what next? lead weights that ALL tire shops use to balance our wheels?
Your WHAT hurts?
more important wheelerman is what that means to your ability to have weapons. sure they wont stop your right to bear arms, they will just make it so expensive that it is prohibitive. cass sunstein is an interesting character we should have our eyes fully open at this point.
They already did this with children's toys(which we obviously don't want lead in) but did it in such an overbearing way that many kids dirt bikes got banned too.
The dealers selling them got stuck with legally unsalable merchandise as I recall.
Wheelerman wrote:what next? lead weights that ALL tire shops use to balance our wheels?
Don't say that out loud, you will only give them ideas. Don't tell them about car batteries or that lead is used in radiation shielding.
I'm going to say that while I think the EPA does still have a place, this kinda thing is stupid. Yes lead is harmful - bullets are by definition intended to cause harm. Its like worrying how sterile a lethal-injection needle is. I think the EPA (and other agencies especially the FCC) need a leash on them. I do have problems with any non-legislative agency effectively making laws. I do think they are useful as an
enforcement mechanism of existing laws, but the scope of their authority should end there.
...but it puts us in a viscious circle: the EPA, as an unelected-nonlegislative qgency, should not be creating laws. The current congress and president are not going to tell them to stop, as EPA is furthering their agenda. But if we take it to the courts, we have judges making policy from the bench.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
EEEEPPPPPAAAA
EEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPPPAAAAAAAA
LOL
ya, disband it.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
EPA rejects effort to ban lead in bullets
“EPA today denied a petition submitted by several outside groups for the agency to implement a ban on the production and distribution of lead hunting ammunition.
EPA reached this decision because the agency does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) — nor is the agency seeking such authority,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, in a statement.
They never say that they oppose a ban, just that they lack the legal authority to regulate this type of product. Give it time and someone will find a loophole somewhere.
I guess it hardly matters if they "oppose" it or not...if they are powerless to do anything about it. Jaw-jacking about this subject is like screaming into a 100-mph wind...no one will hear you, no one will care, and it's a total waste of your time.
Frankly, it's kind of like you "opposing" them...it means nothing, for you also are powerless to do anything about it.
Move along folks...nothing to see here!
Bill...stfu. They were considering the ban, and in fact, were soliciting opinions on the subject. Whether the EPA was itself the driving force behind the attempted ban is irrelevant. The issue was the attempted ban itself. People are aware of it now and will be watching more closely. Kinda like when you chamber a round when you see the 12 point buck. Problem being is that your prey heard you were up to something at got spooked. Same here.
The only jackjawing is you.
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
You may have noticed that in pointing out the complete uselessness of your current quest, I demonstrated how you were effectively shutting
yourself the fcuk up. However, I did it with considerably more class, and added a tinge of comic awareness. You might take notes...that is, notes from something other than the
Right Wing Hatebook.
You sound like a teabagging parrot sometimes. Do you ever even
consider both sides of a situation?
Side A: Banning lead bullets
Side B: Not banning lead bullets.
Its so simple even an orphan could understand it.
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
there has to be more to it, there just has to
, it is pretty basic what the issue is, it gets interesting when you begin to debate the why behind their desired actions...
Finding nefarious and sinister motivations behind their actions is downright silly. They are charged with protecting the environment. Lead is one of the most poisonous common compounds around. It's been eliminated from nigh every product it was found in previously, with a couple of notable examples including gasoline and house paint.
The EPA realized it had put its fist through a hornet's nest when it decided to take on lead in bullets, and it backed away. Simple. Easy. Done.
All the rest is so much stupidity.
to understand the criminal, you need to uncover the motive...and the money behind him.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
I don't think EPA is perfect...but I've yet to see an agency or company that is.
Compact fluorescents are easy to love for their significant reduction in power use, which pays back a host of benefits, environmental and otherwise. As for their total landfill footprint, let's face it...we're throwing away way more stuff every day that's just as nasty. Landfills remain a neccesary evil.
No, I don't see the EPA as some conspiratorial anti-business shadowy agency bent on a hidden agenda. I've much better ways to spend my time and mental acuity than such silliness. Really...
Kevin Trudeau wrote:They were considering the ban, and in fact, were soliciting opinions on the subject. Whether the EPA was itself the driving force behind the attempted ban is irrelevant. The issue was the attempted ban itself. People are aware of it now and will be watching more closely. Kinda like when you chamber a round when you see the 12 point buck. Problem being is that your prey heard you were up to something at got spooked. Same here.
So they where asked to do something, and in response they weight the pros and cons - exactly what I'd expect any functional agency to do. They decided NOT to do so, perhaps using their lack of authority as a perfect reason to not do so(a good way to shut up "several outside groups"). Most importantly, look at what is underlined below.
Labotomi wrote:EPA rejects effort to ban lead in bullets
“EPA today denied a petition submitted by several outside groups for the agency to implement a ban on the production and distribution of lead hunting ammunition. EPA reached this decision because the agency does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) — nor is the agency seeking such authority,”[/b] said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, in a statement.
They never say that they oppose a ban, just that they lack the legal authority to regulate this type of product. Give it time and someone will find a loophole somewhere.
If you ignore the subject(or switch it with ANYTHING non-gun related), and simply look at what they have done(or didn't do) - you will see that this is completely normal business as usual. Nothing sinister at all. For all the people who scream about "Obama's anti-gun agenda," I have yet to see even one almost decent piece of evidence that he has any such agenda. Its all paranoid speculation. You only accept it if you accept all the other speculation(which uses all previous paranoid speculation as evidence). The only action taken this administration have strengthened the 2nd amendment a bit. He doesn't actually have a good "scorecard" from "gun control" groups at all.
Perhaps you have some quote somewhere of him speaking(likely in front of some leftist group) about the subject, but remember he is a politician. Politicians play to the crowd. Wasn't it Quick and others who said something to the effect of "forget what he says and look at what he does" etc? Well look at what he has ACTUALLY DONE.
When there is no supporting HARD EVIDENCE for, and the only
HARD EVIDENCE in existence speaks contrary of what people keep screaming about, what does that say about those people? Speculative and mostly paranoid.
Quiklilcav wrote:Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Finding nefarious and sinister motivations behind their actions is downright silly. They are charged with protecting the environment. Lead is one of the most poisonous common compounds around. It's been eliminated from nigh every product it was found in previously, with a couple of notable examples including gasoline and house paint...
If you truly think the EPA is all on the up-and-up, how would you explain their supporting of CFL bulbs, which have more of a chance of causing environmental and health issues than lead?
You could argue incompetence with that(unless you think the energy saving benefits outweigh the potential harm aka pros outweigh cons), what would their agenda be? Holding stock in CFL bulb manufacturing companies? That's the best I could think of.
But tell me if that equals some "evil leftist conspiracy" involving George Soros or something. Someone break out a chalkboard, stat! (just playing with you
)
I think you people are looking for links that just aren't there.
bk3k wrote:Quiklilcav wrote:Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Finding nefarious and sinister motivations behind their actions is downright silly. They are charged with protecting the environment. Lead is one of the most poisonous common compounds around. It's been eliminated from nigh every product it was found in previously, with a couple of notable examples including gasoline and house paint...
If you truly think the EPA is all on the up-and-up, how would you explain their supporting of CFL bulbs, which have more of a chance of causing environmental and health issues than lead?
You could argue incompetence with that(unless you think the energy saving benefits outweigh the potential harm aka pros outweigh cons), what would their agenda be? Holding stock in CFL bulb manufacturing companies? That's the best I could think of.
But tell me if that equals some "evil leftist conspiracy" involving George Soros or something. Someone break out a chalkboard, stat! (just playing with you )
I think you people are looking for links that just aren't there.
I am a bit more cynical as to their motivations...I think Scotta and his ilk are looking for the links that they've been told exist, connections and accusations they just take as gospel because they trust their handlers beyond all reproach. Demonizing anything with the word "environment" has been a right-wing staple for some time now, so this is just in lockstep with their handlers' teachings.
It's so much easier to be spoon-fed "knowledge" than to take the time, and have the gumption, to reach one's own conclusions based on factual research rather than programmed indoctrination. It's also much easier to just "go with the flow" than to risk independent thought that might result in derision from the good ol' boy network. How meek, how...ovine.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:bk3k wrote:Quiklilcav wrote:Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Finding nefarious and sinister motivations behind their actions is downright silly. They are charged with protecting the environment. Lead is one of the most poisonous common compounds around. It's been eliminated from nigh every product it was found in previously, with a couple of notable examples including gasoline and house paint...
If you truly think the EPA is all on the up-and-up, how would you explain their supporting of CFL bulbs, which have more of a chance of causing environmental and health issues than lead?
You could argue incompetence with that(unless you think the energy saving benefits outweigh the potential harm aka pros outweigh cons), what would their agenda be? Holding stock in CFL bulb manufacturing companies? That's the best I could think of.
But tell me if that equals some "evil leftist conspiracy" involving George Soros or something. Someone break out a chalkboard, stat! (just playing with you )
I think you people are looking for links that just aren't there.
I am a bit more cynical as to their motivations...I think Scotta and his ilk are looking for the links that they've been told exist, connections and accusations they just take as gospel because they trust their handlers beyond all reproach. Demonizing anything with the word "environment" has been a right-wing staple for some time now, so this is just in lockstep with their handlers' teachings.
It's so much easier to be spoon-fed "knowledge" than to take the time, and have the gumption, to reach one's own conclusions based on factual research rather than programmed indoctrination. It's also much easier to just "go with the flow" than to risk independent thought that might result in derision from the good ol' boy network. How meek, how...ovine.
excellent use of the word gumption, i used it the other day, it needs to make a comeback.
i find it odd you say this about scott when you mentioned in your own words (or typing, but thats semantics) that you do not pay attention to any sources but make up your mind based on your beliefs. while noble a thought there is a reason there is media to uncover many things the average citizen cannot take time out to look up. the diligence to confirm the sources remains with the individual, and in this case anything involving cass sunstein (i know its spelled different but i dont care to edit) and soros would seem to have plenty of merit if you look beyond the surface.
You're confusing "media" (a term used to describe the broad-based sources of information) with "extremist info". While such info is certainly part of the overall "media", it is misleading and inaccurate to over-generalize in this fashion, to infer that Scotta is making informed, thoughtful choices. He's not. He's doing whatever his handlers tell him to do. it's apparent in every cause he trumpets, every alleged indignation he allows himself to be offended by. It's not a process of discovery, it's recitation of a concocted script others wrote for him.
The fact is, Scotta hates the EPA because he's been told to. That's enough for him. He bit on this EPA vs. lead bullets "controversy" like a muskie chasing a flashy lure. His handlers know exactly which bait he will strike on...they've spent years teaching him what he likes.
the same EPA that said E85 was the way to go?
sure..... I trust them...
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Add another one to the livewell! Fishing is GOOD today.
everyone, meet the ever so omniscient Bill!
get over yourself man.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
