Question: Which of the following things has fierce advocate President Barack Obama deemed worthy of an executive order?
A. Repealing DADT.
B. Repealing DOMA.
C. Enacting inclusive ENDA.
D. Requiring federal agencies tasked with designing regulations which protect our safety, health, and environment also promote economic growth.
If you guessed D, give yourself 1,000 points!
For extra credit, for which newspaper did President Barack Obama pen an op-ed announcing his pro-business executive order?
A. New York Times
B. Washington Post
C. Chicago Tribune
D. Wall Street Journal
If you guessed D, give yourself a gold star!
BONUS ROUND!!! President Barack Obama sounds like the leader of which party?
A. The Democrats
B. The Republicans
C. The Republicans of the 1980s
If you guessed C, just go ahead and start sobbing, because you're right. And that's a terrible thing to be right about.
SPEED ROUND!!! (No whammies! No whammies!) On what basis did President Barack Obama say child labor laws were enacted?
B. Common Sense for a stronger market
1,000 points for B!
Whose "burdens" is President Barack Obama interested in easing, so "nothing stands in their way" in reaching professional success?
A. US workers
1,000 points for B!
What is the example used by President Barack Obama to illustrate how "dumb" government regulations can be?
A. Something else
B. "For instance, the FDA has long considered saccharin, the artificial sweetener, safe for people to consume. Yet for years, the EPA made companies treat saccharin like other dangerous chemicals. Well, if it goes in your coffee, it is not hazardous waste. The EPA wisely eliminated this rule last month."
I'll take Mendacious Obfuscating Fuckery for $200, Alex!
Whoops, wrong game show. But, hey, since we're on the subject of Mendacious Obfuscating Fuckery anyway, I'd like to point out that example is some mendacious obfuscating fuckery, right there.
I'm no Dr. Saccharin, DDS, over here, so I don't know if saccharine really and genuinely isn't an environmental hazard in the large amounts for which EPA regulations are designed. Maybe it isn't. But you don't need an advanced degree in saccharinology to know that it is actually not true, no matter how well-rehearsed your president's "omigosh so SILLY these regulations!" spin is, that many chemicals safe to ingest in small amounts aren't toxic in large amounts.
"Well, if it goes in your coffee, it is not hazardous waste" is exactly the kind of bullshit lie that the Republicans tell all the time, a sleight of hand used to mask the obvious difference between someone using a spoonful of saccharine in hir coffee and a company dumping eighty metric biebers of saccharine into a local pond.
And, um, there's this other issue about how the EPA sometimes says things are safe to go in our bodies, and later it turns out they were wrong. Whooooooooops!
Look, if this ostensibly Democratic president wants to pander to Corporate America and hand them the gift of lax regulations as long as they can make a compelling case that regulations create undue burdens (example: "Waaaaaaahhh! Our profits aren't ginormous enough!"), then fine, but he should at least have the decency to be honest about it, instead of couching it in some garbage about how HIS ADMINISTRATION (that's the same administration that was going to change Washington, right, lol?) is going to be the one to find that perfect balance between regulations and profits.
SPOILER ALERT! Corporate America still won't like you, Barry.
[H/T to Deeky.]