If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Idaho bill would nullify all EPA regulations in the state. SupremacyClauseSaysWhat?   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 141
    More: Stupid, EPA, the Gem State, EPA regulations, Congressional Oversight, no-force, Tenth Amendment  
•       •       •

1459 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Feb 2014 at 4:26 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



141 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-21 01:56:28 PM
fine. then cut all federal aid to the state.
 
2014-02-21 02:06:09 PM
Secede, you f*cking cowards
 
2014-02-21 02:12:09 PM
FTFIdiot: the EPA's regulatory authority is unconstitutional and violate's the U.S. Constitution's "true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers"

Because this guy knows that when the FFs established the Executive Branch, they didn't really mean for it to carry out the laws enacted by Congress if it would inconvenience big campaign donors.
 
2014-02-21 02:45:07 PM
Good thing Idaho doesn't have any valuable cash crops that could be potentially harmed by this.  Yup, good thing indeed.
 
2014-02-21 02:57:06 PM
a·mend·ment
/əˈmɛnd/ Show Spelled [uh-mend-muh] Show IPA
noun 1.
the act of amending or the state of being amended.
2.
an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc.
3.
a change made by correction, addition, or deletion: The editors made few amendments to the manuscript.
4.
Horticulture . a soil-conditioning substance that promotes plant growth indirectly by improving such soil qualities as porosity, moisture retention, and pH balance.
Origin:
1250-1300; Middle English  < Old French amendement.  See amend, -ment
 
2014-02-21 03:15:31 PM

MrBallou: FTFIdiot: the EPA's regulatory authority is unconstitutional and violate's the U.S. Constitution's "true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers"

Because this guy knows that when the FFs established the Executive Branch, they didn't really mean for it to carry out the laws enacted by Congress if it would inconvenience big campaign donors.


I'm sure he only keeps guns as part of a well-regulated militia.
 
2014-02-21 03:25:16 PM
Idaho, where it's good to count to potato.
 
2014-02-21 03:26:27 PM

MrBallou: FTFIdiot: the EPA's regulatory authority is unconstitutional and violate's the U.S. Constitution's "true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers"

Because this guy knows that when the FFs established the Executive Branch, they didn't really mean for it to carry out the laws enacted by Congress if it would inconvenience big campaign donors.


http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-wha t- he-imagines-c,2849/
 
2014-02-21 04:16:07 PM
Because being able to breathe and drink without poisoning yourself is overrated.
 
2014-02-21 04:29:32 PM
Good luck with that
 
2014-02-21 04:29:53 PM
This is just like the damn vaccines; we've gone for a long time without the ravages of polio and other preventable diseases, and so people have no fear of them.  Likewise, we're a long way from Love Canal and 1970s smog banks (et cetera, et cetera) and people have just forgotten WHY WE HAVE AN EPA.

It isn't like they have to look hard... just look at China.  You know, the one "kicking our asses" in everything, the one with 100% of all freshwater bodies contaminated above limits?  The one with smog so bad it is 10x over "severe" scale?

That's where "produce at any cost" will bring us back to.
 
2014-02-21 04:30:23 PM
Ah Idaho, home of that rugged oniony, potatoey, individualist goodness.
 
2014-02-21 04:31:36 PM

FlashHarry: fine. then cut all federal aid to the state.


Sounds good to me.  We don't need your blood money anyway.  Of course this means that we'll cripple the french fry market and good luck getting any more memory chips for your aging computers.  Oh and you're going to have a hard time getting new locomotives as well.
 
2014-02-21 04:31:38 PM
the EPA's regulatory authority is unconstitutional and violate's the U.S. Constitution ...

Learn how to use an apostrophe, you morans.
 
2014-02-21 04:33:53 PM
God, these new gold diggers are assholes.
 
2014-02-21 04:38:45 PM
Won't somebody think of the Gold Miners!?
 
2014-02-21 04:39:35 PM

Smeggy Smurf: FlashHarry: fine. then cut all federal aid to the state.

Sounds good to me.  We don't need your blood money anyway.  Of course this means that we'll cripple the french fry market and good luck getting any more memory chips for your aging computers.  Oh and you're going to have a hard time getting new locomotives as well.


You might want to rethink that, considering you get more back in federal money than you pay in...
 
2014-02-21 04:39:38 PM
For anyone familiar with EPA regs, this actually isn't a bad idea.
 
2014-02-21 04:40:02 PM
Oddly enough, I think we could survive
should a potato famine arrive.
 
2014-02-21 04:42:35 PM
Yep, it's not like your horrible pollution won't ever flow to the next state over.
 
2014-02-21 04:47:11 PM
It's not like there are any current examples of unregulated industries poisoning people.
 
2014-02-21 04:47:14 PM

Wook: For anyone familiar with EPA regs, this actually isn't a bad idea.


Why?
 
2014-02-21 04:48:20 PM

meat0918: Smeggy Smurf: FlashHarry: fine. then cut all federal aid to the state.

Sounds good to me.  We don't need your blood money anyway.  Of course this means that we'll cripple the french fry market and good luck getting any more memory chips for your aging computers.  Oh and you're going to have a hard time getting new locomotives as well.

You might want to rethink that, considering you get more back in federal money than you pay in...


Perhaps...but it would certainly be an eye opener for the people of Idaho....
 
2014-02-21 04:50:17 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Sounds good to me. We don't need your blood money anyway. Of course this means that we'll cripple the french fry market and good luck getting any more memory chips for your aging computers. Oh and you're going to have a hard time getting new locomotives as well.


I take that to mean that Idaho does not make memory chips for current models of computers, only obsolete ones.  Sounds like an industry that is dying anyway.
 
2014-02-21 04:50:49 PM

Smeggy Smurf: FlashHarry: fine. then cut all federal aid to the state.

Sounds good to me.  We don't need your blood money anyway.  Of course this means that we'll cripple the french fry market and good luck getting any more memory chips for your aging computers.  Oh and you're going to have a hard time getting new locomotives as well.


Yes. It's completely impossible to grow potatoes or manufacture memory chips and locomotives in any state but Idaho.
 
2014-02-21 04:50:58 PM

Wook: For anyone familiar with EPA regs, this actually isn't a bad idea.


As someone familiar with them, those found in violation pay a small fine, and generally continue business as usual until they are caught again and pay another fine, increased, but still small.

One place (Kingston charcoal) around here gets around the requirement their smoke be only a certain level of opaqueness by only burning at night, so it is near impossible for a local to complain to the regulatory authorities.

You may think that is a silly rule, but it is a cheap way to guesstimate how much particulate you're emitting, and for lay people to help regulators.

Another business in the area that does creosote treatment and has been fined so many times you'd think they'd have gone out of business by now opens their vents in the wee hours of the morning so fewer people are awake to complain about the burning eyes and moth ball smell gagging you as you drive past.  It's often quite bad during the day as well.

They also have capped several places on their lot with impermeable surfaces because of arsenic runoff.

I should mention that just across the road from this place are houses, a playground, and a little further is a school where the kids don't play outside some days because of the smell.

The EPA serves a good purpose, but have had quite a few teeth pulled.
 
2014-02-21 04:51:48 PM

Wook: For anyone familiar with EPA regs, this actually isn't a bad idea.


From another article about the original source of the legislation:
"The EPA and its law officers - "jack-booted thugs in swat uniforms" - are trying to eliminate gold dredging through a misinterpretation of the Clean Water Act, said Tom Kitchar, president of the Waldo Mining District in Oregon. Kitchar and others spoke at a joint meeting of the Senate Resources and Environment and House Resources and Conservation Committees.
Miners complained about the new permit required since May under provisions of the Clean Water Act. They say it is a federal overreach, creates a lengthy and complicated process and closes or restricts many popular gold streams."

I'm familiar with fish habitat and the consequences of farking that up over the long term for short-term profit.

Including the economic costs.

Miner J. Fortyniner gets his $5 now, and we all pay the $20 to fix what he broke doing it.

You're right, that's not a bad idea, I mean your individual share of the cost is a fraction of a penny, right?
 
2014-02-21 04:52:40 PM
Yeah! Nullify the EPA! Great idea, what could possibly go wrong?

thinkprogress.org

nimg.sulekha.com
 
2014-02-21 04:56:23 PM
I swear to farking God, the GOP won't be happy until they've transformed Earth into Giedi Prime.
 
2014-02-21 04:57:12 PM

fatassbastard: Yeah! Nullify the EPA! Great idea, what could possibly go wrong?

[thinkprogress.org image 555x370]

[nimg.sulekha.com image 800x489]


Where the hell is that second one?
 
2014-02-21 04:59:22 PM

buckler: I swear to farking God, the GOP won't be happy until they've transformed Earth into Giedi Prime.


Considering what they're doing to the educational system, where are we going to get all the Mentats?
 
2014-02-21 04:59:24 PM

Evil High Priest: Where the hell is that second one?


Ganges River in India.
 
2014-02-21 04:59:43 PM

meat0918: Ah Idaho, home of that rugged oniony, potatoey, individualist goodness.


Sure they're crunchy on the outside, but they're white and greasy on the inside.
 
2014-02-21 04:59:50 PM

ikanreed: Yep, it's not like your horrible pollution won't ever flow to the next state over.


Indeed, it looks like Idaho is upstream of a lot of people, and not downstream from many.  Do I have that right?  Being upstream from the herd can give you funny ideas about water rights.

//Lives in Colorado.
 
2014-02-21 05:01:57 PM
Sorry, dumbasses.
No.
 
2014-02-21 05:04:18 PM
Will this kind of stuff continue once Obama is out of the White House?
 
2014-02-21 05:06:48 PM
FTA: A new bill, introduced by Idaho Rep. Paul Shepherd (R-Riggins), declares that the EPA's regulatory authority
is unconstitutional and violate's the U.S. Constitution's "true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers.



Fine. Enjoy your water and deformities "patriots"

gogreen.umaryland.edu

www.chinaabout.net
http://www.chinaabout.net/three-nose-baby-pig-found-in-henan-may-be- ca used-by-pollution/

s23.postimg.org

s22.postimg.org
s3.postimg.org
 
2014-02-21 05:07:04 PM

Evil High Priest: Where the hell is that second one?


The depressing part is that it could be one of many. but I am guessing the Ganges.
 
2014-02-21 05:07:14 PM

Dutch Pilsner: Will this kind of stuff continue once Obama is out of the White House?


It will never stop. It's also not novel, and has been going on since day 1 of this nation
 
2014-02-21 05:07:40 PM

Smeggy Smurf: FlashHarry: fine. then cut all federal aid to the state.

Sounds good to me.  We don't need your blood money anyway.  Of course this means that we'll cripple the french fry market and good luck getting any more memory chips for your aging computers.  Oh and you're going to have a hard time getting new locomotives as well.


Hah,

You think without federal aid business would stay in a state with crumbling infrastructure?

Sorry but you can't hold the country hostage with commodities.
 
2014-02-21 05:08:37 PM

Evil High Priest: fatassbastard: Yeah! Nullify the EPA! Great idea, what could possibly go wrong?

[thinkprogress.org image 555x370]

[nimg.sulekha.com image 800x489]

Where the hell is that second one?


If I had to guess, I'd say it looks like the Ganges in India. In which case, the litter/garbage sludge is a secondary concern to the dead bodies that religious custom dictates find their way into the river.
 
2014-02-21 05:09:19 PM

Dutch Pilsner: Will this kind of stuff continue once Obama is out of the White House?


I have no doubt. What they're really angling for here is a Supreme Court decision that says discrimination based on religion is protected by the First Amendment; presumably, that wouldn't change if there's a Democrat after Obama, and it would probably redouble if it's a Republican because they'd have a chance to tilt the balance of the court prior to the decision.
 
2014-02-21 05:09:56 PM
Well, on the bright side, some people might get cool mutations!.
 
2014-02-21 05:12:05 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Evil High Priest: Where the hell is that second one?

The depressing part is that it could be one of many. but I am guessing the Ganges.


I'll raise you
Citarum River - West Java, Indonesia

files.abovetopsecret.com

www.sewonartspace.org

files.abovetopsecret.com
 
2014-02-21 05:12:13 PM
Considering the large amount of white supremacist's that Idaho contains and attracts having them poison their own water and food supply might be worth it. Too bad that the guaranteed pollution that would happen would spread to other states.
 
2014-02-21 05:15:02 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Sounds good to me.  We don't need your blood money anyway.  Of course this means that we'll cripple the french fry market and good luck getting any more memory chips for your aging computers.  Oh and you're going to have a hard time getting new locomotives as well.


dafuq?

I buy that shiat for a living and I've never gotten any from Idaho.  I mean its a nice place but its no Taiwan, or South Korea, or Mexico, or Malaysia, or Thailand, or China, or Japan, or Phillipines or any of the other 99.99% of the suppliers of electronic components.
 
2014-02-21 05:18:31 PM

Mad Scientist: the EPA's regulatory authority is unconstitutional and violate's the U.S. Constitution ...

Learn how to use an apostrophe, you morans.


That's batting .500.
 
2014-02-21 05:19:21 PM

Orange-Pippin: Cubicle Jockey: Evil High Priest: Where the hell is that second one?

The depressing part is that it could be one of many. but I am guessing the Ganges.

I'll raise you
Citarum River - West Java, Indonesia

[files.abovetopsecret.com image 650x460]

[www.sewonartspace.org image 650x432]

[files.abovetopsecret.com image 740x407]


oh jesus
 
2014-02-21 05:19:26 PM
How many of the people championing the Supremacy Clause (which is correct in this case) also think it's okay for Colorado and the other states to effectively legalize marijuana?

/Still against Federal law, for some reason or other
 
2014-02-21 05:20:07 PM

qorkfiend: Smeggy Smurf: FlashHarry: fine. then cut all federal aid to the state.

Sounds good to me.  We don't need your blood money anyway.  Of course this means that we'll cripple the french fry market and good luck getting any more memory chips for your aging computers.  Oh and you're going to have a hard time getting new locomotives as well.

Yes. It's completely impossible to grow potatoes or manufacture memory chips and locomotives in any state but Idaho.


I'm sure these guys, these guys, and these guys (among others) would all be more than happy to pick up the slack in providing starchy goodness. And its not like we don't already make locomotives in Indiana and Texas.
 
2014-02-21 05:22:11 PM
Smeggy Smurf:Sounds good to me.  We don't need your blood money anyway.  Of course this means that we'll cripple the french fry market and good luck getting any more memory chips for your aging computers.  Oh and you're going to have a hard time getting new locomotives as well.


I grow my own potatoes thanks. You can keep your mutated, toxic, derp-infused, ones in your future sludge state.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-21 05:27:24 PM
Lets not forget one of the main reasons Nixon created the EPA in the first place

www.banksinfo.com

And that place didn't even have the photo worthy piles on piles of trash and bodies like the other places seen in this thread.
 
2014-02-21 05:33:38 PM

cirby: How many of the people championing the Supremacy Clause (which is correct in this case) also think it's okay for Colorado and the other states to effectively legalize marijuana?

/Still against Federal law, for some reason or other


I haven't run across anyone who thinks that legalization in Colorado nullifies anything and prevents the DEA from enforcing federal law in the state.
 
2014-02-21 05:34:00 PM

Deadite: Lets not forget one of the main reasons Nixon created the EPA in the first place


Ahh the Cuyahoga River. My uncle was there when it happened

blog.cleveland.com

www.clf.org
 
2014-02-21 05:34:24 PM

fatassbastard: Yeah! Nullify the EPA! Great idea, what could possibly go wrong?


i199.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-21 05:34:49 PM
clarification-- my uncle is not the guy in the pic ;)
 
2014-02-21 05:38:28 PM

Smeggy Smurf: FlashHarry: fine. then cut all federal aid to the state.

Sounds good to me.  We don't need your blood money anyway.  Of course this means that we'll cripple the french fry market and good luck getting any more memory chips for your aging computers.  Oh and you're going to have a hard time getting new locomotives as well.


I'm sure all of those businesses are going to sink their own ships just to try and prove a point.  None of those things are immune to relocation.
 
2014-02-21 05:38:47 PM
While I do disagree with the goal of the law; the supremacy clause also applies to drug laws. The powers of the federal government needs to be challenged and the best way for a state to challenge federal law is to pass nullification laws. Most attempts fail, but if the federal law is ruled unconstitutional the state can win the day.
 
2014-02-21 05:39:44 PM

Orange-Pippin: clarification-- my uncle is not the guy in the pic ;)


No he's just the jerk who threw the match into the river. :)

I forgot about that actually, I went with Love Canal NY. There was a lot of shiat going down before the EPA and companies won't hesitate to return to that crap if the EPA goes away.
 
2014-02-21 05:42:30 PM
I guess I know now where Mr. Potato Head lives.
 
2014-02-21 05:44:23 PM
So, kill all EPA regulations. Increase pollution. Increase Global warming.

DENY DENY DENY!
 
2014-02-21 05:47:42 PM

Orange-Pippin: Smeggy Smurf:Sounds good to me.  We don't need your blood money anyway.  Of course this means that we'll cripple the french fry market and good luck getting any more memory chips for your aging computers.  Oh and you're going to have a hard time getting new locomotives as well.


I grow my own potatoes thanks. You can keep your mutated, toxic, derp-infused, ones in your future sludge state.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x600]


Actually, there are quite a few states that have active potato crops.  Among them are Washington,
Oregon, North Dakota, Minnesota, and, a big supplier around here, Wisconsin. They may not
have the reputation of Idaho potatoes, but then, General Motors ran on its reputation - its pre-
WW2 reputation - for years.
 
2014-02-21 05:49:48 PM
So that makes Idaho a superfun superfund site. Neat.
 
2014-02-21 05:49:52 PM

Li'l Robbie: Orange-Pippin: Smeggy Smurf:Sounds good to me.  We don't need your blood money anyway.  Of course this means that we'll cripple the french fry market and good luck getting any more memory chips for your aging computers.  Oh and you're going to have a hard time getting new locomotives as well.


I grow my own potatoes thanks. You can keep your mutated, toxic, derp-infused, ones in your future sludge state.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x600]

Actually, there are quite a few states that have active potato crops.  Among them are Washington,
Oregon, North Dakota, Minnesota, and, a big supplier around here, Wisconsin. They may not
have the reputation of Idaho potatoes, but then, General Motors ran on its reputation - its pre-
WW2 reputation - for years.


Michigan's got a decent product too, at least in the Saginaw Bay area.
 
2014-02-21 05:50:54 PM
 
2014-02-21 05:53:38 PM

Orange-Pippin: Cubicle Jockey: Evil High Priest: Where the hell is that second one?

The depressing part is that it could be one of many. but I am guessing the Ganges.

I'll raise you
Citarum River - West Java, Indonesia

[files.abovetopsecret.com image 650x460]

[www.sewonartspace.org image 650x432]

[files.abovetopsecret.com image 740x407]


Is that post-tsunami detritus, or just "Tuesday"?
 
2014-02-21 05:56:02 PM
What the fark is with the republicans in state legislatures trying to pass all of these laws lately that are so obviously, glaringly unconstitutional that they'll be laughed out of court the moment they're challenged?

Legal discrimination against gays?  Check.
Nullification of EPA laws?  Check.
Nullification of federal gun laws?  Check.
Taking over enforcement of national borders?  Check.
Making federal agents doing their jobs illegal in the state?  Check.
I'm sure I'm missing several others
 
2014-02-21 05:56:41 PM

Deadite: Orange-Pippin: clarification-- my uncle is not the guy in the pic ;)

No he's just the jerk who threw the match into the river. :)


lol
Here's an interesting video of the fire. According to this guy "there were several fires before that"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtqSvwyNsQ
 
2014-02-21 05:59:18 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Smeggy Smurf: Sounds good to me.  We don't need your blood money anyway.  Of course this means that we'll cripple the french fry market and good luck getting any more memory chips for your aging computers.  Oh and you're going to have a hard time getting new locomotives as well.

dafuq?

I buy that shiat for a living and I've never gotten any from Idaho.  I mean its a nice place but its no Taiwan, or South Korea, or Mexico, or Malaysia, or Thailand, or China, or Japan, or Phillipines or any of the other 99.99% of the suppliers of electronic components.


Boise Idaho is home of Micron Technology, The largest memory manufacturer in the world.  However, although MT has its headquarters in Idaho, the chips are manufactured overseas.
 
2014-02-21 06:00:46 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Secede, you f*cking cowards


It's the farking Simplot Crew in the legislature and all the podunk little towns sucking the blood of immigrant workers in their work camps, err I mean, "housing authorities". Everyone that matters in this state is very opposed to the crap that makes the headlines regardless of political affiliation.
 
2014-02-21 06:32:29 PM

cirby: How many of the people championing the Supremacy Clause (which is correct in this case) also think it's okay for Colorado and the other states to effectively legalize marijuana?


Colorado and other states don't purport to nullify federal law, numnutz. States aren't required to criminalize everything the federal government does. But declining to criminalize isn't the same thing as nullifying.

Colorado: we will no longer punish marijuana under our own laws. We say nothing of the federal government's ability to do so.


Idaho: DERP HERPITY DOO!!!!!  Fedrul gubmint ain't gon 'force no tree huggin' laws hare!"

This isn't complicated. Thank you for helping to illustrate the ignorance of people who are pro-nullification!


 
2014-02-21 06:54:31 PM

Smeggy Smurf: FlashHarry: fine. then cut all federal aid to the state.

Sounds good to me.  We don't need your blood money anyway.  Of course this means that we'll cripple the french fry market and good luck getting any more memory chips for your aging computers.  Oh and you're going to have a hard time getting new locomotives as well.



3.bp.blogspot.com

If you cut off our federal aid, we'll destroy our main industries by refusing to sell you anything! We're serious! We'll do it!!

//this doesn't actually work in the real world
 
2014-02-21 06:57:06 PM
Another stunning example of why when my American friends ask me why I don't make more of a fuss about not being allowed to enter the US anymore, I simply reply "I grew up in Idaho".
 
2014-02-21 07:08:31 PM
You know what. Every time someone complains about the EPA I'm just going to dump oil on their lawn and shiat on it. That's pretty much what will happen if we get rid of it, except it's the government doing it.
 
2014-02-21 07:09:27 PM

Smeggy Smurf: FlashHarry: fine. then cut all federal aid to the state.

Sounds good to me.  We don't need your blood money anyway.  Of course this means that we'll cripple the french fry market and good luck getting any more memory chips for your aging computers.  Oh and you're going to have a hard time getting new locomotives as well.


We'll get what we want if your land-locked state wants an economy.
 
2014-02-21 07:19:06 PM
Sounds about as valid as the rubes here in Grant County, OR that voted to make it a "UN Free Zone".
 
2014-02-21 07:19:10 PM
Baz744:
Colorado and other states don't purport to nullify federal law, numnutz. States aren't required to criminalize everything the federal government does. But declining to criminalize isn't the same thing as nullifying.

States are technically not required to enforce Federal laws - but the practice has been that they do. The only reason they're proceeding without many problems is that the Justice Department has basically said they're not going to intervene about marijuana.

They may not claim to nullify Federal marijuana laws - but the practical effect is that they have.

Of course, those state laws won't even slow down any Federal agent who decides to ruin the life of some otherwise-innocent pot smoker or seller who annoyed a politician.
 
2014-02-21 07:21:29 PM

Wook: For anyone familiar with EPA regs, this actually isn't a bad idea.


As a person familiar with both Federal and one state's environmental regulations, I can safely say that this is a spectacularly bad idea.

Keeping something [relatively] clean in the first place is much less costly (damaging, injurious) than trying to remediate the damage after the fact.

/ was fortunate enough to work for a good corporate citizen when it came to the environment
// the consequences of an environmental screw-up would have been very unpleasant
 
2014-02-21 07:29:14 PM

Burn98: Boise Idaho is home of Micron Technology, The largest memory manufacturer in the world.  However, although MT has its headquarters in Idaho, the chips are manufactured overseas.


I always get Micron from Digikey.

They're in Minnesota.

CHECKMATE IDAHO SUCK IT
 
2014-02-21 07:41:12 PM
Like the EPA?  Thank the republican party.  They made it.  Democrats opposed it.  You cant spell conservation without conservative.
 
2014-02-21 07:43:54 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Like the EPA?  Thank the republican party.  They made it.  Democrats opposed it.  You cant spell conservation without conservative.


Odd, conversation has always been a progressive movement. Maybe the parties re-aligned sometime thereafter?

Or are you insinuating that it's the Democrats today who are complaining about the "Job killing regulations" of the EPA?
 
2014-02-21 07:47:33 PM

jdbob: Sounds about as valid as the rubes here in Grant County, OR that voted to make it a "UN Free Zone".


That's a special kind of crazy over there.  Not as bad as Josephine County though.

Beautiful area too.
 
2014-02-21 07:49:05 PM

Summercat: bigsteve3OOO: Like the EPA?  Thank the republican party.  They made it.  Democrats opposed it.  You cant spell conservation without conservative.

Odd, conversation has always been a progressive movement. Maybe the parties re-aligned sometime thereafter?

Or are you insinuating that it's the Democrats today who are complaining about the "Job killing regulations" of the EPA?


I am merely stating the fact that the EPA like most good government programs came from the R party not the democrat.   linky to the wiki
 
2014-02-21 07:52:28 PM

buckler: I swear to farking God, the GOP won't be happy until they've transformed Earth into Giedi Prime

The Lord Jesus Christ returns!

FTFY
 
2014-02-21 07:56:41 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Summercat: bigsteve3OOO: Like the EPA?  Thank the republican party.  They made it.  Democrats opposed it.  You cant spell conservation without conservative.

Odd, conversation has always been a progressive movement. Maybe the parties re-aligned sometime thereafter?

Or are you insinuating that it's the Democrats today who are complaining about the "Job killing regulations" of the EPA?

I am merely stating the fact that the EPA like most good government programs came from the R party not the democrat.   linky to the wiki


I think we're well aware of the political parties that Progressives, Conservatives, and Regressives were part of prior the Southern Strategy of the late 60s/early 70s, and I think we all equally understand that they effectively swapped places - the Solid South now votes Republican, and the former Republican strongholds of the Northeast and Midwest now vote Democratic.

(To everyone else: Yes I know. I'm bored at work.)
 
2014-02-21 07:59:05 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Summercat: bigsteve3OOO: Like the EPA?  Thank the republican party.  They made it.  Democrats opposed it.  You cant spell conservation without conservative.

Odd, conversation has always been a progressive movement. Maybe the parties re-aligned sometime thereafter?

Or are you insinuating that it's the Democrats today who are complaining about the "Job killing regulations" of the EPA?

I am merely stating the fact that the EPA like most good government programs came from the R party not the democrat.   linky to the wiki


So you're saying the bills that helped spawn it, written by Democrats, were opposed by Democrats.

I give Nixon full credit for creating the EPA, but to claim Democrats opposed it when they had a hand in its creation is just a load of bullshiat
 
2014-02-21 08:04:40 PM

apoptotic: Another stunning example of why when my American friends ask me why I don't make more of a fuss about not being allowed to enter the US anymore, I simply reply "I grew up in Idaho".


Ok you can't just throw something like that out there and not explain further. Why exactly are you not allowed to enter the US?
 
2014-02-21 08:08:31 PM
This is the first step toward officially outlawing Liberals and Liberalism.

/pay a tax?  that's a hangin'
 
2014-02-21 08:29:55 PM

FlashHarry: fine. then cut all federal aid to the state.


And you wonder why states turned down obamacare money.

"Here's your money now you're my biatch."

No thanks.
 
2014-02-21 08:55:43 PM

Li'l Robbie: Orange-Pippin: Smeggy Smurf:Sounds good to me.  We don't need your blood money anyway.  Of course this means that we'll cripple the french fry market and good luck getting any more memory chips for your aging computers.  Oh and you're going to have a hard time getting new locomotives as well.


I grow my own potatoes thanks. You can keep your mutated, toxic, derp-infused, ones in your future sludge state.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x600]

Actually, there are quite a few states that have active potato crops.  Among them are Washington,
Oregon, North Dakota, Minnesota, and, a big supplier around here, Wisconsin. They may not
have the reputation of Idaho potatoes, but then, General Motors ran on its reputation - its pre-
WW2 reputation - for years.


Yep! There are quite a few potato farmers around here too. I grow the mini red ones for my family for dirt cheap since I get more to plant every year from last years harvest.

They charge 2.00 a potato for Idaho bakers in the grocer. Now that they will be Toxic-mutant-Bake I can't imagine who in the world would buy them around here.

static.funpic.hu
 
2014-02-21 08:56:50 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Like the EPA?  Thank the republican party.  They made it.  Democrats opposed it.  You cant spell conservation without conservative.


Don't like the EPA. The republicans want to remove it and give big business carte blanche to pollute as they see fit. Enjoy your cancer and flammable water.
 
2014-02-21 08:57:55 PM

buckler: I swear to farking God, the GOP won't be happy until they've transformed Earth into Giedi Prime Ferenginar.

 
2014-02-21 09:16:57 PM

cirby: They may not claim to nullify Federal marijuana laws - but the practical effect is that they have.


Did you not understand what he said, or what?  It doesn't matter what the practical effect is, it matters what they are actually trying to do.  Colorado's law is a statement about what would be enforced by the state, not a dictate about what can be enforced in the state.

One of those ideas is perfectly within the state's power.
The other is a ridiculous legislative pipe dream that is halfway to declaring independence from the U.S.
 
2014-02-21 09:18:23 PM

cchris_39: FlashHarry: fine. then cut all federal aid to the state.

And you wonder why states turned down obamacare money.

"Here's your money now you're my biatch."

No thanks.


I guess that pride goes out the window if it means FEMA money?
Sure, EPA money is easy to turn down - the results take some time to manifest - unlike your average tornado, cancers and birth defects take at least a generation of voters-worth to manifest....and, by then? we'll have to outsource the lab work to a country still teaching science.....
 
2014-02-21 09:25:20 PM
Ah, Idaho. The state in which I grew up. Site of some of the most beautiful natural treasures in the country and many of my fondest memories. Occupied largely by brain damaged shiat weasels.

I've said it before - there is no creature on Earth more selfish, more entitled, and more ungrateful than rural Western Americans. Their entire lifestyle depends on federal largesse, and yet they despise the federal government. They're mostly a bunch of drooling knuckleheads.
 
2014-02-21 09:29:02 PM

El Dudereno: Smeggy Smurf: FlashHarry: fine. then cut all federal aid to the state.

Sounds good to me.  We don't need your blood money anyway.  Of course this means that we'll cripple the french fry market and good luck getting any more memory chips for your aging computers.  Oh and you're going to have a hard time getting new locomotives as well.

We'll get what we want if your land-locked state wants an economy.


Not true. Lewiston, ID is the most inland port in the country accessible to ocean-going vessels. Of course, that's just because the federal government keeps the Columbia and Snake Rivers dredged. Shame about all that government intrusion, right?
 
2014-02-21 09:31:21 PM

Summercat: bigsteve3OOO: Like the EPA?  Thank the republican party.  They made it.  Democrats opposed it.  You cant spell conservation without conservative.

Odd, conversation has always been a progressive movement. Maybe the parties re-aligned sometime thereafter?


No, he is just being disingenuous and a liar.

All Nixon did was create the EPA by reorganizing various other governmental agencies.  It was approved by both the House and Senate, which were both strong Democratic majorities, so there couldn't possibly have been serious Democratic objection.

The act that the EPA functions on, the National Environmental Policy Act, was drafted by a Democratic Senator and passed by a Democratic congress.  It is the thing that actually gives governmental agencies the power to enforce the regulations imposed by NEPA.  Nixon may have brought together a police force, but the Democrats were the ones who made the laws for them to enforce.
 
2014-02-21 09:33:50 PM
I've had a somewhat tinfoil-hatty thought.
Is there a coordinated plot afoot on the part of the American Right to paralyze the Federal Courts by strangling them with litigation stemming from all the unconstitutional or otherwise illegal legislation they are passing?
 
2014-02-21 09:35:25 PM
Tenthamendmentsayswhat? It says states can write their own laws unless the Constitution specifically gives that power to the fedtards.
 
2014-02-21 09:41:20 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Tenthamendmentsayswhat? It says states can write their own laws unless the Constitution specifically gives that power to the fedtards.


Exactly.  And the Feds have the power to enforce Federal laws.  Even in Idaho.
States cannot nullify Federal powers and it's stupid to think that they should be able to pass a law that says they can.
 
2014-02-21 09:41:30 PM

Gawdzila: Summercat: bigsteve3OOO: Like the EPA?  Thank the republican party.  They made it.  Democrats opposed it.  You cant spell conservation without conservative.

Odd, conversation has always been a progressive movement. Maybe the parties re-aligned sometime thereafter?

No, he is just being disingenuous and a liar.

All Nixon did was create the EPA by reorganizing various other governmental agencies.  It was approved by both the House and Senate, which were both strong Democratic majorities, so there couldn't possibly have been serious Democratic objection.

The act that the EPA functions on, the National Environmental Policy Act, was drafted by a Democratic Senator and passed by a Democratic congress.  It is the thing that actually gives governmental agencies the power to enforce the regulations imposed by NEPA.  Nixon may have brought together a police force, but the Democrats were the ones who made the laws for them to enforce.


Oh, I know.

I was engaging him because I was bored at work waiting for my friend to get off her work so she can pick me up for Board Game and RPG night.

Still waiting on her; poor gal  has to drive through Los Angeles to pick my sorry ass up ;_;

(Anyone in Southern California selling a car that runs well enough for ~2 grand?)
 
2014-02-21 09:46:11 PM

Summercat: bigsteve3OOO: Summercat: bigsteve3OOO: Like the EPA?  Thank the republican party.  They made it.  Democrats opposed it.  You cant spell conservation without conservative.

Odd, conversation has always been a progressive movement. Maybe the parties re-aligned sometime thereafter?

Or are you insinuating that it's the Democrats today who are complaining about the "Job killing regulations" of the EPA?

I am merely stating the fact that the EPA like most good government programs came from the R party not the democrat.   linky to the wiki

I think we're well aware of the political parties that Progressives, Conservatives, and Regressives were part of prior the Southern Strategy of the late 60s/early 70s, and I think we all equally understand that they effectively swapped places - the Solid South now votes Republican, and the former Republican strongholds of the Northeast and Midwest now vote Democratic.

(To everyone else: Yes I know. I'm bored at work.)


Wait.  Different approach.

Steve, so you're saying that EPA is a good program?

So why is the Republican party trying to kill it?  Why would the Republican party try to kill a good program?
 
2014-02-21 10:03:10 PM

Gawdzila: Noam Chimpsky: Tenthamendmentsayswhat? It says states can write their own laws unless the Constitution specifically gives that power to the fedtards.

Exactly.  And the Feds have the power to enforce Federal laws.  Even in Idaho.
States cannot nullify Federal powers and it's stupid to think that they should be able to pass a law that says they can.


The feds don't have the power to do anything they please. If it's not spelled out as a power g. en to them in the Constitution, then the states can assert the power for themselves. Simply create an amendment to the Constitution giving the feds total environmental oversight. You actually might succeed with that, but there would likely be some limitations set.

All it will take is one conservative president who will force the matter before funding things like the epa and a hundred other things. Even popular federal systems.
 
2014-02-21 10:11:58 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Gawdzila: Noam Chimpsky: Tenthamendmentsayswhat? It says states can write their own laws unless the Constitution specifically gives that power to the fedtards.

Exactly.  And the Feds have the power to enforce Federal laws.  Even in Idaho.
States cannot nullify Federal powers and it's stupid to think that they should be able to pass a law that says they can.

The feds don't have the power to do anything they please. If it's not spelled out as a power g. en to them in the Constitution, then the states can assert the power for themselves. Simply create an amendment to the Constitution giving the feds total environmental oversight. You actually might succeed with that, but there would likely be some limitations set.

All it will take is one conservative president who will force the matter before funding things like the epa and a hundred other things. Even popular federal systems.


"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const., Art. Vi, cl. 2.

Area Man needs to STFU.
 
2014-02-21 10:12:06 PM

buckler: I swear to farking God, the GOP won't be happy until they've transformed Earth into Giedi Prime.


or Ceti Alpha V.
 
2014-02-21 10:41:04 PM

BMulligan: Noam Chimpsky: Gawdzila: Noam Chimpsky: Tenthamendmentsayswhat? It says states can write their own laws unless the Constitution specifically gives that power to the fedtards.

Exactly.  And the Feds have the power to enforce Federal laws.  Even in Idaho.
States cannot nullify Federal powers and it's stupid to think that they should be able to pass a law that says they can.

The feds don't have the power to do anything they please. If it's not spelled out as a power g. en to them in the Constitution, then the states can assert the power for themselves. Simply create an amendment to the Constitution giving the feds total environmental oversight. You actually might succeed with that, but there would likely be some limitations set.

All it will take is one conservative president who will force the matter before funding things like the epa and a hundred other things. Even popular federal systems.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const., Art. Vi, cl. 2.

Area Man needs to STFU.


The laws of the United States need to be legal first. You seem to be missing that part. Sort of the begging the question fallacy you are using there. A treaty that Obama signs also isn't the law of the land. More constitutionally mandated action is required.
 
2014-02-21 10:45:34 PM

BMulligan: Noam Chimpsky: Gawdzila: Noam Chimpsky: Tenthamendmentsayswhat? It says states can write their own laws unless the Constitution specifically gives that power to the fedtards.

Exactly.  And the Feds have the power to enforce Federal laws.  Even in Idaho.
States cannot nullify Federal powers and it's stupid to think that they should be able to pass a law that says they can.

The feds don't have the power to do anything they please. If it's not spelled out as a power g. en to them in the Constitution, then the states can assert the power for themselves. Simply create an amendment to the Constitution giving the feds total environmental oversight. You actually might succeed with that, but there would likely be some limitations set.

All it will take is one conservative president who will force the matter before funding things like the epa and a hundred other things. Even popular federal systems.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const., Art. Vi, cl. 2.

Area Man needs to STFU.


"In pursuance thereof" is the thing you aren't grasping
 
2014-02-21 11:18:58 PM

Noam Chimpsky: BMulligan: Noam Chimpsky: Gawdzila: Noam Chimpsky: Tenthamendmentsayswhat? It says states can write their own laws unless the Constitution specifically gives that power to the fedtards.

Exactly.  And the Feds have the power to enforce Federal laws.  Even in Idaho.
States cannot nullify Federal powers and it's stupid to think that they should be able to pass a law that says they can.

The feds don't have the power to do anything they please. If it's not spelled out as a power g. en to them in the Constitution, then the states can assert the power for themselves. Simply create an amendment to the Constitution giving the feds total environmental oversight. You actually might succeed with that, but there would likely be some limitations set.

All it will take is one conservative president who will force the matter before funding things like the epa and a hundred other things. Even popular federal systems.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const., Art. Vi, cl. 2.

Area Man needs to STFU.

"In pursuance thereof" is the thing you aren't grasping


Oh, I'm grasping it just fine. You, on the other hand, have no idea what you're talking about. The Commerce Clause empowers Congress to regulate the use and abuse of the environment to the extent that environmental degradation impedes interstate commerce, of course, but there's also the federal government's well established authority over navigable waterways which gives the feds plenty of authority to regulate goundwater and wastewater which commingles with those waters. There's also the little matter of the two thirds of Idaho which literally belongs to the federal government in the form of BLM holdings, Bureau of Reclamation holdings, national forests, and national monuments. The federal government has statutory and common law authority to preserve the integrity of those public lands.

But I tell you what - how about the feds stop enforcing EPA regulations in Idaho, and in return Idaho and her residents can forego their federally subsidized water, their federally subsidized grazing land, their federally subsidized timber land, their federally subsidized mines, and their federal farm price supports. Deal?
 
2014-02-21 11:20:14 PM

Noam Chimpsky: BMulligan: Noam Chimpsky: Gawdzila: Noam Chimpsky: Tenthamendmentsayswhat? It says states can write their own laws unless the Constitution specifically gives that power to the fedtards.

Exactly.  And the Feds have the power to enforce Federal laws.  Even in Idaho.
States cannot nullify Federal powers and it's stupid to think that they should be able to pass a law that says they can.

The feds don't have the power to do anything they please. If it's not spelled out as a power g. en to them in the Constitution, then the states can assert the power for themselves. Simply create an amendment to the Constitution giving the feds total environmental oversight. You actually might succeed with that, but there would likely be some limitations set.

All it will take is one conservative president who will force the matter before funding things like the epa and a hundred other things. Even popular federal systems.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const., Art. Vi, cl. 2.

Area Man needs to STFU.

"In pursuance thereof" is the thing you aren't grasping


"One Supreme Court," is the thing you aren't grasping.

Article III begins with statement:

a) "States shall interpret the Constitution as they see fit, willy nilly and without regard to any effort to advance national policy."

b) "All liberal activist judges shall be dragged off to Gitmo for lifelong interrogation at maximum enhancement."

c) "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court,"

d) "A bag of walnuts."
 
2014-02-21 11:28:41 PM

Baz744: Noam Chimpsky: BMulligan: Noam Chimpsky: Gawdzila: Noam Chimpsky: Tenthamendmentsayswhat? It says states can write their own laws unless the Constitution specifically gives that power to the fedtards.

Exactly.  And the Feds have the power to enforce Federal laws.  Even in Idaho.
States cannot nullify Federal powers and it's stupid to think that they should be able to pass a law that says they can.

The feds don't have the power to do anything they please. If it's not spelled out as a power g. en to them in the Constitution, then the states can assert the power for themselves. Simply create an amendment to the Constitution giving the feds total environmental oversight. You actually might succeed with that, but there would likely be some limitations set.

All it will take is one conservative president who will force the matter before funding things like the epa and a hundred other things. Even popular federal systems.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const., Art. Vi, cl. 2.

Area Man needs to STFU.

"In pursuance thereof" is the thing you aren't grasping

"One Supreme Court," is the thing you aren't grasping.

Article III begins with statement:

a) "States shall interpret the Constitution as they see fit, willy nilly and without regard to any effort to advance national policy."

b) "All liberal activist judges shall be dragged off to Gitmo for lifelong interrogation at maximum enhancement."

c) "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court,"

d) "A bag of walnuts."


The supreme court can strike down federal laws as being unconstitutional.
 
2014-02-22 12:18:24 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Summercat: bigsteve3OOO: Summercat: bigsteve3OOO: Like the EPA?  Thank the republican party.  They made it.  Democrats opposed it.  You cant spell conservation without conservative.

Odd, conversation has always been a progressive movement. Maybe the parties re-aligned sometime thereafter?

Or are you insinuating that it's the Democrats today who are complaining about the "Job killing regulations" of the EPA?

I am merely stating the fact that the EPA like most good government programs came from the R party not the democrat.   linky to the wiki

I think we're well aware of the political parties that Progressives, Conservatives, and Regressives were part of prior the Southern Strategy of the late 60s/early 70s, and I think we all equally understand that they effectively swapped places - the Solid South now votes Republican, and the former Republican strongholds of the Northeast and Midwest now vote Democratic.

(To everyone else: Yes I know. I'm bored at work.)

Wait.  Different approach.

Steve, so you're saying that EPA is a good program?

So why is the Republican party trying to kill it?  Why would the Republican party try to kill a good program?


Because the r party is as bad as the democrat.  I just like pointing out how stupid both party followers are.  Two sides; same coin etc.
 
2014-02-22 12:19:17 AM
Doesn't the federal government own most of Idaho?
 
2014-02-22 12:22:03 AM

cirby: They may not claim to nullify Federal marijuana laws - but the practical effect is that they have.


The difference being that nullification claims to force the federal government out. Here, the federal government has voluntarily refrained from enforcing marijuana laws. The distinction is of massive consequence.


Of course, those state laws won't even slow down any Federal agent who decides to ruin the life of some otherwise-innocent pot smoker or seller who annoyed a politician.

Those "innocent" pot smokers and sellers also know very well that marijuana remains a crime under federal law.

I'm in favor of marijuana legalization. But it's not a constitutional right. Nor is it a state's right to nullify a federal law.
 
2014-02-22 12:24:46 AM

Noam Chimpsky: The supreme court can strike down federal laws as being unconstitutional.


You're right. And their authority to strike them down or not is what? Say it with me now...

SUPREME.

So once the Supreme Court has upheld a federal law as properly falling within the scope of a federal power, and not violative of an individual right, the decision is final.
 
2014-02-22 12:24:50 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Secede, you f*cking cowards


I doubt Canadia wants them
 
2014-02-22 12:36:28 AM

Orange-Pippin: Deadite: Lets not forget one of the main reasons Nixon created the EPA in the first place

Ahh the Cuyahoga River. My uncle was there when it happened

[blog.cleveland.com image 453x353]

[www.clf.org image 850x647]


Which time? The Cuyahoga actually caught fire several times.
 
2014-02-22 12:42:26 AM

cirby: How many of the people championing the Supremacy Clause (which is correct in this case) also think it's okay for Colorado and the other states to effectively legalize marijuana?

/Still against Federal law, for some reason or other


The difference is that the feds can come in at any time and enforce their marijuana laws. It's just that the state doesn't have to help them do it.  With the EPA they, in I da ho, are saying that the feds wouldn't even have the right to enforce federal EPA laws in their state should the fed choose to do so.
 
2014-02-22 12:53:56 AM

Baz744: Noam Chimpsky: The supreme court can strike down federal laws as being unconstitutional.

You're right. And their authority to strike them down or not is what? Say it with me now...

SUPREME.

So once the Supreme Court has upheld a federal law as properly falling within the scope of a federal power, and not violative of an individual right, the decision is final.


Are you claiming Dred Scott is still the rule of the land cos "say it with me"?
 
2014-02-22 01:13:31 AM

FlashHarry: fine. then cut all federal aid to the state.


came for this

at some point the federal gov't is going to just have to sit back and let one of these states wallow in misery and let the people realize when you vote for morons, you get what you deserve.
 
2014-02-22 01:14:51 AM

Noam Chimpsky: Baz744: Noam Chimpsky: The supreme court can strike down federal laws as being unconstitutional.

You're right. And their authority to strike them down or not is what? Say it with me now...

SUPREME.

So once the Supreme Court has upheld a federal law as properly falling within the scope of a federal power, and not violative of an individual right, the decision is final.

Are you claiming Dred Scott is still the rule of the land cos "say it with me"?


No, Dred Scott is not the rule of the land because the Congress passed a law and then...wait for it..the Supreme Court upheld it as Constitutional.

Who had the final decision then?

Oh right. The Supreme Farking Court.
 
2014-02-22 01:15:57 AM

bigsteve3OOO: Satanic_Hamster: Summercat: bigsteve3OOO: Summercat: bigsteve3OOO: Like the EPA?  Thank the republican party.  They made it.  Democrats opposed it.  You cant spell conservation without conservative.

Odd, conversation has always been a progressive movement. Maybe the parties re-aligned sometime thereafter?

Or are you insinuating that it's the Democrats today who are complaining about the "Job killing regulations" of the EPA?

I am merely stating the fact that the EPA like most good government programs came from the R party not the democrat.   linky to the wiki

I think we're well aware of the political parties that Progressives, Conservatives, and Regressives were part of prior the Southern Strategy of the late 60s/early 70s, and I think we all equally understand that they effectively swapped places - the Solid South now votes Republican, and the former Republican strongholds of the Northeast and Midwest now vote Democratic.

(To everyone else: Yes I know. I'm bored at work.)

Wait.  Different approach.

Steve, so you're saying that EPA is a good program?

So why is the Republican party trying to kill it?  Why would the Republican party try to kill a good program?

Because the r party is as bad as the democrat.  I just like pointing out how stupid both party followers are.  Two sides; same coin etc.


If the Republican party is so bad why do you keep defending them?
 
2014-02-22 01:18:14 AM

bigsteve3OOO: Like the EPA?  Thank the republican party.  They made it.  Democrats opposed it.  You cant spell conservation without conservative.


They freed the slaves too, from what I hear. So, who are these guys I see all the time with the red, white and blue elephant logo?
 
2014-02-22 02:01:47 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: Baz744: Noam Chimpsky: The supreme court can strike down federal laws as being unconstitutional.

You're right. And their authority to strike them down or not is what? Say it with me now...

SUPREME.

So once the Supreme Court has upheld a federal law as properly falling within the scope of a federal power, and not violative of an individual right, the decision is final.

Are you claiming Dred Scott is still the rule of the land cos "say it with me"?

No, Dred Scott is not the rule of the land because the Congress passed a law and then...wait for it..the Supreme Court upheld it as Constitutional.

Who had the final decision then?

Oh right. The Supreme Farking Court.


What the hell you talkin bout? Anyhow, some of you might expect the scotards to tell a state that they can't pass strict environmental laws for their state if the federal epa isn't protective enough. You could theoretically get an environmentally unfriendly regime taking over and why would you want to deny the states their Constitutional right to control and protect their environment?
 
2014-02-22 04:26:55 AM
Let me guess:

1. Good. EPA regulations stifle business opportunities
2. Companies are already voluntarily meeting standards without a watchdog breathing down their necks
3. Muh freedoms

What do I win?
 
2014-02-22 05:06:33 AM

Noam Chimpsky: The feds don't have the power to do anything they please. If it's not spelled out as a power g. en to them in the Constitution, then the states can assert the power for themselves.


You'd be correct if we were still living under the Articles of Confederation, but it isn't 1788 anymore.
The Necessary and Proper Clause expressly confers incidental powers upon Congress, specifically so that they can enforce laws that they enact.
 
2014-02-22 09:10:23 AM

buckler: I swear to farking God, the GOP won't be happy until they've transformed Earth into Giedi Prime.


One of the biggest GOP shills, Rush Limbaugh, does kinda remind me of the Baron...
 
2014-02-22 11:03:08 AM

GitOffaMyLawn: Wook: For anyone familiar with EPA regs, this actually isn't a bad idea.

As a person familiar with both Federal and one state's environmental regulations, I can safely say that this is a spectacularly bad idea.

Keeping something [relatively] clean in the first place is much less costly (damaging, injurious) than trying to remediate the damage after the fact.

/ was fortunate enough to work for a good corporate citizen when it came to the environment
// the consequences of an environmental screw-up would have been very unpleasant


EPA:

Mission Statement is great
Application of initial regulations, great
Continually changing the regulations, extremely bad
Effect of long term regulatory impact on Industry, handicapping
Current politicking of EPA has created a mess, both within it and outside of it

This is just my personal experience of working 20 years in industry.  I think they should seriously reform it.  Fire 90% of the people and make the positions immune from political appointments.

And before you city dwelling lib yuppies get pissed off at me, I am an avid outdoor enthusiast with a strong bond to the environment.
 
2014-02-22 11:16:24 AM

Noam Chimpsky: Anyhow, some of you might expect the scotards to tell a state that they can't pass strict environmental laws for their state if the federal epa isn't protective enough


Nope, because stricter environmental regulation doesn't violate the Supremacy of the less-strict EPA. Just like stricter gun legislation in New York doesn't violate the supremacy of ATF regulation.

The whole point of supremacy is that you cannot have LESS strict laws than those at the federal level. It's the reason that places like New York can have a higher minimum wage than the federal law requires.
 
2014-02-22 11:21:58 AM
"They're saying if you pick up sand with a suction dredge, run it through and dump it back in the water, that's pollution. It's pretty much shutting (the dredgers) down. That's the main thing driving this, but the bill pertains to any regulations not approved by the people."

I'm not familiar with this technique, so I'm speaking only from my LEFTIST RAGE against hard working murricans earning an honest buck.

Doesn't this sound incredibly invasive?   Lets suck up an entire riverbank, filter out a couple ounces of gold (along with everything else!!!), and then dump it back into the river, clouding up the water, destroying wildlife habitat and any sport fishing for miles downstream.   Then, the natural mechanisms that purify natural waterways will die off, and the river becomes a stagnant sewer.

I'd really like a scientist to weigh in on this.
 
2014-02-22 11:32:37 AM

Gawdzila: Noam Chimpsky: The feds don't have the power to do anything they please. If it's not spelled out as a power g. en to them in the Constitution, then the states can assert the power for themselves.

You'd be correct if we were still living under the Articles of Confederation, but it isn't 1788 anymore.
The Necessary and Proper Clause expressly confers incidental powers upon Congress, specifically so that they can enforce laws that they enact.


The tenth amendment is still there. I just checked.
 
2014-02-22 11:37:43 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: Anyhow, some of you might expect the scotards to tell a state that they can't pass strict environmental laws for their state if the federal epa isn't protective enough

Nope, because stricter environmental regulation doesn't violate the Supremacy of the less-strict EPA. Just like stricter gun legislation in New York doesn't violate the supremacy of ATF regulation.

The whole point of supremacy is that you cannot have LESS strict laws than those at the federal level. It's the reason that places like New York can have a higher minimum wage than the federal law requires.


The Constitution doesn't say anything about strictness. It's impossible to quantify or qualify.
 
2014-02-22 12:02:23 PM

Noam Chimpsky: cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: Anyhow, some of you might expect the scotards to tell a state that they can't pass strict environmental laws for their state if the federal epa isn't protective enough

Nope, because stricter environmental regulation doesn't violate the Supremacy of the less-strict EPA. Just like stricter gun legislation in New York doesn't violate the supremacy of ATF regulation.

The whole point of supremacy is that you cannot have LESS strict laws than those at the federal level. It's the reason that places like New York can have a higher minimum wage than the federal law requires.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about strictness. It's impossible to quantify or qualify.


No, it isn't. It's a valid legal principle.
 
2014-02-22 12:03:08 PM
That's also not to mention that saying ALL EPA regulation is invalid is an obvious violation of the Supremacy clause, regardless of whether you have difficulty quantifying "strictness"
 
2014-02-22 12:05:57 PM
Also, you are saying the state is allowed to be more restrictive of freedom but not less restrictive of freedoms. Apparently not when it comes to marijuana in co and wa. I don't think scotus would want to make such a ruling, at least not in so many words.
 
2014-02-22 12:39:06 PM

cameroncrazy1984: That's also not to mention that saying ALL EPA regulation is invalid is an obvious violation of the Supremacy clause, regardless of whether you have difficulty quantifying "strictness"


The problem is that the feds don't have the authority to enforce their epa regulations in a state that wants their own. I can think of instances where they should have it, but if they have unlimited powers the hoaxers can enslave you. The decline hiders, for instance. You'd want enough idiots that have been taken in by the.hoax to pass an amendment. On the other hand, regulating dumping in rivers that will affect states down stream is something I would hope has enough support. You'd want the feds to oversee that. So a limited epa would make it to amendment.
 
2014-02-22 12:50:27 PM

Noam Chimpsky: The problem is that the feds don't have the authority to enforce their epa regulations in a state that wants their own.


Yes they do. It's called the supremacy clause. If a state doesn't want the federal government to be supreme then they can form their own country. They can't have it both ways.

I really don't see why this is so hard for you to get.
 
2014-02-22 12:57:42 PM
Guess there's no response to that. About what I figured.
 
2014-02-22 01:04:05 PM

Death Eats a Cracker: apoptotic: Another stunning example of why when my American friends ask me why I don't make more of a fuss about not being allowed to enter the US anymore, I simply reply "I grew up in Idaho".

Ok you can't just throw something like that out there and not explain further. Why exactly are you not allowed to enter the US?


Just due to a combination of my own stupidity and medical misfortune. I have an old DUI conviction in Canada but can't get a travel waiver because I 1) I have panic attacks and 2) when I had a near-fatal allergic reaction to a prescription medication, the 911 operator keyed it in as a possible overdose. So on paper I'm an unstable felon with a drug problem.
 
2014-02-22 01:14:15 PM

apoptotic: Just due to a combination of my own stupidity and medical misfortune. I have an old DUI conviction in Canada but can't get a travel waiver because I 1) I have panic attacks and 2) when I had a near-fatal allergic reaction to a prescription medication, the 911 operator keyed it in as a possible overdose. So on paper I'm an unstable felon with a drug problem.


That answer was no where nearly as cool as the one I envisioned.
 
2014-02-22 11:52:16 PM
Does this mean that Idaho will support those states that want to nullify the DEA on pot?
 
2014-02-23 01:17:36 AM

SilentStrider: Because being able to breathe and drink without poisoning yourself is overrated.


I mean, this. Do we really even need to say this?
 
Displayed 141 of 141 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report