Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
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.
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)
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?!
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:
Here's my response: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!
Hope this helps!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/
"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
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
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.
Does anyone else here find it endearing how he calls it "raising" tomatoes instead of "growing tomatoes" - like they're kids or puppies?"...and at home my hobby is raising tomatoes."
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
this thread is totally awesome!!!
at home my hobby is raising marijuana
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.
,.,.
Last edited by Nicketas; 06-10-2008 at 01:04 PM.
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.
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.
Connect With Us