Can we stop blaming Trump?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2017, 09:08 AM
RE: Can we stop blaming Trump?
Hi RS76, how are you today?
Thanks for your responses. I think it is great idea and it is only fair to learn from progressives what they believe and want instead of telling progressives what they believe and want.
RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:I explained this in the above, but the short version is that no one wants unnecessary regulation. That's just silly. It's simply a question of what we regulate and why. I would humbly submit to you that the people who are complaining about regulation are paid well by people who would sharply increase their profit motives by being able to poison me and my fellow Americans.
OK, this may be true. But these are my own thoughts. I believe that EPA has people who want power and money. To create unnecessary regulations is the way to get more powerful and rich. I don't believe that EPA has only those who are people like you, for example. . EPA has people who are corrupt bureaucrats and who look for ways to get rich.
I also believe that those who complain about regulations may care about profits so much that they don't care enough about the environment.
So, these are my questions: do you agree that we are overregulated nation? Do you believe that there are EPA bureaucrats who want to have power and money more than they care about the environment?

P.S. When I was talking about progressives I didn't talk about every progressive. I was talking about politicians and those who have big platform. I don't need to listen to right-wing talk radio to know that some or many politicians Democrats and politicians Progressives and Progressive call people names if they don't agree with their agenda.
I agree with you that people on both sides call each other names, brothers don't talk to sisters because of the religion or politics. If I accused only progressives in names calling I wouldn't be fair to Progressives. But I like to be fair to all people. I am sure that you are beautiful person who is liberal and progressive.
After we are done talking about regulations I will respond to other great points you have made and, of course, I will ask you some questions.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2017, 09:16 AM
RE: Can we stop blaming Trump?
(21-03-2017 09:10 PM)Vivian Darkbloom Wrote:  
(21-03-2017 06:44 PM)Alla Wrote:  TO RS76


RS76, thank you for your response. I read everything you have said.
Let's forget about right-wing talk radio. I will share with you my own opinion.
I am not against regulations. I want people to be safe and healthy. There are many smart and important regulations. But before I heard any wing talk radio I realized that Americans are not so free in their daily lives as I thought they would be.
I realized that I have less freedom in the USA parks and forests than I had in Ukraine. Less freedom when I have to remodel my house or my property(land).
When my husband worked in Boise at the construction site he and other workers had to do morning physical exercises and they were allowed to drink only water. My husband who is Latino(oppressed minority) concluded:" those who made those rules must be stupid Democrats/socialists". He probably was right, not that Democrats are stupid, but that the rules are stupid and come from progressives.

Those rules concerning morning exercise and the drinking of water sound like company policies, not regulations put in place by lawmakers. If he hated it so much he of course wasn't being forced to work there, was he?

It was not my husband's company. They do different projects and at particular place(project) they had to do all that stuff. BTW, personally I find those rules very wise, especially drinking water instead of harmful drinks like sodas. But the fact that adults are treated like little kids is kind of insulting in my opinion.
So, my husband thinks that only liberals/progressives would come up with these kind of awesome Smile (in my opinion) rules.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2017, 09:27 AM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2017 09:32 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Can we stop blaming Trump?
(22-03-2017 09:08 AM)Alla Wrote:  I believe that EPA has people who want power and money. To create unnecessary regulations is the way to get more powerful and rich. I don't believe that EPA has only those who are people like you, for example. EPA has people who are corrupt bureaucrats and who look for ways to get rich.

Not if they want to stay out of jail. Ethics violations are taken very seriously in the Government for civilian career employees, not so much for political appointees like the corrupt businessmen Trump has appointed.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
22-03-2017, 10:47 AM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2017 10:53 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Can we stop blaming Trump?
(22-03-2017 09:08 AM)Alla Wrote:  Hi RS76, how are you today?
Thanks for your responses. I think it is great idea and it is only fair to learn from progressives what they believe and want instead of telling progressives what they believe and want.

I am much better, today. Thanks for asking! I had somewhat worn myself out after being sick, recently, and I think my (40-year-old) body didn't appreciate being treated like I was still half my age. Laugh out load

And yes, we definitely appreciate your willingness to listen to progressives about what they are/think, rather than accepting what you're told about us.

(22-03-2017 09:08 AM)Alla Wrote:  OK, this may be true. But these are my own thoughts. I believe that EPA has people who want power and money. To create unnecessary regulations is the way to get more powerful and rich. I don't believe that EPA has only those who are people like you, for example. . EPA has people who are corrupt bureaucrats and who look for ways to get rich.

As Girly pointed out, a government agency worker (but apparently, not a politician, as it appears to be standard operating procedure for them to be profiting from corruption) who enriches themselves in that manner goes to prison, especially if they're working at an agency so despised as the EPA. It's not like anyone would cut them slack in that situation, or fail to report it.

Having worked in environmental protection, myself, I can assure you that people there care very much about integrity and doing their job with respect to the laws of the country-- we even went out of our way to secure the advance permission of landowners before we walked down creeks (technically owned by the state) that bordered their property, when doing our chemical sampling and/or species and habitat surveys.

All that said, I'm curious how exactly one would "get rich" off of some environmental regulation game... bribes to ignore regs that are put in place? Owning companies that sell green technologies? The former is an outright felony, and the latter is a conflict of interest so egregious that they would be at least fired, and probably also prosecuted. There is no way I can see a legitimate motive for passing regulations that is anything other than wishing to see clean air and water that do not poison the animals and people that depend on them. The EPA (and the Clean Air/Water Acts) was created under Richard Nixon because even he could see there's a problem when rivers in major cities repeatedly burn due to pollution.

(22-03-2017 09:08 AM)Alla Wrote:  I also believe that those who complain about regulations may care about profits so much that they don't care enough about the environment.
So, these are my questions: do you agree that we are overregulated nation? Do you believe that there are EPA bureaucrats who want to have power and money more than they care about the environment?

No, I do not agree that we are an overregulated nation, or that EPA beaurocrats have this sort of agenda. I think that the people pushing both ideas are people who profit (often by millions of dollars a day) when they are not forced to comply with these regulations, or when the EPA "looks the other way" on improper compliance with regulations (which is what caused the West Virginia river poisoning a couple of years ago).

My dad--a "die hard" Republican/hyperconservative--is a Chemical Engineer who has worked in safety and process management for the past couple of decades, and is now in charge of the entire department for a large chemical company in southeast Texas. He has no issue with the safety regulations... his company bosses are the ones who chafe against the expense and trouble, and constantly seek to pressure their employees to find ways to side-step them. He was once fired from a job, after he stood up to them (and threatened to report them) when they did this-- because it was against the law, and more importantly because he understood what the law prevented and thus it was against his ethics to comply. He is a former nuclear powerplant safety engineer, as well, and one of the books of his I read was about Chernobyl, and how their lack of regulation and safety protocols (that are standard in the USA) resulted in an incident that would be literally impossible, here. Regulations are what keep businesses from taking shortcuts, and thus keep us alive.

Now, all that said, there are almost certainly outdated or ill-informed regulations which are in need of modification or repealing, but not the sorts that are being chafed against by your propagandists.

I'm certainly in favor of relaxing restrictions on smaller businesses while keeping the clamp tight on the large businesses/industries which have much greater potential to do large-scale harm. But no, we are not an "over-regulated" country, unless you compare us to China (which has almost no restrictions of this sort, and is suffering massive health problems as a result). Trust me, you would not want to live in a world where regulations were relaxed from their already too-thin status here in the USA.

(22-03-2017 09:08 AM)Alla Wrote:  P.S. When I was talking about progressives I didn't talk about every progressive. I was talking about politicians and those who have big platform. I don't need to listen to right-wing talk radio to know that some or many politicians Democrats and politicians Progressives and Progressive call people names if they don't agree with their agenda.

I am unfamiliar with the ones to whom you refer, here, but I'll take your word for it. No doubt there are Progressive blowhards no less odious than, say, Rush Limbaugh, but they have nowhere near the platform and reach given to Limbaugh or Ingram or Savage, etc., and most Progressives neither listen to them nor give their opinions much credence. If you can name an example of someone who does this, to whom most of us listen, then I would be glad to revise this assessment.

(22-03-2017 09:08 AM)Alla Wrote:  I agree with you that people on both sides call each other names, brothers don't talk to sisters because of the religion or politics. If I accused only progressives in names calling I wouldn't be fair to Progressives. But I like to be fair to all people. I am sure that you are beautiful person who is liberal and progressive.
After we are done talking about regulations I will respond to other great points you have made and, of course, I will ask you some questions.

I think labels are definitely dangerous things, and can blind us to new perspectives-- and too often, to facts.

And I look forward to your questions.

Edit to Add: If you will forgive me for posting a liberal magazine article, I think you would do well to see what the EPA did to transform American skies and rivers, and what it would look like if those who seek to manufacture consent among the public to tear down the EPA are successful in their efforts:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2...tion-trash

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
22-03-2017, 01:56 PM
RE: Can we stop blaming Trump?
Thank you, RS76. I read your interesting responses. I am a little busy these days that is why I can not respond right away. I will definitely read the link.
I will answer as soon as possible.
But I want to throw one more question: what would you say to those who say that people like Leonardo De Caprio or Al Gore are hypocrites? I assume you heard this accusation.
Please, feel well Smile Heart

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2017, 01:58 PM
RE: Can we stop blaming Trump?
(22-03-2017 09:27 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(22-03-2017 09:08 AM)Alla Wrote:  I believe that EPA has people who want power and money. To create unnecessary regulations is the way to get more powerful and rich. I don't believe that EPA has only those who are people like you, for example. EPA has people who are corrupt bureaucrats and who look for ways to get rich.

Not if they want to stay out of jail. Ethics violations are taken very seriously in the Government for civilian career employees, not so much for political appointees like the corrupt businessmen Trump has appointed.
Thank you for informing me, GirlyMan Heart I am glad I am learning.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2017, 03:00 PM
RE: Can we stop blaming Trump?
(22-03-2017 01:56 PM)Alla Wrote:  Thank you, RS76. I read your interesting responses. I am a little busy these days that is why I can not respond right away. I will definitely read the link.
I will answer as soon as possible.
But I want to throw one more question: what would you say to those who say that people like Leonardo De Caprio or Al Gore are hypocrites? I assume you heard this accusation.
Please, feel well Smile Heart

No problem. Real life always comes first... or should, anyway!

I cannot answer your question, since I do not know what you mean about either of those men, since I have no idea what they said or what would make them hypocrites. With the exception of Al Gore's work with An Inconvenient Truth (which I have not seen), I am totally unfamiliar with anything he has done or said since he left the office of the Vice President. And the only thing I know about Leo is that he was way, way, way overdue for an Oscar when he won the award last year.

On a quick Google search, the only thing I can find that might be related to your point is an article about how he flies around the world in a private jet while preaching a "green" lifestyle. (So I'll comment on that; if I'm wrong, ignore the following.)

I kept reading the article, thinking, "What is the point that the author is trying to make? That a person who promotes greener technology and more efficient living styles for the 7+ billion people on earth can't use an airplane? Should he keep his appointments via bicycle? Or can he take the bus from Los Angeles to Cannes, France, and back to LA in a fast enough time to make it to his next appointment with Famous Producer So-and-So, so he can land his next job?"

I was also interested in the way the article I read in particular kept emphasizing the amount of CO2 produced by the jet's combusion (as if a car/bus/boat carrying Leo over the same distance would have produced less), for a commercial aircraft... and hinting that a private jet would have made a lot more. It's not true, since the commercial aircraft has much more weight and much bigger (thirstier) engines, but on a per-person basis, it is indeed more efficient for him to fly commercial. Why he would be insane enough to try to do so, I cannot imagine, but on that one point of efficiency, it's true that a modicum of efficiency would be achieved if Leo went through a paparazzi shitstorm, every time he wanted to board a plane-- almost literally every week of his life-- to get to a distant meeting or project.

It would be insane. All the author is doing, as far as I can tell, is snidely suggesting that people who promote green living should be living like Luddites, or something, lest they be hypocrites. But no one who is advocating for green technologies and more efficient living is saying that those who need to fly cannot or should not do so. There are a million ways we can be more efficient in this society, both in how we build things and how we live, before we get down the list to "more efficient ways to quickly and repeatedly cross the ocean".

In other words, this article is "much ado about nothing".

Honestly, it makes me a little sad that there are readers out there who really think that being in favor of pro-environment changes to our lives and laws means that the person should stop using modern technology like airplanes, or that it is hypocritical not to do so.

