After going after stoves and generators, Biden Admin wants to control your Lighbulbs

[homersapien 11,428]

14 hours ago, GoAU said:

For those who are slow on the uptake, I am not against ALL regulation.  I am against the use of administrative agencies to run the “end around” on Congress to pass “rules” that are essentially laws.  
 

Regulations can have benefit, or can harm.  

Current Republican congressional members are pretty much against all regulations, as the current "Republican Supreme Court" is demonstrating.

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/03/the-coming-gop-assault-on-regulations-000351/

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/08/ira-climate-bill-house-vote-republicans/671133/

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/regulating-economy.asp

etc.

[Mikey 16,712]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Current Republican congressional members are pretty much against all regulations, as the current "Republican Supreme Court" is demonstrating.

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/03/the-coming-gop-assault-on-regulations-000351/

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/08/ira-climate-bill-house-vote-republicans/671133/

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/regulating-economy.asp

etc.

Three articles, two of them from left-wing publications don't verify that Pubbies are against all regulations. Your third source, Investopedia, says Pubbies are "generally business friendly and in favor of limited government regulation". Your sources are hardly confirmation that Pubbie congressional members are against all regulation. That claim is nonsense.

[homersapien 11,428]

5 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Three articles, two of them from left-wing publications don't verify that Pubbies are against all regulations. Your third source, Investopedia, says Pubbies are "generally business friendly and in favor of limited government regulation". Your sources are hardly confirmation that Pubbie congressional members are against all regulation. That claim is nonsense.

Well, thanks for reading. (Even if you are naturally compelled to filter it for any liberal or progressive thinking.)

That phrase "limited government regulation" is exactly what created the banking crisis of 2008. (Which cost me about $300K)

Edited August 9, 2023 by homersapien

[arein0 977]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, thanks for reading. (Even if you are naturally compelled to filter it for any liberal or progressive thinking.)

That phrase "limited government regulation" is exactly what created the banking crisis of 2008. (Which cost me about $300K)

And the small banking blip very recently.

[Didba 5,256]

18 hours ago, GoAU said:

A great recent example is the ATF and their recent rule regarding pistol braces for handguns.  They’ve been legal for over a decade by the ATFs own decree, then we’re recently deemed to be illegal short barreled rifles.  You either had to register them as SBRs, or run the risk of a felony with prison sentence of 10 years - for something that’s been legal for over a decade.  And before people chime in with “just register them” short barreled rifles are not legal in all states, so there are a lot of people up the creek on this ruling.  Also, most people haven’t even heard of the “rule” so there are a lot of people that could have become felons and not even aware of it.  BTW, there are projected to be MILLIONS of these in circulation.  

 Congress delegated those powers to the ATF agency. If they don’t like the bump stock regulations, Congress can legislate it away or take away the ATFs power over that particular type of regulation.

further, I still don’t see how that makes the ATF judge, jury and executioner. Anyone charged with a pistol brace violation isn’t automatically convicted as a felon. They still get a 12-person jury trial. Agency created regulations are very important to the smooth functioning of government.
 

You think congress is bogged down now? Imagine if they had to pass all the regulations that they have delegated to agencies. 

[Didba 5,256]

4 hours ago, Mikey said:

Three articles, two of them from left-wing publications don't verify that Pubbies are against all regulations. Your third source, Investopedia, says Pubbies are "generally business friendly and in favor of limited government regulation". Your sources are hardly confirmation that Pubbie congressional members are against all regulation. That claim is nonsense.

What the hell is a Pubbie, some kind of new designer dog?

 

 

/s

[GoAU 1,600]

4 hours ago, Didba said:

 Congress delegated those powers to the ATF agency. If they don’t like the bump stock regulations, Congress can legislate it away or take away the ATFs power over that particular type of regulation.

further, I still don’t see how that makes the ATF judge, jury and executioner. Anyone charged with a pistol brace violation isn’t automatically convicted as a felon. They still get a 12-person jury trial. Agency created regulations are very important to the smooth functioning of government.
 

You think congress is bogged down now? Imagine if they had to pass all the regulations that they have delegated to agencies. 

So, you’re ok with laws / rules being made on a whim, after something owned by millions of people, has been legal for over a decade by an administrative agency?   Congress cannot simply delegate their authority to to do their job - when it comes to agency rule making (especially with regards to potential felony charges) the Rule of Lenity not Chevron Deference must be applied.   

[GoAU 1,600]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

Current Republican congressional members are pretty much against all regulations, as the current "Republican Supreme Court" is demonstrating.

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/03/the-coming-gop-assault-on-regulations-000351/

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/08/ira-climate-bill-house-vote-republicans/671133/

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/regulating-economy.asp

etc.

Overgeneralize much?  
 

Republicans are not against all regulation - as evidenced by overturning Roe and regulating abortion  

[Didba 5,256]

38 minutes ago, GoAU said:

So, you’re ok with laws / rules being made on a whim, after something owned by millions of people, has been legal for over a decade by an administrative agency?   Congress cannot simply delegate their authority to to do their job - when it comes to agency rule making (especially with regards to potential felony charges) the Rule of Lenity not Chevron Deference must be applied.   

No, I didn't say I was "ok with laws / rules being made on a whim, after something owned by millions of people, has been legal for over a decade by an administrative agency."

Congress can delegate certain powers, within limits, when it comes to agency rule making. Congress cannot delegate their authority to to do their job.

Edited August 10, 2023 by Didba

[homersapien 11,428]

On 8/9/2023 at 8:00 PM, GoAU said:

Overgeneralize much?  
 

Republicans are not against all regulation - as evidenced by overturning Roe and regulating abortion  

No doubt they favor more regulation when it comes to many personal freedoms.  There's a reason why authoritarians like Trump and DeSantis are popular with their base.

[GoAU 1,600]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

No doubt they favor more regulation when it comes to many personal freedoms.  There's a reason why authoritarians like Trump and DeSantis are popular with their base.

Such as?

[homersapien 11,428]

18 hours ago, GoAU said:

Such as?

You provided perhaps the biggest - abortion.

The one that's gonna backfire on them the most.

[auburnatl1 5,007]

7 pages of arguing about the god given right to buy lightbulb tech from before WW1.  If Biden goes after 8 tracks the internet might explode.

[GoAU 1,600]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

You provided perhaps the biggest - abortion.

The one that's gonna backfire on them the most.

The rights stance on abortion isn’t as much about restricting the mother as it is in protecting the baby.   That’s what ultimately makes this topic so hard - it really just comes down to whether you think of it as a baby or not.  

[auburnatl1 5,007]

13 hours ago, GoAU said:

The rights stance on abortion isn’t as much about restricting the mother as it is in protecting the baby.   That’s what ultimately makes this topic so hard - it really just comes down to whether you think of it as a baby or not.  

Simply and perfectly put.

[I_M4_AU 7,951]

14 hours ago, GoAU said:

The rights stance on abortion isn’t as much about restricting the mother as it is in protecting the baby.   That’s what ultimately makes this topic so hard - it really just comes down to whether you think of it as a baby or not.  

The left needs to advance abortion up until birth to rationalize their beliefs, otherwise, they would have to look into themselves to answer a very difficult decision.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

The left needs to advance abortion up until birth to rationalize their beliefs, otherwise, they would have to look into themselves to answer a very difficult decision.

This is a lie. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Simply and perfectly put.

Let me know when you develop a sense of concern for those who have been born, those who are fully functioning members of humanity, those who have developed thoughts and feelings.  Perhaps then,,, you can be taken seriously.

[auburnatl1 5,007]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Let me know when you develop a sense of concern for those who have been born, those who are fully functioning members of humanity, those who have developed thoughts and feelings.  Perhaps then,,, you can be taken seriously.

Respectfully, I think the abortion topic is way out of your depth and it’d be best if you just focus on OP light bulb stuff.

[GoAU 1,600]

3 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Let me know when you develop a sense of concern for those who have been born, those who are fully functioning members of humanity, those who have developed thoughts and feelings.  Perhaps then,,, you can be taken seriously.

So therefore, in your opinion I assume you’re OK with killing them?   Just out of curiosity - are you equally calloused when it comes to the death penalty, or is it a problem to execute someone that’s actually done something to deserve it?

[Didba 5,256]

On 8/13/2023 at 10:39 AM, I_M4_AU said:

The left needs to advance abortion up until birth to rationalize their beliefs, otherwise, they would have to look into themselves to answer a very difficult decision.

What does this even mean?

[Didba 5,256]

Can we get back to light bulbs guys, jfc. 

[I_M4_AU 7,951]

1 hour ago, Didba said:

What does this even mean?

Women needs the law to rationalize eliminating a child right before birth only because it is lawful.  If it’s lawful it’s moral to their thinking.  Otherwise they may have to take personal responsibility for their actions on a moral level if abortion happens after a certain period of time.

Now back to light bulbs.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

20 hours ago, GoAU said:

So therefore, in your opinion I assume you’re OK with killing them?   Just out of curiosity - are you equally calloused when it comes to the death penalty, or is it a problem to execute someone that’s actually done something to deserve it?

No.  However, development of a fetus does matter.  We are not talking about fully formed human beings with advanced brain activity and consciousness.

You cannot reduce the meaning of humanity to it's basic biological level and, maintain the meaning of humanity.  You cannot force people to love and care for children they do not want.  IMHO, this is a greater inhumanity, particularly when, there is no societal effort to help.

The entire issue is, by virtue of politics, disingenuous.  The issue is contrived to create political division.  The real remedy lies in supporting families, supporting humanity, not in supporting a punitive restriction. 

Forcing the birth of unwanted, unloved, out right resented children is no answer.  It lacks a sense of humanity and compassion.  We need to support the idea of family, at all income levels.  It would be great if we could return to the idea that one working adult can effectively, sufficiently support a family.

[homersapien 11,428]

On 8/12/2023 at 9:28 PM, GoAU said:

The rights stance on abortion isn’t as much about restricting the mother as it is in protecting the baby.   That’s what ultimately makes this topic so hard - it really just comes down to whether you think of it as a baby or not.  

The proposition that a fertilized egg or zygote - at least up to the first trimester - is an actual baby is false, ipso facto.  It's clearly irrational.

Which means it is only your opinion (typically based on religious dogma).

The fact there are many others with a different opinion - in fact many if not most polls suggest a majority - supports my case that Republicans have a proclivity to regulate the personal freedoms of people, especially those who don't share their opinions or religious dogma. 

(I'll consider the apparent fact you value a fertilized egg over an actual living woman as not being germane to the fundamental flaw in logic.)

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by homersapien