What does the Republicans have against the Environment?

What does the Republicans have against the Environment? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

jlf1961 -> What does the Republicans have against the Environment? (11/5/2011 2:49:17 PM)
Strange thing history. It often repeats itself. Without regulation, environmental pollution was rampant during the early to mid twentieth century. One REPUBLICAN president took steps to put and end to it, Richard Nixon formed the EPA. Now republicans want to dismantle the EPA, which would open the country up to more pollution. Since the Reagan years, Republicans have systematically attacked environmental groups and concerns. Remember Reagan's famous statements, "if you have seen one tree you have seen them all" and "trees cause more pollution"? Climate change is a proven fact, even conservative paid scientists have changed their opinion and come out in support of the climate change argument. Anything that would limit pollution, regulate clean air they are against. Does anyone remember rivers spontaneously igniting back in the sixties? How about Times Beach Missouri? Love Canal?

njlauren -> RE: What does the Republicans have against the Environment? (11/5/2011 3:07:25 PM)
Basically the GOP has been co-opted by the loony right, whose basic mantra is business should be allowed to do what they want to, and environmental regs cut into profits and reduce the stock price, which of course to them is now God itself. Not to mention the EPA serves as brilliant (but untrue) cover to tell the people upset about losing jobs to places like China and India, and I hear the tea baggers spouting that off, that jobs were lost because of 'lawyers and the EPA', not because those countries have half a million or more people living in dire poverty who will work for 50c an hour 14 hours a day..lot easier to blame everything else, then admit that globalization was basically a way to gain access to dirt cheap labor to cause the stock price to fly. They have to find some way to cover for things like, for example, the top 1% have seen their incomes increase 20% a year the last couple of years in the middle of a recession that has killed others. For some, it comes down to states rights nonsense, which generally means places like Arkansas and Louisiana to get any kind of jobs was willing to let companies pollute the crap out of the environment, poison the water and air (and then later received many 10's of billions of dollars of federal money to try and clean up the mess left behind). Then, too, we have more then a few of the religious right, whose idea of stewardship of the earth is it was made for man, and he is supposed to use it to its full extent, and environmental regulations fly "in the face of God". Then there is the knee jerk "government is evil" crowd, who really think without government business will do what is best for all of us.... The irony of course is not lost. Teddy Roosevelt was a republican, yet he was a conservationist who built the national parks and regulated the food and drug industries, and people remember Nixon as a conservative, but forget he created the EPA and the Consumer product safety commission because he realized that businesses would not always do the right thing..and many of the morons forget what it was like before, where the great lakes were so pulled you couldn't go swimming in them and weren't supposed to eat fish caught there, and the Cuyahoga river caught fire, or the hudson river was so polluted with human waste and contaminated by PCB's that it was basically a running sewer (and today, they are seriously thinking of building swimming beaches on the manhattan shore).They don't want to remember, not that long ago, when lakes and streams in the east were dying thanks to acid rain, from coal fired power plants in the midwest using high sulfur coal, they don't want to talk about drinking water contaminated by mine runoff, or places like Love Canal.... They hear about some mythic golden age (usually the 1950's) and blame the decline on living standards, not on global competition for cheap labor and frankly by downright greed at the top, but on the EPA and other things, since "those things didn't exist in the 1950's, and look how great everythign was"..course, don't ever mention to that crowd that in the 1950's, the prosperity came with extremely high tax rates, and also was a time when government intervention in the economy, like the GI Bill, the interstate highway system, defense spending and research, and other programs helped promote that wealth..better to believe a myth.)

Iamsemisweet -> RE: What does the Republicans have against the Environment? (11/5/2011 4:31:56 PM)
The influence of the religious right and their apocalyptic beliefs are part of the reason, too. If you truly believe Jesus is returning to the earth soon, then you have little incentive to protect the environment. This article is old, but explains that mindset very well. http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/82jun/martin.htm

Aylee -> RE: What does the Republicans have against the Environment? (11/5/2011 7:23:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Now republicans want to dismantle the EPA, which would open the country up to more pollution. One is the Iron Law from Pournelle: ...in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representatives who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions. And Two: Why can't the EPA go out of business and leave all that environment and pollution stuff to the states and the local communities?

Iamsemisweet -> RE: What does the Republicans have against the Environment? (11/5/2011 8:27:12 PM)
Because air, water, and wildlife freely cross state lines. quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: And Two: Why can't the EPA go out of business and leave all that environment and pollution stuff to the states and the local communities?

popeye1250 -> RE: What does the Republicans have against the Environment? (11/5/2011 11:33:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Now republicans want to dismantle the EPA, which would open the country up to more pollution. One is the Iron Law from Pournelle: ...in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representatives who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions. And Two: Why can't the EPA go out of business and leave all that environment and pollution stuff to the states and the local communities? Aylee, agreed, the EPA has had about 35 years to do it's job. I don't think anyone thought it would be a permanent and growing part of our govt. It's time for them to go! And I think almost all the states now have their own "EPA's" so we really no longer need the redundant EPA from the feds. The states have made them redundant. Like education it's best to let each state do what they think is right for the local situation and their citizens. What Florida needs to do in this area is going to be the polar opposite of what Maine or Vermont need to do. I know a lot of repubs and dems and they all want clean water and air just like us independents! There's been more than a few democrats who have exploited this issue to make money off of it.

joether -> RE: What does the Republicans have against the Environment? (11/6/2011 3:14:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Now republicans want to dismantle the EPA, which would open the country up to more pollution. One is the Iron Law from Pournelle: ...in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representatives who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions. And Two: Why can't the EPA go out of business and leave all that environment and pollution stuff to the states and the local communities? Aylee, agreed, the EPA has had about 35 years to do it's job. I don't think anyone thought it would be a permanent and growing part of our govt. It's time for them to go! And I think almost all the states now have their own "EPA's" so we really no longer need the redundant EPA from the feds. The states have made them redundant. Like education it's best to let each state do what they think is right for the local situation and their citizens. What Florida needs to do in this area is going to be the polar opposite of what Maine or Vermont need to do. I know a lot of repubs and dems and they all want clean water and air just like us independents! There's been more than a few democrats who have exploited this issue to make money off of it. Go take a trip to the non-tourist locations of Russia and China. The places the tour guides (whom want to promote either country in the best possible light) dont want you to visit. National Geographic about a decade ago had an entire magazine devoted to the pollution troubles in Russia caused by poor regulation. Much of its country side is simply littered with one type of toxic fume or chemical. Certain parts of the country are just unlivable. Heck, you cant even eat anything you kill because those animals are simply 'to far along' to live on their own. Now, one could argue that it was the USSR's fault; but the real criminal action was allowing industry to operate with total freedom and immunity from criminal charges. China, like Russia, has been slow to put regulations into place to keep their countryside from becoming a sewage dump. Over the summer they had some leavage that was breached pouring this very reddish compound of 'something' into its countryside. The whole of it would have to be cleaned up for the land to be usable in the future (which was farmland....). Take a guess how long before that area will get cleaned up completely? When it comes to regulations, those that want to remove them fall into two groups: A) Those who will profit from other's sufferings and B) Those that have no clue why those regulations were put in place in the first place! The first group is pretty obvious: Greed Trumps Sanity. The second group are generally the lackeys to dumb to think for themselves. Since intelligent and educated folks would actually research WHY a particular regulation was put into action. Generally its to keep some type of behavior from taking place, or some type of condtion from becoming a reality. How about that oil rig that exploded, sunk and lefted the Gulf of Mexico an oil slick from Texas to Florida last summer? Take a WILD GUESS how that happened? A regulation was removed under the Bush Administration (no shit...really) to 'help oil companies compete more in the global economy' (have you seen the profits of oil companies lately?). The regulation, if it was implaced, would have prevented the circumstances from taking place insomuch as the company would have been stiffly fined for doing the action against common sense. Greed over took Sanity and the rest....is history! Why is it pops, that EVERY conservative becomes a NIMBY when a nuclear reactor is planned to be placed very close to their backyard, and with next to nothing for regulations? Wouldn't you think they'd be happy to have those new jobs and money inflowing to their nextdoor neighbor?

