Name:	Casey -	Reply
Subject:	Wonder why Trump is defending Pruitt
Date:	4/19/2018 3:26:45 PM

Pruitt serves as a vivid example of "the swamp" that Trump promised to drain. Pruitt has squandered taxpayer money that is off the charts. He demoted or reassigned several EPA officials who dared question his exorbitant spending, which includes $3 million on a security detail, more than $100,000 for first-class air travel, and $43,000 for his soundproff phone booth. He insists his motorcade use flashing lights, even when he goes to his favorite French restaurant. And there's the well-below-market-rate room from an energy lobbyist couple. And the massive raises to two aides. Yet Trump actually praised him for doing "a fantastic" job. What an arrogant swamp-dweller.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	I'm not
Date:	4/19/2018 4:39:48 PM

It's because he is doing a fabulous job.  Considering what he has already accomplished he deserves all the perks and many more.  And maybe if the ecofascists weren't threatening to kill him he could fly coach.  Obviously you don't understand what Trump meant by draining the swamp.

Name:	Casey -	Reply
Subject:	I'm not
Date:	4/19/2018 6:04:33 PM

Any Republican could and probably would pursue the same policy goals as Pruitt. Rather than stick with someone so politically weakened, Trump should just replace him with someone else who hews to the party line. When Reagan used the term, he meant drain the bureaucracy, but the day that Trump used the saying, he announced his plans for sweeping ethics reform, pledging to make our government honest once again and to clean out perceived corruption in DC and make it more accountable and transparent. And he certailnly has not done that by keeping Pruitt on board.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	I'm not
Date:	4/19/2018 7:14:01 PM

I agree about Pruitt. No matter how successful he is at his job, he is still supposed to be a steward of the taxpayers money.  I have to say that this Adminstration's appointments have shown a shocking disregard for managing public funds. 

Name:	au67 -	Reply
Subject:	I'm not
Date:	4/19/2018 7:19:04 PM

Admit it, Casey.  The left wants Pruitt gone not because of his spending, but what he's doing to the bureaucracy that the left thinks they own, the EPA!  

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Bingo!
Date:	4/19/2018 8:07:50 PM

Not a peep about spending by the two prior EPA administrators because they were dedicated to destroying our economy.  Pruitt is not so this is suddenly an issue.

Name:	Casey -	Reply
Subject:	I'm not
Date:	4/19/2018 11:42:52 PM

No, I don't agree, au67. I'm sure the left politically disagrees with what is happening at the EPA, but ANY Republican would likely do the same and the left knows that, so removing Pruitt would not change anything. But, as Hound mentioned, Pruitt has not been a steward of taxpayer money. In fact, he flaunts his disregard for it. We all should be appalled by that, in my opinion.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	But, I'm sure....
Date:	4/20/2018 7:40:10 AM

MOO-chell was a wonderful steward of our money.....in your opinion.

Name:	Casey -	Reply
Subject:	I'm not
Date:	4/20/2018 8:00:53 AM

I have to admit that I'm not pleased with the rolling back of the Clean Air Act, although that would have happened under Trump, no matter who was in charge of the EPA. These photos are of Birmingham before the Clean Air Act passed. Most of us can remember those days.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	You are deluded
Date:	4/20/2018 8:58:04 AM (updated 4/20/2018 9:00:46 AM)

Casey, please do not go the way of Archie and Copper by posting stupid polemics.  You seem much more reasonable and less ideological than them and are willing to deal in the realm of facts and reason.  The post above is a step in the wrong direction.  Especially since much of the improvement from the pictures you posted was the reduction of steel production in Birmingham and other places like Pittsburgh where I grew up, although no doubt the technologies on current plants help significantly.

I have been in the environmental business for over 30 years and I know of what I speak.  No one, not Trump, nor Pruitt nor any Republican has suggested we roll back the Clean Air Act.  As a point in fact the last improvement to the Clean Air Act was under GHW Bush in 1991 to strengthen the original legislation passed under President Nixon.  What was rolled back by EPA under Pruitt, and rightly so, was the Clean Power Plan.  This was a policy instituted by Obama through EPA without going through the legislative process and was intended to target CO2 emissions from power plants, not pollutants like particulates, SO2, etc. This would have dramatically increased energy costs for zero benefit and would harm the poor and lower income working class most of all.  It was over reach and was intended to kill the coal industry as both Obama and Hillary promised to do.  

The Clean Air Act remains in force and is being fully and aggressively implemented by EPA and state regulatory agencies (mostly by states as they have adopted the Federal rules and have their own programs).  In our business we have actually seen an uptick in enforcement at both the state and Federal level and best of all, our clients now have more available resources to pay for rectifying these issues due to the tax cuts.  When our business is busy it means problems are being solved and I can tell you they are.  So drop the silliness and get back to being the most reasonable liberal on the Forum.  You are better than this last post.

And lest you misunderstand, I and most other conservatives are all for alternative sources of energy, but not for the reasons you might think and certainly not in the way the left wants to do it.  

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	You are deluded
Date:	4/20/2018 9:17:58 AM

Well we can look at California with its strictest standards in the US......  Hows LA looking??

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	You are deluded
Date:	4/20/2018 9:30:26 AM

Easy on those facts MM!

Name:	Casey -	Reply
Subject:	You are deluded
Date:	4/20/2018 9:45:48 AM

I really appreciate your knowledge. When one posts with facts (not opinion), we all need to pay attention. Your opinion is yours, and I may not always agree with it, but your experience and factual information has great merit. I stand corrected with posting those photos. But I have also read articles from educated and informed environmentalists that predict the doing away with the decades-old air emissions policy would drastically weaken limits on toxic mercury, arsenic, and lead emitted from power-plant smokestacks, which is a concern. And I also realize that almost everyone, regardless of political party, are looking toward alternative sources of energy. Thanks for your informed posting. I can learn from it.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Changes to emission standards
Date:	4/20/2018 10:05:19 AM (updated 4/20/2018 10:58:29 AM)

As far as I know no one has proposed any changes to the regulatory limits for emissions but if they do, there is a science-based process that is required and involves several federal agencies as well as state agency stakeholders, public comment, etc.   One other interesting point, states cannot have rules that are less stringent than the Federal ones but theirs can be more stringent.  In my experience the vast majority of changes to limits are to make them more stringent although there have been some that were overly conservative and have been properly rolled back.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	By the way
Date:	4/20/2018 11:41:28 AM

Your response is exactly why I see you different from folks like Archie or Copper.  Both would have refused to believe me and would have just accused me of being a shill for big oil.  Goofy would have posted a picture of Trump's hair, mostly because he is just that, Goofy.  But he is occasionally mildly amusing which is why I read his posts.  Thanks for restoring my faith.

I will say for the record that I don't like the optics of Pruitt's spending but based on what I've read he is no different than others that take these govt jobs.  I don't know what's in the water in DC but it seems to corrupt even the most ardent fiscal hawk over time.  But as with many things, we are more willing to overlook the profligacy of someone that is pursuing our ideological goals and decry the profligacy of those that don't.  Human nature I guess and makes us all a bit of a hypocrite at times.  And of course we don't like being lectured by the other side that does the same thing.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	By the way
Date:	4/20/2018 2:41:37 PM

Personally, I think we should be appalled any time a publicly appointed official (or their spouse), and that includes members of Congress, aren't good stewards of the taxpayers money.  Pruitt has taken it to extremes for the most ridiculous reasons.  He's afraid of the environmentalists.  When he is spending on his travel for his safety, I'll bet he is not worried about the safety of his staff and makes them fly coach.  I'm not smart enough about environmental issues to know if he is doing the right thing or not.  But I do know that when he is using the agency's money for himself, there are things that aren't being funded by the funds were intended for.  

And this is not a left or right issue, this is an issue no matter what adminisration is in power.  

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	By the way
Date:	4/20/2018 3:04:39 PM

My point is that he isn't taking it to extremes.  It is being presented that way by a biased media without any comparisons to his predecessors.  Govt appalls me at all levels which is why I want it to be limited and why I believe in subsidiarity.  I doubt the ecofascists are targeting his staff, they are after him.  And he has every right to expect the govt to protect him.  My point is the double standard and the lack of the same level of outrage on the part of the media.  Why now and why him?  Answer?  Because he is effective and is righting the many wrongs of the EPA under Obama.  But he should know he would be under a microscope and he is making things more difficult for the administration to get things done.  But as long as he remains effective and can justify future decisions Trump should keep him.  While no one is irrepaceable he obviously, at least in my view, is worth keeping in his position as EPA Administrator.  But he needs to cut the crap and quit giving the media ammo.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	By the way
Date:	4/20/2018 3:56:39 PM

not suggesting he should be fired.  But he should be given a stern warning from the President to cut the abuses or leave.  Don't forget this is our money he is spending.  And I am sure if the environmentalists want to "get him" they will not do so on a plane.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	By the way
Date:	4/20/2018 5:09:51 PM

if the environmentalists want to "get him" they will not do so on a plane.

Ron Brown – Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown’s skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors. The rest of the people on the plane also died. A few days later the Air Traffic controller commited suicide.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	By the way
Date:	4/20/2018 5:16:13 PM

Like all the left wing nuts kicked off flights for harassing Ivanka and Trump supporters?  I can tell you for certain that there is a small but dedicated group of ecofascists that have already and will easily again resort to violence in their never ending quest to save the planet.  I would suggest you underestimate their determination and willingness to be violent, even to the point of martyrdom.  These people are as bad as Islamofascists and equally motivated and deluded.  

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	By the way
Date:	4/21/2018 5:04:04 PM

Wow, I didn't know that.  

Name:	Casey -	Reply
Subject:	By the way
Date:	4/21/2018 6:18:38 PM

Hound, what are you responding to (that you didn't know)? Just curious.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	WOW indeed Hound
Date:	4/22/2018 11:20:56 PM (updated 4/22/2018 11:21:27 PM)

Perhaps the reason you didn't know that is because you don't read enough extreme rightwing conspiracy blogs.  They all went bonkers with crazy crap regarding this event.  If Ron Brown had a bullet hole in his head it was a miraculous shot that left no bullet, bullet fragments, bone fragments or other evidence in his skull inspite of the fact there was also no exit wound!  The plane crashed into a mountain killing all on board with many, including Brown dying from blunt force trauma.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	WOW indeed Hound
Date:	4/23/2018 11:58:37 AM (updated 4/23/2018 11:59:36 AM)

https://omgfacts.com/nixon-the-cia-the-plane-crash-no-one-can-explain/

conspiracy theory, facts etc.  my point is that a nutburger who wants to do harm will not let an airplane get in his way.

So I am glad to know that the government and military do not have any items in any weapons collection that are low powered enough not to make an exit hole and would not leave a hunk of lead in someones skull, but still kill someone - possible yes, likely yes, in this case who the hell knows - but several people had a positive opinion of that it could have happened.  Just like the attached link about a plane load of watergate people going down. 

The 1st is easy with subsonic ammunition and "silencers"  the second does require a little more thought - but to think that the resources of our goverment and military can not come up with something that does not leave behind a large blob of lead is a little naive.  Items that could break down due to a plane crash, fire, temperature or some other way.  

Poisons left on doorknobs would have been laughed at years ago.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	By the way
Date:	4/23/2018 6:53:16 PM

What Phil posted.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	WOW indeed Hound
Date:	4/23/2018 6:54:58 PM

So now it is obvious...you wear a tinfoil hat with a propeller on it and always walk dragging grounding chains....in other words you are a freaking nut!

Name:	Casey -	Reply
Subject:	By the way
Date:	4/23/2018 7:15:43 PM

Hound, I suggest you do a bit of research about this. Unless you read a far-right site, you'll find it was a tragic airplane accident. But the conspiracy sites like to point to nefarious deeds. Search it out for yourself.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	By the way - Casey
Date:	4/24/2018 11:52:15 AM

I didn't say I was embracing the story.  I just said I didn't know that :-)

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	WOW indeed Hound
Date:	4/24/2018 12:39:15 PM

Tell me Archie, have you ever met Phil face-to-face?  If not, what gives you the right to deem him a "nut"? 

Name:	Casey -	Reply
Subject:	By the way - Casey
Date:	4/24/2018 1:00:33 PM

Yup....hard to 'know' a fabrication.  Shoulda' known you wouldn't buy into that.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	WOW indeed Hound
Date:	4/25/2018 9:02:48 AM (updated 4/25/2018 9:14:55 AM)

And you are a die hard left wing Clinton Loving nut who can never admit that they have done something wrong ever in their lives.

Talk about a friggin nut.  Would not want to meet you - You are a loon that should be committed.

Never said I bought into it - just that there were some suspicions around what may or may not have happened. I am glad to not be in the Clinton inner circle due to countless suspicious deaths.  If they are from nefarious reasons or not they seem to have a lot of death in their wake, and that was one example of what may or may not have happend on an airplane.

My comment was if someone bad wants you bad enough - the plane is not going to be a limiting factor.

We see how well no guns zones and laws against murder stop people. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	By the way - Casey
Date:	4/25/2018 3:52:37 PM

I'm with Casey on this one although you do have to admit that far too many Clinton associates that are allegedly getting ready to spill something come to an untimely demise.  A little too Tom Clancy for my tastes but it is indeed not a good place to be.  Maybe they are just lucky but even these series of coincidences can feed the conspiracy theorists.  I'm an Occams Razor kind of person but I can certainly understand their view that there are far too many of these coincidences.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	WOW indeed Hound
Date:	4/25/2018 6:13:43 PM

We agree on that point.  But if they want to get you, there are places it would be easier to accomplish it.  I know there are a lot of lunatics in the world, and maybe I am underestimating the environmentalist, but I would rather he risk his life than to spend taxpayers money on private jets.  Our military faces that risk every day and do the police.