this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
784 points (95.3% liked)

Fuck Cars

9645 readers
605 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

And I hate their blue-rich eye searing headlights to.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] doppelgangmember@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Probably Bush more likely. Oil 🛢 fanatics

[–] rambaroo@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Probably? You know you could actually look it up, it's well documented. Obama's EPA rules are responsible for this. They're well intentioned but poorly designed

[–] sadreality@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They were poorly designed on purposes tho

That's how all laws in the US come out after lobbies get done editing them for their benefit as expense of the taxpyer.

[–] doppelgangmember@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Lolol bruh i could care less about unenforced EPA "regulations". I said "probably.. more likely" as a counterpoint and a joke really. Why don't you research the personal conflicts of interest for my point first that I was talking about before you go all "dO yOuR rEsEaRcH"?

Ya'know what ill help you out since you didnt provide any burden of proof like an arguer SHOULD do.

Bush administration unveiled a controversial National Energy Plan, which consisted chiefly of $33 billion in public subsidies and tax cuts for the oil, coal, and nuclear power industries, as well as provisions to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for industrial oil drilling.

Ofc they're both guilty, they are the establishment and two sides of the same coin. Doesn't mean one can't have more vested interest potentially. Also lol what EPA rules did Bush even try to pass tho? Besides opening the Arctic for drilling primarily.