68
   

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

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2011 05:48 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

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?


Yes, I absolutely do. They have far less opportunity to break the law for their own gain, than do those who would bribe them to do so. Far less upside as well. The amount that one can be bribed is quite limited; excessive amounts of this lead to getting caught rather quickly. For businesses, the upside of breaking the law is profits in the millions and billions of dollars. The two are hardly comparable.

Quote:
If so, why. Please present your facts and abundant proofs..


I explained why. As for the rest, the answer is no. You don't really give a **** about what I would put and you certainly don't intend to treat myself or anyone else here with similar respect when we request it of you. So why would I bother? You don't deserve it. You're clearly only asking for this as some sort of attempt to get my goat, which has failed.

Accept my opinion on the matter or not, I really don't give a ****.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2011 06:27 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

As for the rest, the answer is no. You don't really give a **** about what I would put and you certainly don't intend to treat myself or anyone else here with similar respect when we request it of you. So why would I bother? You don't deserve it. You're clearly only asking for this as some sort of attempt to get my goat, which has failed.

Accept my opinion on the matter or not, I really don't give a ****.

Cycloptichorn


Your explanation was specious. There are many forms of venality besides just bribery. Today's news contains reports of a local Pennsylvania judge who is accused of approaching a builder suggesting that he construct and operate a private facility for the detention of juveniles convicted of minor crimes, and then proceeded to sentence large numbers of juveniles who appeared before him to extended detention there ... in return for kickbacks amounting to over a million dollarsd, according to the allegation.

My company routinely scans the invoices of law firms we hire for compliance assistance looking for instances of overbilling - a very common occurrence among them.


In any event, I didn't expect the requested proofs. The demonstration of your hypocrisy and increrasingly tortured rationalizations is enough for me.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 12:08 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

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

But you can't possibly fathom it and will always sneer at it because you don't have a clue as to what business is really all about and how economics actually work.

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.

Once again you are clueless. If you think federal regulations and agencies are a model of enlighted efficiency, you have obviously never tangled with them.
Quite simply, with absolutely no practical experience, you are talking out of your ass.


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?

Further proof of your limited ability to actually think.

Prefering State regulations to Federal regulations is not an unwavering endorsement of State regulations.

It isn't necessary for all States to have the same regulations (although that could be helpful if they all adopted the policies of the most business friendly states), but it is necessary for economic health that their regulations are easy to understand and easy to comply with.

The concept of State Rights is not predicated upon a belief that a State's government will always get everything right. One need only look to California to prove that is not the case. It is predicated upon the belief that by diffusing power among State governments rather than concentrating it in the Federal government, government has a closer link of accountabilty to the citizens and less of an ability to **** everything up.

You love Government, and believe it to be the benign shepherd of its flock.

Not only has this been refuted time and time again throughout history, it defies all understanding of human nature.

Part of your problem is that you don't seem to comprehend that both government and corporations are nothing more and nothing less than the people who fill their positions.

Government is not some fundamental force for Good, while Corporations are a fundamental force for Evil.

I've little doubt you sneer at what you perceive to be the Manichean notions of neo-cons, and yet your view could not be more Manichean: Federal Government = Light; Corporations = Darkness. You actually consider regulators White Knights!

Private Enterprise in preferable to Governmental control, not because Private Enterprise = Light and Government = Darkness, but because Private Enterprise is far more accountable for it's follies, it's errors, and its malfeasance than Government.

Clearly Government has an important role in enforcing corporate accountability, but then so do the police have a similar role in enforcing personal accountabilty and yet who among us is favor of the police regulating virtually all aspects of our lives?

We are all better off when we enoy the fullest extent of freedom that a healthy society can allow. This means freedom from Corporate control and freedom from Governmental control.










Cycloptichorn
slkshock7
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 08:14 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn wrote:
You love Government, and believe it to be the benign shepherd of its flock.

Not only has this been refuted time and time again throughout history, it defies all understanding of human nature.

Part of your problem is that you don't seem to comprehend that both government and corporations are nothing more and nothing less than the people who fill their positions.

Government is not some fundamental force for Good, while Corporations are a fundamental force for Evil.


Well said, Finn...

There is certainly a place for Govt regulation (controlling prices of monopolies and ensuring safety of consumers and workers) but the left all too often sees regulation as the mechanism by which they can evangelize liberal philosophy and cure such evils as "obscene" corporate profits.

Market forces are a far more potent and reliable weapon to constrain corporations than the periodic intervention of a government bureaucrat.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 09:23 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Good post. I don't agree with all of it, but nonetheless...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 09:54 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:

You love Government, and believe it to be the benign shepherd of its flock.


This is a ridiculous exaggeration of anything I've ever said. A caricature of what you consider a Liberal to be; not reality. It has nothing at all to do with who I am or what I believe.

I'm not really interested in your rants, Finn.... suffice it to say that I've never posited that gov't is all good and corporations are all bad. Ever.

The truth is that neither can be trusted. We need people watching out for the excesses of both of them.

Quote:
It is predicated upon the belief that by diffusing power among State governments rather than concentrating it in the Federal government, government has a closer link of accountabilty to the citizens and less of an ability to **** everything up.


This is a cute theory, but is there any actual evidence that it's true? State governments seem to **** everything up at least as often as the Feds do.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 10:04 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm not really interested in your rants, Finn.... suffice it to say that I've never posited that gov't is all good and corporations are all bad. Ever.

The truth is that neither can be trusted. We need people watching out for the excesses of both of them.

Cycloptichorn


I don't think ot was so much a rant as a specific set of replys to things you wrote.

Glad to see you don't fully trust government. And who will "watch out" for the people who are "watching out" for the "excesses of both of them (government regulators and free people engaged in commerce)?

You have reduced your argument to absurdity.
djjd62
 
  4  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 10:11 am
@georgeob1,
http://static.tumblr.com/zwukmk0/Q4Gld4v8p/r2.jpg
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 10:11 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I don't think ot was so much a rant as a specific set of replys to things you wrote.


His reply had nothing to do with what I actually wrote; it was merely a launching point for what I accurately labeled a rant.

Quote:
And who will "watch out" for the people who are "watching out" for the "excesses of both of them (government regulators and free people engaged in commerce)?


Who indeed? The citizens of the country. That's long been the answer to the question, 'Who watches the watchers?' Hardly some stunningly new concern you've highlighted here.

Quote:

You have reduced your argument to absurdity.


The current discussion we're having has nothing to do with my initial argument at all.

I know it's tempting to throw in such a comment at the end of all your posts to me - probably because you're upset with me on a few levels - but it's not effective if it's not relevant to what we're talking about. Why not just call me a poopy-head? Comments such as this are roughly on the same level.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 10:36 am
Another fringe candidate made it official: Rick Perry.
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 10:41 am
@wandeljw,
why couldn't it have been Steve Perry
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 10:49 am
@wandeljw,
I think it is likely he will win the GOP nomination.

Cycloptichorn
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 10:56 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Check out Nate's column on Why Ames Actually Matters.

Pretty interesting.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 11:15 am
@Irishk,
Yah, I saw that - I think his reasoning is sound, but the caveat that there have only been 5 of them held in history is a super-important one to me. Data set isn't large enough to give predictive value.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 03:19 pm
The things people do to become President

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2011/08/Corndog1-384x288.jpg
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 04:47 pm
IA straw poll results are in:

Results: Bachmann 4823, Paul 4671, Pawlenty 2293, Santorum 1657, Cain 1456, Perry 718, Romney 567, Gingrich 385, Huntsman 69, McCotter 35

Glad to see Paul did well. Not that I'd actually vote for him...
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Aug, 2011 12:34 am
@JPB,
Pawlenty will probably stay in the race despite a weak 3rd place finish. He is low on cash and some donors may drift away so he may have to scale back his operation. But he can let Bachmann, Perry, Romney (and perhaps Palin) beat up on each other for a few more months.
He will be on one of the talk shows later this morning.
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Aug, 2011 07:27 am
@realjohnboy,
Out. Buh-bye T-Paw...

http://news.yahoo.com/ex-minn-gov-tim-pawlenty-ends-white-house-124623539.html
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Aug, 2011 09:40 am
@sozobe,
I am surprised TPaw dropped out. Instead of the situation being either he was financially strapped or his message wasn't resonating, it was evidently both.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Aug, 2011 09:44 am
@realjohnboy,
Chuck Todd (MSNBC) had a piece that said he thought it was because T-Paw isn't "dynamic" enough to appeal to the base. Also, he didn't have a defining message that set him apart from the other candidates, particularly Rick Perry (sitting governor). He's been legislating from the middle because he's in a left-leaning state whereas Perry has been legislating from the far right because he's in Texas. Todd thought he would have stayed in if not for Perry's entry into the race, but that TP felt that he couldn't take on both Bachman and Perry.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.09 seconds on 12/14/2024 at 07:58:01