Republicans gonna Republican

346,826 Views | 3666 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by oski003
calbear93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 7:09a, 4/13/24
dajo9 said:
calbear93 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
Are we really pretending like the hodge podge of deplorable signaling bills is intended to address agency overreach? Isn't it mostly in response to Trump making delusional claims at his rallies like that people have to flush toilets 10 times and that dishwashers don't work any more?

Desantis was one of the clowns up in arms over gas stoves even though no one in Florida even has them. As it turns out, very few Americans actually have gas stoves and they are most prevalent in NY and CA. This is primarily typical GOP performative nonsense. These people have no prayer of passing new and meaningful legislation.



That's why I stated this Republican Party is trifling with these bills they will never pass anyway but it is sad that we have so many people who graduated from UC Berkeley who are so ignorant about administrative law completely unaware of the overreach of current key agencies (and quite frankly commissioners without any practical experience who are appointed for political reasons) thinking there is oversight while shaking in their boots about the scary dictator hiding under their bed. Because unless you fix the structure, the next president may appoint a dumb governor from Alabama as the commissioner for EPA with unfettered power to create, enforce and adjudicate our entire environmental policies. We have bunch of ignorant, unprincipled people in both tribes who think whatever works now in the short term will always work without realizing that the other side may get the White House in the near future with the ability they celebrated when their guy had the White House that will work against them when the other tribe's president appoints his own dictators for political reasons.


The other side winning elections is part of the process. That is why people like me try to help my tribe win elections. That is the democracy I want.

We don't have the democracy I want because that democracy would be majority rule and minority rights. So when we have a President that fewer Americans voted for - that is a travesty. When we have an agency created by law and with oversight from our popularly elected leaders - that is a good thing.


If you have no idea of what administrative law is or don't like our constitution, maybe pass on commenting on some made up oversight or spreading fear on how Trump is a threat to "democracy" or the "constitution". As genuine as Trump holding up the Bible upside down claiming the democrats are a threat when he himself has no clue or respect for it.

And you saying YOU are helping your tribe win the White House is funny when you live in New Jersey in a blue winner takes all state. Doing much in Michigan and Nevada from your Jersey suburbs?

By the way, what is majority rule BUT MINORITY RIGHTS? Now you have a better view on form of government that will protect minority rights? Yeah, don't feel too comfortable from past experience that you have the civics figured out.
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calbear93 • 7:18a, 4/13/24
calbear93 said:
dajo9 said:
calbear93 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
Are we really pretending like the hodge podge of deplorable signaling bills is intended to address agency overreach? Isn't it mostly in response to Trump making delusional claims at his rallies like that people have to flush toilets 10 times and that dishwashers don't work any more?

Desantis was one of the clowns up in arms over gas stoves even though no one in Florida even has them. As it turns out, very few Americans actually have gas stoves and they are most prevalent in NY and CA. This is primarily typical GOP performative nonsense. These people have no prayer of passing new and meaningful legislation.



That's why I stated this Republican Party is trifling with these bills they will never pass anyway but it is sad that we have so many people who graduated from UC Berkeley who are so ignorant about administrative law completely unaware of the overreach of current key agencies (and quite frankly commissioners without any practical experience who are appointed for political reasons) thinking there is oversight while shaking in their boots about the scary dictator hiding under their bed. Because unless you fix the structure, the next president may appoint a dumb governor from Alabama as the commissioner for EPA with unfettered power to create, enforce and adjudicate our entire environmental policies. We have bunch of ignorant, unprincipled people in both tribes who think whatever works now in the short term will always work without realizing that the other side may get the White House in the near future with the ability they celebrated when their guy had the White House that will work against them when the other tribe's president appoints his own dictators for political reasons.


The other side winning elections is part of the process. That is why people like me try to help my tribe win elections. That is the democracy I want.

We don't have the democracy I want because that democracy would be majority rule and minority rights. So when we have a President that fewer Americans voted for - that is a travesty. When we have an agency created by law and with oversight from our popularly elected leaders - that is a good thing.


If you have no idea of what administrative law is or don't like our constitution, maybe pass on commenting on some made up oversight or spreading fear on how Trump is a threat to "democracy" or the "constitution". As genuine as Trump holding up the Bible upside down claiming the democrats are a threat when he himself has no clue or respect for it.

