Conquer Club

Constitution Revolution: 2012

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby Phatscotty on Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:31 am

Baron Von PWN wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:


You might want to read the article dude.


my favorite part. "Why not (8) A bake sale shall be held, $100,000,000,000?"


It annoys the shit out of me... Paul talks a big game but ends up just like every other jackass representative - all talk, no action. "Oh look at me... I'm cutting shit." God dammit!



It's pretty scary to think a guy making proposals like that could be/is running the most powerful country on earth.


cuts?

here's what happened. Bachmann submitted a cut proposal on the low end, and Rand did one on the high end. Hopefully they will meet somewhere in the middle?
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby Baron Von PWN on Wed Feb 02, 2011 1:18 am

Phatscotty wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:It's pretty scary to think a guy making proposals like that could be/is running the most powerful country on earth.


cuts?

here's what happened. Bachmann submitted a cut proposal on the low end, and Rand did one on the high end. Hopefully they will meet somewhere in the middle?


Cuts which have a reasonable consideration of the consequences are perfectly fine and absolutely desirable. Its not even the amounts he wants to cut that's the problem. Its the hap hazard and irresponsible manner in which he proposes the government go about the cuts.

The FY 2011 budget request for all Department of State appropriations totals $16.419 billion.

Okay, that must be the wrong figure. Giving Mr Paul the benefit of the doubt and assuming he is not trying to cut the State Department's budget by 125%, he must be referring to the combined budget for the State Department and USAID, which according to the president's February 2010 proposal would have totaled $52.8 billion. That would mean a cut of 38%.


This for example is just plain sloppy and shows he didn't do anything resembling research into what he's cutting. It's legal bill the wording is supposed to be precise. Proposing the cancellation of commissions which are required by treaty obligation? really?

Is he so idiotic he can't see what would do to the USA's reputation?

How does he expect to be taken seriously when his proposals are so obviously stupid?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Baron Von PWN
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:05 pm
Location: Capital region ,Canada

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby Phatscotty on Wed Feb 02, 2011 1:24 am

Critics lashed out Wednesday at a proposal by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul to slash numerous federal programs, including food stamps, to save $500 billion in a single year.

"Some of the elements of the plan, which would remove the safety net that poor and vulnerable people need, we would find morally objectionable," said the Rev. Patrick Delahanty, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Kentucky.

Paul introduced legislation in the Senate on Tuesday that would slash $42 billion from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's food stamp program -- a 30 percent reduction from the current funding level. It also would eliminate numerous other programs, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Paul said the proposal, which also would cut $16 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, would roll back federal spending to 2008 levels and eliminate what he considers the most wasteful programs.

The Kentucky Republican said he hopes his proposal will spark a dialogue within the Senate about how to repair the nation's economy.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Feb 02, 2011 1:32 am

Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
you can choose to grow it if you want it. There would be no need for that entire part of the drug issue to exist. It would slash the budget of many federal agencies, and reduce crime immensely. The gov't no longer has that part of the burden on their back, the people are happy, nobody is in prison for smoking a joint, and sales taxes will be generated from it. They will want to permit it, but that's a fight we will be ready for.
Now I just have to motivate a bunch of pot heads.


And when someone starts cutting the product with dangerous chemicals, that will be fine, because with no regulatory laws, there are no laws being broken. But nobody would ever do that, which is why nobody needs regulatory oversight. It's perfect!


Yeah, this is the Prisoner's Dilemma and you're assuming that the game isn't coordinated and that everyone is a stranger.
People through trial and error will identify and make known who are the good and bad producers (especially as the internet becomes more readily accessible and transferrable into more and more aspects of daily living). In such a model, one's reputation does matter; otherwise, you'll be sent to court and fined for such an injustice--OH, you're assuming that regulation and laws go hand in hand, but they don't have to.


And yet, even today WITH SOME REGULATION IN PLACE, what you are stating does take place and yet, "the corporation's reputation does not seem to matter very much. You see, that's the beauty of advertising and presenting misinformation. Which would be even more beautiful in a world where false advertising and misinformation weren't illegal. So I would have to conclude the faith that you and others seem to have in this model are quite and incomprehensibly naive. And knowing you, I don't really understand why that would be the case.


1) Reputation matters a lot. You're wrong. See below after #2.

2) Regulation regarding companies isn't enforced by governments before it's noticed by individuals themselves, so why are overseeing agents really necessary? Can't this service be provided by private companies that certify certain products as safe (hint: they already do, but are limited by certain laws and regulations--can't have them cutting into the government's piece of the pie too much).

If a corporation's reputation doesn't matter so much, then why is marketing such a HUGE and INTEGRAL part of business? They're the external face of the company connected to the consumers. It's all about reputation and customer satisfaction to maintain a successful company--of course, there are exceptions, but they're arguable and minimal.

Hey, what happens when Company A is found to have sold ammonia in cigarettes? People stop purchasing those cigarettes, the company suffers, and has to change its ingredients, invest millions into a new marketing plan, or go bankrupt. Reputation matters. (Guess why ammonia was put into cigarettes? Because customers wanted that big 'ol "WHOOO!!" to their cigarettes. Are you starting to see where marketing can go wrong if they pay too much attention to a customer's wants?)

As far as regulation is concerned, no government agency really discovered this problem until people themselves started alerted their doctors and others about it. Regulation is only there to set some standard that the government can later compare a company's actions against and then fine them for doing some bad (also, it's to justify the necessity of government itself--to keep you safe because they're making sure you can sleep safely at night!)

Consider GM and the shitty cars they make. Over the years of them nodding to each other saying, YEAH people like our cars, that's why we're so succ---OH SHI!!! Sales dropped and kept dropping because people think their cars suck. Reputation matters.

___________________________________________

3) Let's discuss "false" advertising:
Really, it's called "puffery," or "seller's talk." It's allowed because it isn't fraudulent and it's opinion-based. Advertisements also have to follow by a very strict code--more so than you imagine (http://www.bbb.org/us/code-of-advertising/). If you listen very carefully to commercials, you'll see what I'm talking about.



The kind of advertising that you're talking about ran rampant in the 1920s up to the 1950s and significantly decreased because the smart companies realized you when you raise customers' satisfactions immensely through lies, the customer becomes extremely dissatisfied when he actually realizes what he's purchased. I'm sure you understand the repercussions of this pattern.

What companies (successful) ones have been doing is this: "never deliver what you can't promise, and always deliver more than you promised."

___________________________________________________________

4) Regarding prisoner's dilemma, I've got a few questions for you:

What's the difference between a coordinating and non-coordinating?
What are the difference in results between allowing people to meet and talk with each before playing the game compared to preventing that factor?
Last edited by BigBallinStalin on Wed Feb 02, 2011 1:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Feb 02, 2011 1:42 am

Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Now this goes to the question of whether the government should set regulations on every aspect of an industry, or leave it to people themselves to set up reputable companies that would approve the quality of company A or company B's marijuana.
I take it that you're the kind of guy that says that there must be some force to keep people together to make sure they don't rape, pillage, and plunder each other, and that this can only be achieved through regulation via government. Or via what?


I'm the kind of guy that recognizes that even with regulations in place, the rape, pillage and plunder is happening and that without regulatory oversight, it could ONLY be worse.

For instance: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/386c25518f464186bf7a2ac026580ce7/Article_2011-01-31-Gulf%20Oil%20Spill%20Claims/id-1c0effedd7a34f5c9779e8103af11ab7

Lack of following the regulations led to this problem (as well as lack of following the regulations by those who should have been conducting the mechanical inspections and such)...so certainly, the problem would have occurred without any regulatory oversight.


Oh, the BP oil spill! That's rich. Guess who oversaw and supposedly enforced regulations on safety standards for that rig?

----> The government. LOL.

Woodruff, the laws were in place, but not enforced properly. It's a failure of the government, and that comes inherent with any government---especially with the factor of vested interests. Recall that Haliburton's viability holds a significant interest to the government (for purposes of national interests, of course).

The mechanical tests for concrete weren't even conducted by Haliburton, yet on file they said they did. The company lied regardless of laws in place. How was it punished? By a cap liability limit placed by who? The government...


_____________________________________________________

You still hold claim that the world works well with the government and point to problems without one (or with looser regulation and rules), but fail to understand that whatever you dislike in my scenario is already happening today.

The main difference is that the government is used as tool to provide certain corporations what they want through a government-monopolized legal system.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Feb 02, 2011 1:46 am

Baron Von PWN wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:It's pretty scary to think a guy making proposals like that could be/is running the most powerful country on earth.


cuts?

here's what happened. Bachmann submitted a cut proposal on the low end, and Rand did one on the high end. Hopefully they will meet somewhere in the middle?


Cuts which have a reasonable consideration of the consequences are perfectly fine and absolutely desirable. Its not even the amounts he wants to cut that's the problem. Its the hap hazard and irresponsible manner in which he proposes the government go about the cuts.


For real. It seems that all he's proposing is across the board cuts without really seeing what should be cut and what shouldn't by determining differing but more truly representative values for each.

(I kind of skimmed over that article though, so I may have misread something).
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby Woodruff on Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:06 am

Phatscotty wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:You might want to read the article dude.


my favorite part. "Why not (8) A bake sale shall be held, $100,000,000,000?"


It annoys the shit out of me... Paul talks a big game but ends up just like every other jackass representative - all talk, no action. "Oh look at me... I'm cutting shit." God dammit!



It's pretty scary to think a guy making proposals like that could be/is running the most powerful country on earth.


cuts?

here's what happened. Bachmann submitted a cut proposal on the low end, and Rand did one on the high end. Hopefully they will meet somewhere in the middle?


So since Michelle Bachmann is such a prominent Tea Partier, does this mean that Tea Partiers in general have no interest in supporting America's military veterans? Because her "low end cut proposal" sure doesn't look good for the VA.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby Woodruff on Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:40 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:you can choose to grow it if you want it. There would be no need for that entire part of the drug issue to exist. It would slash the budget of many federal agencies, and reduce crime immensely. The gov't no longer has that part of the burden on their back, the people are happy, nobody is in prison for smoking a joint, and sales taxes will be generated from it. They will want to permit it, but that's a fight we will be ready for.
Now I just have to motivate a bunch of pot heads.


And when someone starts cutting the product with dangerous chemicals, that will be fine, because with no regulatory laws, there are no laws being broken. But nobody would ever do that, which is why nobody needs regulatory oversight. It's perfect!


Yeah, this is the Prisoner's Dilemma and you're assuming that the game isn't coordinated and that everyone is a stranger.
People through trial and error will identify and make known who are the good and bad producers (especially as the internet becomes more readily accessible and transferrable into more and more aspects of daily living). In such a model, one's reputation does matter; otherwise, you'll be sent to court and fined for such an injustice--OH, you're assuming that regulation and laws go hand in hand, but they don't have to.


And yet, even today WITH SOME REGULATION IN PLACE, what you are stating does take place and yet, "the corporation's reputation does not seem to matter very much. You see, that's the beauty of advertising and presenting misinformation. Which would be even more beautiful in a world where false advertising and misinformation weren't illegal. So I would have to conclude the faith that you and others seem to have in this model are quite and incomprehensibly naive. And knowing you, I don't really understand why that would be the case.


1) Reputation matters a lot. You're wrong. See below after #2.


That must be why BP is out of business then, right?
And all of the banks with their many illegal siezing of homes...they're out of business too.
And don't forget GM, whose reputation was so bad they literally had to be saved by the government. They were still in business.
And how about those financial institutions, since I'm on the subject of the bailouts.

It doesn't seem to matter very much at all.

BigBallinStalin wrote:2) Regulation regarding companies isn't enforced by governments before it's noticed by individuals themselves, so why are overseeing agents really necessary? Can't this service be provided by private companies that certify certain products as safe (hint: they already do, but are limited by certain laws and regulations--can't have them cutting into the government's piece of the pie too much).


We're not speaking about who does the regulatory enforcement, we're speaking about whether regulation itself is valid. Your paragraph above is irrelevant to that.

BigBallinStalin wrote:If a corporation's reputation doesn't matter so much, then why is marketing such a HUGE and INTEGRAL part of business?


Because it's their opportunity to feed the bullshit to the masses.

BigBallinStalin wrote:They're the external face of the company connected to the consumers. It's all about reputation and customer satisfaction to maintain a successful company--of course, there are exceptions, but they're arguable and minimal.


For most corporations, customer satisfaction is not particularly important. They do like to put that face out for the public, because the public enjoys being fooled. But any close examination shows that most companies weigh everything toward profit over customer satisfaction.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Consider GM and the shitty cars they make. Over the years of them nodding to each other saying, YEAH people like our cars, that's why we're so succ---OH SHI!!! Sales dropped and kept dropping because people think their cars suck. Reputation matters.


And yet, they stayed in business, even to the point of being bailed out by the government. And what was their CEO making at the time, again? Yeah...profits.

BigBallinStalin wrote:3) Let's discuss "false" advertising:
Really, it's called "puffery," or "seller's talk." It's allowed because it isn't fraudulent and it's opinion-based. Advertisements also have to follow by a very strict code--more so than you imagine (http://www.bbb.org/us/code-of-advertising/). If you listen very carefully to commercials, you'll see what I'm talking about.


I know exactly what you're talking about...I'm well aware of it. It's what I was referring to above with the "half-truths".

BigBallinStalin wrote:The kind of advertising that you're talking about ran rampant in the 1920s up to the 1950s and significantly decreased because the smart companies realized you when you raise customers' satisfactions immensely through lies, the customer becomes extremely dissatisfied when he actually realizes what he's purchased. I'm sure you understand the repercussions of this pattern.


I'm not convinced that many businesses these days are particularly concerned about the long-term over the short-term.

BigBallinStalin wrote:4) Regarding prisoner's dilemma, I've got a few questions for you:
What's the difference between a coordinating and non-coordinating?


Besides poor grammar? Because I have no idea what you're asking here.

BigBallinStalin wrote:What are the difference in results between allowing people to meet and talk with each before playing the game compared to preventing that factor?


And this didn't help - I still have no idea what you're talking about.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:55 am

Woodruff, what your posts have shown me is that
1) you don't understand the affects of government decisions on the BP problem,

2)you have no idea what the prisoner's dilemma is (yet you cover your ignorance up with accusations of poor grammar--even though the question is still understandable enough),

3)and you have no idea of the complexities involved in marketing or how businesses really work.




You take a small case and then expand it to the whole.

Nice try though.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:08 am

Sure, some companies aren't concerned with the long-run, nor with their customers (which is why the demand for consultants is so freaking high), because a lot of people don't know how to fix certain problems.

If you truly think that companies only operate by placing profit over customer satisfaction, then that only underscores your lack of knowledge about the importance of marketing. Many companies fail because they believe what you suggest, and not all can maintain such a perspective.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby Woodruff on Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:11 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff, what your posts have shown me is that
1) you don't understand the affects of government decisions on the BP problem


Because I disagree with you, of course. Thanks for using Phatscotty's "Everybody that disagrees with me just doesn't understand the situation" on me...It's a shame that I have to think of you in the same light as him.

BigBallinStalin wrote:2)you have no idea what the prisoner's dilemma is (yet you cover your ignorance up with accusations of poor grammar--even though the question is still understandable enough)


I DON'T know what "The Prisoner's Dilemma" is, no. Nor do I particularly care, to be honest. And no, the question "What's the difference between a coordinating and non-coordinating?" is NOT "understandable enough"...in fact, it makes absolutely no sense at all.

BigBallinStalin wrote:3)and you have no idea of the complexities involved in marketing or how businesses really work.


