Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WSJ: The Lawsuit That Sank New Orleans - If environmentalists don't mess things up, the Feds will.
Wall Street Journal ^ | September 26, 2005 | DAVID SCHOENBROD

Posted on 09/26/2005 5:27:07 AM PDT by OESY

After Hurricane Betsy swamped New Orleans in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson... pledged federal protection. The Army Corps of Engineers designed a Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane Barrier to shield the city with flood gates like those that protect the Netherlands from the North Sea. Congress provided funding and construction began. But work stopped in 1977 when a federal judge ruled, in a suit brought by Save Our Wetlands, that the Corps' environmental impact statement was deficient....

Speaking for environmentalists, the Center for Progressive Reform called the charges in the Los Angeles Times "pure fiction" because the judge stopped construction only until the Corps prepared a satisfactory environmental analysis. The Corps instead dropped the barrier in favor of levees that were less controversial, but which failed. So, the Center argues, fault lies with the Corps' bumbling rather than with the environmentalist lawsuit.

That's not fair. The Corps cannot stop a project, conduct a lengthy study, go back to court, and then be sure it can pick up where it left off. Large federal projects ordinarily cannot proceed unless executives and legislatures at several levels of government agree on the same course of action at the same time. That's why litigation delay can kill necessary projects. However responsibility is apportioned, but for the lawsuit, New Orleans would have had the hurricane barrier.

The federal government's reaction was equally unsophisticated. The Corps denied that the originally planned barrier would have saved the city from Katrina, but nonetheless affirmed that it was starting design of a similar barrier to protect against future hurricanes. The Department of Justice emailed field offices asking for evidence of "claims brought by environmental groups" against other Corps projects to protect New Orleans. A Sierra Club attorney complained, "Why are they trying to smear us like this?"...

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Louisiana
KEYWORDS: barrier; corpsofengineers; doj; environmentalists; floodgates; gulfoutlet; hurricane; hurricanebarrier; hurricanes; justice; katrina; levees; lyndonjohnson; neworleans; pontchartrain; pork; progressivereform; seawall; sierraclub; westerink; wetlands
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last
Mr. Schoenbrod is a professor at New York Law School, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and author of "Saving Our Environment from Washington: How Congress Grabs Power, Shirks Responsibility, and Shortchanges the People" (Yale, 2005).
1 posted on 09/26/2005 5:27:11 AM PDT by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OESY

Sounds like a commie environmentalist. This just proves that environmentalists can sometimes do as much damage as the people trying to destroy the environment.


2 posted on 09/26/2005 5:29:49 AM PDT by benjibrowder (Join the dark side. We have cookies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
However responsibility is apportioned, but for the lawsuit, New Orleans would have had the hurricane barrier.

Yet another good reason for tort reform. And another good reason to hate lawyers. they've been trying to tear apart this country for decades.

3 posted on 09/26/2005 5:33:06 AM PDT by meyer (The DNC prefers advancing the party at the expense of human lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meyer

There is never a good enough reason to "hate" anybody.


4 posted on 09/26/2005 5:43:58 AM PDT by frithguild (If I made one mistake, it was that I was too cooperative and waited too long to go on the offensive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Headline should read Sierra Club cause of death & destruction in New Orleans.

Or, Sierra Club Lied People Died.

Same problem here in Oregon. Coastal river mouths are silted in and the enviro nazis won't permit dredging even after previous floods. Look for a repeat.


5 posted on 09/26/2005 5:56:16 AM PDT by Cold Heart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Headline should read Sierra Club cause of death & destruction in New Orleans.

Or, Sierra Club Lied People Died.

Same problem here in Oregon. Coastal river mouths are silted in and the enviro nazis won't permit dredging even after previous floods. Look for a repeat.


6 posted on 09/26/2005 6:00:08 AM PDT by Cold Heart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frithguild

"There is never a good enough reason to "hate" anybody."

Trite cliche. I'll respond in kind: Never say never.

I hate Osama bin Laden, and I think I have good reason.


7 posted on 09/26/2005 6:01:49 AM PDT by brownsfan (It's not a war on terror... it's a war with islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OESY

RULE OF THUMB: If the "Environmentalists" are for it, oppose it. If they're against it, support it.


8 posted on 09/26/2005 6:03:41 AM PDT by Savage Beast (The Internet is the Newspaper of Record.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

And do not give ONE PENNY to "Environmentalist" charities or causes.


9 posted on 09/26/2005 6:04:19 AM PDT by Savage Beast (The Internet is the Newspaper of Record.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

The problem is that the locals in both NOLA and LA will screw it up even more than the feds ...


10 posted on 09/26/2005 6:05:43 AM PDT by sono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

More on this:
http://www.iconoclast.ca/MainPage.asp?page=/NewPage16.asp


11 posted on 09/26/2005 6:10:11 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/secondaryproblemsofsocialism.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frithguild
There is never a good enough reason to "hate" anybody.

An army would be rather ineffective if the troops couldn't generate a little hate towards the enemy.

12 posted on 09/26/2005 6:14:56 AM PDT by meyer (The DNC prefers advancing the party at the expense of human lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: frithguild
There is never a good enough reason to "hate" anybody.

That is an absolutely feeble statement. Consider the following list:

...for starters. I hate them all, loathe them, despise them and all their works, regret that they ever lived, and in the case of the living ones would personally kill them with my bare hands and enjoy it.

I think there is plenty of good reason to hate each man on this list. We have several mass murders and sponsors of mass murder, a cannibal, and a traitor. I can hate them quite thoroughly and desire to send them all to Hell at the nearest opportunity, and square it with my religion with no difficulty.

Then there's the whole list of people that I hate, just not enough to want to strangle personally. I will celebrate when they're gone, though. Jane Fonda is an example of this category. I wouldn't harm a hair on her old gray head, but I'll do a happy dance when she's in Hell. I think there's plenty of reason to hate someone who was a traitor on the scale of Pollard but never had his opportunities to stick it to her homeland.

Lawyers in general is a pretty wide net to cast into the "hate" pool, but I understand why people do. Their net impact on civilisation as a group is highly negative. But you have to keep things in proportion. All the lawyers who worked to undermine the levies were counteracted by lawyers working to stop them, who just didn't succeed.

Many lawyers have no morals of their own and would just do anything for a dollar. When they are doing something evil they are very skilled at rationalizing it: "This baby-raper needs good representation. Why, I'm just like John Adams defending Captain Preston of the 29th Foot! And if my guy walks and more babies get raped, why, I'm innocent as the west wind. It's the fault of the prosecutor for not besting me! After all, I'm just a lawyer, I don't really believe in or stand for anything, except the rule of lawyers over common people."

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

13 posted on 09/26/2005 6:22:49 AM PDT by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan
I hate Osama bin Laden, and I think I have good reason.

I think we all need to learn how to hate correctly. I don't mind if people hate me if they hate me for the right reason(s).

14 posted on 09/26/2005 6:23:30 AM PDT by BlueMondaySkipper (The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OESY
a suit brought by Save Our Wetland

Let's ask them if we have enough wetlands now. After all if something has had water on it once, why then it can never be dried out. Is it OK to dry out New Orleans or would they rather see it wet?

I have never understood why this country allowed the wetlands crowd to take control of the land. I am willing to bet that most of the damage of this series of hurricanes can be laid at the feet of the environmental groups, who always know better than anyone else. Just because they have no common sense is not a reason for leftest judges to dismiss their lawsuits.

15 posted on 09/26/2005 6:24:38 AM PDT by w1andsodidwe (Jimmy Carter allowed radical Islam to get a foothold in Iran.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Mr. Schoenbrod is simply another AH who tries to cloud the issues to satisfy his agenda.
16 posted on 09/26/2005 6:29:01 AM PDT by RAY (John Roberts, Chief Justice, The U.S. Supreme Court -- good move!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

"iconoclast.ca" is one of those scams that presents other people's content in its own frame (and, unlike the NYT's about.com, doesn't even let you opt out of the frame).

