# GOP Slaps the EPA upside the head



## Katzndogz (Dec 8, 2011)

Farm dust bill approved in House - The Hill's Floor Action

The House on Thursday approved legislation Republicans said was aimed at ensuring the EPA cannot regulate so-called "farm dust."

The House on Thursday afternoon approved legislation Republicans said was aimed at ensuring that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot regulate so-called "farm dust."

The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, H.R. 1633, which would prevent the EPA from issuing any new rule over the next year that regulates coarse particulate matter, or "nuisance dust," passed in a 268-150 vote. 


Like other environmental bills the GOP has brought forward this year, the bill enjoyed some support from Democrats: 33 voted along with Republicans in favor of the bill.


obama's losing a lot lately.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 8, 2011)

> obama's losing a lot lately



As is the GOP, wasting its time on this nonsense rather than jobs and the economy.


----------



## Mr. H. (Dec 8, 2011)

This "nonsense" is heading off the loss of jobs and a further ruining of the economy.


----------



## westwall (Dec 8, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > obama's losing a lot lately
> 
> 
> 
> As is the GOP, wasting its time on this nonsense rather than jobs and the economy.







Ummm, that's what this bill will do.  Had the EPA been able to regulate this area like they want to, food production costs would have soared.  All costs would have soared and thousands would have been put out of work.  It seems every time you turn around Obama's team is figuring out ways to impoverish this country.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 8, 2011)

westwall said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > obama's losing a lot lately
> ...



yep Obama has not slowed down the offshoring at all.
It is competition with offshore wages that is driving this country down.
Well that and the stupid people in it.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Dec 8, 2011)

Other "nonsense" includes the report that childhood asthma is still increasing and that the same ole air pollution is to blame. Yep, its time we got rid of all regulations because the profits of the 1% is a helluva lot more important than our children's health.


----------



## frazzledgear (Dec 8, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > obama's losing a lot lately
> 
> 
> 
> As is the GOP, wasting its time on this nonsense rather than jobs and the economy.



You are kidding, right?  Do you really not realize what the EPA was getting ready to do to every Mom and Pop farm along with the corporate ones?  Are you really itching to pay even more for the food you eat after the EPA drives up the cost of food production over dust?  You think its possible to limit how much DUST is created while farming?  The only way I know is to stop certain activities like plowing and letting livestock walk around too much. 

The idea that over-regulation can't possibly harm businesses is ludicrous.  Increasing the cost of doing business and increasing the cost of the production of goods and food products must be offset by very real, legitimate benefits that outweigh the proposed increased costs.  In the case of "farm dust" there is no increased benefit to anyone -especially not the small farmers and not consumers who would have taken it right in the shorts on this one.   But yeah, you go ahead and criticize them for making sure the EPA didn't end up increasing your food budget because they out an out of control, power hungry government bureaucracy that thinks their job is to shut down thriving industries in this country by making the cost of doing business untenable.

The ONLY government body given the Constitutional authority to create new law is CONGRESS -not some fucking government bureaucracy filled with assholes who can't be held accountable by the voters for the harm they do this nation that has long outstripped any good they do.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Dec 8, 2011)

hmmm - Interesting 

Imaginary Farm Dust Regulation Banned By House


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2011)

Typical shit from the GOP. The Teabaggers are the stupidest bunch that have ever sat in Congress.


----------



## Mr. H. (Dec 8, 2011)

Nothing like heading 'em off at the pass, Hoss.


----------



## rdean (Dec 8, 2011)

Medscape: Medscape Access

Farmer's lung is a type of hypersensitivity pneumonitis. Hypersensitivity pneumonitis, also known as extrinsic allergic alveolitis, is an immunologically mediated inflammatory disease of the lung involving the terminal airways. The condition is associated with intense or repeated exposure to inhaled biologic dusts. The classic presentation of farmer's lung results from inhalational exposure to thermophilic Actinomyces species and occasionally from exposure to various Aspergillus species.

Farming is currently ranked as one of the top 3 most hazardous occupations, along with construction and mining.


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 9, 2011)

There is no way to stop dust.  It is naturally occurring.   It makes as much sense as passing a law against sunshine because it causes cancer.


----------



## konradv (Dec 9, 2011)

westwall said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > obama's losing a lot lately
> ...



But they would have just been imaginary costs, right?  For them to be real costs there would have to be a real regulation, right?  I'd appreciate a cite to the wording of the proposed regulation.  If it's real, you should be able to supply it, right?  Please, don't ask me to do my own homework.  I don't have time to waste searching for the political version of the Loch Ness monster.


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2011)

luddly.neddite said:


> Other "nonsense" includes the report that childhood asthma is still increasing and that the same ole air pollution is to blame. Yep, its time we got rid of all regulations because the profits of the 1% is a helluva lot more important than our children's health.







Ummmm hate to point this out to you 'cause you're so smart and all, but the dust levels that the EPA is looking to impose are only found in clean rooms.  There is such a thing as reasonable regulation, and then there is the current loons at the EPA who want to classify CO2 as a pollutant (kind of funny there, remove the CO2 and life vanishes, but you have to actually understand science to realise that) and regulated dust to such an extreme level that we would have to import all of our food from overseas.  Oh and even with that their air quality goals could never be met because...well the air blows shit around you know.

Just the crap that blows over from China will negate all the EPA's efforts to stranle dust here.

Yep, that's intelligence for you.  Or the lack thereof.  But, you're a follower of Ned Lud so why am I not surprised.


----------



## konradv (Dec 9, 2011)

westwall said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Other "nonsense" includes the report that childhood asthma is still increasing and that the same ole air pollution is to blame. Yep, its time we got rid of all regulations because the profits of the 1% is a helluva lot more important than our children's health.
> ...



LOL!!!  You just won't stop, will you?  First, you rail against a non-existent regulation and then you level the charge that all CO2 is to be removed!  When does hyper-partisanship become out-and-out lies, hmmmmmmmmm?!?!


----------



## Navy1960 (Dec 9, 2011)

While I admit am not an expert on Farm Dust or it's hazards,  it does appear that any legislation that the House passes  is  but one single step before  it  becomes  a reality. It does seem to me that a bill such as this would need to clear the Senate and the Presidents Desk which it does not appear it will. So given that environment  it would seem to be a prudent thing to make sure your legislation have  appeal not only to your constituants  but  a  large number of  others as well.  Frankly, this  focus on legislation that serves to gin up the base of one's party or the other  much to the chagrin of the rest of the nation is  akin to playing the fiddle while Rome Burns and is no different than a Congress that spends an entire year on healthcare legislation while the economy falls apart around them.


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2011)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > luddly.neddite said:
> ...






The only philosophical ideal I am hyper partisan about is science konny.  I have been a Democrat all my life and support all manner of liberal ideals like gay marriage and drug decriminalization, not to mention health insurance reform and better bank regulations etc.

However, I abhor the prostitution of science for political games and the concentration of power in the hands of the government.  All things which you and your fellow socialists support.

Me hyper partisan?  No.  You and your fellow travellers?  Absolutely.


----------



## Mr. Peepers (Dec 9, 2011)

> However, I abhor the prostitution of science for political games and the concentration of power in the hands of the government. All things which you and your fellow socialists support.



I hate to break it to you, but multinationals like Cargill and Monsanto are behind almost all of the farm legislation passed.  They OWN the government and pay them to pass laws that benefit only them.


----------



## hboats (Dec 9, 2011)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



This is the third thread on this and the third time that I've had to do the liberal's homework for them.  This was a very REAL proposal by the EPA.

FR Doc 2010-16490

There is nothing "imaginary" about this proposal.

Rick


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 9, 2011)

Typical Tea Bagging legislation

Passin laws against a nonexistent threat


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2011)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > However, I abhor the prostitution of science for political games and the concentration of power in the hands of the government. All things which you and your fellow socialists support.
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break it to you, but multinationals like Cargill and Monsanto are behind almost all of the farm legislation passed.  They OWN the government and pay them to pass laws that benefit only them.






Agreed, that's why I don't want the EPA doing the same for those companies competitors.
Any legislation of that sort is going to do nothing but harm the average American citizen, hence they should ALL be denied.


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Typical Tea Bagging legislation
> 
> Passin laws against a nonexistent threat






Typical rightwinger brain dead comment.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 9, 2011)

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Typical Tea Bagging legislation
> ...



Show where the EPA had planned regulation against "Farm Dust"


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...







Here you go bucko...



SUMMARY: On or about June 30, 2010, the Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards (OAQPS) of EPA is making available for public comment a 
draft document: Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate 
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards--Second External Review 
Draft. This draft document will serve to ``bridge the gap'' between the 
scientific information and the judgments required of the Administrator 
in determining whether it is appropriate to retain or revise the 
standards as part of the review of the national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM).

DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before August 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0492, by one of the following methods:
Regulations.gov Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) 
to a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
0492.
     Fax: Fax your comments to 202-566-9744, Attention Docket 
ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492.
     Mail: Send your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket and 
Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: EPA 
Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0492. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at Regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
Regulations.gov or e-mail. The Regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through Regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
Regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket


FR Doc 2010-16490


----------



## The Infidel (Dec 9, 2011)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > luddly.neddite said:
> ...





Point out where Westwall was wrong.

He nailed it!


----------



## The Infidel (Dec 9, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> yep Obama has not slowed down the offshoring at all.
> It is competition with offshore wages that is driving this country down.
> Well that and the stupid people in it.



You of all people should not be trying to deflect the fact that this would cost countless jobs due to stricter regs.


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 9, 2011)

westwall said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > obama's losing a lot lately
> ...



This is a BOGUS move by the most anti-environment House of Representatives in American history. By LAW, the EPA has to review regulations to examine effectiveness and see if new technologies are available.


----------



## Chewsters (Dec 9, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > obama's losing a lot lately
> 
> 
> 
> As is the GOP, wasting its time on this nonsense rather than jobs and the economy.



what's sad is they HAVE to waste their time on this because we have a stupid, overzealous and ridiculously over-involved bureaucratic agency.


----------



## The Infidel (Dec 9, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 9, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...








ISA: Integrated Science Assessments | NCEA | US EPA

The Clean Air Act mandates periodic review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six common air pollutants, also referred to as criteria pollutants.

As mandated by the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must periodically review the scientific bases (or criteria) for the various NAAQS by assessing newly available scientific information on a given criteria air pollutant.
*
What is an Integrated Science Assessments?*

Integrated Science Assessments (ISA) are reports that represent a concise evaluation and synthesis of the most policy-relevant science for reviewing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA has set NAAQS for six principal pollutants, which include: ozone, *particulate matter*, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. Called criteria pollutants, these are derived from numerous sources and are considered harmful to public health and the environment.

The ISA accurately reflects the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of identifiable effects on public health which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in ambient air (42 U.S.C. 7408). Because the ISA communicates critical science judgments relevant to the NAAQS review, it forms the scientific foundation for the review of the NAAQS standards. Key information and judgments formerly contained in previously released assessments, referred to as Air Quality Criteria Documents (AQCD), are incorporated in these new ISA assessments. Additional details of the pertinent scientific literature published since the last review, as well as selected older studies of particular interest, are included in a the supporting appendices of the ISA. Thereby the ISA serves to update and revise the evaluation of the scientific evidence available at the time of the previous review of the NAAQS to the newest studies and information.

Lastly, all ISA documents are vetted through a rigorous peer review process, including review by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Council and public comment periods.


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...






And their OWN scientists have told them that their proposed regulations will do nothing.  Do try and keep up.


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 9, 2011)

westwall said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The proposed regulations would have done a lot.  Outrageous fines for farmers and ranchers, seizing of land.  Closing down productive land.

It wouldn't have done anything to stop dust.  It would have put as big a dent in food production as the environmentalists did in the California central valley when they had the water shut off.


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 10, 2011)

westwall said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



There was NO proposed change to the regulation. It was a REVIEW where changes were DISCUSSED. WTF is going on with you fucking right wing extremists? Now you want to stifle any TALK or debate? You sound like fascists.


----------



## The Infidel (Dec 10, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Oh yeah.... sure 


Whatever


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 10, 2011)

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Hey bucko...WHERE does it say the EPA plans to CHANGE the existing regulation on Particulate Matter? WHERE are the parameters? This is a required REVIEW, which is required BY LAW. You right wing turds should understand what BY LAW means.


----------



## The Infidel (Dec 10, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Hey bucko...WHERE does it say the EPA plans to CHANGE the existing regulation on Particulate Matter? WHERE are the parameters? This is a required REVIEW, which is required BY LAW. You right wing turds should understand what BY LAW means.



The EPA has already proved they cant be trusted... they are answering to nobody but Obama.

Prove me wrong


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 10, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Hey bucko...WHERE does it say the EPA plans to CHANGE the existing regulation on Particulate Matter? WHERE are the parameters? This is a required REVIEW, which is required BY LAW. You right wing turds should understand what BY LAW means.
> ...



There we go.............Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace

There are no changes to the regulations on Particulate Matter. But we MUST fear-monger. It is the core of conservatism...

Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.


----------



## The Infidel (Dec 10, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Still waiting..... 


Meh, Im bored.

NM


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 10, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



No Einstein. The burden is on YOU to prove the EPA can't be trusted. I'm not your nanny.


----------



## Stephanie (Dec 10, 2011)

luddly.neddite said:


> Other "nonsense" includes the report that childhood asthma is still increasing and that the same ole air pollution is to blame. Yep, its time we got rid of all regulations because the profits of the 1% is a helluva lot more important than our children's health.



good grief, the world is going to end.
these idiots wanted to regulate DUST for crying out loud.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Dec 10, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > obama's losing a lot lately
> 
> 
> 
> As is the GOP, wasting its time on this nonsense rather than jobs and the economy.



This "nonsense" shouldn't have to dealt with.  The EPA has been empowered to issue fiat regulations that destroy jobs and the economy.  This "nonsense" is a prime example of the type of beaurocratic obstruction our bloated government is so fond of inflicting on we the people for no other purpose than they can!  It's good to see Congress doing something to abate this type of overreach.


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 10, 2011)

gallantwarrior said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > obama's losing a lot lately
> ...



Fox News and the right wing talking heads have created a whole mutation of human beings. People with no intelligence, common sense or the ability to decipher propaganda from truth.

YOU are one of them.


----------



## Full-Auto (Dec 10, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Tissue? Kotex?  A feelings coach perhaps?


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...







Hey dilfod, what does this section of the release mean....in ENGLISH?  BTW I highlighted the relevent word for you based on your minimal understanding of said language.

"retain or revise the standards as part of the review of the national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM)."


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...






Actually you and your ilk are the ones that conistently are shown to have no ability to understand simple things.  It's fools like you who allowed the CARB to impose MTBE on the citizens of California with its attendent billions in environmental damage and poisoning of thousands of water wells all over the state.  All of this after WE presented all manner of evidence to show it would occur.


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 10, 2011)

westwall said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Here is your word for the day...*OR*

Wouldn't a review of a regulation require that review's final conclusion to either retain OR revise that regulation? It could revise it to lower restrictions.

This is BOGUS westfall. It is a review. The Clean Air Act REQUIRES these reviews. The Republicans are LYING to you.


----------



## Navy1960 (Dec 10, 2011)

*The United States currently pays around $20 billion per year to farmers in direct subsidies *as "farm income stabilization"[9][10][11] via U.S. farm bills. These bills pre-date the economic turmoil of the Great Depression with the 1922 Grain Futures Act, the 1929 Agricultural Marketing Act and the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act creating a tradition of government support.

The beneficiaries of the subsidies have changed as agriculture in the United States has changed. In the 1930s, about 25% of the country's population resided on the nation's 6,000,000 small farms. By 1997, 157,000 large farms accounted for 72% of farm sales, with only 2% of the U.S. population residing on farms. In 2006, the top 3 states receiving subsidies were Texas (10.4%), Iowa (9.0%), and Illinois (7.6%). The Total USDA Subsidies from farms in Iowa totaled $1,212,000,000 in 2006.[12] From 2003 to 2005 the top 1% of beneficiaries received 17% of subsidy payments.[12] In Texas, 72% of farms do not receive government subsidies. Of the close to $1.4 Billion in subsidy payments to farms in Texas, roughly 18% of the farms receive a portion of the payments
Agricultural subsidy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and beyond factions. It has become a common cause of all the people of this country. It is a cause of particular concern to young Americans, because they more than we will reap the grim consequences of our failure to act on programs which are needed now if we are to prevent disaster later.

Clean air, clean water, open spaces--these should once again be the birthright of every American. If we act now, they can be.

*We still think of air as free. But clean air is not free, and neither is clean water. The price tag on pollution control is high. Through our years of past carelessness we incurred a debt to nature, and now that debt is being called.*
Richard Nixon 1970  Republican


Just as a point here, while I feel some  some sympathy for  farmers  who struggle due to many factors  among them unfair  trade which is  killing American Agriculture, one only need to go to the local produce Isle at the grocery store to understand that most of it is not produced here in this nation any longer.  Having said that, there needs to be a fair balance between the environment and the needs of the  American people and  I submit we can do both and  prosper and to condemn an agency that has been set up for the purpose of protecting the environment we live in serves  no useful purpose  towards that.


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...







The clean air act does not require REVISING moron.  That is the verbiage the EPA used.  Understand it. It means what it says even though you CHOOSE to ignore what it, and basic ENGLISH mean.


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2011)

Navy1960 said:


> *The United States currently pays around $20 billion per year to farmers in direct subsidies *as "farm income stabilization"[9][10][11] via U.S. farm bills. These bills pre-date the economic turmoil of the Great Depression with the 1922 Grain Futures Act, the 1929 Agricultural Marketing Act and the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act creating a tradition of government support.
> 
> The beneficiaries of the subsidies have changed as agriculture in the United States has changed. In the 1930s, about 25% of the country's population resided on the nation's 6,000,000 small farms. By 1997, 157,000 large farms accounted for 72% of farm sales, with only 2% of the U.S. population residing on farms. In 2006, the top 3 states receiving subsidies were Texas (10.4%), Iowa (9.0%), and Illinois (7.6%). The Total USDA Subsidies from farms in Iowa totaled $1,212,000,000 in 2006.[12] From 2003 to 2005 the top 1% of beneficiaries received 17% of subsidy payments.[12] In Texas, 72% of farms do not receive government subsidies. Of the close to $1.4 Billion in subsidy payments to farms in Texas, roughly 18% of the farms receive a portion of the payments
> Agricultural subsidy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...








Restoration of destroyed land is definately a needed thing.  However, money that could be used to do it is squandered in mindless endeavors that so far have enriched friends of the pres but have actually done nothing for the people of the US, nor the ground they live on.

One thing that is plain to see but, which the liberal environmentalist doesn't understand, is
so long as man lives he will have an impact on the land around him.  The more wealthy man becomes the LESS impact he has on the planet.

Modern coal plants cause far less environmental damage then the cleanest solar plant by far.  The reason is the horrible toxins that are used in the creation of the solar panels.  Those remain after the manufacturing is done and because most of those plants are overseas (in Third World countries so they only kill brown people, so it's OK) you don't see the environmental damage they do.  Thus the "out of sight, out of mind" mentality exhibited by environmentalists the world over.

For the planet to do better there is a simple way.  Find the most efficient method of generating the energy we need.  At this time, fossil fuel powered plants are orders of magnitude more efficient then the best "green" energy systems.  Only nuclear has the same levels of efficiency but they too have their problems.

The only other way to deal with mans incessant need for power is the enviro's other alternative which is namely kill enough people and it won't matter anymore.  That too has been advocated, most recently in bald form by Jaques Cousteau who famously uttered "we need to start killing about 325,000 people a day" to reign in his percieved overpopulation problem.

Frankly, I'm not willing to murder people for soem nebulous goal like that.  There are better ways, more reasonable ways to get to that point.  It just requires work and most environmentalists don't like to have to work.


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 10, 2011)

westwall said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



westfall, are you really going to take this tact? It is perfectly clear, in *English*:

"determining whether it is appropriate to retain or revise the standards as part of the review of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM)."

*Determine*
_verb_
1. to settle or decide (a dispute, question, etc.) by an authoritative or conclusive decision.
2. to conclude or ascertain, as after reasoning, observation, etc.

*whether*
_conjunction_
Definition: 	either
Synonyms: if 

*Retain*
_verb_
1. to keep possession of.
2. to continue to use, practice, etc.: to retain an old custom. 
*
or*
_conjunction_
Definition: 	a suggestion of choice 

*Revise*
_verb_
1. to amend or alter: to revise one's opinion.


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...







Yes, I can bandy English with you all day long.  It's a useless waste of time as well.  Only a disingenuous person (such as yourself) would see the efforts of the EPA to regulate everything under the sun and think they, in their infinite kindness, have no design on doing the same here.


I get it, you're partisan hack who thinks they do no wrong.  

verb (used with object) 
1. 
to amend or alter: to revise one's opinion. 

2. 
to alter something already written or printed, in order to make corrections, improve, or update: to revise a manuscript. 

3. 
British . to review (previously studied materials) in preparation for an examination. 

noun 
4. 
an act of revising. 

5. 
a revised form of something; revision. 

6. 
Printing . a proof sheet taken after alterations have been made, for further examination or correction.


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 10, 2011)

westwall said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



WOW, you just lost all credibility with me westfall. What would make someone be as dishonest as you are on this phoney bill? You were lied to. This was a strictly political stunt by a bunch of teapublicans who are wasting taxpayers money writing ultra partisan bogus bills. 

What is truly sad, there is NOTHING these teapublicans can do that will draw your condemnation. If they told you children were a threat to America, you'd be right here parroting whatever the tell you. I recall you used to claim you are a geologist. What a fucking liar.


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...







What is sad is you've never heard of a defensive strike, (which is what this is) here is what is out there.  I grant you that there probably wasn't anything coming down the pike.  However, the EPA has strayed so far off the reservation that the Repubs and Ag state  Dems felt the need to control them preemptively.  

Just look up the CO2 regs they have in place that Obama told them to put on the shelf for now.  You see he figured (rightly) that if they were implemented he didn't have a chance in hell of being re-elected.

Objections



In a letter to the EPA dated July 23, 2010, 21 U.S. senators argued that tougher standards for allowable particulates would be difficult for farmers to meet, and could hurt rural economies. The letter urged the EPA to use "common sense" in revising its rules, stating that "excessive dust control measures...could slow economic development and impose significant costs to farmers and businesses."

As of September 2010, it is unclear whether the EPA will leave the current standard unchanged, reduce the allowable limit by roughly 50 percent (per the informal proposal made during the review process), or reduce the limit by some smaller percentage.



Read more: EPA Regulations on Rural Dust | eHow.com EPA Regulations on Rural Dust | eHow.com


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 10, 2011)

westwall said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



This was a review the Clean Air Act REQUIRES. There were no proposed changes. And, the teapublican bill is not 'a defensive strike', it is an ATTACK on the Clean Air Act. 

The bill, deceptively labeled &#8220;Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act,&#8221; would radically undermine the bipartisan Clean Air Act protections that have been in place for decades. The bill creates a new category of pollution called &#8220;nuisance dust&#8221; which it exempts entirely from the Act,  &#8216;nuisance dust&#8217; is a made-up term that has no basis in established science. Under this legislation, particulate pollution from open-pit mines, mine processing plants, sand mines, lead smelters and cement kilns would be exempted from the Clean Air Act. These facilities emit course and fine particulates, arsenic, lead, mercury and other toxic substances.&#8221; 

The only EPA that was out of control was the Bush EPA; the WORSE environmental president in history. The Obama EPA is trying to undo the damage. But Bush so severely disabled the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act that many polluter will NEVER be forced to abate their toxic emissions...EVER. Back in 2002, the top three enforcers at EPA, Sylvia Lowrance, Bruce Buckheit, and Eric Schaeffer, all resigned their jobs in protest of the Bush policies. I saw two of them interviewed on an HBO documentary. They said the changes Bush pushed through will result in the premature DEATH of 100,000 Americans. The cock sucker Bush should be HUNG. And MORONS like you are too fucking stupid to know your ass from a hole in the ground.  These weren't Democrats. These were people who had served through the Reagan and Bush administrations, the earlier Bush administration.

Even the Republicans For Environmental Protection called out Bush. Educate yourself you fucking little moron LIAR:






*Bush's sorry environmental record*

The following op-ed was published in the Concord (NH) Monitor on September 23, 2004

by RUSSELL E. TRAIN, a REP America member in Washington, DC,
and RICK RUSSMAN, a REP America member in New Hampshire

Except in a few instances, the environmental policies of the Bush administration are a disgrace.

As lifelong Republicans who have worked for decades to protect and restore clean air and clean water, we find the turning back of the environmental clock by this administration profoundly disturbing. And New Hampshire suffers from these backward policies.

Republican President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. In his 1970 State of the Union message, he called the environmental cause "as fundamental as life itself." With bipartisan leadership in Congress, Nixon initiated many of the environmental protections we enjoy today.

Republican President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act of 1990, one of the most protective environmental statutes.

Unfortunately, President George W. Bush's administration is reversing course from 30 years of bipartisan leadership to protect our health and environment.

The administration's policies to promote energy, mining and timber interests with little regard for the interests of common citizens represent a throwback to an era of exploitation. The administration's assault on the environment has increased pollution and health threats in New Hampshire, according to a report by Environment2004.

The administration weakened the Clean Air Act to allow aging power plants to continue spewing sulfur, mercury and other contaminants into the skies. These end up in New Hampshire's air and waters. This pollution from Midwestern power plants and other sources forms smog that threatens the 65,000 New Hampshire residents who suffer from asthma. It falls as acid rain that damages New Hampshire's forests and waters.

Mercury pollution has forced New Hampshire to establish a fish consumption advisory that covers all its lakes and rivers. Infants, children, pregnant women and women of child-bearing age are particularly vulnerable to mercury. Mercury affects a child's ability to learn, most notably impairing memory, attention and fine motor function.

New Hampshire's drinking water is threatened by the Bush administration. Fifteen percent of New Hampshire's public water supplies and thousands of its private wells are contaminated by the fuel additive MtBE. Recent studies show that MtBE may cause cancer, and it makes drinking water smell and taste foul even at low levels, yet the administration has not banned its use.

To pay for the cleanup of this contamination, New Hampshire sued 22 oil companies responsible for MtBE contamination. Nonetheless, the Bush administration's energy bill would block these suits and force New
Hampshire taxpayers to foot the bill for cleaning up the state's contaminated drinking water. The industry contributed $338,000 to the Bush presidential campaign and Republican congressional candidates in 1999 and 2000.

Republican Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu fervently oppose this policy.

The administration has adopted these and other policies based on the advice of its industry allies instead of the EPA's scientists and experts. Its proposed mercury policy would delay significant mercury reduction until 2018. This was lifted from the utility industry's recommendations while the administration ignored the EPA's children's health protection experts.

This is but one example of the administration disregarding scientific guidance - a radical change from previous Republican and Democratic administrations.

The scientific community is alarmed by the Bush administration's widespread rejection of sound science. The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nationwide organization of eminent scientists declared: "When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions."More recently, 48 Nobel Prize-winning scientists wrote in an open letter to the American people that the administration "has ignored unbiased scientific advice in the policy-making that is so important to our collective welfare."

There was no mandate in the 2000 election to weaken and undo our environmental and public health protections. In this year's election, environmental policy needs a full public debate.

We do not believe that turning back the clock or simply maintaining the status quo is a sufficient response for the road ahead. The candidates should do at least as well in responding to the planet's realities in
2004 as Richard Nixon did in 1970.

How do the candidates propose to slow global climate change and reduce our dependence on foreign oil? How will their environmental policies protect our children's health and America's natural resources that are vital to the health of our economy?

These are issues the candidates must address. The American people deserve nothing less.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Russell E. Train was the administrator of the EPA during the Nixon and Ford administrations. Rick Russman, a Republican, is on the board of the National Environmental Trust and chairs the Granite State Conservation Voters Alliance. He was a state senator for 10 years and served as chairman of the Senate Environmental Committee. Both are long-time members of REP America.

Concord Monitor... 



Clearing the Air
*Why I quit Bush's EPA.*

By Eric Schaeffer


"We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." 
Lakota Sioux Proverb


----------



## gallantwarrior (Dec 11, 2011)

BUSH did it!  BUSH did it!  BUSH did it!
Crumbs off a cracker, can't you come up with _anything_ more original than that?


----------



## thetor (Dec 11, 2011)

gallantwarrior said:


> BUSH did it!  BUSH did it!  BUSH did it!
> Crumbs off a cracker, can't you come up with _anything_ more original than that?


  Are you from the cabin  tor


----------



## Stephanie (Dec 11, 2011)

I hope the next administration puts the brakes on the EPA and a lot of other agencies that are OVERSTEPPING their bounds.

They are killing our jobs and our country with their ridiculous crap like wanting to regulate DUST of all things.


----------



## konradv (Dec 11, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> I hope the next administration puts the brakes on the EPA and a lot of other agencies that are OVERSTEPPING their bounds.
> 
> They are killing our jobs and our country with their ridiculous crap like wanting to regulate DUST of all things.



LOL!!!  Lost the argument, so it's back to the original false statement!!!  Any wonder the current crop of CONS should be shown the door next November?


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 11, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> I hope the next administration puts the brakes on the EPA and a lot of other agencies that are OVERSTEPPING their bounds.
> 
> They are killing our jobs and our country with their ridiculous crap like wanting to regulate DUST of all things.



Yea, the "jobs" bills the current House of Mis-representatives contrived would create thousands of jobs for undertakers, grave diggers and chemotherapy technicians.


----------



## Stephanie (Dec 11, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > I hope the next administration puts the brakes on the EPA and a lot of other agencies that are OVERSTEPPING their bounds.
> ...



Well then...stop friggen breathing. 
my gawd. do you people have ANY control over your own lives.


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 11, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



OK, you first and I will follow...promise


----------



## BOBO (Dec 11, 2011)

...are coming to a close RAPIDLY.  Today's youth cannot understand them & nobody can trust them.  EPA... rest in peace!





Katzndogz said:


> Farm dust bill approved in House - The Hill's Floor Action
> 
> The House on Thursday approved legislation Republicans said was aimed at ensuring the EPA cannot regulate so-called "farm dust."
> 
> ...


----------



## Stephanie (Dec 11, 2011)

This administration's EPA is DANGERIOUS to us citizens.

now they are INTERFERING in our FOOD production, FARMS. 

regulating DUST, are you friggen serious..

you people better WAKE THE HELL UP


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 11, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> This administration's EPA is DANGERIOUS to us citizens.
> 
> now they are INTERFERING in our FOOD production, FARMS.
> 
> ...



Here is your only problem...the EPA has had particulate-dust pollution standards since 1987, AND...the EPA is NOT changing the regulations 

Why are you right wingers so fucking stupid?


----------



## Stephanie (Dec 11, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > This administration's EPA is DANGERIOUS to us citizens.
> ...



why are you so nasty?
what you posted is enough REASON to shut down the EPA. they are a bunch of IDIOTS and are now overstepping their positions with enacting OUTLANDISH regulations that is hurting JOBS and our COUNTRY. And this administations EPA is the WORST


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 11, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Yea, this EPA has a lot of nerve. WHY the fuck are they trying to protect the environment? They should be protecting the polluters like the Bush EPA! So WHAT if the Clean Air Act prevents 230,000 deaths, 3.2 million lost school days, and 13 million lost work days a year. Those people will die anyway, why draw it out!

And the benefits of the Clean Air Act, including savings in medical expenses and increased worker productivity, are 30 times greater than its cost of implementation, and the benefits of regulation, more generally, also have been shown to exceed costs. Not inconsequentially, clean-air (and other) regulations also provide us with a cleaner, healthier natural environment.

Fucking Obama, how DARE he stop Republicans from thinning out the population and exterminate the low life common folks...


----------



## westwall (Dec 11, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...






And yet, the most damaging assault on the environement in the last 20 years was instigated by the California Air Resources Board which forced MTBE into the gasoline as an oxygenate (to help clean the air) over the concerns of scientists state wide that said there would serious problems with the addative.

  Your  side ignored all the evidence and did it anyway.  Now, thousands of water wells have been poisoned all over the state of CA, and untold billions in environmental damage were done.  All in the name of clean air.  Sound familiar?

After 10 years the destruction became so obvious that they could no longer sweep it under the rug and they were FORCED to rescind the regs.  It looks like the Republican congress is making sure that something equally moronic doesn't occur nationwide.

It seems that if you truly cared about the environment you would actually learn about it.  Instead you and your ilk, scream, panic, and pass legislation that does more harm then the problem you were trying to fix.

Then when the damage is pointed out to you you say "well our intentions were good" and you think all should be forgiven.  Guess what, you're not 5 years old anymore.  You have to take responsibility for you actions.

Grow up.


----------



## freedombecki (Dec 11, 2011)

westwall said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


Why am I not surprised that greenies who would obfuscate important climate information to tap into government funding all over the world would proffer an additive that poisons water because it seemed to alleviate air pollution?

You're not supposed to remind lefties of their egregious errors, because they all go away when you do and dig up something else with which to destroy American business and the free enterprise system.


----------



## The Gadfly (Dec 11, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


No, all we want to do, is impose some degree of control and accountability on an out-of-control, mostly unaccountable, and power-hungry bureaucracy.

I grew up on the farm; farming raises a lot of dust sometimes, and I can't say it ever hurt any of us. But, it's like anything else out here in rural America-damn city people, who don't live on the land, or work it or conserve it themselves, wanting to tell us how to live , and impose one-size-fits-all government regulations, on something the vast majority of them (and their faceless, mindless bureaucrats) know nothing about. Most of us out here in flyover country love the land; and even though you think we are ignorant hicks, we know how to take care of it, too. Now why don't you citified liberals stay the hell out of our business, and stay in those antheaps you call cities. Be less trouble that way; we don't want to go there, and we don't want you (or your damn government bureaucrats) out here!


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 12, 2011)

westwall said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



I don't take anything you say as truthful. Provide links with detailed proof of your accusations. California was also the first state to ban MTBE under Gray Davis.

Also, it's clear you didn't read the op-ed I posted from Republicans For Environmental Protection.

Excerpt:

New Hampshire's drinking water is threatened by the Bush administration. Fifteen percent of New Hampshire's public water supplies and thousands of its private wells are contaminated by the fuel additive MtBE. Recent studies show that MtBE may cause cancer, and it makes drinking water smell and taste foul even at low levels, yet the administration has not banned its use.

To pay for the cleanup of this contamination, New Hampshire sued 22 oil companies responsible for MtBE contamination. Nonetheless, the Bush administration's energy bill would block these suits and force New Hampshire taxpayers to foot the bill for cleaning up the state's contaminated drinking water. The industry contributed $338,000 to the Bush presidential campaign and Republican congressional candidates in 1999 and 2000.


----------



## westwall (Dec 12, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...







Here you go.  Enjoy the read there's a lot of it as this is quite literally the tip of the iceberg.  The funny thing is, now if you go to the CARB website they proclaim to the heavens how they were instrumental in removing it from gasoline in CA.  However, when you go back you see they were THE PRIMARY driver to get it added to the gasoline.  To make things worse.  They were doing it at the behest of Chevron.  

You see Chevron had to pay large quantities of money to dispose of the MTBE which was a by-product of the refining process.  They were able to convince some worthless bureaucrats in Sacramento that adding MTBE to the gas would be a great idea.  That way Chevron got to get paid for something that they had had to pay to get rid of.  The first thing up is a LA Times article from 1997 when Chevron finally had to start admitting that it was a terribly destructive additive.  I have highlighted the folks attempting to KEEP it in the fuel....





Chevron Seeks to Stop Using Additive MTBE

California and the West 

Environment: Company says the agent does little to reduce air pollution and is a threat to water supplies.

December 03, 1997|DAN MORAIN | TIMES STAFF WRITER

SACRAMENTO &#8212; In a significant reversal, Chevron Corp. and a leading oil industry group are taking steps to stop using a key additive in gasoline that helps cut smog, oil company executives said Tuesday.

Just a few months ago, the oil industry, the California Air Resources Board and even some environmentalists mounted a major lobbying effort against legislation to ban the additive MTBE.
Tuesday's statements come amid mounting concern that although MTBE may help clean California's air, it is leaking from gasoline storage tanks, mixing with ground water and threatening to pollute drinking water.

Doug Henderson, executive director of the Glendale-based Western States Petroleum Assn., said Tuesday that his group is backing federal legislation by Rep. Brian P. Bilbray (R-San Diego) that would permit California refiners to omit MTBE from gasoline, so long as clean air standards still can be met.

"The proclamations about the dangers of MTBE are exaggerated, but we don't want to be complacent about any [water] contamination," said Henderson, whose group represents major oil firms."




Chevron Seeks to Stop Using Additive MTBE - Los Angeles Times

Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) | US EPA

MTBE

MTBE Definition Page

MTBE in Drinking Water


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 13, 2011)

westwall said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You have not established ANY of your claims. What you emote does not qualify as proof.

BTW, didn't Gov. Pete Wilson apply political pressure to CARB to pass the MTBE regulation?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Dec 23, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Hey, Toby, we conservatives have been following this matter for months.  You are staggeringly ignorant.  That's all.  See Westfall's post.


----------



## newpolitics (Dec 23, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



why are you so shortsighted? The EPA is not to protect jobs. That implies they are protecting industry. They are protecting humans from themselves, from destroying the resource that brings us life: the earth. Don't be so godamn arrogant in terms of your attitude towards this Earth.  The EPA is in bed the major corporations, yet you act like they hinder them. You obviously have no idea of the corruption that is inherent in helping the major, big polluters. All you worry about is human jobs. We are not everything. Our Earth is more important, so that generations to come can enjoy it.


----------



## rdean (Dec 23, 2011)

The EPA's "dust" regulation is now firmly parked in the same bin with, "Obama took a trip costing 200 million dollars a day" and "Freddie/Fannie was behind the economic meltdown" and "Obama wanted to let terrorists go free in your backyard".


----------



## westwall (Dec 23, 2011)

newpolitics said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...







Then why did you allow the California version of the EPA to poison all those water wells?  That killed far more critters then bad quality air ever did.  And a hell of a lot quicker as well.


----------



## blastoff (Dec 27, 2011)

Got no problem slapping the EPA up side the head now and then, but what's needed is a well timed kick in the nuts once in a while.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Dec 27, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > obama's losing a lot lately
> 
> 
> 
> As is the GOP, wasting its time on this nonsense rather than jobs and the economy.


It is the idiot EPA and their stupid regulations that is stiffling the job market. Goo for the GOP!!!!


----------



## HoosierJoe (Dec 27, 2011)

EPA is yet another government entity we don't need.  Along with the dept of Edumacation.


----------



## Navy1960 (Dec 28, 2011)

*ED currently administers a budget of $69.9 billion in discretionary appropriations (including discretionary Pell Grant funding) *under the FY 2011 Continuing Resolution annualized level and operates programs that touch on every area and level of education. The Department's elementary and secondary programs annually serve nearly 14,000 school districts and approximately 56 million students attending some 99,000 public schools and 34,000 private schools.* Department programs also provide grant, loan, and work-study assistance to more than 15 million postsecondary students*.
U.S. Department of Education Budget Office

*The $382 billion F-35 Joint Strike fighter program may well be the largest single global defense program in history.* This major multinational program is intended to produce an &#8220;affordably stealthy&#8221;
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: 2009-2010

Lets  put this in a little  perspective here, the Department of  Educations budget  is less than that of just one single  DOD aircraft  acquisition program and  more so it is less so by far.   If  the  opinion is  to get rid of  the  Department of Education and give it back to the states who already have  budget issues themselves  then the question becomes, if we as a nation wish to compete in an ever increasing  technology marketplace that requires   engineers, doctors, math disciplines, computer science. and many other disciplines,  then are we citizens willing to accept local tax hikes in our property taxes to pay for  our schooling, or  are  we willing to accept  a second class status.  The budget of  the Department of  Education is a small price to pay for the return we get on educating our children and perhaps  rather than advocate for its demise  in order to save money the best approach would be to advocate that they work smarter  and advocate for lowering the cost of educating our children.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 28, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Why did he give money to Petrobas then? While blocking Keystone?


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 28, 2011)

Oh and btw I love the smell of farm dust and cow shit in the morning.

It's quite lovely compared to being at a freaking bus station at Yorkdale Mall with all those horrid fumes coming at you.


----------



## lizzie (Dec 28, 2011)

luddly.neddite said:


> Other "nonsense" includes the report that childhood asthma is still increasing and that the same ole air pollution is to blame. Yep, its time we got rid of all regulations because the profits of the 1% is a helluva lot more important than our children's health.


 
Hon- that 1% that you so hate and envy is the reason we can even afford to have all these children covered by medical insurance. Sorry to break it to you, but the wealthy are covering the bills these days.


----------

