When did the ship from the planet Stupid

"Slave2anMG" (Slave2anMG) 02/04/2015 at 08:45 • Filed to: None

2

20

land in my good state of North Carolina and unload all the stupid it was carrying? I mean...really. REALLY? Not only is he stupid, he's disgusting. But I bet the number of hands he shakes goes way down...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-…

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

E. Julius > Slave2anMG 02/04/2015 at 08:54

2

This the kind of thing those in the government do when they are afraid to actually govern.

Laird Andrew Neby Bradleigh > Slave2anMG 02/04/2015 at 08:55

2

GhostZ > Slave2anMG 02/04/2015 at 08:55

4

This sounds like something from a thinktank that went "How can we find an issue that shows our candidate is pro-business." They created a platform and then spun a giant wheel of regulations and whatever it landed on, they plugged it in like mad libs for politicians. Today, it landed on "employees must wash hands".

iakona > Slave2anMG 02/04/2015 at 08:56

0

Next he's going to propose completely getting rid of health inspections. Because food service businesses will totally self regulate and maintain their facilities to the highest standards, obvs. I just love that our state decided to put this dude in a national office.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Slave2anMG 02/04/2015 at 08:58

0

Doctors will probably be next on his list.

Stapleface-Now Hyphenated! > Slave2anMG 02/04/2015 at 09:00

0

Okay, but who's to say the employees wash their hands right now?

I'm having a difficult time wrapping my brain around this. I'm sure his district is thrilled that this is the cause he's championing.

ttyymmnn > E. Julius 02/04/2015 at 09:02

1

Or are unable to actually govern.

As Du Volant > Slave2anMG 02/04/2015 at 09:02

3

Groagun > Slave2anMG 02/04/2015 at 09:03

2

I just had to reply to this one, even it makes some of you mad at me.

In the current business venture I am in, we have had discussions with the state of NC. It's a beautiful place with some of the nicest people but, and it's a big round but, there are many problems and aspects of the state in which I did not like at all.

Not just a NC problem but what seems a nation wide problem, is the belief, attitude, practice or what ever noun you wish to insert, that says the government is evil and should make no rules at all. Of course this always comes from conservative politicians who are employed by the very government they wish to basically abolish all together.

I understand that rules and regulations can be tough or even impossible at times but really America, did you learn nothing from the total melt down of 2008? Have you ever tried to do business in Germany? A giant successful nation whose rules and regulations make your head explode.

a little perspective and common sense, throw in a little honesty as well, can go a long way into solving the problems. For the love god, please stop electing these idiots with great sound bites and nothing else!

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Slave2anMG 02/04/2015 at 09:10

1

He's arguing a hypothetical: the benefits of a law regarding information vs. a law that actually mandates something. He argued it very, very poorly, but he's not actually saying that handwashing is something on the slate to be eliminated, just that a law that mandates behavior is inherently inferior to one that mandates information and achieves the same result. Classic case of wanting to illustrate a point and getting so far off-tangent that you sound like a loon.

Slave2anMG > Stapleface-Now Hyphenated! 02/04/2015 at 09:15

1

His district is the entire state - he's a US senator.

This isn't the first time he's said crazy stuff...doubt it will be the last.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Groagun 02/04/2015 at 09:16

0

You invoke here the classic fallacy that a government that makes few rules is similar to one that makes no rules at all, and I must disagree. Adopting Washington's maxim that government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master, one *cannot* assume that such a man advocates no use of fire - that's an utterly distorted claim. It's also fallacious to assume that a desire for "less government" also means that specific necessary tasks are not shouldered by local government instead. The greatest single problem in a visceral sense to a "too big" government is a sense of loss of accountability to overpowerful lawmaking agencies at a federal level, rather than having things determined within states.

Oh, and the role played by "deregulation" in the 2008 collapse is highly arguable.

philipilihp > Slave2anMG 02/04/2015 at 09:21

0

What I don't get is that his issue is that there is a gov. regulation on washing hands, which he wants to do away with. But then he does want to require restaurants that don't have that as their regulation to put up a sign saying "we don't require our staff to wash hands." How is that not replacing a regulation with another (much dumber) regulation?

Groagun > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 02/04/2015 at 09:28

0

It's all fine and dandy that you and I can debate the points of either side of this argument but really what needs addressing is the question of the very nature of 'man' itself.

Do we have enough human history to predict accurately enough that given a state with no regulation vs a state with total or all encompassing regulation would end up in the same spot? That's an interesting question.

I'm at times very pessimistic about the nature of men and their intentions and goals and time and time again that pessimism has been proven right. 2008 was and is the most stark and recent example of no regulation run a muck. More accurately, regulation not imposed perhaps you can argue.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Slave2anMG 02/04/2015 at 09:29

0

It's not that he's being directly stupid so much as that he has his head up his own rectum. This is the symptom of a sperg-out trying to explain something that he didn't have a ready example for. Current law: mandates employees wash hands, post notice to wash hands in the bathroom at specific intervals - do they wash hands? Who knows. An Alternate Law That Would Work Just As Well (per Thom): Companies set their own policy, but any who don't have a policy have to notify customers... which leads to every company having their own policy in place, because nobody wants to eat at the place where people didn't wash their hands. It's the difference between mandating an action and mandating something more hands-off that leads to that same action or better. He chose a very shitty example (pun intended), and that's a far more sausage-making discussion than should be shared with a dipshit in the press who won't understand, but he's not nearly as crazy as this makes him sound. Just... spergy.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Groagun 02/04/2015 at 09:40

0

A state with no regulation inherently trends toward feudalism in practice, which is a semi-locally distributed rule by the strong. Pretty sucky. A state with all-encompassing regulation ends with distortion of the rule of law, ignorance of regulation in practice, and favor and rule to the politically connected - i.e. rule by the strong. They could mandate anything they wanted in Soviet Russia... Mussolini's everything within the state, everything for the state, nothing outside the state has implications that are every bit as horrific as the far alternative.

2008: less regulation not imposed, more a failure to take executive action when necessary, and a regulated environment with almost unlimited perverse incentives. It had more to do with the assumptions of security a gov't-backed investment structure possesses and certain pressures of a regulatory practice nature. Should mark-to-market practices have been outlawed? Perhaps, but as long as everything seemed fine, nobody wanted to act, and the role those practices played are in no way symptomatic of problems related to broader deregulation. The purpose of regulation is to regulate specific points of risk, not to regulate for regulation's sake. I'd like to hear your breakdown of how Bush (Bush!) speaking to the budget committee on the topic of the bubble and requesting action more than once dovetails with the popular myth that he just "let it happen". Dodd Frank is the opposite of regulation needed on most points as well - an utter farce namesaked by one of the men most responsible in inaction.

Steve in Manhattan > Slave2anMG 02/04/2015 at 10:00

0

Here in NY we get back ... 86 cents, or something along those lines, for every dollar we send to the federal government in taxes. And North Carolina, who sent this dumbfuck to DC, gets $1.14 back (or some such) for every dollar they spend in taxes. Why isn't there a tax on stupid? Dumb governors (LePage, Jindal, Scott, Walker, et seq.) and dumb legislators. Tax the Teabaggers. Slave2anMG, I know it's not your fault, but your state sends us idiots. Sure, you're not as bad as Texas - (Louie Gohmert? google him) and Rick Perry, and on and on. But there has to be a reckoning at some point.

THShorn92 - Left his car in America > Slave2anMG 02/04/2015 at 11:26

0

Makes me proud to be a Tar Heel...... sigh. I see the hypothetical side of it. He just made a very poor point.

Off topic, Where in NC are you?

Groagun > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 02/04/2015 at 13:18

0

Once again excellent points and it seems the 2 of us have much we can write.

" 2008: less regulation not imposed, more a failure to take executive action when necessary, and a regulated environment with almost unlimited perverse incentives. It had more to do with the assumptions of security a gov't-backed investment structure possesses and certain pressures of a regulatory practice nature. "

While on paper this statement is completely true, the real analysis should focus on how we got to this point. Why did the government not act? Who really holds the power and to whom is the government beholden too? The current financial system is the construct of the peoples taken over time or is it the theater in which the big players have taken the game? Is the idea of a government safety net good or in practice actually bad and should failure be more prominent in the system?

As for Pres. Bush(W), while I was not a fan of his and I believe he did some moronic things, he is not a moron or the idiot many on the left like to portrait him as. His weakness comes from lack of character and conviction. On top of that, add what I think was a sheltered upbringing with questionable ethics, yes I'm talking directly about his father, then you have a man truly not fit for the office.

While he was Pres. I don't really believe he was the Pres. I'm sure you know what I mean. The influence and seeming heavy handed, bully tactics of men like Cheney and their agenda made it difficult for the man to do his job his way.

It seems Pres. Bush(W) was a decent and caring man who in his early career made several mistakes but should be lauded for reaching across the isle in Texas and had a very good reputation in said job. What happened when he went to Washington?

The game in DC is very different than in the Halls of Texas but he seemingly lost that workable ability altogether and the pressures, of which were many and enormous, turned this once affable and agreeable man into what we saw for 8 years. That may be the great shame.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Groagun 02/04/2015 at 13:31

1

A pleasure to discuss things with you. You might find it interesting that what one might call Coolidge conservatives on the Right (I being one of them) have somewhat similar perspectives on the Bush presidency. We'd have a slightly more positive perspective on what was accomplished during his term, but it's certainly a round disappointment in many, many ways.

Mostly, I differ from you on the perspective of what role regulation plays in theory vs. practice - you would hold that comprehensive regulation is best to prevent bad actors, while I would hold that regulatory capture by bad actors is so intrinsic to the nature of regulation that only the barest minimum should be in place. While some states have done well by very comprehensive regulation, I don't believe that the US is as good a candidate as, say, a Germany, for the same reason that there are serious regulatory interest balance issues in the Eurozone - a more adversarial and subdivided populace. That adversarial division with competing interests is good for some things, but equitable regulation is, I would hold, not one of them. Thus, as little regulation as possible to lay limits on the balance of corruption. Any time we've tried to centralize power to prevent deviation, it has an inherent draw to place those in power that *broker* power - those whose connections to power are used to strengthen connections politically both near and far afield.

Darth Cheney was accused of many things, guilty of a few, that the organized "I swear we're actually liberal you guys" left had been conducting for years...