9 of 12 Park Service advisory board members quit (thats 75%)

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

repoman0

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2010
4,470
3,311
136
Then I perhaps reading about their environmental issues would suffice.

Of course they have environmental issues, one is corrupt beyond all hell and the other only cares about perpetual growth at the expense of their citizens and land. What does that have to do with whether or not requiring a company to pay for its own cleanup is good policy? Why are we even talking about this when profiting off of federal park lands should not be allowed, as it is against the interests of the public who owns them?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,398
6,077
126
Of course they have environmental issues, one is corrupt beyond all hell and the other only cares about perpetual growth at the expense of their citizens and land. What does that have to do with whether or not requiring a company to pay for its own cleanup is good policy? Why are we even talking about this when profiting off of federal park lands should not be allowed, as it is against the interests of the public who owns them?
We are talking about this because Trump has not been impeached. A cadre of corrupt slime is keeping him in office. They also must be removed.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
She is a spokeswoman. She does not oversee the NPS. You must have very low standards if all it takes is for someone to hold a previous job in mining to be labeled as such.



Doubtful. Any activities require companies to restore the land to its original condition. And those areas that are truly sensitive to disruption will be off limits I am sure.



Now here's a good little communist appearing out of the bag.

Heh. Swift is an industry hired gun, a spinmeister dealing in alternative facts & simulated rationality. It's paid propaganda, a staple of the GOP. She does it well, but that doesn't mean there's any truth to it.

Her schtick wrt the board resignations is whataboutism & pandering to current sentiment about sexual harrassment. It does not address either the facts nor the stated reasons for resignation.

Expect the board to be packed with people more than happy to pander to extraction industry interests, period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bshole

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
326
126
Of course they have environmental issues, one is corrupt beyond all hell and the other only cares about perpetual growth at the expense of their citizens and land. What does that have to do with whether or not requiring a company to pay for its own cleanup is good policy? Why are we even talking about this when profiting off of federal park lands should not be allowed, as it is against the interests of the public who owns them?

I am not sure what you are arguing here. In your earlier post, you mentioned under communism, the company has to pay for cleanup as opposed to capitalism where you assert the government pays for cleanup.

My understanding of communism is that the State owns the means of production so if that is the case, the State too then pays for the cleanup. That appears to be at odds with your assertion earlier.

Under a capitalist economy, companies are privately owned and today, companies are required to return any lands used to their original condition.

What happened 50, 100 or 200 years ago is not allowed today. Does it or can it happen - certainly. There are always unethical people running some companies. But today, our air water and land is much cleaner than 10, 50 or more years ago because of these mandates placed on companies.

As for Superfund sites, most of those are from times past when these controls were not in place. Michigan for instance has had only 2 additions since 1996 to the Superfund list. Both additions were from long defunct companies many years ago.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
326
126
ah, so this is how you refuse to respond to your idiotic comment exposing your ignorance regarding communism?
Reading comprehension, boy. It was in regards to environmental issues in a communist or formerly communist country.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,562
29,170
146
I am not sure what you are arguing here. In your earlier post, you mentioned under communism, the company has to pay for cleanup as opposed to capitalism where you assert the government pays for cleanup.

My understanding of communism is that the State owns the means of production so if that is the case, the State too then pays for the cleanup. That appears to be at odds with your assertion earlier.

Under a capitalist economy, companies are privately owned and today, companies are required to return any lands used to their original condition.

What happened 50, 100 or 200 years ago is not allowed today. Does it or can it happen - certainly. There are always unethical people running some companies. But today, our air water and land is much cleaner than 10, 50 or more years ago because of these mandates placed on companies.

As for Superfund sites, most of those are from times past when these controls were not in place. Michigan for instance has had only 2 additions since 1996 to the Superfund list. Both additions were from long defunct companies many years ago.

ah, so it's that you're just blissfully ignorant of what actually happens, and when your boys directly remove such regulations and requirements to clean up their mess, you champion this not as a "responsible capitalist move," but as a "freedom from communism" sort of argument, that clearly makes no fucking sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sandorski

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,562
29,170
146
Reading comprehension, boy. It was in regards to environmental issues in a communist or formerly communist country.

look, child, I know that your non sequitor fell flat due to its stupidity. It isn't my fault that you can't see over your own fallacies.
 

repoman0

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2010
4,470
3,311
136
I am not sure what you are arguing here. In your earlier post, you mentioned under communism, the company has to pay for cleanup as opposed to capitalism where you assert the government pays for cleanup.

My understanding of communism is that the State owns the means of production so if that is the case, the State too then pays for the cleanup. That appears to be at odds with your assertion earlier.

Under a capitalist economy, companies are privately owned and today, companies are required to return any lands used to their original condition.

What happened 50, 100 or 200 years ago is not allowed today. Does it or can it happen - certainly. There are always unethical people running some companies. But today, our air water and land is much cleaner than 10, 50 or more years ago because of these mandates placed on companies.

As for Superfund sites, most of those are from times past when these controls were not in place. Michigan for instance has had only 2 additions since 1996 to the Superfund list. Both additions were from long defunct companies many years ago.

Likewise, I am not sure what you are arguing here. What I said about communism was what I understood your characterization of it to be ... if that isn't the case then apologies.

The whole thing is moot because there is no reason companies should be allowed to mine on federal park lands. And with a gutted EPA thanks to this administration, companies operating anywhere are going to have much less of a reason to pay to properly restore and clean up their land.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
326
126
look, child, I know that your non sequitor fell flat due to its stupidity. It isn't my fault that you can't see over your own fallacies.
that's ok. communists live within a fallacy anyway so it is not surprising that anything outside their insular fallacy worldview is in itself viewed as a fallacy. so it is not your fault you are trapped in an idealogical dead end. I am sure you can find someone to blame.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imported_tajmahal

repoman0

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2010
4,470
3,311
136
that's ok. communists live within a fallacy anyway so it is not surprising that anything outside their insular fallacy worldview is in itself viewed as a fallacy. so it is not your fault you are trapped in an idealogical dead end. I am sure you can find someone to blame.

I am pretty sure nobody here is a communist lol. What is this, 1955?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,562
29,170
146
that's ok. communists live within a fallacy anyway so it is not surprising that anything outside their insular fallacy worldview is in itself viewed as a fallacy. so it is not your fault you are trapped in an idealogical dead end. I am sure you can find someone to blame.

this doesn't make any sense. Either you contradicted yourself 3 times within the same statement, or argued that pi is not a constant.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
Here's the story that lefty neglected to link.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...cheers-resignations-of-national-park-advisers

"
Swift disputed the idea that Interior was not engaging with the committee, saying that officials had spoken with the advisers as recent last this month.

“Their hollow and dishonest political stunt should be a clear indicator of the intention of this group,” she said."

Good fvcking riddance to these partisan political assholes.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism

"Communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society. Communism is thus a form of socialism—a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates. Exactly how communism differs from socialism has long been a matter of debate, but the distinction rests largely on the communists’ adherence to the revolutionary socialism of Karl Marx.

Like most writers of the 19th century, Marx tended to use the terms communism and socialism interchangeably. In his Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875), however, Marx identified two phases of communism that would follow the predicted overthrow of capitalism: the first would be a transitional system in which the working class would control the government and economy yet still find it necessary to pay people according to how long, hard, or well they worked; the second would be fully realized communism—a society without class divisions or government, in which the production and distribution of goods would be based upon the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Marx’s followers, especially the Russian revolutionary Vladimir Ilich Lenin, took up this distinction.
In State and Revolution (1917), Lenin asserted that socialism corresponds to Marx’s first phase of communist society and communism proper to the second. Lenin and the Bolshevik wing of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party reinforced this distinction in 1918, the year after they seized power in Russia, by taking the name All-Russian Communist Party. Since then, communism has been largely, if not exclusively, identified with the form of political and economic organization developed in the Soviet Union and adopted subsequently in the People’s Republic of China and other countries ruled by communist parties.

For much of the 20th century, in fact, about one-third of the world’s population lived under communist regimes. These regimes were characterized by the rule of a single party that tolerated no opposition and little dissent. In place of a capitalist economy, in which individuals compete for profits, moreover, party leaders established a command economyin which the state controlled property and its bureaucrats determined wages, prices, and production goals. The inefficiency of these economies played a large part in the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and the remaining communist countries (excepting North Korea) are now allowing greater economic competition while holding fast to one-party rule. "


So communist/socialist/progressive/Democrat - 6 of one or half a dozen of another, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck you can call it a fvcking eagle, it's still a duck.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,562
29,170
146
...snipped out 3rd grade encyclopedia reference--yes, that was cute--

So communist/socialist/progressive/Democrat - 6 of one or half a dozen of another, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck you can call it a fvcking eagle, it's still a duck.

lol and you support Trump, who you believe isn't a racist for some reason. I like how your quaint little aphorisms only ever apply in one direction.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Here's the story that lefty neglected to link.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...cheers-resignations-of-national-park-advisers

"
Swift disputed the idea that Interior was not engaging with the committee, saying that officials had spoken with the advisers as recent last this month.

