Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Time to rename the board

83 views
Skip to first unread message

dotsla...@gmail.com

unread,
May 8, 2017, 1:28:25 PM5/8/17
to
http://gizmodo.com/scott-pruitt-just-dismissed-a-bunch-of-scientists-from-1795014639

"On Monday, the Washington Post reports that EPA head Scott Pruitt was behind the dismissal of half of the members of the agency’s Board of Science Counselors. The 18-member board oversees the rigor and integrity of the scientific research guiding policy decisions coming out of the EPA, from climate change to air pollution.

Even more alarming, a spokesman for the EPA told the New York Times their replacements may be representatives from the polluting industries themselves."

Why not? I'm sure any small conflict of interest pales in comparison to the whole "need grant money" deal that causes scientists to lie.

Sort of forgot how much I missed that whole bush era thing where we let the regulatees write their own regulations.

Cheers.

Emperor Wonko the Sane

unread,
May 8, 2017, 2:48:46 PM5/8/17
to
Given the gross manipulations of data and unfounded extrapolations the EPA has been getting away with, I'm surprised he didn't fire the entire board.

Doug

J. Hugh Sullivan

unread,
May 8, 2017, 5:32:23 PM5/8/17
to
On Mon, 8 May 2017 11:48:44 -0700 (PDT), Emperor Wonko the Sane
<do...@sorensensdomain.net> wrote:

>On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 12:28:25 PM UTC-5, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
>> http://gizmodo.com/scott-pruitt-just-dismissed-a-bunch-of-scientists-from=
>-1795014639
>>
>> "On Monday, the Washington Post reports that EPA head Scott Pruitt was be=
>hind the dismissal of half of the members of the agency=E2=80=99s Board of =
>Science Counselors. The 18-member board oversees the rigor and integrity of=
> the scientific research guiding policy decisions coming out of the EPA, fr=
>om climate change to air pollution.
>>
>> Even more alarming, a spokesman for the EPA told the New York Times their=
> replacements may be representatives from the polluting industries themselv=
>es."
>>
>> Why not? I'm sure any small conflict of interest pales in comparison to =
>the whole "need grant money" deal that causes scientists to lie.
>>
>> Sort of forgot how much I missed that whole bush era thing where we let t=
>he regulatees write their own regulations.
>>
>> Cheers.
>
>Given the gross manipulations of data and unfounded extrapolations the EPA =
>has been getting away with, I'm surprised he didn't fire the entire board.
>
>Doug

I think liberals were allowed to remain because they can't do math (at
least not according the the deficit over the past 8 years).

Hugh


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Some dued

unread,
May 8, 2017, 6:19:37 PM5/8/17
to
You must admit that the math where lowering taxes while spending more reduces the federal debt is really tricky.

J. Hugh Sullivan

unread,
May 9, 2017, 8:43:07 AM5/9/17
to
On Mon, 8 May 2017 15:19:35 -0700 (PDT), Some dued
<theodo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You must admit that the math where lowering taxes while spending more reduces the federal debt is really tricky.

When I comprehend that principle I will respond.

Futbol Phan

unread,
May 9, 2017, 10:42:05 AM5/9/17
to
On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 7:43:07 AM UTC-5, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, 8 May 2017 15:19:35 -0700 (PDT), Some dued
> <theodo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >You must admit that the math where lowering taxes while spending more reduces the federal debt is really tricky.
>
> When I comprehend that principle I will respond.
>
> Hugh


Whaaaaaa? Lack of comprehension has never kept you from responding before. New policy? We can only hope...

J. Hugh Sullivan

unread,
May 9, 2017, 11:31:52 AM5/9/17
to
On Tue, 9 May 2017 07:42:03 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:


>Whaaaaaa? Lack of comprehension has never kept you from responding before. New policy? We can only hope...

Comprehension is not required when responding to you. It would be
overkill.

jim brown

unread,
May 10, 2017, 5:28:18 PM5/10/17
to
On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 5:19:37 PM UTC-5, Some dued wrote:
> You must admit that the math where lowering taxes while spending more reduces the federal debt is really tricky.



The left has told us for eight long years that federal debt is good for the economy and the country.

dotsla...@gmail.com

unread,
May 10, 2017, 6:11:44 PM5/10/17
to
No, jim. Not good at all. Necessary to dig us out of the hole 6 years of unchecked GOP rule landed us in, at best.

2001 - 2007 were bad - almost bizarrely bad - years for this country. Took a pretty big injection to get things moving again.

The counter-proposal floated by the right? Austerity? Based on a single spreadsheet with massaged data:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/04/twisted-tale-of-bad-math-and-hubris-global-austerity-based-on-a-spreadsheet-error.html

Cheers.

unclejr

unread,
May 11, 2017, 11:11:42 AM5/11/17
to
On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 12:28:25 PM UTC-5, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
I thot that this was going to be a post about renaming this chatrum. I think that it's already been renamed to rec.politics.

JGibson

unread,
May 11, 2017, 11:26:13 AM5/11/17
to
rec.politics-for-people-that-like-college-football

It's not nearly as bad as the actual politics groups.

Emperor Wonko the Sane

unread,
May 11, 2017, 11:29:46 AM5/11/17
to
So the conclusion is that governments can take on debt infinitely?

Doug

dotsla...@gmail.com

unread,
May 11, 2017, 11:51:34 AM5/11/17
to
Nah doug - did you actually read it? Conclusion was more like "there doesn't seem to be a strong correlation between gdp growth and debt:gdp ratio".

Cheers.

xyzzy

unread,
May 11, 2017, 1:29:57 PM5/11/17
to
true dat

Michael Press

unread,
May 11, 2017, 3:03:00 PM5/11/17
to
In article <9ecf9125-a982-45c2...@googlegroups.com>,
I do not think it is bad.

--
Michael Press
0 new messages