New Coal Regulations Will Kill Jobs, Boost Energy Bills

[daveman]

well thank you for that rousing confidence builder.

All part of the service we provide.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Most libs don't have a clue that the Obama "greenies" are going to cost them a job and drive up energy costs at the same time, because they have fallen for the "save the planet" BS. Saving the planet is soooooooo important, so if Obama says we're saving the planet well then do it.

When these libs lose their job because their industry is directly affected by rising energy costs like the coal industry or indirectly like the airline industry....then they blame Republicans with some weird demented DNC talking points.

 

[bripat9643]

Exactly!!! Some things need to be protected that aren't going to generate a profit. Protecting our health and the coal miners health is one of them. I know republicans have no hearts or families of there own but actually sit down and think for one second. Is pollution good for me to Breath in?

Only the profoundest class of moron believes that pollution is an either/or proposition. Not even the Nazis at the EPA believe that there is no safe level of pollution. If they did, they'd be demanding the total elimination of coal plants.

The only question here is what level will have no ill effects on the population. All the evidence indicates that we are far below that level. Of course, if that's the case, then the EPA needs to be drastically scaled back rather than expanded. However, that isn't good for the careers of power hungry EPA bureaucrats.

 

[GoneBezerk]

The stupidity of this is that coal will be shipped to China if not sold to companies here in the USA...unless the EPA, etc can ban the shipment of coal then costing jobs for those that actually dig up the coal.

Gotta get more people in the unemployment line to bring the capitalistic system down.....

 

[thereisnospoon]

For you I quess its easy to poisin children today to make a quick buck.

I guess for you distroying mountains and streams that belong to our children and their children too is easy for a quick buck.

Money isnt everything, sometimes people need clean air and water.

OUr grandchildren may have NO need of coal but you can bet your ass they will need healthy bodies clean streams and clean air.

You want to have them stand and look at the distroyed landscape and say " gee I quess grandpa couldnt do anything else for a living but cut down mountians and distroy the very land his grandfather left him".

Its not just YOUR mountains you greedy POS.

Exactly!!! Some things need to be protected that aren't going to generate a profit. Protecting our health and the coal miners health is one of them. I know republicans have no hearts or families of there own but actually sit down and think for one second. Is pollution good for me to Breath in?

Health of the coal miners? What coal miners? After you douche bags get through wrecking the coal burning industry, there won't be any need for coal miners. Of course you people never consider the laws of unintended consequences.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Exactly!!! Some things need to be protected that aren't going to generate a profit. Protecting our health and the coal miners health is one of them. I know republicans have no hearts or families of there own but actually sit down and think for one second. Is pollution good for me to Breath in?

Only the profoundest class of moron believes that pollution is an either/or proposition. Not even the Nazis at the EPA believe that there is no safe level of pollution. If they did, they'd be demanding the total elimination of coal plants.

The only question here is what level will have no ill effects on the population. All the evidence indicates that we are far below that level. Of course, if that's the case, then the EPA needs to be drastically scaled back rather than expanded. However, that isn't good for the careers of power hungry EPA bureaucrats.

Here's one example of how the EPA operates....
Each year, major metro areas are graded on "Ground Ozone non- compliance days"
The area in which I reside is one the targeted enforcement areas. Our topography combined with typical summer weather patterns lends it self to multiple days of calm wind days with high temperatures and cloudless days.
In 2000 our area had over 20 non compliance days. In subsequent years that number lowered to less than 5. In 2005 the EPA LOWERED the standard( Parts per billion) for ground ozone non-compliance!!!!! This was done to place us back into non compliance. In other words a political agenda( pro enviro lobby) was used to punish us.
The fact that non compliance has continued to drop must have the EPA scratching their heads in utter frustration

 

[bripat9643]

Here's one example of how the EPA operates....
Each year, major metro areas are graded on "Ground Ozone non- compliance days"
The area in which I reside is one the targeted enforcement areas. Our topography combined with typical summer weather patterns lends it self to multiple days of calm wind days with high temperatures and cloudless days.
In 2000 our area had over 20 non compliance days. In subsequent years that number lowered to less than 5. In 2005 the EPA LOWERED the standard( Parts per billion) for ground ozone non-compliance!!!!! This was done to place us back into non compliance. In other words a political agenda( pro enviro lobby) was used to punish us.
The fact that non compliance has continued to drop must have the EPA scratching their heads in utter frustration

Last year, the total number of non-compliance days amounted to 1.3%, even at the new lower standard. That's hardly a cause for alarm.

The bottom line: No one has ever checked into a hospital with the cause being listed as "exposure to environmental ozone." There are no deaths or illnesses attributed to Ozone or any of the other chemicals the EPA monitors.

None

 

[Bfgrn]

American Lung Association Reports on Coal Fired Power Plants
Posted on March 9, 2011 by Jeremy Holmes

American Lung Association Report Highlights Toxic Health Threat of Coal-fired Power Plants, Calls for EPA to Reduce Emissions and Save Lives

WASHINGTON–The American Lung Association today released Toxic Air: The Case for Cleaning Up Coal-fired Power Plants, a new report that documents the range of hazardous air pollutants emitted from power plants and the urgent need to clean them up to protect public health. The report highlights the wide range of uncontrolled pollutants from these plants including: toxic metals and metal-like substances such as arsenic and lead; mercury; dioxins; chemicals known or thought to cause cancer, including formaldehyde, benzene and radioisotopes; and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to issue a proposal to cleanup this toxic pollution by March 16.

The report details the dangerous mix of toxic air pollutants that flow from the stacks of uncontrolled coal burning power plants and the adverse health effects associated with these pollutants. The report also discusses the technologies that are available for dramatically cutting these emissions—technologies that are commercially available and proven to work.

“It’s time that we end the ‘toxic loophole’ that has allowed coal-burning power plants to operate without any federal limits on emissions of mercury, arsenic, dioxin, acid gases such as hydrogen chloride and other dangerous pollutants,” said Charles D. Connor, president and CEO of the American Lung Association. “The American public has waited long enough—more than two decades. We are counting on EPA to protect all Americans from the health risks imposed by these dangerous pollutants once and for all.”

Key facts highlighted in the report:

Coal-fired power plants produce more hazardous air pollution in the United States than any other industrial pollution sources;

The Clean Air Act requires the control of hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants, but absent these new rules, no national standards exist to limit these pollutants from these plants; and

More than 400 coal-fired power plants located in 46 states across the country release in excess of 386,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants into the atmosphere each year.

“People living closest to these plants, especially children, seniors and those with chronic disease, face the greatest risk, but it doesn’t stop there,” said Connor. “Pollution from coal-fired power plants takes flight and travels far into other states—threatening public health.”

Many of these pollutants “hitchhike” on the fine particulate matter, or particle pollution, that the power plants also produce. Particle pollution from power plants has been recently estimated to kill approximately 13,000 people a year. Most coal-fired plants are concentrated in the Midwest and Southeast.

Hazardous air pollutants are toxic emissions that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive problems or birth defects. People most at risk include: infants, children and teenagers; older adults; pregnant women; people with asthma and other lung diseases; people with cardiovascular disease; diabetics; people with low incomes; and healthy adults who work or exercise outdoors.

“Power plant pollution kills people,” said Connor. “It threatens the brains and nervous system of children. It can cause cancer, heart attacks and strokes.”

More

 

[Big Fitz]

American Lung Association Reports on Coal Fired Power Plants
Posted on March 9, 2011 by Jeremy Holmes

American Lung Association Report Highlights Toxic Health Threat of Coal-fired Power Plants, Calls for EPA to Reduce Emissions and Save Lives

WASHINGTON–The American Lung Association today released Toxic Air: The Case for Cleaning Up Coal-fired Power Plants, a new report that documents the range of hazardous air pollutants emitted from power plants and the urgent need to clean them up to protect public health. The report highlights the wide range of uncontrolled pollutants from these plants including: toxic metals and metal-like substances such as arsenic and lead; mercury; dioxins; chemicals known or thought to cause cancer, including formaldehyde, benzene and radioisotopes; and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to issue a proposal to cleanup this toxic pollution by March 16.

The report details the dangerous mix of toxic air pollutants that flow from the stacks of uncontrolled coal burning power plants and the adverse health effects associated with these pollutants. The report also discusses the technologies that are available for dramatically cutting these emissions—technologies that are commercially available and proven to work.

“It’s time that we end the ‘toxic loophole’ that has allowed coal-burning power plants to operate without any federal limits on emissions of mercury, arsenic, dioxin, acid gases such as hydrogen chloride and other dangerous pollutants,” said Charles D. Connor, president and CEO of the American Lung Association. “The American public has waited long enough—more than two decades. We are counting on EPA to protect all Americans from the health risks imposed by these dangerous pollutants once and for all.”

Key facts highlighted in the report:

Coal-fired power plants produce more hazardous air pollution in the United States than any other industrial pollution sources;

The Clean Air Act requires the control of hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants, but absent these new rules, no national standards exist to limit these pollutants from these plants; and

More than 400 coal-fired power plants located in 46 states across the country release in excess of 386,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants into the atmosphere each year.

“People living closest to these plants, especially children, seniors and those with chronic disease, face the greatest risk, but it doesn’t stop there,” said Connor. “Pollution from coal-fired power plants takes flight and travels far into other states—threatening public health.”

Many of these pollutants “hitchhike” on the fine particulate matter, or particle pollution, that the power plants also produce. Particle pollution from power plants has been recently estimated to kill approximately 13,000 people a year. Most coal-fired plants are concentrated in the Midwest and Southeast.

Hazardous air pollutants are toxic emissions that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive problems or birth defects. People most at risk include: infants, children and teenagers; older adults; pregnant women; people with asthma and other lung diseases; people with cardiovascular disease; diabetics; people with low incomes; and healthy adults who work or exercise outdoors.

“Power plant pollution kills people,” said Connor. “It threatens the brains and nervous system of children. It can cause cancer, heart attacks and strokes.”

More

It's like a revolving door without an exit.

 

[Bfgrn]

American Lung Association Reports on Coal Fired Power Plants
Posted on March 9, 2011 by Jeremy Holmes

American Lung Association Report Highlights Toxic Health Threat of Coal-fired Power Plants, Calls for EPA to Reduce Emissions and Save Lives

WASHINGTON–The American Lung Association today released Toxic Air: The Case for Cleaning Up Coal-fired Power Plants, a new report that documents the range of hazardous air pollutants emitted from power plants and the urgent need to clean them up to protect public health. The report highlights the wide range of uncontrolled pollutants from these plants including: toxic metals and metal-like substances such as arsenic and lead; mercury; dioxins; chemicals known or thought to cause cancer, including formaldehyde, benzene and radioisotopes; and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to issue a proposal to cleanup this toxic pollution by March 16.

The report details the dangerous mix of toxic air pollutants that flow from the stacks of uncontrolled coal burning power plants and the adverse health effects associated with these pollutants. The report also discusses the technologies that are available for dramatically cutting these emissions—technologies that are commercially available and proven to work.

“It’s time that we end the ‘toxic loophole’ that has allowed coal-burning power plants to operate without any federal limits on emissions of mercury, arsenic, dioxin, acid gases such as hydrogen chloride and other dangerous pollutants,” said Charles D. Connor, president and CEO of the American Lung Association. “The American public has waited long enough—more than two decades. We are counting on EPA to protect all Americans from the health risks imposed by these dangerous pollutants once and for all.”

Key facts highlighted in the report:

Coal-fired power plants produce more hazardous air pollution in the United States than any other industrial pollution sources;

The Clean Air Act requires the control of hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants, but absent these new rules, no national standards exist to limit these pollutants from these plants; and

More than 400 coal-fired power plants located in 46 states across the country release in excess of 386,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants into the atmosphere each year.

“People living closest to these plants, especially children, seniors and those with chronic disease, face the greatest risk, but it doesn’t stop there,” said Connor. “Pollution from coal-fired power plants takes flight and travels far into other states—threatening public health.”

Many of these pollutants “hitchhike” on the fine particulate matter, or particle pollution, that the power plants also produce. Particle pollution from power plants has been recently estimated to kill approximately 13,000 people a year. Most coal-fired plants are concentrated in the Midwest and Southeast.

Hazardous air pollutants are toxic emissions that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive problems or birth defects. People most at risk include: infants, children and teenagers; older adults; pregnant women; people with asthma and other lung diseases; people with cardiovascular disease; diabetics; people with low incomes; and healthy adults who work or exercise outdoors.

“Power plant pollution kills people,” said Connor. “It threatens the brains and nervous system of children. It can cause cancer, heart attacks and strokes.”

More

It's like a revolving door without an exit.

You know Big Fizzzzzzzz, I read all the posts on this thread from you folks who claim to be CONSERVE-ative. WHAT is it you want to conserve? If the health, well being and lives of our children and families is not the most important thing, than what is?

WE went to war over the deaths of 3000 of our fellow citizens, yet 13,000 die every year because of something that can be prevented, and there is no outrage from the right. Are you folks SO SURE that the studies done by doctors and organizations like the American Lung Association are bogus? What if you people are WRONG? How could you justify that?

 

[Big Fitz]

American Lung Association Reports on Coal Fired Power Plants
Posted on March 9, 2011 by Jeremy Holmes

American Lung Association Report Highlights Toxic Health Threat of Coal-fired Power Plants, Calls for EPA to Reduce Emissions and Save Lives

WASHINGTON–The American Lung Association today released Toxic Air: The Case for Cleaning Up Coal-fired Power Plants, a new report that documents the range of hazardous air pollutants emitted from power plants and the urgent need to clean them up to protect public health. The report highlights the wide range of uncontrolled pollutants from these plants including: toxic metals and metal-like substances such as arsenic and lead; mercury; dioxins; chemicals known or thought to cause cancer, including formaldehyde, benzene and radioisotopes; and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to issue a proposal to cleanup this toxic pollution by March 16.

The report details the dangerous mix of toxic air pollutants that flow from the stacks of uncontrolled coal burning power plants and the adverse health effects associated with these pollutants. The report also discusses the technologies that are available for dramatically cutting these emissions—technologies that are commercially available and proven to work.

“It’s time that we end the ‘toxic loophole’ that has allowed coal-burning power plants to operate without any federal limits on emissions of mercury, arsenic, dioxin, acid gases such as hydrogen chloride and other dangerous pollutants,” said Charles D. Connor, president and CEO of the American Lung Association. “The American public has waited long enough—more than two decades. We are counting on EPA to protect all Americans from the health risks imposed by these dangerous pollutants once and for all.”

Key facts highlighted in the report:

Coal-fired power plants produce more hazardous air pollution in the United States than any other industrial pollution sources;

The Clean Air Act requires the control of hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants, but absent these new rules, no national standards exist to limit these pollutants from these plants; and

More than 400 coal-fired power plants located in 46 states across the country release in excess of 386,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants into the atmosphere each year.

“People living closest to these plants, especially children, seniors and those with chronic disease, face the greatest risk, but it doesn’t stop there,” said Connor. “Pollution from coal-fired power plants takes flight and travels far into other states—threatening public health.”

Many of these pollutants “hitchhike” on the fine particulate matter, or particle pollution, that the power plants also produce. Particle pollution from power plants has been recently estimated to kill approximately 13,000 people a year. Most coal-fired plants are concentrated in the Midwest and Southeast.

Hazardous air pollutants are toxic emissions that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive problems or birth defects. People most at risk include: infants, children and teenagers; older adults; pregnant women; people with asthma and other lung diseases; people with cardiovascular disease; diabetics; people with low incomes; and healthy adults who work or exercise outdoors.

“Power plant pollution kills people,” said Connor. “It threatens the brains and nervous system of children. It can cause cancer, heart attacks and strokes.”

More

It's like a revolving door without an exit.

You know Big Fizzzzzzzz, I read all the posts on this thread from you folks who claim to be CONSERVE-ative. WHAT is it you want to conserve? If the health, well being and lives of our children and families is not the most important thing, than what is?

WE went to war over the deaths of 3000 of our fellow citizens, yet 13,000 die every year because of something that can be prevented, and there is no outrage from the right. Are you folks SO SURE that the studies done by doctors and organizations like the American Lung Association are bogus? What if you people are WRONG? How could you justify that?

We are trying to conserve our Liberties. You know, the things you desperately want to seize from us as individuals? To conserve and preserve a life of individual freedom and opportunity.

You try and manufacture moral outrages over insignificant events. It's all about ginning up fear in which people will surrender their freedom to totalitarians for a crisis that does not exist because you made them afraid.

Transfats, carcinogenic coal, radiation, Alar, Frankenfoods, high salt, tobacco, alcohol, coffee, driving low MPG cars, living in urban spawl, food deserts, global warming, global cooling, the ozone layer depletion, West Nile Virus, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, AIDS, SIDS, Ebola, Hanta Virus, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Radon....

Every damn day you turn around and find yet another thing to be scaring the masses on, and the solution is always always always more government control over your life. We can't be allowed to solve problems for ourselves because we as individuals are too dangerous and stupid to do so! We must have the wise and benevolent hand of bureaucrats, hired from among us and rule every aspect of our lives so we don't have to think and fear and be good little obedient drones programmed to do nothing but obey you.

What if a pill was invented tomorrow that could cure forever all lung cancer? What would be the response of the American Lung Association? The threat is gone. Would they be cheering on it's implementation and cure the world? then what? Their charity is DONE. No more money. The solution is there and no reason to buy the cheap little pill and everyone will forever be cured of lung maladies. I will guarantee you they'd fight tooth and nail to prevent a cure from happening because it destroys their livelihood. Just like a cop does not want all crime to go away because his job is ended, nor does any charity want their cause to end.

Jonas Salk's vaccine damn near ended the March of Dimes. They should have gone away because their cause was cured forever: Polio. So what did they do? They saved the jobs of all their bureaucrats instead. How? Changed causes to 'birth defects'! Now they will NEVER be threatened with going out of business again! It's the way non-profit addicts work. They don't want the cure, because it's a cushy job and life that makes them seem like champions for something they pray is never defeated.

Therefore, for every advance in technology to make coal power cleaner, safer and more efficient, the regulatory noose will tighten to more and more unreasonable levels so jobs are preserved in the groups that grow fat on regulating and inflating threats that really.... don't exist anymore. And that's the scam.

What if we're wrong? Well first, the burden of proof is on you for all suddenly discovered dangers. Secondly, you need to prove the cure is fiscally, economically, and morally responsible and in like with the needs of society at large, not some sliver minority that consists of the complaining parties and a few dozen more. Lastly, the cure has to be better than the problems it will create or issue at hand. Too often, it is not even close and not enough people have had the bravery to drown out your screams of "Won't Somebody Think About the Children" like a hysterical Mrs. Lovejoy.

So you can take your big government ecofascisti solution and shove it up your liberally broad ass, Tardtard. As an individual, I refuse it.

 

[daveman]

"You must spread some rep around etc."

 

[Bfgrn]

It's like a revolving door without an exit.

You know Big Fizzzzzzzz, I read all the posts on this thread from you folks who claim to be CONSERVE-ative. WHAT is it you want to conserve? If the health, well being and lives of our children and families is not the most important thing, than what is?

WE went to war over the deaths of 3000 of our fellow citizens, yet 13,000 die every year because of something that can be prevented, and there is no outrage from the right. Are you folks SO SURE that the studies done by doctors and organizations like the American Lung Association are bogus? What if you people are WRONG? How could you justify that?

We are trying to conserve our Liberties. You know, the things you desperately want to seize from us as individuals? To conserve and preserve a life of individual freedom and opportunity.

You try and manufacture moral outrages over insignificant events. It's all about ginning up fear in which people will surrender their freedom to totalitarians for a crisis that does not exist because you made them afraid.

Transfats, carcinogenic coal, radiation, Alar, Frankenfoods, high salt, tobacco, alcohol, coffee, driving low MPG cars, living in urban spawl, food deserts, global warming, global cooling, the ozone layer depletion, West Nile Virus, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, AIDS, SIDS, Ebola, Hanta Virus, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Radon....

Every damn day you turn around and find yet another thing to be scaring the masses on, and the solution is always always always more government control over your life. We can't be allowed to solve problems for ourselves because we as individuals are too dangerous and stupid to do so! We must have the wise and benevolent hand of bureaucrats, hired from among us and rule every aspect of our lives so we don't have to think and fear and be good little obedient drones programmed to do nothing but obey you.

