The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I WANT my regulators to see themselves as white knights, because American businesses have proven - time and time again - that they simply cannot and should not be trusted to do the right thing without being aggressively forced to do so. Corporations here regularly lie, cheat, steal, defraud the government, mislead their partners and clients, pollute rampantly, and try and bribe their way out of everything they possibly can. We NEED aggressive regulators.

Cycloptichorn

These things certainly do occur. However you are asserting that all or most corporations do this on a "regular" basis. Please specify more accurately what you mean by this and provide some credible proof of the accuracy of your estimate.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I WANT my regulators to see themselves as white knights, because American businesses have proven - time and time again - that they simply cannot and should not be trusted to do the right thing without being aggressively forced to do so. Corporations here regularly lie, cheat, steal, defraud the government, mislead their partners and clients, pollute rampantly, and try and bribe their way out of everything they possibly can. We NEED aggressive regulators.

Cycloptichorn

These things certainly do occur. However you are asserting that all or most corporations do this on a "regular" basis.

I didn't say 'all or most.' Please limit your commentary to what I actually said, not what you want to argue against.

Enough corporations have been caught doing the things I've stated, just in the last few years, to justify my comment. Do you wish to see cites and links to news articles about them being caught doing these things? I will provide them if you indicate you do. I doubt you actually need to see them, though, because - as you say - these things do happen, and regularly enough that it's not even surprising when we hear about it in the news. And it's not just random or small groups either; many of our biggest companies have been caught in exactly the behaviors I described above.

I do appreciate the fact that you've come around to the idea that people should support their statements when they make them. Time will tell whether or not you see fit to apply such standards to yourself.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
These things certainly do occur. However you are asserting that all or most corporations do this on a "regular" basis.

I didn't say 'all or most.' Please limit your commentary to what I actually said, not what you want to argue against.

Enough corporations have been caught doing the things I've stated, just in the last few years, to justify my comment. Do you wish to see cites and links to news articles about them being caught doing these things? I will provide them if you indicate you do. I doubt you actually need to see them, though, because - as you say - these things do happen, and regularly enough that it's not even surprising when we hear about it in the news. And it's not just random or small groups either; many of our biggest companies have been caught in exactly the behaviors I described above.

I do appreciate the fact that you've come around to the idea that people should support their statements when they make them. Time will tell whether or not you see fit to apply such standards to yourself.

Cycloptichorn

I haven't "come around" to anything. I was merely testing your self declared rigorous fidelity to the truth and radiness to acknowledge inaccuracy and overstatement. You failed miserably. Your self-serving hypocrisy and rationalizations are easy for all to see.

Cycvlo wrote:

Corporations here regularly lie, cheat, steal, defraud the government, mislead their partners and clients, pollute rampantly, and try and bribe their way out of everything they possibly can.

Your petty quibbling to rationalize an indefensible gross overstatement is truly worthy of parados.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I haven't "come around" to anything. I was merely testing your self declared rigorous fidelity to the truth and radiness to acknowledge inaccuracy and overstatement. You failed miserably. Your self-serving hypocrisy and rationalizations are easy for all to see.

Well, I didn't accept the fact that you stated I asserted something completely different than what I actually said. It was, without a doubt, you who were commuting inaccuracies and overstatements when describing my position. And if you disagree, I would challenge you to quote the exact statement that I made which led to your false statement, and show how what I said logically leads to your exaggeration. You won't be able to do so.

You need to have greater accuracy if you want to swim with the big fish in these discussions, George. Otherwise, what makes you any different from just another guy with an opinion? I can't help but notice that your attitude has suffered noticeably in these last few days; I suspect that it simply isn't as much fun for you to come post here when people continually point out the fact that you're full of ****, and make up almost everything that you posit is a fact. That's understandable, but believe me - it's better for you to confront this and improve yourself than it is to simply allow yourself to continue your lazy ways.

Quote:

Your petty quibbling to rationalize an indefensible gross overstatement is truly worthy of parados.

I disagree that my statement was an overstatement in any fashion. Every single month - almost every week - we see stories of corporations who are caught in exactly the behaviors that I described. You know that's true, so why all this bile from you? I suspect it's because you are far better at lashing out at others than you are at confronting yourself.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Surely you know george's standards by now Cyc..

