Once again, entirely wrong. It’s covered by the Clean Air Act, an interpretation that the EPA opposed.
However,
So it’s not like they just decided one day to regulate greenhouse gases - the Supreme Court told them it was their goddamn job to do it.
Duly noted that you’re okay with unfair discrimination as long as it benefits your guys.
No, I’m okay with fair rules. The senate is what the Senate is and wasn’t created with any political party in mind.
District boundaries are another thing entirely, but the concept of districts as logically shaped boundaries should be there regardless of which party it benefits. The courts have decided that an exception must be made for minorities, but that’s it. And since that hurts Democrats, tough cookies, Democrats aren’t about to oppose that.
So since your side agrees with 90% Democrat-concentrated districts for the sake of minority representation, there’s not a whole lot you can do to create majority Democrat, or even 50% Democrat, districts anywhere else.
God, this is pathetic. This is all wrong, you sidestep every criticism, and jump around in a Gish gallop of ridiculous Benghazi-esque spin. Can you please, please, please, think about every statement and ensure you can actually back it up before posting? It’s just sad that nearly everything you say is wrong, and when called on it, you don’t even try to defend it.
The EPA MAY regulate, since the administration has the ability to prioritize. Since the administration started prioritizing greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2011, despite a falling EPA budget, they own that.
EVen if true (and I’m tired of posting links today), none of this makes you right or me wrong, nor does it excuse the GOP attempting to cut the budget of the EPA further (or indeed to gut it entirely) while claiming it should do more.
Huh? What kind of double-talk is that?
Sure, anyone can just say that. But at least you admit that there were “other political events” involved.
Nope. My data is all that matters.
Really? You actually wrote that?
The problem with conservatives: find a problem, cut the funding for the agency in charge, blame the agency that’s been inadequately funded for “mismanagement,” try to get rid of it, pass a tax cut somewhere, do nothing to solve the problem, pat yourself on the back.
That’s a load.
Effective federal tax rates have gone down pretty steadily in the last 3 decades for the poor and middle class.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
The reason it’s hard to raise taxes on the middle class is political. People percieve a tax increase as an increase in their tax burden even if it is less than a tax cut they received previously.
Yeah, let’s look at the Ohio 9th District, drawn by those stalwarts of logic and fairness, the Republican Party. Starts in Toledo, goes along the lakeshore to Cleveland, where it just happened to hit the district of another Democrat, forcing the two to run against each other. What a coincidence! Now that representative is actually representing 2 different areas of the state, which is not what representatives are supposed to do.
I think that what adaher fails to understand (well, one of the things he fails to understand) is that Democrats are capable of multitasking. We talk about hurricanes, because that’s important. We talk about gay rights, because that’s important. We talk about income inequality, because that’s important. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t talk about health care. We talk about that, too, because that’s also important. We are able to talk, and take action, about all of these things at once, because they’re all important, and anyone who can’t deal with all of these things at once isn’t fit to be part of government.
To be fair, Republicans multitask as well. They talk about Benghazi, they talk about abortion, they talk about Benghazi, they talk about contraception, they talk about Benghazi, they talk about gutting regulations, they talk about Benghazi, they talk about cutting taxes, they talk about Benghazi, they talk about the deficit, they talk about Benghazi.
Four Out of Five Americans Don’t Trust the GOP
This, too, is excellent news for the Republican Party! I don’t know why that would be so, but I await friend adaher’s explanation as to why that is the case.
It’s not like the situation is much rosier for the Democrats or Obama, although Obama’s numbers are up a smidge. But those are some bad, bad numbers for the GOP, and even low ratings for ACA aren’t helping much.
You forgot rape.
They think rape is bad if it causes the woman to stop thinking about Benghazi. But if a pregnancy results, it’s God’s will and a wonderful thing!
BobLibDem, I’m really disappointed that you didn’t give the setup line for a Blazing Saddles quote.
OK, I haven’t seen the movie for a while, what was the setup?
Hedley Lamarr: Qualifications?
Applicant: Rape, murder, arson, and rape.
Hedley Lamarr: You said rape twice.
Applicant: I like rape.