Fundamental reason Govt needs to regulate corporations.

post 75 liar....you weren't joking, not even close...you even went so far as to hedge your example by saying...iirc and then you further hedged it by saying "at least the federal government"....if you were joking, there would be no need to hedge your example and there would be no need to say....they asked so i provided, want a nother.

i laugh at your lies, i used to feel sorry for you, but you're so pathetic it is now just plain funny :)

LOL

It's fun to watch your thought process at work; it's pretty deranged.

Honestly - and this is only for any sane people who are reading this - the whole conversation made me think of Danold (who was also deranged), and who thought that there should be almost no federal regulations whatsoever. He was even against child labor laws, as I recall.

So, I brought him up for sheer goofy enjoyment, and added facetiously "so there's one."

Then, you come barreling into the thread with those gotcha guns blazing, take it seriously and try to call me on it, which I thought was hilarious. So I went with it, because it was fun to do so.

But the comedy doesn't really stop with you. It just keeps going.

now that is a whopper of a lie

nice try, but you're busted, admit it and move at least you admitted you brought him up not as joke
 
Like I said, if you need the win, have at it. I know this is probably a biggie for you.

I was kidding, but whatever you're into...

no you weren't, but its clear you refuse to be honest

you excuse that you added "there's one" as a joke is completely unbelievable and is the most pathetic lie excuse i've heard this year...

you were dead serious about your find, you even admit he was a good example, but you try and lie your way out by claiming you added "there is one" facetiously...this doesn't mesh with the fact you thought him a prime example of someone who doesn't want gov regs....

it wasn't until after i told you they wanted current that you came up with this "its a joke"

why do you steal oxygen from trees onceler?
 
"you were dead serious about your find"

LOL

What "find"? You are becoming unhinged. You even neg repped me; this kind of stuff must really get under your skin.

I didn't dig up any posts, or do any searches. Like I said, it reminded me of Dano.

"Dead serious." What a hoot. Okay; as long as you say so....
 

Thanks for the lesson Mr. Tufnel, or is it Mr Dungheap?

In the spirit of community support, I hope this helps you:

Egocentrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://home.earthlink.net/~bmgei/educate/docs/aperson/thinking/kill-ego.htm

Now "pore" over that and if all else fails?

Flushing_toilet_pols2.jpg
 
I can't name specific people but I can name some specific organizations. BP, Exxon, Chevron and virtually all the major oil companies have opposed common sense and reasonable environmental and safety regulations due to the potential impact on their bottom line and they have a looooong history of doing so. Some other political organizations who oppose reasonable environmental and safety regulations are "The Heritage Foundation", The Competative Enterprise Institute, The National Center for Public Policy Research, The Cato Institute." for example all opposed the development and implementation of both RCRA and CERCLA (which regulated hazardous waste disposal standards and environmental clean up) by EPA and EPCRA Standards (which regulates companies obligation to communicate the hazardous materials they use, store or produce to the communities they impact and their employees) by OSHA.

There is a long history of corporations and conservative organizations opposing almost all reasonable environmental and safety regulations that have ever been proposed and/or adopted and implemented.

This is completely untrue. The public record shows that these types of organizations have participated in the public comment of environmental regulations to make them less onerous and more reasonable. Perhaps you'd care to back up your accusation by finding a comment by any of the entities that you named saying, basically, "this regulation is entirely unnecessary and should be eliminated in its entirety". :pke:
 
Boehner is the congressional rep from my home town region in Ohio. He has recently opposed the following;

Chemical Security Legislation
The Clean Water Protection Act
The Clean Water Restoration Act
The Solid Waste Importation and Management Act
The Toxic Right to Know Protection Act
The Clean Energy Act

To just name a few. These are hardly radical and are quite reasonable environmental and safety regulations.

There are a lot of legitimate reasons to oppose these acts that have nothing to do with not wanting a clean environment as you insinuate. For instance I would oppose them since the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority, but at the same time would look at ways to either have a Constitutional Amendment, or provide guidelines to the States for them to regulate.

