It’s a solution in search of a problem.
And the “problem” is that the very real needs of ordinary citizens are being weighed against the profits of GOP-supporting corporations. This cannot be! Rar! Profits for the [del]few[/del]“many.” Yeah!
ETA: but, yeah, I suppose it’s not “stupid.” Just pure fucking Machiavellian.
Talk show fuck and former House of Representatives fuck Joe Walsh tweeted his hopes that terrorists would behead people at CNN and MSNBC.
His attempted walkback both shows that he doesn’t know what satire is and…reiterates the fuck-up. What a shithead.
Citation needed.
Also, the stupidity comes from how dumb this proposed change is.
Hm. Having failed to change the leadership, the far-RW of the Congressional Pubs is forming a new club, to the right of the Republican Study Committee.
This is just like their laughable attempt to rewrite reality that doesn’t agree with them with Conservapedia, or attempting to gut the CBO when it said Obamacare would save money, and taxes on the rich don’t help the economy. Conservatives really have a problem hearing “no” don’t they? Probably why so many of them thinks rape isn’t a big deal
No, we don’t.
No, it doesn’t.
Ron Paul Institute is just asking: Was Charlie Hebdo attack a “false flag”?
Yes. They went there.
Poor Rand. He’s never going to be president with his dad around.
Clearly, the whole thing was a plot to get Obama to reveal who he loves more; the terroristic Muslamo-fascists, or the freedom-hating socialist French.
The Muslims invented algebra, the French, oral sex. No contest.
The last four words were unnecessary.
We also invented the necktie* while the Muslim world invented belly dancing which in turn gave us Shakira. It’s a neck-and-neck vote.
*(well, popularized technically but come on, you’re not going to give all the credit to some Balkanic, barely even francophone nobodies, are you ?)
So, heaven help me, I actually did read the text of the bill (it’s linked in the HuffPo story). It does allow for a more “costly” rule to be adopted if the agency can prove benefits that outweigh the difference in costs between the proposed rule and the cheapest alternative.
That said, from what I can tell all it really does is require a few more rounds of public hearings, a boatload of new paperwork, and tons of regulations regarding how to create and justify regulations. I have no doubt that creative bureaucrats of all stripes would have no trouble justifying and defending whatever rules they want under this proposed rubric - it would just cost a lot more and involve a lot more public grandstanding.
Sounds like the equivalent of a company having meetings about upcoming meetings.
So basically they’re chanting “small government!” while expanding big government?
They were for small government before they were against it.
Well, look on the bright side – Ron Paul has been institutionalized.
Or at least not until a critical mass of people think “Ron Paul” is the guy who invented the Pocket Fisherman.
Currently, the process for the government to build roads and other projects involves jumping through a ton of these hoops, with lawsuits all along the way. Should the government’s ability to do infrastructure projects be this restricted, or should it be as smooth as the regulatory process?
I don’t find the hoops to be excessive. The vast majority of projects that are initiated get approved and completed. The system works.