Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

Clueless Sen. Tuberville 'running in circles' in response to IVF question
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 23, 2024 12:53 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (9 comments) [129 views]


Donald Trump's Weekend Gaffes: Accidentally Endorses Biden, And More
Humor by Curt_Anderson     February 25, 2024 6:56 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (4 comments) [64 views]


Pro-Palestinian advocates urge 'uncommitted' vote during Michigan presidential primary
Politics by HatetheSwamp     February 26, 2024 3:30 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [17 views]


Disney Stock Jumps on “Epic” Quarter
Disney by Indy!     February 24, 2024 10:55 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (11 comments) [73 views]


Republicans are terrible at investigations and prosecutions.
Government by Curt_Anderson     February 25, 2024 3:12 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (7 comments) [79 views]


TAFKAP is going to fight this, but here's the reality
Disney by oldedude     December 25, 2023 8:54 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [141 views]


Obsequious Sen. Graham (R-SC) booed by South Carolina Republicans
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 24, 2024 7:03 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (5 comments) [49 views]


Trump’s new appeal to Black voters: I am a criminal too!
Crime by Curt_Anderson     February 24, 2024 9:08 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (9 comments) [105 views]


South Carolina primary vote count:
Politics by HatetheSwamp     February 25, 2024 3:52 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [19 views]


You don't have to be crazy to attend CPAC ...okay, you pretty much do.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 24, 2024 10:45 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (10 comments) [102 views]


Business selectors, pages, etc.
The things we do for oil
By Donna
November 19, 2022 5:14 am
Category: Business

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)


Biden's taking a lot of heat for this:

U.S. Backs Immunity for Saudi Leader in Lawsuit Over Khashoggi Murder

The State Department said Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the kingdom’s de facto ruler, should have legal immunity as the head of the Saudi government.


Cited and related links:

  1. nytimes.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "The things we do for oil":

  1. by HatetheSwamp on November 19, 2022 6:04 am

    You mean, the things we'll do not to produce our own oil.


  2. by Donna on November 19, 2022 6:10 am

    Where do you want to install oil wells where that mean old Biden won't let you?


  3. by HatetheSwamp on November 19, 2022 6:55 am

    Tell you what, Donna. Let's let people who do oil for a living figure that out.

    With you, it's not that you trust Big Brother...you WORSHIP...Bro Joe!


  4. by oldedude on November 19, 2022 7:03 am
    "Where do you want to install oil wells where that mean old Biden won't let you?"
    Actually, what I would like to do is to restart the wells pedojoe closed the first day of his "presidency." That would be a good start. Again, this was a move to close down family farming. Oil leases are the only piece of "known" income for most farming families in CO, WY, MT, ND, SD, and other states.


  5. by HatetheSwamp on November 19, 2022 7:09 am

    Right, OD. Donna's suggestion that President Clouseau has this well in hand is deranged.


  6. by Donna on November 19, 2022 7:26 am

    Hts - So I take it that you'd be fine with allowing corporations to dump whatever the hell they want into our waterways and atmosphere - to pollute at will with absolutely no restrictions.


  7. by HatetheSwamp on November 19, 2022 7:35 am

    Of course not. One has nothing to do with the other.


  8. by oldedude on November 19, 2022 8:11 am
    Donna- That wasn't even a part of the conversation. You deflected.

    If you really wanted to be eco friendly, you would prefer to drill here. It's the best oil, and the safest, cleanest way to pull it out of the ground. This includes Canada. If you want to damage the environment the most, pull your oil from the middle east and china. Like most environmentalists, you can do it anywhere, just not in your backyard.

    I think Lead and I are closer than you think to you. We don't mind going green, but things need to be in place in order to do that. Right now, pedojoe is going to kill people in the northeast because of the lack of distilled oil products. In addition, trucking and the means to farm are questionable because of it. All of these things are interconnected. This is a choice on his part. Nothing less.


  9. by Donna on November 19, 2022 8:41 am

    Canadian tar pits oil is some of the dirtiest and hardest to refine oil on the planet.



  10. by oldedude on November 19, 2022 8:44 am
    cite? because there are also tar pits in the middle east. and it seeps into the ground water.


  11. by HatetheSwamp on November 19, 2022 11:36 am

    I think Lead and I are closer than you think to you. We don't mind going green, but things need to be in place in order to do that. Right now, pedojoe is going to kill people in the northeast because of the lack of distilled oil products. In addition, trucking and the means to farm are questionable because of it. All of these things are interconnected. This is a choice on his part. Nothing less.

    Bingo!

    How heartless can the Blue MAGAs be!!!!!? The price of diesel fuel was oppressive to farmers around here last summer. Now, heating fuel is about seven effin dollars an effin gallon and winters can be cold here!


  12. by Donna on November 19, 2022 11:49 am

    The largest deposits of tar sands in the world are found in Alberta (Canada) and Venezuela. The largest deposits in the United States are found in eastern Utah.

    Tar sands represent a potentially vast reserve of oil but come with their own environmental challenges. Oil production from tar sands uses large amounts of land (for open-pit mining), water, and energy, when compared to other oil resources. Open-pit mining also produces a lot of waste (leftover sand, clays, and contaminants contained within the tar sands) that may pose a risk to nearby water supplies. Some of the existing and planned attempts to mitigate the environmental impacts of mining tar sands include using non-potable and recycled water, moving to in-situ rather than open-pit mining to decrease land use and waste, and using carbon capture and storage to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the extraction and use of oil from tar sands.

    americangeosciences.org


  13. by HatetheSwamp on November 20, 2022 5:43 am

    Then let's not use that stuff.


  14. by islander on November 20, 2022 7:36 am

    "Then let's not use that stuff." ~Hate

    That makes sense to me too! When do you think we should begin looking at using alternatives and start actually cutting back on our use of it?


  15. by oldedude on November 20, 2022 8:28 am
    Now. We need the technology to catch up with "desire." Once that happens, we can start actively weaning ourselves off. As long as we're using plastics though, we'll still need to drill, since modern cars and a couple of thousand other things are mostly a plastic composite.


  16. by HatetheSwamp on November 20, 2022 8:35 am

    isle,

    Duh. We began a long time ago to use alternatives but, until you can put a bumper on that fancy Prius of yours out of a solar panel or wind turbine, we'll have to keep pumpin lots of oil.


  17. by islander on November 20, 2022 9:25 am

    My question was---”When do you think we should begin looking at using alternatives and start actually cutting back on our use of [oil]?”

    I see two apparently contradictory answers in the same post, one was, ”Now” and I agree! In fact it’s what we we’ve already started actively doing for a while now using the technology we have (which is improving everyday). Naturally nobody thinks we can completely free ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels ”instantly”.



    The other answer was imprecise and appears to contradict the first answer, ”We need the technology to catch up with "desire." Once that happens, we can start actively weaning ourselves off.”

    We are starting to wean ourselves off by using the technology we have. It appears, however, that some want to stop what we’re doing and wait until we have the technology and infrastructure in place to using oil completely.



  18. by islander on November 20, 2022 9:29 am

    ”Duh. We began a long time ago to use alternatives but, until you can put a bumper on that fancy Prius of yours out of a solar panel or wind turbine, we'll have to keep pumpin lots of oil.” ~Hate

    Of course people can’’t drive their hybrids without oil...but...I can drive 500 miles on a tank of gas and my Prius only has a 10 gallon gas tank.

 If I had an all electric car I’d simply plug it in and recharge the batteries as needed...No gas or oil would be used since it would all be done using the electricity from my own solar panels.

    There are wind power and solar farms popping up all over our state and of course those can help reduce our reliance on oil. All of these things are part of what we can do right now and every bit helps.Why do you seem to be so against this?


  19. by Donna on November 20, 2022 11:01 am

    The main problem with electric cars is that probably most Americans, Sheri and I included, would have nowhere to recharge one. Our apartment complex doesn't have recharging stations. Our previous apartment complex didn't have them either. In fact that complex didn't even have a parking lot; we had to park on the street.



  20. by oldedude on November 20, 2022 11:41 am
    I agree, many states don't have the infrastructure to handle EV at this time. Many metro areas in CO have solar farms, but they only supply enough power for that area. It's great for the lowlands (below 8000'), but the high country has a heck of a time with maintaining anything in the harsh weather. Some ranches and farms are starting to put panels or windfarms on their land to support the business, which is also good.


  21. by islander on November 20, 2022 11:49 am

    Donna~That (along the cost of an all electric car), naturally, is part of the reason we can’t stop, and nobody is suggesting that we stop making gasoline burning cars and only produce electric cars. Back when the horseless carriage (automobile) was invented no doubt many thought it was not practical since there were no gas stations. But as more people started buying cars more gas stations began appearing and as more gas stations started appearing more people began buying cars. Henry Ford helped bring the cost automobiles down to a more affordable level just as the cost of an all electric car will become more affordable...But none of this is going to happen instantly.

    We are right at the beginning with all of this and the Democrats want to continue and improve upon it. I’m not sure what the Republicans are whining about, it seems as though they want to continue our dependence on oil until it runs out...and yet they seem unwilling to give any concrete ideas about what we should be doing until then.


  22. by oldedude on November 20, 2022 12:18 pm
    You haven't been paying any attention at all.
    They GOP has taken an "all inclusive" stance on energy. We drill, still install solar and wind for now while we still need it and get the science working. And yes, pedojoe has said many times he wants to end gas cars by (fill in the date here, it keeps changing). CA has an EV mandate of 2035 in that state.


  23. by islander on November 20, 2022 12:44 pm

    "CA has an EV mandate of 2035 in that state.

    So what !!!

    That's what "the people" of CA want and I hope it works! You haven't changed your position on a State's right to do stuff like that, have you?

    "In August, CARB said it would require all new vehicles sold in California by 2035 to be electric or plug-in hybrid electrics (PHEVs) after Governor Gavin Newsom issued a 2020 executive order directing the move. CARB said the rules will reduce smog-causing pollution from light-duty vehicles by 25% by 2037 and result in 9.5 million fewer conventional vehicles sold by 2035. Automakers in 2035 can sell no more than 20% of models as PHEVs.

    California was not as aggressive as some environmental groups wanted, or Tesla (TSLA.O), which urged ending new gas-powered vehicles by 2030.

    "Of course an EV-only automaker is going to want as high a standard as possible because that is going to create a market for their credits," Randolph said.

    California needs a waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to adopt the 2035 rules, which will open the request for public comment. "Obviously it's their decision to make but I mean that's why the waiver exists. So California can move forward and protect its residents," she said."

    (snip)

    "Some states that previously adopted California's zero emission vehicle rules have not yet signed on for the tougher 2035 phase-out date. A spokesman for Colorado's environmental agency told Reuters, "Colorado is certainly not California and Colorado has our own plan."

    Randolph said "some states are ready right now" to adopt 2035 while others will "get more comfortable as the models continue to roll out."

    She said the regulator has other transportation emissions reductions in the works on medium- and heavy-duty trucks and for in-state locomotives. Randolph added the state is "working really hard on looking at the Imperial Valley as a potential source of lithium" for EVs."

    reuters.com


  24. by oldedude on November 20, 2022 12:46 pm
    Isle- "nobody is suggesting that we stop making gasoline burning cars and only produce electric cars."

    short term memory loss??????


  25. by HatetheSwamp on November 20, 2022 12:55 pm

    "CA has an EV mandate of 2035 in that state.

    So what !!!

    That's what "the people" of CA want and I hope it works!


    Is it what "the people" want? I thought that was an executive order. I can't recall this coming from "the people and their representatives." I might be wrong. Feel free to correct me, though.


  26. by Curt_Anderson on November 20, 2022 1:40 pm
    HtS,
    Gavin Newsom was just re-elected with 60% of the vote. That's a good indication that most California voters approve of his actions as governor.

    Newsom's election numbers comport closely with an LA Times sponsored poll on EVs.

    In August, California regulators issued a mandate both dramatic and historic: Ban the sale of most new gasoline-powered cars and light trucks by 2035, in favor of electric vehicles.

    So far, a majority of California voters back the move, according to a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times. Fifty-five percent of registered voters favor the mandate and 39% oppose it.

    escholarship.org
    latimes.com


  27. by islander on November 20, 2022 2:08 pm
    "Is it what "the people" want? I thought that was an executive order" ~Hate

    You are wrong. It was the CA legislators who approved the measure, it was not an executive order...


  28. by HatetheSwamp on November 20, 2022 2:27 pm

    Link?


  29. by islander on November 20, 2022 4:07 pm

    "Link?"~Hate

    "California has approved a policy that will require nearly all new vehicles sold in the state to be electric by the year 2035.
    California Governor Gavin Newsom first announced the proposed policy in September 2020. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted last week to officially approve the new rules.

    The policy requires 100 percent of new sales of cars, trucks and SUVs to be powered by electricity or hydrogen by 2035. It permits one-fifth of new vehicle sales to be hybrids.

    The policy does not ban the use of gas-powered cars or the sale of used ones."


    Here's the link for you

    learningenglish.voanews.com


  30. by islander on November 20, 2022 4:19 pm
    " by oldedude on November 20, 2022 12:46 pm

    Isle- "nobody is suggesting that we stop making gasoline burning cars and only produce electric cars."


    short term memory loss??????

    Why did you leave out the last word in my sentence when you quoted me? That's dishonest you know. By leaving off the last wordy you tried to make it sound as if I had said something with a very different meaning from what I actually said...Here's what I actually said and I even emphasized the last word (the word you left out) when I wrote it...""nobody is suggesting that we stop making gasoline burning cars and only produce electric cars instantly.


  31. by HatetheSwamp on November 20, 2022 4:35 pm

    isle,

    California Governor Gavin Newsom first announced the proposed policy in September 2020. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted last week to officially approve the new rules.

    I asked for a link showing that the mandate...MANDATE...came from the "people and their representatives" and you show me that it was foisted by a Big Brother board of bureaucrats!!!!!

    Sheeeeeeeeeeeesh, isle! You don't know what a legislature is!!!!!?


  32. by islander on November 20, 2022 5:00 pm
    "I asked for a link showing that the mandate" ~Hate

    No you didn't. You thought it was an "executive order", od is the one who called it a mandate. You simply asked for an unspecified link.

    As I said, "Gavin Newsom first announced the proposed policy in September 2020. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted last week to officially approve the new rules." (I gave you the link)

    You have been arguing all along that state legislatures are "the people". Remember? You argued that by overturning RVW the decision to ban or allow abortion would be handed back to the people, "the state legislators". Apparently, to you, our federal legislators do not really represent "the people" but "state" legislators do, when in reality they "both" represent the people.



  33. by oldedude on November 20, 2022 6:38 pm
    So it's now a LAW. got it. I'm assuming that if it's a law, it makes binding to the people of CA, and other states are following. You're arguing in circles. Actually, you just proved my point, and you were wrong when you said "nobody is suggesting that we stop making gasoline burning cars and only produce electric cars."

    I'm not saying it's wrong. Newsome can do whatever he wants with CA. I don't care. It was an example of a state stop making gasoline burning cars and only produce electric cars, which you said in your own words doesn't exist.


  34. by HatetheSwamp on November 21, 2022 3:37 am

    isle,

    Here's what pb said:

    Is it what "the people" want? I thought that was an executive order. I can't recall this coming from "the people and their representatives."

    A board of bureaucrats ain't THE PEOPLE AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES!


  35. by islander on November 21, 2022 4:51 am

    Here's what you said..."by HatetheSwamp on November 20, 2022 2:27 pm

    Link?"


    I provided you with the link that showed;

    "California has approved a policy that will require nearly all new vehicles sold in the state to be electric by the year 2035.
    California Governor Gavin Newsom first announced the proposed policy in September 2020. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted last week to officially approve the new rules.

    The policy requires 100 percent of new sales of cars, trucks and SUVs to be powered by electricity or hydrogen by 2035. It permits one-fifth of new vehicle sales to be hybrids.

    The policy does not ban the use of gas-powered cars or the sale of used ones."


    Governor Newsom is the duly elected representative of the people. The California Air Resources Board (CARB or ARB)working under the Gov. is the "clean air agency" of the government of California. Remember this...You argued that by overturning RVW the decision to ban or allow abortion would be handed back to the people.

    Are now claiming otherwise?



  36. by oldedude on November 21, 2022 5:00 am
    "A board of bureaucrats ain't THE PEOPLE AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES!"

    I do agree with that. It's a lot like the EPA run amok, and how they weaseled their way into agriculture. And again, if their sheep are okay with it, I don't care. Although taking a look at the last election, it's becoming clearer the voters aren't real happy. I'm just happy to live in a state that understands what our voters want.


  37. by HatetheSwamp on November 21, 2022 5:05 am

    pb is claiming that, in our constitutional republic, the legislature represents the people. That's what this Supreme Court is reasserting.

    Think. The legislature, uh, legislates. It represents the people. It creates the laws. The executive branch...executes...the laws generated by "the people and their representatives."

    My guess is that you're going to have to get used to that. That's what last year's EPA decision was all about. The Court shot down EPA regulations because they couldn't be justified by legislation.

    FYI. You can understand that when pb mentions "the people and their representatives" he's referring to the legislature.

    What happened in California was foisted by bureaucrats. It was not an act of the people and their representatives.


  38. by islander on November 21, 2022 6:37 am

    Hate wrote:"What happened in California was foisted by bureaucrats. It was not an act of the people and their representatives."

    That's your version, here's what REALLY happened..."On August 30, 1967, California's elected leaders came together to unify statewide efforts to address severe air pollution. Governor Ronald Reagan approved the Mulford-Carrell Air Resources Act to create the State Air Resources Board, committing California to a unified, statewide approach to aggressively address the serious issue of air pollution in the state.
    ww2.arb.ca.gov


  39. by islander on November 21, 2022 6:49 am

    olddude wrote: ”Actually, you just proved my point, and you were wrong when you said "nobody is suggesting that we stop making gasoline burning cars and only produce electric cars."

    Quoting out of context is dishonest od...Here is what I said in context...”That (along with the cost of an all electric car), naturally, is part of the reason we can’t stop, and nobody is suggesting that we stop making gasoline burning cars and only produce electric cars”, and as I said in that same paragraph, ""...But none of this is going to happen *instantly*".

    And the CA bill is about the sale of new cars in that state not the production, and it allows the sale of new gas/electric hybrids and continues to allow the sale and use of existing gas cars after 2035.

    Virtually all of us look forward to the time when we are longer dependent on the burning of fossil fuels in order to drive our cars, but no one I know is seriously suggesting that we can do so instantly. It will be a gradual thing.


  40. by HatetheSwamp on November 21, 2022 6:56 am

    Surely you are not suggesting that the EV mandate is Reagan's doing so what are you saying?


  41. by islander on November 21, 2022 7:09 am

    "Surely you are not suggesting that the EV mandate is Reagan's doing so what are you saying?"

    Of course I'm not suggesting anything of the sort.

    Read the previous posts on this thread one more time (carefully) and that might help you to better understand what I've been saying. If you still claim not to understand, then I have to agree with 😀 Smiley when he tells me I'm wasting my time trying to discuss such things with someone who is incapable of understanding what we are talking about.


  42. by oldedude on November 21, 2022 7:14 am
    That's what they're doing. Now you're being dishonest. It allows for ONLY EV to be sold new. I was well within the context of what you said.

    I have always maintained that it isn't a bad thing in the future starting when the technology and infrastructure has caught up to the requirement of buying the car. Like I've said, I'm not anti- EV, I believe it's now premature to require them especially in an area where they've warned the population of rolling brown-outs because they don't have the infrastructure given the population and present need.

    They are also going to need far more charging stations, which isn't a huge thing to do. It's just a need that needs to be met. DC/Northern VA was doing a pretty fair job of that when I left there three years ago. That was a good thing. I'm sure by now, there are a lot more available in apartment buildings, work buildings, and parking lots. At first, I thought it was a waste of a parking space. In just a while, they started filling up, proving they weren't.


  43. by HatetheSwamp on November 21, 2022 7:21 am

    isle,

    I think it's you who doesn't UNDERSTAND.

    This all began when you asserted, "That's what "the people" of CA want..." and I doubted that. I remembered the Big Brother MANDATE coming from the governor and, in a way, it did. Governor French Laundry announced the dictate of a board of bureaucrats. It came from the Executive Branch.

    What you and I both UNDERSTAND is that the mandate didn't come from "the people," i.e., the legislature...acting on behalf of the people...as "their representatives."


  44. by islander on November 21, 2022 7:28 am

    Hate ~

    "On August 30, 1967, California's elected leaders came together to unify statewide efforts to address severe air pollution.”


  45. by islander on November 21, 2022 7:29 am

    olddude ~

    Do you know what a hybrid vehicle uses for power?


  46. by HatetheSwamp on November 21, 2022 7:46 am

    C'mon man! I can't believe that you are that thick! Of course the legislature empowered the bureaucracy...pret'near 50 years ago.

    You have to be capable to UNDERSTAND this. This is seventh grade social studies.

    The "people and their representatives" in California didn't pass a law creating an EV mandate. The mandate was foisted...from the Executive Branch...by BUREAUCRATS.

    pb knows that you're smart enough to UNDERSTAND. This has to be your subjectivity.
    npr.org


  47. by islander on November 21, 2022 7:50 am

    Hate ~

    I forgot to ask you, when you wrote, "Governor French Laundry announced the dictate of a board of bureaucrats. It came from the Executive Branch="...

    Who is Governor French Laundry


  48. by HatetheSwamp on November 21, 2022 8:10 am

    Gavin Newsom who was busted for violating his own strict pandemic shut down MANDATE by joining friends to dine at the luxurious restaurant French Laundry.

    Typical progressive hypocrite.

    "FOX 11 spoke to Jamie Court about the photos and said, "Well I was shocked, first of all, that they were so close together, and it didn’t appear they were outside.""
    foxla.com


  49. by islander on November 21, 2022 8:26 am
    Hate ~

    So...as usual...you really didn’t know what you were talking about when you said, “Governor French Laundry announced the dictate of a board of bureaucrats”

    Pssst...There is no, and has never been, a Governor French Laundry! LoL !!!



  50. by islander on November 21, 2022 8:29 am

    Hate wrote:”Of course the legislature [the people] empowered the bureaucracy...pret'near 50 years ago.”

    😀 Smiley said, I think Hate is beginning to understand a bit of this and he wants to congratulate you ! 👏




  51. by Donna on November 21, 2022 8:38 am

    Hts- Are you opposed to the practice of issuing executive orders?


  52. by HatetheSwamp on November 21, 2022 8:51 am

    Donna,

    No but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

    A board of bureaucrats in California created this much ballyhooed EV mandate and isle claimed that this bureaucratic decree is "what the people want" as if the mandate was created by the people's representatives by popular demand.


    The Supreme Court decision from last term that pb grooves on more than any other is the EPA decision which shot down environmental regulations because the regulations defied the authority granted to EPA bureaucrats by the people and their representatives.

    Certainly, as the Executive Branch carries out the mandate of the people reflected in legislation, Executive Orders are efficient. But, this is a government "of the people, by the people and for the people." We have an executive...to execute the will of the people. We don't have a monarch, or a dictator.


  53. by Donna on November 21, 2022 11:49 am

    "The Supreme Court decision from last term that pb grooves on more than any other is the EPA decision which shot down environmental regulations because the regulations defied the authority granted to EPA bureaucrats by the people and their representatives." - Hts

    What bill did Congress vote on that supports your contention that the Supreme Court's decision on that is what the people and their representatives wanted?


  54. by islander on November 21, 2022 12:46 pm
    Hate wrote: ”Certainly, as the Executive Branch carries out the mandate of the people reflected in legislation, Executive Orders are efficient. But, this is a government "of the people, by the people and for the people." We have an executive...to execute the will of the people. We don't have a monarch, or a dictator.”

    😀 Smiley said to tell you that he is pleased that you’re coming right along in your quest to gain a better understanding of the State of CA’s emissions control proposal and how such legislation comes into being.

    You are absolutely right that in our country we don’t have monarchs or dictators and of course the governor of California is neither. Along with the California state senators and the state representatives, the governor is a duly elected representative of the people who is voted into office by the people.

    The governor, senators and representatives make up the governing body that enacts and executes California’s state laws. This governing body set up the California Air Resources Board (CARB) which is made up of 16 members, with 2 non-voting members appointed for legislative oversight, one each by the California State Assembly and Senate. 12 of the 14 voting members are appointed by the governor and subject to confirmation by the Senate: five from local air districts, four air pollution subject-matter experts, two members of the public, and the Chair. The other two voting members are appointed from environmental justice committees by the Assembly and Senate.

    This is how a government of the people, by the people and for the people functions.


  55. by oldedude on November 22, 2022 6:12 pm
    "What bill did Congress vote on that supports your contention that the Supreme Court's decision on that is what the people and their representatives wanted?"

    It wasn't "a" piece of legislation, it was years of farmers and ranchers being bullied by the EPA. I've mentioned several times about the cattle in Northern Colorado they couldn't get to because "they had to get EPA approval" to get the carcasses out of the fields because by "EPA Standards" standing water is part of the EPA purview. That was not through legislation. And then the farmers/ ranchers were fined because they didn't get to the dead cattle to prevent the bio-organisms from forming. Prior to that ruling, it was illegal to put fense up on acreage according to EPA rules. The EPA had run amok. They were beyond touch or the ability of any to fight them. If you messed with them, or brought up a lawsuit, they would chickensht you to literal death.

    In addition, the EPA moved in on State lands to tell the state how to run them. For years, they disallowed controlled burns and clearing dead trees until wild fires in the west did so much damage and states rebelled.


Go To Top

Comment on: "The things we do for oil"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page