GOP plans to slash funding to EPA and cut environmental rules.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

trivial

Indeed. They should be worrying about major air and water polluters instead of Joe Sixpack filling up his lawnmower. I will agree with you there.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Indeed. They should be worrying about major air and water polluters instead of Joe Sixpack filling up his lawnmower. I will agree with you there.

praise the lord and pass the ammunition. thats exactly right. Regulate the companies that produce tons of chemicals per week... but leave joe sixpack alone... we are in dire straits when joe cannot go to the corner store and buy a gas can that doesnt require a 3 page instruction manual.

mookie, run for congress with me, we might be able to get this country through the storm.

[Ducimus]

Heh, I can see it now.. the future of America, as dictated by the corporate purchased Grand Ole Party.

Pesky EPA obviously needs to go if it cuts into the bottom line. Not making enough profit. Big Corporate need MORE!!!!

I have a sneaky suspicion that when China finally catch's up with modern enviromental standards (if ever), the corporate fat cats won't outsource there so much.

[flatsixes]

The pictures are terrible. Too bad the Chinese government can't regulate its state-managed corporations as well as it does the Internet and Google.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

praise the lord and pass the ammunition. thats exactly right. Regulate the companies that produce tons of chemicals per week... but leave joe sixpack alone... we are in dire straits when joe cannot go to the corner store and buy a gas can that doesnt require a 3 page instruction manual.

mookie, run for congress with me, we might be able to get this country through the storm.

Sweet jeebus, the world really is coming to an end. Mookie must be playing with GB gold coins again.

@Golden rivet
So I was not quite correct, it isn't your lack of ability which causes you to spill gas, it was you making a deliberate choice to remove the spout from the can which caused spills.

with the old style gas cans that the government didnt have their hands all over

Sorry, but you are in fantasy land, the old style cans also had the governments hands all over them.

NO.. i don't think it makes a hell of a lot of difference what sort of gas can a construction company uses to fuel up their bulldozers and chain saws and weed eaters.

So you think companies shouldn't have any regulation when it comes to the storage of dangerous chemicals.
That isn't a very sensible idea is it, it fact it would be best described as a really dumb idea.

and i especially dont think the government should have its say on every little thing people can or cannot go to the store and buy.

Yes, its really bad that the government regulates safety standards for petrol cans, petrol is nice and can in no way be dangerous. It is really bad that they should even go to such a wasteful process of having two sets of regulations for petrol cans, that is realy silly, can't they see that commercial and domestic are really the same and petrol is the same so there should only be one rule concerning storage of the chemical and any old can will do as when it comes down to it as petrol is a liquid just like water .

[GoldenRivet]

ugh - putting the troll food away now

Face it GR your points don't stand up at all.
Its funny that you should make a lame attempt at flaming when your arguements have no merit.
Come to think of it that is simply you acting like a troll isn't it

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Face it GR your points don't stand up at all.
Its funny that you should make a lame attempt at flaming when your arguements have no merit.
Come to think of it that is simply you acting like a troll isn't it

this has become - repeatedly on your end - less about the merits of a discussion and more about personally attacking others - and i wont continue such a childish debate anymore.

repeatedly for this very reason, of abusive - off topic personal attacks - i have added you to my ignore list.

and repeatedly, at the fault of my willingness to give you the benefit of the doubt - i have removed you from that ignore list after the passage of a period of time.

i think that anyone here would agree with me that you have twice now in this very thread - dodged legitimate discussion of the issue at hand in favor of striking at me personally.

i stated my opinion that - the EPA - while a critical part of our ability to protect our environment - DOES have some pretty trivial and nonsensical regulations.

I simply used the gas can argument to illustrate the point that when we are down to regulating the style of pour spouts on a 2 - 5 gallon gas can for filling up boat motors, weed eaters and lawn mowers that things have gotten out of hand, and i think most reasonable people would agree with that statement.

YOU on the other hand have ignored all other segments of the discussion and went directly onto the offensive in blaming my "ability" to pour gasoline or my "decision" to remove the cheap POS filler neck in order to facilitate easier pouring rather than use the leaky, slow flow, cheaply constructed filler neck that comes with the thing.

I will offer you no more back and forth over this as you cannot discuss it without striking at the person posting the comments.

one day Tribesman you might live in a world where your opinion is the only one... but until then, grow the **** up

[VipertheSniper]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

this has become - repeatedly on your end - less about the merits of a discussion and more about personally attacking others - and i wont continue such a childish debate anymore.

repeatedly for this very reason, of abusive - off topic personal attacks - i have added you to my ignore list.

and repeatedly, at the fault of my willingness to give you the benefit of the doubt - i have removed you from that ignore list after the passage of a period of time.

i think that anyone here would agree with me that you have twice now in this very thread - dodged legitimate discussion of the issue at hand in favor of striking at me personally.

i stated my opinion that - the EPA - while a critical part of our ability to protect our environment - DOES have some pretty trivial and nonsensical regulations.

I simply used the gas can argument to illustrate the point that when we are down to regulating the style of pour spouts on a 2 - 5 gallon gas can for filling up boat motors, weed eaters and lawn mowers that things have gotten out of hand, and i think most reasonable people would agree with that statement.

YOU on the other hand have ignored all other segments of the discussion and went directly onto the offensive in blaming my "ability" to pour gasoline or my "decision" to remove the cheap POS filler neck in order to facilitate easier pouring rather than use the leaky, slow flow, cheaply constructed filler neck that comes with the thing.

I will offer you no more back and forth over this as you cannot discuss it without striking at the person posting the comments.

one day Tribesman you might live in a world where your opinion is the only one... but until then, grow the **** up

Couldn't have said it better and I tried about 10 times and then gave up.

[flatsixes]

I speak Texan, GR, and I appreciate the points you were attempting to put across.

I have a very good understanding of the regulatory process at the state and federal level and, believe me, it's uglier than most can imagine. The legislatures grant unelected authorities broad powers and discretion to promulgate regulations governing businesses and activities within their realm of oversight. True, the process is ostensibly open - notice of regulatory proceedings are published and public comment solicited. In practice, however, only those with a direct stake in the outcome participate: The Pro and the Anti. Common sense is generally absent until after the fact when the impact of the regulations are discovered. When was the last time you check the Federal Register? Your state register? You can't say you weren't warned.

Of course,the regulators are not elected, but appointed by those whom we elect. The regulators are (for the most part) reasonable persons, but to whom do they answer to for their jobs? You? Hardly. They answer to those who appointed them. Consequently, my friends, the smart guys - the winners- spend their time and money on the legislators, not the regulators. Moreover, the regulatory process is a huge lumbering dinosaur, and once the regulations are in place it takes years over effort to get them changed (or if you prefer, fixed). Enacting legislation (believe it or not) is much simpler, but carries with it the risk of amendments and unintended consequences, 99% of which wind up being even worse than the devil you were trying to exorcise in the first place.

All this leads me to a single conclusion: We're done for, except, perhaps, in Texas.

It is so funny that GR has gone off in a huff.

I simply used the gas can argument to illustrate the point

That was the problem, the gas can does not illustrate the point.
Of all the silly regulations he could have gone to town on he chose one that actually makes sense. Besides which fuel cans have been regulated since there were fuel cans to regulate
If people were not such idiots the government wouldn't have to idiot proof gas cans.

one day Tribesman you might live in a world where your opinion is the only one... but until then, grow the **** up

That is funny when he is complaining about something which is regulated every where in the world where there are regulations, so it is part of a worldwide opinion.
So perhaps he should grow the **** up and learn to live with safety devices on potentially dangerous chemicals, after all most people shouldn't have much of a problem working a child proof switch on a gas can

[flatsixes]

Point. Set. Match.

"While the goal is admirable, it is important to inject a little common sense into the process," said Tester, the sponsor of the Senate bill to exempt ATVs and motorbikes from the ban. "I want our kids and grandkids to be safe and protected from harmful toys, but we all know that most kids who are past the teething stage do not chew on their toys."

Point. Set. Match.

See how easy it is, a really good example.
Much better than a gripe about sensible legislation, thogh what is funnier is that the gripe started about one type of infraction and moaned about another regulation the use of which design would have resulted in the first infraction anyway as commercial is under very different rules from domestic.

[flatsixes]

Uh... Yeah. Whatever.