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.

(Breitbart.com)   When an organization exposes people to toxic pollutants without informing them of the risks, it's time to shutter that organization   (breitbart.com) divider line 284
    More: Ironic, EPA, organizations, pollution, Southern California  
•       •       •

2380 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Apr 2014 at 12:57 PM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



284 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-03 03:43:30 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Just because I find the radical left worthy if scorn and ridicule, doesn't mean I'm a conservative shill for the GOP. All it means is I find the intractablilty of herbal tea baggers as ridiculous as I find it in the tea baggers on the right.


You know, it's funny. I don't know when I marked you in my favorites, but "complete and utter 'both sides r bad' douche" was exactly the right label
 
2014-04-03 03:44:04 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: It is bad enough to get caught-out in a bald-faced lie, but your attempt to excuse yourself from it is pathetic and makes you come across as phony.  You'd do much better to just accept it and move on.

What lie?

Look, would you like to talk about the thread topic or not? I mean, you can't even seriously prove a claim that I was lying, why would I even think you could talk seriously about this report?


If you say it often enough, you may be able to convince yourself of your honesty and integrity.  But there is no way I am going to engage a known liar in this or any other conversation.
 
2014-04-03 03:44:33 PM  

Lucky LaRue: cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: It is bad enough to get caught-out in a bald-faced lie, but your attempt to excuse yourself from it is pathetic and makes you come across as phony.  You'd do much better to just accept it and move on.

What lie?

Look, would you like to talk about the thread topic or not? I mean, you can't even seriously prove a claim that I was lying, why would I even think you could talk seriously about this report?

If you say it often enough, you may be able to convince yourself of your honesty and integrity.  But there is no way I am going to engage a known liar in this or any other conversation.


So, you can't prove your claim that I'm a liar, you'd much rather run away.

Sounds about right.
 
2014-04-03 03:45:46 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Lucky LaRue: Just because I find the radical left worthy if scorn and ridicule, doesn't mean I'm a conservative shill for the GOP. All it means is I find the intractablilty of herbal tea baggers as ridiculous as I find it in the tea baggers on the right.

You know, it's funny. I don't know when I marked you in my favorites, but "complete and utter 'both sides r bad' douche" was exactly the right label


Wow. Talk about spot-on.
 
2014-04-03 03:46:54 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Lucky LaRue: Just because I find the radical left worthy if scorn and ridicule, doesn't mean I'm a conservative shill for the GOP. All it means is I find the intractablilty of herbal tea baggers as ridiculous as I find it in the tea baggers on the right.

You know, it's funny. I don't know when I marked you in my favorites, but "complete and utter 'both sides r bad' douche" was exactly the right label


Why is it so difficult for you (not just you, specifically, of course) to see the entire political spectrum?  It strikes me as very narrow minded to look at politics as an either-or proposition, and a condemnation of the radical fringes does not preclude the possibility of *any* position.
 
2014-04-03 03:47:21 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Lucky LaRue: Just because I find the radical left worthy if scorn and ridicule, doesn't mean I'm a conservative shill for the GOP. All it means is I find the intractablilty of herbal tea baggers as ridiculous as I find it in the tea baggers on the right.

You know, it's funny. I don't know when I marked you in my favorites, but "complete and utter 'both sides r bad' douche" was exactly the right label


Do you have me farkied? If so what is it under?
 
2014-04-03 03:51:50 PM  

Lucky LaRue: If you say it often enough, you may be able to convince yourself of your honesty and integrity. But there is no way I am going to engage a known liar in this or any other conversation.


Engage me.  The general consensus in this thread is the the EPA apparently screwed up on how they oversaw these experiments but that this screw up should not be used to hinder or shut down the EPA as many commenters in the article are advocating doing .  Do you agree?  Also, you apparently have an issue with radical leftist Herbal Teabaggers. Please, point to any comments in this thread that you think were made by a radical, Herbal Teabagger as you define the term and explain why.  Finally, please define Herbal Teabagger as you use it, and give some examples.

Or don't.  I don't give a shiat. You appear to be whinging about how no one understands your unique point of view, yet refuse to answer questions to allow other to understand you. Your wounds of being misunderstood are self-inflicted.
 
