Rand Paul's proposed budget, deficit reduction plan.

[halik]

If a corporation willfully and knowingly poisons people via their processes or negligence, the people in that corporation should be brought up on charges. Of course, that never happens today because nothing is every anyone's fault. Bring back personal responsibility and your "solutions" become unnecessary.

You're finding solutions to problems that don't exist here.

MY arguments are light on substance? You're the one claiming that corporations are out to kill people. Oh the ironing.

Go back to writing your check to the government please. Oh, wait...you're a hypocrite. I forgot. You don't think that YOU PERSONALLY should actually have to give anything to the government...just everyone else. LOL. Authoritarian liberals are funny.

I hope you have the intellectual capacity to comprehend the amount of drivel you've written.

Let me try this one more time:

The goal of a corporation is to make money and this can actually include killing people, depending on how the budgeting works out. The Chinese baby formula is a good empirical example how that happens in short run and how they may or may not get discovered in the long run. Either way this carries a negative externality that is not priced into their behaviour.

But I'm sorta getting the vibe my words are lost on you; presumably your retort will be something about fascists, liberals and the like.

 

[drebo]

Then it is your position that all advertisements are colossal wastes of money because companies have no way of influencing their customers' decisions.

As stated before, advertisements may influence a brand. They don't influence a decision to buy. Promotions might influence a decision to buy, but an advertisement is not a promotion.

A cigarette ad may determine what brand is bought. The ad does not, however, influence the person to start smoking in the first place. That is a conscious decision made by the person and the person alone.

 

[drebo]

I hope you have the intellectual capacity to comprehend the amount of drivel you've written.

Let me try this one more time:

The goal of a corporation is to make money and this can actually include killing people, depending on how the budgeting works out. The Chinese baby formula is a good empirical example how that happens in short run and how they may or may not get discovered in the long run.

But I'm sorta getting the vibe my words are lost on you; presumably your retort will be something about fascists, liberals and the like.

You are absolutely outrageous. A corporation gains nothing by killing its customers.

Please, by all means, cite examples of corporations that succeeded by killing their customers and thrived afterward. I'm very interested. You can start with any time period you like.

Also, please cite specific examples of how a government agency stopped such an issue before it happened.

They don't exist.

But, by all means, continue with your quest to nationalize every industry because corporations can't be trusted.

LOL, you are tooooo funny.

 

[child of wonder]

As stated before, advertisements may influence a brand. They don't influence a decision to buy. Promotions might influence a decision to buy, but an advertisement is not a promotion.

A cigarette ad may determine what brand is bought. The ad does not, however, influence the person to start smoking in the first place. That is a conscious decision made by the person and the person alone.

That's a fundamental difference in opinion you have with advertisers then.

 

[BoberFett]

Governments, despite the good intentions of some, have killed far more than corporations ever have. Just sayin'.

 

[drebo]

That's a fundamental difference in opinion you have with advertisers then.

I think it's a fundamental difference of opinion I have with you, not advertisers.

Look at those ads closely. They're all targeted towards current smokers. Not new smokers.

The decision to buy a particular product is made based on a conscious decision by the person purchasing the product. Advertisements aren't going to make a person decide to buy a product they hadn't already considered buying. Advertisements will affect which brand gets purchased, but they do not affect the desire or decision to buy. The person makes that decision.

A person who doesn't need a wheelchair isn't going to be swayed by an advertisement of a wheelchair company that says "ours are the most comfortable".

What does sway a decision to buy is a promotion, or sale. If that wheelchair company comes out and says "buy one and we'll pay for it for you", people who would not normally have bought a wheelchair might consider it because of that promotion. But that is not the same as an advertisement.

The bottom line here is that the decision to smoke is made on a personal level. The cigarette companies cannot be blamed because people decide to smoke. If cigarettes were banned outright, people would still smoke because they want to.

 

[werepossum]

And yet we don't buy everything in the same % in our market basket...

For example; some people here clearly live off of wine alone.

... you mean the supply hasn't changed?

Have you considered that for a highly elastic good an increase in demand can lead to a rapid increase in price without a general change to the overall consumer price index?

Yeah, I forgot that with ~10% unemployment people like to spend their time driving around and eating. Silly me.

Standard procedure on the right fringe- stake out an absurd self serving position, then say anything to defend it.

Food and oil going "through the roof!"? Hardly.

Okay, "through the roof" is hyperbole, I admit. My point was that there is inflation, significant inflation. Not sure how that's supposed to be self-serving; without any significant debt I derive no benefit whatsoever from inflation, whereas I suffer from it in increased living costs. Of course, from your standpoint I'm on the right fringe with Lieberman and Fidel Castro, so perhaps what is apparent to you is going over my head with the rest of the hot air.

 

[Monster_Munch]

Please, by all means, cite examples of corporations that succeeded by killing their customers and thrived afterward. I'm very interested. You can start with any time period you like.

It happens all the time in developing countries. In the west we are protected to a certain extent because of government regulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé_boycott
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Côte_d'Ivoire_toxic_waste_dump

 

[werepossum]

As stated before, advertisements may influence a brand. They don't influence a decision to buy. Promotions might influence a decision to buy, but an advertisement is not a promotion.

A cigarette ad may determine what brand is bought. The ad does not, however, influence the person to start smoking in the first place. That is a conscious decision made by the person and the person alone.

I have to go with Child of Wonder on this one. Advertising is geared not only toward influencing a brand decision, but also toward creating demand for the product. See this man smoking a Chesterfield. See the hot babes smiling at him. He's cool. He's going to get laid, well and often. If you start smoking Chesterfields, you'll be cool and have sex with lots of hot babes too. Since most (not all) men want to have sex with lots of hot babes, men are enticed to smoke Chesterfields even if they don't smoke at all.

I think government has grown too big and far too powerful, but I can appreciate the safety I derive from it too. I like knowing the dangers of certain products, even though I think the FDA has become too strict about what it bans. Educate me, don't nanny me. Or at least where the banned product also has serious benefits. Pretty hard to argue that people should have the right to buy lead-painted toys or lead-based paint as long as they know it.

 

[Scotteq]

Please, by all means, cite examples of corporations that succeeded by killing their customers and thrived afterward. I'm very interested. You can start with any time period you like..

Philip Morris...

Union Carbide...

Celgene (check out 'Thalidomide', if you like seeing highly malformed babies...)

Dow Chemical (agent orange, napalm, a number of nuclear weapons programs...)

 

[BoberFett]

Dow Chemical (agent orange, napalm, a number of nuclear weapons programs...)

So you're blaming a private company for making weapons that government then used to kill and destroy as your argument that government is good and corporations are bad?

Sigh.

 

[Scotteq]

So you're blaming a private company for making weapons that government then used to kill and destroy as your argument that government is good and corporations are bad?

Sigh.

The question was: "Please, by all means, cite examples of corporations that succeeded by killing their customers and thrived afterward."


I never said whether it was good or bad, or whether the government or the corporation was at fault.


But I damned well did provide examples of corporations killing people (or providing the means to) in the name of profit.


But thank you for taking the response out of context. Brightens my day.

 

[ElFenix]

The question was: "Please, by all means, cite examples of corporations that succeeded by killing their customers and thrived afterward."


I never said whether it was good or bad, or whether the government or the corporation was at fault.


But I damned well did provide examples of corporations killing people (or providing the means to) in the name of profit.


But thank you for taking the response out of context. Brightens my day.

dow chemical didn't kill the US government, its customer.

 

[BoberFett]

dow chemical didn't kill the US government, its customer.

We may have all been better off if it had.

 

[Scotteq]

dow chemical didn't kill the US government, its customer.

Philip Morris...

Union Carbide...

Celgene (check out 'Thalidomide', if you like seeing highly malformed babies...)

Dow Chemical (agent orange, napalm, a number of nuclear weapons programs...)

Thanks - Cherry pick whichever you like. Feel free to ignore the rest.

 

[BoberFett]

Thanks - Cherry pick whichever you like. Feel free to ignore the rest.

OK, so Phillip Morris. Notice that their product still hasn't been banned, and is still used by a relatively large portion of the populace. Besides, anyone who has ever smoked a cigarette knows it's bad for them and they do it anyway. When you smoke that very first cigarette and hack and cough, shouldn't that be a warning? Yet people keep smoking. You can't save stupid people from themselves no matter how much your liberal heart bleeds.

 

[Scotteq]

OK, so Phillip Morris. Notice that their product still hasn't been banned, and is still used by a relatively large portion of the populace. Besides, anyone who has ever smoked a cigarette knows it's bad for them and they do it anyway. When you smoke that very first cigarette and hack and cough, shouldn't that be a warning? Yet people keep smoking. You can't save stupid people from themselves no matter how much your liberal heart bleeds.

Philip Morris knew their product caused cancer and marketed it LONG after the fact. And they profited from it: *BIG* time. And they're still in operation. And it is a well documented fucking fact that Philip Morris customers DIED from smoking Philip Morris' products.

And the question was Companys killing their customers and thriving afterwards. And so we have Point Proved. No further discussion necessary.




...and calling *me* a Liberal...



BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA!!!

 

[Darwin333]

The question was: "Please, by all means, cite examples of corporations that succeeded by killing their customers and thrived afterward."


I never said whether it was good or bad, or whether the government or the corporation was at fault.


But I damned well did provide examples of corporations killing people (or providing the means to) in the name of profit.


But thank you for taking the response out of context. Brightens my day.

You didn't provide examples of corporations killing their customers. You provided examples of corporations giving their customers exactly what they ordered which was a means to kill other people who were not their customers.

Edit: To be fair, I am not familiar with all of the examples you gave and I am too lazy to look them up.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Maybe we should focus on restarting the economy by deficit SPENDING instead of trying to balance the budget. Balancing the budget while the economy is still in shambles will only make things worse.

Yeah, spending more money than you have works really well. We've got years of that as an example why that does NOT work.

 

[Jadow]

Yeah, having an inconstant educational system is a great idea.

It's like Libertopians want to do everything that the world is doing to be nationally competitive and DO THE OPPOSITE just because it's "cool" to be free, stupid, and uncompetitive.

Fucking regressives.

it really is fine actually. The cream will always rise to the top, the average people will be average, and the losers will be losers. Do you think a federal agency changes any of that? It's just a money pit

 

[SparkyJJO]

it really is fine actually. The cream will always rise to the top, the average people will be average, and the losers will be losers. Do you think a federal agency changes any of that? It's just a money pit

They try. By wanting to pull the cream down to the bottom. You know, the whole "everyone is a winner" crap.

 

[LegendKiller]

it really is fine actually. The cream will always rise to the top, the average people will be average, and the losers will be losers. Do you think a federal agency changes any of that? It's just a money pit

There is no such thing as bad education. Every single person in this country should have at least a high school degree that provides at least some base of knowledge. Even in Germany all kids are given some base education and then are separated into two schools, one college bound, one not. I would even be in favor of a similar system.

However, to merely get rid of broader education on the premise that the "cream will always rise to the top" is stupidity. The cream raises to the top regardless. If anything, a public education provides a better culling of the cream.

 

[LegendKiller]

As far as companies poisoning their customers. This type of tripe from righties isn't knew but is still surprising that people can remain this stupid.

history of the EPA

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/epa/15c.htm

This was pre-EPA

http://www.houstonpress.com/1994-05-19/news/decades-of-delay/

How about Chinese drywall?

How about salmonella caused by feeding cows corn and the unsafe practices companies still use even after the FDA by avoiding the FDA?

BPA?

Phen-Phen?

Hexavalent - Chromium?

What about the dumping in the rivers and lakes pre-EPA? What about the same Pre-FDA?

I mean, really, is this all that hard to understand? Companies sole motivation is PROFIT and that's fine. However, somebody needs to watch over them.

 

[Hacp]

There is no such thing as bad education. Every single person in this country should have at least a high school degree that provides at least some base of knowledge. Even in Germany all kids are given some base education and then are separated into two schools, one college bound, one not. I would even be in favor of a similar system.

However, to merely get rid of broader education on the premise that the "cream will always rise to the top" is stupidity. The cream raises to the top regardless. If anything, a public education provides a better culling of the cream.

Not when we spend so much on the WORST PERFORMERS! Isn't is worrisome that we spend the same or more money on bad students that we spend on good students? Shouldn't we be able to cut the bad apples loose and pool our resources on the top students?

 

[Jadow]

I just want to know what aqua buddha is.