Court blocks Bush's changes to Clean Air Bill

[busmaster11]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/24/bush.clean.air.ap/index.html

The whore which America did not elect continues to sell out this country and put his cronies in charge at places like the EPA, weakening it from within...

 

[alchemize]

BOBDN, is that you?

We need to switch to nuclear power. Coal is a mess. I want to eat fish again.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
The whore which America did not elect continues to sell out this country and put his cronies in charge at places like the EPA, weakening it from within...

Got something to say beside the same old whiny BS tossed out by Bush haters?

CkG

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: busmaster11
The whore which America did not elect continues to sell out this country and put his cronies in charge at places like the EPA, weakening it from within...

Got something to say beside the same old whiny BS tossed out by Bush haters?

CkG

Well you can hardly blame the Bush haters when their "old whiny BS" is true and largely unaddressed by the Bush huggers...

 

[zephyrprime]

Got something to say beside the same old whiny BS tossed out by Bush haters?

Come on! You can give a better reply than that! That's such a tired, old, generic reply. Say something that actually says something!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Got something to say beside the same old whiny BS tossed out by Bush haters?

Come on! You can give a better reply than that! That's such a tired, old, generic reply. Say something that actually says something!

OK

"The whore which America did not elect continues to sell out this country and put his cronies in charge at places like the EPA, weakening it from within..."

That better?

CkG

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

The court's justices said the challengers "demonstrated the irreparable harm and likelihood of success" of their case, which are required to stop the rule from taking effect.

Yet people still jump to Bush's defense.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Got something to say beside the same old whiny BS tossed out by Bush haters?

Come on! You can give a better reply than that! That's such a tired, old, generic reply. Say something that actually says something!

OK

"The whore which America did not elect continues to sell out this country and put his cronies in charge at places like the EPA, weakening it from within..."

That better?

CkG

Which part of that admittedly accusatory statement would you say is untrue?

And we're still waiting for you to deny, admit, acknowledge, or add to this thread in any way, Cad, seeing as how you're participating...

 

[charrison]

THe current law is vague at best concerning maintance/upgrades. If the 20% number(cost of repair/maintance to force new pollutions controlls) is too high, what number would be better to acheive the same level of today?
15%?
10%?
5%?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Got something to say beside the same old whiny BS tossed out by Bush haters?

Come on! You can give a better reply than that! That's such a tired, old, generic reply. Say something that actually says something!

OK

"The whore which America did not elect continues to sell out this country and put his cronies in charge at places like the EPA, weakening it from within..."

That better?

CkG

Which part of that admittedly accusatory statement would you say is untrue?

And we're still waiting for you to deny, admit, acknowledge, or add to this thread in any way, Cad, seeing as how you're participating...

And I'm still waiting for you to contribute to this thread besides your little opening rant which is all troll and zero substance. I read the article, and I've read others concerning this ruling and the challenge - your little rant at the beginning set the tone of this thread - live with it.

Basically all this ruling is, is just a hold being put on implementation so it can be challenged in the courts. Yea for the courts

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Bush is a disaster. Everything he touches turns to crap.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Got something to say beside the same old whiny BS tossed out by Bush haters?

Come on! You can give a better reply than that! That's such a tired, old, generic reply. Say something that actually says something!

OK

"The whore which America did not elect continues to sell out this country and put his cronies in charge at places like the EPA, weakening it from within..."

That better?

CkG

Which part of that admittedly accusatory statement would you say is untrue?

And we're still waiting for you to deny, admit, acknowledge, or add to this thread in any way, Cad, seeing as how you're participating...

And I'm still waiting for you to contribute to this thread besides your little opening rant which is all troll and zero substance. I read the article, and I've read others concerning this ruling and the challenge - your little rant at the beginning set the tone of this thread - live with it.

Basically all this ruling is, is just a hold being put on implementation so it can be challenged in the courts. Yea for the courts

CkG

Can one infer from your involvement in this thread, and your history of supporting the conservative agenda, Cad, that you're either here to defend Bush, or to troll?

Presuming that you'll never admit to being a troll, can you, or will you, defend Bush on the decision to sign off on this?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Got something to say beside the same old whiny BS tossed out by Bush haters?

Come on! You can give a better reply than that! That's such a tired, old, generic reply. Say something that actually says something!

OK

"The whore which America did not elect continues to sell out this country and put his cronies in charge at places like the EPA, weakening it from within..."

That better?

CkG

Which part of that admittedly accusatory statement would you say is untrue?

And we're still waiting for you to deny, admit, acknowledge, or add to this thread in any way, Cad, seeing as how you're participating...

And I'm still waiting for you to contribute to this thread besides your little opening rant which is all troll and zero substance. I read the article, and I've read others concerning this ruling and the challenge - your little rant at the beginning set the tone of this thread - live with it.

Basically all this ruling is, is just a hold being put on implementation so it can be challenged in the courts. Yea for the courts

CkG

Can one infer from your involvement in this thread, and your history of supporting the conservative agenda, Cad, that you're either here to defend Bush, or to troll?

Presuming that you'll never admit to being a troll, can you, or will you, defend Bush on the decision to sign off on this?

Presuming that you'll never admit that your little rant in the original post was trolling, can you or will you present something that is wrong with the bill he signed off on? YOU started this thread, you trolled for a reaction - I fed you

I commented on your link. Be happy with that for now. If you wish to discuss what you think is wrong with the EPA's decision(which Bush signed off on) then I'll be more than happy to discuss your concerns. Anything less would be aimless defense.

CkG

 

[Insane3D]

We need to switch to nuclear power.

Can we store all the radioactive waste in your backyard? I mean it should be harmless in a few thousand years...no worries.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Got something to say beside the same old whiny BS tossed out by Bush haters?

Come on! You can give a better reply than that! That's such a tired, old, generic reply. Say something that actually says something!

OK

"The whore which America did not elect continues to sell out this country and put his cronies in charge at places like the EPA, weakening it from within..."

That better?

CkG

Which part of that admittedly accusatory statement would you say is untrue?

And we're still waiting for you to deny, admit, acknowledge, or add to this thread in any way, Cad, seeing as how you're participating...

And I'm still waiting for you to contribute to this thread besides your little opening rant which is all troll and zero substance. I read the article, and I've read others concerning this ruling and the challenge - your little rant at the beginning set the tone of this thread - live with it.

Basically all this ruling is, is just a hold being put on implementation so it can be challenged in the courts. Yea for the courts

CkG

Can one infer from your involvement in this thread, and your history of supporting the conservative agenda, Cad, that you're either here to defend Bush, or to troll?

Presuming that you'll never admit to being a troll, can you, or will you, defend Bush on the decision to sign off on this?

Presuming that you'll never admit that your little rant in the original post was trolling, can you or will you present something that is wrong with the bill he signed off on? YOU started this thread, you trolled for a reaction - I fed you

I commented on your link. Be happy with that for now. If you wish to discuss what you think is wrong with the EPA's decision(which Bush signed off on) then I'll be more than happy to discuss your concerns. Anything less would be aimless defense.

CkG

Yes, the initial comment was a rant - and perhaps I should have toned it down to encourage discussion... But in that rant, I made a couple statements - he did whore out the country to private firms and lobbyists who didn't want to pay for pollution control, and he did replace the head of the EPA with his own yes-men (or yes-women) to support his agenda which clearly and consistently neglects the enviroment.

Overall, I would say these are the justifications for my rant. Again, which of those statements, now lclearly laid out for you, would you say is untrue, seeing as how you're offended by them and saw the need to defend your wise and mighty leader of the free world?

The courts have little to do with this. They are just testiment to the fact that everyone but bush and his merry men can objectively acknowledge that there is the strong possibility that being responsible just *might* have its merits. :Q

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Got something to say beside the same old whiny BS tossed out by Bush haters?

Come on! You can give a better reply than that! That's such a tired, old, generic reply. Say something that actually says something!

OK

"The whore which America did not elect continues to sell out this country and put his cronies in charge at places like the EPA, weakening it from within..."

That better?

CkG

Which part of that admittedly accusatory statement would you say is untrue?

And we're still waiting for you to deny, admit, acknowledge, or add to this thread in any way, Cad, seeing as how you're participating...

