Republicans Seek to Destroy Environment

[Minimalist]

But Democrats argue that the policy prescriptions are proof that Republicans are determined to undo clean air and water protections established 40 years ago.

Many of these new restrictions, they point out, were proposed in the budget debate earlier this year and failed. They are back, the Democrats say, because Republicans are doing the bidding of industry and oil companies.

“The new Republican majority seems intent on restoring the robber-baron era where there were no controls on pollution from power plants, oil refineries and factories,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman, a California Democrat, excoriating the proposal on the floor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/scienc...TE&ei=5043

[Judas BentHer]

Never underestimate the greed of the other party.
Republicans are traditionally about smaller government (and huge profits) . Bush 43 was one of the best examples of a GOP member during the campaign and a swift turn coat to Liberal after the USSC gave him the nod.

The environment, for both parties, is something to be exploited. It's what happens when the electorate thought an oil man was a great choice for President, and it'll happen repeatedly as long as there's something in nature that can ring a profit. While those ultra-right wing Conservative types, who refuse to let a woman have the right to decide for her own body, are more than happy to decide for the future generations that they the power and the corporations they serve have every right to exercise that proverbial dominion over the earth and everything that walk, crawls, flies or lies buried beneath their feet.

One activists worry over global warming is a another activists golden egg. And it's not like we can't manipulate our environment in some way. Especially with what we're being told we're already responsible for altering it to the level of "climate change" or "global warming crisis" already. What ith all those satellites up there and HAARP and all manner of other things we know nothing about holding the potential to do what sci-fi thought possible, while head in the sands deny anything is possible and dismiss any chance they could be wrong with; that's just conspiracy theory. (No, it's not a theory when it's a conspiracy of facts!) It's government. If nothing in our history has ever resounded so loudly it's that government is capable of anything.

Oil and Natural Gas Drilling under Arctic Ice Cap

All legislation that stands to make puppet masters big profits, stands every chance of passing. Always has always will. It's all out of our hands anyway. We can email, snail mail, set in on legislative sessions, and we have nothing on influencing our representative government like the multi-million dollar lobby's, Corporations and special interests. Domestic and Foreign.

And nothing about that is ever going to change. Sure as hell not with the Tea's backed by the cartoon pair featured in the OP. Because people have been programmed to fear getting in trouble, getting tasered, getting arrested, losing their job due to zero tolerance policies that can be enacted against anything an employer chooses and virtually enforced not only at work but off the clock too, because we're an "at will" employment nation. People don't want to risk what they've got, lose what they think they own, while taking a chance at fighting for what they want.

It's much easier to bitch and feel that's enough.

Till that changes, it will be.

That's a great American tragedy. One of many.

[The Grand Nudger]

Unbelievable. I thought it would be some smear....but these are actually being voted upon.....

[Minimalist]

I never "smear".





Well, except for the fucking theists and they deserve it!

[Faith No More]

What do you expect when the Christian right thinks God gave us the Earth so we could rape and pillage it?

[theVOID]

ut Democrats argue that the policy prescriptions are proof that Republicans are determined to undo clean air and water protections established 40 years ago.

Many of these new restrictions, they point out, were proposed in the budget debate earlier this year and failed. They are back, the Democrats say, because Republicans are doing the bidding of industry and oil companies.

“The new Republican majority seems intent on restoring the robber-baron era where there were no controls on pollution from power plants, oil refineries and factories,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman, a California Democrat, excoriating the proposal on the floor.

They need to go back to the old way of doing things, when a company pollutes and damages the property and health of the community the people can launch a class action suit with their evidence, toxicity reports etc, bleed the fuckers dry and then use the revenues gained to help the community. Most places now that's not possible, all infringements are handled by a central authority that can vary wildly in policy depending on which special interests the current politicians are sucking off - While an ideal regulator might take infringements seriously others simply won't pursue anything and will remove the ability for the people to seek any damages period.

Pollution IMO is a clear cut case of property rights being violated, it should be easy to prove in a court of law given the physical evidence left everywhere. Should the people be able to demonstrate that this pollution has killed people or deformed pregnancies etc they should even be able to imprison the company executives for negligent manslaughter.

[Minimalist]

Should the people be able to demonstrate that this pollution has killed people or deformed pregnancies etc they should even be able to imprison the company executives for negligent manslaughter.

LOL. Ah, Void.... sometimes you can be so engagingly naive!

[theVOID]

Should the people be able to demonstrate that this pollution has killed people or deformed pregnancies etc they should even be able to imprison the company executives for negligent manslaughter.

LOL. Ah, Void.... sometimes you can be so engagingly naive!

Oh what, do you want to throw any business executives in prison as soon as someone accuses them of polluting to the extent that kills people? Individuals who are the victims of the actions of any other individual or organisation should be free to pursue damages in court but they have to make their case as the accuser, beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when the sentences proposed are for significant prison sentences. - Regulatory bodies often do not permit this kind of class action, they usurp the functions that would otherwise be used by the public to pursue compensation and by all accounts they let way too much slide.

Take for instance the situation of someone who is an enormous polluter like the Koch brothers who you despise so much. Given that AGW is largely considered to be scientific fact and given that the Koch brothers are excessively polluting and emitting greenhouse gasses which in turn causes damage to peoples and property, it should be easy to demonstrate a connection between the Koch Brothers activities and damages to life and property - What actions have your regulatory bodies realistically taken to prevent their ongoing pollution, huh? Not much. And can the Koch brothers be sued by thousands of complainants when the regulators won't do shit and if found guilty be heavily penalised? No, because as long as Koch is within the regulatory guidelines and the public can't sue for damages they can legitimately claim to be following regulations, meaning they have done nothing illegal and can't be sued!

[Tiberius]

I never "smear".

*snorts*

No, I suppose you don't think comparing perfectly ordinary people to Nazi's is a smear in the slightest. Then again, as theVOID so ingeniously put the other day, you are the left-wing version of Glenn Beck...

[Autumnlicious]

Oh what, do you want to throw any business executives in prison as soon as someone accuses them of polluting to the extent that kills people?

Normally when someone is accused of murder, they aren't immediately thrown in prison. I fail to see why anything should be different.

Individuals who are the victims of the actions of any other individual or organisation should be free to pursue damages in court but they have to make their case as the accuser, beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when the sentences proposed are for significant prison sentences.

Either you have no idea about jurisdiction shopping in the US and/or know nothing about lawyers, especially the high profile ones. If you think trying to stop the RIAA/MPAA from extorting money from people by their frivolous and often ridiculously high damage claim lawsuits is hard, what the hell do you think can occur in Citizen VRS Entity accused of Murder (as opposed to Entity trying to get 50k$ from you whether you can afford it or not).

- Regulatory bodies often do not permit this kind of class action, they usurp the functions that would otherwise be used by the public to pursue compensation and by all accounts they let way too much slide.

Look at the Koch brothers and their industrial practices. Seems illegal, right? Well then Mr. Consumers Always Know What's Best, why don't we see hideous lawsuits practically wiping them from the face of the Earth?

Why didn't BP practically get hamstrung for poisoning the gulf and ruining a great many people's bank accounts and livelihoods?

Why does Exxon still exist, given their massive oil spills?

It's not just "regulatory bodies". It's the people. If they truly felt the way you've outlined, then the laws would be different. There would be a push to change and punish them. But there isn't, wasn't and probably won't be.

And that's why we have "regulatory bodies" -- an entity that originally was used by political movements (usually composed of a very vocal minority) as a hammer.

Most other people don't fucking care ™.

Take for instance the situation of someone who is an enormous polluter like the Koch brothers who you despise so much. Given that AGW is largely considered to be scientific fact

Whoah there pardner! Maybe you haven't paid attention to US legislation, but AGW is considered a political debate. And the people who have a vested interest in it being kept 'unproven' can easily dig up expert witness after expert witness to muddy up the waters enough for escaping beyond a 'reasonable doubt'.

and given that the Koch brothers are excessively polluting and emitting greenhouse gasses which in turn causes damage to peoples and property

Also debatable. And also extremely unlikely to ever pass in any court, given who they could hire, who they can present and whatever hush money they could, in event of everything going wrong, offer.

You'll get no justice there.

, it should be easy to demonstrate a connection between the Koch Brothers activities and damages to life and property

Quoted for not making sense. Since when was it "easy" to demonstrate any but the most bloodfucking obvious malfeasance (Oil spills, I'm looking at yoooooou)?

- What actions have your regulatory bodies realistically taken to prevent their ongoing pollution, huh? Not much.

Because the current political powers that be have been loosening the regulatory guidelines for years.

Sorry Void, but your version of history deviates significantly with what happens over here.

Here's an example of financial regulations (Glass-Steagall Act) that were weakened and partially repealed by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (authored by three famous Republicans). Because of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, many actions including the chopped derivatives games played by the financial giants were considered legal because of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.

In other words, a regulation agency is only as strong as it is legislated.

And who buys off legislators? Corporations and other big moneyed interests. Occasionally PACs as well.

And yet who fucking elects the legislators? In theory, the little guy.

And can the Koch brothers be sued by thousands of complainants when the regulators won't do shit and if found guilty be heavily penalised? No, because as long as Koch is within the regulatory guidelines and the public can't sue for damages they can legitimately claim to be following regulations, meaning they have done nothing illegal and can't be sued!

Yep.