Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Anyhow, back to politics....

Just read this piece a bit ago, and holy feth this lady is dum.



http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/education-secretary-devos-makes-the-wrong-case-school-choice

Absolute fething dumbass nominated by an absolute fething dumbass. Again, it fits.

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Why. Why do these misanthropic bastards feel the need to destroy our environment like this? You can't eat or drink money.

Why do you feel the need to give the EPA jurisdiction over streams/puddles on non-federal land?

Implying you give a gak about the environment and from your posting we know you don't so why even ask?

I'm not implying fething gak.

So... the state can't regulate this?

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Why. Why do these misanthropic bastards feel the need to destroy our environment like this? You can't eat or drink money.

Why do you feel the need to give the EPA jurisdiction over streams/puddles on non-federal land?

Implying you give a gak about the environment and from your posting we know you don't so why even ask?

as much as one may or may not like whembly, it is a fair question to ask.

What he does with the answer may be another matter, but its not an unfair query.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

So, then the next perfectly rational state is to vote for someone even more hostile to all of your concerns? Really? "I can't have everything I want in a candidate, so I might as well have the guy promising to burn it all down"? That's rational?

No, the rational thing would be to vote for someone who does represent you or to not vote at all. The latter is what Clinton had trouble with.

^This.... right here.

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Why. Why do these misanthropic bastards feel the need to destroy our environment like this? You can't eat or drink money.

Why do you feel the need to give the EPA jurisdiction over streams/puddles on non-federal land?

Implying you give a gak about the environment and from your posting we know you don't so why even ask?

I'm not implying fething gak.

So... the state can't regulate this?

If the State won't regulate it, what then? Another Flint?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Why. Why do these misanthropic bastards feel the need to destroy our environment like this? You can't eat or drink money.

Why do you feel the need to give the EPA jurisdiction over streams/puddles on non-federal land?

Implying you give a gak about the environment and from your posting we know you don't so why even ask?

I'm not implying fething gak.

So... the state can't regulate this?

If the State won't regulate it, what then?

Win some elections.

It's a states issue.

EDIT: the EPA didnt' stop Flint.

 whembly wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Why. Why do these misanthropic bastards feel the need to destroy our environment like this? You can't eat or drink money.

Why do you feel the need to give the EPA jurisdiction over streams/puddles on non-federal land?

Because the states can't be trusted to not allow people to dump horrific crap into them.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

So, then the next perfectly rational state is to vote for someone even more hostile to all of your concerns? Really? "I can't have everything I want in a candidate, so I might as well have the guy promising to burn it all down"? That's rational?

No, the rational thing would be to vote for someone who does represent you or to not vote at all. The latter is what Clinton had trouble with.

So, again, the rational thing is to choose a course of action that makes your goals even harder to achieve and causes measurable harm to the very people you pretend to feel solidarity with? "I didn't get my dream job, therefore I let my clansman roommate give me a face tattoo."

 whembly wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Why. Why do these misanthropic bastards feel the need to destroy our environment like this? You can't eat or drink money.

Why do you feel the need to give the EPA jurisdiction over streams/puddles on non-federal land?

This is a simple one Whembs and I'm sure you get it, but by the "puddles" snark, this is probably just another trolling bit, but I'll play. Wetlands are a vital and valuable component of our ecosystem...with the stress here being on their part of a larger, interconnected "system". Wetlands are a valuable and extremely beneficial resource and component of the overall environment. They aren't just "puddles", but exist for a specific reason, perform a myriad of duties and provide a bevy of economic benefits as well as aesthetic ones, whether it be water purification, flood protection, shoreline stabilization, groundwater recharge, and/or streamflow maintenance. Not to mention the obvious critical wildlife habitat provided.

 Verviedi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Why. Why do these misanthropic bastards feel the need to destroy our environment like this? You can't eat or drink money.

Why do you feel the need to give the EPA jurisdiction over streams/puddles on non-federal land?

Because the states can't be trusted to not allow people to dump horrific crap into them.

Why not?

Every god damn state has laws protecting the environment.

 whembly wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Why. Why do these misanthropic bastards feel the need to destroy our environment like this? You can't eat or drink money.

Why do you feel the need to give the EPA jurisdiction over streams/puddles on non-federal land?

Because the states can't be trusted to not allow people to dump horrific crap into them.

Why not?

Every god damn state has laws protecting the environment.

It's easier for money to control state governments. You think corporations won't try to manipulate the state governments? It's a lot harder to interfere with the fed.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Why. Why do these misanthropic bastards feel the need to destroy our environment like this? You can't eat or drink money.

Why do you feel the need to give the EPA jurisdiction over streams/puddles on non-federal land?

Implying you give a gak about the environment and from your posting we know you don't so why even ask?

I'm not implying fething gak.

So... the state can't regulate this?

If the State won't regulate it, what then? Another Flint?

Flint literally had nothing to do with anything you are talking about. Further the EPA knew about it and didn't do anything.

I am not sure arguing that influence is stronger at the state level is a valid reason for arguing the fed has additional jurisdiction over state waterways. Really, it is a murky area and heavily dependent on interpretation, so this action by Trump is not surprising.

Given that he was elected on an environmentally hostile platform which included selling off national land, I don't think it is inconsistent, either.

Elections have consequences and the voters apathetic in the last election need to realize that.

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Why. Why do these misanthropic bastards feel the need to destroy our environment like this? You can't eat or drink money.

Why do you feel the need to give the EPA jurisdiction over streams/puddles on non-federal land?

Implying you give a gak about the environment and from your posting we know you don't so why even ask?

I'm not implying fething gak.

So... the state can't regulate this?

Because that has worked out totally well in the past

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Why. Why do these misanthropic bastards feel the need to destroy our environment like this? You can't eat or drink money.

Why do you feel the need to give the EPA jurisdiction over streams/puddles on non-federal land?

This is a simple one Whembs and I'm sure you get it, but by the "puddles" snark, this is probably just another trolling bit, but I'll play. Wetlands are a vital and valuable component of our ecosystem...with the stress here being on their part of a larger, interconnected "system". Wetlands are a valuable and extremely beneficial resource and component of the overall environment. They aren't just "puddles", but exist for a specific reason, perform a myriad of duties and provide a bevy of economic benefits as well as aesthetic ones, whether it be water purification, flood protection, shoreline stabilization, groundwater recharge, and/or streamflow maintenance. Not to mention the obvious critical wildlife habitat provided.

Under EPA guidelines, my back yard could be declared a wetlands because when it rains there are bodies of water moving through it.

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Why. Why do these misanthropic bastards feel the need to destroy our environment like this? You can't eat or drink money.

Why do you feel the need to give the EPA jurisdiction over streams/puddles on non-federal land?

This is a simple one Whembs and I'm sure you get it, but by the "puddles" snark, this is probably just another trolling bit, but I'll play. Wetlands are a vital and valuable component of our ecosystem...with the stress here being on their part of a larger, interconnected "system". Wetlands are a valuable and extremely beneficial resource and component of the overall environment. They aren't just "puddles", but exist for a specific reason, perform a myriad of duties and provide a bevy of economic benefits as well as aesthetic ones, whether it be water purification, flood protection, shoreline stabilization, groundwater recharge, and/or streamflow maintenance. Not to mention the obvious critical wildlife habitat provided.

Under EPA guidelines, my back yard could be declared a wetlands because when it rains there are bodies of water moving through it.

And a person would realize it is not a wetlands and leave it alone.

 jmurph wrote:
I am not sure arguing that influence is stronger at the state level is a valid reason for arguing the fed has additional jurisdiction over state waterways. Really, it is a murky area and heavily dependent on interpretation, so this action by Trump is not surprising.

Given that he was elected on an environmentally hostile platform which included selling off national land, I don't think it is inconsistent, either.

Elections have consequences and the voters apathetic in the last election need to realize that.

The converse is true.

Environmentalist and the likes would rather the EPA have jurisdiction over state land, since it's easier to petition just the EPA, rather than having to divide resources over 50 states.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Why. Why do these misanthropic bastards feel the need to destroy our environment like this? You can't eat or drink money.

Why do you feel the need to give the EPA jurisdiction over streams/puddles on non-federal land?

This is a simple one Whembs and I'm sure you get it, but by the "puddles" snark, this is probably just another trolling bit, but I'll play. Wetlands are a vital and valuable component of our ecosystem...with the stress here being on their part of a larger, interconnected "system". Wetlands are a valuable and extremely beneficial resource and component of the overall environment. They aren't just "puddles", but exist for a specific reason, perform a myriad of duties and provide a bevy of economic benefits as well as aesthetic ones, whether it be water purification, flood protection, shoreline stabilization, groundwater recharge, and/or streamflow maintenance. Not to mention the obvious critical wildlife habitat provided.

Under EPA guidelines, my back yard could be declared a wetlands because when it rains there are bodies of water moving through it.

And a person would realize it is not a wetlands and leave it alone.

But that person would not be the fed if they had a mind to do a little confiscatin' of my rights.

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Why. Why do these misanthropic bastards feel the need to destroy our environment like this? You can't eat or drink money.

Why do you feel the need to give the EPA jurisdiction over streams/puddles on non-federal land?

This is a simple one Whembs and I'm sure you get it, but by the "puddles" snark, this is probably just another trolling bit, but I'll play. Wetlands are a vital and valuable component of our ecosystem...with the stress here being on their part of a larger, interconnected "system". Wetlands are a valuable and extremely beneficial resource and component of the overall environment. They aren't just "puddles", but exist for a specific reason, perform a myriad of duties and provide a bevy of economic benefits as well as aesthetic ones, whether it be water purification, flood protection, shoreline stabilization, groundwater recharge, and/or streamflow maintenance. Not to mention the obvious critical wildlife habitat provided.

Under EPA guidelines, my back yard could be declared a wetlands because when it rains there are bodies of water moving through it.

