Conquer Club

Phatscotty wrote:yes, possible confusion, though you do troll me daily. My drinking water is fine. I never said USA drinking water was 100% perfect in 100% of all cities rural and urban.....I have in the last 2 years been to NJ, NY, Maryland, Kentucky, Colorado, and Missouri. The water is fine.

I'm sure the EPA recieves complaints, and does not follow up on 100% of them. I will give you, that with the current Deficit crisis in America and most states (except for the real conservative states) will probably put further strain on the water supply. However, drinking water is pretty high up on a citizens expectations for their tax dollars. I am perplexed by your assertion that America doesn't have clean drinking water. ridiculous

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:yes, possible confusion, though you do troll me daily. My drinking water is fine. I never said USA drinking water was 100% perfect in 100% of all cities rural and urban.....I have in the last 2 years been to NJ, NY, Maryland, Kentucky, Colorado, and Missouri. The water is fine.

I'm sure the EPA recieves complaints, and does not follow up on 100% of them. I will give you, that with the current Deficit crisis in America and most states (except for the real conservative states) will probably put further strain on the water supply. However, drinking water is pretty high up on a citizens expectations for their tax dollars. I am perplexed by your assertion that America doesn't have clean drinking water. ridiculous

You think that happens in any European nation? This is exactly what I meant by privatising too much, your regulator is piss weak (although the EPA is strengthining under Obama) and firms can get away with stuff. There is no way any company will get away putting bad drinking water out or the regulator not following up on complaints here, and it is a real tragedy that it happens to citizens in your country.

I don't even know where to start

Phatscotty wrote:The epa does not control our drinking water. You are clueless on so many levels. I want to borrow that ones guys

I don't even know where to start

May 2-8, 2010

A safe, reliable water supply is critical to the success of any community. It creates jobs, attracts industry and investment, and provides for the health and welfare of citizens in ways ranging from disease prevention to fire suppression. We often take water supply for granted until it is threatened, either by drought, water main breaks, or some other event. For more than 30 years, the American Water Works Association and its members have celebrated Drinking Water Week – a unique opportunity for both water professionals and the communities they serve to join together to recognize the vital role water plays in our daily lives. Join AWWA in celebrating what Only Tap Water Delivers that no other water can.
YouTube Video Contest

Show us your celebration and win $1000 from the AWWA bookstore! Film a creative video highlighting how you celebrated Drinking Water Week, post it to YouTube and send a copy of the link to dmueller@awwa.org. The deadline to enter is May 30, 2010.

Not sure how to celebrate? Consider an outdoor event in your city and give away branded water bottles filled with tap water. Facility tours, coloring contests, school visits, and sponsoring a "Water Olympics" are all fun and photogenic activities. Plus, you can invite the local media to attend as well.

Don’t forget to post the video to your own website as well! This is a great way for your utility to generate additional awareness both about Drinking Water Week, and the incredibly important work you do everyday.

*Videos do not need to be professional quality - in fact the more personal, the better!

**We recommend that you have anyone appearing in your video fill out a release form. A sample form is is available here.

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:The epa does not control our drinking water. You are clueless on so many levels. I want to borrow that ones guys

I don't even know where to start

Oh, you edited your post just in time. I had a great response to your old post.

"EPA ensures safe drinking water for the public, by setting standards for more than 160,000 public water systems throughout the United States. EPA oversees states, local governments and water suppliers to enforce the standards, under the Safe Drinking Water Act."

"The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the principal federal law in the United States that ensures safe drinking water for the public.[1] Pursuant to the act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to set standards for drinking water quality and oversee all states, localities, and water suppliers who implement these standards.

SDWA applies to every public water system in the United States."

Sorry for being clueless.

Mr_Adams wrote:

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:The epa does not control our drinking water. You are clueless on so many levels. I want to borrow that ones guys

I don't even know where to start

Oh, you edited your post just in time. I had a great response to your old post.

"EPA ensures safe drinking water for the public, by setting standards for more than 160,000 public water systems throughout the United States. EPA oversees states, local governments and water suppliers to enforce the standards, under the Safe Drinking Water Act."

"The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the principal federal law in the United States that ensures safe drinking water for the public.[1] Pursuant to the act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to set standards for drinking water quality and oversee all states, localities, and water suppliers who implement these standards.

SDWA applies to every public water system in the United States."

Sorry for being clueless.

What is this a quote from? just curious. Not challenging anything. If this is actualy part of legislation (which it doesn't sound like) it likes any grit. It provides the EPA with no teeth to enforce this idea... unless there is another clause left out.

Phatscotty wrote:Mass., which has socialized health care on the state level, gave a resounding NO to national socialized healthcare. Is that in Ted Kennedy's face?

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Mass., which has socialized health care on the state level, gave a resounding NO to national socialized healthcare. Is that in Ted Kennedy's face?

No, they lost because of a poorly run campaign and because Obama had not taken on Wall Street more directly.

rockfist wrote:

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Mass., which has socialized health care on the state level, gave a resounding NO to national socialized healthcare. Is that in Ted Kennedy's face?

No, they lost because of a poorly run campaign and because Obama had not taken on Wall Street more directly.

I sincerly hope they believe that.

rockfist wrote:

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Mass., which has socialized health care on the state level, gave a resounding NO to national socialized healthcare. Is that in Ted Kennedy's face?

No, they lost because of a poorly run campaign and because Obama had not taken on Wall Street more directly.

I sincerly hope they believe that.

Titanic wrote:

rockfist wrote:

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Mass., which has socialized health care on the state level, gave a resounding NO to national socialized healthcare. Is that in Ted Kennedy's face?

No, they lost because of a poorly run campaign and because Obama had not taken on Wall Street more directly.

I sincerly hope they believe that.

Look at the polling, thats what being indicated. Obama got elected last year to deal with the economy (60 something % put it as their #1 priority), which he has partly done, but obviously not as well as they wanted.

thegreekdog wrote:Um... no way man. President Obama did not get elected to deal with the economy. He was elected because, in order: (1) Not George W. Bush, (2) Not Republican, (3) Going to end the war in Iraq, (4) Black. Number 5 might have been the economy, but I doubt it.

thegreekdog wrote:Um... no way man. President Obama did not get elected to deal with the economy. He was elected because, in order: (1) Not George W. Bush, (2) Not Republican, (3) Going to end the war in Iraq, (4) Black. Number 5 might have been the economy, but I doubt it.

Snorri1234 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Um... no way man. President Obama did not get elected to deal with the economy. He was elected because, in order: (1) Not George W. Bush, (2) Not Republican, (3) Going to end the war in Iraq, (4) Black. Number 5 might have been the economy, but I doubt it.

None of that touches on why specifically Obama won (aside from being black), instead of Clinton or any other democrat. Nor does it sufficiently explain why he won by such a huge margin and why he won the primaries.

Why he won is something different from those factors you listed because they were true for almost all candidates. Something like 60% of the population votes republican or democrat regardless of the candidates, so they don't matter.

Your list of reasons as to why he got elected should include "being a living human being" because it's just as true and about as helpful as a lobotomy.

Phatscotty wrote:FOR-TY-1
FOR-TY-1
FOR-TY-1

Thank you for the miracle Ted.

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:FOR-TY-1
FOR-TY-1
FOR-TY-1

Thank you for the miracle Ted.

Reconciliation
Reconciliation
Reconciliation

Thank you Senate finance rules (now all we need to do is get some Democrats with balls)

Phatscotty wrote:

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:FOR-TY-1
FOR-TY-1
FOR-TY-1

Thank you for the miracle Ted.

Reconciliation
Reconciliation
Reconciliation

Thank you Senate finance rules (now all we need to do is get some Democrats with balls)

Cheat? Cheat? Cheat? thought maybe you guys would change your strategy....no? sticking with cheating? ok

rockfist wrote:I hope to God they ram it through with reconciliation...in 2014 when they have 20 Senators left we can repeal every stupid fucking social program.