States to EPA ... clean up your act!

Yeah? Did you examine it? That's really immature, chick. I thought you were above that. The blowhard, there's no surprise there.

The red/blue isn't contrived by me, it's a matching pattern. Pick what you want to see and not what I said. When a state like Texas going to be a a part of this movement, it will come as a surprise. There is nothing - nada- shocking about the lineup presented in the original post.

 

So why isn't Texas signing up for this movement then? Is it because partisan politics have gotten this bad?

 

You have to ask this over the examples of the past 16 years? I'm not as idealistic as you are.

 

Well clearly you think there is a disconnect between the states the tend to elect Democratic representitives, and those which elect Rebuplican. Is it so bad now that states can't combine to make things better for the country as a whole?

 

Rather than dwell on this pointless aspect of it, I'll ask this: Why does it matter if it's a blue state or a red state? The issue, if you'll recall, is the environment.

Let me ask it from this perspective... If a state has a law that differs from the federal government's (like the growing of medical marijuana), the feds will step in and take action if the state refuses. But since the federal government derives its power from the people and the states, why can't states apply that same mentality? If the feds won't do what they're supposed to do, then the states should be able to take legal action.

Drop all this other B.S. and tell me why this is a bad thing for anyone other than the EPA?

 

Yeah but why is the insinuation that its the Republicans at fault - always?

 

Perhaps you haven't experienced the same rousing success as the rest of us have in the last, oh, seven years.

 

There has always been a disconnect between this adminstration and its declared dedication to "devolving power" back to the states. Ashcroft went after medical-marijuana clubs that were legal under California law, and after Oregon's assisted-suicide statute. It was state officials -- many of them Republican governors, like Foster in Louisiana -- who yelled loudest early on about the unfunded mandate that was NCLB, because it scattered their own hard-won education-reform plans. And now this.

 

If the state wants it, fine. But then that argument really doesn't hold water with particularly controversial "social" issues, does it? Do that there, let the power of the people decide what's best in Texas or Nebraska and see if San Franciscans howl about it being "foul" and "bigoted."

 

I'm all for states having the right to distinguishing self-governance. The feds should coin money, equip the "militia" and represent us internationally. Period.

 

You're right. We're wrong. Now go away.

 

It's the only logical explanation for his overblown "I am right and you are all idiots" attitude.