The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Not funding those banks?!?!? How would you define handing them $750 billion dollars such that they have gone from brim-of-bankruptcy to healthily-profitable? Is that not "funding?" It's not grants, yeah. But it was voted by Congress just the same.

Well, crap, yeah. I'm with you on that one. Brain fart. I think once a corporation accepts that kind of help from the government then they need to submit to whatever as the price they pay.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

Again, you frame it in terms of racism. It is not racism to recognize that most minorities vote democratic; and that increase in minority voters decreases republican candidates' chances.

well, in terms of fewer people voting the democrat party line, I'm all in favor of that! But I don't care what color of skin they have.

[innerSpaceman]

Can anyone figure out what Alex's last post was supposed to mean?

[Alex]

I can!

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Alex

Congratulations! You've successfully refuted something unsaid by me. You even knocked senseless an argument I didn't even attempt to slyly imply. And in the process you assume that which is (though not by me) being argued--which is just an empty rhetorical trick.

Let me see how this works.



Surely you'd agree that raping young girls is not nearly so fun as it sounds! And should we allow a thoroughly corrupt organization continue unpunished and unblemished access to the government teat?

Nah, I just don't have the knack for it.

WTF????

[Alex]

Exactly.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, then, um, continuing in my previous line of thought ...

Yesterday, the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld a trial court judgment against Fortis Insurance for Ten Million Dollars. Fortis rescinded the insurance policy of 18-year-old Jerome Mitchell when they discovered he had contracted HIV/AIDS in the year since he started coverage with them.

The Supreme Court stated Fortis' acts were "reprehensible" and "demonstrated an indifference to Mitchell's life and a reckless disregard of his health and safety."


For the sake of a hypothetical, Mr. scaeagles, let's assume this sort of thing was done, oh say 5 times by Fortis. Do those represent the policies of Fortis or the acts of 5 bad apples within Fortis?

[JWBear]

Since Fortis supported and defended those acts in court, then yes, it would appear to be their policy.

If ACORN had defended the actions of its employees, then I would agree that it is a bad orginization.

[Alex]

Unrelated to the Fortis example. Listened to an hour of Michael Moore on local NPR this morning and while I'm sure Capitalism: A Love Story will present many very valid criticisms of capitalism (capitalism--though this is true, in my opinion, of any of the alternatives as well--is very much the definition of evil) in general and example of corporate malfeasance (people frequently get to suck and it scales up quickly when people have money and power) specifically I must say I found his professed view of a utopian economic structure mostly bat**** insane in that he seemed less than willing to admit that it was unobtainable without complete central control of the economy (though even if that were accomplished I don't agree with him it would work the way he thinks).

But hopefully the movie makes his case better than he did on the radio.

[innerSpaceman]

I don't think his movies, going by past examples, make a case for something so much as against something.

Even on the good guys' side, it's always been easier to destroy than to create.