And I'm still waiting for you to contribute to this thread besides your little opening rant which is all troll and zero substance. I read the article, and I've read others concerning this ruling and the challenge - your little rant at the beginning set the tone of this thread - live with it.

Basically all this ruling is, is just a hold being put on implementation so it can be challenged in the courts. Yea for the courts

CkG

Can one infer from your involvement in this thread, and your history of supporting the conservative agenda, Cad, that you're either here to defend Bush, or to troll?

Presuming that you'll never admit to being a troll, can you, or will you, defend Bush on the decision to sign off on this?

Presuming that you'll never admit that your little rant in the original post was trolling, can you or will you present something that is wrong with the bill he signed off on? YOU started this thread, you trolled for a reaction - I fed you

I commented on your link. Be happy with that for now. If you wish to discuss what you think is wrong with the EPA's decision(which Bush signed off on) then I'll be more than happy to discuss your concerns. Anything less would be aimless defense.

CkG

Yes, the initial comment was a rant - and perhaps I should have toned it down to encourage discussion... But in that rant, I made a couple statements - he did whore out the country to private firms and lobbyists who didn't want to pay for pollution control, and he did replace the head of the EPA with his own yes-men (or yes-women) to support his agenda which clearly and consistently neglects the enviroment.

Overall, I would say these are the justifications for my rant. Again, which of those statements, now lclearly laid out for you, would you say is untrue, seeing as how you're offended by them and saw the need to defend your wise and mighty leader of the free world?

The courts have little to do with this. They are just testiment to the fact that everyone but bush and his merry men can objectively acknowledge that there is the strong possibility that being responsible just *might* have its merits. :Q

Your rant isn't about what the ruling is about...you know...the link.
OK - It's your opinion that he "whored" it out. Good for you.
And her "replaced" the head of the EPA, and filled the EPA with lapdogs. Again- your opinion(good for you), both of which you are entitled to but have little to do with the merits of this case or what is being implemented. Do you have specific problems with what the EPA passed? or are you just saying that you have a problem with it because it involves Bush?

CkG

 

[Bitdog]

There was a reason for the clean air act. Knowing Bush as I do, his suggested changes undercuts the entire thing.
When BushCo addressed the California black out's, Chaney said that concervation was not a possible cure.

I'm for alternate clean power, wind generateing farms, and small hydro projects.
I tried to buy a small hydro power plant for my home the other day and it was basicly $900 for a car alternator.
If a realistic power plant was offered to the people, they would buy & use it.
Small home made dams on year around creeks with a head of a few hundred feet running a 3" plastic flexihose
down hill. Ok, this is something that most people can install and maintain. There are litterly millions of sites that
would qualify across America. 3 killo watts times millions of generators adds up. Many people are willing to do it if it's affordable. I think the government, price, & power companies policies are the ones who stop it from happening.
That should be changed.

If you look close at the polution producers, you might find that profit motive is the reason they don't bother to install a few simple devices to drasticly reduce polution.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

We need to switch to nuclear power.

Can we store all the radioactive waste in your backyard? I mean it should be harmless in a few thousand years...no worries.

tell you what, you can store it in my backyard if you can convince the democrats to allow it to be reprocessed so it can be reused.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Got something to say beside the same old whiny BS tossed out by Bush haters?

Come on! You can give a better reply than that! That's such a tired, old, generic reply. Say something that actually says something!

OK

"The whore which America did not elect continues to sell out this country and put his cronies in charge at places like the EPA, weakening it from within..."

That better?

CkG

Which part of that admittedly accusatory statement would you say is untrue?

And we're still waiting for you to deny, admit, acknowledge, or add to this thread in any way, Cad, seeing as how you're participating...

And I'm still waiting for you to contribute to this thread besides your little opening rant which is all troll and zero substance. I read the article, and I've read others concerning this ruling and the challenge - your little rant at the beginning set the tone of this thread - live with it.

Basically all this ruling is, is just a hold being put on implementation so it can be challenged in the courts. Yea for the courts

CkG

Can one infer from your involvement in this thread, and your history of supporting the conservative agenda, Cad, that you're either here to defend Bush, or to troll?

Presuming that you'll never admit to being a troll, can you, or will you, defend Bush on the decision to sign off on this?

Presuming that you'll never admit that your little rant in the original post was trolling, can you or will you present something that is wrong with the bill he signed off on? YOU started this thread, you trolled for a reaction - I fed you

I commented on your link. Be happy with that for now. If you wish to discuss what you think is wrong with the EPA's decision(which Bush signed off on) then I'll be more than happy to discuss your concerns. Anything less would be aimless defense.

CkG

Yes, the initial comment was a rant - and perhaps I should have toned it down to encourage discussion... But in that rant, I made a couple statements - he did whore out the country to private firms and lobbyists who didn't want to pay for pollution control, and he did replace the head of the EPA with his own yes-men (or yes-women) to support his agenda which clearly and consistently neglects the enviroment.

Overall, I would say these are the justifications for my rant. Again, which of those statements, now lclearly laid out for you, would you say is untrue, seeing as how you're offended by them and saw the need to defend your wise and mighty leader of the free world?

The courts have little to do with this. They are just testiment to the fact that everyone but bush and his merry men can objectively acknowledge that there is the strong possibility that being responsible just *might* have its merits. :Q

So in order to reduce regulation and litigation that the current laws have caused, should the cost of upgrades/maintnance that require new pollution controls be 15, 10 or 5 percent.


Somehow i think this answer will continue to go unanswered.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: busmaster11
The whore which America did not elect continues to sell out this country and put his cronies in charge at places like the EPA, weakening it from within...

Got something to say beside the same old whiny BS tossed out by Bush haters?

CkG

Unlike your ever-changing whiny BS? Bush apologists have to keep changing their story. Our message is consistent because it is truth.

--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: busmaster11
The whore which America did not elect continues to sell out this country and put his cronies in charge at places like the EPA, weakening it from within...

Got something to say beside the same old whiny BS tossed out by Bush haters?

CkG

Our message is our opinion.

There I fixed it for you.

As to your other stuff - you can bleat about how "bad" Bush is all you want but like I said to BM11 - do you have something specific to point out, or are you just ranting? If you have problems with something specific - lets debate it instead of just posting your ranting drivel about Bush.

CkG

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: busmaster11
The whore which America did not elect continues to sell out this country and put his cronies in charge at places like the EPA, weakening it from within...

Got something to say beside the same old whiny BS tossed out by Bush haters?

CkG

Our message is our opinion.

There I fixed it for you.

As to your other stuff - you can bleat about how "bad" Bush is all you want but like I said to BM11 - do you have something specific to point out, or are you just ranting? If you have problems with something specific - lets debate it instead of just posting your ranting drivel about Bush.

CkG

If you had read the article as you claimed, you wouldn't ask for something "specific" to be pointed out, Cad. Because you would already know what the article was about.

Environmental and health groups, including Natural Resources Defense Council and the American Lung Association, also challenged the rule in the appeals court.

They argued EPA's maintenance rule violates the Clean Air Act by letting power plants and other industries increase pollution significantly without adopting control measures, and public harm would result.

I only stopped posting because I realized that you're a lost cause, and my "ranting" or "trolling" with the initial post doesn't change any of that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: busmaster11
The whore which America did not elect continues to sell out this country and put his cronies in charge at places like the EPA, weakening it from within...

Got something to say beside the same old whiny BS tossed out by Bush haters?

CkG

Our message is our opinion.

There I fixed it for you.

As to your other stuff - you can bleat about how "bad" Bush is all you want but like I said to BM11 - do you have something specific to point out, or are you just ranting? If you have problems with something specific - lets debate it instead of just posting your ranting drivel about Bush.

CkG

If you had read the article as you claimed, you wouldn't ask for something "specific" to be pointed out, Cad. Because you would already know what the article was about.

Environmental and health groups, including Natural Resources Defense Council and the American Lung Association, also challenged the rule in the appeals court.

They argued EPA's maintenance rule violates the Clean Air Act by letting power plants and other industries increase pollution significantly without adopting control measures, and public harm would result.

I only stopped posting because I realized that you're a lost cause, and my "ranting" or "trolling" with the initial post doesn't change any of that.

