"Fred E Brown" <fredebrown@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>"Frank McCoy" <mccoyf@millcomm.com> wrote in message
>news:fbquh7ptquqcg25e32t67d5672f73jrc5a@4ax.com...
>> "Fred E Brown" <fredebrown@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"invalidd" <invalidd@invalidd.invalidd> wrote in message
>>>news:jfm7dd$om3$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> Fred E Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The country is becoming such a Nanny State, people want to regulate
>>>> ...
>>>>> how much salt we can have in out food
>>>>
>>>> Bizarrely there are now cases of hyponatremia amongst people who eat
>>>> healthy food, drink lots of water and exercise regularly, because
>>>> staples
>>>> like breakfast cereals, bread and meat have been forced to contain less
>>>> salt.
>>>>
>>>> When the nanny state dictates that adults should consume no more than 6g
>>>> of salt per day, it's usually overlooked that 6g is an ideal amount, and
>>>> adults shouldn't consume less than 6g either.
>>>
>>>Unintended consequences at work. Most Nanny State laws are of the "feel
>>>good" variety passed by legislators currying favor with special interests.
>>
>> Many are passed just to make the legislators themselves feel good.
>> Rarely indeed are any laws examined for consequences by those who make
>> them. They only get well-scrutinzed when somebody outside the
>> legislature notices and complains.
>
>ObamaCare is a classic example. NC residents just discovered that new
>legislation gives billboard companies unrestricted rights to clearcut trees
>around their billboards without having to plant replacement trees elsewhere.
>Local municipalities which previously had control over billboards and where
>the could be erected now have been shut out of the process.
>
>> As others have pointed-out, lawmakers really don't have the TIME to
>> read the several hundred pages of most laws passed and try to figure
>> out what effects each line will have.
>>
>> That's really SAD, when you think of the fact that most people putting
>> their signatures to the dozens of pages in a mortgage-contract usually
>> have a far better of what they're agreeing to than most legislators
>> have of the laws that effect thousands if not millions of people.
>>
>> There SHOULD be a clause in the Constitution that *NO* law can get
>> passed until each legislator voting for-or-against can say he/she has
>> completely read the bill, and make a *reasonable* attempt at
>> explaining what each paragraph says, does, or implies.
>
>What is needed is that before any legislation comes up for a vote it
>must be posted in a public forum for 90 days. This would give interested
>citizens and public interest groups a chance to review the legislation and
>bring flawed legislation to the attention of the public and legislators.
>Had ObamaCare recieved this scruntity it never would have passed.
>
>> But you know what chance THAT sort of amendment would have of passing.
>> ;-{
>>
>> It would be interesting though, to see what logic was used by
>> opponents of such a change. Probably be based on an attack of the
>> person who proposed such an amendment. I believe that's called an "Ad
>> Hominem" attack.
>
>What? Compell legislators to actually read the bills they vote on? That's
>racist!
>
Besides, other than the obvious use, isn't that what interns are for?
>> Checking ... Yep:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
>>
>> The soapbox is empty.
>> NEXT!
>>
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
|