|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 11 2015 05:25 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 03:49 kwizach wrote:On June 11 2015 02:54 Danglars wrote:On June 10 2015 22:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Obama administration is planning a series of actions this summer to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions from wide swaths of the economy, including trucks, airplanes and power plants, kicking into high gear an ambitious climate agenda that the president sees as key to his legacy.
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce as soon as Wednesday plans to regulate carbon emissions from airlines, and soon after that, draft rules to cut carbon emissions from big trucks, according to people familiar with the proposals. In the coming weeks, the EPA is also expected to unveil rules aimed at reducing emissions of methane—a potent greenhouse gas—from oil and natural-gas operations.
And in August, the agency will complete a suite of three regulations lowering carbon from the nation’s power plants—the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s climate-change agenda.
The proposals represent the biggest climate push by the administration since 2009, when the House passed a national cap-and-trade system proposed by the White House aimed at reducing carbon emissions.
Anticipating the rules, some of which have been telegraphed in advance, opponents of Mr. Obama’s regulatory efforts are moving to block them. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), is urging governors across the country to defy the EPA by not submitting plans to comply with its rule cutting power-plant emissions.
Nearly all Republicans and some Democrats representing states dependent on fossil fuels say the Obama administration is going beyond the boundary of the law and usurping the role of Congress by imposing regulations that amount to a national energy tax driven by ideological considerations. Source Here we go again. Nearly all Republicans and some Democrats representing states dependent on fossil fuels say the Obama administration is going beyond the boundary of the law and usurping the role of Congress by imposing regulations that amount to a national energy tax driven by ideological considerations.
“The Administration seems determined to double down on the type of deeply regressive regulatory policy we’ve already seen it try to impose on lower-and-middle-class families in every state,” Mr. McConnell said in a statement. “These Obama administration regulations share several things in common with the upcoming directives: they seem motivated more by ideology than science, and they’re likely to negatively affect the economy and hurt both the cost and reliability of energy for hard-working American families and small-business owners.” The quote "they seem motivated more by ideology than science", coming from Mitch McConnell, is just too funny. Talk about being a massive hypocrite. Instead of focusing on his hypocrisy why don't you focus on the validity of his statement? Politicians are all hypocrites, as are most people.
Can you explain to me how rules whose aim is to reduce contributions to climate change are supposed to be "motivated more by ideology than science"? It seems to me that it's pretty obviously McConnell's position, not the EPA's, which falls under that description.
|
The EPA is a partisan organization...
|
On June 11 2015 14:26 cLutZ wrote:
The EPA is a partisan organization...
Which party was it that proposed the EPA again?
|
On June 11 2015 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Which party was it that proposed the EPA again?
An idiotic Nixon? Who would not be considered a modern Republican despite Democrats obsessing over his "Southern Strategy"?
Plus all that being irrelevant because its one of the many executive departments that can make policy however the President wants because of Chevron and other bizarre interpretations of the Constitution?
|
Are you implying that modern day Republicans would never support the forming of the EPA (if it didn't exist) and also do not support the EPA at all (maybe would even support abolishing it?)/
|
On June 11 2015 15:05 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 14:26 cLutZ wrote:
The EPA is a partisan organization... Which party was it that proposed the EPA again? An idiotic Nixon? Who would not be considered a modern Republican despite Democrats obsessing over his "Southern Strategy"?
Nixon didn't do it alone it was a bipartisan effort and Reagan hired Nixon's Administrator of the EPA who was originally suggested by a Republican AG.
The EPA didn't move away from Republicans, they moved away from the EPA.
|
The EPA, as currently exercised by Presidents, is clearly unconstitutional. Its not that clean air is not Republican, its that agencies being able to interpret laws with so much leniency is not.
|
On June 11 2015 15:16 cLutZ wrote:
The EPA, as currently exercised by Presidents, is clearly unconstitutional. Its not that clean air is not Republican, its that agencies being able to interpret laws with so much leniency is not.
So what do you imagine the solution to this problem you see is?
|
You pass the "regulations" currently being passed by the EPA through the traditional bicameral +presentment method.
|
On June 11 2015 15:28 cLutZ wrote:
You pass the "regulations" currently being passed by the EPA through the traditional bicameral +presentment method.
And if that process allows for irreparable damage that threatens national security?
|
Then you amend the Constitution.
|
On June 11 2015 15:33 cLutZ wrote:
Then you amend the Constitution.
And if they vote against that?
|
On June 11 2015 15:44 GreenHorizons wrote:And if they vote against that?
Then you engage in rebellion.
By the way, the answer to the next question is: No form of representative government will fulfill your goals.
|
On June 11 2015 15:45 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 15:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 15:33 cLutZ wrote:
Then you amend the Constitution. And if they vote against that? Then you engage in rebellion. By the way, the answer to the next question is: No form of representative government will fulfill your goals.
So since we know the regulations won't pass and neither will the amendment should the Pentagon rebel now to save time or should they wait till they have officially failed?
|
Why is the Pentagon rebelling? If they did rebel to execute the EPA's plans it would lay bare how obviously corrupt the plan is:
They have decided to implement a rule that only a minority of the representatives would vote for, because of the preference of the President who didn't campaign on the rule, or any rule resembling the one he has implemented.
|
On June 11 2015 15:57 cLutZ wrote:
Why is the Pentagon rebelling? If they did rebel to execute the EPA's plans it would lay bare how obviously corrupt the plan is:
They have decided to implement a rule that only a minority of the representatives would vote for, because of the preference of the President who didn't campaign on the rule, or any rule resembling the one he has implemented.
Because congress refuses to deal with the threat climate change poses.
|
Its good to know that you favor a military coup because a bill from 40 years ago did not include regulations of Carbon Dioxide that meet your standards.
|
The main problem is that you have a terribly corrupt and partisan two-party system, and your politicians try to work around the system instead of inside of it. That is not a good state of affairs. Either nothing gets done, or stuff gets done in a very undemocratic way.
Sadly, the only people in power to change that system are also the same people that are good at using that system.
And it is apparently not bad enough to lead to a popular uprising just yet. And of course you have already equipped your police with military equipment to deal with such an uprising.
|
There's no good answer for what to do when your government, or parts thereof, fail to do there job (or fail to do it in a vaguely competent way).
Building a better system would certainly be helpful though; the current system has a serious lack of ways to address systemic issues, it only has ways to address individual issues.
also the EPA isn't partisan.
|
On June 11 2015 16:16 cLutZ wrote:
Its good to know that you favor military coup because bill from 40 years ago did not include regulations of Carbon Dioxide that meet your standards.
I'm not for it, I'm for electing people who don't throw snowballs in the senate and think they made a point. I'm for desperately trying to help people who think electing morons like that is a good idea.
Rebellion was your idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
