Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse

Firehouse.com Forum Rules & Guidelines

Forum Rules & Guidelines

Not Permitted or Tolerated:
• Advertising and/or links of commercial, for-profit websites, products, and/or services is not permitted. If you have a need to advertise on Firehouse.com please contact [email protected]
• Fighting/arguing
• Cyber-bullying
• Swearing
• Name-calling and/or personal attacks
• Spamming
• Typing in all CAPS
• “l33t speak” - Substituting characters for letters in an effort to represent a word or phrase. (example: M*****ive)
• Distribution of another person’s personal information, regardless of whether or not said information is public knowledge and whether or not an individual has permission to post said personal information
• Piracy advocation of any kind
• Racist, sexual, hate type defamatory, religious, political, or sexual commentary.
• Multiple forum accounts

Forum Posting Guidelines:

Posts must be on-topic, non-disruptive and relevant to the firefighting community. Post only in a mature and responsible way that contributes to the discussion at hand. Posting relevant information, helpful suggestions and/or constructive criticism is a great way to contribute to the community.

Post in the correct forum and have clear titles for your threads.

Please post in English or provide a translation.

There are moderators and admins who handle these forums with care, do not resort to self-help, instead please utilize the reporting option. Be mature and responsible for yourself and your posts. If you are offended by another member utilize the reporting option. All reported posts will be addressed and dealt with as deemed appropriate by Firehouse.com staff.

Firehouse.com Moderation Process:
Effective immediately, the following moderation process will take effect. User(s) whose posts are determined by Firehouse.com staff to be in violation of any of the rules above will EARN the following reprimand(s) in the moderation process:
1. An initial warning will be issued.
2. A Final Warning will be issued if a user is found to be in violation a second time.
3. A 3-day suspension will be issued if the user continues to break the forum rules.
4. A 45-day suspension will be issued if the user is found to be a habitual rule breaker.
5. Habitual rule breakers that have exhausted all of the above will receive a permanent life-time ban that will be strictly enforced. Reinstatement will not be allowed – there is no appeal process.

Subsequent accounts created in an effort to side-step the rules and moderation process are subject to automatic removal without notice. Firehouse.com reserves the right to expedite the reprimand process for any users as it is deemed necessary. Any user in the moderation process may be required to review and agree to by email the terms and conditions listed above before their account is re-instated (except for those that are banned).

Firehouse.com reserves the right to edit and/or remove any post or member, at any time, for any reason without notice. Firehouse.com also reserves the right to warn, suspend, and/or ban, any member, at any time, for any reason.

Firehouse.com values the active participation we have in our forums. Please ensure your posts are tasteful and tactful. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
See more
See less

Chicken sh*t Nancy Pelosi!!!!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
    You can call it redistribution of wealth. But it's not in the Marx sense of the term.
    It would be according to someone like Milton Friedman. I'm not arguing over the semantics of the issue. But to say one form of taxation is wrong and one is okay is certainly debatable. The end result is that we (and I mean that collectively) expect government to provide all these great things for us yet expect someone else to pay for it.
    They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

    I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
      The end result is that we (and I mean that collectively) expect government to provide all these great things for us yet expect someone else to pay for it.
      Well, isn't that what the welfare state is all about?

      Some members of our society have an unbelievable sense of entitlement. That they are "owed" this or that by virtue of just being alive or just because they are a US citizen.

      I even see it down at the firehouse. People that join to see what they can get out of it. They don't normally last when they find out that what you put in is rarely returned in any tradable commodity.

      But isn't this the concept of the great society or the welfare state? That you don't have to work hard or worry about failure that society will lift you up.

      I'm all for being there for the those that can't provide for themselves, but I really do believe that there is a large number of people who abuse what is offered. I prefer a hand-up then a hand-out.
      I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

      "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

      "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
        If we critique the DoD's efficiency, then they would pale in comparison to successful private military companies like Executive Outcomes or Blackwater. Exec Outcomes was keeping the peace quite well in Angola, but when Bill Clinton led the effort to oust them, the UN came in behind them with almost 10 times as many troops, and couldn't keep the peace.
        What a surprise. It's Clinton's fault. EO wasn't peacekeeping it was training AU troops. Two very different missions.

        The idea that the AU would be comfortable with that many Westerners, let alone private military contractors, in their country seems fanciful.

        Who could blame them. I doubt Americans would like foreign military contractors (aka mercenaries) running around our countryside.
        They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

        I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ThNozzleman View Post
          I swear, most of the righties on this forum won't be happy until America is returned to the days of the robber baron, and everyone is living on company land and shopping at the company store with company money, treated as an expendable resource instead of a human being.
          http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=506836
          That 's much better than being unemployed after your job is shipped overseas because the company couldn't afford to pay an inflated Union required wages.

          Oh wait, we could just draw unemployment and live on welfare instead. Besides, it's free.
          Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
          If you don't need know the definition of a "laff riot" you need to get out more often.
          If you're going to critique my vocabulary at least learn how to do so with proper grammar. I don't "need know" anything. Your made up word isn't found in Webster's, or the Urbandictionary.com So it, like most of your other ideas, exist only in your shallow liberal fantasies.
          Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
          So folks that enlist in the DoD are doing so just to show up and get a paycheck?
          Are you sure your reading the posts our just imagining them? There is dead weight in every organization. Some are better than others about shedding it. If you don't know this than it's you who should get out more.
          Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
          And you have proof this occurs in .gov? I'd like to see it.
          If you don't see it, then you're the dead beat that everyone else is talking about. And I can't show you, it's called personnel records, and they're not available for review as a matter of State Law.
          Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
          Does that include private companies whose sole source of income is government contracts?
          Clarify your question, and do it without putting words in my mouth. A government isn't motivated to do much of anything for a profit. Look at the proliferation of refuse management companies. Do you thing they sprung up because the government was doing such a good job?
          Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
          I could expect that if the USAF commander was trained in the capabilities and operations of Harriers.
          The fact is they're not trained. Why don't you apply for the job of Secretary of Defense and see if you can do as good of a job, yet more efficiently?
          Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
          Has the Army ever invaded from the sea? Ever hear about that whole event on the Normandy coast? Or the Italian peninsula. Or northern Africa, or Sicily?
          In case you missed the memo, England is an island country. And there are no bridges across the English channel. We sent our troops by ship because we ran out of planes to drop them from. We had no other choice. You're making generalizations based on the largest amphibious assault ever conducted in modern history.
          Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
          Government oversaw and funded the construction ensuring the project was built to uniform standards
          That's the point I've made all along. The government didn't actually build it. They just chaperoned. The government doesn't build much of anything, they bid it out to private contractors. This is where the real innovation takes place.
          Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
          What a surprise. It's Clinton's fault. EO wasn't peacekeeping it was training AU troops. Two very different missions.
          No, they kept the peace, by suppressing rebel forces that were committing atrocities. Training troops was just part of the process. They kicked butt and took names. What Clinton and his misguided racist conscience couldn't fathom was the idea of South African mercenaries fighting a war in another African Nation. That wasn't politically correct. Meanwhile, when the UN came in, things turned into a soup sandwich. Man the government did such a fine job.
          Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
          The idea that the AU would be comfortable with that many Westerners, let alone private military contractors, in their country seems fanciful.
          Maybe to you while you're sipping a latte at a cafe. Trying living the way they had to and you'll cling to anyone willing to stand up for you.
          Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
          Who could blame them. I doubt Americans would like foreign military contractors (aka mercenaries) running around our countryside.
          It's better than having your arms and legs cut off, and the arms and legs of all your children, and to have your wife and daughters raped and mutilated so they can never have children.
          Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
          It would be according to someone like Milton Friedman.
          I'm reserving that comment for later. I have to go to bed, but if Milton was still alive, he'd bytch slap you for using his name to support such a misguided argument.
          Last edited by txgp17; 08-21-2008, 01:26 AM.
          The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

          Comment


          • Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
            That 's much better than being unemployed after your job is shipped overseas because the company couldn't afford to pay an inflated Union required wages.
            It's more like those companies have no labor, worker safety, or pollution control restrictions. Should we get rid of all of those as well? Business is very quick to bemoan high wages (unless it's for the execs at the top) but never complains about high profits.

            Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
            Oh wait, we could just draw unemployment and live on welfare instead.
            See above post.

            Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
            So it, like most of your other ideas, exist only in your shallow liberal fantasies.Are you sure your reading the posts our just imagining them? There is dead weight in every organization. Some are better than others about shedding it. If you don't know this than it's you who should get out more. If you don't see it, then you're the dead beat that everyone else is talking about.
            Your argument has dissolved into name calling.

            Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
            And I can't show you, it's called personnel records, and they're not available for review as a matter of State Law.
            So your comments are conjecture without any shred of proof.

            Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
            Clarify your question, and do it without putting words in my mouth.
            You stated private companies are more efficient. Does that include companies whole sole source of revenue is government contracts (aka taxpayers)? Are you unaware of any or you just don't know. Or better yet companies who are govt. enforced monopolies. Are you unaware of those as well? Do all them have the efficiencies you believe don't exist in government?

            Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
            A government isn't motivated to do much of anything for a profit. Look at the proliferation of refuse management companies. Do you thing they sprung up because the government was doing such a good job?
            Have you tried to bid on a refuse contract? Good luck with that. Like Rodney Dangerfield's character in Back to School said, "that outfit isn't run by the Boy Scouts." Those city conracts are pretty nice plums for any business to acquire. You live in a dream world if you believe there is anything resembling competitive bidding or "free market" pricing.

            Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
            The fact is they're not trained. Why don't you apply for the job of Secretary of Defense and see if you can do as good of a job, yet more efficiently?
            So you now believe a USAF pilot would be incapable of being trained to fly a Harrier? Based on what exactly?

            Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
            In case you missed the memo, England is an island country. And there are no bridges across the English channel. We sent our troops by ship because we ran out of planes to drop them from. We had no other choice. You're making generalizations based on the largest amphibious assault ever conducted in modern history.
            You stated the Army invades by land the Marines by sea. I only pointed out examples where the Army has shown it is quite capable of invading by sea.

            Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
            That's the point I've made all along. The government didn't actually build it. They just chaperoned. The government doesn't build much of anything, they bid it out to private contractors.
            A master of the obvious. Govt specifications are very strict to ensure the contractors don't deliver an innovative an inferior product. More than one govt. contractor has either been fined or prosecuted fraud. To cite a popular company, Halliburton has paid millions in fines for any number of reasons.

            Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
            This is where the real innovation takes place.
            Uh yeah? See above post.

            Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
            No, they kept the peace, by suppressing rebel forces that were committing atrocities.Maybe to you while you're sipping a latte at a cafe. Trying living the way they had to and you'll cling to anyone willing to stand up for you.It's better than having your arms and legs cut off, and the arms and legs of all your children, and to have your wife and daughter raped and mutilated so they can never have children.
            Then why did the Sudanese request EO leave and be replaced by UN peacekeepers? This is also what happened to Blackwater in Iraq except the US refused to allow it. Only proving the current government in Iraq is a puppet government. I doubt you'd find much support for a privatized army amongst the US taxpayer for any number of reasons. Accountability being only one of them.

            BTW, I don't drink lattes. Though I did get a chuckle out of your stereotype. I don't think you want to open the door on stereotypes. Especially the ones that apply to folks who live south of the Mason-Dixon Line.
            Last edited by scfire86; 08-21-2008, 11:27 AM.
            They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

            I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Raughammer1 View Post
              Pelosi, Pickens plan to pick your pocket

              http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=72225
              I'm not surprised that WND exaggerates Pelosi's involvement with T. Boone.

              Is Nancy Pelosi heavily invested in T. Boone Pickens' alternative energy company?
              They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

              I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ThNozzleman View Post
                You don't really know much about welfare, do you? You're just spreading the same, tired old bull**** that's been around since Reagan started making it up in the 80's.

                The things you have said on this topic are ignorant and stupid. Any real research into the issue will quickly debunk the myths.

                Yes, I'm sure you've seen enough to judge everyone in the nation who is unfortunate enough to be forced to depend on welfare to survive.

                The exodus of American labor and decent jobs has jack crap to do with needy people receiving welfare, and you know it. Do you even know what the percentage of the budget is spent on welfare in this nation? Peddle your myths somewhere else.
                Dude,I've worked convenience stores both here in Memphis and up in Paducah.
                People DO try to use WIC cards and stamps to buy items that are not allowed like beer,cigarettes and candy which are listed as not being allowed.I've even been assaulted and tattled on for not letting a regular customer buy beer with his family's WIC card.
                There IS abuse of the system and the people doing so count on being able to do so because only a cold heartless bastard would ever cut food stamps or re write the system to reduce the chance that someone could abuse it.
                They hide behind those that really need the help,drawing money away from those very people and give the system a bad name in the process.They don't care.They're slicing off their piece and everyone else can get bent.But that's okay with you,isn't it?

                Comment


                • Dare to dream my friend.

                  Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                  Maybe. CBS shows Obama ahead by 14 points and holding off McCain.

                  Dare to dream my friend.
                  The audacity...to dream?

                  It looks as though, Obama is in trouble due to his chronic condition of open mouth, insert foot disease. LOL

                  Raugh



                  McCain takes lead over Obama: poll
                  By John Whitesides, Political CorrespondentWed Aug 20, 2:56 PM ET

                  In a sharp turnaround, Republican John McCain has opened a 5-point lead on Democrat Barack Obama in the U.S. presidential race and is seen as a stronger manager of the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

                  McCain leads Obama among likely U.S. voters by 46 percent to 41 percent, wiping out Obama's solid 7-point advantage in July and taking his first lead in the monthly Reuters/Zogby poll.

                  The reversal follows a month of attacks by McCain, who has questioned Obama's experience, criticized his opposition to most new offshore oil drilling and mocked his overseas trip.

                  The poll was taken Thursday through Saturday as Obama wrapped up a weeklong vacation in Hawaii that ceded the political spotlight to McCain, who seized on Russia's invasion of Georgia to emphasize his foreign policy views.

                  "There is no doubt the campaign to discredit Obama is paying off for McCain right now," pollster John Zogby said. "This is a significant ebb for Obama."

                  McCain now has a 9-point edge, 49 percent to 40 percent, over Obama on the critical question of who would be the best manager of the economy -- an issue nearly half of voters said was their top concern in the November 4 presidential election.

                  That margin reversed Obama's 4-point edge last month on the economy over McCain, an Arizona senator and former Vietnam prisoner of war who has admitted a lack of economic expertise and shows far greater interest in foreign and military policy.

                  McCain has been on the offensive against Obama during the last month over energy concerns, with polls showing strong majorities supporting his call for an expansion of offshore oil drilling as gasoline prices hover near $4 a gallon.

                  Obama had opposed new offshore drilling, but said recently he would support a limited expansion as part of a comprehensive energy program.

                  That was one of several recent policy shifts for Obama, as he positions himself for the general election battle. But Zogby said the changes could be taking a toll on Obama's support, particularly among Democrats and self-described liberals.

                  "That hairline difference between nuance and what appears to be flip-flopping is hurting him with liberal voters," Zogby said.

                  Obama's support among Democrats fell 9 percentage points this month to 74 percent, while McCain has the backing of 81 percent of Republicans. Support for Obama, an Illinois senator, fell 12 percentage points among liberals, with 10 percent of liberals still undecided compared to 9 percent of conservatives.

                  OBAMA NEEDS TO WORK ON BASE

                  "Conservatives were supposed to be the bigger problem for McCain," Zogby said. "Obama still has work to do on his base. At this point McCain seems to be doing a better job with his."

                  The dip in support for Obama, who would be the first black U.S. president, cut across demographic and ideological lines. He slipped among Catholics, born-again Christians, women, independents and younger voters. He retained the support of more than 90 percent of black voters.

                  "There were no wild swings, there isn't one group that is radically different than last month or even two months ago. It was just a steady decline for Obama across the board," Zogby said.

                  Obama's support among voters between the ages of 18 and 29, which had been one of his strengths, slipped 12 percentage points to 52 percent. McCain, who will turn 72 next week, was winning 40 percent of younger voters.

                  "Those are not the numbers Obama needs to win," Zogby said about Americans under 30. The 47-year-old is counting on a strong turnout among young voters, a key bloc of support during his primary battle with New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

                  It made little difference when independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr, who are both trying to add their names to state ballots.

                  McCain still held a 5-point edge over Obama, 44 percent to 39 percent, when all four names were included. Barr earned 3 percent and Nader 2 percent.

                  Most national polls have given Obama a narrow lead over McCain throughout the summer. In the Reuters/Zogby poll, Obama had a 5-point lead in June, shortly after he clinched the Democratic nomination, and an 8-point lead on McCain in May.

                  The telephone poll of 1,089 likely voters had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

                  The poll was taken as both candidates head into their nominating conventions and the announcements of their choices of vice presidential picks. The Democratic convention begins on Monday in Denver, with the Republican convention opening the next Monday, September 1, in St. Paul, Minnesota..
                  01.20.13
                  Change We Can Believe In.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Raughammer1 View Post
                    The audacity...to dream?

                    It looks as though, Obama is in trouble due to his chronic condition of open mouth, insert foot disease. LOL

                    Raugh
                    A little over 10 weeks to go. We'll see if it lasts.
                    They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                    I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                    Comment


                    • Dare to dream!

                      Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                      A little over 10 weeks to go. We'll see if it lasts.
                      Yea, who'd a thought with all the free press and over looked faux pas' that BHO has been the beneficiary of, that he would fall so far - so fast?

                      A few weeks ago, he seemed almost unbeatable, now? Not so much...not so much.
                      01.20.13
                      Change We Can Believe In.

                      Comment


                      • The Poop for 2008: Of the 106 bills enacted since January, 94 -- or 89 percent -- were to name government buildings or lands, extend or make technical corrections to existing laws, or passed either by unanimous consent or with less than 10 dissenting votes. The dubious accomplishments include “Frank Sinatra Day,” “National Plumbing Industry Week,” and “National Day of the Cowboy.” In addition, the congressional leaders have deliberately ignored the October 1 deadline for passing the 12 annual appropriations bills. Only one of the bills has passed the House, and the House Appropriations Committee has approved only four others. In the Senate, the Appropriations Committee has approved nine, but none has reached the floor. The Speaker and Majority Leader appear to be awaiting the presidential election, hoping that the winner will favor higher spending and more earmarks. They had also wanted to avoid a vote on the moratorium on offshore oil drilling, which is typically renewed through the appropriations process, though they reversed course last week and said they would allow a vote. For leaving town after Congress has spent nearly all of its time on frivolous legislation and failing to address critical issues.

                        Great Job.
                        Fortune does not change men; it unmasks them.

                        The grass ain't greener, the wine ain't sweeter!! Either side of the hill.


                        IACOJ PROUD

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by RoughRider View Post
                          The Poop for 2008: Of the 106 bills enacted since January, 94 -- or 89 percent -- were to name government buildings or lands, extend or make technical corrections to existing laws, or passed either by unanimous consent or with less than 10 dissenting votes. ...

                          Great Job.
                          Think thats why the Democratic Party's Congress of 2007~2008 has approval ratings in the single digits?

                          Hey...i'm just sayin'

                          (is'nt it like a 8 or 9% approval rating or something?)
                          01.20.13
                          Change We Can Believe In.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                            It's more like those companies have no labor, worker safety, or pollution control restrictions. Should we get rid of all of those as well? Business is very quick to bemoan high wages (unless it's for the execs at the top) but never complains about high profits.
                            Do you have any proof of this? You're confusing government regulations with government operations. I didn't criticize OSHA or the EPA. Does it make you feel better knowing that a Company stayed here and went bankrupt?

                            If you don't like corp. execs. making big bucks, then boycott their products. Or better yet, buy some common stock and elect a different board of directors. Vote with your dollars.

                            Your original point about Nuclear versus fossil fuels was accurate, but as the market prices of our fossil fuels rise, then Nuclear begins to be more attractive. If oil prices jump in the next 5 years like they did in the last 5, a Nuclear Reaction might look pretty cheap.

                            Yes, the French were successful in implementing a public Nuclear Power Generation program, but they over built and now have excess capacity. They have so much overcapacity that they practically dump their excess electricity into the markets of other countries to help recoup costs. This form of dumping energy has encouraged the use of inefficient electrical applications, in France and other Countries. No different than Americans buying big SUV's back when gas was cheap.

                            So basically, the French have subsidized the energy production of their country, and that of their neighbors. This is exactly what I meant by when I said that a government doesn't do things efficiently.
                            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                            Your argument has dissolved into name calling.
                            You drew first blood, by criticizing me for not knowing your obscure slang term that wasn't found in a Google search (like you claimed) and wasn't found in Merriam-Webster's dictionary, still isn't found at encarta.
                            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                            So your comments are conjecture without any shred of proof.
                            The evidence is as plain as the nose on your face. It's no different than a worker who is paid by the job, compared to one who is paid by the hour. Or by comparing one who works on commission, to that of one who gets a flat rate. GOVERNMENT WORKERS ARE ALMOST NEVER PAID BASED ON THEIR ABILITY TO SAVE TAXPAYER MONEY. There is almost no incentive to perform beyond the mediocre. The Government run program/dept rarely has any competition. If you're going to deny the differences, then you're too dense to comprehend the explanation.
                            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                            You stated private companies are more efficient. Does that include companies whole sole source of revenue is government contracts (aka taxpayers)?
                            If that company was forced to compete or bid for the contract, and it successfully met the requirements of that contract, then yes, they did it more efficiently than the competition.
                            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                            Are you unaware of any or you just don't know.
                            I don't know of a company who's revenues were based solely (100%) on government contracts. I'd like to see you present such an animal.
                            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                            Or better yet companies who are govt. enforced monopolies. Are you unaware of those as well?
                            How is that any better? Government granted monopolies are not the same as a private company that competes for customers. When was the last time you saw the Power Company rep driving an old beat up truck? They aren't particularly motivated to cut costs. Doing so would increase profits, but not doing so doesn't lose their customers.
                            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                            Do all them have the efficiencies you believe don't exist in government?
                            Can you prove they don't? How many times have you seen a government worker rush out and buy useless stuff at the end of the fiscal year, based solely on the idea that if he didn't spend 100% of his budget, it would get cut the next year. Misguided discipline and management like that permeates our government employees.
                            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                            Have you tried to bid on a refuse contract? Good luck with that. Like Rodney Dangerfield's character in Back to School said, "that outfit isn't run by the Boy Scouts." Those city contracts are pretty nice plums for any business to acquire. You live in a dream world if you believe there is anything resembling competitive bidding or "free market" pricing.
                            So you're using a 22 year old comic movie to substantiate the claim that there is no competition in the private waste management industry. Did your parents have any children that lived?

                            Maybe things are like that where your mail is delivered, but that circus is almost nonexistent here. For example, the City of Charlotte divides itself into four zones for garbage collection. One of those zones is bid out to a private contractor. This zone is used to gauge the efficiency of the City's Garbage Dept. If the Dept head can't manage the costs in the other 3 zones to reflect those of the fourth one under contract, then the City Manager might take more drastic steps to solve the problem himself. The City Manager might fire/demote the Dept Head, or layoff the workers and bid our other sections to private firms. It's not pretty, but it serves the purpose of deterring wasteful government spending. In this scenario, (a real life one), the government is forced to compare itself with a private firm. If they can't cut it, then they face penalties.
                            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                            So you now believe a USAF pilot would be incapable of being trained to fly a Harrier? Based on what exactly?
                            That's not what I wrote. Your continued attempts to attribute statements to people who didn't write them is reprehensible. I spoke of the Commanders, not the Pilots. If you'd bother reading instead of making up words this wouldn't be so hard on you. If they were trained, then yes, it might work. And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ***** every time he hopped. The fact is that they are not trained, at least not the same levels that Marine commanders are. Your statements reek of anti-military sentiment. And your hypotheticals have no bearing on the discussion. Revisit my original (and unedited) statement: With the exception of taking military action against out enemies, there is little that ANY government can do better than the private sector.

                            If you want to debunk that, then provide an example of better military. Conscription Armies, Movies, and wishful thinking that doesn't exist in real life are unacceptable. Are you unaware of any or you just don't know?
                            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                            You stated the Army invades by land the Marines by sea. I only pointed out examples where the Army has shown it is quite capable of invading by sea.
                            Your definition of "quite capable" is quite perverted. It was a special operation, not a routine one. There is no rational for comparing events 64 years ago to the routine capabilities of today. Never before, and never since, has the Army maintain preparations for an amphibious invasion of that size. The Air Force wasn't even established as an Independent Department until 3 years after D-Day. The evolution of air mobility has reduced our amphibious needs. But since your stuck believing that comic movies are a reflection of reality, no one would expect you to realize that.
                            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                            Then why did the Sudanese request EO leave and be replaced by UN peacekeepers?
                            Why don't you tell us.
                            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                            This is also what happened to Blackwater in Iraq except the US refused to allow it. Only proving the current government in Iraq is a puppet government.
                            Everyone get your hats!
                            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                            I doubt you'd find much support for a privatized army amongst the US taxpayer for any number of reasons.
                            Because we don't need it, all the citizens are heavily taxed to fund the National Defense. Try asking these questions to citizens in a 3rd world country where people are being murdered and brutalized in the absence of a police or military force.
                            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                            I don't think you want to open the door on stereotypes. Especially the ones that apply to folks who live south of the Mason-Dixon Line.
                            At least I've got the ballz to put where I live & work on my profile. If you want make fun on me based on my zip code then have at it. I doubt it would be as entertaining as the rest of your posts.
                            Last edited by txgp17; 08-22-2008, 05:12 PM.
                            The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

                            Comment


                            • [QUOTE=txgp17;980683]Do you have any proof of this?
                              Do I have any proof that other countries have no labor or govt. restrictions? Nothing I can link to as an absolute. But I'd like you to prove the Chinese have strict labor and enviornmental laws.

                              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                              You're confusing government regulations with government operations. I didn't criticize OSHA or the EPA. Does it make you feel better knowing that a Company stayed here and went bankrupt?
                              No. So should we get rid of all those agencies and workers safety laws they enforce?

                              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                              If you don't like corp. execs. making big bucks, then boycott their products. Or better yet, buy some common stock and elect a different board of directors. Vote with your dollars.
                              You miss the point. Though I'm not surprised.

                              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                              So basically, the French have subsidized the energy production of their country, and that of their neighbors. This is exactly what I meant by when I said that a government doesn't do things efficiently.
                              And the private sector never over produces?

                              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                              The evidence is as plain as the nose on your face. It's no different than a worker who is paid by the job, compared to one who is paid by the hour. Or by comparing one who works on commission, to that of one who gets a flat rate. GOVERNMENT WORKERS ARE ALMOST NEVER PAID BASED ON THEIR ABILITY TO SAVE TAXPAYER MONEY. There is almost no incentive to perform beyond the mediocre. The Government run program/dept rarely has any competition.
                              You made a claim. It's up to you to prove it with something other than conjecture.

                              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                              I don't know of a company who's revenues were based solely (100%) on government contracts. I'd like to see you present such an animal.
                              Defense contractors and many of their subcontractors to name a prime example.

                              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                              How is that any better? Government granted monopolies are not the same as a private company that competes for customers. When was the last time you saw the Power Company rep driving an old beat up truck? They aren't particularly motivated to cut costs. Doing so would increase profits, but not doing so doesn't lose their customers.
                              You said earlier that private companies are always more efficient than government. Now you admit there are cases where that isn't true.

                              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                              Can you prove they don't?
                              It is impossible to prove a negative. Anyone whose taken a HS logic class knows that.

                              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                              How many times have you seen a government worker rush out and buy useless stuff at the end of the fiscal year, based solely on the idea that if he didn't spend 100% of his budget, it would get cut the next year. Misguided discipline and management like that permeates our government employees.
                              Never.

                              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                              So you're using a 22 year old comic movie to substantiate the claim that there is no competition in the private waste management industry. Did your parents have any children that lived?
                              And you're using a HS insult to counter my claim that competitive bidding actually occurs in the waste management business. Good luck with that.

                              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                              Maybe things are like that where your mail is delivered, but that circus is almost nonexistent here. For example, the City of Charlotte divides itself into four zones for garbage collection. One of those zones is bid out to a private contractor. This zone is used to gauge the efficiency of the City's Garbage Dept. If the Dept head can't manage the costs in the other 3 zones to reflect those of the fourth one under contract, then the City Manager might take more drastic steps to solve the problem himself. The City Manager might fire/demote the Dept Head, or layoff the workers and bid our other sections to private firms. It's not pretty, but it serves the purpose of deterring wasteful government spending. In this scenario, (a real life one), the government is forced to compare itself with a private firm. If they can't cut it, then they face penalties.
                              Oh okay. Keep believing that.

                              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                              That's not what I wrote. Your continued attempts to attribute statements to people who didn't write them is reprehensible. I spoke of the Commanders, not the Pilots. If you'd bother reading instead of making up words this wouldn't be so hard on you. If they were trained, then yes, it might work. And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ***** every time he hopped. The fact is that they are not trained, at least not the same levels that Marine commanders are. Your statements reek of anti-military sentiment. And your hypotheticals have no bearing on the discussion. Revisit my original (and unedited) statement: With the exception of taking military action against out enemies, there is little that ANY government can do better than the private sector.
                              Yawn. It's a moot point. How is my statement anti-military. You're reading things that aren't there.

                              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                              If you want to debunk that, then provide an example of better military. Conscription Armies, Movies, and wishful thinking that doesn't exist in real life are unacceptable. Are you unaware of any or you just don't know?
                              Huh? These statements make absolutely no sense.

                              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                              Your definition of "quite capable" is quite perverted. It was a special operation, not a routine one. There is no rational for comparing events 64 years ago to the routine capabilities of today. Never before, and never since, has the Army maintain preparations for an amphibious invasion of that size. The evolution of air mobility has reduced our amphibious needs. But since your stuck believing that comic movies are a reflection of reality, no one would expect you to realize that.
                              I pointed out examples of the Army performing a sea based invasion in the past. There is nothing that says they wouldn't be able to do it again. It's this type of parochial thinking that prevents the efficiencies in government that you claim don't exist.

                              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                              Everyone get your hats!
                              When the leader of a sovereign nation edicts an order to an occupying force that something is demanded (like the expulsion of Blackwater employees) and it doesn't happen because the occupying nation ignore that edict it only shows the supposed leader of that nation really lacks any real authority. Think about that happening here in the US and a foreign power had a private security force running around doing some of the things like those accusation against Blackwater. If they were asked to leave and refused, I'm sure there are any number of folks (like the Army for example) that would help them.

                              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                              Because we don't need it, all the citizens are heavily taxed to fund the National Defense.
                              Wouldn't it be better if it were privatized since the private sector would do it more efficiently? Not necessarily cheaper by the way. Compare the cost of one individual paid to private contractors (like Blackwater) versus the cost of a sergeant in Spec Ops.

                              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                              Try asking these questions to citizens in a 3rd world country where people are being murdered and brutalized in the absence of a police or military force.
                              Yes I remember how much conservatives cared about oppressed individuals in the Balkans Campaign in the 90's. You're insulting any intelligent person if you want them to believe that.

                              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                              At least I've got the ballz to put where I live & work on my profile.
                              I live in SoCal. I thought you knew.

                              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                              If you want make fun on me based on my zip code then have at it. I doubt it would be as entertaining as the rest of your posts.
                              Why, you're doing a great job of it on your own.
                              They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                              I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                                You said earlier that private companies are always more efficient than government.
                                Where?
                                Provide the link.
                                Oh okay. Keep believing that.
                                Page 70 of the FY2009 Strategic Operating Plan. It's there in black and white. The idea was the Brain Child of Dr. Don Steger, former assistant City Manager. He instituted a level of competition to help keep the Garbage Dept efficient.
                                Huh? These statements make absolutely no sense.
                                Provide an example that is better than the US Military. I said they were effective, you challenged it.

                                Gotta run....
                                Last edited by txgp17; 08-22-2008, 06:34 PM.
                                The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X