Save em in the womb, let em get cancer later

JohnnySocko · Mar 19, 2014

Today's conservative backwards logic: save the fetus, don't worry they might die a few years later from cancer....
... if "they" are so concerned about protecting babies, why then the total disregard for letting cancer causing contaminants in our kids drinking water? (oh that's right jobs)

proof politicians preach mostly for votes and their wallets and really could give less than a #$%^& about us

[video=youtube_share;KRfHqMuy6GQ]http://youtu.be/KRfHqMuy6GQ[/video]

...yeah, the conservative morons that constantly preach to get rid of the EPA and all those damn government regulations don't realize air and water pollution don't conform to state boundaries
here is why only the federal government can effectively govern & regulate broad environmental issues

...yeah, sure there is plenty of ammo for the usual dumb-a$$ liberal BS also ...more later

Harrekin · Mar 19, 2014

JohnnySocko said:
Today's conservative backwards logic: save the fetus, don't worry they might die a few years later from cancer....
... if "they" are so concerned about protecting babies, why then the total disregard for letting cancer causing contaminants in our kids drinking water? (oh that's right jobs)

proof politicians preach mostly for votes and their wallets and really could give less than a #$%^& about us

[video=youtube_share;KRfHqMuy6GQ]http://youtu.be/KRfHqMuy6GQ[/video]

...yeah, the conservative morons that constantly preach to get rid of the EPA and all those damn government regulations don't realize air and water pollution don't conform to state boundaries
here is why only the federal government can effectively govern & regulate broad environmental issues

...yeah, sure there is plenty of ammo for the usual dumb-a$$ liberal BS also ...more later

Most libertarians would agree, the environment belongs to the commons and as such no one should have the right to destroy it for everyone else.

The 6 billion dollar question is where is the line drawn.

JohnnySocko · Mar 19, 2014

Harrekin said:
Most libertarians would agree, the environment belongs to the commons and as such no one should have the right to destroy it for everyone else.

The 6 billion dollar question is where is the line drawn.

I dunno, that is a good question
I think on some level I get sick of the Faux news crew brainwashing their mindless minions into to thinking environmental laws are killing their jobs.... sometimes the mindless anti-regulation jibber jabber hurts my brain

Harrekin · Mar 19, 2014

JohnnySocko said:
I dunno, that is a good question
I think on some level I get sick of the Faux news crew brainwashing their mindless minions into to thinking environmental laws are killing their jobs.... sometimes the mindless anti-regulation jibber jabber hurts my brain

Regulation as the Democrats suggest is unacceptable tho, it's generally a step too far.

We need to get off fossil fuels, but we need to use the ones we have to advance to that point.

JohnnySocko · Mar 19, 2014

Harrekin said:
Regulation as the Democrats suggest is unacceptable tho, it's generally a step too far.

We need to get off fossil fuels, but we need to use the ones we have to advance to that point.

I'll never argue they have a equal number of wheat grass eating nut gathering morons on that side also

Harrekin · Mar 19, 2014

JohnnySocko said:
I'll never argue they have a equal number of wheat grass eating nut gathering morons on that side also

Really, what Govt could be pushing in the R&D department would be higher energy density batteries.

Its the Achilles Heal of all current methods of renewable power...I can't wait for fusion, it's consistency and potential output are insane BUT we still have inadequate methods of storing said power to replace fossil fuels.

JohnnySocko · Mar 19, 2014

Harrekin said:
Really, what Govt could be pushing in the R&D department would be higher energy density batteries.

Its the Achilles Heal of all current methods of renewable power...I can't wait for fusion, it's consistency and potential output are insane BUT we still have inadequate methods of storing said power to replace fossil fuels.

...I wish Obamas porkulus pkg had some focus here....had he used all that stimulus money in 1-2 renewable spots perhaps some progress might have been made....

...instead under Obama, the USA is pumping moire oil than anytime in History, and it still hasn't shut up the "drill baby drill" right wingers....they actually have their toothless redneck base believing if we pump out more oil it will equal in lower prices at the pump....

