There is more than enuf material on Romney to sink him in November. Time to get this show on the road.
Should MSNBC change their name to "F*** Romney Channel" till election season is over?
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
There is more than enuf material on Romney to sink him in November. Time to get this show on the road.
Okay, Mav, it's your story
Quote from RCG Trader:
Okay, Mav, it's your story
RCG, seriously, I find almost all the news people on Fox boring. I am a big Tucker Carlson fan but he is hardly ever on. Loved Crossfire with Tucker and James Carville.
I imagine that most government agencies cannot be operated as profit centers, but as cost centers. And while agencies should seek to get the best bang for the buck, cheaper is not always better. But, sure, there is government waste and it needs to be curbed. If I required surgery, I'd rather the surgeon enter with a scalpel than a hatchet, just to make sure that the properly functioning and vital parts remained in place.
Yeah, corporate America just hates big government. Hates it with a passion. Hates it until they get their collective tit's in a wringer with their precious "free market", which really isn't what we practice at all by the way. It's more like a free for all, free ride for those with the good ole boyz entry ticket, but I digress. When the corporate world comes tumbling down, who has to save their sorry asses? The big, old nasty government, that's who! And who get's the bill? We all know the answer to that. Nobody get's "weeded out". And just how does this little scam continue? Because the symbiotic relationship between corporate America and government has become so completely mutually dependent that they are one entity for all practical purposes. Obama is nothing but Bush with a tan, and as Santorum put it, Romney is just Obama with a lighter complexion. Without the corporate welfare there is no big business, especially on Wall Street. The need for profit's through efficiency are long gone at the big corporate level. Only the little guy needs to be efficient to stay afloat. Uncle Sugar will keep the big boyz alive, cause if they die, Uncle Sugar dies with them. The beat goes on!
Agreed. When everyone is all worked up and frothing at the mouth, it is hard to determine whether the baby is going out with the bath water.
It is very easy to say that anything the government can do, the private sector can do better. But that isn't necessarily the real world. Take for example the idea of shelters for battered and raped women. This is a service that everyone expects to be available if needed, but the private sector in my opinion doesn't adequately address the far reaching nature of the situation. The private sector doesn't have a profit stream there. Imagine a women's shelter checking someone in at the counter covered in cuts and bruises, and needing a pelvic exam. The clerk then asks for a credit card to cover any incidental cost of care. When the woman indicates that her abusive husband doesn't allow her a credit card, the shelter then refers her to a homeless shelter down the street for a place to stay and a warm meal.
In reality, services like that are expected in a wealthy society, and charitable donations just don't provide for it because everyone thinks that it won't happen to them. In my opinion, the burden of taking care of such circumstances should be spread across the entire population as much as possible.
Well said, and points to the difference between efficient and effective. Battered and raped women, to use your example, are in the overall sense, not to discount tragic, "inefficient". But until human nature changes, we have to deal with it. Now, how do we measure it? Well, look around. Why do other cultures have more or less rape than we do? Based on comparative study, can we then make improvements? If our rate of rape is among the lowest, and assuming our peers care about the problem at least as much as we do, much improvement may not be practical or possible without a breakthrough of some kind.
They were REALLY SCARED of Cain, they took him out before the whole race even got underway. They need that very high percentage of Black Votes just to stay in business, if it changed from 95%/5% to 85/15 it would be enough that Democrats couldn't get elected dogcatchers! All they have to do is give Blacks a White guy to hate and that's one less major thing to think about..
LOL, nice to see you back Captain, havent seen one of these rants in a long time.
Do you really think that i support this bastardization of the free market that the government has created? I would have let the whole system burn in 2009 if it was up to me.
With that said, even the corporations who got government assistance are far more efficient then anything the government is doing. THEY STILL MADE MASSIVE CUTS IN 2008/2009, in order to remain solvent, the same thing can not be said about the government.
Do you really think that i support this bastardization of the free market that the government has created? I would have let the whole system burn in 2009 if it was up to me.
With that said, even the corporations who got government assistance are far more efficient then anything the government is doing. THEY STILL MADE MASSIVE CUTS IN 2008/2009, in order to remain solvent, the same thing can not be said about the government.