Record crowds at the last GOP debate...

[RiverguyVT]

No kernels. None,

[RiverguyVT]

Not cute, not even close to being thoughtful.

And I've just shown that the D's take these positions way more than the Rs do.
Nothing to do with "mood of the board" at all.

It is irrational, stupid, tripe.

Flint, MI (which is certainly debatable) over comes the years of GOP policy of de-regulation and stripping the EPA of it's power? Uh no. Sorry. You have shown nothing, Jon Snow...

No. It isn't debateable for anyone interested in facts.

[VoiceOfReason]

Flint, MI (which is certainly debatable) over comes the years of GOP policy of de-regulation and stripping the EPA of it's power? Uh no. Sorry. You have shown nothing, Jon Snow...

WNDR VoR that is bullshit to the nth°.

Just what regulation was deregulated, in re to Flint, stripping the EPA of it's power?

The Copper/Lead rule hasn't been touched. The National Drinking Water standards haven't been rewritten. The Secondary Standards are still there, the labs are still certified...the certification manual is now in it's 5th edition, the Public Drinking Water System standards have been beefed up, Standard Methods is now in it's 22nd edition and still the approved methodology for the last 111 years so just what has changed?

The State of Michigan has primacy they're regs mirror the fed and the EPA still has oversight (EPA Region 5 main office Chicago).

Just what rule was rewritten taking away these programs? Here is the short answer none...it's a dumb canard spread around by dim folks that believe what ever they're told w/o knowing a damn thing about the laws, rules, regulations, policies and enforcement.

At least to your credit you haven't gone around squawking about Fox News or the Koch Brothers. My reading material is 40 CFR Subchapter D Part 141-143 in re to this subject.

That's all well and good Major (excellent post BTW) ... but I didn't bring up Flint... someone else did. And even if you can pin Flint squarely on the Dems (which is hardly conceded)... which party is it that denies environmental science, seeks to repeal environmental regulations and vilifies the EPA? That's all I'm talking about... a cartoon that needles the GOP. River thinks Flint makes the GOP the environmental party? Oh please...

[awesome guy]

Flint, MI (which is certainly debatable) over comes the years of GOP policy of de-regulation and stripping the EPA of it's power? Uh no. Sorry. You have shown nothing, Jon Snow...

WNDR VoR that is bullshit to the nth°.

Just what regulation was deregulated, in re to Flint, stripping the EPA of it's power?

The Copper/Lead rule hasn't been touched. The National Drinking Water standards haven't been rewritten. The Secondary Standards are still there, the labs are still certified...the certification manual is now in it's 5th edition, the Public Drinking Water System standards have been beefed up, Standard Methods is now in it's 22nd edition and still the approved methodology for the last 111 years so just what has changed?

The State of Michigan has primacy they're regs mirror the fed and the EPA still has oversight (EPA Region 5 main office Chicago).

Just what rule was rewritten taking away these programs? Here is the short answer none...it's a dumb canard spread around by dim folks that believe what ever they're told w/o knowing a damn thing about the laws, rules, regulations, policies and enforcement.

At least to your credit you haven't gone around squawking about Fox News or the Koch Brothers. My reading material is 40 CFR Subchapter D Part 141-143 in re to this subject.

That's all well and good Major (excellent post BTW) ... but I didn't bring up Flint... someone else did. And even if you can pin Flint squarely on the Dems (which is hardly conceded)... which party is it that denies environmental science, seeks to repeal environmental regulations and vilifies the EPA? That's all I'm talking about... a cartoon that needles the GOP. River thinks Flint makes the GOP the environmental party? Oh please...

Are you on meth or something? There's trolling, but you're flat out insane.

[Major Kong]

That's all well and good Major (excellent post BTW) ... but I didn't bring up Flint... someone else did. And even if you can pin Flint squarely on the Dems (which is hardly conceded)... which party is it that denies environmental science, seeks to repeal environmental regulations and vilifies the EPA? That's all I'm talking about... a cartoon that needles the GOP. River thinks Flint makes the GOP the environmental party? Oh please...

Nixon created the EPA and went to China...only he could do that. Reagan and both GWBYA and Daddy expanded regulations.

As far as denying Environmental Science hell the EPA is guilty of that more so than anybody or any organization. Don't believe me then talk to the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Mines, US Army Corp of Engineers, National Park Service, Department of Defense, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Transportation and just about every State and Local Agency that has to deal with them...not to mention thousands of stakeholders that have a different view of things.

