And the Mandates continue...

[fuckwaffle]

monte carlo are good cars, you need the old school one though.. those are bad ass on the road, specially if you put money/power into it.

Yeah, not really too much you can do with a front wheel drive monster. It's a nice car, gets me where I want to go and it's good on gas. Oh, and it's paid for.

 

[mercury14]

There it is...don't agree with them and they call you names. Poor Merc. Nothing else to say, just name calling. Typical liberal, typical.

So you support gas stations selling you E-15 gas that will break your engine when you pushed the button to buy the right product?

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

Yeah, not really too much you can do with a front wheel drive monster. It's a nice car, gets me where I want to go and it's good on gas. Oh, and it's paid for.

yeah, my car is paid off too.

is just the brand of the car.. is ridiculous, i just spent 250.00 on each break.. plus labor *shakeshead*

i wish i had a mechanic in my family... it would've came out a whole lot cheaper.

 

[mercury14]

I know, but it fun to poke him with a stick and see the spittle hit his screen while he types his responses, which are always the same tap dancing bullshit and name calling.

Tap dancing...

Your narrative is that the EPA and the Democrats want people to use less gas for environmental reasons. And the Democrats are opposed to Big Oil. So they're trying to achieve these goals by mandating that people buy more gas than they need.

Your story doesn't sound just a little bit conflicted to you?

 

[RobDownSouth]

So you support gas stations selling you E-15 gas that will break your engine when you pushed the button to buy the right product?

He doesn't give a shit about the consumer.

He just wants to bash the government.

Vettebigot doesn't give a shit about dead Marines for the same reason.

 

[garbage can]

So now the EPA is telling you, you have to buy a minimum of 4 gallons of gasoline...when will these mandates end?

I know high school kids who cannot afford 4 gallons.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

I know high school kids who cannot afford 4 gallons.

Can they afford to buy new lawnmowers when the pump dispenses them E-15 instead of what they paid for?

 

[garbage can]

Don't let the fucking Daily Caller think for you. They're one of the hot, steaming turds of the media world.

I looked around and got the facts on my own and discovered that the Daily Caller lied by not reporting the whole story. And yes they lied on purpose because they chose not to report the EPA's reasoning which is written on Sen Sensenbrenner's web page that they quoted.

Why aren't you thinking for yourself here?

More to the point, is the regulatory process in this country is costing us billions.

 

[mercury14]

More to the point, is the regulatory process in this country is costing us billions.

No, over-generalizing like that is even less to the the point. More to the point, this regulation saves your teenagers from having to buy new lawn mowers for no good reason.

This is the perfect example of a good regulation. It prevents gas stations from selling consumers a product they didn't pay for while preventing needless costly repairs to motorcycles, lawn mowers, ATVs, etc. This regulation saves money and there's no rational reason we've heard to oppose it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

There is some hope:


Seven strikes, you're out? EPA court defeats keep piling up
by Sheldon Gilbert
Aug 22, 2012

It’s been a tough year in the courts for the EPA, according to an American Action Forum “scorecard” counting at least six job-killing-economy-slowing EPA regulatory actions that federal courts have struck down. We might add a seventh to AAF’s list – the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA, where the Court chastised the EPA for “strong-arming” regulated parties.

Last March, we blogged about three federal court decisions that slapped down the EPA for ignoring its legal obligations. Those decisions harshly criticized the EPA for “magical thinking” (Mingo Logan v. EPA); “unthinkable” conduct running roughshod over due process and property rights (Sackett v. EPA); and “overstepping” the bounds of the agency’s authority (Luminant Generation Co. v. EPA). Triple ouch.

Alas, when it comes to EPA regs, the rule isn’t three strikes and you’re out. August is starting to look a lot like March, with two separate federal courts rebuking the EPA for ignoring the plain text of the Clean Air Act and attempting to usurp the authority of the states’ to achieve air quality emissions standards.

Yesterday, the D.C. Circuit struck down the EPA’s “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule” that would have imposed $2.4 billion (at least!) in drastic new requirements on utilities in “upwind states” to curb emissions that could affect “downwind states” (EME Homer v. EPA). That sounds like a laudable objective - except, as the D.C. Circuit explained, the Clean Air Act already has a provision to address this very problem (colloquially called the “Good Neighbor” provision) - and the Act relegates the job to the states, not the EPA. The D.C. Circuit’s decision is “good news for consumers and for the reliability of our electricity grid,” according to Karen Harbert, president of the Chamber’s Energy Institute.

If the D.C. Circuit’s criticism of the EPA for stepping on state authority sounds familiar, it might be because last week, the Fifth Circuit overturned an EPA effort to take over Texas’s long-standing air quality permitting program (State of Texas, et al. v. EPA). The Fifth Circuit ruled that the EPA could not unilaterally dismantle the Texas program after letting it operate for 16 years. What’s more, the court reminded the EPA that the states play a “central role” in the Clean Air Act, and have “broad responsibility” and discretion regarding the means to achieve air quality standards set by the federal government.

Of course, there are still many misguided and unlawful EPA regulations working their way through the legal system, including the EPA’s $10 billion “blackout rule” (White Stallion Energy, et. al. v. EPA). And regulators have notched some victories in environmental cases, particularly in the Ninth Circuit. Indeed, last May, a blistering dissent by Judge Milan Smith criticized the Ninth Circuit for “stray[ing] with lamentable frequency from its constitutionally limited role” by deciding environmental cases based on policy preferences, rather than calling balls and strikes based on what the environmental laws actually require (Karuk Tribe v. USFS).

A Wall Street Journal editorial summarizes this string of EPA defeats well:

“The message is that regulators must follow the laws of the United States. Why do federal judges constantly have to remind EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson of this basic principle?”

Here’s to hoping that the EPA internalizes the courts’ message – soon – before more jobs are lost, and more damage is done to the economy.

EPA has lotsa lawyers to feed. The more litigation they create, the better for the lawyers.

 

[Sean]

More to the point, is the regulatory process in this country is costing us billions.

How much did the lack of a regulatory process re:banking cost the American economy?

 

[phrodeau]

See, I knew you would agree with Big Government, what a surprise.

Problem, I only have a 2 gallon container, what then?

My motorcycle tank is only 2 gallons, what then?

Of course I can read and if I'm not the dumb shithead Big Government thinks I am, I would know what kind of blended fuel my vehicle can use without harm and go to either: a. a different pump, 2. a different station.

And if I am as stupid as Big Government thinks and believes I am, then I deserve to have my vehicle fucked up by buying the wrong fuel.

The guy at the station will know what to do. After all, he is now tasked with making sure that you buy at least four gallons. He can tell you exactly what the previous pumper took, and he can blow out the hose with the questionable gas, then give you a voucher on your next fill-up.

Vouchers. They're popular with Republicans.

 

[mark_j]

So you support gas stations selling you E-15 gas that will break your engine when you pushed the button to buy the right product?

You do realize that the total volume in the hose/piping from the pump to the nozzle doesn't amount to more than 2 tenths of a gallon or so? Now think about that over a ten gallon fuel load (most small cars BTW). Do you honestly think that 2 tenths is going to change the ratio of E-10 that much when diluted over that same fuel load?

 

[fuckwaffle]

You do realize that the total volume in the hose/piping from the pump to the nozzle doesn't amount to more than 2 tenths of a gallon or so? Now think about that over a ten gallon fuel load (most small cars BTW). Do you honestly think that 2 tenths is going to change the ratio of E-10 that much when diluted over that same fuel load?

You have to understand Merc, he can only afford two or three dollars worth every time he pulls in the station, so two tenths is a significant amount of what he would purchase.

 

[mercury14]

You have to understand Merc, he can only afford two or three dollars worth every time he pulls in the station, so two tenths is a significant amount of what he would purchase.

Eco-Democrats hate the oil companies so much that they're mandating that Americans buy more gasoline than they need? Are you reading the shit you're saying?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Eco-Democrats hate the oil companies so much that they're mandating that Americans buy more gasoline than they need? Are you reading the shit you're saying?

He never said he was logical. He just wants to trash Democrats.

 

[garbage can]

How much did the lack of a regulatory process re:banking cost the American economy?

I know nothing of the banking regulatory process, and I suspect you don't either. However, if you do, please tell us what it cost the American economy.

But I wonder if the cost/benefit ratio of shutting down 140 coal fired plants along with the Keystone pipeline is worth it.

 

[fuckwaffle]

Eco-Democrats hate the oil companies so much that they're mandating that Americans buy more gasoline than they need? Are you reading the shit you're saying?

He never said he was logical. He just wants to trash Democrats.

 

[nyxie]

Sorry this is pretty lame debate.

A consumer should not be forced to purchase more of a product it does not want, simply because, the provider is too lazy to update their equipment properly.

That's what it is all about. The gas companies do not want to have to install new pumps.

Why?

Because it costs them money, when , they can simply make a law that requires consumers to purchase MORE and gain the provider an increased income.


Wow what a way to "protect" consumers.

REALLY?