Muda69

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?

Interesting you completely ignored the fact that the Ohio state government basically issued permits allowing industries to dump wasted into the river. Here is one citation: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5815201066567819423&q=Bar+Realty+Corp.+v.+Locher,+Ohio,+1972.+30+Ohio&hl=en&as_sdt=800006&as_vis=1

And actually your precious, all-powerful state enabled them: FTA: Yet cleanup of the Cuyahoga had started after the terrible fire of 1952. In 1959, fish reappeared, testimony to some remarkable progress. 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. 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. Far from the government standing by while business polluted the river, sometimes, the government stood in the way while business tried to clean up the river. In 1965, for example, a real estate company sued the city to stop allowing use of the river as an industrial dump. It won, but the verdict was overturned by the state supreme court, which found that state law trumped common law rights.

http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/12/19/gingrich-v-murray-how-government-caused-the-cuyahoga-river-pollution-fire/

Yes, Capitalism is a huge failure. How could I be so blind to that fact?

Yes, government is the solution to everything.

Nice. So your son is now a veterinarian?

You mean Boy Scouts? Chess? Acting? Choir? Band? Robotics club? There are many, many activities out there that are valuable, challenging, and rewarding, depending on the interests of the individual. I'm sure your "nudge" wasn't so subtle.

Apparently not. Thanks for playing. BTW, would you or have you explicitly forbid any of your male children from playing soccer, if they expressed an interest in the sport?

A smart move. But then again you are the smartest person on the GID.

You are welcome. Glad to help.

Thank you. Do you have a link to said study?

Yes they sometime do that. Kind of a pain, especially if you are accessing the internet via a public access point like at a Starbucks or something.

Trying clearing the multitude of cookies that the WaPo (and a lot of other websites) put on your machine when you visit their sites. It uses these cookies to track how many articles you have viewed and after a certain threshold has been reached (some as low as one) you'll be prevented from viewing the article and get some kind of "subscribe to me" pop up. In Google Chrome go to Settings-->Advanced-->Content Settings-->Cookies-->See all cookies and site data. From here in the 'search cookies" text entry type "washington" or something to that effect. If should give you a list of all the URL's matching what you typed. Then just click on "Remove All Shown" to delete them and in effect "reset" your counter.

Yet more neanderthal mentality. And are you claiming the fake injuries never occur in tackle football? Or flopping in basketball?

Want to Protect the Environment? Embrace Capitalism: https://www.cfact.org/2017/11/02/want-to-protect-the-environment-embrace-capitalism/