Are Republicans really against clean air and clean water? Is there ever too much "dirty"?

[martybegan]

Republicans insist they aren't against clean air and clean water but there are too many regulations keeping air and water clean.

So how much dirty is "just enough"? How can you tell when you start crossing the red line into Flint water?
What what point do Republicans say, "Wait a minute, this water is too dirty to drink and this air is making my kids sick"?

Is this OK?

but not this?

Or is it somewhere in between?

Or maybe there isn't "too much".

Anyone?

I've talked about this subject with Republican friends and they also can't understand how many in their party seem to actually be against clean air and water. What living organism is in favor of drinking dirty water or breathing soot? And unfortunately the humans doing most of the polluting don't give a rats ass as long as they make money, so they have to be regulated and forced to comply. That is what government is for.

And it's pretty common that when you meet people that don't mind 'trash', when you go to their house it's a pig sty.

The fact you lead off with the false statement that "Republicans are against clean air and water" just shows what a fucking hack you are.

There is a difference between being against all regulations, and being against regulations whose purpose is to either ruin an industry or appease some scientifically ignorant crusader who sees more regulation as better regulation.

 

[deanrd]

So the Democrats running Flint screw things up so bad that they can't pay their water bills and the city has to be taken over by the State to get things in order...but it's the Republicans fault? Only in "R-Derp Land"!

Oh, you can bet the Flint scandal is no where near over even though Republicans have done everything they could to make it go away.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder appointed his cronies to take over elected positions from Flint Democratic governing bodies. Once Republicans took control, thinking they could save money, they switched water from the Detroit Water System and began taking water directly from the Flint River in, oh, around 2014. Regardless of who was elected in Flint, the city was under state control appointed by Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder.

Come on, you can't possibly be that fuking ignorant. It was all over the news and it wasn't that long ago. If you guys are going to rewrite history, make sure it isn't recent.

 

[Sunsettommy]

So this is all you got.... whaaaaaaaaaaa ...... your going to dirty my water.... I wonder who was in charge in Flint when they poisoned the town? Democrats... Got to love them pictures of Flints water... Wonderful straw man you created.

Republicans were in charge of Flint. You can't have alternative facts. You have to stick with the REAL facts.

Why are you lying?

Democrats have been in charge of the city for a long time, as shown here, from National Review:

Political Poison

So this is all you got.... whaaaaaaaaaaa ...... your going to dirty my water.... I wonder who was in charge in Flint when they poisoned the town? Democrats... Got to love them pictures of Flints water... Wonderful straw man you created.

Republicans were in charge of Flint. You can't have alternative facts. You have to stick with the REAL facts.

Why are you lying?

Democrats have been in charge of the city for a long time, as shown here, from National Review:
​

Political Poison ​

​

By Kevin D. Williamson
January 15, 2016

EXCERPT:

"Flint, Mich., has been poisoning its residents.​

The city, in an attempt to save money, planned to stop buying water from Detroit and sign up with a regional water system; in the interim, it was getting its municipal water from the Flint River, which is as much a garbage dump as it is a body of water. Residents complained that the water smells of chemicals, that it isn’t the right color, etc. Children’s lead levels are dangerously high, and an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease may also be linked to city water. The city knew about this, and did approximately nothing in response until the problem was well advanced.

A word that is curiously scarce in coverage of this disaster: Democrat.

Flint, like big brother Detroit down the way, has a long history of political dominance by the Democratic party. Its current mayor is a Democrat; so was her predecessor; the mayor before him, Don Williamson, was a career criminal (he did time for various scams some years back) and a Democrat who resigned under threat of recall; his immediate predecessor, Democrat James W. Rutherford, is a longtime politico and was elected to finish out the term of Woodrow Stanley, who was recalled because of the financial state in which he left the city.

Stanley was in effect replaced by — Democrat — Darnell Earley, former director of the Democratic legislative caucus’s research-and-policy team, who became the city’s emergency manager. Earley is the Democrat the other Democrats blame for changing the city’s water supply, and the Michigan Democratic party has demanded his termination."

LINK

 

[Sunsettommy]

Republicans insist they aren't against clean air and clean water but there are too many regulations keeping air and water clean.

So how much dirty is "just enough"? How can you tell when you start crossing the red line into Flint water?
What what point do Republicans say, "Wait a minute, this water is too dirty to drink and this air is making my kids sick"?

Is this OK?

but not this?

Or is it somewhere in between?

Or maybe there isn't "too much".

Anyone?

Where are those photos from and what is really in the water shown?

I used to do plumbing work in a very old City Hall with 60 year old rusting steel pipes. I would periodically unscrew the strainer, open the water wide to drain the worst of the rusty water from the pipes, that looks a lot like the second photo.

The recent flint water source was straight from the badly polluted river, which is why people are complaining. Their water cleaning system must be really bad.

Next time make a more honest post.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Republicans insist they aren't against clean air and clean water but there are too many regulations keeping air and water clean.

So how much dirty is "just enough"? How can you tell when you start crossing the red line into Flint water?
What what point do Republicans say, "Wait a minute, this water is too dirty to drink and this air is making my kids sick"?

Is this OK?

but not this?

Or is it somewhere in between?

Or maybe there isn't "too much".

Anyone?

I've talked about this subject with Republican friends and they also can't understand how many in their party seem to actually be against clean air and water. What living organism is in favor of drinking dirty water or breathing soot? And unfortunately the humans doing most of the polluting don't give a rats ass as long as they make money, so they have to be regulated and forced to comply. That is what government is for.

And it's pretty common that when you meet people that don't mind 'trash', when you go to their house it's a pig sty.

The fact you lead off with the false statement that "Republicans are against clean air and water" just shows what a fucking hack you are.

There is a difference between being against all regulations, and being against regulations whose purpose is to either ruin an industry or appease some scientifically ignorant crusader who sees more regulation as better regulation.

I didn't 'lead off' with that, your brain just saw what you needed to see so your vitriol machine could function properly. Your brethren lead off with that, sorry.

 

[skookerasbil]

Again.... I'm laughing. The k00k left has been this Republicans hate the Earth Republicans hate science narrative for what? At least 10 years.... maybe 15 years. And exactly what has it netted them? I'll tell you exactly what.....DICK.

And they keep thinking this narrative is an effective one.



What do they have to show for it? How about all that Congressional legislation on climate change over the last 10 years. How about that EPA?. How about all that solar power that is providing less than 2% of our electricity. How about those green candidates stroller performance in the 2016 midyetms?

WHO'S NOT winning?

 

[martybegan]

Republicans insist they aren't against clean air and clean water but there are too many regulations keeping air and water clean.

So how much dirty is "just enough"? How can you tell when you start crossing the red line into Flint water?
What what point do Republicans say, "Wait a minute, this water is too dirty to drink and this air is making my kids sick"?

Is this OK?

but not this?

Or is it somewhere in between?

Or maybe there isn't "too much".

Anyone?

I've talked about this subject with Republican friends and they also can't understand how many in their party seem to actually be against clean air and water. What living organism is in favor of drinking dirty water or breathing soot? And unfortunately the humans doing most of the polluting don't give a rats ass as long as they make money, so they have to be regulated and forced to comply. That is what government is for.

And it's pretty common that when you meet people that don't mind 'trash', when you go to their house it's a pig sty.

The fact you lead off with the false statement that "Republicans are against clean air and water" just shows what a fucking hack you are.

There is a difference between being against all regulations, and being against regulations whose purpose is to either ruin an industry or appease some scientifically ignorant crusader who sees more regulation as better regulation.

I didn't 'lead off' with that, your brain just saw what you needed to see so your vitriol machine could function properly. Your brethren lead off with that, sorry.

You lead off with "fuh fuh fuh republicans want to shit in your water and kill puppies fuh fuh fuh"

 

[Sunsettommy]

Again.... I'm laughing. The k00k left has been this Republicans hate the Earth Republicans hate science narrative for what? At least 10 years.... maybe 15 years. And exactly what has it netted them? I'll tell you exactly what.....DICK.

And they keep thinking this narrative is an effective one.



What do they have to show for it? How about all that Congressional legislation on climate change over the last 10 years. How about that EPA?. How about all that solar power that is providing less than 2% of our electricity. How about those green candidates stroller performance in the 2016 midyetms?

WHO'S NOT winning?

So the Democrats running Flint screw things up so bad that they can't pay their water bills and the city has to be taken over by the State to get things in order...but it's the Republicans fault? Only in "R-Derp Land"!

Actually the problem were caused by a lot of people of both parties. The victims are the residents who were let down.

 

[deanrd]

So this is all you got.... whaaaaaaaaaaa ...... your going to dirty my water.... I wonder who was in charge in Flint when they poisoned the town? Democrats... Got to love them pictures of Flints water... Wonderful straw man you created.

Republicans were in charge of Flint. You can't have alternative facts. You have to stick with the REAL facts.

Why are you lying?

Democrats have been in charge of the city for a long time, as shown here, from National Review:

Political Poison

So this is all you got.... whaaaaaaaaaaa ...... your going to dirty my water.... I wonder who was in charge in Flint when they poisoned the town? Democrats... Got to love them pictures of Flints water... Wonderful straw man you created.

Republicans were in charge of Flint. You can't have alternative facts. You have to stick with the REAL facts.

Why are you lying?

Democrats have been in charge of the city for a long time, as shown here, from National Review:

Political Poison
​

By Kevin D. Williamson
January 15, 2016

EXCERPT:

"Flint, Mich., has been poisoning its residents.​

The city, in an attempt to save money, planned to stop buying water from Detroit and sign up with a regional water system; in the interim, it was getting its municipal water from the Flint River, which is as much a garbage dump as it is a body of water. Residents complained that the water smells of chemicals, that it isn’t the right color, etc. Children’s lead levels are dangerously high, and an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease may also be linked to city water. The city knew about this, and did approximately nothing in response until the problem was well advanced.

A word that is curiously scarce in coverage of this disaster: Democrat.

Flint, like big brother Detroit down the way, has a long history of political dominance by the Democratic party. Its current mayor is a Democrat; so was her predecessor; the mayor before him, Don Williamson, was a career criminal (he did time for various scams some years back) and a Democrat who resigned under threat of recall; his immediate predecessor, Democrat James W. Rutherford, is a longtime politico and was elected to finish out the term of Woodrow Stanley, who was recalled because of the financial state in which he left the city.

Stanley was in effect replaced by — Democrat — Darnell Earley, former director of the Democratic legislative caucus’s research-and-policy team, who became the city’s emergency manager. Earley is the Democrat the other Democrats blame for changing the city’s water supply, and the Michigan Democratic party has demanded his termination."

LINK

You must have looked a long time to find an article that doesn't even mention the Republican governor.

This is what I wrote:
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder appointed his cronies to take over elected positions from Flint Democratic governing bodies. Once Republicans took control, thinking they could save money, they switched water from the Detroit Water System and began taking water directly from the Flint River in, oh, around 2014. Regardless of who was elected in Flint, the city was under state control appointed by Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder.

Anger in Michigan Over Appointing Emergency Managers

Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican, swept in with a rescue plan: the appointment of an emergency manager, Kevyn D. Orr, who was charged with saving a city in fiscal despair. Many Detroiters were furious that Mr. Orr, then a high-profile bankruptcy lawyer from Chevy Chase, Md., had been given a role with extraordinary power, usurping control from local elected officials.

That anger has been revived in Michigan this week. Public outrage over the tainted water in Flint and the decrepit schools in Detroit has led many people to question whether the state has overreached in imposing too many emergency managers in largely black jurisdictions.

In the cases of both Flint and the Detroit Public Schools, governance was under the jurisdiction of the governor, rather than local officials closer to the ground.

In Flint, emergency managers not only oversaw the city — effectively seizing legal authority from the mayor and City Council — but also pressed to switch the source of the financially troubled city’s water supply to save money.

------------

Don't you get it? The Republican governor appointed so called emergency managers to bypass the duly elected which reported directly to him. So yes, there were elected Democrats. But they had no power. The GOP governor replaced them with minions he appointed that reported directly to him.

That's just the way it was. Do some FACT research and not that, whatever it was you did.

 

[Sunsettommy]

So this is all you got.... whaaaaaaaaaaa ...... your going to dirty my water.... I wonder who was in charge in Flint when they poisoned the town? Democrats... Got to love them pictures of Flints water... Wonderful straw man you created.

Republicans were in charge of Flint. You can't have alternative facts. You have to stick with the REAL facts.

Why are you lying?

Democrats have been in charge of the city for a long time, as shown here, from National Review:

Political Poison

So this is all you got.... whaaaaaaaaaaa ...... your going to dirty my water.... I wonder who was in charge in Flint when they poisoned the town? Democrats... Got to love them pictures of Flints water... Wonderful straw man you created.

Republicans were in charge of Flint. You can't have alternative facts. You have to stick with the REAL facts.

Why are you lying?

Democrats have been in charge of the city for a long time, as shown here, from National Review:

Political Poison
​

By Kevin D. Williamson
January 15, 2016

EXCERPT:

"Flint, Mich., has been poisoning its residents.​

The city, in an attempt to save money, planned to stop buying water from Detroit and sign up with a regional water system; in the interim, it was getting its municipal water from the Flint River, which is as much a garbage dump as it is a body of water. Residents complained that the water smells of chemicals, that it isn’t the right color, etc. Children’s lead levels are dangerously high, and an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease may also be linked to city water. The city knew about this, and did approximately nothing in response until the problem was well advanced.

A word that is curiously scarce in coverage of this disaster: Democrat.

Flint, like big brother Detroit down the way, has a long history of political dominance by the Democratic party. Its current mayor is a Democrat; so was her predecessor; the mayor before him, Don Williamson, was a career criminal (he did time for various scams some years back) and a Democrat who resigned under threat of recall; his immediate predecessor, Democrat James W. Rutherford, is a longtime politico and was elected to finish out the term of Woodrow Stanley, who was recalled because of the financial state in which he left the city.

Stanley was in effect replaced by — Democrat — Darnell Earley, former director of the Democratic legislative caucus’s research-and-policy team, who became the city’s emergency manager. Earley is the Democrat the other Democrats blame for changing the city’s water supply, and the Michigan Democratic party has demanded his termination."

LINK

You must have looked a long time to find an article that doesn't even mention the Republican governor.

This is what I wrote:
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder appointed his cronies to take over elected positions from Flint Democratic governing bodies. Once Republicans took control, thinking they could save money, they switched water from the Detroit Water System and began taking water directly from the Flint River in, oh, around 2014. Regardless of who was elected in Flint, the city was under state control appointed by Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder.

Anger in Michigan Over Appointing Emergency Managers

Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican, swept in with a rescue plan: the appointment of an emergency manager, Kevyn D. Orr, who was charged with saving a city in fiscal despair. Many Detroiters were furious that Mr. Orr, then a high-profile bankruptcy lawyer from Chevy Chase, Md., had been given a role with extraordinary power, usurping control from local elected officials.

That anger has been revived in Michigan this week. Public outrage over the tainted water in Flint and the decrepit schools in Detroit has led many people to question whether the state has overreached in imposing too many emergency managers in largely black jurisdictions.

In the cases of both Flint and the Detroit Public Schools, governance was under the jurisdiction of the governor, rather than local officials closer to the ground.

In Flint, emergency managers not only oversaw the city — effectively seizing legal authority from the mayor and City Council — but also pressed to switch the source of the financially troubled city’s water supply to save money.

------------

Don't you get it? The Republican governor appointed so called emergency managers to bypass the duly elected which reported directly to him. So yes, there were elected Democrats. But they had no power. The GOP governor replaced them with minions he appointed that reported directly to him.

That's just the way it was. Do some FACT research and not that, whatever it was you did.

You seem unable to understand WHY the Governor had to come in push the liberal mayor aside to try fixing a problem all those past liberal mayors FAILED to fix. The City has been under Democratic control for a long time. The problem occurred under them not under the current Governor, not under Republican control.

Try not to be so clueless or narrow minded.

 

[deanrd]

So this is all you got.... whaaaaaaaaaaa ...... your going to dirty my water.... I wonder who was in charge in Flint when they poisoned the town? Democrats... Got to love them pictures of Flints water... Wonderful straw man you created.

Republicans were in charge of Flint. You can't have alternative facts. You have to stick with the REAL facts.

Why are you lying?

Democrats have been in charge of the city for a long time, as shown here, from National Review:

Political Poison

So this is all you got.... whaaaaaaaaaaa ...... your going to dirty my water.... I wonder who was in charge in Flint when they poisoned the town? Democrats... Got to love them pictures of Flints water... Wonderful straw man you created.

Republicans were in charge of Flint. You can't have alternative facts. You have to stick with the REAL facts.

Why are you lying?

Democrats have been in charge of the city for a long time, as shown here, from National Review:

Political Poison
​

By Kevin D. Williamson
January 15, 2016

EXCERPT:

"Flint, Mich., has been poisoning its residents.​

The city, in an attempt to save money, planned to stop buying water from Detroit and sign up with a regional water system; in the interim, it was getting its municipal water from the Flint River, which is as much a garbage dump as it is a body of water. Residents complained that the water smells of chemicals, that it isn’t the right color, etc. Children’s lead levels are dangerously high, and an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease may also be linked to city water. The city knew about this, and did approximately nothing in response until the problem was well advanced.

A word that is curiously scarce in coverage of this disaster: Democrat.

Flint, like big brother Detroit down the way, has a long history of political dominance by the Democratic party. Its current mayor is a Democrat; so was her predecessor; the mayor before him, Don Williamson, was a career criminal (he did time for various scams some years back) and a Democrat who resigned under threat of recall; his immediate predecessor, Democrat James W. Rutherford, is a longtime politico and was elected to finish out the term of Woodrow Stanley, who was recalled because of the financial state in which he left the city.

Stanley was in effect replaced by — Democrat — Darnell Earley, former director of the Democratic legislative caucus’s research-and-policy team, who became the city’s emergency manager. Earley is the Democrat the other Democrats blame for changing the city’s water supply, and the Michigan Democratic party has demanded his termination."

LINK

You must have looked a long time to find an article that doesn't even mention the Republican governor.

This is what I wrote:
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder appointed his cronies to take over elected positions from Flint Democratic governing bodies. Once Republicans took control, thinking they could save money, they switched water from the Detroit Water System and began taking water directly from the Flint River in, oh, around 2014. Regardless of who was elected in Flint, the city was under state control appointed by Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder.

Anger in Michigan Over Appointing Emergency Managers

Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican, swept in with a rescue plan: the appointment of an emergency manager, Kevyn D. Orr, who was charged with saving a city in fiscal despair. Many Detroiters were furious that Mr. Orr, then a high-profile bankruptcy lawyer from Chevy Chase, Md., had been given a role with extraordinary power, usurping control from local elected officials.

That anger has been revived in Michigan this week. Public outrage over the tainted water in Flint and the decrepit schools in Detroit has led many people to question whether the state has overreached in imposing too many emergency managers in largely black jurisdictions.

In the cases of both Flint and the Detroit Public Schools, governance was under the jurisdiction of the governor, rather than local officials closer to the ground.

In Flint, emergency managers not only oversaw the city — effectively seizing legal authority from the mayor and City Council — but also pressed to switch the source of the financially troubled city’s water supply to save money.

------------

Don't you get it? The Republican governor appointed so called emergency managers to bypass the duly elected which reported directly to him. So yes, there were elected Democrats. But they had no power. The GOP governor replaced them with minions he appointed that reported directly to him.

That's just the way it was. Do some FACT research and not that, whatever it was you did.

You seem unable to understand WHY the Governor had to come in push the liberal mayor aside to try fixing a problem all those past liberal mayors FAILED to fix. The City has been under Democratic control for a long time. The problem occurred under them not under the current Governor, not under Republican control.

Try not to be so clueless or narrow minded.

Does why matter when the answer was to poison a hundred thousand people?

 

[deanrd]

Republicans insist they aren't against clean air and clean water but there are too many regulations keeping air and water clean.

So how much dirty is "just enough"? How can you tell when you start crossing the red line into Flint water?
What what point do Republicans say, "Wait a minute, this water is too dirty to drink and this air is making my kids sick"?

Is this OK?

but not this?

Or is it somewhere in between?

Or maybe there isn't "too much".

Anyone?

I've talked about this subject with Republican friends and they also can't understand how many in their party seem to actually be against clean air and water. What living organism is in favor of drinking dirty water or breathing soot? And unfortunately the humans doing most of the polluting don't give a rats ass as long as they make money, so they have to be regulated and forced to comply. That is what government is for.

And it's pretty common that when you meet people that don't mind 'trash', when you go to their house it's a pig sty.

The fact you lead off with the false statement that "Republicans are against clean air and water" just shows what a fucking hack you are.

There is a difference between being against all regulations, and being against regulations whose purpose is to either ruin an industry or appease some scientifically ignorant crusader who sees more regulation as better regulation.

From liberals and Democrats, we get scientific studies on why regulations are put in place.

Republicans ONLY studies are: Let's remove regulations because they cost money. That's it. That's ALL they have.

There are no scientific studies. Nothing thoughtful. Just remove regulations because they cost money.

Well I want clean air and clean water. Even if it costs money.

 

[Sunsettommy]

So this is all you got.... whaaaaaaaaaaa ...... your going to dirty my water.... I wonder who was in charge in Flint when they poisoned the town? Democrats... Got to love them pictures of Flints water... Wonderful straw man you created.

Republicans were in charge of Flint. You can't have alternative facts. You have to stick with the REAL facts.

Why are you lying?

Democrats have been in charge of the city for a long time, as shown here, from National Review:

Political Poison

So this is all you got.... whaaaaaaaaaaa ...... your going to dirty my water.... I wonder who was in charge in Flint when they poisoned the town? Democrats... Got to love them pictures of Flints water... Wonderful straw man you created.

Republicans were in charge of Flint. You can't have alternative facts. You have to stick with the REAL facts.

Why are you lying?

Democrats have been in charge of the city for a long time, as shown here, from National Review:

Political Poison
​

By Kevin D. Williamson
January 15, 2016

EXCERPT:

"Flint, Mich., has been poisoning its residents.​

The city, in an attempt to save money, planned to stop buying water from Detroit and sign up with a regional water system; in the interim, it was getting its municipal water from the Flint River, which is as much a garbage dump as it is a body of water. Residents complained that the water smells of chemicals, that it isn’t the right color, etc. Children’s lead levels are dangerously high, and an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease may also be linked to city water. The city knew about this, and did approximately nothing in response until the problem was well advanced.

A word that is curiously scarce in coverage of this disaster: Democrat.

Flint, like big brother Detroit down the way, has a long history of political dominance by the Democratic party. Its current mayor is a Democrat; so was her predecessor; the mayor before him, Don Williamson, was a career criminal (he did time for various scams some years back) and a Democrat who resigned under threat of recall; his immediate predecessor, Democrat James W. Rutherford, is a longtime politico and was elected to finish out the term of Woodrow Stanley, who was recalled because of the financial state in which he left the city.

Stanley was in effect replaced by — Democrat — Darnell Earley, former director of the Democratic legislative caucus’s research-and-policy team, who became the city’s emergency manager. Earley is the Democrat the other Democrats blame for changing the city’s water supply, and the Michigan Democratic party has demanded his termination."

LINK

You must have looked a long time to find an article that doesn't even mention the Republican governor.

This is what I wrote:
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder appointed his cronies to take over elected positions from Flint Democratic governing bodies. Once Republicans took control, thinking they could save money, they switched water from the Detroit Water System and began taking water directly from the Flint River in, oh, around 2014. Regardless of who was elected in Flint, the city was under state control appointed by Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder.

Anger in Michigan Over Appointing Emergency Managers

Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican, swept in with a rescue plan: the appointment of an emergency manager, Kevyn D. Orr, who was charged with saving a city in fiscal despair. Many Detroiters were furious that Mr. Orr, then a high-profile bankruptcy lawyer from Chevy Chase, Md., had been given a role with extraordinary power, usurping control from local elected officials.

That anger has been revived in Michigan this week. Public outrage over the tainted water in Flint and the decrepit schools in Detroit has led many people to question whether the state has overreached in imposing too many emergency managers in largely black jurisdictions.

In the cases of both Flint and the Detroit Public Schools, governance was under the jurisdiction of the governor, rather than local officials closer to the ground.

In Flint, emergency managers not only oversaw the city — effectively seizing legal authority from the mayor and City Council — but also pressed to switch the source of the financially troubled city’s water supply to save money.

------------

Don't you get it? The Republican governor appointed so called emergency managers to bypass the duly elected which reported directly to him. So yes, there were elected Democrats. But they had no power. The GOP governor replaced them with minions he appointed that reported directly to him.

That's just the way it was. Do some FACT research and not that, whatever it was you did.

You seem unable to understand WHY the Governor had to come in push the liberal mayor aside to try fixing a problem all those past liberal mayors FAILED to fix. The City has been under Democratic control for a long time. The problem occurred under them not under the current Governor, not under Republican control.

Try not to be so clueless or narrow minded.

Does why matter when the answer was to poison a hundred thousand people?

It appears you have realized that the problem was first done by the democrats, who failed to run the city well. The Governor steps in his effort to fix it made bad decisions as well.

This is why Voters should do a better job in choosing their leaders.

 

[martybegan]

Republicans insist they aren't against clean air and clean water but there are too many regulations keeping air and water clean.

So how much dirty is "just enough"? How can you tell when you start crossing the red line into Flint water?
What what point do Republicans say, "Wait a minute, this water is too dirty to drink and this air is making my kids sick"?

Is this OK?

but not this?

Or is it somewhere in between?

Or maybe there isn't "too much".

Anyone?

I've talked about this subject with Republican friends and they also can't understand how many in their party seem to actually be against clean air and water. What living organism is in favor of drinking dirty water or breathing soot? And unfortunately the humans doing most of the polluting don't give a rats ass as long as they make money, so they have to be regulated and forced to comply. That is what government is for.

And it's pretty common that when you meet people that don't mind 'trash', when you go to their house it's a pig sty.

The fact you lead off with the false statement that "Republicans are against clean air and water" just shows what a fucking hack you are.

There is a difference between being against all regulations, and being against regulations whose purpose is to either ruin an industry or appease some scientifically ignorant crusader who sees more regulation as better regulation.

From liberals and Democrats, we get scientific studies on why regulations are put in place.

Republicans ONLY studies are: Let's remove regulations because they cost money. That's it. That's ALL they have.

There are no scientific studies. Nothing thoughtful. Just remove regulations because they cost money.

Well I want clean air and clean water. Even if it costs money.

Scientific studies do not automatically translate to effective or even nessasary regulations.

Would you want your clean water to cost you $50 a gallon?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Republicans insist they aren't against clean air and clean water but there are too many regulations keeping air and water clean.

So how much dirty is "just enough"? How can you tell when you start crossing the red line into Flint water?
What what point do Republicans say, "Wait a minute, this water is too dirty to drink and this air is making my kids sick"?

Is this OK?

but not this?

Or is it somewhere in between?

Or maybe there isn't "too much".

Anyone?

I've talked about this subject with Republican friends and they also can't understand how many in their party seem to actually be against clean air and water. What living organism is in favor of drinking dirty water or breathing soot? And unfortunately the humans doing most of the polluting don't give a rats ass as long as they make money, so they have to be regulated and forced to comply. That is what government is for.

And it's pretty common that when you meet people that don't mind 'trash', when you go to their house it's a pig sty.

The fact you lead off with the false statement that "Republicans are against clean air and water" just shows what a fucking hack you are.

There is a difference between being against all regulations, and being against regulations whose purpose is to either ruin an industry or appease some scientifically ignorant crusader who sees more regulation as better regulation.

From liberals and Democrats, we get scientific studies on why regulations are put in place.

Republicans ONLY studies are: Let's remove regulations because they cost money. That's it. That's ALL they have.

There are no scientific studies. Nothing thoughtful. Just remove regulations because they cost money.

Well I want clean air and clean water. Even if it costs money.

Scientific studies do not automatically translate to effective or even nessasary regulations.

Would you want your clean water to cost you $50 a gallon?

One day it will. Is there an alternative to clean water?

Try new Dirty Water! Yes we've filled your water with raw sewage and chromium with just a dash of radioactivity. Dirty Water! All that you've come to expect from clean water but straight from the toilet! Why spend $50 a gallon on clean water when you can get two gallons of Dirty Water for the same price. Sure you'll get cholera but modern medicine can save 70% of cholera victims now! So don't waste another minute worrying about how clean your water is, the beef you're eating is filled with Dirty Water already! Get rid of that pesky middle-man for half the price!

 

[martybegan]

Republicans insist they aren't against clean air and clean water but there are too many regulations keeping air and water clean.

So how much dirty is "just enough"? How can you tell when you start crossing the red line into Flint water?
What what point do Republicans say, "Wait a minute, this water is too dirty to drink and this air is making my kids sick"?

Is this OK?

but not this?

Or is it somewhere in between?

Or maybe there isn't "too much".

Anyone?

I've talked about this subject with Republican friends and they also can't understand how many in their party seem to actually be against clean air and water. What living organism is in favor of drinking dirty water or breathing soot? And unfortunately the humans doing most of the polluting don't give a rats ass as long as they make money, so they have to be regulated and forced to comply. That is what government is for.

And it's pretty common that when you meet people that don't mind 'trash', when you go to their house it's a pig sty.

The fact you lead off with the false statement that "Republicans are against clean air and water" just shows what a fucking hack you are.

There is a difference between being against all regulations, and being against regulations whose purpose is to either ruin an industry or appease some scientifically ignorant crusader who sees more regulation as better regulation.

From liberals and Democrats, we get scientific studies on why regulations are put in place.

Republicans ONLY studies are: Let's remove regulations because they cost money. That's it. That's ALL they have.

There are no scientific studies. Nothing thoughtful. Just remove regulations because they cost money.

Well I want clean air and clean water. Even if it costs money.

Scientific studies do not automatically translate to effective or even nessasary regulations.

Would you want your clean water to cost you $50 a gallon?

One day it will. Is there an alternative to clean water?

Try new Dirty Water! Yes we've filled your water with raw sewage and chromium with just a dash of radioactivity. Dirty Water! All that you've come to expect from clean water but straight from the toilet! Why spend $50 a gallon on clean water when you can get two gallons of Dirty Water for the same price. Sure you'll get cholera but modern medicine can save 70% of cholera victims now! So don't waste another minute worrying about how clean your water is, the beef you're eating is filled with Dirty Water already! Get rid of that pesky middle-man for half the price!

If the only answer you have is snark, you don't have an answer.

The better question to you is if you can get clean water for $2.00 a gallon that is perfectly safe, or clean water for $50 a gallon that is further treated but gives you no real extra benefit, which one would you buy?

 

[IsaacNewton]

I've talked about this subject with Republican friends and they also can't understand how many in their party seem to actually be against clean air and water. What living organism is in favor of drinking dirty water or breathing soot? And unfortunately the humans doing most of the polluting don't give a rats ass as long as they make money, so they have to be regulated and forced to comply. That is what government is for.

And it's pretty common that when you meet people that don't mind 'trash', when you go to their house it's a pig sty.

The fact you lead off with the false statement that "Republicans are against clean air and water" just shows what a fucking hack you are.

There is a difference between being against all regulations, and being against regulations whose purpose is to either ruin an industry or appease some scientifically ignorant crusader who sees more regulation as better regulation.

From liberals and Democrats, we get scientific studies on why regulations are put in place.

Republicans ONLY studies are: Let's remove regulations because they cost money. That's it. That's ALL they have.

There are no scientific studies. Nothing thoughtful. Just remove regulations because they cost money.

Well I want clean air and clean water. Even if it costs money.

Scientific studies do not automatically translate to effective or even nessasary regulations.

Would you want your clean water to cost you $50 a gallon?

One day it will. Is there an alternative to clean water?

Try new Dirty Water! Yes we've filled your water with raw sewage and chromium with just a dash of radioactivity. Dirty Water! All that you've come to expect from clean water but straight from the toilet! Why spend $50 a gallon on clean water when you can get two gallons of Dirty Water for the same price. Sure you'll get cholera but modern medicine can save 70% of cholera victims now! So don't waste another minute worrying about how clean your water is, the beef you're eating is filled with Dirty Water already! Get rid of that pesky middle-man for half the price!

If the only answer you have is snark, you don't have an answer.

The better question to you is if you can get clean water for $2.00 a gallon that is perfectly safe, or clean water for $50 a gallon that is further treated but gives you no real extra benefit, which one would you buy?

I wasn't snark, there a few things that living organisms need to survive, oxygen and clean water are the two most important. When you say 'water that is perfectly safe' that means clean water yes? I'm even sure what you are arguing for or against.

 

[martybegan]

The fact you lead off with the false statement that "Republicans are against clean air and water" just shows what a fucking hack you are.

There is a difference between being against all regulations, and being against regulations whose purpose is to either ruin an industry or appease some scientifically ignorant crusader who sees more regulation as better regulation.

From liberals and Democrats, we get scientific studies on why regulations are put in place.

Republicans ONLY studies are: Let's remove regulations because they cost money. That's it. That's ALL they have.

There are no scientific studies. Nothing thoughtful. Just remove regulations because they cost money.

Well I want clean air and clean water. Even if it costs money.

Scientific studies do not automatically translate to effective or even nessasary regulations.

Would you want your clean water to cost you $50 a gallon?

One day it will. Is there an alternative to clean water?

Try new Dirty Water! Yes we've filled your water with raw sewage and chromium with just a dash of radioactivity. Dirty Water! All that you've come to expect from clean water but straight from the toilet! Why spend $50 a gallon on clean water when you can get two gallons of Dirty Water for the same price. Sure you'll get cholera but modern medicine can save 70% of cholera victims now! So don't waste another minute worrying about how clean your water is, the beef you're eating is filled with Dirty Water already! Get rid of that pesky middle-man for half the price!

If the only answer you have is snark, you don't have an answer.

The better question to you is if you can get clean water for $2.00 a gallon that is perfectly safe, or clean water for $50 a gallon that is further treated but gives you no real extra benefit, which one would you buy?

I wasn't snark, there a few things that living organisms need to survive, oxygen and clean water are the two most important. When you say 'water that is perfectly safe' that means clean water yes? I'm even sure what you are arguing for or against.

My argument is a bunch of the regulations proposed during the Obama period were costly increases to required treatment levels that provided no tangible benefit.

 

[IsaacNewton]

From liberals and Democrats, we get scientific studies on why regulations are put in place.

Republicans ONLY studies are: Let's remove regulations because they cost money. That's it. That's ALL they have.

There are no scientific studies. Nothing thoughtful. Just remove regulations because they cost money.

Well I want clean air and clean water. Even if it costs money.

Scientific studies do not automatically translate to effective or even nessasary regulations.

Would you want your clean water to cost you $50 a gallon?

One day it will. Is there an alternative to clean water?

Try new Dirty Water! Yes we've filled your water with raw sewage and chromium with just a dash of radioactivity. Dirty Water! All that you've come to expect from clean water but straight from the toilet! Why spend $50 a gallon on clean water when you can get two gallons of Dirty Water for the same price. Sure you'll get cholera but modern medicine can save 70% of cholera victims now! So don't waste another minute worrying about how clean your water is, the beef you're eating is filled with Dirty Water already! Get rid of that pesky middle-man for half the price!

If the only answer you have is snark, you don't have an answer.

The better question to you is if you can get clean water for $2.00 a gallon that is perfectly safe, or clean water for $50 a gallon that is further treated but gives you no real extra benefit, which one would you buy?

I wasn't snark, there a few things that living organisms need to survive, oxygen and clean water are the two most important. When you say 'water that is perfectly safe' that means clean water yes? I'm even sure what you are arguing for or against.

My argument is a bunch of the regulations proposed during the Obama period were costly increases to required treatment levels that provided no tangible benefit.

Like what.

 

[martybegan]

Scientific studies do not automatically translate to effective or even nessasary regulations.

Would you want your clean water to cost you $50 a gallon?

One day it will. Is there an alternative to clean water?

Try new Dirty Water! Yes we've filled your water with raw sewage and chromium with just a dash of radioactivity. Dirty Water! All that you've come to expect from clean water but straight from the toilet! Why spend $50 a gallon on clean water when you can get two gallons of Dirty Water for the same price. Sure you'll get cholera but modern medicine can save 70% of cholera victims now! So don't waste another minute worrying about how clean your water is, the beef you're eating is filled with Dirty Water already! Get rid of that pesky middle-man for half the price!

If the only answer you have is snark, you don't have an answer.

The better question to you is if you can get clean water for $2.00 a gallon that is perfectly safe, or clean water for $50 a gallon that is further treated but gives you no real extra benefit, which one would you buy?

I wasn't snark, there a few things that living organisms need to survive, oxygen and clean water are the two most important. When you say 'water that is perfectly safe' that means clean water yes? I'm even sure what you are arguing for or against.

My argument is a bunch of the regulations proposed during the Obama period were costly increases to required treatment levels that provided no tangible benefit.

Like what.

Supreme Court overturns landmark EPA air pollution rule