Trump deregulates to increase his base!

[JLW]

I asked a question. Can you answer it Hoss or is it beyond you?

You answer your own question first. How much air and water pollution is acceptable to you? So?

Where are we? First Grade?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Democrats use the EPA to increase the costs of doing business.
They use the EPA to prevent progress.
There has to be a common ground when it comes to clean air and water and doing business.
Democrat's answer is removing all production from America and sending it overseas, where the EPA has no controls.

So what environmental laws would you found acceptable? How much air and water pollution is acceptable to you?

/——-/ Here’s an analogy since you can’t seem to grasp our point about over regulation. President Smith is concerned about traffic saftey and reduces the national speed limit from 100 mph to 5 mph. You like President Smith, voted for him and support his safety concerns. Do you drive 5 mph on the Interstate without complaint or do you say gee, maybe over regulation isn’t so good. Let’s ramp it up to 60 mph. Get it now????

Here is where you are wrong. You do not want speed limits. Your own analogy shows a speed limit of 100 when it is 70. You want no limits because speed trumps safety. Regardless of the death and injury it causes others so long as others profit that is all that matters. Same with your disdain for environmental laws. Repercussions and injuries mean nothing so long as you can profit from no limits. Get it?

/——/ Apparently I didn’t dumb it down enough for you to grasp. The 100 mph speed limit was used to demonstrate excessive speed that we all agree is dangerous. Instead of setting a reasonable speed limit of 70 President Smith went over board at set it at 5 mph. And I have no disdain for reasonable environmental laws. That’s a Strawman argument. I can’t dumb it down any more for you.

The dumbing down is you obviously do not have a clue about environmental laws.

/——-/ I understand over regulation the way I understand over taxation. Both are wrong and destructive. Now mark my reply funny since you can’t grasp simple concepts.

 

[BluesLegend]

Right, the heaps of garbage, sewage spills, and toxic air spewing from Dem run cities in Dem run states nothing to see, move along (crickets)

 

[JLW]

So what environmental laws would you found acceptable? How much air and water pollution is acceptable to you?

/——-/ Here’s an analogy since you can’t seem to grasp our point about over regulation. President Smith is concerned about traffic saftey and reduces the national speed limit from 100 mph to 5 mph. You like President Smith, voted for him and support his safety concerns. Do you drive 5 mph on the Interstate without complaint or do you say gee, maybe over regulation isn’t so good. Let’s ramp it up to 60 mph. Get it now????

Here is where you are wrong. You do not want speed limits. Your own analogy shows a speed limit of 100 when it is 70. You want no limits because speed trumps safety. Regardless of the death and injury it causes others so long as others profit that is all that matters. Same with your disdain for environmental laws. Repercussions and injuries mean nothing so long as you can profit from no limits. Get it?

/——/ Apparently I didn’t dumb it down enough for you to grasp. The 100 mph speed limit was used to demonstrate excessive speed that we all agree is dangerous. Instead of setting a reasonable speed limit of 70 President Smith went over board at set it at 5 mph. And I have no disdain for reasonable environmental laws. That’s a Strawman argument. I can’t dumb it down any more for you.

The dumbing down is you obviously do not have a clue about environmental laws.

/——-/ I understand over regulation the way I understand over taxation. Both are wrong and destructive. Now mark my reply funny since you can’t grasp simple concepts.

I can agree about over regulation; however, the question is what constitutes over regulation. Is limiting carcinogens in drinking water over regulation? Some think it is. Is imposing stricter standards on toxic dumping over regulation? In a perfect world there would be no environmental laws as you would hope one would do the right thing. We do not unfortunately. And, unfortunately, the over regulation mantra is used not to modify environmental laws but to gut them. That is the difference.

 

[iceberg]

A recent study said that breathing polluted air makes people dumber.

Trump recently issues an EO to allow for more polluted air thereby making people dumber. Dumber people tend to be Trumpettes.

5 things for August 28: White House, Jacksonville, Myanmar, gerrymandering, pollution - CNN

i just can't imagine anything more stupid than using CNN as a reference and looking around as if you're being honest about something.

 

[JLW]

Right, the heaps of garbage, sewage spills, and toxic air spewing from Dem run cities in Dem run states nothing to see, move along (crickets)

As I recall Flint's problems were caused by the Republican give or who changed where Flint was getting its water supply. I don't know what your argument really has to do with anything. Standards are standards. Most environmental standards are set on the federal and state levels and not the local level.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Democrats use the EPA to increase the costs of doing business.
They use the EPA to prevent progress.
There has to be a common ground when it comes to clean air and water and doing business.
Democrat's answer is removing all production from America and sending it overseas, where the EPA has no controls.

So what environmental laws would you found acceptable? How much air and water pollution is acceptable to you?

/——-/ Here’s an analogy since you can’t seem to grasp our point about over regulation. President Smith is concerned about traffic saftey and reduces the national speed limit from 100 mph to 5 mph. You like President Smith, voted for him and support his safety concerns. Do you drive 5 mph on the Interstate without complaint or do you say gee, maybe over regulation isn’t so good. Let’s ramp it up to 60 mph. Get it now????

Here is where you are wrong. You do not want speed limits. Your own analogy shows a speed limit of 100 when it is 70. You want no limits because speed trumps safety. Regardless of the death and injury it causes others so long as others profit that is all that matters. Same with your disdain for environmental laws. Repercussions and injuries mean nothing so long as you can profit from no limits. Get it?

No....speed limits are a guide. And when it comes to doing business, the entire purpose of doing business is to turn a profit, not provide jobs. However, the more profit you earn the more jobs you tend to create. Democrats are socialists that want to remove the incentive to run a business by minimizing profit, thus destroying job creation.

Here is where you are wrong again. 1) Speed limits are not guides. They are limits which is why you get what are called tickets when you violate them. 2) It is a canard that environmental laws impede competitiveness. Environmental laws enacted in the past have made industry more efficient in many areas in the long term. Pollution after all is nothing but waste product. 3) Environmental' laws are about quality if life. For those of us who grew up with burning rivers, Love Canal, acid rain, and illegal toxic waste dumps, the EPA was a godsend and started the process of fixing these excesses. Quality of life is not secondary to shareholder value nor are dumping carcinogens in your drinking water secondary to the polluter not having to pay for the proper prevention equipment.

We are beyond wanting to live like third world peasants. At least I thought we were.

:—-/ So you want a complete moratorium on all Human activity that could cause any effect on the environment. You want us living in caves with no fire or furniture unless they are made out of mud and rocks. Wowza, you are a strict environmentalist.

 

[miketx]

and you answer to sugar tit .....says a lot about you ...now doesnt it?

I think a lot of the replys go with the tone of the OP. Post a moronic imbecile op and like replies may follow.

 

[RealDave]

A recent study said that breathing polluted air makes people dumber.

Trump recently issues an EO to allow for more polluted air thereby making people dumber. Dumber people tend to be Trumpettes.

5 things for August 28: White House, Jacksonville, Myanmar, gerrymandering, pollution - CNN

Democrats use the EPA to increase the costs of doing business.
They use the EPA to prevent progress.
There has to be a common ground when it comes to clean air and water and doing business.
Democrat's answer is removing all production from America and sending it overseas, where the EPA has no controls.

Only a true Trumpette would think killing & sickening children is worth a little more profit.

Look, other countries are working on lowering their emissions & cleaner air./ Even China has learned this.

 

[kaz]

I asked a question. Can you answer it Hoss or is it beyond you?

You answer your own question first. How much air and water pollution is acceptable to you? So?

Where are we? First Grade?

Apparently. Get that stupid shit out of here. It's an obvious trap question. That's why i said you first. So? How much air and water polution are ok with you?

 

[RealDave]

So what environmental laws would you found acceptable? How much air and water pollution is acceptable to you?

/——-/ Here’s an analogy since you can’t seem to grasp our point about over regulation. President Smith is concerned about traffic saftey and reduces the national speed limit from 100 mph to 5 mph. You like President Smith, voted for him and support his safety concerns. Do you drive 5 mph on the Interstate without complaint or do you say gee, maybe over regulation isn’t so good. Let’s ramp it up to 60 mph. Get it now????

Here is where you are wrong. You do not want speed limits. Your own analogy shows a speed limit of 100 when it is 70. You want no limits because speed trumps safety. Regardless of the death and injury it causes others so long as others profit that is all that matters. Same with your disdain for environmental laws. Repercussions and injuries mean nothing so long as you can profit from no limits. Get it?

No....speed limits are a guide. And when it comes to doing business, the entire purpose of doing business is to turn a profit, not provide jobs. However, the more profit you earn the more jobs you tend to create. Democrats are socialists that want to remove the incentive to run a business by minimizing profit, thus destroying job creation.

Here is where you are wrong again. 1) Speed limits are not guides. They are limits which is why you get what are called tickets when you violate them. 2) It is a canard that environmental laws impede competitiveness. Environmental laws enacted in the past have made industry more efficient in many areas in the long term. Pollution after all is nothing but waste product. 3) Environmental' laws are about quality if life. For those of us who grew up with burning rivers, Love Canal, acid rain, and illegal toxic waste dumps, the EPA was a godsend and started the process of fixing these excesses. Quality of life is not secondary to shareholder value nor are dumping carcinogens in your drinking water secondary to the polluter not having to pay for the proper prevention equipment.

We are beyond wanting to live like third world peasants. At least I thought we were.

:—-/ So you want a complete moratorium on all Human activity that could cause any effect on the environment. You want us living in caves with no fire or furniture unless they are made out of mud and rocks. Wowza, you are a strict environmentalist.

Yep that must be it because when we say reduce we mean to end all. The protocols for fighting AGW involve reductions, not elimination. To make air & water cleaner is to make people healthier.

If everyone reduced their carbon footprint as much as I did, we would be on a path to stop the worst effects o AGW & provide for cleaner air & water. It even saves me money.

 

[RealDave]

I asked a question. Can you answer it Hoss or is it beyond you?

You answer your own question first. How much air and water pollution is acceptable to you? So?

Where are we? First Grade?

Apparently. Get that stupid shit out of here. It's an obvious trap question. That's why i said you first. So? How much air and water polution are ok with you?

purposeful pollution is not OK. Keep working on lowering not raising it like your butt buddy Trump.

 

[kaz]

I asked a question. Can you answer it Hoss or is it beyond you?

You answer your own question first. How much air and water pollution is acceptable to you? So?

Where are we? First Grade?

Apparently. Get that stupid shit out of here. It's an obvious trap question. That's why i said you first. So? How much air and water polution are ok with you?

purposeful pollution is not OK. Keep working on lowering not raising it like your butt buddy Trump.

You're the one who voted for him, butt hurt buddy, he's all yours

 

[RealDave]

A recent study said that breathing polluted air makes people dumber.

Trump recently issues an EO to allow for more polluted air thereby making people dumber. Dumber people tend to be Trumpettes.

5 things for August 28: White House, Jacksonville, Myanmar, gerrymandering, pollution - CNN

Democrats use the EPA to increase the costs of doing business.
They use the EPA to prevent progress.
There has to be a common ground when it comes to clean air and water and doing business.
Democrat's answer is removing all production from America and sending it overseas, where the EPA has no controls.

So what environmental laws would you found acceptable? How much air and water pollution is acceptable to you?

/——-/ Here’s an analogy since you can’t seem to grasp our point about over regulation. President Smith is concerned about traffic saftey and reduces the national speed limit from 100 mph to 5 mph. You like President Smith, voted for him and support his safety concerns. Do you drive 5 mph on the Interstate without complaint or do you say gee, maybe over regulation isn’t so good. Let’s ramp it up to 60 mph. Get it now????

WE are constantly looking to make autos safer.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Democrats use the EPA to increase the costs of doing business.
They use the EPA to prevent progress.
There has to be a common ground when it comes to clean air and water and doing business.
Democrat's answer is removing all production from America and sending it overseas, where the EPA has no controls.

So what environmental laws would you found acceptable? How much air and water pollution is acceptable to you?

/——-/ Here’s an analogy since you can’t seem to grasp our point about over regulation. President Smith is concerned about traffic saftey and reduces the national speed limit from 100 mph to 5 mph. You like President Smith, voted for him and support his safety concerns. Do you drive 5 mph on the Interstate without complaint or do you say gee, maybe over regulation isn’t so good. Let’s ramp it up to 60 mph. Get it now????

Here is where you are wrong. You do not want speed limits. Your own analogy shows a speed limit of 100 when it is 70. You want no limits because speed trumps safety. Regardless of the death and injury it causes others so long as others profit that is all that matters. Same with your disdain for environmental laws. Repercussions and injuries mean nothing so long as you can profit from no limits. Get it?

No....speed limits are a guide. And when it comes to doing business, the entire purpose of doing business is to turn a profit, not provide jobs. However, the more profit you earn the more jobs you tend to create. Democrats are socialists that want to remove the incentive to run a business by minimizing profit, thus destroying job creation.

Here is where you are wrong again. 1) Speed limits are not guides. They are limits which is why you get what are called tickets when you violate them. 2) It is a canard that environmental laws impede competitiveness. Environmental laws enacted in the past have made industry more efficient in many areas in the long term. Pollution after all is nothing but waste product. 3) Environmental' laws are about quality if life. For those of us who grew up with burning rivers, Love Canal, acid rain, and illegal toxic waste dumps, the EPA was a godsend and started the process of fixing these excesses. Quality of life is not secondary to shareholder value nor are dumping carcinogens in your drinking water secondary to the polluter not having to pay for the proper prevention equipment.

We are beyond wanting to live like third world peasants. At least I thought we were.

/——/ It was an analogy not a direct comparison you moron.

 

[RealDave]

A recent study said that breathing polluted air makes people dumber.

Trump recently issues an EO to allow for more polluted air thereby making people dumber. Dumber people tend to be Trumpettes.

5 things for August 28: White House, Jacksonville, Myanmar, gerrymandering, pollution - CNN

i just can't imagine anything more stupid than using CNN as a reference and looking around as if you're being honest about something.

So says simeine who believes Trump, Limbaugh & Infowars.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I asked a question. Can you answer it Hoss or is it beyond you?

You answer your own question first. How much air and water pollution is acceptable to you? So?

Where are we? First Grade?

Apparently. Get that stupid shit out of here. It's an obvious trap question. That's why i said you first. So? How much air and water polution are ok with you?

purposeful pollution is not OK. Keep working on lowering not raising it like your butt buddy Trump.

/----/ Turn off your PC and save the planet.

 

[RealDave]

So what environmental laws would you found acceptable? How much air and water pollution is acceptable to you?

/——-/ Here’s an analogy since you can’t seem to grasp our point about over regulation. President Smith is concerned about traffic saftey and reduces the national speed limit from 100 mph to 5 mph. You like President Smith, voted for him and support his safety concerns. Do you drive 5 mph on the Interstate without complaint or do you say gee, maybe over regulation isn’t so good. Let’s ramp it up to 60 mph. Get it now????

Here is where you are wrong. You do not want speed limits. Your own analogy shows a speed limit of 100 when it is 70. You want no limits because speed trumps safety. Regardless of the death and injury it causes others so long as others profit that is all that matters. Same with your disdain for environmental laws. Repercussions and injuries mean nothing so long as you can profit from no limits. Get it?

No....speed limits are a guide. And when it comes to doing business, the entire purpose of doing business is to turn a profit, not provide jobs. However, the more profit you earn the more jobs you tend to create. Democrats are socialists that want to remove the incentive to run a business by minimizing profit, thus destroying job creation.

Here is where you are wrong again. 1) Speed limits are not guides. They are limits which is why you get what are called tickets when you violate them. 2) It is a canard that environmental laws impede competitiveness. Environmental laws enacted in the past have made industry more efficient in many areas in the long term. Pollution after all is nothing but waste product. 3) Environmental' laws are about quality if life. For those of us who grew up with burning rivers, Love Canal, acid rain, and illegal toxic waste dumps, the EPA was a godsend and started the process of fixing these excesses. Quality of life is not secondary to shareholder value nor are dumping carcinogens in your drinking water secondary to the polluter not having to pay for the proper prevention equipment.

We are beyond wanting to live like third world peasants. At least I thought we were.

/——/ It was an analogy not a direct comparison you moron.
View attachment 213382

Your analogy was stupid.

 

[RealDave]

I asked a question. Can you answer it Hoss or is it beyond you?

You answer your own question first. How much air and water pollution is acceptable to you? So?

Where are we? First Grade?

Apparently. Get that stupid shit out of here. It's an obvious trap question. That's why i said you first. So? How much air and water polution are ok with you?

purposeful pollution is not OK. Keep working on lowering not raising it like your butt buddy Trump.

/----/ Turn off your PC and save the planet.

You have no idea where I get my electric.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——-/ Here’s an analogy since you can’t seem to grasp our point about over regulation. President Smith is concerned about traffic saftey and reduces the national speed limit from 100 mph to 5 mph. You like President Smith, voted for him and support his safety concerns. Do you drive 5 mph on the Interstate without complaint or do you say gee, maybe over regulation isn’t so good. Let’s ramp it up to 60 mph. Get it now????

Here is where you are wrong. You do not want speed limits. Your own analogy shows a speed limit of 100 when it is 70. You want no limits because speed trumps safety. Regardless of the death and injury it causes others so long as others profit that is all that matters. Same with your disdain for environmental laws. Repercussions and injuries mean nothing so long as you can profit from no limits. Get it?

No....speed limits are a guide. And when it comes to doing business, the entire purpose of doing business is to turn a profit, not provide jobs. However, the more profit you earn the more jobs you tend to create. Democrats are socialists that want to remove the incentive to run a business by minimizing profit, thus destroying job creation.

Here is where you are wrong again. 1) Speed limits are not guides. They are limits which is why you get what are called tickets when you violate them. 2) It is a canard that environmental laws impede competitiveness. Environmental laws enacted in the past have made industry more efficient in many areas in the long term. Pollution after all is nothing but waste product. 3) Environmental' laws are about quality if life. For those of us who grew up with burning rivers, Love Canal, acid rain, and illegal toxic waste dumps, the EPA was a godsend and started the process of fixing these excesses. Quality of life is not secondary to shareholder value nor are dumping carcinogens in your drinking water secondary to the polluter not having to pay for the proper prevention equipment.

We are beyond wanting to live like third world peasants. At least I thought we were.

/——/ It was an analogy not a direct comparison you moron.
View attachment 213382

Your analogy was stupid.

/----/ Then provide one that you feel adequately demonstrates OVER REGULATION. You won't because you know it would undermine your own position.