Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 728 of 801 FirstFirst ... 228628678718726727728729730738778 ... LastLast
Results 10,906 to 10,920 of 12012
  1. #10906
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    49,122
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    It seems like Catman’s complaint is not with this specific bill, but the entire legal system…
    Sadly, it seems the Federal Trade Commission is now without purpose, since the law creating it outlaws things like "Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful," and who can even say what "unfair" means. Thanks, Biden.


    "It is a grotesque parody of the bazaar at Marrakech, as if dumb animals had been granted only the amount of sentience required to mock humanity."

  2. #10907
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    49,122
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    Nate, if you don't know the answer, simply admit it. I have written more laws (ordinances) than you have. I know how they should be written and who interprets them.
    You've been repeatedly been given the answer and don't seem to have the capability to understand it.


    "It is a grotesque parody of the bazaar at Marrakech, as if dumb animals had been granted only the amount of sentience required to mock humanity."

  3. #10908
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    11,533
    I understand completely what has been said. I simply contend that it would be nice if terms were better defined within the context of a bill. As I said, it is great to placate your constituents with a bill of this nature, but it accomplishes little in the grand scheme of things. Business will go on as usual. Oil prices will continue to go up. People will continue to complain about the "obscene profits" they are making, but bills like this will do nothing to stop it.

  4. #10909
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    8,556
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    They are not. They all have legal definitions:

    https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionar...ably-excessive

    https://definitions.uslegal.com/u/unfair-advantage/

    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/grossly

    https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionar...onably-reflect


    These are terms for which there is already a legal definition and much case law litigating their definitions. The reason they didn't include the definitions in the bill is that the definitions are already known to a legal standard.


    The only person who would have a complaint that the definitions are undefined is somehow who knows absolutely nothing about the law. Enter Brett.
    If only you could understand what you posted. Even in the definitions you provided there is vagueness used.
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, crovash, nastynice, natepro, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  5. #10910
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    8,556
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Since it's obvious Catman didn't look up the definition of what constitutes unreasonably excessive, here is a legal definition of the term:

    A price is unconscionably excessive when the amount charged represents a gross disparity between the price of the consumer goods or services and the price at which the consumer goods or services were sold or offered for sale within the chain of distribution in the usual course of business seven days immediately prior to the state of disaster emergency.


    Again, there are legal terms for all of these. There is also case law with precedents of when judges found X amount over previous cost to be excessive. Again... this is how the law works.
    Another vague term. I know it's nested over and over until you get to nothing objective.
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, crovash, nastynice, natepro, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  6. #10911
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    8,556
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I am telling you. Do I need to bold it so it sticks the definitions within the context of the bill are the LEGAL definitions of the terms

    I honest to God don’t know how you’re struggling with this.
    That surprises no one.
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, crovash, nastynice, natepro, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  7. #10912
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    8,556
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    I understand completely what has been said. I simply contend that it would be nice if terms were better defined within the context of a bill. As I said, it is great to placate your constituents with a bill of this nature, but it accomplishes little in the grand scheme of things. Business will go on as usual. Oil prices will continue to go up. People will continue to complain about the "obscene profits" they are making, but bills like this will do nothing to stop it.
    Correct
    It will increase lawsuits
    It will increase prices on everyday Americans

    It's bad and only the intellectually dishonest say otherwise and show nothing to refute that it is a bad bill.
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, crovash, nastynice, natepro, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  8. #10913
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Shore
    Posts
    13,803
    We are on the cusp of full tilt, kittyboy mode

    Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

  9. #10914
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    108,844
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    That surprises no one.
    And you responding this way rather than admitting that real definitions exist in the legal context and those would be used also surprises no one.

  10. #10915
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    49,142
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    If only you could understand what you posted. Even in the definitions you provided there is vagueness used.
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    Another vague term. I know it's nested over and over until you get to nothing objective.
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    That surprises no one.
    I understand what I posted. Obviously you know nothing about the law.

    The US runs on what is called a Common Law legal system, in which case law is binding. Thus, we use case law to help determine whether someone has violated a law.


    I actually forwarded this to my law school buddies so they could laugh at how stupid you two are while acting like you guys know anything about the law.
    Last edited by valade16; 11-23-2022 at 09:47 PM.

  11. #10916
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    49,142
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    And you responding this way rather than admitting that real definitions exist in the legal context and those would be used also surprises no one.
    Rather than admit they’re wrong or don’t know what they’re talking about, they’re now acting like they’re smarter than the entire US legal system.

  12. #10917
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    8,556
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I understand what I posted. Obviously you know nothing about the law.

    The US runs on what is called a Common Law legal system, in which case law is binding. Thus, we use case law to argue whether someone had violated a law.


    I actually forwarded this to my law school buddies so they could laugh at how stupid you two are while acting like you guys know anything about the law.
    I have no doubt you are with people in real life that care what people on a sports message board post. Zero doubt.
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, crovash, nastynice, natepro, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  13. #10918
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    8,556
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Rather than admit they’re wrong or don’t know what they’re talking about, they’re now acting like they’re smarter than the entire US legal system.
    Smarter than the system? Nope.
    Than you? Clearly.

    Again it's a bad law. The Republicans and the four Democrats that voted against were correct to vote no.
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, crovash, nastynice, natepro, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  14. #10919
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    49,122
    We've reached the point of the back and forth with catman where he realizes his position as it relates to this specific bill is untenable, and he begins the subtle shift to make it look like he was making an overarching criticism the entire time, because he does not possess the ability to admit that he was wrong.

    To wit:

    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    Valade, here is the gist of what Brett is asking.
    The bill uses terms which the bill does not define.
    [...]
    I understand what the terms mean, but where in the bill are they defined?
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    Why do they need to be defined? They need to be explained within the context of the bill. What, according to the bill, is unconsionably excessive? What, according to the bill, is an unfair advantage, and to whom is it unfair? What, according to the bill, is an unreasonable price increase? Who determines when the bill's limits have been exceeded?
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    OK Spliff, you explain where those terms are defined within the context of the bill. I'll wait.
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    All well and good, but what is the definition within the context of the bill? What are the limits of the bill and who determines what exceeds them?
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    I could not be more serious. The bill has no limitations as to what is excessive.
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    OK, you provided the legal definition of the terms. Well and good. I will ask again. What are the definitions within the context of the bill? If you don't know, just say so.
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    Again, the bill is poorly explained.
    And then, suddenly we're not taking about the bill anymore, we're talking about a bill.

    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    I understand completely what has been said. I simply contend that it would be nice if terms were better defined within the context of a bill. As I said, it is great to placate your constituents with a bill of this nature, but it accomplishes little in the grand scheme of things.
    The longer he stays in the conversation, the more he'll try to make this shift.

    At least the convenient thing with him is that you can tell him he's going to do something, and he still can't stop himself. So now, we just get to watch it happen.

  15. #10920
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    68,016
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    Spliff, I leave mindlessness completely up to you. You are the absolute expert at that trait.
    Woah! What a comeback.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •