Thursday February 16, 2012

TheQuestion's past comments

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    Huh...well I hope they don't pull it off. Considering most of these explosives fail and only start smoking anyway I'd really hate to be sitting next to the guy when it sputters and starts burning somewhere in their abdomen. Unpleasant way to go and the smell would be horrendous.

    Posted in: Alert: Terrorists look to implant bombs in humans

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    Would you like them to launch an airstrike on the area?

    I suggested that the IMF start hiring PMCs again like they did to great effect in Angola and Sierra Leone instead of wasting money having thousands of U.N 'peace keepers' sit on their hands and watch this crap happen. In 1995 a PMC called Executive Operations did a phenomenal job in Africa while employed by the IMF.

    History has shown that PMCs and other 'bush fighter' companies excell at the kind of counter-insurgency needed in places like Africa and the middle east where conventional militaries struggle. Small units of professional soldiers can do what 20,000 UN babysitters can't...they're cheaper too.

    Posted in: U.N. says Congo rape victims suffer reprisal attacks

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    And the U.N does nothing. WIth thousands of troops and modern military training and weaponry it can't do a single thing about the rape and murder that goes on all around them, in some cases within only miles of their encampment. For the same money we could have a PMC clean the place up like Executive Outcomes did in Angola and Sierra Leone...until the U.N took over and the whole country went back to hell in a handbasket.

    Whenever the IMF uses PMCs things get done, when we send in the U.N peace keepers all those gains are reversed. Stop funding the IMF and start letting professionals take over.

    Posted in: U.N. says Congo rape victims suffer reprisal attacks

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    No offence but that was back in the day wasn't it? ;-)

    I'm still entitled to a little reminiscing now and again. True enough, if you said you were buying them for your parents they'd sell them to anybody.

    For how long have the tobacco companies known they were selling a nigh on un-shakable addiction followed by death?

    For a long time tobacco was hailed for it's supposed health benefits. My grandfather credited them for his long life. Now that it's out that tobacco is hazardous I place the responcibility squarely at the feet of the consumer. Some people handle addiction differently, I smoked a pack a day for years then I started smoking cigars, now I only smoke one or two a week. I don't intend to quit but I've never been tearing my hair out looking for a fix.

    Surely this is better than, for example, a nice golden shining packet of Benson's?

    The packaging may swing opinion from one brand of cigarette to another but I doubt anybody got into smoking for the pretty colors. When you open them up cigarettes are all the same with a few noteable exceptions. I bought marlboro's and that's just a red pack. I've actually seen smokers outside my work laughing and comparing packs to see who got the ugly teeth and who got the black lung.

    Posted in: Australia introduces tough new tobacco ad bill

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    No offence but that was back in the day wasn't it? ;-)

    I'm still entitled to a little reminiscing now and again. True enough, if you said you were buying them for your parents they'd sell them to anybody.

    For how long have the tobacco companies known they were selling a nigh on un-shakable addiction followed by death?

    For a long time tobacco was hailed for it's supposed health benefits. My grandfather credited them for his long life. Now that it's out that tobacco is hazardous I place the responcibility squarely at the feet of the consumer. Some people handle addiction differently, I smoked a pack a day for years then I started smoking cigars, now I only smoke one or two a week. I don't intend to quit but I've never been tearing my hair out looking for a fix.

    Surely this is better than, for example, a nice golden shining packet of Benson's?

    The packaging may swing opinion from one brand of cigarette to another but I doubt anybody got into smoking for the pretty colors. When you open them up cigarettes are all the same with a few noteable exceptions. I bought marlboro's and that's just a red pack. I've actually seen smokers outside my work laughing and comparing packs to see who got the ugly teeth and who got the black lung.

    And I repeat, who cares about their devalued company assets?

    Stockholders and employees. I still own stock in some of those companies because despite the taxes and fines and negative advertising and all the education and press people still buy tobacco in such quantity that the companies turn a profit.

    They should be contented they're allowed to exist and be a super-sonic source of tax cash-cow for every government on the planet.

    Why? If a person want to buy it why should they be told they can't or be shouldered with a dispropotionate burden for their life choices? I like smoking, drinking, and other high risk endeavors. I've got a high deductible but that the price I pay for my lifestyle. Let people control what they consume.

    Posted in: Australia introduces tough new tobacco ad bill

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    Many things are illegal, it doesn't seem to have the desried effect.

    I was pointing out that if one desired to reduce the number of smoking minors they should focus on those enforcing the law such as storekeepers not after the cigarette companies for packaging. I was buying packs of cigarettes when I was 14 and liquor when I was 16, that's not a failure of the makers but rather a failure of the distributors.

    Now just think how much tobacco companies make every day selling poor health and later death to smokers and those around them each and every day.

    A risk that they all understand. My argument was based on the statement that this packaging would somehow protect children by making them less likely to start smoking early.

    I really do not give a damn about their logo's or profits.

    So? The point stands that this legislation artificially devalued a company's assets and those companies have a legitimate claim against the Australian government to recover those damages. If you don't care don't comment, I'm just bringing up the point.

    Posted in: Australia introduces tough new tobacco ad bill

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    From a business perspective this is terrible. Not because of the loss of consumers, I doubt this will change the number of smoker, but because all tobacco companies essentially just lost one of the largest assets a company can have. Their logo. The logo, the copyright associated with it, and the goodwill assets associated with the brand, logo, and packaging can be worth millions of dollars. A clever lawyer may be able to bring a case against the Australian government for financial damages based on the impairments.

    I smoke cigars and as far as I know my labels aren't covered by this but it's still annoying. It's going to open up the black market to counterfeits. Imagine if all car companies had to use the same frame, paint, and the only identifying marker was a small brand indicator on the trunk.

    It's not a dumb idea it's a great idea..its too deter kids from taking it up.

    I started smoking in my early teens and it wasn't because of the pretty packaging. I liked the smell and having a family that maintained a tobacco plantation may have guided my decision as well. I'll be the first to say that children aren't the smartest creatures but they aren't stupid. Most packaging isn't particularly imaginative anyway, plus, isn't it a crime to sell tobacco to minors anyway? Smoking is a choice to be made by adults, if it's gotten into the hands of children it's a failure of oversight not of packaging.

    Posted in: Australia introduces tough new tobacco ad bill

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    Hopefully this will highlight the need to transition into a proper republic instead of a fixed system that relies on what is essentially a dictatorship. In a best case scenario Chavez could bow out and allow an open election rather than the farce that has been repeated year after year and pave the way for a long term, sustainable government instead of the inevitable bloodbath that will occur when Chavez does die. Maybe it could motivate other latin nations to allow free elections, but then that will never happen. I still remember a snipet from one of Nat Hentoff's articals detailing a time when he asked Che Guevara when there would be free elections in Cuba, to which he responded with laughter.

    Posted in: Chavez's future uncertain after cancer surgery

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    Why would you take a baby on a plane anyway? It's a sealed can full of people breathing and coughing in a confined area.

    Next step enforce a dress code. You don't need go break out the tuxedo on my account but for the sake of all that is holy flip-flops and a wife-beater in scorching hot weather is a sure fire recipe for a sweaty, funky smelling fat guy that will always find their way into the seat next to me. I have sweat stains on my shirts that aren't mine, that's just wrong.

    Oh for the days when flying was a classier way to travel. Not a greyhound bus in the sky bull of TB and screaming children.

    Posted in: What do you think of the decision by Malaysian Airlines to ban babies from its first-class cabins because of complaints from other passengers that they had paid big money for first-class seats but could not sleep because of the noise?

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    Wouldn't it be smarter to trim back some of the services, so at least those parks could operate on a break-even basis, rather than just closing them rather than sub contract to service company?

    The problem is that many cities and states need to start taking in more money than they're sending out to pay back their debt. Break-even may have cut it a few years ago when the problem was just starting to rear its ugly head but it's gotten to the point where any program that isn't generating tangible gains should be brought to the table for privatization.

    I've been to a few private parks. Several exist around Detroit now and I've been to some in Japan and Korea as well. I bought a year round pass to a few that I frequent and normally they only run about twenty-five hundred yen, and that's for a non-resident I think the resident fee is about half that. I use the park, I pay for the park. I think that sounds fair.

    Should we consider throwing that all away to save a tiny fraction of the state budget?

    Whether it's the U.S, Japan, Greece, the UK, or any other nation in the economic hot seat there can be no exemptions. Every policy, every program, every grant and yes parks need to go up for review. The best route would be to find the programs that are losing money and offer them up to private companies through a lease or some other arrangement. If nobody takes the program it should be cut and sold.

    Posted in: Hundreds of thousands strike in UK over pension cuts

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    The two measures should be considered seperatly. I believe the free trade measure should pass as increaced freedom is the only way to increase prosperity.

    The job retaining portion should be dropped though. If there is somebody that can do the job cheaper and better the idea of preserving the less efficient job runs counter to the principle of 'free' trade. Retaining those jobs helps nobody. Eventually they will need to be let go and keeping them on longer at the expense of the taxpayer will not change that fact.

    Posted in: Senate Republicans block hearing on free trade

  • 2

    TheQuestion

    This is exactly why I hate the idea of public unions. It's never a good idea to give a single group of public employees the ability to strike and grind an entire part of society to a halt. For those nations that haven't collapsed yet it's time to put some serious consideration to privatizing our systems, and there can be no sacred cows.

    Posted in: Hundreds of thousands strike in UK over pension cuts

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    Knowing that, only a person who genuinely supports providing welfare to profitable corporations and their employees would continue to shop there.

    Maybe if they pressure the welfare system enough it will quicken its eventual collapse. It has already been overextended and ought to be cut back. If it did fall apart I have no doubt that employees would require higher wages to compensate for their loss of government assistance. As it stands, they do not, so no action need be taken.

    I understand there are many Americans who would buy goods made by slave labor, and wax philosophical on the wonders of "freedom" out of the other side of their mouths.

    So long as a person has choice they are no slave. If you're referencing the working conditions in other nations my point still stands. A person always has the choice to obey or refuse, always. We all do what we need to in order to make our ways through life, I simply feel there should be as little coercion as possible. Wal-Mart doesn't force it's employees to work, it's a choice, so I have no issue with it.

    Posted in: U.S. Supreme Court bars mass sex bias case vs Wal-Mart

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    Your ignorance on the above is quite laughable.

    I didn't know you had a degree in menial labor appraisal. My apologies. I tend to draw from my years before joining the white collar labor force when I was paid far below the minimum wage at the time and was still able put myself through college. The idea that other's cannot do so with more than I had is what's laughable.

    Stocking requires the proper handling and display of thousands of dollars of merchandise per hour. If not handled properly, much of the relatively enormous cost that goes into purchasing and transport can't be recouped nearly as quickly.

    And how much training is required to move an object rarely weighing more than a case of cans? Virtually none. Display is normally taken care of by managers, at least where I worked, the stockers merely move inventory from one location to another. That adds fairly little to the value of the product or the company.

    Publix and Whole Foods associates are, with extremely few exceptions, not on the public dole. Publix, Target, and Whole Foods don't have a formal "message" encouraging their associates to apply for public assistance to supplement their incomes. They're also not facing class action lawsuits for systemic discrimination against their employees.

    Those other retailers have different company strategies and target markets than Wal-Mart. They are also a fraction of the size and far less profitable. And technically speaking Wal-Mart isn't facing a class action lawsuit anymore.

    Whole Foods is especially inapplicable considering it appeals to a completely different consumer base. I actually really like Whole Foods' model and I love John Mackey, I once attended a conference where he was a guest speaker. But however much I like Whole Foods I tend to shop at Wal-Mart more because it appeals to my wallet a little better for my everyday needs while Whole Foods is always there for my little hard to find indulgences.

    When managers devalue work, they help to destroy the worker's capacity to perform, grow, and get dignity from the job.

    I agree. But I'm not talking about devaluing work but rather about appropriate compensation. Some jobs really aren't worth the current minimum wage and would be better occupied by high school students and retirees than . Stocking is certainly one of them. I'd much rather see a more competitive workplace opened up.