Hillwilliam -> RE: What does the Republicans have against the Environment? (11/6/2011 4:13:25 AM)
Why not abolish the EPA? Here's why. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/04/africa_polluting_nigeria/html/1.stm I mean oil companies are such nice guys who self regulate and all.

leonine -> RE: What does the Republicans have against the Environment? (11/6/2011 4:36:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Now republicans want to dismantle the EPA, which would open the country up to more pollution. One is the Iron Law from Pournelle: ...in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representatives who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions. And Two: Why can't the EPA go out of business and leave all that environment and pollution stuff to the states and the local communities? Aylee, agreed, the EPA has had about 35 years to do it's job. I don't think anyone thought it would be a permanent and growing part of our govt. It's time for them to go! Come to think of it, the police have been in business much longer than that and they haven't abolished crime, so it's obviously time to get rid of them and leave the criminals to self-regulate. Think of the money we'd save and the boost to the economy.

Toucan -> RE: What does the Republicans have against the Environment? (11/6/2011 6:29:11 AM)
The EPA has been hiijacked by commies bent on ending private property land ownership. That and many of us know first hand how big business has rigged environmental regulations to drive the little guy out of business. Heck about a decade ago my dad had a small tire shop(about an inventory of 2k tires). He always disposed of tires properly while some of the other tire companies didn't. Heck when PA passed new regulation on how to dispose of tires properly my dad's business was cited as the "perfect example". But because of all the red tape in the new regulation he had to close up shop, while all the businesses that illegally dumped tires had the revenue to afford to get past the red tape and some of them have grown fairly large since then. And look at global warming. The leftist/progressive solution is massive taxation and borderline global communism. If Co2 was such a big deal, wouldn't it make more sense to A) protect old growth trees and B) begin a massive reforestation campaign? Why does the environmental solution have to be "global communism/socialism"? And why are ALL THE OTHER PLANETS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM's temperatures going up too? Explain that one to me. Also: Did you people know during the era of the Roman Empire IT WAS WARMER THEN IT IS NOW! Of course the temp is going up: WE JUST EXITED A MINI ICE AGE BACK IN THE 50'S. Look up the mini ice age that began during the dark/medieval ages. Heck the people then where so freaked out they sent knights and monks to slay the demon responsible for the glaciers advancing across Europe(Glaciers covering the Alps is only 1k-1.5k year development. How do you think Hannibal got his Elephants across the glaciers? Giant ice-skates or something?) If you want to talk meaningful solutions to the problems of industrial/agricultural pollution most Republicans are all ears. Big Businesses is taking advantage of the fact that leftist's are using environmental regulation/environmental issue's as a cover to advance communism/socialism. And we are stuck in-between a rock and a hard place. But that doesn't mean we don't care, it just means we prefer liberty over slavery. Even if that liberty comes at a high cost.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: What does the Republicans have against the Environment? (11/6/2011 9:13:50 AM)
Ahhh yes, this all sounds familiar. Whenever there are regulations put it place that tell someone the can't do whatever the fuck they want to do, then it must be a commie plot! Well here is some news. If the state is in charge of regulation and they are doing their job, they aren't going to let you do whatever the fuck you want, either. Someone said that the EPA has had 35 years to do it's job, and now it is time for it to go. In reality, the EPA has had some very notable successes. They have cleaned up numerous rivers and lakes; reduced air pollution; cleaned up numerous Brownfield sites and converted them to other uses; and increased recycling. How is that not a success? For my part, I would rather have federal regs than rely on neighboring states being good neighbors. I live down wind and down river from Idaho, I would rather not rely on the environmental sensitivities of that state for my health and environmental well being, thank you very much. The state with the lowest environmental protections would be the standard, since sewage and chemicals dumped in a river don't stop at state borders.

jlf1961 -> RE: What does the Republicans have against the Environment? (11/6/2011 9:24:35 AM)
The EPA has NOTHING to do with regulating private land ownership or anything else. Considering the bullshit you just posted, I am wondering who's sock puppet you are. Sounds a lot like cuckoldme.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: What does the Republicans have against the Environment? (11/6/2011 9:45:40 AM)
I just re read your post Toucan, and it cracked me up. Save old growth trees? Reforest? Um yes, that would make sense, but the timber companies and logging communities have and will fight that as yet another commie plot against their businesses and lifestyles. Obviously you don't live in a timber state.

popeye1250 -> RE: What does the Republicans have against the Environment? (11/6/2011 11:48:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Now republicans want to dismantle the EPA, which would open the country up to more pollution. One is the Iron Law from Pournelle: ...in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representatives who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions. And Two: Why can't the EPA go out of business and leave all that environment and pollution stuff to the states and the local communities? Aylee, agreed, the EPA has had about 35 years to do it's job. I don't think anyone thought it would be a permanent and growing part of our govt. It's time for them to go! And I think almost all the states now have their own "EPA's" so we really no longer need the redundant EPA from the feds. The states have made them redundant. Like education it's best to let each state do what they think is right for the local situation and their citizens. What Florida needs to do in this area is going to be the polar opposite of what Maine or Vermont need to do. I know a lot of repubs and dems and they all want clean water and air just like us independents! There's been more than a few democrats who have exploited this issue to make money off of it. Go take a trip to the non-tourist locations of Russia and China. The places the tour guides (whom want to promote either country in the best possible light) dont want you to visit. National Geographic about a decade ago had an entire magazine devoted to the pollution troubles in Russia caused by poor regulation. Much of its country side is simply littered with one type of toxic fume or chemical. Certain parts of the country are just unlivable. Heck, you cant even eat anything you kill because those animals are simply 'to far along' to live on their own. Now, one could argue that it was the USSR's fault; but the real criminal action was allowing industry to operate with total freedom and immunity from criminal charges. China, like Russia, has been slow to put regulations into place to keep their countryside from becoming a sewage dump. Over the summer they had some leavage that was breached pouring this very reddish compound of 'something' into its countryside. The whole of it would have to be cleaned up for the land to be usable in the future (which was farmland....). Take a guess how long before that area will get cleaned up completely? When it comes to regulations, those that want to remove them fall into two groups: A) Those who will profit from other's sufferings and B) Those that have no clue why those regulations were put in place in the first place! The first group is pretty obvious: Greed Trumps Sanity. The second group are generally the lackeys to dumb to think for themselves. Since intelligent and educated folks would actually research WHY a particular regulation was put into action. Generally its to keep some type of behavior from taking place, or some type of condtion from becoming a reality. How about that oil rig that exploded, sunk and lefted the Gulf of Mexico an oil slick from Texas to Florida last summer? Take a WILD GUESS how that happened? A regulation was removed under the Bush Administration (no shit...really) to 'help oil companies compete more in the global economy' (have you seen the profits of oil companies lately?). The regulation, if it was implaced, would have prevented the circumstances from taking place insomuch as the company would have been stiffly fined for doing the action against common sense. Greed over took Sanity and the rest....is history! Why is it pops, that EVERY conservative becomes a NIMBY when a nuclear reactor is planned to be placed very close to their backyard, and with next to nothing for regulations? Wouldn't you think they'd be happy to have those new jobs and money inflowing to their nextdoor neighbor? Jeeze Joether, let me guess, you have a life sized poster of Al Gore in your bedroom. "Lackeys too dumb to think for themselves." Oh sure, you'll get plenty of converts to your cause talking about people like that! And as for that oil rig, if you remember the news footage it was the U.S. Coast Guard, BP and various volunteers (paid and otherwise) who were cleaning up the oil not the EPA. What is the EPA going to do about offshore oil spills? They call for volunteers in their offices in D.C. to go down to Alabama, don exposure suits and rent some power boats and go out and "document" it? How much oil do you think they're going to clean up? How many people sitting at desks in offices do they have in comparison to "oil shovelers?" Buerocracies don't actually "do" anything, they write things on paper, "document" things and take pictures. The closest they come to "doing anything" is to hire "outside contractors." So you might have 60,000 people sitting in offices and a contractor with 500 employees actually doing the work! "We don't have that expertise" they say. Well why not? We're paying for those 60,000 or however many people they have sitting in offices don't you think they could designate say 10,000 of them to suit up and go clean up oil spills? Maybe they'd try to hand it off to another agency. How many people were in the EPA when Nixon started it and how many people are in it today? And at those rates how many people will be working for the EPA in ten years unless we intervene? The U.S. Coast Guard has three "rapid response teams" on call 24/7 to deal with oil spills, that is to actually clean up the oil. They could have tons of it cleaned up as the EPA guys were having their first cup of coffee in the morning. And, the Coast Guard "documents" it and takes pictures and video during the entire recovery process. So they're making the EPA redundant. Oh sure there'll be an EPA "spokesman" with a few highly paid lackeys standing beside him telling people what they already know! "BP, oil spill, nothing further at this time." They might have to work until 8 pm that night and go home "exhausted." How many people in the EPA are making in excess of $100k? And as for oil rigs and power plants that the repubs AND dems say "nimby" to they could put a nuclear power plant out back on the golf course for all I care. Joether, you (or anyone) should never put yourself in the position of trying to defend a govt. buearocracy. There's so much sloth, waste, and and duplicity that you'll be on a fool's errand.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: What does the Republicans have against the Environment? (11/6/2011 1:20:09 PM)
Popeye, you go off on bureaucracies, and yet you are advocating the creation or expansion of 50 state mini EPAs. How does that make the end goal ( protection of the environment) more cost effective and efficient? It is pretty predictable that states will find ways to internalize the benefits of allowing environmental damage and externalizing the costs. I think your broad brush stereotype of employees of what you call bureaucracies is pretty offensive too. Let me give you an example of why a central environmental agency is necessary. Libby, MT. W.R. Grace, the company that turned Libby into a Superfund site, was not a Montana company. Most of their shareholders and employees were not MT residents. And yet, under your scenario, the state of Montana would be stuck finding the resources for a cleanup. I don't think I like your view of liberty

popeye1250 -> RE: What does the Republicans have against the Environment? (11/6/2011 2:25:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Popeye, you go off on bureaucracies, and yet you are advocating the creation or expansion of 50 state mini EPAs. How does that make the end goal ( protection of the environment) more cost effective and efficient? It is pretty predictable that states will find ways to internalize the benefits of allowing environmental damage and externalizing the costs. I think your broad brush stereotype of employees of what you call bureaucracies is pretty offensive too. Let me give you an example of why a central environmental agency is necessary. Libby, MT. W.R. Grace, the company that turned Libby into a Superfund site, was not a Montana company. Most of their shareholders and employees were not MT residents. And yet, under your scenario, the state of Montana would be stuck finding the resources for a cleanup. I don't think I like your view of liberty Sweet, where did I "advocate" "the expansion of 50 state mini EPA's?" I simply acknowledged their existence. And what do govt. employees in Washington do exactly besides push paper? If we depended solely on the EPA and it's employees how many oil spills do you think would get cleaned up? ("I'm from the government and I'm here to help.") Hmm, don't they have courts in Montana? I don't like your view of liberty either with that "centralized" stuff. Ever hear of the tenth amendment and state's rights? Sweet, the "centralized" federal govt. can't even control our borders or enforce our immigration laws and you trust them because?

