John, But didn't you just deny that position (that weakening environmental laws endangers the country)? It appears you started off supporting it, then denied it, but now are supporting it again.
OTOH, your denial pattern is a minor inconsistency compared to that of your position, which we can now proceed to better debate since you have made it official. Besides my earlier rebuttal points about these laws endangering our country (by bloating govt size and power and exacerbating corruption and oppression), I'll include a few points from the LP's page I linked earlier. :::::::::::::::::::::::: Government, both federal and local, is the greatest single polluter in the U.S. This polluter literally gets away with murder because of sovereign immunity. By turning to government for environmental protection, we've placed the fox in charge of the hen house. Unfortunately, government's stewardship over our land is gradually destroying it. :::::::::::::::::::::::: There is a second part to that article at: http://www.ruwart.com/environ2.lpn.wpd.html Here are some more relevant points to consider. :::::::::::::::::::::::: Libertarians would privatize land and beast to save endangered species, etc. Libertarians reject the initiation of physical force as a means to their ends. Restitution is the remedy. Our air (and water) can be protected from pollution with restitution and private ownership. -Mark ************ {American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote "not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions. There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and unjust lawsuits. See www.fija.org [Please adopt this as your own signature.] } ------------------ Nope. You got it half right. Keep trying. I think it is DIRECTLY harming the country because the Supreme Court now works for Bush and I think it DIRECTLY hurts the country ALSO because these clean water laws protect US from having our drinking water contaminated. I POSTED it because I do not support EITHER. Sorry, you are on your own from here if you still can't decifer something that simple. On 6/21/06, mark robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > John, > > So you do not think the weakening of environmental laws is > directly helping to endanger this country. But you DO think said > weakening is INDIRECTLY helping to endanger this county; by > giving an advantage to Bush's backers thereby giving him more > power. Is that a fair assessment of your position? > > > -Mark > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/KlSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
