First time visitor? Learn more.

Still Think The EPA Hasn’t Taken Too Much Authority Upon Itself?

by Flyovercountry ( 100 Comments › )
Filed under Business, Economy, Progressives, Regulation at June 13th, 2012 - 8:00 am

I have written before on this blog about the dangers of a government bureaucracy, once it has been created. The dangers include the bureaucracy’s ability to take on a life of its own, exceed its mandate, increase its own scope and authority, operate with limited oversight and thus beyond the protections afforded by our system of checks and balances. Just about the time that some goofy liberal read the post and commented that I had not provided any decent examples of this actually taking place, the EPA, that literal bonanza of examples for bureaucrats gone wild, has provided that perfect example for me. So, here’s to you people of the EPA, thank you for being the poster children for everything that’s wrong with our government, liberals, Democrats, The Obama Administration, bureaucrats, anyone employed to work in the public sector.

From the Investor’s Business Daily editorial:

Nebraska’s congressional delegation sent a justifiably angry letter to Administrator Lisa Jackson last week complaining that her Environmental Protection Agency had exceeded its legislative and constitutional authority by conducting drone surveillance flights over Nebraska and Iowa farms looking for violations of the Clean Water Act.

“They are just way on the outer limits of any authority they’ve been granted,” said Nebraska GOP Sen. Mike Johanns, an opinion the bureaucrats rejected Friday in responding to the letter. The EPA argues that the courts, including the Supreme Court, have already authorized aerial surveillance, such as taking aerial photographs of a chemical manufacturing facility.

Law enforcement using drones for legitimate law enforcement operations is one thing, what the EPA is up to is another. I do not know the specifics of the Supreme Court Case being referred to here, but I sincerely doubt that it was meant to give carte blanche for any infringement upon our collective civil rights as citizens of the freest society ever on Earth. There is a manifest difference between an agency tasked with law enforcement obtaining a warrant to fly a drone over a crime scene to determine the best method of apprehension of a criminal which will mitigate the possibility of civilian casualties, and the EPA flying drones randomly over a farmer’s property to determine if there is any way they can declare the mud puddles formed just after rain falls to be newly formed wetlands. To add injury to insult is that they can use this technology to put the farmers out of business. Afterwards this will be used to bolster Administration efforts to cite a decrease in food production as evidence that some new oil industry killing regulation is necessary to save the American Family Farm.

There is also a difference between a drone flying over public property, as creepy as I do find that, and a drone flying over private property. Being able to declare a private pond a navigable waterway so that you can place my home to be under federal jurisdiction as a part of the Clean Water Act is beyond any intended scope of the original function of any government agency in and of itself. Flying a drone over my property to determine if the potential to declare any part of my land a navigable waterway is most certainly beyond that.

Barack Obama and his Administration have very plainly declared war against the American People. We all have heard as children the story of the Pied Piper. He was hired by the townsfolk to rid the town of rats. He led all of the rats from the town by playing his flute. He came back later and asked the towns folk to pay the piper. When they refused to pay, he played his flute and stole their children. Grimm’s fairy tales are not for the feint of heart. Like all of the stories told by the Brothers Grimm, our subjects of the lessons involved are never fully capable of seeing the folly of not paying attention to the consequences of their ill conceived decisions until after the witch has begun the process of slicing them up and cooking them. The creation of the EPA was innocently conceived. In its current form, it began as a response to the Cuyahoga River catching fire for the third time, except that in April of 1972, it happened when the national media was in town covering the days leading up to the Presidential Primary. Hooray for us, we hired the piper, and he made a few commercials with an Indian crying, and presto, we cleaned up our environment. During the last couple of decades, the EPA has increased its demands upon us, and our refusal to pay, via Cap and Trade, LOST, KYOTO, and the plethora of other legislative boondoggles, has caused the Piper to start up with that flute of his.

Such is the danger of hiring the magic flute playing man. He is just as capable of turning his magic against you as he was in benefiting you. The piper has taken to destroying our economy and his intention is, just like it always seems to be with those unfortunate children who always star in the stories told by the Brothers Grimm, to destroy our economy and to slice it into little bits and cook it up. The good news of course is that we don’t have to allow this to happen. We can kill off our piper, and put an end to the EPA.

Thomas Sowell wrote in his latest column that calling Barack Obama a Socialist is an insult to Socialists. Socialists believe in government owning and controlling the means of production and inflicting their top down central planning from that perspective. Fascists believe in private citizens keeping control of the productive means, but that the political leaders would issue their edicts as to what products would be produced and lead from that perspective. The advantage of course comes when disaster inevitably strikes, the political leaders still have someone else to blame for the disastrous consequences of the top down planning. National famine caused by the Obama Administration will doubtless be blamed on greedy farmers demanding that they actually be paid for their efforts and hard work, and not on the fact that the Obama policy agenda is making it damn near impossible to operate a family farm.

