Huffpost - democrats might take both houses in 2014

[werepossum]

lol. Just stop while you're less far behind. You said something dumb.

The Wikipedia article and Merriam-Webster are in agreement, you just don't know what the definition is telling you. "Control" means actually controlling it, not regulating it. If control meant regulating it then basically every industry in the US is nationalized.

http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/nationalization



http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/business-english/nationalization



I could go on and on. Regulation is not ownership or control.

LOL Have a nice life.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL Have a nice life.

I do, thanks!

For the record, I enjoy the posts where you wish me good things far more than the ones where you fail to understand basic definitions and then get angry about it.

 

[Wreckem]

The Dems will pick up House Seats, but not enough for a majority. Although there is an outside chance Tea Party challengers beat out incumbent Republicans and then lose in the election. That will be the only way Dems pick up the House.

The Dems will likely lose Senate seats but maintain a slight majority. Same as above applies. Its possible the the Repubs not to gain any if they aren't careful on who they nominate during the primaries.

 

[First]

LOL Have a nice life.

Oh good lord, give up the ghost. If Obamacare is nationalization then the entire fucking country is already redder than Soviet Russia.

 

[sportage]

We just had a special election in our state. Republican controlled house. Open republican seat vacated. This was predicted to be in the bag for republicans. This was the first election since the shutdown. Result? The democrat won by 80% to 20%. The state newspaper, typically republican leaning, that endorsed Romney last election, has been embarrassing silent after this massive loss for republicans. If 80% favors the democrat in a republican gerrymandered district, and that doesn't worry republicans come 2014, well…..

 

[Jaskalas]

I could go on and on. Regulation is not ownership or control.

Control would be defined as making every decision, while regulation is only making certain decisions? One might wonder if there is any effective difference given enough regulation, or particular regulation of all the key points.

 

[Matt1970]

lol. Just stop while you're less far behind. You said something dumb.




I could go on and on. Regulation is not ownership or control.

reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law

 

[fskimospy]

reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law

My god, did you not read any of the definitions I supplied?

Think about this logically. By your argument the instant a government regulates something, by your definition that entire industry has become nationalized. Does that make the slightest bit of sense?

To nationalize is to take ownership of or to take control of a business or industry. It doesn't mean to control it through regulation, it means to run the thing. This is not a controversial definition.

 

[Matt1970]

My god, did you not read any of the definitions I supplied?

Think about this logically. By your argument the instant a government regulates something, by your definition that entire industry has become nationalized. Does that make the slightest bit of sense?

To nationalize is to take ownership of or to take control of a business or industry. It doesn't mean to control it through regulation, it means to run the thing. This is not a controversial definition.

You are the one making in controversial and it seems the only way you would consider our healthcare system as Nationalized is if we were single-payer, all the healthcare facilities were owned by the government and all healthcare workers were paid by the government.

 

[Moonbeam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimospy
My god, did you not read any of the definitions I supplied?

Think about this logically. By your argument the instant a government regulates something, by your definition that entire industry has become nationalized. Does that make the slightest bit of sense?

To nationalize is to take ownership of or to take control of a business or industry. It doesn't mean to control it through regulation, it means to run the thing. This is not a controversial definition.

You are the one making in controversial and it seems the only way you would consider our healthcare system as Nationalized is if we were single-payer, all the healthcare facilities were owned by the government and all healthcare workers were paid by the government.

Jesus, did he actually say to you, 'think about this logically'?

 

[Matt1970]

Jesus, did he actually say to you, 'think about this logically'?

Take a long walk off a short pier.

 

[Jhhnn]

Take a long walk off a short pier.

In other words, no, you refuse to think about it logically.

 

[Matt1970]

He was being a sarcastic nit-wit. I didn't expect you to know the difference.

nationalize, nationalise [ˈnæʃənəˌlaɪz ˈnæʃnə-]
vb (tr)
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) to put (an industry, resources, etc.) under state control or ownership

reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law

Regulating an industry may be a weak form of Nationalization, but it is still Nationalization by definition. Logic typically follows facts.

 

[dank69]

Republicans would rather pretend McDonald's is and always has been nationalized than admit they were being dishonest when they claimed Obamacare nationalized healthcare

 

[Wreckem]

He was being a sarcastic nit-wit. I didn't expect you to know the difference.

nationalize, nationalise [ˈnæʃənəˌlaɪz ˈnæʃnə-]
vb (tr)
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) to put (an industry, resources, etc.) under state control or ownership

reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law

Regulating an industry may be a weak form of Nationalization, but it is still Nationalization by definition. Logic typically follows facts.

You are wrong. Period. Quit arguing. Your usage is not accepted under either the study of Political Science or Economics. In other words your usage is made up.

Your usage means everything in the US is nationalized. Which is as idiotic as you are. You like your fellow conservatives like redefining things to fit your own means. You are clearly in the wrong. Your delusions won't allow you to admit that though.

 

[Matt1970]

You are wrong. Period. Quit arguing. Your usage is not accepted under either the study of Political Science or Economics. In other words your usage is made up.

Your usage means everything in the US is nationalized. Which is as idiotic as you are. You like your fellow conservatives like redefining things to fit your own means. You are clearly in the wrong. Your delusions won't allow you to admit that though.

Make this up.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalize

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate

Ya, those merriam-webster people love just making things up as they go along.

 

[fskimospy]

He was being a sarcastic nit-wit. I didn't expect you to know the difference.

nationalize, nationalise [ˈnæʃənəˌlaɪz ˈnæʃnə-]
vb (tr)
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) to put (an industry, resources, etc.) under state control or ownership

reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law

Regulating an industry may be a weak form of Nationalization, but it is still Nationalization by definition. Logic typically follows facts.

This is getting facepalm worthy quickly. I like how you attempted to use the dictionary definitions of things and then immediately stopped looking as soon as it told you what you wanted to hear.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/control

con·trol (kn-trl)
tr.v. con·trolled, con·trol·ling, con·trols
1. To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. See Synonyms at conduct.
2. To adjust to a requirement; regulate: controlled trading on the stock market; controls the flow of water.

Control can mean both to actually direct OR just to regulate. It does not necessarily mean both. Nationalization is exerting full control over something, unlike regulation. Why does this need to be explained?

If you believe that regulation is "weak nationalization" please provide a single credible source that states this. I have been in a lot of places where political economy is discussed and I have never once heard someone make such a ridiculous argument.

Yes, logic follows facts. Please use logic. I beg of you.

 

[Matt1970]

This is getting facepalm worthy quickly. I like how you attempted to use the dictionary definitions of things and then immediately stopped looking as soon as it told you what you wanted to hear.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/control


Control can mean both to actually direct OR just to regulate. It does not necessarily mean both. Nationalization is exerting full control over something, unlike regulation. Why does this need to be explained?

If you believe that regulation is "weak nationalization" please provide a single credible source that states this. I have been in a lot of places where political economy is discussed and I have never once heard someone make such a ridiculous argument.

Yes, logic follows facts. Please use logic. I beg of you.

Please spare all the bullshit and provide a link to your false assertion. You will also need to explain why Merriam Webster.com, dictionary.reference.com and a few others have the wrong definition of nationalize as none of them mention "full" control.

 

[fskimospy]

Please spare all the bullshit and provide a link to your false assertion. You will also need to explain why Merriam Webster.com, dictionary.reference.com and a few others have the wrong definition of nationalize as none of them mention "full" control.

I have already provided multiple links that say exactly that.

Additionally, the post you quoted shows that control has multiple meanings. One of them is to regulate, one is to dominate. Control as used in the definition of nationalization is to dominate, not regulate, as repeatedly shown by the links I previously provided.

Why is this such a big issue? Werepossum said something silly and hyperbolic as he constantly does. Correcting that should not be this big a deal.

 

[Matt1970]

I have already provided multiple links that say exactly that.

Additionally, the post you quoted shows that control has multiple meanings. One of them is to regulate, one is to dominate. Control as used in the definition of nationalization is to dominate, not regulate, as repeatedly shown by the links I previously provided.

Why is this such a big issue? Werepossum said something silly and hyperbolic as he constantly does. Correcting that should not be this big a deal.

No, you didn't. Please go back and read the definitions for what they are, not what you want them to mean or what your ilk have led you to believe. Neither your Auburn University link or your Investopedia link mention total control.

 

[Bowfinger]

I have already provided multiple links that say exactly that.

Additionally, the post you quoted shows that control has multiple meanings. One of them is to regulate, one is to dominate. Control as used in the definition of nationalization is to dominate, not regulate, as repeatedly shown by the links I previously provided.

Why is this such a big issue? Werepossum said something silly and hyperbolic as he constantly does. Correcting that should not be this big a deal.

It's such a big issue because Matt used that same talking point a few weeks ago, and I corrected him then. He either truly doesn't understand what "nationalize" means or he isn't willing to acknowledge he made such a ridiculous claim.

 

[fskimospy]

No, you didn't. Please go back and read the definitions for what they are, not what you want them to mean or what your ilk have led you to believe. Neither your Auburn University link or your Investopedia link mention total control.

Are you joking? You don't think ownership means total control?

Come on man, at this point you are arguing just to argue.

 

[Matt1970]

It's such a big issue because Matt used that same talking point a few weeks ago, and I corrected him then. He either truly doesn't understand what "nationalize" means or he isn't willing to acknowledge he made such a ridiculous claim.

You are more than welcome to take it up with Merriam Webster. This settles it, I am going to get me one of those English to Liberal Dictionaries.

 

[WelshBloke]

What the hell are you guys arguing about?

To nationalize an industry means to transfer ownership from the private sector to the public sector. Its nothing to do with regulation at all.

 

[dank69]

You are more than welcome to take it up with Merriam Webster. This settles it, I am going to get me one of those English to Liberal Dictionaries.

I want to see you post that every sector of commerce and industry has been nationalized by the US government.