense that's in very poor taste.

It can't be helped. When you round up an extra two million people into a space that was designed for a few hundred thousand, you must spend what it takes to avert foreseeable problems -- or disasters.

Baloney. It most certainly can be helped. Obama could have easily led by example and said he didn't want a big extravaganza because it would be in poor taste to be overly extravagant while there were people suffering in this country. But instead he chose to act in poor taste and spend 150 million dollars (or more) on a bunch of pomp and circumstance. Talk about shameful. Somehow, I don't expect anything less from him.

I sense you missed the bible study when Romans 13:1-7
was discussed.

[Jeemie]

I sense you missed the bible study when Romans 13:1-7
was discussed.

Really?

You sensed that Toq wasn't going to submit herself to the authority of the Obama Administration?

I missed the part where she was talking about rebellion.

[Jeemie]

I could take about an hour and explain how they differ, but I'm not going to.

Of course you don't.

You never want to.

You simply like to bring up things, and then never support your position.

Usually with the excuse of "I don't want to spend the time because you'll just argue against them anyway (which, if I'm not mistaken, is what debate is all about in the first place?)

Why list ANWR and developing oil shale as examples of "unconcern for environmental issues" if you're not going to explain why if someone supports them, they must not be concerned about environmental issues?

I propose again, let's agree that we see things differently and move on.

Whatever.

[BigDrawMan]

I sense you missed the bible study when Romans 13:1-7
was discussed.

Really?

You sensed that Toq wasn't going to submit herself to the authority of the Obama Administration?

I missed the part where she was talking about rebellion.

clearly you are unable to understand the 11 words I used.
clearly your argument is with some bigstrawman
clearly tocq can speak for herself
clearly you like to make up stuff
clearly you didnt read the entire verse.

[SportsFan68]

Of course you don't.

You never want to.

That's flatly not true, Jeemie. I've taken at least an hour in this thread. I took weeks with MrKelley and the results of the Pueblo Study. We finally agreed to wait for the study to be published.

You simply like to bring up things, and then never support your position.

Again, flatly not true. I brought up ANWR in this thread not expecting it to create a separate discussion, and I did not cut and run when it did.

Usually with the excuse of "I don't want to spend the time because you'll just argue against them anyway (which, if I'm not mistaken, is what debate is all about in the first place?)

The reason I'm passing on your last entry is that we've reached the point where it would take an hour of developing subtleties to continue the debate, and I believe I'll get another challenge, taking another hour of subtle discussion. That's a lot of time to spend on something which will not ameliorate a situation or change anybody's mind.

Why list ANWR and developing oil shale as examples of "unconcern for environmental issues" if you're not going to explain why if someone supports them, they must not be concerned about environmental issues?

I'll explain this one point as an example. The difference between unconcern and disregard is not great, and indeed they are often used synonymously. When I said disregard, I did not mean unconcern and did not use that term. I believe that President Bush was very concerned about environmental issues with regard to the inherent politics, the health and safety aspects, the potential for environmental degradation, and on and on. I also believe he disregarded those concerns in favor of the potential for profit. That doesn't complete the discussion, though -- I believe you would challenge the accuracy of that position, and that is another hour I don't want to spend when I know I'll never change your mind, or anyone else's.

And so, why I start at all -- it's because Jeemie makes sweeping statements purporting to be absolute truth, when they're not true. I challenge them, and the Law of Unintended Consequences kicks in. I'm going to try my WBTravis Rule for awhile on Jeemie -- I'll still read his posts but won't reply. I think things will be much better that way, much calmer.

[Jeemie]

I know you won't respond, but when you do, do not reply using third person.

That is condescending and patronizing.

Secondly- there is a difference between "disregarding environmental concerns" and not sharing your views as to what level of concern one should have for them.

That is all.