Why regulation?

[Palin Rider]

Why do the GOP and Tea Party insist on throwing a knee-jerk fit every time there's talk of changing a regulation on industries? It should be more than clear that government has a vital role to play in regulating and overseeing many corporate actions.

Corporations are established to make a profit. That is their ONLY mission - to make a profit for their shareholders. If cutting corners and endangering customers - or the general public - will turn a bigger profit, guess what? Most, if not all, corporations will do exactly that. We cannot rely on corporations to have our best interests at heart. It's simply not part of what their employees are paid to think about.

And no, this does not make corporations evil. It means only that they are not concerned with questions of good and evil. They are money-making entities, period. To ensure they don't endanger people, they need oversight - well-funded, smart oversight with teeth.

The only people who would question this basic concept are those whose only goal is to personally profit by aligning themselves with various corporations for their own personal enrichment. Unless, of course, they're just brainwashed, ignorant, and/or learning-disabled.

[BoogyMan]

Why is it that the control-freak left wing seems to think that there is nothing that should be allowed to operate without their permission or input?

Our government was not designed by the founders to be a nanny that shepherds the business environment.


Why do the GOP and Tea Party insist on throwing a knee-jerk fit every time there's talk of changing a regulation on industries? It should be more than clear that government has a vital role to play in regulating and overseeing many corporate actions.

Corporations are established to make a profit. That is their ONLY mission - to make a profit for their shareholders. If cutting corners and endangering customers - or the general public - will turn a bigger profit, guess what? Most, if not all, corporations will do exactly that. We cannot rely on corporations to have our best interests at heart. It's simply not part of what their employees are paid to think about.

And no, this does not make corporations evil. It means only that they are not concerned with questions of good and evil. They are money-making entities, period. To ensure they don't endanger people, they need oversight - well-funded, smart oversight with teeth.

The only people who would question this basic concept are those whose only goal is to personally profit by aligning themselves with various corporations for their own personal enrichment. Unless, of course, they're just brainwashed, ignorant, and/or learning-disabled.

[Gaffer]

Why do the GOP and Tea Party insist on throwing a knee-jerk fit every time there's talk of changing a regulation on industries? It should be more than clear that government has a vital role to play in regulating and overseeing many corporate actions.

Corporations are established to make a profit. That is their ONLY mission - to make a profit for their shareholders. If cutting corners and endangering customers - or the general public - will turn a bigger profit, guess what? Most, if not all, corporations will do exactly that. We cannot rely on corporations to have our best interests at heart. It's simply not part of what their employees are paid to think about.

And no, this does not make corporations evil. It means only that they are not concerned with questions of good and evil. They are money-making entities, period. To ensure they don't endanger people, they need oversight - well-funded, smart oversight with teeth.

The only people who would question this basic concept are those whose only goal is to personally profit by aligning themselves with various corporations for their own personal enrichment. Unless, of course, they're just brainwashed, ignorant, and/or learning-disabled.

Changing regulations, means adding additional regs and more control by the government. Increasing fines and fees, a back door tax. Adding additional agencies to what is already there does nothing but increase the size of government.

I question all the basic concepts. I neither profit or gain anything by questioning. The brainwashed, ignorant, and learning disabled follow the above idea that nanny government is best for all. Go look in the mirror silly man.

[Palin Rider]

Why is it that the control-freak left wing seems to think that there is nothing that should be allowed to operate without their permission or input?
Show me one person who actually says that, Mr. False Dilemma.


Our government was not designed by the founders to be a nanny that shepherds the business environment.

How is preventing injuries and deaths equivalent to "shepherding" the business environment?

[Palin Rider]

Changing regulations, means adding additional regs and more control by the government. Increasing fines and fees, a back door tax. Adding additional agencies to what is already there does nothing but increase the size of government.
I question that concept, as you have said nothing to prove it.


I question all the basic concepts. I neither profit or gain anything by questioning. The brainwashed, ignorant, and learning disabled follow the above idea that nanny government is best for all. Go look in the mirror silly man.
Then don't come crying to me when there's bacteria in your sandwich. Nor should you expect me to pay for any of your resulting health care. That unnecessary arm of government providing your veteran's benefits can just let you die in the street, you hypocritical little man.

[Gaffer]

I question that concept, as you have said nothing to prove it.


Then don't come crying to me when there's bacteria in your sandwich. Nor should you expect me to pay for any of your resulting health care. That unnecessary arm of government providing your veteran's benefits can just let you die in the street, you hypocritical little man.

Nothing needs to be proved. It's a simple fact, easily understood. Links would just be nit picked in your endless effort to always convince yourself you right.

There's no bacteria in my sandwich. The FDA sees to that. There are already agencies that look after those sort of things. we don't need more. And the best way to insure corps don't give shoddy work or products is the consumer. If it's no good, people won't buy it and the corp goes under. Unless the government nanny bails them out of course. I think you just like the concept of big brother.

[Palin Rider]

Nothing needs to be proved. It's a simple fact, easily understood. Links would just be nit picked in your endless effort to always convince yourself you right.

There's no bacteria in my sandwich. The FDA sees to that. There are already agencies that look after those sort of things. we don't need more. And the best way to insure corps don't give shoddy work or products is the consumer. If it's no good, people won't buy it and the corp goes under. Unless the government nanny bails them out of course. I think you just like the concept of big brother.

So all you've got is the "nanny state" talking point and your insults. It figures.

[Kathianne]

So all you've got is the "nanny state" talking point and your insults. It figures.

and you have anything besides, 'they're all in it for the money, regulate them,'?

Noir, you've given no specifics of what you're problem is with regulation questions from conservatives.

I don't know of any suggestions to get rid of FDA. Nor Labor-which controls mining and such. Nor Fema.

Now Education Dept.? Another story.

Regulations on financials? Need more specifics which is difficult in 1k pages or more.

Lunch programs? Hell no!

[Kathianne]

Sometimes these things fall in your lap:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/22/the-never-ending-business-of




The Never-Ending "Business of Centralization"
What’s wrong with placing a few limits on federal power?

Damon W. Root | December 22, 2010

On May 27, 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its unanimous decision in the case of Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. At issue was the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) of 1933, a centerpiece of the New Deal’s first 100 days hailed by President Franklin Roosevelt as “the most important and far-reaching legislation ever enacted by the American Congress.”

FDR wasn’t kidding about the law’s reach. Through the creation of more than 500 “codes of fair competition,” the NIRA sought to micro-manage even the smallest and most local aspects of the American economy, mandating everything from the price of food to the cost of having a shirt hemmed. As justification for this unprecedented power grab, Congress cited its constitutional authority to “regulate commerce...among the several states.”

But the Supreme Court wasn’t having it. The NIRA must fall, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote for the majority, otherwise there would “be virtually no limit to the federal power, and, for all practical purposes, we should have a completely centralized government.” Progressive Justice Louis Brandeis, usually a hero to the New Deal set, was equally blunt, informing White House lawyers Tommy Corcoran and Ben Cohen, “This is the end of this business of centralization, and I want you to go back and tell the president that we’re not going to let this government centralize everything.”

...

Read it PR, if you dare...

[logroller]

In all fairness, oversight and regulation aren't necessarily connected. Oversight functions to increase transparency, which is necessary for the pursuit of more accurate information, to which policy decisions are dependant. Forcing companies to divulge such information may, in some cases, deride the propriety of said information; which indirectly reduces interests in investment and therefore economic growth. Regulation, alternatively, directly impedes markets behaviors and economic performance as well. Is regulation necessary, no; but it best serves to avoid the high litigation costs associated with compensation for damages done by entities, both public and private.

[Kathianne]

In all fairness, oversight and regulation aren't necessarily connected. Oversight functions to increase transparency, which is necessary for the pursuit of more accurate information, to which policy decisions are dependant. Forcing companies to divulge such information may, in some cases, deride the propriety of said information; which indirectly reduces interests in investment and therefore economic growth. Regulation, alternatively, directly impedes markets behaviors and economic performance as well. Is regulation necessary, no; but it best serves to avoid the high litigation costs associated with compensation for damages done by entities, both public and private.

Why should a company have to be subservient, perhaps at a loss of revenue to avoid litigation? Oh yea, regulations by fed!

Don't have to do anything wrong, just because.

[fj1200]

Why do the GOP and Tea Party insist on throwing a knee-jerk fit every time there's talk of changing a regulation on industries? It should be more than clear that government has a vital role to play in regulating and overseeing many corporate actions.

Translation: The GOP complaints of "changing a regulation" really means Dems overreaching their mandate in an effort to grab power from private individuals and thrust it into the hands of unaccountable government officials.


Corporations are established to make a profit. That is their ONLY mission - to make a profit for their shareholders. If cutting corners and endangering customers - or the general public - will turn a bigger profit, guess what? Most, if not all, corporations will do exactly that. We cannot rely on corporations to have our best interests at heart. It's simply not part of what their employees are paid to think about.

Translation: Regulations are put into place for "public safety" which creates barriers to entry, encourages campaign contributions to elected officials, and creates unhealthy relationships between regulators and corporations.


And no, this does not make corporations evil. It means only that they are not concerned with questions of good and evil. They are money-making entities, period. To ensure they don't endanger people, they need oversight - well-funded, smart oversight with teeth.

Translation: Creation of the false premise that any regulation put into place will be "smart oversight" when most regulations are behind actual business practice and create costs which far outweigh the regulatory benefits.


The only people who would question this basic concept are those whose only goal is to personally profit by aligning themselves with various corporations for their own personal enrichment. Unless, of course, they're just brainwashed, ignorant, and/or learning-disabled.

Translation: Create a straw-man talking-point argument and then complain when others respond in kind.

So all you've got is the "nanny state" talking point and your insults. It figures.
Typical of "debate" from you.

Also to note in each case above, additional regulations are always called for.

[Mr. P]

I think we need Government regulations on Rep points, PR.
I see your newly awarded green ones have dwindled significantly and that's just not fair is it?

[logroller]

Why should a company have to be subservient, perhaps at a loss of revenue to avoid litigation? Oh yea, regulations by fed!

Don't have to do anything wrong, just because.
I assume you were responding to me, though I don't see how you've considered my remarks.
Perhaps you misunderstood me. If any party makes decisions in their self interests and their actions cause damage to another person or class of persons, those persons are entitled to some reparation; the pursuit of which will likely cost a great deal of money in legal fees. Regulations serve to limit entities' ability to wager that the injuries they inflict upon others will go unpunished because they can outspend them in extended legal battles.

[SassyLady]

I assume you were responding to me, though I don't see how you've considered my remarks.
Perhaps you misunderstood me. If any party makes decisions in their self interests and their actions cause damage to another person or class of persons, those persons are entitled to some reparation; the pursuit of which will likely cost a great deal of money in legal fees. Regulations serve to limit entities' ability to wager that the injuries they inflict upon others will go unpunished because they can outspend them in extended legal battles.

The amount of money spent complying with regulations these days, especially for a small business, is more than they would end up paying in legal fees. Most have insurance to cover a lawsuit, however, the endless paperwork for staying in compliance requires additional staff....that actually are trained in what the regulations are. The cost to keep them trained is also enormous because the regs are ever evolving.

Compliance is one of the largest overhead expenses for most small businesses.

[logroller]

Sometimes these things fall in your lap:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/22/the-never-ending-business-of



Read it PR, if you dare...

Kathianne, do you think the supreme court wields more authority than the congress? You've challenged such authority when I produced it!

[logroller]

The amount of money spent complying with regulations these days, especially for a small business, is more than they would end up paying in legal fees. Most have insurance to cover a lawsuit, however, the endless paperwork for staying in compliance requires additional staff....that actually are trained in what the regulations are. The cost to keep them trained is also enormous because the regs are ever evolving.