Battery Recycler's, Tulloch, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Land Use regulations, Administrative hearings and findings contrary to the regs, Special Waste designations screwed up, undermining the Bevill Amendment, not understanding the meaning of BADCT, not understanding Part 265 of RCRA, screwing up Asbestos and PCB regulations and having to try and fix them with other regulations and these are just a few. The EPA has been bitchslapped by the courts more than any other agency by not following protocols, regulatory overreach and just plain ignoring the "science". Due diligence is a term that is foreign to the EPA...to the private sector the EPA preaches ISO 14001 and EMS but the EPA doesn't practice it (see the clusterphuque in Colorado by just not following standard protocol). Politics is more of the word for the EPA now. Research Triangle used to be a great place for research and study for environmental issues now their findings are bastardized by political hacks in DC.

I'm a firm believer in environmental regulations and environmental compliance BUT from the federal perspective the EPA has lost it's focus of it's mission and needs to be either reeled in (something Clinton started in '97) or disbanded and started over. Hell even within the National Office and the ten regional offices there isn't an agreement at what is "legal" and what isn't...just because you have a white paper approval from Region 3 that some procedure might be AOK doesn't mean that Region 9 will accept it.

The EPA has become a big clusterphuque VoR. Nobody has undermined the EPA more than the EPA themselves.

[133743Hokie]

That's just stupid.

To be funny, something must have a kernel of truth to it.
This? ...Just stupid.

Can't see the kernals River? C'mon, you're way better than that.

How about eliminating regulations? Cutting entitlement programs? Siding with industry over the environment? Repealing universal health care? Defunding the arts? Sound like a party you know and love?

I'm not saying every placard in the picture hits a homerun... but most of them do...

most of the placards are actually untrue. Let's take the health care one. The repubs are for making health care more expensive? Nope, that's the deems with Ocare, which has raised costs for the majority.

[VoiceOfReason]

most of the placards are actually untrue. Let's take the health care one. The repubs are for making health care more expensive? Nope, that's the deems with Ocare, which has raised costs for the majority.

True. The GOP wants to reduce healthcare costs by covering fewer people. They have made that very clear

[VisorBoy]

No kernels. None,

So the GOP can not be characterized as against regulation?

[RiverguyVT]

No kernels. None,

So the GOP can not be characterized as against regulation?

No. There's no simple 'yes/no' to that question.

Bush was against de-regulation of the banks.
Clinton signed the law over-turning Glass-Stegall (which Virginia's Bliley(R) was a big proponent of overturning)

The food stuff? That's ridiculous.

I think the GOP used to be for smaller government- that doesn't necessarily mean throwing all laws out the window. It does mean that Washington DC needs a good shrinking, though. The GOP should be for sensible regulation; thing is, when a Dem hears that, they take it to the extreme with shouts of "clean water!" (corollary to the notion that slowing down the rate of increase in spending is a "cut")

Flip side of the coin of the question you're asking...
So. The Dems can not be characterized as being for regulation of every aspect of a person's life?...being for over-regulation?

I think there's as much if not more to support my question than yours.
Vive la difference.

[VoiceOfReason]

No. There's no simple 'yes/no' to that question.

Bush was against de-regulation of the banks.
Clinton signed the law over-turning Glass-Stegall (which Virginia's Bliley(R) was a big proponent of overturning)

The food stuff? That's ridiculous.

I think the GOP used to be for smaller government- that doesn't necessarily mean throwing all laws out the window. It does mean that Washington DC needs a good shrinking, though. The GOP should be for sensible regulation; thing is, when a Dem hears that, they take it to the extreme with shouts of "clean water!" (corollary to the notion that slowing down the rate of increase in spending is a "cut")

Flip side of the coin of the question you're asking...
So. The Dems can not be characterized as being for regulation of every aspect of a person's life?...being for over-regulation?

I think there's as much if not more to support my question than yours.
Vive la difference.

Wow... speaking of headstands. River is doing headstands wearing a tu-tu

The burden of proof was a kernal (since you said "no kernals, none"). Clearly, by your own admission... the kernals have been found.

[RiverguyVT]

No. There's no simple 'yes/no' to that question.

Bush was against de-regulation of the banks.
Clinton signed the law over-turning Glass-Stegall (which Virginia's Bliley(R) was a big proponent of overturning)

The food stuff? That's ridiculous.

I think the GOP used to be for smaller government- that doesn't necessarily mean throwing all laws out the window. It does mean that Washington DC needs a good shrinking, though. The GOP should be for sensible regulation; thing is, when a Dem hears that, they take it to the extreme with shouts of "clean water!" (corollary to the notion that slowing down the rate of increase in spending is a "cut")

Flip side of the coin of the question you're asking...
So. The Dems can not be characterized as being for regulation of every aspect of a person's life?...being for over-regulation?

I think there's as much if not more to support my question than yours.
Vive la difference.

Wow... speaking of headstands. River is doing headstands wearing a tu-tu

The burden of proof was a kernal (since you said "no kernals, none"). Clearly, by your own admission... the kernals have been found.

Not in that meme, the "kernal" (sic) wasn't found. Like I said. The food stuff was silly. And as I posted way above. More of those notions are actually dem issues with dem causes.

...carry on.

[VoiceOfReason]

EWWW... River's Internet Browser History is very, very questionable. TIA...

[VisorBoy]

No kernels. None,

So the GOP can not be characterized as against regulation?

No. There's no simple 'yes/no' to that question.

Bush was against de-regulation of the banks.
Clinton signed the law over-turning Glass-Stegall (which Virginia's Bliley(R) was a big proponent of overturning)

The food stuff? That's ridiculous.

I think the GOP used to be for smaller government- that doesn't necessarily mean throwing all laws out the window. It does mean that Washington DC needs a good shrinking, though. The GOP should be for sensible regulation; thing is, when a Dem hears that, they take it to the extreme with shouts of "clean water!" (corollary to the notion that slowing down the rate of increase in spending is a "cut")

Flip side of the coin of the question you're asking...
So. The Dems can not be characterized as being for regulation of every aspect of a person's life?...being for over-regulation?

I think there's as much if not more to support my question than yours.
Vive la difference.

You don't think the GOP can be considered on some level or in some capacity as being against regulation? That doesn't mean that they are against every regulation. That's the kernel.

[Major Kong]

You don't think the GOP can be considered on some level or in some capacity as being against regulation? That doesn't mean that they are against every regulation. That's the kernel.

I'm a regulatory proponent but I'm also a proponent of not expanding regulations and their scope just for the sake of doing it. I really don't get into the just because this group says we need it and this group says we don't spiel. I like to look at what is already there and what needs to be tweaked or not tweaked. I'm not a fan of new regulation and rules for the sake of it.

When you look at it many of the nation's regulatory authorities and their supporting laws and regulations came from GOP administrations.
FAA
NHTSA
EPA
PHMSA
OSHA
The Coal Act (precursor to MSHA) and the Miner Act '06
IRS

The list goes on. It would be disingenuous to assign one political party or another being against regulation on some level or in some capacity.

Right now in the coalfields of the US there is a battle in re to SMCRA which has been ongoing for 8 years now...USOSMRE, Congress and the POTUS have all got involved in what was a rule issued by OSMRE in 2008 and FUBAR'ed by everybody since. If you ask me both parties are loony tunes.

[133743Hokie]

most of the placards are actually untrue. Let's take the health care one. The repubs are for making health care more expensive? Nope, that's the deems with Ocare, which has raised costs for the majority.

True. The GOP wants to reduce healthcare costs by covering fewer people. They have made that very clear

I've got an idea. Let's raise the cost for 90%of the people to provide coverage for half of the 10% that don't have it (or don't even want it). Yeah, that works. Hey, and let's tell them it will be cheaper. Yeah, that's it.

[CFB Apologist]

That's just stupid.

To be funny, something must have a kernel of truth to it.
This? ...Just stupid.

Can't see the kernals River? C'mon, you're way better than that.

How about eliminating regulations? Cutting entitlement programs? Siding with industry over the environment? Repealing universal health care? Defunding the arts? Sound like a party you know and love?

I'm not saying every placard in the picture hits a homerun... but most of them do...

You can't repeal something that does not exist. Expensive state "exchanges" and decreased care for higher costs is anything but "universal healthcare"- we have nothing close to that in the United States- Obamacare is a massive failure and farce in terms of "universal healthcare"..