No oversight at all - I knew what you meant. I mentioned it because in my case you might just be right.

Its self evident in the first line, you presented an interpretaion and presented it as fact then did an interpretation of your interpretation.
Simple facts to establish, what was the timeline of the legislation in question.
If article A is in motion and article A passes then that is a fact
If article B is in motion and article B doesn't pass then that is a fact.
Saying someone is using article A as a backdoor to article B's failure is pure bollox and all the "impact" comes from article A not the actions following the failure of article B.
What you are presenting is an arguement from someone who is opposed to A&B but is trying to portray A as B.

Plus of course your arguement following that is also nonsense as the action isn't suddenly "enacted".

If the timelines of the legislation and the executive orders are in question, that can be presented as opposing evidence. Instead you merely chose to say "it's bollocks!" This is not debate, this is "I disagree with the points you've made, therefore you're crazy!" If you think a point I've made is "nonsense" then present your point of view or evidence as to why it is nonsense. Otherwise, you might as well just troll with "u suck, republican nazi! don't u have some old ladies to throw off cliffs?"

I had posted facts and my interpretation of them, with the hope that someone might present a counter viewpoint that I could use to test my reasoning as a check on my own personal bias, and thus, in effect, learn something and grow as a person. I also had hoped that my presentation of the facts and interpretation thereof might inspire the same self critiquing in others.

Unfortunately, it would seem that hope is futile as I am attempting to use the internet as a vehicle for that discussion.

And yes, in America an executive order is "suddenly enacted" and carries the same force as a law, which is why it is a dangerous precedent to use them to rule by fiat as a means of getting around Congress's law making authority.

Review the definition of an ad hominem attack before falsely accusing someone of making one.


Two people have now pointed out that your "facts" are in reality "interpretations." There's your critique.

All the evidence needed was supplied.

No this is "I disagree with you presenting interpretations as facts and then doing interpretations of those "facts" and claiming they have a factual basis"

No.

BTW as a simple example of how you are talking bollox again.......
The claim you made was about the changes to plant under the EPA legislation and the costs associated with those.

Here, let's learn how to debate and refute points. It's easy! I'll show you how.

Claim: The President's new executive order to the EPA to limit pollution from coal plants has harmed workers as plant owners have decided it is cheaper to decommission the plants rather than comply with new EPA regulations (regulations btw, not legislation, as legislation is passed by the legislative branch of the government, whereas regulations are issued by a regulatory agency, such as the EPA). This has resulted in layoffs, further exacerbating the unemployment problem, and placed undue stress on the electrical grid, as coal is the number one energy source in the United States.

Bad example: "That's bollocks!" This merely makes an emotional exclamation, rather than attempting to refute the point, and adds nothing to the discussion.
Good example: "That's bollocks! Most plants are able to afford the new regulations, and the implementation of them provides new jobs to workers at other plants. The plants that close down were nearing the end of their lives anyway, and the workers who worked at them will still have a job in their decommission or can work in other power plant infrastructure that doesn't use coal. Furthermore, the grid won't be stressed, as new super clean fairydust powerplants are coming online to replace the coal plants before they go down, thus giving us a surplus of energy that we can sell to Canada and even help the debt!"

Claim: The President is purple, this must mean he is an outerspace alien hellbent on destruction of the Planet Earth.

Bad example: "That's an interpretation! Not a fact!"
Good example: "Clearly anyone can see that the President is not, in fact, purple. Have you tried adjusting the color hue on your television set? I'm sure you'll find that once you have determined the President is not, in fact, purple, you'll find your fears that the president is a space alien are unwarranted. In fact, here's a picture showing the president is not in fact purple: ..."

Claim: The President is using executive orders to rule by fiat in an attempt to advance his agenda while ignoring checks and balances placed by Congress when they fail to pass legislation he wants. Example: Fact A. Fact B. Interpretation: Fact B is a direct result of Fact A.

Bad example:"You have presented interpretations as fact." "How?" "That is self evident."
Good example: "While both Fact A and Fact B are matters of public record, there is no correlation, as Fact B occurred before Fact A and is thus incapable of being the effect of cause Fact A. [However, this does not refute the interpretation that the President's implementation of a law by executive order that Congress has denied through consensus vote undermines Congress's authority as the lawmaking arm of the US Government] Furthermore, the President's executive powers have been used for many centuries to enforce the president's agenda, and thus Congress's power as a law making body has already been compromised, for better or worse. See: Andrew Jackson's infamous '...now let them enforce it...' rebuttal to the Supreme Court's ruling that it was unconstitutional for him to force the relocation of certain Ancient American tribes."

Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

A condescending attitude isn't going to make people want to debate with you.

Awww, sounds like someone needs a hug. <3?

Edit: And I disagree with your statement, as your condescending attitude devoid of facts or counter arguments but full of evasion has only made me want to debate more. :>

No, that happens to be a very good word which sums up the entire point in one fell swoop with no emotions apart from those which take it so, like you have.
Another example of bollox is your "claim" ... "good example" post.

Face it stix you are just another one of those usual talking pointers who is repeating the same back door rubbish that has been doing the rounds, I fully expect a rant about ebony next.

Now *that* was a good ad hominem. Thumbs up, mate!

Oberon how dare you attempt to add levity to this thread through hilariously captioned pictures! :>

no one does it with the panache of tribesman!

If only his debate skills were as polished! Then we could have some fun!

I'm sowwy :oops::03:

The skills are polished all they need to be, you are presenting something as something it is not, you are then taking that thing and inventing an arguement out of "facts" you just made up, even the arguement from your made up facts invents more "facts".

Simple question for ya. Under these terrible executive orders(which your current president seem to be getting a historicly low number of written) and under the sneaky "backdoor" that amazingly is the frontdoor plans....when will the power plants be affected (apart from those that have applied for new extentions to their existing facilities)?

A further question to see if you can actually think.
Given the large astroturf and lobbying outrage being widely vented in relation to the coal industry with the clean air, can you link through the EPA to another system of permits that is up for serious review following the huge problems the industry has created in utilising its "cheap fuel" policy?

Ahhh I love that "holier than thou" attitude of the ultra-left. It makes things so much more fun. :]

Good to see you've actually managed to produce a little substance, small as it may be; though you still need to work on your 5-year-oldesque "nuh uh, u suck!" method of arguing your point of view.

The number of executive orders by the President is an irrelevant point. We're arguing quality over quantity here and whether issuing directives to the EPA to carry out regulations that have already been tossed out by Congress undermines Congress's authority, a point which you have heretofore ignored.

Since you seem interested in arguing the impact of the EPA regulations, I will present a relevant Regulatory Impact Analysis by the EPA regarding one of their recent rule changes.

The RIA for the "Final Transport Rule":
http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/FinalRIA.pdf

A few lovely tidbits:
"This selected remedy covers the electric power industry and allows interstate emissions trading of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the covered states..."

In other words, the EPA is implementing interstate cap and trade, something which Congress struck down. In effect, an executive agency whose only oversight is the office of the President of the United States has directly undermined the authority of Congress to make law. In addition to this, selling credits doesn't tend to make the problem better, it just moves a bunch of money around between people who were already polluting and people who weren't going to pollute anyway, thus resulting in no net effect on the desired outcome: to reduce emissions.

However, I digress, what you're interested in are the costs on industry with complying with this executive fiat. Very well...

"... the final rule expedites the adoption of SO2 emissions controls that are planned in the base case to occur after 2012 and be underway by 2014..."

In other words, the EPA has expedited changes the industry originally had 3 years to implement instead of 1 year, to answer your question of when industries will be affected. As an aside, the RIA uses the base goal of 2014 to determine economic impact, while sidestepping the very relevant issue that moving the required compliance date ahead 2 years will have a non-trivial cost impact (actually they agree that it will cost more to move implementation ahead 2 years, but bury that point deeper in the executive summary and don't elaborate).

"Retail electricity prices are projected to increase nationally by an average of 1.3 % in 2012 and 0.8 % in 2014 with the final Transport Rule. "

In other words, "screw the poor who will be disproportionately harmed by this rule, I want my hippy green votes!"

"The average delivered coal price decreases by about 1.4 percent in 2012 and 0.5 percent in 2014 relative to the base case as a result of decreased coal demand and shifts in the type of coal demanded. EPA also projects that delivered natural gas prices for the electric power sector will increase by about 0.3% over the 2012-2030 timeframe..."

In other words, those who rely on natural gas for heating will have to pay more for it. This disproportionately affects poor Americans in the Northeast. Oh, and what about the coal miners, who are often predominately poor, who will now be adversely affected by the decrease in coal prices? Screw them, I guess, since they weren't going to vote for Obama anyway...

"Economic impacts do not take into response of electric power consumers to changes in electricity prices..."

In other words, "we're ignoring free market factors in a free market economy."

"Compliance costs based on the pre-policy output levels would be overstated if we do not consider the new lower levels of consumption as a result of higher market prices."

In other words, "since this rule is likely to reduce the standard of living for Americans, things could be even cheaper to implement!"

Oh, and the kicker:
"Because it is not a distribution, it is not possible to infer the likelihood of any single net benefit estimate. "

In other words, the entire RIA is blowing smoke with pretty powerpoint graphs, and the EPA just doesn't know how beneficial the new rule is.

You wouldn't recognise the ultra left if it was dancing nude with a full orchestra while teabagging you under a neon sign saying "this is the ultra left"

Is that because it undermines your "current administration" rant?

So you want to go over a bigger pile and demonstate that the little pile is all much worse.


All the substance needed was in the first post.

Not in the slightest, congress say bye bye over 40 years ago, keep up with the times young man.

I do like the way you use "in other words"
The funniest is of course "free market factors in a free market economy".

I don't need a hug. And I'm not debating your interpretations because they're black and white proclamations that lack any nuance, and the world is full of it. On some of the issues you've pointed out, I agree that the President has gone around the normal process and there's no debate to be had. On the others, I don't care to rehash the same talking points that have been debated and countered and disproven to death before. Frankly, it's very boring.

Magicstix.... a word of advice.

Some here will debate you - others will insist on avoiding any actual debate by constantly circling from subject to subject, instead of focusing on the issue at hand.

Those that refuse to debate won't care for facts or proof. Its best to just ignore them, as it does no good to argue with a stop sign.....

Find those who can stick to a topic instead of bandying semantics and you will find good conversation.