Home News Events Bands Labels Venues Pics MP3s Radio Show Reviews Releases Buy$tuff Forum   Classifieds   News   Localband   Shows   Show Pics   Polls      OT Threads   Other News   Movies   VideoGames   Videos   TV   Sports   Gear   /r/   Food      New Thread   New Poll Miscellaneous Links E-mail Search login

New site? Maybe some day. Username: SPAM Filter: re-type this (values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F) Message: UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop Select Color orange orange-red crimson red firebrick dark red green limegreen teal silver sea-green deeppink tomato coral purple indigo burlywood sandy brown sienna chocolate FONTXXSmallXSmallSmallMediumLargeXLXXL :DG: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Char† ‡ ‰ ♠ ♣ ♥ ♦ ‾ ← ↑ → ↓ ™ – —   ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ª « ¬ ­ ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º » ¼ ½ ¾ ¿ À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È É Ê Ë Ì Í Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö × Ø Ù Ú Û Ü Ý Þ ß à á â ã ä å æ ç è é ê ë ì í î ï ð ñ ò ó ô õ ö ÷ ø ù ú û ü ý þ ÿ b i u  add: url  image  video(?) : post by Man_of_the_Century at 2006-06-28 18:34:12 I wasn't trying to defend Bush's shadyness, I was defending the choice concerning the Clean Air Act. Bush fucked up and he can deal with it. The climate change is happenning (there is no question in that), only the cause is. And regulating pollutants is a good thing. But if you don't have absolute proof that the problems are our fault, we shouldn't waste the money. Its not going to hurt Oil companits, Car companies, or any of the other large company... They make too much money. The cost will come out of our pocket. Carbon dioxide has nothing to do with acid rain, its not toxic (I don't know if you were referring to that, INFECT, but I tossed it out there anyways). ShadowSD said: You suggest they're striking out because they're misinterpreting what the clean air act says, but where in that quote do they make ANY assertions about what is or is not in the act? In the section of the quote that HTL posted... No. But read the rest of the paragraph: "Jennifer Bradley and Timothy Dowling, who have co-written an amicus brief for the case, argue the "EPA's statutory justification depends on a rather tortured reading of the Clean Air Act [PDF]." First, the Act says the EPA must regulate any "air pollutant" that "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." The statute defines "air pollutant" broadly as "substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air." (No doubt carbon dioxide emissions fit within this broad definition.)"

[default homepage]

[print][

3:36:33am Jun 03,2024 load time 0.00695 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]