quote:

ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance

I think we need a Biodome, just for Politicians, who have prove they can survive under the conditions their legislation inflicts on the country they are supposed to serve.

We need to ship environazis to their own biodome too, let them live in a world where there is no economy because everything is as overly regulated as they demand

Where there are no mined products, refined products or any products shipped using petroleum products in any way

No heat, no ac, no frills caveman style living

Between Biodome 1) with polluted air, water and food but a/c, carbon fueled heat and luxuries
and Biodome 2) with clean air, water and food but hard work and renewable energies

Which do you think can sustain life?

There's an old saying, you don't shit where you eat. Like it or not we are taking an ecological system beautifully designed to clean and filter our environment naturally and we are spreading like a virus through it until it can barely sustain us. It is counterintuitive to consciously continue on a path of destruction.

We are technically advanced enough to improve our lifestyles and our environment without continuing on a path of destruction or reverting back to the Stone Age.

This sounds serious. How sick are you, and exactly which rule is it that is making you die

I always appreciate witty sarcasm. It's an art form here in Michigan.

I'm not serious about the Biodome, but I don't understand anyone who isn't honestly concerned about turning our environment into a toxic mess.

We have past precedents that show us Companies can't be trusted to self-regulate.

I know OSHA can get ridiculous with over regulating. I worked in an oil refinery for 15 years.

Even still, come on. We all live on the same planet. It sustains us. If you get out at all, hunt, fish, bike, kayak, ski, bike...
The beauty of our planet is awe inspiring and that beauty sustains us too. It isn't just dirt and water and air. It is a living entity that requires a healthy environment, the same as us, to survive.

How does this not seem logical?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Actually, it's questionable whether his proposals were actually a concern for science:

After their sweep to power in the 1994 midterm elections, Republican lawmakers rushed to implement House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s promised program of reform, including a bill to mandate “independent and external peer reviews” and cost-benefit analyses for regulations related to health, safety, or the environment. “On their face, these are worthy ideas,” the New York Times editorial board declared in February 1995. “But Mr. Gingrich’s approach … converts these useful concepts into a recipe for paralysis.” The Times editorial noted that, under the proposed law, agencies would’ve had to “endure a cumbersome 23-step review consisting of layers of ‘expert’ panels, some of which would include individuals or companies with a stake in the outcome.” In other words, stringent peer review would lead to fewer science-based interventions, not more of them.

The same rhetoric and strategy—to peer-review away the case for regulatory action— could in theory be applied across the board. Senate Republicans who worried the Endangered Species Act had led to “overzealous regulations based on emotion, not science,” for example, proposed a bill requiring rigorous peer review before any animal could be protected. But in the face of steady opposition from the Clinton White House, these efforts to spread peer review mostly came to nothing. While the Gingrich bill had support from several mainstream academic organizations, it also failed to pass.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/05/hate_trump_s_science_policies_don_t_call_for_more_peer_review.html

Deflect, delay and derail is in the standard playbook.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


Sure, we trust the word of an Internet troll

No need to provide links, ever

Hey you fucking brainless goddamn conservative moron. If you were not so busy swallowing and puking up right wing rhetoric, you might actually prove that you are an actual living human being capable of individual self initializing thought, and pass the Turing test.

You know, the test that proves whether or not something is intelligent?

But here

Now, by all means, go read it, declare it fake news or liberal panic, but I bet you $1000 you would not go to the Pigeon river and take a glass of water straight from the source and drink it.

No, you republican shit for brains fuck wads wont do that to prove anything. You deny facts publicly but privately you will not do a damn thing to prove that you are right.

http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2017/06/29/deconstructing_the_administrative_state_110284.html

Well, with raccoons, skunks, squirrels, mice, deer, bear, etc. all using the Pigeon river water system as a bathroom you'd be bat shit crazy to intentionally drink the water. But you don't know that. You just think of man as the evil being. There are enough real environmental problems we can throw money at without making the issue into a church and a religion.

Just where do you think the vast majority of drinking water in the US comes from anyway?
Rivers.
Animal and human waste is easily treated. Removing a lot of the chemicals that are dumped into the water by various industries, not so much.

We will have 2 choices. Either make those who mess it up, clean it up (Yaknow, good old Consevative responsibility) or the public can pay for additional treatment by paying more taxes. (the Liberal solution)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


Sure, we trust the word of an Internet troll

No need to provide links, ever

Hey you fucking brainless goddamn conservative moron. If you were not so busy swallowing and puking up right wing rhetoric, you might actually prove that you are an actual living human being capable of individual self initializing thought, and pass the Turing test.

You know, the test that proves whether or not something is intelligent?

But here

Now, by all means, go read it, declare it fake news or liberal panic, but I bet you $1000 you would not go to the Pigeon river and take a glass of water straight from the source and drink it.

No, you republican shit for brains fuck wads wont do that to prove anything. You deny facts publicly but privately you will not do a damn thing to prove that you are right.

http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2017/06/29/deconstructing_the_administrative_state_110284.html

Well, with raccoons, skunks, squirrels, mice, deer, bear, etc. all using the Pigeon river water system as a bathroom you'd be bat shit crazy to intentionally drink the water. But you don't know that. You just think of man as the evil being. There are enough real environmental problems we can throw money at without making the issue into a church and a religion.

Just where do you think the vast majority of drinking water in the US comes from anyway?
Rivers.
Animal and human waste is easily treated. Removing a lot of the chemicals that are dumped into the water by various industries, not so much.

We will have 2 choices. Either make those who mess it up, clean it up (Yaknow, good old Consevative responsibility) or the public can pay for additional treatment by paying more taxes. (the Liberal solution)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Anyway, bottom line point for the present is

1) The Clean Air / Clean Water regulations have improved the environment considerably
2) Getting rid of them is a bad idea.

If you want to tweak them instead, awesome.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


Sure, we trust the word of an Internet troll

No need to provide links, ever

Hey you fucking brainless goddamn conservative moron. If you were not so busy swallowing and puking up right wing rhetoric, you might actually prove that you are an actual living human being capable of individual self initializing thought, and pass the Turing test.

You know, the test that proves whether or not something is intelligent?

But here

Now, by all means, go read it, declare it fake news or liberal panic, but I bet you $1000 you would not go to the Pigeon river and take a glass of water straight from the source and drink it.

No, you republican shit for brains fuck wads wont do that to prove anything. You deny facts publicly but privately you will not do a damn thing to prove that you are right.

http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2017/06/29/deconstructing_the_administrative_state_110284.html

Well, with raccoons, skunks, squirrels, mice, deer, bear, etc. all using the Pigeon river water system as a bathroom you'd be bat shit crazy to intentionally drink the water. But you don't know that. You just think of man as the evil being. There are enough real environmental problems we can throw money at without making the issue into a church and a religion.

Just where do you think the vast majority of drinking water in the US comes from anyway?
Rivers.
Animal and human waste is easily treated. Removing a lot of the chemicals that are dumped into the water by various industries, not so much.

We will have 2 choices. Either make those who mess it up, clean it up (Yaknow, good old Consevative responsibility) or the public can pay for additional treatment by paying more taxes. (the Liberal solution)

Even though this is quoting Hillbilly, it's actually a response to Jif1961. You want to actually see a rolling back the clock, look at the statement above. When was it legal to dump any industrial waste into a waterway of the United States? It's just not legal but the idea of it is still used to emotionally browbeat us all into accepting the religion that the EPA protects.

The Clean Water act was first adopted in 1972 with major revisions made all of the time. A huge revision in the 90's. So in order to argue your point...or actually hillbillies point, you have to roll the clock back to 1972...nearly half a century.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Anyway, bottom line point for the present is

1) The Clean Air / Clean Water regulations have improved the environment considerably
2) Getting rid of them is a bad idea.

If you want to tweak them instead, awesome.

3) The Clean Air /Clean Water acts are now all governed a if they are a religion. Worship of Mother Earth. That has to stop.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


Sure, we trust the word of an Internet troll

No need to provide links, ever

Hey you fucking brainless goddamn conservative moron. If you were not so busy swallowing and puking up right wing rhetoric, you might actually prove that you are an actual living human being capable of individual self initializing thought, and pass the Turing test.

You know, the test that proves whether or not something is intelligent?

But here

Now, by all means, go read it, declare it fake news or liberal panic, but I bet you $1000 you would not go to the Pigeon river and take a glass of water straight from the source and drink it.

No, you republican shit for brains fuck wads wont do that to prove anything. You deny facts publicly but privately you will not do a damn thing to prove that you are right.

http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2017/06/29/deconstructing_the_administrative_state_110284.html

Well, with raccoons, skunks, squirrels, mice, deer, bear, etc. all using the Pigeon river water system as a bathroom you'd be bat shit crazy to intentionally drink the water. But you don't know that. You just think of man as the evil being. There are enough real environmental problems we can throw money at without making the issue into a church and a religion.

Just where do you think the vast majority of drinking water in the US comes from anyway?
Rivers.
Animal and human waste is easily treated. Removing a lot of the chemicals that are dumped into the water by various industries, not so much.

We will have 2 choices. Either make those who mess it up, clean it up (Yaknow, good old Consevative responsibility) or the public can pay for additional treatment by paying more taxes. (the Liberal solution)

Even though this is quoting Hillbilly, it's actually a response to Jif1961. You want to actually see a rolling back the clock, look at the statement above. When was it legal to dump any industrial waste into a waterway of the United States? It's just not legal but the idea of it is still used to emotionally browbeat us all into accepting the religion that the EPA protects.

The Clean Water act was first adopted in 1972 with major revisions made all of the time. A huge revision in the 90's. So in order to argue your point...or actually hillbillies point, you have to roll the clock back to 1972...nearly half a century.

