Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 10/24/2016 11:29:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/24/2016 11:29:26 AM EDT by CPT_CAVEMAN]
is that a good idea?

70-80% seems kinda extreme. I'm not a TreeHugger, but I also don't want to go duck hunting in sewage.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:29:37 AM EDT
Vote for Hillary then
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:31:31 AM EDT
95% of the EPA is bullshit anyways.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:31:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
is that a good idea?

70-80% seems kinda extreme. I'm not a TreeHugger, but I also don't want to go duck hunting in sewage.
View Quote


I support Trump 100% but I agree with you. Inb4 you get called a treehugger.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:32:15 AM EDT
The EPA has little to do with environmental protection and everything to do with people/company/financial control. 80% would be a good start.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:33:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/24/2016 11:38:43 AM EDT by NoVaGator]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By gym007:
Vote for Hillary then
View Quote


this is the 2nd time in 2 days that you've encouraged someone to vote for Clinton.

why do you keep doing that????


apologies... that was actually Cobalty2004 that did that yesterday.

regardless, why would you - one of Trump's OG pumpers - suggest (even jokingly) that someone vote for Clinton?
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:33:18 AM EDT
He is a maniac and hates peasants, clean air, and children.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:33:23 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By deschutes541:


I support Trump 100% but I agree with you. Inb4 you get called a treehugger.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By deschutes541:
Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
is that a good idea?

70-80% seems kinda extreme. I'm not a TreeHugger, but I also don't want to go duck hunting in sewage.


I support Trump 100% but I agree with you. Inb4 you get called a treehugger.


As with most Government programs and regulations, I'd say that 70-80% is BS waste anyways so I think he's on to something.

Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:33:39 AM EDT
How about retarded CAFE standards for vehicles? Those need to go.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:34:10 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoVaGator:


this is the 2nd time in 2 days that you've encouraged someone to vote for Clinton.

why do you keep doing that????
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
Originally Posted By gym007:
Vote for Hillary then


this is the 2nd time in 2 days that you've encouraged someone to vote for Clinton.

why do you keep doing that????

He is a nevertrumper.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:34:33 AM EDT
Don't worry OP hilliary will make sure the EPA determines lead and gunpowder are unsafe to the environment. No congress vote needed.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:35:02 AM EDT
Are any EPA regulations, rules, or policies stricter than those specified by law? If so, those should be on the chopping block. We should not have government red tape in excess of that minimally required by law.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:35:10 AM EDT
As an owner of 3 vehicles with v8 engines, fuck the EPA and CAFE standards, eat a bag of dicks.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:35:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
is that a good idea?

70-80% seems kinda extreme. I'm not a TreeHugger, but I also don't want to go duck hunting in sewage.
View Quote

Who the fuck duck hunts on Capitol Hill?
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:36:17 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BCV:
95% of the EPA is bullshit anyways.
View Quote

I would push that number up to the 98% range.

There's very little the EPA does that actually protects the environment. They are on par with the BATFE with their effectiveness.

Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:36:47 AM EDT
well if he cuts some regs, maybe we can get a lead smelter back in the US so we dont have to buy our lead from china. Then ammo prices can drop.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:37:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/24/2016 11:37:55 AM EDT by HenryReardon]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TruckinAR:

Who the fuck duck hunts on Capitol Hill?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TruckinAR:
Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
is that a good idea?

70-80% seems kinda extreme. I'm not a TreeHugger, but I also don't want to go duck hunting in sewage.

Who the fuck duck hunts on Capitol Hill?

Isn't that where all of the sitting ducks are?
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:37:41 AM EDT
He won't cut anything.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:37:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/24/2016 11:38:53 AM EDT by castlebravo84]
Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
is that a good idea?

70-80% seems kinda extreme. I'm not a TreeHugger, but I also don't want to go duck hunting in sewage.
View Quote


Environmental regulation should be simple; don't pollute the environment if you don't want to get your shit pushed in by lawsuits. There is no need to have a bunch of regulatory hoops for businesses to jump through. It is all bullshit written by the lawyers of big corporations who use the .gov to stomp on their competition.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:38:18 AM EDT
Yes it is a great idea!

I have worked in the environmental business since 1987.

Most of the laws are way overkill.

Liberals who want to control everything you do are running the EPA now.

Vote less government !!!!! Vote Freedom!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:38:24 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HenryReardon:

Isn't that where all of the sitting ducks are?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HenryReardon:
Originally Posted By TruckinAR:
Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
is that a good idea?

70-80% seems kinda extreme. I'm not a TreeHugger, but I also don't want to go duck hunting in sewage.

Who the fuck duck hunts on Capitol Hill?

Isn't that where all of the sitting ducks are?


He does not want to hunt in sewage......
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:38:36 AM EDT
EPA regulations are a major reason so many companies outsource manufacturing or move out of the country altogether.

The regs also stifle competition because smaller companies can't afford to stay compliant.

EPA: "You can't rinse off this lettuce and just have the water drain out into the field behind your building, you must run it through a waste water filtration system and store it for a year."

Small business owner: "How much is a system like that?"

EPA: "Oh, about $50,000."
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:39:12 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By castlebravo84:


Environmental regulation should be simple; don't pollute the environment if you don't want to get your shit pushed in by lawsuits. There is no need to have a bunch of regulatory hoops for businesses the jump through. It is all bullshit written by the lawyers of big corporations who use the .gov to stomp on their competition.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By castlebravo84:
Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
is that a good idea?

70-80% seems kinda extreme. I'm not a TreeHugger, but I also don't want to go duck hunting in sewage.


Environmental regulation should be simple; don't pollute the environment if you don't want to get your shit pushed in by lawsuits. There is no need to have a bunch of regulatory hoops for businesses the jump through. It is all bullshit written by the lawyers of big corporations who use the .gov to stomp on their competition.

You make it sound so simple, but what is the definition of "pollute the environment"?
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:39:44 AM EDT
I wouldn't be too concerned about him following through with anything he said he was going to do, anyway.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:39:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
is that a good idea?

70-80% seems kinda extreme. I'm not a TreeHugger, but I also don't want to go duck hunting in sewage.
View Quote

Remember he said just a few days ago for every reg you bring bring two you'll get rid of. Makes sense. There is a lot of needless overlapping and often conflicting regs. Many are out dated and and need to be replaced with updated regs.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:40:13 AM EDT
every time I go get in my vehicle and see the clear coat peeling off, I get more pissed
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:40:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
is that a good idea?

70-80% seems kinda extreme. I'm not a TreeHugger, but I also don't want to go duck hunting in sewage.
View Quote


Maybe you can start a group that advocates everyone pays higher taxes to subsidize your duck hunting. Oh, wait-
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:40:57 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bagofcrabs65:
He won't cut anything.
View Quote



oh look another pathetic arfcom defeatist.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:41:22 AM EDT
You could get rid of 90% of them, rewrite the rest and have a cleaner environment with easier to understand and enforce rules.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:41:54 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HenryReardon:

You make it sound so simple, but what is the definition of "pollute the environment"?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HenryReardon:
Originally Posted By castlebravo84:
Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
is that a good idea?

70-80% seems kinda extreme. I'm not a TreeHugger, but I also don't want to go duck hunting in sewage.


Environmental regulation should be simple; don't pollute the environment if you don't want to get your shit pushed in by lawsuits. There is no need to have a bunch of regulatory hoops for businesses the jump through. It is all bullshit written by the lawyers of big corporations who use the .gov to stomp on their competition.

You make it sound so simple, but what is the definition of "pollute the environment"?


Ideally, it would be whatever pollution a plaintiff can prove is harmful to the jury in a reformed loser pays legal system.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:42:19 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By chadjetlag:



oh look another pathetic arfcom defeatist.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By chadjetlag:
Originally Posted By bagofcrabs65:
He won't cut anything.



oh look another pathetic arfcom defeatist.

So, you think he will cut the EPA? If he doesn't, what is your excuse?
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:42:57 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BCV:
95% of the EPA is bullshit anyways.
View Quote
Yep.

Slacker isn't going far enough.


Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:43:05 AM EDT
100%

Just because something is necessary does not mean the government has to do it.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:43:34 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By castlebravo84:


Ideally, it would be whatever pollution a plaintiff can prove is harmful to the jury in a reformed loser pays legal system.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By castlebravo84:
Originally Posted By HenryReardon:
Originally Posted By castlebravo84:
Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
is that a good idea?

70-80% seems kinda extreme. I'm not a TreeHugger, but I also don't want to go duck hunting in sewage.


Environmental regulation should be simple; don't pollute the environment if you don't want to get your shit pushed in by lawsuits. There is no need to have a bunch of regulatory hoops for businesses the jump through. It is all bullshit written by the lawyers of big corporations who use the .gov to stomp on their competition.

You make it sound so simple, but what is the definition of "pollute the environment"?


Ideally, it would be whatever pollution a plaintiff can prove is harmful to the jury in a reformed loser pays legal system.


So, fracking...because anyone can get a jury of idiots and show them bullshit on fracking. Also, why is the loser paying something? How does that money solve the problem?
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:44:05 AM EDT
Do you think the government owns the rainwater as the EPA insists? Or that they should be in charge of cleaning up gold mines?

Yeah, the EPA is mostly BS, and should be cut drastically, and their duties more tightly defined. And no rulemaking powers. Make their shit go through congress or presidential orders or something.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:44:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/24/2016 11:48:43 AM EDT by drfcolt]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoVaGator:


this is the 2nd time in 2 days that you've encouraged someone to vote for Clinton.

why do you keep doing that????


apologies... that was actually Cobalty2004 that did that yesterday.

regardless, why would you - one of Trump's OG pumpers - suggest (even jokingly) that someone vote for Clinton?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
Originally Posted By gym007:
Vote for Hillary then


this is the 2nd time in 2 days that you've encouraged someone to vote for Clinton.

why do you keep doing that????


apologies... that was actually Cobalty2004 that did that yesterday.

regardless, why would you - one of Trump's OG pumpers - suggest (even jokingly) that someone vote for Clinton?


NVM


Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:46:40 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By chadjetlag:
Don't worry OP hilliary will make sure the EPA determines lead and gunpowder are unsafe to the environment. No congress vote needed.
View Quote

Why legislate when you can regulate..85% of regulations are bullshit.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:48:16 AM EDT
If he could stop them from making up shit as they go it would be a huge step in the right direction
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:48:57 AM EDT
Does this mean I get my awesome, non-EPA gas cans back.

On this issue alone, he'd get my vote.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:49:04 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoVaGator:


this is the 2nd time in 2 days that you've encouraged someone to vote for Clinton.

why do you keep doing that????


apologies... that was actually Cobalty2004 that did that yesterday.

regardless, why would you - one of Trump's OG pumpers - suggest (even jokingly) that someone vote for Clinton?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
Originally Posted By gym007:
Vote for Hillary then


this is the 2nd time in 2 days that you've encouraged someone to vote for Clinton.

why do you keep doing that????


apologies... that was actually Cobalty2004 that did that yesterday.

regardless, why would you - one of Trump's OG pumpers - suggest (even jokingly) that someone vote for Clinton?

Because in his world if you're not going full Madonna for Trump then you're a DU member in good standing.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:49:19 AM EDT
Who the fuck cares at this point?
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:49:34 AM EDT
Where the fuck was this a month ago?

Go, Donald go!!!

I'd be willing to bet that at least 90% of EPA regs do about as much to ensure clean air and water as the Arfcom CoC does.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:50:13 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By chadjetlag:
The EPA has little to do with environmental protection and everything to do with people/company/financial control. 80% would be a good start.
View Quote

This
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:50:18 AM EDT
You don't need the EPA. Courts can handle cases where people's rights are being infringed.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:51:35 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DieselEngineer:
Are any EPA regulations, rules, or policies stricter than those specified by law? If so, those should be on the chopping block. We should not have government red tape in excess of that minimally required by law.
View Quote

Thanks to the Title V program most air permits are significantly more restrictive than the law. I know nothing about water but can't imagine it's any different.

Most regulatory permitting is done by fiat.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:51:57 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bagofcrabs65:


So, fracking...because anyone can get a jury of idiots and show them bullshit on fracking. Also, why is the loser paying something? How does that money solve the problem?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bagofcrabs65:
Originally Posted By castlebravo84:
Originally Posted By HenryReardon:
Originally Posted By castlebravo84:
Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
is that a good idea?

70-80% seems kinda extreme. I'm not a TreeHugger, but I also don't want to go duck hunting in sewage.


Environmental regulation should be simple; don't pollute the environment if you don't want to get your shit pushed in by lawsuits. There is no need to have a bunch of regulatory hoops for businesses the jump through. It is all bullshit written by the lawyers of big corporations who use the .gov to stomp on their competition.

You make it sound so simple, but what is the definition of "pollute the environment"?


Ideally, it would be whatever pollution a plaintiff can prove is harmful to the jury in a reformed loser pays legal system.


So, fracking...because anyone can get a jury of idiots and show them bullshit on fracking. Also, why is the loser paying something? How does that money solve the problem?


Does the EPA prevent fracking companies from getting sued? Loser pays might help prevent those fracking companies from getting sued by people who aren't sure they will win.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:52:26 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kingpin38506:

I would push that number up to the 98% range.

There's very little the EPA does that actually protects the environment. They are on par with the BATFE with their effectiveness.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kingpin38506:
Originally Posted By BCV:
95% of the EPA is bullshit anyways.

I would push that number up to the 98% range.

There's very little the EPA does that actually protects the environment. They are on par with the BATFE with their effectiveness.

Oh bullshit.

I am a tree hugger by education and professional experience anyway. The EPA fuckin blows but to say 98% of what they do isn't protecting the environment is just making you look silly.

It's more accurate to say that most of what they do is good, but some is utter and complete bullshit political hackery. Clean air and clean water are good things, cleaning up old waste sites that threaten public health is good. We are, up until recently, far better off with some form of the EPA than without. If you really knew the history of the environment prior to 1970 things were kinda fucked up.

All that being said they are completely out of control and need to get the ever loving bitch slapped out of them by congress and the courts. The environment has become the favorite excuse of the left to implement economy destroying wealth redistribution and massive bureaucratic overreach.

My vision for the EPA and DEC in my state is for it to be more of NASA type organization. You want to reduce XYZ? Ok take your budget and go engineer a solution, then share it with business...solve the problems don't just mandate something and let the economy decide it's cheaper to make it overseas. If they actually gave a shit about the planet the would want to keep things being made in the western world where the regulation do protect the environment. Again, I'd rather have an EPA than not...but much like the rest of washington is needs to be burned to the ground and rebuilt with the benefit of hindsight.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:52:36 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BCV:
95% of the EPA is bullshit anyways.
View Quote



This. Removing the vast majority of the innumerable lines of regulations will have no noticeable impact on the environment.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:52:46 AM EDT
I need to educate myself on EPA laws. I enjoy spending time outdoors so my immediate reaction, albeit an uneducated one, is that cutting 80% of laws protecting the places I enjoy may be extreme.
Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:52:51 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bagofcrabs65:
He won't cut anything.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bagofcrabs65:
He won't cut anything.

Originally Posted By METT-T:
I wouldn't be too concerned about him following through with anything he said he was going to do, anyway.

I remember when arfcom wasn't full of whiney old women.

Link Posted: 10/24/2016 11:53:52 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By chadjetlag:
The EPA has little to do with environmental protection and everything to do with people/company/financial control. 80% would be a good start.
View Quote


This, for fuck sake.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top