Originally Posted by Slipknot (Post 1119804)

I don't know who you are referring to with that about keep supporting less regulation.:huh: It seems to me that the current regulation in this case was not enough to prevent this scumbag from trying to skirt the law however there is evidence enough to bring him up on charges because there is a regulation in place, and now he pleads guilty so there will be some justice at least. Now if some liberal judge does not give him leniency and actually fines the crap out of him and he looses his comm license, then there could be some deterrent. If not, then more poaching will go on until an example is made of these selfish scum.

Maybe you are lumping all regulations into one big pile by generalizing. I think some of the over the top rules are not business friendly at all and could be put in by competitors who have a lobbyists ear. That kind of corruption should be done away with obviously.

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1119813)

That is my point even with regulation they will try to game the system ...most regulation[s] are a direct response to the failure of business to conduct themselves responsibly.

Your reasoning is rather circular here. You say that most regulation is a direct response to irresponsible conduct, but you say that irresponsible conduct can and does occur as a result of the regulation. Which makes one wonder what your point is. It is absurd to say regulation is needed because regulations are not followed.

It seems that you were trying to make the point that the example you gave pointed out the need for regulation in order to prevent the conduct of the Codfather. But, as in your circular reasoning, regulation already existed which he ignored, which almost destroys your argument for the necessity of regulation. The problem with the point you were trying to make is that you used a bad example. A better example would be pointing out unregulated behavior which led to bad stuff.

And where do you get that most regulation is a direct response to irresponsible behavior? Aren't most regulations an attempt to control or change common behaviors in light of supposedly new data which shows the old behavior as being harmful in some way--not that it was irresponsible, but that it was ignorant of new data. If the original behavior was "irresponsible" or illegal, it would have been deemed so in relation to what would have been considered normal or correct behavior at the time. And that could have been remedied by prosecuting the offenders in some way as to conform "responsibly" or legally without having to create some new regulation.

But the magical reduction of regulations some support will not translate into jobs profits yes jobs no

Originally Posted by basswipe (Post 1119827)

The rules are already in place,they are not enforced.

More rules,laws,regulations mean more government...more government means less freedom.

Stop taking the pussified way out and actually demand those that you have elected actually do their jobs and be accountable.They have sworn to uphold the law.

More rules,regulations and laws......yup that's the answer.:hs:

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1119829)

Every one wants the rules enforced but they dont want to hire or pay whats needed to make it happen..

That's BS.

Guys like this are the reason there are rules laws and regulation

That's your circular logical fallacy again. Laws and regulations are not made for people like this. It would be pointless to make laws for those who break them. They are made to direct law abiding people with guidelines for the benefit of society. Punishments, not regulations are the things made for people like Codfather.

the[y] cant be trusted with Freedoms

They can't be trusted with anything.

in their eyes and seems your view as well freedom is defined and do what you please take what you want thats not freedom thats greed ..

No. What you describe is license, or lawlessness, or tyranny. Freedom necessarily requires responsibility. Freedom requires the recognition of everyone else's freedom. If you live by trampling on others' freedom, you are an outlaw or some sort of tyrant. Tyranny is the opposite of freedom. And taking what you want by force from others rather than by equal or agreed upon compensation does not make you free. It makes you dependent on others' to create enough wealth for you to rob.

How's is deregulation a Good thing for fish stocks Id love to hear how that and what that would look like

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1119828)

Why is it liberals are always for more regulations and laws but are the first to ask for leniency when A sever punishment is doled out? This guy should lose everything he has , including permits , and enjoy long stay in prison .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1119833)

It seems you hear only regulation or no regulation. There is no such thing for you as overregulation nor improper regulation nor the advantage of state over federal regulation nor the tyranny of unelected regulatory agencies which have plenary power over all the people and pump out thousands of regulations a year which apply to all states and localities regardless of their differences.

?

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1119891)

take illegal immigration many have no issue using the argument that more Laws and regulations along the border would prevent crimes from Illegals..

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1119891)

(less regulations will only benefit profits not workers) yet you'll still repeat GOP talking point that reductions in regulation are some how beneficial or just that people like the cod father would just do it anyway

take illegal immigration many have no issue using the argument that more Laws and regulations along the border would prevent crimes from Illegals.. i dont hear you say current regulations or laws "didn't prevent him from doing what he did. as an excuse for their crimes"



Laws and regulations aren't the perfect solution. I agree 100% but if the Codfather had less regulations the ease which he committed his crimes could have easily been greater

Trump wants to abandon all rules and turn America into the Wild West.

