This Is What America Would look Like If....

[Derideo_Te]

The EPA changing the rules by itself ( which is unconstitutional)

Nonsense! Try learning how government works instead of making ridiculous statements.

 

[mudwhistle]

Picture cleaning Romney's floor. Forever. As the only breathable air would be in the homes of the rich.

Utter nonsense.
How is that even possible? Will the rich live in glass domes in the future?

You realize I am not being serious right.

It's hard to tell these day ... considering the ridiculous arguments we see here on a regular basis.

 

[Dana7360]

The conservatives had their way. They would do away with the EPA and all regulations. So that America would be just like China.

Inside Beijing's airpocalypse – a city made 'almost uninhabitable' by pollution

No one in this country wants dirty air and water.
Cutting the size of EPA and over burdensome regulations will not cause that.

The conservatives don't want to cut the size of the EPA. They want to eliminate it completely.

Removing the regulations on pollution will cause America to have air like China.

You just don't want to admit the facts.

You don't want to accept facts.
They want to cut the size of the EPA and remove the IRS completely.
They do not want to cut regulations we have now.
We have more than 85 to 89% of pollution contained. It's the ones being added now that cost too much.

Really?

And you can provide a credible nonpartisan to prove that claim?

Did the OP provide a link proving his claim that this is what Republicans "want"?

Yes I did. Check out post number 32.

 

[Dana7360]

The conservatives don't want to cut the size of the EPA. They want to eliminate it completely.

Removing the regulations on pollution will cause America to have air like China.

You just don't want to admit the facts.

You don't want to accept facts.
They want to cut the size of the EPA and remove the IRS completely.
They do not want to cut regulations we have now.
We have more than 85 to 89% of pollution contained. It's the ones being added now that cost too much.

Really?

And you can provide a credible nonpartisan to prove that claim?

Did the OP provide a link proving his claim that this is what Republicans "want"?

There have already been links provided proving that Republicans want to eliminate the EPA altogether.

There is still no link to support the claim that "85 to 89% of pollution" is "contained".

Just because one or two say it does not mean all Republicans want the EPA eliminated.
EPA link -
Air Pollution Statistics
89% of lead pollution has been contained.
EPA states that carbon monoxide pollution in the United States went down by 51% from 2000 to 2010. This drop is the second highest percentage drop behind lead.

Your article says 89% of LEAD pollution has been controlled. Not all pollution. There's more types of pollution than just lead.

And it's not just one or two conservative politicians. It's a lot of conservative politicians.

Conservatives want to get rid of the EPA and pollution regulations. They've made it quite clear for a very long time that if they had the chance, that's what they would do.

You can deny it all you want. You can tell half truths all you want. It still won't make what I've posted untrue.

 

[mudwhistle]

You don't want to accept facts.
They want to cut the size of the EPA and remove the IRS completely.
They do not want to cut regulations we have now.
We have more than 85 to 89% of pollution contained. It's the ones being added now that cost too much.

Really?

And you can provide a credible nonpartisan to prove that claim?

Did the OP provide a link proving his claim that this is what Republicans "want"?

There have already been links provided proving that Republicans want to eliminate the EPA altogether.

There is still no link to support the claim that "85 to 89% of pollution" is "contained".

Just because one or two say it does not mean all Republicans want the EPA eliminated.
EPA link -
Air Pollution Statistics
89% of lead pollution has been contained.
EPA states that carbon monoxide pollution in the United States went down by 51% from 2000 to 2010. This drop is the second highest percentage drop behind lead.

Your article says 89% of LEAD pollution has been controlled. Not all pollution. There's more types of pollution than just lead.

And it's not just one or two conservative politicians. It's a lot of conservative politicians.

Conservatives want to get rid of the EPA and pollution regulations. They've made it quite clear for a very long time that if they had the chance, that's what they would do.

You can deny it all you want. You can tell half truths all you want. It still won't make what I've posted untrue.

The EPA has become a bunch of treehugging lawyers trying to jack up energy costs and raise Hell with businesses.

 

[westwall]

And I can go for days about their wetland regs that allow them to take over a persons property if they built a pond on it.

Building a pond in your backyard would fall under your local township zoning rules that have nothing whatsoever to do with the EPA.

The EPA has declared MANY ponds that farmers have built for irrigation purposes to be wetlands and have begun enforcing wetland regs on them.

Look it up.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And I can go for days about their wetland regs that allow them to take over a persons property if they built a pond on it.

Building a pond in your backyard would fall under your local township zoning rules that have nothing whatsoever to do with the EPA.

