Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
Host -
Do you find it interesting that taking boths sides to the extreme leads to the same place?
My point being, that the concern of tyranny comes from all parts of the political spectrum, the "right" doesn't hold a copyright on the idea.
I am not concerned about it, personally. There are too many balances in place, especially in the 50/50 position this country is in. For every far-right politician, there is a far-left one.
|
KMA-628, my take is that it depends on what you perceive to be the "same place".
Take energy policy and environmental policy and enforcement, for example. The Bush administration is heavily influenced and subsidized by energy corporations and industrial polluters.
<a href="http://www.tpj.org/pioneers/icon_index.html">http://www.tpj.org/pioneers/icon_index.html</a>
An example is the Bush campaigns use of an Enron and Haliburton corporate planes during the 2000 election re-count:
Quote:
<a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/enron/1519879">http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/enron/1519879</a>
Aug. 2, 2002, 7:38PM
Bush campaign used Enron, Halliburton jets, records show
Reuters News Service
WASHINGTON -- During the 2000 presidential election recount battle, George W. Bush's campaign used jets owned by several large corporations, including Enron Corp. and Halliburton Co., that are now under federal investigation, according to Internal Revenue Service records and officials. ........
................The recount committee for Al Gore, the Democratic candidate in 2000, did not report using any corporate jets in its Internal Revenue Service filings.
|
The result of an extreme right EPA is a muzzled and neutered former enforcement agency, detailed in examples in my last post on this thread.
The effect of the right's penchant for selling their political influence to business interests is a dirtier, more toxic environment that literally makes people sick and threatens their longevity.
The effect of extreme left policy goals are wilderness set asides, possibly adverse economic impact because industry is forced to pay the expense of acting in an environmentally sensitive manner, slower growth, and higher raw material prices. As the mercury pollution argument in my last post mentions,
there may be a greater negatve economic impact from environmental mercury exposure, than from the savings to industry that the EPA manipulation and concealment of impact data presumably is motivated by.
Late 20th century western history seems to show us that environmental protection and resource conservation produces economic benefits in the form of tourism and recreation, healthcare savings, and in recycling and transportation and production process innovation.
I'll err on the side of the tree huggers on these issues. Loggers in the Pacific northwest may go hungry for a period of time, and lumber company shareholders and forest product consumers may be adversely affect economically, but less people will have health problems resulting from dismantling recent environmental protection rules and enforcement.
Another thread discusses an NC sheriff firing a department dispatcher for breaking an NC statute that prohibits unmarried cohabitation.
What negative civil impact would an extreme opposite statute pose? Would enactment of an NC statute that expressly encouraged cohabitation of unmarried couples result in anyone being fired from their job ?