Conquer Club

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:17 pm**

Santorum - NOT MY GUY!

Here he admits he is a big government republican, and that he will fight tooth and nail against Libertarians.

According to this dipshit, Libertarian = NO government... :-s

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:52 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:

Santorum - NOT MY GUY!

Here he admits he is a big government republican, and that he will fight tooth and nail against Libertarians.

According to this dipshit, Libertarian = NO government...

Hmmmm....something does not....compute. If Santorum said that back then (in June of 2011), then why did he say this in January of 2012?.....(from 0:01- 0:15 he said in January 2012)

Posted: **Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:08 am**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Aradhus wrote:Private companies competing to regulate drugs. Oh yeah, no worries there..

Sure, there's plenty of worries. The lawsuits would sort out the losers from the winners, thus developing a trusty reputation behind Drug Certification Agency A's approval stamp.

Of course, I wouldn't be the first to take their drugs. I'd wait it out some years until then, or if I really needed a certain medicine, and I couldn't get in the clinical studies controlled by the FDA, then there's my opportunity to live: thank you, Drug Certification Agency A.

Competition would provide more opportunities and a faster rate of innovation in the long-run. This would very likely drive down the costs of producing and distributing safe drugs. A monopoly like the FDA has very little incentive to become more efficient and just as safe.

I see, because competition has resulted in us getting cheaper and better, more reliable appliances, right?
Except.. NO... the average lifespan of a major appliance was 20 years, then 10 years. I just wound up throwing out a dishwasher that was just 3 years old simply becuase the company stopped making the front panel! It not even a major electronic part, basically just the part that holds the switches and lighted them. I finally just could not stand looking at "duct tape" any more.

1) I'd recommend switching suppliers.

2) The process of discovery requires trial-and-error, so rational deliberation is required on your part.

3) How do you know you're not falling victim to sample bias? You see planned obsolescence everywhere, but it's only based on your own purchasing decisions.

4) Then, how do you know you're not falling victim to confirmation bias? You see planned obsolescence while mentally recording conversations with your neighbors (on only the products that fail after a short time).

There's also the problem of having a 30 year old fridge. Talk about inefficient in energy usage! Any environmentalist would balk at wanting to purchase and retain 20+ year-old equipment which is relatively very energy-intensive compared to the lesser energy-intensive appliances of today and within the next 5, 10, 20+ years.

You assume I am talking about personal experience, not industry standards.

And the energy efficiency is not why these appliances break so readily now.

I know. I didn't claim that.

Posted: **Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:10 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote: 3) How do you know you're not falling victim to sample bias? You see planned obsolescence everywhere, but it's only based on your own purchasing decisions.

4) Then, how do you know you're not falling victim to confirmation bias? You see planned obsolescence while mentally recording conversations with your neighbors (on only the products that fail after a short time).

There's also the problem of having a 30 year old fridge. Talk about inefficient in energy usage! Any environmentalist would balk at wanting to purchase and retain 20+ year-old equipment which is relatively very energy-intensive compared to the lesser energy-intensive appliances of today and within the next 5, 10, 20+ years.

You assume I am talking about personal experience, not industry standards.

And the energy efficiency is not why these appliances break so readily now.

I know. I didn't claim that.

True, not directly. You did cite energy inefficiency as a benefit of having newer appliances. I am saying that we could have had that benefit without the loss in durability. However, as you actually noted above, the incentive is to sell more, produce more.

In medicine, this is why we see the creation of all kinds of new "problems". I will certainly accept that erectile dysfunction is a real and sometimes serious problem in men. However, some suggest that all this emphasis on Bladder control and some newer and better allergy medication are more about generating sales than really solving a problem people asked to have fixed.

At any rate, its just one more reason why I think medicine needs to be independent of standard corporate profit .

(yes, that is a bit of a modification from what I have said before -- at least in this particular thread). What I mean is that you can give individuals involved benefits and even hospitals/doctors encouragement to both save lives and save money without relying upon corporate profit. In fact, if you get down to it, doctors and such generally do not, in many states cannot, benefit from making better monetary decisions for patients . One example is how Geisenger operates here in PA, but there are other methods).

