Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
What am I supposed to admit? When I wrote I felt safe I was referring to buying products that I consume: food, over the counter medicine. That’s what you brought up. Now you’re talking about homeless?
It's a Jane's Addiction song. Just admit how far left you are. You're now supporting something even CT thinks is too far left.
I have no idea if I support what CT is doing. I support the principle of regulations to make products more safe. Apparently you don’t, so we disagree.
This says a lot. You have no idea about the particular case, yet you're willing to extrapolate a generalization from my not-even-explicit disagreement with adopting the EU cosmetic regulations, of which you admittedly know little, as do I. Simply put, you've assigned me to a philosophic outlook I've nowhere near expressed while supporting a particular act when you have no idea about its elements. Good work.
Don’t fool yourself. Consumer protection is a left issue. People on the right will knee-jerk to “the market” and “right to buy a cheaper alternative”. Consumer protection is a left concept that recognizes that safety cannot simply be left up to the market because then people die.
This particular bill adopts standards that none of the other fifty states in the USA have adopted, those standards being the EU ones. The debate here is now completely on assumed premises, which isn't surprising. Tim has branded me a hated of consumer safety regulations and Henry has claimed the issue as a "left issue." Assuming the EU standards actually do save lives and are an efficient use of resources and Pareto trade-offs with other consumer protection measures, then one can proceed as tim and Henry have done. Until then, it's all just smoke and conjecture and trust in the reporters at the Guardian and consumer protection advocacy "experts" that the Guardian article cites.
It shouldn't be, but if it is, then apparently those on the right value corporate profit over consumer protection and lives.
Consumer protection sounds so noble, yet its effects so large. I wonder why, even when Democrats hold both houses, their measures aren't more stringent.
Lol you’re the one who raised the subject and then wrote that Ct “can’t get any uglier.”
I think you missed the joke. CT is not known for the natural beauty of its men or women. It's known for women bringing pants into Hollywood style and insurance salesman.
I miss a lot of jokes from you GB. To be honest, some of your posts read like an old Bret Easton Ellis novel. There are so many cultural references that are hard to figure out. @wikkidpissah is the only other guy around here who presents this kind of challenge. Sometimes reading him is like trying to decipher The Sound and the Fury.
Google “consumer financial protection bureau”
Yeah, that's fair. The CT thing is also because I lived there and know the jokes about Katherine Hepburn as our glamour queen and our insurance salesmen as our thymotic pride.
That has absolutely nothing to do with cosmetics and the FDA. Not a thing. And one can debate how much harder the CFPB (I hate giving it the imprimatur of initial recognition) is going to make things for the unbanked. They're doing CP stuff out in CA here and I wrote a letter to our representative asking him to not pass the proposed provisions about short-term credit, payday loans, and interest rates.
The Kelo case probably kicked her out of her house in New London.
I edited to explain my meaning there.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purview
Food also doesn’t require FDA approval before labeling or sale. Is that a concern for you?
Not really sure how that's relevant to the discussion at hand. The debate I was assuming was the debate over approval, which is brought up often when it comes to cosmetics and the thorny issue of labeling vs. approval and the desired consumer protections therewith. Dunno. Usually the issue is framed that way, with labeling as a given; perhaps I'm missing something.
I once had a girl who told me she was sure I was from Essex, CT, and that was about the same as assuming I have a Yankee accent.
I am a Teddy Roosevelt kind of guy I think and not everyone seems to agree what exactly that is.
I have always been deeply bothered by how much sense my gibberish makes to me. Glad i don't have to read it...
- There's no convincing anyone who might for Trump based on policy arguments, I agree with that.
Would you mind unpacking that for me? I'm not being contentious; I just don't understand.
Their goals and desires read like a description of Mayor Pete. What, or who, they want is already in front of them IMO
This is absolutely true but the courts have been major players in this as well.
We studied standing extensively in school because experts predicted the discretion the Court would use to weed out cases would increase -- that this is where the Court was headed, jurisprudentially. In general, I don't know what to say. Who is a valid party to a suit? I think the guys that practice would be better off commenting than me, frankly, who is even having trouble remembering the legal term for what they're doing (no, not standing -- a discretionary move taken by the courts to avoid or hear suits...what the hell is that?) or the three-pronged test for standing. That's straight Civ Pro, and I bombed Civ Pro because I was off doing drugs somewhere.
I’m not really sure I meant to have a discussion about standing or justiciability, my point was that the courts have often rejected challenges to executive power even when the Congress itself is willing and able. As an effect Congress has been frequently pushed into a corner.
Oh, any nondelegation constitutional question should be able to be heard if a member of Congress brings it. At least, all federal questions should be handled ultimately by the Court.