If one union official is corrupt, it proves ALL unions are corrupt.
If several corporations are corrupt, it doesn't prove anything.

1 Reply

@parados,

QED

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Did anyone else watch the debate tonight?

I missed it (on purpose lol), but saw Nate's opinion on his Twitter account:

Winners tonight, in rough order: 1. Fox News (great questions), 2. Rick Perry; 3. Ron Paul; 4. Mitt Romney; 5. Barack Obama.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

I did listen to the full two hours! There was, as expected, a lot of Obama bashing. Several candidates suggested that they - if elected - would solve the country's economic woes within a few months of being inaugurated.
There were few specifics other than cut taxes, reduce spending and eliminate red tape in the EPA.
Romney largely lay low while the more entertaining exchanges were between Bachmann and Pawlenty. The panel of "journalists,'" expecting little of substance, spent their time throwing gasoline on the simmering fire.
Don't bother asking me how to define "winner." I would say that Bachmann and Paul are probably happy while Pawlenty and Gingrich are not. Huntsman expected little, but at least he wasn't booed.
Will anyone withdraw after Ames on Saturday? I think a couple or 3 should - recognizing that they have no chance. But some of them (like Cain) are largely self-funded and until their egos are deflated while their wallets are emptied they will stay in.

1 Reply

I enjoy reading your posts, RJB, they seem to be well-thought-out. I'm glad your started this thread.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

The dilemma of these debates is that if the press stirs the pot like they did last night you get theater which may or may not be entertaining, but if it doesn't, you get a lot of mini-speeches that don't amount to much at all.

Even if the press simply asks tough questions, the candidates can and will dodge them and give their planned mini-speeches.

I don't think there is a whole lot of value to these sessions except to help winnow the field by providing the candidates an opportunity to make a gaffe.

There's got to be a better way.

As far as last night's debate, knave to agree without the general consensus that Romney "won" because he didn't take any shots, didn't make any gaffes, and seemed a cut above his opponents in terms of presence.

Not much of a win though.

The "loser" was probably Tim Pawlenty and only because much of the media assigned him the spot, and they do have influence.

I don't think he is being totally straight about his record in MN (but then who ever is?), but I have to agree with his criticism of Bachman: Simply leading (a role she tends to exaggerate) a losing battle, doesn't indicate ability to run the country.

My favorite to watch in these things is Ron Paul (R-Crazytown, Tx)

At least he's authentic, but his authenticity could lead to him jumping up on his dias and throwing his feces at Rick Santorum.

Herman Caine is my bet for the most likely to end the campaign thanks to a gaffe.

I admire Newt's intelligence and knowledge, but I wouldn't vote for him in a primary.

I thought Huntsman was going to break into tears on a couple of occasions. Can't wait tot see how his Utah is #1 bit hold up against Rick Perry. Funny, but no one seems to be talking about him being a weird Mormon. Surely to be elected to the governorship in Utah, he must be a Mormon.

It won't, but the fact that there are two Mormons running for President of the US should put an end to this Mormon=Weird nonsense.

Utter shame on Obama if his campaign goes through with it's promise to paint Romney as "weird," and "kill" him.

Santorum is a man of principle, but his principles (rightly or wrongly) have the potential to turn Independents away. He won't win the nomination, and shouldn't.

I'm a good bit tired of all the ideology, and will be delighted with someone who can function as an effective executive. Too bad Mitch Daniels isn't running.

Very early prediction: Romney vs Obama

Rick Perry is hardly a comic book character, but the media will portray him as such.

Every conservative I know doesn't so much care which one of these candidates wins, as long as they can beat Obama.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Surely you are far from the only company who is being regulated by this group, and you recognize that many of your fellow companies are indeed scumbags.

Quote:
They'd been working alongside us for decades and knew we weren't scumbags any more than they were.

A carefully ambiguous statement, this one.

Cycloptichorn

What's so ambiguous? It means that they're people, we're people, and we all worked towards an end result that was in the best interest of the public at large. You seem to find boogie men in every corner and have a very poor opinion of your fellow American.

Your opinions are your own and you're entitled to them, but I don't think they represent reality nearly as closely as you think they do.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

My favorite to watch in these things is Ron Paul (R-Crazytown, Tx)

At least he's authentic, but his authenticity could lead to him jumping up on his dias and throwing his feces at Rick Santorum.

HA! They did seem to have a love match made in hell going on between them.

0 Replies

@JPB,

Quote:

You seem to find boogie men in every corner and have a very poor opinion of your fellow American.

It's merely been my long experience that: when an opportunity arises, there are those who will take it, no matter what the law is. Now, not everyone does so; but enough do, and often enough, that we need people who are aggressively watching to ensure that this doesn't happen.

The situation I describe - ensuring that people follow the rules correctly, and assessing and identifying when people are attempting to break the rules or somehow enrich themselves through their actions in a way which is contrary to the law, is a large part of what I do for a living. And I have lost the ability to be surprised any longer. I understand that you may see this as my being overly cynical, but I can tell you that this attitude has led to the state of CA saving a considerable amount of money, that otherwise would have been wasted, mis-used, or a downright victim of fraud.

Not every regulation is a good one, not every regulatory agency is well-ran or ethical; but regulation is a critical aspect of our shared economic and environmental existence, and I look dimly upon calls to loosen or freeze regulations in general. It is not incorrect for regulators to look upon themselves as White Knights, or to assume that many of those they are regulating will try everything that they can to avoid or get around the rules; because that's the way the world works, and we NEED people in those roles who assume that. The opposite leads us down the road of terrible and corrupt regulation.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

We need regulators who are, at worst, competent technocrats (and certainly not White Knights!) and at best, reasonable men and women.

Corporate America that you continuously smear (while now and again citing that they are not all bad Rolling Eyes

) is what drives our prosperity, not regulators and not the government.

True, it should not be allowed to operate without any restraint what-so-ever, because, sadly, people are flawed and corporations are no more and no less than people. However, far too many of today's regulators (and certainly those who ridiculously aspire to White Knight status) see themselves as overloads, rather than monitors.

Only the fact that American capitalism has created such a robust and powerful economy has allowed us to prosper despite the drag of over-regulation. Those times, however, are no more. We are competing with a world that has learned from our successes, and the margins are much thinner now than ever before.

It is clear that you have never tried to create your own business Cyclo, because if you had you would understand that your so-called White Knights are largely mediocre (at best) bureaucrats who care more for their personal egos and ease of labor that keeping the American economy running strong and fair.

Try and create a company that does business in all 50 states and you will get a lesson you need.

Here is a very simple, but, I think, effective example: Visit the governmental websites of each of the 50 states and try and perform the same task (get licensed for instance) or get an answer to the same question.

Before long you will be pulling your hair out and cursing what is obviously the fact that some commissioner gave the contract for his agency's web development to a nephew or a mistress.

Often (but not always), the real people at the other end of an e-mail to the agency are helpful, but usually only to the extent that they are able to better explain the incomprehensible procedures laid out in the website.

If a state believes a license to do business within their borders is necessary to protect their citizens, that's fine, but it should be incumbent upon it to make it as easy as possible for a company to obtain such a license, not force the firm through hoops simply because it can.

The time and money spent on jumping through these hoops translates to either higher prices for consumers or failed companies and out of work employees. Now that's a victory for the White Knights!

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

It is clear that you have never tried to create your own business Cyclo, because if you had you would understand that your so-called White Knights are largely mediocre (at best) bureaucrats who care more for their personal egos and ease of labor that keeping the American economy running strong and fair.

Yeah, I'm well aware of the pro-business asshole position on the question, thanks.

Quote:

Here is a very simple, but, I think, effective example: Visit the governmental websites of each of the 50 states and try and perform the same task (get licensed for instance) or get an answer to the same question.

Before long you will be pulling your hair out and cursing what is obviously the fact that some commissioner gave the contract for his agency's web development to a nephew or a mistress.

You act as if this isn't connected in large part to the concept of Federalism and State's rights, a subject which you and other right-wingers slavishly defend all the time. If more and more of the functions which are currently being ran individually by the states - with varying levels of success - were instead ran by the Feds, you'd certainly see a lot more standardization, and dare I say, more efficiency with such things; but I doubt you'd actually work to make such a situation happen. In fact, you consistently support candidates who fight very, very hard indeed to keep that from happening.

How do you account for the contradiction between your two positions - that states SHOULD retain individual control over business that goes on within their jurisdiction, but that they shouldn't have different setups and requirements for doing that business?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

The critical problem for those who aspire to the creation of some sort of Platonic, perfectly regulated state is the one Plato himself acknowledged - there are no philosopher kings.

Venality, and behavior ranging from self-serving rationalizations for small misdeeds to truly criminal actions are an implicit part of human nature. And, since both enterprises and government regulators draw their staffs from the same pool of human beings, the expansion of the extent and reach of regulation itself creates new avenues for corruption and misdeeds. Cyclo's descriptions of the typical or ("normal") behavior of people in business is obviously negatively distorted. It is interesting however to note that he appears to leave no room at all for the venality of those who shuffle papers, rules and other people on the behalf of government regulators. The examples the world has seen so far of highly regulated economies and societiees aren't very encouraging either. Recall the hopelessly cynical "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us" mantra of the citizens of the Soviet version of a well regulated Platonic republic.

The real danger for human innovations isn't so much bad ideas themselves, as it is people who are full of themselves, and who don't know or recognize what they don't know or understand. Energetic people who don't know their own limitations and who are very sure they know what is best for others can be dangerous. Happily most are self-limiting.

Freedom is better.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

It is interesting however to note that he appears to leave no room at all for the venality of those who shuffle papers, rules and other people on the behalf of government regulators.

Why is it that some people believe that if I state x, it logically follows that I do not believe that y is true? Why can we not have conversations about things people have actually said, instead of making up statements and putting it in other people's mouths?

I strongly suspect that the answer is: it takes a lot more work to do that, and some, well. They just don't have what it takes to put that work in.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why is it that some people believe that if I state x, it logically follows that I do not believe that y is true? Why can we not have conversations about things people have actually said, instead of making up statements and putting it in other people's mouths?

But you did advocate extensive regulation by people, who you said should see themselves as "white knights" energetically regulating others, as the much needed cure for the chronic and otherwise unreformable corruption of businesses as you rather extensively described them. In short, your extreme indictment of human nature as it relates to commerce left obvious implications that you did not address at all . What other conclusion could a reasonable person make?

There were no qualifiers whatever on these statements or acknowledgement of the inherent limitations of such regulation or of the new possibilities of corruption it may open. What other conclusion would a reader make?

Your continued rationalizations and protestations of virtue are getting rather thin.

I don't think you have much standing for complaints about inferences drawn from the remarks of others. Consider the mote in your own eye.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

But you did advocate extensive regulation by people, who you said should see themselves as "white knights" energetically regulating others, as the much needed cure for the chronic and otherwise unreformable corruption of businesses as you rather extensively described them.

I didn't ever use the word 'cure.' Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. Instead, the truth is that regulators fight a continually losing battle against those who would do what they can to get around those regulations. The individual morality of the business in question merely determines the lengths they are willing to go to do so.

Quote:

What other conclusion would a reader make?

You could always ask, instead of making assumptions. You know what they say about those.

Will it make you happy if I point out that many groups of regulators are inefficient, some lazy, and some corrupt? If it will make you happy, I will both reject and denounce bad regulators - just as I would any group which performs its' job poorly.

Quote:

I don't think you have much standing for complaints about inferences drawn from the remarks of others. Consider the mote in your own eye.

I absolutely do have standing to make that complaint. Your problem isn't with inferences I draw about your statements, it's with the factual errors you make while uttering them in the first place. Not nebulous interpretation; plain factual errors.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Will it make you happy if I point out that many groups of regulators are inefficient, some lazy, and some corrupt? If it will make you happy, I will both reject and denounce bad regulators - just as I would any group which performs its' job poorly.

Do you believe that the incidence of dishonesty and corruption among "regulators" is any different than it is among those who are regulated? If so, why. Please present your facts and abundant proofs..

1 Reply

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know