Exxon Oil Leak...GOP wants top cut EPA?

[code1211]

Exxon Says Oil Leak Mainly Confined to 10-Mile Area - WSJ.com

Yeah, that will do it!

Yes, when the EPA is mainly interested in politics and not protecting the environment it is time for it to go. They have done some good things but lately they are an arm of a political organization and ignoring their own scientists reports on subjects they wish to control. Hence, they have to go.

We depend on the EPA to enforce our environmental laws. Without the EPA, we just as well repeal our the laws which seems to be part of the right's vision of America.

It was Nixon who created the EPA by executive order combining a number of branches of other agencies in order to reduce cost an improve effectiveness. Without the EPA, enforcement would fall back to a number of agencies increasing cost and reducing effectiveness.

When the EPA was created, how many Federal Employees were reduced to effect the savings that you project?

How many buildings were closed?

How many vehicles were retired?

How much did the Federal Buget decrease that year?

Don't talk about savings unless you can produce real live numbers of reduced costs. When speking of the Federal Government, reduced costs is a fantasy.

 

[editec]

Defending our environment from degradation is as much a proper role for government as defending our borders.

 

[skookerasbil]

In a modern industrialized society............oil leaks are going to happen s0n!!!

Sorry.............

Its known as understanding the necessary tradeoffs in life.


Imagine if the fishermen of Gloucester, Mass decided to dry dock the fishing boats due to losing a trawler at sea............

Most people can think on the margin.................NOT THE K00KS!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Defending our environment from degradation is as much a proper role for government as defending our borders.

Make no mistake.........know when this k00k ^^^ would be happy? When he can force all of us to ride a bicycle and scrap our automobile..........and make us all buy a big old gay windmill in our backyards!! Thats how assholes like this think.................

Fortunately for the rest of us..........the thinking is considered hyper-fringe in 2011.

 

[skookerasbil]

Wish we could get an idea of what Obama thinks, but he wont say, and did not want to vote on it before he was president.

06/10/2008 Increasing Taxes on Profits, Rescinding Certain Tax Deductions, and Increasing Tax Incentives for Alternative Energy Programs for Oil Companies
S 3044 NV Cloture Not Invoked - Senate
(51 - 43)

Project Vote Smart - President Barack H. Obama, Jr. - Voting Record

The Big 0 thinks he's on the Tour.

He thinks that wealth is self generating and that the rich are taking more of it than they should.

He thinks he deserves to be President.

He thinks that if the evil ones in the country would let him, he could Robin Hood the problems away.

He thinks he's getting away with it.

He thinks that a bigger debt is good for the country.

He thinks that the wealth of America occurs without effort and that the poor in America are created by the actions of the wealthy instead of the other way around.

He thinks that any real good starts by taking stuff away from the rich.

That pretty much sums it up.

The environment? Doesn't care except that there's a voting block associated with it.

Oh............Oh..................OH



Code with the astute post of the year, hitting the bullseye square in the middle!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

You supporters of the polluters are not going to be happy with the conservative state of Montana's reaction to this spill.

 

[skookerasbil]

You supporters of the polluters are not going to be happy with the conservative state of Montana's reaction to this spill.

Indeed......very likely to sell their heavy duty vehicles and go back to pulling shit with horses.

 

[skookerasbil]

Rocks.......can I tell you something bro..........you fill my life with alot of genuine LOL moments, and I'm not shitting you bro. When I click on SEND after alot of your posts, Im fcukking spitting all over my keyboard from unsuccessfully trying to keep myself from laughing my balls off.

You're a treasure dude..............

 

[Old Rocks]

yes, when the epa is mainly interested in politics and not protecting the environment it is time for it to go. They have done some good things but lately they are an arm of a political organization and ignoring their own scientists reports on subjects they wish to control. Hence, they have to go.

you are rediculous. Post me a link of the epa playing politics. You frigin republicans come up with the strangest suff.

i regret to inform you but i is a democrat! Have been my whole 64 9/10 years.

lol

 

[Old Rocks]

Spent the last 5 days SW of Butte, busting rocks in a skarn zone. In noisy downtown Rapid City at the moment. The people of Montana may be conservative but they have little tolerance for those that muck up their beautiful state. They will not blame the EPA.

 

[skookerasbil]

Spent the last 5 days SW of Butte, busting rocks in a skarn zone. In noisy downtown Rapid City at the moment. The people of Montana may be conservative but they have little tolerance for those that muck up their beautiful state. They will not blame the EPA.

Yeah....but in your book, they'll be running out tomorrow to trade in their Ford F150's for a bunch of boro's.

Look.......a handful who tend to the hysterical anyways will go mental..........most will see the situation as "shit happens" and by weeks end, it'll be ummm...............gone.

Count on seeing alot of the hysterical ones on the BOOB.........the media efforts of trying to convey this perception that the whole state is ready to move to Canada and buy homes with pre-installed windmills.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[code1211]

Spent the last 5 days SW of Butte, busting rocks in a skarn zone. In noisy downtown Rapid City at the moment. The people of Montana may be conservative but they have little tolerance for those that muck up their beautiful state. They will not blame the EPA.

I don't understand what you're saying.

Are we to believe that Conservatives who live in the pollution cursed State of Montana are are going to be more aggressive in defending their state's ecology than the Liberals who live in the Naturally Pristene City of New York?

That's a hard bite to swallow.

 

[Old Rocks]

Spent the last 5 days SW of Butte, busting rocks in a skarn zone. In noisy downtown Rapid City at the moment. The people of Montana may be conservative but they have little tolerance for those that muck up their beautiful state. They will not blame the EPA.

I don't understand what you're saying.

Are we to believe that Conservatives who live in the pollution cursed State of Montana are are going to be more aggressive in defending their state's ecology than the Liberals who live in the Naturally Pristene City of New York?

That's a hard bite to swallow.

The conservatives in Montana understand the treasure they have in their relitively pristine state. Conservation of that treasure is not a matter of being a conservative or a liberal citizen of montana, but of being a citizen of Montana.

Now you supporters of pollution would love to find a way to blame the EPA for Exxon's pipeline because this is going to create increasingly stringent rules for pipelines that cross rivers. And that is a good thing, for this demonstrates that they are not stringent enough at present.

 

[brono921]

Anyone remember the landfill hysteria brought to us by the leftwing beloved EPA?
Allow me to remind you........
The U.S. is running out of landfill space - FALSE - De-fact-o.com - Untangling The Web One Fact At A Time
This now is looked at as a running joke that democrats and the epa have been trying to bury since.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Solid Waste.
As it turns out, this report was nothing but one big lie.
The EPA has absolutely no credibility anymore, and now is nothing more than a tool for leftwingers to enforce unconstitutional regulations without any oversight or vote by the citizens of the United States.

 

[westwall]

Defending our environment from degradation is as much a proper role for government as defending our borders.

That is true. However, don't you want the organization that does it to be primarily a defender of the environment or a political organization?

 

[westwall]

You supporters of the polluters are not going to be happy with the conservative state of Montana's reaction to this spill.

What was that Brutus? Till you abandon your position in a notoriously polluting industry working for a company that pollutes wherever it sits (and that includes the plant you work in) or does the fact that you make however much you do alleviate your mock outrage at the pollution you yourself are responsible for?

I don't know how somebody who claims to care about the environment can do the exact thing they despise and accuse others of. It's like a religious fanatic doing abortions. It doesn't compute.

So Shill, what's in it for you?

 

[code1211]

Spent the last 5 days SW of Butte, busting rocks in a skarn zone. In noisy downtown Rapid City at the moment. The people of Montana may be conservative but they have little tolerance for those that muck up their beautiful state. They will not blame the EPA.

I don't understand what you're saying.

Are we to believe that Conservatives who live in the pollution cursed State of Montana are are going to be more aggressive in defending their state's ecology than the Liberals who live in the Naturally Pristene City of New York?

That's a hard bite to swallow.

The conservatives in Montana understand the treasure they have in their relitively pristine state. Conservation of that treasure is not a matter of being a conservative or a liberal citizen of montana, but of being a citizen of Montana.

Now you supporters of pollution would love to find a way to blame the EPA for Exxon's pipeline because this is going to create increasingly stringent rules for pipelines that cross rivers. And that is a good thing, for this demonstrates that they are not stringent enough at present.

Any Conservative will demand of Exxon responsibility for something owned by Exxon. That's the way a Conservative thinks.

Also, any Conservative will question the worth an agency that doesn't ssem to do anything worthwhile. Again, that's the way a Conservative thinks.

A Liberal will demand increased funding for an agency that is not doing its job and then avoid with scrupulous care any attempt to figure the realitve value returned for either the original funding or the increased funding. That's the way a Liberal thinks.

 

[Flopper]

Excuse me? Last time I heard there were individual State EPA's that are quite capable (more so in some cases) of protecting the environment and punishing businesses that fail to maintain and protect their local environment.

Did those all just vanish in your world? What world DO you live on anyway? Get with the program here buddy. The States are quite capable and don't need yet another incompetent and inefficient bureaucracy screwing up what they do best....which is protect their States. Bet you didn't know that the Federal EPA has many conflicting rules and regs that make it nearly impossible to know what their intent was.

No, all states do not have an EPA. Most states have a several agencies with responsibility of enforcing state environmental laws. State agencies rely heavily on the EPA for support. In fact, many of these state agencies would virtually disappear without EPA funding.

Our rivers, air, and wildlife are not restricted to state boundaries. Pollution in one state affects other states. Migrating wildlife knows nothing of state lines. Environmental protection is an interstate issue and thus requires federal laws.

That is true and in those cases the States come together to help each other. Unfortunately, eventually, leftist loons get in and take over making all of the good work the organizations have done irrelevent by their actions. The Tahoe Regional Planning Commission is an excellent example of this. They were so focused on air pollution and the attendent degradation of clarity of the lake that they ignored that the very fuel additive they were using was carastrophically polluting the waters they were trying (supposedly) to protect.

You really need to get off of the "if you're a Republican you are ipso facto all for the destruction of the environment" kick because that is not the case with the Republicans I have worked with. They are just as concerned as Democrats are about the environment. They have a different POV of how to protect the environment. So far though, their programs havn't led to the poisoning of water wells all over the State of California. That is the Democrats fault.

A state works in the best interest of its citizens. Where that interest coincides with the interest of neighboring states, yes they work together; otherwise they don’t. If a large industrial plant pollutes the water and the air, of small towns across the boarder, the state may feel that the money the plant brings to the state is well worth a little pollution.

Elimination of the EPA with a budget of 8.6 billion, .2% of the federal budget will not result in significant savings to the taxpayer. The EPA, unlike most departments of the federal government was not created by Congress but rather by executive order of Richard Nixon. The reason the EPA was created was to reduce cost and improve the effectiveness by combining 6 different groups within two dept. charged with the responsibility of enforcing a number of major pieces of environmental legislation. If the EPA were abolished, the responsibility to enforce the laws would still exist and would fall to other departments resulting in the same costly inefficiencies that exist prior to forming the EPA.

The right has pushed to eliminate the EPA as well as the Dept of Energy, not for budgetary reasons but rather for ideological reasons. Both departments together cost less than 1% of the federal budget. By eliminating these departments, enforcement of environmental laws would be weakened throughout the country. Also, these two departments provide most of the federal funding for physical science research. This includes research grants to study green house gases and to developed non-fossil fuel alternatives, an area that most on the right would like to ignore.

 

[whitehall]

The EPA is reactive. It takes billions to fund the EPA and all it does is make political statements after the fact. The pipeline spill was pretty convenient for the Obama campaign. I wonder if the EPA is as interested in investigating the cause as it seems to be in raising the cost of energy for Americans.