Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Statism and Lead Gasoline

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 0:59 ID:72QLHTwg

The negative heath effects of lead were well known in the 1910s when oil companies started adding it to gasoline.  Leaded gasoline had the ability to reduce engine knocking, which was notoriously bad in the early age of automobiles.  To the heartless and uncaring, the advantages were unquestionable.  Unsurprisingly every major gasoline manufacturer in the world was soon adding lead to the mix. 

Again, there was no debate about the effects of lead.  People inside and outside the state readily agreed that it caused birth defects, retardation, learning disabilities, joint problems, poisoning and even cancer and neurological damage.  Mechanics and automotive workers were particularly susceptible, and showed a much higher rates of illness. Yet trillions of gallons of leaded gasoline were put into the air decade after decade.

Atmospheric lead rates soared for over sixty years.  The whole planet was literally being poisoned.  There was an outcry from the public.  Petition after petition was sent to no effect.  The bloated socialist state could only limply hold the impotent, flaccid cock of the justice system.

Lead wasn't removed from gasoline until the 1980s, when the 40th President of the United States of America Ronald Wilson Reagan himself, after exterminating much of the communist corruption within the US government, passed a federal law that allowed EPA to enforce justice. Enforcing justice worked where regulation failed.  With the new tool at its disposal, the EPA promptly banned lead from automotive gasoline and moved to ban it from all other types as well. Jet engines have no tendency to knock and do not require any lead or other anti-knock additives.

The Moral Of The Story: Statists are smoking crack when they say their idiot political system can claim the credit for reducing environmental dangers.  For every success story like the Chinese toy recall, there are a thousand others that the public do not need to pay any attention as they are resolved without fuss or high expense thanks to the EPA set up by Republican President Nixon.  We do not need to waste the time of Congress along with the astronomical expense of the federal bureaucracy to regulate these straightforward issues. The behind the scenes invisible hard work is already done by the EPA.  Sure socialists believe we should tie a noose around our businesses, but most countries would kill to have our FDA or EPA instead of stifling their economies with pointless regulations.  We need to strengthen these institutions, not create masses of arbitrary laws.

90% of the statists are sociology majors who don't even understand the complexity of what's involved.  They take a collectivist, Karl Marx "trade and labour is evil, take what you need" view of the world.  Also they're all bigotted towards homosexuals.

We can do better.

Do vote Ron Paul 2008.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 1:04 ID:3EfdDkc+

i was the OP of the other thread.  I can't find a single Ron Paul quote where he supports the EPA.  most libertarians hate it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 1:08 ID:72QLHTwg

>>2
No they don't.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 1:09 ID:72QLHTwg

>>2
They might think it is corrupt, but they do not believe it is unnecessary.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 1:12 ID:3EfdDkc+

ok, give me a Paul position quotes about it.  i'm curious.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 1:22 ID:3EfdDkc+

"What programs can we cut? What agencies and departments should go? A better question is: What should stay on a permanent basis? That’s easy: only those functions specifically outlined in the Constitution. Is foreign aid allowed by the Constitution? No. Is public housing in the Constitution? No. Is federal involvement in education? No. Are the EPA, OSHA, and the BATF? No. Is protecting our borders? Yes."


oh whoops looks like Ron Paul hates the EPA.  not surprising, most libertarians hate it even though its COMPLETELY FUCKING NECESSARY!

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 1:53 ID:W9Sptf+J

Who's Ron Paul, anyways? Is he a constitutionalist who thinks that the founding fathers followed (without articulating) libertarianism? Is he a libertarian who uses the constitution as a way of legitimatizing his insane socioeconomic beliefs? Is he just a Forbesian loot-and-plunder neo-capitalist desperate for a way to represent his ideas in a non-cynical way?

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 1:55 ID:3EfdDkc+

>>7

hes a fagg0rtZ

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 3:34 ID:cDWfmDqp

>>6
He was referring to regulations, not the law.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 3:35 ID:Heaven

>>9

lol no he wasn't.  he said the EPA shouldn't stay.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 4:01 ID:72QLHTwg

>>10
He was speaking in the context of regulations. The EPA would be reformed to be a purely law enforcement agency.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 20:58 ID:cDWfmDqp

Regulations are typical of liberal thinking. They don't care if a particular policy is heavy handed, as long as it is a good populist catch phrase to whip up paranoia against educated people with better policies whom they see as rivals.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 21:44 ID:kzlvE525

ron paul....i can't trust a name with so few syllables

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-15 0:06 ID:Heaven

>>12

suck a cock faggo

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-15 7:45 ID:KJ33dB+E

>>14
no u

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-15 22:36 ID:pqIrv79A

>>14
Wow what a compelling counter-argument.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-15 23:33 ID:pqIrv79A

Don't forget to view the Ron Paul homepage.
http://www.ronpaul2008store.com/servlet/StoreFront

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-17 14:21 ID:Kiojryt5

Ron Paul is a great guy.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-17 14:32 ID:ZqG8PWIE

>>18

no he's not.  he would effectively dismantle these great state agencies that have done nothing but protect americans, and replace them with.. nothing. 

ron paul is the candidate for racist college kids who can't admit they're racist.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List