TONIGHT'S DEBATE AS IT UNFOLDS ...

**Zeus** · 10-04-2012, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Rockntractor

A completely unregulated market is a Libertarian myth that cannot and has not ever existed in any country, it would mean the absolute absence of any governing body and even in a state of anarchy this does not truly exist, having your products stolen by roving bands is not a free market either.

That is absolutely true. A mkt doesn't have to be regulated by a govt to be regulated. Certain entities with a common goal will join together to establish "Regulations" in achieving a goal. Be it by hook or crook it's still regulated. Even in a state of anarchy affinity groups are established to achieve desired goals.

**Zeus** · 10-04-2012, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Novaheart

Jesus, we even import lumber these days. Will everyone be happy when there are no jobs but healthcare, Walmart, andAC repair?

The US & Canada have had an ongoing pissing contest over US imports of hard lumber and Canada's import of US grains for neigh on 50 yrs. NAFTA has diminished the arguments somewhat , not completely but somewhat.

Originally Posted by wasp69

Hey, I'd love to see it changed. How about we go after the assholes who made it almost impossible to do business in the United States?

...

Yeppers The envioroweenies & Fed regs may have put US hardwoods off limits but Canada has plenty. Same for Canada's limitation on grain production but the US has plenty.

JB · 10-04-2012, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by m00

I bet he's sleeping on Couch 1 tonight.

I think this slipped by in all the heated commentary here. Well done.

JB · 10-04-2012, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

I do understand that profits can drive people to hurt others. The problem is in this country, those who engage in those practices get "bailouts" off the backs of you and me. The profits are all "privatized", but the risk is made "public". That is not a free market. It also doesn't detract from my position that the "Law" should protect people against things like theft, violence, and enslavement.

We could have a long, convoluted discussion about regulation and the marketplace. Generally speaking, I am on board with a very unregulated market.

However, it cannot be applied to our current banking industry. If you understand how our banking system works, it needs regulation. More than others do incidentally. If Domino's goes out of business, people will adapt and go to Papa Johns, Pizza Hut, etc. The pizza industry will continue to thrive. But when a large bank goes out of business, it creates a panic. People will run to their banks to get their money but the money is not there, banks begin to crash, there's no credit, states fail, a country fails and suddenly the the entire planet is in a world of shit.

If a bank is "too big to fail" then it has to be prevented from becoming that big. If not, it will fail and wreak cascading havoc or we have to bail it out. Neither outcome is acceptable.

**Zeus** · 10-04-2012, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by m00

Well, I bet there is some Mormon group private insurance plan they're on.

Originally Posted by txradioguy

Wow...your religious intolerance smells like Libtard.

I don't see mOO's statement as religious intolerance but as a statement of Fact. Most the major religions have have their church backed affinity financial products. Guidestone Financial services for the SBC , Lutheran Brotherhood for the Lutheran church, Catholic Mutual Group for the catholic Church , Deseret Management Corporation for the Church of LDS.

**Zeus** · 10-04-2012, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by FlaGator

For the record, I think that Jim Lehrer did a good job as moderator.

Originally Posted by linda22003

If his job was to be as unnoticed as possible, yes. If his job was to direct and limit time on the topics, not so much.

Lehrer did toss Obama a couple lifelines in his follow up questions to either the One or mitt. Obumbler wasn't astute enough to catch the nuance and grab on. Mitt was though and beat Obama over the head with them.

**Rockntractor** · 10-04-2012, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by Zeus

I don't see mOO's statement as religious intolerance but as a statement of Fact. Most the major religions have have their church backed affinity financial products. Guidestone Financial services for the SBC , Lutheran Brotherhood for the Lutheran church, Catholic Mutual Group for the catholic Church , Deseret Management Corporation for the Church of LDS.

and we get Obama care from the Satanists.

**Hawkgirl** · 10-04-2012, 06:43 PM

"The difference between laws and regulations are sometimes misunderstood. Congress, and only Congress, enacts laws. Federal executive departments and administrative agencies write regulations to implement the authority of laws. Regulations (as well as Executive Orders and Proclamations) are ancillary or subordinate to laws but both laws and regulations are enforceable. The U.S. Code is the official compilation of codified laws by subject, the U.S. Statutes-at-Large is the official chronologic compilation of all laws, and the Code of Federal Regulations is the official compilation of regulations."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Difference...nd_regulations

I don't know if laws and regulations are synonymous...Don't mean to get into semantics but laws are passed by Congress and regulations are passed by the Executive branch, via agencies, to put the law into action AS THEY PERCEIVE THE LAW. A regulation can be challenged in court if two parties have two different definitions of that law. It is my understanding that Law trumps a regulation and a regulation is an agencies' interpretation of that law.

**FlaGator** · 10-04-2012, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by m00

Okay, definition question...

Can a law that makes murder illegal be said to "regulate murder"? Is this a regulation, or something different?

It can be said to regulate human behavior.

**FlaGator** · 10-04-2012, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by Hawkgirl

"The difference between laws and regulations are sometimes misunderstood. Congress, and only Congress, enacts laws. Federal executive departments and administrative agencies write regulations to implement the authority of laws. Regulations (as well as Executive Orders and Proclamations) are ancillary or subordinate to laws but both laws and regulations are enforceable. The U.S. Code is the official compilation of codified laws by subject, the U.S. Statutes-at-Large is the official chronologic compilation of all laws, and the Code of Federal Regulations is the official compilation of regulations."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Difference...nd_regulations

I don't know if laws and regulations are synonymous...Don't mean to get into semantics but laws are passed by Congress and regulations are passed by the Executive branch, via agencies, to put the law into action AS THEY PERCEIVE THE LAW. A regulation can be challenged in court if two parties have two different definitions of that law. It is my understanding that Law trumps a regulation and a regulation is an agencies' interpretation of that law.

Both place restrictions on behavior and both institute penalties for violating prescribed behaviors. The only difference really is that the government can put you in prison for violating a law and it can put a company out of business for violating a regulation.

Now lets really complicate the issue. What is the difference between laws, regulations and rules? In ice hockey I can violate a rule by smacking another player with a hockey stick. If I do this outside of a game then I go to jail for assault, but if I do this in a game I might get tossed in the penalty box for 5 minutes. I have technically violated a law but because I did what I did in the context of a sporting event the defenders of the law don't acknowledge my crime. Sports are generally considered self regulating so their enforcement of their regulations/rules are acknowledged by the legal system as being adequate punishment for some crimes that happen in the course of game play.