Re: Trump
« Reply #4300 on: August 21, 2019, 01:01:56 PM »
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49367792

Trump wants to buy Greenland but Denmark told him to go away.
And now he's cancelled a trip to Denmark because they won't sell him Greenland

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49416740

Honestly, you couldn't make this shit up.
Yeah, they tried to make the same crap up back in 1946...

That was Trump's fault too...the bastard...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-not-the-first-time-us-has-tried-to-buy-greenland-2019-08-16

Wow, $100 million in gold back in 1946...Roughly, a billion now...
« Last Edit: August 21, 2019, 01:06:47 PM by totallackey »

Re: Trump
« Reply #4301 on: August 21, 2019, 01:59:34 PM »
Wow, do you actually think rainwater never makes it in to drinking water?
I know rainwater makes its way to the rest of water.

I also know the earth does a remarkably fantastic job at cleaning up after its self and others.

I also know, that despite the best efforts of demonstrably false rhetoric in the media, regulations have done very little in regard to improving the environment. Education and concerned people are required, not laws designed to cripple people and business.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5676
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4302 on: August 21, 2019, 02:09:30 PM »
Wow, do you actually think rainwater never makes it in to drinking water?
I know rainwater makes its way to the rest of water.

I also know the earth does a remarkably fantastic job at cleaning up after its self and others.

I also know, that despite the best efforts of demonstrably false rhetoric in the media, regulations have done very little in regard to improving the environment. Education and concerned people are required, not laws designed to cripple people and business.

You don’t think there has ever been a regulation that has improved the environment?

How does the Earth clean up heavy metal concentrations?  I am very interested in your source of knowledge on this.

Quote
So, since the regulations of which you so fondly write were so effective in preventing: Exxon Valdiz, Deepwater Horizon, et.al.,

why should anyone be convinced their removal would be so much more harmful?

Why are you using anecdotes to call in to question the need to regulate best practices? It’s totally irrelevant.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: Trump
« Reply #4303 on: August 21, 2019, 02:22:02 PM »
Wow, do you actually think rainwater never makes it in to drinking water?
I know rainwater makes its way to the rest of water.

I also know the earth does a remarkably fantastic job at cleaning up after its self and others.

I also know, that despite the best efforts of demonstrably false rhetoric in the media, regulations have done very little in regard to improving the environment. Education and concerned people are required, not laws designed to cripple people and business.

You don’t think there has ever been a regulation that has improved the environment?
I am willing to read any of the proven, cited benefits you post.


How does the Earth clean up heavy metal concentrations?  I am very interested in your source of knowledge on this.
The same way naturally occurring instances of them form; however, please note I also referred to, "concerned people." People, a naturally occurring life form here on Earth, can also work wonders in this area.
Quote
So, since the regulations of which you so fondly write were so effective in preventing: Exxon Valdiz, Deepwater Horizon, et.al.,

why should anyone be convinced their removal would be so much more harmful?

Why are you using anecdotes to call in to question the need to regulate best practices? It’s totally irrelevant.
Wait, I want to make sure of your point here...

Two of the biggest environmental disasters that have occurred in the last 50 years are considered "anecdotal?"

I am not questioning best practices.

I am questioning the need of regulation in order for caring people to implement best practices.

These two horror stories occurred under the ever so watchful eye of strict governmental regulations (which are being mourned due to their passing).

My question is simple.

What type of disaster could possibly occur due to the removal of regulations that failed to prevent these two catastrophes?

That's not an anecdotal question.

Re: Trump
« Reply #4304 on: August 21, 2019, 03:20:39 PM »
So, since the regulations of which you so fondly write were so effective in preventing: Exxon Valdiz, Deepwater Horizon, et.al.,

why should anyone be convinced their removal would be so much more harmful?
Those companies had to clean up and pay lots of fines.  Also, said regulations were not followed.
But ya know, you have a point.  I mean, murder is Illegal but it still happens.  So whats the point of making it illegal?

Also, why are you framing those oil spills as bad?
Quote
Yeah they are good for me and everyone I know.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4305 on: August 21, 2019, 03:33:30 PM »
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-was-better-for-your-401k-than-trump-has-been-122241424.html

Like so much else, Trump's claims about his effect on the economy is so much smoke and mirrors. His sycophants eat it up though don't they?
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

Re: Trump
« Reply #4306 on: August 21, 2019, 03:53:45 PM »
So, since the regulations of which you so fondly write were so effective in preventing: Exxon Valdiz, Deepwater Horizon, et.al.,

why should anyone be convinced their removal would be so much more harmful?
Those companies had to clean up and pay lots of fines.  Also, said regulations were not followed.
But ya know, you have a point.  I mean, murder is Illegal but it still happens.  So whats the point of making it illegal?

Also, why are you framing those oil spills as bad?
Quote
Yeah they are good for me and everyone I know.
Specifically, which regulations were not followed in the two instances (Exxon Valdiz and Deepwater)?

I frame the spills bad due to the fact I know you view them as bad in one way and I view them as spilt milk, which is definitely bad.

It costs money.

The environment?

That typically recovers quite nicely.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2019, 03:56:41 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4307 on: August 21, 2019, 04:00:03 PM »
Wow, do you actually think rainwater never makes it in to drinking water?
I know rainwater makes its way to the rest of water.

I also know the earth does a remarkably fantastic job at cleaning up after its self and others.

I also know, that despite the best efforts of demonstrably false rhetoric in the media, regulations have done very little in regard to improving the environment. Education and concerned people are required, not laws designed to cripple people and business.

You don’t think there has ever been a regulation that has improved the environment?
I am willing to read any of the proven, cited benefits you post.

Super high level. From a Nat Geo article (I teased out some points):

5 Reasons to Like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1. Air (Clean Air Act)

Complying with EPA’s air pollution rules has been costly—they’re the biggest burden the agency imposes on the economy. But the federal Office of Management and Budget, analyzing data collected from 2004 to 2014, estimates that the health and other benefits of the rules exceeded the costs by somewhere between $113 billion and $741 billion a year.

2. Water (Clean Water Act)

The Clean Water Act led to tens of billions of federal dollars being invested in municipal sewage treatment plants. The law’s simple goal is to make every river, stream, and lake in the U.S. swimmable and fishable. We’re not there yet: The Cuyahoga “is not on fire anymore, but I wouldn’t swim in it,” William Suk of the National Institutes of Health told National Geographic a few years ago. But people do swim in Boston Harbor and the Hudson River. And the toxic cesspools that literally catch on fire have largely become a thing of the past.

3. Pesticides

Beloved birds like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon teetered toward extinction. A colorless, nearly odorless insecticide, DDT had been a valuable weapon against disease-carrying mosquitoes and also a boon to farmers. People had so little notion of its dangers they let their children play happily in the spray.
In 1972, The EPA effectively banned the use of DDT in the U.S., except in limited cases where it was needed to protect public health. That same year Congress passed the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, giving EPA more clear authority to regulate pesticides in general based on their impact on health and the environment.

4. Hazardous Waste

Until the 1970s, hazardous chemical waste was general disposed of like ordinary trash—at best in an unlined municipal landfill from which toxic chemicals could seep into groundwater, at worst in open dumps, where runoff from corroded barrels might contaminate streams. The country was dotted with thousands of such dumps.
As of 2014, nearly half of the more than 1,700 Superfund sites have been fully addressed—but even many of them have to be monitored indefinitely. It’s a project for the century and a lesson for the future. Some 49 million (or nearly one in six) Americans live close to a Superfund site.

5. Climate

In August 2015 the agency finalized its Clean Power Plan, which for the first time sets a national limit on carbon pollution from power plants. The goal is to reduce their emissions by 32 percent by 2030, relative to 2005 levels.

Full text here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/12/environmental-protection-agency-epa-history-pruitt/
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Trump
« Reply #4308 on: August 21, 2019, 04:57:39 PM »
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-was-better-for-your-401k-than-trump-has-been-122241424.html

Like so much else, Trump's claims about his effect on the economy is so much smoke and mirrors. His sycophants eat it up though don't they?
Take Nixon stats out because 401(k)s were not even around.

Then redo the numbers.

Plus, the criminal Czar Bush Ii, who like his Poppy and his brother Neil love to rob anybody and everybody...

Typical smoke and mirror article that is proven to be false left-wing opinion.

Re: Trump
« Reply #4309 on: August 21, 2019, 05:02:35 PM »
Wow, do you actually think rainwater never makes it in to drinking water?
I know rainwater makes its way to the rest of water.

I also know the earth does a remarkably fantastic job at cleaning up after its self and others.

