Proof that Government Regulations can save lives.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Thanks for posting WE....it proves government is too big and should downsize to the basics that it is suppose go do.

"Suppose go do" must be another of Trendaway's innacurate trends!

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

When have I ever said there should be NO regulation? This proves that the feds are incapable of enforcing regulations.

Less government it is your byline.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

The percentage of "companies that have exploded" is smaller than the miniscule amount of voter fraud that occurs due to a lack of proper ID.
It wasn't unregulated - the government failed to do their job. No amount of regulation can compensate for poor performance.

Grain elevators explode a lot,but is is because of government rules on confining the dust, and why bring up voter fraud is that all you got?

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

You narrowly focused on safety regulations related to explosive chemicals to draw the conclusion that anyone who wants to minimize regualtoin is an idiot. In fact, you simply showed you are an idiot with an ax to grind.

The regulations promulgated by government are nearly innumerable. Only a small percentage are related to safety. A large percentage of them do nothing by protect the business interests of one group at the expense of another.

We have regulations that prohibit people from cutting hair or doing nails unless they pay a bunch of money to attend a hundred or more hours of classes. The requirements are far in excess of the skills required to those jobs. And the regulations are favored by the people who are already in the salon business for no other reason than they want to make it difficult for competitors to start new businesses.

And the "funeral industrial complex" does everything in its power to make is expensive to people to die. There is absolutely no reason on earth why you should be force to buy a casket from a funeral home for $2000 or more when you could just as easily buy one online for half that prices or less.

But funeral parlor operators have paid off the politicians to pass laws to give funeral parlors a monopoly on the sales of caskets (although there are some changes in the wind for those laws).

Want to buy a car? Ever wonder why you have to buy them at a car dealership? Why can't buy one direct from Ford or GM? Unnecessary regulations promoted by the owners of car dealerships, that's why.

Ship wine interstate? Read this bullshit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_sh..._United_States

It's all about protection of state businesses, especially liquor distributors who would get bypassed by direct shipments.

So, no, you didn't prove we need tighter regulations. We need LESS regulations and the ones we keep need to be BETTER regulations that are actually enforced.


Your question is ridiculous.

Are we supposed to accept your implied premise that providing shelter and food is somehow interfering in someone's business? Well, it isn't and I don't accept it.

Tea Party members expect their taxes to be kept low and put to good use. Disaster relief would certainly fall into the "good use" category. It is temporary and it helps people who have bee harmed through no fault of their own.

This doesn't fall into the same category as providing PERMANENT housing for drug addicts and unemployed, high-school dropouts with 2 kids.

You totally wiped that motherfucker out! Left him in the dirt, thirsty, hungry, and cryin' for his mommy.

[Whirlaway]

It is too fucking funny; Wellendowed using the plant explosion as "Proof That Government" Can Save Lives !!!!!!!! Just the opposite happened in West, Texas !


The idiocy of the left is deep, dark, and unending............I find it impossible to imagine that the left actually believes this kind of non sense........



For a more accurate and logical lesson from the West, Texas disaster see this thread -

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=731623

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

It is too fucking funny; Wellendowed using the plant explosion as "Proof That Government" Can Save Lives !!!!!!!! Just the opposite happened in West, Texas !


The idiocy of the left is deep, dark, and unending............I find it impossible to imagine that the left actually believes this kind of non sense........



For a more accurate and logical lesson from the West, Texas disaster see this thread -

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=731623

Your other thread you claim if government had done their job lives would have been saved. Which is it ????

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Your other thread you claim if government had done their job lives would have been saved. Which is it ????

in some cases whirlie takes both sides, that way he can only be wrong 50% of the time

[JD Barleycorn]

Can we bring up the BP oil spill? The rules were in place but they had been bypassed by the government. Odd that BP was such a large supporter of Obama. So the inspections weren't done and people died. Why was the oil rig so far out and so deep? Government regulations. The oil was available much closer in and in much more shallow waters but government forced BP out deep. So there is your example of "good" government regs that cost lives and help destroy the environment (which was something I thought you [all liberals] were against).

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

You narrowly focused on safety regulations related to explosive chemicals to draw the conclusion that anyone who wants to minimize regualtoin is an idiot. In fact, you simply showed you are an idiot with an ax to grind.

The regulations promulgated by government are nearly innumerable. Only a small percentage are related to safety. A large percentage of them do nothing by protect the business interests of one group at the expense of another.

We have regulations that prohibit people from cutting hair or doing nails unless they pay a bunch of money to attend a hundred or more hours of classes. The requirements are far in excess of the skills required to those jobs. And the regulations are favored by the people who are already in the salon business for no other reason than they want to make it difficult for competitors to start new businesses.

And the "funeral industrial complex" does everything in its power to make is expensive to people to die. There is absolutely no reason on earth why you should be force to buy a casket from a funeral home for $2000 or more when you could just as easily buy one online for half that prices or less.

But funeral parlor operators have paid off the politicians to pass laws to give funeral parlors a monopoly on the sales of caskets (although there are some changes in the wind for those laws).

Want to buy a car? Ever wonder why you have to buy them at a car dealership? Why can't buy one direct from Ford or GM? Unnecessary regulations promoted by the owners of car dealerships, that's why.

Ship wine interstate? Read this bullshit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_sh..._United_States

It's all about protection of state businesses, especially liquor distributors who would get bypassed by direct shipments.

So, no, you didn't prove we need tighter regulations. We need LESS regulations and the ones we keep need to be BETTER regulations that are actually enforced.


Your question is ridiculous.

Are we supposed to accept your implied premise that providing shelter and food is somehow interfering in someone's business? Well, it isn't and I don't accept it.

Tea Party members expect their taxes to be kept low and put to good use. Disaster relief would certainly fall into the "good use" category. It is temporary and it helps people who have bee harmed through no fault of their own.

This doesn't fall into the same category as providing PERMANENT housing for drug addicts and unemployed, high-school dropouts with 2 kids.

Ok Ex-Nyer if taxes is for good use- would you favor the govt or rather your taxes being spent on college education and let's say if the student graduates he gets to not pay back his loans? A student getting an education is surely for good use right?
You ever heard of home insurance? So it's perfectly fine with you that even if the person didn't have home insurance they should still get assistance heck defeats the purpose of having insurance.

Also, who gets to decide what taxes are for good use? Should a person who doesn't drive a car pay for taxes that help build highways? If I don't have any children can I avoid paying school taxes? I mean where would you draw the line? You talk about the Tea party wants to pay lower taxes- do you know anybody if they were ask do you want to pay lower or higher taxes would opt to pay higher taxes???? Are you that fucking naive to think Democrats all vote for their candidate so they can pay higher taxes?????
Also, under Reagan did taxes increase or decrease? Remember George H. Bush: "read my lips no new taxes.." How did that work out? George W. Bush taxes went up unless you were one of the richest 2 percent- so don't feed me this bullshit that it's just DEMS and liberals that want higher taxes.
If taxes were at the lowest rate it could possibly be from the Reagan days to now- do you really think the United States would be the same- I assure you they wouldn't have the military we currently have-how the fuck do you think the U.S got so powerful to build a military like we have by lowering taxes or raising taxes? Funny no one bitch about Reagan or Bush raising taxes but when a Democrat who happens to be a different color wants to raise taxes he's the most evil man in the world.

Bottomline if you didn't bitch when Bush spent a flurry of money don't fucking bitch now. How was the 2 war financed? You heard of Medicare Part D- was that payed for? Fuck no- a 100 billion dollar program charged right to the deficit along with the trillion dollar Fake war.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

You totally wiped that motherfucker out! Left him in the dirt, thirsty, hungry, and cryin' for his mommy.

Really, if you believe JL that Ex-Nyer said anything worthwhile- this coming from a man JL who thinks you worship a fairy God and a fairy book and that Moses, Abraham and Isiah were all fictitious people so go ahead and believe that simpleton. Ex-Nyer doesn't impress me he thinks he's a know it all and believes his shit doesn't stink.

[CJ7]

Ive mentioned several times how Plan D made seniors buy insurance and how much it cost taxpayers, then and forever into the future ..

do you actually believe the rightwing gives a rats about that?

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by CJ7

Ive mentioned several times how Plan D made seniors buy insurance and how much it cost taxpayers, then and forever into the future ..

do you actually believe the rightwing gives a rats about that?

If Obama created Medicare Part D he would cast as the devil.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Can we bring up the BP oil spill? The rules were in place but they had been bypassed by the government. Odd that BP was such a large supporter of Obama. So the inspections weren't done and people died. Why was the oil rig so far out and so deep? Government regulations. The oil was available much closer in and in much more shallow waters but government forced BP out deep. So there is your example of "good" government regs that cost lives and help destroy the environment (which was something I thought you [all liberals] were against).

No we can't dismissed.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Ok Ex-Nyer if taxes is for good use- would you favor the govt or rather your taxes being spent on college education and let's say if the student graduates he gets to not pay back his loans? A student getting an education is surely for good use right? Please learn to speak English. I can barely figure out what you are asking. But NO, a student must pay back his loans. otherwise, there is no penalty for selecting a major that has lousy job prospects, like art history. People make wiser choices when there is a downside to a bad choice.

You ever heard of home insurance? So it's perfectly fine with you that even if the person didn't have home insurance they should still get assistance heck defeats the purpose of having insurance.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that.

If some people in West had no homeowner's insurance, they should NOT get help from the government to replace their home. They should get temporary shelter (one month?) until they can find apartments or new homes. However, they can still sue the owner of the fertilizer plant to get money to replace their lost homes.

Also, who gets to decide what taxes are for good use? Politicians, how else? And if they make bad choices, then they get voted out. That's why the Tea Party exists. Did you really need me to explain that? Also?

Should a person who doesn't drive a car pay for taxes that help build highways? Yes. How does food get to his or her supermarket? Does it fly there by helicopter? How does he or she get to the doctor or the store? Walk on forest trails? Or take a cab or bus or even a bike on those roads you are implying he shouldn't pay for?

If I don't have any children can I avoid paying school taxes? No. Even if you don't have children, you reap the benefits of having an educated workforce (i.e., doctors who treat you, engineers who design you car, your airplanes, the products you use).

I mean where would you draw the line? At a place decided by Congress. And if they choose poorly, they get voted out. Again, do I really need to explain that?

You talk about the Tea party wants to pay lower taxes- do you know anybody if they were ask do you want to pay lower or higher taxes would opt to pay higher taxes???? A better question is "do you know any people who want OTHER people to play higher taxes?" The answer is "Yes. Pretty much everyone who voted for Obama."

Are you that fucking naive to think Democrats all vote for their candidate so they can pay higher taxes????? Stop putting words in my mouth, idiot. I never said that. However, Democrats DO vote for candidates so that OTHER people can pay more taxes.

Also, under Reagan did taxes increase or decrease? Both. Is there a point to that question? Remember George H. Bush: "read my lips no new taxes.." How did that work out? Is there a point to that question? George W. Bush taxes went up unless you were one of the richest 2 percent- so don't feed me this bullshit that it's just DEMS and liberals that want higher taxes. What does ANY of that have to do with keeping taxes high to fund wasteful spending? You seem to think that taxes can never be lowered and that the government could not possible function with less money that it has now. You keep setting up idiotic strawmen that have no bearing on reality.

If taxes were at the lowest rate it could possibly be from the Reagan days to now- do you really think the United States would be the same- I assure you they wouldn't have the military we currently have-how the fuck do you think the U.S got so powerful to build a military like we have by lowering taxes or raising taxes?
You're an idiot. Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said ANY of that.

Funny no one bitch about Reagan or Bush raising taxes but when a Democrat who happens to be a different color wants to raise taxes he's the most evil man in the world.
Now you really are showing what an idiot you are. So you are trying to inject racism, huh? Small government advocates have opposed about LOTS of politicians of ALL races who want to raise taxes, but never seem to want to cut spending. Plenty of fiscal conservatives - me included - have criticized George Bush for NEVER vetoing a spending bill - just borrowing money. Fiscal conservatives have also criticized Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle and a lot of RINO Republicans who support spending bills. But you don't focus on the white politicians do you? You just focus on the black politician and imply that his critics are racists. Yep, you're a Democrat alright.

Bottomline if you didn't bitch when Bush spent a flurry of money don't fucking bitch now.
I did bitch. See above. What now? Do I have your permission to criticize Obama - or am I still a racist?

How was the 2 war financed? By borrowing. Have you read the papers?

You heard of Medicare Part D- was that payed for? Fuck no- a 100 billion dollar program charged right to the deficit along with the trillion dollar Fake war.

You point to government spending that is not funded by current taxes, but by borrowing. But you carefully avoid mentioning other options - like cutting spending. That thought never seem to cross your mind.

How about we push back the retirement age to 72? How about we cut reimbursements for certain types of end-of-life care that does nothing but extend life a couple of months are great expense?

How about we eliminate the Department of Education and take half of their budget and distribute it to states most in need of it.

How about we get rid of the mess that is the Department of Homeland Security?

How about the next time we need to attack a Muslim country, we bomb the shit out of it for 3 or 4 months and then leave without doing any of that nation-building BS? It is a lot cheaper and will have pretty much the same effect.

How about we properly control our borders so we don't end up paying the medical bills of millions of non-tax paying illegal aliens or the tuition of their children?

These are all nice spending reduction options that will reduce the need for revenue and allow us to either cut taxes or keep them at current levels. These are also options that apparently never crossed your mind.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Really, if you believe JL that Ex-Nyer said anything worthwhile- this coming from a man JL who thinks you worship a fairy God and a fairy book and that Moses, Abraham and Isiah were all fictitious people so go ahead and believe that simpleton. Ex-Nyer doesn't impress me he thinks he's a know it all and believes his shit doesn't stink.

I guess I impressed you enough that you avoided responding to anything I wrote about cutting out regulations that don't do anything but defend entrenched business interests.

You seem to think that there are no regulations that we can do without - that we must continue government in its current form.

Needless to say, you don't impress me at all.