Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
The EPA and some good news for US.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Commercialfarmer" data-source="post: 1395092" data-attributes="member: 14544"><p>I do not see where you have disagreed that a State is a lawful government instituted by the people (of a particular geographical location with defined borders) that holds sovereign ALL powers not expressly given to the federal union by the Constitution. </p><p></p><p>So under the logic spelled out before us, it is your position that a state should loss it's sovereign right to self determination by the people of the state to regulate it's own environment because A. that state has a competing economy with surrounding states, and B. that state shares environmental resources of air and water. </p><p></p><p>That being so, and the following being factual: </p><p></p><p>Canada and the United States share natural resources of water and atmosphere. Canada and the United States are competing economies. </p><p>The United States and Canada are members of the United Nations. </p><p></p><p>Using the exact reasoning and requirements of your position, it would only make sense that the United Nations should have regulatory oversight of the environment of Canada and the United States. The United States and Mexico. Mexico and Guatemala. So on and so forth through the entirety of the Americas. </p><p></p><p>However, not only the Americas. Because we all share the atmosphere and we all share the oceans. And because we all share the oceans, we all share the totality of all fresh water because of water's cyclical nature. </p><p></p><p>Afghanistan, China, Iran, Great Britain should all be regulated equally. The poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich should be equally yoked because they all share resources and have competing economies. Of course, this will require international monitors. They obviously will be more qualified and trained than national regulators. </p><p></p><p>If this doesn't make sense on a global scale because these states, and that is what they are- states, have sovereignty in their borders though they share environmental resources of water and atmosphere, then the same logic should be applied to sovereign states in the Union. Hence, the question about defining a state. </p><p></p><p>If you say that it does make sense on a global scale, then you should welcome the idea of the delegates of China, Iran, and Venezuela thousands of miles away deciding the regulatory requirements of you handling your cows methane production in Kentucky. </p><p></p><p>Also keeping in tradition and logical sequencing, I now expect this thread to go poof!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Commercialfarmer, post: 1395092, member: 14544"] I do not see where you have disagreed that a State is a lawful government instituted by the people (of a particular geographical location with defined borders) that holds sovereign ALL powers not expressly given to the federal union by the Constitution. So under the logic spelled out before us, it is your position that a state should loss it's sovereign right to self determination by the people of the state to regulate it's own environment because A. that state has a competing economy with surrounding states, and B. that state shares environmental resources of air and water. That being so, and the following being factual: Canada and the United States share natural resources of water and atmosphere. Canada and the United States are competing economies. The United States and Canada are members of the United Nations. Using the exact reasoning and requirements of your position, it would only make sense that the United Nations should have regulatory oversight of the environment of Canada and the United States. The United States and Mexico. Mexico and Guatemala. So on and so forth through the entirety of the Americas. However, not only the Americas. Because we all share the atmosphere and we all share the oceans. And because we all share the oceans, we all share the totality of all fresh water because of water's cyclical nature. Afghanistan, China, Iran, Great Britain should all be regulated equally. The poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich should be equally yoked because they all share resources and have competing economies. Of course, this will require international monitors. They obviously will be more qualified and trained than national regulators. If this doesn't make sense on a global scale because these states, and that is what they are- states, have sovereignty in their borders though they share environmental resources of water and atmosphere, then the same logic should be applied to sovereign states in the Union. Hence, the question about defining a state. If you say that it does make sense on a global scale, then you should welcome the idea of the delegates of China, Iran, and Venezuela thousands of miles away deciding the regulatory requirements of you handling your cows methane production in Kentucky. Also keeping in tradition and logical sequencing, I now expect this thread to go poof! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
The EPA and some good news for US.
Top