I also know, that despite the best efforts of demonstrably false rhetoric in the media, regulations have done very little in regard to improving the environment. Education and concerned people are required, not laws designed to cripple people and business.

You don’t think there has ever been a regulation that has improved the environment?
I am willing to read any of the proven, cited benefits you post.

Super high level. From a Nat Geo article (I teased out some points):

5 Reasons to Like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1. Air (Clean Air Act)

Complying with EPA’s air pollution rules has been costly—they’re the biggest burden the agency imposes on the economy. But the federal Office of Management and Budget, analyzing data collected from 2004 to 2014, estimates that the health and other benefits of the rules exceeded the costs by somewhere between $113 billion and $741 billion a year.

2. Water (Clean Water Act)

The Clean Water Act led to tens of billions of federal dollars being invested in municipal sewage treatment plants. The law’s simple goal is to make every river, stream, and lake in the U.S. swimmable and fishable. We’re not there yet: The Cuyahoga “is not on fire anymore, but I wouldn’t swim in it,” William Suk of the National Institutes of Health told National Geographic a few years ago. But people do swim in Boston Harbor and the Hudson River. And the toxic cesspools that literally catch on fire have largely become a thing of the past.

3. Pesticides

Beloved birds like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon teetered toward extinction. A colorless, nearly odorless insecticide, DDT had been a valuable weapon against disease-carrying mosquitoes and also a boon to farmers. People had so little notion of its dangers they let their children play happily in the spray.
In 1972, The EPA effectively banned the use of DDT in the U.S., except in limited cases where it was needed to protect public health. That same year Congress passed the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, giving EPA more clear authority to regulate pesticides in general based on their impact on health and the environment.

4. Hazardous Waste

Until the 1970s, hazardous chemical waste was general disposed of like ordinary trash—at best in an unlined municipal landfill from which toxic chemicals could seep into groundwater, at worst in open dumps, where runoff from corroded barrels might contaminate streams. The country was dotted with thousands of such dumps.
As of 2014, nearly half of the more than 1,700 Superfund sites have been fully addressed—but even many of them have to be monitored indefinitely. It’s a project for the century and a lesson for the future. Some 49 million (or nearly one in six) Americans live close to a Superfund site.

5. Climate

In August 2015 the agency finalized its Clean Power Plan, which for the first time sets a national limit on carbon pollution from power plants. The goal is to reduce their emissions by 32 percent by 2030, relative to 2005 levels.

Full text here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/12/environmental-protection-agency-epa-history-pruitt/
Citing government studies to support government agencies seeking to remain operational...hmmm...

Seems like NatGeo is in on it too...

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4310 on: August 21, 2019, 05:18:08 PM »
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-was-better-for-your-401k-than-trump-has-been-122241424.html

Like so much else, Trump's claims about his effect on the economy is so much smoke and mirrors. His sycophants eat it up though don't they?
Take Nixon stats out because 401(k)s were not even around.

Then redo the numbers.

Plus, the criminal Czar Bush Ii, who like his Poppy and his brother Neil love to rob anybody and everybody...

Typical smoke and mirror article that is proven to be false left-wing opinion.

See how much they eat it up?
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 1475
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4311 on: August 21, 2019, 05:44:16 PM »
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline timterroo

  • *
  • Posts: 697
  • domo arigato gozaimashita
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4312 on: August 21, 2019, 05:47:49 PM »
Wow, do you actually think rainwater never makes it in to drinking water?
I know rainwater makes its way to the rest of water.

I also know the earth does a remarkably fantastic job at cleaning up after its self and others.

I also know, that despite the best efforts of demonstrably false rhetoric in the media, regulations have done very little in regard to improving the environment. Education and concerned people are required, not laws designed to cripple people and business.

You don’t think there has ever been a regulation that has improved the environment?
I am willing to read any of the proven, cited benefits you post.

Super high level. From a Nat Geo article (I teased out some points):

5 Reasons to Like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1. Air (Clean Air Act)

Complying with EPA’s air pollution rules has been costly—they’re the biggest burden the agency imposes on the economy. But the federal Office of Management and Budget, analyzing data collected from 2004 to 2014, estimates that the health and other benefits of the rules exceeded the costs by somewhere between $113 billion and $741 billion a year.

2. Water (Clean Water Act)

The Clean Water Act led to tens of billions of federal dollars being invested in municipal sewage treatment plants. The law’s simple goal is to make every river, stream, and lake in the U.S. swimmable and fishable. We’re not there yet: The Cuyahoga “is not on fire anymore, but I wouldn’t swim in it,” William Suk of the National Institutes of Health told National Geographic a few years ago. But people do swim in Boston Harbor and the Hudson River. And the toxic cesspools that literally catch on fire have largely become a thing of the past.

3. Pesticides

Beloved birds like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon teetered toward extinction. A colorless, nearly odorless insecticide, DDT had been a valuable weapon against disease-carrying mosquitoes and also a boon to farmers. People had so little notion of its dangers they let their children play happily in the spray.
In 1972, The EPA effectively banned the use of DDT in the U.S., except in limited cases where it was needed to protect public health. That same year Congress passed the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, giving EPA more clear authority to regulate pesticides in general based on their impact on health and the environment.

4. Hazardous Waste

Until the 1970s, hazardous chemical waste was general disposed of like ordinary trash—at best in an unlined municipal landfill from which toxic chemicals could seep into groundwater, at worst in open dumps, where runoff from corroded barrels might contaminate streams. The country was dotted with thousands of such dumps.
As of 2014, nearly half of the more than 1,700 Superfund sites have been fully addressed—but even many of them have to be monitored indefinitely. It’s a project for the century and a lesson for the future. Some 49 million (or nearly one in six) Americans live close to a Superfund site.

5. Climate

In August 2015 the agency finalized its Clean Power Plan, which for the first time sets a national limit on carbon pollution from power plants. The goal is to reduce their emissions by 32 percent by 2030, relative to 2005 levels.

Full text here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/12/environmental-protection-agency-epa-history-pruitt/
Citing government studies to support government agencies seeking to remain operational...hmmm...

Seems like NatGeo is in on it too...

Where did you read that these were government studies? I could not find the source of the claims that were made by the authors.

"noche te ipsum"

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  - Albert Einstein

Re: Trump
« Reply #4313 on: August 21, 2019, 06:36:03 PM »
Wow, do you actually think rainwater never makes it in to drinking water?
I know rainwater makes its way to the rest of water.

I also know the earth does a remarkably fantastic job at cleaning up after its self and others.

I also know, that despite the best efforts of demonstrably false rhetoric in the media, regulations have done very little in regard to improving the environment. Education and concerned people are required, not laws designed to cripple people and business.

You don’t think there has ever been a regulation that has improved the environment?
I am willing to read any of the proven, cited benefits you post.

Super high level. From a Nat Geo article (I teased out some points):

5 Reasons to Like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1. Air (Clean Air Act)

Complying with EPA’s air pollution rules has been costly—they’re the biggest burden the agency imposes on the economy. But the federal Office of Management and Budget, analyzing data collected from 2004 to 2014, estimates that the health and other benefits of the rules exceeded the costs by somewhere between $113 billion and $741 billion a year.

2. Water (Clean Water Act)

The Clean Water Act led to tens of billions of federal dollars being invested in municipal sewage treatment plants. The law’s simple goal is to make every river, stream, and lake in the U.S. swimmable and fishable. We’re not there yet: The Cuyahoga “is not on fire anymore, but I wouldn’t swim in it,” William Suk of the National Institutes of Health told National Geographic a few years ago. But people do swim in Boston Harbor and the Hudson River. And the toxic cesspools that literally catch on fire have largely become a thing of the past.

3. Pesticides

Beloved birds like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon teetered toward extinction. A colorless, nearly odorless insecticide, DDT had been a valuable weapon against disease-carrying mosquitoes and also a boon to farmers. People had so little notion of its dangers they let their children play happily in the spray.
In 1972, The EPA effectively banned the use of DDT in the U.S., except in limited cases where it was needed to protect public health. That same year Congress passed the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, giving EPA more clear authority to regulate pesticides in general based on their impact on health and the environment.

4. Hazardous Waste

Until the 1970s, hazardous chemical waste was general disposed of like ordinary trash—at best in an unlined municipal landfill from which toxic chemicals could seep into groundwater, at worst in open dumps, where runoff from corroded barrels might contaminate streams. The country was dotted with thousands of such dumps.
As of 2014, nearly half of the more than 1,700 Superfund sites have been fully addressed—but even many of them have to be monitored indefinitely. It’s a project for the century and a lesson for the future. Some 49 million (or nearly one in six) Americans live close to a Superfund site.

5. Climate

In August 2015 the agency finalized its Clean Power Plan, which for the first time sets a national limit on carbon pollution from power plants. The goal is to reduce their emissions by 32 percent by 2030, relative to 2005 levels.

Full text here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/12/environmental-protection-agency-epa-history-pruitt/
Citing government studies to support government agencies seeking to remain operational...hmmm...

Seems like NatGeo is in on it too...

Where did you read that these were government studies? I could not find the source of the claims that were made by the authors.
1.federal Office of Management and Budget...

2. National Institutes of Health

3. No source for the opinion of NatGeo provided, except the EPA.

4. Same as 3.

5. Same as 3 and 4.

Re: Trump
« Reply #4314 on: August 21, 2019, 06:39:44 PM »
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-was-better-for-your-401k-than-trump-has-been-122241424.html

Like so much else, Trump's claims about his effect on the economy is so much smoke and mirrors. His sycophants eat it up though don't they?
Take Nixon stats out because 401(k)s were not even around.

Then redo the numbers.

Plus, the criminal Czar Bush Ii, who like his Poppy and his brother Neil love to rob anybody and everybody...

Typical smoke and mirror article that is proven to be false left-wing opinion.

See how much they eat it up?
Remove the two negatives of 3.4 and 27.4 for Nixon, it turns out plus numbers for Republicans.

Big time.

Re: Trump
« Reply #4315 on: August 21, 2019, 07:15:00 PM »
Roundy, a sincere question for you and others of a like mind.

After going on and on about how bad Trump is for people,  in what he writes and says, how do you find it possible to live with yourself given you are actively cheering for recession, which will surely hurt the average Joe more.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4316 on: August 21, 2019, 07:31:56 PM »
Roundy, a sincere question for you and others of a like mind.

After going on and on about how bad Trump is for people,  in what he writes and says, how do you find it possible to live with yourself given you are actively cheering for recession, which will surely hurt the average Joe more.

Like I said, I'm not proud of it. Luckily my wishes don't have any actual effect on the economy. My biggest issue is that we have someone setting policy who is not only biased against whole groups of people but time and time again has shown he has no idea what he's doing, his sycophants in the government look the other way, and for some reason not enough people seem to be outraged about it to change things. So if a temporary downturn in the economy is what it takes to turn the tide bring it on. I don't have to feel guilty about cheering for it because nothing I say or do is going to have any effect on it anyway.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

Re: Trump
« Reply #4317 on: August 22, 2019, 02:06:55 AM »
Roundy, a sincere question for you and others of a like mind.

After going on and on about how bad Trump is for people,  in what he writes and says, how do you find it possible to live with yourself given you are actively cheering for recession, which will surely hurt the average Joe more.

Like I said, I'm not proud of it. Luckily my wishes don't have any actual effect on the economy. My biggest issue is that we have someone setting policy who is not only biased against whole groups of people but time and time again has shown he has no idea what he's doing, his sycophants in the government look the other way, and for some reason not enough people seem to be outraged about it to change things. So if a temporary downturn in the economy is what it takes to turn the tide bring it on. I don't have to feel guilty about cheering for it because nothing I say or do is going to have any effect on it anyway.
Well, we can all be thankful and remain thankful the Donald has a greater influence on people and real life I guess.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4318 on: August 22, 2019, 11:23:28 AM »
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/22/trump-attacks-ford-motor-for-not-backing-fuel-economy-rollback.html

New theory: Trump is a Lex Luthor level supervillain who wants his ultimate legacy to be that he ruined the environment and destroyed all of humanity.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

*

Offline timterroo

  • *
  • Posts: 697
  • domo arigato gozaimashita
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4319 on: August 22, 2019, 12:29:48 PM »
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/22/trump-attacks-ford-motor-for-not-backing-fuel-economy-rollback.html

New theory: Trump is a Lex Luthor level supervillain who wants his ultimate legacy to be that he ruined the environment and destroyed all of humanity.

Brings me a bit of hope knowing there are corporations that recognize what the majority of Americans want - A sustainable future - and they also recognize that protecting the environment is a key factor in sustainability. Trump, on the other hand, he's a nitwit.
"noche te ipsum"

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  - Albert Einstein