Ok Dems and Libs, defend this.
theget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price–Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act
"The main purpose of the Act is to partially indemnify the nuclear
industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while
still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act
establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first
approximately $12.6 billion (as of 2011) is industry-funded as
described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be
covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear
utility liability or would be covered by the federal government. At
the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an
incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was
because electric utilities viewed the available liability coverage
(only $60 million) as inadequate."
Wait. What? Private industry thought the available liability was
inadequate? Sounds like responsible management to me.
So, I guess, uh nuclear power is good, the government says so. It's so
good they'll limit the liability of private companies. So I guess the
private companies have less risk and no incentive to try to make
nuclear power safer. Because: Limited Liability! I suppose they might
even build power plants on fault lines since they have Limited
Liability!
Wait. No one would really do that, would they? Well yeah, I guess they
would. http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-californias-two-nuclear-plants-near-fault-lines-20110314,0,3265997.story
So please tell me again how government regulation is good for us.
David Johnston
>
> So please tell me again how government regulation is good for us.
Uh...that isn't government regulation. It's more like the reverse of
government regulation.
theget
No. It is government regulation. What makes you think it isn't.
Ray O'Hara
"theget" <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:ccd098e1-2d78-4d86...@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price�Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act
============================================================================
it's not a regulation, it regulates nothing.
it is a classic Republican give-away to industry,
it doesn't regulate it protects the nuclear industry.
who was in power in 1957? Ike a Republican.,so why shouls the Dems/Libs
defend a Republican business freindly law
theget
> "theget" <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ccd098e1-2d78-4d86...@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
> Government regulation is good for you. Isn't it?
>
>
> "The main purpose of the Act is to partially indemnify the nuclear
> industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while
> still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act
> establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first
> approximately $12.6 billion (as of 2011) is industry-funded as
> described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be
> covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear
> utility liability or would be covered by the federal government. At
> the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an
> incentive for the private production of nuclear power this was
> because electric utilities viewed the available liability coverage
> (only $60 million) as inadequate."
>
> Wait. What? Private industry thought the available liability was
> inadequate? Sounds like responsible management to me.
>
> So, I guess, uh nuclear power is good, the government says so. It's so
> good they'll limit the liability of private companies. So I guess the
> private companies have less risk and no incentive to try to make
> nuclear power safer. Because: Limited Liability! I suppose they might
> even build power plants on fault lines since they have Limited
> Liability!
>
> Wait. No one would really do that, would they? Well yeah, I guess they
>
> So please tell me again how government regulation is good for us.
>
> ============================================================================
>
> it's not a regulation, it regulates nothing.
This word regulation seems to get tossed around a lot by people but
most people don't give it much thought.
I don't know how to tell you this, but it is regulation.
From, TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 23 > Division A > SUBCHAPTER I > § 2012/
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00002012----000-.html
"c) The processing and utilization of source, byproduct, and special
nuclear material affect interstate and foreign commerce and must be
regulated in the national interest."
Sounds like regulation to me.
The link from wikipedia says that the text of Price-Anderson is here:
TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 23 > Division A > SUBCHAPTER XIII > § 2210
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00002210----000-.html
Would you like to reconsider your answer. Please, please, please,
don't tell me that it's still not regulation even thought the law says
it is. Because it has to. That's how the government is able to
interfere in the free market. Under the commerce clause. Keep this in
mind as the abomination Obamacare makes its way to the SCOTUS.
> it is a classic Republican give-away to industry,
Sure. isn't that what both parties spend their time doing. Giving
money from people who earned it to people who didn't?
> it doesn't regulate it protects the nuclear industry.
And yet strangely the industry didn't want nuclear power.
> who was in power in 1957? Ike a Republican.,so why shouls the Dems/Libs
> defend a Republican business freindly law
Because they favor regulation. They're constantly telling me how more
regulation would be a good thing. And here is their wish, a dream come
true I hope it makes them so happy they'll glow in the dark.
Brett A. Pasternack
It's government DE-regulation. Government regulation is when they made
the nuclear industry liable for these incidents in the first place. This
act effectively creates an exception to the regulation.
I don't want to get to much into a battle over the semantics here. The
bigger picture is that it's generally conservatives who want to limit
the court liability of big business, and liberals who want to expand it.
So we liberals aren't the ones who need to defend this. If you want to
have more oversight over the nuclear industry, and more recourse for
citizens when it screws up, you're on the liberal side here.
theget
I don't quite see that. Are you saying that the existence of a court
system implies government regulation?
> I don't want to get to much into a battle over the semantics here.
Too late.
Because the usage of the word regulation, while bandied about quite a
bit, has a meaning in law. And we're discussing the law. Without the
law, as I'm sure you'll agree, there is no regulation.
> The
> bigger picture is that it's generally conservatives who want to limit
> the court liability of big business, and liberals who want to expand it.
> So we liberals aren't the ones who need to defend this. If you want to
> have more oversight over the nuclear industry, and more recourse for
> citizens when it screws up, you're on the liberal side here.
Which is completely besides the point I was making.
It's here. Regulation! Cheer for it. Glow in the dark.
Please see my response where I quote the law to the always
entertaining tease (so he calls himself, I mean he calls himself a
tease, only I say he's entertaining) Ray O'Hara, to wit, that Price
Anderson is in fact regulation.
Hooray. Regulation. Glow in the dark.
Ray O'Hara
Too late.
=============================================================================
it's not a regulation. nothing is denied the company, they aren't required
to do anything that "costs them money" like make sure they don't kill us.
Ray O'Hara
of insurance against nuclear related incidents which is available in the
insurance market (as of 2011, $375 million per plant). Any monetary claims
that fall within this maximum amount are paid by the insurer(s).news:8283ccd8-4fe8-421d...@n2g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
=======================================================================================
you are an idiot.
the Nuclear power industry didn't want nuclear power?
and regulations follow abuse.
the air was unbreathable, the water undrinkable, so regulations preventing
air pollution and water pollution were created,
i'm sure you hate clean air and drinkable water but tough, most of do like
that.
after the Great Depression banking regulations were put in to stop banks
from creating that situation again.
they worked until the Republicans got them repealed and then what happened,
all the same abuses happened and we barely avoided another great depression.
the fact is first a crime is invented, then a law to stop it.
you idiot conservatives think they make regulations first.
how stupid are you?
very stupid it seems.
and your girl. Michelle Bachmann was saying how great it was to be in NH
where the American Revolution started.{yes I know, you don't see any problem
with that statement, read some history}.
theget
That word. I do not think you know what it means.
No you're acting like that d stussy birther guy. We don't get to pick
and choose which parts of the COTUS we follow. The commerce clause,
look it up.
theget
> Power reactor licensees are required by the act to obtain the maximum amount
> of insurance against nuclear related incidents which is available in the
> insurance market (as of 2011, $375 million per plant). Any monetary claims
> that fall within this maximum amount are paid by the insurer(s)."theget" <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:8283ccd8-4fe8-421d...@n2g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 15, 4:58 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "theget" <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:ccd098e1-2d78-4d86...@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
> > Government regulation is good for you. Isn't it?
>
>
> "c) The processing and utilization of source, byproduct, and special
> nuclear material affect interstate and foreign commerce and must be
> regulated in the national interest."
>
> Sounds like regulation to me.
>
> The link from wikipedia says that the text of Price-Anderson is here:
>
> Would you like to reconsider your answer. Please, please, please,
> don't tell me that it's still not regulation even thought the law says
> it is. Because it has to. That's how the government is able to
> interfere in the free market. Under the commerce clause. Keep this in
> mind as the abomination Obamacare makes its way to the SCOTUS.
>
> > it is a classic Republican give-away to industry,
>
> Sure. isn't that what both parties spend their time doing. Giving
> money from people who earned it to people who didn't?
>
> > it doesn't regulate it protects the nuclear industry.
>
> And yet strangely the industry didn't want nuclear power.
>
> > who was in power in 1957? Ike a Republican.,so why shouls the Dems/Libs
> > defend a Republican business freindly law
>
> Because they favor regulation. They're constantly telling me how more
> regulation would be a good thing. And here is their wish, a dream come
> true I hope it makes them so happy they'll glow in the dark.
>
> =======================================================================================
>
> you are an idiot.
So you have nothing intellegent to contribute to the conversation and
you are reduced to name calling?
> the Nuclear power industry didn't want nuclear power?
I suggest you read the wikipedia article I linked to. Then you will
understand why this is a simple misstatement of fact.
>
> and regulations follow abuse.
Or in this case congress wanted nuke power and regulated the industry
to make sure we'd get it.
> the air was unbreathable, the water undrinkable, so regulations preventing
> air pollution and water pollution were created,
> i'm sure you hate clean air and drinkable water but tough, most of do like
> that.
I'm sure you have a point, you tease.
> after the Great Depression banking regulations were put in to stop banks
> from creating that situation again.
Worked well?
> they worked until the Republicans got them repealed and then what happened,
> all the same abuses happened and we barely avoided another great depression.
I think you mean until the CRA came along. But don't change the
subject namecaller.
>
> the fact is first a crime is invented, then a law to stop it.
> you idiot conservatives think they make regulations first.
> how stupid are you?
> very stupid it seems.
Oh. Looky here. I was right. Just name calling. I'm sorry that you
can't summon an argument that actually discusses the issue at hand.
> and your girl. Michelle Bachmann was saying how great it was to be in NH
> where the American Revolution started.{yes I know, you don't see any problem
> with that statement, read some history}.
My girl? She's cute. But she's not mine.
David Johnston
The part where it doesn't restrict anyone's actions.
Ray O'Hara
=============================================================================
limiting their liability is not a regulation.
as to the rest of your reply , I'm sure you think you have a point. you
don't.
theget
How about the part where the government says it's government
regulation.
theget
> "theget" <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:afd6c319-4f36-4344...@b13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 15, 8:18 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "theget" <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:b47ffe0a-7570-4443...@l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 15, 7:13 pm, "Brett A. Pasternack" <bretta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > theget wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 15, 2:28 pm, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 15, 10:59 am, theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Government regulation is good for you. Isn't it?
>
Exactly the sort of reply I expect from you. You ought to have a
conference with your birther buddies on how to not reply to an
argument.
David Johnston
The government says a lot of things.
theget
Like the part where it regulates the nuclear power industry and plays
around with regulating insurance for power plants.
Ray O'Hara
=============================================================================
the gibberish you post is not an argument.
Ray O'Hara
=================================================================================
the law also doesn't regulate insurance, it limits their liability.
you wingnuts complain about how evil regulations are and the example you've
found is a law that limits only the liabilities they'll face.
if there is any objection to this law is it puts the people on the hook for
costs pvt industry incurs.
BP would have loved such a "regulation" with respect to their gulf spill.
theget
> "theget" <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:f37b667c-199d-48d8...@s3g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 15, 9:10 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "theget" <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:afd6c319-4f36-4344...@b13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 15, 8:18 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "theget" <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:b47ffe0a-7570-4443...@l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Mar 15, 7:13 pm, "Brett A. Pasternack" <bretta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > theget wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 15, 2:28 pm, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 15, 10:59 am, theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Government regulation is good for you. Isn't it?
>
my answer was clear
I await some sense from you
listen! crickets chirp
David Johnston
Yeah. Whatever. Providing insurance is not regulation.
David Johnston
Limiting the liability of power plants does not constitute a
regulation of them.
theget
> "theget" <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:cafa4692-9842-4121...@cu4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 15, 9:58 pm, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 15, 7:26 pm, theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 15, 8:51 pm, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 15, 1:57 pm, theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> > > > > No. It is government regulation. What makes you think it isn't.
>
> > > > The part where it doesn't restrict anyone's actions.
>
> > > How about the part where the government says it's government
> > > regulation.
>
> > The government says a lot of things.
>
> Like the part where it regulates the nuclear power industry and plays
> around with regulating insurance for power plants.
>
> =================================================================================
>
> the law also doesn't regulate insurance, it limits their liability.
Of course it does. It says it does. There is no other way for the
government to interfere legally. Wait until Obamacare passes through
the SCOTUS and read what the COTUS says about interstate commerce.
> you wingnuts complain about how evil regulations are and the example you've
> found is a law that limits only the liabilities they'll face.
Which is, lets face it, pretty bad. More nuclear power plants. How
liberals hate them, and yet they support regulation. Without it we'd
have been unlikely to have any. So complain away about your objections
to this regulation.
It only proves my point. Liberals never met a regulation they didn't
like.
> if there is any objection to this law is it puts the people on the hook for
> costs pvt industry incurs.
My objection is that it is regulation.
> BP would have loved such a "regulation" with respect to their gulf spill.
Maybe Steven Chu didn't think of it.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-steven-chu-20110316,0,2062754.story
"U.S. stands by nuclear power, Energy secretary says"
"The Obama administration is 'committed to learning from Japan's
experience,' says Steven Chu. The White House had proposed billions of
dollars to help expand nuclear power."
Now I don't have to wonder why you are so vociferous. Obama wants more
nuclear power. How convenient for you that the Republicans engineered
this regulation.
Looked at that pesky constitution yet, Ray.
ray doesn't read
the document at hand
no one wonders why
Look I stopped counting too, but Basho says it's occasionally ok to
not count so carefully.
theget
You're starting to sound like stussy.
It is if the government says it it. That's the way our government
works. That's the way our government can interfere in the market. It's
in the commerce clause in the pesky constitution. Take a look.
theget
Sure it does. That's what regulation is. That's how the government
gets people to do things, by, you know, forcing them to do it. Sure,
they're not forcing people to build plants, but they are otherwise
limiting the rights to seek redress for damages that we otherwise
enjoy.
That's entertainment. I meant regulation.
David Johnston
> > the law also doesn't regulate insurance, it limits their liability.
>
> Of course it does. It says it does.
Saying it does isn't the same thing as doing it.
> > you wingnuts complain about how evil regulations are and the example you've
> > found is a law that limits only the liabilities they'll face.
>
> Which is, lets face it, pretty bad. More nuclear power plants. How
> liberals hate them,
Nah. I like 'em.
> > if there is any objection to this law is it puts the people on the hook for
> > costs pvt industry incurs.
>
> My objection is that it is regulation.
No, apparently your objection is that it has a preamble that talks
about regulation.
David Johnston
> > Limiting the liability of power plants does not constitute a
> > regulation of them.
>
> Sure it does. That's what regulation is. That's how the government
> gets people to do things, by, you know, forcing them to do it. Sure,
> they're not forcing people to build plants, but they are otherwise
> limiting the rights to seek redress for damages that we otherwise
> enjoy.
Well, now that I think about it, it is a regulation. Just not one
that regulates power plants.
Ray O'Hara
"David Johnston" <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5b746b6c-2fed-44d3...@j9g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
======================================================================
ignore nhim.
he's entered the realm of the absurd.9999999999999999999999999999999999
Brett A. Pasternack
> > > No. It is government regulation. What makes you think it isn't.
> >
> > It's government DE-regulation. Government regulation is when they made
> > the nuclear industry liable for these incidents in the first place. This
> > act effectively creates an exception to the regulation.
>
> I don't quite see that. Are you saying that the existence of a court
> system implies government regulation?
Not the existence of a court system per se, but the existence of a legal
framework wherein businesses can be held liable for the effects of their
actions, yes. (It's far from the only element of government regulation,
but it is an element of it, yes.)
> > I don't want to get to much into a battle over the semantics here.
>
> Too late.
>
> Because the usage of the word regulation, while bandied about quite a
> bit, has a meaning in law. And we're discussing the law. Without the
> law, as I'm sure you'll agree, there is no regulation.
Yes, but you're conflating two different things. When people say that
the government should regulate business, they aren't saying that they
should issue a greater number of regulations without regard to the
content of those regulations. They're saying that government should
impose more restrictions on the behavior of those businesses and hold
those businesses accountable for what they do. This regulation moves
away from that goal.
In short, there are two different meanings of the word "regulation" in
play here.
> > The
> > bigger picture is that it's generally conservatives who want to limit
> > the court liability of big business, and liberals who want to expand it.
> > So we liberals aren't the ones who need to defend this. If you want to
> > have more oversight over the nuclear industry, and more recourse for
> > citizens when it screws up, you're on the liberal side here.
>
> Which is completely besides the point I was making.
>
> It's here. Regulation! Cheer for it. Glow in the dark.
We didn't want *a* regulation. We wanted regulation. Not the same thing.
theget
No. I stated my objection. Libs and Dems are forever talking up
regulation. When it's something they don't like, well, why then, it
simply isn't regulation, even though the actual law says that it is
and says what it regulates. I suppose that pesky constitution
requires that.
theget
> "David Johnston" <davidjohnsto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
You big silly tease.
theget
Good. Now please tell me what the regulation is in aid of.
theget
> theget wrote:
>
> > On Mar 15, 7:13 pm, "Brett A. Pasternack" <bretta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > No. It is government regulation. What makes you think it isn't.
>
> > > It's government DE-regulation. Government regulation is when they made
> > > the nuclear industry liable for these incidents in the first place. This
> > > act effectively creates an exception to the regulation.
>
> > I don't quite see that. Are you saying that the existence of a court
> > system implies government regulation?
>
> Not the existence of a court system per se, but the existence of a legal
> framework wherein businesses can be held liable for the effects of their
> actions, yes. (It's far from the only element of government regulation,
> but it is an element of it, yes.)
Or in the case of this particular regulation not be held liable.
> Yes, but you're conflating two different things. When people say that
> the government should regulate business, they aren't saying that they
> should issue a greater number of regulations without regard to the
> content of those regulations. They're saying that government should
> impose more restrictions on the behavior of those businesses and hold
> those businesses accountable for what they do. This regulation moves
> away from that goal.
Except for two things. Legally this is regulation. You make it sound
as if the only thing the "people" you're speaking of will recognize as
regulation are regulations they approve of. That's kind of like
saying that when doctors prescribe they only prescribe meds that have
good effects, if they prescribe something with bad effects, well, why
then, that wasn't a prescription for medicine. I just don't swallow
that.
>
> In short, there are two different meanings of the word "regulation" in
> play here.
Yes. I agree there. But the medicine has been put in the spoon, open
your mouth here it comes.
> We didn't want *a* regulation. We wanted regulation. Not the same thing.
I disagree. You didn't want to call a regulation a regulation. You
only want to call it a regulation iff you like the outcome.
David Johnston
> > Well, now that I think about it, it is a regulation. Just not one
> > that regulates power plants.
>
> Good. Now please tell me what the regulation is in aid of.
Please rephrase the question.
David Johnston
What does it regulate?
theget
To what end?
theget
In the case at hand, the nuclear power industry. That's what the law
says.
David Johnston
Why to ensure that that the nuclear energy industry exists at all.
David Johnston
Nope. What it regulates are the civil courts as they bear on the
nuclear power industry. It doesn't regulate the industry. At the
least the provision you reference doesn't.
Brett A. Pasternack
> > > > > No. It is government regulation. What makes you think it isn't.
> >
> > > > It's government DE-regulation. Government regulation is when they made
> > > > the nuclear industry liable for these incidents in the first place. This
> > > > act effectively creates an exception to the regulation.
> >
> > > I don't quite see that. Are you saying that the existence of a court
> > > system implies government regulation?
> >
> > Not the existence of a court system per se, but the existence of a legal
> > framework wherein businesses can be held liable for the effects of their
> > actions, yes. (It's far from the only element of government regulation,
> > but it is an element of it, yes.)
>
> Or in the case of this particular regulation not be held liable.
Yes. It's a regulation that has the effect of deregulating the industry.
