Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It only takes one large judgement to convince every business to change its practices.
That doesn't help the injured people, plus some will just consider it the cost of doing business, if prior restraint with possible jail time for company officials isn't part of the mix. I just have to shake my head and do a face-plant, when libertarians say dumb stuff like that.
Classic liberal moron response. "The cost of doing business" can bankrupt a company. The lawsuit against Dow Corning over silicon breast implants cost the company billions of dollars and the scientific evidence showed that the implants were completely benign. Regulations almost always imposed after some catastrophe occurs. So, according to your syllogism, regulations don't help injured people.
Typical myopic libertarian response. You only look at the cases that help your thesis and sweep the rest under the rug. You know I'm right, you're starting to name call just like you do every time you're losing an argument.
If libertarians were both socially and fiscally conservative and serious about small government they would have joined the Tea Party movement which is a realistic approach to their goals. 3rd party politics is doomed to failure and everyone knows it. There may be hard core libertarians left but the main libertarian movement has been hijacked by pot heads and dirty tricks lefties who want to syphon votes from the republican party.
While they may be fiscally conservative, most Libertarians part ways with the religious right and social conservatives. They are also less likely to support military adventurism than most right wingers.
It is unfortunate that too many seem to lack the ability to distinguish between the Libertarian (capitol "L") Party and libertarians (small 'l') While the two will have much in common, libertarianism is not necessarily synonymous with Libertarians.
The libertarians (little "L") are sometimes referred to as classical liberal or once were 'liberal" before the term became synonymous with American progressives who changed the definition from liberating to various forms of totalitarianism.
The libertarians (little "L") or classical liberals are fairly unified in the concept that the federal government should be strictly limited to the powers spelled out for it in the Constitution, that it should recognize and secure the unalienable rights of the people and then leave them strictly alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have.
Of course it isReading just the recent posts it seems we did this a few months ago with trans fats, did we not? I recall bantering with a Randbot idealist bent on insisting he has a Constitutional right to ingest trans fats.
Is that the thrust here?
It's not a Constitutional authority for the Federal government to ban trans fats if that's what you mean.
Why else do we have an FDA?
Where is that authority in the Constitution? Do you know what the 9th and 10th amendments say?
Are you aware of any cases where the FDA was declared unconstitutional due to the 9th or 10th amendment?
Why don't you file one?
They know damn well it's Constitutional. It's why they rely so heavily on propaganda.
Another word you don't know that you should Google as you are already on the internet. Enumerated.
And both are equally naive and reactionary, this post being evidence of that.It is unfortunate that too many seem to lack the ability to distinguish between the Libertarian (capitol "L") Party and libertarians (small 'l') While the two will have much in common, libertarianism is not necessarily synonymous with Libertarians.
The libertarians (little "L") are sometimes referred to as classical liberal or once were 'liberal" before the term became synonymous with American progressives who changed the definition from liberating to various forms of totalitarianism.
The libertarians (little "L") or classical liberals are fairly unified in the concept that the federal government should be strictly limited to the powers spelled out for it in the Constitution, that it should recognize and secure the unalienable rights of the people and then leave them strictly alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have.
If libertarians were both socially and fiscally conservative and serious about small government they would have joined the Tea Party movement which is a realistic approach to their goals. 3rd party politics is doomed to failure and everyone knows it. There may be hard core libertarians left but the main libertarian movement has been hijacked by pot heads and dirty tricks lefties who want to syphon votes from the republican party.
We're socially conservative? We think drugs, prostitution, gambling and other morality laws should be repealed as it's not government's role to enforce morality. We think gay sex as sodomy laws should be repealed. We are mostly pro-choice. What are you talking about socially conservative?
Why should we join the tea party? They are not small government, they just want to put a dent in the growth of what we have, they do not want to transform government to what it was meant to be and should be.
I stand corrected. It seems that libertarians are certainly not socially conservative. As a matter of fact they make socially liberal democrats look like pikers.
They may not be fiscally conservative either. The once logical sane libertarian movement has been hijacked by pot heads.
Of course it isReading just the recent posts it seems we did this a few months ago with trans fats, did we not? I recall bantering with a Randbot idealist bent on insisting he has a Constitutional right to ingest trans fats.
Is that the thrust here?
It's not a Constitutional authority for the Federal government to ban trans fats if that's what you mean.
Why else do we have an FDA?
Where is that authority in the Constitution? Do you know what the 9th and 10th amendments say?
Are you aware of any cases where the FDA was declared unconstitutional due to the 9th or 10th amendment?
Why don't you file one?
They know damn well it's Constitutional. It's why they rely so heavily on propaganda.
Another word you don't know that you should Google as you are already on the internet. Enumerated.
Article II
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Welcome to HHS.
Here is the organizational chart. Note FDA
HHS Organizational Chart HHS.gov
Now, you can have a look at
U.S. Code: Title 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS
U.S. Code Title 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS LII Legal Information Institute
Article 1
Section 8
Clause 3
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
Article 1
Section 8
Clause 3
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
Of course it isReading just the recent posts it seems we did this a few months ago with trans fats, did we not? I recall bantering with a Randbot idealist bent on insisting he has a Constitutional right to ingest trans fats.
Is that the thrust here?
It's not a Constitutional authority for the Federal government to ban trans fats if that's what you mean.
Why else do we have an FDA?
Where is that authority in the Constitution? Do you know what the 9th and 10th amendments say?
Are you aware of any cases where the FDA was declared unconstitutional due to the 9th or 10th amendment?
Why don't you file one?
They know damn well it's Constitutional. It's why they rely so heavily on propaganda.
Another word you don't know that you should Google as you are already on the internet. Enumerated.
Article II
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Welcome to HHS.
Here is the organizational chart. Note FDA
HHS Organizational Chart HHS.gov
Now, you can have a look at
U.S. Code: Title 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS
U.S. Code Title 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS LII Legal Information Institute
Article 1
Section 8
Clause 3
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
What a lot of hot air to not answer the question.
Article 1
Section 8
Clause 3
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
That says commerce ... among the several states. That is between them, not within them. And it was a power to prevent states from doing things like levying taxes and restricting trade, it was not meant to be a power for the Feds to restrict and control trade.
I did like you disagreeing just before this with my ... question. LOL.
Your legs stay wide, don't they dear? I hope so, you're not earning a living with your brains.
kaz said:What a lot of hot air to not answer the question.
It's Constitutional. This is where it gets the authority from. It's not my fault that you refuse to read the Constitution.
Article 1
Section 8
Clause 3
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
That says commerce ... among the several states. That is between them, not within them. And it was a power to prevent states from doing things like levying taxes and restricting trade, it was not meant to be a power for the Feds to restrict and control trade.
I did like you disagreeing just before this with my ... question. LOL.
Your legs stay wide, don't they dear? I hope so, you're not earning a living with your brains.
I manage to outwit you on my bad days.
Authority to regulate, hon.
Article 1
Section 8
Clause 3
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
That says commerce ... among the several states. That is between them, not within them. And it was a power to prevent states from doing things like levying taxes and restricting trade, it was not meant to be a power for the Feds to restrict and control trade.
I did like you disagreeing just before this with my ... question. LOL.
Your legs stay wide, don't they dear? I hope so, you're not earning a living with your brains.
I manage to outwit you on my bad days.
Authority to regulate, hon.
Your constant need in discussions to state you're winning in discussions shows even you realize that isn't clear from the discussion, my dear.
kaz said:What a lot of hot air to not answer the question.
It's Constitutional. This is where it gets the authority from. It's not my fault that you refuse to read the Constitution.
Exactly, they got it from word parsing text from the Constitution that doesn't say what you want it to have said.
Article 1
Section 8
Clause 3
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
That says commerce ... among the several states. That is between them, not within them. And it was a power to prevent states from doing things like levying taxes and restricting trade, it was not meant to be a power for the Feds to restrict and control trade.
I did like you disagreeing just before this with my ... question. LOL.
Your legs stay wide, don't they dear? I hope so, you're not earning a living with your brains.
I manage to outwit you on my bad days.
Authority to regulate, hon.
Your constant need in discussions to state you're winning in discussions shows even you realize that isn't clear from the discussion, my dear.
Your constant need to resort to insults indicates that I am.
Article 1
Section 8
Clause 3
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
That says commerce ... among the several states. That is between them, not within them. And it was a power to prevent states from doing things like levying taxes and restricting trade, it was not meant to be a power for the Feds to restrict and control trade.
I did like you disagreeing just before this with my ... question. LOL.
Your legs stay wide, don't they dear? I hope so, you're not earning a living with your brains.
I manage to outwit you on my bad days.
Authority to regulate, hon.
Your constant need in discussions to state you're winning in discussions shows even you realize that isn't clear from the discussion, my dear.
Your constant need to resort to insults indicates that I am.
You get two choices with me. Serious or fun. If you ever want to provide some content other than circle jerking your liberal friends, I'll try the former with you. It's up to you. So far, you have squarely picked the latter.
kaz said:What a lot of hot air to not answer the question.
It's Constitutional. This is where it gets the authority from. It's not my fault that you refuse to read the Constitution.
Exactly, they got it from word parsing text from the Constitution that doesn't say what you want it to have said.
It's Constitutional. Nobody made it up. It's there. You just don't like it. That's fine. But, there it is.
