18 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

By the way tell me what is wrong with aiming for 50 mpg from vehicles when we know that the worlds supply of oil is decreasing? Almost all car manufacturers have that technology anyway and it is likely only the US manufacturers that need to get a grip and deliver that performance level. But I forgot you will agree with it as long as it does not affect you having 5 liter engines that do 12 MPG. The technology is there easily to provide 50 MPG and still have huge power but I guess America was great when the 5-8 liter engine was popular with 12 mpg when gas was as cheap as water. Well that won't happen again.

Before I answer you, I will repeat again what I said before for the benefit of those who were not really listening.  Quote;  " That is the core of the political and social divide.  Part of America wants the unelected Govt Departments and Agencies to control and direct all parts of their lives, and the other part who wants to make their own decisions that are within their own rights and within the laws of the country as passed by Congress/Senate."

 

So if you read that and understood it, then listen to your question - quote;  "what is wrong with ...................... being told what to do by unelected officials"  I add the italics to show what you was really saying and what I was pointing out.  You (liberal) are OK with people/industry being mandated to by unelected officials.  Me (conservative) is not happy with that.

 

Now - going one layer deeper. No, of course I am not against 50 mpg.  But, I am against it being mandated by unelected officials.  What I am in favour of is elected officials offering people incentives (tax, duties, etc etc) to buy cars that consume less petrol - such that a 50 mpg car would cost a lot less to buy, insure, register, etc. than it otherwise would.  I am also in favour of elected officials giving incentives (tax, duties, etc etc) to Industry to manufacture cars that have an average of 50 mpg or better.  

 

Therein lies the difference - liberals are OK with People and Industry being dictated to on what they must do as determined by 'those that know' (semi-socialism) - conservatives are OK with elected officials 'encouraging' People and Industry to make their own decisions.  You may well be now thinking 'what's the difference'.  And that is because ............ well refer to above and if you dont get it by now, you never will. 

 

Edited April 9, 20188 yr by ELVIS123456

27 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

 

So if you read that and understood it, then listen to your question - quote;  "what is wrong with ...................... being told what to do by unelected officials"  I add the italics to show what you was really saying and what I was pointing out.  You (liberal) are OK with people/industry being mandated to by unelected officials.  Me (conservative) is not happy with that.

 

Now - going one layer deeper. No, of course I am not against 50 mpg.  But, I am against it being mandated by unelected officials.  What I am in favour of is elected officials offering people incentives (tax, duties, etc etc) to buy cars that consume less petrol - such that a mpg car would cost a lot less to buy, insure, register, etc. than it otherwise would.  I am also in favour of elected officials giving incentives (tax, duties, etc etc) to Industry to manufacture cars that have an average of 50 mpg or better.  

 

Therein lies the difference - liberals are OK with People and Industry being dictated to on what they must do as determined by 'those that know' (semi-socialism) - conservatives are OK with elected officials 'encouraging' People and Industry to make their own decisions.  You may well be now thinking 'what's the difference'.  And that is because ............ well refer to above and if you dont get it by now, you never will. 

 

 

Quote

So if you read that and understood it, then listen to your question - quote;  "what is wrong with ...................... being told what to do by unelected officials"  I add the italics to show what you was really saying

You have not just added italics, you have added the words. That is NOT what I was really saying. What I was really saying is what I actually said, which was:

 

Quote

By the way tell me what is wrong with aiming for 50 mpg from vehicles when we know that the worlds supply of oil is decreasing?

That is vastly different from what you have quoted me as saying or implying. Why do you do that?

 

You also say:

 

Quote

Quote

You (liberal) are OK with people/industry being mandated to by unelected officials.  Me (conservative) is not happy with that.

 

I am NOT liberal, I am lifelong right of centre and conservative. BUT i have a brain inside my head and see where the world is going and what needs to be done to ensure my great grandchildren have a reasonable existence.

 

Your post continues:

 

Quote

 What I am in favour of is elected officials offering people incentives (tax, duties, etc etc) to buy cars that consume less petrol - such that a mpg car would cost a lot less to buy, insure, register, etc. than it otherwise would.  I am also in favour of elected officials giving incentives (tax, duties, etc etc) to Industry to manufacture cars that have an average of 50 mpg or better. ....................<snip>...............conservatives are OK with elected officials 'encouraging' People and Industry to make their own decisions.

Well that gives me quite a laugh when you totally support an Administration full of self interest where the people making the decisions are almost all non elected officials. You really need to get your house in order before you spout off. I actually do not see why the US have a congress or a senate because the President and his hand picked unelected team of cronies and thugs can do whatever they want anyway. The President can push through or veto anything he wants, so why bother pretending you have a democracy. The President should be displaying bipartisan leadership to ensure the Senate and Congress make legislation and decisions for the American people - a far cry from what is actually happening in reality.

 

You also imply that you would like cars that do 50mpg but you do not want to pay for the technology to achieve that. You want the manufacturer and the Government to do that. So you in effect will only take responsibility for saving the environment if someone else pays you to do that - a very socialist attitude from a self professed conservative. Many people bought diesel cars which are more expensive because of the engine, but they have greater fuel efficiency and cost less to run. You will save the planet only if someone pays you to do it. Your great grandkids will be so proud of you when they are living in a markedly different and poorer world.

 

Rant away we will never see eye to eye on this.

 

20 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) said Democrats view the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as their “pet project” to “dictate and direct egregious actions against the American people”. He also said, “This one’s the last pet project that they had total control over, in which they directed and did everything that had no scientific basis.”

 

Gosar listed what he described as Pruitt’s achievements, thus far. He said, “For example, he’s finalized 22 deregulatory items saving the constituents and the taxpayers a billion dollars in the year. He put an end to sue-and-settle, an egregious action in which environmental groups and special interest groups would sue the government and then settle without going to court. He’s done tons of great things in regards to reeling back the EPA to a jurisdiction where it should be.”

 

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/04/07/exclusive-paul-gosar-defends-pruitt-democrats-think-epa-is-pet-project-they-have-total-control-over/

 

Funny thing is - I cannot find this viewpoint on CNN, NBC, ABC or any liberal media outlet. All I could find was headlines like this:  "EPA chief Scott Pruitt's long list of controversies". 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Six of Mr. Pruitt’s efforts to delay or roll back Obama-era regulations — on issues including pesticides, lead paint and renewable-fuel requirements — have been struck down by the courts. Mr. Pruitt also backed down on a proposal to delay implementing smog regulations and another to withdraw a regulation on mercury pollution"

".The courts, for instance, found that the E.P.A. had ignored clear legal statutes when they ruled that Mr. Pruitt had illegally delayed a regulation curbing methane emissions from new oil and gas wells and that the agency had broken the law by missing a deadline last year to enact ozone restrictions."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/climate/scott-pruitt-epa-rollbacks.html

On 4/9/2018 at 4:10 PM, bristolboy said:

"Six of Mr. Pruitt’s efforts to delay or roll back Obama-era regulations — on issues including pesticides, lead paint and renewable-fuel requirements — have been struck down by the courts. Mr. Pruitt also backed down on a proposal to delay implementing smog regulations and another to withdraw a regulation on mercury pollution"

".The courts, for instance, found that the E.P.A. had ignored clear legal statutes when they ruled that Mr. Pruitt had illegally delayed a regulation curbing methane emissions from new oil and gas wells and that the agency had broken the law by missing a deadline last year to enact ozone restrictions."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/climate/scott-pruitt-epa-rollbacks.html

"EPA broke the law with 'covert propaganda,' says watchdog"

Apparently accusations of the EPA breaking the law runs in both administrations.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/263166-epa-broke-the-law-in-lobbying-for-water-rule-investigation-finds

On 4/9/2018 at 5:59 PM, riclag said:

"EPA broke the law with 'covert propaganda,' says watchdog"

Apparently accusations of the EPA breaking the law runs in both administrations.

The difference is on who's doing the accusing and what the courts decide about it.

It was extremely rare for the Obama Administration EPA to lose in court. Trump's EPA seems to have already mastered the art of losing.

A Rare Loss for Environmentalists at the Supreme Court

JUN 29, 2015

Despite its conservative tilt, the Supreme Court has given environmentalists a rather remarkable run of success over the last decade. The justices’ 2007 ruling that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act set the stage for much of the Obama administration’s ambitious agenda to combat climate change. And just last year, the government largely prevailed in two cases challenging the limits it had placed on industry emissions.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/a-rare-loss-for-environmentalists-at-the-supreme-court/397196/

On 4/8/2018 at 5:39 PM, riclag said:

 

  Costly EPA regulation on compliance has nothing to do with supporting PT.   Supporting  less Government control and spending,while keeping common sense rules and laws, that each state can enforce and regulate is a necessity for the future of America

"That each state can regulate and enforce"...?  

Because polllution doesn't cross state lines?

On 4/8/2018 at 7:16 PM, ELVIS123456 said:

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) said Democrats view the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as their “pet project” to “dictate and direct egregious actions against the American people”. He also said, “This one’s the last pet project that they had total control over, in which they directed and did everything that had no scientific basis.”

 

Gosar listed what he described as Pruitt’s achievements, thus far. He said, “For example, he’s finalized 22 deregulatory items saving the constituents and the taxpayers a billion dollars in the year. He put an end to sue-and-settle, an egregious action in which environmental groups and special interest groups would sue the government and then settle without going to court. He’s done tons of great things in regards to reeling back the EPA to a jurisdiction where it should be.”

 

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/04/07/exclusive-paul-gosar-defends-pruitt-democrats-think-epa-is-pet-project-they-have-total-control-over/

 

Funny thing is - I cannot find this viewpoint on CNN, NBC, ABC or any liberal media outlet. All I could find was headlines like this:  "EPA chief Scott Pruitt's long list of controversies". 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And why do Paul Gosar's opinons qualify as news? 

They might qualify as cries for help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gosar

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

"Six of Mr. Pruitt’s efforts to delay or roll back Obama-era regulations — on issues including pesticides, lead paint and renewable-fuel requirements — have been struck down by the courts. Mr. Pruitt also backed down on a proposal to delay implementing smog regulations and another to withdraw a regulation on mercury pollution"

".The courts, for instance, found that the E.P.A. had ignored clear legal statutes when they ruled that Mr. Pruitt had illegally delayed a regulation curbing methane emissions from new oil and gas wells and that the agency had broken the law by missing a deadline last year to enact ozone restrictions."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/climate/scott-pruitt-epa-rollbacks.html

Don't you start letting the truth get in the way of Trump supporter spin! If you start quoting the truth to them you might adversely effect the post count from the Trump fan base.  

Scott Pruitt Before the E.P.A.: Fancy Homes, a Shell Company and Friends With Money

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/21/us/politics/scott-pruitt-oklahoma-epa.html