18 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWhy would anyone do that? No one wants to silence you, as far as I know. But you do post so prolifically. So it's quite reasonable for others in the community to urge you to exercise a bit more quality control.
You could try banning me.
18 May 11
Originally posted by FMFIt would be for the collective good of the RHP members. By banning me you could reduce the pollutants on this site.
Why would anyone do that? No one wants to silence you, as far as I know. But you do post so prolifically. So it's quite reasonable for others in the community to urge you to exercise a bit more quality control.
18 May 11
Originally posted by whodeyThe light bulb conspiracy is odd, although think of the gov't mandating better pollution and mileage standards which force industry changes. Darn, if I'm drawing a blank but that has to be a large number of times that a gov't control of something manufactured turned out well.
The US federal government has assumed the role as energy policeman. You are correct in that many other governments are doing the same. So the question begs, is this the role of government? What is next? After all, assuming the role of energy policeman has no bounds. They will tell you what cars you can drive and what houses you can sell and buy and what ...[text shortened]... be hell to pay via the feds!! In fact, is it still legal to criticize them like this? 😳
How about the gov't forcing cable TV transmission changes, hell they made an old TV I had obsolete over night.
Where we trotally screwed up is allowing China to dominante the market.
19 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by badmoonSpeaking of China, check this out.
[Where we trotally screwed up is allowing China to dominante the market.[/b]
http://www.businessinsider.com/ge-ships-light-bulb-jobs-to-china-so-it-can-make-greener-bulbs-2009-8
Apparently, GE was intstrumental in lobbying the government to outlaw incandescent light bulbs in favor of compact fluorescent bulbs. Now they will close down their factories in the US and move to China. At the old factory in Virgina where people have lost their jobs, they joke about GE making better bulbs for the environment when the new ones are full of mercury to poison the environment. In addition, at one of the new plants in China it appears that some of the workers have succumb to mercury poinoning. Go figure.
We all know that GE has been in bed with the current administration, but then, its OK so long as its not a "big oil" company, right?
What can I say, just foooollow the money baby!!!
19 May 11
Originally posted by whodeyWhat you really should be arguing about is not whether government regulation is good / bad but the system you have in the US where instead of government regulation being for the good of the people, it is based on which industry spends the most on lobbyists.
Apparently, GE was intstrumental in lobbying the government to outlaw incandescent light bulbs in favor of compact fluorescent bulbs.
What can I say, just foooollow the money baby!!!
I suppose that if you cannot think of an alternative system, then you might argue that it is best to avoid regulation altogether.
19 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou're onto it, get the gummint out of the economy, then the big companies couldn't buy support, all this hullabaloo about trying to limit campaign spending or limiting campaign donations or taxing donations would be in the wind.
What you really should be arguing about is not whether government regulation is good / bad but the system you have in the US where instead of government regulation being for the good of the people, it is based on which industry spends the most on lobbyists.
I suppose that if you cannot think of an alternative system, then you might argue that it is best to avoid regulation altogether.
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation the first to be bought and sold are the legislators."
Another scorcher that goes right to the heart and hit's the nail on the head from P J O'Rourke
19 May 11
Originally posted by whodey"After all, assuming the role of energy policeman has no bounds."
The US federal government has assumed the role as energy policeman. You are correct in that many other governments are doing the same. So the question begs, is this the role of government? What is next? After all, assuming the role of energy policeman has no bounds. They will tell you what cars you can drive and what houses you can sell and buy and what ...[text shortened]... be hell to pay via the feds!! In fact, is it still legal to criticize them like this? 😳
Yes, because the "slippery slope" argument applies to literally everything.
"They will tell you what cars you can drive"
Yes, just imagine if the big guvamint began setting minimum effeciency requirements for cars. Oh, wait. That already happened decades ago.
"and what houses you can sell and buy"
Yes, just imagine if houses were required to meet health and safety standards in their design. Oh, wait!
I could go on, but the point has been made. Whodey, you're already living in the apocalypse.
19 May 11
BTW, Whodey. It doesn't bother you that the "article" you posted blatantly lied to you? You will not.... NOT be required to buy a $50 light bulb.
I mean, if I read some crap on the internet that deliberately deceived me I would angry. You're not even mad that you got suckered?
19 May 11
Originally posted by WajomaThat makes no sense to me. If you get the government out of the economy then you make it even easier for big companies to do whatever they want. Or is that what you are saying: let big companies do what they like and keep government and politics about something else?
You're onto it, get the gummint out of the economy, then the big companies couldn't buy support, all this hullabaloo about trying to limit campaign spending or limiting campaign donations or taxing donations would be in the wind.
19 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's right. It would be the cure for all these huge campaign donations, whether done openly or the back room deals, take away some of the pollies power which they have been selling to the highest bidder.
That makes no sense to me. If you get the government out of the economy then you make it even easier for big companies to do whatever they want. Or is that what you are saying: let big companies do what they like and keep government and politics about something else?
19 May 11
Originally posted by WajomaOutlawing campaign donations by corporations is not that hard.
That's right. It would be the cure for all these huge campaign donations, whether done openly or the back room deals, take away some of the pollies power which they have been selling to the highest bidder.
19 May 11
Originally posted by WajomaSo, essentially let companies do whatever they like, pollute as much as they want, forget about safety rules, allow monopolies, price fixing etc, forget about 'job creation', protectionism etc.
That's right. It would be the cure for all these huge campaign donations, whether done openly or the back room deals, take away some of the pollies power which they have been selling to the highest bidder.
And all this because you have some gripe about campaign donations?
How much is big business paying you to say this?
19 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually, Wajoma wants to forbid all forms of pollution by government decree.
So, essentially let companies do whatever they like, pollute as much as they want, forget about safety rules, allow monopolies, price fixing etc, forget about 'job creation', protectionism etc.
And all this because you have some gripe about campaign donations?
How much is big business paying you to say this?
19 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo I don't have a gripe about campaign donations, I have a gripe about what those campaign donations buy. Do you see the difference?
So, essentially let companies do whatever they like, pollute as much as they want, forget about safety rules, allow monopolies, price fixing etc, forget about 'job creation', protectionism etc.
And all this because you have some gripe about campaign donations?
How much is big business paying you to say this?