| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Too big to exist.. https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=891 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Ladas [ Wed Nov 18, 2009 4:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Too big to exist.. |
Reuter's article on the proposed bill to "empower government regulators to break up financial firms that pose a risk to economic stability". Some quotes from the article: Quote: Mandated divestitures of more than $10 billion would require the Treasury secretary's approval, while those above $100 billion would require the approval of the president. That's a nifty new Presidential power... |
|
| Author: | Hannibal [ Wed Nov 18, 2009 4:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
As long as the Government is top of the list of too big to exsist- go for it. Until they clean up their own backyard- keep the %##%%# outta others. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have no words. |
|
| Author: | Monte [ Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The executive branch is in charge of this sort of regulation, is it not? Departments like the EPA and the FCC are a part of that branch of government? |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
*headdesk* |
|
| Author: | Monte [ Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Do you have a comment? I was asking an honest question. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You know, we used to send anti-trust cases to Court... |
|
| Author: | DFK! [ Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Kaffis Mark V wrote: You know, we used to send anti-trust cases to Court... Need a company broken up? There's a Czar for that. Need salaries capped? There's a Czar for that. Need to indirectly increase taxes by capping carbon emissions? There's a Czar for that. |
|
| Author: | Lonedar [ Wed Nov 18, 2009 10:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
"Czar" is very appropriate. |
|
| Author: | Lydiaa [ Wed Nov 18, 2009 10:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What you guys need is a colosseum … That I’d pay money to see. Lions and Tigers and Bears.. oh my. |
|
| Author: | Screeling [ Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Lydiaa wrote: What you guys need is a colosseum … That I’d pay money to see. Lions and Tigers and Bears.. oh my. Bread and circuses! |
|
| Author: | Monte [ Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
No bid contracts? *crickets* Selective outrage is selective. |
|
| Author: | Ladas [ Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
not sure I understand your reference Monte, or is that just another example of your tendency to point at one side to justify the other? |
|
| Author: | Monte [ Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
No, I'm simply amused at how critical folks have become about perceived government overreach now that a liberal is in office. |
|
| Author: | Ladas [ Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
So, is there something more to your "no bid" comment, such as something specific, or are you railing against a procurement process based upon your assumptions of its use rather than a reasoned comparison of benefit/fault? |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Too big to exist.. |
Selective memory is apparently more selective than selective outrage. FarSky, Ladas, Aizle, Diamondeye, Khross, Kaffis, DFK!, Rynar, Xequecal, Elmarnieh, Talya, and Arathain are all expressed displeasure and disagreement with the nature of No Bid Contracts and how the selection process for the companies involved worked while George Walker Bush was in office. The only person who defended them, perhaps because of reasons not readily apparent to most, was Taskiss. He no longer posts here. The aforementioned list also questioned the authority and viability of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, the necessity of invading Iraq, and the questionable policy and containment plans for Afghanistan. Everyone in that list challenged some or all aspects of GITMO. If you choose to continue painting the Glade in broad strokes because you possess a minority opinion on some subjects; if you choose to continue marginalizing yourself for whatever reasons you have; if you choose to polarize the issues at hand by constantly placing yourself at odds with everyone else, especially where there is more disagreement among parties involved than agreement; then you are doing so for your own reasons and choices. If you find it odd that people attribute motive and agenda to your posting mannerisms, then perhaps, just perhaps, you should refrain from the very behaviors you decry. The Glade is not an echo chamber. The Glade is not biased one way or another on any political issue. The Conservatives, as you call them, disagree with each other about a wide variety of things and nearly all policy positions. You are not uniquely targeted for anything. Rather, the simple truth is simple: we discuss our differences of opinion which are as many and varied as the topics of discussion. |
|
| Author: | Monte [ Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ladas - No, I'm just being snide and trollish. Sometimes the hysteria around here hits a fever pitch, and it gets a little laughable. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Monte wrote: Ladas - No, I'm just being snide and trollish. Sometimes the hysteria around here hits a fever pitch, and it gets a little laughable. For those who questioned it, this post is really fine, thanks for asking. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Monte wrote: No, I'm simply amused at how critical folks have become about perceived government overreach now that a liberal is in office. ...uh...did you miss the outcry over the last 9 years about government overreach? Dubya was just as guilty of it as Obama. He just overreached in different ways. (I'd dare say Bush was worse, so far.) |
|
| Author: | Rafael [ Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Talya wrote: Monte wrote: No, I'm simply amused at how critical folks have become about perceived government overreach now that a liberal is in office. ...uh...did you miss the outcry over the last 9 years about government overreach? Dubya was just as guilty of it as Obama. He just overreached in different ways. (I'd dare say Bush was worse, so far.) You missed the part where he explained that he selects what people were outraged about. Quote: Selective outrage is selective.
|
|
| Author: | Monte [ Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Talya wrote: Monte wrote: No, I'm simply amused at how critical folks have become about perceived government overreach now that a liberal is in office. ...uh...did you miss the outcry over the last 9 years about government overreach? Dubya was just as guilty of it as Obama. He just overreached in different ways. (I'd dare say Bush was worse, so far.) There was some here, but not much. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Monte wrote: There was some here, but not much. I might agree if you have said "not as much." And then I wouldn't be sure...for every authority-lover who fellatingly praises Dubya, there might be an equal number of Obamessiah worshippers. By far the majority of people you'd call "conservative" here expressed major issues with Georgie-Porgie and his policy of ignoring personal liberty and spending lots of other people's money, let alone his tendency to play with his toy tanks in the sandbox. |
|
| Author: | Monte [ Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I remember very few folks that were critical of those decisions made by the previous administration, especially when we were within a few years of 9-11. Nearly everything was tolerated (again, some disagreed). I remember lots of rows over Abu Grahib, Gitmo, and our policies then. But its been a very long time, and there's really no way to quantify it. |
|
| Author: | Screeling [ Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Then stop bringing it up? |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Screeling wrote: Then stop bringing it up? Good point. Aside from bringing in external baggage, this whole discussion (which seems to be spilling into at least two threads) is taking a turn for the unpleasant. Monte, if you're going to make vague blanket accusations, be prepared to back them up. While I realize the material you might use to do so is long since deleted, so is the material one might use to argue your point. Rather than degenerating into a "he-said, she-said" flame-fest, let's deal with the discussion at hand rather than sit here bringing up derogatory impressions of majority opinions on glades past. (correct or not.) That goes for everyone. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|