Why "Moderates" can kiss my ass

[CrusaderFrank]

Okay, I have a request:

Since we moderates can't think for ourselves per CF, Patrick2 and several others on this thread, please tell us who we must vote for in this coming election.

Immie

That's not my point. I didn't say you can't think. I said that if in the face of the Progressive Jihad on the USA, you're a "moderate" you're either naive or a liar like Jake Starkey.

 

[flacaltenn]

This is a weak complaint actually and is ALWAYS used to compare free-markets to anarchal free-for-all. But the reality of the free-market is that there are MANY NATURAL controls on business.. Let's list some..

1) Customer satisfaction -- You get NO WHERE if you violate this one.

2) Contract Law-- Every business transaction has explicit or implied legal terms.

3) Liability -- This includes liability for the entire supply chain for your product if a consumer, supplier, or bystander gets hurt.

4) Competition for Market share -- You cannot easily dictate the market pricing, or specifications. You have to be BETTER in some way from your competitors.

5) Stakeholder Satisfaction -- They want you to make ZERO mistakes and lots of profit.

While there is truth in these statements, they aren't as black and white as you hope they appear.

1. Customer satisfaction only needs to be sufficient to retain the customers. If 1) they have no other place to go or 2) the other businesses are just as bad, then the corporate mindset is "let them bitch, as long as we still get their money".

2. Contract Law. Implied means little as anyone who failed to read the fine print at the bottom of a contract may have found out. Most contract laws regarding business transactions favor the business, not the customer. Even if a customer does sue, how is Joe Sixpack going to be able to fight against a corporate legal team? It takes both finances and legal acumen to go to court. The usual corporate strategy is to consider it an endurance race by stretching out the process until the plaintiff(s), that's little ol' you and me, finally run out of money and give up.

3. Liability. See "Contract Law". Unless it's something on the order of a Ford Pinto gas tank and not just shoddy design, the customer is usually screwed. How many here have bought something which came with a 90-day+ "manufacturer warranty", and the product failed outside the 30 day store warranty? Have any trouble getting it replaced? Yes, you pay all the shipping back and forth just to receive a replacement item of the same crappy product. Whoopeee!

4. Market share. Think monopoly and a good reason for government involvement. "Business is war". If a company provides a good product and uses whatever means available to drive out the competition, once they've won and are the last ones standing, they can control the market. They can also seek to reduce costs by making the product cheaper, cutting back on departments like "customer service/complaints" and other ways. Once they are dominating the market, unless a group like our government stops them, they can prevent any newbies from getting a start or establishing a beachhead simply by undercutting their prices in that area until the fledgling business fails.

5. Stakeholder Satisfaction. Correct on the profit, disagree on the mistakes. Who cares about mistakes as long as the money keeps rolling in? Money is GOD in this country. A corporation is a money engine. It's sole purpose of existence is to produce profits. It has no soul, so it doesn't care how those profits are generated. Quasi-legal isn't illegal. Illegal only means getting caught. Don't get caught, cover yourself in legal mumbo-jumbo with lots of buffers between your management elite and those actually doing anything "quasi-legal" and you're good to make that Friday afternoon tee time.

but what stops corporations from trying to cover stuff up and hide it from the media. Lets say there was no regulation saying oil companies had to clean up what they spilled. Then a leak started in a pipeline in a remote place. Would they go off and tell the media? I seriously doubt it. More likely they secretly shut off the pipeline, fix the leak, cover up what was spilled and call it a day, the general masses none the wiser. As there are no regulations, they have not broken any laws by doing this.

The same thing that stops little kids from thinking that cleaning up after a food fight is gonna be sufficient when the parents come home. If the spill affects land/resources/values on SOMEONE else's property -- there is automatic legal recourse. The regulation part of that is -- there MIGHT be some GOVT prescription for HOW the mess is gonna be handled properly. What that does is to harmonize all the possible court prescriptions that COULD have been decided as "justice". A judge and jury COULD have probably invented a remedy -- maybe weaker or stronger than the regulation. But regulation for cases like this makes justice more uniform. (which is actually a constant complaint in many cases that regulation sets MINIMUM standards -- rather than "the best" or "brightess" standards).

But the aggreived owner -- with admittedly the help of the regulations -- will be restored.

Here's the deal --- the dirty secret is --- I'm a MODERATE libertarian. (compared to some). The purity squad will be here to flog me in just a few minutes.

Because I'm pragmatic about where we are and where we are heading. And when you're trying to stop a freight train -- you'll take every MPH you can to get things headed in the right direction.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Okay, I have a request:

Since we moderates can't think for ourselves per CF, Patrick2 and several others on this thread, please tell us who we must vote for in this coming election.

Immie

That's not my point. I didn't say you can't think. I said that if in the face of the Progressive Jihad on the USA, you're a "moderate" you're either naive or a liar like Jake Starkey.

Cuz there is no other ground? So you can't be a republican who thinks its wrong to stop gay marriage? Or at least allow for civil union, so they don't have to pay higher taxes because they are gay. Also can't be a republican that also believes that there should be some regulations on businesses, but thinks that right now there is too much. Or a republican that doesn't like open carry laws or concealed carry laws. Because that is basically what I am, so because I have a different view then you I must be "naive or a liar".

 

[edthecynic]

Okay, I have a request:

Since we moderates can't think for ourselves per CF, Patrick2 and several others on this thread, please tell us who we must vote for in this coming election.

Immie

That's not my point. I didn't say you can't think. I said that if in the face of the Progressive Jihad on the USA, you're a "moderate" you're either naive or a liar like Jake Starkey.

Or you are not stupid enough to swallow the GOP hate radio propaganda that there is a "Progressive Jihad," like the brainwashed fools on the Right do!

 

[Middleoftheroad]

While there is truth in these statements, they aren't as black and white as you hope they appear.

1. Customer satisfaction only needs to be sufficient to retain the customers. If 1) they have no other place to go or 2) the other businesses are just as bad, then the corporate mindset is "let them bitch, as long as we still get their money".

2. Contract Law. Implied means little as anyone who failed to read the fine print at the bottom of a contract may have found out. Most contract laws regarding business transactions favor the business, not the customer. Even if a customer does sue, how is Joe Sixpack going to be able to fight against a corporate legal team? It takes both finances and legal acumen to go to court. The usual corporate strategy is to consider it an endurance race by stretching out the process until the plaintiff(s), that's little ol' you and me, finally run out of money and give up.

3. Liability. See "Contract Law". Unless it's something on the order of a Ford Pinto gas tank and not just shoddy design, the customer is usually screwed. How many here have bought something which came with a 90-day+ "manufacturer warranty", and the product failed outside the 30 day store warranty? Have any trouble getting it replaced? Yes, you pay all the shipping back and forth just to receive a replacement item of the same crappy product. Whoopeee!

4. Market share. Think monopoly and a good reason for government involvement. "Business is war". If a company provides a good product and uses whatever means available to drive out the competition, once they've won and are the last ones standing, they can control the market. They can also seek to reduce costs by making the product cheaper, cutting back on departments like "customer service/complaints" and other ways. Once they are dominating the market, unless a group like our government stops them, they can prevent any newbies from getting a start or establishing a beachhead simply by undercutting their prices in that area until the fledgling business fails.

5. Stakeholder Satisfaction. Correct on the profit, disagree on the mistakes. Who cares about mistakes as long as the money keeps rolling in? Money is GOD in this country. A corporation is a money engine. It's sole purpose of existence is to produce profits. It has no soul, so it doesn't care how those profits are generated. Quasi-legal isn't illegal. Illegal only means getting caught. Don't get caught, cover yourself in legal mumbo-jumbo with lots of buffers between your management elite and those actually doing anything "quasi-legal" and you're good to make that Friday afternoon tee time.

but what stops corporations from trying to cover stuff up and hide it from the media. Lets say there was no regulation saying oil companies had to clean up what they spilled. Then a leak started in a pipeline in a remote place. Would they go off and tell the media? I seriously doubt it. More likely they secretly shut off the pipeline, fix the leak, cover up what was spilled and call it a day, the general masses none the wiser. As there are no regulations, they have not broken any laws by doing this.

The same thing that stops little kids from thinking that cleaning up after a food fight is gonna be sufficient when the parents come home. If the spill affects land/resources/values on SOMEONE else's property -- there is automatic legal recourse. The regulation part of that is -- there MIGHT be some GOVT prescription for HOW the mess is gonna be handled properly. What that does is to harmonize all the possible court prescriptions that COULD have been decided as "justice". A judge and jury COULD have probably invented a remedy -- maybe weaker or stronger than the regulation. But regulation for cases like this makes justice more uniform. (which is actually a constant complaint in many cases that regulation sets MINIMUM standards -- rather than "the best" or "brightess" standards).

But the aggreived owner -- with admittedly the help of the regulations -- will be restored.

Here's the deal --- the dirty secret is --- I'm a MODERATE libertarian. (compared to some). The purity squad will be here to flog me in just a few minutes.

Because I'm pragmatic about where we are and where we are heading. And when you're trying to stop a freight train -- you'll take every MPH you can to get things headed in the right direction.

And what if it is a spill like the trans-alaskan pipeline, that affected no ones property, that is basically what I was referring to in the previous post, when I was discussing cover ups.
Also what if the customer has no choice but to buy from a certain company? I'm not completely sure how most of the country electricity works, but I've lived in California and when I was there you were only given one choice on an electricity provider, and I live in Texas and here you can choose many different companies to get your electricity from, but no matter what in this area, you have to deal with Oncor, as they are the only company that "delivers" electricity, whatever that means.

 

[Immanuel]

Okay, I have a request:

Since we moderates can't think for ourselves per CF, Patrick2 and several others on this thread, please tell us who we must vote for in this coming election.

Immie

That's not my point. I didn't say you can't think. I said that if in the face of the Progressive Jihad on the USA, you're a "moderate" you're either naive or a liar like Jake Starkey.

On what grounds would you make that accusation. You think we moderates support Obama? Do you honestly believe any of the Republicans are significantly different than the man who sits in the Oval office now or his predecessor?

I think Obama sucks as a President and by the time Bush left office, I was certain he did as well. Perry has defended secession of states today. That is not a man that I believe has the good of America at heart nor do I want him as President since it doesn't seem as if he really loves this country.

I've seen nothing good from Romney and if he promoted the Massachusetts Health Care System and it is the predecessor of the ACA, then I definitely will not vote for him. He'll be more than happy to extend that shit as well. There are no other Republican candidates that appear to have a shot except for Michelle Bachmann maybe and I don't think she is ready to be President yet, if she ever will be.

I'll remain moderate thank you very much and since there are not enough of me, I'll have to sit here and frigging pray that something changes before those two damned parties FUBAR this country.

Immie

 

[Patrick2]

Okay, I have a request:

Since we moderates can't think for ourselves per CF, Patrick2 and several others on this thread, please tell us who we must vote for in this coming election.

Immie

That's not my point. I didn't say you can't think. I said that if in the face of the Progressive Jihad on the USA, you're a "moderate" you're either naive or a liar like Jake Starkey.

Do you honestly believe any of the Republicans are significantly different than the man who sits in the Oval office now or his predecessor?

WHOPPER O' THE DAY AWARD!!!

 

[Liability]

Rather than addressing these annoying fuckers one at a time, let me make a blanket statement: If you're a political "Moderate" in 2011, you're either lying or a fucking moron.

The Government has control over every aspect of your life including your health, Social Security is totally broke, Congress shamelessly racks up annual trillion deficits like it was nothing and even though they did it for the wrong reasons, S&P Downgraded our credit.

If you can face that and say "Gee, I dunno if that's bad" you're either a Jake Starkey lying liberal or a moron.

There is no third option

I like it when CF shows such determined restraint.

In terms of political philosophy, I am not a modern American liberal.

In terms of political philosophy, I am not a "progressive" (which is really just another cheesey way of saying "liberal").

In terms of political philosophy, I am not a "moderate" whateverthefuck that might even mean.

In terms of political philosophy, I am not a "libertarian."

In terms of political philosophy, I am not a "social" conservative.

In terms of political philosophy, I am a conservative.

 

[Immanuel]

That's not my point. I didn't say you can't think. I said that if in the face of the Progressive Jihad on the USA, you're a "moderate" you're either naive or a liar like Jake Starkey.

Do you honestly believe any of the Republicans are significantly different than the man who sits in the Oval office now or his predecessor?

WHOPPER O' THE DAY AWARD!!!

Good job on the spacing on that. Are you proud of yourself?

Immie

 

[flacaltenn]

Okay, I have a request:

Since we moderates can't think for ourselves per CF, Patrick2 and several others on this thread, please tell us who we must vote for in this coming election.

Immie

That's not my point. I didn't say you can't think. I said that if in the face of the Progressive Jihad on the USA, you're a "moderate" you're either naive or a liar like Jake Starkey.

On what grounds would you make that accusation. You think we moderates support Obama? Do you honestly believe any of the Republicans are significantly different than the man who sits in the Oval office now or his predecessor?

I think Obama sucks as a President and by the time Bush left office, I was certain he did as well. Perry has defended secession of states today. That is not a man that I believe has the good of America at heart nor do I want him as President since it doesn't seem as if he really loves this country.

I've seen nothing good from Romney and if he promoted the Massachusetts Health Care System and it is the predecessor of the ACA, then I definitely will not vote for him. He'll be more than happy to extend that shit as well. There are no other Republican candidates that appear to have a shot except for Michelle Bachmann maybe and I don't think she is ready to be President yet, if she ever will be.

I'll remain moderate thank you very much and since there are not enough of me, I'll have to sit here and frigging pray that something changes before those two damned parties FUBAR this country.

Immie

Immie:

There's an important diff between having BAD CHOICES to vote for and not having a consistentcy in what you are looking for on policy.. I can certainly empathize with the sucky choices part. Thats' why I believe the 2 party system is inherently unstable. Finger pointing is MUCH harder to use as an excuse for your tribe when there are more than 2 tribes to choose from.

So I definitely can believe that you have a political rudder but still can't navigate that very narrow channel between the equally sucky shoals.. :LOL:

 

[BOBO]

...if ya want to make a REAL impact on this insane debt spending.

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.";(Adolf Hitler)

 

[Immanuel]

That's not my point. I didn't say you can't think. I said that if in the face of the Progressive Jihad on the USA, you're a "moderate" you're either naive or a liar like Jake Starkey.

On what grounds would you make that accusation. You think we moderates support Obama? Do you honestly believe any of the Republicans are significantly different than the man who sits in the Oval office now or his predecessor?

I think Obama sucks as a President and by the time Bush left office, I was certain he did as well. Perry has defended secession of states today. That is not a man that I believe has the good of America at heart nor do I want him as President since it doesn't seem as if he really loves this country.

I've seen nothing good from Romney and if he promoted the Massachusetts Health Care System and it is the predecessor of the ACA, then I definitely will not vote for him. He'll be more than happy to extend that shit as well. There are no other Republican candidates that appear to have a shot except for Michelle Bachmann maybe and I don't think she is ready to be President yet, if she ever will be.

I'll remain moderate thank you very much and since there are not enough of me, I'll have to sit here and frigging pray that something changes before those two damned parties FUBAR this country.

Immie

Immie:

There's an important diff between having BAD CHOICES to vote for and not having a consistentcy in what you are looking for on policy.. I can certainly empathize with the sucky choices part. Thats' why I believe the 2 party system is inherently unstable. Finger pointing is MUCH harder to use as an excuse for your tribe when there are more than 2 tribes to choose from.

So I definitely can believe that you have a political rudder but still can't navigate that very narrow channel between the equally sucky shoals.. :LOL:

Actually, that is what I have been trying to get across.

I see my consistency as being the reason I am opposed to both parties. I see politicians as corrupt all the way around, both parties and in fact those who don't run under a party banner. I am consistent in that thought. My beliefs have taught me that I cannot trust the members of either party.

I do not see myself as moderate because I don't support either party. I see myself as moderate because I have political views that put me on the conservative side and other views that put me on the liberal side, but typically, I do not see myself on the extreme of any issue. I typically see myself as reasonable and wonder what the hell is wrong with the rest of you.

I don't see myself as "independent" either. To me declaring oneself "independent" just says you won't belong to either party. Big deal! Why not? Independent says you will still go with the flow whereas to me moderate says that you have set your keel and you cannot be labeled as either left or right wing because you decide each issue on the merits of the case and not on the traditional liberal/conservative division.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

You are no moderate, Immanuel. You are as right wing as they come. My ideological enemy.

 

[Immanuel]

You are no moderate, Immanuel. You are as right wing as they come. My ideological enemy.

/yawn

We know all Straight Christians are your ideological enemies.

Anyone that is interested, Sky Dancer is having a meltdown. This is going to be fun.

Immie

 

[FurthurBB]

Rather than addressing these annoying fuckers one at a time, let me make a blanket statement: If you're a political "Moderate" in 2011, you're either lying or a fucking moron.

The Government has control over every aspect of your life including your health, Social Security is totally broke, Congress shamelessly racks up annual trillion deficits like it was nothing and even though they did it for the wrong reasons, S&P Downgraded our credit.

If you can face that and say "Gee, I dunno if that's bad" you're either a Jake Starkey lying liberal or a moron.

There is no third option

Yeah there really is because most people I know that say it isn't that bad are republicans. That should be the #1 option in my opinion.

 

[FurthurBB]

My beef today was going to be a thread starter butt i like this one better.

What singes my nose hair are these libs endless pre occupation with the republican candidates.

If they spent the same amount of time vetting their candidate, we wouldnt be so screwed as we are today.

Unless they wanted a complete failure in the first place.

LOL! that is just politics and comes from both sides. I mean, really how well was Sarah Palin vetted? Now, just to be the moderate I am, the democrats did not vet Hillary Clinton very well or they would have realized she was a pathological liar.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What about folks who base their opinions on individual issues rather than ideology? I agree with liberals on some issues and with conservatives on other issues. I rather like having a mind of my own, and not having to refer to a party platform to tell me how I should feel about issues.

I don't know that I trust people who don't have an overarching ideology - after all, an objective moral standard is an ideology. It doesn't look like "having a mind of your own" so much as it looks like wandering vaguely through life, being kinda wishy-washy and easily-diverted.

Quite frankly, if you really have to stop and ponder at length about what's right and what's wrong that often, then I really have to wonder about you.

 

[ABikerSailor]

What about folks who base their opinions on individual issues rather than ideology? I agree with liberals on some issues and with conservatives on other issues. I rather like having a mind of my own, and not having to refer to a party platform to tell me how I should feel about issues.

I don't know that I trust people who don't have an overarching ideology - after all, an objective moral standard is an ideology. It doesn't look like "having a mind of your own" so much as it looks like wandering vaguely through life, being kinda wishy-washy and easily-diverted.

Quite frankly, if you really have to stop and ponder at length about what's right and what's wrong that often, then I really have to wonder about you.

You've gotta be able to adjust to the times and roll with the changes.

Remember........computers and cell phones weren't even in use over 40 years ago, if you can't adjust to that new ideal, you get left behind.

Same for people who have only 1 viewpoint, because they have the hardest time adjusting.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Don't confuse not taking a stand with not giving a shit.

I REALLY don't trust or respect people who think "I don't give a shit" is an acceptable attitude toward how their nation is run.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My beef today was going to be a thread starter butt i like this one better.

What singes my nose hair are these libs endless pre occupation with the republican candidates.

If they spent the same amount of time vetting their candidate, we wouldnt be so screwed as we are today.

Unless they wanted a complete failure in the first place.

Couldn't that be said on a 180 degree basis? If Conservatives vetted their candidates, we wouldn't be so screwed as we are today?

Oh.. I get it... it only matter when it's a "lib" doing it... partisan fuck.

I'm sorry, but which Republican candidate in the last twenty years have we not known EVERYTHING about, just about up to and including Internet video of their last colonoscopy?