Compliance is one of the largest overhead expenses for most small businesses.

My position was that regulations exist to protect the public individuals, not that of a ficticious entity, though they too are protected. I hear you on the compliance side, it is expensive, but you state you carry insurance, so did I- had to, it was a regulation:laugh: Insurance for legal needs; thats a waste-- I agree; ideally if everybody considered everybody else, we'd need none of it. But regulations aren't all bad; I think environmental regulations, for one, are a necessary evil. There has to be a balance with regulation, you can't just say its bad for business and be done with it -- that's extremely one-sided and decisions made only in the interests of business are more likely to result in more regs than less.

[SassyLady]

My position was that regulations exist to protect the public individuals, not that of a ficticious entity, though they too are protected. I hear you on the compliance side, it is expensive, but you state you carry insurance, so did I- had to, it was a regulation:laugh: Insurance for legal needs; thats a waste-- I agree; ideally if everybody considered everybody else, we'd need none of it. But regulations aren't all bad; I think environmental regulations, for one, are a necessary evil. There has to be a balance with regulation, you can't just say its bad for business and be done with it -- that's extremely one-sided and decisions made only in the interests of business are more likely to result in more regs than less.

I worked for an organic farmer, who also makes wine. You should see what type of compliance is required for this type of business.

Do you know that every time a truck enters or leaves the organic farm it is required to be washed down completely? Especially if it enters another farm that is not organic. And, you have to track every vehicle and piece of equipment entering and leaving that farm and have someone sign off that the vehicle has been cleansed?

That's just for starters. Someone in the field certifying and an office person to track the paperwork daily and compile a report that has to be filed. Ridiculous.

And people wonder why organic is more expensive.

[red states rule]

and you have anything besides, 'they're all in it for the money, regulate them,'?

Noir, you've given no specifics of what you're problem is with regulation questions from conservatives.

I don't know of any suggestions to get rid of FDA. Nor Labor-which controls mining and such. Nor Fema.

Now Education Dept.? Another story.

Regulations on financials? Need more specifics which is difficult in 1k pages or more.

Lunch programs? Hell no!



We also have the Department of Energy which was started to make America energy independent. They have regulated America to even more dependence on foreign energy

How much has this govenment office cost the US taxpayer in tax dolars and increased energy costs?

Department of Transportation which tells auto companies how to make their cars - even if they are cars the public does not want. Again, increased costs to the company and thus an increased cost to the public

[SassyLady]

We also have the Department of Energy which was started to make America energy independent. They have regulated America to even more dependence on foreign energy

How much has this govenment office cost the US taxpayer in tax dolars and increased energy costs?

Department of Transportation which tells auto companies how to make their cars - even if they are cars the public does not want. Again, increased costs to the company and thus an increased cost to the public

ATF and ABC --- unbelievable amount of regulations surrounding the making, shipping and drinking of alcohol .... and owning guns. Incredible!

[red states rule]

ATF and ABC --- unbelievable amount of regulations surrounding the making, shipping and drinking of alcohol .... and owning guns. Incredible!

I do have a question for PR -and everyone else

Can someone name for me ONE thing that is not either taxed or regulated in some way by the government?

[SassyLady]

I do have a question for PR -and everyone else

Can someone name for me ONE thing that is not either taxed or regulated in some way by the government?

Not really.....wait ..... do they regulate MSNBC's bad reporting? Maybe not because they are really, really not good for the public welfare.

[red states rule]

Not really.....wait ..... do they regulate MSNBC's bad reporting? Maybe not because they are really, really not good for the public welfare.

They are good for - and support - the liberal's welfare agenda. Problem is few people tun in for thier daily indoctrination session

[red states rule]

Changing regulations, means adding additional regs and more control by the government. Increasing fines and fees, a back door tax. Adding additional agencies to what is already there does nothing but increase the size of government.