That's a ridiculous stretch and you know it...or you wouldn't have to use the word "could".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Why. Why do these misanthropic bastards feel the need to destroy our environment like this? You can't eat or drink money.

Why do you feel the need to give the EPA jurisdiction over streams/puddles on non-federal land?

This is a simple one Whembs and I'm sure you get it, but by the "puddles" snark, this is probably just another trolling bit, but I'll play. Wetlands are a vital and valuable component of our ecosystem...with the stress here being on their part of a larger, interconnected "system". Wetlands are a valuable and extremely beneficial resource and component of the overall environment. They aren't just "puddles", but exist for a specific reason, perform a myriad of duties and provide a bevy of economic benefits as well as aesthetic ones, whether it be water purification, flood protection, shoreline stabilization, groundwater recharge, and/or streamflow maintenance. Not to mention the obvious critical wildlife habitat provided.

Under EPA guidelines, my back yard could be declared a wetlands because when it rains there are bodies of water moving through it.

And a person would realize it is not a wetlands and leave it alone.

But that person would not be the fed if they had a mind to do a little confiscatin' of my rights.

And after 8 years of the Obama administration's EPA, how many times did they come a knockin'? C'mon...

That's a ridiculous stretch and you know it...or you wouldn't have to use the word "could".

Well They never officially did. I assume they would have to affirmatively do so.

Puddles and streams should be federal purview because groundwater doesn't respect state lines.

But jmurph is right. Y'all elected a gakstain clownshow, partially on a "Feth the environment, we need jerbs" platform. This is part of the fallout.

And after 8 years of the Obama administration's EPA, how many times did they come a knockin'? C'mon...

Got you there. I never answer the door unless I know who it is. A little legacy behavior left over from my stalker days.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
Puddles and streams should be federal purview because groundwater doesn't respect state lines.

But jmurph is right. Y'all elected a gakstain clownshow, partially on a "Feth the environment, we need jerbs" platform. This is part of the fallout.

Again, you and your "Y'all elected" nonsense. I sure didn't.

 feeder wrote:
Puddles and streams should be federal purview because groundwater doesn't respect state lines.

No.

Otherwise, why bother with a state government?

But jmurph is right. Y'all elected a gakstain clownshow, partially on a "Feth the environment, we need jerbs" platform. This is part of the fallout.

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Puddles and streams should be federal purview because groundwater doesn't respect state lines.

No.

Otherwise, why bother with a state government?

Right. If they can't do everything, then they should do nothing. There's plenty of governance related things the state can handle on their own. Water quality isn't one of them.

Spoiler:

But jmurph is right. Y'all elected a gakstain clownshow, partially on a "Feth the environment, we need jerbs" platform. This is part of the fallout.

Jeebus that's unpleasant. Poor Melania. Another immigrant doing the job an American won't do.

Cute. Whembly has just resorted to the "lol you lost librul tears snowflake" argument.

 Verviedi wrote:
Cute. Whembly has just resorted to the "lol you lost librul tears snowflake" argument.

He walked right into that one....

I'm cute that way.

Just like feeder is cute about his Melania quip.

Could the EPA have done anything regarding Flint, being a "State Issue" and all which the state had issues fixing the issue?

Where does the incompetence of the state warrant the federal actually doing something about the problem?

Speaking of, question, our highway and transportation structure, does that fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal or the State?

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Puddles and streams should be federal purview because groundwater doesn't respect state lines.

No.

Otherwise, why bother with a state government?

But jmurph is right. Y'all elected a gakstain clownshow, partially on a "Feth the environment, we need jerbs" platform. This is part of the fallout.

Spoiler:

On the one side you have someone wanting to protect the environment.

On the the other you have:


inb4 http://needsmorejpeg.com/

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Could the EPA have done anything regarding Flint, being a "State Issue" and all which the state had issues fixing the issue?

Maybe? There are "drinking water standard" defined by the EPA. I don't know if there's any actual EPA 'oversight' over water utility companies.

Where does the incompetence of the state warrant the federal actually doing something about the problem?

Not sure.

Conversely, what do you do if the federal agency is incompetence?
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/us/durango-colorado-mine-spill-environmental-protection-agency.html

Not sure there's an easy answer.

Speaking of, question, our highway and transportation structure, does that fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal or the State?

I know this. That is a state issue.

However, there's a big caveat. Much of these infrastructure's fundings comes from the Feds, so there are often riders/stipulations attached to these fundings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Puddles and streams should be federal purview because groundwater doesn't respect state lines.

No.

Otherwise, why bother with a state government?

But jmurph is right. Y'all elected a gakstain clownshow, partially on a "Feth the environment, we need jerbs" platform. This is part of the fallout.

Spoiler:

On the one side you have someone wanting to protect the environment.

BS.

It's a question of whether you'd rather have your state maintain their environment as they see fit... or, doing the biddings of a bureaucracy.

The issue arises when the way that a state "sees fit" is straight up wrong, or influenced by polluting corporations.