Muda69

When will that happen? Do you think it is in evil BP's future plans? I don't have the time to link to 90% of your posts. Sorry.

How many years until the Cuyahoga goes up in flames again, once evil money and the evil trump administration guts the EPA and the Clean Air Act? Yes, in terms that you seem to blindly approve of most federal government regulation/control.

Most of your statements on this forum point to otherwise.

As if you pay attention to anybody else's 'vision' but you own big-government view.

Waiting on Hillary.

I'm just making a logical response to your "give them time" comment. Haven't the evil, polluting, money hungry corporations had 50 years now since the passage of the Clean Air Act and the formation of the EPA to effectively weaken and gut both? As is your vision of a "government regulation fixes everything" utopia.

Joe Biden Officially Enters the Presidential Race: https://reason.com/2019/04/25/joe-biden-officially-enters-the-presidential-race/

So the real lobbying of Congress by evil, polluting, money hungry corporations only started after the Citizens United decision? Interesting take.

You have a reasonable timeline if my prognostication came true? And if the evil, polluting, money hungry corporations and lobbying dough carry all the weight as you claim, why hasn't the Clean Air Act and the EPA been effectively gutted and rendered ineffective by this lobbying power? Why isn't the Cuyahoga burning today?

Since many of them spend a significant % of their monthly income on paying off student loans, cash that could have be used for investment, I can see the allure of a "get rich quick" scheme like the lottery.

Or reduce everyone's taxes! Upfront! And we would have more cash to spend, invest, donate, etc.

Who here truly believes that today, in 2019, if the federal clean air act was repealed and the federal EPA was abolished that the Cuyahoga and other often polluted rivers would burst into flames by the end of the year? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? Much has changed since 1963, and I believe public sentiment is truly against private corporations that pollute. And that sentiment/pressure holds a lot of weight.

Can the Roberts Court Save Donald Trump from an Impeachment?: https://reason.com/2019/04/24/can-the-roberts-court-save-donald-trump-from-an-impeachment/ Chief Justice William Rehnquist even speculated about the problem of judicial review of a presidential impeachment. The modern Court does not often seem inclined to invoke the political question doctrine, but here at least the justices were willing to admit that the Constitution had committed this question into the hands of the legislature, not the judiciary. Perhaps there are circumstances that might tempt the justices to assert judicial supremacy over impeachments as well. After all, the Court is fond of reminding us that it is emphatically a judicial task to say what the law is, and what if Congress seemed to be riding roughshod over the Constitution in how it used the impeachment power? Imagine a Congress willing to impeach a president on grounds that no reasonable person could think constitutes an impeachable offense. Donald Trump apparently prefers to eat his steaks well-done with ketchup. To be sure, this is a grievous offense, but presumably no one thinks it is a high crime or misdemeanor. Imagine further that two-thirds of the Senate is willing convict such a president with no semblance of a trial. "Convict first, go through due process second," declares the Senate majority leader. The Court might well think that such a Congress has badly abused its constitutional powers and is not even making a pretense of adhering to a good-faith interpretation of the Constitution. Maybe a Court confronted with such a runaway Congress would be tempted to ride to the president's rescue and discover the limits to the political question doctrine. But that's when politics comes into play. A Congress willing to impeach and remove a sitting president on the pretext that he routinely dishonors his steaks could hardly be trusted to sit idly by while the justices attempted to reinstall that president in the White House. If a Court were to attempt to intervene in such a scenario, the justices might well find themselves next on the chopping block. The justices might at this point recall the words of Chief Justice Salmon Chase when the Court was asked to order the president not to enforce the Reconstruction Acts in Mississippi after the Civil War. "These questions answer themselves," Chase observed. Indeed. Sorry, Mr. President, you are on your own on this one. Only somebody like Mr. Trump, who believes the government ultimately serves him, would seriously consider such a thing. Pitiful.

Your bolded statement still tells me you don't comprehend, or just refuse to comprehend, Mr. Murray's analysis. And again hindsight, especially looking back to 1963 and prior, is 20/20.

Free Lori Loughlin and All Political Prisoners: https://mises.org/wire/free-lori-loughlin-and-all-political-prisoners

Yes, because the Ohio state government fought private business and the local government: Again FTA (you really need to learn how to read and comprehend): By the 1960s, the state of Ohio had basically taken “ownership” of the river. That put the Cuyahoga’s fate in the hands of bureaucrats in Columbus, the state capital, 120 miles from Cleveland, and nowhere near the Cuyahoga. They officially declared the river to be for “industrial use.” These state-issued permits completely smashed the recourse the people of Cleveland would traditionally have: common law tort. The state licenses the industries and gives them legal authority to dump in the river. Actually, the state gives them a license to pollute.

What authority does the federal government possess to issue environmental regulations - or to protect the environment at all?: http://www.tenthamendment.net/home/epa-environment-constitution.asp

Again FTA, The leading businesses of the area formed the Cuyahoga River Basin Water Quality Committee in 1963. In 1968, voters approved by a two-to-one margin a bond issue totaling $100 million for the purposes of cleaning up and protecting the river. Hindsight is always 20/20, is it not?

So denial is now lying. Got it. And how does that relate to Mr. Murray's research and writing about the Cuyahoga river? Can you prove that it is a lie?

Still dodging the fact that it was government policy, in the guise of state permits, that allowed most of the pollution in the first place.

So Mr. Murray is a liar? Where is your proof?

Cleveland had already taken steps to clean up the river but state government intervention brought about the debacle. The moral here is that the more remote a government is from the scene, the less effective it is. So why are we attempting to interject the Federal Government into everything?

So exactly how does that invalidate the research and writing of Mr. Iain Murray?