What if a pill was invented tomorrow that could cure forever all lung cancer? What would be the response of the American Lung Association? The threat is gone. Would they be cheering on it's implementation and cure the world? then what? Their charity is DONE. No more money. The solution is there and no reason to buy the cheap little pill and everyone will forever be cured of lung maladies. I will guarantee you they'd fight tooth and nail to prevent a cure from happening because it destroys their livelihood. Just like a cop does not want all crime to go away because his job is ended, nor does any charity want their cause to end.

Jonas Salk's vaccine damn near ended the March of Dimes. They should have gone away because their cause was cured forever: Polio. So what did they do? They saved the jobs of all their bureaucrats instead. How? Changed causes to 'birth defects'! Now they will NEVER be threatened with going out of business again! It's the way non-profit addicts work. They don't want the cure, because it's a cushy job and life that makes them seem like champions for something they pray is never defeated.

Therefore, for every advance in technology to make coal power cleaner, safer and more efficient, the regulatory noose will tighten to more and more unreasonable levels so jobs are preserved in the groups that grow fat on regulating and inflating threats that really.... don't exist anymore. And that's the scam.

What if we're wrong? Well first, the burden of proof is on you for all suddenly discovered dangers. Secondly, you need to prove the cure is fiscally, economically, and morally responsible and in like with the needs of society at large, not some sliver minority that consists of the complaining parties and a few dozen more. Lastly, the cure has to be better than the problems it will create or issue at hand. Too often, it is not even close and not enough people have had the bravery to drown out your screams of "Won't Somebody Think About the Children" like a hysterical Mrs. Lovejoy.

So you can take your big government ecofascisti solution and shove it up your liberally broad ass, Tardtard. As an individual, I refuse it.

That's quite a rant there Big Fizzzzzz, but there is NO history of polluters ever abating their pollution unless it is cost effective or they are forced to by government regulations. You can 'grasp' government protecting the nation through military means, but you are obtuse to government's role in protecting citizens from other threats, foreign or domestic. You folks on the right have perverted liberty to mean some form of jungle law where any corporation can cause harm to the public and not be held accountable.

That whole right wing 'personal responsibility' mantra is total bullshit unless it applies to everyone, from a homeless person to a corporate CEO.

Our founding fathers heavily regulated corporations, and they held owners and shareholders personally liable for any harm the corporation caused.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I'm glad Obama is all for helping the middle class

Coal Regs Would Kill Jobs, Boost Energy Bills


Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data.

Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group.

[Check out a roundup of political cartoons on energy policy.]

“Many of these severe impacts would hit families living in states already facing serious economic challenges,” said Steve Miller, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. “Because of these impacts, EPA should make major changes to the proposed regulations before they are finalized,” he said.

The EPA, however, tells Whispers that the hit the industry will suffer is worth the health benefits. “EPA has taken a number of sensible steps to protect public health, while also working with industry and other stakeholders to ensure that these important Clean Air Act standards—such as the first ever national Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-fired power plants—are reasonable, common-sense, and achievable,” said spokesman Brendan Gilfillan. [Read Rep. Darrell Issa: Obama's Bad Policy, Harmful Regulations Add to Gas Prices.]

What’s more, officials said that just one of the rules to cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions will would yield up to $290 billion in annual health and welfare benefits in 2014. They say that amounts to preventing up to 36,000 premature deaths, 26,000 hospital and emergency room visits, and 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma. “This far outweighs the estimated annual costs,” says an official on background


Coal Regs Would Kill Jobs, Boost Energy Bills - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

Democrats want to destroy capitalism - they want a dictated socioeconomic environment.

They dictate via regulation on industry...

I don't believe most people are aware of just how much of a threat progressive liberals are to freedom.

 

[daveman]

Democrats want to destroy capitalism - they want a dictated socioeconomic environment.

They dictate via regulation on industry...

I don't believe most people are aware of just how much of a threat progressive liberals are to freedom.

 

[Bfgrn]

Democrats want to destroy capitalism - they want a dictated socioeconomic environment.

They dictate via regulation on industry...

I don't believe most people are aware of just how much of a threat progressive liberals are to freedom.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

What makes you think communism is liberal, your parochial indoctrination? The whole world conforms to Americana as a benchmark...conservatives in Russia want to conserve capitalism?

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

革命的集体组织中的自由主义是十分有害的。它是一种腐蚀剂，使团结涣散，关系松懈，工作消极，意见分歧。它使革命队伍失掉严密的组织和纪律，政策不能贯彻到底，党的组织和党所领导的群众发生隔离。这是一种严重的恶劣倾向。

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.
Combat Liberalism

 

[daveman]

Democrats want to destroy capitalism - they want a dictated socioeconomic environment.

They dictate via regulation on industry...

I don't believe most people are aware of just how much of a threat progressive liberals are to freedom.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Wrong.

What makes you think communism is liberal, your parochial indoctrination? The whole world conforms to Americana as a benchmark...conservatives in Russia want to conserve capitalism?

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

革命的集体组织中的自由主义是十分有害的。它是一种腐蚀剂，使团结涣散，关系松懈，工作消极，意见分歧。它使革命队伍失掉严密的组织和纪律，政策不能贯彻到底，党的组织和党所领导的群众发生隔离。这是一种严重的恶劣倾向。

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.
Combat Liberalism

Goodness, you're just not very bright.

Of course liberalism is harmful to the collective. However, progressives are not liberals. They're leftist authoritarians. Statists. Proponents of big nanny state government.

Progressives don't support individual liberty. Don't even pretend you do.

 

[Bfgrn]

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Wrong.

What makes you think communism is liberal, your parochial indoctrination? The whole world conforms to Americana as a benchmark...conservatives in Russia want to conserve capitalism?

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

革命的集体组织中的自由主义是十分有害的。它是一种腐蚀剂，使团结涣散，关系松懈，工作消极，意见分歧。它使革命队伍失掉严密的组织和纪律，政策不能贯彻到底，党的组织和党所领导的群众发生隔离。这是一种严重的恶劣倾向。

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.
Combat Liberalism

Goodness, you're just not very bright.

Of course liberalism is harmful to the collective. However, progressives are not liberals. They're leftist authoritarians. Statists. Proponents of big nanny state government.

Progressives don't support individual liberty. Don't even pretend you do.

But I thought liberals were collectivists? Well there goes the term Liberal progressive...

Progressives must be conservatives then...

How do you explain that the Russian people are mostly conservative?

Or what happened after the fall of the Soviet Union in the late 1980's?

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

February 27, 1989

Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, have seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways.

While many candidates and voters say they view the elections to the new Congress of Deputies as a way to further the candor and freedoms allowed by the Soviet leader, conservatives in this city and around the country were boasting last week that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals.

A Disparate Alliance

The conservatives are a disparate alliance, including xenophobic fringe groups, like Pamyat, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearn for what they see as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

At election rallies where speakers call out against the influence of ''Zionist forces,'' and in campaign leaflets decrying ''liberal yellow journalists,'' representatives of politically conservative organizations are trying to draft voters and candidates to establish a foothold within the Government.

Conservatives already claim credit for helping defeat certain candidates, most notably Mr. Korotich, editor of the liberal and popular magazine ''Ogonyok,'' and Andrei D. Sakharov, the physicist and Nobel Peace Prize winning dissident.

Nikita F. Zherbin, head of the Leningrad chapter of Pamyat, delighted in the fact that Mr. Korotich had been forced off the ballot in Moscow's Sverdlovsk region, and described this as the first successful step in the conservative campaign to use the elections as a vehicle for its political ideas.

'I Am a Stalinist'

''We brought our case to the people, and the outcome speaks for us,'' said Mr. Zherbin, whose group regards the liberalization of Soviet society as a conspiracy by Jews, Masons and Westernizers.

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

 

[txlonghorn]

The irony is the term "progessive".

 

[bripat9643]

Liberal American journalists are the ones who labeled the Stalinist in Russia "conservatives." That's a perfect example of how the media propaganda organs define words to mean whatever they want them to mean. The label Stalinists "conservatives" simply so they can slam American conservatives.

Gullible pliant drones like you swallow this crap, but intelligent people aren't fooled.

But I thought liberals were collectivists? Well there goes the term Liberal progressive...

Progressives must be conservatives then...

How do you explain that the Russian people are mostly conservative?

Or what happened after the fall of the Soviet Union in the late 1980's?