“Their hollow and dishonest political stunt should be a clear indicator of the intention of this group,” she said."

Good fvcking riddance to these partisan political assholes.

Swift is obviously the well paid industry partisan. It's whataboutism, one of your favorites.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism

"Communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society. Communism is thus a form of socialism—a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates. Exactly how communism differs from socialism has long been a matter of debate, but the distinction rests largely on the communists’ adherence to the revolutionary socialism of Karl Marx.

Like most writers of the 19th century, Marx tended to use the terms communism and socialism interchangeably. In his Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875), however, Marx identified two phases of communism that would follow the predicted overthrow of capitalism: the first would be a transitional system in which the working class would control the government and economy yet still find it necessary to pay people according to how long, hard, or well they worked; the second would be fully realized communism—a society without class divisions or government, in which the production and distribution of goods would be based upon the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Marx’s followers, especially the Russian revolutionary Vladimir Ilich Lenin, took up this distinction.
In State and Revolution (1917), Lenin asserted that socialism corresponds to Marx’s first phase of communist society and communism proper to the second. Lenin and the Bolshevik wing of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party reinforced this distinction in 1918, the year after they seized power in Russia, by taking the name All-Russian Communist Party. Since then, communism has been largely, if not exclusively, identified with the form of political and economic organization developed in the Soviet Union and adopted subsequently in the People’s Republic of China and other countries ruled by communist parties.

For much of the 20th century, in fact, about one-third of the world’s population lived under communist regimes. These regimes were characterized by the rule of a single party that tolerated no opposition and little dissent. In place of a capitalist economy, in which individuals compete for profits, moreover, party leaders established a command economyin which the state controlled property and its bureaucrats determined wages, prices, and production goals. The inefficiency of these economies played a large part in the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and the remaining communist countries (excepting North Korea) are now allowing greater economic competition while holding fast to one-party rule. "


So communist/socialist/progressive/Democrat - 6 of one or half a dozen of another, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck you can call it a fvcking eagle, it's still a duck.

Heh. Any time you have to go on about Commies it means you ran out of relevant arguments. Feel free to discredit yourself further, however.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
326
126
Heh. Any time you have to go on about Commies it means you ran out of relevant arguments. Feel free to discredit yourself further, however.
Oh there are many relevant arguments. We're just trying to simplify things for you. It is your choice of course to avoid debate over these issues. It is one of the marks of a totalitarian state, that dissent, disagreement is not only not allowed but denigrated, punished.

Hence why some here are labeled communists especially when they put in all caps the desire to seize private property without remuneration.

So I would say if you want to have a reasoned discussion, then engage your opponent rather than insult and denigrate with simpleton assertions easily ignored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imported_tajmahal

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Oh there are many relevant arguments

Then make them rather than resorting to simple name calling.

Zincke snubbed the Board entirely, basically declared their input irrelevant to the agenda of the Interior Dept. Unlike his predecessors, he refused to even meet with them & I'm confident that whatever input they offered just got the bureaucratic runaround. Blew them right out of his ass. His choice of Swift as spokesperson tells us that extraction industry interests & developers will be served above all others when it comes to national park management. If that's what you want, just say so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victorian Gray

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
326
126
Then make them rather than resorting to simple name calling.

Zincke snubbed the Board entirely, basically declared their input irrelevant to the agenda of the Interior Dept. Unlike his predecessors, he refused to even meet with them & I'm confident that whatever input they offered just got the bureaucratic runaround. Blew them right out of his ass. His choice of Swift as spokesperson tells us that extraction industry interests & developers will be served above all others when it comes to national park management. If that's what you want, just say so.


Great!. Then you'll find a number of posts with appropriate arguments.

I rarely do any name calling and I never start it. There are plenty of others whose first resort is to name call and denigrate their opponent. Name calling is labeling someone falsely. I have not done that in this post.

However, I see you continue to do so. When you stop those types of childish actions, I would be more than happy to enter into a debate with you or anyone.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Great!. Then you'll find a number of posts with appropriate arguments.

I rarely do any name calling and I never start it. There are plenty of others whose first resort is to name call and denigrate their opponent. Name calling is labeling someone falsely. I have not done that in this post.

However, I see you continue to do so. When you stop those types of childish actions, I would be more than happy to enter into a debate with you or anyone.

So, you retract all the Commie bullshit, or not?