The basic problem with a lot of corporate/stockholder profit, as opposed to other types of profit is that corporations are specifically designed to insulate people and the profit they might recieve from many types of losses and even abuse of the corporation. This is bad when you are talking about a farm or factory making general widgets. It is terrible when the widget is medicine or medical goods people need to function well or just to live.

Posted: **Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:15 pm**

tkr4lf wrote: You're telling me. I spent almost an hour composing that fucking post. And has there been a response? Go figure...

Hey everyone, I know how to make PLAYER go away now! Just call her out on her bullshit, point out her lies and/or mistakes, and she disappears!

Tell everyone you know!

Guess I must be making a point if it bothers you so much that I wait a day to respond :roll:

.

And.. next time you call me a liar, I suggest you make sure I actually AM lying. As opposed to just not falling into some convenient categories you decided to construct.

Posted: **Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:17 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
tkr4lf wrote: You're telling me. I spent almost an hour composing that fucking post. And has there been a response? Go figure...

Hey everyone, I know how to make PLAYER go away now! Just call her out on her bullshit, point out her lies and/or mistakes, and she disappears!

Tell everyone you know!

Guess I must be making a point if it bothers you so much that I wait a day to respond .

And.. next time you call me a liar, I suggest you make sure I actually AM lying. As opposed to just not falling into some convenient categories you decided to construct.

tkr4lf wrote:Ok, PLAYER, I'm done talking with you.

You take points that I make and then go on to comment on tons of shit that has nothing to do with what I said. When I point out obvious mistakes/lies of yours, and provide proof of those, you ignore that and somehow claim that I am the one lying/making mistakes, without any proof. You refuse to provide evidence when asked for it. You are an intellectually lazy and dishonest person, and I have no desire to continue this exchange of words with you.

It's no wonder few on this website are willing to engage in serious and thoughtful conversation with you. I don't know what I was thinking taking you off of the foe list. Back to it you go. Good day.

Posted: **Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:41 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote: 3) How do you know you're not falling victim to sample bias? You see planned obsolescence everywhere, but it's only based on your own purchasing decisions.

4) Then, how do you know you're not falling victim to confirmation bias? You see planned obsolescence while mentally recording conversations with your neighbors (on only the products that fail after a short time).

There's also the problem of having a 30 year old fridge. Talk about inefficient in energy usage! Any environmentalist would balk at wanting to purchase and retain 20+ year-old equipment which is relatively very energy-intensive compared to the lesser energy-intensive appliances of today and within the next 5, 10, 20+ years.

You assume I am talking about personal experience, not industry standards.

And the energy efficiency is not why these appliances break so readily now.

I know. I didn't claim that.

True, not directly. You did cite energy inefficiency as a benefit of having newer appliances. I am saying that we could have had that benefit without the loss in durability. However, as you actually noted above, the incentive is to sell more, produce more.

With a marginal increase in price, sure.

Toyota could build a Honda Civic with an extremely low chance of having anything wrong with it for the next 20 years. But it would cost $1,000,000.

Posted: **Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:08 am**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote: 3) How do you know you're not falling victim to sample bias? You see planned obsolescence everywhere, but it's only based on your own purchasing decisions.

4) Then, how do you know you're not falling victim to confirmation bias? You see planned obsolescence while mentally recording conversations with your neighbors (on only the products that fail after a short time).

There's also the problem of having a 30 year old fridge. Talk about inefficient in energy usage! Any environmentalist would balk at wanting to purchase and retain 20+ year-old equipment which is relatively very energy-intensive compared to the lesser energy-intensive appliances of today and within the next 5, 10, 20+ years.

You assume I am talking about personal experience, not industry standards.

And the energy efficiency is not why these appliances break so readily now.

I know. I didn't claim that.

True, not directly. You did cite energy inefficiency as a benefit of having newer appliances. I am saying that we could have had that benefit without the loss in durability. However, as you actually noted above, the incentive is to sell more, produce more.

With a marginal increase in price, sure.

Toyota could build a Honda Civic with an extremely low chance of having anything wrong with it for the next 20 years. But it would cost $1,000,000.

Nice rhetoric. Not necessarily true.
But, we'll never know because even attempting to create such a thing would put the companies out of business.

A related issue.. I can remember when a guy got paid about 200K for inventing an engine that ran on chicken manure. We already know that even most engines we have today can actually run on kitchen oil (with minor modifications). Will we see all that mass marketed? Nope.. gotta go electric.

Posted: **Sun Feb 12, 2012 1:47 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:Toyota could build a Honda Civic with an extremely low chance of having anything wrong with it for the next 20 years. But it would cost $1,000,000.

Hyperbole!

Many Civics last that long already, and they don't cost anywhere near $1,000,000.

Also, I doubt Toyota would be allowed to build a Civic, due to intellectual property rights laws.

I'm starting to think you weren't being serious at all, with that last post.

Posted: **Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:08 pm**

tkr4lf wrote:[qu
You take points that I make and then go on to comment on tons of shit that has nothing to do with what I said. When I point out obvious mistakes/lies of yours, and provide proof of those, you ignore that and somehow claim that I am the one lying/making mistakes, without any proof.
]

LOL.. try reading. I presented the proof. See, in the real world, you cannot claim someone means something other than what they actually said because you find it convenient to your political viewpoint.

I never lied, in fact, you posted the very words you claimed I did not say in your "proof".

As for people getting "tired". A lot of people come here hoping to show everyone how brilliant they are. They meet with failure and get angry or leave.

I could care less who likes or dislikes what I say. i do challenge people to think and to tell the truth. Too bad you don't care to do so.

Posted: **Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:37 pm**

Timminz wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Toyota could build a Honda Civic with an extremely low chance of having anything wrong with it for the next 20 years. But it would cost $1,000,000.

Hyperbole!

Many Civics last that long already, and they don't cost anywhere near $1,000,000.

Also, I doubt Toyota would be allowed to build a Civic, due to intellectual property rights laws.

I'm starting to think you weren't being serious at all, with that last post.

DAMNIT, TIMMINZ! DAMN YOUUU!!

How about zero chance of error? How much would that cost?

(I was looking for a proper analogy for explaining diminishing returns and marginal costs, and then applying that to the rampant planned obsolescence argument.)

Posted: **Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:41 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:

Toyota could build a Honda Civic with an extremely low chance of having anything wrong with it for the next 20 years. But it would cost $1,000,000.

Nice rhetoric. Not necessarily true.
But, we'll never know because even attempting to create such a thing would put the companies out of business..

Which would be great for the profit-hungry competitor. Why doesn't a firm build a million fridges that last 30 years which use very little energy and sell for $200?

Posted: **Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:18 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:[qu
You take points that I make and then go on to comment on tons of shit that has nothing to do with what I said. When I point out obvious mistakes/lies of yours, and provide proof of those, you ignore that and somehow claim that I am the one lying/making mistakes, without any proof.
]

LOL.. try reading. I presented the proof. See, in the real world, you cannot claim someone means something other than what they actually said because you find it convenient to your political viewpoint.

I never lied, in fact, you posted the very words you claimed I did not say in your "proof".

As for people getting "tired". A lot of people come here hoping to show everyone how brilliant they are. They meet with failure and get angry or leave.

I could care less who likes or dislikes what I say. i do challenge people to think and to tell the truth. Too bad you don't care to do so.

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

Whatever player. Anybody reading this thread can see the truth. I'll trust that most people have a modicum of intelligence, and can see you for what you are.

Seriously, you have to be a troll. Surely nobody can be that fucking dense.

Posted: **Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:42 pm**

For what it's worth, tkr4lf - I started this thread with somewhat of a preconceived bias against what you were saying, but you have articulated what takes place in the industry well. I learned quite a bit from what you posted. Thank you.

Posted: **Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:43 am**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:

Toyota could build a Honda Civic with an extremely low chance of having anything wrong with it for the next 20 years. But it would cost $1,000,000.

Nice rhetoric. Not necessarily true.
But, we'll never know because even attempting to create such a thing would put the companies out of business..

Which would be great for the profit-hungry competitor. Why doesn't a firm build a million fridges that last 30 years which use very little energy and sell for $200?

EXACTLY why we don't need that mentality in medicine.