To put it into a metaphor that might be easier to understand, let's say you and I are neighbors who live in the "Wild West", in the mid 1800s, John Wayne movie-style. You and I are both well-armed, as our little prairie town does not yet have a police force to keep badguys from waltzing in and taking our stuff, even our lives. If I came to you and said that I would like to see our town get a police force so we don't need to walk armed everywhere we go, and I went around trying to convince all my neighbors to share the cost of hiring such a police force, would it be "hypocritical" of me to carry my guns with me when I went?

The same applies to flying in a plane, when you often have to get somewhere quickly (and without being hassled by crowds because of your fame), even if that somewhere is to a conference where you urge people to vote for pro-environment leaders and to urge those leaders to get behind projects that do not pollute our planet so much.

So, yet again, I will respectfully ask you to consider where you first heard about Leo's "hypocrisy", and what the ulterior motives of those who are promoting that narrative and use of terminology might be.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
22-03-2017, 06:01 PM
RE: Can we stop blaming Trump?
(22-03-2017 03:00 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Honestly, it makes me a little sad that there are readers out there who really think that being in favor of pro-environment changes to our lives and laws means that the person should stop using modern technology like airplanes, or that it is hypocritical not to do so.

The modern world wouldn't function without business people, politicians and others flying to their meetings. That said, it would still be wonderful if people cut back on their non-essential travel if they are really concerned about climate change. I have personally cut back by declining four invitations to travel long-distance since I retired.

And yes, I think there is a question of hypocrisy in some cases.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thoreauvian's post
23-03-2017, 07:16 AM
RE: Can we stop blaming Trump?
(22-03-2017 06:01 PM)Jay Vogelsong Wrote:  
(22-03-2017 03:00 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Honestly, it makes me a little sad that there are readers out there who really think that being in favor of pro-environment changes to our lives and laws means that the person should stop using modern technology like airplanes, or that it is hypocritical not to do so.

The modern world wouldn't function without business people, politicians and others flying to their meetings. That said, it would still be wonderful if people cut back on their non-essential travel if they are really concerned about climate change. I have personally cut back by declining four invitations to travel long-distance since I retired.

And yes, I think there is a question of hypocrisy in some cases.

Since Leo divides his time about equally between going to public speaking engagements (usually about the environment) and his working career, flying to various locations to either film or meet with the people making the films, I don't consider it hypocritical for him to fly as much as he does.

That said, you're quite right that we could all cut back on unnecessary things and should be mindful of excess, and there are no doubt some who say one thing and do another... hypocrites.

But the question I was addressing was not about whether or not Leo was actually a hypocrite (I don't think he comes close to qualifying as one) for his pro-environment message despite a jetsetting lifestyle. I don't think he could be 1/10th as effective at being a spokesperson if he stopped being such a famous/hardworking actor, or if he stopped flying around agitating for change.

No, my real question was about why it is that people who speak up for the environment are impugned-- and why this is the sort of issue/question that is pushed to people like Alla by the corporate-owned spokespersons as such an endless barrage of propaganda that she eventually comes to think that these are her own thoughts on the matter (which just happen to coincide with the messages she's hearing). Why, when asking about Progressives, would Leo and Al even come up?

That's the heart of the issue, here.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
23-03-2017, 07:25 AM
RE: Can we stop blaming Trump?
(23-03-2017 07:16 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  No, my real question was about why it is that people who speak up for the environment are impugned-- and why this is the sort of issue/question that is pushed to people like Alla by the corporate-owned spokespersons as such an endless barrage of propaganda that she eventually comes to think that these are her own thoughts on the matter (which just happen to coincide with the messages she's hearing). Why, when asking about Progressives, would Leo and Al even come up?

That's the heart of the issue, here.

It's simple to understand. Corporate interests don't care about what is actually a good or bad thing, just what affects their profits. If I'm at BP or Shell, and our profits are entirely dependent on oil, and some scientists are saying that oil is a big problem, I'm gonna use any and all tactics to smear them. Including making them out to be pansy greenies, insinuating that their research conclusions are backed by some shadowy agenda, doing bogus research that counters their claims, and even worse stuff I'm sure that they will not shrink from.

They will only suddenly reinvent themselves as "green" once the position becomes completely untenable, (which I would have thought was long ago, but clearly not), that burning fossil fuels is bad.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: