Looking forward to reducing the power of the EPA

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And you miss the point...it was the Shrub's administration that IGNORED the report. Hell, recall all the flack caused when it was revealed that the Shrub & company were altering reports.
Click to expand...

SmarterThanYou said:
I'm not missing a point. I personally don't care which admin did what. All these alphabet agencies are suspect in their constitutionality anyway, but as it stands, all of them have more power than they are supposed to have. They should all be done away with.
Click to expand...

And replaced with what? And who decides this? Remember, all these agencies were created out of a response to various problems in society that the private sector was not addressing. Mind you, I am not happy that Congress needs to get it's act together regarding accountability to the American people, but you don't just throw out the baby with the bath water.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
And replaced with what? And who decides this? Remember, all these agencies were created out of a response to various problems in society that the private sector was not addressing. Mind you, I am not happy that Congress needs to get it's act together regarding accountability to the American people, but you don't just throw out the baby with the bath water.
Click to expand...

"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;..."

in other words, this should have been left up to the states and those states that did nothing while companies polluted the resources of a neighboring state should have been taken to federal court.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And replaced with what? And who decides this? Remember, all these agencies were created out of a response to various problems in society that the private sector was not addressing. Mind you, I am not happy that Congress needs to get it's act together regarding accountability to the American people, but you don't just throw out the baby with the bath water.
Click to expand...

SmarterThanYou said:
"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;..."

in other words, this should have been left up to the states and those states that did nothing while companies polluted the resources of a neighboring state should have been taken to federal court.
Click to expand...

I don't see this in Sections 8-10 of the Constitution. Please provide the sections that state what you say here, for the sake of accurate discussion on my part. Thank you.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;..."

in other words, this should have been left up to the states and those states that did nothing while companies polluted the resources of a neighboring state should have been taken to federal court.
Click to expand...
Un huh and what about the interstate commerce clause? Not to mention while you're splitting pussy hairs about the constitution, kids are dying from liver cancer from drinking solvents in their water and pregnant women are having still births from high mercury levels in their food and not to mention our national symbol would be extinct and that cancer rates would be drastically higher cause virtually everyone would have high levels PCB's stored in their body. Not to mention who would need to do a BBQ as you could go down to your local river and roast hot dogs there when the river catches fire again nor would they ever have to worry about dying of skin cancer in Pittsburgh or LA as they'll never see the sun again.

And so what if the local chemical plant blows up from mismanaging hazardous waste they produce and kill several thousand people living next to them. We'll all have the satisfaction of knowing that they died with their States rights preserved.

Oh and by the way. All the states have their own Environmental programs. USEPA just sets the national guidelines as minimum standards. The State programs must meet those minimum standards but can be and ussually are more stringent then the Federal rules and it is the States,, for the most part that enforce those rules.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Un huh and what about the interstate commerce clause? Not to mention while you're splitting pussy hairs about the constitution, kids are dying from liver cancer from drinking solvents in their water and pregnant women are having still births from high mercury levels in their food and not to mention our national symbol would be extinct and that cancer rates would be drastically higher cause virtually everyone would have high levels PCB's stored in their body. Not to mention who would need to do a BBQ as you could go down to your local river and roast hot dogs there when the river catches fire again nor would they ever have to worry about dying of skin cancer in Pittsburgh or LA as they'll never see the sun again.

And so what if the local chemical plant blows up from mismanaging hazardous waste they produce and kill several thousand people living next to them. We'll all have the satisfaction of knowing that they died with their States rights preserved.

Oh and by the way. All the states have their own Environmental programs. USEPA just sets the national guidelines as minimum standards. The State programs must meet those minimum standards but can be and ussually are more stringent then the Federal rules and it is the States,, for the most part that enforce those rules.
Click to expand...

Mott, why don't you just flat out state that you think the 50 states soveriegnty be disbanded in favor of an all powerful central government.

That is basically what you're stating here.

we could have 50 little baronies all swearing fealty to our rotating king and parliament.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Mott, why don't you just flat out state that you think the 50 states soveriegnty be disbanded in favor of an all powerful central government.

That is basically what you're stating here.

we could have 50 little baronies all swearing fealty to our rotating king and parliament.
Click to expand...


Oh God, do you RonTards and Lyndon Larouch-ettes ever tire of this nonsensical hyperbole?

Listen man, the environment doesn’t recognize state boundaries. Air, water, and wildlife do not feel compelled to stop at the border of Kansas. The Grand Canyon’s air gets fucked up by pollution from southern California. Vermont’s lakes used to be degraded by acid rain originating in Ohio. That's why RonTards literally look retarded when they whine about "states rights", especially where the environment is concerned.

Federal environmental law and the EPA establish certain national baselines and minimums of environmental quality. It’s up to the States to the implement their own programs to meet those minimum standards, or to adopt their own laws that provide an equivalent, or higher degree of environmental protection.

If your state is too lazy to adopt it’s own regulatory programs and laws that meet certain minimum standards, that’s your states fault. USEPA typically only steps in when a State is too lazy to meet certain baseline environmental performance metrics. I can’t speak for your state, but in my state the vast majority of environmental performance and quality is implemented and legislated by the state and it’s agencies.
 
Cypress said:
Oh God, do you RonTards and Lyndon Larouch-ettes ever tire of this nonsensical hyperbole?

Listen man, the environment doesn’t recognize state boundaries. Air, water, and wildlife do not feel compelled to stop at the border of Kansas. The Grand Canyon’s air gets fucked up by pollution from southern California. Vermont’s lakes used to be degraded by acid rain originating in Ohio. That's why RonTards literally look retarded when they whine about "states rights", especially where the environment is concerned.

Federal environmental law and the EPA establish certain national baselines and minimums of environmental quality. It’s up to the States to the implement their own programs to meet those minimum standards, or to adopt their own laws that provide an equivalent, or higher degree of environmental protection.

If your state is too lazy to adopt it’s own regulatory programs and laws that meet certain minimum standards, that’s your states fault. USEPA typically only steps in when a State is too lazy to meet certain baseline environmental performance metrics. I can’t speak for your state, but in my state the vast majority of environmental performance and quality is implemented and legislated by the state and it’s agencies.
Click to expand...

well then I think we ought to surrender to the UN right the fuck now. They must be the only global organization able to effectively handle the environment.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
well then I think we ought to surrender to the UN right the fuck now. They must be the only global organization able to effectively handle the environment.
Click to expand...

HaHaHa!


Here's the problem: you, like many message board posters are prone to pontificating on issues you know nothing about. I'm guilty of it myself sometimes. It's fun to play arm chair scientist, or arm chair environmental specialist on a message board.

the truth is, you don't have the foggiest clue what EPA does, and when you run into someone who does it's easy to look totally uninformed.

EPA's primary function is to set national environmental performance standards, to make sure individual state regulatory programs comply with those standards, and resolve environmental issues that the States won't or can't. Period.

There isn't an army of EPA regulators running around like Nazis telling the states exactly what to do. States do, and always have, had the authority to implement and regulate their own environmental problems, using their own laws and authorities as long as they perform to the equivalent of a national baseline standard. The environment doesn't recognize State boundaries, did you think air and water pollution simply stops at a State line? This is exactly why there has to be national standards. Is this really that hard for a Ronbot to understand?
 
Cypress said:
HaHaHa!


Here's the problem: you, like many message board posters are prone to pontificating on issues you know nothing about. I'm guilty of it myself sometimes. It's fun to play arm chair scientist, or arm chair environmental specialist on a message board.

the truth is, you don't have the foggiest clue what EPA does, and when you run into someone who does it's easy to look totally uninformed.

EPA's primary function is to set national environmental performance standards, to make sure individual state regulatory programs comply with those standards, and resolve environmental issues that the States won't or can't. Period.

There isn't an army of EPA regulators running around like Nazis telling the states exactly what to do. States do, and always have, had the authority to implement and regulate their own environmental problems, using their own laws and authorities as long as they perform to the equivalent of a national baseline standard. The environment doesn't recognize State boundaries, did you think air and water pollution simply stops at a State line? This is exactly why there has to be national standards. Is this really that hard for a Ronbot to understand?
Click to expand...

The EPA loses serious credibility by calling a completely natural gas, necessary for plant life to survive, a pollutant. I do not need to be a nobel prize scientist or climatologist to understand that.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
The EPA loses serious credibility by calling a completely natural gas, ... , a pollutant. I do not need to be a nobel prize scientist or climatologist to understand that.
Click to expand...

OK, my brother had some candied sweet potatoes at Thanksgiving. What he did while we were watching the Dallas game he called "natural" and mentioned something about gas. The 8 people who got up and ran from the living room......I guarantee we thought it was a pollutant. :)

Nothing towards you STY.....just been waiting for a chance to work that story in. I disagree with some of what the EPA has done in the name of cleaner environment over the years but I do realize the necessity of the agency as well.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
The EPA loses serious credibility by calling a completely natural gas, necessary for plant life to survive, a pollutant. I do not need to be a nobel prize scientist or climatologist to understand that.
Click to expand...


Seriously, you really shouldn't engage in any conversations about environmental law if you don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about.

A pollutant doesn't have to be toxic or carcinogenic. A pollutant is any constituent, natural or man made, of which an excessive amount is detrimental to human health, or the ecosystem.

Any number of substances are naturally occuring. But in excessive quantities, they can have detrimental effects. Hey Bro, nitrogen is a natural substance, plants need it, but when elevated to a certain degree by human activities, it's a pollutant which has detrimental effects on ecosystems.

Try drinking a glass of nitrogen or mercury if you are allegedly fearless of natural compounds.
 
Cypress said:
Seriously, you really shouldn't engage in any conversations about environmental law if you don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about.

A pollutant doesn't have to be toxic or carcinogenic. A pollutant is any constituent, natural or man made, of which an excessive amount is detrimental to human health, or the ecosystem.

Any number of substances are naturally occuring. But in excessive quantities, they can have detrimental effects. Hey Bro, nitrogen is a natural substance, plants need it, but when elevated to a certain degree by human activities, it's a pollutant which has detrimental effects on ecosystems.

Try drinking a glass of nitrogen or mercury if you are allegedly fearless of natural compounds.
Click to expand...
so EVERYTHING is a pollutant. got it.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I don't see this in Sections 8-10 of the Constitution. Please provide the sections that state what you say here, for the sake of accurate discussion on my part. Thank you.
Click to expand...

SmarterThanYou said:
That was part of Blackstones commentary on the constitution.
Click to expand...


Yeah, well last time I checked some jokers supposition and conjecture means squat if the actual documents say or allude to NOTHING of the sort.
 
Originally Posted by Cypress
Seriously, you really shouldn't engage in any conversations about environmental law if you don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about.

A pollutant doesn't have to be toxic or carcinogenic. A pollutant is any constituent, natural or man made, of which an excessive amount is detrimental to human health, or the ecosystem.

Any number of substances are naturally occuring. But in excessive quantities, they can have detrimental effects. Hey Bro, nitrogen is a natural substance, plants need it, but when elevated to a certain degree by human activities, it's a pollutant which has detrimental effects on ecosystems.

Try drinking a glass of nitrogen or mercury if you are allegedly fearless of natural compounds.
Click to expand...

SmarterThanYou said:
so EVERYTHING is a pollutant. got it.
Click to expand...

No, you're just being stubborn. Emission standards for automobiles, for industrial smoke stacks. They are NOT giving out naturally produced elements that pollute the air....acid rain being one factor.
 
The E.P.A. isnt perfect,But I dont want to go back to the absolute mess that the envronment was in the 60ies and 70ies.Weve come along way with the polution problem. Its no time to quite now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top