I did read the article and I commented on it. Now since it is only put on hold until the courts can sort out the details - would you like to point out which parts of it are "bad" or that you have a problem with? Or is it just because it came from Bush?

CkG

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: busmaster11
The whore which America did not elect continues to sell out this country and put his cronies in charge at places like the EPA, weakening it from within...

Got something to say beside the same old whiny BS tossed out by Bush haters?

CkG

Our message is our opinion.

There I fixed it for you.

As to your other stuff - you can bleat about how "bad" Bush is all you want but like I said to BM11 - do you have something specific to point out, or are you just ranting? If you have problems with something specific - lets debate it instead of just posting your ranting drivel about Bush.

CkG

If you had read the article as you claimed, you wouldn't ask for something "specific" to be pointed out, Cad. Because you would already know what the article was about.

Environmental and health groups, including Natural Resources Defense Council and the American Lung Association, also challenged the rule in the appeals court.

They argued EPA's maintenance rule violates the Clean Air Act by letting power plants and other industries increase pollution significantly without adopting control measures, and public harm would result.

I only stopped posting because I realized that you're a lost cause, and my "ranting" or "trolling" with the initial post doesn't change any of that.

I did read the article and I commented on it. Now since it is only put on hold until the courts can sort out the details - would you like to point out which parts of it are "bad" or that you have a problem with? Or is it just because it came from Bush?

CkG

Blanket statements may not generally be the wisest thing to say, but after seeing bush in action for three years I can safely say, yeah... I have a problem with it because it came from bush. Even you have to agree that historically he has put the environment last on his priority list...

...unless there's something that was clearly even less important, like the American people, etc...

Specifically Cad, I have a problem with it because from my still somewhat naive and idealistic mind, I object to the fact that there is no doubt some private entity or lobbyist group paying him in some fashion for these decisions. Ever environmental law of consequence have been unfavorably weakened since he came to power, and this is one of many ways he has whored out this country.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: busmaster11
The whore which America did not elect continues to sell out this country and put his cronies in charge at places like the EPA, weakening it from within...

Got something to say beside the same old whiny BS tossed out by Bush haters?

CkG

Our message is our opinion.

There I fixed it for you.

As to your other stuff - you can bleat about how "bad" Bush is all you want but like I said to BM11 - do you have something specific to point out, or are you just ranting? If you have problems with something specific - lets debate it instead of just posting your ranting drivel about Bush.

CkG

If you had read the article as you claimed, you wouldn't ask for something "specific" to be pointed out, Cad. Because you would already know what the article was about.

Environmental and health groups, including Natural Resources Defense Council and the American Lung Association, also challenged the rule in the appeals court.

They argued EPA's maintenance rule violates the Clean Air Act by letting power plants and other industries increase pollution significantly without adopting control measures, and public harm would result.

I only stopped posting because I realized that you're a lost cause, and my "ranting" or "trolling" with the initial post doesn't change any of that.

I did read the article and I commented on it. Now since it is only put on hold until the courts can sort out the details - would you like to point out which parts of it are "bad" or that you have a problem with? Or is it just because it came from Bush?

CkG

Some "bad" things and specifically put forth by Bush himself:

12-18-2003 Court strikes down White House's plan to help out polluters

Here's why: The changes allow energy companies, which generously financed the campaign of President Bush and Vice President Cheney in 2000 and continue to raise money for the pair in record amounts for the 2004 election, to regulate themselves.

It's very similar to the cozy deal that was arranged for Texas energy companies when Bush was governor of that state in the 1990s and energy firms generously contributed to his campaigns. Compliance with clean air laws became voluntary during Bush's Texas administration. As a result, the state has one of the worst environmental records in the nation.

It's also not a great of leap of faith to surmise that the changes to the Clean Air Act were part of the secret discussions that Cheney had with energy industry insiders in early 2001. (Those are the talks about which the vice president refuses to release documents, despite two court orders to release the information. Cheney, citing the murky executive privilege doctrine, has appealed those rulings. The case is before the U.S. Supreme Court.)

It's also very clear that the energy industry can't be trusted to police its own messes. Its record of spoiling the environment and creating public health disasters is appalling.