And you saying YOU are helping your tribe win the White House is funny when you live in New Jersey in a blue winner takes all state. Doing much in Michigan and Nevada from your Jersey suburbs?

By the way, what is majority rule BUT MINORITY RIGHTS? Now you have a better view on form of government that will protect minority rights? Yeah, don't feel too comfortable from past experience that you have the civics figured out.


This is consistent with your prior arguments that all arguments are only valid if made through the lens of legal proceedings, but sorry that is not how the real world operates. You will have to step outside your comfort zone to have meaningful discussion with people.
Reply Quote
4
calbear93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 8:11a, 4/13/24
dajo9 said:
calbear93 said:
dajo9 said:
calbear93 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
Are we really pretending like the hodge podge of deplorable signaling bills is intended to address agency overreach? Isn't it mostly in response to Trump making delusional claims at his rallies like that people have to flush toilets 10 times and that dishwashers don't work any more?

Desantis was one of the clowns up in arms over gas stoves even though no one in Florida even has them. As it turns out, very few Americans actually have gas stoves and they are most prevalent in NY and CA. This is primarily typical GOP performative nonsense. These people have no prayer of passing new and meaningful legislation.



That's why I stated this Republican Party is trifling with these bills they will never pass anyway but it is sad that we have so many people who graduated from UC Berkeley who are so ignorant about administrative law completely unaware of the overreach of current key agencies (and quite frankly commissioners without any practical experience who are appointed for political reasons) thinking there is oversight while shaking in their boots about the scary dictator hiding under their bed. Because unless you fix the structure, the next president may appoint a dumb governor from Alabama as the commissioner for EPA with unfettered power to create, enforce and adjudicate our entire environmental policies. We have bunch of ignorant, unprincipled people in both tribes who think whatever works now in the short term will always work without realizing that the other side may get the White House in the near future with the ability they celebrated when their guy had the White House that will work against them when the other tribe's president appoints his own dictators for political reasons.


The other side winning elections is part of the process. That is why people like me try to help my tribe win elections. That is the democracy I want.

We don't have the democracy I want because that democracy would be majority rule and minority rights. So when we have a President that fewer Americans voted for - that is a travesty. When we have an agency created by law and with oversight from our popularly elected leaders - that is a good thing.


If you have no idea of what administrative law is or don't like our constitution, maybe pass on commenting on some made up oversight or spreading fear on how Trump is a threat to "democracy" or the "constitution". As genuine as Trump holding up the Bible upside down claiming the democrats are a threat when he himself has no clue or respect for it.

And you saying YOU are helping your tribe win the White House is funny when you live in New Jersey in a blue winner takes all state. Doing much in Michigan and Nevada from your Jersey suburbs?

By the way, what is majority rule BUT MINORITY RIGHTS? Now you have a better view on form of government that will protect minority rights? Yeah, don't feel too comfortable from past experience that you have the civics figured out.


This is consistent with your prior arguments that all arguments are only valid if made through the lens of legal proceedings, but sorry that is not how the real world operates. You will have to step outside your comfort zone to have meaningful discussion with people.


I have no idea why I thought discussion on legal proceeding and legislative process would be relevant in discussing how laws are passed, enforced and interpreted by agencies. My mistake. Carry on with political virtue peacocking.
Reply Quote
2
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calbear93 • 8:15a, 4/13/24
calbear93 said:
dajo9 said:
calbear93 said:
dajo9 said:
calbear93 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
Are we really pretending like the hodge podge of deplorable signaling bills is intended to address agency overreach? Isn't it mostly in response to Trump making delusional claims at his rallies like that people have to flush toilets 10 times and that dishwashers don't work any more?

Desantis was one of the clowns up in arms over gas stoves even though no one in Florida even has them. As it turns out, very few Americans actually have gas stoves and they are most prevalent in NY and CA. This is primarily typical GOP performative nonsense. These people have no prayer of passing new and meaningful legislation.



That's why I stated this Republican Party is trifling with these bills they will never pass anyway but it is sad that we have so many people who graduated from UC Berkeley who are so ignorant about administrative law completely unaware of the overreach of current key agencies (and quite frankly commissioners without any practical experience who are appointed for political reasons) thinking there is oversight while shaking in their boots about the scary dictator hiding under their bed. Because unless you fix the structure, the next president may appoint a dumb governor from Alabama as the commissioner for EPA with unfettered power to create, enforce and adjudicate our entire environmental policies. We have bunch of ignorant, unprincipled people in both tribes who think whatever works now in the short term will always work without realizing that the other side may get the White House in the near future with the ability they celebrated when their guy had the White House that will work against them when the other tribe's president appoints his own dictators for political reasons.


The other side winning elections is part of the process. That is why people like me try to help my tribe win elections. That is the democracy I want.

We don't have the democracy I want because that democracy would be majority rule and minority rights. So when we have a President that fewer Americans voted for - that is a travesty. When we have an agency created by law and with oversight from our popularly elected leaders - that is a good thing.


If you have no idea of what administrative law is or don't like our constitution, maybe pass on commenting on some made up oversight or spreading fear on how Trump is a threat to "democracy" or the "constitution". As genuine as Trump holding up the Bible upside down claiming the democrats are a threat when he himself has no clue or respect for it.

And you saying YOU are helping your tribe win the White House is funny when you live in New Jersey in a blue winner takes all state. Doing much in Michigan and Nevada from your Jersey suburbs?

By the way, what is majority rule BUT MINORITY RIGHTS? Now you have a better view on form of government that will protect minority rights? Yeah, don't feel too comfortable from past experience that you have the civics figured out.


This is consistent with your prior arguments that all arguments are only valid if made through the lens of legal proceedings, but sorry that is not how the real world operates. You will have to step outside your comfort zone to have meaningful discussion with people.


I have no idea why I thought discussion on legal proceeding and legislative process would be relevant in discussing how laws are passed, enforced and interpreted by agencies. My mistake. Carry on with political virtue peacocking.


You are using the word "relevant" here but before you were being much more proscriptive about it. I appreciate your moving the goal posts. Your new stance is much more reasonable.
Reply Quote
4
blungld
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 10:35a, 4/13/24
oski003 said:

Isn't this just simple congressional action to prevent the secretary of energy from requiring energy standards they feel are too strict for appliances to function correctly? It is efficient that they grouped them all together. Aren't they just doing their jobs?
Yes of course that is all it is.

I mean it certainly couldn't be grandstanding meaningless legislation that will never pass by people who have no clue about efficient standards and who are trying to manufacture outrage and somehow make it seem woke to use less energy, do good for the environment, and lower a consumer's electric bill. Yeah, their intentions are pure as snow and have nothing to do with social media clicks and trying to appear to do something to the uninformed MAGA base instead of working on the actual pressing needs of the country. These people always prioritize doing their job. Good point.
Reply Quote
6
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to blungld • 3:42p, 4/13/24
blungld said:
oski003 said:

Isn't this just simple congressional action to prevent the secretary of energy from requiring energy standards they feel are too strict for appliances to function correctly? It is efficient that they grouped them all together. Aren't they just doing their jobs?
Yes of course that is all it is.

I mean it certainly couldn't be grandstanding meaningless legislation that will never pass by people who have no clue about efficient standards and who are trying to manufacture outrage and somehow make it seem woke to use less energy, do good for the environment, and lower a consumer's electric bill. Yeah, their intentions are pure as snow and have nothing to do with social media clicks and trying to appear to do something to the uninformed MAGA base instead of working on the actual pressing needs of the country. These people always prioritize doing their job. Good point.


Couldn't consumers already use less energy, do good for the environment, and lower their electric bill? Is there a point where you would allow folks to have toilets that only need to flush once and dishwashers that don't take two hours (leading to hand washing which uses more resources). Shouldn't consumers get to choose?
Reply Quote
blungld
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 5:27p, 4/13/24
oski003 said:
blungld said:
oski003 said:

Isn't this just simple congressional action to prevent the secretary of energy from requiring energy standards they feel are too strict for appliances to function correctly? It is efficient that they grouped them all together. Aren't they just doing their jobs?
Yes of course that is all it is.

I mean it certainly couldn't be grandstanding meaningless legislation that will never pass by people who have no clue about efficient standards and who are trying to manufacture outrage and somehow make it seem woke to use less energy, do good for the environment, and lower a consumer's electric bill. Yeah, their intentions are pure as snow and have nothing to do with social media clicks and trying to appear to do something to the uninformed MAGA base instead of working on the actual pressing needs of the country. These people always prioritize doing their job. Good point.


Couldn't consumers already use less energy, do good for the environment, and lower their electric bill? Is there a point where you would allow folks to have toilets that only need to flush once and dishwashers that don't take two hours (leading to hand washing which uses more resources). Shouldn't consumers get to choose?


Another fantastic point. And let the consumer buy lead painted toys for kids. And drugs that do nothing or are poison. Cars without seatbelts or safety glass. And tanks. I mean consumer rights, freedom, and complete unregulated corporate free market forces are good for everyone and always the best interest of society!
Reply Quote
6
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to blungld • 5:30p, 4/13/24
blungld said:
oski003 said:
blungld said:
oski003 said:

Isn't this just simple congressional action to prevent the secretary of energy from requiring energy standards they feel are too strict for appliances to function correctly? It is efficient that they grouped them all together. Aren't they just doing their jobs?
Yes of course that is all it is.

I mean it certainly couldn't be grandstanding meaningless legislation that will never pass by people who have no clue about efficient standards and who are trying to manufacture outrage and somehow make it seem woke to use less energy, do good for the environment, and lower a consumer's electric bill. Yeah, their intentions are pure as snow and have nothing to do with social media clicks and trying to appear to do something to the uninformed MAGA base instead of working on the actual pressing needs of the country. These people always prioritize doing their job. Good point.


Couldn't consumers already use less energy, do good for the environment, and lower their electric bill? Is there a point where you would allow folks to have toilets that only need to flush once and dishwashers that don't take two hours (leading to hand washing which uses more resources). Shouldn't consumers get to choose?


Another fantastic point. And let the consumer buy lead painted toys for kids. And drugs that do nothing or are poison. Cars without seatbelts or safety glass. And tanks. I mean consumer rights, freedom, and complete unregulated corporate free market forces are good for everyone and always the best interest of society!


You certainly have some extreme examples. Continue to be uninformed and emotional about all things "progressive." Hurray!
Reply Quote
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 8:02p, 4/13/24
oski003 said:
blungld said:
oski003 said:
blungld said:
oski003 said:

Isn't this just simple congressional action to prevent the secretary of energy from requiring energy standards they feel are too strict for appliances to function correctly? It is efficient that they grouped them all together. Aren't they just doing their jobs?
Yes of course that is all it is.

I mean it certainly couldn't be grandstanding meaningless legislation that will never pass by people who have no clue about efficient standards and who are trying to manufacture outrage and somehow make it seem woke to use less energy, do good for the environment, and lower a consumer's electric bill. Yeah, their intentions are pure as snow and have nothing to do with social media clicks and trying to appear to do something to the uninformed MAGA base instead of working on the actual pressing needs of the country. These people always prioritize doing their job. Good point.


Couldn't consumers already use less energy, do good for the environment, and lower their electric bill? Is there a point where you would allow folks to have toilets that only need to flush once and dishwashers that don't take two hours (leading to hand washing which uses more resources). Shouldn't consumers get to choose?


Another fantastic point. And let the consumer buy lead painted toys for kids. And drugs that do nothing or are poison. Cars without seatbelts or safety glass. And tanks. I mean consumer rights, freedom, and complete unregulated corporate free market forces are good for everyone and always the best interest of society!


You certainly have some extreme examples. Continue to be uninformed and emotional about all things "progressive." Hurray!


It's always extreme until it isn't. Like seatbelts. Or unleaded gas. Or cleaner cars that don't make the sky gray. Or spray cans that don't destroy the ozone. It always starts with people like you attacking people like us for extreme positions.
Reply Quote
7
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 9:30p, 4/13/24
dajo9 said:
oski003 said:
blungld said:
oski003 said:
blungld said:
oski003 said:

Isn't this just simple congressional action to prevent the secretary of energy from requiring energy standards they feel are too strict for appliances to function correctly? It is efficient that they grouped them all together. Aren't they just doing their jobs?
Yes of course that is all it is.

I mean it certainly couldn't be grandstanding meaningless legislation that will never pass by people who have no clue about efficient standards and who are trying to manufacture outrage and somehow make it seem woke to use less energy, do good for the environment, and lower a consumer's electric bill. Yeah, their intentions are pure as snow and have nothing to do with social media clicks and trying to appear to do something to the uninformed MAGA base instead of working on the actual pressing needs of the country. These people always prioritize doing their job. Good point.


Couldn't consumers already use less energy, do good for the environment, and lower their electric bill? Is there a point where you would allow folks to have toilets that only need to flush once and dishwashers that don't take two hours (leading to hand washing which uses more resources). Shouldn't consumers get to choose?


Another fantastic point. And let the consumer buy lead painted toys for kids. And drugs that do nothing or are poison. Cars without seatbelts or safety glass. And tanks. I mean consumer rights, freedom, and complete unregulated corporate free market forces are good for everyone and always the best interest of society!


You certainly have some extreme examples. Continue to be uninformed and emotional about all things "progressive." Hurray!


It's always extreme until it isn't. Like seatbelts. Or unleaded gas. Or cleaner cars that don't make the sky gray. Or spray cans that don't destroy the ozone. It always starts with people like you attacking people like us for extreme positions.


Let's just require kids to use car seats until the age of 18 then. All "progress" is good, right?
Reply Quote
2
AunBear89
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 8:30a, 4/14/24
Liars, hypocrites, and MORONS.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Reply Quote
1
blungld
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 9:03a, 4/14/24
oski003 said:

You certainly have some extreme examples. Continue to be uninformed and emotional about all things "progressive." Hurray!
Uniformed? Interesting. That seems like a massive assumption that you perhaps just cast unjustifiably simply because I am on the opposite side of the issue. Since you often adopt the snarky "just asking questions" style of exchange without actually taking a stated position. Can you be clear here?

It sounds like you think these are good pieces of legislation, done for smart and well-informed reasons by honest agents, and that it is a real priority for the House to be working on these over other present issues. Is this correct?

Can you tell me specifically what you think is important in this legislation and the specific change in existing regulation that needs to be addressed and why? I mean actual facts about efficiency rather than platitudes like "the government telling you what to buy" kind of stuff. What are the regulation examples of specific products whose specifications are bad and that through this legislation they will be changed to X specification which is a win for the consumer and economy and climate? And lastly, why this is an urgent piece of legislation that takes priority over issues like funds to Ukraine, etc?

Because you are informed and unemotional, this should be easy for you. I'd like to be educated so that I too can be informed and unemotional.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to blungld • 10:40a, 4/14/24
blungld said:
oski003 said:

You certainly have some extreme examples. Continue to be uninformed and emotional about all things "progressive." Hurray!
Uniformed? Interesting. That seems like a massive assumption that you perhaps just cast unjustifiably simply because I am on the opposite side of the issue. Since you often adopt the snarky "just asking questions" style of exchange without actually taking a stated position. Can you be clear here?

It sounds like you think these are good pieces of legislation, done for smart and well-informed reasons by honest agents, and that it is a real priority for the House to be working on these over other present issues. Is this correct?

Can you tell me specifically what you think is important in this legislation and the specific change in existing regulation that needs to be addressed and why? I mean actual facts about efficiency rather than platitudes like "the government telling you what to buy" kind of stuff. What are the regulation examples of specific products whose specifications are bad and that through this legislation they will be changed to X specification which is a win for the consumer and economy and climate? And lastly, why this is an urgent piece of legislation that takes priority over issues like funds to Ukraine, etc?

Because you are informed and unemotional, this should be easy for you. I'd like to be educated so that I too can be informed and unemotional.


It is not urgent. Nobody said it was. Making something more energy efficient is not always optimal. I gave examples of folks having to hand wash because they can't put dirty dishes in the dishwasher anymore. I gave examples of flushing multiple times. Perhaps the technology will catch up to the energy demands. Regardless, I don't mock congress and tribally assume they are grandstanding. I believe in moderation.
Reply Quote
1
AunBear89
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 11:17a, 4/14/24
You also believe in made up stories about toilets and dishwashers. Why should anyone care what you believe on more serious matters?
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Reply Quote
8
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AunBear89 • 11:42a, 4/14/24
AunBear89 said:
You also believe in made up stories about toilets and dishwashers. Why should anyone care what you believe on more serious matters?


What made up stories about toilets and dishwashers do I believe in?
Reply Quote
2
blungld
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 5:57a, 4/15/24
I see so you answer was "maybe…vague example". You think this constitutes a real response and a stating of a position? I thought you said you were informed? So where is your succinct information? I guess maybe you weren't responding as a result of information, but emotion.

Reply Quote
3
1 edit
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to blungld • 6:40a, 4/15/24
blungld said:
I see so you answer was "maybe…vague example". You think this constitutes a real response and a stating of a position? I thought you said you were informed? So where is your succinct information? I guess maybe you weren't responding as a result of information, but emotion.



"Isn't this just simple congressional action to prevent the secretary of energy from requiring energy standards they feel are too strict for appliances to function correctly? It is efficient that they grouped them all together. Aren't they just doing their jobs?"

Please see my claim in the above quote. You went on to make the emotional claim that imposing stricter energy standards was good and these lawmakers were being pandering blowhards that didn't know what they were doing. Outside of the fact that conserving energy is typically a good thing, where is your succinct information regarding how these energy standards will effect consumers?
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
blungld
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 3:08p, 4/15/24
oski003 said:
blungld said:
I see so you answer was "maybe…vague example". You think this constitutes a real response and a stating of a position? I thought you said you were informed? So where is your succinct information? I guess maybe you weren't responding as a result of information, but emotion.



"Isn't this just simple congressional action to prevent the secretary of energy from requiring energy standards they feel are too strict for appliances to function correctly? It is efficient that they grouped them all together. Aren't they just doing their jobs?"

Please see my claim in the above quote. You went on to make the emotional claim that imposing stricter energy standards was good and these lawmakers were being pandering blowhards that didn't know what they were doing. Outside of the fact that conserving energy is typically a good thing, where is your succinct information regarding how these energy standards will effect consumers?
I asked you to state why you supported the legislation since you claimed to be informed and unemotional (in contrast to me). I asked for an example of how a current regulation when changed or removed would improve a specific product and be good for the consumer/environment.

To your quote above, what appliance is currently not functioning correctly? My guess is you have no idea, but you still claimed to be informed and took a position against criticism of this "show" legislation. That tells me that you were not informed and did post on the basis of emotion--namely, I believe you reflexively argued contrary to the people on this board you typically disagree with and who hold to "liberal" positions.

Go ahead and pretend that after careful deliberation of household appliances you have concluded that the secretary of the energy needs to make substantive changes and you feel this legislation is the best approach and that the people creating the legislation are doing it for those reasons and not as a "look at me, I'm not going to let the woke Biden administration tell you what to buy!" grandstanding. What they are doing is painfully obvious.
Reply Quote
5
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to blungld • 3:15p, 4/15/24
blungld said:
oski003 said:
blungld said:
I see so you answer was "maybe…vague example". You think this constitutes a real response and a stating of a position? I thought you said you were informed? So where is your succinct information? I guess maybe you weren't responding as a result of information, but emotion.



"Isn't this just simple congressional action to prevent the secretary of energy from requiring energy standards they feel are too strict for appliances to function correctly? It is efficient that they grouped them all together. Aren't they just doing their jobs?"

Please see my claim in the above quote. You went on to make the emotional claim that imposing stricter energy standards was good and these lawmakers were being pandering blowhards that didn't know what they were doing. Outside of the fact that conserving energy is typically a good thing, where is your succinct information regarding how these energy standards will effect consumers?
I asked you to state why you supported the legislation since you claimed to be informed and unemotional (in contrast to me). I asked for an example of how a current regulation when changed or removed would improve a specific product and be good for the consumer/environment.

To your quote above, what appliance is currently not functioning correctly? My guess is you have no idea, but you still claimed to be informed and took a position against criticism of this "show" legislation. That tells me that you were not informed and did post on the basis of emotion--namely, I believe you reflexively argued contrary to the people on this board you typically disagree with and who hold to "liberal" positions.

Go ahead and pretend that after careful deliberation of household appliances you have concluded that the secretary of the energy needs to make substantive changes and you feel this legislation is the best approach and that the people creating the legislation are doing it for those reasons and not as a "look at me, I'm not going to let the woke Biden administration tell you what to buy!" grandstanding. What they are doing is painfully obvious.


Stop moving the goalpost. Stating the obvious fact that many household toilets need to be flushed twice and dishes often need to be hand washed before or after going through the dishwasher is enough to meet what I was arguing, which was that congress was doing their job as they felt the energy guidelines would impact appliance performance and bundling the bills together was efficient.

You don't seem happy with them doing anything if they don't send another billion to Ukraine before doing it. That's unfortunate. They have more to do than just send money to Ukraine.

As for what you failed to respond to...

"Isn't this just simple congressional action to prevent the secretary of energy from requiring energy standards they feel are too strict for appliances to function correctly? It is efficient that they grouped them all together. Aren't they just doing their jobs?"

Please see my claim in the above quote. You went on to make the emotional claim that imposing stricter energy standards was good and these lawmakers were being pandering blowhards that didn't know what they were doing. Outside of the fact that conserving energy is typically a good thing, where is your succinct information regarding how these energy standards will effect consumers?
Reply Quote
1
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:07p, 4/16/24


Mike Johnson to MTG:

If loving you is wrong, I don't wanna be right
If being right means being without you
I'd rather live a wrong doing life
Your mama and daddy say it's a shame
It's a downright disgrace
Well long as I got you by my side
I don't care what your people say

Your friends tell you it's no future
In loving a married man
If I can't see you when I want
I'll see you when I can
If loving you is wrong, I don't wanna be right
If loving you is wrong, I don't wanna be right
Carl Mitchell Hampton, Homer Banks, Raymond E. Jackson
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
“98 yards with my boys” Yeah, sure.
Reply Quote
1
3 edits
bear2034
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:43p, 4/16/24
The daughter showers with the father of the son and his wife sleeps with his brother.
Reply Quote
1
chazzed
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:29p, 4/17/24

Reply Quote
2
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:22p, 4/17/24
Article 4 Section 4
Reply Quote
2
GoOskie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:15a, 4/18/24
A part of me REALLY wants these traitors to act up.
Reply Quote
1
chazzed
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:37a, 4/19/24

Reply Quote
2
blungld
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 12:59p, 4/19/24
Oh my God, it's so weird! The really really important totally important earnest not for social media click laws with super serious names (Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards Act, the Liberty in Laundry Act, the Affordable Air Conditioning Act, the Clothes Dryer Reliability Act, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act and the Refrigerator Freedom Act) all are dropped. I mean it's almost like they weren't that important and it was just grandstanding to imply that your appliances were "woke" as the outrage of the day for the MAGA base like I said it was.

But I am so uninformed and emotional, I couldn't be right.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to blungld • 1:25p, 4/19/24
blungld said:


I am so uninformed and emotional, I couldn't be right.


You are correct here. Don't forget you also have the emotional maturity of a young child.
Reply Quote
2
calpoly
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 1:34p, 4/19/24
oski003 said:
blungld said:
oski003 said:

Isn't this just simple congressional action to prevent the secretary of energy from requiring energy standards they feel are too strict for appliances to function correctly? It is efficient that they grouped them all together. Aren't they just doing their jobs?
Yes of course that is all it is.

I mean it certainly couldn't be grandstanding meaningless legislation that will never pass by people who have no clue about efficient standards and who are trying to manufacture outrage and somehow make it seem woke to use less energy, do good for the environment, and lower a consumer's electric bill. Yeah, their intentions are pure as snow and have nothing to do with social media clicks and trying to appear to do something to the uninformed MAGA base instead of working on the actual pressing needs of the country. These people always prioritize doing their job. Good point.


Couldn't consumers already use less energy, do good for the environment, and lower their electric bill? Is there a point where you would allow folks to have toilets that only need to flush once and dishwashers that don't take two hours (leading to hand washing which uses more resources). Shouldn't consumers get to choose?
Maybe if you weren't so full of sh*t you would not have to flush twice!
Reply Quote
5
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calpoly • 1:38p, 4/19/24
calpoly said:
oski003 said:
blungld said:
oski003 said:

Isn't this just simple congressional action to prevent the secretary of energy from requiring energy standards they feel are too strict for appliances to function correctly? It is efficient that they grouped them all together. Aren't they just doing their jobs?
Yes of course that is all it is.

I mean it certainly couldn't be grandstanding meaningless legislation that will never pass by people who have no clue about efficient standards and who are trying to manufacture outrage and somehow make it seem woke to use less energy, do good for the environment, and lower a consumer's electric bill. Yeah, their intentions are pure as snow and have nothing to do with social media clicks and trying to appear to do something to the uninformed MAGA base instead of working on the actual pressing needs of the country. These people always prioritize doing their job. Good point.


Couldn't consumers already use less energy, do good for the environment, and lower their electric bill? Is there a point where you would allow folks to have toilets that only need to flush once and dishwashers that don't take two hours (leading to hand washing which uses more resources). Shouldn't consumers get to choose?
Maybe if you weren't so full of sh*t you would not have to flush twice!


Nice contribution, calpoly. I was holding my breath wondering what substantive thoughts you had in this discussion. Thank you.
Reply Quote
2
blungld
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 2:16p, 4/19/24
oski003 said:
blungld said:


I am so uninformed and emotional, I couldn't be right.


You are correct here. Don't forget you also have the emotional maturity of a young child.
Ah yes. You saying that means it is true and sorta still makes you right even though you were completely wrong, correct?

Were you the guy who kicked another kid's sandcastle over after your mom told you to leave the other kids alone? Tell me, what is more childish, my post or your walking away and yelling an insult over your shoulder when shown up? I think maybe you are the child in this scenario.
Reply Quote
3
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to blungld • 4:50p, 4/19/24
blungld said:
oski003 said:
blungld said:


I am so uninformed and emotional, I couldn't be right.


You are correct here. Don't forget you also have the emotional maturity of a young child.
Ah yes. You saying that means it is true and sorta still makes you right even though you were completely wrong, correct?

*How am I completely wrong here?

Were you the guy who kicked another kid's sandcastle over after your mom told you to leave the other kids alone?

*No

Tell me, what is more childish, my post or your walking away and yelling an insult over your shoulder when shown up? I think maybe you are the child in this scenario

*Your post as well as this one. Lol about me being shown up.

.


See commentary above. Have a nice weekend.
Reply Quote
2
GoOskie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to chazzed • 7:27p, 4/19/24
chazzed said:

This must be the "Starve the Children at Work" Act
Reply Quote
4
Palestinian Chicken
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GoOskie • 7:50p, 4/19/24
GoOskie said:
chazzed said:

This must be the "Starve the Children at Work" Act
You're confused. That's Biden's Israel policy.
Reply Quote
2
GoOskie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Palestinian Chicken • 9:00p, 4/19/24
Palestinian Chicken said:
GoOskie said:
chazzed said:

This must be the "Starve the Children at Work" Act
You're confused. That's Biden's Israel policy.
If you're so concerned about Palestinian women and children, why do you have such a disgusting username?

Don't answer. I know exactly why.
Reply Quote
5
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Palestinian Chicken • 8:38a, 4/20/24
Palestinian Chicken said:
GoOskie said:
Palestinian Chicken said:
GoOskie said:
chazzed said:
This must be the "Starve the Children at Work" Act
You're confused. That's Biden's Israel policy.
If you're so concerned about Palestinian women and children, why do you have such a disgusting username?

Don't answer. I know exactly why.
The only thing on this forum that makes me laugh harder than the people who post here getting caught in their hypocrisy is when they expose their stupidity. You have a device connected to the Internet and the ability to look up my username's origin. The fact that you don't use the tool at your disposal and pretend that you "know" what my username means just makes me laugh.

I'm not gonna bother to do your work for you. I'm just gonna dare you to prove to me that you know how to search for an answer to a question you don't know the answer to. I honestly don't think you can do it. That's how little respect I have for your intellectual capability.
What makes me laugh is watching you become increasingly bitter and caustic over time as you see your views failing to be accepted.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
First Page Last Page
Page 98 of 105 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.