I question all the basic concepts. I neither profit or gain anything by questioning. The brainwashed, ignorant, and learning disabled follow the above idea that nanny government is best for all. Go look in the mirror silly man.

http://www.newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/cartoon_500/cartoons/santasaliberal.jpg

[logroller]

I do have a question for PR -and everyone else

Can someone name for me ONE thing that is not either taxed or regulated in some way by the government?

Thought.

[BoogyMan]

Show me one person who actually says that, Mr. False Dilemma.

Regulation is increasing every time Mr. Obama and his functionaries get a new idea about something they feel needs their special attention. School bake sale regulation is just the latest in the folly of our left wing "leadership."


How is preventing injuries and deaths equivalent to "shepherding" the business environment?

Regulating for the sake of regulation is what we are discussing, see the thread on the government regulating school bake sales.

[red states rule]

Thought.

"hate crimes" regulates thought

[logroller]

"hate crimes" regulates thought

Thinking about committing a hate crime isn't regulated.

Try again. I'm good at riddles:laugh2:

[Kathianne]

Thinking about committing a hate crime isn't regulated.

Try again. I'm good at riddles:laugh2:

Yeah, it's so much cooler to read the mind of someone who's already committed a crime.

Hate crimes are just nonsense. Criminals are criminals and should be put away for as long as the prosecutor can. To add time however, claiming to know their motivations, without proof at the time of the commitment of crime is nonsense.

[red states rule]

Yeah, it's so much cooler to read the mind of someone who's already committed a crime.

Hate crimes are just nonsense. Criminals are criminals and should be put away for as long as the prosecutor can. To add time however, claiming to know their motivations, without proof at the time of the commitment of crime is nonsense.

or to add time because you THOUGHT about then committed a crime against a protected minority is rediculous

Back to my orginial question

Is there anything the government does not tax or regulate?

[revelarts]

there's a place for a small amount of, consumer protection and slave/child labor regulation etc even a bit of enviro regs, NO DUMPING poisoning grounds water etc.). I think food safety regs should be in the form of full and honest labeling, allowing people to buy what they want but the rest of burden is on the the buyer not the seller.

The problem now is we got 70 years of regs and a congress happy to come up with new ones EVERYDAY. most are written by big companies to maximize their profits and squeeze out the competition, smaller producers (ie organic growers) or Hard cord left central control freaks and well meaning but misguided nature lovers.

[Palin Rider]

and you have anything besides, 'they're all in it for the money, regulate them,'?
It's not a sin to want to make money. The problem you're trying to avoid is this: if businesses can make more money by endangering the public, there's nothing to stop them besides laws (i.e., regulations).

...you've given no specifics of what you're problem is with regulation questions from conservatives.
Can't speak for Noir, but MY specific problem is how conservative pols and pundits want to brand every regulation as evil and/or a disaster.


I don't know of any suggestions to get rid of FDA. Nor Labor-which controls mining and such. Nor Fema.

Now Education Dept.? Another story.

Regulations on financials? Need more specifics which is difficult in 1k pages or more.

Lunch programs? Hell no!
Any libertarians out here? They probably want to get rid of all of these.

[MtnBiker]

Regulations tend to stifle activity. For example, some time ago I was checking out another messageboard site of political nature, it was lunch counter politics or something like that. Anyway the administrator of the site had a check list as long as your arm on the things members were not to do. There did not seem to be much activity on that well regulated site, hmmmm.

[Palin Rider]

Regulations tend to stifle activity. For example, some time ago I was checking out another messageboard site of political nature, it was lunch counter politics or something like that. Anyway the administrator of the site had a check list as long as your arm on the things members were not to do. There did not seem to be much activity on that well regulated site, hmmmm.

You're comparing rules on an Internet forum with actual laws? :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

It's not a sin to want to make money. The problem you're trying to avoid is this: if businesses can make more money by endangering the public, there's nothing to stop them besides laws (i.e., regulations).

False, transparency will lead to informed decisions being made by consumers.


Can't speak for Noir, but MY specific problem is how conservative pols and pundits want to brand every regulation as evil and/or a disaster.

Many of them are evil and/or a disaster but to liberal pols and pundits every problem will be fixed by regulation even when regulation caused the problems in the first place.


Any libertarians out here? They probably want to get rid of all of these.

Some of them should go.

[Palin Rider]

Translation: The GOP complaints of "changing a regulation" really means Dems overreaching their mandate in an effort to grab power from private individuals and thrust it into the hands of unaccountable government officials.



Translation: Regulations are put into place for "public safety" which creates barriers to entry, encourages campaign contributions to elected officials, and creates unhealthy relationships between regulators and corporations.



Translation: Creation of the false premise that any regulation put into place will be "smart oversight" when most regulations are behind actual business practice and create costs which far outweigh the regulatory benefits.



Translation: Create a straw-man talking-point argument and then complain when others respond in kind.

Typical of "debate" from you.

Also to note in each case above, additional regulations are always called for.

Translation of translations: FJ has nothing new to say, but is desperate to stay in the limelight to convince others of how smart he thinks he is. Typical of "debate" from him. :laugh:

[fj1200]

Translation of translations...

Will you be explaining your inability/unwillingness to respond to my comments?

[fj1200]

... "debate"...

Here's an idea Strawman, take a specific, detailed example of how Dems want to strengthen/create a regulation in response to a pressing issue of the day and how Reps are "throwing a knee-jerk fit" in response.

It'll be fun.

[Palin Rider]

Here's an idea Strawman, take a specific, detailed example of how Dems want to strengthen/create a regulation in response to a pressing issue of the day and how Reps are "throwing a knee-jerk fit" in response.

It'll be fun.

Great; if you think it'll be so much fun, you go ahead and do it. :laugh:

I'll even argue the "conservative" side if you want. :laugh2:

[DragonStryk72]

Why do the GOP and Tea Party insist on throwing a knee-jerk fit every time there's talk of changing a regulation on industries? It should be more than clear that government has a vital role to play in regulating and overseeing many corporate actions.

Corporations are established to make a profit. That is their ONLY mission - to make a profit for their shareholders. If cutting corners and endangering customers - or the general public - will turn a bigger profit, guess what? Most, if not all, corporations will do exactly that. We cannot rely on corporations to have our best interests at heart. It's simply not part of what their employees are paid to think about.

And no, this does not make corporations evil. It means only that they are not concerned with questions of good and evil. They are money-making entities, period. To ensure they don't endanger people, they need oversight - well-funded, smart oversight with teeth.

The only people who would question this basic concept are those whose only goal is to personally profit by aligning themselves with various corporations for their own personal enrichment. Unless, of course, they're just brainwashed, ignorant, and/or learning-disabled.

Actually, most companies do care to an extent. Will a corp move to protect itself from billions of dollars in loss? Of course, because if they didn't, then there would be lay offs galore, and the company might shut down, creating a 100% lay off, if you catch my drift.

I love how the way you say it, corps don't have employees, benefits, or anything else out of any desire other than profit. I guess that's why the corps don't invest millions of dollars in charities, and none of them ever did so before the advent of the tax loophole (which is silly anyway, cause who would pay $1,000,000 to get $500,000?). Oh wait, they did. Actually, lay offs are actually fairly humane and civil, because the dick way to do it would be to just make peoples' jobs and hours worse till they quit.

I believe the greater problem of these new regs are that they don't really do much of anything, or they are just restatements of old regs that were already in place. The other ones are these rather paranoid ones, usually regulating something that's already being done freely by the company.

Also, regulations actually cause cutbacks in businesses. for instance, mandatory benefits for full-time employees, however well-meaning, has created the situation where most companies are only hiring part-timers. Nevermind that the same company (we'll use Wal-Mart as an example here) already gave benefits to all their F/T employees, as well as their P/T that had worked 1000+ hours that year (Not hard, as part-time there is frequently 32 hours a week).

[Palin Rider]

I love how the way you say it, corps don't have employees, benefits, or anything else out of any desire other than profit. I guess that's why the corps don't invest millions of dollars in charities, and none of them ever did so before the advent of the tax loopholeAnd I guess you never heard of public relations stunts.


