Talk:Environmental Protection Agency

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Unconstitutional, but a good idea[edit]

While I agree that there some be some environmental regulation to prevent the corporations from dumping chemicals and drugs into the air and water, the EPA is controlled by radical socialists and pseudoscientists. However, I like the idea of strong state-level EPAs. Talsley (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

So you're okay with socialism when it's convenient, like the medical plan that provides your psychiatric prescriptions which you are dilligently ~taking, but not others. Got it. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
What are you jabbering on about? Talsley (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
That's what everyone else here is wondering about you. Thank you for putting it so succinctly. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you so pathetic that you cannot answer my question and must resort to ridicule? Talsley (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you so pathetic that you honestly believe the shit that you write? -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
And now you have resorted to profanity. Talsley (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
And now you have resorted to criticizing profanity. You feel better? Syndicalist 00:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Your statement makes no sense. Talsley (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Except for the part where it does. Try making sense of it. Use your intelligence. Syndicalist 00:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
No it does not. Talsley (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Lets act like adults people.--Revolverman (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for being a voice of reason. Talsley (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Except that almost all modern environmental issues involve STATE borders being crossed, by chemicals in this case. What are we to do with it then? Syndicalist 00:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Presumably all states will have about the same level of protection. Talsley (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
What stops a state from putting all its air polluting centers on a well known wind current or dumping all of its waste at the into a river on the end of its borders and simply saying its ok with our EPA?--Revolverman (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
State law. Talsley (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
But that depends on the state, no? If the laws end at the state borders, what could one state do about another state dumping into theres? --Revolverman (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The market will find a way. Perhaps we could launch it into space. Talsley (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Declare war, of course. It's not like they're supposed to be united or anything; just let 'em have at it. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 01:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you insane or just stupid? Talsley (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you trolling or just unaware of the federal government? ~ Kupochama[1][2] 01:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The federal government can do what is in the Constitution, nothing more, as described within it. Talsley (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Mikalos209/Nice--il'Dictator Mikal 04:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No[edit]

Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. As most things related to the environment, such as air or water pollution, affect matters across state lines, Congress has the power to regulate it. End of story. If you disagree, take it up with the courts. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice job not responding, Talsley. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)