It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

We should vote for who will help the country not our own ideology

page: 9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:17 AM

originally posted by: Logarock

Well the "government" will and did and has ranted about lead for decades.....regulated ect.....but wouldn't dig up its own water pipes. Rather just dumped in more yummy chemicals to "seal" the lead pipes. And like a lot of government chemicals they turn out to be good for you as well building strong bones and teeth.

While it's apparent that you hate "government," it's also apparent that you have no real concept of who "government" is or what they do.

While YOU are indeed "ranting" about "government," the "government" didn't, hasn't and doesn't, "rant" about lead.

SCIENCE discovered that exposure to lead is toxic to humans and the environment, especially so to children where it has been directly linked to learning disabilities.

In response to the "science," the federal government, banned the continued use of lead in numerous applications.

At that time, lead and lead based solder had already been used throughout America and the world, in everything from paint to pipes. Especially copper pipes.

If you live in an older home that has copper tubing supply lines attached to your faucets, more than likely you have lead in your own private plumbing in your house. (Unless your builder had the foresight to use silver solder instead of lead based solder on your pipes.)

Do you think the "government" should also tear the pipes out of your walls and replace them too? If so, which "government" should do it? The federal government? Your state government? Your county government? Your city government? Which one?

Next: Digging up the service pipes or ripping the copper pipes out of your walls is NOT a feasible or cost efficient way of resolving the issue.

The most cost effective way to insure a "permanent" fix is to lay new, lead free service lines to the homes & businesses, disconnect the old lines and leave them where they are.

In your home, you would need to have a plumber install "re-routed" plumbing with new lead free tubing. Again, disconnecting the old tubing and leaving it in place.

Digging up or ripping out the old pipes is wasted money.

Next: There's no such thing as "government chemicals."

In response to the problem, PRIVATE companies used SCIENCE to develop chemicals that would seal the lead in place when added to the water that flows through the pipes.

These chemicals, developed and sold by private chemical companies, were offered as an inexpensive, "temporary," stop-gap measure to minimize the exposure to lead while the bigger, more "permanent" fix of laying new pipes got underway. (Or at least, that's what one would hope.)

The good thing about the chemical solution is that, (as the treated water flowed through their pipes) it would also seal the lead in them and protect people from their own leaded plumbing located inside their homes.

Next: Most all of the different governmental entities I mentioned above are occupied by politicians from one or the other, of two sides of the political spectrum.

One side of that spectrum, namely the Republican side, continually runs on the promise of cutting taxes and reducing the role of government.

Reducing the role of government translates into a reduction of services.

In this instance, the Republican governor of Michigan made those promises, followed through on them and cut taxes and state government revenue, then found himself looking for ways to overcome the shortfall.

It was HE who decided to try and save money by switching away from the Detroit water supply and to the Michigan river.

When warned about the lead leaching out of the pipes because of salt in the Michigan river water supply, it was HE who decided that the chemical treatment was too expensive.

And now that tax cuts have led to a bankrupt state government and HIS decisions have contributed to the poisoning of thousands of men, women & children, it is HE who is looking to the federal government to come bail him out.

Typical, anti-government, Republican mentality!

ETA; My apologies to the OP for straying off topic, but the ignorance contained in the post I'm responding to was too overwhelming to let go Un-Denied.
edit on 13-2-2016 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:59 AM
Something tells me when op created this topic, he did not want the first comment to be:

"I agree, that's why I'm voting for Bernie"


posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 08:24 AM
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

A Socialist is best for our country? Idiocy

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 10:21 PM
Socialism has worked out so well in the past. /s

Critical thinking is missing in the Millennial age.

I don't blame you for thinking that way. It is how you have been indoctrinated by the educational system and you don't have enough life experience to figure it out.
edit on 14-2-2016 by JustDisdain because: add sarcasm tag for idiots

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 07:52 AM
I was going to vote for Sanders. However I then learned he would seek to ban "assault" weapons.

I don't own a gun, don't want to own a gun, and loathe guns. In two days time will be the anniversary of a loved on who was taken from me through gun violence. But I still support my fellow citizens' second amendment rights, and I can't cast a vote for someone who would, in my eyes, seek to abridge that right, barring a retracting or shift in position on the issue.

While disappointed, I'm also not surprised. There has never to date been a candidate I could appease my conscience enough to vote for. He would have been the first. I know, I know. "You have the choose the lesser to two evils!" "You don't vote, you lose your right to complain."

With respect... screw that. I refuse, and try and stop me from "complaining."


<< 6  7  8   >>

log in