Cross Posted at Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Tags:

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

100 Responses to “Still Think The EPA Hasn’t Taken Too Much Authority Upon Itself?”
( jump to bottom )

  1. SciFiGuy
    1 | June 13, 2012 8:05 am

    Just like this!!

    EPA MUST GO!!


  2. 3 | June 13, 2012 8:29 am

    @ Bumr50:

    They lie for practice. The whole EPA needs to either be redone or abolished entirely. But you can say that for pretty much all the entrenched bureaucracy. We need to get rid of about 2/3 of the Federal workers across the board. Cut regulation by 3/4, and you’d have plenty of Federal workers to handle what remains.


  3. mawskrat
    4 | June 13, 2012 8:33 am

    the gubment as a whole has passed the
    tipping point for abuse of power. I’m
    afraid both dems and republicans are
    in on this


  4. Bumr50
    5 | June 13, 2012 8:36 am

    Didn’t a drone crash a couple of days back?

    Yeah.

    Navy drone crashes into Chesapeake Bay: What’s a drone doing in Maryland skies?

    People will start shooting at these things.


  5. 6 | June 13, 2012 8:37 am

    @ mawskrat:

    It is very close to governing without the consent of the governed. That is a dangerous point for our government to be at. We need a (non-violent) Revolution. That is what people voted for in 1994, but the Republicans failed to sufficiently deliver. I think we are going to vote for it again this year. The question becomes will the Republicans deliver? Too many of them are invested in the old system. I don’t know that we can vote a true change, but I know that if we don’t, America will fall. We are on track for another trillion-dollar deficit again this year. That simply can’t go on forever.


  6. Bumr50
    7 | June 13, 2012 8:41 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Have a national referendum on whether or not people want government agencies recording video over their property.


  7. 8 | June 13, 2012 8:46 am

    @ Bumr50:

    Yeah, I’m not thrilled by the drone surveilance, myself. Big Brother is Watching You! But they can’t secure the border (where human trafficers and drug trafficers move their goods)? They simply don’t want to secure the border. They want the human trafficers and drug trafficers to ply their trades. They are, in a word, complicit.


  8. Bumr50
    9 | June 13, 2012 8:51 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    There’s also a cost involved in running drones. While it’s cheaper than manned surveillance, there are a growing number of agencies using them.

    Homeland Security, DEA probably.


  9. 10 | June 13, 2012 9:03 am

    I’ve no quarrel, in theory, with the Federal Government having a degree of influence and prosecutorial powers in environmental matters. As is always the case, however, “a degree of influence and prosecutorial powers” becomes an ideological weapon and a means of eroding liberty when left unchecked. There’s an inherent danger in allowing any government agency to not only solve a problem, but to be given unlimited scope to actually define the problem.

    The EPA is the poster child for the saying that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. The EPA paved that road decades ago.


  10. 11 | June 13, 2012 9:03 am

    @ Bumr50:

    They could run them along the border in, say, Arizona. I imagine that a drone is cheaper than a helicopter to run. The problem is that the Feds don’t want to stop cross-border traffic, and that includes cross-border traffic in drugs. Obama has made it very clear that he wants a de facto Open Borders policy. That is why he is suing the State of Arizona for attempting to enforce Federal law on illegals. It is very frustrating. That is one place that Romney is drawing a clear distinction between himself ad Obama. I know Rodan doesn’t like the way he has done it (and he could have been more diplomatic about it; we don’t want a war on hispanics, after all), but at least he is willing to tackle the problem. I don’t think a Romney DoJ would be suing states for things like Arizona’s policy (up for Supreme Court review this month) or Voter ID. Romney is not perfect, and I fear that Rodan may be right about him being a Liberal in Conservative’s clothing, but he’ll be better than Obama.


  11. Bumr50
    12 | June 13, 2012 9:09 am

    @ MacDuff:

    These agencies have a tendency to fill up with radicals.


  12. Guggi
    13 | June 13, 2012 9:10 am

    There is also a difference between a drone flying over public property, as creepy as I do find that, and a drone flying over private property.

    They have done this for decades now with Beechcraft Super King Air 200 and 350, stuffed with cameras which could read the numbers of the dime you hold in your hands. Nothing new.

    But I agree: this should be openly discussed and the power of the EPA should be reduced.


  13. Bumr50
    14 | June 13, 2012 9:13 am

    @ Guggi:

    The difference is that they’re openly admitting it now.

    Can drone surveillance be admissible in court? Is this an attempt to legitimize a Fourth Amendment violation?


  14. 15 | June 13, 2012 9:17 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    I have no problem militarizing the Mexican border until they end their conflict down there. Until we decriminalize drugs at the very least, there will be Cartels causing problems. The Border Patrol can be put on the Canadian Border to watch the Muzz. I have no problem with drone on both borders and Puerto Rico (which is an island). Drones outside of border areas should be a no-no.

    As for Romney, I have the knife (figuratively speaking) ready for him when he gets inaugurated. Once he calls for intervention in Syria that will be the pretext I need. Republican Liberalism is not the answer to Democratic Marxism. But the GOP voters are mostly Liberals and wanted Romney. I’m just a lone voice in the wilderness.


  15. 16 | June 13, 2012 9:17 am

    @ MacDuff:

    Some environmental regulation is necessary. I don’t think much of anyone disputes that. Eaglesoars posted some pics of Pittsburgh in the 40s and 50s when it was shrouded in thick coal smoke. No on ewants to return to that. But the current EPA has gone beyond all bounds of sanity. It needs desperately to be reigned in.


  16. 17 | June 13, 2012 9:19 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    It is very close to governing without the consent of the governed.

    That’s how I feel. Neither party represents me.


  17. 18 | June 13, 2012 9:20 am

    @ Rodan:

    I don’t think Romney is going to be as bad as you expect. Romney is a political animal first and foremost, like Bill Clinton except I can’t see Romney cheating on his wife :P If we elect a conservative House and Senate, Romney will tack to the Right. At least that is what I believe. Electing the Conservative House and Senate, therefore, is a critical component of our overall strategy.


  18. 19 | June 13, 2012 9:23 am

    @ Rodan:

    You have to work from the ground up. My State Senator represents me very well. His name is Stacey Campfield. He is straight up on the Second Amendment, pushing for Tennessee to become a Constitutional Carry State. He, like me, thinks that there really should be no gun control laws whatsoever. I don’t think he agrees with me on the legalization of drugs, though. There are no perfect representatives. Everything in our political system is a compromise. If we would reign in the Federal Government, and get it back down to the dimensions that the Founders intended, it would matter a lot less.


  19. Guggi
    20 | June 13, 2012 9:24 am

    Bumr50 wrote:

    @ Guggi:
    The difference is that they’re openly admitting it now.
    Can drone surveillance be admissible in court? Is this an attempt to legitimize a Fourth Amendment violation?

    I can’t answer your question b’cause I’m not an American citizen. But since the Europeans are always eager to have everything the U.S.A. have we’ll be soon in the same discussion.

    Soon every evil state will have drones. That’s scarry.


  20. Bumr50
    21 | June 13, 2012 9:24 am

    Rodan wrote:

    I’m just a lone voice in the wilderness.

    There are A LOT of us.

    An annoying amount of patience is required…

    8)


  21. 22 | June 13, 2012 9:27 am

    @ Bumr50:

    Lord grant me patience, and do it NOW! :mrgreen:


  22. Guggi
    23 | June 13, 2012 9:33 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ MacDuff:
    Some environmental regulation is necessary. I don’t think much of anyone disputes that. Eaglesoars posted some pics of Pittsburgh in the 40s and 50s when it was shrouded in thick coal smoke. No on ewants to return to that. But the current EPA has gone beyond all bounds of sanity. It needs desperately to be reigned in.

    Same in Germany during the 1950′s and 1960′s (Ruhrgebiet/Essen/Duisburg)

    But it were concerned citizens who chnaged this not an agency.


  23. 24 | June 13, 2012 9:35 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    I doubt Romney will tack to the Right. How did Bush do with a Republican House and Senate? If Romney wins comfortably, he will think he has a mandate. He will govern with a coalition of Liberal Republicans and Democrats. He’s no Conservative, in fact he’s a Leftist.

    Plus Romney supports the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood. He wants us to get involved in Syria and he supports the Arab Spring. He’s no different than Obama in that regard.


  24. Bumr50
    25 | June 13, 2012 9:37 am

    @ Rodan:

    Who’s Flying the New Syrian Choppers?


  25. 26 | June 13, 2012 9:38 am

    Guggi wrote:

    But it were concerned citizens who chnaged this not an agency.

    That is the better way to do this. There is a lot of social pressure on companies to be “Green” these days in America. Too much, really. Everybody recycles, and there is pressure to keep power consumption down (just as a cost-cutting measure; we had an email about it just yesterday at my company). The Greens have gotten all of their reasonable demands, so they turn to unreasonable demands next. There is no appeasing them. Their goals aren’t really a clean environment, but the impoverishment of Western Civilization. As I have often pointed out, if they really believed the AGW nonesense, they would be pushing nuclear power And, indeed, for the cost of Obama’s stimulus, we could have nuclearized the American powe rgrid with thorium breeder reactors and had a marvelous return on investment. That would have also produced hundreds of thousands of jobs, but none of that was on Obama’s agenda.


  26. 27 | June 13, 2012 9:39 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    I’m done with the Republican Party after this election. I despise them as much as Democrats. They are evil and beholden to Islamic interests. There are good Republicans but the Party as an institution are a bunch of Transationalist Islamic ass kissers.

    Just stay tuned for my post next Year: Why I break with the GOP. I already have it written out. I will just wait on a pretext. No I’m not doing a CJ. My gripe is that the GOP is too Leftwing and Islamocpohile for my tastes. I also have other gripes with the GOP but that will come out when I do my post. I am not bluffing and I really mean this.


  27. Guggi
    28 | June 13, 2012 9:40 am

    Rodan wrote:

    He wants us to get involved in Syria and he supports the Arab Spring. He’s no different than Obama in that regard.

    This would be very stupid b’cause this war is a proxy war between Iran and Turkey with Iran supporting the (Shiite) Alawites and Turkey the Sunni majority. Nothing to gain here.


  28. 29 | June 13, 2012 9:41 am

    @ Bumr50:

    Let the Russians kill some Muslim Brotherhood assholes.


  29. 30 | June 13, 2012 9:43 am

    @ Guggi:

    Tell that to the Republican Party. They are advocating another nation building project in Syria. This is one of the reasons after the election I am breaking with the GOP. I want Obama out, but I will not be supporting the GOP’s Pro-Muslim Brotherhood agenda.

    The Syrian rebels are ethnically cleansing Christians and no one is saying anything.


  30. 31 | June 13, 2012 9:45 am

    @ Rodan:

    I hope we get a chance to find out. Bush had a much different Republican House and Senate. He did push some big-government themes (Medicare Part D, for example), but he also cut taxes significantly. If nothing else, I think Romney will be a much more business friendly White House than Team Obama. That is no small thing. That is what is needed to get the job-creation engines fired up, and that will pull us out of this depression if it happens. You are fond of saying that you are focused on economic issues first and foremost. When forced to choose between Romney and Obama on those issues, there is really no comparison.


  31. 32 | June 13, 2012 9:47 am

    Guggi wrote:

    This would be very stupid b’cause this war is a proxy war between Iran and Turkey with Iran supporting the (Shiite) Alawites and Turkey the Sunni majority. Nothing to gain here.

    With all sides singing the same Muslim National Anthem™.


  32. 33 | June 13, 2012 9:48 am

    @ Rodan:

    See I don’t see that the Republican PArty is doing that. Some Republicans, most Prominently John McCain and his girlfriend Ms.Lindsey Graham, are supporting intervention in Syria, but the Party is divided on the issue, just as the Party was divided on the issue of intervention in Libya. Just because John McCain says it is so, doesn’t make it the official PArty Line. The MFM portrays McCain as a spokes-hole for the Republican Party because he is the type of Republicna they wish all Republincnas were, not because he is truly representative of the Party as a whole.


  33. Bumr50
    34 | June 13, 2012 9:51 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    McCain is also a media whore, a trait he passed on to his offspring.


  34. 35 | June 13, 2012 9:52 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    You are fond of saying that you are focused on economic issues first and foremost. When forced to choose between Romney and Obama on those issues, there is really no comparison.

    Romney is no Economic/Fiscal Conservatives. We are voting for Liberalism against Marxism. This is not a good choice for me.


  35. Guggi
    36 | June 13, 2012 9:53 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Yup but the agenda changed when the term “Waldsterben” popped up. The Green Party, Greeenpeace and WWF were heavenly connected to this scam which was day in day out promted by the MSM and even after the scientist who had started the scam had to admit that his numbers were wrong that his conclusions were wrong and that his science was sloppy it didn’t stop. Waldsterben was the role model for scare mongering and even today many people belief in it.


  36. 37 | June 13, 2012 9:54 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Romney is in the McCain Interventionist wing of the GOP. He wants war in Syria. Do you really see the GOP going against their President on SYria? I don’t.


  37. 38 | June 13, 2012 9:54 am

    @ Guggi:

    What is “Waldsterben”? I am not familiar with the term.


  38. 39 | June 13, 2012 9:55 am

    @ Rodan:

    Mitt Romney has made certain promises during the Primary season especially. Barack Obama is about to stand as that perfect example of what happens to a politician elected who put an expiration date on all of his campaign pledges. Like all first term Presidents, Romney will want a second. 2016 will not be kind to Mitt should he govern as a Democrat. George H. W. Bush tried this, and what happened to him in 1992?


  39. 40 | June 13, 2012 9:58 am

    @ Rodan:

    I don’t see us actually intervening in Syria in any meaningful way. No twith the Russians supplying weapons to Assad. That is too direct a confrontation with the Russians. We simply aren’t going to do that, no matter what Romney is saying about it during the election. Remember, this is an election year. All candidates are saying lots of things that they have no intention of following through on. Romney is talking interventionist on Syria because Obama is doing nothing. If Obama were intervening, he’d be against it. It is all politics. We’ll see what actually happens when Romney is elected and the Republicans hold the House and Senate. The People are voting for a Revolution this year. We’ll see if the Repubicans deliver it.


  40. Guggi
    41 | June 13, 2012 10:01 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Guggi:
    What is “Waldsterben”? I am not familiar with the term.

    forest decline

    (The French even use the German word “Waldsterben” and refused to take it serious)


  41. heysoos
    42 | June 13, 2012 10:02 am

    my position is simple…I hate them all…
    the feds suck


  42. citizen_q
    43 | June 13, 2012 10:02 am

    Bumr50 wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    Who’s Flying the New Syrian Choppers?

    Krouthammer was speaking last night on Fox how this illustrates our impotence and the utter failure of our foreign policy in general and the reset with Russia in particular.

    Of course it is a failure only if you assume you have our countries best interests at heart. An assumption I would not make respect to anyone in the obama admin.


  43. 44 | June 13, 2012 10:02 am

    @ Flyovercountry:

    Which is why I think we’ll be more pleased with a Romney Admininstration than not. Romney is a political animal. When it suited him to be Liberal in Massachuttes, he spoke the proper Liberal cant. Now, though, it will suit him to be more conservative, and he will govern accordingly. He won’t be perfect, and I am not expecting the Second Coming of Reagan, but he will be far better than another four years of Obama. That is going to have to be good enough.


  44. Alberta Oil Peon
    45 | June 13, 2012 10:03 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    Good point, Fist. And like I have said before to Rodan, I think Romney’s musings on the issue are designed more to set him apart from Obama, who is seen as wishy-washy, than they represent fundamental GOP policy. He’s a politician, doing what politicians do, pandering to get votes.


  45. 46 | June 13, 2012 10:04 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Romney is talking interventionist on Syria because Obama is doing nothing.

    But the American public and most Conservatives don’t want part of this mess. If Romney said he will not get us involved in Syria, it would help politically. He’s going down the wrong track on Syria. Frankly I don’t trust either party when it comes to foreign policy. They both kiss Islamic ass.


  46. citizen_q
    47 | June 13, 2012 10:05 am

    citizen_q wrote:

    not make respect

    PIMF! not make with respect


  47. 48 | June 13, 2012 10:05 am

    @ Alberta Oil Peon:

    But the American people are against getting involved in Syria. This makes Romney look like an Islamic ass kisser/warmonger and that’s a turn off. Why would he go against public opinion?


  48. heysoos
    49 | June 13, 2012 10:06 am

    I predict a bunch of Russian choppers blowing up in mid air for no reason…


  49. 50 | June 13, 2012 10:08 am

    @ Flyovercountry:

    The Republicans always make promises, do they deliver? Nope.

    Look I have come to the conclusion the Republican party is not for me. I’m not wanted and the party is going in a direction I can’t follow. They have lied and deceived Conservatives the last 24 years and have done nothing but contribute to America’s ruin.

    I am only voting for Romney because Obama is 3rd World Liberation. If he was a normal Democrat I would suit this election out.


  50. lobo91
    51 | June 13, 2012 10:11 am

    @ Bumr50:

    Navy drone crashes into Chesapeake Bay: What’s a drone doing in Maryland skies?

    If you look at a map of the area, you’ll see NAS Patuxent River, which is the Navy’s main flight test facility.


  51. 52 | June 13, 2012 10:12 am

    @ lobo91:

    Hey is the email you use here still valid?


  52. 53 | June 13, 2012 10:12 am

    @ Rodan:

    Most of the public doesn’t care about Syria one way or another. Sure, if polled, they’d probably rather we stayed out of it, but no one has particularly strong opinions on it. It is not even remotely a central campaign issue. The economy is first and foremost in everyone’s mind. Obama has tried to distract to social issues, and he has failed. If Romney were to make his campaign all about keeping us out of syria, Obama would love it. There is a real danger from Syria’s WMD that we may have to use military force to take care of. That doesn’t mean “nation building”, but it could mean boots on the ground. That’ll be determined as the Syrian Civil War progresses.


  53. lobo91
    54 | June 13, 2012 10:14 am

    @ Rodan:

    Yes


  54. 55 | June 13, 2012 10:15 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    There is a real danger from Syria’s WMD that we may have to use military force to take care of. That doesn’t mean “nation building”, but it could mean boots on the ground. That’ll be determined as the Syrian Civil War progresses.

    And now you are an evil Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood supporter.


  55. Alberta Oil Peon
    56 | June 13, 2012 10:16 am

    @ Rodan:
    Can’t you see it’s just talk? Obama is doing nothing, not because he wants to take a “hands off” approach, but because he is paralyzed with indecision, “which muzzie ass tastes the best when I kiss it, Assad’s or the Al Qaeda?”

    So Romney is simply making noises to the effect that he’s not indecisive, and that he knows what to do. Once he gets elected, he can simply say, “Well, there’s no point in us intervening in Syria anymore. Obama’s dithering went on too long and the window of opportunity for a successful intervention on our part has slammed shut.”

    You see, Obama is all about diminishing and denigrating American power and influence. He is opposed to American Exceptionalism. Romney, on the other hand, is not. If America is to be a world power, then America has to be seen as being concerned with events in Syria, even if they choose not to get involved.


  56. 57 | June 13, 2012 10:17 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Most of the public doesn’t care about Syria one way or another. Sure, if polled, they’d probably rather we stayed out of it, but no one has particularly strong opinions on it.

    That’s not what I am hearing from people I speak with. Almost everyone I know don’t want to get in that hell hole. Americans are tired of this crap and if Romney vowed not to intervene in Syria, it would be a huge plus politically.

    here is a real danger from Syria’s WMD that we may have to use military force to take care of. That doesn’t mean “nation building”, but it could mean boots on the ground. That’ll be determined as the Syrian Civil War progresses.

