Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
so you're not interested in the general well-being of the citizenry, but rather in electing people who impose your beliefs on the citizenry--presumably because you think your politics are better and smarter than those of others.
|
Interesting point.
Yes I vote and support politicians who support my views and values. Do you?
Do I consider that imposing my beliefs on others? No. I think our system of governments is set up so that citizens advocate for their point of view. those who think otherwise are mis-informed in my opinion. When I feel imposed upon, I work harder to change things. I think it is a good system, don't you?
Quote:
|
and you're not interested in procedural transparency either
|
Don't think I ever said that. If I did, I communicated my view incorrectly. Basically, I don't care who met with whom and for how long. I care about the final product. I either agree with it or I don't. If I disagree with it, I focus on changing it, not trying to find out who was involved in writing it. But that's just me, obviously others see it different.
Quote:
|
--which is bizarre given the implication of your preference for smaller government--which is typically accompanied by claims that smaller administrative units are more transparent. instead, you have a stalinist understanding--the end justifies the means.
|
I don't think I ever said that either. I am at a loss. Seems that if you disagree with a point I make you will turn it into some extreme thing with no real basis. I am certainly not a Stalinist.
Quote:
and you see environmental groups as a problem to boot.
but you trust oil corporations.
|
Never said that either. I just think environmental groups are not 100% credible on 100% of their issues. Neither are oil companies. I understand the agenda of oil companies, I am often confused by what some environmental groups want.
Quote:
|
the system is designed to prevent ideologues like you from being able to simply impose their fiats on the rest of us--the bush-cheney crew operated like a cabal in this instance, shutting out divergent viewpoints and imposing ideologically (and factionally beneficial) results on the rest of us. it is to prevent this sort of thing that there are checks and balances--which presumably you only care about when there's a democrat in power.
|
I guess if I choose to serve chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream you would find me an ideologue on that as well. If you know my predisposition for chocolate am I shutting out divergent viewpoints for vanilla and imposing that on you? I would assume if you like vanilla you would go somewhere and get vanilla. You have a choice. Just like I do. We make our political choices in the voting booth, right?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace...the oil industry contributions of over $100 million (mostly to repubs) over the last seven years gave them unfettered access to write their own regulations to the Clean Air Act (that will save them $billions while delaying existing regulatory controls over GHG emissions in power plants) and to write their own tax relief provisions in the administration's national energy plan.(including relief from $10 billion in royalty payments). In both cases, the final Bush/Cheney energy plan is almost word-for-word from the API recommendations.
Not a bad return on their investment of $100 million in political contributions.
If you like how that works..thats fine.
I think it stinks like a cow fart!
|
I think the real point is if you agree or disagree with the regulations drafted. If you disagree with them, then work to get them changed and get people elected who support your view. I thought your point was a red herring, and I wanted to give you an opportunity to clarify your point. You did.