Thankfully the Ohio Manufacturers Association is fighting the whackos

U.S. EPA Seeks Environmental Justice
In a recent USA Today article on Earth Day, U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson called for the environmental movement to use its significant influence to promote “environmental justice.” The phrase is a term of art referring to regulations that require regulators to look at the demographics of the area in which a manufacturing facility is, or would be located, to ensure that there is not a disproportionate impact on minority communities. This type of non-scientific requirement has been long sought by the environmental community and can be used as a means of stopping nearly any economic development project.
The OMA led the opposition to the most recent attempt to get this job-killer inserted in Ohio law in the last state operating budget.

Environmental Justice Down But Not Out
The OMA was successful recently in getting the job-killing environmental justice provisions removed from the state operating budget; however, Representative Tracy Heard, has stated that she intends to bring the issue back as stand alone legislation. The OMA will continue to fight against subjective, non-scientific standards being placed in health and environmental safety laws and is encouraging members to contact state legislators to do the same. The OMA provides this analysis


http://www.ohiomfg.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Content_Folders&CONTENTID=28463&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

majorspark wrote:

Sykotyk wrote: Then why even have government? Take a vacation in Somalia and tell me how much you love living without a government.

I think the biggest difference between the Right and the Left is that the Right naturally believes that every person--that they don't know--on Earth is scum and cannot be trusted. You can only trust yourself and your immediate associates. So any organization where you're not in complete control is entirely problematic and to your detriment. Lefties naturally believe that the vast majority of people on Earth are naturally good and can be trusted, so working together for a common cause is thereby the most direct and efficient ways of getting things done.

The conundrum isn't political. The conundrum is an issue of trust.

Sykotyk

Government is a necessary evil. You would do well to have a healthy distrust of it. No entity on this earth has more blood on its hands than that of government.

I distrust specific people in government. Not the government itself. There's nothing inherently evil with government.

majorspark, I think religion would have more blood on their hands, honestly.

Crusades, genocide, slave trade, the Inquisition, numerous wars over philosophical ideology. Catholics vs. Protestants. Muslims vs. Jews. Jews vs. Christians. Mormons vs. Christians, etc.

Aside from that, government isn't inherently evil, as I Wear Pants noted. I agree with you, Pants. Give me a reason to be skeptical, and I will be. But generally I give everyone a fair shake at their introduction.

Back to the topic at hand, the EPA. I love how almost every argument against the EPA is regarding them 'killing jobs'. Why outlaw asbestos, that killed jobs. Think of all those plants producing asbestos laced insulation, etc that are put out of business. I'm amazed at how low some people value life, and the quality of those lives.

Who cares if some people lose their jobs or some abhorrent companies go out of business if it protects people's health, well-being, or even better, their life.

Sykotyk

I Wear Pants wrote: I distrust specific people in government. Not the government itself. There's nothing inherently evil with government.

I agree it depends on the people that have the reigns of government. But you must take into account that their is no more powerful entity on this earth than that of government. If that power falls into the wrong hands the consequences are always deadly for millions. Therefor it is a good thing to have a healthy fear of the centralization of government power.

When I say it is a necessary evil it is based on the depravity of man. Because mankind is selfish and many are down right evil, we need government to protect us and provide for us an orderly society. The problem like I said sometimes the reigns of government fall into the hands of those down right evil men. So in my opinion it is best to keep government t limited and balanced.

Sykotyk wrote: majorspark, I think religion would have more blood on their hands, honestly.

Crusades, genocide, slave trade, the Inquisition, numerous wars over philosophical ideology. Catholics vs. Protestants. Muslims vs. Jews. Jews vs. Christians. Mormons vs. Christians, etc.

And how did these religions get the power to propagate their evil? They were able to get their hands on the reigns of government power. Our founders learned from this little part of history and attempted to prevent it by establishing in the 1st amendment that congress could not use the force of government to enforce its will forcing the establishment of a religion on the states.

Whether the reigns of government have fallen into the hands of evil atheists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Shintos, Buddhists, or any other group or belief, they all needed the power of government to force their will on others. So yes my statement stands. Government has more blood on its hands than any entity on this earth.

That's like which came first, the chicken or the egg. They didn't need government, they needed gullible souls who felt they were doing God's work. No other governing leverage was necessary. The Crusaders were absolved of their sins for fighting. Wealthy were sold indulgences to keep up their disastrous ways. Catholicism created purgatory to prod people along who thought maybe they would be destined to hell and would stop caring otherwise about what the pontiff professed.

Sadly, it still works today. Even in the U.S., we see people deathly afraid of 'the anti-christ', 'mark of the beast', 'death panels', 'forced conscription', etc. Yet, on the flip side, they ignorantly fall into the vast pool of believers who believe only if THEIR beliefs were used to control government, all would be well. Unicorns would shit rainbows, the sky would rain skittles, and there would be no evil.

Sykotyk

Sykotyk wrote: That's like which came first, the chicken or the egg. They didn't need government, they needed gullible souls who felt they were doing God's work. No other governing leverage was necessary. The Crusaders were absolved of their sins for fighting. Wealthy were sold indulgences to keep up their disastrous ways. Catholicism created purgatory to prod people along who thought maybe they would be destined to hell and would stop caring otherwise about what the pontiff professed.

And the atheist Joseph Stalin needed some gullible souls to secure his power as well. He drove the vehicle of government over the lives of 10s of millions of people. His minions were absolved of their sin by preserving the motherland. Government is the vehicle that all these groups have used to force their will on others. By death if necessary.

Sykotyk wrote: Sadly, it still works today. Even in the U.S., we see people deathly afraid of 'the anti-christ', 'mark of the beast', 'death panels', 'forced conscription', etc.

Well the antichrist is foretold to use the power of governance to set up a one world central government. The "mark of the beast" is the certification of that government to buy and sell. So again we are talking about people with a belief system gaining control of a large central government.

As for forced conscription it has been used throughout history by many world governments (including our own) to force their will on others. It should be rightfully feared.

Sykotyk wrote: Yet, on the flip side, they ignorantly fall into the vast pool of believers who believe only if THEIR beliefs were used to control government, all would be well. Unicorns would shit rainbows, the sky would rain skittles, and there would be no evil.

Here we will agree. This is the lust of power that central government brings. The ability to bring the masses under the controlling authority of a few, no matter what beliefs they may hold.

Manufacturers "Deeply Troubled" By EPA's "Tailoring Rule." The National Association of Manufacturers (5/13) reported in a press release by VP of energy and resources policy Keith McCoy that "Manufacturers are deeply troubled by the EPA's agenda and continued overreach in an effort that could eventually result in the Agency regulating everything from small factories to farms to schools to hospitals. Fundamentally, this 'tailoring rule' takes the country in the wrong direction by using the Clean Air Act to expand the power of the EPA and allow the Agency to choose which energy sources American consumers will use." The Manufacturers added "This new rule also creates uncertainty and adds confusing and costly new permitting requirements. The EPA has set a short timetable for implementation, which will undoubtedly cost jobs and prevent manufacturers from growing their businesses." Furthermore, "It is clear that the 'tailoring rule' sets a dangerous precedent, will limit job growth and ultimately will undermine economic recovery. We will continue to examine all available remedies to curtail EPA's power grab."

EPA Privilege Will Face GE Challenge In Court. The New York Times /Greenwire (5/13, Nelson) reported, "Attorneys for General Electric Co. and US EPA will debate the constitutionality in federal appeals court next week of a legal weapon often used by the agency to force the cleanup of the nation's most contaminated sites." The case will explore "unilateral administrative orders," a unique privilege awarded to EPA by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, also known as Superfund. "Experts say EPA's ability to issue unilateral orders is the Superfund statute's heavy artillery, a deterrent allowing officials to reach settlements with companies that might otherwise resist moving forward with cleanup." However, "Companies such as GE feel that the agency has used the authority as a negotiating tool, threatening to issue orders even when their sites do not pose an imminent threat to public health or the environment," said Barry Hartman, a former Justice Department attorney. The Manufacturers and other business groups filed briefs supporting GE's position.

Quaker, the one you're worried about isn't even the big one.

They have given Congress notice that if they don't implement a climate change bill, they are going to enact their own version of carbon capping that will be draconian in scale.

They have this right thanks to the Supreme Court, who On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007),found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act.

To avoid this outcome (drastic increases in energy prices) Congress needs to pass a carbon regulation bill they find acceptable, or Congress needs to pass a law that takes away their statutory authority to impose limits on greenhouse gases. With BHO as president, he would likely veto a bill designed to do nothing but reign in the EPA.

That has always been the liberals back-door method of implementing climate change legislation. Congress can't pass it politically, so thanks to the SC they can get a more punitive measure to cap gases than they could ever have hoped to pass without having to take the political heat for being the one to implement it.

Quaker, links please, you know the rules.

jmog wrote: Swamp Fox, unfortunately the stuff you are referring to was dealt with by the EPA years ago and other than some rogue companies, doesn't get put into the atmosphere anymore.

Now the EPA wants to regulate CO2 which has zero health effects to humans.

Eh? no health effects on humans?

I have a air tight room filled with Co2 just for you and we will see how no health effects works out for ya.

It all depends on levels.

http://www.inspectapedia.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm

http://www.reliableplant.com/Read/24576/Manufacturers-EPA-tailoring-rule

sorry for the breach.

IggyPride00 wrote: Quaker, the one you're worried about isn't even the big one.

They have given Congress notice that if they don't implement a climate change bill, they are going to enact their own version of carbon capping that will be draconian in scale.

They have this right thanks to the Supreme Court, who On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007),found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act.

To avoid this outcome (drastic increases in energy prices) Congress needs to pass a carbon regulation bill they find acceptable, or Congress needs to pass a law that takes away their statutory authority to impose limits on greenhouse gases. With BHO as president, he would likely veto a bill designed to do nothing but reign in the EPA.

That has always been the liberals back-door method of implementing climate change legislation. Congress can't pass it politically, so thanks to the SC they can get a more punitive measure to cap gases than they could ever have hoped to pass without having to take the political heat for being the one to implement it.

FWIW, the EPA doesn't have the authority NOT to implement a CAA scheme regulating GHGs. They're required to do so by law. The scheme they've proposed is extraordinarily lax, to the point of being subject to challenges by various green groups for not being consistent with Mass v. EPA. It's not like the EPA is taking the ball and running with it--they've done just about everything they can to put this off and not be forced to regulate GHGs.

Sykotyk wrote: Then why even have government? Take a vacation in Somalia and tell me how much you love living without a government.

I think the biggest difference between the Right and the Left is that the Right naturally believes that every person--that they don't know--on Earth is scum and cannot be trusted. You can only trust yourself and your immediate associates. So any organization where you're not in complete control is entirely problematic and to your detriment. Lefties naturally believe that the vast majority of people on Earth are naturally good and can be trusted, so working together for a common cause is thereby the most direct and efficient ways of getting things done.

The conundrum isn't political. The conundrum is an issue of trust.

Sykotyk

You can't be serious with that BS can you?

BCSbunk wrote:

jmog wrote: Swamp Fox, unfortunately the stuff you are referring to was dealt with by the EPA years ago and other than some rogue companies, doesn't get put into the atmosphere anymore.

Now the EPA wants to regulate CO2 which has zero health effects to humans.

Eh? no health effects on humans?

I have a air tight room filled with Co2 just for you and we will see how no health effects works out for ya.

It all depends on levels.

http://www.inspectapedia.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm

Hey moron, any gas on the planet will suffocate you if you completely replace oxygen with that gas. That doesn't mean the gas is toxic.

You are talking replacing the oxygen in the air at the levels that article is talking about, that's why you are breathing heavier, etc.

Not until 5% CO2 is it directly toxic, 5% is 50,000 ppm. Our atmosphere is around 300 ppm, and humans can not and will not ever be able to get it to even a couple thousand ppm, let alone 50k ppm.

You are a moron.

CO2, at the levels we see in our atmosphere is not a toxic gas, period, end of story, and we can not possibly get it to the levels of toxicity.

Sykotyk wrote: Then why even have government? Take a vacation in Somalia and tell me how much you love living without a government.

I think the biggest difference between the Right and the Left is that the Right naturally believes that every person--that they don't know--on Earth is scum and cannot be trusted. You can only trust yourself and your immediate associates. So any organization where you're not in complete control is entirely problematic and to your detriment. Lefties naturally believe that the vast majority of people on Earth are naturally good and can be trusted, so working together for a common cause is thereby the most direct and efficient ways of getting things done.

The conundrum isn't political. The conundrum is an issue of trust.

Sykotyk

What a foolhardy post. Actually it is the Right that places more value and trust in the individual, which is precisely why it defends so voraciously the right to individual liberty and limited coercive government. The Right believes in individuals...... the Left believes individuals are problems needing managed.

You, my friend, are incredibly mixed up.

The right and the left have conflicting view of whether individuals should be trusted depending on the situation.

The right doesn't value the individuals ability to make a reasonable decision when it comes to things like drugs and abortion.

Just like the left doesn't value the individuals ability to make a reasonable decision when it comes to things like savings (SS).

Neither gives two shits about the individual.

I Wear Pants wrote: The right doesn't value the individuals ability to make a reasonable decision when it comes to things like drugs and abortion.

Speaking as one on the right, I for one do not care to make decisions on ones drug use if the individual can afford it. If an individual wants to get off on drugs so be it. But the individual should not expect others to pay his medical expenses if he overdoses. The individual drug user should not expect the public to subsidize his drug habit by providing food and shelter.

As for abortion. Many like myself believe we are protecting an individual from another individual from ending the aborted individual's right to life.

QuakerOats wrote:

Sykotyk wrote: Then why even have government? Take a vacation in Somalia and tell me how much you love living without a government.

I think the biggest difference between the Right and the Left is that the Right naturally believes that every person--that they don't know--on Earth is scum and cannot be trusted. You can only trust yourself and your immediate associates. So any organization where you're not in complete control is entirely problematic and to your detriment. Lefties naturally believe that the vast majority of people on Earth are naturally good and can be trusted, so working together for a common cause is thereby the most direct and efficient ways of getting things done.

The conundrum isn't political. The conundrum is an issue of trust.

Sykotyk

What a foolhardy post. Actually it is the Right that places more value and trust in the individual, which is precisely why it defends so voraciously the right to individual liberty and limited coercive government. The Right believes in individuals...... the Left believes individuals are problems needing managed.

You, my friend, are incredibly mixed up.

No you are incredibly mixed up.

You have not even defined right and left and want to to just take it on your word what you are talking about.

Defining politics in right and left is dumbing down the situation for the uneducated.

It in no way covers the vast amount of information and thoughts and political ways in the world.

Your post is nonsense.

BCSbunk wrote: You have not even defined right and left and want to to just take it on your word what you are talking about.

Defining politics in right and left is dumbing down the situation for the uneducated.

It in no way covers the vast amount of information and thoughts and political ways in the world.

Your post is nonsense.

I don't disagree with your post in general. But I could not help but remember your blatant hypocrisy. You have been quite a party to what you call the dumbing down of the situation for those inferior to your superior political intellect.

Perhaps all your following references pertaining to the political right were for our education. You arrogantly castigate others for doing the same thing you have been doing on a regularly posting. Just a few examples.

BCSbunk wrote: I must call Hitler where it strikes and again the filthy right wing is Hitler they should be so proud of themselves.

BCSbunk wrote: No China wants to teach and help us build REAL high speed rail......My prediction. The right wing fanatic freaks will not allow technology to increase unless it is to bomb other nations so the infrastructure will suffer.

BCSbunk wrote: The Right wing is scum beyond words.

BCSbunk wrote: Time for Science to take over our classrooms without any rebuttals or lip from the right wing.

BCSbunk wrote: Regulations mean Socialism!!!!! The Fascist right has spoken the corporations benefit mankind and must not be controlled or regulated. They mean the best for mankind and would never do evil to them.

BCSbunk wrote: Of course you offer nothing except to repeat the mantras of the right Rush and Beck and Fox news. The extreme RIGHT WING.

BCSbunk wrote: I am not blind nor am I bias to the right. I do not and will not claim a right winger like Obama as my type of politician.

He is right wing just not as right wing as you.

I am left wing and he certainly has little in common with me and my view on politics.

BCSbunk wrote: As someone who is left of the center mark on most political tests America is a Center right country as a whole.

Plenty on here who are extreme right wing.

Not the most extreme right wing but some are heading there.

Obama is a RIGHT WING Politician.

Anyone who thinks he is left of center in world politics is EXTREME RIGHT WING.

BCSbunk wrote: We are not socialist in this country and Obama is certainly not socialist and not even left of center politics.

Extreme right wingers are hiliarious.

Anything left of them is liberal. What a myopic view of the country and the world.

BCSbunk wrote: More inane comments by the right wing who contradict themselves on a regular basis.

BCSbunk wrote: Who exactly are the "real" right wingers? This group would claim they are?

Are the ones who hold signs screaming Nazi, Socialist, Obama is a Kenyan etc are they the real right wing?

I agree the real Republicans like Frum are seperating themselves from the nutjobs who scream socialism all the time.

MEMO NOTE TO THE READING IMPAIRED

Note that the reference that ALL right wingers was not used and in no way does this post imply that ALL right wingers are like the ones above.

Some like Colin Powell and Frum and others are good right wingers the others not so much.

BCSbunk wrote: Hmmm perhaps them right wingers are much more clever than we thought???????

majorspark wrote:

BCSbunk wrote: You have not even defined right and left and want to to just take it on your word what you are talking about.

Defining politics in right and left is dumbing down the situation for the uneducated.

It in no way covers the vast amount of information and thoughts and political ways in the world.

Your post is nonsense.

I don't disagree with your post in general. But I could not help but remember your blatant hypocrisy. You have been quite a party to what you call the dumbing down of the situation for those inferior to your superior political intellect.

Perhaps all your following references pertaining to the political right were for our education. You arrogantly castigate others for doing the same thing you have been doing on a regularly posting. Just a few examples.

BCSbunk wrote: I must call Hitler where it strikes and again the filthy right wing is Hitler they should be so proud of themselves.

BCSbunk wrote: No China wants to teach and help us build REAL high speed rail......My prediction. The right wing fanatic freaks will not allow technology to increase unless it is to bomb other nations so the infrastructure will suffer.

BCSbunk wrote: The Right wing is scum beyond words.

BCSbunk wrote: Time for Science to take over our classrooms without any rebuttals or lip from the right wing.

BCSbunk wrote: Regulations mean Socialism!!!!! The Fascist right has spoken the corporations benefit mankind and must not be controlled or regulated. They mean the best for mankind and would never do evil to them.

BCSbunk wrote: Of course you offer nothing except to repeat the mantras of the right Rush and Beck and Fox news. The extreme RIGHT WING.

BCSbunk wrote: I am not blind nor am I bias to the right. I do not and will not claim a right winger like Obama as my type of politician.

He is right wing just not as right wing as you.

I am left wing and he certainly has little in common with me and my view on politics.

BCSbunk wrote: As someone who is left of the center mark on most political tests America is a Center right country as a whole.

Plenty on here who are extreme right wing.

Not the most extreme right wing but some are heading there.

Obama is a RIGHT WING Politician.

Anyone who thinks he is left of center in world politics is EXTREME RIGHT WING.

BCSbunk wrote: We are not socialist in this country and Obama is certainly not socialist and not even left of center politics.

Extreme right wingers are hiliarious.

Anything left of them is liberal. What a myopic view of the country and the world.

BCSbunk wrote: More inane comments by the right wing who contradict themselves on a regular basis.

BCSbunk wrote: Who exactly are the "real" right wingers? This group would claim they are?

Are the ones who hold signs screaming Nazi, Socialist, Obama is a Kenyan etc are they the real right wing?

I agree the real Republicans like Frum are seperating themselves from the nutjobs who scream socialism all the time.

MEMO NOTE TO THE READING IMPAIRED

Note that the reference that ALL right wingers was not used and in no way does this post imply that ALL right wingers are like the ones above.

Some like Colin Powell and Frum and others are good right wingers the others not so much.

BCSbunk wrote: Hmmm perhaps them right wingers are much more clever than we thought???????

Uhh.... yeah.... BOOM!!!

CenterBHSFan wrote:

majorspark wrote:

BCSbunk wrote: You have not even defined right and left and want to to just take it on your word what you are talking about.

Defining politics in right and left is dumbing down the situation for the uneducated.

It in no way covers the vast amount of information and thoughts and political ways in the world.

Your post is nonsense.

I don't disagree with your post in general. But I could not help but remember your blatant hypocrisy. You have been quite a party to what you call the dumbing down of the situation for those inferior to your superior political intellect.

Perhaps all your following references pertaining to the political right were for our education. You arrogantly castigate others for doing the same thing you have been doing on a regularly posting. Just a few examples.

BCSbunk wrote: I must call Hitler where it strikes and again the filthy right wing is Hitler they should be so proud of themselves.

BCSbunk wrote: No China wants to teach and help us build REAL high speed rail......My prediction. The right wing fanatic freaks will not allow technology to increase unless it is to bomb other nations so the infrastructure will suffer.

BCSbunk wrote: The Right wing is scum beyond words.

BCSbunk wrote: Time for Science to take over our classrooms without any rebuttals or lip from the right wing.

BCSbunk wrote: Regulations mean Socialism!!!!! The Fascist right has spoken the corporations benefit mankind and must not be controlled or regulated. They mean the best for mankind and would never do evil to them.

BCSbunk wrote: Of course you offer nothing except to repeat the mantras of the right Rush and Beck and Fox news. The extreme RIGHT WING.

BCSbunk wrote: I am not blind nor am I bias to the right. I do not and will not claim a right winger like Obama as my type of politician.

He is right wing just not as right wing as you.

I am left wing and he certainly has little in common with me and my view on politics.

BCSbunk wrote: As someone who is left of the center mark on most political tests America is a Center right country as a whole.

Plenty on here who are extreme right wing.

Not the most extreme right wing but some are heading there.

Obama is a RIGHT WING Politician.

Anyone who thinks he is left of center in world politics is EXTREME RIGHT WING.

BCSbunk wrote: We are not socialist in this country and Obama is certainly not socialist and not even left of center politics.

Extreme right wingers are hiliarious.

Anything left of them is liberal. What a myopic view of the country and the world.

BCSbunk wrote: More inane comments by the right wing who contradict themselves on a regular basis.

BCSbunk wrote: Who exactly are the "real" right wingers? This group would claim they are?

Are the ones who hold signs screaming Nazi, Socialist, Obama is a Kenyan etc are they the real right wing?

I agree the real Republicans like Frum are seperating themselves from the nutjobs who scream socialism all the time.

MEMO NOTE TO THE READING IMPAIRED

Note that the reference that ALL right wingers was not used and in no way does this post imply that ALL right wingers are like the ones above.

Some like Colin Powell and Frum and others are good right wingers the others not so much.

BCSbunk wrote: Hmmm perhaps them right wingers are much more clever than we thought???????

Uhh.... yeah.... BOOM!!!

LOL

Just using what is being said it does not mean it carries any worthwhile meaning.

Just the meaning or lack thereof depending on who is reading the material.

If you notice I am mimicing a certain other poster and using hyperbole in doing so.

Uh.... yeah.... BOOM.

Learn to read between the lines.

CenterBHSFan,

You must understand the the proper use of these words are best left to the wisdom of those like BCSbunk. The unlearned and unwashed like yourself are incapable of discerning their proper use. Please refrain from using such terms in the future to describe a political point of view.

majorspark wrote: CenterBHSFan,

You must understand the the proper use of these words are best left to the wisdom of those like BCSbunk. The unlearned and unwashed like yourself are incapable of discerning their proper use. Please refrain from using such terms in the future to describe a political point of view.

You are correct, Major. I shall repent of my evil, racist, unlearned ways until I can obtain all the nuances of bunk's political knowledge.

CenterBHSFan wrote:I shall repent of my evil, racist, unlearned ways until I can obtain all the nuances of bunk's political knowledge.

Easy fix Grasshopper!

Step #1: Be vague and blow about in the political winds to keep everyone guessing where you truly stand on the issues.
Step #2: Obfuscate heartfelt political beliefs and awareness by using words and phraseology found in a slightly tattered libertarian lexicon.
Step #3: Toss basic grammar and spelling to the same political winds.