Harrekin · Mar 19, 2014

JohnnySocko said:
...I wish Obamas porkulus pkg had some focus here....had he used all that stimulus money in 1-2 renewable spots perhaps some progress might have been made....

...instead under Obama, the USA is pumping moire oil than anytime in History, and it still hasn't shut up the "drill baby drill" right wingers....they actually have their toothless redneck base believing if we pump out more oil it will equal in lower prices at the pump....

Drops the price for everyone else tho

Thanks America,
Yours,
Europe.

jahbrudda · Mar 19, 2014

Unless you've experienced the wrath of the EPA first hand, you'd never understand how and why the EPA makes people waste so much time and money.

In 2009 I wanted to build a small addition to my apt building. The addition was 14'x18', we were moving the laundry room which was in the basement area to this new addition on the side of the apt building.
You would figure all you need from the building department would be a set of plans and pay some fess, but it doesn't work that way.

For such a small project, they also wanted me to build a new uni-sex ADA compliant restroom, for some reason is was too difficult for the tenants to walk to their own apt to use the bathroom. On top of that, an after hours heating and light control system, a comprehensive landscape and a ground maintenance plan, and a long list of energy efficient garbage for a laundry room for private use only. .
I would have had to hire a separate company just to deal with the environment impact study, the study was estimated to take a minimum of six months and could take up to a year..

All this extra cost and time for putting in laundry room that was basically already there, we were just moving it to the side of the building and making it nicer for my tenants.
No disrespect, but anyone who says that government regulations aren't impacting jobs and the economy, they are obviously not informed.

greentrip · Mar 19, 2014

For such a small project, they also wanted me to build a new uni-sex ADA compliant restroom, for some reason is was too difficult for the tenants to walk to their own apt to use the bathroom. On top of that, an after hours heating and light control system, a comprehensive landscape and a ground maintenance plan, and a long list of energy efficient garbage for a laundry room for private use only. .
I would have had to hire a separate company just to deal with the environment impact study, the study was estimated to take a minimum of six months and could take up to a year..

Click to expand...

Just another one of thousands of EPA horror stories of late.
Its time we cut there budget by about 75%+ so they can focus
on nessasqary things instead of there idiocy. Perhaps if we
purged the douche bags from the agency it would be
better but then they would be down 98% on people.

canndo · Mar 19, 2014

Harrekin said:
Regulation as the Democrats suggest is unacceptable tho, it's generally a step too far.

We need to get off fossil fuels, but we need to use the ones we have to advance to that point.

So you want to use everything up to the point that a barrel of oil costs 500 dollars and then hope that someone somewhere finds an alternative in the nick of time?

JohnnySocko · Mar 19, 2014

jahbrudda said:
Unless you've experienced the wrath of the EPA first hand, you'd never understand how and why the EPA makes people waste so much time and money.

In 2009 I wanted to build a small addition to my apt building. The addition was 14'x18', we were moving the laundry room which was in the basement area to this new addition on the side of the apt building.
You would figure all you need from the building department would be a set of plans and pay some fess, but it doesn't work that way.

For such a small project, they also wanted me to build a new uni-sex ADA compliant restroom, for some reason is was too difficult for the tenants to walk to their own apt to use the bathroom. On top of that, an after hours heating and light control system, a comprehensive landscape and a ground maintenance plan, and a long list of energy efficient garbage for a laundry room for private use only. .
I would have had to hire a separate company just to deal with the environment impact study, the study was estimated to take a minimum of six months and could take up to a year..

All this extra cost and time for putting in laundry room that was basically already there, we were just moving it to the side of the building and making it nicer for my tenants.
No disrespect, but anyone who says that government regulations aren't impacting jobs and the economy, they are obviously not informed.

yeah but the right/industrial lobby uses the patented "jobs" excuse every time ANY environmental regulation comes down...
...and OTOH; I won't dispute the occasional heavy handedness of the EPA...

Still if you do a Google Earth over parts of Ky, WVa & PA and look at what big coal and the power companies have done with their loose strip mining regulations....most of those hillbillies are torn balancing jobs with the wasteland they live in (I have relatives there).... on some level there is some use for a EPA like entity...
...just sayin I'm sorta taking a pass on this debate...I can see it both ways....In theory State level bureaucrats need some Federal oversight on macro level environmental issues

greentrip said:
Just another one of thousands of EPA horror stories of late.
Its time we cut there budget by about 75%+ so they can focus
on nessasqary things instead of there idiocy. Perhaps if we
purged the douche bags from the agency it would be
better but then they would be down 98% on people.

there are signs the agency creates its own mandate to justify its existence, sorta like the law enforcment agencies that are anti cannabis just so thier budgest don't get cut....

canndo said:

So you want to use everything up to the point that a barrel of oil costs 500 dollars and then hope that someone somewhere finds an alternative in the nick of time?

Click to expand...

I think he's mostly for R&D for alternative energy

schuylaar · Mar 19, 2014

jahbrudda said:
Unless you've experienced the wrath of the EPA first hand, you'd never understand how and why the EPA makes people waste so much time and money.

In 2009 I wanted to build a small addition to my apt building. The addition was 14'x18', we were moving the laundry room which was in the basement area to this new addition on the side of the apt building.
You would figure all you need from the building department would be a set of plans and pay some fess, but it doesn't work that way.

For such a small project, they also wanted me to build a new uni-sex ADA compliant restroom, for some reason is was too difficult for the tenants to walk to their own apt to use the bathroom. On top of that, an after hours heating and light control system, a comprehensive landscape and a ground maintenance plan, and a long list of energy efficient garbage for a laundry room for private use only. .
I would have had to hire a separate company just to deal with the environment impact study, the study was estimated to take a minimum of six months and could take up to a year..

All this extra cost and time for putting in laundry room that was basically already there, we were just moving it to the side of the building and making it nicer for my tenants.
No disrespect, but anyone who says that government regulations aren't impacting jobs and the economy, they are obviously not informed.

on ADA compliance issues, you can fight/appeal certain improvements if unreasonable cost outweighs the project in general ie; total project cost 5k yet to do bathroom is 15k..that would be an acceptable unreasonable accommodation..often times they don't tell you, you have recourse.

unfortunately, regulations are in place because at some point in time, the "job creators" got out of hand and took advantage of whatever situation you are now being regulated on..so you see, you already had chances..you just blew it for yourselves.

jahbrudda · Mar 19, 2014

JohnnySocko said:
yeah but the right/industrial lobby uses the patented "jobs" excuse every time ANY environmental regulation comes down...
...and OTOH; I won't dispute the occasional heavy handedness of the EPA...

I'm not looking at the EPA in a political aspect, I'm talking about the nuts and bolts of the whole system. There is no such thing as occasional heavy handedness, it's continuous, it's massive and it costs us billions of dollars a year, not to mention jobs.

JohnnySocko said:
Still if you do a Google Earth over parts of Ky, WVa & PA and look at what big coal and the power companies have done with their loose strip mining regulations....most of those hillbillies are torn balancing jobs with the wasteland they live in (I have relatives there).... on some level there is some use for a EPA like entity...
...just sayin I'm sorta taking a pass on this debate...I can see it both ways....In theory State level bureaucrats need some Federal oversight on macro level environmental issues

And it's here we can agree, I'm nit saying to do away with regulations all together, we just have to implement some common sense ideas and balance it out with jobs and progress.

JohnnySocko said:
there are signs the agency creates its own mandate to justify its existence, sorta like the law enforcment agencies that are anti cannabis just so thier budgest don't get cut....

I think he's mostly for R&D for alternative energy

The fact is, they do mandate, so much, that they have become one of the biggest constraints on free market development in history there is.

Canna Sylvan · Mar 19, 2014

JohnnySocko said:
I'll never argue they have a equal number of wheat grass eating nut gathering morons on that side also

Hey!

canndo · Mar 19, 2014

jahbrudda said:
Unless you've experienced the wrath of the EPA first hand, you'd never understand how and why the EPA makes people waste so much time and money.

In 2009 I wanted to build a small addition to my apt building. The addition was 14'x18', we were moving the laundry room which was in the basement area to this new addition on the side of the apt building.
You would figure all you need from the building department would be a set of plans and pay some fess, but it doesn't work that way.

For such a small project, they also wanted me to build a new uni-sex ADA compliant restroom, for some reason is was too difficult for the tenants to walk to their own apt to use the bathroom. On top of that, an after hours heating and light control system, a comprehensive landscape and a ground maintenance plan, and a long list of energy efficient garbage for a laundry room for private use only. .
I would have had to hire a separate company just to deal with the environment impact study, the study was estimated to take a minimum of six months and could take up to a year..

All this extra cost and time for putting in laundry room that was basically already there, we were just moving it to the side of the building and making it nicer for my tenants.
No disrespect, but anyone who says that government regulations aren't impacting jobs and the economy, they are obviously not informed.

As always, you present a single anecdotal bit of "evidence", you fail to distinguish between local building codes, state regulations and federal regs, neglecting to tell us what federal agencies actually required and required of you and then surmise that yours is the case that defines all government regulation.

canndo · Mar 19, 2014

Nevertheless, this thread started out with something that the pro-lifers simply refuse to even examine let alone contend with. A fetus is sacred, and we are to ignore the rights of the mother in favor of this "child", yet when it is pointed out that the fetus is now filled with chemicals that a marketplace essentialy free of the correct regulations, those folks either avert their gaze or move to another subject, all the while crying about over regulation of the environment - pretty much what is happening in this thread.

They fail to see the duplicity of their position, in short, they value the fetus, but not so much that they don't mind it's being poisoned because they hate government even more - except of course if it takes government enacted laws to protect this fetus, which they are not really protecting in the first place.

UncleBuck · Mar 19, 2014

jahbrudda said:
Unless you've experienced the wrath of the EPA first hand, you'd never understand how and why the EPA makes people waste so much time and money.

In 2009 I wanted to build a small addition to my apt building. The addition was 14'x18', we were moving the laundry room which was in the basement area to this new addition on the side of the apt building.
You would figure all you need from the building department would be a set of plans and pay some fess, but it doesn't work that way.

For such a small project, they also wanted me to build a new uni-sex ADA compliant restroom, for some reason is was too difficult for the tenants to walk to their own apt to use the bathroom. On top of that, an after hours heating and light control system, a comprehensive landscape and a ground maintenance plan, and a long list of energy efficient garbage for a laundry room for private use only. .
I would have had to hire a separate company just to deal with the environment impact study, the study was estimated to take a minimum of six months and could take up to a year..

All this extra cost and time for putting in laundry room that was basically already there, we were just moving it to the side of the building and making it nicer for my tenants.
No disrespect, but anyone who says that government regulations aren't impacting jobs and the economy, they are obviously not informed.

man, the EPA sounds horrible for what they did to you. a lot of other people have experienced the same, i am sure.

in other words, a lot of us have beenthere.

jahbrudda · Mar 19, 2014

canndo said:
As always, you present a single anecdotal bit of "evidence", you fail to distinguish between local building codes, state regulations and federal regs, neglecting to tell us what federal agencies actually required and required of you and then surmise that yours is the case that defines all government regulation.

canndo, I'm to the point I could care less if you want to believe it or not.
Unlike you, I give real life experiences with the EPA, not some article I read on the internet this morning.

And as always, you involve yourself in subjects you know very little to nothing about. All you ever want is an argument, your m.o. is not to understand and solve problems, your sole purpose is to spark a political debate between left and right, I'm not not going to bite.

The funny part of this is, if you knew what you were talking about, you would realize that all building departments in this country must comply with minimum federal EPA standards and obviously in my case, the stricter California EPA regulations, hence, environmental impact study.
Another thing you fail to comprehend, government makes these regulations, whether it's state or federal, it's still government.

Harrekin · Mar 19, 2014

canndo said:
So you want to use everything up to the point that a barrel of oil costs 500 dollars and then hope that someone somewhere finds an alternative in the nick of time?

Explain how heavy industry can occur without fossil fuels.

Hydrogen fuel cells are promising, but not commercially viable yet.

Trust me, when an alternative comes around I'll embrace it.

Save em in the womb, let em get cancer later

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member