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.
We like dirty water, dirty air, toxins in the soil, and contaminated food. Of course, we like nothing better than dumping toxic, industrial waste in rivers and streams. It is what we do!
Isn't it amusing to hear what liberals really believe? Only a child could be culled into believing such nonsense.
Liberals see the world in black and white on these issues. They think the EPA is out there tirelessly crusading for the environment and is completely above corruption, waste and mismanagement.
Meanwhile, they think that greedy conservatives don't care at all about the environment and are out to turn the country into China as far as pollution goes in order to maximize profits.
The EPA is necessary, they have done good work for the environment but they are not above corruption, becoming power hungry, mismanagement and waste. They need to be reigned in once
and while so this is a good thing.
Conservative politicians actually care about the environment too and in many cases they "walk the walk" more than liberal politicians.
The EPA shouldn't be controlling private water on private land.
How can you debate this if you don't even know what we are debating ?
Do you not follow what changes have taken place within the EPA ?
That is not the EPA's job.
If what you do affects your neighbor and the water supply why should not the state or federal EPA have an interest in regulating what you do?
There was a dry cleaner who dumped some of his toxic chemicals down the drain and kept other leaking barrels of his toxic cleaning chemicals in his backyard. His actions caused contamination of the water supply and had to be cleaned at great expense. According to you it was his private land and he should do what he pleased. The ironic part was that the Clinton's EPA did crack down on his operation and fined him heavily, but after the changing of the guard the EPA dropped the hefty fines and guess who picked up the clean up tab...the taxpayer.
I can give you another example from Texas, they had a flexible program that allowed the refineries to reduce emissions where it was most practical. If you had two processes producing a total of 20 pounds and had to reduce the total 10 pounds you could apply your emission controls to just one process as long as you were reducing it 10 pounds. That wasn't good enough for the EPA, they wanted it applied to every process. The end result no matter which way you do it is the same, the Texas rules lowered costs to do it.
If what you do affects your neighbor and the water supply why should not the state or federal EPA have an interest in regulating what you do?
There was a dry cleaner who dumped some of his toxic chemicals down the drain and kept other leaking barrels of his toxic cleaning chemicals in his backyard. His actions caused contamination of the water supply and had to be cleaned at great expense. According to you it was his private land and he should do what he pleased. The ironic part was that the Clinton's EPA did crack down on his operation and fined him heavily, but after the changing of the guard the EPA dropped the hefty fines and guess who picked up the clean up tab...the taxpayer.
We already have something to deal with the harm of others... It is called due process, through the courts.
If I supported ruining people's lives, I would support gutting the EPA.
These environmental policies affect the poor the most. A great deal of the money spent by low income people goes to energy whether it's to heat their house, get to work or included in the cost of products they buy. Many of them are already beyond the point of being able to afford the necessities of life. Driving up their energy costs so their IQ goes up 2/1000 of one point is not helping them .
Last edited by thecoalman; 11-10-2014 at 08:49 AM..
We already have something to deal with the harm of others... It is called due process, through the courts.
That works in theory not necessarily in fact, The first thing is that industries that cause the greatest pollution and or cause the greatest harm have laws that protect or insulate them from law suits or limit their liability. Trial lawyers are reluctant to take those cases because of the complexities and these laws. The little homeowner has little recourse if their child dies of cancer because of toxic pollutants. The only agency that stands in the way of these corporate polluters is the EPA and there state offshoots and affiliates.
Main problem with your argument is you assume all or most Republicans are "Far Right".
Most of us are Moderates and believe in Common sense controls.
Lately the EPA has become worse than the IRS.
Moderates are not in control. The hard right is.
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.
