If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AOL)   Next time someone tells you that governmental regulation of corporations isn't needed, show them this article. Of course the right will argue that the market would have self corrected after all their customers were dead   (autos.aol.com) divider line 292
    More: Sad, PT Cruiser, Enterprise Holdings, lame duck, David Strickland, car rentals  
•       •       •

13799 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Sep 2012 at 9:53 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



292 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-29 11:05:49 AM  

cabbyman: So did the hose actually leak and cause the accident?


odd that wasn't cleared up in the article.

MFAWG: I honestly cannot figure out why rental car companies would ignore recalls?


because a lot of them are for petty shiat that have little effect on safety. NTSB website doesn't support or disprove that statement. in my limited experience some recalls would put drivable cars in the garage thus losing revenue.
 
2012-09-29 11:05:50 AM  

Semi-Sane: The free market works just fine. If enough people got killed or injured in car accidents using certain rental companies it would ruin the companies' reputation(s) and people would go elsewhere.


If all the rental companies have the same policy, they will all have the same amount of death and injuries. No one company will raise the issue of the other companies having a bad safety record for fear that their own record on safety will be used against them. They will have a stale mate.
 
Ant
2012-09-29 11:08:10 AM  

Whiskey Pete: I don't know about you but every twenty-something year old female I've ever met was capable of interpreting automotive service bulletins that describe potential mechanical failures.


Yeah! Stupid females. They're all so farking dumb. Am I right?

/I've met lots of twenty-something women who could interpret TSBs.
 
2012-09-29 11:08:38 AM  
I think we should also let the meat packing, pharmaceutical and financial industries all self-regulate.
 
2012-09-29 11:09:09 AM  

Semi-Sane: The free market works just fine. If enough people got killed or injured in car accidents using certain rental companies it would ruin the companies' reputation(s) and people would go elsewhere.


Poe's law in effect?

/If not, I vote we let Semi-Sane's family be the test users for all unregulated services and products.
 
2012-09-29 11:09:21 AM  

Ant: Whiskey Pete: I don't know about you but every twenty-something year old female I've ever met was capable of interpreting automotive service bulletins that describe potential mechanical failures.

Yeah! Stupid females. They're all so farking dumb. Am I right?

/I've met lots of twenty-something women who could interpret TSBs.


I'm sure that you have.
 
2012-09-29 11:10:37 AM  

max_pooper: MFAWG: I honestly cannot figure out why rental car companies would ignore recalls?

Having a recalled item fixed on a personal car means taking your car to the dealership and picking it up a couple of days later: minor inconvenience. I have no idea what the logistics of getting 1000 Corollas in a rental fleet recalled would mean. I'm sure it's a huge nightmare that involves losing lots of money which is exactly why they don't do unless forced to.


Wouldn't rental cars be going into to be serviced very often. A personal car has times when it is not being used much, but who would rent a car if they weren't going to drvie it. So renatl cars get more miles put on them which means they need preventive care more often. Why can't they get the recalls taken care of when they get the oil and lube done. They have to build time into their scheduling for that right?
 
2012-09-29 11:11:54 AM  

AnonAmbientLight: Ron Paul doesn't believe in government legislation.


No Republican does. If they had their way, we'd go back to the 1800s, where your boss/foreman could beat you up, if you asked for a raise or complained
 
2012-09-29 11:12:17 AM  

Curious: in my limited experience some recalls would put drivable cars in the garage thus losing revenue.


All cars are "drivable" until the steering fails and the engine bursts into flames. The whole purpose of a recall is to prevent a car from being undrivable before that happens.
 
2012-09-29 11:12:33 AM  

dfenstrate: I love how leftists argue for regulation in the abstract, as if there wasn't good regulation, bad regulation, destructive regulation, and frequent purchase of the regulators by the regulated- something the D's have all had hands in.
The strawman that Right-wingers want anarchy as the alternative to their suffocating, all-encompassing state is equally amusing.

Anyway, too bad about the girls. If only someone had taught them to leave Chrysler products on the lot, they'd still be alive today.

Oh hey, KrimsonTyde, those democrats have to get the rental car companies 'on board' first because they want to look like they're fighting for the consumer, while still raking in those campaign contributions and ensuring they get sinecures for their friends, family, and themselves after they retire from the senate.


What the fark is wrong with you?
 
