Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 43 of 43

Thread: What do I say when asked, "Is Ron Paul Environmentally Friendly?"

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by mavtek View Post
    Ron Paul's 1400 Square foot house....
    Interesting factoid. Thanks!
    Amendment I.
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Amendment II.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rushmore View Post
    It's a false dilemma:

    Do you really believe any of the other candidates paying lip service to the environment are going to do anything substantive about it?

    Exactly. All these gubment people spouting off on 'global warming' (can't wait for the war on that) but none of them say a word about the agri-corporate monster monsanto planting seeds with the 'terminator gene' in them. How is that for scary? Or, Um. How about all the dumping of toxins that the military is allowed to do in our waters? They do nada about that... but some unproven theory of man-made global warming, well that is all the rage as there certainly can be a tax levied against us. I'm thinking Dr. Paul is waaay better than the rest on this issue as well. For the planet AND for us.

    I do like to bring up these types of topics to environmentally-consious folks. Ask them why they don't hear about this stuff on the tv.
    Proud $2300 member
    (now working on husbands $2300)



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    My understanding is that Bradley in DC and some other people? wrote up a detailed piece of Ron Paul's stances on the Environment and his solutions/positions and gave it to the campaign a LONG TIME AGO. But it is still not up on the campaign website.

    Bradley, What do we need to do to get the campaign to roll this out to the LIVE campaign site?!

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by PINN4CL3 View Post
    Anyways though, the only thing I don't entirely get about the private property rights argument is that it's basically just stating the way things should work, instead addressing why things aren't working that way.

    Even right now, people could assemble, and sue the powerplant that is polluting "their" air. However, it's just not happening. So does he plan on making this form of action more accessible to people? Is he just planning on his platform being an inspiration to people to stand up for themselves?

    I'm not really hearing an answer, but more just a list of reasons on why a certain way of thinking should work, but isn't.
    Here's how I explained it to a friend of mine. This friend has a degree in forestry or something like that... he's qualified to be a forest ranger. He refers to the EPA as the "Environmental Payoff Agency". See, true environmentalists know how corrupt the EPA is, and understand that the government does a horrible job at protecting the environment. It's mainly just the people who call themselves environmentalists because they celebrate Earth Day who think the government protects the environment.

    Here's an email I got from my friend:
    BP just made a massive $3.8 billion expansion at their oil refinery in
    Whiting, Indiana. After pouring billions of dollars into expanding
    the aging plant, they claim they just wouldn't have the room to fit in
    a water treatment facility to deal with the increased waste being
    produced.

    So BP is asking the EPA to instead let them dump 1,500 more pounds of
    ammonia and 5,000 more pounds of toxic sludge into Lake Michigan.

    The EPA has decided to let them do it.

    Below is a link to send message rejecting the idea of dumping toxic
    sludge into Lake Michigan. The message will go directly to BP's CEO
    Tony Hayward and EPA Region 5 Administrator Mary Gade.

    To sign the petition click on the link below or copy and paste it into
    your browser:

    https://www.environmentillinois.org/...etition?id4=ES

    Please pass this along to others so we can protect our lake!
    Here's my response:
    Unfortunately, that's what happens when environmental protection is put in the hands of the government.

    The way environmental protection is supposed to work is through property rights. If somebody messes up your property, whether it is the water that runs through it, the air over it, or the land itself, you are supposed to be able to sue them for it. The lawsuit for damages and cleanup would end up costing them a lot more than it would have cost that person or company to take care of their waste properly from the start, so it probably wouldn't happen in the first place.

    Now in this case, the EPA is a government approved middle man between the oil refinery and all the millions of people who could be affected by the pollution of Lake Michigan. People will never be able to sue the oil refinery for any damages because it was government approved. Rather than protecting the environment, the EPA stands in the way of true environmental protection as well as property rights.

    Ron Paul explains how environmental protection is related to property rights better than I can:
    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/...y-for-freedom/
    Hope this helps!
    "No matter how noble you try to make it, your good intentions will not compensate for the mistakes that people make; that want to run
    our lives and run the economy, and reject the principles of private property and making up our own decisions for ourselves." -Ron Paul

  7. #35
    Another factoid, although I don't remember where I heard it... at one time Ron Paul wanted to be a forest ranger.
    "No matter how noble you try to make it, your good intentions will not compensate for the mistakes that people make; that want to run
    our lives and run the economy, and reject the principles of private property and making up our own decisions for ourselves." -Ron Paul

  8. #36
    1) Against oil subsidies.
    2) Against tariffs that prevent more eco-friendly sugar cane based ethanol.
    3) For property rights which will prevent lots of pollution problems.

  9. #37
    "...and at home my hobby is raising tomatoes."
    Does anyone else here find it endearing how he calls it "raising" tomatoes instead of "growing tomatoes" - like they're kids or puppies?

    It is impossible to dislike Ron Paul.
    </gov't>

    Want to be a delegate? Go here: http://www.republicansource.com/primaries.htm

    Detailed guide on becoming a delegate: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...567#post412567

  10. #38
    this thread is totally awesome!!!

  11. #39
    at home my hobby is raising marijuana

  12. #40
    Guys,
    After writing about this earlier in the thread I have been thinking quite a lot on this matter, because I think it is a key matter for many people, especially those on the Democrat side of politics.

    After some thought I've come up with an answer that I think has the best chance of making them reconsider Ron Paul's stance on environmentalism as favorable.

    First let me say that I am a sceptic concerning fears of global warming and the man made contiribution to it, but I think that there is no political course except compromise at this stage, just as politically social welfare programs can not be eliminated at this time through the political process.

    So, the message to environmentalists is along these lines:

    Do you trust the US government?
    Do you trust the Governments of China, UK, Greece, Brazil etc. ?
    Then why would you trust an organization that is made up of all these governments, such as the representatives that make up the Kyoto agreements?
    Isn't it best for the US to be sovereign and for the US people to decide the best policy?
    And if the US can find an efficient way to deal with CO2 emmissions, then we could work to promote this strategy to other nations?
    Surely the answer to global warming is not to stop all use of CO2 producing energies tomorrow? Such a response would create economic catastrophe correct?
    Then there must be strategies that can reduce CO2 emmissions with relatively less impact on our economy, and finding these would be the best solution?
    Do you know that many lobby groups, including brokers and consultants in international carbon trading schemes stand to make billions from such policies?
    Now do you trust international bureaucrats or politicians serving lobby groups to present us with the best alternatives, or would you trust Ron Paul to present us with the options honestly?

    It's a tough call getting many people to abandon their faith in seemingly neutral international organizations, but I think they can catch onto the idea that these organizations are cesspools of representatives for lobbyists of various vested interests.

    If we can get them thinking that Kyoto or similar proposals from organizations are structured in the favor of vested interests, then they are ready to accept the idea that we need to look at the best type of policies to reduce CO2 which have the least negative impact on their lives. And that the best way to do that in the US is to have an honest president who is an intellectual with respect and fresh ideas about environmentalism that will never be influenced by lobbyists.
    Last edited by LBT; 11-14-2007 at 09:40 AM.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    ,.,.
    Last edited by Nicketas; 06-10-2008 at 01:04 PM.

  15. #42
    The Legalization of Industrial Hemp (not marijuana) is RP energy policy.
    It is perhaps the biggest thing ANY president could do for the enviorment.

    Hemp is 5 times more efficient than corn in making ethanol. It also burns very hot and is a clean replacement for coal. We could be self sufficient with ethanol from hemp. Furthermore, burning ethanol from hemp actually removes CO2 from the air.

    It lowers the amount of pesiticed and herbicides needed (biggest polluter of our water) . It needs little or no fertilizer and chockes out weeds.

    Hemp also is a very important food source for birds and wildlife. The erradication of Americas natural hemp has caused the extintion of thousands of birds. (Why do you mostly see blackbirds)

    Go to abovetheignorance.org

    MOVE OVER AL GORE ~ RON PAUL SOLVES GLOBAL WARMING.

  16. #43
    Did You Know It Is Illegal For Me To Run My Car On Hydrogen In Texas?

    True, I Know How To Convert It, But You Could Not Get A Permit Because It Does Not Make Enough Pollution For A Inspection Sticker. To Pass The Emmissions Test You Must Have Some Pollution. True....

    The Govt Is The Biggest Obsticle In Going Green And The Epa Is The Biggest Polluter In The Us.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. US military blames "friendly fire" incident on "budget cuts" ...
    By Occam's Banana in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-31-2014, 10:02 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-20-2013, 08:00 PM
  3. Jerry Doyle asked, "Ron Paul supporters, what do you call yourselves?"
    By RonPaulRevolution! in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 12-22-2011, 05:43 PM
  4. The Compact Fuorescent Light (CFL) Bulb Is Not Environmentally Friendly
    By FrankRep in forum Stop Global Warming Fraud
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-26-2010, 10:43 AM
  5. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 02-22-2008, 07:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •