Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,395
- 2,180
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?/——-/ 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????So what environmental laws would you found acceptable? How much air and water pollution is acceptable to you?Democrats use the EPA to increase the costs of doing business.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
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.
Bullshit speed triumphs saftey, look at the German autobahn. Germans drive a fucking a car, not eat big Macs and drink a cherry coke while driving.
You lefturds can never understand the economocis of your assnine rules and regulations their is a fine line to draw.
.