Using the EPA to Conquer America

[Moonglow]

What's your argument that pollution is not an interstate problem?

It's a non-communist problem,,Communist never pollute...

 

[PoliticalChic]

What's your argument that pollution is not an interstate problem?

It's a non-communist problem,,Communist never pollute...

Gee....I figured you'd be outta here when you saw this story:

"Report: Drunk Secret Service agents crash into White House barrier
Two senior Secret Service agents, including a top member of President Barack Obama's protective detail, crashed a car into a White House barricade following a late-night party ..."
Report Drunk Secret Service agents crash into White House barrier - CNN.com



Rumor has it they're changing the name to 'the Seagram's Service'....and you were first in line to sign up.....

 

[Mr Natural]

Why else would God have made all the streams flow to the ocean if He didn't plan on having industries dump their shit into them?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'd like to know how unregulated coal mining would make the country better?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So environmentalism is a communist plot?

Ultimately. Most liberals aren't aware of it, though, as they are low-info voters. Beware of your private property rights being taken from you. I am suspect that would be in this administrations, plans. Then you have full-blown socialism, the first big step to communism, with the right dictator.

So we must endure the polluters, unfettered, to prove we're not communist?

Unregulated nuclear plants, the conservative vision of liberty.

You people are amazingly retarded. You especially.

Your side thinks CO2 is a pollutant... the shear ignorance of that is astounding... My advice is that liberals should stop polluting what they call pollution. They should lead by example!

I don't have a side and I don't give a shit about CO2. I give a shit about pollution. It's sheer ignorance to want to let individuals or businesses pollute the air, land, and water without restraint, regulation, or consequences.

"I don't have a side...."

So THAT'S why you're known as the NYLiar!

I don't make the global warming argument when it comes to protecting the environment. It isn't needed.

Only the retarded like yourself think that pollution is a good thing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why else would God have made all the streams flow to the ocean if He didn't plan on having industries dump their shit into them?

You'll believe anything, huh?

Must be one of those 'reliable Democrat voters.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ultimately. Most liberals aren't aware of it, though, as they are low-info voters. Beware of your private property rights being taken from you. I am suspect that would be in this administrations, plans. Then you have full-blown socialism, the first big step to communism, with the right dictator.

So we must endure the polluters, unfettered, to prove we're not communist?

Unregulated nuclear plants, the conservative vision of liberty.

You people are amazingly retarded. You especially.

Your side thinks CO2 is a pollutant... the shear ignorance of that is astounding... My advice is that liberals should stop polluting what they call pollution. They should lead by example!

I don't have a side and I don't give a shit about CO2. I give a shit about pollution. It's sheer ignorance to want to let individuals or businesses pollute the air, land, and water without restraint, regulation, or consequences.

"I don't have a side...."

So THAT'S why you're known as the NYLiar!

I don't make the global warming argument when it comes to protecting the environment. It isn't needed.

Only the retarded like yourself think that pollution is a good thing.

I never support 'pollution'....and that includes your posts.

 

[idb]

It's a guilty pleasure of mine to expose the stupidity of subscribing to environmentalism.


No, it's not a science, it is a spin-off of communism, the de jure theft of private property via regulation, and 'movement' is sold to those in search of some sort of ersatz 'heroism,' and meaning in their empty lives, the less than astute hand-wringers, as the idea that they are saving the earth.

Oh boy!

It's the use of the EPA in the totalitarian attempt to centralize all power, and further destroy the federalism on which our Constitution is based.






And, in the following, you'll find another reason to end the false 'crusade.'

1. "... EPA Rules Would Hurt Economy, Threaten States’ ‘Sovereignty’

2. The Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to tighten rules governing the nation’s water and air quality would have a crippling effect on state and local economies and send consumer energy prices soaring, the attorneys general of two rural states told a House panel ...




3. ... the EPA’s proposals to amend three of its regulations.

The first would mandate reductions in emissions at coal-fired power plants and similar facilities;

the second would require reductions in ozone, or smog, levels; and

the third would clarify the types of waterways controlled by the EPA under the Clean Water Act.

... the EPA’s growing efforts to meddle in matters best left to the states.

4. “The people of Montana have taken steps to fully protect [the state’s waterways] for ourselves, our downstream neighbors and all of our progeny,” Fox said.