    I will oppose such intervention and that will be pretext for breaking with the GOP. I am not going to the Left, but I can’t support a war that will put the Muslim Brotherhood in power. Sorry, I can support policies that will lead to Christians being killed. My opposition to a Romney intervention will be from the Right and my break with the GOP is from the Right.


  57. 58 | June 13, 2012 10:17 am

    @ lobo91:

    OK! I’ll email you later tonight, which will probably be your morning.


  58. lobo91
    59 | June 13, 2012 10:22 am

    @ Rodan:

    Okay


  59. 60 | June 13, 2012 10:23 am

    @ Rodan:

    That is where we disagree. Intervention in Syria would not necessarily be to put a Muslim Brotherhood government in power. I would not support that. But sending in troops to secure the WMD (Syria has significant stocks of weaponized nerve gas; this is known) is a different thing. We can’t afford to let a Muslim Brotherhood/al Qaeda government to take possession of those weapons. We can’t back Assad (he’s an enemy of the US, too). So we are kind of stuck. It is a royal mess, and Obama’s indecision on the issue has just made things worse. Now you have Russia being aggressively anti-American in the conflict. That bodes ill, not just for the duration of the Obama Administration, but for the next Administration as well.


  60. 61 | June 13, 2012 10:26 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    That is where we disagree. Intervention in Syria would not necessarily be to put a Muslim Brotherhood government in power. I would not support that. But sending in troops to secure the WMD (Syria has significant stocks of weaponized nerve gas; this is known) is a different thing. We can’t afford to let a Muslim Brotherhood/al Qaeda government to take possession of those weapons. We can’t back Assad (he’s an enemy of the US, too). So we are kind of stuck. It is a royal mess, and Obama’s indecision on the issue has just made things worse. Now you have Russia being aggressively anti-American in the conflict. That bodes ill, not just for the duration of the Obama Administration, but for the next Administration as well.

    I was thinking, there is something that Mitt could do that would totally screw up Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and Obama at the exact same time. Mitt could offer to join the Russians in Helping Assad crush the rebels. Boy would that be a king sized monkey wrench thrown into the works.


  61. 62 | June 13, 2012 10:29 am

    @ Rodan:

    Good Lord, man, third party activism has never done anything but strengthen the Democrats’ hand. What practical outcome do you expect from ‘washing your hands of both sides’, other than a degree satisfaction with yourself?

    Rant on, but be advised that “screw ‘em all” isn’t a practical solution.


  62. 63 | June 13, 2012 10:30 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Obama’s indecision on the issue has just made things worse.

    Actually he’s doing the right thing. Staying the hell away from this mess.

    The Muslim Brotherhood is the best organized force in Syria. The Syrian Sunnis are fighting to establish an Sharia state. Lets say we go in and overthrow Assad. Those same Sunnis we came in to help will attack our troops. When we have an election, who do you think will win? The Muslim Brotherhood.

    Plus think of the consequences of a Syrian intervention. Do you think the American people can stomach another occupation? That will be the end of Romney’s Presidency and say hello to President Cuomo come 2016.


  63. Da_Beerfreak
    64 | June 13, 2012 10:30 am

    Bumr50 wrote:

    Didn’t a drone crash a couple of days back?

    Yeah.

    Navy drone crashes into Chesapeake Bay: What’s a drone doing in Maryland skies?

    People will start shooting at these things.

    I have read elsewhere that that drone was undergoing flight testing after having undergone maintenance. Someone forgot to tighten all the nuts and bolts… :oops:


  64. 65 | June 13, 2012 10:31 am

    I’m reminded of the incredible outrage voiced by the left over the passage of the PATRIOT Act (BTW, do they think up the acronym first and then fashion the name of the bill around it?) at the behest of President Bush. The hand-wringing over the untold masses who would have their civil liberties infringed went on and on. It was essentially a bill that gave law enforcement tools for investigation in the electronic age that had been sorely lacking. To my knowledge, and contrary to El Dumbo the Teacher in North Carolina, people were not jailed en masse utilizing the tools given to law enforcement. In fact, I’m hard pressed to come up with anyone jailed at all.

    Contrast this with a Presidential Administration that is flying unmanned drones over private areas, but because he’s a libturd Marxist, excuses are made by the left-wing media.


  65. 66 | June 13, 2012 10:32 am

    @ doriangrey:

    Assad is too much an enemy o fthe United States for that to be a viable solution. There are no good options on Sytria. If we do as Rodan suggests, and completely stay out of it, and al Qaeda gets nerve gas, we are fucked. If we intervene boots on the ground to stop that, well, we’re hosed in a different way. The best thing we coudl do, probably, is destroy the WMD stockpiles with B2s, but that supposes that we know where all that shit is. We probably don’t. Like i said, there are no good options on the table. I am not sure even which is least-worst.


  66. 67 | June 13, 2012 10:33 am

    @ MacDuff:

    I said I am voting for Romney against Obama. But after Obama is gone, there’s no bogeyman to keep me in the Republican Party. If I don’t agree with the GOP on foreign policy and don’t trust them on economic/fiscal policy what’s the point supporting a side I don’t have much in common with?

    I’m not trying to start any arguments. I’m just stating my views.


  67. 68 | June 13, 2012 10:34 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    but because he’s a libturd Marxist, excuses are made by the left-wing media.

    the Fifth Column Treasonous Media is in serious need of a Lamppost+Stout Hemp Rope moment.


  68. 69 | June 13, 2012 10:34 am

    Rodan wrote:

    I’m not trying to start any arguments. I’m just stating my views.

    And I, mine.


  69. 70 | June 13, 2012 10:36 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    The best thing we coudl do, probably, is destroy the WMD stockpiles with B2s

    I can support that or special forces going in and seizing the weapons we know where they are. The truth is after Iraq fell, we should have smashed Syria as well. Instead we decided to nation build in Iraq. We should have done a Sherman like campaign in the Middle East after 9/11. Nation destroying, not nation building. We blew it and now we have this damn if you do, damn if you don’t situation.


  70. lobo91
    71 | June 13, 2012 10:36 am

    @ Carolina Girl:

    do they think up the acronym first and then fashion the name of the bill around it?

    Yes


  71. 72 | June 13, 2012 10:36 am

    @ MacDuff:

    Just don’t dress in an Orange jumpsuit and play a Ukulele!

    :lol:


  72. 73 | June 13, 2012 10:38 am

    @ Carolina Girl:

    Obama can do what he wants because the media views him as a divine God-King. There’s a double standard with Obama. Obama loves drones and if he could, hell Many of us on this blog would be targeted by them.


  73. heysoos
    74 | June 13, 2012 10:39 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ MacDuff:
    I said I am voting for Romney against Obama. But after Obama is gone, there’s no bogeyman to keep me in the Republican Party. If I don’t agree with the GOP on foreign policy and don’t trust them on economic/fiscal policy what’s the point supporting a side I don’t have much in common with?
    I’m not trying to start any arguments. I’m just stating my views.

    and saying it well…your views are the same as mine…let Putin have Syria if he wants it…in for a penny, in for a pound


  74. lobo91
    75 | June 13, 2012 10:39 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    The best thing we coudl do, probably, is destroy the WMD stockpiles with B2s, but that supposes that we know where all that shit is. We probably don’t.

    I’m sure we don’t, and besides, bombing wouldn’t guarantee destruction. That stuff has to be incinerated at around 1700 degrees to ensure destruction. Bombing it would just spread it around.


  75. 76 | June 13, 2012 10:41 am

    Rodan wrote:

    The truth is after Iraq fell, we should have smashed Syria as well.

    We should have smashed both Syria and Iran. I believe that was the plan, but the plan didn’t survive contact with the enemy. The enemy in this case being the Democrats in the Legislature, Barack Hussein Obama foremost among them. Given the Democrat’s treason, there was little that could be done to salvage the situation. We couldn’t easily have just pulled out of Iraq and left it. My biggest disappointment in that was that we allowed them to form Iraq as an Islamic Republic. That is like it would have been if we’d allowed Germany to keep Nazism after World War Two. It was stupid. We needed a radical de-Islamization program in Iraq, which would have required more occupation, not less. Bush was terrible at this, and did not present a good case to the American people for what we did do. He was a lousy communicator.


  76. 77 | June 13, 2012 10:42 am

    @ lobo91:

    With Conventional bombs, yes. Nuclear weapons can definitely incinerate! Anyone have info on the MOABs?


  77. 78 | June 13, 2012 10:43 am

    lobo91 wrote:

    Bombing it would just spread it around.

    Yeah, but there wouldn’t be able to go in and scrape up the nerve gas and use it. Like I said, though, there are no good options in Syria. I don’t honestly know what the best path is forward. All paths have serious negative consequences.


  78. lobo91
    79 | June 13, 2012 10:44 am

    @ Macker:

    With Conventional bombs, yes. Nuclear weapons can definitely incinerate!

    Since there’s approximately a 0.0000000000% chance of that happening, I didn’t think it was worth mentioning.


  79. 80 | June 13, 2012 10:47 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    It didn’t help that the Bush Administration had Wilsonian Progressives who decided to turn Iraq into a Democracy experiment. We can blame the Democrats, but it was Bush who decided to nation build, rather than keep moving on and smashing our enemies.


  80. Alberta Oil Peon
    81 | June 13, 2012 10:57 am

    @ lobo91:
    And the downside of that would be? (as long as the wind isn’t blowing towards Israel).


  81. 82 | June 13, 2012 11:00 am

    @ Alberta Oil Peon:

    That is really the only downside I can see. Nerve gas is nasty shit. I read somethin gon Chemical Weapons when I was in high school, and they estimated that one large scale chemical attack in Western Europe by the Russians would wipe out an inordinately large segment of the population. IIRC, the article even talked abou tthe possible necessity to import insects because nerve gas is essentially a modified insecticide. It kills pretty much everything with a nervous system.


  82. 83 | June 13, 2012 11:03 am

    @ doriangrey:

    Indeed. I’d pony up for the Pay Per View for that one.


  83. 84 | June 13, 2012 11:07 am

    @ doriangrey:
    @ Carolina Girl:

    Dorian loves Stout Hemp Rope! I bet he has money invested in a company!


  84. 85 | June 13, 2012 11:18 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    @ Carolina Girl:
    Dorian loves Stout Hemp Rope! I bet he has money invested in a company!

    I’m Betting on the Stout Hemp Rope industry being a serious growth industry, especially once TSHTF…


  85. Mars
    86 | June 13, 2012 11:21 am

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/11/border-agency-overextended-drone-program/

    Just a quick hit and run. Maybe this explains why our government has ordered far more drones than it can possibly use under current mission parameters.


  86. 87 | June 13, 2012 11:29 am

    @ doriangrey:

    Who should compile a list?


  87. coldwarrior
    88 | June 13, 2012 11:29 am

    lobo91 wrote:

    I’m sure we don’t, and besides, bombing wouldn’t guarantee destruction. That stuff has to be incinerated at around 1700 degrees to ensure destruction. Bombing it would just spread it around.

    dont waste your breath, i already tried to explain that to the peeps here.

    i had no success.


  88. 89 | June 13, 2012 11:31 am

    Macker wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    Who should compile a list?

    Me, of course… :twisted:


  89. coldwarrior
    90 | June 13, 2012 11:31 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    the east bloc’s intention for west berlin was to use non persistent nerve agent against us and check back on the city in 2 or 3 weeks.

    all former berlin brigade troops are very well versed in chemical weapon training.


  90. 91 | June 13, 2012 11:34 am

    coldwarrior wrote:

    lobo91 wrote:
    I’m sure we don’t, and besides, bombing wouldn’t guarantee destruction. That stuff has to be incinerated at around 1700 degrees to ensure destruction. Bombing it would just spread it around.
    dont waste your breath, i already tried to explain that to the peeps here.
    i had no success.

    Let’s just say that some people are intellectually challenged on the seriousness of chemical weapons and leave it at that.


  91. coldwarrior
    92 | June 13, 2012 11:36 am

    doriangrey wrote:

    Let’s just say that some people are intellectually challenged on the seriousness of chemical weapons and leave it at that.

    good idea.


  92. lobo91
    93 | June 13, 2012 11:36 am

    @ doriangrey:

    Some people have seen too many movies.


  93. coldwarrior
    94 | June 13, 2012 11:37 am

    just posted at my local rag:

    I am a tea party member. to answer your question, tax break means less money going to the government. i like that because that means that government has less of the money that should be in the private sector.

    as for your comparison of tax breaks for rds versus what obama has done with tax payer’s money for places like solyndra and the loan guarantee, well…if you cant see the difference might i suggest any of milton friedman’s lectures on youtube as a good place to start to educate yourself.

    this ‘tax break’ does not belong to the government. that money belongs to the investors in rds including investors like me and you through a 401k or pensions. government is too large and needs to take a pay cut just like those of us i the private sector.

    does there need to be taxes? yes, there is a need. does government need the money at the current levels of taxation to feed the ever expanding monstrosity? no, it does not. you see, government is horribly inefficient at making the economy run when compared to the private sector dollar per dollar. besides, why should someone else have a claim to money that I earned? to illustrate, how would you feel if someone strolled into your house and raided your fridge every 2 weeks?

    -the tea party

    i wanted to be mean, but being mean to idiots is just not right.


  94. MikeA
    95 | June 13, 2012 11:37 am

    @ lobo91:

    Are you telling me that what I saw in the movie “The Rock” was wrong? I don’t have to stab myself in the heart with a big needle and walk in slow motion?


  95. lobo91
    96 | June 13, 2012 11:42 am

    MikeA wrote:

    @ lobo91:

    Are you telling me that what I saw in the movie “The Rock” was wrong? I don’t have to stab myself in the heart with a big needle and walk in slow motion?

    Not only that, but VX doesn’t actually cause your face to melt, either.


  96. Mars
    97 | June 13, 2012 11:42 am

    Still have not fond memories of NBC training. And the real gear ups in Desert Storm.

    Worst part is this shit just hangs around for pretty much forever. People would be surprised at the amount of material from WW2 that still gets dug up today.


  97. Mars
    98 | June 13, 2012 11:44 am

    @ lobo91:
    Still doesn’t hurt to take your p-tabs, have your atropine, 2pam, and valium injectors handy. (Of course we only had one valium injector per 5 people.) Our theory was that you were dead anyway, the valium just made you feel better about it.


  98. 99 | June 13, 2012 11:50 am

    New Thread.


  99. 100 | June 13, 2012 8:31 pm

    Boo!


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David