2012-09-29 11:12:52 AM  

Curious: cabbyman: So did the hose actually leak and cause the accident?

odd that wasn't cleared up in the article.

MFAWG: I honestly cannot figure out why rental car companies would ignore recalls?

because a lot of them are for petty shiat that have little effect on safety. NTSB website doesn't support or disprove that statement. in my limited experience some recalls would put drivable cars in the garage thus losing revenue.


No, recalls (an actual NTSB recall) are never for 'Petty shiat'. My experience isn't limitied either: 10 years in the aftermarket repair business and 5 as a dealership service writer.
 
2012-09-29 11:13:07 AM  

Semi-Sane: The free market works just fine. If enough people got killed or injured in car accidents using certain rental companies it would ruin the companies' reputation(s) and people would go elsewhere.


so says st. ayn rand, may she rest in holy amorality
 
2012-09-29 11:14:31 AM  

wookiee cookie: so says st. ayn rand, may she rest in holy amorality


The Holy Trinity: Ayn Rand, an amphetamine pill, and a welfare check.
 
2012-09-29 11:15:19 AM  
Anyone who disagrees with the concept of governmental regulation of a capitalist economy does not remotely understand the principles of a capitalist economy.
 
2012-09-29 11:15:59 AM  
Most of the cars I have gotten from Enterprise appear to have been acquired from other rental companies after they couldn't rent them anymore.

Awesome, a rental car with 40 or 50,000 miles on it.
 
2012-09-29 11:16:08 AM  

Cataholic: I'm not sure what an extra piece of legislation in this situation is going to do for us (other than allow its sponsors to pander to an unknowing public that they somehow made the world a safer place). Somebody died, so we overreact, name a bill after them, and pretend it's going to keep that from ever happening again. As it stands today, if you rent an unsafe vehicle to someone, you are going to get your ass sued off. The proposed bill doesn't add any criminal penalties, so I'm not sure where the extra deterrence is supposed to come from.


It puts all the companies on equal footing, so that the ones that allow renting recalled vehicles do not get an economic advantage over those that do not. It levels the playing field. Getting sued does not hurt nearly as much as you think. The companies are probably insured. If the insurance company gets pissy about paying off the claims and tries to raise rates, you can always go to another insurer. If you are self-insured, you've already taken these type of things into account. Enterprise has annual revenues of $14 Billion. I don't know what it's profits are. However, this ruling probably wouldn't even cause a blip in the account books.
 
2012-09-29 11:17:29 AM  

FuturePastNow: Not having a recalled car repaired was a dick move by the rental company.

However... she lost control of the car because the power steering failed? Someone should have gotten that chick a gym membership.


The car caught fire asshat.
The defect caused the car to catch fire and crash head-on into a tractor-trailer, killing both sisters.
 
2012-09-29 11:20:06 AM  

RyogaM: If all the rental companies have the same policy, they will all have the same amount of death and injuries. No one company will raise the issue of the other companies having a bad safety record for fear that their own record on safety will be used against them. They will have a stale mate.


From a different angle, if industry self-regulation had a financial benefit then it would be already be in place. That self-regulation isn't in place proves the need for government oversight.
 
2012-09-29 11:20:18 AM  
Also, if you think lawsuits are the way we should regulate the behavior of businesses, yet you also support laws limiting the amount juries can award in lawsuits, you are an asshat.
 
2012-09-29 11:21:01 AM  

WhyteRaven74: RyogaM: puts itself at an economic disadvantage to all the companies that do not. I

To some degree possibly, however the adverse effects are temporary, also consumers will tend to be understanding if you're low on cars because of a recall.


In my experience working retail, consumers are almost never understanding. Especially for things outside of the control of the poor dumb bastard working at the counter. I can only imagine what hell car rental people would catch when a family trying to start their vacation are told we don't have your car.
 
2012-09-29 11:21:27 AM  

Cataholic: cabbyman: Whiskey Pete: cabbyman: So did the hose actually leak and cause the accident?

According to the article the steering wheel ran out of fluid.


No the article just says that the hose could leak. It doesn't say that it did or if that's what caused them to lose control. Unless I'm missing something...

Apparently at trial, one expert said it did, another said it didn't.

Link

Reporters aren't particularly known for their ability to describe and analyze complex legal issues, so without looking at the entire court record, it's really hard to say.

