Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

EPA finalizes stricter air pollution rules for Wisconsin, other states
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal ^ | 7/7/11 | Lee Bergquist and Thomas Content

Posted on 07/07/2011 6:36:17 PM PDT by Jean S

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 last
To: sergeantdave

The last thing I am going to do is take direction from a dumbass.

My “insult” was to your flaming rhetoric.

Call any “kitties” you wish if you can’t handle facts.

81 posted on 07/08/2011 7:36:02 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Why do They hate her so much?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: houeto


Thats the kind of air we need! People have to walk around wearing masks over their mouths and noses, and just think of the lung disease they will suffer from down the road, if they don`t have it already. But what the hey,,,think of the profit industries in China are making! Profit should always come before health. sarc/

82 posted on 07/08/2011 7:38:03 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

One of the huge problems with these cases is that you practically have to devote your life to it. Tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of pages of documents have to be read and understood involving several complex disciplines. Who has time for this?

However, I must say that much, if not most, of EPA’s scientific work is extremely questionable if not fraudulent. It has never impressed me. Generally what is done is a position is taken then studies are undertaken or referenced which support that conclusion.

Nor is any consideration given of what the threat the technology replaces would have done. Protesting coal fired plants is one thing but is there anyone who seriously maintains that using wood for energy would have caused fewer deaths.

I think if EPA safety standards were used for approval of new drugs we would see almost none approved.

83 posted on 07/08/2011 7:44:57 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Why do They hate her so much?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Who needs clean air! SAY NO TO CLEAN AIR!!!

I'm copying a quoted comment from that link:

"Our air and water are far cleaner than it was 100 years ago. We no longer heat and cook on coal or wood. Our cars are far cleaner than they were 20 years ago. Our water is cleaner then it's been in over a century. So please tell me why we're forcing increases in energy now when the Obam Depression is showing no signs of improvement. Unless your goal is to move the last of the jobs to China, India, South America and Africa. One small problem. Not everyone can be government workers or on entitlements. Someone has to work and pay taxes."
So stop being a liberal buffoon.
84 posted on 07/08/2011 7:47:27 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Until Obama, has there ever been, in history, a Traitorous Ruler?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Gondring; arrogantsob

You got so much wrong, I don’t know where to start.

The migratory molecule rule has nothing to do with the clean water act. It has everything to do with the fascist EPA persecuting a farmer.

The migratory molecule rule doesn’t exist. It was never passed by congress and nobody, including the Congress or the US Supreme Court, knows what it means.

It was an invention by the fascists in the EPA to destroy a farmer in Michigan.

I set this out as an example to expose that know-nothing leftist arrogantsob as the fraudster that he is. As I mentioned, arrogantsob couldn’t answer a single question I posed.

“Ed Muskie sponsored the “migratory molecule rule?”

Really? Give me a cite. You can’t. Muskie was dead many years before the fascist EPA tried to destroy the farmer with the pretend “molecule rule.”

Congress never passed a “migratory molecule rule.” It was an invention by the Nazi EPA to destroy a farmer.

“Soon after the Clean Water Act was passed, it was determined in federal court that Congress intended it to apply to more than strictly navigable waters.”

That’s bullshit. In SWANCC v US Army, the Supreme court very clearly stated that the CWA is very restrictive.

“There have been dozens of court cases confirming the CWA jurisdiction over these “Migratory Molecule” inputs.”

You’re really fishing off the deep end and don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

There was ONE US Supreme Court decision addressing the stupid and insane “migratory molecule rule.”

“I’m not qualified to answer those questions...”

Ah, the first reasonable thing you’ve said.

“But as stated above, Congress determined, and the SCOTUS agreed, that many inputs are regulated under the CWA.”

What in blazes does that mean?

“The “Migratory Moleule Rule” came in response to SWANCC v. USACOE, so there’s not an issue of “butting up against” it.”

No, the migratory molecule rule was shot down by the Supreme Court based on SWANCC v US ARMY.

Okay, give it your best shot: Explain to everyone here what the “migratory molecule” rule is. I’ll bet a box of doughnuts that you can’t because you needed to be involved in the court case to understand the extreme fascist stupidity of the EPA.

85 posted on 07/08/2011 8:03:54 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
The basis for the claim, on my part, is that they're ALL bad rules. Regulations for the sake of regulating. EPA has an $11 billion budget and 18,000 employees. All those people need something to do. And what they do is destroy the free market one rule at a time.

As for flaws in the basis for the rule, it's ALL flawed -- the medical studies, the air/deposition model (whatever that is), the economic analysis, and the MACTs. And I say that with confidence, even without having seen any of it.

As for your Enviro-Com appeal to fear, it means as much to me as EPA's supporting data and analyses. After all, without the ludicrous appeals to fear there would be no EPA.

86 posted on 07/08/2011 8:05:35 PM PDT by PENANCE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

Why are you yammering on about “farmers” and “migratory molecules” when this article is about the Clean Air Act case that Wisconsin filed?

And why do you get so nasty at those pointing out the fact that this is all to be laid at Congress’ door? Congress can change laws when presented with rational argument and proof. It has amended the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act several times each. It could abolish both.

However, belligerence won’t overcome the massive environmentalist propaganda which has inundated the population.

87 posted on 07/08/2011 8:16:56 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Why do They hate her so much?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

Do you pride yourself in getting off topic like a liberal?

We were talking about the migratory molecule rule, not DQA.

If you care to investigate, the migratory molecule rule was shot down by the USSC.

As I asked, explain the Migratory molecule rule. Then you ask me what part of the rule doesn’t meet the DQA?

You can’t even state what the migratory molecule rule is. You think Muskie wrote legislation to enable the migratory molecule rule. Cite it.

88 posted on 07/08/2011 8:41:23 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

“Why are you yammering on about “farmers” and “migratory molecules” when this article is about the Clean Air Act case that Wisconsin filed?”

Because my original post brought these subjects up.

89 posted on 07/08/2011 8:44:56 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

But those have nothing to do with this article or case. There are hundreds of horror stories which could be discussed and dozens of abstruse and bizarre rules created and enforced but they are outside this case.

What is really interesting about this is that Wisconsin filed suit probably at the direction of a Democrat governor and secretary of state (the drunk one likely) and it has blown up in their faces with this ruling. RATS are screwing the state even after they were kicked out.

90 posted on 07/08/2011 9:10:12 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Why do They hate her so much?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Gondring; All

Thanks for the ping back to the thread. A very lively discussion indeed. Yes, I read every post...every word. I’ll repost my original...

Great post & thread. Thanks to all.

DEFUND/(DISMANTLE/DESTROY when necessary), socialist collectives, foreign and domestic.

...and add...

With that in mind (after funding for socialist collectives has stopped) legislatures (state and federal) could be part-time with 1/10th pay, NO benefits, NO retirement, NO perks.

91 posted on 07/09/2011 6:33:27 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: saltus
God is in control.

Note Apostle Paul’s words in Romans 13:

Now harmonize that with the American Revolution. Were all of those Christian men in rebellion against God?

92 posted on 07/09/2011 9:01:51 AM PDT by The Theophilus (Obama's Key to win 2012: Ban Haloperidol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
What the hell are they going to plug all those electric cars into?

I have one suggestion, but it'd be below the belt.

93 posted on 07/09/2011 2:02:53 PM PDT by 4woodenboats (Obama.....a perfect example of why you can't trust someone that won't look you in the eye)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jean S
I don't understand all the negative comments about this. If you had a kid with asthma you might feel differently. Just because the government does lots of things very poorly does not mean that the government should not do anything.

My guess is that almost all of us are grateful that we have police to enforce traffic laws. This is one example of the proper role of government. How else could traffic laws be enforced? In the same way, the only way to ensure that some company doesn't dump huge amounts of pollution into the air because it is more profitable than removing the pollution is with laws enforced by some policing agency, such as EPA.

94 posted on 07/09/2011 10:12:06 PM PDT by RonBush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson