What If...
 

What if we lost WW II, pre-war speculation from a Chicago paper.

What if Trump won't leave in 2020?
 

The Democrats' scare tactics are really getting desperate. :lol:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi fears Trump will refuse to leave White House if he loses close 2020 election

Yes. "it's the beggining of the end", "the walls are closing in"

It's getting good. These guys aren't used to getting owned. :corn:

First its the Daily News. A low key propaganda outfit that also hype fears of criminal hiding everywhere to kill us all.

Second, responsible moderates always consider all possibilities. When the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon, the chief justice demanded a 100% vote one way or another. For many reasons including this one. They had to consider that Nixon would send the Army to occupy the Supreme Court. Things under Nixon had become that unstable.

What the Supremes did not know, staff members in the White House were also just as concerned about Nixon's mental stability and had already taken actions, if necessary, to protect the US from Nixon.

Trump is not a stable man very much like Nixon.

What will happen next? Are the walls closing in on Trump? Is this ( another ) begining of the end?

Will some recently declassed release from the DOJ put the "sha-zam" on something the dem liars say just moments after they say it? Like they do but legally because Trump declassed it. :corn:

Will Trump say "I'm not a crook"? Will Barr outwit the beast with another media narrative hijack?

Will Mueller re-testify that his report found no collusion? Will he testify as to WHEN he knew there was no collusion? Will he testify that he was going to continue the witch hunt until the 2020 election season if Barr had not spanked him and forced him to finish and submit the report?

Will Barr's gardener's tax returns be under subpoena? :corn: It's getting good.

[BOLD MINE]

I disagree. Whacko moderates consider all possibilities. Responsible moderates consider all reasonable possibilities. Every member of the Army takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution and it was well established before Nixon that any orders received had to conform to regulations and the UCMJ both of which are rooted in the Constitution.

It was not reasonable to expect a military coup supporting Nixon over any other branch of government nor is it reasonable to expect a military coup in support of Trump. Other branches of government would have to be in clear violation of the Constitution for that to happen. Likewise for the Army to take action against a President.

It was always a possibility back then just like it is possible (but unlikely) that the scumbag Don would also refuse to leave office. We are not talking about honest men here.

With wackos such as the Don, we must always consider these otherwise unlikely scenarios.

Pelosi's comments are unlikely if the White House has people who work for America. But so many of them get fired because they represent America rather than the Don's ego and financial interests.

Wackos are extremists (not moderates) - ie nationalists, White Supremacists, Nazis, Klansmen, people who kill in the name of religion, etc. American patriots are moderates. Extremists are not. Extremists are easily manipulated by soundbyte distortions of words such as freedom, liberty, the flag, patriotism, military loyalty, extremist talk show hosts, fear of learning facts before having a conclusion, etc.

Extremists are most often American citizens who would bomb an Oklahoma City building, attack moderates in the streets of Charlotte, stockpile reams of assault weapons in the name of religious lies, need solutions in big guns, hype more military and more wars (ie Mission Accomplished that still remains), fear immigrants (the most productive people in any nation), attack a pizza parlor because Hilary was operating a pedophile ring in the basement, hate Canadians, hate European and all all other American allies, praise Kim of North Korea, fear vaccines because a blond bimbo actress said so, believe Putin, subvert fundamental scientific research, attack China because they are becoming productive, and therefore vote for Donald Trump.

That is clearly the definition of an uneducated extremist. And not an educated and informed (and therefore patriotic) moderate.

Your definitions are categorically rejected. The Unabomber had a doctorate in mathematics. "Whacko" can cross all levels of education and the political spectrum. You yourself defy your own definitions and could never be officer material because of it.

A wacko believes other wackos are good people. It is called perspective.

Was he wacko when he got his doctorate? Back then he was not living as a sane man - was not living in a one room cabin hidden in the woods and incapable of doing advanced math.

Sane people know him to be a wacko extremist - not a moderate.

If that were true, then whacko left-wing extremists would think that whacko right-wing extremists are good and vice versa.

They don't.

Your statement is rejected.

The remainder of your post supports my contention that being whacko is not dependent on education level. No one but you introduced the notion that anyone would consider the Unabomber a moderate. Irrelevant discourse since he wasn't used as an example of that.

"A wacko believes other wackos are good people."
 

False: I (a wacko) think you (a wacko) are friggin' awful.

refuted, disputed, trashed, canned, bagged, and left for dead

Again you are distorting / misrepresenting what wackos do. Wackos promote 'them verse us' distaste or hate. Hate is especially strong among the most extreme right wing. It works on the lesser educated who use emotions to somehow know.

Left and right wackos are little different to the patriots. For different reasons and using different conclusions (some because they want to and other because they do not understand the damage), they want to wreck shit.

Since you reject it, then it must be the truth. The Don said so. Even the internet is not as honest as the Don - your reasoning and henry quirk's.

tw: self-confirmed wacko
 

tw, you do this -- "promote 'them verse us' distaste or hate" -- with every post.

#

"they want to wreck shit"

Only Crom-fearing minarchists like me wanna do that, and we wanna do it to preserve the union (gotta cut the cancer out to save the life)

I have not distorted / misrepresented what you do in any way. You just can't handle the truth.

[quote=sexobon;1032067You just can't handle the truth.[/QUOTE]
Did you order a Code Red?

Sure took you long enough.

Attachment 67727

Hey Henry, this may tickle your fancy.

Idaho has 736 chapters containing 8,200 pages of rules and regulations, covering everything from fishing licences to building nuclear power plants. They also have a state constitution requiring they be renewed by the legislature yearly. But this year they didn’t and can’t until they reconvene next January. So July 1st the rules are all gone except the ones the new governor chooses to keep by emergency proclamation.

It'll be interest to see how this plays out. I'm betting the new Governor will wuss out and keep everything as is. He might drop a couple small rules his donors find annoying, but doubt a wholesale housecleaning.

"So July 1st the rules are all gone except the ones the new governor chooses to keep by emergency proclamation."

No doubt: "the new Governor will wuss out".

I wonder how many Idahoans will take advantage of what I imagine will be an exceedingly small window.

Idahoans...I calls 'em Taters.

do you eat them?
 

:yum:

No I mash the shit out of them.

then you eat 'em
 

:yum:

I don't see why Henry is opposed to government, they're looking out for your best interests...

Okay, but like, should we just not regulate computers today since they didn't exist back then? Should we stop regulating farm machinery now that we have to put all our attention on computers? More isn't always bad, it's just the nature of a growing society.

clod
 

It's not about 'no regulation'; it's about sensible, minimal regulation.

Look at Bruce's chart: what's sensible, minimal there?

Thousands of regulations from the local/municipal all the way up to national/federal. Many serve no good purpose; many conflict with other regs; many are in place simply to hobble, not guide, serve, or protect.

"More isn't always bad"

And less isn't always good or better, but often it is.

Parsimony, frugality, caution; self-direction, -responsibility: when did these become 'bad words'?

But most of those rules and regulations stem from some person or company abusing the public.
There were many people through larceny or ineptitude wiping out the nest egg of people getting ready to or already were retired. Bernie Madoff brought it to the front page by ripping powerful people. The result was a slew of new rules. The rules came late and for the wrong reason but they are still good rules. People will still get screwed but the perps won't walk away clean anymore.

Of course some of the rules are written to help the wife's cousin's coal mine keep a stranglehold on their market. That's why the rule makers have to be babysat by the voters.

Minimal regulation, to you, is to 'wreck things'. Regulations must exist to have free markets. It was never a question of more or less regulation. It was always about regulations that the people "who come from where the work gets done" need.

More regulation or less regulation is simply the naive looking for solutions in their emotions. Adults, thinking like adults, first learn what works and then create informed standards. These same responsible people also know the purpose of every business deal is for both counterparties to prosper.

What made the internet possible. More regulations? Yes that is what happened - not the purpose. Regulations created massive and successful free markets. Corralled so many who were stifling innovation and growth. Those regulations empowered people who make America great. That was never corrupt scumbags such as the Donald. He is the perfect example (unfortunately) of why we need regulations.

bruce
 

"But most of those rules and regulations stem from some person or company abusing the public."

Sure, but do we need thousands of pages of regs, just on the federal level, to address that?

No, we don't.

#

"There were many people through larceny or ineptitude wiping out the nest egg of people getting ready to or already were retired. Bernie Madoff brought it to the front page by ripping powerful people. The result was a slew of new rules. The rules came late and for the wrong reason but they are still good rules. People will still get screwed but the perps won't walk away clean anymore."

How many rules were created, Bruce? List them, please. If you do, and we go through them, one by one, I guarantee we'll find nine tenths (or more) of them are unnecessary.

#

"Of course some of the rules are written to help the wife's cousin's coal mine keep a stranglehold on their market. That's why the rule makers have to be babysat by the voters."

Yes, most of the regs are meant to serve or benefit a minority. Sensible, minimal regulation serves the majority (a majority which is expected to be self-regulating and -responsible), so -- by definition -- such regs must be sensible, minimal.

And, yes: 'we' should keep our feet on the necks of our employees. 'We' should never think of them as 'rulemakers'. They're servants, proxies, employees. They should be second-class citizens, not you or me.

tw
 

"Minimal regulation, to you, is to 'wreck things'."

No, minimal, sensible regulation is just that: minimal and sensible regulation.

Wrecking things is sometimes what has to happen to get there.

Think of the 'controlled burn' as applied to politics/culture.


#

"Regulations must exist to have free markets."

Minimal, sensible regulations, yeah, mostly centered on contracts.

#

"It was never a question of more or less regulation. It was always about regulations that the people "who come from where the work gets done" need."

Agreed, and that, for the most part, means minimal, sensible regulation.

#

"Adults, thinking like adults, first learn what works and then create informed standards."

Agreed. and these standards are almost always favor sensible, minimal regulation.

But you have been quite explicit. You only want to wreck things. You do not want to upgrade or improve anything. Your entire mantra is to only 'wreck things' since - and you said it - that is good.

Why this sudden admission that regulations can be good and are necessary. What changed? Are you alright? What happened to bombasticism? Or did you mistakenly listen to a moderate information source.

Oh those evil moderates. They will provide all perspective with the associated reasons why. Then one might be force to think for himself.

tw
 

"But you have been quite explicit. You only want to wreck things."

Liar. I never said I only want to wreck things. There's a context you're ignoring.

#

"You do not want to upgrade or improve anything. Your entire mantra is to only 'wreck things' since - and you said it - that is good."

Liar. You ignore my posts about free enterprise, about minarchy, about self-responsibility -direction, and -regulation. You fixate, like a good lil propagandist, only on what supports your assertion.

#

"Why this sudden admission that regulations can be good and are necessary."

Minimal, sensible regulations as needed by a watchman minarchy (which, as you know, I've written about before, in-forum, several times).

I can't tell you, in that particular instance my financial advisor(an Edward Jones agent) called me in because one of the rule changes was they were required to inform all their clients. He started reading off the changes in the system to protect clients and after 10 minutes I said whoa, enough, stop, where do I sign. His assistant brought in 6 papers for me to sign.

The bottom line is I don't know, but you can be rest assured outfits like jones had people fighting onerous rules all the way through the process. Plus that was just one example of why the rules are necessary. For every rule made there are dozens of people plotting to get around it.

You're kidding right? Capitalism has never been "self-regulating and -responsible", quite the contrary rape and pillage the gospel.

bruce
 

"For every rule made there are dozens of people plotting to get around it."

Sure, but that's how it 'is'. One reg, 500 regs, doesn't matter: someone is gonna (try to) navigate 'round it.

So: if folks naturally and normally try to break the rules, isn't it better to have a handful of sensible, easily understood, demonstrably enforceable regs than volumes of overblown, self-conflicting, arcane, almost impossible to enforce regs?

Isn't 'mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else' better than 10,000 loophole-plagued codifications that favor the guy with the fatter wallet?

#

"Capitalism has never been "self-regulating and -responsible", quite the contrary rape and pillage the gospel."

When did I bring up capitalism? I didn't, but: since 'you' did...

I've been unambiguous: I'm no fan of capitalism. By defintion, it favors 'capital' and therefore lends itself to melding with 'state'. I favor 'free enterprise' which is all about the individiual.

Having said that...

Capitalism (even the state capitalism we're saddled with now) can be self-regulating cuz the folks who transact 'can' self-regulate. Absolutely, capitalism (in any form) discourages self-regulation. Much easier to bilk folks who've been taught to 'not' cover their own keisters (who've been taught to rely on others for protection), but this is not the same as sayin' capitalism (more accurately, 'capitalists') 'can't' self-regulate.

I'll concede tte point, however, since -- at this late stage of American capitalism -- it's unlikely the big fish will ever play by the same rules foisted up on the small fry.

So: do we toss capitalism out and replace it with state socialism? We're more than half way down that road already. Here's the thing: at some point state capitalism becomes indistinguishable from state socialism. The Central Commitee or Politburo is really no different than the Board of Directors.

Now, I know we have democracy (one man, one vote) as the bulwark against the concentration of power, but -- really -- how's that workin' out for us?

When you and me step into the voting booth, we merely get to choose from a selection arranged by other folks, folks we don't know, don't have the ear of; folks with agendas that may not mirror our own.

We think we can reform the process by addin' layer after layer of regulation to it, but, practically speaking, we just muddy the water makin' it easier still for us to get hoodwinked.

So: I suggest, have suggested, will continue to suggest, we should move in another direction, one encouraging self-direction and -responsibility for each and every one, where 'government' is properly seen as limited proxy, where corporation stands as naked to the world as the corner independent. Remove 'their' protections and privilege, don't chain and hobble 'me'.

Yep, some stuff, some people, are gonna get (really 'need' to get) wrecked. Killing' cancer isn't easy or painless. Healthy cells are whacked hard gettin' to the cancerous ones.

*shrug*

'nuff said (cuz nobody agrees or gives a shit anyway).

Correct. What you advocate is "wreck shit".

Moderates build, create, and upgrade things. Extremists want to 'wreck shit'.

for tw...worth repeatin'
 

"For every rule made there are dozens of people plotting to get around it."

Sure, but that's how it 'is'. One reg, 500 regs, doesn't matter: someone is gonna (try to) navigate 'round it.

So: if folks naturally and normally try to break the rules, isn't it better to have a handful of sensible, easily understood, demonstrably enforceable regs than volumes of overblown, self-conflicting, arcane, almost impossible to enforce regs?

Isn't 'mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else' better than 10,000 loophole-plagued codifications that favor the guy with the fatter wallet?

#

"Capitalism has never been "self-regulating and -responsible", quite the contrary rape and pillage the gospel."

When did I bring up capitalism? I didn't, but: since 'you' did...

I've been unambiguous: I'm no fan of capitalism. By defintion, it favors 'capital' and therefore lends itself to melding with 'state'. I favor 'free enterprise' which is all about the individiual.

Having said that...

Capitalism (even the state capitalism we're saddled with now) can be self-regulating cuz the folks who transact 'can' self-regulate. Absolutely, capitalism (in any form) discourages self-regulation. Much easier to bilk folks who've been taught to 'not' cover their own keisters (who've been taught to rely on others for protection), but this is not the same as sayin' capitalism (more accurately, 'capitalists') 'can't' self-regulate.

I'll concede tte point, however, since -- at this late stage of American capitalism -- it's unlikely the big fish will ever play by the same rules foisted up on the small fry.

So: do we toss capitalism out and replace it with state socialism? We're more than half way down that road already. Here's the thing: at some point state capitalism becomes indistinguishable from state socialism. The Central Commitee or Politburo is really no different than the Board of Directors.

Now, I know we have democracy (one man, one vote) as the bulwark against the concentration of power, but -- really -- how's that workin' out for us?

When you and me step into the voting booth, we merely get to choose from a selection arranged by other folks, folks we don't know, don't have the ear of; folks with agendas that may not mirror our own.

We think we can reform the process by addin' layer after layer of regulation to it, but, practically speaking, we just muddy the water makin' it easier still for us to get hoodwinked.

So: I suggest, have suggested, will continue to suggest, we should move in another direction, one encouraging self-direction and -responsibility for each and every one, where 'government' is properly seen as limited proxy, where corporation stands as naked to the world as the corner independent. Remove 'their' protections and privilege, don't chain and hobble 'me'.

Yep, some stuff, some people, are gonna get (really 'need' to get) wrecked. Killing' cancer isn't easy or painless. Healthy cells are whacked hard gettin' to the cancerous ones.

-----

and: what exactly do you, tw, know about moderation or moderates?

Nuthin'.

You're the most extreme extremist in-forum.

You're lack of self-assessment and -knowledge pretty disqualifies you for anything.

'nuff said, to you.

Ideally, yes, but enforceable is the problem. In a country founded on living by the rule of law, the courts decide. That means the law has to cover every conceivable end run, or the law has to say you have to follow the rules made by X agency that cover every conceivable end run.
OK I'm minding my own business and keeping my hands to myself while my business is poisoning the water supply, the air, or food. That doesn't work. Like Pittsburgh back in the day, the people who made the city a nightmare lived out of town where the air and water were safe.
I brought it up because as you well know, that's reality, that's what we live under.
The only time they self regulate is when it's part of collusion between themselves to screw us.
Agreed.

Tossing them out is a pipe dream, they won't quit without a fight and have the money, guns, and lawyers to win.

The only way to fix it is to be involved from selecting the dog catcher on up, and not leave the selection to others until we get in the voting booth. I know I'm guilty, I went to the primary election a couple weeks ago only because of a referendum to buy another piece of ground for open space and saddle the taxpayers with an 8 million dollar mortgage for the next 30 years. But anyway, of all 30 odd candidates running, I didn't know one... even the ones who may have been running for reelection.
I wouldn't say nobody agrees, I think most people feel it can't be done, (see money, guns, and lawyers), so the best we can do is pressure legislators to protect the public from them with regulations. Not ideal, but maybe possible.

bruce
 

"In a country founded on living by the rule of law, the courts decide. That means the law has to cover every conceivable end run, or the law has to say you have to follow the rules made by X agency that cover every conceivable end run."

How's that workin' out, tryin' to codify every conceivable circumstance, and puttin' all your faith in men and women who present themselves as being Bastiat's 'finer clay'?

#

"OK I'm minding my own business and keeping my hands to myself while my business is poisoning the water supply, the air, or food.

Most definitely you 'not' minding your own biz or keepin' your hands to yourself. I went through this sequence of specious thinkin' with Happy Monkey (I think...might be wrong) a few months back. HP offered the same example. If you have a mind to, you can find the thread by goin' here...

https://cellar.org/search.php?searchid=10204920

#

"The only time they self regulate is when it's part of collusion between themselves to screw us."

Would you, in their position, automatically try to screw the other guy, the little guy?

#

"Tossing them out is a pipe dream, they won't quit without a fight and have the money, guns, and lawyers to win."

Tossin' out the tyrant doesn't happen via the ballot box or in court.

#

"The only way to fix it is to be involved from selecting the dog catcher on up..."

I disagree.

#

"I wouldn't say nobody agrees, I think most people feel it can't be done, (see money, guns, and lawyers), so the best we can do is pressure legislators to protect the public from them with regulations. Not ideal, but maybe possible."

A while back, well before you and me, some folks (about a third of the population) decided to break with the powers that be. These folks were countered by another third of the population who liked things as they were, and both sides had to deal with a third of the population who largely didn't give a crap one way or the other.

I imagine the break down is close to that in the here and now.

The difficulty of the act is, in itself, no reason not to 'try'.

Non-violent resistance to topple active regimes is successful 47% of the time. That's still successful twice as often as as violent resistance.
However success takes about 3.5% of the population actively protesting not watching on TV cheering them on. Time to start gathering friends and neighbors.
So that's only:eyebrow: 1.25 million people in the streets vs the police with...

Attachment 67915

Oh, and the military but they wouldn't fire on the people kent state would they?

Henry,

The Revolutionary War worked because there was an ocean between us.

Or maybe you are talking about the so called Civil War. That one didn't work because there was no ocean between the North and South.

At this point in US History, it's not a region fighting for its independence like either of those two wars, it's an idea that some people have and some people don't. Any fighting would be a true civil war that would destroy the country. Much like Zaire or the former Yugoslavia. People just killing the neighbors they disagree with.

I can't get behind that, Henry.

It wouldn't have to be a war persay, if people stopped shopping at walmart it wouldn't last long. Look how Sears was dethroned. Same with other businesses who abuse the public trust, except the utilities and monopolies(duopolies) we rely on. Then again, they might straighten up and fly right out of fear of reprisal through regulation.

Bruce,

I take your stats with more than a couple of grains of salt.

One: I don't know where you got 'em.

Two: My gut tells me they're way off the mark.

#

Glatt,

"I can't get behind that, Henry."

Then you'll be on the other side (or sittin' on the sidelines).

As you like.

From here, but I think they got it from here.

bruce
 

"It wouldn't have to be a war persay"

I'm inclined to think otherwise.

#

"if people stopped shopping at walmart it wouldn't last long. Look how Sears was dethroned. Same with other businesses who abuse the public trust, except the utilities and monopolies(duopolies) we rely on. Then again, they might straighten up and fly right out of fear of reprisal through regulation."

No, Bruce, the war isn't against the corps. It's against the mechanism used by the corps, the machine that extends protection and privilege to the corps.

Again: in a true free market (free enterprise) the state doesn't favor the rich cuz -- bein' severely limited -- it can't favor the rich (or the poor or anyone).

You keep pointin' to the corps as the root of evil while I keep pointin' to the state.

We're talkin' past each other.

104 pages...won't be readin' that now...mebbe over the weekend
 

thanks for the link, Bruce

:eek:

OK, but it's the corps wanting to do evil that causes them to buy politicians to help them screw other corps and/or the public, plus protect them. That's the root of the evil and that evil infects the politicians(and bureaucrats) that abet them. If the corps just wanted free enterprise they wouldn't do anything and your description of simple enforceable rules would work.

An example:
Medicare is far and away the largest purchaser of drugs in the world, but the law says they shall not negotiate price. Why did the politicians vote in favor of that restriction? Because they're toadies of big pharma, but the evil didn't come from the legislators, they're just errand boys.

I still think the corps are from where all evil flows. I know, hyperbolic. :blush:

But you're right about congress enabling them, and must be cleaned out. Unfortunately that can't happen when people are fat and happy so the maximum energy they'll expend is to pick a party and vote for whoever the party endorses... when they bother to vote.

My father got the nod from the Republicans and was reelected every 3 years near automatically for near 20 years.
Then he pissed off somebody and didn't get the nod so ran as an independant and won, but the next election they didn't take for granted the nod was enough, and really worked hard enough to beat him. Even back in the '70s party was everything.

So how do you keep the state/government from making these restrictions? Pass a law? That requires congress to make the law and they can just as easily throw it out. It would take a complete change of government style and that requires a new constitution. I think if you proposed that, most people would stick with the devil they know.

You know, you're not near as crazy as led us to believe. :lol:

bruce
 

"I still think the corps are from where all evil flows. I know, hyperbolic."

'hyperbolic': an understatement. What you're sayin' is: given sufficent resources human beings will always screw over the other guy, the little. What you're sayin' is: I, Bruce, given the power, will screw over the other guy, the littie guy.

Don't know if I should admire or pity you.

#

"It would take a complete change of government style and that requires a new constitution."

Yes. Fortunately: we have a basic principle upon which to base such a document.

#

"I think if you proposed that, most people would stick with the devil they know."

You're right and that's a shame. As long as folks are (as you say) fat & happy, they'll accept any indignity, any degradation, as the price to pay for having that spare tire and that soma. Hunger & clarity would change their minds.

"Hunger & clarity would change their minds."
 

Actually, it wouldn't.

Domesticated animals don't rebel, even when they have reason to, even when they should, even when they can.

Nope, not what I'm saying, I've been there done that. Just a small business but bent over backward, and not just to look up skirts most of the time, but to be fair to the customer. Cost me a little money but no guilt or lost sleep or lost friends..

The man on the top floor making the big bucks used to be the leader of the companies direction. Today he/she must sit for a conference call every quarter with the Wall Street crowd, to explain if they made the prediction(promise) made last quarter. If not, why not, and what have they done to rectify that. If the brokers don't like what they hear they'll give the stock a lower rating which usually means a drop in price, and maybe a big drop in the value of the CEO's bundle of stock he/she's counting on for retirement.

It's not enough to go along making money, even if you're the top company in your field. Now there must be increases every damn quarter or the private equity jackals will start circling to see in your steady income could be a cash cow, or if your company could be broken up and sold off in pieces for Mo Money. It's easy to see why the CEOs who are not evil themselves are driven to desperate measures. Plus it could be the Board or primary stockholder buying politicians.

What document is that. I'll resisted jokes about the communist manifesto but I'm sure the Senator McCarthy wannabes would not.

But give 'em a break, since they were puppies they've been fed a steady diet of Rah Rah America can do no wrong etc etc.
But Uncle Sam what are we doing?
Never mind that, national security you know, trust us, we know best, Colonel North is taking care of that.

bruce
 

If you were a good player in business (large or small) then you must concede that other folks can be good players in business (large or small).

The document would be the new constitution based on the principle I mentioned.

And: no, no breaks are given. I'm an American and I want minarchy. I was exposed to the same bull manure, and I want the goddamn monkey 'off' my back. Them other folks, the ones who want a gorilla on their backs (on 'my' back), they can kiss my keister.

Certainly the heads of all size businesses can, even will, be good guys, at least while not under threat of going down the toilet. But there will always be that 10%? 5%? 1%? who will do dastardly deeds, tie Nell Fenwick to the railroad tracks, lie/cheat/steal, for an extra buck. That minority is always scheming and the reason for rules and regulations.

Mom: I told you not to get dirty, what are you doing in that mud puddle?
Kid: You didn't tell me not to get wet.

bruce
 

"That minority is always scheming and the reason for rules and regulations."

Sure, a handful of sensible, minimal regs, not volumes of over-blown, nitpicky crap.

And: we've come full-circle.

Without nitpicky Johnny will be in the puddle in no time.
I like your simple rules but I think the plan falls apart at "enforceable" in that how do you say they did wrong if you don't tell them what wrong is?

Full circle but with the understanding of what our differences actually are. :D

I now pronounce you agonist and antagonist. May your lives be filled with bickering bliss over who is which.

bruce
 

"Without nitpicky Johnny will be in the puddle in no time."

When mine used to play rules-lawyer (you said 'don't get dirty', you never said 'don't get wet') he got punished twice over (once for disobeying, and again for tryin' weasel out). He learned, with time, to not play rules-lawyer.

#

"I like your simple rules but I think the plan falls apart at "enforceable" in that how do you say they did wrong if you don't tell them what wrong is?"

'Mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else' is pretty damn clear, Bruce.

#

"Full circle but with the understanding of what our differences actually are."

Oh, I didn't need to go 'round the block with you to know what our differences are.

##

Sex,

Seems pretty obvious: I'm the villain and Bruce is the victim.

sumthin' to chew on
 

No question the rules are ponderous, the question is are they necessary and why.

Here's 2 I found today...

The first cartoon shows an obvious violation of the only reg needed (mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else).

The second is too ambiguous to understand (but no matter the actual circumstance, or anyone's interpretation, only one rule is required to judge it by).

Go ahead, show me an example where more than 'mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else' is needed, and I'll kiss tw's keister.

The first one they're minding their own business, as a matter of fact that's exactly what they're doing, taking care of their business above all else.

But you win, I surrender, I wouldn't wish tw on... on... on Trump. http://cellar.org/2012/nono.gif

"The first one they're minding their own business"

Sure, as long as they never move beyond talkin'. The second they actually begin poisoning they're not mindin' their own business, not keepin' their hands to themselves and so deserve a hearty helping of 'or else'.

#

"I wouldn't wish tw on... on... on Trump."

I ain't worried. There's not a soul here, or anywhere, who can foist up any example that doesn't fall cleanly and clearly into the sphere of MYOB/KYHTY/OE.

By your interpretation, but I'm sure your interpretation is not universally accepted, and certainly wouldn't hold up in any court where you weren't the judge.
I understand what you want it to encompase but the devil is in the details when it comes to application and enforcement.