I am watching these rightwing nutjobs on C-SPAN tryong to pass a bill to not allow some EPA rules to take effect for 5 years(just in time for the 2016 elections-hoping they can make it permanent). Just what we need, more mercury pollution. They claim it is anout jobs but in reality, it is about profits. Sad and pathetic. Why do you guys want to make this a third world country? Why do you guys hate the Earth and human beings so much? Guess it is easier to hate humans when you aren't one.

Calm down Bobby...when you get excited you apparently type really fast, and misspell several words.

Can you highlight a few of the finer points of the bill, and why you feel they should be allowed to take affect? I'm currently not watching C-SPAN. Thanks.

Get back to work, idiot. Before you get fired.

What the heck is pollutiom? Is that a new element?

(10-06-2011 12:34 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  Calm down Bobby...when you get excited you apparently type really fast, and misspell several words.

Can you highlight a few of the finer points of the bill, and why you feel they should be allowed to take affect? I'm currently not watching C-SPAN. Thanks.

Well, we all know that Mercury is good for the unborn and growing kids(I actually think you are a product of getting lots of Mercury in your diet).

(10-06-2011 12:46 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  What the heck is pollutiom? Is that a new element?

You are tring to be funny but unfortunately, it fails to be funny. Pollution is a bad thing. Pollution kills people. There may be a few jobs created(though, that is debatable) but the health costs, productivity costs, etc will certainly outweigh any benefits.

(10-06-2011 01:26 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-06-2011 12:46 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  What the heck is pollutiom? Is that a new element?

You are tring to be funny but unfortunately, it fails to be funny. Pollution is a bad thing. Pollution kills people. There may be a few jobs created(though, that is debatable) but the health costs, productivity costs, etc will certainly outweigh any benefits.

Then why are libs so f'n trashy?

http://goodsensepolitics.blogspot.com/20...oring.html

(10-06-2011 01:26 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-06-2011 12:46 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  What the heck is pollutiom? Is that a new element?

You are tring to be funny but unfortunately, it fails to be funny. Pollution is a bad thing. Pollution kills people. There may be a few jobs created(though, that is debatable) but the health costs, productivity costs, etc will certainly outweigh any benefits.

Then I'm sure you're against illegals who pollute our country. Look at what they're doing.

Is this the same bill in another thread that the EPA doesn't want to enforce because it would take billions of dollars they don't have and don't want to ask for?

Even if its not... NEW regulations are essentially a tax on business and bad for the economy. If we've made it THIS far without this regulation, I suspect we can make it a bit longer. I'd certainly accept waiting until the economy were on more stable footing, ESPECIALLY in light of all the taxation and regulation still coming (already approved).

Trying to paint a delay in NEW regulations as a REDUCTION in standards is just plain ignorant

(10-06-2011 01:23 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-06-2011 12:34 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  Calm down Bobby...when you get excited you apparently type really fast, and misspell several words.

Can you highlight a few of the finer points of the bill, and why you feel they should be allowed to take affect? I'm currently not watching C-SPAN. Thanks.

Well, we all know that Mercury is good for the unborn and growing kids(I actually think you are a product of getting lots of Mercury in your diet).

Or you can completely ignore my reasonable request for information and jump straight to an ad hominem attack, though I haven't even stated a position with respect to the topic at hand. Whichever.

(10-06-2011 02:33 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(10-06-2011 01:26 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-06-2011 12:46 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  What the heck is pollutiom? Is that a new element?

You are tring to be funny but unfortunately, it fails to be funny. Pollution is a bad thing. Pollution kills people. There may be a few jobs created(though, that is debatable) but the health costs, productivity costs, etc will certainly outweigh any benefits.

Then I'm sure you're against illegals who pollute our country. Look at what they're doing.

Yes, I am against that.

(10-06-2011 02:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Is this the same bill in another thread that the EPA doesn't want to enforce because it would take billions of dollars they don't have and don't want to ask for?

Even if its not... NEW regulations are essentially a tax on business and bad for the economy. If we've made it THIS far without this regulation, I suspect we can make it a bit longer. I'd certainly accept waiting until the economy were on more stable footing, ESPECIALLY in light of all the taxation and regulation still coming (already approved).

Trying to paint a delay in NEW regulations as a REDUCTION in standards is just plain ignorant

I don't think it is the same one. You also gave the Republican response. Put profits before the environment or human health. Make no mistake about it, this isn't about adding jobs.

Oh,Hambone, the 5 years was intentional. THe righties think they will win the presidency in 2016 so that they can make it permanent.

(10-07-2011 11:32 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-06-2011 02:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Is this the same bill in another thread that the EPA doesn't want to enforce because it would take billions of dollars they don't have and don't want to ask for?

Even if its not... NEW regulations are essentially a tax on business and bad for the economy. If we've made it THIS far without this regulation, I suspect we can make it a bit longer. I'd certainly accept waiting until the economy were on more stable footing, ESPECIALLY in light of all the taxation and regulation still coming (already approved).

Trying to paint a delay in NEW regulations as a REDUCTION in standards is just plain ignorant

I don't think it is the same one. You also gave the Republican response. Put profits before the environment or human health. Make no mistake about it, this isn't about adding jobs.

Oh,Hambone, the 5 years was intentional. THe righties think they will win the presidency in 2016 so that they can make it permanent.

Everything politicians do is intentional.... but few things are permanent. That's just silly to argue that the Republicans could pass a bill that would forever bar higher quality standards. If they could (and it were their goal) they would have done it decades ago to LOTS of things.

As to my response... Put these things in their order of current urgency...

Increasing the number of Jobs
Increasing the quality of human health
Increasing the quality of the environment.

That's my order... because 1 is an immediate need and also improves 2 and 3.

I could play the same game and argue that you're putting the needs of the employed over the needs of the unemployed. You right wing greedy ba$tard!

(10-07-2011 12:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-07-2011 11:32 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-06-2011 02:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Is this the same bill in another thread that the EPA doesn't want to enforce because it would take billions of dollars they don't have and don't want to ask for?

Even if its not... NEW regulations are essentially a tax on business and bad for the economy. If we've made it THIS far without this regulation, I suspect we can make it a bit longer. I'd certainly accept waiting until the economy were on more stable footing, ESPECIALLY in light of all the taxation and regulation still coming (already approved).

Trying to paint a delay in NEW regulations as a REDUCTION in standards is just plain ignorant

I don't think it is the same one. You also gave the Republican response. Put profits before the environment or human health. Make no mistake about it, this isn't about adding jobs.

Oh,Hambone, the 5 years was intentional. THe righties think they will win the presidency in 2016 so that they can make it permanent.

Everything politicians do is intentional.... but few things are permanent. That's just silly to argue that the Republicans could pass a bill that would forever bar higher quality standards. If they could (and it were their goal) they would have done it decades ago to LOTS of things.

As to my response... Put these things in their order of current urgency...

Increasing the number of Jobs
Increasing the quality of human health
Increasing the quality of the environment.

That's my order... because 1 is an immediate need and also improves 2 and 3.

I could play the same game and argue that you're putting the needs of the employed over the needs of the unemployed. You right wing greedy ba$tard!

No. I am putting a lot more in decreasing healthcare costs over few jobs that might or might not be created. More people will become sick(or born with physical/social problems that will cost more than what we may or may not reap in tax revenue.

(10-07-2011 11:32 AM)RobertN Wrote:  You also gave the Republican response. Put profits before the environment or human health.

Those things cost money and money only comes from profits from somwhere.

(10-07-2011 12:36 PM)RobertN Wrote:  No. I am putting a lot more in decreasing healthcare costs over few jobs that might or might not be created. More people will become sick(or born with physical/social problems that will cost more than what we may or may not reap in tax revenue.

Creating jobs isn't merely about tax revenue. It's also about people having money to spend on improving their lives.

You're constantly full of hyperbole. I'm sure that sells well in your echo chamber, but as it doesn't reflect reality, you're never going to convince anyone you're anything but a jerk.

We already have among the highest environmental standards in the world. Comparing us environmentally in ANY way to a third world country is stupid. We're not talking about getting rid of old regulations, but adding new ones... meaning nobody is going to get sick who wasn't already going to get sick. Meanwhile, people don't have jobs... so they can't pay their bills, so they don't eat properly, they don't see the doctor, they don't have ac or heat etc etc etc... ALL of which is at least as dangerous as the issues you raise.

Since you're talking about health, Doctors charge is first, do no harm. Right now, your bill would do harm.

Roberta, you being born was pollution.

(10-07-2011 10:11 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Roberta, you being born was pollution.

+1.

(10-07-2011 01:39 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-07-2011 12:36 PM)RobertN Wrote:  No. I am putting a lot more in decreasing healthcare costs over few jobs that might or might not be created. More people will become sick(or born with physical/social problems that will cost more than what we may or may not reap in tax revenue.

Creating jobs isn't merely about tax revenue. It's also about people having money to spend on improving their lives.

You're constantly full of hyperbole. I'm sure that sells well in your echo chamber, but as it doesn't reflect reality, you're never going to convince anyone you're anything but a jerk.

We already have among the highest environmental standards in the world. Comparing us environmentally in ANY way to a third world country is stupid. We're not talking about getting rid of old regulations, but adding new ones... meaning nobody is going to get sick who wasn't already going to get sick. Meanwhile, people don't have jobs... so they can't pay their bills, so they don't eat properly, they don't see the doctor, they don't have ac or heat etc etc etc... ALL of which is at least as dangerous as the issues you raise.

Since you're talking about health, Doctors charge is first, do no harm. Right now, your bill would do harm.

I am talking about our pollution standards in the future being third world like. If you don't believe that getting rid of the EPA(like your righties want to do) is not an attempt to get rid of the old regulations, your naive and have been brainwashed by rightwing propaganda.

(10-08-2011 01:40 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-07-2011 01:39 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-07-2011 12:36 PM)RobertN Wrote:  No. I am putting a lot more in decreasing healthcare costs over few jobs that might or might not be created. More people will become sick(or born with physical/social problems that will cost more than what we may or may not reap in tax revenue.

Creating jobs isn't merely about tax revenue. It's also about people having money to spend on improving their lives.

You're constantly full of hyperbole. I'm sure that sells well in your echo chamber, but as it doesn't reflect reality, you're never going to convince anyone you're anything but a jerk.

We already have among the highest environmental standards in the world. Comparing us environmentally in ANY way to a third world country is stupid. We're not talking about getting rid of old regulations, but adding new ones... meaning nobody is going to get sick who wasn't already going to get sick. Meanwhile, people don't have jobs... so they can't pay their bills, so they don't eat properly, they don't see the doctor, they don't have ac or heat etc etc etc... ALL of which is at least as dangerous as the issues you raise.

Since you're talking about health, Doctors charge is first, do no harm. Right now, your bill would do harm.

I am talking about our pollution standards in the future being third world like. If you don't believe that getting rid of the EPA(like your righties want to do) is not an attempt to get rid of the old regulations, your naive and have been brainwashed by rightwing propaganda.

We only want to get rid of the EPA because they are doing far more harm than good. We all want clean air and water, but not at the cost of losing my job and watching my family starve - Hammy nailed that one. The EPA has become extreme and anything extreme is always a bad thing.