WE FUCKING WOULDN'T BE TARGETING THE ISIS IF WE FUCKING STAYED OUT OF MIDDLE-EASTERN AFFAIRS. IT'S PANTS-ON-TH-HEAD OBVIOUS THAT THESE GROUPS EXIST BECAUSE FOREIGN POWERS GET INVOLVED WITH THE AFFAIRS WITH THESE COUNTRIES. EVERY TIME 1 JIHADIST IS KILLED LIKE 3 MORE ARE RECRUITED

*smashes head into 20 blocks of concrete blocks*

Even though this is a Kinder post, this is actually true.

The EPA, as part of its retinue, allows businesses to pollute a certain amount in a certain area which is a flagrant disregard of property rights.

Where the hell did you hear that from? The EPA will work with polluters, which can take time, if they are willing to cooperate in order to avoid a lawsuit. But the EPA doesn't disregard its responsibilities to deal with polluters.

Under proper tort laws, any aggressive polluters would be liable to expenses and, possibly, getting sued by victims. Oh, and there's that infamous case of Milwaukee vs Chicago.

The EPA are the ones who sue polluters, and they do get fined, usually heavily.

What exactly is Milwaukee vs Chicago? I've never heard of that court case and Google has apparently never heard of it either.

Also, I don't see what the originality of a thought has to do with its validity since you have to get all of your information from somewhere. It's exceptionally funny coming from a self-proclaimed technocrat too. And no, I don't read Forbes or Fox.

I'm asking because it seems as if you don't even understand the responibilities of the EPA. I know because I've taken multiple classes where I've learned about environmental issues and the role the federal, state, and local governments play to protect it and the people, as well, I've listened to speakers from the EPA and of course I've done my own independent research for projects and papers. It's something I'm knowledgeable on, which is why I feel I'm prepared to talk about it despite being a technocrat. And generally you seem to be fairly intelligent yourself, but the fact of the matter is that you don't know what you're talking about when you talk about the responsibilities of the EPA.

You should know why I'm confronting you about your sources. You don't have to brush it off and say we all have to get our information somewhere. The Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act are the two more important pieces of legislation the EPA handles. The only people I could imagine that are insane enough to say that a law that prevents governments and private institutions from dumping pollutants into our water supply is a law that needs to be eliminated might be... well shit, I don't know if even the Tea Party could be that insane. You probably read news articles written by factory owners that are buttmad because they got caught dumping waste in a river.

It's really not difficult to imagine that the EPA would come under the shadow of corruption from lobby groups which benefit from public works. If you think government corruption is a fantasy of "libertarian dogma trash", you're literally a fucking idiot. Not to mention you're overstating my opinions since I quite clearly stated support for policies which could harbour a wide range of governmental responsibilities.

I get that the government can succomb to lobbying and be paid off, but that's not a reason to solely target the EPA and eliminate its powers and responsibilities. There are other ways you can go about taking on corruption without destroying government.

I'm not closed off to the idea of different institutions fulfilling the role to a satisfactory degree.

The information the EPA gathers is extensive, and it being a federal administration helps. Still, I believe it couldn't hurt to link a few short articles on what the EPA does.

Overview

Regulations

Enforcement

The economics are on my side because you'll notice I added the caveat of having the right price. There is no serious economist who is against carbon taxation, since it's vastly superior to tax credits and subsidies.

Is it the only thing we can do? No, of course not. Iron fertilisation, carbon scrubbing and nuclear energy subsidies are all viable, auxiliary policies. The point is that a carbon tax is the most economically efficient route to take.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but you're saying that we don't need the EPA, and I'm telling you that you don't even understand the role the EPA plays and how it's necessary to enforce a carbon tax.

>mfw new epa regulations are basically going to end thousands of coal mining jobs and ruin the economy

There comes a time when there's a line between protecting the environment and destroying jobs and industries, thus putting an even bigger burden on society when the job market is still shit

Burning coal causes global warming via excessive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere trapping more heat than usual. And as we know, global warming is going to hurt the economy. It's more economical to rely on other energy sources rather than something that's raising sea levels that will force the world to build massive levees around the cities, will cause food shortages globally, exacerbate poverty, overpopulation, and probably war as countries fight over diminishing arable lands and glacial melts. Not to mention the increase in the severity and commonness of hurricanes, heat waves, tougher winters, and drier, longer droughts (which cause forest fires).

The economics are not on your side of the argument.

I don't know what went through your mind to convince you that merely stating its intended function would sway me from thinking it was useless.

Even if it did do its job properly, a carbon tax would be a far better alternative. I don't know what it is with the green crowd who think the solution to environmental problems have to be utterly and fundamentally behaviour-changing.

Democrats and the green party have been trying to get a carbon tax for ages. However you seem to believe that a carbon tax on its own is good enough. Generally speaking, this is an irrelevant conversation because a carbon tax will never get passed because all republicans have to do is start a smear campaign about how the democrats are trying to raise taxes.

Anyway, carbon isn't the only pollution, and you need a legal entity that's going to handle that (not to mention the EPA has dozens of other community and educational roles, which is vitally important considering America's poor reputation with scientific literacy, which means less engineers and less scientists, which means a slower economy).

Back to the carbon tax, businesses are going to decide whether or not to pollute and pay the tax based on whichever option is more economical. Considering the costs to prevent pollution, they're more likely just to pay the tax, just like businesses are more likely to pay the Obamacare business mandate tax than to pay for their healthcare. And if businesses are polluting then that means more human health and environmental problems, which once again means a slower economy.

I liked the Prince Caspian movie.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. You should love to see bloodshed. The fighting in that movie? NOT FUCKING BLOODY AT ALL.

Shit, those 300 movies probably spoiled me.

I just watched (I don't even want to say it) the fucking prince caspian narina movie. god was it shitty. I don't even know where to start. First of all, the killing didn't look real at all. Second, there were so many holes and loose ends and some giant gay water guy shows up at the end out of no where and saves the day and then he's fucking gone a minute later and its never fucking explained what the fuck that was and how anticlimactic it was. yes I know it's for fucking kids, but that was just horrendous. The only reason why I watched it to the end was because I paid three bucks for it and I'm incredibly bored.

I give it a 1.5/10. Do not fucking watch that garbage.

beer i think? idk it was gross

your mom is hot

I don't get it.

Battleship for me too.

Probably my ego.

What comes after Heroic?

I hate it

Fuck sushi

I'd like to thank my boyfriend for the blood running down my legs.

Ouch?