Read this Dr. Detroit

[DrDetroit]

Jsc, too bad, though, for XXL. It?s unfortunate that he took it upon himself to claim kicking my ass in a fight that he never showed up for, LMAO!!!

BTW, shouldn?t your nic now read Jsc586??? Just curious?.

[Uncle Fester]

Cuda:

The cuts I listed were a continuation from the cuts made last year. Yeah, they're not "huge" monetarily, especially when you consider that Bush wants to spend an additional $48 billion on defense. But the impact on those agencies and programs will be significant.

And I've yet to see any evidence that shows how cutting more money out of an already weakened EPA makes our air, water, and land any cleaner. The EPA has always been a day late and a dollar short when it comes to protecting the environment. But then nobody really gives two shits about environmental issues until the doc tells them that their cancer has matasticised.

Meanwhile, we're spending $379 billion on defense to "protect ourselves" against the bad guys. Kinda funny if you're into irony.

<font color="#330033" size="1">[ March 26, 2002 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Uncle Fester ]</font>

<font color="#330033" size="1">[ March 26, 2002 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Uncle Fester ]</font>

[Cuda]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Uncle Fester:
Cuda:

The cuts I listed were a continuation from the cuts made last year. Yeah, they're not "huge" monetarily, especially when you consider that Bush wants to spend an additional $48 billion on defense. But the impact on those agencies and programs will be significant.
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. You described them as huge, and 2. They should probably be adding a HUNDRED and 48 billion to the War Department budget, seeing as how we're supposed to be involved in a "war on terror" (Calling it the Defense Dept is dishonest and misses the whole point of it's existence, IMO)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> And I've yet to see any evidence that shows how cutting more money out of an already weakened EPA makes our air, water, and land any cleaner. The EPA has always been a day late and a dollar short when it comes to protecting the environment. But then nobody really gives two shits about environmental issues until the doc tells them that their cancer has matasticised. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

You operate under the assumption that the EPA exists to clean up the environment, when it's true function is to clean up tax dollars.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Meanwhile, we're spending $379 billion on defense to "protect ourselves" against the bad guys. Kinda funny if you're into irony.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

If by "Irony" you mean the basic dishonesty of calling the War Department, Defense, I agree. That said, Fester, 379 Billion is less than 2% of the budget. At least the military is something the government has a constitutional obligation to spend money on. Which cannot necessarily be said about the other 98% of the budget.

As a general rule, anything called a "program" is probably unconstitutional.

[Uncle Fester]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You operate under the assumption that the EPA exists to clean up the environment, when it's true function is to clean up tax dollars.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I guess I am slightly more idealistic than you are. I like to think that the EPA, in theory, is supposed to take a stab at the following:

EPA's mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment — air, water, and land — upon which life depends. For 30 years, EPA has been working for a cleaner, healthier environment for the American people. -from the EPA's website

My problem with the EPA is that it does not have the money, power, leadership, or resources that are necessary to do the job. Instead, the agency exists to slap wrists, dole out band-aids, and create the illusion that somebody is watching over our increasingly not-so-beautiful country.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If by "Irony" you mean the basic dishonesty of calling the War Department, Defense, I agree. That said, Fester, 379 Billion is less than 2% of the budget. At least the military is something the government has a constitutional obligation to spend money on. Which cannot necessarily be said about the other 98% of the budget.
As a general rule, anything called a "program" is probably unconstitutional.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I had something different in mind.

If it is constitutional to protect our nation's borders, it is also constitutional to protect what goes on within those borders.

If we worry about Saddam Hussein releasing deadly chemicals or agents into the environment, we should also worry about what is released by our factories, farms, and cities.

If we worry that terrorists might contaminate our water supplies we might want to take examine what is dumped into our nation's waters by industry and big business.

We should examine why we have a system that allows a person to compromise, exploit, and degrade the environment for economic gain, and then use that money to buy a beautiful home in Malibu, only to find that the ocean is too dirty to swim in.

I'm not a hippie or a radical and I don't hug trees. But what the hell, even animals don't wallow in their own shit. Why should we?

etc.

--------------------------------

No. 9: Wipe Cheeto-stained fingers on Cuda's shirt.

[Cuda]

Fester, I think you're being a bit melodramatic. Fact is that the country is not becoming "increasingly not-so-beautiful " Quite the contrary. The air, water & land is cleaner today than 10, 20, or 30 years ago. Pollution of all kinds is LESS of a problem, not more. And it's a free, Capitalist system that makes that possible. If you want to look at ecological disasters, you need look no farhter than the former Soviet Bloc.

[Smackie Chan]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Cuda:

The air, water & land is cleaner today than 10, 20, or 30 years ago. Pollution of all kinds is LESS of a problem, not more.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm with ya up to this point.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And it's a free, Capitalist system that makes that possible.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's where we depart. In an unregulated, totally free capitalist system, the environment would be quickly and utterly raped. It's not that capitalists are evil, but the nature of capitalism is such that a buck will be made right now as long as there is nothing preventing it from being made; it's economic inertia. Capitalism is not what has improved the quality of the environment over the past few decades, but rather government regulation and enforcement. And the fact that it is better now than it was then is not sufficient reason to suppose that it's now OK and that environmental protection is somehow under control. While some improvements have been made, there are many that haven't but should be, and the only thing that'll keep the environment from returning to a state of degradation is eternal vigilance.

[Uncle Fester]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But, when was the last time the gov significantly cut back on any program other than the military, which, IMHO is the one area that it is justified in spending large amounts of cayshe. -smackaholic</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bush made huge environmental cuts last year. Based on his 2003 budget, he plans many more:

$300 million cut from the EPA's budget
$100 million cut from EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Funds
$124 million cut from EPA's Office of Science and Technology (the office that provides the scientific research for things like the arsenic in drinking water standard, which Bush claims "needs more study.")
$112 million cut from EPA's Environmental Programs and Management (its core operating programs).
$47 million cut from clean air research at EPA's Office of Science and Technology.
Cut funds from civil enforcement and compliance monitoring. The budget proposes a total cut of 111 "work years" in enforcement personnel. (btw, EPA "enforcement" is already a joke).
Funding for energy efficiency and renewable programs is directly linked to drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (see: extortion)
$28 million cut in FWS land acquisition programs
$33 million cut National Park Service land acquisition
$5 million cut for Cooperative Endangered Species.
$29 million cut in the Office of Surface Mining's Abandoned Mine and Reclamation Fund.
Eliminates funding for the Farmland Protection Program (FPP)
Eliminates funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)
Eliminates funding for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
Eliminates funding for the Forestry Incentives Program (FIP).

Increases:
$35 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to the energy companies.
$425 million in subsidies to coal industry.
$38 million for "2010 Nuclear Program" with the focus on removing technical, institutional and regulatory barriers to the development and operation of newly created nuclear plants.
$424 million for the Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility. (Whereby nuclear wastes are shipped through American towns by train or truck. I bet the Office of Homeland Security is thrilled over that one.)

[Jsc810]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Cuda:
As a general rule, anything called a "program" is probably unconstitutional.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh allright damnit, I'll bite.

How can there be a general rule that programs are unconstitutional when there is a presumption that all laws and governmental actions are constitutional?

[smackaholic]

smackie,

We do have a capitalistic society, but, it is not a capitalistic free for all brawl. We do have a few rules to keep capitalism in check.

What was said earlier is true. We capitalistic societies have done a far better job ecologically than the various workers paradises throughout the world. Mainly because our highly efficient capitalistic economy can afford to take care of the environment.

[warrenton]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Jsc810:

Racks XXL for the proper use of a term of art: "Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Rule 401, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

~back to lurking mode</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rack JusticeJSC for yet again letting us know that he's a "high priced" attorney.

Damn dude, LMAO every time I see you and F. Lee chime in! I used to date Race Horse Haynes' step daughter, does that make me cool enough to hang with you, counselor?

Rack JSBillable for nothing.