Forget the Cap & Tax bill--Obama & EPA going to enforce it anyway!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by oreo, Dec 12, 2009.

  1. oreo
    Online

    oreo Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,492
    Thanks Received:
    1,961
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    rocky mountains
    Ratings:
    +4,170
    President Obama, White House Climate Czar Carol Browner, and their Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are not waiting for Congress to pass cap-and-trade. Shrugging off the Climate-gate scandal, today EPA administration Lisa Jackson issues a so-called "endangerment finding," paving the way for onerous greenhouse gas regulations to be shoehorned into the 1970 Clean Air Act.

    Based on a legal theory originally conceived by Climate Czar Carol Browner in the late 1990s, Obama’s EPA is moving ahead with greenhouse gases regulations under the 1970 Clean Air Act even though in 1970 global warming hadn’t even been invented yet, and the doom-saying scientists were instead warning of an impending ice age!

    The enormous grassroots reaction to the outrageous Waxman-Markey energy tax bill passing the U.S. House has slowed Senate progress to a crawl. While cap-and-trade remains a major threat (especially with new “tri-partisan” negotiations betweens Senators Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman), the biggest threat of huge new energy taxes and government controls right now comes not from legislation, but regulation.

    Next week President Obama will go to Copenhagen to make what he has termed a “politically binding” commitment to reduce greenhouse gases 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050, the same levels in the now-stalled cap-and-trade bill. He is able to make this commitment, we can tell from today’s EPA announcement, because he intends to use EPA regulation to short-circuit the democratic process, boycott the Congress, and put us all under a sweeping regulatory regime.

    A 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA opened the door to this mischief, although that ruling was about motor-vehicle regulation. The EPA decision today, judging by their proposed regulations, goes far beyond that.


    FOXNews.com - EPA's Greenhouse Gases Declaration -- Putting America On the Road to Ruin
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2009
  2. Polk
    Offline

    Polk Classic

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,752
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Republic of Pequod
    Ratings:
    +569
    "He is able to make this commitment, we can tell from today’s EPA announcement, because he intends to use EPA regulation to short-circuit the democratic process, boycott the Congress, and put us all under a sweeping regulatory regime."

    More "fair and balanced" from Fox.

    Maybe they'll run a piece on how the Republicans filibustering every bill in the Senate "short-circuit the democratic process". I won't hold my breath waiting.
     
  3. oreo
    Online

    oreo Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,492
    Thanks Received:
    1,961
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    rocky mountains
    Ratings:
    +4,170


    You have elected the most IGNORANT POTUS states ever. The scandel is on over Global warming & in fact 65% of this nation do not believe Al Gore's rhetoric--because every single time he opens his mouth now-a-days--there is someone challenging his stats.

    All this bill is going to do is DRIVE up energy prices for every single American in this country--in a time that Obama has quoted as the greatest economic crisis since the great depression.

    Now if these little Eienstiens that you have elected can figure out how to keep our ultra-clean--CO2 free air--over this country versus wandering off to other countries that are not imposing these kind of restrictions--please inform us of it--:lol::lol::lol:

    Next these morons will tax us for breathing.

    $complete_idiots_globalwarmi.gif

    How's all that hopey & changey working for ya---:lol::lol:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2009
  4. MaggieMae
    Offline

    MaggieMae Reality bits

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    24,043
    Thanks Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,601


    Although I don't agree with the cap and trade proposition for different reasons (too open for loopholes creating fraud and profiteering), I wonder where you get your 65% number. It's fine to be on the side of the naysayers, but you really don't need to embellish your opinions with made up shit and hissy fits. Here's ALL the polls on the subject. Enjoy:

    Environment
     
  5. oreo
    Online

    oreo Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,492
    Thanks Received:
    1,961
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    rocky mountains
    Ratings:
    +4,170



    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtuuntl8Ylc[/ame]

     
  6. Murf76
    Offline

    Murf76 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,464
    Thanks Received:
    593
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +594
    This is just another dog and pony show brought to us by the Socialist Loonies of the Obama Administration. Democrats in Congress will run around the media circuit doing their best rendition of Chicken Little, claiming that both the sky *and* the EPA are both about to fall on their widdle heads... when all the while the whole bunch of 'em are in cahoots together. :rolleyes:

    Obama, his Socialist Cronies, and the EPA all want the same thing... Cap-and-Scam.

    Think about it... If the EPA was blackmailing an honest Congress, there wouldn't be any of this 'John-Kerry-We-Must-Act-Now' bullshit. Congress could take any federal agency who overtly threatened them apart brick by brick. The EPA would find itself in a one-room office, down some squalid alley in D.C., using cup and string telephones.

    Further, the idea that Congress could somehow preempt EPA action by passing arbitrary legislation is ludicrous if one assumes that the authority is with the EPA and not the Congress. If the EPA has all the power, it doesn't matter what Congress does one way or another.

    Cap-and-Trade is a con-job. When one truly understands that Carbon Units are CASH for all intents and purposes, it's easy to see why they want it. The sky's the limit for corrupt politicians and businessmen alike. It works like The Mob. You buy off your local bureaucrat by supporting his political campaigns, and he kicks you back the bucks when he gets into office. Conversely, he has the same power to starve your competitors or any who refuse to service him.

    Nothing good is accomplished. Even if they put this plan into action tomorrow, and every country adopted it... they'd only reduce CO2 by something like one tenth of one percent. :eek:
    Under this plan, the rich and powerful become MORE rich and powerful, the poor get poorer.. and the truly poverty-stricken, dying in droves already, die at an even greater rate.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. oreo
    Online

    oreo Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,492
    Thanks Received:
    1,961
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    rocky mountains
    Ratings:
    +4,170




    Increased Number Think Global Warming Is “Exaggerated”

    :lol::lol::lol:

    $complete_idiots_globalwarmi.gif
     
  8. MaggieMae
    Offline

    MaggieMae Reality bits

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    24,043
    Thanks Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,601
    Krauthammer seems to forget that the same threats of "revolution" were made during debate over the Clean Air Act. He's just another wild-eyed reactionary (but better at articulating his doomsday predictions).

    And there was apparently another guest at that table, one who has taken more than $800,000 in campaign donations from Big Oil and therefore has a vested interest in the subject, whose name is Senator James Inhofe.
     
  9. MaggieMae
    Offline

    MaggieMae Reality bits

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    24,043
    Thanks Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,601
    Uh huh. Thanks for the confirmation. The Gallop poll you cite has it at 41%, not at your exaggerated 65%. :lol:

    Next?
     
  10. Murf76
    Offline

    Murf76 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,464
    Thanks Received:
    593
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +594
    Revolution:

    2 a : a sudden, radical, or complete change
    b : a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed
    c : activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation
    d : a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something : a change of paradigm <the Copernican revolution>
    e : a changeover in use or preference especially in technology <the computer revolution> <the foreign car revolution>
    revolution - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

    Not all "revolutions" involve tricorne hats and muskets. :eusa_shhh:
     

Share This Page