The real article iconoclast is presenting as its own is here:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19418

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F


17 posted on 09/26/2005 6:29:49 AM PDT by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BlueMondaySkipper

brownsfan: "I hate Osama bin Laden, and I think I have good reason."

BlueMondaySkipper: "I think we all need to learn how to hate correctly. I don't mind if people hate me if they hate me for the right reason(s)."

Osama? Is that you?


18 posted on 09/26/2005 6:31:59 AM PDT by brownsfan (It's not a war on terror... it's a war with islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heart; Grampa Dave; Dog Gone; Southack; Carry_Okie; BOBTHENAILER
I'm pleased with the LA Times (for once) and the WSJ for picking up on this and putting something out about it. I have never been against "The Environment," but I have always been against EnvironMentalists and especially GovernMental EnvironMental InfilTraitors!!!

There was an excellent line in the article to the effect that both bureaucrats and environmentalists think that government is a force for good but that it's an argument over which should be in charge... The Enviros, or the Bureaucrats. Well I can answer that one easily! Neither!!!

There are many other astute observations in this editorial and I hope it gets wide circulation and further amplification in both new media and old.

19 posted on 09/26/2005 6:32:30 AM PDT by SierraWasp (The only thing that can save CA is making eastern CA the 51st state called Sierra Republic!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Schroenbroad actually wants the US to turn over tens of billions to the tender mercies of Louisiana politicians?


20 posted on 09/26/2005 6:45:19 AM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

The environmentalists would have preferred that every sign of development in that part of Louisiana were wiped off the surface of the Earth by that hurricane and that no human being would ever return to develop it again.


21 posted on 09/26/2005 6:53:09 AM PDT by BaBaStooey (Ethiopia: The New Happiest Place on Earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meyer

You have heard that the law says, "Love your neighbour and hate your enemy."

But I tell you, love your enemies. Ask God to do good to those who trouble you.

5 Matthew 43-44 (Regarding the teachings of Jesus).

Or maybe our armies should behave like the armies of Saladin?


22 posted on 09/26/2005 6:54:27 AM PDT by frithguild (If I made one mistake, it was that I was too cooperative and waited too long to go on the offensive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Can't blame the moonbats.
They have always been with us.
The enablers have been exclusively the courts; they expanded over the years the expressed intent of Congress, and manufactured powers that did not exist.
23 posted on 09/26/2005 7:01:46 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Liberal level playing field: If the Islamics win we are their slaves..if we win they are our equals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
good list with the possible exception of Pollard. I would include Ide Amin (sp?) Hitler, Kim Sr & Jr, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
24 posted on 09/26/2005 7:03:10 AM PDT by zek157
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan; BlueMondaySkipper; Criminal Number 18F

See post 22.

Hate justifies dehumanizing the object of it, and perverts the ability to acheive a worthy goal:

"One tribe will fight against another tribe. And one country will fight against another country. The people will have no food to eat. Many people will be sick. The earth will shake in many different places.

All these troubles are only the beginning of troubles that will come.

Then people will trouble you and kill you. All nations will hate you because you are true to me.

Then many people will stop believing. They will give one another over to trouble. They will hate one another."

Matthew 24:7-10



So tell me - how is hating being conservative?


25 posted on 09/26/2005 7:07:17 AM PDT by frithguild (If I made one mistake, it was that I was too cooperative and waited too long to go on the offensive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F

You forgot Hillary Clinton. I don't hate Pollard, like I do the other people on your list. I do think he thought he was doing the right thing. That being said, I still think he should be locked up forever. The people that I hate are the ones that make excuses for him.


26 posted on 09/26/2005 7:09:25 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp
There needs to be a complete investigation of the causes for the Katrina disaster. Unfortunately, the left already knows where the blame ultimately will lie.

That's why they're blaming Bush and trying to block an investigation.

But the truth can only be supressed for so long. It always comes out in the end.

27 posted on 09/26/2005 7:25:26 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: frithguild
"But I tell you, love your enemies. Ask God to do good to those who trouble you."

You forgot the part about turning plowshares into swords.

28 posted on 09/26/2005 7:53:27 AM PDT by meyer (The DNC prefers advancing the party at the expense of human lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: meyer

I did not forget anything. 3 Joel is the only passage I know of where plowshares are beaten into swords. Where does that chapter teach that there is ever a good reason to hate somebody?

Also, please answer my question - "How is hating being conservative?"


29 posted on 09/26/2005 8:18:25 AM PDT by frithguild (If I made one mistake, it was that I was too cooperative and waited too long to go on the offensive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: frithguild
Also, please answer my question - "How is hating being conservative?"

I'll answer your question with a question - What do emotions like love and hate have to do with being a conservative, a liberal, or any other political self-classification?

30 posted on 09/26/2005 8:39:15 AM PDT by meyer (The DNC prefers advancing the party at the expense of human lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Lawyers did it.


31 posted on 09/26/2005 8:55:29 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meyer

Your question does not answer anything.

The emotions or sentiments attached to a political orientation or organization has everything to do with their successful growth. How well have conservatives fared when they have been targeted with the "Hates blacks," "Hates womens rights" or "hates homosexuals" templates? How well are the libs doing now, when all they can do is "Hate Bush"?

Do you think that you will get anything accomplished for tort reform, if you look at a story and remark "Just another reason to hate lawyers."

I take it that you cannot find how 3 Joel teaches that hate for an enemy is good. This is because you cannot justify hate on any ethical basis. Actually I would like to see you try - that would be amusing.

Bottom line - if you teach hate (Which is not an emotion) to acheive a political objective in the United States, you should correctly be considered an idiot. That's what "emotions [sic] like love and hate have to do with being a conservative."

You should already understand that hate is the antithesis of conservatism. So - are you a troll?


32 posted on 09/26/2005 9:03:34 AM PDT by frithguild (If I made one mistake, it was that I was too cooperative and waited too long to go on the offensive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: OESY

well, most of New Orleans has returned to nature. Guess the enviros won a round.


33 posted on 09/26/2005 9:06:08 AM PDT by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frithguild
Your question does not answer anything.

Perhaps because you're too dense to understand that politics and religion are two different things.

(deleted blather about hate and such)

Here's the definition of conservatism from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "Conservatism: Disposed to keep the established ways; opposition to change."

I don't see anything in that definition that says I can or cannot hate lawyers.

34 posted on 09/26/2005 9:24:42 AM PDT by meyer (The DNC prefers advancing the party at the expense of human lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: meyer
Perhaps because you're too dense to understand that politics and religion are two different things.

Are they? So I suppose you are one who believes that there should be a wall between government or religion? Or that a government can rule quite well where the opium of the people has been eradicated? Perhaps you should read some de Toqueville:

It's obvious there still remains here a greater foundation of Christianity than in any other country of the world to my knowledge, and I don't doubt but that this disposition still influences the political regime. It gives a moral and orderly turn to ideas, it arrests the wanderings of the innovating spirit; especially does it make very rare that moral disposition, so common with us, to launch oneself through all obstacles, per fas et nefas , toward the chosen goal.

'It is certain that a party, however anxious to obtain a result, would still think itself obliged to attain it only by means which would have an appearance of morality and would not openly shock the religious beliefs, always more or less moral, even when they are false.

excerpted from Tocqueville and Beaumont in America by George Wilson Pierson.

As far as dictionaries, yours seems to be out of date:

con·ser·va·tism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-sûrv-tzm) n. 1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order. 2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order. 3. The principles and policies of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or of the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada. 4. Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company

To me, my church and the scriptures are a traditional institution at the center of conservatism.

You sir, are free to hate anybody you want. If you do, however, do not expect to accomplish anything or be accepted among true conservatives.

35 posted on 09/26/2005 10:39:16 AM PDT by frithguild (If I made one mistake, it was that I was too cooperative and waited too long to go on the offensive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: frithguild
To me, my church and the scriptures are a traditional institution at the center of conservatism.

That would, by definition exclude Jews, Hindus, Bhuddists, Athiests, and Muslems from being what you call conservatives. That's fine if you believe that, but it's only your opinion, peppered with a few select out-of-context verses from your favorite pile of texts. You sir, are free to hate anybody you want. If you do, however, do not expect to accomplish anything or be accepted among true conservatives.

Of course I am - it's a free country, and I want to conserve that tradition. And don't purport to think that your OPINION of conservatism is the mark of true conservatism. It's a much broader word than you would like.

36 posted on 09/26/2005 10:54:28 AM PDT by meyer (The DNC prefers advancing the party at the expense of human lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: meyer
It's a much broader word than you would like.

Let's see - I want to pay less for my heating bill so I turn the thermostat down. Does that make me a conservative?

So tell me how conservatism is so broad to include people, like you, who think hate is good or constructive. Cite to any tradition, religion or ethical source you wish.

That would, by definition exclude Jews, Hindus, Bhuddists, Athiests, and Muslems [sic] from being what you call conservatives.

Actually, it doesn't. My original thesis was, "There is never a good enough reason to 'hate' anybody," which referred to ALL ethical standards. I cited to the underpinnings of Judeo-Christian society because my assumption was that you were trying to sell tort reform in the United States through federal legislation by fomenting hate for lawyers. I therefore cited what was most relevant to the largest number of the existing voting US population. So my standard was simply pragmatic. So you can set up a straw man and knock it down all you want, but nobody will be impressed.

I'll bite on your inclusiveness theme. Lets put all the religions you cited within the meaning of a "traditional institution." Putting aside Islam, how do these religions teach that hate is good or constructive?

Answer: They don't.

So alas, anyone is free to hate and feel good about it, just as you are doing, while justifying it through the recreation of any traditional institution standing in the way of feeling good. In the end, such behavior will win over so many, that the trial lawyers will end up thanking you. Conservatives will not.

37 posted on 09/26/2005 11:46:06 AM PDT by frithguild (If I made one mistake, it was that I was too cooperative and waited too long to go on the offensive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Yes the environmentalists hate black people just like Bush...lol


38 posted on 09/26/2005 12:01:03 PM PDT by bomb baghdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone; Buckhead; Grampa Dave
"supressed for so long"

Therein lies the problem, my Dog Gone FRiend!!! Not only does all of America have a Memory Loss Problem... Even my fellow FReepers have it as well!!!

Sometimes they can't even sort out what's worth remembering "for so long," in the first place!!!

They're getting away with it because of this!!! (don't try to tell me they're not... Dan Blather almost did if Buckhead hadn't pulled his covers in time almost by accident!!!)

39 posted on 09/26/2005 12:08:53 PM PDT by SierraWasp (The only thing that can save CA is making eastern CA the 51st state called Sierra Republic!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp

Dan Rather's goal was to fool the public temporarily. It wouldn't have mattered if the truth had been exposed after the election. It would eventually have come out, but President Kerry wouldn't have called for a new election.


40 posted on 09/26/2005 12:15:17 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: frithguild; dalereed; editor-surveyor; Czar; sergeantdave; tubebender; hedgetrimmer; forester

Hippie Song lyric:"All we need is love... Lah Dee Dah Dah Daaaaaaaaa..." Phhhhhhhht!!!


41 posted on 09/26/2005 12:15:26 PM PDT by SierraWasp (The only thing that can save CA is making eastern CA the 51st state called Sierra Republic!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
The courts didn't BRING THE SUITS!!! The moonbats did!!!

But of course the Judasishiary has certainly over played their role to the hilt!!!

