jerome scuggs' weekly "shit hits the fan" politics thread

[404 Not Found]

So everyone who is not covered is a cokehead? or doesn't want stable employment?

Forgetting the first rule of TW Forums 404?

PT II

I didnt limit this to just those on coke.

1st rule of the TW Forums? please remind me?

Do I smoke pot...yeh...not daily anymore, but there was a time for that and I do smoke here and there today, but I am not going through a 1/4 oz. in an hr. either.

BTW...Pummel...am curious if you have been to the Sunshine Coast - Halfmoon Bay area in BC? Am going up there to check out some property. A hopeful retirement home from when and if we sell this company.

[Pummel]

turnd round' shtot this bitch in the THROAT

[404 Not Found]

So everyone who is not covered is a cokehead? or doesn't want stable employment?

Forgetting the first rule of TW Forums 404?

From my point of view, noting the company of which I work for, we offer full BC/BS w/eye & dental. I lost 12 employee's off the bat as soon as we started drug testing. Not due to them failing the test, but they did not want to take the test.

We are in a manufacturing field and these workers are required to be tested due to the machinery they are on.

For my company to get insurance, of which I can no longer get at a reasonable premium, we are forced to do drug testing here.

So let me think for a min. The people that left, I know for a fact that one was shooting up meth, the other smack. We had one crack addict and the rest smokin pot...pot of which can be overlooked in testing in many ways.

These employee's left and forfeited health insurance because they felt that they should not be monitored for drug use and it should be ok for me to allow them to possibly be f'd up on the job and possibly harm others with the machinery they operate here, all so they can be fucked up during the day?

This is just one situation of many that are possibly similar to my companies.

What gets me the most is that many of those that left our company had families and it seems that the coke, meth and other crap held a higher (no pun) level than the welfare of their own families.

[Kolar]

So everyone who is not covered is a cokehead? or doesn't want stable employment?

Forgetting the first rule of TW Forums 404?

[404 Not Found]

Point 2: its really hard for me to have any sympathy for people not getting a job that gets them covered. Honestly, its not that hard. Pretty much what pascone said. Has anyone here actually had experiences with this? I know that if you or your child keeps going in with some bullshit claims the insurance company will probably drop you...but thats simple enough to deal with...dont be a crybaby bitch

I agree with Izor on this. It really is not all that hard to get coverage, but depending on who wants the coverage and their perosnal lifestyles, this may be the factor that keeps them from getting it. Dave & Busters will give you full Aetna coverage from day 1 with no waiting period.

Meth, Coke, Pot and other drug users will avoid any testing by corporations as this will kill their chances on staying with that company and or having any type of medical coverage.

It is easy to get insurance and yet there are reasons as to why people will not get it. Should everyone be able to have coverage? Sure if they get off their asses and work for it and are not being thrown out of some Methedone clinic.

[Kolar]

I wasn't asking for a history lesson or to know how "your" academic field organizes itself, I asked you to provide a reference to what you are talking about. How do you know the European economies are not functioning well? I assumed and was hoping for something like Stats Can, something official and exactly opposite of what you provided: a faceless, nameless static html web page. I mean what the bloody fuck do you kids reference in class?

[Jerome Scuggs]

Since you claim to be a student of economics could you maybe provide something besides news articles? Though to your credit Jerome that's a step forward.

Statistics are a point of contention amongst the Austrian and Chicago school of economics. Chicago-ites tend to rely heavily on statistics and such, but Austrians criticize them for various reasons.

A current example: if you read the stats posted by the Fed, they come out looking OK, but if you match up their spending with their previous stats, it becomes an Enron-esque tangle.

I generally tend to consider statistics secondary, because they're static and do not show "the whole picture" - for instance, the post-WW2 economic boom proves Keynes was right, but then the entire thing fell apart in the 1970's.

Here's something I found recently - the guy is HTML-tarded, so ignore the bright colors and bad design, but he basically goes through all sorts of statistics and numbers and paints a sobering picture.

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/summary.htm

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/summary-b.htm

[Kolar]

stay stupid

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,566161,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7511418.stm

though to canada's credit their central bank has done exactly what everyone else should have been doing: nothing.

Since you claim to be a student of economics could you maybe provide something besides news articles? Though to your credit Jerome that's a step forward.

Nothing at all: http://www.reuters.com/article/bonds...00326820080728

If inflation hits 3% the Bank of Canada will set interest rates higher. No one wants to go back to 12% of the 1980s, shit will likely not work itself out with higher crude prices and the fact that lack of demand is not significantly driving down the price and the financial crisis down south. There's doing something absolutely stupid then there's just sitting on the sidelines hoping to see shit fall apart.

[Jerome Scuggs]

I fail to see how that there may be a recession is equivalent to:

"Here we are, in goddamned 2008, with the world falling apart around us"

Either you exaggerate to no ends, or you really have no idea what 'world falling apart around us' means.

If I don't care if 2 million people die, then the world's falling apart.

Time will tell!

[Epinephrine]

I fail to see how that there may be a recession is equivalent to:

"Here we are, in goddamned 2008, with the world falling apart around us"

Either you exaggerate to no ends, or you really have no idea what 'world falling apart around us' means.

[Jerome Scuggs]

The world is doing just fine actually. Sure there is a recession coming up in the USA, but in general the world is doing fine and in Europe where the welfare state is even more powerful they are having less of a problem with their economies than the USA (Canada as well for that matter is also doing better by most measures).

stay stupid

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,566161,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7511418.stm

though to canada's credit their central bank has done exactly what everyone else should have been doing: nothing.

[Squeezer]

I didn't know scuggs was my same age

[paradise!]

Jerome has values. Do his values coincide with most common people's? No. He has values nonetheless.

I don't deny Jerome's passion for one second, but honestly I have to fall back on a cliche here "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." I know Jerome knows that what he is preaching is probably not practical and some if not most of it will not come to fruition. The only thing that really bothers me about Jerome is his incessant bitching about the government and what its doing wrong, and I never have heard of anything that Jerome has tried to do to change things. I could be wrong for lack of knowledge there though. Take me for example, I am just a normal player in this game and I see it dying, so I took it upon myself to run TWDT to try and bring some fun and life back instead of sitting around grumbling. And as for Jerome's stance on stupid people and it being their fault for being where they are, I can definitely see where hes coming from because I honestly feel the same way sometimes. And yes anyone in this world can move up by shear force of will, but is it usually practical and realistic? Not really. People get screwed by the system and culture. Your basis of values as a youth come from you parents or lack their of. If your daddy is dealing drugs or going pay check to pay check and dropped out of high school. Chances are you are going to learn bad lessons from him and be set up to fail. People don't deserve to die or be thrown by the wayside for their own ignorance or being screwed by the system....anywayz i got on a tangent. I would just like to know if you are doing anything to help the problems other than "informing others" aka bitching

Well there's not much any of us can do but simply complain. I mean yeah, organizations can be started, but what fruit will that bear? Hardly any. Unless he plans to seriously consider politics(congressman, senator, etc..) he will be essentially powerless. Not much any of us can do but complain.

[paradise!]

You can pretty much coast on the fact that if you argue the exact opposite of whatever paradise! posts then you will be right.

What do you mean? Did i post anything that was wrong? Why don't you just stfu and contribute ? You lost your "funny-ness", well actually, you were never funny, and you have just proved to us you know just about as much as FOX News when it comes to politics<_< . I'd suggest just keeping quiet, so you don't look any more of a genius.B)

[Fluffz]

F.A. Hayek, "The Road to Serfdom", chapter 3: 'Individualism and Collectivism'. Hayek goes very in-depth about the concepts of "majority rule" in the political and economic sphere.

That sounds interesting and i might even read it.

However i still dont know wether you are for or against a majority rule. Because free markets will have people work together resulting in monopolism and globalisation and with it the majority ruling. A form of collective power that you claim destroys the system. You cant avoid having regulations.
Or you reject this morale and create a leader class that makes decissions by what? His own ideals, a future's Übermensch, the religious past, a constant status quo? But the same attitude of "i want more for less" will destroy such a system even quicker than the current one.

So the true question remains either way, what ethics rules do we base regulations on, or what ethic rules is a leader supposed to follow. Its the same pair of shoes. I cant see how a free market will solve that problem. Imho a free market will dictate a morale that justifies itself with less trouble than the current System that allows the failure to coexist with the success. Its not a 50/50 ratio, but we give the troublmaker an revolutionists their rights. And if you believe Nietzsche, this is what strenghtens a society in the long run.