Thank you, Phatscotty. I'll go ahead and foe you now, so you won't have to worry about my widdle bwain not being able to handle the big, grand ideas that only those who agree with you understand.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:12 am

Woodruff wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:quote="Woodruff"]
Phatsco
you can choose to grow it if you want it. There would be no need for that entire part of the drug issue to exist. It would slash the budget of many federal agencies, and reduce crime immensely. The gov't no longer has that part of the burden on their back, the people are happy, nobody is in prison for smoking a joint, and sales taxes will be generated from it. They will want to permit it, but that's a fight we will be ready for.
Now I just have to motivate a bunch of pot heads.


And when someone starts cutting the product with dangerous chemicals, that will be fine, because with no regulatory laws, there are no laws being broken. But nobody would ever do that, which is why nobody needs regulatory oversight. It's perfect!


Yeah, this is the Prisoner's Dilemma and you're assuming that the game isn't coordinated and that everyone is a stranger.
People through trial and error will identify and make known who are the good and bad producers (especially as the internet becomes more readily accessible and transferrable into more and more aspects of daily living). In such a model, one's reputation does matter; otherwise, you'll be sent to court and fined for such an injustice--OH, you're assuming that regulation and laws go hand in hand, but they don't have to.


And yet, even today WITH SOME REGULATION IN PLACE, what you are stating does take place and yet, "the corporation's reputation does not seem to matter very much. You see, that's the beauty of advertising and presenting misinformation. Which would be even more beautiful in a world where false advertising and misinformation weren't illegal. So I would have to conclude the faith that you and others seem to have in this model are quite and incomprehensibly naive. And knowing you, I don't really understand why that would be the case.


1) Reputation matters a lot. You're wrong. See below after #2.


[quote="Woodruff wrote:That must be why BP is out of business then, right?
And all of the banks with their many illegal siezing of homes...they're out of business too.
And don't forget GM, whose reputation was so bad they literally had to be saved by the government. They were still in business.
And how about those financial institutions, since I'm on the subject of the bailouts.

It doesn't seem to matter very much at all.
[/quote]

This was probably the most giant turd of words you landed.

Reputation does matter for BP. Why? Because after this oil spill, their reputation was damaged, and people stopped purchasing their oil for awhile.

Really? How can you be that brickheaded to not see that line of reasoning?

They stayed in business because the government prevented others from suing them over a certain amount (IMO they should've been sued a shit ton more than this roughly $60bn cap). They weren't, because of government regulation.
Last edited by BigBallinStalin on Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:17 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby Woodruff on Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:13 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:Reputation does matter for BP. Why? Because after this oil spill, their reputation was damaged, and people stopped purchasing their oil for awhile.

Really? How can you be that brickheaded to not see that line of reasoning?

They stayed in business because the government prevented others from suing them over a certain amount (IMO they should've been sued a shit ton more than this roughly $60bn cap). They weren't, because of government regulation.


That wasn't governmental regulation of the business itself, you moron. It was governmental regulation of how much they were responsible for in damages. More with Phatscotty dishonesty. Enough...please, just disappear.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:15 am

Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff, what your posts have shown me is that
1) you don't understand the affects of government decisions on the BP problem


Because I disagree with you, of course. Thanks for using Phatscotty's "Everybody that disagrees with me just doesn't understand the situation" on me...It's a shame that I have to think of you in the same light as him.

BigBallinStalin wrote:2)you have no idea what the prisoner's dilemma is (yet you cover your ignorance up with accusations of poor grammar--even though the question is still understandable enough)


I DON'T know what "The Prisoner's Dilemma" is, no. Nor do I particularly care, to be honest. And no, the question "What's the difference between a coordinating and non-coordinating?" is NOT "understandable enough"...in fact, it makes absolutely no sense at all.


HA, that's all you had to say. It's not that hard, is it Woodruff? To admit that you don't know something?

It's important to understand the argument behind the Prisoner's Dilemma regarding the question of whether or not people can regulate themselves and arguments concerning without the government, then people would only rape, pillage, and plunder.

You should care because it's actually what people like you expound upon, yet it ignores human motivation, implicit contracts, and reputation.


BigBallinStalin wrote:3)and you have no idea of the complexities involved in marketing or how businesses really work.


Thank you, Phatscotty. I'll go ahead and foe you now, so you won't have to worry about my widdle bwain not being able to handle the big, grand ideas that only those who agree with you understand.[/quote]
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:16 am

Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Reputation does matter for BP. Why? Because after this oil spill, their reputation was damaged, and people stopped purchasing their oil for awhile.

Really? How can you be that brickheaded to not see that line of reasoning?

They stayed in business because the government prevented others from suing them over a certain amount (IMO they should've been sued a shit ton more than this roughly $60bn cap). They weren't, because of government regulation.


That wasn't governmental regulation of the business itself, you moron. It was governmental regulation of how much they were responsible for in damages. More with Phatscotty dishonesty. Enough...please, just disappear.


This relates to why BP is still in business...

It's related to regulation because with regulation, the government can determine which businesses survive and which can't. You however argue that regulation is good and necessary and more is needed.
Last edited by BigBallinStalin on Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:20 am

f*ck, no wonder so many people think you're an ass.

Hey, if people think the same of me, I'm fine with that. It goes with being "BigBallinStalin," but I'll drop it when I want to be completely serious (via PM, etc).

But trying to talk to Woodruff was like talking to some grandpa about systems theory or why girls wear skirts above their knee. Holy f*ck, that was pointless.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby Baron Von PWN on Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:37 am

Phatscotty wrote:
Critics lashed out Wednesday at a proposal by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul to slash numerous federal programs, including food stamps, to save $500 billion in a single year.

"Some of the elements of the plan, which would remove the safety net that poor and vulnerable people need, we would find morally objectionable," said the Rev. Patrick Delahanty, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Kentucky.

Paul introduced legislation in the Senate on Tuesday that would slash $42 billion from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's food stamp program -- a 30 percent reduction from the current funding level. It also would eliminate numerous other programs, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Paul said the proposal, which also would cut $16 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, would roll back federal spending to 2008 levels and eliminate what he considers the most wasteful programs.

The Kentucky Republican said he hopes his proposal will spark a dialogue within the Senate about how to repair the nation's economy.



Right because there was a lack of discussion on the budget, it therefore necessitated he write a bill so idiotic people pay attention to the issue :roll: . Wasteful programs like ensuring the US doesn't break treaty obligation? Other countries who give a shit about them right!?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Baron Von PWN
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:05 pm
Location: Capital region ,Canada

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Feb 02, 2011 8:34 am

Woodruff, at the risk of being labelled PhatScotty (no offense PS)...

Woodruff wrote:That must be why BP is out of business then, right?
And all of the banks with their many illegal siezing of homes...they're out of business too.
And don't forget GM, whose reputation was so bad they literally had to be saved by the government. They were still in business.
And how about those financial institutions, since I'm on the subject of the bailouts.

It doesn't seem to matter very much at all.


You mention BP, the banks, and General Motors. All those entities have the same thing in common, namely that the government is either in charge of regulating them and did not (BP and the banks) or they were assisted by the government financially (the banks and General Motors).

Thus, I ask you - if the government did not regulate or assist these companies, how would our lives be different? Would the BP oil spill have happened? I'm fairly sure, but government regulation didn't help, right? So you point to the banks and the US car manufacturers who failed, but were bailed out by the government. If the government did not bail these companies out, they would have failed correct? So the market would have done it's job, right? And government intervention (not de-regulation, not strict market forces) allowed these entities to stay around... entities that you think have bad reputations.

Is this making sense to you yet?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby Phatscotty on Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:58 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:It's pretty scary to think a guy making proposals like that could be/is running the most powerful country on earth.


cuts?

here's what happened. Bachmann submitted a cut proposal on the low end, and Rand did one on the high end. Hopefully they will meet somewhere in the middle?


Cuts which have a reasonable consideration of the consequences are perfectly fine and absolutely desirable. Its not even the amounts he wants to cut that's the problem. Its the hap hazard and irresponsible manner in which he proposes the government go about the cuts.


For real. It seems that all he's proposing is across the board cuts without really seeing what should be cut and what shouldn't by determining differing but more truly representative values for each.

(I kind of skimmed over that article though, so I may have misread something).


It's okay, it's just one guys opinion, who is no fan of Rand Paul. Take it for what it's worth.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby Phatscotty on Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:59 pm

thegreekdog wrote:Woodruff, at the risk of being labelled PhatScotty (no offense PS)...



has it really come down to if you think there is too much regulation, then you are a PhatScotty!?

:o
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby Phatscotty on Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:01 pm

Baron Von PWN wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Critics lashed out Wednesday at a proposal by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul to slash numerous federal programs, including food stamps, to save $500 billion in a single year.

"Some of the elements of the plan, which would remove the safety net that poor and vulnerable people need, we would find morally objectionable," said the Rev. Patrick Delahanty, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Kentucky.

Paul introduced legislation in the Senate on Tuesday that would slash $42 billion from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's food stamp program -- a 30 percent reduction from the current funding level. It also would eliminate numerous other programs, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Paul said the proposal, which also would cut $16 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, would roll back federal spending to 2008 levels and eliminate what he considers the most wasteful programs.

The Kentucky Republican said he hopes his proposal will spark a dialogue within the Senate about how to repair the nation's economy.



Right because there was a lack of discussion on the budget, it therefore necessitated he write a bill so idiotic people pay attention to the issue :roll: . Wasteful programs like ensuring the US doesn't break treaty obligation? Other countries who give a shit about them right!?


there are plenty of options on the table, and just because we get rid of a certain way of doing something does not mean that nothing will replace it. you are kind of jumping to conclusions. My eyes got opened by that article to though.

It all comes down to do we have the money or don't we?
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:01 pm

What's interesting about the government compared to individuals and nearly every business is this: When you're bankrupt, you sell your assets to make that money. When you're the government and bankrupt, you just print cash, hardly ever sell any assets, and hardly mess with the budget while paying lip service that you really, really, REALLY are.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby Phatscotty on Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:04 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:What's interesting about the government compared to individuals and nearly every business is this: When you're bankrupt, you sell your assets to make that money. When you're the government and bankrupt, you just print cash, hardly ever sell any assets, and hardly mess with the budget while paying lip service that you really, really, REALLY are.


Sometimes.

Sometimes, the country getting the devalued paper dollars says they won't accept them because now they are worthless, and depending on the size of the debt held, the creditor tells the debtor what/how it is they will repay the debt, with a lot of room for all kinds of "deals".
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:14 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:What's interesting about the government compared to individuals and nearly every business is this: When you're bankrupt, you sell your assets to make that money. When you're the government and bankrupt, you just print cash, hardly ever sell any assets, and hardly mess with the budget while paying lip service that you really, really, REALLY are.


Sometimes.

Sometimes, the country getting the devalued paper dollars says they won't accept them because now they are worthless, and depending on the size of the debt held, the creditor tells the debtor what/how it is they will repay the debt, with a lot of room for all kinds of "deals".



The US government is playing a dangerous game.... :/
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: The Revolution Begins

Postby Phatscotty on Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:19 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:What's interesting about the government compared to individuals and nearly every business is this: When you're bankrupt, you sell your assets to make that money. When you're the government and bankrupt, you just print cash, hardly ever sell any assets, and hardly mess with the budget while paying lip service that you really, really, REALLY are.


Sometimes.

Sometimes, the country getting the devalued paper dollars says they won't accept them because now they are worthless, and depending on the size of the debt held, the creditor tells the debtor what/how it is they will repay the debt, with a lot of room for all kinds of "deals".



The US government is playing a dangerous game.... :/


We cannot afford to get it wrong. The people are starting to demand we get it right. The awakening continues. Are we too late?
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users