Ok 48 years:

Yes, an oil slick on the Cuyahoga River polluted from decades of industrial waste caught fire on a Sunday morning in June 1969 near the Republic Steel mill, causing about $100,000 worth of damage to two railroad bridges. Initially the fire drew little attention, either locally or nationally.

HERE

Everybody should watch the whole 5+ minutes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Anyway, bottom line point for the present is

1) The Clean Air / Clean Water regulations have improved the environment considerably
2) Getting rid of them is a bad idea.

If you want to tweak them instead, awesome.

3) The Clean Air /Clean Water acts are now all governed a if they are a religion. Worship of Mother Earth. That has to stop.

Yes of course, earth is first...a profit center.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Anyway, bottom line point for the present is

1) The Clean Air / Clean Water regulations have improved the environment considerably
2) Getting rid of them is a bad idea.

If you want to tweak them instead, awesome.

3) The Clean Air /Clean Water acts are now all governed a if they are a religion. Worship of Mother Earth. That has to stop.

I had a client, albeit a stupid man, who was going to build a masonry wall. He had some sacks, well a lot of sacks, of mortar delivered.b the sacks were set on pallets in the street. It was summer time. An environmental inspected came by and said, "oh it may rain and some of that mortar may wash into the river." The State imposed a $250,000 fine. Even though it's never actually rained during that month of the year in recorded history. The client appealed the administrative fine. When the appeal came before the Board, the Board told my client that since he had appealed and not just paid the fine, the Board doubled the fine to $500,000. The the State Agency turned the case over to the EPA which imposed its own $500,000 fine. $1,000,000 that was then passed to the new homes being built for literally nothing except the emotional satisfaction of the religious zealots running the agencies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


Even though this is quoting Hillbilly, it's actually a response to Jif1961. You want to actually see a rolling back the clock, look at the statement above. When was it legal to dump any industrial waste into a waterway of the United States? It's just not legal but the idea of it is still used to emotionally browbeat us all into accepting the religion that the EPA protects.

The Clean Water act was first adopted in 1972 with major revisions made all of the time. A huge revision in the 90's. So in order to argue your point...or actually hillbillies point, you have to roll the clock back to 1972...nearly half a century.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


Even though this is quoting Hillbilly, it's actually a response to Jif1961. You want to actually see a rolling back the clock, look at the statement above. When was it legal to dump any industrial waste into a waterway of the United States? It's just not legal but the idea of it is still used to emotionally browbeat us all into accepting the religion that the EPA protects.

The Clean Water act was first adopted in 1972 with major revisions made all of the time. A huge revision in the 90's. So in order to argue your point...or actually hillbillies point, you have to roll the clock back to 1972...nearly half a century.

So how far are we going to roll it back?

Are we going to be conservatives who tell people to clean up their own fucking mess or are we going to be liberals and have to raise taxes so that those poor people (corps are people remember) don't have to clean up after themselves?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Anyway, bottom line point for the present is

1) The Clean Air / Clean Water regulations have improved the environment considerably
2) Getting rid of them is a bad idea.

If you want to tweak them instead, awesome.

3) The Clean Air /Clean Water acts are now all governed a if they are a religion. Worship of Mother Earth. That has to stop.

I had a client, albeit a stupid man, who was going to build a masonry wall. He had some sacks, well a lot of sacks, of mortar delivered.b the sacks were set on pallets in the street. It was summer time. An environmental inspected came by and said, "oh it may rain and some of that mortar may wash into the river." The State imposed a $250,000 fine. Even though it's never actually rained during that month of the year in recorded history. The client appealed the administrative fine. When the appeal came before the Board, the Board told my client that since he had appealed and not just paid the fine, the Board doubled the fine to $500,000. The the State Agency turned the case over to the EPA which imposed its own $500,000 fine. $1,000,000 that was then passed to the new homes being built for literally nothing except the emotional satisfaction of the religious zealots running the agencies.

You're discussing state agencies here.

The EPA is a federal agency.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Anyway, bottom line point for the present is

1) The Clean Air / Clean Water regulations have improved the environment considerably
2) Getting rid of them is a bad idea.

If you want to tweak them instead, awesome.

3) The Clean Air /Clean Water acts are now all governed a if they are a religion. Worship of Mother Earth. That has to stop.

I had a client, albeit a stupid man, who was going to build a masonry wall. He had some sacks, well a lot of sacks, of mortar delivered.b the sacks were set on pallets in the street. It was summer time. An environmental inspected came by and said, "oh it may rain and some of that mortar may wash into the river." The State imposed a $250,000 fine. Even though it's never actually rained during that month of the year in recorded history. The client appealed the administrative fine. When the appeal came before the Board, the Board told my client that since he had appealed and not just paid the fine, the Board doubled the fine to $500,000. The the State Agency turned the case over to the EPA which imposed its own $500,000 fine. $1,000,000 that was then passed to the new homes being built for literally nothing except the emotional satisfaction of the religious zealots running the agencies.

quote:

You, obviously, know nothing about which you are speaking. But, hey, why does that surprise me?