Thats exactly what he wants to do have you not paid attention to his appointments or his actions ?/

there are 29 superfund sites in MA and 8 military sites here is just one and an example of past failures create regulations


The Shpack landfill was situated on land owned by Isadore and Lea Shpack. Isadore Shpack, a Russian immigrant and retired New York City municipal employee, began allowing dumping on the property in an effort to fill in its swamp. He then planned to raise an orchard and cultivate vegetables on the reclaimed land.[7][15] Shpack allowed completely unregulated dumping and is reported locally to have accepted any type of waste which was refused by the neighbouring municipal landfill.[16]

The ALI landfill was originally Attleboro's municipal dump from the 1940s until 1975. In 1975 it was purchased by Attleboro Landfill Inc. which continued to use it as a landfill until 1995.[17]

Discovery of contamination[edit]
In 1978 John Sullivan, a 20-year-old local resident who was also a student at the Florida Institute of Technology, became curious about why snails in the area were losing their shells. He visited the Shpack site with a Geiger counter which detected a high level of radiation emissions.[4][15][18][19] Initially "ridiculed" about his claim of discovering radioactivity at the dump, Sullivan contacted the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) which then carried out its own investigation and confirmed the presence of radioactivity.[20] The site was found to contain Radium-226, Radium-228, Uranium-235, Uranium-236 and Uranium-238.[20] The presence of Uranium-236 was indicative of reprocessed reactor fuel being dumped at the site,

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1119891)

The regulations against what this man did, didn't prevent him from doing what he did. Laws and regulations aren't the perfect solution.

So what was your point in posting the Codfather story? Was it to show how "workers" were benefited by the regulations? There are no perfect solutions because there are no perfect people (with the exception of you and I, of course:hs:).

my Views on regulations
my point is very clear, (less regulations will only benefit profits not workers)

Other than clearly being a typical Marxist or socialist "worker" view, there is absolutely no other clarity in your opinion. It elicits questions rather than making anything clear. Most regulations have nothing to do with profits per se. Even workplace regulations are about a host of things other than profits. And various workplace regulations which improve conditions for workers, ultimately add to the sustainability and profitability of the company. Just because you can find examples where workers are abused doesn't mean that businesses generally try to "get away" with mistreatment of employees. You can find examples of workers "getting away" with stuff which hurts their employers. Should there be more or less regulations about that? Should regulations all be about benefitting the "worker"?

There are regulations meant to benefit workers which temporarily benefit some of them but hurt many others, as well as making it more difficult for businesses to compete. Constant minimum wage hikes, for example--some workers have to be let go, prices rise, the rise in base wage causes the eventual chain reaction of a rise in all wages and prices, which all eventually restabilizes to pre minimum wage raise equilibrium and all that is gained is inflation.

One of the most pernicious aspects of overregulation is the consolidation of business into bigger companies in order to manage problems of regulation, and that is accompanied with the squeezing out of smaller businesses which find the problem increasingly difficult to handle. We are witnessing the so-called shrinking of the middle class in part due to that connection of big government with big business. Whether by design or by accident, the regulatory burden is making small business starts and growth more difficult.

Another pernicious aspect of regulation is the politicization of federal regulatory agencies which have become perfect tools for implanting and enforcing ideological and political agendas on the whole country. The abuse of agency plenary power has become a favorite way to "transform" us in ways that would be difficult to impossible to achieve through constitutional legislative process.

Returning regulatory power back to the states would help stop and reverse the authoritarian direction of centralized power into which we are quickly heading.


yet you'll still repeat GOP talking point that reductions in regulation are some how beneficial or just that people like the cod father would just do it anyway

Other than spouting some Marxist gibberish, you haven't said anything to prove that some reductions in regulation are not beneficial, nor that people like the Codfather would not do it anyway.

take illegal immigration many have no issue using the argument that more Laws and regulations along the border would prevent crimes from Illegals.. i dont hear you say current regulations or laws "didn't prevent him from doing what he did. as an excuse for their crimes"

As has been mentioned by TDF and Jim in CT, what has been said is that current regulations or laws are not enforced. And it has been admitted that some people will not obey laws. No one has said that laws prevent all crime. That's why I don't get what your point is with the Codfather story.


Laws and regulations aren't the perfect solution. I agree 100% but if the Codfather had less regulations the ease which he committed his crimes could have easily been greater

There you go again, wading into the mud of unclear thinking.

Trump wants to abandon all rules and turn America into the Wild West.

Again, you trespass your own dislike of "the sky is falling" argument.

Thats exactly what he wants to do have you not paid attention to his appointments or his actions ?/

You're listening to the wrong people. Broaden your horizons. Digest some different opinions. It might chase away some of your Chicken Little blues.

there are 29 superfund sites in MA and 8 military sites here is just one and an example of past failures create regulations


The Shpack landfill was situated on land owned by Isadore and Lea Shpack. Isadore Shpack, a Russian immigrant and retired New York City municipal employee, began allowing dumping on the property in an effort to fill in its swamp. He then planned to raise an orchard and cultivate vegetables on the reclaimed land.[7][15] Shpack allowed completely unregulated dumping and is reported locally to have accepted any type of waste which was refused by the neighbouring municipal landfill.[16]

The ALI landfill was originally Attleboro's municipal dump from the 1940s until 1975. In 1975 it was purchased by Attleboro Landfill Inc. which continued to use it as a landfill until 1995.[17]

Discovery of contamination[edit]
In 1978 John Sullivan, a 20-year-old local resident who was also a student at the Florida Institute of Technology, became curious about why snails in the area were losing their shells. He visited the Shpack site with a Geiger counter which detected a high level of radiation emissions.[4][15][18][19] Initially "ridiculed" about his claim of discovering radioactivity at the dump, Sullivan contacted the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) which then carried out its own investigation and confirmed the presence of radioactivity.[20] The site was found to contain Radium-226, Radium-228, Uranium-235, Uranium-236 and Uranium-238.[20] The presence of Uranium-236 was indicative of reprocessed reactor fuel being dumped at the site,