> > Yes, but you're conflating two different things. When people say that
> > the government should regulate business, they aren't saying that they
> > should issue a greater number of regulations without regard to the
> > content of those regulations. They're saying that government should
> > impose more restrictions on the behavior of those businesses and hold
> > those businesses accountable for what they do. This regulation moves
> > away from that goal.
>
> Except for two things. Legally this is regulation. You make it sound
> as if the only thing the "people" you're speaking of will recognize as
> regulation are regulations they approve of. That's kind of like
> saying that when doctors prescribe they only prescribe meds that have
> good effects, if they prescribe something with bad effects, well, why
> then, that wasn't a prescription for medicine. I just don't swallow
> that.
No. A more accurate comparison would be if you went to the doctor and
said that you wanted medicine, and said "please write me a
prescription", and the doctor took out his prescription plan and wrote
on it, "go to bed early and don't bother me anymore." And when the
patient complained, he said, "you wanted a prescription, and I gave you
one, so you should be happy."
> >
> > In short, there are two different meanings of the word "regulation" in
> > play here.
>
> Yes. I agree there. But the medicine has been put in the spoon, open
> your mouth here it comes.
If you agree that there are two different meanings, then why are you
still maintaining that when I asked for one meaning, I should be happy
with another? I didn't ask for more *regulations*, I asked for more
*regulation*.
Or, to put it more clearly: I want *tighter* regulation. Whatever
semantic games you want to play, the fact is that you took something
that liberals clearly do NOT want an asked liberals to defend it.
> > We didn't want *a* regulation. We wanted regulation. Not the same thing.
>
> I disagree. You didn't want to call a regulation a regulation. You
> only want to call it a regulation iff you like the outcome.
It's a regulation. But it's not regulation of the industry. You said
above that you agree that these are two distinct meanings of the word.
So what's your point?
Ray O'Hara
===========================================================================
it's a law that uindemnifies the industry it doesn't regulate it
and yes it's very business friendly.
it was first done to protect a fledgling industry. now it's a give away.
theget
Then please explain how this isn't regulation of the nuclear energy
industry and produce a result that is mostly anathema the libs.
theget
So let's see. The civil courts and how they can rule on issues
regarding the nuclear industry are regulated but this isn't regulation
of the nuclear industry.
Frankly, I think it's possible that it's a distinction. But if so,
it's a distinction without a difference.
David Johnston
Wrong. The nuclear power industry isn't restricted even a tiny bit by
this provision.
theget
No. Sorry, I don't see it that way. More like the doctor says here's
a prescription and if there are any bad side effects we've regulated
the drug industry so the drug company won't have to pay for any bad
side effects which may include loss of hair, hearing, vision, and your
life, and also cancer. But you need this, so I want you to take it,
and if you have a problem, too, too bad for you.
>
> > > In short, there are two different meanings of the word "regulation" in
> > > play here.
>
> > Yes. I agree there. But the medicine has been put in the spoon, open
> > your mouth here it comes.
>
> If you agree that there are two different meanings, then why are you
> still maintaining that when I asked for one meaning, I should be happy
> with another? I didn't ask for more *regulations*, I asked for more
> *regulation*.
In this case, plural or singular it's not the difference between
catholic and Catholic or holocaust and Holocaust.
>
> Or, to put it more clearly: I want *tighter* regulation. Whatever
> semantic games you want to play, the fact is that you took something
> that liberals clearly do NOT want an asked liberals to defend it.
Semantic games? I'm not the person who suggested that regulations and
regulation weren't the same.
Sorry. It is a regulation within the meaning of the COTUS. Really,
under our system of law I'm not sure there can be another kind except
the kind you imagine that you want. To make it *law*, that is, to make
it real, it will have to fit into the frame work of the COTUS. It's
not a living breating document unless they uphold Obamacare in which
case I suspect it will shortly become a nullity.
Besides which, what you say you want now, isn't what libs have been
asking for, they've been saying they want more regulation.
>
> > > We didn't want *a* regulation. We wanted regulation. Not the same thing.
>
> > I disagree. You didn't want to call a regulation a regulation. You
> > only want to call it a regulation iff you like the outcome.
>
> It's a regulation.
Yes it is.
> But it's not regulation of the industry.
Sure it is. Real the law.
> You said
> above that you agree that these are two distinct meanings of the word.
Yes. The fantasy kind and the real kind. The fantasy kind is easier
to deal with. You know, like a no fly zone in Libya done by dems. I
suppose we won't see any anti-war protests over that, now will we.
> So what's your point?
"That government is best which governs least."
theget
Of course it does. One way to regulate is to create financial
incentives and disincentives.
> and yes it's very business friendly.
I'm not so sure how business friendly it is if it kills customers,
suppliers, labor and management.
> it was first done to protect a fledgling industry. now it's a give away.
To protect? It never would have been born let alone been a fledgling
if this hadn't been done. Or else, the industry would have found a
way to be much much safer. No need now that the government say there
is limited liability. And what's wrong with this is exactly the same
thing that is wrong with what Reps propose to limit tort liability,
particularly for docs.
David Johnston
> > it's a law that uindemnifies the industry it doesn't regulate it
>
> Of course it does. One way to regulate is to create financial
> incentives and disincentives.
>
> > and yes it's very business friendly.
>
> I'm not so sure how business friendly it is if it kills customers,
> suppliers, labor and management.
What? Management knows to get the hell out of Dodge should there ever
be a problem. More people will die of shortened lifespans from coal
power plants this year than will die from nuclear power even with this
incident.
theget
Regulation and restriction are synonymous?
theget
Then one wonders why the regulation was needed in the first place.
Safer than coal? Maybe. But why the regulation then?
David Johnston
Yes. "You can do anything you want" doesn't regulate diddly.
David Johnston
Be specific. What regulation are you talking about?
theget
I recall reading somewhere, maybe in Joyce Lee Malcolm's
http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/directory/fulltime/malcolm_joyce To
Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right, about the
meaning of "well regulated" in the Second, that the word can be taken
to mean http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regulate "to adjust so
as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch." One of the
related words is regularize.
However, I'll repeat myself from
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00002012----000-.html
(c) The processing and utilization of source, byproduct, and special
nuclear material affect interstate and foreign commerce and must be
regulated in the national interest.
And that's what they did. The part about limiting liability for
nuclear power comes from title 42 as well
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00002210----000-.html
David Johnston
> However, I'll repeat myself fromhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00002012--...
> (c) The processing and utilization of source, byproduct, and special
> nuclear material affect interstate and foreign commerce and must be
> regulated in the national interest.
>
So what?
Brett A. Pasternack
Well, OK, it's like all those things, but the POINT is that the patient
asked for a prescription, and then the doctor wrote all those things on
the prescription pad and then blamed the patient for asking for a
prescription.
