Comments Posted By Chuck Tucson
Displaying 301 To 310 Of 536 Comments
I think it's almost impossible for some people to grasp that their ideological differences are mostly genetic.
Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 5.02.2009 @ 10:16
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO OBAMA'S 'WELL OILED MACHINE?'
How far should we take this. Placing responsibility on one segment of the populace and not another segment of the populace, is class warfare.
It's interesting that you make it seem like falling into the public safety net is like a free ride dream come true. Granted, some people abuse the system any way they can, but most do not. There are rules for what people must do in order to benefit. People who have to deal with this, for the most part, do everything they can to avoid it. They also do everything they can to get back on their feet.
You think placing strings on corporate bailout money is class warfare? Psh. Try letting the middle class continue shrinking. That'll kick off some real class warfare.
Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 4.02.2009 @ 14:16
I have no problem with oversight of how that bail out money is spent. But decisions on how to spend it should be made by the company.
I'm sorry. I don't follow. These sentences seem to be exact opposites. What am I missing?
What I want is for congress to say: "Hey banks, if you want this taxpayer bailout money, you can have it. But, it cannot be used for, say, executive bonuses."
It seems like you're favoring the no strings attached approach, whereas I'm liking the many strings attached approach.
Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 4.02.2009 @ 13:35
Speaking of China, anyone who thinks it’s OK for the government to dictate to business how much to pay their employees would feel perfectly at home either there or Cuba.
Personally, I prefer Cuba – less crowded plus its warmer.
And while we’re at it, let’s ask government to tell your company how much to pay YOU. Judging by that last comment, I doubt whether you’re worth as much as you think.
Does this apply to banks that accept federal bailout money? I would like to have seen congress attach at least a few strings to the money they handed out.
The incentive structure for the banking industry is one of the most destructive forces to free market capitalism that the world has ever seen.
I have no problem with oversight of how that bail out money is spent. But decisions on how to spend it should be made by the company.
ed.
Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 4.02.2009 @ 12:47
GINGRICH SEES THE PROBLEMS BUT WHERE ARE THE SOLUTIONS?
Such men do not make good executives which is why any talk of Newt in 2012 scares me.
I wouldn't worry much, I don't think the splenetics have much love for him.
Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 2.02.2009 @ 14:41
WILL US GUARANTEE THE LEGITIMACY OF THE IRANIAN REGIME?
I hate to interrupt this beautiful dream you’re having but in what universe does the Iranian leadership care what their own people think about democracy and human rights?
It's not that they care what the people think, it's that if the people start to notice the sweet smell of the capitalism pie that's cooling in the window right next door, they might be more motivated to pressure the leadership to get a piece of that pie.
It's obviously not without problems, but if the Iranian leadership notices a sea change in the attitude of it's people, it might be more willing to work with us and give up the nuke aspirations, at the risk of diminished power. Aspirations which seem to only be held by a tiny minority of the leadership anyway.
Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 29.01.2009 @ 16:16
This is a pretty bad idea in my view.
What if it's part of a bigger picture? If Iraq does eventually become a functional democracy, biting the bullet and and creating some kind of semi functional relationship with Iran might eventually lead to commerce channels opening up between Iraq/Iran, and the US by proxy.
If the Iraq experiment does work, then there will be a lot of people in Iran that might want to work towards that model because it's right next door, and seems to be working. Inserting ourselves into that process might do more for commerce and, eventually, human rights in the long run.
I hate to interrupt this beautiful dream you're having but in what universe does the Iranian leadership care what their own people think about democracy and human rights?
As far as commerce, I don't think there's much of a market for anything the Iranians sell except oil. We can help them a helluva lot more than they can help us - their oil output has dropped 25% since Ahmadinejad took over. Pure incompetence is the reason - he put true believers in the oil ministry and purged the technocrats.
There very well may be a "big picture" I am missing - hopefully some kind of regional effort at easing tensions. For that, Iran must renounce enrichment - bottom line. Don't think that's a possibility.
ed.
Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 29.01.2009 @ 15:28
IF GOVERNMENT MAKES LIFE EASIER, DOES THAT MAKE IT BETTER?
Short answer, don’t talk to terrorists. And if you do, I really don’t give a rat’s patoot about your privacy.
What you've said is the equivalent of saying "if you've got nothing to hide, why should you be worried." The fourth amendment is rolling in its grave.
I'm afraid I have to agree with Chuck. There may be justification for the Terrorist Surveillance Program and other NSA ops but that's not one of them. I am still not convinced that the TSP shredded the 4th amendment - despite what the unbalanced Mr. Tice had to say - and Congressional leadership didn't say boo when they were briefed. But there should be some kind of top secret review of the programs to make sure sufficient safeguards are in place. And Congress should be able to keep a close eye on it.
ed.
Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 30.01.2009 @ 10:49
Indeed, no arguments. However, if you are talking about the security of the entire country, specificity would be extremely helpful in understanding your issues.
My issues in this thread have a great deal to do with warrantless invasions of personal privacy.
Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 29.01.2009 @ 23:15
The idea that some group of people can decide which of my liberties I can or cannot live without is extremely frustrating.
The problem with all of this comes in when one group of like minded people, say, GroupA is willing to give up more liberty than another group, GroupB.
They will eventually reach a point where the GroupB feels that they need to take some sort of action to prevent further loss of liberty. It is my fear that the GroupA will then label this action as terrorism, and use that to further diminish the liberties of GroupB. At this point, GroupB will take even more drastic action, and all hell will break loose.
Finally, in the end, GroupB will realize what they've given up, but by then it will be too late.
Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 29.01.2009 @ 12:18