2014-04-03 03:53:41 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Lucky LaRue: Just because I find the radical left worthy if scorn and ridicule, doesn't mean I'm a conservative shill for the GOP. All it means is I find the intractablilty of herbal tea baggers as ridiculous as I find it in the tea baggers on the right.

You know, it's funny. I don't know when I marked you in my favorites, but "complete and utter 'both sides r bad' douche" was exactly the right label

Why is it so difficult for you (not just you, specifically, of course) to see the entire political spectrum?  It strikes me as very narrow minded to look at politics as an either-or proposition, and a condemnation of the radical fringes does not preclude the possibility of *any* position.


I understand your frustrations indeed, but there really isn't anything worthy of bashing the left in this story.

You have bashed them unjustly.

I am one who hates being grouped with those who wish to stone homosexuals, but sometimes I act like I belong with that group.
 
2014-04-03 03:55:10 PM  
t1.rbxcdn.com
 
2014-04-03 04:00:44 PM  

grumpfuff: [t1.rbxcdn.com image 420x420]


They don't care.  You can tell them, "hey, I am trolling the hell out of you right now" and the most vociferous will just keep coming back to get another taste of the bait.
 
2014-04-03 04:03:51 PM  

Lucky LaRue: grumpfuff: [t1.rbxcdn.com image 420x420]

They don't care.  You can tell them, "hey, I am trolling the hell out of you right now" and the most vociferous will just keep coming back to get another taste of the bait.


And now you've just admitted to trolling, something that is against the FarQ. Congratulations!
 
2014-04-03 04:04:23 PM  

cman: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Lucky LaRue: Just because I find the radical left worthy if scorn and ridicule, doesn't mean I'm a conservative shill for the GOP. All it means is I find the intractablilty of herbal tea baggers as ridiculous as I find it in the tea baggers on the right.

You know, it's funny. I don't know when I marked you in my favorites, but "complete and utter 'both sides r bad' douche" was exactly the right label

Do you have me farkied? If so what is it under?


Meh, no nasty labels for you, you're not a megadouche, you're just wrong a lot :-)
 
2014-04-03 04:06:38 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: cman: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Lucky LaRue: Just because I find the radical left worthy if scorn and ridicule, doesn't mean I'm a conservative shill for the GOP. All it means is I find the intractablilty of herbal tea baggers as ridiculous as I find it in the tea baggers on the right.

You know, it's funny. I don't know when I marked you in my favorites, but "complete and utter 'both sides r bad' douche" was exactly the right label

Do you have me farkied? If so what is it under?

Meh, no nasty labels for you, you're not a megadouche, you're just wrong a lot :-)


I try not to be a douche. I don't always succeed.

But you are right, I am wrong a lot.
 
2014-04-03 04:07:27 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: grumpfuff: [t1.rbxcdn.com image 420x420]

They don't care.  You can tell them, "hey, I am trolling the hell out of you right now" and the most vociferous will just keep coming back to get another taste of the bait.

And now you've just admitted to trolling, something that is against the FarQ. Congratulations!


Ah.. not only a liar but you are incapable of reading as well.  I am beginning to see a pattern, here.  Since you aren't capable of comprehension, you will have to take my assurances that I most definitely did not admit to trolling in that statement.
 
2014-04-03 04:15:27 PM  

cman: Lucky LaRue: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Lucky LaRue: Just because I find the radical left worthy if scorn and ridicule, doesn't mean I'm a conservative shill for the GOP. All it means is I find the intractablilty of herbal tea baggers as ridiculous as I find it in the tea baggers on the right.

You know, it's funny. I don't know when I marked you in my favorites, but "complete and utter 'both sides r bad' douche" was exactly the right label

Why is it so difficult for you (not just you, specifically, of course) to see the entire political spectrum?  It strikes me as very narrow minded to look at politics as an either-or proposition, and a condemnation of the radical fringes does not preclude the possibility of *any* position.

I understand your frustrations indeed, but there really isn't anything worthy of bashing the left in this story.

