My First Environmentalist Witness!

Nonsense, Chicken Little.
"There is effectively an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara where 20 to 25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years."
Natural Oil Spills Surprising Amount Seeps into the Sea

The "Dump the oil in the stream" political defense was used as an example to show how stupidity could be used as an excuse to the ridiculous idea that dumping your old oil in a stream after an oil change could be somehow OK and acceptable. Your dopey response indicates you believe it is OK to dump your old dirty oil into the stream. Because of natural oil pollution in the Pacific Ocean it is OK to dump oil into the trout stream in Pennsylvania.


Except that nobody said "Dump the oil in the stream"

You really have nothing, do you.
I used it as a example of the difference between the scientific vs. political debates that are the theme of your OP. It was used in Post #30 and you have been responding to it by including it in your responses ever since.


Didn't you forget to address me as 'relentlessly awesome'???


Let's remind that you have yet to deny a single fact posted in the thread.

And...there'll be more.
My focus has been on the way in which you distort facts by the methods of omission and selectively grouping facts to present an agenda. These are common tools used by conspiracy theorist and revisionist. It is not always the facts that count and conclude accuracy. It is the way they are presented and interpreted to present conclusions as to their meanings. You like to state a fact and make an analysis of the fact followed by a conclusion. When challenged you demand your opponent show where your facts are wrong. It doesn't matter how many folks refute your conclusions, you still demand to show how your facts are wrong. When it is shown that you have distorted and misinterpreted facts, you demand to be called awesome and deflect away from dumb analysis, misinterpretations and conclusions.
The point is that you are trying to present a case for the environmental issue being politically motivated and not based on science when in fact it is a scientific issue that has been politicized by those who profit from abusing the environment. The folks who profit from abusing the environment want the issue to be viewed as political and the folks who want to protect the environment want it to be viewed as a science issue. Viewed as a science issue, the protectors win because the science is easy to explain and understand in layman's terms. Viewed as a political issue and the abusers have opportunity to confuse, complicate and use endless methods to deflect, obfuscate, stall, etc.


"... the way in which you distort facts..."

So.....why, then, have you been unable to find such a situation?

Once again I'm faced with the quandary....are you more a moron, or more a liar?
Help me with that, will you?
 
8. Kaufman goes on to skewer those environmentalists who 'know' what is best.

"Environmentalists who say they know what nature is and what nature wants are supreme egotists. When we look at the difference between what modern ecology reveals about nature and the Garden of Eden that environmentalists prefer, it becomes clear just how far this fantasy goes is preventing us from exercising intelligent management over the real world."



And, once more, Kaufman relates how irrational and childlike environmentalists are.


"In public policy, environmentalists dictate that natural resources should be handed on the next generation intact. We can do this with a park of a wilderness area, but we can hardly do it with minerals of fossil fuels. To pass these resources on intact or undiminished would mean to use none now. And future generations, under the same ethic, could also use none. It comes very close to a 'stop the world I want to get off' formula.

Environmentalists propose it, but none live by it."
 
I gave 1.8 TRILLION single dollar arguments already.
No you didn't. Your point seems to be to many regulations impact our lives and cost to much money to enforce. You appear to be including all regulations regarding all aspects of government control and regulation on all subjects. To make a valid point we need to know what regulations in regards to environmental issues you claim are useless, obsolete or unworthy. For example, is the regulation that prevents you from dumping used oil obtained from changing the oil in your vehicle into the local water reservoir or trout stream a useless regulation? Are the regulations that specify how you must dispose of that oil useless and unfair?
I'm sure someone like you would find a way to justify the thousands upon thousands of pages in the FEDERAL REGISTRY................

Forrest for the trees..............
 
I gave 1.8 TRILLION single dollar arguments already.
No you didn't. Your point seems to be to many regulations impact our lives and cost to much money to enforce. You appear to be including all regulations regarding all aspects of government control and regulation on all subjects. To make a valid point we need to know what regulations in regards to environmental issues you claim are useless, obsolete or unworthy. For example, is the regulation that prevents you from dumping used oil obtained from changing the oil in your vehicle into the local water reservoir or trout stream a useless regulation? Are the regulations that specify how you must dispose of that oil useless and unfair?
I'm sure someone like you would find a way to justify the thousands upon thousands of pages in the FEDERAL REGISTRY................

Forrest for the trees..............
No, it's a huge and costly problem, but the fault is in a congress that doesn't do it's job and allows special interest groups to write these regulations. The regulations both hinder and help business. The problem as I see it is that the people tasked with keeping these regulations up to date are busy fund raising, chasing after votes from social issues, going on vacation, etc. They spend very little time doing their actual jobs. Most regulations are meant to be temporary and address time sensitive issues. They need to be addressed on a regular basis. In business rules and policies are changed and altered all the time. Boards of Directors meet with department heads and VP's constantly to ascertain which rules and policies have become burdensome and need to be replaced or even cancelled. They constantly look for rules and policies that will improve operations. That is what our elected officials who sit on committees are supposed to be doing, but the majority of them ignore their jobs. We make a joke out of it by appointing partisan politicians to committees on subjects they know nothing about or even care about. Both parties do it.
 
Family Security Matters

19 Examples: How Ridiculous Regulations Are Killing America


For some reason, our political system tends to attract psychotic control freaks who want to micromanage our lives and make most of our decisions for us. These control freaks are actually convinced that freedom and liberty are "dangerous" and that there should be a rule or a regulation for just about everything. This is not happening just at the federal level either. The truth is that the control freaks are often the worst on the local level.

When you add up the red tape at all levels of government, we literally have millions of laws, rules and regulations in America today. All of this red tape is suffocating our businesses, destroying our liberties and our freedoms, and slowly sucking the life out of all of us. If we ever want to have any hope of restoring America to what it once was, then we have to start doing something about this horrific mountain of red tape.

In America today, there is very little that you can actually do without getting some sort of a "license" or a "permit" first.

#2 Could you imagine being sent to prison for collecting the rain that falls from the sky on your own property?

Well, that is exactly what happened to one man in Oregon recently. The following comes from CNS News....

A rural Oregon man was sentenced Wednesday to 30 days in jail and over $1,500 in fines because he had three reservoirs on his property to collect and use rainwater.

What are they going to arrest us for next? Breathing the air?



#3 Santa Monica, California has decided to make it illegal to smoke inside your own home.

The following is from a recent report by NBC Los Angeles....



#5 In New Jersey, if you are driving around with an "unrestrained" cat or dog in your vehicle you can be fined up to $1000 for each offense.


#7 Down in Miami Beach, Florida it will soon be absolutely mandatory to properly recycle your trash....

City commissioners passed a recycling ordinance on Wednesday.

Once the ordinance goes in effect in July 2013, people who don't recycle would be fined $350 for their first violation, $500 for their second violation and $1,000 for the third violation.



#12 Recently I wrote about a man that was arrested for hosting a Bible study in his own home. Well, it turns out that he is still in prison serving his 60 day prison sentence.


#13 Are you growing a garden?

If so, you might want to be very careful that it is not violating any regulations.

In a previous article, I discussed how one unemployed woman in Tulsa, Oklahoma had her survival garden brutally ripped out and carted away by government thugs...

A Tulsa woman is suing the city's code enforcement officers after she said they cut down her garden with no cause.

Denise Morrison said she has more than 100 plant varieties in her front and back yards and all of them are edible and have a purpose.

She knows which ones will treat arthritis, which will make your food spicy, which ones keep mosquitoes away and treat bug bites, but she said none of that matter to city inspectors.

Last August, Morrison's front and back yards were filled with flowers in bloom, lemon, stevia, garlic chives, grapes, strawberries, apple mint, spearmint, peppermint, an apple tree, walnut tree, pecan trees and much more.

That unemployed woman was relying on that garden to provide the things that she needed.

But the government control freaks savagely ripped it all out and left her with nothing.

Now she will have to be dependent on the government because she has no other way to take care of herself.
 
I gave 1.8 TRILLION single dollar arguments already.
No you didn't. Your point seems to be to many regulations impact our lives and cost to much money to enforce. You appear to be including all regulations regarding all aspects of government control and regulation on all subjects. To make a valid point we need to know what regulations in regards to environmental issues you claim are useless, obsolete or unworthy. For example, is the regulation that prevents you from dumping used oil obtained from changing the oil in your vehicle into the local water reservoir or trout stream a useless regulation? Are the regulations that specify how you must dispose of that oil useless and unfair?
I'm sure someone like you would find a way to justify the thousands upon thousands of pages in the FEDERAL REGISTRY................

Forrest for the trees..............
No, it's a huge and costly problem, but the fault is in a congress that doesn't do it's job and allows special interest groups to write these regulations. The regulations both hinder and help business. The problem as I see it is that the people tasked with keeping these regulations up to date are busy fund raising, chasing after votes from social issues, going on vacation, etc. They spend very little time doing their actual jobs. Most regulations are meant to be temporary and address time sensitive issues. They need to be addressed on a regular basis. In business rules and policies are changed and altered all the time. Boards of Directors meet with department heads and VP's constantly to ascertain which rules and policies have become burdensome and need to be replaced or even cancelled. They constantly look for rules and policies that will improve operations. That is what our elected officials who sit on committees are supposed to be doing, but the majority of them ignore their jobs. We make a joke out of it by appointing partisan politicians to committees on subjects they know nothing about or even care about. Both parties do it.
Which is what I've been saying....................is this an admission that all these REGULATIONS are costing us out the wazzoooooooooooooooo...................

Because that is exactly what businesses and people have been saying for a while now.................
 
#18 If you saw someone that was thirsty, would you give that person a cup of cold water to drink?

Be careful before you answer that question - you might be breaking the law by giving someone water.

For example, down in Louisiana one church was recently ordered to stop giving out water because it did not have the "proper permit" to do so.

#19 This last example might be the saddest one of all. If you can believe it, all over the United States cities are actually banning feeding the homeless. The following comes from a recent USA Today article....

Philadelphia recently banned outdoor feeding of people in city parks. Denver has begun enforcing a ban on eating and sleeping on property without permission. And this month, lawmakers in Ashland, Ore., will consider strengthening the town's ban on camping and making noise in public.

And the list goes on: Atlanta, Phoenix, San Diego, Los Angeles, Miami, Oklahoma City and more than 50 other cities have previously adopted some kind of anti-camping or anti-food-sharing laws, according to the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.

Are you angry yet?

You should be.

All of these completely ridiculous regulations are absolutely sucking the life out of us.

That is probably why a recent speech by U.S. Representative Mike Kelly received thunderous applause on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. If you have not seen his speech about how regulations are killing America yet, please take a few minutes out to watch it. You will be glad that you did....



Read more: Family Security Matters Family Security Matters
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
 
Nonsense, Chicken Little.
"There is effectively an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara where 20 to 25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years."
Natural Oil Spills Surprising Amount Seeps into the Sea

The "Dump the oil in the stream" political defense was used as an example to show how stupidity could be used as an excuse to the ridiculous idea that dumping your old oil in a stream after an oil change could be somehow OK and acceptable. Your dopey response indicates you believe it is OK to dump your old dirty oil into the stream. Because of natural oil pollution in the Pacific Ocean it is OK to dump oil into the trout stream in Pennsylvania.


Except that nobody said "Dump the oil in the stream"

You really have nothing, do you.
I used it as a example of the difference between the scientific vs. political debates that are the theme of your OP. It was used in Post #30 and you have been responding to it by including it in your responses ever since.


Didn't you forget to address me as 'relentlessly awesome'???


Let's remind that you have yet to deny a single fact posted in the thread.

And...there'll be more.
My focus has been on the way in which you distort facts by the methods of omission and selectively grouping facts to present an agenda. These are common tools used by conspiracy theorist and revisionist. It is not always the facts that count and conclude accuracy. It is the way they are presented and interpreted to present conclusions as to their meanings. You like to state a fact and make an analysis of the fact followed by a conclusion. When challenged you demand your opponent show where your facts are wrong. It doesn't matter how many folks refute your conclusions, you still demand to show how your facts are wrong. When it is shown that you have distorted and misinterpreted facts, you demand to be called awesome and deflect away from dumb analysis, misinterpretations and conclusions.
The point is that you are trying to present a case for the environmental issue being politically motivated and not based on science when in fact it is a scientific issue that has been politicized by those who profit from abusing the environment. The folks who profit from abusing the environment want the issue to be viewed as political and the folks who want to protect the environment want it to be viewed as a science issue. Viewed as a science issue, the protectors win because the science is easy to explain and understand in layman's terms. Viewed as a political issue and the abusers have opportunity to confuse, complicate and use endless methods to deflect, obfuscate, stall, etc.




"The point is that you are trying to present a case for the environmental issue being politically motivated and not based on science ...."

And, once again.....boringly consistent though it is, I am exactly correct.

9. Just as communist John Dewey replaced 'Socialist' with the respected name 'Liberal,' so did modern environmentalists steal the respect that early 20th century conservationists rightly deserved.


a. Teddy Roosevelt, icon of conservation, along with his ideological soul-mate, Gifford Pinchot, head of the Division of Forestry (later the Forest Service), did not intend to set aside forests for perpetual pristine preservation. Their conservation was anthropocentric, a very different concept from modern environmentalists. No, their aim was to set aside resources for future development, for profit, and for the benefit of the many: “The greatest good, for the greatest number, for the longest time” (the Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham).


The two are very different.


10. "The conservation and environmental movement never really merged. In the 1960s, seventy years after its first organizations were formed, the conservation movement began to lose ground. No president since Teddy Roosevelt had been a dedicated outdoorsman or energetic champion of preserving wildlife.

The environmental movement simply took over because the time was ripe. Many conservationists participated in both movements. Some found in the environmental movement the true religion they had hoped for but never imagined. Other went along because the environmental movement promised more of what they enjoyed- wilderness, wildlife, clear waters, open beaches. What's more, no one would have to pay. Government would recognize our rights and give everything to us."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 19.



Today, many believe that the offshoot of communism, the environmental movement, is the same as the movement headed by Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot.

That would be incorrect.
 
Why the heck would 'environmentalism' belong in Science???
Almost astounding the frequency with which one finds seemingly intelligent adults who have accepted the indoctrination of the bogus 'science' of environmentalism.
It's Politics.... a flimsily disguised totalitarian scheme.....


Professor Wallace Kaufman, former president of several environmental groups, verifies all the things that those of us who laugh at the whacko warmists have been saying for years.
Check out some of the truths he acknowledges in his book "No Turning Back."


Here, the professor discusses the modern environmental movement as a cautionary tale.


1. He explains the environmental movement's antipathy to capitalism....the same view that Marxism has: "Their solutions [are to] increase regulation and government control, consume less, slow down technology,...buy less, drive less, eat little or no meat, live colder in the winter and hotter in the summer, have fewer children, decrease competition..."

2. Get the idea about these folks? They are out of touch with modernity.

"After thirty years in the environmental movement, I am worried athat as it gains power,it cares less and less about reason and science. Its influence on movies, academia, and literature has already turned history into fiction and propaganda....it has started to exercise power in ways that may do more harm to nature than good."

This is a guy who has his head screwed on right!





3. And, as one form of Liberalism, it exhibits the same quasi-religious characteristics as Liberalism does.
" Over the past twenty years the environmental meetings I attend as a journalist have seemed more and more like church meetings....a little like having a single religious sect write student textbooks. In our meetings, they talk about 'converting' America and not letting science interfere with a 'spiritual understanding' of nature. They talk about creatures being 'sacred....The pulpit rhetoric has become the standard in environmental writing and teaching.

A certain angry and violent language accompanies the religious language....said that the only way to get the public's attention is to 'hit them with a two-by-four.

No on expects to see environmentalist sin the streets with two-by-fours, sort of a fascist Green Shirt movement, but their language is not the language of reason..."

Perhaps some of the indoctrinated can begin to see themselves as normal folks see them.




4. Then there is the extremism that accompanies the religious fervor! There can be no limits, no ability to prioritize!
"...simple-minded thinking can lead to expensive mistakes ....Few public campaigns have cost more money than those against toxic chemicals....Dr. Bruce Ames, a biochemiset and inventor of many tests for cancer-causing chemicals, has said, "When looking as caused of cancer...pollution is almost irrelevant."
"Misconceptions about environmental pollution, pesticides and the causes of cancer (NCPA policy report)," Dr. Bruce Ames, p. 34.

a. "E. Donald Elliott, a Yale law professor and former EPA general counsel, said "I have never seen a single rule where we weren't paying at least $100 million per life [saved] for some portion of the rule."
Forbes, "You Can't Get There From Here," July 6, 1992, Brimelow and Spencer.


b. "Some rules, he said, cost more than $30 billion. EPA rules passed in 1990 about wood preservatives have cost $5.7 trillion for each life they were estimated to save. according to John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas.
Ibid.




Does more harm than good, costs outrageous amounts, increases the size of government, and de facto steals private property via regulation.

Who are the morons who support this????

I'd list environmentalism as an ethic. Science is environmentally neutral.

From an anthropocentric viewpoint, humans have an interest in self preservation. Environmentalism comes into play there.

And from an aesthetic standpoint, most people would rather not live in a smelly dump.

There are different ways to act on an environmental consciousness. They don't have to involve government mandates. For example, every time I go into a store to buy a beer, a cooler door is left open. BTUs are being wasted. Every time, I'm shutting doors. Who are these people who grab a beverage and can't be troubled to extend their appendage and close the damn door? Who are these people who throw trash out the windows of their cars?

We shouldn't need government action to solve environmental problems. All we need is a little personal ethics.
 
Why the heck would 'environmentalism' belong in Science???
Almost astounding the frequency with which one finds seemingly intelligent adults who have accepted the indoctrination of the bogus 'science' of environmentalism.
It's Politics.... a flimsily disguised totalitarian scheme.....


Professor Wallace Kaufman, former president of several environmental groups, verifies all the things that those of us who laugh at the whacko warmists have been saying for years.
Check out some of the truths he acknowledges in his book "No Turning Back."


Here, the professor discusses the modern environmental movement as a cautionary tale.


1. He explains the environmental movement's antipathy to capitalism....the same view that Marxism has: "Their solutions [are to] increase regulation and government control, consume less, slow down technology,...buy less, drive less, eat little or no meat, live colder in the winter and hotter in the summer, have fewer children, decrease competition..."

2. Get the idea about these folks? They are out of touch with modernity.

"After thirty years in the environmental movement, I am worried athat as it gains power,it cares less and less about reason and science. Its influence on movies, academia, and literature has already turned history into fiction and propaganda....it has started to exercise power in ways that may do more harm to nature than good."

This is a guy who has his head screwed on right!





3. And, as one form of Liberalism, it exhibits the same quasi-religious characteristics as Liberalism does.
" Over the past twenty years the environmental meetings I attend as a journalist have seemed more and more like church meetings....a little like having a single religious sect write student textbooks. In our meetings, they talk about 'converting' America and not letting science interfere with a 'spiritual understanding' of nature. They talk about creatures being 'sacred....The pulpit rhetoric has become the standard in environmental writing and teaching.

A certain angry and violent language accompanies the religious language....said that the only way to get the public's attention is to 'hit them with a two-by-four.

No on expects to see environmentalist sin the streets with two-by-fours, sort of a fascist Green Shirt movement, but their language is not the language of reason..."

Perhaps some of the indoctrinated can begin to see themselves as normal folks see them.




4. Then there is the extremism that accompanies the religious fervor! There can be no limits, no ability to prioritize!
"...simple-minded thinking can lead to expensive mistakes ....Few public campaigns have cost more money than those against toxic chemicals....Dr. Bruce Ames, a biochemiset and inventor of many tests for cancer-causing chemicals, has said, "When looking as caused of cancer...pollution is almost irrelevant."
"Misconceptions about environmental pollution, pesticides and the causes of cancer (NCPA policy report)," Dr. Bruce Ames, p. 34.

a. "E. Donald Elliott, a Yale law professor and former EPA general counsel, said "I have never seen a single rule where we weren't paying at least $100 million per life [saved] for some portion of the rule."
Forbes, "You Can't Get There From Here," July 6, 1992, Brimelow and Spencer.


b. "Some rules, he said, cost more than $30 billion. EPA rules passed in 1990 about wood preservatives have cost $5.7 trillion for each life they were estimated to save. according to John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas.
Ibid.




Does more harm than good, costs outrageous amounts, increases the size of government, and de facto steals private property via regulation.

Who are the morons who support this????

I'd list environmentalism as an ethic. Science is environmentally neutral.

From an anthropocentric viewpoint, humans have an interest in self preservation. Environmentalism comes into play there.

And from an aesthetic standpoint, most people would rather not live in a smelly dump.

There are different ways to act on an environmental consciousness. They don't have to involve government mandates. For example, every time I go into a store to buy a beer, a cooler door is left open. BTUs are being wasted. Every time, I'm shutting doors. Who are these people who grab a beverage and can't be troubled to extend their appendage and close the damn door? Who are these people who throw trash out the windows of their cars?

We shouldn't need government action to solve environmental problems. All we need is a little personal ethics.


Wallace's book, "No Turning Back," endorses free-market solutions.
 
In the end, the post here is from one man who has probably been paid to print his stuff. Gads, those who believe the environmentalists are some kind of threat to anything are dumb. Products of fox news. The free market needs to be regulated and without it business trashes everything. Business cannot be trusted any more than the gov't. Those businesses that don't like regulations should simply move to china. Wouldn't bother me a bit. They can find a work force that doesn't expect to get paid for their labor and can emit whatever they want with no consequence.
 
I gave 1.8 TRILLION single dollar arguments already.
No you didn't. Your point seems to be to many regulations impact our lives and cost to much money to enforce. You appear to be including all regulations regarding all aspects of government control and regulation on all subjects. To make a valid point we need to know what regulations in regards to environmental issues you claim are useless, obsolete or unworthy. For example, is the regulation that prevents you from dumping used oil obtained from changing the oil in your vehicle into the local water reservoir or trout stream a useless regulation? Are the regulations that specify how you must dispose of that oil useless and unfair?
I'm sure someone like you would find a way to justify the thousands upon thousands of pages in the FEDERAL REGISTRY................

Forrest for the trees..............
Not a single regulation or law you go on to quote in your following post has anything to do with federal regulations. They are all laws and regulations implemented by local governments. They are also written with obvious spin. A regulation about capturing rain water turns out to be about town and state regulation about who owns the water rights in a western state and about building of several small dams to divert stream water without obtaining permits to do so. The town law goes back to 1925 and the state law since the states inception. Nothing to do with federal environmental regulations. Towns making rules or states making regulations about licensing and public safety just don't have anything to do with those federal environmental regulations.
The question of which specific federal environmental protection regulations should be stricken, altered or cancelled remains unanswered. When and if a suggestion of a faulty, wasteful, obsolete or senseless regulation is found, what is the process by which one suggest the problem with the resolution of that problem be resolved?
 
I gave 1.8 TRILLION single dollar arguments already.
No you didn't. Your point seems to be to many regulations impact our lives and cost to much money to enforce. You appear to be including all regulations regarding all aspects of government control and regulation on all subjects. To make a valid point we need to know what regulations in regards to environmental issues you claim are useless, obsolete or unworthy. For example, is the regulation that prevents you from dumping used oil obtained from changing the oil in your vehicle into the local water reservoir or trout stream a useless regulation? Are the regulations that specify how you must dispose of that oil useless and unfair?
I'm sure someone like you would find a way to justify the thousands upon thousands of pages in the FEDERAL REGISTRY................

Forrest for the trees..............
Not a single regulation or law you go on to quote in your following post has anything to do with federal regulations. They are all laws and regulations implemented by local governments. They are also written with obvious spin. A regulation about capturing rain water turns out to be about town and state regulation about who owns the water rights in a western state and about building of several small dams to divert stream water without obtaining permits to do so. The town law goes back to 1925 and the state law since the states inception. Nothing to do with federal environmental regulations. Towns making rules or states making regulations about licensing and public safety just don't have anything to do with those federal environmental regulations.
The question of which specific federal environmental protection regulations should be stricken, altered or cancelled remains unanswered. When and if a suggestion of a faulty, wasteful, obsolete or senseless regulation is found, what is the process by which one suggest the problem with the resolution of that problem be resolved?
Stupid EPA Regulations Government Waste Fraud and Abuse
 
I gave 1.8 TRILLION single dollar arguments already.
No you didn't. Your point seems to be to many regulations impact our lives and cost to much money to enforce. You appear to be including all regulations regarding all aspects of government control and regulation on all subjects. To make a valid point we need to know what regulations in regards to environmental issues you claim are useless, obsolete or unworthy. For example, is the regulation that prevents you from dumping used oil obtained from changing the oil in your vehicle into the local water reservoir or trout stream a useless regulation? Are the regulations that specify how you must dispose of that oil useless and unfair?
I'm sure someone like you would find a way to justify the thousands upon thousands of pages in the FEDERAL REGISTRY................

Forrest for the trees..............
Not a single regulation or law you go on to quote in your following post has anything to do with federal regulations. They are all laws and regulations implemented by local governments. They are also written with obvious spin. A regulation about capturing rain water turns out to be about town and state regulation about who owns the water rights in a western state and about building of several small dams to divert stream water without obtaining permits to do so. The town law goes back to 1925 and the state law since the states inception. Nothing to do with federal environmental regulations. Towns making rules or states making regulations about licensing and public safety just don't have anything to do with those federal environmental regulations.
The question of which specific federal environmental protection regulations should be stricken, altered or cancelled remains unanswered. When and if a suggestion of a faulty, wasteful, obsolete or senseless regulation is found, what is the process by which one suggest the problem with the resolution of that problem be resolved?
Stupid EPA Regulations Government Waste Fraud and Abuse
Your link takes us to some generic conservative blog sites that give broad examples but no specifics and details. Regulating cow manure is made to appear wasteful and silly, but the applicable regulations are not provided so as to put the criticism in some kind of perspective or context. Ya, regulating cow farts sound pretty stupid. The report you reference is four years old. Evidence of the point I made. Congress is tasked with reviewing and changing these regulations. So, where does the cow fart regulation that has not been adapted or put in force and is only a proposal stand today? Dairy farm methane emissions were originally proposed back during the Bush administration and have been discussed ever since.
Surely, there must be some specific regulation with a specific title and code number that we can look at and agree is a useless, wasteful, harmful, etc. regulation that needs to be done away with or changed.
 
I gave 1.8 TRILLION single dollar arguments already.
No you didn't. Your point seems to be to many regulations impact our lives and cost to much money to enforce. You appear to be including all regulations regarding all aspects of government control and regulation on all subjects. To make a valid point we need to know what regulations in regards to environmental issues you claim are useless, obsolete or unworthy. For example, is the regulation that prevents you from dumping used oil obtained from changing the oil in your vehicle into the local water reservoir or trout stream a useless regulation? Are the regulations that specify how you must dispose of that oil useless and unfair?
I'm sure someone like you would find a way to justify the thousands upon thousands of pages in the FEDERAL REGISTRY................

Forrest for the trees..............
Not a single regulation or law you go on to quote in your following post has anything to do with federal regulations. They are all laws and regulations implemented by local governments. They are also written with obvious spin. A regulation about capturing rain water turns out to be about town and state regulation about who owns the water rights in a western state and about building of several small dams to divert stream water without obtaining permits to do so. The town law goes back to 1925 and the state law since the states inception. Nothing to do with federal environmental regulations. Towns making rules or states making regulations about licensing and public safety just don't have anything to do with those federal environmental regulations.
The question of which specific federal environmental protection regulations should be stricken, altered or cancelled remains unanswered. When and if a suggestion of a faulty, wasteful, obsolete or senseless regulation is found, what is the process by which one suggest the problem with the resolution of that problem be resolved?
Stupid EPA Regulations Government Waste Fraud and Abuse
Your link takes us to some generic conservative blog sites that give broad examples but no specifics and details. Regulating cow manure is made to appear wasteful and silly, but the applicable regulations are not provided so as to put the criticism in some kind of perspective or context. Ya, regulating cow farts sound pretty stupid. The report you reference is four years old. Evidence of the point I made. Congress is tasked with reviewing and changing these regulations. So, where does the cow fart regulation that has not been adapted or put in force and is only a proposal stand today? Dairy farm methane emissions were originally proposed back during the Bush administration and have been discussed ever since.
Surely, there must be some specific regulation with a specific title and code number that we can look at and agree is a useless, wasteful, harmful, etc. regulation that needs to be done away with or changed.
Title V of the Clean air act and cows listed in the article................Doubt you even read it.

Perhaps we should tax cow farts in your opinion.

Tell me about Ice Fog in Alaska and mandated fuel mixes that get trapped in the fog causing people to get sick via EPA ORDERS and REGULATIONS

How about when they decided to add scrubbers to coal burners...........they just added precipitators which had to be removed again from the power plants to install the scrubbers.............costing even more money because the epa had it's head up it's ass.........

Skimmers not allowed in the article via the EPA REGULATIONS...............

Your blind to the BS of GOV'T........its just what you do.
 
No you didn't. Your point seems to be to many regulations impact our lives and cost to much money to enforce. You appear to be including all regulations regarding all aspects of government control and regulation on all subjects. To make a valid point we need to know what regulations in regards to environmental issues you claim are useless, obsolete or unworthy. For example, is the regulation that prevents you from dumping used oil obtained from changing the oil in your vehicle into the local water reservoir or trout stream a useless regulation? Are the regulations that specify how you must dispose of that oil useless and unfair?
I'm sure someone like you would find a way to justify the thousands upon thousands of pages in the FEDERAL REGISTRY................

Forrest for the trees..............
Not a single regulation or law you go on to quote in your following post has anything to do with federal regulations. They are all laws and regulations implemented by local governments. They are also written with obvious spin. A regulation about capturing rain water turns out to be about town and state regulation about who owns the water rights in a western state and about building of several small dams to divert stream water without obtaining permits to do so. The town law goes back to 1925 and the state law since the states inception. Nothing to do with federal environmental regulations. Towns making rules or states making regulations about licensing and public safety just don't have anything to do with those federal environmental regulations.
The question of which specific federal environmental protection regulations should be stricken, altered or cancelled remains unanswered. When and if a suggestion of a faulty, wasteful, obsolete or senseless regulation is found, what is the process by which one suggest the problem with the resolution of that problem be resolved?
Stupid EPA Regulations Government Waste Fraud and Abuse
Your link takes us to some generic conservative blog sites that give broad examples but no specifics and details. Regulating cow manure is made to appear wasteful and silly, but the applicable regulations are not provided so as to put the criticism in some kind of perspective or context. Ya, regulating cow farts sound pretty stupid. The report you reference is four years old. Evidence of the point I made. Congress is tasked with reviewing and changing these regulations. So, where does the cow fart regulation that has not been adapted or put in force and is only a proposal stand today? Dairy farm methane emissions were originally proposed back during the Bush administration and have been discussed ever since.
Surely, there must be some specific regulation with a specific title and code number that we can look at and agree is a useless, wasteful, harmful, etc. regulation that needs to be done away with or changed.
Title V of the Clean air act and cows listed in the article................Doubt you even read it.

Perhaps we should tax cow farts in your opinion.

Tell me about Ice Fog in Alaska and mandated fuel mixes that get trapped in the fog causing people to get sick via EPA ORDERS and REGULATIONS

How about when they decided to add scrubbers to coal burners...........they just added precipitators which had to be removed again from the power plants to install the scrubbers.............costing even more money because the epa had it's head up it's ass.........

Skimmers not allowed in the article via the EPA REGULATIONS...............

Your blind to the BS of GOV'T........its just what you do.

All you are doing is complaining about a legislative backlog of ignored legislative work. No one disagrees that there are laws on the books that need to be changed. It is easy to point out problems, but a waste of time if you don't have solutions. The topics you bring up are supposed to be discussed by scientist and experts in front of our elected officials or boards that are appointed to review these matters in a public forum generally referred to as a public hearing. I do not see the benefit of blaming it on "big government" while the people tasked with controlling the source of the problem are getting paid to go out and collect money for keeping their jobs (fund raising), receiving ridiculous amounts of vacation time, traveling around the world first class at our expense and returning to make comments about emotionally charged social issues as a way of showing they are doing something productive. I would rather the congress discuss the wisdom or stupidity of regulating cow farts and come to a decision instead of traveling to some vacation spot in a first class seat, staying at a high dollar hotel and feasting on fancy food while they drink expensive wine. I would prefer they concentrate on obtaining expert opinions and making well thought out and responsible decisions instead of making endless phone calls begging and making deals for donations or attending fundraising events. What is your solution?
 
I'm sure someone like you would find a way to justify the thousands upon thousands of pages in the FEDERAL REGISTRY................

Forrest for the trees..............
Not a single regulation or law you go on to quote in your following post has anything to do with federal regulations. They are all laws and regulations implemented by local governments. They are also written with obvious spin. A regulation about capturing rain water turns out to be about town and state regulation about who owns the water rights in a western state and about building of several small dams to divert stream water without obtaining permits to do so. The town law goes back to 1925 and the state law since the states inception. Nothing to do with federal environmental regulations. Towns making rules or states making regulations about licensing and public safety just don't have anything to do with those federal environmental regulations.
The question of which specific federal environmental protection regulations should be stricken, altered or cancelled remains unanswered. When and if a suggestion of a faulty, wasteful, obsolete or senseless regulation is found, what is the process by which one suggest the problem with the resolution of that problem be resolved?
Stupid EPA Regulations Government Waste Fraud and Abuse
Your link takes us to some generic conservative blog sites that give broad examples but no specifics and details. Regulating cow manure is made to appear wasteful and silly, but the applicable regulations are not provided so as to put the criticism in some kind of perspective or context. Ya, regulating cow farts sound pretty stupid. The report you reference is four years old. Evidence of the point I made. Congress is tasked with reviewing and changing these regulations. So, where does the cow fart regulation that has not been adapted or put in force and is only a proposal stand today? Dairy farm methane emissions were originally proposed back during the Bush administration and have been discussed ever since.
Surely, there must be some specific regulation with a specific title and code number that we can look at and agree is a useless, wasteful, harmful, etc. regulation that needs to be done away with or changed.
Title V of the Clean air act and cows listed in the article................Doubt you even read it.

Perhaps we should tax cow farts in your opinion.

Tell me about Ice Fog in Alaska and mandated fuel mixes that get trapped in the fog causing people to get sick via EPA ORDERS and REGULATIONS

How about when they decided to add scrubbers to coal burners...........they just added precipitators which had to be removed again from the power plants to install the scrubbers.............costing even more money because the epa had it's head up it's ass.........

Skimmers not allowed in the article via the EPA REGULATIONS...............

Your blind to the BS of GOV'T........its just what you do.

All you are doing is complaining about a legislative backlog of ignored legislative work. No one disagrees that there are laws on the books that need to be changed. It is easy to point out problems, but a waste of time if you don't have solutions. The topics you bring up are supposed to be discussed by scientist and experts in front of our elected officials or boards that are appointed to review these matters in a public forum generally referred to as a public hearing. I do not see the benefit of blaming it on "big government" while the people tasked with controlling the source of the problem are getting paid to go out and collect money for keeping their jobs (fund raising), receiving ridiculous amounts of vacation time, traveling around the world first class at our expense and returning to make comments about emotionally charged social issues as a way of showing they are doing something productive. I would rather the congress discuss the wisdom or stupidity of regulating cow farts and come to a decision instead of traveling to some vacation spot in a first class seat, staying at a high dollar hotel and feasting on fancy food while they drink expensive wine. I would prefer they concentrate on obtaining expert opinions and making well thought out and responsible decisions instead of making endless phone calls begging and making deals for donations or attending fundraising events. What is your solution?
SMALLER GOVT.

Revamp of the current Regulations to stop the stupid laws.

Have you been paying attention...........You just admitted we have stupid laws and regs..........END THEM with a full review to find the bs ones
 
Not a single regulation or law you go on to quote in your following post has anything to do with federal regulations. They are all laws and regulations implemented by local governments. They are also written with obvious spin. A regulation about capturing rain water turns out to be about town and state regulation about who owns the water rights in a western state and about building of several small dams to divert stream water without obtaining permits to do so. The town law goes back to 1925 and the state law since the states inception. Nothing to do with federal environmental regulations. Towns making rules or states making regulations about licensing and public safety just don't have anything to do with those federal environmental regulations.
The question of which specific federal environmental protection regulations should be stricken, altered or cancelled remains unanswered. When and if a suggestion of a faulty, wasteful, obsolete or senseless regulation is found, what is the process by which one suggest the problem with the resolution of that problem be resolved?
Stupid EPA Regulations Government Waste Fraud and Abuse
Your link takes us to some generic conservative blog sites that give broad examples but no specifics and details. Regulating cow manure is made to appear wasteful and silly, but the applicable regulations are not provided so as to put the criticism in some kind of perspective or context. Ya, regulating cow farts sound pretty stupid. The report you reference is four years old. Evidence of the point I made. Congress is tasked with reviewing and changing these regulations. So, where does the cow fart regulation that has not been adapted or put in force and is only a proposal stand today? Dairy farm methane emissions were originally proposed back during the Bush administration and have been discussed ever since.
Surely, there must be some specific regulation with a specific title and code number that we can look at and agree is a useless, wasteful, harmful, etc. regulation that needs to be done away with or changed.
Title V of the Clean air act and cows listed in the article................Doubt you even read it.

Perhaps we should tax cow farts in your opinion.

Tell me about Ice Fog in Alaska and mandated fuel mixes that get trapped in the fog causing people to get sick via EPA ORDERS and REGULATIONS

How about when they decided to add scrubbers to coal burners...........they just added precipitators which had to be removed again from the power plants to install the scrubbers.............costing even more money because the epa had it's head up it's ass.........

Skimmers not allowed in the article via the EPA REGULATIONS...............

Your blind to the BS of GOV'T........its just what you do.

All you are doing is complaining about a legislative backlog of ignored legislative work. No one disagrees that there are laws on the books that need to be changed. It is easy to point out problems, but a waste of time if you don't have solutions. The topics you bring up are supposed to be discussed by scientist and experts in front of our elected officials or boards that are appointed to review these matters in a public forum generally referred to as a public hearing. I do not see the benefit of blaming it on "big government" while the people tasked with controlling the source of the problem are getting paid to go out and collect money for keeping their jobs (fund raising), receiving ridiculous amounts of vacation time, traveling around the world first class at our expense and returning to make comments about emotionally charged social issues as a way of showing they are doing something productive. I would rather the congress discuss the wisdom or stupidity of regulating cow farts and come to a decision instead of traveling to some vacation spot in a first class seat, staying at a high dollar hotel and feasting on fancy food while they drink expensive wine. I would prefer they concentrate on obtaining expert opinions and making well thought out and responsible decisions instead of making endless phone calls begging and making deals for donations or attending fundraising events. What is your solution?
SMALLER GOVT.

Revamp of the current Regulations to stop the stupid laws.

Have you been paying attention...........You just admitted we have stupid laws and regs..........END THEM with a full review to find the bs ones
I am agreeing with you to a certain degree and at a certain level. I am not opposed to revamping regulations and making them both easier for us to deal with, and at the same time, more effective and efficient. Who wouldn't want that? You seem to see it as a problem instigated by "big government" while I see it as a problem of bipartisan corruption and a simple failure of politicians to do their jobs. My solution would be to point the finger at the politicians that vote to approve new regulations and fail to get rid of the ones that need to be gotten rid of. Pretty simple really. I do not think the solution is to just wipe out regulations and laws indiscriminately or in a partisan fashion. The terms "Big Business" and "Big Government" have long ago become talking point buzz words that have no value other than as propaganda speech bullets.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top