Its barely OK in appliances (they get to ignore landfill costs, etc., but aside from that..). It is absolutely NOT OK in medicine.

It doesn't matter to a parent who's child is sick if the medicine needed to cure him/her is profitable or not. It doesn't really matter if it costs $10 or $1000 or even $100,000.. they will do what they can to pay it. That and many other factors are why medicine is not and never will be a true free market.. and is one of those things that has to be dealt with outside of that framework.

AND... WE are the ones with the $700 aspirin, not Europe.

Posted: **Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:35 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:

Toyota could build a Honda Civic with an extremely low chance of having anything wrong with it for the next 20 years. But it would cost $1,000,000.

Nice rhetoric. Not necessarily true.
But, we'll never know because even attempting to create such a thing would put the companies out of business..

Which would be great for the profit-hungry competitor. Why doesn't a firm build a million fridges that last 30 years which use very little energy and sell for $200?

EXACTLY why we don't need that mentality in medicine.

Its barely OK in appliances (they get to ignore landfill costs, etc., but aside from that..). It is absolutely NOT OK in medicine.

It doesn't matter to a parent who's child is sick if the medicine needed to cure him/her is profitable or not. It doesn't really matter if it costs $10 or $1000 or even $100,000.. they will do what they can to pay it. That and many other factors are why medicine is not and never will be a true free market.. and is one of those things that has to be dealt with outside of that framework.

AND... WE are the ones with the $700 aspirin, not Europe.

um, I'll give you 5/10 for the dodge.

Posted: **Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:08 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:

Toyota could build a Honda Civic with an extremely low chance of having anything wrong with it for the next 20 years. But it would cost $1,000,000.

Nice rhetoric. Not necessarily true.
But, we'll never know because even attempting to create such a thing would put the companies out of business..

Which would be great for the profit-hungry competitor. Why doesn't a firm build a million fridges that last 30 years which use very little energy and sell for $200?

EXACTLY why we don't need that mentality in medicine.

Its barely OK in appliances (they get to ignore landfill costs, etc., but aside from that..). It is absolutely NOT OK in medicine.

It doesn't matter to a parent who's child is sick if the medicine needed to cure him/her is profitable or not. It doesn't really matter if it costs $10 or $1000 or even $100,000.. they will do what they can to pay it. That and many other factors are why medicine is not and never will be a true free market.. and is one of those things that has to be dealt with outside of that framework.

AND... WE are the ones with the $700 aspirin, not Europe.

um, I'll give you 5/10 for the dodge.

No dodge, but nice try at making one yourself.

Most medicine Medicine is not, should not be and frankly cannot honestly be a truly market-driven product. The exceptions are a few widely used over-the counter type items. The rest is too tied up in a mix of need, patents, expensive research.

Posted: **Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:09 pm**

lol, the "medicine tangents" belong in another thread. I think you're criss-crossing subjects here.

Anyway, "Why doesn't a firm build a million fridges that last 30 years which use very little energy and sell for $200?"

Posted: **Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:18 am**

BigBallinStalin wrote: Anyway, "Why doesn't a firm build a million fridges that last 30 years which use very little energy and sell for $200?"

Becuase they don't have to pay for the problems with producing millions of essentially "disposable" items, but get to accept the benefits of selling them. Becuase there is no revenue stream for them outside of selling new machines. So, unless there is a huge population boom, the only real way to create a new market is to create something significantly better or to build in disposability.

But, back to Santorum, he is a narrow minded jerk. He used to come off as a decent guy who had some pretty conservative views, but has gone into outright proseletizing for a very extreme set of positions...a nd yet claims to be "just conservative".

He is the latest in a long chaing designed to move the "middle" further and further to the right.

Posted: **Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:36 pm**

Some people aren't worth saving.

Posted: **Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:47 pm**

Sick rat, no rum.

Posted: **Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:59 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:But, back to Santorum, he is a narrow minded jerk. He used to come off as a decent guy who had some pretty conservative views, but has gone into outright proseletizing for a very extreme set of positions...a nd yet claims to be "just conservative".

He is the latest in a long chain designed to move the "middle" further and further to the right.

The only reason you think his positions are extreme is because you've been conditioned to believe that people like Bush, McCain, and Graham are all conservatives. They're not. True conservatism relies on individuals being able to make their own decisions with a federal government being as small as possible. The federal government was formed by the Constitution, which gives it absolutely zero authority to do most of the massive programs and spending it does today.

And the middle is not moving to the right. Unfortunately. Our country would be MUCH better off if it did. Obama is just so far left compared to any president in the last 40 years that is seems that every challenge to him is from the right wing (probably because he claimed to be a centrist in the campaign but has done nothing to govern from anywhere but the left).

Posted: **Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:28 pm**

Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:But, back to Santorum, he is a narrow minded jerk. He used to come off as a decent guy who had some pretty conservative views, but has gone into outright proseletizing for a very extreme set of positions...a nd yet claims to be "just conservative".

He is the latest in a long chain designed to move the "middle" further and further to the right.

The only reason you think his positions are extreme is because you've been conditioned to believe that people like Bush, McCain, and Graham are all conservatives.

UH.. no. Its because I have heard the guy speak on one too many occasions. I would say you think that because you have never really heard positions that go opposed to your own, not really. You reject even the most basic things I put forward as "unfounded" or "out there", without even bothering to verify.

Night Strike wrote:They're not. True conservatism relies on individuals being able to make their own decisions with a federal government being as small as possible. The federal government was formed by the Constitution, which gives it absolutely zero authority to do most of the massive programs and spending it does today.

Actually the definition of conservative has traditionally been "in favor of maintaining the status quo". Around the time of Bush, that began to change into something else.. either adhering more to specific religious views (social conservativism) OR supporting big business OR restrained spending OR a few other things. Now what many trot out as conservativism bears a marked resemblance to the right wing agenda of a decade ago.

That last bit is actually a consistant liberaterian position, though it has also been swung under the "conservative" umbrella by folks like you who basically try and paint anything you like as conservative and much of you don't as "liberal"

Night Strike wrote:And the middle is not moving to the right. Unfortunately. Our country would be MUCH better off if it did. Obama is just so far left compared to any president in the last 40 years that is seems that every challenge to him is from the right wing (probably because he claimed to be a centrist in the campaign but has done nothing to govern from anywhere but the left).

LOL, LOL, LOL Sometimes you make your age very apparent.

Reagan... waffled on the abortion issue, but NEVER took the position of opposing it legally. He stood firm on a person's right to choose. Today... if you want to be conservative, you have to be virulantly anti legal abortion. Even allowing exceptions for a life-threatening condition is considered a negative by many

Homosexuality is the one area where we have actually moved to the left. Anita Bryant was basically advocating "witch hunts' against gays. The debate, the movement was over keeping it legal, and not having people face jail and other serious discrimination.

Fiscally.. Reagan is the one that started the low taxes bit. BUT, what a lot of people forget is that he actually saw his moves as temporary, thought they would be reversed. He made few bones about catering to Big Business. If you listen to his speeches, it becomes apparent. All his talk about "America" was really about american business, particularly big business. He had some good speech writers, was a very charismatic and polite man. (So is Bush, for that matter.. and I would venture to say anyone at that level of politics, though I know of more than one senator that is an absolute jerk).

Posted: **Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:31 pm**

bradleybadly wrote:For what it's worth, tkr4lf - I started this thread with somewhat of a preconceived bias against what you were saying, but you have articulated what takes place in the industry well. I learned quite a bit from what you posted. Thank you.

The problem is I never disputed any of his facts. Just a couple of his definitions.

And, I pointed out that what he saw as a "slam dunk" was really not any such thing.

We do have a good testing regime here. We have a terribly designed patent system AND.. most of our research really IS done by the government, not private companies. (testing of products and research of new ones are two very different things).

Posted: **Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:35 pm**

Actually, conservatism has nothing to do with preserving the status quo. The status quo is for an ever-expanding government. Conservatism means following the original intent and actual policies of the Constitution instead of expanding it by judicial fiat rather than actual amendments. Conservatism means conserving our freedoms from the tyranny of a large government. Conservatism means only allowing the government to spend what it takes in instead of taking out trillions of dollars in debt to pass on to our posterity.

Conquer Club

Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum

Re: Santorum