EPA is supposed to have a contigency plan for the oil spill

Yurt said:
lol...you're running away from claiming regulations aren't law

if you make a dumbass claim like that, expect to get called on it :pke:

i love how the uber liberal hacks have all band together on this, nigel, now onceler with his idiotic hair splitting comment, cypress and mott

fact is, regulations are either law or they are not, there is no hair split, but i wouldn't expect onceler to know the difference...mott expressly said you can't use them and that we are to only look at the USC....a total and complete incorrect statement, but mott is too dishoenst to admit he is wrong
Click to expand...
Was Tinhead wrong or was he right?
 
Wrong again....Regulation occurs after the law is established, as each individual state in the union can vary the regulations needed to meet the letter of the law.
Click to expand...

Dixie said:
No, I am not wrong in stating that this is not always the case. I can go find countless examples where "the law" as passed by congress, requires no regulation at all, requires some state determined regulation, requires some federal government departmental regulation, or in some rare cases, external private sector regulation. This varies depending on the nature of the law itself, there is no cookie-cutter standard regarding regulation. In any and all cases, the parameters of the regulations are established by the law.

You're just repeating yourself while ignoring the examples given in my previous response. Also, you keep inadvertently proving my point as you go along.....all your examples keep pointing out the FACT that a LAW must be established prior to regulation. I and Cypress have been saying such from the beginning...and as the chronology of the posts shows, it is YOU who at first tried to split a hair and make regulations independent of law. But since it was logically proven that your contention was wrong, you now try to BS your way past acknowledging your error. In effect, you're just whistl'in Dixie.

And NO Yurt, you can not bring litigation in court against a "regulation!" It would be akin to suing an inanimate object, it just can't be legally done. The regulation is a part of the law, and if you feel the regulation is unfair or unjust, you must challenge the law, that is all the court is charged with dealing in. They can find that the law unfairly allows regulation that it shouldn't, and they can alter or change that, but the litigation must be framed to challenge the law, not a regulation of it.
Click to expand...

Yurt's an idiot...but like a broken clock, he can be right at least twice a day.

Here's a dose of reality, Dixie:

Regulations are issued by various federal government departments and agencies to carry out the intent of legislation enacted by Congress. Administrative agencies, often called "the bureaucracy," perform a number of different government functions, including rule making. The rules issued by these agencies are called regulations and are designed to guide the activity of those regulated by the agency and also the activity of the agency's employees. Regulations also function to ensure uniform application of the law.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/regulation

Hartford) Planned Parenthood of Connecticut (PPC) joined the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) in filing a lawsuit in federal court in Hartford today, challenging a regulation recently issued by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that will threaten the rights of patients to receive complete and accurate health care information.

The lawsuit, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood of Connecticut v. Leavitt, seeks to overturn the rule, issued in the final days of the Bush administration. In addition to the legal challenge brought by PPC and PPFA, the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office and the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, represented by the ACLU, have filed separate legal challenges.


http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ab...renthood-challenge-bush-regulations-23578.htm
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Was Tinhead wrong or was he right?
Click to expand...

that regulations are not laws? Yep... If I had made that assertion. I did not.

but I did ignorantly call a regulation a law. If that's what you got your panties in a bunch over, then you win, cool guy!!

But I see you didn't answer whether it's the responsiblity of the EPA to have a contigency plan... why am I bothering with dickheads like you anyway. You racist chumps would forgive any black president for anything he does. Expecting you to care when a black president fails is like expecting you to care when an illegal immigrant kills an american citizen.

by buy some carbon credits and make some hate state t shirts to sell next to the bongs and the flea market
 
You're just repeating yourself while ignoring the examples given in my previous response. Also, you keep inadvertently proving my point as you go along.....all your examples keep pointing out the FACT that a LAW must be established prior to regulation. I and Cypress have been saying such from the beginning...and as the chronology of the posts shows, it is YOU who at first tried to split a hair and make regulations independent of law. But since it was logically proven that your contention was wrong, you now try to BS your way past acknowledging your error. In effect, you're just whistl'in Dixie.
Click to expand...

LMAO... No, what is happening is, you are agreeing with my point, but instead of just admitting that is what you are doing, you are trying to pretend I made some other point that you are correcting! This works well with morons who don't bother to read the chronology of the thread, but those of us who have been following the conversation, are fully aware of what you are doing.

You continue by interjecting another of your outright lies, I guess you just can't help yourself from lying, they come spilling out every time you try to communicate... that is sad. You claim it was me who first 'split hairs' by separating laws from regulations, and it was not. In fact, I stated specifically they are inseparable, regulations are part of the law.

Indeed, a law MUST be established before there is a regulation, I have not stated otherwise, but I did respond to Nigel, who claimed a regulation was not the law. A regulation is indeed a part of the law, and could not exist without it... you said so yourself. So, while I do appreciate your agreeing with me on 100% of what I actually stated, I have to take exception with your devious tactic of trying to pretend you are somehow 'refuting' something I didn't ever say or imply. You're really good at doing that, and this isn't the first time it's been pointed out, but the problem is, people can go back and read what was posted, and you can't prevent them from doing so, even if you close your eyes and wish real hard and try to pretend something else was said... doesn't help, the posts are still visible to anyone who is following the chronology of the posts. Damn, I hate that for ya!
 
Yurt said:
if you can't answer my question, don't be a hypocrite and demand others answer yours

i don't care if tinfoil is right or not, i'm just enjoying watching you guys makes complete fools of yourselves by claiming regulations are not law
Click to expand...
And were enjoying you make a fool of yourself by not being able to intelligently discuss the subject.
 
tinfoil said:
that regulations are not laws? Yep... If I had made that assertion. I did not.

but I did ignorantly call a regulation a law. If that's what you got your panties in a bunch over, then you win, cool guy!!

But I see you didn't answer whether it's the responsiblity of the EPA to have a contigency plan... why am I bothering with dickheads like you anyway. You racist chumps would forgive any black president for anything he does. Expecting you to care when a black president fails is like expecting you to care when an illegal immigrant kills an american citizen.

by buy some carbon credits and make some hate state t shirts to sell next to the bongs and the flea market
Click to expand...

Did, didn't they teach reading in your GED classes? I just showed you that that an NCP has been in place since 1986
 
You're just repeating yourself while ignoring the examples given in my previous response. Also, you keep inadvertently proving my point as you go along.....all your examples keep pointing out the FACT that a LAW must be established prior to regulation. I and Cypress have been saying such from the beginning...and as the chronology of the posts shows, it is YOU who at first tried to split a hair and make regulations independent of law. But since it was logically proven that your contention was wrong, you now try to BS your way past acknowledging your error. In effect, you're just whistl'in Dixie.
Click to expand...

Dixie said:
LMAO... No, what is happening is, you are agreeing with my point, but instead of just admitting that is what you are doing, you are trying to pretend I made some other point that you are correcting! This works well with morons who don't bother to read the chronology of the thread, but those of us who have been following the conversation, are fully aware of what you are doing.

You continue by interjecting another of your outright lies, I guess you just can't help yourself from lying, they come spilling out every time you try to communicate... that is sad. You claim it was me who first 'split hairs' by separating laws from regulations, and it was not. In fact, I stated specifically they are inseparable, regulations are part of the law.

Indeed, a law MUST be established before there is a regulation, I have not stated otherwise, but I did respond to Nigel, who claimed a regulation was not the law. A regulation is indeed a part of the law, and could not exist without it... you said so yourself. So, while I do appreciate your agreeing with me on 100% of what I actually stated, I have to take exception with your devious tactic of trying to pretend you are somehow 'refuting' something I didn't ever say or imply. You're really good at doing that, and this isn't the first time it's been pointed out, but the problem is, people can go back and read what was posted, and you can't prevent them from doing so, even if you close your eyes and wish real hard and try to pretend something else was said... doesn't help, the posts are still visible to anyone who is following the chronology of the posts. Damn, I hate that for ya!
Click to expand...

:palm: Once again, the chronology of the posts exposes Dixie for the delusional liar and pompous jackass that she truly is:

Posts# 77, 81, 86, 88, 98, 123

Just following the exchanges demonstrates how Dixie just loves to split hairs in order to skew reality ever so slightly to support her assertions. But when caught wrong, she just pretends the printed word doesn't exist and her version of reality is valid.

I pity Dixie....she's such a child that she can't admit to error on a platform as anonymous as this one. So as the clown just keeps chuckling away, I let her just keep whisl'in dixie in the dark. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top