• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mandated Burial Plot

Should the government be able to regulate this market in advance as stated below?


  • Total voters
    21
The nuclear reactor came about from the creation of the nuclear bomb. I might be wrong but I don't think France would of ever done such a thing and Britain is questionable.
Well, I guess we can debate "What ifs" all day and never have conclusive proof but Britain developed it's own bomb, albeit later than we did. They were already into nuclear fission research well before 1940 when the Frisch–Peierls memorandum was drafted. Given that they were working on a bomb and helped US in our research I see no reason to assume it would have never been done. Nuclear fission was as much science as it was warfare prior to WWII and with war thrust upon them it was understandable the research would make a hard turn that direction (though chances are it was already heading that way). Given a war-torn Britain after WWII I do not believe they would have given up pursuit of either bombs or nuclear power production, where their reliance on other countries for fuel would be drastically reduced.

Frisch
Britain's Nuclear Weapons - From MAUD to Hurricane
Britain's Nuclear Weapons - British Nuclear Testing
 
1. The EPA bypasses due process.
2. The party being punished(yes they are being punished) does not have the chance to offer up their own case.
3. Your claim that they work with business is false. They find them guilty and they work towards a punishment sometimes asking for opinions from the party being punished.
Since you are obviously using different definitions than the government and many others use, you may need to clarify your position with a little less spin and better vocabulary.

1. If you're saying the EPA denies due process because they won't let you stand in your yard and piss into my yard then I suppose you're right.
2. There is no case. You have no excuse for pissing into my yard and you should be stopped ASAP.
3. If you've got some kind of plumbing problem I might be able to help. In the mean time you're NOT going to piss into my yard.
 
1. Many business care about people and some do not. Do not make the mistake all of them are made up of the same kind of people one way or the other.
2. Businesses are owned, operated and maintained by people. They are the property of individuals.
3. Like any other people they have a right to their property and if government is to act on it or the individual they deserve a day in court.
1. Businesses 'see' nothing but the bottom line. If they donate to charity then they do so not for altruistic reasons but business reasons, it makes them more money from good PR. If it isn't a short- or long-term profit for the business to donate then either the funds are being mismanaged/badly managed or someone is using business assets for personal reasons.
2. This is a revelation for you?
3. It doesn't take a court order for the health department to shut down a grocery store selling taunted meat nor does it take a court order for the FDA to shut down the processing plant where the meat originated. Both actions are taken for the public good, to avoid further threat to the health and well being of the People. If these businesses want a 'day in court' then they have the right to sue the government for it's actions.
 
Last edited:
Since you are obviously using different definitions than the government and many others use, you may need to clarify your position with a little less spin and better vocabulary.

No I am not and I don't need to clarify my position. You either understand the constution or you don't.

1. If you're saying the EPA denies due process because they won't let you stand in your yard and piss into my yard then I suppose you're right.
Since they do not have to prove anyone is pissing in your yard but simply say someone is missing in your yard I'm exactly right.

2. There is no case. You have no excuse for pissing into my yard and you should be stopped ASAP.

Case or not everyone is to be allowed due process and their day in court. If they lose from a lack of a case they lose.

3. If you've got some kind of plumbing problem I might be able to help. In the mean time you're NOT going to piss into my yard.

So you admit they don't work with business?
 
1. Businesses 'see' nothing but the bottom line. If they donate to charity then they do so not for altruistic reasons but business reasons, it makes them more money from good PR. If it isn't a short- or long-term profit for the business to donate then either the funds are being mismanaged/badly managed or someone is using business assets for personal reasons.

So all business owners are the exactly same? I have known business owners that care and donate to charity freely. Are they not business owners all of a sudden?

2. This is a revelation for you?

No, but apparently it is to you. Do you believe the EPA does not violate property rights of individuals? Do you believe individuals should not have a day in court to protect their property and person?

3. It doesn't take a court order for the health department to shut down a grocery store selling taunted meat nor does it take a court order for the FDA to shut down the processing plant where the meat originated. Both actions are taken for the public good, to avoid further threat to the health and well being of the People. If these businesses want a 'day in court' then they have the right to sue the government for it's actions.

It should. My point. You haven't done much to disprove it either.
 
Last edited:
No I am not and I don't need to clarify my position. You either understand the constution or you don't.
If you don't want to clarify your position then this part of the discussion is over.

Since they do not have to prove anyone is pissing in your yard but simply say someone is missing in your yard I'm exactly right.
You'll have to show me a case like that, I am unaware of any.

Case or not everyone is to be allowed due process and their day in court. If they lose from a lack of a case they lose.
If you're beating up grandma' and I see it I have every right to stop you from doing so. You're the one doing harm to grandma', I'm just defending her. If you want to sue me for defending grandma that is your right. If you want to cite a real world EPA case or example then do so.

So you admit they don't work with business?
I said I might help fix your plumbing. :peace
Of course, you haven't defined, stated, or clarified your nebulous position here so maybe it's not a plumbing problem but incontinence?
 
Last edited:
If you don't want to clarify your position then this part of the discussion is over.

I already did. Do you know the Constitution at all? Do you know why it applies? Clearly you do not or you're playing dense.

You'll have to show me a case like that, I am unaware of any.

Pick any case. They all qualify.

If you're beating up grandma' and I see it I have every right to stop you from doing so. You're the one doing harm to grandma', I'm just defending her. If you want to sue me for defending grandma that is your right. If you want to cite a real world EPA case or example then do so.

Self defense? Really? Are you honestly saying the government is acting in self defense? Since when does self defense apply to government to protect it from its citizens or to do so for its citizens and since when does self defense NOT have to be proven in a court of law?



I said I might help fix your plumbing. :peace
Of course, you haven't defined, stated, or clarified your nebulous position here so maybe it's not a plumbing problem but incontinence?

Are you out of arguments or do you insult me just for fun?
 
Last edited:
So all business owners are the exactly same? I have known business owners that care and donate to charity freely. Are they not business owners all of a sudden?
I was talking about business, not property owners. I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Do you believe the EPA does not violate property rights of individuals? Do you believe individuals should not have a day in court to protect their property and person?
I cannot keep track of all the things any one person does except myself. I certainly cannot keep track of all the things the various employees and representatives of any one government agency may do.
In America I don't know of anyone that's barred from suing another. There may be exceptions to that general rule but I'm not a lawyer.

It should. My point. You haven't done much to disprove it either.
You would demand that a grocery store selling tainted meat be allowed to continue the sale of said meat to the public? What a barbaric world you live in.
 
I was talking about business, not property owners. I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

So when I punish a business who am I punishing? The owner. You said this was obvious earlier when I pointed it out, but now its not?

I cannot keep track of all the things any one person does except myself. I certainly cannot keep track of all the things the various employees and representatives of any one government agency may do.

What are you talking about? This has to do with working of the EPA, not some employee or representative of the government.

In America I don't know of anyone that's barred from suing another. There may be exceptions to that general rule but I'm not a lawyer.

So you think I should sue government for a established agency that violates my rights? Tell me, what makes you think that is reasonable?

You would demand that a grocery store selling tainted meat be allowed to continue the sale of said meat to the public? What a barbaric world you live in.

A barbaric world? If people don't decide to take action on the grocery store than they have made a choice to accept the action. I hardly find that barbaric, but a result of the respecting of the rights and liberties of all parties involved with the understanding that everyone deserves the benefit of doubt. If people don't wish to use the law to their advantage than they have simply made their choice, but that isn't going to happen, so your point is invalid.

A barbaric world is very much comparable to what the government does here, not what I support.

Btw, are you aware that most places that sell bad meat or run places that make people sick generally go out of business? Do you know why that is?

And why did you just switch from the EPA to the FDA?
 
Last edited:
I already did. Do you know the Constitution at all? Do you know why it applies? Clearly you do not or you're playing dense.

Pick any case. They all qualify.

Self defense? Really? Are you honestly saying the government is acting in self defense? Since when does self defense apply to government to protect it from its citizens or to do so for its citizens and since when does self defense NOT have to be proven in a court of law?

Are you out of arguments or do you insult me just for fun?
By looking at all of these together it appears you do not want to give examples or state your position in a different light. Let me be blunt, you are not communicating well with me. If that's my failing then so be it but it doesn't change the discourse at all. If there is no communication then there can be no discussion. Let's just start by you citing a particular EPA regulation or guideline that uses the word "punish" in the same or similar context that you used it.
 
By looking at all of these together it appears you do not want to give examples or state your position in a different light. Let me be blunt, you are not communicating well with me. If that's my failing then so be it but it doesn't change the discourse at all. If there is no communication then there can be no discussion. Let's just start by you citing a particular EPA regulation or guideline that uses the word "punish" in the same or similar context that you used it.

Really? I have to find a case where they use the word punish? Do you realize the word punish is used to describe what the EPA is doing by its actions? Do I really have to go through basic English with you?

Why in the world would they pass a regulation or put down some guideline that uses the word punish? I mean, come on. Can you make a reasonable request?
 
Last edited:
So when I punish a business who am I punishing? The owner. You said this was obvious earlier when I pointed it out, but now its not?
Is it the business being fined, or the owner, or some officer of the company?

What are you talking about? This has to do with working of the EPA, not some employee or representative of the government.
"So when I punish a business who am I punishing?"
So when you talk about the EPA who are you talking about?

So you think I should sue government for a established agency that violates my rights? Tell me, what makes you think that is reasonable?
Shall I quote the lawyers on TV for you? They are what many would call shysters but their message is valid enough even if their delivery is questionable.

A barbaric world? If people don't decide to take action on the grocery store than they have made a choice to accept the action. I hardly find that barbaric, but a result of the respecting of the rights and liberties of all parties involved with the understanding that everyone deserves the benefit of doubt. If people don't wish to use the law to their advantage than they have simply made their choice, but that isn't going to happen, so your point is invalid.
And who's going to stand outside the store hawking about the tainted meat? Everyone that's eaten the tainted meat is most likely in the hospital or recovering at home. No one with any valid testimony is left to warn the general public that the meat is bad. Even if there were someone I'm sure the store, wishing to unload the remainder of their $500 tainted meat order, would gladly pay said hawker $100 to go away. Either way, the unsuspecting public ends up sick or dead and, WOW what a break for the store!, at the end of it all the evidence has all been eaten!
 
Is it the business being fined, or the owner, or some officer of the company?

Fined? Why is fining them necessary for it fall under punishment?

"So when I punish a business who am I punishing?"'

The owner. How many times do you want this answer?

So when you talk about the EPA who are you talking about?

The EPA. Why do you assume I'm talking about some individual person? Why I find the current head disgusting that has nothing at all to do with my point here.

Shall I quote the lawyers on TV for you? They are what many would call shysters but their message is valid enough even if their delivery is questionable.

What in the?? How is the so called lawyers on TV relevant to our talk?

And who's going to stand outside the store hawking about the tainted meat? Everyone that's eaten the tainted meat is most likely in the hospital or recovering at home. No one with any valid testimony is left to warn the general public that the meat is bad. Even if there were someone I'm sure the store, wishing to unload the remainder of their $500 tainted meat order, would gladly pay said hawker $100 to go away. Either way, the unsuspecting public ends up sick or dead and, WOW what a break for the store!, at the end of it all the evidence has all been eaten!

You just admitted there is people left by saying people are recovering in the hospital or recovering at home. Like I said but you failed to quote people that run places that make people sick go out of business out all of the time. Not only that but people are ready to take legal action against them.

I'm done here btw. You appear to be out of arguments to defend the original topic we were talking about so now you wish to talk of food and FDA.
 
Really? I have to find a case where they use the word punish? Do you realize the word punish is used to describe what the EPA is doing by its actions? Do I really have to go through basic English with you?

Why in the world would they pass a regulation or put down some guideline that uses the word punish? I mean, come on. Can you make a reasonable request?
I did that once already:
Since you are obviously using different definitions than the government and many others use, you may need to clarify your position with a little less spin and better vocabulary.
That seemed reasonable to me but you responded with:
No I am not and I don't need to clarify my position. You either understand the constution or you don't.
I did try to make a reasonable request and you not only refused, you snipped. I'm not trying to be an ass here - you are. All I'd like is for you to do is define what it is you have a problem with. Just saying "The EPA" doesn't really open any doors for discourse since "The EPA" covers a lot of ground and many decades.

If you have specific issues lets go through them one by one - you pick where you want to start.

If you don't have specific issues and just want to loudly proclaim I HATE THE EPA then you've already done that and we're through here.
 
Fined? Why is fining them necessary for it fall under punishment?
Since you have not defined what you mean by punishment then I have to assume certain things. Earlier I asked you for clarification and you scoffed, so if the assumptions you forced me to make are false that's not my problem.

You just admitted there is people left by saying people are recovering in the hospital or recovering at home. Like I said but you failed to quote people that run places that make people sick go out of business out all of the time. Not only that but people are ready to take legal action against them.

I'm done here btw. You appear to be out of arguments to defend the original topic we were talking about so now you wish to talk of food and FDA.
With your failure to produce a viable topic of conversation with relation to the EPA I just took my pick of examples in government. I have no problem talking about the EPA, it is you who seem to have a problem defining a specific issue.
 
Last edited:
I already defined my problem and I didn't simply say I hate the EPA. You should try to follow along in a discussion that you are having. Anyway, I said I was done here.
 
Back
Top Bottom