Perhaps you can look through the Congressional Record and find Boehner's comments that say, basically. "I like dirty water" in order to back up your insinuation. Good luck with that, liar.
 
Why don't we approach it from the other end? How about you give us an example of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supporting any proposed environmental or safety regulation in, say, the past five years.
Because it was you lib-tards that made the accusation, and it is now your responsibility to back it up. :pke:
 
This is completely untrue. The public record shows that these types of organizations have participated in the public comment of environmental regulations to make them less onerous and more reasonable. Perhaps you'd care to back up your accusation by finding a comment by any of the entities that you named saying, basically, "this regulation is entirely unnecessary and should be eliminated in its entirety". :pke:
I wish that were true. Every time I've been involved in public comment process conservative politicians and organizations have never failed to use cost benefit analysis not to bring balance or perspective into the regulatory process but to undermine it all together. That's why a long time ago I rejected that this should be a vital aspect of environmental and safety regulations. Now that's not to say that the looney left doesn't show up enforce for public comment either. I've never seen common sense prevail on either side during public comment, for what ever reason this seems to bring out the extremes of both sides.
 
Last edited:
Well I'll hang you by your own petard. By the very dictionary definition you used then Boehner has opposed reasonable environmental and safety regulations based on protecting human health, life and the environment.
That's entirely your opinion that you again refuse to back up with facts. Pussy. :pke:
 
I wish that were true. Every time I've been involved in public comment process conservative politicians and organizations have never failed to use cost benefit analysis not to bring balance or perspective into the regulatory process but to undermine it all together. That's why a long time ago I rejected that this should be a vital aspect of environmental and safety regulations. Now that's not to say that the looney left doesn't show up enforce for public comment either. I've never seen common sense prevail on either side during public comment, for what ever reason this seems to bring out the extremes of both sides.
You just hung yourself her Moot. :lol:

By removing cost-benefit you're advocating that money, which represents manpower, materials and other resources, the very things needed to clean up the environment in the first place, should not be considered when cleaning up the environment.

That is not simply unreasonable, but retarded.
 
I've also made myself clear.

1. Boehner proposed a temporary politcy, something he believes will spur growth.
2. You took it out of that context and tried to make it "more" than what he proposed.
3. I caught you at it, even posting before you provided the link what I thought you had done.

That ain't quibbling, it is informing people of what the man actually said.

Now can you provide any person in government anywhere that is proposing no regulations whatsoever?

NigelTufnel got his ass pwned....:good4u:
 
This BP fiasco is a prime example of why corporations need to be regulated by the government.

BP's "hart" is its duty to the shareholders financial concerns so they do everything with that interest in mind. The government is responsable to the majority of the voters and its the voters health and happyness that is of concern.

Now thats in a perfect world, to get that to work better we need to get lobbying by corporations out of control of the government and make some other fixes to keep the government more responsave to the people. TO make it work we also need a highly educated electorate.

Here's the thing you don't understand because you're retarded, Jarhead....

We already have NUMEROUS regulations of offshore oil drilling. We have entire Federal oversight agencies to make sure the regulations are being followed. Perhaps you've heard of the US Minerals Management Service? We employ hundreds of government pinheads to monitor the oil companies and make sure they are in compliance with all the assorted regulations we've burdened them with.

The problem in the case of BP, seems to be a FAILURE of the government agency to do its job! We don't need more regulations to fix that problem, and more regulations will never fix such a problem... but you can't comprehend this because of your retarded condition. I understand.

What we NEED to do, is NOT pass more regulations that MMS will not enforce, but rather, mandate the oil company has to obtain full liability insurance coverage on their operations. If we do that, the insurance company (who is on the hook for any potential liability) will see to it the oil company is complying with the regulations and safety measures already in place. Government agency accountable to no one, who doesn't give a shit if regulations are followed or not.... OR Private Insurer who will crack the whip and ENSURE every safety precaution is taken and regulation followed, because they stand to lose money if not. Which sounds like the better plan?
 
Back
Top