GOP votes to end rule stopping coal mining debris from being dumped in streams

Status
Not open for further replies.
As if black lung wasnt enough, maybe a little cancer in the water. Which wont be treatable with the help of insurance cause, hey, we dont like the Obama in Obamacare. Shooting both feet.

Also, we goin industrial era, y'all. Hold in to ya bowler caps
 
Dunk#7 said:
Every company wants to produce everything as cheaply as possible.

Nobody is saying some regulations aren't needed. But there is a line that becomes excessive and overly damaging to business.

None of us really know the ins and outs of every crazy regulation on the books. Do you not think some could be out of line?
Click to expand...

A 100 foot rule is not that
 
Dunk#7 said:
Every company wants to produce everything as cheaply as possible.

Nobody is saying some regulations aren't needed. But there is a line that becomes excessive and overly damaging to business.

None of us really know the ins and outs of every crazy regulation on the books. Do you not think some could be out of line?
Click to expand...

That may be true but in this instance it's bullshit and you know it. You are making excuses and are transparent as glass.
 
The sad thing is that even after they and their children get sick, they'll keep voting those same assholes back into office.
 
Anti-regulation people really don't want to find out why said regulation exists - they prefer to find out the hard way.

Time for history to repeat itself.
 
Measley said:
The sad thing is that even after they and their children get sick, they'll keep voting those same assholes back into office.
Click to expand...

Because the coal companies convince the people that it is the government's fault that there is no economic future in the region. They'll blame government and environ regulation while ignoring the shift from deep shaft to strip mining, and the reduction in required jobs that came with that shift.
 
Where is Captain Planet when you need him? This administration is basically saying "What's the worst thing we can do? Go ahead and do that exact thing."

And when the people in those areas get sick with no or little healthcare, they'll still vote for the the man with the (R) in front of his name!
 
I mean, it's not like the GOP cares. They are the servants and distraction for the rich. Rich people just assume they'll live in pleasant, manicured arcologies in some unspoiled part of the world reserved for the leader-class humans. While the remaining slaves not replaced by automation live short sick lives and die. All the while feeling thankful that the leaders keep them protected from whatever fear the leaders feel has a nice ring to it in the present decade.

And if that sounds ridiculous, every other dystopian science fiction future is coming true step by step.
 
Aselith said:
A 100 foot rule is not that
Click to expand...

How much have you read of the actual law? I am sure it has more than just a few sentences saying stay outside of 100 feet. You have to consider the entire document as a whole. Not saying I know the contents, but I doubt it is as simple as this article makes it appear.

Nobody would purposely dump directly into a stream and intentionally ruin drinking water.

Plus you have to consider if existing regulations already covered this factor. Could be unnecessarily redundant.
 
uncredited male said:
After you take a bath you can light it on fire to warm your house.
Click to expand...
clip.small.gif
 
I give up. Just bring on the next mass extinction event and be done with us. Willingly destroy our ecosystem and own well being so a few rich people can get richer.

Idon'twanttoliveonthisplanetanymore.jpg
 
Ugh. It's not even a govt regulation that hurts anyone's profits or potential. It's a freaking responsibility to your local environment.

I know we have dominion over this earth, but that means we are to protect it, not be flippantly destructive. =(
 
Dunk#7 said:
Nobody would purposely dump directly into a stream and intentionally ruin drinking water.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes they would. It's why things like the EPA came into existence in the first place. As long as they aren't directly affected by it, they won't care.
 
Dunk#7 said:
How much have you read of the actual law? I am sure it has more than just a few sentences saying stay outside of 100 feet. You have to consider the entire document as a whole. Not saying I know the contents, but I doubt it is as simple as this article makes it appear.

Nobody would purposely dump directly into a stream and intentionally ruin drinking water.

Plus you have to consider if existing regulations already covered this factor. Could be unnecessarily redundant.
Click to expand...

Have you actually met the human race? Is this the kind of logic you use in your everyday travels? If so, I simply feel sorry for you.
 
Dunk#7 said:
Nobody would purposely dump directly into a stream and intentionally ruin drinking water.
Click to expand...

You haven't been paying attention (let alone to history).

Wulfric said:
Where is Captain Planet when you need him? This administration is basically saying "What's the worst thing we can do? Go ahead and do that exact thing."

And when the people in those areas get sick with no or little healthcare, they'll still vote for the the man with the (R) in front of his name!
Click to expand...

This.
 
Harpoon guns make excellent cranial impalement tools.
 
I know everyone's thinking that this could be pretty bad for the environment, but think of all the growth this will cause!

Like lymphoma.
 
Got said:
Now that you've been proven factually ignorant, what do you have next?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? That article didn't say the pumped slurry directly into a stream. Precautions are taken and when they fail there are procedures for fixing the situation and cleaning it up. There are spills at chemical companies across the country.

Yes, the EPA has made plenty of great regulations that help protect us and nature, but my point is that there is a broad spectrum of where to draw the line. Balancing regulations and business is tricky, and most laws are unnecessarily complex and stuffed with extras outside of the core intent.

I highly doubt this regulation is as simple as the article makes it out to be. If it was it would only consist of a few sentences. Can any of us honestly sit here and judge the validity of this regulation without knowing everything in it?
 
If there is literally anything stupid and harmful, the Trump administration and GOP is for it.

There is NOTHING to be gained from this at all - it just lets coal companies poison the country's own wells. Why? Because fuck Obama and sensible regulations that's why!
 
Dunk#7 said:
What are you talking about? That article didn't say the pumped slurry directly into a stream. Precautions are taken and when they fail there are procedures for fixing the situation and cleaning it up. There are spills at chemical companies across the country.

Yes, the EPA has made plenty of great regulations that help protect us and nature, but my point is that there is a broad spectrum of where to draw the line. Balancing regulations and business is tricky, and most laws are unnecessarily complex and stuffed with extras outside of the core intent.

I highly doubt this regulation is as simple as the article makes it out to be. If it was it would only consist of a few sentences. Can any of us honestly sit here and judge the validity of this regulation without knowing everything in it?
Click to expand...

so, you have nothing? gotcha.
 
I've come to the conclusion that the environment is fucked. We're going to have to figure out how to live on without it or die out. Kind of hoping for the latter at the moment.
 
Dunk#7 said:
What are you talking about? That article didn't say the pumped slurry directly into a stream. Precautions are taken and when they fail there are procedures for fixing the situation and cleaning it up. There are spills at chemical companies across the country.

Yes, the EPA has made plenty of great regulations that help protect us and nature, but my point is that there is a broad spectrum of where to draw the line. Balancing regulations and business is tricky, and most laws are unnecessarily complex and stuffed with extras outside of the core intent.

I highly doubt this regulation is as simple as the article makes it out to be. If it was it would only consist of a few sentences. Can any of us honestly sit here and judge the validity of this regulation without knowing everything in it?
Click to expand...

Allowing seepage is pumping it into the water. Directly or not, they allowed it to continue and poisoned that water. But technicality is the point right? They don't care about environmental impact, they ONLY care about being technically in compliance which is why laws have to be "complex and stuffed with extras"...so that these weasely fucks can't slime their way into technically compliant but still harmful workarounds.
 
Whatever Democrats are for, Republicans are against... even when it's protecting our rivers from toxic dumping.

It's unbelievable how far Republicans will go to be wrong.
 
Love how Dunk believes nobody would poison a public water source. In a world with child soldiers, rape, and human trafficking. Yeah nobody is evil enough to pollute.
 
Drinking water? Who needs that shit. I'm no donkey, I drink bottled bitch.


The GOP is nearly Satan. Still I've met satanists and they aren't the kind of cunt's the right votes into congress.
 
Dunk#7 said:
What are you talking about? That article didn't say the pumped slurry directly into a stream. Precautions are taken and when they fail there are procedures for fixing the situation and cleaning it up. There are spills at chemical companies across the country.

Yes, the EPA has made plenty of great regulations that help protect us and nature, but my point is that there is a broad spectrum of where to draw the line. Balancing regulations and business is tricky, and most laws are unnecessarily complex and stuffed with extras outside of the core intent.

I highly doubt this regulation is as simple as the article makes it out to be. If it was it would only consist of a few sentences. Can any of us honestly sit here and judge the validity of this regulation without knowing everything in it?
Click to expand...
You see, the coal mining industry is one industry that exceptionally don't give a fuck about anything except profit. They don't care if their workers are constantly diagnosed with black lung, or are constantly injured and die in preventable accidents. They do everything they can to avoid paying fines for violations while they pay huge sums of money to spread misinformation about climate change and coal. And you would think they would just not do something like let their waste contaminate adjacent streams if there was little regulation in their way? They've been doing this very thing for years regardless. This is not about keeping regulations from becoming too convoluted - its stripping away rules that prevent the coal industry do whatever it wants at the expense of everyone else.
 
You can opt in for a coal particle filter (at your own cost). Each month a representative from the coal industry will come to your house to collect whatever coal makes it through to your premises and is collected in the filter.

Yay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Temu to stop selling goods from China directly to US customers
33
989
OmegaSupreme replied
High-End Headphone help
15
601
Xeela_sunston replied
When will Reddit stop being a Snowflake Central?
NSFW  2 3
109
8K
Robot Carnival replied
CFB: Unranked Vanderbilt defeats #1 Alabama - Goalpost dumped in the river
27
2K
Topher replied
Elon Musk announces Grok being returned to revise history
2
68
578
violence replied
Top Bottom