Getting Rid of the EPA

[ClosedCaption]

You want to eat an apple sprayed with a layer of that shit?

Layer of what shit?

Spraying shit on plants that COULD prevent frostbite.

We don't need to prevent frostbite. Global warming remember.

Everyone had there reasons but no one wants theor plants sprayed with that shit. I don't see how being against it is a bad thing like the OP suggests.

I don't mind....so please, stop speaking for me....

"I don't mind"....that's the weakest endorsement ever. You don't have to lie.

 

[martybegan]

Then it requires fixing, not scrapping.

Fix it how? It doesn't work. You can't fix something that doesn't work.

Even if they found a way to fix it, how many more millions would that cost us?

The problem with all this environmental crap is that it's an bottomless money pit. There isn't enough cash to fill that pit even if you took every dollar away from every American today. That's because no matter how many trillions you throw at it, there will always be room for more improvement.

Try this: ask any environmentalist what it would take before they would back down? How much money would they need and what would their satisfactory standards be? You'll be met with a blank stare.

We've been trying to improve the environment my entire life. And after the trillions of dollars we spent on the environment, the environmentalists are unhappier today than they were 40 years ago. It's what I call Ray from Cleveland's environmental rule: You can't make an environmentalist happy--it's just not possible.

Then get the EPA out of the hands of the Environmentalists, and into the hands of Engineers, who you know, actually are trained to implement things like water, air and soil treatments.

If we get it out of the hands of the EPA, then what do we need an EPA for?

Let those engineers testify before Congress, and then Congress decides if new legislation is needed--not a bunch of bureaucrats.

You still need people to implement policy, the issue is the implementers have become the policy makers.

They shouldn't be implementing anything that involves fines, taxes or laws. They don't have the constitutional authority to do that; Congress does.

Congress can give them the power to do so through legislation. The issue is they expand their legislative mandate without going back to congress.

 

[bripat9643]

This article deals with Trump's nominee to head up the agency in order to do away with it. It's written by someone who went to work for the agency with a scientific background and desire to “clean things up.” Here is just one quote:

During the two decades since I left government service, I’ve continued to watch the EPA’s shenanigans with a mixture of awe and vexation. Policy by policy and decision by decision, the EPA has decimated the nation’s competitiveness, ability to innovate, and capacity to create wealth. Its policies and decisions have single-handedly killed off entire once-promising sectors of biotechnology, including bioremediation (the use of microorganisms to clean up toxic wastes, including oil spills) and microorganisms that when sprayed on plants could prevent frost damage.

Read more at: Scott Pruitt Abolish EPA? He Might — and Should | National Review

You want to eat an apple sprayed with a layer of that shit?

Layer of what shit?

Spraying shit on plants that COULD prevent frostbite.

We don't need to prevent frostbite. Global warming remember.

Everyone had there reasons but no one wants theor plants sprayed with that shit. I don't see how being against it is a bad thing like the OP suggests.

Bullshit. If given a choice between produce that is frostbitten and produce that is in perfect condition, you will choose the later. Almost everyone does.

 

[bripat9643]

Fix it how? It doesn't work. You can't fix something that doesn't work.

Even if they found a way to fix it, how many more millions would that cost us?

The problem with all this environmental crap is that it's an bottomless money pit. There isn't enough cash to fill that pit even if you took every dollar away from every American today. That's because no matter how many trillions you throw at it, there will always be room for more improvement.

Try this: ask any environmentalist what it would take before they would back down? How much money would they need and what would their satisfactory standards be? You'll be met with a blank stare.

We've been trying to improve the environment my entire life. And after the trillions of dollars we spent on the environment, the environmentalists are unhappier today than they were 40 years ago. It's what I call Ray from Cleveland's environmental rule: You can't make an environmentalist happy--it's just not possible.

Then get the EPA out of the hands of the Environmentalists, and into the hands of Engineers, who you know, actually are trained to implement things like water, air and soil treatments.

If we get it out of the hands of the EPA, then what do we need an EPA for?

Let those engineers testify before Congress, and then Congress decides if new legislation is needed--not a bunch of bureaucrats.

You still need people to implement policy, the issue is the implementers have become the policy makers.

They shouldn't be implementing anything that involves fines, taxes or laws. They don't have the constitutional authority to do that; Congress does.

Congress can give them the power to do so through legislation. The issue is they expand their legislative mandate without going back to congress.

No regulation should ever become law without a vote of Congress.

 

[martybegan]

Then get the EPA out of the hands of the Environmentalists, and into the hands of Engineers, who you know, actually are trained to implement things like water, air and soil treatments.

If we get it out of the hands of the EPA, then what do we need an EPA for?

Let those engineers testify before Congress, and then Congress decides if new legislation is needed--not a bunch of bureaucrats.

You still need people to implement policy, the issue is the implementers have become the policy makers.

They shouldn't be implementing anything that involves fines, taxes or laws. They don't have the constitutional authority to do that; Congress does.

Congress can give them the power to do so through legislation. The issue is they expand their legislative mandate without going back to congress.

No regulation should ever become law without a vote of Congress.

I agree 100%.

 

[owebo]

Layer of what shit?

Spraying shit on plants that COULD prevent frostbite.

We don't need to prevent frostbite. Global warming remember.

Everyone had there reasons but no one wants theor plants sprayed with that shit. I don't see how being against it is a bad thing like the OP suggests.

I don't mind....so please, stop speaking for me....

"I don't mind"....that's the weakest endorsement ever. You don't have to lie.

Your education level is sub-par......

And I know you have the individual.....

 

[Jarlaxle]

The EPA has devolved into a fascist democrat cult.....and must be destroyed...

Great! Then we can be like China . Where the air is so polluted , they have shut down cities and planes can't even land !

View attachment 103117

How is that a strawman? You want to eliminate the EPA , which protects the environment.

China is a glaring example of what happens when big biz can pollute all they want in the mane of making money .

Apparently you're not aware that businesses in China are tightly controlled by GOVERNMENT, in other words they have GOVERNMENT permission (i.e. their legal "right" to externalize costs through excessive pollution is protected by GOVERNMENT guns) to pollute at the levels they currently do.

Still want to talk about massive centralized government bureaucracy as a solution to a clean environment? Or should we consider something a bit more rational, like using local enforcement and community action to hold polluters accountable for externalizing their costs? After all it's the people that utilize that environment that have all the incentive and necessary understanding to protect it.

Aren't some of the most contaminated sites in the US owned by the government?

 

[NightFox]

Aren't some of the most contaminated sites in the US owned by the government?

Yep and possibly the most contaminated site in the U.S. is owned by the federal government, specifically the Rocky Mountain Arsenal located near Denver.

 

[Timmy]

How is that a strawman? You want to eliminate the EPA , which protects the environment.

China is a glaring example of what happens when big biz can pollute all they want in the mane of making money .

It's a classic strawman argument. You assume (don't we all know how to spell that?) that businesses will just pollute because they can. Then you use the worst example of an industrial economy, one that hasn't technologically advanced itself into the middle half of the last century, as an example of what Murica would be with no EPA.

And your assertion that the sole role of the EPA is to protect the environment is laughable.

I don't have to assume . History shows us what companies will do when no one is watching them . Even wh the EPA we have all kinds of examples of big biz poisoning us .

Who was watching the EPA when they poluted the Animas?

Your faith in the all knowing bureaucracy needs an evaluation.

Your examples can be addressed at the State level.

Oh great example . The EPA was cleaning up pollution created by mining companies . The contractor they used fucked up causing the polluted water to enter the river .

But if we could just get rid of the EPA , mining companies can go on polluting as they please !

 

[owebo]

How is that a strawman? You want to eliminate the EPA , which protects the environment.

China is a glaring example of what happens when big biz can pollute all they want in the mane of making money .

It's a classic strawman argument. You assume (don't we all know how to spell that?) that businesses will just pollute because they can. Then you use the worst example of an industrial economy, one that hasn't technologically advanced itself into the middle half of the last century, as an example of what Murica would be with no EPA.

And your assertion that the sole role of the EPA is to protect the environment is laughable.

I don't have to assume . History shows us what companies will do when no one is watching them . Even wh the EPA we have all kinds of examples of big biz poisoning us .

Who was watching the EPA when they poluted the Animas?

Your faith in the all knowing bureaucracy needs an evaluation.

Your examples can be addressed at the State level.

Oh great example . The EPA was cleaning up pollution created by mining companies . The contractor they used fucked up causing the polluted water to enter the river .

But if we could just get rid of the EPA , mining companies can go on polluting as they please !

A fake EPA engineer directed the contractor to cause the catastrophe.....

 

[Jarlaxle]

This article deals with Trump's nominee to head up the agency in order to do away with it. It's written by someone who went to work for the agency with a scientific background and desire to “clean things up.” Here is just one quote:

During the two decades since I left government service, I’ve continued to watch the EPA’s shenanigans with a mixture of awe and vexation. Policy by policy and decision by decision, the EPA has decimated the nation’s competitiveness, ability to innovate, and capacity to create wealth. Its policies and decisions have single-handedly killed off entire once-promising sectors of biotechnology, including bioremediation (the use of microorganisms to clean up toxic wastes, including oil spills) and microorganisms that when sprayed on plants could prevent frost damage.

Read more at: Scott Pruitt Abolish EPA? He Might — and Should | National Review

You want to eat an apple sprayed with a layer of that shit?

Did you quote the right post?

 

[NightFox]

But if we could just get rid of the EPA , mining companies can go on polluting as they please !

Uh-Huh.. so we should just keep spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars every year while making the economy less efficient and trampling all over the rights of the citizenry so "mining companies can GO ON polluting as they please", after all if we do away with the EPA who's going to protect these large corporations legal right to GO ON polluting as they please, while protecting them from smaller, less politically well connected competitors?

"Show me the MONEY!" -- Jerry McGuire

 

[ClosedCaption]

You want to eat an apple sprayed with a layer of that shit?

Layer of what shit?

Spraying shit on plants that COULD prevent frostbite.

We don't need to prevent frostbite. Global warming remember.

Everyone had there reasons but no one wants theor plants sprayed with that shit. I don't see how being against it is a bad thing like the OP suggests.

Bullshit. If given a choice between produce that is frostbitten and produce that is in perfect condition, you will choose the later. Almost everyone does.

Thats not the choice. The choice is spray it with something that might work or dont. I choose not to have my shit sprayed with something they think might work.

 

[owebo]

Layer of what shit?

Spraying shit on plants that COULD prevent frostbite.

We don't need to prevent frostbite. Global warming remember.

Everyone had there reasons but no one wants theor plants sprayed with that shit. I don't see how being against it is a bad thing like the OP suggests.

Bullshit. If given a choice between produce that is frostbitten and produce that is in perfect condition, you will choose the later. Almost everyone does.

Thats not the choice. The choice is spray it with something that might work or dont. I choose not to have my shit sprayed with something they think might work.

I don't mind....so please don't decide for me....

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

The EPA has devolved into a fascist democrat cult.....and must be destroyed...

Great! Then we can be like China . Where the air is so polluted , they have shut down cities and planes can't even land !

View attachment 103117

How is that a strawman? You want to eliminate the EPA , which protects the environment.

China is a glaring example of what happens when big biz can pollute all they want in the mane of making money .

Apparently you're not aware that businesses in China are tightly controlled by GOVERNMENT, in other words they have GOVERNMENT permission (i.e. their legal "right" to externalize costs through excessive pollution is protected by GOVERNMENT guns) to pollute at the levels they currently do.

Still want to talk about massive centralized government bureaucracy as a solution to a clean environment? Or should we consider something a bit more rational, like using local enforcement and community action to hold polluters accountable for externalizing their costs? After all it's the people that utilize that environment that have all the incentive and necessary understanding to protect it.

Aren't some of the most contaminated sites in the US owned by the government?

Yes.

Oak Ridge, the TVA, Los Alamos, <insert military arsenal here> are all far greater polluters than industrial operators.

 

[ClosedCaption]

How is that a strawman? You want to eliminate the EPA , which protects the environment.

China is a glaring example of what happens when big biz can pollute all they want in the mane of making money .

It's a classic strawman argument. You assume (don't we all know how to spell that?) that businesses will just pollute because they can. Then you use the worst example of an industrial economy, one that hasn't technologically advanced itself into the middle half of the last century, as an example of what Murica would be with no EPA.

And your assertion that the sole role of the EPA is to protect the environment is laughable.

I don't have to assume . History shows us what companies will do when no one is watching them . Even wh the EPA we have all kinds of examples of big biz poisoning us .

Who was watching the EPA when they poluted the Animas?

Your faith in the all knowing bureaucracy needs an evaluation.

Your examples can be addressed at the State level.

Oh great example . The EPA was cleaning up pollution created by mining companies . The contractor they used fucked up causing the polluted water to enter the river .

But if we could just get rid of the EPA , mining companies can go on polluting as they please !

And polluting will help us all somehow! Want another baby arm next generation? Dont worry, we're working on it

 

[bripat9643]

Layer of what shit?

Spraying shit on plants that COULD prevent frostbite.

We don't need to prevent frostbite. Global warming remember.

Everyone had there reasons but no one wants theor plants sprayed with that shit. I don't see how being against it is a bad thing like the OP suggests.

Bullshit. If given a choice between produce that is frostbitten and produce that is in perfect condition, you will choose the later. Almost everyone does.

Thats not the choice. The choice is spray it with something that might work or dont. I choose not to have my shit sprayed with something they think might work.

Your theory is based on the premise that both vegetable samples will be of equal quality. If that were the case, then why would farmers bother spraying the stuff on their crops?

You're obviously an imbecile.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Spraying shit on plants that COULD prevent frostbite.

We don't need to prevent frostbite. Global warming remember.

Everyone had there reasons but no one wants theor plants sprayed with that shit. I don't see how being against it is a bad thing like the OP suggests.

Bullshit. If given a choice between produce that is frostbitten and produce that is in perfect condition, you will choose the later. Almost everyone does.

Thats not the choice. The choice is spray it with something that might work or dont. I choose not to have my shit sprayed with something they think might work.

Your theory is based on the premise that both vegetable samples will be of equal quality. If that were the case, then why would farmers bother spraying the stuff on their crops?

You're obviously an imbecile.

No you keep changing the subject. The only thing I said was I dont see how being against spraying crap all over your food for the chance to avoid frostbite (not confirmed) is a bad thing.

Thats it....Not frostbitten fruit vs un frostbitten. Not equal quality etc. Just one sprayed with some unconfirmed garbage vs one that wasnt.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Fix it how? It doesn't work. You can't fix something that doesn't work.

Even if they found a way to fix it, how many more millions would that cost us?

The problem with all this environmental crap is that it's an bottomless money pit. There isn't enough cash to fill that pit even if you took every dollar away from every American today. That's because no matter how many trillions you throw at it, there will always be room for more improvement.

Try this: ask any environmentalist what it would take before they would back down? How much money would they need and what would their satisfactory standards be? You'll be met with a blank stare.

We've been trying to improve the environment my entire life. And after the trillions of dollars we spent on the environment, the environmentalists are unhappier today than they were 40 years ago. It's what I call Ray from Cleveland's environmental rule: You can't make an environmentalist happy--it's just not possible.

Then get the EPA out of the hands of the Environmentalists, and into the hands of Engineers, who you know, actually are trained to implement things like water, air and soil treatments.

If we get it out of the hands of the EPA, then what do we need an EPA for?

Let those engineers testify before Congress, and then Congress decides if new legislation is needed--not a bunch of bureaucrats.

You still need people to implement policy, the issue is the implementers have become the policy makers.

They shouldn't be implementing anything that involves fines, taxes or laws. They don't have the constitutional authority to do that; Congress does.

Congress can give them the power to do so through legislation. The issue is they expand their legislative mandate without going back to congress.

That would be directly against the US Constitution where it gives explicit rights to who creates laws and taxation. With imposing fines, fees or taxes, it would violate taxation without representation.

 

[Flash]

Obama is hysterically issuing executive orders everywhere...President Obama bans oil drilling in large areas of Atlantic and Arctic oceans

Trump can just reverse them.

You're stupid.

"Officials said the withdrawals under Section 12-A of the 1953 act used by presidents dating to Dwight Eisenhower cannot be undone by an incoming president."

Is that like everybody saying that Trump would never be President?

We need oil. If any asshole thinks they can stop the exploration of oil resources they are not only a dumbass but also a piece of shit. Trump is very effective at neutering dumbass pieces of shit.