You have bashed them unjustly.

I am one who hates being grouped with those who wish to stone homosexuals, but sometimes I act like I belong with that group.


I really didn't intend to bash liberals that hard today.  My initial comment was just laughing at them for reacting to the story by denigrating Breitbart and deflecting the argument to what corporations are doing wrong.  Then everyone got all "ZOMG!  He called us herbal teabaggers!" and pretending not to know what that means and, well, it kind of degenerated from there.
 
2014-04-03 04:17:43 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Why is it so difficult for you (not just you, specifically, of course) to see the entire political spectrum? It strikes me as very narrow minded to look at politics as an either-or proposition, and a condemnation of the radical fringes does not preclude the possibility of *any* position.


See, the irony is that in a macro sense, it's YOU and people like you--no the partisans--that are the problem with the political discourse.

You're willing to smear your own feces on anything and everything to get attention and to feel "superior" because you're not self-aware enough to realize how bad you're making yourself look.
 
2014-04-03 04:18:30 PM  

Lucky LaRue: cman: Lucky LaRue: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Lucky LaRue: Just because I find the radical left worthy if scorn and ridicule, doesn't mean I'm a conservative shill for the GOP. All it means is I find the intractablilty of herbal tea baggers as ridiculous as I find it in the tea baggers on the right.

You know, it's funny. I don't know when I marked you in my favorites, but "complete and utter 'both sides r bad' douche" was exactly the right label

Why is it so difficult for you (not just you, specifically, of course) to see the entire political spectrum?  It strikes me as very narrow minded to look at politics as an either-or proposition, and a condemnation of the radical fringes does not preclude the possibility of *any* position.

I understand your frustrations indeed, but there really isn't anything worthy of bashing the left in this story.

You have bashed them unjustly.

I am one who hates being grouped with those who wish to stone homosexuals, but sometimes I act like I belong with that group.

I really didn't intend to bash liberals that hard today.  My initial comment was just laughing at them for reacting to the story by denigrating Breitbart and deflecting the argument to what corporations are doing wrong.  Then everyone got all "ZOMG!  He called us herbal teabaggers!" and pretending not to know what that means and, well, it kind of degenerated from there.


Sometimes we have to be reminded of our biases. We are all human.

There are times that I say the dumbest shiat and think it is the smartest thing man has ever said. There are those on Fark who tend to call me out when I spill that kind of bullshiat. Which, in a way, is nice, as it keeps us all on our toes.
 
2014-04-03 04:18:50 PM  
cdn.ksk.uproxx.com

Breitbart.  Accurate!
 
2014-04-03 04:21:11 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Ah.. not only a liar but you are incapable of reading as well.


Yep, you are both of those things. You repeatedly lie about me lying in this thread. And clearly you are incapable of reading the EPA report.
 
2014-04-03 04:24:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: Ah.. not only a liar but you are incapable of reading as well.

Yep, you are both of those things. You repeatedly lie about me lying in this thread. And clearly you are incapable of reading the EPA report.


img3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-04-03 04:24:57 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: Ah.. not only a liar but you are incapable of reading as well.

Yep, you are both of those things. You repeatedly lie about me lying in this thread. And clearly you are incapable of reading the EPA report.


I am kind of embarrassed for you, but it it's fascinating watching you twist yourself into a knot of illogical conceit.
 
2014-04-03 04:28:30 PM  
 

Lucky LaRue: I really didn't intend to bash liberals that hard today. My initial comment was just laughing at them for reacting to the story by denigrating Breitbart and deflecting the argument to what corporations are doing wrong. Then everyone got all "ZOMG! He called us herbal teabaggers!" and pretending not to know what that means and, well, it kind of degenerated from there.


Breitbart still sucks, and it's not deflection when the headline says we should shutter the EPA due to this story, and everyone points out, uh, we don't do that to all the polluting companies out there, and, then, when everyone pretty much agreed after the first 15 comments that what the EPA did was wrong, but that calls to shut down the EPA are asinine, and you spent the next 90+ comments turning it into pathetic display where you refused to engage in debate and just showed your ass for no reason.  Thanks, for being you, you unique flower.  And, no, I still don't know what an Herbal Teabagger is, and neither does Google.
 