Those protections, he explained, begin with the state’s constitution, which asserts Montana’s right to make decisions regarding its water use — and requires the state legislature to “provide adequate remedies for the protection” of its waters.... the EPA’s actions are nothing more than a power grab.




5. ... it is my duty to stand up and push back when I perceive an agency of the federal government overreaching the authority given to it by Congress and proposing actions that infringe on our sovereignty,”...


6. ...EPA administrator Gina McCarthy told a congressional panel two weeks ago. “We are simply trying to define it better for everyone, so everyone is on the same page.”

7. “The EPA’s attempt to ‘clarify’ the definition of waters [is] so expansive that it could likely control land use activities over most of the United States,” ....“At best, the proposed definition simply creates more confusion and litigation.”

At worst, she said, the EPA’s actions will give it “unfettered regulatory jurisdiction” over most of the water in her state."
AGs Oppose EPA Clean Water Act Clean Power Plan PJ Media




Be very clear.
This is in the Science Forum simply to make certain that those who wrongly believe that 'environmentalism' is science see it.

This is real issue::

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."

The use of the EPA, for political gain, proves that.

So environmentalism is a communist plot?

Ultimately. Most liberals aren't aware of it, though, as they are low-info voters. Beware of your private property rights being taken from you. I am suspect that would be in this administrations, plans. Then you have full-blown socialism, the first big step to communism, with the right dictator.

That's right, like the use of eminent domain laws to take land by those communist oil companies and their full-blown socialist Republican dictator cheerleaders.

Your confused... Only Liberal democrats seize land for the "common good" from republicans and oil companies to keep them from being self sufficient. Were the pocketbook you fools think belongs to you..

Of course, you're correct.
An even more incisive characterization:

".Environmentalists are almost always political liberals who have little sympathy for Christian fundamentalists....Yet environmental faith is quite rigid, and its story, biblical.....[matching] the story of the Garden of Eden....Innocent pre-industrial,pre-scientific cultures show what we could have been, while civilized cultures show how low we have fallen. In Eden and in the environmental story, the harmony of nature and its ability to nurture human kind are destroyed by ambition, greed, and sin. These sins are inflicted on nature and native peoples almost exclusively by white males."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," chapter seven.

One can see why these ideas are de rigueur in university today.

Wow!
You're actually quite mad...aren't you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So we must endure the polluters, unfettered, to prove we're not communist?

Unregulated nuclear plants, the conservative vision of liberty.

You people are amazingly retarded. You especially.

Your side thinks CO2 is a pollutant... the shear ignorance of that is astounding... My advice is that liberals should stop polluting what they call pollution. They should lead by example!

I don't have a side and I don't give a shit about CO2. I give a shit about pollution. It's sheer ignorance to want to let individuals or businesses pollute the air, land, and water without restraint, regulation, or consequences.

"I don't have a side...."

So THAT'S why you're known as the NYLiar!

I don't make the global warming argument when it comes to protecting the environment. It isn't needed.

Only the retarded like yourself think that pollution is a good thing.

I never support 'pollution'....and that includes your posts.

Yes you do. You admit it in the first line of your first post, when you say -

"the stupidity of subscribing to environmentalism."

 

[skookerasbil]

Ultimately. Most liberals aren't aware of it, though, as they are low-info voters. Beware of your private property rights being taken from you. I am suspect that would be in this administrations, plans. Then you have full-blown socialism, the first big step to communism, with the right dictator.

So we must endure the polluters, unfettered, to prove we're not communist?

Unregulated nuclear plants, the conservative vision of liberty.

You people are amazingly retarded. You especially.

Your side thinks CO2 is a pollutant... the shear ignorance of that is astounding... My advice is that liberals should stop polluting what they call pollution. They should lead by example!

I don't have a side and I don't give a shit about CO2. I give a shit about pollution. It's sheer ignorance to want to let individuals or businesses pollute the air, land, and water without restraint, regulation, or consequences.

"I don't have a side...."

So THAT'S why you're known as the NYLiar!

I don't make the global warming argument when it comes to protecting the environment. It isn't needed.

Only the retarded like yourself think that pollution is a good thing.

Human racists =

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Kool-aid-mobile-wallpaper.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[PoliticalChic]

So environmentalism is a communist plot?

Ultimately. Most liberals aren't aware of it, though, as they are low-info voters. Beware of your private property rights being taken from you. I am suspect that would be in this administrations, plans. Then you have full-blown socialism, the first big step to communism, with the right dictator.

That's right, like the use of eminent domain laws to take land by those communist oil companies and their full-blown socialist Republican dictator cheerleaders.

Your confused... Only Liberal democrats seize land for the "common good" from republicans and oil companies to keep them from being self sufficient. Were the pocketbook you fools think belongs to you..

Of course, you're correct.
An even more incisive characterization:

".Environmentalists are almost always political liberals who have little sympathy for Christian fundamentalists....Yet environmental faith is quite rigid, and its story, biblical.....[matching] the story of the Garden of Eden....Innocent pre-industrial,pre-scientific cultures show what we could have been, while civilized cultures show how low we have fallen. In Eden and in the environmental story, the harmony of nature and its ability to nurture human kind are destroyed by ambition, greed, and sin. These sins are inflicted on nature and native peoples almost exclusively by white males."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," chapter seven.

One can see why these ideas are de rigueur in university today.

Wow!
You're actually quite mad...aren't you?

What a vapid non-response to the post.

You must abhor truth, eh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your side thinks CO2 is a pollutant... the shear ignorance of that is astounding... My advice is that liberals should stop polluting what they call pollution. They should lead by example!

I don't have a side and I don't give a shit about CO2. I give a shit about pollution. It's sheer ignorance to want to let individuals or businesses pollute the air, land, and water without restraint, regulation, or consequences.

"I don't have a side...."

So THAT'S why you're known as the NYLiar!

I don't make the global warming argument when it comes to protecting the environment. It isn't needed.

Only the retarded like yourself think that pollution is a good thing.

I never support 'pollution'....and that includes your posts.

Yes you do. You admit it in the first line of your first post, when you say -

"the stupidity of subscribing to environmentalism."

1. Just doesn't sink in, does it: environmentalism isn't a science. It is a political view, a spin-off of communism. So pollution doesn't their purview, other than as an excise to co-opt other people's property.



2. "Ecology is a science. It produces knowledge. Environmentalism is a political and religious movement. It produces judgment and laws."

These are the words of Professor Wallace Kaufman, from his book, "No Turning Back," p. 92.
He knows whereof he speaks, as the former president of several environmental groups, and a long time activist.



3. "Most environmentalists have college degrees and think of themselves as sophisticated....Like all true believers, however, they have assumptions that limit their ability to absorb new ideas, assumptions that define their friends and enemies and by which they know what is right and wrong.
Those assumptions...are the principles that the environmental movement wants written into law and regulation:

a. Nature is good

b. Altering or destroying any part of nature is bad.

c. Nature has a balance that humans always disrupt

d. The more power humans get, the more damage they do to nature.
These are the beliefs of a religion...not one of science.


Take notes so you don't appear so ignorant again.

 

[orogenicman]

It's a guilty pleasure of mine to expose the stupidity of subscribing to environmentalism.


No, it's not a science, it is a spin-off of communism, the de jure theft of private property via regulation, and 'movement' is sold to those in search of some sort of ersatz 'heroism,' and meaning in their empty lives, the less than astute hand-wringers, as the idea that they are saving the earth.

Oh boy!

It's the use of the EPA in the totalitarian attempt to centralize all power, and further destroy the federalism on which our Constitution is based.






And, in the following, you'll find another reason to end the false 'crusade.'

1. "... EPA Rules Would Hurt Economy, Threaten States’ ‘Sovereignty’

2. The Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to tighten rules governing the nation’s water and air quality would have a crippling effect on state and local economies and send consumer energy prices soaring, the attorneys general of two rural states told a House panel ...




3. ... the EPA’s proposals to amend three of its regulations.

The first would mandate reductions in emissions at coal-fired power plants and similar facilities;

the second would require reductions in ozone, or smog, levels; and

the third would clarify the types of waterways controlled by the EPA under the Clean Water Act.

... the EPA’s growing efforts to meddle in matters best left to the states.

4. “The people of Montana have taken steps to fully protect [the state’s waterways] for ourselves, our downstream neighbors and all of our progeny,” Fox said.

Those protections, he explained, begin with the state’s constitution, which asserts Montana’s right to make decisions regarding its water use — and requires the state legislature to “provide adequate remedies for the protection” of its waters.... the EPA’s actions are nothing more than a power grab.




