Joe Biden's Presidency

[natepro]

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.

[natepro]

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.

[catman]

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.

[brett05]

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.

[brett05]

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.

[brett05]

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.

[brett05]

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.

[Kenny Powders]

We are on the cusp of full tilt, kittyboy mode

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[dbroncos78087]

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.

[valade16]

If only you could understand what you posted. Even in the definitions you provided there is vagueness used.

Another vague term. I know it's nested over and over until you get to nothing objective.

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.

[valade16]

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.

[brett05]

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.

[brett05]

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.

[natepro]

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:

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?

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?

OK Spliff, you explain where those terms are defined within the context of the bill. I'll wait.

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?

I could not be more serious. The bill has no limitations as to what is excessive.

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.

Again, the bill is poorly explained.

And then, suddenly we're not taking about the bill anymore, we're talking about a bill.

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.

[spliff(TONE)]

Spliff, I leave mindlessness completely up to you. You are the absolute expert at that trait.

Woah! What a comeback.