Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

EPA bullying should stop

February 12, 2013

Thank goodness some in the judiciary are willing to stand up to the Obama administration and its Environmental Protection Agency, which continues to appeal rejections of its attempt to choke the......

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Feb-12-13 10:41 AM

Right. If there's gonna be any bullying around here, it's gonna be the coal companies doing it!

We should just let them continue to pollute our air, ground and water, the same as the mega hog factories here in Iowa, right? If they want to make money, to heck with our planet!

Another wise editorial from the corporate owners of this newspaper chain.

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-12-13 2:57 PM

Cranky, you should have been around when the environment in and around Dodge was really bad. As for coal, as the price falls, more and more is being shipped abroad where it is burned without the benefit of EPA contols - some environmental improvement that! I see now Obama want to socialize transmission cost for those widely scattered wind generators while profits, all false of course, accrue to manufacturers and landowners. Meanwhile, it is primarily for Iowans and the other Midwesterners that increased prices of electricity from coal and other fossil fuel sources will, as Obama promised us, SKYROCKET.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-12-13 7:40 PM

Oh come on Messenger/Ogden! We get it, the Messenger is owned by a West Virginia company that is part of an outdated economy of coal in it's home state. That's not our problem that you put all your eggs in such a silly basket. Coal is not the future and we don't want to hear any more about it. The EPA is pretty well de-fanged by now anyway and can't muster half the "bullying" of the coal lobbyist themselves. Grow up and please get smart.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-13-13 8:40 AM

Here's what the editorial doesn't tell you - the reason the rule was thrown out is because EPA didn't follow the rules. In the original proposal they said it was going to cover certain states. In the final rule they added Texas and maybe a couple other states. Texas sued saying that they didn't have a chance to participate in the process because they didn't think they were included. The court agreed. EPA will come back with a new rule and the existing one is still in place.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-13-13 3:25 PM

And Agitator-in-Chief Obama doesn't let either the Constitution or existing law stand in his way, in any case, Need6. And coal will be a major source of energy in the US and around the world even when you are in your grave, ColB. The man who has had experience in nothing but thinks govt action is the answer to everything is, by definition, an ideologue whom the real world ultimately confounds.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-13-13 4:52 PM

I know Anderson. I'm just trying to educate the group that believes the Obama admin can do no wrong. Wouldn't want any facts to get in the way.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-15-13 11:06 AM

I like the movie, "Fire Down Below," with Steven Segal. Pretty good characterization of the EPA leadership, coal company leadership, local politics & law enforcement, gub-mint oversight, and the motives & justifications of the local populace.

You could make the same movie, with almost the same characters, and build the plot around a CAFO, the Ag Park, Monsanto, or most any other "major economic development" happening around FD right now.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-15-13 3:35 PM

Laughing at the 5 people disagreeing with my additional detail about the ruling yet nobody can post anything that proves I'm wrong.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-15-13 8:45 PM

Did you count me among those who disagreed, Need6? I didn't, and I don't!

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-15-13 8:56 PM

By the way, how many times has our Agitator-in-Chief not said that if Congress doesn't act, he will. Makes on wonder what they teach at the Harvard Law School about the Constitution and the separation of powers it established. Sounds more like 'presidents' Chavez or Mugabe than a President of the US.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 10 of 10 comments


I am looking for: