Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 371 To 380 Of 657 Comments
"HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?"
Isn't this the definition of a free market?
So the restructuring plan screws over the dealers. If it didn't, it would screw over the UAW. Somebody was getting screwed -- why does the dealer deserve to be protected while the factory workers don't?
I'm not defending the screw job in any way. But thats the deal that Dodge got when they begged for money from the government. Notice the government didn't seize control, so as Rick pointed out this isn't remotely anything like socialism. Nobody would lend them cash (because its a free market nobody had to). The only way they could get the loan was to take a deal with craptacular terms -- because that's what the market dictated.
Should Dodge have closed a highly profitable dealership? Probably not. Did the Administration tell them "Und now you vill close the capitalist pig dealer #1,724. You vill be as cruel as possible, jah? Ve vill hear ze lamentation of his vomen!!"? I doubt it. More likely the Administration told them as part of the deal they had to close dealerships . . . and Dodge chose this guy. Why? Ask Dodge.
It seems like the other option would be to have given the company billions, and then said "do whatever the hell you want" -- isn't that what the (last) Administration did under TARP? And didn't everybody here complain that just giving them money without any conditions was unbelievably stupid?
Aside from the specific victim, I don't see the complaint. I recently got downsized (aka fired) from my teaching position. I thought it sucked, especially given the (true) reasoning that I got the axe and not some of the other professors . . . but because the school was bleeding money somebody was going to get sliced, and it turned out to be me. If it was somebody else, they'd feel the same way.
Somebody was getting the axe in this situation. The issue lies with Dodge, not the Administration. Dodge is treating its dealers like crap -- so Obama is a gangster?
I'm just not following the logic.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 21.05.2009 @ 12:45
THE ABSOLUTE WORST NIGERIAN EMAIL SCAM IN HISTORY
Seriously. All I got was a crappy invitation from the Prince -- they've already transferred the money to your account! Suckers!
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 20.05.2009 @ 15:13
Plus, if you dont, the government might think you're a terrorist. You don't want to risk that, do you?
GOP UNVEILS HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN
@ Mr. M.:
"A better template to examine would be Russia. Their state run system is so bad that people barter with doctors for examinations and treatments."
Why? Is the only correlation to the situation here the geographic and population size? Or does the fact it sucks (as our health care sucks) make the appropriate comparison?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 23.05.2009 @ 11:56
@ Freedom's Truth:
"Walmart served customers better and was rewarded with becoming the largest retailer in the world"
Wow. I gotta go see your Wal-Mart. Al the one's I've been to have hands-down the worst customer service I've ever seen from any buisness. Ever. The only reason to go is for the cheap prices DESPITE the customer service, not in addition to it.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 20.05.2009 @ 15:16
GOP MORE POPULAR THAN AT ANY TIME SINCE YESTERDAY
Why does it have to be such an extreme alternative? Do you really see the only two options as leave the SoCons alone as powerful spokespeople that identify the brand . . . or Leftist? Do you really believe that there are Republicans that really want to be Democrats and just can't bring themselves to simply become Democrats, so they feel compelled to change the Republican Party in to "Dem lite"? Is there no middle ground between SoCon supremacy and complete capitulation?
I can only speak for myself as an Independent, but I consider myself more aligned with the Blues than the Reds precisely because of what appears to be extremist attitudes with the Red tent. Don't believe in Global Warming? Then it is a complete, total, absolute fraud only supported by fools and criminals without any possible shread of evidence. Think that "Enhanced Interrogation" is legal? Then not only is it impossible that government agent could ever have done anything wrong . . . merely asking the question is disgusting and an affront to infants, baseball, and your Momma's Apple Pie.
What would be won?