2014-04-03 04:34:18 PM  

RyogaM: but that calls to shut down the EPA are asinine


I can agree to that, but the EPA does need to be put in their place every once in a while.  Lately, it seems like they have been taking pointers from he AFT on how to conduct business and have been interjecting themselves into all kinds of things that they shouldn't.
 
2014-04-03 04:38:35 PM  

RyogaM: Lucky LaRue: I really didn't intend to bash liberals that hard today. My initial comment was just laughing at them for reacting to the story by denigrating Breitbart and deflecting the argument to what corporations are doing wrong. Then everyone got all "ZOMG! He called us herbal teabaggers!" and pretending not to know what that means and, well, it kind of degenerated from there.

Breitbart still sucks, and it's not deflection when the headline says we should shutter the EPA due to this story, and everyone points out, uh, we don't do that to all the polluting companies out there, and, then, when everyone pretty much agreed after the first 15 comments that what the EPA did was wrong, but that calls to shut down the EPA are asinine, and you spent the next 90+ comments turning it into pathetic display where you refused to engage in debate and just showed your ass for no reason.  Thanks, for being you, you unique flower.  And, no, I still don't know what an Herbal Teabagger is, and neither does Google.


I am not engaging in a debate because I don't disagree with you - the EPA was wrong and there needs to be consequences, but those consequences shouldn't entail shutting them down.  I am not the subby for this thread, but my impression of the headline is that subby was shooting for irony and making chariture of liberal attitudes towards corporations.  You appeared to have taken it literally, though.

It's kind of disappointing that you have heard the term "teabagger" used for the last 6 years and yet are still incapable of discerning what an "herbal teabagger" might be, but I suppose I need to learn to to expect subtlety in everyone's thought process.
 
2014-04-03 04:43:29 PM  

Lucky LaRue: cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: Ah.. not only a liar but you are incapable of reading as well.

Yep, you are both of those things. You repeatedly lie about me lying in this thread. And clearly you are incapable of reading the EPA report.

I am kind of embarrassed for you, but it it's fascinating watching you twist yourself into a knot of illogical conceit.


How so? You should have maybe pointed it out before now, instead of just repeating unfounded accusations post after post.
 
2014-04-03 04:44:07 PM  

HeadLever: RyogaM: but that calls to shut down the EPA are asinine

I can agree to that, but the EPA does need to be put in their place every once in a while.  Lately, it seems like they have been taking pointers from he AFT on how to conduct business and have been interjecting themselves into all kinds of things that they shouldn't.


Such as?
 
2014-04-03 04:49:58 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: HeadLever: RyogaM: but that calls to shut down the EPA are asinine

I can agree to that, but the EPA does need to be put in their place every once in a while.  Lately, it seems like they have been taking pointers from he AFT on how to conduct business and have been interjecting themselves into all kinds of things that they shouldn't.

Such as?


Aww shiat, you wanted examples?? Dammit. Lets not get all technical, now.
 
2014-04-03 04:51:01 PM  

Lucky LaRue: DarwiOdrade: Lucky LaRue: DarwiOdrade: Lucky LaRue: I like how the herbal teabaggers are completely ignoring the fact that the EPA didn't provide full disclosure and focusing on a Breitbart beat-down.  That's why I like you guys - your truly the intellectual elite.

OK - let's talk about pollutants and full disclosure change the subject. I'll go first:
Fracking companies won the right to keep secret the chemical cocktails they pump underground during shale gas drilling in North Carolina under a chemical disclosure rule approved Tuesday by the N.C. Mining and Energy Commission.

FTFY..

Aw - defending corporations and attacking government - aren't you adorable.

Thanks for illustrating my point - you can't bring yourself to acknowledge the EPA failed to disclose health risks.  Instead you attack the people reporting the story, the oil and gas industry for fracking, and me for pointing out your absurdity.

This is why nobody takes you people seriously.


This is why nobody takes you seriously and there will never be a Democrat elected president.
 
2014-04-03 04:52:17 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Such as?


Remember the Sackett Case?
 
2014-04-03 04:54:21 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: cameroncrazy1984: HeadLever: RyogaM: but that calls to shut down the EPA are asinine

I can agree to that, but the EPA does need to be put in their place every once in a while.  Lately, it seems like they have been taking pointers from he AFT on how to conduct business and have been interjecting themselves into all kinds of things that they shouldn't.

Such as?

Aww shiat, you wanted examples?? Dammit. Lets not get all technical, now.


Y'all are on shaky ground when even the Washington Post has an article titled "The EPA is earning a reputation for abuse".
 
2014-04-03 04:55:33 PM  

magusdevil: Lucky LaRue: DarwiOdrade: Lucky LaRue: DarwiOdrade: Lucky LaRue: I like how the herbal teabaggers are completely ignoring the fact that the EPA didn't provide full disclosure and focusing on a Breitbart beat-down.  That's why I like you guys - your truly the intellectual elite.

OK - let's talk about pollutants and full disclosure change the subject. I'll go first:
Fracking companies won the right to keep secret the chemical cocktails they pump underground during shale gas drilling in North Carolina under a chemical disclosure rule approved Tuesday by the N.C. Mining and Energy Commission.

FTFY..

Aw - defending corporations and attacking government - aren't you adorable.

Thanks for illustrating my point - you can't bring yourself to acknowledge the EPA failed to disclose health risks.  Instead you attack the people reporting the story, the oil and gas industry for fracking, and me for pointing out your absurdity.

This is why nobody takes you people seriously.

This is why nobody takes you seriously and there will never be a Democrat elected president.


Wut?
 
2014-04-03 04:58:40 PM  

Lucky LaRue: I am not engaging in a debate because I don't disagree with you - the EPA was wrong and there needs to be consequences, but those consequences shouldn't entail shutting them down. I am not the subby for this thread, but my impression of the headline is that subby was shooting for irony and making chariture of liberal attitudes towards corporations. You appeared to have taken it literally, though.

It's kind of disappointing that you have heard the term "teabagger" used for the last 6 years and yet are still incapable of discerning what an "herbal teabagger" might be, but I suppose I need to learn to to expect subtlety in everyone's thought process.


Then you agree with 99% of the thread and yet pretended that it epitomized some nebulous Herbal Teabagger echo chamber for no reason.  Congrats.

As for the headline, it epitomizes an idea I've heard again and again from Republicans.  Oh, look at these assholes. http://act.theteaparty.net/12358/its-time-to-shut-down-epa/  or these fancy lads and lasses http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/us/politics/18epa.html?_r=0   These reactions do not occur in a vacuum, there are actually people who think due to one or two bad actions, the entire EPA needs to be shuttered. 

Again as the the TEA party.  The TEA in Teabagger stands for Taxed Enough Already.  They began as a Tax protester group that appealed mainly to Republicans who were embarrassed by the last year of the Bush administration and frustrated by the loss of McCain to Obama.  Every single Teabagger I know personally, and I know dozens, were Bush supporting, pro-life, Republicans who, after Bush reached historic low levels of support, suddenly discovered that they were the true Conservatives all along and Bush was an aberration. Then voted for every Republican they could.

There is no counterpoint to the left, not yet anyway.  Until you have a movement on the left that embraces a new party due to embarrassment with their old party and it's leader, and yet continues to vote for the Democrats and support them at every turn, then you will have an Herbal Teaparty.  That does not exist.  And, until enough people use the phrase for someone to get the definition, you are using a meaningless and quite nonsensical phrase.  Don't be surprised when no one understands it.
 
2014-04-03 05:00:14 PM  

HeadLever: RyogaM: but that calls to shut down the EPA are asinine

I can agree to that, but the EPA does need to be put in their place every once in a while.  Lately, it seems like they have been taking pointers from he AFT on how to conduct business and have been interjecting themselves into all kinds of things that they shouldn't.


Like what?
 
2014-04-03 05:01:58 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Aww shiat, you wanted examples?? Dammit. Lets not get all technical, now.


The Sackett Case was not really technical as that was an obvious infringement of the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment.  Another example was the Spruce No. 1 Mine permit lawsuit where they got biatchslapped for trying to veto a permit AFTER they approved it.  Again that heavy handed tactic did not work out too well for them.

Something a bit more 'technical' will be the issues and debate (and resulting lawsuits) regarding a certain stock pond in Wyoming.  This one will have quite a few eyes on it as it moves forward.
 
2014-04-03 05:02:24 PM  

RyogaM: Then you agree with 99% of the thread and yet pretended that it epitomized some nebulous Herbal Teabagger echo chamber for no reason. Congrats.


This thread has gone off on a number of tangents.  It is disingenuous on your part to attempt to conflate them into a single topic just so you can congratulate yourself on scolding me over it.
 
2014-04-03 05:04:30 PM  

yakmans_dad: Like what?


Again, the Sackett case, the Spruce No. 1 Mine case and now the Andy Johnson issue.
 
2014-04-03 05:05:46 PM  
Chapter 2
Studies Obtained Required Approvals,but Sequence of Approvals Not Followed andProcedures Could Be Improved
Conclusions:  The EPA obtained the required approvals for the five studies we reviewed.However, in four of five studies, the branch chief approved the study on the NHEERL sign-off sheet after the initial IRB approval. In addition, several of thereviews did not occur in the order called for in NHEERL guidance, andinformation was missing on the NHEERL sign-off sheet for several studies.


Chapter 3
EPA Obtained Informed Consent From Human Subjects, but Consent Forms Addressed Pollutant Exposure Risks Differently
Conclusions:  The EPA obtained informed consent from the 81 study subjects that participated in the five studies in 2010 and 2011 as required by 40 CFR 26.116. However, the EPA inconsistently addressed pollutant risk in its consent forms. Only two of the five studies' consent forms included the risk of death from exposure to high levels of selected air pollutants such as PM and diesel exhaust, and only one study's consent form included the upper limits of exposure levels. Because EPA's regulations do not define "reasonably foreseeable risks," EPA investigators, the IRB and the HSRRO must define the term using their professional judgment,which leads to inconsistencies in addressing risks in the study consent forms.Such inconsistencies could lead to inconsistent protection of human subjects. TheEPA needs to develop guidance to help ensure more consistent interpretation ofreasonably foreseeable risks. Furthermore, the EPA should provide the studysubjects with a summary of the EPA assessments about the short- and long-termeffects of the pollutants to which human study subjects will be exposed.The EPA's diesel exhaust studies did not include language about the long-term cancer risks of diesel exhaust. The NHEERL manager explained that the cancer risk from diesel exhaust was not relevant to the 2-hour exposures included in the LAMARCK study. However, evidence suggests that at least some human study subjects would like to know if a study involves risk of death, even if the risk is very small. In the future, the EPA should include the long-term risk of cancer to potential subjects in its consent forms so study subjects can make the mostinformed decision about whether to participate in a study.

There's no gotcha-moment here.

And the Breitbart article is blatantly inflammatory where it remarks on diesel studies conducted on children and junkscience's FOIA request, insinuating some sort of cover-up cuz, well, 8-year olds, dude.
 
2014-04-03 05:09:16 PM  

Lucky LaRue: even the Washington Post

An entirely different entity than The Washington Post. Which existed as a liberal newspaper for around 2 years. +40 years ago. Jeff Bezos owns it. Katherine Graham died in 2001 and wasn't really that liberal to begin with. It became a neo-con mouthpiece throughout the Bush admin which constantly did the "even the Washington Post" gag to lie the country into war.

So, "even the Washington Post" is stale.

 
2014-04-03 05:12:43 PM  

yakmans_dad: Lucky LaRue: even the Washington Post

An entirely different entity than The Washington Post. Which existed as a liberal newspaper for around 2 years. +40 years ago. Jeff Bezos owns it. Katherine Graham died in 2001 and wasn't really that liberal to begin with. It became a neo-con mouthpiece throughout the Bush admin which constantly did the "even the Washington Post" gag to lie the country into war.

So, "even the Washington Post" is stale.


Seriously, arguing that the Washington Post isn't liberal is eerily similar to teabaggers insisting that Fox News isn't conservative.
 
2014-04-03 05:13:51 PM  
 
2014-04-03 05:17:23 PM  

HeadLever: yakmans_dad: Like what?

Again, the Sackett case, the Spruce No. 1 Mine case and now the Andy Johnson issue.


The SCOTUS changed what had been the understanding of its jurisdiction. As the appellate court decisions showed.

The Spruce mine decision is ridiculous. The abuses of coal mines on clean water are what the EPA was established to counter.

Why should anyone be able to divert established water ways simply because they really, really, really want to?
 
2014-04-03 05:20:09 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: cameroncrazy1984: HeadLever: RyogaM: but that calls to shut down the EPA are asinine

I can agree to that, but the EPA does need to be put in their place every once in a while.  Lately, it seems like they have been taking pointers from he AFT on how to conduct business and have been interjecting themselves into all kinds of things that they shouldn't.

Such as?

Aww shiat, you wanted examples?? Dammit. Lets not get all technical, now.


I know, crazy right?

HeadLever: yakmans_dad: Like what?

Again, the Sackett case, the Spruce No. 1 Mine case and now the Andy Johnson issue.


Can you please explain what makes those things "not the EPA's problem"?
 
2014-04-03 05:22:31 PM  
forum.gamerage.com
 
2014-04-03 05:22:43 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Seriously, arguing that the Washington Post isn't liberal is eerily similar to teabaggers insisting that Fox News isn't conservative.


lol

Here's a guy that thinks anything that isn't owned by Murdoch is liberal.
 
2014-04-03 05:24:20 PM  
cameroncrazy1984:

HeadLever: yakmans_dad: Like what?

Again, the Sackett case, the Spruce No. 1 Mine case and now the Andy Johnson issue.

Can you please explain what makes those things "not the EPA's problem"?


How do you function on a day-to-day basis?  HeadLever provided you examples you asked for and your best counter argument is to ask him to explain how they are not the EPA's problem.

WTF is wrong with you, dude?
 
2014-04-03 05:25:49 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: That kind of article and its comments are quite brain numbing.

They've managed to reach some sort of clueless nirvana, sort of Shangrai-Duh.


It's Shangri-la.  You might have been thinking of Shambhala (Shambhaduh?)
 
2014-04-03 05:31:02 PM  

Lucky LaRue: arguing that the Washington Post isn't liberal is eerily similar to teabaggers insisting that Fox News isn't conservative.


Fox New isn't conservative, it is fair and balanced. :)

//To me the Washington Post is "center-left" but then again my definition of "left" is pretty farkin far left.
 
2014-04-03 05:32:45 PM  

Flargan: Lucky LaRue: arguing that the Washington Post isn't liberal is eerily similar to teabaggers insisting that Fox News isn't conservative.

Fox New isn't conservative, it is fair and balanced. :)

//To me the Washington Post is "center-left" but then again my definition of "left" is pretty farkin far left.


LOL.. A friend of mine who is an unabashed teabagger calls fox news "center-right"..
 
2014-04-03 05:34:52 PM  

yakmans_dad: The SCOTUS changed what had been the understanding of its jurisdiction


The 'understanding of its jurisdiction' was devoid of the ability of citizens to challenge administrative compliance orders.  Hence the biatchslap.


The Spruce mine decision is ridiculous. The abuses of coal mines on clean water are what the EPA was established to counter.

The 'abuse' of clean water had nothing to do with this case as that was addressed in the earlier approval of the permit.  Again, what was at the heart of this case was the fact that they exceeded their jurisdictional authority by vetoing a permit that was already issued.  You are not arguing that the ends justify the means here, are you?

Why should anyone be able to divert established water ways simply because they really, really, really want to?

So long as they have the required permits, why not?
 
2014-04-03 05:40:20 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Can you please explain what makes those things "not the EPA's problem"?


?

These were defiantly the EPA's problems in the context of how they conduct business. In several of these instances they have been required to correct their jurisdictional 'problems' by various federal courts.
 
Displayed 50 of 284 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report