WH refuses to open EPA's e-mail re greenhouse gases

The BBQ Pit
81

Ah, again with the insults. Sweet.

I think you’re misconstruing my sarcasm with my intent. You see, I always view these “No War For Oil” signs on the telly, and I think “Well, geez, that’s not why we’re over there, is it? Or is it?” Well, I got to thinking that if it really were the sole reason for going in there, then our leaders should just come out and say so, and I’d be OK with it to the extent that it’s just as good a reason as any other at this point, since it appears there weren’t any other good ones that we’ve been told that make any sense or were even true.
I believe I stated that I served in the Army in the first Gulf War, and I also believed I stated that I never wanted to go to that hot, shitty part of the world again, and I don’t want you or any other fellow Americans to go over there either (for the sake of war…visit all you like!).

I hate war, I despise and resent it. But I’m not afraid to fight it if I have to, and if you’re in the military, you have to.

So, you can take your name-calling and stuff it up Der Trihs’ ass, which I suspect by your alliance in worldview is a place you’re used to being.

82

Whereas if you had a proper military, those who claim to hate war like yourself, would enlist in the defense force, and be contractually prevented from taking part in wars in aggression. Like Iraq.

The significant proporotion of the current enlistment who want to be in the Middle East to kill as many rag-heads as possible would join the offense force and wouldn’t have to sully their hands by association with defense personnel.

83

I didn’t know very many fellow soldiers that felt that way in the early 1990’s, and I don’t know many current soldiers that feel that way either. I think that hateful sentiment is way overblown. Sure, there are some bigoted asshole killers in the military, but not as many as people like to assume.

What major nation has a functioning two-part military like you describe? Offense versus defense?

84

Congratulations, everyone.

You’ve allowed FoieGrasIsADipshit to derail the thread into Iraq Discussion One Billion and Seventeen.

-Joe

85

No, no, that was my fault, see post #47.

86

You got to fight ignorance wherever you find it, or wherever it finds you.

87

A. I didn’t do that
B. Fuck you

What is it with some of you people? Can’t have a debate about something without constantly calling people names, can you?

Jesus Fucking Christ.

Whatever.

88

You’re a grade-A dipshit. Sorry if you don’t like that, but hey, you can always change.

Maybe you can find a copy of “SDMB For Dummies” and figure out how to quote more than one post so you don’t have to string your brilliant thoughts across five or six posts in a row.

-Joe

89

It’s the Pit, dude. GD is where we keep the gloves on.

90

Well I fully comprehend that, but there’s no need to be rude simply because we disagree. It isn’t like you pitted me, or I you over some GD topic.

That’s fine, I have thick skin and all, I just don’t understand the need for it.

91

I’ll post however I please, thanks.

As far as the dipshit thing goes, well, maybe you can get back to me when you can share your war experiences in the military with me and the mental suffering we both share as a result of our mutual horrorific experiences.

Or alternately, you can just lick my taint and call it a day.

92

Your service entitles you to respectful thanks. It is not an argument, just as anecdotes are not data.

93

Well thank you.

As for the OP that started this fun diversion, I suppose the reason I’m coming off like I am is that everyone is so convinced that everything regarding the government and this admin in particular is so cut and dried that they can immediately cry foul whenever a topic like the admin not opening an email from the EPA because they presume *a priori * knowledge about an issue when they don’t really know what’s going on.

I just want there to be a fair, reasoned analysis about something like this, because it’s been my experience having worked for our government and having witnessed and spoken with countless others that have done the same, civilian and military service both…that hardly anything regarding a hot-button issues is exactly as it seems and there is almost always an undercurrent of agendas, half-truths and general governmental pandering and nonsense associated with shit like this.

Hey, I’m all for assumptions and educated guesses, because at the end of the day, that’s all we really have for the most part, but don’t go around wagging your finger in mine or someone else’s face because their view is contrary to yours, or stoop to calling them names becuase they refuse to view the world as you do.

I’m all for the spirited debate, and I know this is the Pit, but some of you guys are too itchy on the trigger finger regarding resorting to personal insults.

But again, whatevah.

And thanks for the gratitude, Elucidator.

94

“Pandering” generally implies an opportunistic appeal to some significant section of the general public. I don’t think that applies in this case, where the Bush Admin is more likely trying to please the big-business interests than anyone else.

Sometimes things really are as simple as they appear.

95

I should note that there are plenty of stupid, short sighted morons in the military.

So simply serving doesn’t mean you’re a good person.

Also, on topic:

I love that this administration has devolved into stuffing fingers into their ears and screaming “lalalalalalal I can’t hear you” when someone has scientific findings they don’t like.

96

BG, what SCOTUS case is referenced in your OP?

Who does the EPA work for? Congress, the Judicial Branch, or the President?

Why should the EPA email their findings to the President? (Wouldn’t it do more good to send them to whatever Congressional Commitee is tasked with formulating environmental laws?)

Please, fight my ignorance.

97

I think it refers to this one.

It’s an executive agency, which places it under the president ultimately, in the executive-branch chain of command, but that does not mean it is tasked with doing the president’s bidding in all particulars; the various executive agencies have their missions, defined by the legislation that created them, which are supposed to hold constant from one administration to the next and regarding which the “permanent government” of bureaucrats is supposed to have a certain independence from WH political pressure. Unless you accept the “unitary executive theory” in its strongest form, which this Administration pretty much insists upon.

This is part of an executive policymaking process.

98

Thanks. I was curious about the background on why the Supreme Court may have ruled the way it did.

I notice that in your article, I see that one of the dissenting opinions is this:

Scalia wrote another dissent, which Roberts and the others also joined, saying the EPA had done its duty when it considered the petition and decided not to act. He said the court “has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.”

The majority say that the EPA should have acted, the dissenters say “they did, you just don’t like the final decision”. Heh.

The way it was formed with Congress passing it into law ( United States Environmental Protection Agency - Wikipedia ), I wasn’t sure if the EPA has to go to Congress to get new regulations passed or not.

My thoughts was that the Whitehouse thought (in regards to some email) “Well that’s nice, but what do you want the President to do about it?”.

Can the President enact new clean air regulations through Executive Order?

Granted, I have seen little (if any) attempt by Bush to get Congress moving on this, but then again, I’m not in that memo chain. :stuck_out_tongue:

99

Because of the way your brains have been set up by evolution there are ten classic mistakes that you human beings will make over and over again.

Some of these you can be taught to overcome. Perhaps the most stubborn and intractable of these mistakes is something called “my side bias.” This occurs when you are so entrenched in your position that you are incapable of thought from any other perspective. You credit arguments that support your position as having strong credibility, and those that are antagonistic as having weak.

Strongly correlated to “my side bias” is “not noticing,” and “not seeing the whole picture.”

Now, assuming the impossible, which is that your puny brains could see things as my people do, it would become obvious to you what the sad state of affairs here really is.

Why does the Bush administration not wish to open an email from the EPA? Hmmm. How many conservatives do you think work there? How many people friendly to the Bush administration? How many supporters do you think he has there?

Probably the White House perceives the EPA as hostile and biased.

As such, it regards the output as compromised.

If there is any doubt that this is not so, the EPA proves the White House’s point by a willingness to attribute motives.

From the link:

“Both documents, as prepared by the E.P.A., “showed that the Clean Air Act can work for certain sectors of the economy, to reduce greenhouse gases,” one of the senior E.P.A. officials said. “That’s not what the administration wants to show. They want to show that the Clean Air Act can’t work.”

Why would they open an email from a clearly antagonistic source, thus giving it weight and credence?

If the EPA wishes its reports to be taken seriously they need to abandon the mind-reading claims and lose the attitude.

It’s not doing itself, this country, the Bush administration or the government any favors with this kind of behavior.

That you are all incapable of seeing this sad state of affairs, and put aside partisan differences in order to correct this self perpetuating systemic failure of your own government to provide its executive branch with neutral information that it can trust is sad.

Millions of years ago your ancestors did the same thing when one band of monkeys would shit in a water hole so another band of monkeys couldn’t drink from it. Then and now you forget that you will get thirsty again.

100

Of COURSE! How silly of us, to actually recognize that the Bush Administration has proven its hostility to the fact-based government agencies throughout the last 7 1/2 years. The Bush Administration hasn’t spent the last two terms trying to stifle and limit investigative or research-oriented government agencies from actually investigating or researching or failing that, prevented them from actually releasing that research to the public. NOOO! They were only fighting for their God-given prerogative to take complete control of all information that emanates from the executive branch to protect us from confusion when that horrible liberally-biased reality thing contradicts their faith-based neocon/big business/religious nutso ideology! It’s actually the AGENCY that’s hostile to the administration rather than vice-versa!

How STUPID we were!