Iamsemisweet -> RE: What does the Republicans have against the Environment? (11/6/2011 2:49:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Sweet, where did I "advocate" "the expansion of 50 state mini EPA's?" Obviously, if the feds are out of the environmental regulation business, the states will have to pick it up. I will acknowledge you didn't say it, but it kind of goes without saying I simply acknowledged their existence. Yes, they exist. They aren't up to the task of Brownfield work, though, for instance. Nor can they be expected to deal with pollution caused in other states that they have no control over. And what do govt. employees in Washington do exactly besides push paper? If you are referring to Washington DC, I couldn't say. Some paper undoubtedly needs to get pushed. If you are talking about Washington State, plenty. There are lots of govt. employees located in other places besides Washington DC, you know. My brother was a federal employee, and very active in the field. My Love is similarly a federal employee, who does plenty of work outside the office If we depended solely on the EPA and it's employees how many oil spills do you think would get cleaned up? ("I'm from the government and I'm here to help.") If we depended solely on the oil companies and the State of Texas, how many oil spills do YOU think would get cleaned up ? They wouldn't do it if they weren't being forced. , don't they have courts in Montana? Why yes. Yes they do. And Grace has been sued in them. However, because Grace been bankrupt, they aren't required to clean up Libby. Here is a brief explanation: Vermiculite, an ore found in the area in 1881, had been mined in the area since 1919.[8][9] In 1919, E.N. Alley bought the Rainy Creek claims and started the Zonolite Company. Zonolite is a branded trademark product made from vermiculite.[10] W. R. Grace and Company bought the Zonolite mine in 1963. Previously, logging was the leading source of employment in Libby. In 1999, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer published a series of articles documenting extensive deaths and illness from the asbestos contaminated vermiculite at Grace's former mine.[10] Federal Government investigators subsequently found that air samples from the area had high levels of fibrous tremolite asbestos, which is suspected to have caused asbestos related ailments among former Zonolite employees and their family members.[11][12][13] More than 274 area deaths are suspected to have been caused by asbestos-related diseases, and 17% of the residents who participated in the ATSDR screening study in Libby were found to have pleural abnormalities, which may be related to exposure to asbestos.[14] The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been overseeing the removal of asbestos-contaminated soils and other suspect materials in and near Libby since May 2000,[15] and has spent $370 million in Superfund money on cleanup.[16][17][18] On June 11, 2008, the EPA and the Department of Health and Human Services launched an $8 million investigation into the effects of asbestos exposure on the people of Libby.[19] In 2008 a $60 million settlement was reached with an unspecified number of owners of homes and businesses throughout the United States who used insulation products made by Grace & Co. The attics were insulated with Zonolite, which contained vermiculite that was contaminated with asbestos.[20] Two documentary films, Libby, Montana, and Dust to Dust, and four books (An Air That Kills by Andrew Schneider and David McCumber, Libby, Montana: Asbestos and the Deadly Silence of an American Corporation by Andrea Peacock, and Wasting Libby: The True Story of How the WR Grace Corporation Left a Montana Town to Die (and Got Away with It) by Andrea Peacock, and Fatal Deception by Michael Bowker) have been written regarding the asbestos issue in Libby. In February 2005 the Federal Government began a criminal conspiracy prosecution[21] of Grace and of seven current and former Grace employees. The government alleged that Grace conspired to hide from employees and the town residents the asbestos dangers and that it knowingly released asbestos into the environment.[21] On May 8, 2009, a jury found W.R. Grace & Co. and the accused employees not guilty on all counts, ending what was called the biggest environmental-crime prosecution in U.S. history.[15] On June 17, 2009 the EPA declared its first public health emergency. This emergency covers Libby and nearby Troy. It will provide an additional $130 million in cleanup and medical assistance.[15] The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act includes a provision which would expand Medicare payments to victims of such public health emergencies.[22][23] I don't like your view of liberty either with that "centralized" stuff. I don't like your view either, where corporations have more rights than individuals. Ever hear of the tenth amendment and state's rights? Why yes. Yes I have. Sweet, the "centralized" federal govt. can't even control our borders or enforce our immigration laws and you trust them because? Not quite sure what that has to do with environmental laws, but leave it to a conservative to make a pretty big leap of logic. It isn't a matter of trusting the federal govt, it is a matter of trusting my neighboring states less, when it comes to environmental protection.

jlf1961 -> RE: What does the Republicans have against the Environment? (11/6/2011 3:07:06 PM)
Popeye, look at the state of the environment BEFORE the EPA. Look at how many rivers have been cleaned up, do you want raw sewage dumped into a river flowing through your area? How about lakes so toxic you cant eat the fish you catch from them? It takes FEDERAL regulations to keep those things from happening AGAIN.

popeye1250 -> RE: What does the Republicans have against the Environment? (11/6/2011 3:34:36 PM)
quote: I don't like your view of liberty either with that "centralized" stuff. I don't like your view either, where corporations have more rights than individuals. I don't like your view of liberty either with that "centralized" stuff. I don't like your view either, where corporations have more rights than individuals. Sweet, there you go again making up things. Where did I EVER say anything like the above about "corporations?" And I don't mean in this thread I mean in the FIVE YEARS that I have been in this site!

jlf1961 -> RE: What does the Republicans have against the Environment? (11/6/2011 4:10:38 PM)
Popeye, use your head for something other than a spacer to keep your ears apart. IF we disband the EPA, there would be no authority to stop corporations from polluting the hell out of everything. Thus, the big corporations would have more rights than the individual since they have the right to destroy the environment.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625