It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump sued over '1-in-2-out' regulations order

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

And the appeals court agreed with him (or at least they agreed that the judge's decision should be honored). What say you to that?
edit on 10-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Are you listening pharmaceutical propaganda or something? The only people who want us to remove medications from circulation are pharmaceutical companies unhappy about their patents dropping and the medicine goes to generics.

What are you talking about? I work in healthcare. Simply adding medication without looking to see if anything needs to be D/C'd is asking for a malpractice suit.

If a patient comes in taking Ibuprofen and you simply add lithium you deserve to lose your license. EVERY TIME you add medication you need to review and see what current medication should be removed. Same with regulations.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Piss on it... continue worshiping at the alter of the Party without looking towards the health of the country as a whole...


Many of us in the middle want a healthy party that represents the left...many more want a healthy party that represent the middle (the largest voting block in the country), as well as a healthy party for the right... so all people get represented.

But go ahead keep pissing on the middle and telling them its raining, both parties have been doing it and that brought us Donald fricking trump.. thanks.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

I'm not a Democrat and me defending them isn't me saying that I am one either. Though way to deflect the argument to talk about me when you run out of things to rebut.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Or you just don't prescribe two problematic medications at the same time.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Or you just don't prescribe two problematic medications at the same time.

So you mean when you add one, the other one has to be taken away? Sounds a LOT like what Trump said ....

Guess what, unless you actually go over past medications to see what needs to be removed it will never be discovered. You support Trump after all, imagine that.
edit on 10-2-2017 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Or maybe the analogy used wasn't a picture perfect analogy, but NAAAAAH let's go with you just blanketly assuming that I support Trump because of a poor analogy. But let's go with this anyways. If that is the case, that means all my criticism of Trump is tough love and stuff that I'm doing to help him improve his Presidency right?



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am all for helping his Presidency.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I was talking sarcastically about myself, but ok. Good for you? I guess.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I say they agreed with the lower court judge that they want ISIS in the United States, damn the people who voted otherwise.

Just like the judges who hear this new suit will probably say they want more regulations, damn the people who voted otherwise.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Or you know there is also a significant part of the country that doesn't want the these things too, right? Or are they just chopped liver now? Last I checked liberals outnumber conservatives in this country and they are currently making themselves known.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Decreasing Government power isn't unconstitutional.

1-in-2-out is completely arbitrary however and only embraces a literal one step forward, two steps back program.

Do you understand that mathematical consequence of this is 1 total regulation?



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I love democracy. especially the part where you can vote to have blond-headed people shot.

You seem to switch between inalienable rights (republic) and absolute majority rule (democracy). I'm amazed you aren't getting dizzy. Maybe that's why you think a bunch of loudmouth rioters and connected crybabies hold more power in this country and have more supporters than the people who won election.

I'm curious: how many regulations do you think there should be? How close are we to that number?

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I chuckle how you think that those people can just be ignored and forgotten about while Trump tries to pass his agenda.



I'm curious: how many regulations do you think there should be? How close are we to that number?

Sorry I thought this was a different thread at first. They tend to blend into each other. As for how I'd do it. I'd appoint an independent organization to audit and review all the regulations to determine the unnecessary ones. Then I'd get another independent organization to review that decision. Then I'd bring each regulation to a vote before Congress one at a time to get each one proper discussion time for pros and cons of removing it. It would be slow and take a while, but it would be the most effective way to do it without harming things.
edit on 10-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Considering his agenda is to make my life better, and theirs is to make it worse... yeah. I do ignore them. Just like I ignore car salesmen and thugs.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You realize it was this very same attitude that caused the downfall of the Democrats under Obama right?



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

Actually it's -1 regulation. Which means every time they take a step back, Trump is forcing them to take 2 forward.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wow, do I hear acceptance? I think that's the final stage of grief, if I remember right.

Congratulations, you made it to the other side!

Now, again, how many regulations do you think we need and how many till we get there?

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Sure. Whatever yous say. Plus, I already answered your question. Scroll up.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


I already answered your question. Scroll up.

Why, yes you did, and I missed it. Not only tat, but it was a well-thought-out answer. So I'll climb back aboard reality again to try and debate it with you. I kinda like reality myself...


It would be slow and take a while, but it would be the most effective way to do it without harming things.

I'm not sure I would go quite that far... if there's a regulation on, say, the maximum weight for a regulation buggy whip, I think we could just toss that one.

But your reasoning is not that bad. So what would you do to make sure more regulations were being approved while, and almost as fast as, old ones are removed? You know, just to get a handle on things? Maybe a freeze on new regulations? Nah, one might actually be needed... oh, here's an idea! The only way to get a new regulation is to remove two... oh, wait...

That's your problem, Krazy. In your rush to impugn, you overlook the obvious. Not a single regulation is being removed under this, unless a new one is introduced. It's just a quick way to stop the leak before we fix the roof.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join