5. ... it is my duty to stand up and push back when I perceive an agency of the federal government overreaching the authority given to it by Congress and proposing actions that infringe on our sovereignty,”...


6. ...EPA administrator Gina McCarthy told a congressional panel two weeks ago. “We are simply trying to define it better for everyone, so everyone is on the same page.”

7. “The EPA’s attempt to ‘clarify’ the definition of waters [is] so expansive that it could likely control land use activities over most of the United States,” ....“At best, the proposed definition simply creates more confusion and litigation.”

At worst, she said, the EPA’s actions will give it “unfettered regulatory jurisdiction” over most of the water in her state."
AGs Oppose EPA Clean Water Act Clean Power Plan PJ Media




Be very clear.
This is in the Science Forum simply to make certain that those who wrongly believe that 'environmentalism' is science see it.

This is real issue::

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."

The use of the EPA, for political gain, proves that.

So what you are saying is that when one of these leaks adjacent to your own property, and fumes get into your home, which is blown up with you in it when the fumes reach your water heater:

You're good with that because, well hell, the petrochemical industry has your back.

 

[skookerasbil]

It's a guilty pleasure of mine to expose the stupidity of subscribing to environmentalism.


No, it's not a science, it is a spin-off of communism, the de jure theft of private property via regulation, and 'movement' is sold to those in search of some sort of ersatz 'heroism,' and meaning in their empty lives, the less than astute hand-wringers, as the idea that they are saving the earth.

Oh boy!

It's the use of the EPA in the totalitarian attempt to centralize all power, and further destroy the federalism on which our Constitution is based.






And, in the following, you'll find another reason to end the false 'crusade.'

1. "... EPA Rules Would Hurt Economy, Threaten States’ ‘Sovereignty’

2. The Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to tighten rules governing the nation’s water and air quality would have a crippling effect on state and local economies and send consumer energy prices soaring, the attorneys general of two rural states told a House panel ...




3. ... the EPA’s proposals to amend three of its regulations.

The first would mandate reductions in emissions at coal-fired power plants and similar facilities;

the second would require reductions in ozone, or smog, levels; and

the third would clarify the types of waterways controlled by the EPA under the Clean Water Act.

... the EPA’s growing efforts to meddle in matters best left to the states.

4. “The people of Montana have taken steps to fully protect [the state’s waterways] for ourselves, our downstream neighbors and all of our progeny,” Fox said.

Those protections, he explained, begin with the state’s constitution, which asserts Montana’s right to make decisions regarding its water use — and requires the state legislature to “provide adequate remedies for the protection” of its waters.... the EPA’s actions are nothing more than a power grab.




5. ... it is my duty to stand up and push back when I perceive an agency of the federal government overreaching the authority given to it by Congress and proposing actions that infringe on our sovereignty,”...


6. ...EPA administrator Gina McCarthy told a congressional panel two weeks ago. “We are simply trying to define it better for everyone, so everyone is on the same page.”

7. “The EPA’s attempt to ‘clarify’ the definition of waters [is] so expansive that it could likely control land use activities over most of the United States,” ....“At best, the proposed definition simply creates more confusion and litigation.”

At worst, she said, the EPA’s actions will give it “unfettered regulatory jurisdiction” over most of the water in her state."
AGs Oppose EPA Clean Water Act Clean Power Plan PJ Media




Be very clear.
This is in the Science Forum simply to make certain that those who wrongly believe that 'environmentalism' is science see it.

This is real issue::

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."

The use of the EPA, for political gain, proves that.

So what you are saying is that when one of these leaks adjacent to your own property, and fumes get into your home, which is blown up with you in it when the fumes reach your water heater:

You're good with that because, well hell, the petrochemical industry has your back.

Oh Gawd..............some people are just born hysterical.


So s0n.....whats it like navigating life thinking a house is going to fall out of the sky any second and onto your noggin?


Progressives are such limpwristers.


90%+ of the people don't worry about the shit progressives get hysterical about.........and thank God for that!!!

 

[orogenicman]

It's a guilty pleasure of mine to expose the stupidity of subscribing to environmentalism.


No, it's not a science, it is a spin-off of communism, the de jure theft of private property via regulation, and 'movement' is sold to those in search of some sort of ersatz 'heroism,' and meaning in their empty lives, the less than astute hand-wringers, as the idea that they are saving the earth.

Oh boy!

It's the use of the EPA in the totalitarian attempt to centralize all power, and further destroy the federalism on which our Constitution is based.






And, in the following, you'll find another reason to end the false 'crusade.'

1. "... EPA Rules Would Hurt Economy, Threaten States’ ‘Sovereignty’

2. The Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to tighten rules governing the nation’s water and air quality would have a crippling effect on state and local economies and send consumer energy prices soaring, the attorneys general of two rural states told a House panel ...




3. ... the EPA’s proposals to amend three of its regulations.

The first would mandate reductions in emissions at coal-fired power plants and similar facilities;

the second would require reductions in ozone, or smog, levels; and

the third would clarify the types of waterways controlled by the EPA under the Clean Water Act.

... the EPA’s growing efforts to meddle in matters best left to the states.

4. “The people of Montana have taken steps to fully protect [the state’s waterways] for ourselves, our downstream neighbors and all of our progeny,” Fox said.

Those protections, he explained, begin with the state’s constitution, which asserts Montana’s right to make decisions regarding its water use — and requires the state legislature to “provide adequate remedies for the protection” of its waters.... the EPA’s actions are nothing more than a power grab.




5. ... it is my duty to stand up and push back when I perceive an agency of the federal government overreaching the authority given to it by Congress and proposing actions that infringe on our sovereignty,”...


6. ...EPA administrator Gina McCarthy told a congressional panel two weeks ago. “We are simply trying to define it better for everyone, so everyone is on the same page.”

7. “The EPA’s attempt to ‘clarify’ the definition of waters [is] so expansive that it could likely control land use activities over most of the United States,” ....“At best, the proposed definition simply creates more confusion and litigation.”

At worst, she said, the EPA’s actions will give it “unfettered regulatory jurisdiction” over most of the water in her state."
AGs Oppose EPA Clean Water Act Clean Power Plan PJ Media




Be very clear.
This is in the Science Forum simply to make certain that those who wrongly believe that 'environmentalism' is science see it.

This is real issue::

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."

The use of the EPA, for political gain, proves that.

So what you are saying is that when one of these leaks adjacent to your own property, and fumes get into your home, which is blown up with you in it when the fumes reach your water heater:

You're good with that because, well hell, the petrochemical industry has your back.

Oh Gawd..............some people are just born hysterical.


So s0n.....whats it like navigating life thinking a house is going to fall out of the sky any second and onto your noggin?

I had two clients die because their well water was contaminated with gasoline products (most notably, benzene) from leaking underground storage tanks next door.

That's what it is like, bubba.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


1. Just doesn't sink in, does it: environmentalism isn't a science. It is a political view, a spin-off of communism. So pollution doesn't their purview, other than as an excise to co-opt other people's property.

Environmentalism is a movement to protect the environment. You oppose environmentalism which puts you against protecting the environment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[



2. "Ecology is a science. It produces knowledge. Environmentalism is a political and religious movement. It produces judgment and laws."

These are the words of Professor Wallace Kaufman, from his book, "No Turning Back," p. 92.
He knows whereof he speaks, as the former president of several environmental groups, and a long time activist.



.

Why are you so dependent on quoting others? Nobody cares who Wallace Kaufman is.

 

[skookerasbil]

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/KOTUG-Tugs-Assist-TI-Europe-to-Enter-Terminal.jpg.html][/URL]


Who's not winning?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[



3. "Most environmentalists have college degrees and think of themselves as sophisticated....Like all true believers, however, they have assumptions that limit their ability to absorb new ideas, assumptions that define their friends and enemies and by which they know what is right and wrong.
Those assumptions...are the principles that the environmental movement wants written into law and regulation:

a. Nature is good

b. Altering or destroying any part of nature is bad.

c. Nature has a balance that humans always disrupt

d. The more power humans get, the more damage they do to nature.
These are the beliefs of a religion...not one of science.


Take notes so you don't appear so ignorant again.

So you disagree with the 4 points above?

a. So you think Nature is bad.

b. So you think destroying Nature is good.

c. So you think humans never disrupt the balances of Nature

d. So you believe humans do less damage to nature, the more power they have.

Seriously?

 

[G.T.]

Pcs depraved degenerate mind has WAY too much time on its hands.

Teh wuuurld is da cunspeerasee