42 posted on 09/26/2005 12:18:11 PM PDT by SierraWasp (The only thing that can save CA is making eastern CA the 51st state called Sierra Republic!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BaBaStooey

The environmentalists would have preferred that every sign of development in that part of Louisiana were wiped off the surface of the Earth by that hurricane and that no human being would ever return to develop it again.""

Many people do not realize there is a group with a concerted effort to do just that. It seems so far out, that the comment gets dismissed over and over again. Go to www.wildlandsprojectrevealed.com and read for your self. This is an offshoot group from Earth First, the group that put spikes in trees slated for harvest in the 70's and 80's. The also turned loose beef cattle from open ranches with miles of fences, causing fatal car accidents and dead cows. This group is very dangerous, and there is an entire network of like minded groups all over the USA. I have tracked connecting groups and they get lots of donations because people don't realize the true intentions of the group, and they are looking for a tax write off. If in doubt about who you contribute to, see if Ted Turner is contributing, and you can bet it is an Environazi group. He is one of the worst.



43 posted on 09/26/2005 12:23:31 PM PDT by ridesthemiles (ridesthemiles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: frithguild
"So tell me - how is hating being conservative?"

It ain't you silly person!!! It's wanting to terminate those who tear down our greatest American and human traditions, beliefs and customs with EXTREME PREJUDICE!!!

So smartypants we just dislike them as intensely as it's humanly possible... OK??? Now take your phony sense of moral superiority and SHOVE IT!!! (It's insulting!)(Jesus taught... You insult)

44 posted on 09/26/2005 12:27:24 PM PDT by SierraWasp (The only thing that can save CA is making eastern CA the 51st state called Sierra Republic!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp; calcowgirl
Well, well. The environmental wackos are finally going to be held resposnsible for at least some of the damage they do.

I hope they take it right in the shorts. And good and hard.

45 posted on 09/26/2005 12:30:15 PM PDT by Czar (StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: frithguild
Blah blah blah...... so alas, anyone is free to hate and feel good about it, just as you are doing, while justifying it through the recreation of any traditional institution standing in the way of feeling good. In the end, such behavior will win over so many, that the trial lawyers will end up thanking you. Conservatives will not.

Dude, you've apparently gone off the deep end. Logic escapes you as you try to weave a twisted rationalization of why you feel that one person's disdain of the nation's trial lawyers and what they stand for is of significant importance in the grand scheme of things.

I hate them and you don't like that. Get over it.

46 posted on 09/26/2005 12:39:15 PM PDT by meyer (The DNC prefers advancing the party at the expense of human lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Czar; calcowgirl; Dog Gone; Grampa Dave; BOBTHENAILER; forester; Ernest_at_the_Beach; marsh2
"National environmentalist groups and federal agencies share the belief that federal power is a force for good. Their disagreement is merely over who should wield that power -- activists or bureaucrats?"

This is my favorite part of the whole thing!!! Federal power is NOT your friend if you are a "Considerate Conservative!" Government is nothing but pure force when you boil it down to it's essence and quit trying to fool yourself!!!

47 posted on 09/26/2005 12:50:21 PM PDT by SierraWasp (The only thing that can save CA is making eastern CA the 51st state called Sierra Republic!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp; Czar
"National environmentalist groups and federal agencies share the belief that federal power is a force for good. Their disagreement is merely over who should wield that power -- activists or bureaucrats?"

I like your answer, SW: "NEITHER".

These "environmental" groups, and the damage they do, needs to be further exposed (along with bogus Government "conservation" projects like the SNC).

48 posted on 09/26/2005 12:59:39 PM PDT by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Not to be pushy - but I sure expected there was a fly in the ointment.
49 posted on 09/26/2005 1:03:16 PM PDT by sandydipper (Less government is best government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meyer

You hate them and you think that's good. Fine. Stay happy.

If so, you're no conservative - just a destructive person.

Believe me, I got over accepting hate a long time ago.

Disdain them for their actions - that is a defensible argument.


50 posted on 09/26/2005 1:10:05 PM PDT by frithguild (If I made one mistake, it was that I was too cooperative and waited too long to go on the offensive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson