Azalin

That was especially refreshing to see.

"Communism vs democracy...that's not complicated. Or we really need to evaluate our school systems and educational system because people are lost."

let someone try that crap on me, and if they dare show that footage I'll sue the crap out of them for theft of intellectual property.

"Optics" is not a synonym for "appearances". Optics is the branch of physics that studies light. "Decimate" is not synonymous with "destroy" but instead means to be reduced by one-tenth.

Rest in peace, prayers for both him and his family.

Bush 41 loathed it.

No, he's pleased with himself because some of us actually answered him. You'd think we'd have learned by now.

I'll give you this much - you're tenacious. For years now you've made every effort to redefine terminology critical of the left into epithets aimed instead at the right. It's not working worth a flip, but you're still out there giving it the old college try. The amateur psychologist in me suspects that you're actually deeply annoyed at terms like "TDS" and "snowflake", and that amuses the hell out of me.

Actually, I see two that both TYTT and GG have directly refuted the article and neither have called you names. Would you care to respond to them?

I'm not worried. They won't. I pay attention to what they say. And I assumed it was obvious that I only used Beto's statement on 'assault weapons' as an example. To spell it out more specifically, you say you know nothing about politics, but then say to never, ever take what they say seriously because it's nothing but hot air. I say that it isn't just hot air, and that people concerned with civil and individual liberties regardless of party affiliation, ought to pay close attention, because they are more increasingly saying what they truly intend to do.

I take what they say very seriously, especially when I hear them saying things like "hell yes, I'm coming for your guns". They've become brazen with regard to telling the truth of their intentions, so people damn well better start to pay attention.

Anyone else struck by the notion that the end they're burying produces pretty much the same thing as the part they're elevating?

Holy %^$#! How do you fight sewer fires? I've never even heard of that. I used to be but gave'em up around 20 years ago. I'm at the point in my life where I like to keep my head on straight (or relatively so).

Something else I've said in the past and have neglected to reiterate here is that climate and environmentalism as subjects have been politicized to the point where many people (on both sides) argue points that they've only gleaned from biased sources, because that fits their preconceived beliefs. It makes honest discussion that much more difficult to have. That's it - I'm not cleaning my kitchen any more.

Possibly yes, possibly no. Can you say one way or another which, if any of those rollbacks, will have any meaningful effect on the healthfulness of air and water? How many of them, if left in place, will increase the cost of electricity being generated? What would be the impact that more expensive energy would have on communities, large or small? How many of these regulations that Trump rolled back have increased toxicity levels to a degree that is actually harmful? Were any of those levels actually acceptable before the Obama administration lowered them further? That kind of thing happens frequently you know; the amount of lead in the water in Austin, Texas may be well within acceptable levels, but that doesn't stop agenda-driven anti-capitalists masquerading as environmentalists from ginning up fear simply because it's not a leftist in office.

This is surprisingly immature. You react to admonishments for taking politically-driven articles as fact by accusing me (and most of the rest of us involved in the thread) of believing Trump to be an environmental savior. You ought to answer direct questions with what you personally believe, not some linked counter-argument from biased sources. And if you think that this place is nothing more than some kind of Trump-cult, why bother posting anything?

Exactly. How many are based in science, or even reality vs purely political motivation? Many regulatory benchmarks are set simply to allow officials to say that they imposed tighter regulations, many of which are nothing more than lip service to activists. Dodge. You posted it, so you must find some validity in it, right? Exactly. General take or not, you ought to be able to back up your point with some kind of substance. The NYT would be all over China if they adopted Trump's environmental standards, despite the fact that his are far more responsible than theirs are currently.

Hang in there. Have a few drinks, sit back, and just treat it all as entertainment. It's what I do.

Chelsea has all the charisma of wet celery. I just can't seeing her inspiring cheers from even a captive audience.

No, I asked you a question. Do you actually think anyone here actually supports making our air and water dirtier? Can you answer directly without finding an article to link as a response?

What nonsense. Do you actually think anyone here actually supports making our air and water dirtier?

I realize that this probably says a lot about me, but South Park has been my favorite show since it began back in '97.

The only one I'm surprised to see on that list is Apple's willingness to hand over encryption keys since they vociferously oppose that sort of thing with US law enforcement.