Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2004 6:16 pm
Posted by: GORDON on Aug. 28 2001,12:31
Why or why not.
I'm personally of the mindset of "If you cant make a buck without a minimal impact on the environment, then don't."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Cakedaddy on Aug. 28 2001,12:53
I'm down with that. On the other hand, we could also build this country deep under ground so we don't even have to deal with all the other counties' fuck ups.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Vince66 on Aug. 29 2001,10:22
If the government wants a plot of land protected (not counting flowing waterways like run-off into rivers and creeks), then they should buy the land and make it a park. If you aren't willing to buy the land, then shut the #### up and stop fucking with the monetary value of other people's land by legislating what can and can't be done with it after the fact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: GORDON on Aug. 29 2001,10:31
You should drink more coffee before posting.
Here's a thought for your Ducks Unlimited loving self: Polluters may pollute their on own land, but it is never contained to only their land. Winds blow smokestack effluent across property lines and borders. Pig shit seeps into the ground water table. A buried barrel of arsenic ends up in the town water supply.
There's no such thing as "only polluting your own land." Therefore, to keep you from pissing in everyone else's cornflakes in the name of "Private Land Rights," there will be common sense environmental laws.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Vince66 on Aug. 29 2001,10:43
I have no problem with common sense laws. It's the stupid "endangered animal fuckers" that make "no fucking sense" laws that really piss me off.
Why or why not.
I'm personally of the mindset of "If you cant make a buck without a minimal impact on the environment, then don't."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Cakedaddy on Aug. 28 2001,12:53
I'm down with that. On the other hand, we could also build this country deep under ground so we don't even have to deal with all the other counties' fuck ups.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Vince66 on Aug. 29 2001,10:22
If the government wants a plot of land protected (not counting flowing waterways like run-off into rivers and creeks), then they should buy the land and make it a park. If you aren't willing to buy the land, then shut the #### up and stop fucking with the monetary value of other people's land by legislating what can and can't be done with it after the fact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: GORDON on Aug. 29 2001,10:31
You should drink more coffee before posting.
Here's a thought for your Ducks Unlimited loving self: Polluters may pollute their on own land, but it is never contained to only their land. Winds blow smokestack effluent across property lines and borders. Pig shit seeps into the ground water table. A buried barrel of arsenic ends up in the town water supply.
There's no such thing as "only polluting your own land." Therefore, to keep you from pissing in everyone else's cornflakes in the name of "Private Land Rights," there will be common sense environmental laws.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Vince66 on Aug. 29 2001,10:43
I have no problem with common sense laws. It's the stupid "endangered animal fuckers" that make "no fucking sense" laws that really piss me off.