@Drongo: "You can sue the government. People do it all the time"
If you can find willing lawyers and judges you can sue anyone for anything at any time, but the government has legislated MANY exemptions and immunities for themselves. Haven't heard about such exemptions or immunities in the current health care takeover bill, but I'm willin' to bet they are there.
@OP: "... I’d rather have some green eyeshade guy working in the private sector worried about me or my family suing the crap out of his company making that choice rather than a “bureaucrat with a slide rule.”"
... who may be exempted and immune from such lawsuits. Again, I'd be willing to bet they'll exempt and immunize themselves.Comment Posted By DoorHold On 28.07.2009 @ 12:58
Forgive me if I repeat what's been said (47 lengthy replies!). I do believe he has a point: The loss of personal liberty and the scope and breadth of government control in our time would shock the Founding Fathers, even though they KNEW it could happen and did their best to prevent it.Comment Posted By DoorHold On 21.07.2009 @ 10:29
I think Obama was deluded by his Chicago/Illinois political/advocate career. If you wanted something done in that climate, by freakin' golly YOU GOT IT. The only trick was to have a fall guy picked out well in advance if someone had the guts to reveal HOW you got it done. Now he appears to be shell-shocked to discover that's NOT how every other politican he has to work with gets things done. He's lost, but has yet to give up the Chicago-way and start working the Washington-way. So, no, he's not acting "Presidential" at the moment.Comment Posted By DoorHold On 21.07.2009 @ 10:40
@busboy33:"... Nukes make great defensive weapons, but unless you go in for total obliteration of all possible and potential opponents they make lousy offensive weapons."
I agree. All the knashing of teeth over India, Pakistan, N. Korea et al over their nuclear weapons programs was basically wasted time and energy. Once you HAVE the bomb, you can't use it.
Unfortunately, that doesn't stop anyone from WANTING it. Nor can it stop everyone from worrying about worst-case-scenarios, eg., terrorists getting hold of one (since they believe, with some degree of accuracy, that they cannot be "wiped off the face of the planet").Comment Posted By DoorHold On 21.07.2009 @ 11:03
I agree there's no compelling reason to continue such subsidies, but I find it odd that Obama FINALLY draws the line on government spending when it comes to "farming." I would NOT be surprised if this, like he's doing to the health industry, is part of a scheme to nationalize the farming industry.Comment Posted By DoorHold On 7.07.2009 @ 12:45
Ah, for the good ol' days, when a President's dalliances were the stuff of legend rather than the rallying point for a resignation. Camelot ... sigh.Comment Posted By DoorHold On 7.07.2009 @ 12:59
I've no clue how to "revive" conservative ideals so I'll leave that for ya'll to hash out, but, Rick, why are you wasting time on the latest meme: RINO? If it were intelligently applied I can see the need for debate, but it's already to the point where EVERYBODY'S a RINO. Bush is Hitler, Rice is some-thing-or-other because of her skin color, Cheney's the Evil Lord, and now we're ALL RINOs. A simple, "You've mis-applied the term, do you have a point?," is all that's needed.Comment Posted By DoorHold On 19.05.2009 @ 14:20
Great informative post, but I must correct the statement attributed to the left: "”Militia” means militia, goddamnit!" What they REALLY say is, "It says 'Militia' and that means whatever we want it to mean," while ignoring the original definition, ignoring the original intent of the Amendment, ignoring the clear language used elsewhere, ignoring the writings of the time that clearly defined both "militia" and the Amendment as an individual Right, and ignoring individual rights entirely while creating a government right -- THIS ONE TIME AN NOWHERE ELSE.
Don't let 'em redefine the Constitution, even in a throwaway quote. OK?Comment Posted By DoorHold On 12.05.2009 @ 18:02
Society has changed since the time of the Puritans, anyone locked into stocks in this day and age risks a lot more than just public humiliation.
Bonuses don't bother me. Would I take a retroactive pay cut as a condition of a government bailout? It would be a grave concern to me if my pay had been previously negotiated and agreed upon and I did the work. And I wouldn't appreciate everyone and their mother telling me, not how THEY could have done better than I did, but just, "You suck!"
That they didn't prevent the economy from collapsing is hardly their fault, if you ask me.
Didn't realize protectionism could be applied to banks too ... interesting. It would be helpful if we knew what percent of banks' income is from overseas business.Comment Posted By DoorHold On 17.03.2009 @ 11:02
(Sorry, I'm unable to read all the replies so forgive if I'm just repeating.)
"I had an interesting discussion last night with my 17 year old cousin about the problem with conservatism today and was surprised that he pretty much nailed the reasons conservatism is in such bad odor with the public and specifically, with his generation. He sees nothing positive coming from conservatives like Hannity, Coulter, and Rush (just picking three examples). What he sees – and I am forced to agree with him – is an overarching arrogance that brooks no discussion and has little room for disagreement."
That paragraph is laughable. I can't believe you fell for or believe that crap. Switch conservative to liberal and Hannity, Coulter and Rush to the usual-suspects and -- Wow-zaa! It's exactly what's wrong with liberalism!
Dig deeper and find out why the discussion wasn't about the problem with liberalism; why so many liberal commentators are downright vicious, why there is no room for debate -- you're either FOR liberalism, or you're an ignorant, hatefull, hayseed, why if you manage to get a word in edgewise you will be pilloried by the press (and by the President) ...
There's probably no room for that discussion. Another topic for discussion: Why are conservatives always defending themselves? Why is that? We can't ALL be negative, arrogant people unwilling to discuss the issues. So what are we defending ourselves AGAINST, exactly?
The discussion wasn't about liberalism, it was about conservatism. But in orderto understand that, you would have had to read what I wrote. Substituting what I wrote for what you want me to write is so stupid as to be beyond belief.
I have written enough about liberalism to fill a couple of books - don't need no slack jawed numbskull with mouth agape and drool coming out of the sides to tell me about the faults of the left. I can't tell you how incredibly amatuerish and shallow you sound - unbelievable.
Next time, I promise to make all the words two syllables or less - just for you.
ed.Comment Posted By DoorHold On 3.03.2009 @ 13:01