Anyone watching the GOP debate?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
I was using your post to raise a point that occurred in the debate.

MSNBC, naturally, has been calling it some sort of gaffe. I think it's the sorry and direct truth. It just happens that SS is the 3rd rail of politics.

As a side note, I noticed today that Norah O'Donnell is now working at CBS News, having left NBC/MSNBC. That leaves NBC with one less actual news person. MSNBC doesn't have any news anymore.

white_20ho_small.jpg
 
Denny Crane said:
Why isn't it a Ponzi Scheme?

The people who contributed all their lives to it had their funds fraudulently taken from the Trust Fund and spent on tea and circuses. Now the thing is running a deficit and it's got tens of $Trillions in unfunded liabilities going forward.
Click to expand...

Are you saying SS is literally a Ponzi Scheme or like a Ponzi Scheme in some regards? Or are we using it as simile?
 
Last edited:
STOMP said:
exactly. Big business would rather stonewall and face lawsuits vs joe average nobodies in our courts then have their feet held to the fire by an agency requiring higher standards. They can deal with some collateral damage settlements if they're making $$$ hand over fist with inferior products.

STOMP
Click to expand...

Would they be "making $$$ hand over fist with inferior products"? Especially if those inferior products were, or rumored to be, unsafe?
 
Denny Crane said:
Huntsman was the concensus winner on C-SPAN this morning (judging by what the callers were saying).

Ron Paul is the winner according to this unscientific poll on MSNBC's site (host of the debate):

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...n-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-library

Total of 127,374 votes - click on the "Display Comments" bar below to sort comments

Ron Paul 50%(63,744 votes)
Mitt Romney 17.3%(21,987 votes)
Rick Perry 14.4%(18,347 votes)
Jon Huntsman 6.9%(8,784 votes)
Newt Gingrich 4.8%(6,075 votes)
Herman Cain 3.3%(4,264 votes)
Michele Bachmann 2.2%(2,835 votes)
Rick Santorum 1.1%(1,338 votes)
Click to expand...

I was looking at the WSJ Poll. The options for their poll were Bachmann, Perry, Romney and Someone else. Why are they ignoring the other 5 candidates? Paul is widely being ignored by most media outlets.
 
blazerboy30 said:
Would they be "making $$$ hand over fist with inferior products"? Especially if those inferior products were, or rumored to be, unsafe?
Click to expand...

the thing is, WHY would they be rumored to be unsafe?

because of the regulations the government put into action...

It's basically like an alcoholic saying they can stop drinking (after going through treatment) and doesn't need any treatment help anymore. Because they know whats best for them.

Car companies were slow to increasing MPG in cars, because the public didn't care/know about the reasons why we need to have higher MPG. They were slow to putting in seat belts, air bags, gas tanks that didn't go boom when you backed into them (see: Mustang/Pinto), or crumple zones (see: pretty much all cars before the 80's).

The only reason why they're doing it now is because they've had to. And even though they'd be better off continuing the safety regulations they have to do, they wouldn't have had to do it if it weren't for these evil regulations.
 
Dan Savage is effective. I see "Santorum" and I feel revulsion followed by quick realization that they're talking about the political man and not the new definition.
 
mobes23 said:
Dan Savage is effective. I see "Santorum" and I feel revulsion followed by quick realization that they're talking about the political man and not the new definition.
Click to expand...

Do NOT google "Santorum" while at work. I think it's actually written into the internet usage policy where I work.
 
STOMP said:
exactly. Big business would rather stonewall and face lawsuits vs joe average nobodies in our courts then have their feet held to the fire by an agency requiring higher standards. They can deal with some collateral damage settlements if they're making $$$ hand over fist with inferior products.

I'd rather pay for the engineered railing at the top of the viewpoint then forego that and have the individual(s) pay for the ambulance ride

STOMP
Click to expand...

Do you trust Underwriters Laboratories? Consumer Reports? Don't you think that a private company could manage to do the work of the NHTSA? Private companies that are faced with bankruptcy and or liquidation if they're wrong have more to lose than a faceless government bureaucracy. I would argue that the Federal Government is more open to corruption than a private company.
 
STOMP said:
exactly. Big business would rather stonewall and face lawsuits vs joe average nobodies in our courts then have their feet held to the fire by an agency requiring higher standards. They can deal with some collateral damage settlements if they're making $$$ hand over fist with inferior products.

I'd rather pay for the engineered railing at the top of the viewpoint then forego that and have the individual(s) pay for the ambulance ride

STOMP
Click to expand...

Nader made his name from his book "unsafe at any speed.". Yet the cars people die in the most are corvettes and cameros and firebirds.

Go figure
 
Denny Crane said:
Huntsman was the concensus winner on C-SPAN this morning (judging by what the callers were saying).

Ron Paul is the winner according to this unscientific poll on MSNBC's site (host of the debate):

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...n-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-library

Total of 127,374 votes - click on the "Display Comments" bar below to sort comments

Ron Paul 50%(63,744 votes)
Mitt Romney 17.3%(21,987 votes)
Rick Perry 14.4%(18,347 votes)
Jon Huntsman 6.9%(8,784 votes)
Newt Gingrich 4.8%(6,075 votes)
Herman Cain 3.3%(4,264 votes)
Michele Bachmann 2.2%(2,835 votes)
Rick Santorum 1.1%(1,338 votes)
Click to expand...

I take with a grain of salt any "survey" done with people calling in or clicking on a link. Paul has shown especially that he has a small, but active, base.
 
Denny Crane said:
Nader made his name from his book "unsafe at any speed.". Yet the cars people die in the most are corvettes and cameros and firebirds.

Go figure
Click to expand...

link?

the only link I could find was this one. http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4204.pdf

And no where is Corvette, Camaro or Firebirds on them.

Yes, the big three had changed some of the things they knew where wrong, but not as much as they did once it became regulation.
 
Denny Crane said:
Nader made his name from his book "unsafe at any speed.". Yet the cars people die in the most are corvettes and cameros and firebirds.

Go figure
Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe because you don't see a lot of Corvairs on the highway these days?
Not too many people get killed in 1939 Packards, either.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Yeah, maybe because you don't see a lot of Corvairs on the highway these days?
Not too many people get killed in 1939 Packards, either.

barfo
Click to expand...

well, the last Corvair was made 42 years ago. That might have something to do with why you don't see many of them on the highway. But they actually weren't any less safe then any of the other POS's that were around in the 60's.
 
julius said:
the thing is, WHY would they be rumored to be unsafe?

because of the regulations the government put into action...

It's basically like an alcoholic saying they can stop drinking (after going through treatment) and doesn't need any treatment help anymore. Because they know whats best for them.

Car companies were slow to increasing MPG in cars, because the public didn't care/know about the reasons why we need to have higher MPG. They were slow to putting in seat belts, air bags, gas tanks that didn't go boom when you backed into them (see: Mustang/Pinto), or crumple zones (see: pretty much all cars before the 80's).

The only reason why they're doing it now is because they've had to. And even though they'd be better off continuing the safety regulations they have to do, they wouldn't have had to do it if it weren't for these evil regulations.
Click to expand...

You're a grown-ass man (I think). If you don't like the company or its products, don't buy their products.
 
blazerboy30 said:
You're a grown-ass man (I think). If you don't like the company or its products, don't buy their products.
Click to expand...

so basically we should allow for whatever to happen?

You're a grown ass man (I think), tune into sanity FM. Companies care about making money, and if it weren't for standards that they have to meet, they would screw you every which way but loose.

What about the stuff they could do and you don't know about it? who is going to the be watch dog, and how easy would it be to have the companies bury those watch dogs?

say GM dumps their excess paint into the ground because it's cheaper to do it? But no one knows..

or Ford goes with cheap brakes that they know aren't as nice? But no one knows..

or maybe Chrysler uses inferior air bags because they can..but no one knows?

you are seriously naive if you think they wouldn't try to go cheap if they didn't have to meet certain standards. Do you honestly think they'd be building fuel efficient cars if they didn't have to?
 
Last edited:
julius said:
so basically we should allow for whatever to happen?

You're a grown ass man (I think), tune into sanity FM. Companies care about making money, and if it weren't for standards that they have to meet, they would screw you every which way but loose.

What about the stuff they could do and you don't know about it? who is going to the be watch dog, and how easy would it be to have the companies bury those watch dogs?

say GM dumps their excess paint into the ground because it's cheaper to do it? But no one knows..

or Ford goes with cheap brakes that they know aren't as nice? But no one knows..

or maybe Chrysler uses inferior air bags because they can..but no one knows?

you are seriously naive if you think they wouldn't try to go cheap if they didn't have to meet certain standards. Do you honestly think they'd be building fuel efficient cars if they didn't have to?
Click to expand...

There are many, many, many companies that create a high quality products without stipulations and government regulations that mandate they do so. I know it is fun to spew scare tactics about the big-bad corporations, but the fact is that there is incentive to create quality products without government regulations.

Are you seriously so naive to think the only reason quality products are available is because the government has mandated as such?
 
blazerboy30 said:
There are many, many, many companies that create a high quality products without stipulations and government regulations that mandate they do so. I know it is fun to spew scare tactics about the big-bad corporations, but the fact is that there is incentive to create quality products without government regulations.

Are you seriously so naive to think the only reason quality products are available is because the government has mandated as such?
Click to expand...

Good points.

Plus if you want to blame crappy products on anyone, look towards the unions. I worked in a few union shops and quickly realized how those operations were effectively set-up to foster complacency as a whole.
 
Last edited:
blazerboy30 said:
There are many, many, many companies that create a high quality products without stipulations and government regulations that mandate they do so. I know it is fun to spew scare tactics about the big-bad corporations, but the fact is that there is incentive to create quality products without government regulations.

Are you seriously so naive to think the only reason quality products are available is because the government has mandated as such?
Click to expand...

yeah, because car companies were on the path to making cars save in the 60's..
 
barfo said:
Right. If you don't like unsafe cars, then just don't drive! It's simple.

barfo
Click to expand...

Right. Make the assumption that no safe, quality cars would be built if the government wasn't there to wipe your ass and hold your hand! It's simple.
 
blazerboy30 said:
Way to dodge the question.
Click to expand...

I tend to dodge stupid questions.

What does it matter if someone 'forced' me to buy a car? Does that somehow bear any weight on the issue?

It doesn't prove that they'd do whats best for the safety of people who buy cars. It's just a weird way of saying you don't HAVE to buy a car as if that's a valid point.

Well, I guess I don't HAVE to breath clean air, or use paint without lead in it, or have my insulation contain asbestos. After all, no one is forcing me to breath clean air, not suffer from brain damage or get lesions on my lungs.
 
blazerboy30 said:
Right. Make the assumption that no safe, quality cars would be built if the government wasn't there to wipe your ass and hold your hand! It's simple.
Click to expand...

Right, because they have a history of making safe quality cars before they were told to (or knew how to, or knew that they should).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top