Just what America needs - a more powerful and aggressive EPA.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
To: Oldeconomybuyer
How about market and the consumers decide what is “toxic” and what is not.
2 posted on
06/22/2016 12:03:42 PM PDT by
sagar
To: Oldeconomybuyer
3 posted on
06/22/2016 12:03:43 PM PDT by
McGruff
(How about investigating the donations to the Clinton Foundation)
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Oh great. More power in the hands of a federal bureaucracy.
And they wonder why Trump won the Republican contest.
SICK OF INSIDERS. SICK OF THE NANNY STATE!
4 posted on
06/22/2016 12:04:09 PM PDT by
SoFloFreeper
((Just say no to HRC))
To: Oldeconomybuyer
You read right, America.
In the midst of Obama’s EPA rampaging through every facet of your lives, the Republicans just voted to give it MORE POWER.
To: Oldeconomybuyer
I’m more worried about toxic politicians.
6 posted on
06/22/2016 12:05:41 PM PDT by
Fresh Wind
(Hey now baby, get into my big black car, I just want to show you what my politics are.)
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Just which chemicals are these?
7 posted on
06/22/2016 12:05:55 PM PDT by
Paladin2
(auto spelchk? BWAhaha2haaa.....eI aint't likely fixin' nuttin'. Blame it on the Bossa Nova...)
To: Oldeconomybuyer
I would fire the lot of them! Every state already has their own EPA laws. The feds are just THUGS.
8 posted on
06/22/2016 12:06:06 PM PDT by
stephenjohnbanker
(My Batting Average( 1,000) since Nov 2014 (GOPe is that easy to read))
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Sounds like it is modeling the California law.
Ever read the fine print on something and see words to the effect “This product contains ingredients known to the State of California to cause cancer”?
10 posted on
06/22/2016 12:07:34 PM PDT by
Yo-Yo
(Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Another reason to vote for Trump, as he said he would close their doors for good.
To: Oldeconomybuyer
I'm guessing they are Californizing the entire country.
For many years, it has been standard procedure in my family to select chemical/cleaning products by looking for the "not for sale in California" label. Things that aren't for sale in California usually work better.
To: Oldeconomybuyer
If he signed a bill then it had to come from congress. There is shared blame here.
16 posted on
06/22/2016 12:14:31 PM PDT by
bubbacluck
(America 180)
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Unlike the old version, the new law allows the EPA to stop a potentially dangerous chemical from going to market. Like lead and gunpowder?
17 posted on
06/22/2016 12:14:40 PM PDT by
GregoTX
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Here’s the list:
Tobacco = BAD
Marijuana = GOOD
/sarc
20 posted on
06/22/2016 12:18:21 PM PDT by
fishtank
(The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
To: Oldeconomybuyer
..because 0dunga's overlords demand it.
SAVE OUR PLANET EARTH!
24 posted on
06/22/2016 12:21:00 PM PDT by
CivilWarBrewing
(Females DESTROYED America.)
To: Oldeconomybuyer
“The updated law gives EPA the authorities we need to protect American families from the health effects of dangerous chemicals,”
How about protecting us from dangerous terrorists you morons! And quit spending my money.
25 posted on
06/22/2016 12:25:04 PM PDT by
McGruff
(How about investigating the donations to the Clinton Foundation)
To: Oldeconomybuyer
The Caliph’s Viziers will mow decide what is Halal/Haram.
27 posted on
06/22/2016 12:27:52 PM PDT by
MrBambaLaMamba
( Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.)
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Maybe now they’ll finally do something about all the dihydrogen monoxide!
32 posted on
06/22/2016 12:39:02 PM PDT by
thoughtomator
(Wisdom is doing due diligence before forming an opinion)
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Congress passed the legislation after decades of criticism from environmental groups that called on lawmakers to fix what they called one of the worst environmental laws on the books. Federal oversight over chemicals was so weak that a court ruled the EPA lacked the power to fully regulate use of asbestos.
The Constitution never authorizes the executive branch to regulate a single thing. And no branch of the federal government has the constitutional right to regulate anything intrastate, either.
34 posted on
06/22/2016 12:45:14 PM PDT by
Olog-hai
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Ammo unhealthy, must regulate
35 posted on
06/22/2016 12:47:08 PM PDT by
Java4Jay
(The evils of government are directly proportional to the tolerance of the people.)
To: Oldeconomybuyer
At least it wasn’t by Executive Order. We know who voted for this.
37 posted on
06/22/2016 12:53:01 PM PDT by
bigbob
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson