sobo Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 toothless and wearing diapers.HEY! I wear diapers, so ease up on the geriatric comments, buddy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Lol, I see Bill doesn't know what "fascism" means At least he refrained from posting pics this time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bstach Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 well, it'd be anti-business because sensible regulations are good for business but it'd be pro-corporate because many modern corporations are mostly solely about short term gain. Regulation can also be supported by big business to create barriers to competition...keep the little guys out. Its a double win, as the corporation also gets a public relations victory for "protecting the public" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 yeah but they could make up for it with the abolishment of insider-trading laws as well as environmental regulations and the corporate income tax. And that's assuming he could do all those things. You know, like all the things Barry promised to do. The FTC and the EPA are in the executive branch. True, he couldn't change the regulations, but he could get rid of the enforcers. I guess congress could bypass him and set up their own? I'm not a constitutional expert. Most regulations and codes that I've read (at least at the local level) expressly require enforcement and assign responsibility for that enforcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Ron Paul had a few good facets, but he's not the corporate choice, he's the people's choice. Ron Paul is the most pro-corporate candidate out there, is that a joke? Explain please. he doesn't think the federal government should regulate business (or the stock market, for that matter). He opposes virtually all "market interference" by the federal government, and he was one of the original plaintiffs on the lawsuit that became the Citizen's United decision. His libertarian beliefs are obviously anti-regulation, which is obviously pro-corporation. Jeez, don't you even research the guy? The major unstated premise here is that corporations and other organized financial interests don’t use legislation and/or regulation to secure an advantage for themselves, insulate themselves from competition, impose costs on their competitors, limit consumer choice, etc, etc, under the guise of some happy sounding label like “green energy,” etc. How someone can live in the real world, live beyond the age of 17, see things like the Farm Bill, much less Prohibition, come out of the sausage factory and believe that all regulation automatically promotes the public interest is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Lol, I see Bill doesn't know what "fascism" means So via the media, they issued a Fatwa that proclaimed that the guy said mean things about America. So also via the media, he said he didn't say most of those mean things. Based on media coverage alone clearly someone had to step up and off him, and our glorious leader took charge and got the job done. Thank God. Everyone knows that it would have drug on and on had they allowed the father to continue to try and seek a judicial review. Can't have the courts involved. Even an indictment. Rob, that you continue to pop off with dumb ass comments that clearly show a lack of either reading ability and/or intelligence is a source of amusement to many here. Not me of course. Others. It might be too much to ask you to use your brain. ...LOL! Jus sayin' Carry on all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 yeah but they could make up for it with the abolishment of insider-trading laws as well as environmental regulations and the corporate income tax. And that's assuming he could do all those things. You know, like all the things Barry promised to do. The FTC and the EPA are in the executive branch. True, he couldn't change the regulations, but he could get rid of the enforcers. I guess congress could bypass him and set up their own? I'm not a constitutional expert. If this happened then it necessarily follows that all states would nullify all of their environmental regulations, etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 well, it'd be anti-business because sensible regulations are good for business but it'd be pro-corporate because many modern corporations are mostly solely about short term gain. Regulation can also be supported by big business to create barriers to competition...keep the little guys out. Its a double win, as the corporation also gets a public relations victory for "protecting the public" True, but isn't it ultimately about whether the regulation is sensible (both from a public interest and burden on industry aspect)? An article worth reading as it blows away most demagoguery about regulations: Why business love rules (really) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Glad I wasn't there. I'd remain standing, throw them my driver's license, and proceed to strip down to my polypro. Go ahead...taze me...those forced-to-kneel families and kids who came up to enjoy snow at Paradise that day aren't the Taliban. Our system should be so much better than that!..Putting the public ON THEIR KNEES WITH THEIR HANDS BEHIND THEIR HEADS is about two steps beyond what anyone should tolerate... I disagree but I think I understand where you are coming from Don. First, I wasn't there. Nor were you. The person you quoted, who was there, says they were happy with the outcome. The officers needed to confirm that the perp, a psycopath who would kill them and apparently anyone else as well, if he could or needed too, was not in a position to do so. They felt this was the best way. No one was hurt, and everyone quickly got on their way. Police made a call and the public safety certainly factored in to their decision. A gunman with a gun in your back directly behind you, in a crowded room full of hypersensitive civies, could easily take a bunch of officers down. You should save your rancor for the creeping totalitarianism we all see everywhere else. For instance. When I was a lad, rangers were not cops and not armed. They were there to help folks, not be Law Enforcement Officers. LEO's are trained to control any situation they encounter. Thus, when we now encounter these "officials" in the regular course of business instead of feeling equality and the warm fuzzy, we are often left feeling like a "subject" that needed to be warily watched and even controlled. We are not equals, but underneath them in stature. There is an us VS them dichotomy. The rangers have better radios now and can easily do what they use to do back then: ie,call in State Patrol when they needed too. This jackwad, for instance, would not have gotten away under the old way of doing business. Yet they sell things line rangers Andersons death to us as the kind of things that make it necessary to control us citizens...subjects. We see these kinds of thing percolating through out our lives, instead of a quiet knock on the door by the local sheriff who will discuss it with you, you now have a SWAT team of heavily armed storm troopers kicking doors in and screaming at folks. Slamming them to the ground to maintain "control". Even if the victims are just a couple of old folks who are not harming anyone. I don't think that kind of thing is going to have a happy or good path for our country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 The major unstated premise here is that corporations and other organized financial interests don’t use legislation and/or regulation to secure an advantage for themselves, insulate themselves from competition, impose costs on their competitors, limit consumer choice, etc, etc, under the guise of some happy sounding label like “green energy,” etc. How someone can live in the real world, live beyond the age of 17, see things like the Farm Bill, much less Prohibition, come out of the sausage factory and believe that all regulation automatically promotes the public interest is beyond me. More strawmwen from the regulations-are-bad neoliberal corner. Of course, regulations have to account for the public interest, which demands that we elect politicians that will select competent bureaucrats and not enemies of the social contract like regressives have been promoting for as long as I have been alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 The major unstated premise here is that corporations and other organized financial interests don’t use legislation and/or regulation to secure an advantage for themselves, insulate themselves from competition, impose costs on their competitors, limit consumer choice, etc, etc, under the guise of some happy sounding label like “green energy,” etc. How someone can live in the real world, live beyond the age of 17, see things like the Farm Bill, much less Prohibition, come out of the sausage factory and believe that all regulation automatically promotes the public interest is beyond me. More strawmwen from the regulations-are-bad neoliberal corner. Of course, regulations have to account for the public interest, which demands that we elect politicians that will select competent bureaucrats and not enemies of the social contract like regressives have been promoting for as long as I have been alive. -Prohibition -War on Drugs -Farm Subsidies -Three Strikes Laws The point isn't that all regulations are bad but that an uncritical acceptance of the nostrum that everyone passing laws is always on the side of the angels doesn't withstand even the slightest critical scrutiny. Good intentions don't guarantee good outcomes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) -Prohibition -War on Drugs -Farm Subsidies -Three Strikes Laws The point isn't that all regulations are bad but that an uncritical acceptance of the nostrum that everyone passing laws is always on the side of the angels doesn't withstand even the slightest critical scrutiny. Good intentions don't guarantee good outcomes. Nobody claimed that regulations pushed by enemies of the social contract and by pols who sell out to private interests were in the public interest, but your current tune is a far cry from your usual all encompassing "regulations are strangling free enterprise" "The estimated annual benefits of major Federal regulations reviewed by OMB [Office of Management and Budget] from October 1, 2000, to September 30, 2010, for which agencies estimated and monetized both benefits and costs, are in the aggregate between $132 billion and $655 billion, while the estimated annual costs are in the aggregate between $44 billion and $62 billion. These ranges reflect uncertainty in the benefits and costs of each rule at the time that it was evaluated." http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/2011_cb/2011_cba_report.pdf Edited January 5, 2012 by j_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raindawg Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 Glad I wasn't there. I'd remain standing, throw them my driver's license, and proceed to strip down to my polypro. Go ahead...taze me...those forced-to-kneel families and kids who came up to enjoy snow at Paradise that day aren't the Taliban. Our system should be so much better than that!..Putting the public ON THEIR KNEES WITH THEIR HANDS BEHIND THEIR HEADS is about two steps beyond what anyone should tolerate... I disagree but I think I understand where you are coming from Don. First, I wasn't there. Nor were you. The person you quoted, who was there, says they were happy with the outcome. The officers needed to confirm that the perp, a psycopath who would kill them and apparently anyone else as well, if he could or needed too, was not in a position to do so. They felt this was the best way. No one was hurt, and everyone quickly got on their way. Police made a call and the public safety certainly factored in to their decision. A gunman with a gun in your back directly behind you, in a crowded room full of hypersensitive civies, could easily take a bunch of officers down. You should save your rancor for the creeping totalitarianism we all see everywhere else. For instance. When I was a lad, rangers were not cops and not armed. They were there to help folks, not be Law Enforcement Officers. LEO's are trained to control any situation they encounter. Thus, when we now encounter these "officials" in the regular course of business instead of feeling equality and the warm fuzzy, we are often left feeling like a "subject" that needed to be warily watched and even controlled. We are not equals, but underneath them in stature. There is an us VS them dichotomy. The rangers have better radios now and can easily do what they use to do back then: ie,call in State Patrol when they needed too. This jackwad, for instance, would not have gotten away under the old way of doing business. Yet they sell things line rangers Andersons death to us as the kind of things that make it necessary to control us citizens...subjects. We see these kinds of thing percolating through out our lives, instead of a quiet knock on the door by the local sheriff who will discuss it with you, you now have a SWAT team of heavily armed storm troopers kicking doors in and screaming at folks. Slamming them to the ground to maintain "control". Even if the victims are just a couple of old folks who are not harming anyone. I don't think that kind of thing is going to have a happy or good path for our country. Bro....check out again the picture I posted. Nobody in a so-called "free-society" should be subject to that kind of procedure. The guys with the guns were probably trained by some sort of "procedure-book" to deal with some sort of hypothetical "situation", but I'm not willing to accept that it's "appropriate" given the situation with random civilians. And it wouldn't surprise me if some of the rounded-up technical-hostages in that situation thought it was "cool" or "like in a movie". No it ain't. I'd gladly stand tall and be frisked, but I've spent enough time in bona-fide police states where "on your knees" usually has a bad ending. Secondly, I mourn for Ranger Anderson like everyone else should. Her heroism might have disrupted an immense tragedy if the perp had made it to the public at Pardise. On the other hand, I can't imagine that she would allow the Park to be shut down for the week (which it apparently is) so she could be mourned. To the contrary, we should all flood to the Park this week in her memory. (But even so, you'll be turned back at the gate of YOUR PARK because others officially mourn differently than you.) 'nuff said....for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Bro....check out again the picture I posted. Nobody in a so-called "free-society" should be subject to that kind of procedure. The guys with the guns were probably trained by some sort of "procedure-book" to deal with some sort of hypothetical "situation", but I'm not willing to accept that it's "appropriate" given the situation with random civilians. And it wouldn't surprise me if some of the rounded-up technical-hostages in that situation thought it was "cool" or "like in a movie". No it ain't. I'd gladly stand tall and be frisked, but I've spent enough time in bona-fide police states where "on your knees" usually has a bad ending. Secondly, I mourn for Ranger Anderson like everyone else should. Her heroism might have disrupted an immense tragedy if the perp had made it to the public at Pardise. On the other hand, I can't imagine that she would allow the Park to be shut down for the week (which it apparently is) so she could be mourned. To the contrary, we should all flood to the Park this week in her memory. (But even so, you'll be turned back at the gate of YOUR PARK because others officially mourn differently than you.) 'nuff said....for now. I'm glad I'm not the only person on this site who gets bristly at police power plays. And I understand your point of view and sympathize with it. Yet I see this as more justified than most police actions and there are significantly bigger issues to worry about for freedom and our country. I will say (first time ever) that I do admire the fact that Pat got involved with the ACLU and is actually doing something about it. Regards to all! in advance for whatever lame shit Rob is gonna say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I'd have to say I pretty much agree with the Dawg on this, and the little things do matter. My own recent encounter was flying with my 92 year old mother in law, who TSA made stand up on the rubber mat with her feet in the yellow foot marks (she's tiny, the wide stance almost made her fall over) while they did the whole physical search routine, complete with "I'm putting my finger inside your underwear" and "I'll be running the back of my hand over your genitals." Boy howdy did that make me feel safer and more impressed with security in America. Its these little erosions that create the security state, and its really less about your safety and more about control. Sure, its not as bad as Syria for example, but I don't think that's a valid argument. Bit by bit, your rights as a citizen are chipped away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) I'm glad I'm not the only person on this site who gets bristly at police power plays. And I understand your point of view and sympathize with it. Yet I see this as more justified than most police actions and there are significantly bigger issues to worry about for freedom and our country. You write without thinking, don't you? You do realize that "most police actions" are everyday, mundane tasks, like pulling over traffic violators and responding to 911 calls. Do you mean, instead, "more justified than most controversial police actions"? Because I beg to differ on even that point. This whole event was nothing more than a poorly executed excuse to run a "drug-bust" style raid by an increasingly paramiliatarized police force that employs angry white men with inferiority complexes. Ultimately, it was just plain bad police work. What they essentially attempted to do, was corner an armed, dangerous, and desperate fugitive in a room full of innocent bystanders. Luckily he wasn't there. The way I see it, this mode of "police action" occurs for two reasons: 1) Cops want to avoid appearing inept if the fugitive possibly escapes (hence eliminating all possibilities of failure that they have control over in a given situation, even at the expense of public safety); and 2) It's a chance to employ their increasingly disproportionate emphasis on military style police tactics, which have to have a purpose, right? Edited January 5, 2012 by E-rock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I'm glad I'm not the only person on this site who gets bristly at police power plays. in advance for whatever lame shit Rob is gonna say. Actually, I'm quite "bristled" at the loss of civil liberties and the militarization of the police, so clearly you're not really getting me. Does that mean I have to admit America is a "fascist state" or whatever? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Actually, I'm quite "bristled" at the loss of civil liberties and the militarization of the police, so clearly you're not really getting me. Does that mean I have to admit America is a "fascist state" or whatever? How can you say you are bristled at the loss of civil liberties then turn around and vote for Obama who just signed away all your right when he signed the NDAA law? Obama is just more of the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 kevin - its not a one issue election but it will basically be nothing more than a two candidate election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) Actually, I'm quite "bristled" at the loss of civil liberties and the militarization of the police, so clearly you're not really getting me. Does that mean I have to admit America is a "fascist state" or whatever? How can you say you are bristled at the loss of civil liberties then turn around and vote for Obama who just signed away all your right when he signed the NDAA law? Obama is just more of the same. It's true, I am not a fan of Obama. But because all of the choices available to me are so bad, I am forced to pick the most practical and expedient route. You have to remember, I think Ron Paul is part of the establishment, too -- I don't like him like you do. In fact, I think he's one of the worst choices in the entire field. So what options are left to me? None. They are all bad, kevin. ALL OF THEM. There is no good choice. I'd have voted for Huntsman (maybe) but he won't win the nomination. So, it's gonna be Obama or Romney (probably) whether I like it or not and it would be grossly irresponsible for me to not do everything within my power to prevent another GOP president because, as bad as Obama is, they are much worse. Unfortunately, that's just the sorry state of the American political scene. In the meantime, I will continue to support organizations working to build positive change while using my vote in the most efficient way possible. Edited January 5, 2012 by rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) Bro....check out again the picture I posted. Nobody in a so-called "free-society" should be subject to that kind of procedure. You could be walking down the street, uniformed police officers can point a gun at you, they can take you down, they can handcuff you, they can take you in their patrol car, they can take you to the police station and interrogate you. This is called an arrest. Why? They have suspicion you may have just committed a crime nearby--even though you know you have not committed a crime and just walking down the street playing pocket pool. This procedure does happen everyday and is worse than what happened at Mt. Rainier. Is this acceptable? It is acceptable in our society becuase we let it happen and the procedure is upheld in court. Edited January 5, 2012 by Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Dawg blew his initially valid point with his typical bluster, as uzhe. Hence, he got the treated like the buffoon he is. Whining's easy. Doing something substantive about it is quite another matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 -Prohibition -War on Drugs -Farm Subsidies -Three Strikes Laws The point isn't that all regulations are bad but that an uncritical acceptance of the nostrum that everyone passing laws is always on the side of the angels doesn't withstand even the slightest critical scrutiny. Good intentions don't guarantee good outcomes. Nobody claimed that regulations pushed by enemies of the social contract and by pols who sell out to private interests were in the public interest, but your current tune is a far cry from your usual all encompassing "regulations are strangling free enterprise" "The estimated annual benefits of major Federal regulations reviewed by OMB [Office of Management and Budget] from October 1, 2000, to September 30, 2010, for which agencies estimated and monetized both benefits and costs, are in the aggregate between $132 billion and $655 billion, while the estimated annual costs are in the aggregate between $44 billion and $62 billion. These ranges reflect uncertainty in the benefits and costs of each rule at the time that it was evaluated." http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/2011_cb/2011_cba_report.pdf http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Conservatism-Gabriel-Kolko/dp/0029166500 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 A rather simplistic view of the societal forces that led to industry regulation during the Progressive era. I find the following much more compelling: "Ending its 27-year stranglehold on proposals for federal pure food and drug legislation, Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act and its companion bill, the Meat Inspection Act, on June 30, 1906. An unprecedented convergence of consumer, scientific, and industrial support in 1906 prompted such action; most industries even planned for it, hoping regulation would restore the competitiveness of their products on weak foreign and domestic markets." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646146/pdf/amjph00277-0020.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raindawg Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 Dawg blew his initially valid point with his typical bluster, as uzhe. Hence, he got the treated like the buffoon he is. Buffoon? Really? Check again....who has 16334 posts??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.