I'm not sure what an extra piece of legislation in this situation is going to do for us (other than allow its sponsors to pander to an unknowing public that they somehow made the world a safer place). Somebody died, so we overreact, name a bill after them, and pretend it's going to keep that from ever happening again. As it stands today, if you rent an unsafe vehicle to someone, you are going to get your ass sued off. The proposed bill doesn't add any criminal penalties, so I'm not sure where the extra deterrence is supposed to come from.


Your link doesn't say that. It does say this
But after the nation's largest rental car company and its corporate parent fought the suit for five years, they admitted in May that they were negligent and "their negligence was the sole proximate cause of the fatal injuries," according to a document signed by their attorneys.
 
2012-09-29 11:21:29 AM  

RyogaM: Cataholic: I'm not sure what an extra piece of legislation in this situation is going to do for us (other than allow its sponsors to pander to an unknowing public that they somehow made the world a safer place). Somebody died, so we overreact, name a bill after them, and pretend it's going to keep that from ever happening again. As it stands today, if you rent an unsafe vehicle to someone, you are going to get your ass sued off. The proposed bill doesn't add any criminal penalties, so I'm not sure where the extra deterrence is supposed to come from.

It puts all the companies on equal footing, so that the ones that allow renting recalled vehicles do not get an economic advantage over those that do not. It levels the playing field. Getting sued does not hurt nearly as much as you think. The companies are probably insured. If the insurance company gets pissy about paying off the claims and tries to raise rates, you can always go to another insurer. If you are self-insured, you've already taken these type of things into account. Enterprise has annual revenues of $14 Billion. I don't know what it's profits are. However, this ruling probably wouldn't even cause a blip in the account books.


Not to mention that the burden of proof is on the prosecution's side to prove that the recalled part or system in the car is what caused the accident/death. That's not always that easy and I'll bet the car companies' and their insurance companies' ample legal resources would result in most of these cases getting thrown out or jurors deciding they just can't say that the accident could have only been caused by the recalled component. There is very little downside to keeping potentially dangerous cars on the road for the car rental companies right now.
 
2012-09-29 11:21:32 AM  

Krymson Tyde: FTA: It's taken two years for Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Chuck Schumer to get the majority of the rental car industry on board.

Can someone more learned in the ways of government than I explain why there is a need to get companies "on board" before they can pass common sence legislation?


It likely took that long until the car rental companies wangled tax and regulatory breaks to offset whatever the cost of the regulation may be.

And on cue, somebody will pop up and demand that this loophole be closed. While that process drags along, ten new loopholes in both taxes and regulation are created. And the band plays on.

Or more accurately, the bands play on - simultaneously. The only people who can fathom the tunes are the players, and the paying customers (individual taxpayers) have two options: 1) go fark themselves or 2) see 1).

The only way you're understanding either tune to determine whether or not the bands suck or kick ass is to get rid of one of them - either the business/corporate taxes (and subsidy) or the regulations. Obviously the latter isn't happening, so blow up the corporate taxes (and subsidies) and then set up a set of progressive capital-gains tax brackets like we have for regular income now.

Besides getting rid of massive compliance costs on top of the businesses' tax bills themselves, ditching the taxes on corporations/businesses enables better wages and/or more hiring and/or better returns on investments, and you free up everybody to devote their full attention to the merits/demerits of that which the government should be handling...the regulations. 

Yeah, businesses still have a shot at working the system - but this time the rest of us have a fighting chance at being able to know when that's happening.
 
2012-09-29 11:21:59 AM  

neenerist: RyogaM: If all the rental companies have the same policy, they will all have the same amount of death and injuries. No one company will raise the issue of the other companies having a bad safety record for fear that their own record on safety will be used against them. They will have a stale mate.

From a different angle, if industry self-regulation had a financial benefit then it would be already be in place. That self-regulation isn't in place proves the need for government oversight.


Exactly. If behaving properly increases profits, then the behavior would occur without being forced by regulation.
 
2012-09-29 11:26:22 AM  
Do conservatives honestly believe that liberals LOVE regulation for its own sake? They don't see the whole, "we don't want people to die unnecessarily" aspect to it?
 
2012-09-29 11:26:41 AM  

Krymson Tyde: FTA: It's taken two years for Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Chuck Schumer to get the majority of the rental car industry on board.

Can someone more learned in the ways of government than I explain why there is a need to get companies "on board" before they can pass common sence legislation?


The companies will just pay Republicans to block the legislation.
 
2012-09-29 11:27:27 AM  

Urbn: RyogaM: Cataholic: I'm not sure what an extra piece of legislation in this situation is going to do for us (other than allow its sponsors to pander to an unknowing public that they somehow made the world a safer place). Somebody died, so we overreact, name a bill after them, and pretend it's going to keep that from ever happening again. As it stands today, if you rent an unsafe vehicle to someone, you are going to get your ass sued off. The proposed bill doesn't add any criminal penalties, so I'm not sure where the extra deterrence is supposed to come from.

It puts all the companies on equal footing, so that the ones that allow renting recalled vehicles do not get an economic advantage over those that do not. It levels the playing field. Getting sued does not hurt nearly as much as you think. The companies are probably insured. If the insurance company gets pissy about paying off the claims and tries to raise rates, you can always go to another insurer. If you are self-insured, you've already taken these type of things into account. Enterprise has annual revenues of $14 Billion. I don't know what it's profits are. However, this ruling probably wouldn't even cause a blip in the account books.

Not to mention that the burden of proof is on the prosecution's side to prove that the recalled part or system in the car is what caused the accident/death. That's not always that easy and I'll bet the car companies' and their insurance companies' ample legal resources would result in most of these cases getting thrown out or jurors deciding they just can't say that the accident could have only been caused by the recalled component. There is very little downside to keeping potentially dangerous cars on the road for the car rental companies right now.


There is another aspect to this as well: The Non-Disclosure Agreement.

If you expect lawsuits and bad publicity to cause corporate bad actors to behave properly, the use of NDA's almost completely nullifies the good effects of bad publicity. If a company gets sued, and decides to settle, there will be a NDA that forbids all parties from discussing the suit, and it's outcome. NDAs make publicity of bad acts impossible because it is like those bad acts never happened at all.
 
2012-09-29 11:31:35 AM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: geek_mars: Consumer pressure "made us reconsider our position," said Laura Bryant, communications director for Enterprise. "We thought federal regulation and oversight was not needed ... The consumers told us they would be more comfortable with greater oversight."

be a perfect example of the market self-correcting? The company made a decision, consumers responded and based on that response the company changed their policy.

yeah, except for the whole people being dead part.

Safety shouldn't be voluntary for these companies. If they could be trusted, it wouldn't have happened to begin with.


I in no way disagree, but if they could be trusted they'd hardly be a company, or, at least, not one still in business.
 
2012-09-29 11:32:13 AM  

coco ebert: Do conservatives honestly believe that liberals LOVE regulation for its own sake? They don't see the whole, "we don't want people to die unnecessarily" aspect to it?


As a liberal, I don't care to much about the people I don't know dying. I'm looking out for myself, my friends, my family. It is purely for selfish reasons that I don't want companies to rent recalled cars to the public. It might be someone I like that does the renting. Unfortunately, Republicans seem to not care enough about the people they like to even be that selfish.
 
2012-09-29 11:33:26 AM  

spongeboob: FuturePastNow: Not having a recalled car repaired was a dick move by the rental company.

However... she lost control of the car because the power steering failed? Someone should have gotten that chick a gym membership.

The car caught fire asshat.
The defect caused the car to catch fire and crash head-on into a tractor-trailer, killing both sisters.


That the fire was from a power steering hose leak seems to have little to do with it.

The thing is, at speed power steering doesn't do a hell of a whole lot. When you really need power steering is during low speed turns, you won't even notice it missing at highway speeds.

I've seen no evidence that the physical steering (minus the power assist) actually failed on the car. Maybe it filled with smoke and the driver crashed trying to pull over or simply freaked.

If this law were in place before this happened, would the outcome for Enterprise have been any different? This is more along the lines of a smart corporate policy to follow. The only thing the law adds is the ability for someone who is aware of a rental company renting out recalled cars to blow the whistle.

/have owned cars with manual steering
 
2012-09-29 11:34:35 AM  

geek_mars: I in no way disagree, but if they could be trusted they'd hardly be a company, or, at least, not one still in business.


i1162.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-29 11:35:28 AM  

TheWhoppah: A corporation has one primary function: to increase shareholder value.
If the board and CEO lose focus they can be sued by the shareholders.
Any moral otherwise charitable action taken by a corporation is only allowable to the extent that building "good will" increases value.
The consumer advocates are effective by demonstrating that the profitable behavior creates "bad will" that reduces shareholder value.


Is that you Mitt?
 
2012-09-29 11:38:18 AM  

Snapper Carr: Anyone who argues that the market self-corrects is forgetting one very important factor.

In order for that to happen, you need an informed consumer base and such a thing only exists in theory.


^ Motherfarking THIS ^ Libertarians are farking retarded to believe otherwise.
 
2012-09-29 11:42:46 AM  

TFerWannaBe: cabbyman: sprawl15: cabbyman: sprawl15: cabbyman: I'm not one who thinks wanton government regulation just for the sake of regulation is good.

I don't think that we should consider potentially lethal shenanigans nobody's business until after people are dying.

Well I'm sure that sentiment can't possibly lead anywhere bad, can it?

Nope.

OK so lets start the list of potentially lethal activities that the government should outlaw in order to protect us:

Bungee jumping
Skydiving
rock climbing
hot air balloning
football
driving

Any others?

Who's talking about outlawing? All we're saying is that they shouldn't be allowed to knowingly use defective equipment.


If the you can claim the right wants no government regulation at all (subby) then it follows that the left wants to outlaw Dangerous activities.

Extreme positions. How do they work?
 
2012-09-29 11:43:08 AM  
Meh, Capitalism is a great idea on paper but...
 
2012-09-29 11:44:07 AM  

geek_mars: I'm no expert on commerce, the free market, capitalism, business, right wing ideology or government oversight, but wouldn't this:

Consumer pressure "made us reconsider our position," said Laura Bryant, communications director for Enterprise. "We thought federal regulation and oversight was not needed ... The consumers told us they would be more comfortable with greater oversight."

be a perfect example of the market self-correcting? The company made a decision, consumers responded and based on that response the company changed their policy.


would you take the word of an entity whose primary directive is to convince you to give them your money? because i mean, private enterprises and marketing departments and salesmen and such NEVER make false or misleading claims in the ever growing hunt for more money. that would be LUDICROUS!!

even an inefficient 3rd party regulator is better than no regulator at all
 
2012-09-29 11:44:07 AM  

Johnny Swank: Snapper Carr: Anyone who argues that the market self-corrects is forgetting one very important factor.

In order for that to happen, you need an informed consumer base and such a thing only exists in theory.

^ Motherfarking THIS ^ Libertarians are farking retarded to believe otherwise.


Yes, it is fairy-tale, crazy-town thinking to believe there are enough hours in anyone's day to spend working, maintaining a home and family, and then researching every single vendor, company, and service and comparing them to their competitors for every possible danger they may pose to you, your family, and your community.
 
2012-09-29 11:47:03 AM  

coco ebert: Do conservatives honestly believe that liberals LOVE regulation for its own sake? They don't see the whole, "we don't want people to die unnecessarily" aspect to it?


Just as much as the left believes the right wants to get rid of all regulations.
 
2012-09-29 11:47:16 AM  

coco ebert: Do conservatives honestly believe that liberals LOVE regulation for its own sake? They don't see the whole, "we don't want people to die unnecessarily" aspect to it?


Selling access to power is always front-and-center in the minds of legislators. Occasionally they are able to do so while pursing good legislation. It makes their job easier for when the weaselly stuff comes up - they simply point back to the Cute White Girls Who Died Act as if past performance is a future indication and so on and so forth.
 
2012-09-29 11:49:27 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: coco ebert: Do conservatives honestly believe that liberals LOVE regulation for its own sake? They don't see the whole, "we don't want people to die unnecessarily" aspect to it?

Just as much as the left believes the right wants to get rid of all regulations.


Oh, of course the right doesn't want to get rid of all regulations. Case in point: reproductive rights.
 
2012-09-29 11:49:31 AM  

coco ebert: Do conservatives honestly believe that liberals LOVE regulation for its own sake? They don't see the whole, "we don't want people to die unnecessarily" aspect to it?


How is nanny bloombergs soda law going to prevent people from dying unnecessarily?
 
2012-09-29 11:50:12 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: coco ebert: Do conservatives honestly believe that liberals LOVE regulation for its own sake? They don't see the whole, "we don't want people to die unnecessarily" aspect to it?

Just as much as the left believes the right wants to get rid of all regulations.


There are people on the right who literally want to get rid of all (or virtually all) regulation. The Ayn Rand school is popular these days. Did you see Romney's running mate?
 
2012-09-29 11:51:01 AM  

Invisible Pedestrian: spongeboob: FuturePastNow: Not having a recalled car repaired was a dick move by the rental company.

However... she lost control of the car because the power steering failed? Someone should have gotten that chick a gym membership.

The car caught fire asshat.
The defect caused the car to catch fire and crash head-on into a tractor-trailer, killing both sisters.

That the fire was from a power steering hose leak seems to have little to do with it.

The thing is, at speed power steering doesn't do a hell of a whole lot. When you really need power steering is during low speed turns, you won't even notice it missing at highway speeds.

I've seen no evidence that the physical steering (minus the power assist) actually failed on the car. Maybe it filled with smoke and the driver crashed trying to pull over or simply freaked.

If this law were in place before this happened, would the outcome for Enterprise have been any different? This is more along the lines of a smart corporate policy to follow. The only thing the law adds is the ability for someone who is aware of a rental company renting out recalled cars to blow the whistle.

/have owned cars with manual steering


There is a difference between having manual steering and failed power steering. But that aside a fire in the power steering pump would pretty quickly burn/melt lots of important things like the steering gear box, tie rod ends, struts, joints etc.
 
2012-09-29 11:53:21 AM  
"Consumer pressure "made us reconsider our position" is the same as a politician quitting to "spend more time with their family". Both show that the speaker knows which way the wind is blowing. Your PR department will always write the press release to say that your actions are to serve the customer better. That is, truthfully, what you are doing. Why you are doing it is because legislation is going forward that will make it look like the only reason you complied was because you feared enforcement actions. Spin is never a lie. It's your carefully crafted version of the truth
 
2012-09-29 11:55:27 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: coco ebert: Do conservatives honestly believe that liberals LOVE regulation for its own sake? They don't see the whole, "we don't want people to die unnecessarily" aspect to it?

How is nanny bloombergs soda law going to prevent people from dying unnecessarily?


Hey isn't Bloomberg a Republican?
 
2012-09-29 11:55:45 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Just as much as the left believes the right wants to get rid of all regulations.


Explain then why the GOP members of the House are trying to get rid of the EPA, gut the clean water act, oppose any sort of labor regulation. Don't worry, we'll wait.
 
2012-09-29 11:57:39 AM  

Invisible Pedestrian: spongeboob: FuturePastNow: Not having a recalled car repaired was a dick move by the rental company.

However... she lost control of the car because the power steering failed? Someone should have gotten that chick a gym membership.

The car caught fire asshat.
The defect caused the car to catch fire and crash head-on into a tractor-trailer, killing both sisters.

That the fire was from a power steering hose leak seems to have little to do with it.

The thing is, at speed power steering doesn't do a hell of a whole lot. When you really need power steering is during low speed turns, you won't even notice it missing at highway speeds.

I've seen no evidence that the physical steering (minus the power assist) actually failed on the car. Maybe it filled with smoke and the driver crashed trying to pull over or simply freaked.

If this law were in place before this happened, would the outcome for Enterprise have been any different? This is more along the lines of a smart corporate policy to follow. The only thing the law adds is the ability for someone who is aware of a rental company renting out recalled cars to blow the whistle.

/have owned cars with manual steering


Know how I know you don't know much about rack and pinion steering?
 
2012-09-29 11:58:27 AM  

spongeboob: tenpoundsofcheese: coco ebert: Do conservatives honestly believe that liberals LOVE regulation for its own sake? They don't see the whole, "we don't want people to die unnecessarily" aspect to it?

How is nanny bloombergs soda law going to prevent people from dying unnecessarily?

Hey isn't Bloomberg a Republican?


He is currently an independent, but he initially ran as a Republican.
 
2012-09-29 11:59:56 AM  

WhyteRaven74: tenpoundsofcheese: Just as much as the left believes the right wants to get rid of all regulations.

Explain then why the GOP members of the House are trying to get rid of the EPA, gut the clean water act, oppose any sort of labor regulation. Don't worry, we'll wait.


Didn't Frewt Gangrinch actually make some noise about allowing children to join the labor force too?
 
2012-09-29 12:00:52 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Just as much as the left believes the right wants to get rid of all regulations.


Get with the times. Today it's "experts regulating experts": individuals from the industries being regulated put in charge of the regulation. The rotating door between placements with federal regulators and Wall Street is old news.
 
Displayed 50 of 292 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report