• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

If I Wanted America to Fail

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Government regulations are just one of the reasons the manufacturing went to China: a significant amount of the raw materials are in abundance in China, cheaper labor costs, and virtually non-existant regulations from the government as far as human rights and environmental concerns, etc. You might want look at some from the air pictures of Beijing to put non-governmental regulations, as far as air quality is concerned, into perspective.

Kudos to Apple and to the people who forced them to take a hard look at their labor practices! As the social media networks grow and people are made aware of companies bad practices we'll hopefully see a lot more of these actions; or to put it another way, one down, several hundred thousand to go.

It's great that people are getting involved and are sometimes able to force change, but private sector companies are fully capable of regulating themselves if they choose to; but when they don't and people can't make them change, then the government needs to step in. Besides, it's really not the governments, or peoples, fault that companies don't choose to act ethically or legally, is it?

alzan
Kudos to Apple for being dragged kicking and screaming into providing a step above slave conditions?

Damned inflation, look what it's done to kudos.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,803
4,703
126
The point they were intended to make was a total lie. That's kind of our point. The left is the side attempting to move American to be more like Red China, not the right. I think the Dems are on balance better on environment and conservation than are the Republicans, but the video is spot-on about these regulations killing America. I think in great measure it's because China's government-run economy is allowed unfettered access to our market - although that's a self-eliminating problem as the generation being schooled now is probably the last able to be a consumer culture. Future generations will have to toil to pay back China.

EDIT: If you show Chinese environmental disaster photos and claim this is the Republicans' dream, expect to be considered as either totally dishonest or totally idiotic. And I'm specifically not ruling out both.
That is absolutely the Republican dream. Government doing nothing about businesses polluting, and waiting for businesses to regulate themselves instead. The only difference is that in China, the government owns the corporations, and in the Republican dream for the US is the corporations owning the government. But that's just the difference in approach, not a difference in the end result, which is an oligarchy where government and business are one in the same.
 
Last edited:

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Key Swing States:

Obama Romney RCP Average
Pennsylvania 45.6 39.6 Obama +6.0
Ohio 46.0 40.7 Obama +5.3
Florida 47.5 43.3 Obama +4.2
Virginia 45.0 44.3 Obama +0.7

Good luck with that defeat. lol.
Democrats shouldn't count their chickens yet. Neither should Republicans. The attacks have yet to really begin. They soon will. By the time it's over most Americans will wonder if Satan is not one entity but two, one with a (D) after his name and the other with an (R).
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,803
4,703
126
Democrats shouldn't count their chickens yet. Neither should Republicans. The attacks have yet to really begin. They soon will. By the time it's over most Americans will wonder if Satan is not one entity but two, one with a (D) after his name and the other with an (R).
The Romneys are already measuring the drapes.
 

JohnnyGage

Senior member
Feb 18, 2008
703
0
71
I included Bowfinger since I agree with Genx87 that showing pictures of a totalitarian/authoritarian country like China is inherently dishonest with regards to Republicans and environmental regulation.
It seemed to me that Bowfinger was calling Genx87 dishonest for calling senseamp on it. To be clear as a Republican I support some environmental regulation but not all of it.
If I was too quick to call Bowfinger a liar by his support of the photos then I apologize.
Sorry, I thought you quoted just sensamp. carry on.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Democrats shouldn't count their chickens yet. Neither should Republicans. The attacks have yet to really begin. They soon will. By the time it's over most Americans will wonder if Satan is not one entity but two, one with a (D) after his name and the other with an (R).
Better the devil you know, that the one that's a Muslim Kenyan dog eater who 'isn't one of us'. As David Corn wrote:

Romney routinely criticizes Obama as someone who neither likes America nor gets it. In his book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, Romney decried Obama for repeatedly apologizing for "American misdeeds, both real and imagined." (He didn't explain what was wrong with apologizing for real misdeeds.) PolitiFact.com judged Romney's claim "false." Yet this untrue accusation has been a steady theme of Romney's campaign. At a speech earlier this month to the Newspaper Association of America, Romney asserted that Obama failed to rescue the US economy in his first years in office because he was too busy "apologizing for America abroad." Romney's point is obvious: Real Americans don't apologize for America.

Obama the Apologizer is not Romney's only jab designed to depict the president as apart from the great American public. He repeatedly charges that Obama does not truly understand this nation or grasp that America is special. As if Obama were an outsider. A few examples:

* In May 2011, Romney delivered a speech—accompanied by a PowerPoint presentation—to defend the health care plan he implemented in Massachusetts as governor and to criticize Obamacare. One of his slides read: "The Obama Administration fundamentally does not believe in the American Experiment." That was a rather broad statement—especially about the biracial son of a Kenyan and a Kansan who became the first African American president of the United States.

* On the stump last November, Romney said, "Sometimes, I just don't think that President Obama understands America. I say that because this week—or was it last week?—he said that Americans are lazy. I don't think that describes America." Of course, Obama had not called Americans lazy. He had said that US policymakers had become lazy in promoting the United States as a outstanding opportunity for foreign investment.

* In an address to the Republican Jewish Coalition forum in December, Romney contended, "I don't think he understands America." Romney explained further: Obama did not realize that American "society gathers and creates a citizenry that pioneers, that invents, that builds, and creates." Yet Obama often talks about investments and innovations as part of a winning-the-future agenda.

* Campaigning in New Hampshire in January, Romney again repeated this mantra—Obama "doesn't understand America"—and maintained that his "agenda will make us a European welfare state." With this version of the charge, Romney was making it seem as if Obama was an anti-American who's plotting to Europeanize the country.

* A few weeks ago, Romney echoed a complaint that conservative foes of the president have long hurled: He doesn't fathom that America is unique. "Our president doesn't have the same feelings about American exceptionalism that we do," Romney said. Obama, in a rare response to a Romney poke, replied, "It's worth noting that I first arrived on the national stage with a speech at the Democratic convention that was entirely about American exceptionalism and that my entire career has been a testimony to American exceptionalism." Romney's camp, no doubt, was delighted that the president was playing defense on the American exceptionalism front.

* This week, during an interview with Diane Sawyer of ABC News, Romney repeated his assertion that Obama "doesn't understand" America's economy. This has become a catchphrase that Romney often doesn't bother to explain.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Perhaps in some areas, but the exact opposite is true with respect to the environment. I'm pretty sure everyone understood that those photos were narrowly focused on the environment.


The video was pure BS, a non-stop series of straw man claims and empty innuendo. It was designed to make wing-nuts feel good by reinforcing what they've been brainwashed to accept as truth. It's RNC propaganda, nothing more.

That said, regulations are certainly problematic in specific cases, and those cases should be fixed. That hardly justifies the breathless hyperbole, "these regulations are killing America". It would be just as accurate to say it's the lack of regulations (or at least the lack of enforcement) that's killing America. For every case you can cite of a bad regulation, I can offer an example of a bad non-regulation. We'll start with the Finance sector and work our way out.


That I agree with. What does this have to do with over-regulation? The fact that China imposes almost no regulation doesn't mean we should race to the bottom to meet them ... unless you truly do want those pictures to represent America too. We set the bar higher because we recognize the need to balance greed against the best interests of the American people. China doesn't strike that balance, plus their standard of living is far lower than ours. Give them free access to our markets and they have a huge competitive advantage. The problem there is the free access, however, not that we demand our businesses be good citizens.


I took the photos as sarcasm, intended to caution Republicans about being too eager to slash regulations. Regulations are mostly a good thing, even though at times they go too far or are enforced over-zealously. The solution is to fix those specific problems, not bounce around screeching about how regulations are making America fail.
The photos were definitely not sarcasm - Senseamp doubled down in his later reply to me. Almost every post he makes is based on Republicans being the Devil incarnate, dedicated to everything from slavery to economic serfdom to environmental catastrophe.

As to over-regulation, try starting a business. Go out and talk to small business owners, or to those in larger corporations tasked with compliance. We've become a minefield, to the point that only the most hyper-patriotic would long consider starting a manufacturing business in this country, or ANY business they could carry on in a different country. The video is spot-on in that. It's also spot-on in that the environmental movement has become the refuge of Marxists. Look at President Obama's "Green jobs czar" - an avowed Communist. Accusations of hypocrisy don't mask the very real truth that much of what passes for environmentalism in America today is merely anti-capitalism.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,861
2
0
I've been reading the comments in other places about this video, it sure seems to have hit a nerve with the hate America liberal crowd, they're going nuts.
Whether you want to admit it or not, liberals do not hate America; we just see the bad things about it that need to be fixed. If you were to do a survey, you'd find citizens of all political persuasion that want to do that as well.

As much as you obviously get off on broad-brushing liberals as "hating America", it contains the same amount of truth as "freedom-hating" conservatives; which is none.

Hopefully you clean your screen after typing it.

alzan
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,861
2
0
Kudos to Apple for being dragged kicking and screaming into providing a step above slave conditions?

Damned inflation, look what it's done to kudos.
Perhaps you should have directed this comment to Genx87, as it was he who first held up Apple as an example of what people can do when organized.

Besides, if Apple was "dragged kicking and screaming" that was their choice to react in that manner.

alzan
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
Whether you want to admit it or not, liberals do not hate America; we just see the bad things about it that need to be fixed. If you were to do a survey, you'd find citizens of all political persuasion that want to do that as well.

As much as you obviously get off on broad-brushing liberals as "hating America", it contains the same amount of truth as "freedom-hating" conservatives; which is none.

Hopefully you clean your screen after typing it.

alzan
Originally Posted by monovillage View Post
I've been reading the comments in other places about this video, it sure seems to have hit a nerve with the hate America liberal crowd, they're going nuts.
My quote stands as being accurate. You guys are going nuts about this video.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
The photos were definitely not sarcasm - Senseamp doubled down in his later reply to me. Almost every post he makes is based on Republicans being the Devil incarnate, dedicated to everything from slavery to economic serfdom to environmental catastrophe.
If so, then he and I differ. I don't believe that's what Republicans want for America. I do think, however, that too many Republicans don't understand that actions have consequences and that regulations generally exist for good reason (even if the regulation itself is poorly implemented). There are many on the right who act as if regulation per se is bad. Those photos represent what would happen were America to indulge their partisan folly.


As to over-regulation, try starting a business. Go out and talk to small business owners, or to those in larger corporations tasked with compliance. We've become a minefield, to the point that only the most hyper-patriotic would long consider starting a manufacturing business in this country, or ANY business they could carry on in a different country.
What twaddle, pure partisan nonsense. Countless Americans can and do start businesses all the time, even manufacturing businesses. Good God, there was a story on the news tonight about a new company in Michigan that is manufacturing LCD televisions. They are starting small, though they have big plans for growth.

It depends on the field, but starting a new business is often very easy. I've started a couple of businesses in my life, worked as an executive in several more, and worked with scores of small and mid-size businesses as a consultant and engagement manager. Regulation was often an inconvenience, but never a show-stopper. Not once. In my experience, those who cry about regulations killing their business are usually poor businessmen looking for a scapegoat to blame for their own incompetence or laziness.


The video is spot-on in that. It's also spot-on in that the environmental movement has become the refuge of Marxists. Look at President Obama's "Green jobs czar" - an avowed Communist.
Lulz! You embarrass yourself. Stop swilling the tripe you're fed through the nutter bubble and start getting your information from credible sources. While Jones did identify as communist in his younger days, as with so many idealists he eventually moved on. Yes, Glenn Beck repeatedly proclaimed he was an self-avowed communist ... but then again, Beck was butt-hurt because Jones launched a boycott campaign against Beck. Outside of Beck, Fox, and the nutter blogosphere who parrot their noise, I couldn't find any evidence Jones still had any communist inclinations. Indeed, based on information from PolitiFact, quite the opposite seems true:
But check out these two statements and see if this sounds like a communist.

This, from his book, The Green Collar Economy , released in October 2008:

"There will surely be an important role for nonprofit voluntary, cooperative, and community-based solutions," Jones writes on page 86. "But the reality is that we are entering an era during which our very survival will demand invention and innovation on a scale never before seen in the history of human civilization. Only the business community has the requisite skills, experience, and capital to meet that need. On that score, neither the government nor the nonprofit and voluntary sectors can compete, not even remotely.

"So in the end, our success and survival as a species are largely and directly tied to the new eco-entrepreneurs — and the success and survival of their enterprises. Since almost all of the needed eco-technologies are likely to come from the private sector, civic leaders and voters should do all that can be done to help green business leaders succeed. That means, in large part, electing leaders who will pass bills to aid them. We cannot realistically proceed without a strong alliance between the best of the business world — and everyone else."

Or how about this, from an address before the Center for American Progress on Nov. 19, 2008 (well before Jones was brought into the Obama administration):

"Everything that is good for the environment, everything that's needed to beat global warming, is a job," Jones said. "Solar panels don't manufacture themselves. Wind turbines don't manufacture themselves. Homes don't weatherize themselves. Every single thing that we need to beat global warming will also beat the recession. And the challenge is, how do we get the government to be a smart, and limited, catalyst in getting the private sector to take on this challenge?"

That doesn't sound Marxist to us.
You can read more at the link. Bottom line is Beck, Fox, et al are liars. Only a fool accepts their blather without a bag of salt.



Accusations of hypocrisy don't mask the very real truth that much of what passes for environmentalism in America today is merely anti-capitalism.
Yes, that's the wing-nut dogma, and no doubt it's true in isolated cases. Care to offer credible evidence it's true to any material extent?
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
56,312
4,735
126
That is absolutely the Republican dream. Government doing nothing about businesses polluting, and waiting for businesses to regulate themselves instead. The only difference is that in China, the government owns the corporations, and in the Republican dream for the US is the corporations owning the government. But that's just the difference in approach, not a difference in the end result, which is an oligarchy where government and business are one in the same.

Bush and Cheney loved to dismantle environmental protection laws that cost their friends in the energy business money...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-sets-out-plan-to-dismantle-30-years-of-environmental-laws-6156510.html

George Bush's new administration, and its supporters controlling Congress, are setting out to dismantle three decades of US environmental protection.

George Bush's new administration, and its supporters controlling Congress, are setting out to dismantle three decades of US environmental protection.

In little over a month since his re-election, they have announced that they will comprehensively rewrite three of the country's most important environmental laws, open up vast new areas for oil and gas drilling, and reshape the official Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

They say that the election gave them a mandate for the measures - which, ironically, will overturn a legislative system originally established by the Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford - even though Mr Bush went out of his way to avoid emphasising his environmental plans during his campaign.

"The election was a validation of the philosophy and the agenda," said Mike Leavitt, the Bush-appointed head of the EPA. He points out that over a third of the agency's staff will become eligible for retirement over the President's four-year term, enabling him to fill it with people lenient to polluters.

The administration's first priority is the controversial plan to open up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. Two years ago the Senate defeated plans to exploit the refuge - home to caribou, polar bears , musk oxen and millions of migratory birds - by 52 votes to 48.

But with the election of four Republican senators in favour of the drilling, and the disappearance of one who opposed it, the administration now has the votes forvictory.

It plans to follow with an energy bill - also defeated in the last Congress - which would investigate vast new tracts for exploitation for oil and gas. It will also encourage the building of nuclear power stations, halted since the 1979 Three Mile Island accident.

Far more radical measures are also under way. Joe Barton, the Texas Republican chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who is to help push through the energy bill, has also announced a comprehensive review of the Clean Air Act, one of the world's most successful environmental laws.

Environmentalists predict the emasculation of the Act, which has cut air pollution across the country by more than half over the last 30 years. Not to be outdone, the Republican chairman of the House Resources Committee, Richard Pombo, has announced a review of the Endangered Species Act, for the protection of wildlife. The law has been the main obstacle to the felling of much of the US's remaining endangered rain forest. And in a third assault, Congressional leaders have also announced an attack on the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires details of the environmental effects of major developments before they proceed.

Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, said last week that the previous Bush administration had largely contented itself with weakening environmental legislation, but the new one intended to go much further. He added: "We will now see an assault on the law which will set the US in the direction of becoming a Third World country in terms of environmental protection."

The environmentalists point out that almost every local referendum on environmental issues carried out on election day achieved a green majority.

They recall the fate of the assault on environmental law - headed by the former Congressional Speaker, Newt Gingrich, in the mid 1990s - which caused such opposition that Congress enacted tough new green legislation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/us/23coal.html

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 — The Bush administration is set to issue a regulation on Friday that would enshrine the coal mining practice of mountaintop removal. The technique involves blasting off the tops of mountains and dumping the rubble into valleys and streams.

It has been used in Appalachian coal country for 20 years under a cloud of legal and regulatory confusion.

The new rule would allow the practice to continue and expand, providing only that mine operators minimize the debris and cause the least environmental harm, although those terms are not clearly defined and to some extent merely restate existing law.

The Office of Surface Mining in the Interior Department drafted the rule, which will be subject to a 60-day comment period and could be revised, although officials indicated that it was not likely to be changed substantially.

The regulation is the culmination of six and a half years of work by the administration to make it easier for mining companies to dig more coal to meet growing energy demands and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

Government and industry officials say the rules are needed to clarify existing laws, which have been challenged in court and applied unevenly.

A spokesman for the National Mining Association, Luke Popovich, said that unless mine owners were allowed to dump mine waste in streams and valleys it would be impossible to operate in mountainous regions like West Virginia that hold some of the richest low-sulfur coal seams.

All mining generates huge volumes of waste, known as excess spoil or overburden, and it has to go somewhere. For years, it has been trucked away and dumped in remote hollows of Appalachia.

Environmental activists say the rule change will lead to accelerated pillage of vast tracts and the obliteration of hundreds of miles of streams in central Appalachia.

“This is a parting gift to the coal industry from this administration,” said Joe Lovett, executive director of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment in Lewisburg, W.Va. “What is at stake is the future of Appalachia. This is an attempt to make legal what has long been illegal.”

Mr. Lovett said his group and allied environmental and community organizations would consider suing to block the new rule.

Mountaintop mining is the most common strip mining in central Appalachia, and the most destructive. Ridge tops are flattened with bulldozers and dynamite, clearing all vegetation and, at times, forcing residents to move.

The coal seams are scraped with gigantic machines called draglines. The law requires mining companies to reclaim and replant the land, but the process always produces excess debris.

Roughly half the coal in West Virginia is from mountaintop mining, which is generally cheaper, safer and more efficient than extraction from underground mines like the Crandall Canyon Mine in Utah, which may have claimed the lives of nine miners and rescuers, and the Sago Mine in West Virginia, where 12 miners were killed last year.

The rule, which would apply to waste from both types of mines, is known as the stream buffer zone rule. First adopted in 1983, it forbids virtually all mining within 100 feet of a river or stream.

The Interior Department drafted the proposal to try to clear up a 10-year legal and regulatory dispute over how the 1983 rule should be applied. The change is to be published on Friday in The Federal Register, officials said.

The Army Corps of Engineers, state mining authorities and local courts have read the rule liberally, allowing extensive mountaintop mining and dumping of debris in coal-rich regions of West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia.

From 1985 to 2001, 724 miles of streams were buried under mining waste, according to the environmental impact statement accompanying the new rule.

If current practices continue, another 724 river miles will be buried by 2018, the report says.

Environmental groups have gone to court many times, with limited success, to slow or stop the practice. They won an important ruling in federal court in 1999, but it was overturned in 2001 on procedural and jurisdictional grounds.

The Clinton administration began moving in 1998 to tighten enforcement of the stream rule, but the clock ran out before it could enact new regulations. The Bush administration has been much friendlier to mining interests, which have been reliable contributors to the Republican Party, and has worked on the new rule change since 2001.

The early stages of the revision process were supported by J. Stephen Griles, a former industry lobbyist who was the deputy interior secretary from 2001 to 2004. Mr. Griles had been deputy director of the Office of Surface Mining in the Reagan administration and is knowledgeable about the issues and generally supports the industry.

In June, Mr. Griles was sentenced to 10 months in prison and three years’ probation for lying to a Senate committee about his ties to Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist at the heart of a corruption scandal who is now in prison.

Interior Department officials said they could not comment on the rule because it had not been published. But a senior official of the Office of Surface Mining said the stream buffer rule was never intended to prohibit all mining in and around streams, but rather just to minimize the effects of such work.

Even with the best techniques and most careful reclamation, surface or underground mining will always generate mountains of dirt and rock, he said.

“There’s really no place to put the material except in the upper reaches of hollows,” the official said. “If you can’t put anything in a stream, there’s really no way to even underground mine.”

He said the regulation would explicitly state that the buffer zone rule does not apply for hundreds of miles of streams and valleys and that he hoped, but did not expect, that the rule would end the fight over mine waste.

Mr. Lovett of the Appalachian Center said the rule would only stoke a new battle.

“They are not strengthening the buffer zone rule,” he said. “They are just destroying it. By sleight of hand, they are removing one of the few protections streams now have from the most egregious mining activities.”
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
Good bunch of bullshit Boomerboy. How about this from a top official of the EPA where he wants to crucify his opponents. Yes crucify.

Inhofe quoted a little-watched video from 2010 of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, admitting that EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies.

In the video, Administrator Armendariz says:

“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said:

“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.

“Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

“It’s a deterrent factor,” Armendariz said, explaining that the EPA is following the Romans’ philosophy for subjugating conquered villages.

Soon after Armendariz touted the EPA’s “philosophy,” the EPA began a smear campaigns natural gas producers, Inhofe’s office noted in advance of today’s Senate speech:

“Not long after Administrator Armendariz made these comments in 2010, EPA targeted US natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming.
http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/epa-officials-philosophy-oil-companies-crucify-them-just-romans-crucified
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,803
4,703
126
Good bunch of bullshit Boomerboy. How about this from a top official of the EPA where he wants to crucify his opponents. Yes crucify.



http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/epa-officials-philosophy-oil-companies-crucify-them-just-romans-crucified
Thank you for confirming my point that Republicans want to give polluters a free pass. Here is what he said in hat video:
And so you make examples out of people who are in this case not compliant with the law. Find people who are not compliant with the law, and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them, and there is a deterrent effect there.

And, companies that are smart see that, they don’t want to play that game, and they decide at that point that it’s time to clean up.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
56,312
4,735
126
Good bunch of bullshit Boomerboy. How about this from a top official of the EPA where he wants to crucify his opponents. Yes crucify.



http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/epa-officials-philosophy-oil-companies-crucify-them-just-romans-crucified
Bullshit? What's bullshit about it? Everyone knew Bush was dismantling long-standing environmental laws that were standing in between his (and Cheney's) pals in "Big Energy" and their profits.

Relaxed drilling and fracking regulations, permitted the mining companies to blast the tops off mountains and use that material to fill up the valleys...and clog streams and rivers...the list goes on and on.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
That is absolutely the Republican dream. Government doing nothing about businesses polluting, and waiting for businesses to regulate themselves instead. The only difference is that in China, the government owns the corporations, and in the Republican dream for the US is the corporations owning the government. But that's just the difference in approach, not a difference in the end result, which is an oligarchy where government and business are one in the same.
China has slave labor, is destroying their environment on a monumental scale. Thanks, but I will keep the American dream thank you.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Bullshit? What's bullshit about it? Everyone knew Bush was dismantling long-standing environmental laws that were standing in between his (and Cheney's) pals in "Big Energy" and their profits.

Relaxed drilling and fracking regulations, permitted the mining companies to blast the tops off mountains and use that material to fill up the valleys...and clog streams and rivers...the list goes on and on.
He didn't say BS in English.

He meant BS in Republicanspeak, which translates as 'accurate info'.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
What are you talking about?
The recent Supreme Court ruling about the couple in Idaho who wanted to build a house and the EPA claimed they were not compliant and fined them a large amount. The EPA wouldn't even let their ruling be contested in court. In a 9-0 ruling the SC overturned the bullshit tyrannical EPA ruling.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
Bullshit? What's bullshit about it? Everyone knew Bush was dismantling long-standing environmental laws that were standing in between his (and Cheney's) pals in "Big Energy" and their profits.

Relaxed drilling and fracking regulations, permitted the mining companies to blast the tops off mountains and use that material to fill up the valleys...and clog streams and rivers...the list goes on and on.
OMG! You mean they actually mined coal and drilled for oil and fracked for natural gas and mined for every mineral that's used everyday to make the fucking computer you're sitting at ? Well those bastards! Too bad they couldn't just pull them out of some fucking ignorant hypocrite liberals asshole instead.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY