Quote:
Originally Posted by mongidig
Exactly!
Notice we haven't heard from the thread starter in a while? This went bad for him pretty quickly lol!
Her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mongidig
It makes it easier to do business in the US. Companies can make more revenue and thus hire more employees and pay them more. It will also keep companies in the US and hopefully bring some back.
The coal mining industry is decreasing, not increasing. This is due to better alternative sources of energy such as solar.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/b...rump.html?_r=0
Top down economics doesn't work. If companies make more money, the executives just take it all. It doesn't get passed down to the working class, where wages have been stagnant for decades.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...d-for-decades/
Why should profits for coal mining companies come before the future habitability of Earth? Why should profits for coal mining companies come before the safety of drinking water for Americans? How does Trump putting profits over Earth's habitability and American's drinking water make him a better president than Obama? Are you saying rich people making even more money now is worth these expenses? (you do know what happens when the Earth is inhabitable, right?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mongidig
Let me rephrase your questions.
Is Trump leaking highly classified information?
Is Trump allowing the Turkish leader to order his g-men to attack protesters?
Is Trump telling Phillipind President where our nuclear subs are?
Yes.
http://www.npr.org/2017/05/15/528511...te-house-visit
Yes, effectively by not coming to the defense of the American people. These Muslim guests of Trump attacked Americans and the host didn't say a god damn thing about it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/u...rotest-dc.html
Yes.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-no...-idUSKBN18K15Y
Quote:
Originally Posted by guller
Well the stream protection rule was in effect for exactly one day of the Obama administration. Can you really call that an Obama era regulation?
Only if you consider regulations passed under the Obama administration to be Obama era regulations. So, yes, in the literal since of the word.
It was finalized in December, so the point is this: We humans are having a devastating impact on the Earth. We are driving countless species extinct due to habitat destruction, we have filled the oceans with plastic and garbage to the point where there are large patches of garbage clumped together floating like schools of garbage fish, and since the industrial revolution, we have emitted so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we are causing the global temperature to rise, leading to the melting of the polar caps.
So there comes a point where you have to take major action immediately to try to protect the environment, to try to save the habitability of the planet. But you cannot do everything with one piece of legislation or one regulation, so you have to address issues individually and gradually build up environmental protections.
So given the state of the Earth and its environment that we are currently facing, do you think it really makes sense to repeal a regulation that was likely to prevent the pollution of millions of gallons of river or stream water?
A second question. Do you realize that rivers and streams flow into larger bodies of water, which are very often sources of drinking water?
I'll assume anyone with a mostly properly functioning brain is up on the basics of these scientific claims I've mentioned, but I'm happy to provide citations for these statements if reader's scientific understanding and knowledge is lacking or non existent ...
Last edited by AllCowsEatGrass; 05-26-2017 at 10:02 AM.
Reason: or propagandized by oil and gas companies ...