Back on topic, I don't think this is as much about hyperbole as it is about this administration giving the EPA more power than it deserves. It's clear to me that the Obama EPA is just one more tool for the left to crush whatever industry it finds destructive to their utopian ideals.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
The OP reminds me of what then candidate Obama said about the coal industry:
But … let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches.
archer wrote: What does that have to do with you claiming the liberals laugh it off when politicians have affairs.....I haven't seen evidence of that, yet I have seen evidence of the conservatives not caring what their politicians do as long as they can point to Clinton as being worse....
It wasn't Clinton's affair, regardless of how often "progressives" repeat that lie, it was his perjury that mattered. No one cared about what an intern wrapped her lips around, what mattered was the lies he told while under oath on a matter that was material before a court of law while he was also under another oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of this union. Clinton's dalliances are of no more consequence than FDR's, JFK's or Newt's were - it is his perjury after having taken an oath as this union's President that is of consequence. It ranks right up there with Nixon's attempts to subvert the legal system. The break in at Watergate wasn't the issue then either - it was the intentional violation of the law that occurred afterwards that mattered.
