Saturday, January 19, 2013
COME ON! COME ON! LET'S GET THE GOVERNMENT TO HELP US MORE!!
Why? Why?
Why do you liberals continue to trust our federal government to make your decisions for you?
Why do you think they have to be involved in so many aspects of your life?
They are incompetent, unrealistic, short-sighted and just plain don't care about unintended consequences.
Is it your opinion that E-15 is an example of how the government gets things right?
Really?
What else do you trust them with?
What is wrong with you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Joe, you and the Fox "reporters" make it sound like E15 is being forced on us by the EPA. It is not. The ethanol industry and their lobbyists have been pushing for higher corn blends. What the EPA did was approve the sale of E15. The decision to sell it is made at the state level, something you are in favor of.
Only a handful of states allow the sale of E15 and some, if not all of them require a warning sticker at the pump saying E15 shouldn't be used in cars older than 2001. It appears the year should be 2012. A car is a big investment. The owner of a car should take personal responsibility (remember that?), and take 10 minutes researching what kind of fuel to put in it.
Left to their own devices, the private ethanol industry would put as much corn as they could in gas, without warning, and the consumer be damned. Contrary to your point that the EPA has over reached in this case (I repeat, E15 isn't mandated, just approved), they didn't do enough. More rigorous testing should have been done.
s it your opinion that E-15 is an example of how the government gets things right?
No. Your argument is for tighter regulation from the EPA (federal govt.), that E15 shouldn't have been approved. Then you say we are over regulated. I'm not calling you schizophrenic but consistency isn't your strong point.
p.s., Question man. You might have some good points to make so why not pick one, preferably pertaining to Joe's post, and make it. Trolling makes you a troll.
Craig: "The owner of a car should take personal responsibility (remember that?), and take 10 minutes researching what kind of fuel to put in it."
I absolutely agree.
I also agree that the states should decide whether or not to allow E15, not the feds.
Point is, for those able to understand, E15 should never have been either approved or disapproved by EPA.
"...the private ethanol industry would put as much corn as they could in gas, without warning, and the consumer be damned."
Go back to your own point. The owner of the car should be informed or suffer the consequences.
The book that comes with his car tells him what to put in it.
BTW: Henceforth, Question Man will be reported as spam. Eventually the Blogger system will catch on and will exclude him.
Unfortunately, the system has designated some commenters as spam without being told...some rightly, most wrongly.
I just discovered today that some commenters I want on here are excluded by the Blogger Police.
Craig: When did it become the federal government's job to protect us from ourselves? What part of the Constitution or what Amendment made it their business?
The Constitution is clear, "If it ain't listed here, the federal government ain't got no business gettin' involved in it. If it ain't listed here, it's for the individual states to decide for themselves. That's the end of this here story."
The Constitution is clear, "If it ain't listed here, the federal government ain't got no business gettin' involved in it. If it ain't listed here, it's for the individual states to decide for themselves. That's the end of this here story."-Joe Scoggins, Rightwing blogger and genuine Old Fogie.
A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. John Marshall, Revolutionary War vet, delegate to the Virginia Convention, member of the 1st Congress, longest serving Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and smart guy.
Hmmm, who to believe, who to believe.
Craig: "Hmmm, who to believe, who to believe."
Believe me.
Marshall never did understand the Constitution, as witnessed by his quote.
Who was this Marshall guy, some kind of commie?
Ducky: See below.
Craig: Marshall believed in the supremacy of federal law over state law, and supported an expansive reading of the enumerated powers, thus giving the Supreme Court much more power than it should have had. He effectively distroyed the equal powers doctrine.
He would very much have liked the Constitution to be too complicated for people to understnd and spent much of his time twisting it to be so.
XO: I think I'll move to Texas. I like Bar-B-Q and I think pilots SHOULD carry loaded fire-arms...after a thurough background check, of course.
I DO know more about the Constitution than some of those you mentioned (see my note to Craig).
As for the FAA, there is the commerce clause...in which I believe when properly followed (which is rarely).
The FAA is one of the few government agencies that get's higher than an F- for their effectiveness, largely because of having been set up as a quasi-independent agency.
It certainly outranks EPA, HHS, DHS, DOE, CIA and many of the other alphabetized agencies (not to be confused with AAA, BBB and CCC (Spanish for Yes, Yes, Yes).
thorough
Craig: Marshall believed in the supremacy of federal law over state law
Well, Mr. constitutional scholar, that's a shocker. Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution,
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
If you were arguing his position on 'judicial review', I might agree. I think the Constitution meant for Congress to be the arbiter of constitutionality, that it would ultimately be decided by the body closest to the people. Take Obamacare, the House tried 36 (?) times to repeal it and failed. Righties were more than happy to rely on an activist Supreme Court to overturn it. Failed again. What I think is irrelevant, judicial review has been with us for over 200 years and it's here to stay.
I'll add this to XO's excellent scenario. Say S. Dakota decides it won't enforce scrubbers on coal fired power plants and allows them to spew nasty particulates that end up in Minnesota's 10,000 beautiful lakes. 50 different environmental laws, or no laws, on emissions is nuts. What S. Dakota does effects us in MN. We have a windy state and it's generally from the west. Some say it's the jet stream but everyone here knows it's because S. Dakota blows and Wisconsin sucks.
Craig: "...the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
So it is just as I said. That's what Marshall believed, too.
That's not the point. If the feds make a law, it applies to the whole country.
What I am saying is the fed makes far too many laws, issues far too many regulations and restricts liberty way, way too much.
For Congress not to "get anything done" is a blessing, not a curse.
Joe, you're a little long on opinion and short on reason.
Just how do we determine the "correct" level of legislation. Or should we just let you trash the place as you see fit since that's your rather juvenile sense of "rights".
Post a Comment