Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wish I'd been Ms. Hogan at that hearing. Here is what I would have said to Rep. Ryan.
"I'm sorry for your problems, Mr. Ryan, but you'll have to take all that up with your colleagues here in the Congress. Everything you're complaining about was mandated by Congress. All my agency does is fulfill the instructions we get from here. I don't set policy..y'all do."
"I'm sorry for your problems, Mr. Ryan, but you'll have to take all that up with your colleagues here in the Congress. Everything you're complaining about was mandated by Congress. All my agency does is fulfill the instructions we get from here. I don't set policy..y'all do."
That's not entirely correct. Take CO2 regualtions from the EPA for example, they are basing it on a law that was passed in 1990 long before CO2 became a concern and actually ended up in the Supreme Court to win approval. It was never intended to regulate greenhouse gases. The law would have to be specifically rewritten to exclude greenhouses gases.
That's not entirely correct. Take CO2 regualtions from the EPA for example, they are basing it on a law that was passed in 1990 long before CO2 became a concern and actually ended up in the Supreme Court to win approval. It was never intended to regulate greenhouse gases. The law would have to be specifically rewritten to exclude greenhouses gases.
Even so, they are only doing what Congress told them to do. Oftentimes there are disagreements on how and exactly what Congress meant, but the bottom line is that the EPA doesn't just dream this stuff up themselves. Whatever powers and authorities they have are delegated to them by the Congress.
And, that applies to every, single Executive Branch department.
Even so, they are only doing what Congress told them to do.
There is no law that has been passed that covers greenhouse gases, this like trying to regulate the internet with phone regualtions. It's simply not the same thing and far too important for the EPA to be unilaterally deciding what the regualtions are. The energy bill passed by the Democrats when they controlled the House actually stripped the EPA of this power. If the Republicans gain both houses and the presidency you can bet it will be clarified.
Having returned to New York City to work at the high point of the Giuliani administration, thereby having witnessed the revival of healthy, close-to-the-steeet entrepreneurship after years of decline, it's very hard for me to fathom why a supposed believer in an open economy would be so easily seduced by the would-be Nannies.
But on the other hand, that prosperity spawned an army of "trailing spouses" -- over-protective Not-in-My-Back-Yard types who seek to preserve control over their little personal domestic idyll at all costs, and simply don't recognize either the high cost of "security", nor the willingness of bureaucratic sharlatns to "provide" it.
The proselytising of the NEA and the folks at Nick, Jr. to the contrary, the whole world can't be run like preschool.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 06-03-2012 at 03:49 AM..
I think you're missing the big picture here. The complaints about this aren't necessarily about "sugar consumption" it's about the Federal, State and Local government's ability to "morally legislate" what I can and cannot consume. Most of us understand that there is a health epidemic with sugar in this country, but it is not his or anyone's elses place to dictate and regulate how much of a legalized product I can or cannot consume. I personally do not drink soda, or I only drink it on a special occasion (think a party of some sort) but if I wake up one day and want a tub full of orange soda, than that is my business. Not Bloomberg's. And on top of that, it doesn't even make any sense because soda is not the only substance causing obesity--so what about everything else including large steaks, hamburgers, malt liquor, packaged candy etc etc?
This isn't just about "sugar", he's been playing the big brother for God knows how long. He banned Transfats, smoking in parks, he wants guns out of private ownership, he wants infared radars to be approved for the NYPD to randomly see in your pockets as you walk down the street; he wants "cameras on every corner"...he endorses "stop and frisk", he endorses the NYPD spying on everyone in cafe's and neighborhoods and the list goes on. Every nod of approval that he gets, leads to another ban. And his "success" just opens up the legal gateway for anyone else that will succeed him to pass similar laws on other things. At this rate, it will only be a matter of decades before we're all walking around with shaved heads and wearing white robes.
I said it once and I'll say it again.
You mention all of these hypothetical scenarios like they are universally considered a bad thing. In eyes of sickofnyc and his ilk, those are good things. Saying if you ban X then that will open up the doors to ban Y is not exposing a flaw in his thinking or has the potential to make him go, "Hmmm, you know maybe this isn't a good idea". Why? Because people like him want more bans, more restrictions, and more regulations.
I don't understand pro-choice people as in it's a woman's right what to do with her body legally but apparently that same pro-choice crowd can't let her make a decision on a legal large soda to put in that same body.
Why do people just HAVE to bring abortion into every single thread?
Anyways, I would like to clarify that I am pro-choice for abortion and anti-nanny state for the exact same reason:
You mention all of these hypothetical scenarios like they are universally considered a bad thing. In eyes of sickofnyc and his ilk, those are good things. Saying if you ban X then that will open up the doors to ban Y is not exposing a flaw in his thinking or has the potential to make him go, "Hmmm, you know maybe this isn't a good idea". Why? Because people like him want more bans, more restrictions, and more regulations.
Which is why we need to stop pointing to the elusive "government" and look around us. Those people are the tyrants. They hide behind government to do their bidding and they deserve the brunt of resistance to infringement. They deserve to be pointed to and said "Hey, that guy over there wants to take away your rights!" and they should be objected to, confronted, and pressured to justify their position rather than them hiding behind government to which nobody can specifically identify as the culprit.
Who is selling out your rights? Who is infringing on you? Who is demanding subservience through force and rules of law? It is your fellow American, make no damn mistake.
Which is why we need to stop pointing to the elusive "government" and look around us. Those people are the tyrants. They hide behind government to do their bidding and they deserve the brunt of resistance to infringement. They deserve to be pointed to and said "Hey, that guy over there wants to take away your rights!" and they should be objected to, confronted, and pressured to justify their position rather than them hiding behind government to which nobody can specifically identify as the culprit.
Who is selling out your rights? Who is infringing on you? Who is demanding subservience through force and rules of law? It is your fellow American, make no damn mistake.
The problem is when you confront them, more times than not you get deflection after deflection, or foot stomping.
When ya think about it , this is no different then helmet laws or seatbelt laws.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
