Attention Michele Bachmann: If You’re Pro-Life, Explain Desire for People-Killing Abolition of EPA
Jun 18th, 2011 | 58 responses
It’s hard to know where to start, as a mother of three kids under 18, one of whom has a recurring respiratory problem whenever he gets a cold, and living in a state that gets an overall F in clean air, when it comes to how universally savage the Republican presidential hopefuls are toward the Environmental Protection Agency.
If you missed the news, here’s a breakdown of how each of seven candidates addressed environment and energy issues in this past Monday’s Republican presidential primary debate in New Hampshire. (Note: it’s from a blog called Energy & Capital, and you can read about the editors of it here.) U.S. Representative and presidential primary candidate Michele Bachmann, had the most choice words. Her solution to all our problems that she deems are connected to regulation? She demands that we start with changing the name of the agency from “Environmental Protection Agency” to “Job-Killing Organization of America.”
Hmm. Really? A name change? Well, I get the obsession with the image is everything thing, but I think she’s going to have to do a whole lot more research, analysis and formulating before she’s going to convince anyone that a name change is going to make a difference.
So, what information might she need to check out before she stands by this literal kiss of death policy position of hers?
Read the full post here at Writes Like She Talks.
58 Responses to “Attention Michele Bachmann: If You’re Pro-Life, Explain Desire for People-Killing Abolition of EPA”
Steve – I don’t not comprehend your argument. I don’t share it or agree with it – I think I said they want back already. I don’t buy it, I don’t believe in it – I don’t prefer it. But I understand it – that’s what I wrote previously.
I’m not sure why you set such goals, that’s very interesting – and I would think ultimately disappointing as there are reasonable people who will in fact disagree with your argument.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned from blogging it’s that doing it in order to convince someone of something is completely out of my hands. If BY CHANCE people find what I have to say persuasive, that is a great outcome. But to have it as the goal, too ambitious. The medium just has too many flaws in terms of how to conduct healthy debates – by which I mean, if we were face to face, I suspect this would go much more smoothly.
Online really does have its limitations – and it’s not personal.
“JS It’s odd to me. I don’t even know why you bother to post here at all.” – SteveinCH
Steve do you ever read your own comments?
The reason I “bother to post here at all” is the same as it was well before you began posting here. It’s about debunking BS and trying to shed a little light on what matters. It’s that simple. If this puts a bee in your bonnet I guess you’ll have to figure out how to deal with it.
JS
Most people think that debunking requires more than calling something bunk ; )
Jill,
If you understand my argument and disagree, I have no issue with that. The fact that your approach to disagreement is to simply restate is a bit frustrating I admit. And that you accuse me of not reading when I read, quoted, and replied is also a bit annoying.
That said, I’ll let it go. You’ve made up your mind about many things and you appear to have no interest in engaging, simply asserting.
**NB: I am not erasing this comment because I don’t really believe in doing that but @gcotharn alerted me to having confused a comment from him with thinking it was by SteveinCH. My apologies to both commenters! And a thank you to @gcotharn for leaving a comment so I would realize the mistake. Below is the original but pretty much irrelevant comment I wrote, based on my mistake!
Steve – you assert that I have no interest in engaging, but you stated in a most straightforward way that your goal is to get readers to agree with your version of what you see as “common sense basics.” Seems to me like you have no interest in engaging either, unless it’s to reach your goal of getting people to agree with you.
I don’t consider that engagement at all.
Steve – @gcotharn is right – my apologies – definitely wrong and inaccurate.
Gcotharn – thanks for the heads up – I apologize for my mistake and thank you for noting it.
“Most people think that debunking requires more than calling something bunk” – S-inCH
Steve, with all due respect, if you recognized bunk at the moment of inception your word count here would suffer a reduction. Of course, as a fellow American I support your right to say anything you like (so long as it isn’t “fire” in a crowded theater).
JS.
With all due respect, I support your desire to appear above it all as often as you like ; )