I believe the greater problem of these new regs are that they don't really do much of anything, or they are just restatements of old regs that were already in place. The other ones are these rather paranoid ones, usually regulating something that's already being done freely by the company.Gotta love the specifics behind those statements!

[fj1200]

Great; if you think it'll be so much fun, you go ahead and do it. :laugh:

I'll even argue the "conservative" side if you want. :laugh2:

So you don't even want to participate by advocating your own position in your own thread?

It's like I'm talking to Psycho or Bully or... Now what's the commonality between you guys???

[Palin Rider]

So you don't even want to participate by advocating your own position in your own thread?

It's like I'm talking to Psycho or Bully or... Now what's the commonality between you guys???

You don't talk TO Psycho, Bully, or anyone else here. You talk AT them.
This may well be the commonality.

[fj1200]

You don't talk TO Psycho, Bully, or anyone else here. You talk AT them.
This may well be the commonality.

No, they, and you, don't respond to questions and refuse to discuss.

[Palin Rider]

No, they, and you, don't respond to questions and refuse to discuss.

That's because (a) all the questions you ask are rhetorical and can't be logically argued, and (b) 99.9% of what you present as "discussion" consists of insubstantial soundbites and twaddle.

[fj1200]

That's because (a) all the questions you ask are rhetorical and can't be logically argued, and (b) 99.9% of what you present as "discussion" consists of insubstantial soundbites and twaddle.

Do you know how flippin' funny that is coming from you of all people?

So, please accept my challenge of you raising a specific regulation that calls out for more regulation/new regulation and then we'll go from there. Net neutrality for example...

[logroller]

Speaking of regulation-- isn't there a steel cage arena for such banter?

Just kidding, its fun for all, but why am I excluded from such attacks on psycho and bully- should I be more irrational? ;)

[fj1200]

Speaking of regulation-- isn't there a steel cage arena for such banter?

Just kidding, its fun for all, but why am I excluded from such attacks on psycho and bully- should I be more irrational? ;)

You should be more irrational if you want to join that crowd, not sure why you would though. ;) It would also help for you to actively refuse to engage in fair and open debate. :laugh:

[NightTrain]

Speaking of regulation-- isn't there a steel cage arena for such banter?

Just kidding, its fun for all, but why am I excluded from such attacks on psycho and bully- should I be more irrational? ;)

You appear to be a great deal more intelligent and haven't mindlessly trolled, for starters!

[Palin Rider]

Do you know how flippin' funny that is coming from you of all people?What's funny is that you think you haven't been seen through. It's more than obvious that the majority of your "responses" to my posts are your feeble attempts to ape what you think I"m doing.

If you truly were half the debater you pretend to be, you'd have no trouble at all taking the "liberal" side of any issue as I suggested, but clearly you're too chicken.

[Kathianne]

You appear to be a great deal more intelligent and haven't mindlessly trolled, for starters!

Yep, I've no reason to think debate is impossible with LR. Used to be that way with BP too, but he's gone totally bonkers on Obama. I have hope the PB is going to be more steady in discussions, but will need to see him either backing up his posts or being more circumspect with what he chooses to write.

PR is just a gnat in politics. Fine on lower part of board.

[Palin Rider]

Reminds me of a nun who will deign to discuss theology only with ordained officials of her church. Non-believers? Forget about it.

[Kathianne]

Reminds me of a nun who will deign to discuss theology only with ordained officials of her church. Non-believers? Forget about it.

Ah, something reasonable to respond to. You're off track with the analogy, in the sense that Catholics don't move to convert non-believers by preaching, but by acts. If someone wants information? Oh yes. Now if a non-believer wants to just rage against the Church, some will take that, others just offer it up.

[Palin Rider]

Ah, something reasonable to respond to. You're off track with the analogy, in the sense that Catholics don't move to convert non-believers by preaching, but by acts. If someone wants information? Oh yes. Now if a non-believer wants to just rage against the Church, some will take that, others just offer it up.

You're right; I was off track with the analogy. Even popes have admitted that the Church had been wrong from time to time.

[NightTrain]

You're right; I was off track with the analogy. Even popes have admitted that the Church had been wrong from time to time.

As opposed to yourself as you have been generally 100% wrong 100% of the time.

[fj1200]

What's funny is that you think you haven't been seen through. It's more than obvious that the majority of your "responses" to my posts are your feeble attempts to ape what you think I"m doing.

Based on the other responses to you in this thread and others, I'll beg to differ considering you keep refusing my challenge.


If you truly were half the debater you pretend to be, you'd have no trouble at all taking the "liberal" side of any issue as I suggested, but clearly you're too chicken.

Take up my challenge in here and then pick a topic for me to take the lib side, in this thread or start another if you like, it makes no difference to me. Or I could just start a strawman argument like you and then complain about the lack of specifics when challenged.

BTW, would my "gay rights" position in other threads meet your definition? All the righties are getting after me. ;)

[fj1200]

Reminds me of a nun who will deign to discuss theology only with ordained officials of her church. Non-believers? Forget about it.

Yeah, that does kind of sound like you.

[Kathianne]

Based on the other responses to you in this thread and others, I'll beg to differ considering you keep refusing my challenge.



Take up my challenge in here and then pick a topic for me to take the lib side, in this thread or start another if you like, it makes no difference to me. Or I could just start a strawman argument like you and then complain about the lack of specifics when challenged.

BTW, would my "gay rights" position in other threads meet your definition? All the righties are getting after me. ;)

Not all.

[Palin Rider]

Yeah, that does kind of sound like you.

Thank you, Peewee.

2085

[Palin Rider]

Take up my challenge in here and then pick a topic for me to take the lib side, in this thread or start another if you like, it makes no difference to me.

Not that it was "your" challenge, but I won't quibble on that point. :laugh:

Okay, here you go. A brand new thread (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30329-FJ1200-Defends-Abortion-on-Demand).

[fj1200]

Not all.

I know, I was having fun.

[fj1200]

Not that it was "your" challenge, but I won't quibble on that point. :laugh:

Anyway, so when can we be expecting your defense of your position in your thread?


Okay, here you go. A brand new thread (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30329-FJ1200-Defends-Abortion-on-Demand).

OK.

[Palin Rider]

Anyway, so when can we be expecting your defense of your position in your thread?

I believe the OP made it clear enough why governments need to regulate corporate activity. I'll bring out additional defense of that point when someone makes a reasonable argument that they don't.

[fj1200]

I believe the OP made it clear enough why governments need to regulate corporate activity. I'll bring out additional defense of that point when someone makes a reasonable argument that they don't.

Not even close and it doesn't even really summarize the OP. But if you think it does then my first response more than counters it.

So, a specific regulation would be coming from you then?

[Palin Rider]

Not even close and it doesn't even really summarize the OP. But if you think it does then my first response more than counters it.

Not even close. Your first response wasn't even a response at all.

[MtnBiker]

Regulations tend to stifle activity. For example, some time ago I was checking out another messageboard site of political nature, it was lunch counter politics or something like that. Anyway the administrator of the site had a check list as long as your arm on the things members were not to do. There did not seem to be much activity on that well regulated site, hmmmm.

Actually I had it somewhat wrong on the name of that other board. It wasn't lunch counter politics (all though it used to be something like that) it was closer to Whimps and Pussies. And the list of things members were not to do had grown. And being a well regulated site the activity had not grown.


thread (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30866-Free-speech-now-restricted-to-approved-threads)

[Palin Rider]

Actually I had it somewhat wrong on the name of that other board. It wasn't lunch counter politics (all though it used to be something like that) it was closer to Whimps and Pussies. And the list of things members were not to do had grown. And being a well regulated site the activity had not grown.


thread (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30866-Free-speech-now-restricted-to-approved-threads)

Still trying to compare message board to governments, are ya? :lame2: