Would it be too much to expect an objective administrator who writes laws from founded science, rather than according to his predetermined personal agenda?
“It is time for facts to replace rhetoric; Science to replace faith. . . .Critical thinking needs to become the basis for moving this county forward. Bigotry and ignorance will not change the culture of Elbert and will not lead us to a better future for the next generations. We need to move forward with a coalition of concerned citizens that who are neither ideology nor political party biased.”
- Tony Corrado,
http://www.new-plains.com/Archives/Editorial-GrouchyOldPeople.html,
Monday, November 12, 2012 1:19:38 AM- Hypocrite
All of the Democrat Party leadership turned out for this non-ideological, non-political-party-biased process:
And on Mr. Crisan’s comment, would it be too much to expect more than lip service to private property rights when those rights exist at the “surface” where we all live, rather than a naked assertion that private property at the surface is the county’s to control?
B_Imperial
I am sure you have no interest whatsoever in the truth, Brooks, but I was not at the meeting last night as a Democrat. I was there as a person who wants to protect the groundwater underneath my feet. When I believe in something strongly, as I know you do yourself, I make a point of showing up and exercising my right to assembly. You have accused me of being a part of New Plains…I am not. You say that I have a specific ideology in regards to oil and gas regulations, yet there is not a scintilla of evidence as to what my feelings are about the environment or fracking. I have not published a single sentence on the topic, but yet you freely lump me into your twisted vision of my motivations. As I told you to your face last night before last nights meeting, I was there for one purpose only. I brought a scientist to the meeting to give a fact based presentation on the failures of storing flowback fracking water in open evaporative pits. Ms. Bailey is not some piece of fluff that you can dismiss lightly. She has credentials as a scientist that you could not even begin to fathom despite your claims that her views were faulty. But I welcome an open discussion on your blog challenging her science. Benzene is a carcinogenic chemical that migrates freely through industry pond liners. That is indisputable. Benzene breaks down clay liners in evaporative ponds. Prove that fact wrong. Have you even ever bothered to ask me wether I approve of fracking? Do you even care? Do you believe in water rights? As this will most not likely be posted, I will leave you with this, the longer I know you, the more I see your faux intellectualism decaying into talking points. I used to believe your views were worth trying to understand, but now al I see is anger and fear. I wish you well, Brooks.