The EPA has declared MANY ponds that farmers have built for irrigation purposes to be wetlands and have begun enforcing wetland regs on them.

Look it up.

All the links I see point to state departments. Nothing at all about the federal EPA.

 

[westwall]

And I can go for days about their wetland regs that allow them to take over a persons property if they built a pond on it.

Building a pond in your backyard would fall under your local township zoning rules that have nothing whatsoever to do with the EPA.

The EPA has declared MANY ponds that farmers have built for irrigation purposes to be wetlands and have begun enforcing wetland regs on them.

Look it up.

All the links I see point to state departments. Nothing at all about the federal EPA.

I'll find some and post them up for you later.

 

[martybegan]

Why is it "all or nothing" in the mind of liberals when it comes to conservatives?

Because its all their tiny little minds can contemplate.

Because some on the left see in black and white the same accusation that they accuse conservatives of.
Cutting the size of the EPA to them is getting rid of it.
One republican says get rid of the EPA it's all Republicans.

Cutting the EPA to the point where it is rendered ineffectual is tantamount to getting rid of it. That is what happens when you pull the funding and repeal the regulations. It is purely semantics to claim that the goal is not to render the EPA null and void and allow corporations free reign to pollute as they please.

ah argumentum ad absurdum, the first refuge of the weak debater.

Ironic!

Wrong use of a word as well, I see you are doubling down on teh stupid.

 

[martybegan]

The conservatives had their way. They would do away with the EPA and all regulations. So that America would be just like China.

Inside Beijing's airpocalypse – a city made 'almost uninhabitable' by pollution

Why is it "all or nothing" in the mind of liberals when it comes to conservatives?

Because its all their tiny little minds can contemplate.

Because some on the left see in black and white the same accusation that they accuse conservatives of.
Cutting the size of the EPA to them is getting rid of it.
One republican says get rid of the EPA it's all Republicans.

Cutting the EPA to the point where it is rendered ineffectual is tantamount to getting rid of it. That is what happens when you pull the funding and repeal the regulations. It is purely semantics to claim that the goal is not to render the EPA null and void and allow corporations free reign to pollute as they please.

You get pointed to the fact that your whole sky is falling argument is just that, and yet you continue.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Because its all their tiny little minds can contemplate.

Because some on the left see in black and white the same accusation that they accuse conservatives of.
Cutting the size of the EPA to them is getting rid of it.
One republican says get rid of the EPA it's all Republicans.

Cutting the EPA to the point where it is rendered ineffectual is tantamount to getting rid of it. That is what happens when you pull the funding and repeal the regulations. It is purely semantics to claim that the goal is not to render the EPA null and void and allow corporations free reign to pollute as they please.

ah argumentum ad absurdum, the first refuge of the weak debater.

Ironic!

Wrong use of a word as well, I see you are doubling down on teh stupid.

Irony squared!

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Probably the only reason I ever vote Democrat, is that they take issues of conservation, very seriously.

What's liberal about conservation?

 

[peach174]

And I can go for days about their wetland regs that allow them to take over a persons property if they built a pond on it.

Building a pond in your backyard would fall under your local township zoning rules that have nothing whatsoever to do with the EPA.

The EPA has declared MANY ponds that farmers have built for irrigation purposes to be wetlands and have begun enforcing wetland regs on them.

Look it up.

All the links I see point to state departments. Nothing at all about the federal EPA.

I'll find some and post them up for you later.

EPA makes the rules, then the States have to comply with them.
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/productio...s/proposed_regulatory_wus_text_40cfr230_0.pdf

What do the proposed EPA rules really mean

“Ditches— the rule regulates ditches as tributaries. EPA claims that the rule would exclude ditches, but the so-called ditch exclusion only covers ditches dug entirely in uplands. The rule doesn’t define uplands (so much for clarity), True- look up what it actually says in the first link.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And I can go for days about their wetland regs that allow them to take over a persons property if they built a pond on it.

Building a pond in your backyard would fall under your local township zoning rules that have nothing whatsoever to do with the EPA.

The EPA has declared MANY ponds that farmers have built for irrigation purposes to be wetlands and have begun enforcing wetland regs on them.

Look it up.

All the links I see point to state departments. Nothing at all about the federal EPA.

I'll find some and post them up for you later.

EPA makes the rules, then the States have to comply with them.
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/productio...s/proposed_regulatory_wus_text_40cfr230_0.pdf

What do the proposed EPA rules really mean

“Ditches— the rule regulates ditches as tributaries. EPA claims that the rule would exclude ditches, but the so-called ditch exclusion only covers ditches dug entirely in uplands. The rule doesn’t define uplands (so much for clarity), True- look up what it actually says in the first link.

Bloggers have opinions.

The onus is on you to prove that the EPA rules are the problem and not the local State DEP rules.

 

[westwall]

Building a pond in your backyard would fall under your local township zoning rules that have nothing whatsoever to do with the EPA.

The EPA has declared MANY ponds that farmers have built for irrigation purposes to be wetlands and have begun enforcing wetland regs on them.

Look it up.

All the links I see point to state departments. Nothing at all about the federal EPA.

I'll find some and post them up for you later.

EPA makes the rules, then the States have to comply with them.
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/productio...s/proposed_regulatory_wus_text_40cfr230_0.pdf

What do the proposed EPA rules really mean

“Ditches— the rule regulates ditches as tributaries. EPA claims that the rule would exclude ditches, but the so-called ditch exclusion only covers ditches dug entirely in uplands. The rule doesn’t define uplands (so much for clarity), True- look up what it actually says in the first link.

Bloggers have opinions.

The onus is on you to prove that the EPA rules are the problem and not the local State DEP rules.

She provided you the link TO the EPA regs. Try being intellectually honest for once.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The conservatives had their way. They would do away with the EPA and all regulations. So that America would be just like China.

Inside Beijing's airpocalypse – a city made 'almost uninhabitable' by pollution

ROFLMNAO!

That is ADORABLE!

I tell ya, if straw reasoning were stripped from humanity, the Ideological Left would vanish in that moment.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Building a pond in your backyard would fall under your local township zoning rules that have nothing whatsoever to do with the EPA.

The EPA has declared MANY ponds that farmers have built for irrigation purposes to be wetlands and have begun enforcing wetland regs on them.

Look it up.

All the links I see point to state departments. Nothing at all about the federal EPA.

I'll find some and post them up for you later.

EPA makes the rules, then the States have to comply with them.
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/productio...s/proposed_regulatory_wus_text_40cfr230_0.pdf

What do the proposed EPA rules really mean

“Ditches— the rule regulates ditches as tributaries. EPA claims that the rule would exclude ditches, but the so-called ditch exclusion only covers ditches dug entirely in uplands. The rule doesn’t define uplands (so much for clarity), True- look up what it actually says in the first link.

Bloggers have opinions.

The onus is on you to prove that the EPA rules are the problem and not the local State DEP rules.

Piece of Cake.

Do EPA Regulations; which is to say "The LAWS that the EPA Enforce..." do those laws originate in the Federal Legislature.

Those laws that do, are legitimate. The laws that do not, are not.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The conservatives had their way. They would do away with the EPA and all regulations. So that America would be just like China.

Inside Beijing's airpocalypse – a city made 'almost uninhabitable' by pollution

Who is asking to do away with the EPA? Typical Liberal strawman bullshit.

There is a middle ground between protecting the environment and killing industry. Stop being a retard.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The EPA has declared MANY ponds that farmers have built for irrigation purposes to be wetlands and have begun enforcing wetland regs on them.

Look it up.

All the links I see point to state departments. Nothing at all about the federal EPA.

I'll find some and post them up for you later.

EPA makes the rules, then the States have to comply with them.
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/productio...s/proposed_regulatory_wus_text_40cfr230_0.pdf

What do the proposed EPA rules really mean

“Ditches— the rule regulates ditches as tributaries. EPA claims that the rule would exclude ditches, but the so-called ditch exclusion only covers ditches dug entirely in uplands. The rule doesn’t define uplands (so much for clarity), True- look up what it actually says in the first link.

Bloggers have opinions.

The onus is on you to prove that the EPA rules are the problem and not the local State DEP rules.

She provided you the link TO the EPA regs. Try being intellectually honest for once.

Your spurious insult will be treated with the contempt it deserves.

I did not refute the EPA regulations that were provided. I pointed out the opinions of bloggers are irrelevant.

YOU were going to provide specific examples of farmers encountering violations of EPA regulations by building ponds.

Neither of you have provided the links.

Try again.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The conservatives had their way. They would do away with the EPA and all regulations. So that America would be just like China.

Inside Beijing's airpocalypse – a city made 'almost uninhabitable' by pollution

Who is asking to do away with the EPA? Typical Liberal strawman bullshit.

There is a middle ground between protecting the environment and killing industry. Stop being a retard.

Name the industries that have been "killed" by EPA regulations.