(NOT trying to start a "fight"... for some reason when I ask questions on this board I get all-caps responses sometimes)
And I'm not looking for a fight. I'm too new here for all that.
For example, the Libertarian view of the totally-free market. The theory is that businesses that do the right thing will rise to the top, and underhanded or low-quality businesses will fail, therefore the government does not need to regulate things. Well, sure, but what if customers are dying from their melamine-tainted crap and the businessman goes out of business and move to the Netherlands? Wouldn't we have been better off with a government safety inspector cutting off problems before the free market could react?
I definitely see your point... It reminds me of the quote "both the republicans view of big government is correct and the democrats view of big business is correct." It is an awfully cynical view but it seems mostly correct. Personally, I'd rather have someone trying to sell me poison or have "Buttfuckers" on every street corner rather than someone taxing me for shit the majority do not want and there was no vote for. Thats just personal opinion, but I think the world is smaller and smaller, communication is easy, and it is transparent which companies rip us off and which don't. Hmm this post doesn't make much sense... oh well. Cheers its Friday!
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
I forgot my pants. IT WAS AN ACCIDENT.You know, OCCASIONALLY your Wednesday-Friday morning editor feels kind of bad about piling onto a particular politician, no matter how odious/loopy his or her views. I mean, they’ve gotten pretty far in life, so probably they’re smarter than the out-of-context quotes in the “gotcha media” would imply, right? Plus, isn’t it just laziness on our parts? Shouldn’t your Wonkette be seeking out brave new frontiers instead of putting up yet another “holy shit, Rand Paul is crazy” post? But then Rand Paul does things like defending BP and pooping all over dead coal miners live on national TV, so, uh, here’s another “holy shit, Rand Paul is crazy” post.
After having kind of a bad first couple of days as an officially anointed Republican candidate for the Senate, Dr. Rand Paul went on Good Morning America today. Your morning editor doesn’t watch teevee news, on principle, plus the TV is all the way downstairs, but these morning shows are generally pretty softball-y, yes? Anyway, this is what Dr. Rand Paul had to say about British Petroleum, a foreign company that owned an oil rig in American waters that blew up and killed 11 people and is still, at this very moment, dumping lots and lots of oil into the Gulf of Mexico:
What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, “I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.” I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it’s always got to be somebody’s fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen.
To re-emphasize: Barack Obama’s criticism of the company that owned the thing that blew up and killed people and will affect the livelihoods of millions, and his proposal that maybe said company should pay for the damage caused, even if those damages amount to more than the lowball $75 million cap currently in place by law, and that indeed said cap should be raised — this is antithetical to American values, and is indeed the equivalent of standing on somebody’s throat. Because accidents happen, and there was actually, literally, no way BP could have ever prevented it.
Then Dr. Rand Paul, who is running for Senate in a state with a not-insubstantial coal mining industry, and is presumably courting many coal miners for their votes, made the following statement, on national television:
We had a mining accident that was very tragic. … Then we come in and it’s always someone’s fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen.
It is true that sometime accidents happen! It is also true that there is a concept that lies between “active, malicious attempts to harm” and “unpreventable events that could never be foreseen.” It is into this realm that the legal concept known as “negligence” falls, a concept that is pretty well established in American law. One of the most common situations in which this legal concept might be important is one in which a company involved in resource extraction fails to minimize the risk of an accident, because doing so would cut into said company’s profits, and as a result people die.
The more this guy opens his mouth, the less I like him.
Is he Tea Party or GOP? Because the GOP has been criticizing Obama for not acting fast enough or aggressively enough on the oil leak. And now Rand is accusing Obama of being too mean to BP and suggesting he should lay off and just let BP "do the right thing" on their own? Which, actually, seems in line with the TP demonstrators who've said we need to abolish the EPA, FDA, etc. I wonder what the position of the Louisiana TP is?
The more this guy opens his mouth, the less I like him.
Is he Tea Party or GOP? Because the GOP has been criticizing Obama for not acting fast enough or aggressively enough on the oil leak. And now Rand is accusing Obama of being too mean to BP and suggesting he should lay off and just let BP "do the right thing" on their own? Which, actually, seems in line with the TP demonstrators who've said we need to abolish the EPA, FDA, etc. I wonder what the position of the Louisiana TP is?
just like 95% of all teabaggers he is a republican...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I forgot my pants. IT WAS AN ACCIDENT.You know, OCCASIONALLY your Wednesday-Friday morning editor feels kind of bad about piling onto a particular politician, no matter how odious/loopy his or her views. I mean, they’ve gotten pretty far in life, so probably they’re smarter than the out-of-context quotes in the “gotcha media” would imply, right? Plus, isn’t it just laziness on our parts? Shouldn’t your Wonkette be seeking out brave new frontiers instead of putting up yet another “holy shit, Rand Paul is crazy” post? But then Rand Paul does things like defending BP and pooping all over dead coal miners live on national TV, so, uh, here’s another “holy shit, Rand Paul is crazy” post.
After having kind of a bad first couple of days as an officially anointed Republican candidate for the Senate, Dr. Rand Paul went on Good Morning America today. Your morning editor doesn’t watch teevee news, on principle, plus the TV is all the way downstairs, but these morning shows are generally pretty softball-y, yes? Anyway, this is what Dr. Rand Paul had to say about British Petroleum, a foreign company that owned an oil rig in American waters that blew up and killed 11 people and is still, at this very moment, dumping lots and lots of oil into the Gulf of Mexico:
What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, “I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.” I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it’s always got to be somebody’s fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen.
To re-emphasize: Barack Obama’s criticism of the company that owned the thing that blew up and killed people and will affect the livelihoods of millions, and his proposal that maybe said company should pay for the damage caused, even if those damages amount to more than the lowball $75 million cap currently in place by law, and that indeed said cap should be raised — this is antithetical to American values, and is indeed the equivalent of standing on somebody’s throat. Because accidents happen, and there was actually, literally, no way BP could have ever prevented it.
Then Dr. Rand Paul, who is running for Senate in a state with a not-insubstantial coal mining industry, and is presumably courting many coal miners for their votes, made the following statement, on national television:
We had a mining accident that was very tragic. … Then we come in and it’s always someone’s fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen.
It is true that sometime accidents happen! It is also true that there is a concept that lies between “active, malicious attempts to harm” and “unpreventable events that could never be foreseen.” It is into this realm that the legal concept known as “negligence” falls, a concept that is pretty well established in American law. One of the most common situations in which this legal concept might be important is one in which a company involved in resource extraction fails to minimize the risk of an accident, because doing so would cut into said company’s profits, and as a result people die.
and how does obama have his boot heel on BPs throat???
i'm waiting for the analogy that paying taxes is being robbed at gun point
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
I forgot my pants. IT WAS AN ACCIDENT.You know, OCCASIONALLY your Wednesday-Friday morning editor feels kind of bad about piling onto a particular politician, no matter how odious/loopy his or her views. I mean, they’ve gotten pretty far in life, so probably they’re smarter than the out-of-context quotes in the “gotcha media” would imply, right? Plus, isn’t it just laziness on our parts? Shouldn’t your Wonkette be seeking out brave new frontiers instead of putting up yet another “holy shit, Rand Paul is crazy” post? But then Rand Paul does things like defending BP and pooping all over dead coal miners live on national TV, so, uh, here’s another “holy shit, Rand Paul is crazy” post.
After having kind of a bad first couple of days as an officially anointed Republican candidate for the Senate, Dr. Rand Paul went on Good Morning America today. Your morning editor doesn’t watch teevee news, on principle, plus the TV is all the way downstairs, but these morning shows are generally pretty softball-y, yes? Anyway, this is what Dr. Rand Paul had to say about British Petroleum, a foreign company that owned an oil rig in American waters that blew up and killed 11 people and is still, at this very moment, dumping lots and lots of oil into the Gulf of Mexico:
What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, “I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.” I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it’s always got to be somebody’s fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen.
To re-emphasize: Barack Obama’s criticism of the company that owned the thing that blew up and killed people and will affect the livelihoods of millions, and his proposal that maybe said company should pay for the damage caused, even if those damages amount to more than the lowball $75 million cap currently in place by law, and that indeed said cap should be raised — this is antithetical to American values, and is indeed the equivalent of standing on somebody’s throat. Because accidents happen, and there was actually, literally, no way BP could have ever prevented it.
Then Dr. Rand Paul, who is running for Senate in a state with a not-insubstantial coal mining industry, and is presumably courting many coal miners for their votes, made the following statement, on national television:
We had a mining accident that was very tragic. … Then we come in and it’s always someone’s fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen.
It is true that sometime accidents happen! It is also true that there is a concept that lies between “active, malicious attempts to harm” and “unpreventable events that could never be foreseen.” It is into this realm that the legal concept known as “negligence” falls, a concept that is pretty well established in American law. One of the most common situations in which this legal concept might be important is one in which a company involved in resource extraction fails to minimize the risk of an accident, because doing so would cut into said company’s profits, and as a result people die.
because it is bp's fucking fault. their rig exploded and killed some workers, their safeguards failed and is now causing potentially the biggest ecodisaster in american history. boot on their throat?? give me a break rand...they should be taken off of this job, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and made to PAY for their fuck up. so obama is pressuring them to hurry up and fix it, cry me a river, or in this case an oil slick rand...the best people in the best company and perhaps the government should be on the case now. this leak has been leaking for a month with no fix in sight. another republican defending big oil interests....what a surprise...garbage in, garbage out...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I just read more of his statement from this morning, including this:
"On the oil spill, Paul, a libertarian and tea party favorite, said he had heard nothing from BP indicating it wouldn't pay for the spill that threatens devastating environmental damage along the Gulf of Mexico coast."
These positions are horribly and dangerously naive. And this is the problem with the TP anti-regulation and lower-taxes stance. Anyone who thinks BP is going to cut us a nice, big check that will cover the costs of the devastation to the eco-system is either crazy or high. This whole thing is going to drag out in court for years. BP vs. Halliburton and BP vs. US. Their high-paid lawyers will drag out the cases and argue over everything. Meanwhile, the taxpayers will foot the bill. So much for lower taxes.
Also, where do they think the estimates for damages come from? There's an agency for that - the NOAA - but I guess these TP fools would like to get rid of that agency, too? Maybe we can just send a few tea partiers to take a little boat ride and walk along the beach and they can get back to us with their ballpark figures as to how much damage BP has done. And then they can politely ask for reimbursement, because God knows they wouldn't want to be rude to BP or make too many harsh demands - that's just "anti-business"! Edit: ... and "un-American"!!!
hey unsung
this is almost as funny as "mission accomplished".
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
his stance is that private industry should be allowed to discriminate as they see fit, and a "just america" will eventually force these people out of business because they will no longer patronize these racist businesses who refuse service to non-whites.
but that's just it, it was over 100 years between the emancipation proclamation (1862) until the passage of the civil rights at (1964) until this sort of practice stopped. had it not been for the CRA, this type of shit would still be going on in the south. so apparently it did take federal intervention to curb these practices.
he also argues that if federal government imposes these types of practices on private industry, that private businesses actually become public. he argued on maddow's show that private business becomes public property when the government is able to impose these non-discrimination rules. to me, that is sort of like saying your car isn't yours because government imposes speed limits on how fast you can drive, which is a ridiculous argument.
should be interesting if kentuckians (i think thats what you call 'em ) still vote for him.
Comments
I definitely see your point... It reminds me of the quote "both the republicans view of big government is correct and the democrats view of big business is correct." It is an awfully cynical view but it seems mostly correct. Personally, I'd rather have someone trying to sell me poison or have "Buttfuckers" on every street corner rather than someone taxing me for shit the majority do not want and there was no vote for. Thats just personal opinion, but I think the world is smaller and smaller, communication is easy, and it is transparent which companies rip us off and which don't. Hmm this post doesn't make much sense... oh well. Cheers its Friday!
Rand Paul Is An Endless Internet Comedy Machine
I forgot my pants. IT WAS AN ACCIDENT.You know, OCCASIONALLY your Wednesday-Friday morning editor feels kind of bad about piling onto a particular politician, no matter how odious/loopy his or her views. I mean, they’ve gotten pretty far in life, so probably they’re smarter than the out-of-context quotes in the “gotcha media” would imply, right? Plus, isn’t it just laziness on our parts? Shouldn’t your Wonkette be seeking out brave new frontiers instead of putting up yet another “holy shit, Rand Paul is crazy” post? But then Rand Paul does things like defending BP and pooping all over dead coal miners live on national TV, so, uh, here’s another “holy shit, Rand Paul is crazy” post.
After having kind of a bad first couple of days as an officially anointed Republican candidate for the Senate, Dr. Rand Paul went on Good Morning America today. Your morning editor doesn’t watch teevee news, on principle, plus the TV is all the way downstairs, but these morning shows are generally pretty softball-y, yes? Anyway, this is what Dr. Rand Paul had to say about British Petroleum, a foreign company that owned an oil rig in American waters that blew up and killed 11 people and is still, at this very moment, dumping lots and lots of oil into the Gulf of Mexico:
What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, “I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.” I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it’s always got to be somebody’s fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen.
To re-emphasize: Barack Obama’s criticism of the company that owned the thing that blew up and killed people and will affect the livelihoods of millions, and his proposal that maybe said company should pay for the damage caused, even if those damages amount to more than the lowball $75 million cap currently in place by law, and that indeed said cap should be raised — this is antithetical to American values, and is indeed the equivalent of standing on somebody’s throat. Because accidents happen, and there was actually, literally, no way BP could have ever prevented it.
Then Dr. Rand Paul, who is running for Senate in a state with a not-insubstantial coal mining industry, and is presumably courting many coal miners for their votes, made the following statement, on national television:
We had a mining accident that was very tragic. … Then we come in and it’s always someone’s fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen.
It is true that sometime accidents happen! It is also true that there is a concept that lies between “active, malicious attempts to harm” and “unpreventable events that could never be foreseen.” It is into this realm that the legal concept known as “negligence” falls, a concept that is pretty well established in American law. One of the most common situations in which this legal concept might be important is one in which a company involved in resource extraction fails to minimize the risk of an accident, because doing so would cut into said company’s profits, and as a result people die.
Rand Paul, everybody. Jesus.
Read more at Wonkette: http://wonkette.com/415576/rand-paul-is ... ore-415576#ixzz0oZzWG04t
Is he Tea Party or GOP? Because the GOP has been criticizing Obama for not acting fast enough or aggressively enough on the oil leak. And now Rand is accusing Obama of being too mean to BP and suggesting he should lay off and just let BP "do the right thing" on their own? Which, actually, seems in line with the TP demonstrators who've said we need to abolish the EPA, FDA, etc. I wonder what the position of the Louisiana TP is?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
and how does obama have his boot heel on BPs throat???
i'm waiting for the analogy that paying taxes is being robbed at gun point
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"On the oil spill, Paul, a libertarian and tea party favorite, said he had heard nothing from BP indicating it wouldn't pay for the spill that threatens devastating environmental damage along the Gulf of Mexico coast."
These positions are horribly and dangerously naive. And this is the problem with the TP anti-regulation and lower-taxes stance. Anyone who thinks BP is going to cut us a nice, big check that will cover the costs of the devastation to the eco-system is either crazy or high. This whole thing is going to drag out in court for years. BP vs. Halliburton and BP vs. US. Their high-paid lawyers will drag out the cases and argue over everything. Meanwhile, the taxpayers will foot the bill. So much for lower taxes.
Also, where do they think the estimates for damages come from? There's an agency for that - the NOAA - but I guess these TP fools would like to get rid of that agency, too? Maybe we can just send a few tea partiers to take a little boat ride and walk along the beach and they can get back to us with their ballpark figures as to how much damage BP has done. And then they can politely ask for reimbursement, because God knows they wouldn't want to be rude to BP or make too many harsh demands - that's just "anti-business"! Edit: ... and "un-American"!!!
hey unsung
this is almost as funny as "mission accomplished".
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
his stance is that private industry should be allowed to discriminate as they see fit, and a "just america" will eventually force these people out of business because they will no longer patronize these racist businesses who refuse service to non-whites.
but that's just it, it was over 100 years between the emancipation proclamation (1862) until the passage of the civil rights at (1964) until this sort of practice stopped. had it not been for the CRA, this type of shit would still be going on in the south. so apparently it did take federal intervention to curb these practices.
he also argues that if federal government imposes these types of practices on private industry, that private businesses actually become public. he argued on maddow's show that private business becomes public property when the government is able to impose these non-discrimination rules. to me, that is sort of like saying your car isn't yours because government imposes speed limits on how fast you can drive, which is a ridiculous argument.
should be interesting if kentuckians (i think thats what you call 'em