> > > > In short, there are two different meanings of the word "regulation" in
> > > > play here.
> >
> > > Yes. I agree there. But the medicine has been put in the spoon, open
> > > your mouth here it comes.
> >
> > If you agree that there are two different meanings, then why are you
> > still maintaining that when I asked for one meaning, I should be happy
> > with another? I didn't ask for more *regulations*, I asked for more
> > *regulation*.
>
> In this case, plural or singular it's not the difference between
> catholic and Catholic or holocaust and Holocaust.
I don't know what you mean here. The difference is real and substantial,
and it renders your point moot.
> > Or, to put it more clearly: I want *tighter* regulation. Whatever
> > semantic games you want to play, the fact is that you took something
> > that liberals clearly do NOT want an asked liberals to defend it.
>
> Semantic games? I'm not the person who suggested that regulations and
> regulation weren't the same.
No. You're the person who agreed with me when I said that. Yet you're
still arguing with the point you've already agreed is correct.
> Sorry. It is a regulation within the meaning of the COTUS.
So what? It's NOT regulation within the meaning of what I was talking
about and what liberals in general are calling for. So, again, WHAT'S
YOUR POINT?
> Besides which, what you say you want now, isn't what libs have been
> asking for, they've been saying they want more regulation.
Yes. NOT "more regulations". You know that this is NOT an example of
what liberals have been calling for.
> >
> > > > We didn't want *a* regulation. We wanted regulation. Not the same thing.
> >
> > > I disagree. You didn't want to call a regulation a regulation. You
> > > only want to call it a regulation iff you like the outcome.
> >
> > It's a regulation.
>
> Yes it is.
>
> > But it's not regulation of the industry.
>
> Sure it is. Real the law.
I did. In what way do you think it regulates the industry? It frees the
industry from consequences to their actions; what liberals are calling
for is more consequences, not less.
> > You said
> > above that you agree that these are two distinct meanings of the word.
>
> Yes. The fantasy kind and the real kind. The fantasy kind is easier
> to deal with.
This doesn't make any sense at all. Both kinds are real.
> You know, like a no fly zone in Libya done by dems. I
> suppose we won't see any anti-war protests over that, now will we.
I don't know. What in the world does that have to do with this point?
> > So what's your point?
>
> "That government is best which governs least."
In other words, you're in FAVOR of this law? Why?
theget
Right. So what?
theget
Sure. But the drug companies have been regulated.
>
> > > > > In short, there are two different meanings of the word "regulation" in
> > > > > play here.
>
> > > > Yes. I agree there. But the medicine has been put in the spoon, open
> > > > your mouth here it comes.
>
> > > If you agree that there are two different meanings, then why are you
> > > still maintaining that when I asked for one meaning, I should be happy
> > > with another? I didn't ask for more *regulations*, I asked for more
> > > *regulation*.
>
> > In this case, plural or singular it's not the difference between
> > catholic and Catholic or holocaust and Holocaust.
>
> I don't know what you mean here. The difference is real and substantial,
> and it renders your point moot.
Then once again we're going to have to agree to disagree.
>
> > > Or, to put it more clearly: I want *tighter* regulation. Whatever
> > > semantic games you want to play, the fact is that you took something
> > > that liberals clearly do NOT want an asked liberals to defend it.
>
> > Semantic games? I'm not the person who suggested that regulations and
> > regulation weren't the same.
>
> No. You're the person who agreed with me when I said that.
I did?
> Yet you're
> still arguing with the point you've already agreed is correct.
I agreed?
>
> > Sorry. It is a regulation within the meaning of the COTUS.
>
> So what? It's NOT regulation within the meaning of what I was talking
> about and what liberals in general are calling for. So, again, WHAT'S
> YOUR POINT?
Ok. I see. So when liberals talk about regulation they're not
referring to anything that is law of the land? Just some fantasy they
call regulation? What exactly do they mean then?
>
> > Besides which, what you say you want now, isn't what libs have been
> > asking for, they've been saying they want more regulation.
>
> Yes. NOT "more regulations". You know that this is NOT an example of
> what liberals have been calling for.
Ah, but I think it's exactly what libs and dems have been calling for.
It's just that this may have a consequence that libs and dems don't
like. That's the problem. it's why libs and dems say this isn't
regulation when as a matter of both fact and law it is. Because
fundamentally libs and dems can't face up to the fact that what
they've been asking for all these many years isn't exactly a good
thing.
> > > > > We didn't want *a* regulation. We wanted regulation. Not the same thing.
>
> > > > I disagree. You didn't want to call a regulation a regulation. You
> > > > only want to call it a regulation iff you like the outcome.
>
> > > It's a regulation.
>
> > Yes it is.
>
> > > But it's not regulation of the industry.
>
> > Sure it is. Real the law.
>
> I did. In what way do you think it regulates the industry? It frees the
> industry from consequences to their actions; what liberals are calling
> for is more consequences, not less.
Consequences and more of them is what you get with this regulation. So
if you want consequences there they are. Nuclear power plants. That is
some consequence all right.
>
> > > You said
> > > above that you agree that these are two distinct meanings of the word.
>
> > Yes. The fantasy kind and the real kind. The fantasy kind is easier
> > to deal with.
>
> This doesn't make any sense at all. Both kinds are real.
Sorry, once again we must agree to disagree.
>
> > You know, like a no fly zone in Libya done by dems. I
> > suppose we won't see any anti-war protests over that, now will we.
>
> I don't know. What in the world does that have to do with this point?
>
> > > So what's your point?
>
> > "That government is best which governs least."
>
> In other words, you're in FAVOR of this law? Why?
This law doesn't help the government govern least. Get rid of this law
and there will be less government.
David Johnston
The provision you have been talking about, has nothing to do with the
processing and utilization of source, byproduct and special nuclear
material. It is therefore irrelevant.
theget
It would seem that without the provision we have been talking about,
congress feared that there would be no processing or utilization of
source, byproduct and special nuclear material. It is therefore
relevant.
David Johnston
But does not regulate them.
theget
And yet, strangely, congress says this law does regulate them. I've
quoted that at least twice so far in this thread. So did you not read
it? Or, just like our young. stussy, do you disagree with congress and
the courts?
Brett A. Pasternack
***************************************
Pay attention to this. It becomes important later.
> > > > > > In short, there are two different meanings of the word "regulation" in
> > > > > > play here.
> >
> > > > > Yes. I agree there. But the medicine has been put in the spoon, open
> > > > > your mouth here it comes.
> >
> > > > If you agree that there are two different meanings, then why are you
> > > > still maintaining that when I asked for one meaning, I should be happy
> > > > with another? I didn't ask for more *regulations*, I asked for more
> > > > *regulation*.
> >
> > > In this case, plural or singular it's not the difference between
> > > catholic and Catholic or holocaust and Holocaust.
> >
> > I don't know what you mean here. The difference is real and substantial,
> > and it renders your point moot.
>
> Then once again we're going to have to agree to disagree.
I can only take this to mean "I know I'm wrong, but I refuse to admit
it."
> > > > Or, to put it more clearly: I want *tighter* regulation. Whatever
> > > > semantic games you want to play, the fact is that you took something
> > > > that liberals clearly do NOT want an asked liberals to defend it.
> >
> > > Semantic games? I'm not the person who suggested that regulations and
> > > regulation weren't the same.
> >
> > No. You're the person who agreed with me when I said that.
>
> I did?
Yeah. Look at the row of asterisks above. Right below that, I say that
we're dealing with two different meanings of the word, and you say you
agree.
> > Yet you're
> > still arguing with the point you've already agreed is correct.
>
> I agreed?
Yes. Again, see above.
> > > Sorry. It is a regulation within the meaning of the COTUS.
> >
> > So what? It's NOT regulation within the meaning of what I was talking
> > about and what liberals in general are calling for. So, again, WHAT'S
> > YOUR POINT?
>
> Ok. I see. So when liberals talk about regulation they're not
> referring to anything that is law of the land? Just some fantasy they
> call regulation? What exactly do they mean then?
They mean laws that restrict the actions of large corporations so as to
protect the interests of others. With regard to large financial
institutions (which was what I was talking about in this thread),
they--or perhaps I should say "we"--mean rules that protect the rights
of small investors, protect the rights of other concerned parties such
as those who hold mortgages, and restrict the activities of the
institutions in ways that prevent conflicts of interest and that limit
the damage done to the economy should the institutions fail or
misbehave. With regard to nuclear power plants, we mean rules which
require the owners to observe proper safety precautions, dispose of
waste properly, deal honestly with the public and keep it informed, and
compensate those who may be harmed by any negligence or improper action
that the plant may engage in.
The above is by no means a complete description of all the regulations
we're talking about, but it's a reasonable summary.
> > > Besides which, what you say you want now, isn't what libs have been
> > > asking for, they've been saying they want more regulation.
> >
> > Yes. NOT "more regulations". You know that this is NOT an example of
> > what liberals have been calling for.
>
> Ah, but I think it's exactly what libs and dems have been calling for.
And what do you base that on, other than the fact that the word
"regulation" turns up in both places?
> It's just that this may have a consequence that libs and dems don't
> like. That's the problem. it's why libs and dems say this isn't
> regulation when as a matter of both fact and law it is. Because
> fundamentally libs and dems can't face up to the fact that what
> they've been asking for all these many years isn't exactly a good
> thing.
This bears no resemblance to what liberals and Democrats have been
asking for. Moreover, it bears a great deal of resemblance to what
conservatives, Republicans, and Libertarians have been asking for.
> > > > > > We didn't want *a* regulation. We wanted regulation. Not the same thing.
> >
> > > > > I disagree. You didn't want to call a regulation a regulation. You
> > > > > only want to call it a regulation iff you like the outcome.
> >
> > > > It's a regulation.
> >
> > > Yes it is.
> >
> > > > But it's not regulation of the industry.
> >
> > > Sure it is. Real the law.
> >
> > I did. In what way do you think it regulates the industry? It frees the
> > industry from consequences to their actions; what liberals are calling
> > for is more consequences, not less.
>
> Consequences and more of them is what you get with this regulation. So
> if you want consequences there they are. Nuclear power plants. That is
> some consequence all right.
Well, sure, but it's not a consequence for the industry. It's a
consequence for everyone else.
> > > > You said
> > > > above that you agree that these are two distinct meanings of the word.
> >
> > > Yes. The fantasy kind and the real kind. The fantasy kind is easier
> > > to deal with.
> >
> > This doesn't make any sense at all. Both kinds are real.
>
> Sorry, once again we must agree to disagree.
Based on what?
> > > You know, like a no fly zone in Libya done by dems. I
> > > suppose we won't see any anti-war protests over that, now will we.
> >
> > I don't know. What in the world does that have to do with this point?
> >
> > > > So what's your point?
> >
> > > "That government is best which governs least."
> >
> > In other words, you're in FAVOR of this law? Why?
>
> This law doesn't help the government govern least. Get rid of this law
> and there will be less government.
No, get rid of this law and there would be MORE government.
Specifically, there would be more courts, and the courts would be doing
more to govern the nuclear power industry by requiring them to
compensate the victims of their actions.
If we repealed the entire tax code, and replaced it with one law which
said "all money earned by any person or corporation shall be turned over
to the government", would that be less government, since there would be
fewer laws?
Do you wish that the Japanese government had done more, less, or exactly
the same amount as they did to require the nuclear plants there to build
structures that could withstand earthquakes and to provide for dealing
with emergencies?
David Johnston
> On Mar 19, 9:43 pm, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 7:17 pm, theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 19, 8:13 pm, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 19, 4:44 pm, theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 19, 3:37 pm, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 19, 1:27 pm, theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > However, I'll repeat myself fromhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00002012--...
> > > > > > > (c) The processing and utilization of source, byproduct, and special
> > > > > > > nuclear material affect interstate and foreign commerce and must be
> > > > > > > regulated in the national interest.
>
> > > > > > So what?
>
> > > > > Right. So what?
>
> > > > The provision you have been talking about, has nothing to do with the
> > > > processing and utilization of source, byproduct and special nuclear
> > > > material. It is therefore irrelevant.
>
> > > It would seem that without the provision we have been talking about,
> > > congress feared that there would be no processing or utilization of
> > > source, byproduct and special nuclear material. It is therefore
> > > relevant.
>
> > But does not regulate them.
>
> And yet, strangely, congress says this law does regulate them.
Actually it doesn't. It just says regulation is necessary. There's a
difference.
theget
The fact that different people have different meanings when they use a
word doesn't make all those meanings equally valid.
>
> > > > > If you agree that there are two different meanings, then why are you
> > > > > still maintaining that when I asked for one meaning, I should be happy
> > > > > with another? I didn't ask for more *regulations*, I asked for more
> > > > > *regulation*.
>
> > > > In this case, plural or singular it's not the difference between
> > > > catholic and Catholic or holocaust and Holocaust.
>
> > > I don't know what you mean here. The difference is real and substantial,
> > > and it renders your point moot.
>
> > Then once again we're going to have to agree to disagree.
>
> I can only take this to mean "I know I'm wrong, but I refuse to admit
> it."
Well, I think it's obvious at this point that you will take things to
mean whatever you want them to mean.
> > > > > Or, to put it more clearly: I want *tighter* regulation. Whatever
> > > > > semantic games you want to play, the fact is that you took something
> > > > > that liberals clearly do NOT want an asked liberals to defend it.
>
> > > > Semantic games? I'm not the person who suggested that regulations and
> > > > regulation weren't the same.
>
> > > No. You're the person who agreed with me when I said that.
>
> > I did?
>
> Yeah. Look at the row of asterisks above. Right below that, I say that
> we're dealing with two different meanings of the word, and you say you
> agree.
Then take a look at the comment I added please.
>
> > > Yet you're
> > > still arguing with the point you've already agreed is correct.
>
> > I agreed?
>
> Yes. Again, see above.
No. See my comment above again please.
>
> > > > Sorry. It is a regulation within the meaning of the COTUS.
>
> > > So what? It's NOT regulation within the meaning of what I was talking
> > > about and what liberals in general are calling for. So, again, WHAT'S
> > > YOUR POINT?
>
> > Ok. I see. So when liberals talk about regulation they're not
> > referring to anything that is law of the land? Just some fantasy they
> > call regulation? What exactly do they mean then?
>
> They mean laws that restrict the actions of large corporations so as to
> protect the interests of others.
And here the actions of large corporations are restricted so as to
protect the interests of others, in the view of congress. Which is
the view that counts here.
> With regard to large financial
> institutions (which was what I was talking about in this thread),
> they--or perhaps I should say "we"--mean rules that protect the rights
> of small investors, protect the rights of other concerned parties such
> as those who hold mortgages, and restrict the activities of the
> institutions in ways that prevent conflicts of interest and that limit
> the damage done to the economy should the institutions fail or
> misbehave. With regard to nuclear power plants, we mean rules which
> require the owners to observe proper safety precautions, dispose of
> waste properly, deal honestly with the public and keep it informed, and
> compensate those who may be harmed by any negligence or improper action
> that the plant may engage in.
So basically, when you say regulation you don't mean something that is
within the meaning of the word used in the COTUS, which means that for
purposes of law it really has no meaning.
IOW you want to have some sort of moral discussion about how you may
bend others to your will outside the law.
>
> The above is by no means a complete description of all the regulations
> we're talking about, but it's a reasonable summary.
We? I think you means libs and dems, right?
>
> > > > Besides which, what you say you want now, isn't what libs have been
> > > > asking for, they've been saying they want more regulation.
>
> > > Yes. NOT "more regulations". You know that this is NOT an example of
> > > what liberals have been calling for.
>
> > Ah, but I think it's exactly what libs and dems have been calling for.
>
> And what do you base that on, other than the fact that the word
> "regulation" turns up in both places?
I mean it turns up in the COTUS which is how we make laws in this
society to regulate activity. Not always of large corporations either.
Take a look at Wickard v. Filburn. Or the joy that is Gonzalez v.
Raich. Spare a thought for how those decisions are going to affect
Obamacare.
>
> > It's just that this may have a consequence that libs and dems don't
> > like. That's the problem. it's why libs and dems say this isn't
> > regulation when as a matter of both fact and law it is. Because
> > fundamentally libs and dems can't face up to the fact that what
> > they've been asking for all these many years isn't exactly a good
> > thing.
>
> This bears no resemblance to what liberals and Democrats have been
> asking for. Moreover, it bears a great deal of resemblance to what
> conservatives, Republicans, and Libertarians have been asking for.
Conservatives and Republicans yes. Libertarians? How so?
> > Consequences and more of them is what you get with this regulation. So
> > if you want consequences there they are. Nuclear power plants. That is
> > some consequence all right.
>
> Well, sure, but it's not a consequence for the industry. It's a
> consequence for everyone else.
No, not for "industry." But for everyone who works in an "industry" it
is. I sometimes think that Libs and Dems forget that "industry" means
people too. No people means no industry and no industry means no
people.
>
> > > > > You said
> > > > > above that you agree that these are two distinct meanings of the word.
>
> > > > Yes. The fantasy kind and the real kind. The fantasy kind is easier
> > > > to deal with.
>
> > > This doesn't make any sense at all. Both kinds are real.
>
> > Sorry, once again we must agree to disagree.
>
> Based on what?
Based on the fact that regulation is a part of the law. Since you
seem interested in morality rather than the law we may want to discuss
how and why regulation isn't a good thing.
>
> > > > You know, like a no fly zone in Libya done by dems. I
> > > > suppose we won't see any anti-war protests over that, now will we.
>
> > > I don't know. What in the world does that have to do with this point?
>
> > > > > So what's your point?
>
> > > > "That government is best which governs least."
>
> > > In other words, you're in FAVOR of this law? Why?
>
> > This law doesn't help the government govern least. Get rid of this law
> > and there will be less government.
>
> No, get rid of this law and there would be MORE government.
> Specifically, there would be more courts, and the courts would be doing
> more to govern the nuclear power industry by requiring them to
> compensate the victims of their actions.
No. Get rid of this law and there would be a much smaller likelihood
that the nuke power plants would have been built to begin with and so
your thought about more courts would be unlikely to ever come to
fruition, so probably LESS government.
> If we repealed the entire tax code, and replaced it with one law which
> said "all money earned by any person or corporation shall be turned over
> to the government", would that be less government, since there would be
> fewer laws?
Good point.
How about if we repeal the entire tax code and replace it with one law
which says all money earned by any individual may be disposed of by
that individual in any legal manner they choose. What then?
> Do you wish that the Japanese government had done more, less, or exactly
> the same amount as they did to require the nuclear plants there to build
> structures that could withstand earthquakes and to provide for dealing
> with emergencies?
LESS. Isn't that obvious? At a guess the Japanese probably also have
some liability limiting laws. I think these have multiple downsides.
But it raises some interesting issues including things like government
transparency.
I think you might enjoy this article
http://www.economist.com/node/18359852?story_id=18359852&CFID=159532078&CFTOKEN=44214679
about Singapore and how government can be made to work better by
embracing an elitist philosophy. "One thing that stands out in
Singapore is the quality of its civil service. Unlike the egalitarian
Western public sector, Singapore follows an elitist model, paying
those at the top $2m a year or more. It spots talented youngsters
early, lures them with scholarships and keeps investing in them.
People who don’t make the grade are pushed out quickly."
David Johnston
> > They mean laws that restrict the actions of large corporations so as to
> > protect the interests of others.
>
> And here the actions of large corporations are restricted so as to
> protect the interests of others, in the view of congress.
No, they aren't. The actions of liability lawyers are restricted to
Brett A. Pasternack
No shit. That has nothing to do with the point here. Not only are both
meanings valid, but there's no question that you're conflating the two
meanings.
> > > > > > If you agree that there are two different meanings, then why are you
> > > > > > still maintaining that when I asked for one meaning, I should be happy
> > > > > > with another? I didn't ask for more *regulations*, I asked for more
> > > > > > *regulation*.
> >
> > > > > In this case, plural or singular it's not the difference between
> > > > > catholic and Catholic or holocaust and Holocaust.
> >
> > > > I don't know what you mean here. The difference is real and substantial,
> > > > and it renders your point moot.
> >
> > > Then once again we're going to have to agree to disagree.
> >
> > I can only take this to mean "I know I'm wrong, but I refuse to admit
> > it."
>
> Well, I think it's obvious at this point that you will take things to
> mean whatever you want them to mean.
It's obvious that I'm correct. From my last post:
> > Yes. NOT "more regulations". You know that this is NOT an example of
> > what liberals have been calling for.
>
> Ah, but I think it's exactly what libs and dems have been calling for.
And what do you base that on, other than the fact that the word
"regulation" turns up in both places?
_________________________________
You snipped this. When you respond to it, maybe I'll respond to the rest
of your post. Until then, it's clear that I've been right all along, and
you're just playing games.
Just one thing I will address:
> I think you might enjoy this article
> http://www.economist.com/node/18359852?story_id=18359852&CFID=159532078&CFTOKEN=44214679
> about Singapore and how government can be made to work better by
> embracing an elitist philosophy. "One thing that stands out in
> Singapore is the quality of its civil service. Unlike the egalitarian
> Western public sector, Singapore follows an elitist model, paying
> those at the top $2m a year or more. It spots talented youngsters
> early, lures them with scholarships and keeps investing in them.
> People who don�t make the grade are pushed out quickly."
I visit Singapore frequently. It has much MORE of the regulation I'm
talking about than the US does. No wonder you're praising it.
theget
Language. It has everything to do with the point here.
> Not only are both
> meanings valid, but there's no question that you're conflating the two
> meanings.
Really? How so? Simply because Dems have been calling for regulation
all this time and not really made the distinction until it become
painfully inconvenient to the argument they want to make for more
government? The laws in question here really do make for more
government and interfere in the market place that have consequences
that Dems/Libs don't particularly like and so, in this case, not comes
the claim that it is not regulation. That's nice.
> > > > > > > If you agree that there are two different meanings, then why are you
> > > > > > > still maintaining that when I asked for one meaning, I should be happy
> > > > > > > with another? I didn't ask for more *regulations*, I asked for more
> > > > > > > *regulation*.
>
> > > > > > In this case, plural or singular it's not the difference between
> > > > > > catholic and Catholic or holocaust and Holocaust.
>
> > > > > I don't know what you mean here. The difference is real and substantial,
> > > > > and it renders your point moot.
>
> > > > Then once again we're going to have to agree to disagree.
>
> > > I can only take this to mean "I know I'm wrong, but I refuse to admit
> > > it."
>
> > Well, I think it's obvious at this point that you will take things to
> > mean whatever you want them to mean.
>
> It's obvious that I'm correct. From my last post:
Obvious? To you. Not to me.
>
> > > Yes. NOT "more regulations". You know that this is NOT an example of
> > > what liberals have been calling for.
>
> > Ah, but I think it's exactly what libs and dems have been calling for.
>
> And what do you base that on, other than the fact that the word
> "regulation" turns up in both places?
> _________________________________
>
> You snipped this. When you respond to it, maybe I'll respond to the rest
> of your post.
As you wish. So I guess that I'll get the last word then?
> Until then, it's clear that I've been right all along, and
> you're just playing games.
You keep saying that. Do you think if you keep saying it, it will
somehow become true?
>
> Just one thing I will address:
>
> > I think you might enjoy this article
> >http://www.economist.com/node/18359852?story_id=18359852&CFID=1595320...
> > about Singapore and how government can be made to work better by
> > embracing an elitist philosophy. "One thing that stands out in
> > Singapore is the quality of its civil service. Unlike the egalitarian
> > Western public sector, Singapore follows an elitist model, paying
> > those at the top $2m a year or more. It spots talented youngsters
> > early, lures them with scholarships and keeps investing in them.
> > People who don�t make the grade are pushed out quickly."
>
> I visit Singapore frequently. It has much MORE of the regulation I'm
> talking about than the US does.
Please be specific.
> No wonder you're praising it.
It was The Economist that praised it and I said that I thought you'd
enjoy it.
David Johnston
> > Not only are both
> > meanings valid, but there's no question that you're conflating the two
> > meanings.
>
> Really? How so? Simply because Dems have been calling for regulation
> all this time and not really made the distinction
Bullshit.
theget
Good argument.
Brett A. Pasternack
> > And what do you base that on, other than the fact that the word
> > "regulation" turns up in both places?
> > _________________________________
> >
> > You snipped this. When you respond to it, maybe I'll respond to the rest
> > of your post.
>
> As you wish. So I guess that I'll get the last word then?
>
> > Until then, it's clear that I've been right all along, and
> > you're just playing games.
>
> You keep saying that. Do you think if you keep saying it, it will
> somehow become true?
I think if I ask you to give me some sort of basis for your opinion, or
I will not continue the conversation, and your only response is that
you'll get the last word, that's airtight proof that it is true.
Have whatever last word you want. You're either incapable of or
uninterested in a serious conversation.
David Johnston
Your claim that the Democrats want regulation for it's own sake and
don't care what the regulations say, is simply too nonsensical to
argue with.
theget
I don't think that I made that claim exactly.
theget
> On Mar 21, 11:05 am, theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> > > They mean laws that restrict the actions of large corporations so as to
> > > protect the interests of others.
>
> > And here the actions of large corporations are restricted so as to
> > protect the interests of others, in the view of congress.
>
> No, they aren't.
Yes. They are.
> The actions of liability lawyers are restricted to protect the interests of others.
Their actions are limited too, but only as an indirect consequence of,
according to congress, regulating the nuclear industry. I've posted
the links that say so twice already.
If you want to argue that the indirect consequences of having
regulated the nuclear industry are interesting, then I'll agree.
David Johnston
> On Mar 21, 3:08 pm, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 21, 11:05 am, theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > They mean laws that restrict the actions of large corporations so as to
> > > > protect the interests of others.
>
> > > And here the actions of large corporations are restricted so as to
> > > protect the interests of others, in the view of congress.
>
> > No, they aren't.
>
> Yes. They are.
>
> > The actions of liability lawyers are restricted to protect the interests of others.
>
> Their actions are limited too, but only as an indirect consequence of,
> according to congress, regulating the nuclear industry. I've posted
> the links that say so twice already.
You have only posted a link that says that regulation of the industry
theget
The law at the link also says it "must be" regulated.