Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mother nature doesn't adjust to change? The earth survived asteroids hitting it, ice ages, co2 levels four or more times what they are now, volcanoes, continental shift, you name it the earth is still here and will be long after man is gone. The save the planet crusade is laughed at by "mother nature".
The thing is it isn't about the earth it's about going "green" no matter what. I won't even mention the boondoggle that is occuring with our taxpayer dollars. The EPA is on record now as to their desire. They don't care about saving the earth once just destroying industry and along with it our economy. Actually we could go completely green and starve and freeze during the winter for mother earth over here while the rest of the world looks at us and laughs and it would mean nothing to the good mother earth.
Did that EPA man on the video that the first responder admitted to not hearing, really say something about crucifying businesses? Well sure he did but none of the tree huggers here heard him. I think that may be selective hearing, if any of them heard the words on the video. He did compare his group's manner of dealing with people with the way the Romans went into small towns of newly conquered territories and hung the first 5 men they came to from crosses and the people saw what could be their fate pretty quick.
I loved that man's apology that came 2 years after he made his statements. Of course, it all came about because some conservative heard him talking and told us about it.
What do you raise on your ranch? Is it some kind of foot stuffs? I suppose you didn't hear about Ms. Jackson and her army of crucifiers wanting so badly to charge farmers for cow farts some time ago. Those pure D city folks who live in DC just don't know much about grass eating animals being avid farters. I wonder what they would have done when the dinosaurs, who also were mostly plant eaters, cut one now and then.
We raised sheep. Though we don't anymore. And get this...I support having wolves in Idaho too. Hopeless, huh?
There are more people not willing to go along with Cap and Trade than most of our lefties realize. I think they really thought that that important part of Obama thought was going to save the Earth.
There are more people not willing to go along with Cap and Trade than most of our lefties realize. I think they really thought that that important part of Obama thought was going to save the Earth.
Well maybe it was good the Democratic majority wasted their time on HC because Cap and Trade was passed in the House but laid there in the Senate like everything else...the budget...creating jobs...cutting government not growing it.
Obama can go save Harry Reid's pomegranate trees....
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,776,945 times
Reputation: 7185
I actually think that this quote is being taken out of context and blown out of proportion. He's essentially acknowledging that the EPA is never going to be capable of monitoring every project related to the energy industry and, as a result, the tack that they must take is disproportionate response. If you very aggressively deal with the violations that you DO find, then that serves as an incentive to follow the rules for everyone watching.
His choice of language leaves something to be desired, but remember that this guy is a chemical engineer. He's not a public relations guy by training or by nature and he's a career academic, which probably means that he's a very smart, introverted, typical-savant-engineer who is far better with a graphic calculator than with people and takes everything at face value - probably right on the line of the spectrum and could never step back from the podium for a moment to consider that what he is saying could conceiveably be used as fodder for an anti-Obama campaign. I think I know what he's trying to say, he just says it poorly because he's good with differential equations rather than English and he can't think strategically, only linearly.
It isn't news that the EPA regulates oil & gas, nor is it news that the EPA is more unreasonable under a progressive administration and more lenient under a conservative administration.
This guy isn't relaying policy handed down from President Obama himself either. Obama doesn't know **** about the EPA and doesn't have a hand in its operations - that's what the wacko environmental lawyer in his cabinet is for.
Oh dear. I've forgotten about the EPA and conservatives. Mention the EPA to a conservative and the brain switches off and the mindless yammering commences.
I ask a pertinent question to the validity of the statement that the EPA is doing good and all you can do is insult my intelligence? It is a simple question. How do you know?
Another question as well. Why did you bring up politics? What does that question have to do with being conservative or liberal? Are you saying a liberal would never ask such a question? Are you saying asking questions to provide evidence to a given regulatory implementation, its result and accomplishment is "the brain switches off and the mindless yammering commences"? Please explain, because It appears that you are implying that to question, is to be unintelligent and that confuses the heck out of me. Are you saying we should not question, rather we should accept? On what grounds?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistyriverranch
No rational thought, no listening to anything, just the EPA IS THE DEVIL and anyone who opposes an action by the EPA is automatically right.
Asking questions is not rational? Requiring one provide evidence to a result is irrational? I simply asked for specific evidence of a cause and effect of the EPA's work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistyriverranch
Fascinating. I wonder what would happen if the EPA tangled with an abortion clinic or the NAACP. Or a mosque.
What does that have to do with the discussion? You talk of intelligent discourse and rational discussion and yet you bring up irrelevant subjects to the discussion at hand? To what end? what is your purpose of applying such to the discussion? Please explain, I am confused.
Right to me is the earth first and the wrong path is us first. Everyone takes the earth for granted, they shouldnt. Who cares if gas is $10 a gallon, or a polluting business goes under and people lose jobs...so what. Fix the main problem, you need to think of the future and your family for generations to come. As for not adapting to change...those items you all mentioned are caused by mother nature. WHat we are doing it destroying it with our own creations. If you think a flood or a hurricane is destroying earth, your wrong, its destroying what we as people have built, not the earth. Its called natural selection.
I ask a pertinent question to the validity of the statement that the EPA is doing good and all you can do is insult my intelligence? It is a simple question. How do you know?
Another question as well. Why did you bring up politics? What does that question have to do with being conservative or liberal? Are you saying a liberal would never ask such a question? Are you saying asking questions to provide evidence to a given regulatory implementation, its result and accomplishment is "the brain switches off and the mindless yammering commences"? Please explain, because It appears that you are implying that to question, is to be unintelligent and that confuses the heck out of me. Are you saying we should not question, rather we should accept? On what grounds?
Asking questions is not rational? Requiring one provide evidence to a result is irrational? I simply asked for specific evidence of a cause and effect of the EPA's work.
What does that have to do with the discussion? You talk of intelligent discourse and rational discussion and yet you bring up irrelevant subjects to the discussion at hand? To what end? what is your purpose of applying such to the discussion? Please explain, I am confused.
You are welcome to your confusion. I gave my opinion and you started down the rhetorical question path. I've been down it before and know where it goes. I'm not up for the frustration and idiocy, which admittedly I should have recognized before I posted. Oops...my bad.
I support the EPA and I support limits on the EPA and I'll vote accordingly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