I assume the goal is votes, isn't it? Let me ask you this: As a political party, would you rather the Republicans be 100% morally correct (hypothetically verified by Heavenly Writ) and hold no political influence, or 50% morally correct but have political influence? They're a political party -- ther only reason they exist as a party is political influence. They aren't a church. They aren't a baseball team. If nobody will vote for them and their representative candidates, then they are effectively dead.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 23.05.2009 @ 23:23
Why minimize the voice of the SoCons? Because the theory is that they scare away more votes than they bring in, and votes are what matters in this context. Period.
@Freedoms Truth:
You're adorable.
My question asked him to expound on his statement, which by virtue of being limited in scope inherently left details out. I asked a question to clarify what was not said (that notorious trick of the ankle-biters who were Socrates' oponents, known as the Socratic Method), and he did. The only thing I implied or inferred from his original statement was that he believed exactly what he said . . . I am a trickster like that.
Now, I could have asumed or inferred that his limited statement implied or inferred that he wanted to wipe out all c-b-b regulations and re-start all legislation and common law in this area of jurisprudence . . . that would have been inappropriate. I could have assumed that he only wanted to deny the Hispanics c-b-b protections, then I could jump up and down and call him a racist (which would be true, if he believed that). Also, that would be inappropriate. Since how I understood and reacted to his position depended on more detail, I asked him to clarify. I chose a question that put the issue squarely out in front so that we didn't have to go back and forth multiple times. He clarified. He understood what I asked perfectly. So did you.
If you'd like to see the debating tricks of the wise guy as opposed to the wise man, I'd suggest you look at insulting and belittling your "opponent", which brings us to . . ."“Name-calling is popular among Democrats and liberals; it’s their favorite substitute for thinking” … is just an obvious statement of observation, given your parting comment to me #41, #44, and #42 and many prior items here and elsewher. If you dont want it to be true, you have the power to change it."
I assume you've already realized that I didn't write comments #42 and 44, so we'll just skip those.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 23.05.2009 @ 12:38
Your statement makes name calling the provence of "Democrats and liberals", and even ascribes the rationale why "Democrats and liberals" do this -- "its their favorite substitute for thinking".
Now, I'm sure you'll object vigorously to this, but your statement implies that ONLY "Democrats and liberals" engage in name calling. Shocking, I know. You are insulting and rude, resorting to name calling in just about every post you make, so either you are a Democrat and liberal, or the name-calling tendency extends beyond D-a-l people. . . which makes your statement itself an exercise in "name-calling".
Absolutely, its in my power to not call people names and belittle them. As an example, I point to my exchange with Mark in this thread, or with Gayle Miller about abortion several threads back. I'll let you in on a little secret: My being rude versus being polite is directly proportional to the curtousey I receive from others. Be polite, and I will be polite to you. Be rude and offensive, and I'm not going to waste the effort being polite. You started your response to me (#40) with an attempted insult. Let me repeat that: Your response to me began with you attempting to insult (and failing miserably), and only after you had fired your piss at me did you botrher to speak rationally. To then try and pin name-calling on D-a-l isn't a rationale . . . its projection.
@Mark:
re: corporate taxes -- You've got two aspects to this (increasing cost of product and increasing motivation to influence policy), but I don't see the connection to the "hidden cost of government". Sure, increased expenses should increase the cost of the produced asset, but that's not connected to the cost of government (and assumes buisness would drop the price rather than increase their profit margin). I suppose that the desire to influence government could be considered as "raising the cost" of government in the sense that while legislators are being lobbied they're not working on other things (requireing more time later for other issues, which has a cost associated with it), but not only do I have a problem seeing this as anything more than a monor cost, I can't make it a "hidden" cost -- if this is the route, then everything adds to those "hidded" costs.
Philosophically, I disagree with the position, but its a fair and rational position to hold. I disagree because it seems to assume that corporations would not lobby to increase their profits but for a desire to escape taxes. Personally, I don't believe that -- I think they would lobby for less regulation, a competitive advantage, or any other way of playing the "free market" to benefit them -- that's their entire reason for existence. As I said though, a fair opinion.Con Amendment -- again, a rational idea. I'm loathe to amend the constitution, but it makes sense. Again I disagree with the position, but as I said to Gayle Miller a few posts ago this is (in my mind) the thorniest question around, so I can't fault opposing views just because I came to a different answer.
Citizenship-by-birth: Fair enough. You're consistent. I've never considered the position of wiping all c-b-b rules. My gut feeling is that it would create a serious mess, but that's just an off the cuff reaction. My default approach is to not tinker with systems whenever possible, and I don't see the "problem" of illegals getting c-b-b for their kids as a big enough issue to merit getting under the hood with a blowtorch, but I'm gonna have to think on it more before its anything other than a knee-jerk visceral reaction.
secure the border: Fair. I agree that panicking out plans without having a coherent overarching ideal is a waste of energy and resources. I also agree that the fence is a non-starter as far as solutions go. I've always been amazed that "small government" conservatives advocate for this when it would most likely create a huge government agency as a result (via staffing). BTW, Penn and Teller have a show called Bullsh!t on one of the pay-cable channels (I think Showtime) and they had an episode about how hard it is to get around the wall. If you've never seen it, its definitely worth a watch. They hired some day laborers (who ironically seemed to have worked on the "big" wall as well), had them build a section of the wall to spec, then timed them getting over, under, and through the wall. Its been a while since I saw it, but I think the longest it took the illegals to get past the wall was under 2 minutes. Definitely worth the cash.
legislative staff: The idea is meritorious, but it assumes that the remaining staffers (and their employers) will become responsible once they can't waste their time on frivilous stuff. Personally, I think so little of the people in washington that if they had no staffers they'd still, for the most part, waste their time on crap rather than do the tough work of governing. If they're not willing to work hard, the number of staffers won't change that. If they are willing to work hard, (again) the number of staffers won't change that.
Thanks for responding, and taking the time to explain your positions.
@Freedom's Truth:
"That’s a sophist’s response."
Why, thank you -- it has been awhile since somebody referred to me as a wise man. I'm assuming you meant in the classical sense and not in the "illogical argument fallacy" sense, since not only does it seem to be a logical question (both you and Mark managed to answer it) but starting your response with an insult immediately after commenting that "Name-calling is popular among Democrats and liberals; it’s their favorite substitute for thinking" would really make you appear to be quite the hypocrite.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 20.05.2009 @ 13:11
@mark:
"Corporate income tax is bad policy that hides the true cost of government"
I don't understand this -- what does it mean?"Support a Constitutional Amendment declaring a fetus a person at 26 weeks"
Why a Constitutional Amendment? Why not simply pass a law?"Children born to permitted workers while in the US would not be granted citizenship based on place of birth."
So someone flying from China to London via Dallas, that gives birth at the layover, has citizenship for their children, but someone that's been in the country working for 18 months doesn't? Does your plan also call for striking all citizenship-via-birth rules, or does this specifically apply to just immigrant labor? Assuming the later . . . why?"Secure the border with Mexico. – Immigration reform will never matter until this happens."
Groovy. How?"Limit congressional staff"
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 19.05.2009 @ 22:53
Why? I'm hard pressed to believe that the salaries of the extra staffers are affecting the size of the deficit, so what's the purpose of "gimping" congressmen?
REPORT FROM THE FRONT: PRAGMATISTS HAVE NO SOUL
@mike farmer:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 19.05.2009 @ 10:36
I didn't realize you're Libertarian and not Red. Because of that, mquestion to you was unfair and inappropriate . . . but thank you for answering it nonetheless.
@mike farmer:
I respect the difference between horse trading and selling your soul, or compromising on issues and integrity.
What tenets of the Republican Party do think fall into the former category? On what issues can the Reds sit down at the table? Abortion? Gay rights? Environmental protection? The size of government? Taxes? Free Markets? Defense Spending? Health Care?
If everything is a position of principle, then what compromise is possible?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 18.05.2009 @ 16:10
