EPA Chief spending millions of tax dollars on security

originally posted by: crtrvt

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: DBCowboy

So are you saying the OP is making threats???

Or is that just stereotype conservative nonsense where people pretend the actions of whatever random individual with no authority or following are the spokesman for that weeks political opponents???


Nevermind.. I think the answers obvious...

I don't know if the OP or yourself is specifically making death threats to people who think differently.

But security costs money.

*shrugs*

I think the only one making death threats seems to be Ted Nugent, who willl pay for every democrats personal 24-7 security detail?

www.newsweek.com...

Before you call the NRA's pants-#ting lapdog Nugent irrelevant let me remind you he was one of the first people trump invited to the oval office after his inauguration.

It's only a problem when "lefties," do it.

Come on, get with the program.

So as an independent what am I supposed to be outraged about here:

1) That death threats to goverment officials are costing the tax payer millions in security.

Or

2) That the Trump administration isn't giving into the death threats and thus require millions in security?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CB328


Stop making threats to kill him.

Problem?

Solved.

Stop paying appointees to look the other way when mega corporations pollute the environment on a mega scale.

a reply to: intrptr


You are correct.

Giving into the demands of those making death threats is another option.

a reply to: CB328


Tip: Always compare Trump Admin expenditures to Obama Admin expenditures. Or it could come back to bite you.

a reply to: RomeByFire

"It" goes unnoticed when law enforcement "does it" though. Meet the sheriff of Alabama who bought a home on the 'profits from prisons', legally. He even defends it, publicly.

link to story

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: intrptr


You are correct.

Giving into the demands of those making death threats is another option.

Politicians get death threats all the time. They know how difficult it is to lie, cheat and steal in public office. But how many have been killed lately...?

0

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
a reply to: UKTruth

Obviously you were not around before the EPA, when companies polluted the water and air all the time. It was done routinely. Lots of mercury and poisons in the water. And the air was bad.

Yes, let's go back to that.

Who said anything about ending the EPA.
It just needs to be gutted and rebuilt to rid it of people pushing scams on the public.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: intrptr


You are correct.

Giving into the demands of those making death threats is another option.

Politicians get death threats all the time. They know how difficult it is to lie, cheat and steal in public office. But how many have been killed lately...?

0

So your suggestion is to remove security because security has caused "0" deaths, therefore, no security is needed.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Lulz, the most secure place on the planet is the heart of Washington DC...

Nothing cures the paranoid mind though. How thick are the walls and bullet proof glass, the armored limos, the machine gun toting minions?

Is there enough in-depth defense of the Hill, already? How much does all that cost added up? Why do they feel the need to protect themselves so heavily anyway? Who are they hiding from but the American people, in their righteous might?

originally posted by: crtrvt
Gotta laugh at cult 45, this definition of a swamp creature has spent nearly $3 million so far in round the clock security and y'all don't care as long as he keeps gutting the EPA...smh.

That's right...The EPA definitely needs guttin'...And the money being spent on security pales to what is being saved from the guttin', which is essential to protect him from you guys who want to knock him off...Money well spent...

a reply to: intrptr

I don't know.

So you don't think people should protect themselves from threats of death.

Interesting.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: intrptr

I don't know.

So you don't think people should protect themselves from threats of death.

Interesting.

Nobody gets out of here alive. You been watching too many movies...

Tree huggers gone wild, sending that guy threats all the time. Such a violent bunch of domestic terrorists they are. They cause a reaction then cry about it because the guy has too much security to get at him now. How about the government investigate and eliminate the terrorists sending threats, then security costs can go back down.

Why in the hell would an EPA chief need a big security team?

Because some folks actually believe this snip.

One of the reasons I think Trump is so bad and should be impeached is that he is destroying the government by appointing people that don't care about their departments and just use them to destroy the government and enrich themselves. The latest example is Pruit, who in addition to apparently fortifying his office, and giving his staffers huge raises, is wasting nillions of our dollars to have a team of almost 20 security officers. Why in the hell would an EPA chief need a big security team? He must feel really guilty about trying to destroy our environment and government.

The only department that's as completely useless as the EPA is the DOE. Neither should have ever existed in the first place.

Hey - I'm all for an EPA-like department at the national level. Otherwise we'd end up with the environmental disasters of China.

But then the over-reach starts. The Waters of the US (WOTUS) is a prime example. Trivially small environmental impact, but a huge bump in government control and a consequently huge loss of liberty for the populace.

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule was another doozy (used by Obama to punish Texas and others.)

So, I'm all for the EPA, but one about 30-40% of it's current size (I could say virtually the same for the entire Fed gov - except the military.)

Mr. Pruitt, hack away and screw the security cost.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: CB328

He got the Sierra club mad at him.
Gotta hide under the desk.

Nothing to scoff at . The Sierra club , by way of lobbying turned the EPA into a monster

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

It's called environmental PROTECTION.
Not destroy the environment with pollutants. Get a clue Euro.

Actually , they have a clue
The EPA is set up to regulate the environment .
However , due to the the power of certain special interest groups , the US has been regulated to near death
Regulations = Revenue = Taxes = "Legalized Theft" of the citizen's hard earned money.
No other way for government to obtain "revenue"
Remember that...

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
a reply to: UKTruth

Obviously you were not around before the EPA, when companies polluted the water and air all the time. It was done routinely. Lots of mercury and poisons in the water. And the air was bad.

Yes, let's go back to that.

Were you ?
I was
In fact , my "liberal long-haired tree-hugging hippie" generation was the one that brought the EPA to life.
And you are correct that there was pollution .
However , there were only regulations against the dangerous pollutants . Those are monitored constantly.
Yet , they took the power we gave them and ran with it due to the "influence"(bribery) of special interest groups .
And , the EPA was not meant to oversee themselves. Yet , now they are the only ones that do.
The US would not "go back to that" .