• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

One Day in and Trump attacks the Planet

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
He literally caused the suspension of the National Parks Services twitter account already. Fascism through and through. Heil Further Trump!
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Sorry, I can't tell if your post is serious or sarcastic?
Depends on the regulation in question.

Some are nessessary for obvious clear reasons that warrant them, and others are just redundant and useless directives serving as additional money grabs or just the result of political pandering to appease whomever lobbies for them.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Depends on the regulation in question.

Some are nessessary for obvious clear reasons that warrant them, and others are just redundant and useless directives serving as additional money grabs or just the result of political pandering to appease whomever lobbies for them.

I agree that no government agency is perfect and that there is some degree of corruption throughout every government agency. That said, is it your opinion that overall, our current set of environmental regulations are doing more harm than good?

I gotta say that I think they do more good than harm, imperfect as they may be.
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
He literally caused the suspension of the National Parks Services twitter account already. Fascism through and through. Heil Further Trump!
Fuehrer/Führer. No T, add an r, and add an E unless you can do the ü.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
No need we are opposites sides of he fence. Nothing I say will change your mind and nothing you say will change mine. If you have some hard evidence post it if you want to.

We are *probably* on opposite sides, but what you've said so far is ambiguous. It *could* be that you think the environment is resilient and doesn't protecting. Or it *could* be that you think the environment needs protecting and you think Obama's plan was a bad one. Or it *could* be something else...

So I'm sincerely curious.
 

Toten

Member
The new White House.gov page does say Trump still considers clean water and the environment a high priority, and that he wishes to direct environmental agencies more towards that direction rather than climate change and business regulations.
Which doesn't sound too bad. I'm all for protecting the environment. 110%
 

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
The new White House.gov page does say Trump still considers clean water and the environment a high priority, and that he wishes to direct environmental agencies more towards that direction rather than climate change and business regulations.
Which doesn't sound too bad. I'm all for protecting the environment. 110%

"Which doesn't sound too bad. "

And as we all know everything that comes out of Trump's mouth is 110% true and he never lies.

----

Have people not been paying attention to Trump? He says anything and everything, and nothing he says can be trusted.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Sounds like a great start.

What you've said so far is ambiguous. It *could* be that you think the environment is resilient and doesn't protecting. Or it *could* be that you think the environment needs protecting and you think Obama's plan was a bad one. Or it *could* be something else...

Care to elaborate?
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
What you've said so far is ambiguous. It *could* be that you think the environment is resilient and doesn't protecting. Or it *could* be that you think the environment needs protecting and you think Obama's plan was a bad one. Or it *could* be something else...

Care to elaborate?
The federal government has no Constitutional authority to do most of what it's doing, including that point.
 
Top