Snow and Ice in the South

[scfire86]

Vehicle fuel standards, as an example. The cost of engineering those standards, and more importantly, the cost to the public in terms of repair bills associated with the increased complexity of the engines required to meet those standards, are a perfect example. The problem is that the environmentalists want to eliminate all pollution, despite the costs. Republicans want to eliminate pollution where the coasts to business, consumers and society as a whole are reasonable and the reductions are significant enough to warrant the costs.

This statement is so vague (which I'm sure is its purpose) so as to be complete nonsense.

And for the record, I do believe that manmade global warming is a load of crap.

It is for all of those who lack the ability to read a report or a book with no pictures.

[LaFireEducator]

What possible opposition could you mount against reducing greenhouse gases? And even if you could (you surely can't) why would you? This is where the wheels come off in this debate. If you are against the federal government, or anyone else for that matter, reducing greenhouse gases then you are in favor of pollution. Why is it nonsense to want to reduce pollution?

I am not in favor of pollution, but that being said, there is a cost to that reduction, and there are times when the costs simply are not reasonable or justified.

Vehicle fuel standards, as an example. The cost of engineering those standards, and more importantly, the cost to the public in terms of repair bills associated with the increased complexity of the engines required to meet those standards, are a perfect example. The problem is that the environmentalists want to eliminate all pollution, despite the costs. Republicans want to eliminate pollution where the coasts to business, consumers and society as a whole are reasonable and the reductions are significant enough to warrant the costs.

And for the record, I do believe that manmade global warming is a load of crap.

[captnjak]

Not saying reducing greenhouse gases is a bad thing, and some regulation of greenhouse gases is a good thing. But the problem is that when the government regulates to the point it becomes cheaper for manufacturing and industry to move overseas, it does. Cheap labor isn't the only reason things are being manufactured in China.

It is possible for the feds to increase regulations to reduce greenhouse emissions here, but for net global emissions to increase as businesses simply move to areas with fewer regulations.

So you are AGAINST trying to reduce greenhouse gases produced by the federal government?

We can only control what we can control.

Manufacturing has NOT moved overseas because of government regulation run amok. That is a fairy tale told by big business to get people who believe in small government on their side. They have gone overseas because it is drastically cheaper to build factories and hire employees. Very likely that there are income tax advantages too. Less regulation is just a small by-product compared to the costs I mentioned.

[WVFD705]

Not saying reducing greenhouse gases is a bad thing, and some regulation of greenhouse gases is a good thing. But the problem is that when the government regulates to the point it becomes cheaper for manufacturing and industry to move overseas, it does. Cheap labor isn't the only reason things are being manufactured in China.

It is possible for the feds to increase regulations to reduce greenhouse emissions here, but for net global emissions to increase as businesses simply move to areas with fewer regulations.

[captnjak]

I guess you're right. After all the republicans want dirty air and dirty water.

Keystone Pipeline. Happy now?

I saw today that Obama wants to reduce greenhouse gases produced by the federal government by 40%. Nonsense. I'll have to idle my car extra long in the driveway tomorrow morning to celebrate.

What possible opposition could you mount against reducing greenhouse gases? And even if you could (you surely can't) why would you? This is where the wheels come off in this debate. If you are against the federal government, or anyone else for that matter, reducing greenhouse gases then you are in favor of pollution. Why is it nonsense to want to reduce pollution?

[scfire86]

I guess you're right. After all the republicans want dirty air and dirty water.

They certainly don't support clean air and water.

Keystone Pipeline. Happy now?

Still makes no sense given the context.

I saw today that Obama wants to reduce greenhouse gases produced by the federal government by 40%. Nonsense. I'll have to idle my car extra long in the driveway tomorrow morning to celebrate.

Good for Obama. Obviously gas is not a high priced item for you if you can afford to sit and get zero miles to the gallon.

[LaFireEducator]

Because clean air and water are such a bother. How much poison do you want to eat and drink?


Huh? Is this a tourettes remark?

I guess you're right. After all the republicans want dirty air and dirty water.

Keystone Pipeline. Happy now?

I saw today that Obama wants to reduce greenhouse gases produced by the federal government by 40%. Nonsense. I'll have to idle my car extra long in the driveway tomorrow morning to celebrate.

[scfire86]

The fact is that the EPA has run amuck with ridiculously stringent clean water regulations. Most Republicans support reasonable loosening of some of those restrictions.

Because clean air and water are such a bother. How much poison do you want to eat and drink?

Keystone Pipelines.

Huh? Is this a tourettes remark?

[LaFireEducator]

Like which ones and what do they consider reasonable regulations?

Please be specific.

Most Republicans are not openly anti-coal, like Obama. Given today's technology coal is a reasonably clean, and more importantly cheap, fuel source, not to mention that it is the economic lifeblood of Appalachia.

The fact is that the EPA has run amuck with ridiculously stringent clean water regulations. Most Republicans support reasonable loosening of some of those restrictions.

Keystone Pipelines.

[scfire86]

Not at all.

I think there are many Republicans today that make reasonable environmental arguments, given the compromises need to continue the use of fossil fuels and bring manufacturing back to the US, while at the same time not financially overburdening the business sector and allowing for reasonable profit margins.

Like which ones and what do they consider reasonable regulations?

Please be specific.

[LaFireEducator]

Great, then you just blew up your argument of GOP electeds supporting reasonable enviro regulations.

Thanks.

Not at all.

I think there are many Republicans today that make reasonable environmental arguments, given the compromises need to continue the use of fossil fuels and bring manufacturing back to the US, while at the same time not financially overburdening the business sector and allowing for reasonable profit margins.

[scfire86]

And when Reagan was president it was a different era with different problems.

Some of what Reagan did as President would not be applicable and not good policy with the current state of affairs. If he proposed the same agenda today, I would likely not vote for him.

Great, then you just blew up your argument of GOP electeds supporting reasonable enviro regulations.

Thanks.

[LaFireEducator]

The difference is that I point to things Reagan did as Governor of CA that would keep him from getting elected president today as a GOP.

The same can't be said of JFK as a senator or Clinton as governor.

And when Reagan was president it was a different era with different problems.

Some of what Reagan did as President would not be applicable and not good policy with the current state of affairs. If he proposed the same agenda today, I would likely not vote for him.

[scfire86]

Whoa, whoa, whoa! You didn't dare bring JFK into this, did you?

Oh, snap.

There are a lot of people would also say Bill Clinton is dang near too moderate to ever get nominated in the present democrat party.

The difference is that I point to things Reagan did as Governor of CA that would keep him from getting elected president today as a GOP.

The same can't be said of JFK as a senator or Clinton as governor.

[slackjawedyokel]

I've heard it said that JFK probably wouldn't be considered a Democrat these days, either.

There are a lot of people would also say Bill Clinton is dang near too moderate to ever get nominated in the present democrat party.