[fabsroman]

Originally Posted by skeet

Let's answer this by paragaph.. Let me ask you Fabs..when has the government ever regulated anything for the common good in a reasonably competent manner.. . Governments are born to regulate but also born to fail miserably for the most part.

Alright, we shall go through this paragraph by paragraph. Now, you do realize that government regulation is all around us, correct. When you stop at a stop light at an intersection, that is government regulation. When you don't kill somebody or don't steal from somebody because of the criminal consequences, that is government regulation. I think the traffic system and criminal system is regulated pretty well, even though it could definitely use some tweaks here and there. The airline industry isn't regulated too badly either. Would you prefer that there be no government regulation of the airline industry and that you rely on Delta, American, or whatever other company for your safety, whose main goal is profit and keeping the company out of bankruptcy?

Since this is a hunting board, how about the government regulation of hunting. Do you think hunters by themselves would ensure the existence of a species? Do you think the guides on the Eastern Shore would have stopped hunting the Atlantic canada goose population without the government putting a moratorium on them? How about black ducks and canvasbacks? What do you think would have happened to them if there were no season limits or closed seasons on occasion? If market hunting hadn't been outlawed, do you think we would have the waterfowl populations that we have right now. Yeah, government regulation isn't working in that regard either. Let me know if you want me to continue providing examples of where government regulation has worked pretty well over the years.

As far as the 2nd paragraph..you know not where of you speak. The Eastern shore air is even worse than the air yo breath. It is also one of the most cancer ridden areas in the US. as far as Wyoming..the only reaon the air here is clean to breath is because we have no "major" cities and few people. But we do have the west coast air to breath. As far as the world's air..Tell me Fabs..how do 300 million people affect the world so much more negatively than a Billion in India and a billion and a half(or more ) in China..And the Billion or so in all of Europe? Yep...we use more carboniferous fuels than China..or India.. but that is changing fast and they surely are not going to TAX themselves like the idiots in Washington want to do to us. That is ALL Cap and Trade is. A tax on us the consumer and a way for some businesses to make MUCH more money. Give us a real workable solution to our ecological problems.. I doubt you can do any better than the goobers running this country..Dems or Repubs.. Regulation really isn't the key...unless you want to regulate the coal using companies and make them stop polluting without charging the consumer for their polluting ways. Make 'em fix it without charging..TAKE HALF OF THEIR PROFIT and make 'em pay to fix the problems with the lost revenue. They have NO incentive to fix it..unless they can make a profit by doing so....ergo...Cap and Trade. And BIG Business will embrace cap and Trade because they can make more money from it. Let's point the fingers in the right direction.

Alright, I know not of what I speak. So, what you are telling me is that the Eastern Shore air sucked, and what is in Wyoming isn't that good either; however, we shouldn't worry about regulating this pollution, which is worse than I even thought according to your account of it Skeet. Of course, we can rely on the companies themselves to regulate this stuff and not pollute, isn't that correct. I'll give you a case study. Do some research on the Cuyahoga River in Ohio and compare it from the 60's to today. The reason it is so much better today is because of government regulation. Good Lord, just look at the Bay. If the government didn't step in with regulations, where do you think that would be. I'm not hooked on global warming, but I think we need to limit the amount of crap that gets spewed into the air. As far as India and China are concerned, there isn't much we can do about that. Now, do you lay awake at night wondering if your neighbor is recycling? I don't, but I make damn sure I do my part and recycle what I can and dispose of motor oil and other chemicals properly. I'm not a big fan of Cap & Trade, but I do think that carbon emission has to be regulated in some manner.

As far as the politicians..It ain't looking good for who?? The Dems or the Repubs.. There ain't 'nuff difference between the two to make a hill of beans. Never thought I would say this but we need to make Term Limits and do it soon. 2 Terms and that is it.. even if it is 2 terms as dog catcher that is it. NO more anything. And we NEED to do away with all these people that work on the Congressmen and Senators. The corrupting influence of these Lobbyists is tremendous. Let's make lobbying illegal..and term limits will also reduce the amount of influence that lobbyists could bring to bear. The Dems are paying through OUR noses to make certain they are re-elected. I call them Dems but way too many are not democrats but Marxists. They are not much different than despots who take from you and give to those that will support them...rich or poor. Lets make 13 million illegals citizens..6 million will vote democrat next election..talk about corruption??? And there is a move afoot to remove the constitutional amendment limiting the president to two terms.. Shades of dictatorship!!

That statement was meant to mean it isn't looking good for the Democrats. However, I will agree that we need a lot of new blood in there, and that we need to do something about lobbying. Keep in mind though that the NRA is a pretty big lobby too. Can Congress actually get along without lobbyists, and I am not talking from a money perspective, but form a work perspective. Don't the lobbyists draft up most of the bills that eventually become law? Somebody help me out on this one because I am not completely sure. As far as term limits are concerned, I think that is fair, but I think 2 terms in Congress just isn't enough for a politician to get up to speed and get anything done. I would give them 4 terms with mandatory retirement after the term you reach 65 years of age.