Harsh Words for E.P.A. From Most G.O.P. Candidates < Betches

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2011 2:50 AM GMT
    Ugh I don't understand how most of the GOP candidates (as well as others elsewhere) could make such black and white comments about the EPA. We all share the environment, so what one person does may not only effect others but potentially generations to come.

    The New York Times had a good article summarizing the EPA stances of the GOP presidential contenders.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/us/politics/18epa.html?_r=2&hp

    Mrs. Bachmann : “I guarantee you the E.P.A. will have doors locked and lights turned off, and they will only be about conservation. It will be a new day and a new sheriff in Washington, D.C.”

    ^ugh I want to vomit in your face now

    Yea the EPA methodology and programs could be refined but even saying to shut it down completely is insane. It's like saying we should be more like Mexico City...

    Thoughts?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2011 3:03 AM GMT
    The Republican party has spent the last 30 years running up massive yearly budget deficits year after year and blowing up the National Debt.
    Reagan more than tripled the National Debt.
    Bush Jr. doubled it.
    No Repub president has balanced a budget since Eisenhower in 1957.

    All that debt is still waiting to be paid back.
    Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr. ran up all that debt and said "deficits don't matter" over and over again.
    They selfishly ran up massive deficits and just passed that debt on to future generations to pay off.

    And the Repubs have the same selfish short-sighted approach to our beautiful country.
    Just trash it.
    Pollute and dirty it up as much as necessary to make a quick buck for the big corporations.
    And leave behind a toxic ugly world for future generations to live in.

    The selfish short-sighted Repubs just don't give a shit about acting responsibly today so we can pass on a better world for our children and grandchildren.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2011 3:19 AM GMT
    rickrick91 saidThe selfish short-sighted Repubs just don't give a shit about acting responsibly today so we can pass on a better world for our children and grandchildren.

    Actually the Republicans are anything but short-sighted. They are looking to the future -- their own political & financial future.

    The corporations they are protecting, and allowing to pollute the environment, pay them handsomely. They hope these corporations will keep them in office, with unlimited campaign donations (they used to be called bribes, but Congress simply changed the term to donation and made bribes legal), and other corporate perks. Nice to fly around in corporate jets, and have millionaire golfer weekends at someone else's expense.

    Now with all that being given to them, why on Earth would Republicans give a fuck about the environment? Or the taxes of ordinary citizens? But they sure are obsessed with lowering corporate taxes, and the taxes of the wealthy, who provide them with these bennies. All under the guise of "creating jobs" which no one ever sees, except possibly in other countries.

    But Republicans are indeed selfish, I'll give you that. There's not one of integrity or with a sense of public service among them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2011 1:54 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    cTurtle saidUgh I don't understand how most of the GOP candidates (as well as others elsewhere) could make such black and white comments about the EPA. We all share the environment, so what one person does may not only effect others but potentially generations to come.



    You are making an assumption that because the agency is named the "Environmental Protection Agency" that most things it does actually result in protection of the environment.

    And... you are also making an assumption that if it were to be scaled back or eliminated, that the environment would no longer be protected.

    Neither of these are correct assumptions.

    Most of what the EPA does is write unnecessary regulations and, sadly, because it is under control of the executive branch, the EPA is used to further political agendas.

    As an example of unnecessary regulation, there's the regulations treating any milk spill - yes MILK spill - as a spill of hazardous waste.

    As an example of political use of the EPA, despite the Congress not passing the "Cap and Trade" bill which would (allegedly) lower carbon emitted from power plants, the EPA is moving ahead with implementing regulations that do just such a thing. The result is due to a ridiculously unreasonable deadline, many coal fired power plants will be closed in the next 1 to 2 years because they don't have enough time to comply with recently issued EPA regulations.

    I could go on - but the point is, like many things in Washington DC - the title of an agency or bill / law is usually the opposite of what that title or bill actually does.

    Oh... and one other thing..... most (if not all) of the states have their own EPA.


    And here comes SB to prove the OPs contention that conservatives see everything in black & white.

    In certain environments, milk is, indeed, hazardous to the ecosystem.

    And considering the wealth of the coal industry there's no reason they can't come into compliance, except greed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2011 2:57 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidIn certain environments, milk is, indeed, hazardous to the ecosystem.


    Yes, in lactose-intolerant communities, milk is deadly. icon_rolleyes.gif





    Christian73 said
    And considering the wealth of the coal industry there's no reason they can't come into compliance, except greed.


    Again we see how the liberal, blissfully unaware of his own ignorance, marches forward with his proclamations and dictates.

    Christian73... it is not the coal industry that is subject to these new EPA regulations, it's the electric utilities (the owners of the power plants).


    If you want to see ignorance in action, see your sad attempt at a rejoinder above.

    And coal industry vs. power companies makes no difference.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2011 3:02 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    cTurtle saidUgh I don't understand how most of the GOP candidates (as well as others elsewhere) could make such black and white comments about the EPA. We all share the environment, so what one person does may not only effect others but potentially generations to come.



    You are making an assumption that because the agency is named the "Environmental Protection Agency" that most things it does actually result in protection of the environment.

    And... you are also making an assumption that if it were to be scaled back or eliminated, that the environment would no longer be protected.

    Neither of these are correct assumptions.

    Excuse me...........
    Splain lucy what just happened here in the state of Florida.. Yer full of shit again talking out your ass.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2011 3:29 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidIn certain environments, milk is, indeed, hazardous to the ecosystem.

    Not merely hazardous to the ecosystem, but to animals in particular. This isn't about a kid spilling his lunch milk carton, but about large-scale spills, like if a milk tanker has an accident. Spill several hundred or thousand gallons of milk on a hot road in the warm summer and see what happens.

    The milk will sour in a very short time, and the horrible stench it creates, while bad enough in itself, is because of bacteria growth. Bacteria that can sicken animals that lick it, especially if the milk was being transported to a dairy plant to be pasteurized, and had not been treated yet.

    There is hazardous waste and hazardous waste. Not everything classified as hazardous requires a full haz-mat suit, and kills upon contact. Hazardous can also mean that some clean-up must take place, if only a water hose-down, the material not simply left where it was spilled. I would hope spoiled milk would be cleaned off the road or sidewalk. Does anyone think differently?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 21, 2011 8:16 AM GMT
    simpsons_fish.jpg

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Aug 21, 2011 12:29 PM GMT
    The republican party wouldn't be a party if it wasn't for the scapegoating that they do to frighten people with complete and utter misinformation on certain groups of people and organizations

    Case in point MOI ....... And y'all
    We have been in their gunsights from the get go
    And yet there are still gay men here who defend them .... Go figure

    Women ..... The republican party has been extremely anti woman

    Anti black

    They lie about illegal aliens .... Blaming them for forest fires ?????
    Anti Science .... Global climate change ????? Sunspots????
    And Anti EPA

    Why????
    Because they have been BOUGHT and sold by every industry that the EPA has to keep from poisoning us to death

    That's why
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 21, 2011 7:15 PM GMT
    http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-the-clean-air-act-saved-americans-12-trillion-in-the-last-two-decades-2011-3
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 21, 2011 7:19 PM GMT
    Water is a finite resource, and we are doing everything we can to let corporations destroy it.