    What I view as far more corrupt than welfare is your statement above that the demanding job of stocking -- when truly done "right" -- means that stockers are costing their company more than they contribute to it.

    If you are carefully arranging your store and your stockers are actively participating in the planning that arranging they may very well be worth minimum wage or better but Wal-Mart employees more often than not follow a preset grid with very uniform, specific instructions and play very little role in the decisions making process. As such it's possible they are costing their company more than they contribute at their current wage.

    You wrote earlier about needing the books in front of you among other factors to take into consideration in order to make a proper decision. If we were to break down the supply chain to it's components from start to finish, a process which I'm willing to bet the folks at Wal-Mart do on a quarterly basis, I'd say that there is a very real possibility that an average stocker does not add value equal to what they are paid.

    As an employer, I have just as much basic responsibility to ensure that people working for me can contribute in a way that enables them to receive greater value for their efforts to the extent that they don't have to rely on public handouts any more than I do.

    Wal-Mart's entire business model is dedicated to providing the customer with the absolute lowest prices possible while still turning a profit. They pay low wages to their employees with very little chance of advancement and this is a widely known fact. If a person applies to Wal-Mart knowing these facts there is no reason to demand better wages for them. Nobody forces these people to work, in some cases government programs provide a counter incentive, yet they do anyway.

    In individual cases where rights were infringed they should have their day in court but to demand the same personal and emotional investment in an employee as provided by a small business owner to a company with thousands of employees and millions of customers is ridiculous.

    At least I wouldn't be a hypocrite preaching about the dignity of work out of one side of my mouth and devaluing it and people out of the other.

    Once again, no devaluing coming from me. I have never worked for more or less than I thought I deserved for the job I was doing. To this day I've never worked at a job where I have felt cheated out of wages. Though I did once work as a janitor at a community college where I was grossly overcompensated, but that's more about union politics than equitable compensation. My point being that the value of a particular employee or job is best decided by the employer. If Wal-Mart feels that their stockers deserve a particular wage and the stocker in turn continue working at that wage I see no reason to interfere with that. I’ve always done work faithfully and have always demanded nothing more or less than what I’ve earned. I don't short change others and I expect not to be shorted likewise.

    Posted in: U.S. Supreme Court bars mass sex bias case vs Wal-Mart

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    The jobs at Wal-Mart are, by rights, among the most simple in the country. Most of the workers are just stocking shelves and all of the coding is done through the stores supply chain computer systems. All these workers do is place the products where they need to be.

    I can't speak for landscaping companies but there are plenty of companies far less large and profitable than Wal-Mart who provide employment in a manner so that their employees don't have go on the public dole.

    We're talking about simple, unskilled, manual labor. The job pays minimum wage or just above it because the job is simple, so simple that it requires little to no training making employees easily replaceable.

    Wal-Mart has a massive supply of potential workers and only so many positions. That means Wal-Mart doesn't need to pay higher wages to it's employees because there will always be 30 applicants lined up to take their place.

    The simpler solution is to levy a $2 billion annual tax on Wal-Mart so those of us who don't want to shop there don't have to pick up their tab.

    How much value does a stock boy add to the company? I'd guess around 3 or 4 dollars an hour. As such he's already being paid more than he's worth to the company. Why should Wal-Mart pay more money for an employee that can only add a fraction of value for which he is being paid? Unskilled manual labor is, and should be, cheap because anybody can do it.

    What you described wouldn't be a tax anyway. Sounds more like a fine. And considering most grocery stores around the country pay their workers about the same as Wal-Mart it would have to apply to them as well. My nephew is getting paid minimum wage at a deli, he certainly wouldn't be able to support a family on that, should the deli have to pay my nephew more? Or should my nephew instead plan his activities and budget according to the limitations of his low paying position? That, of course would mean living either with his parents or in a small apartment, eating cheap food, and either riding a bike or rationing fuel for the old beater car I gave him. By contrast, if he is working at a job with a low wage he should not: Start a family, buy a new car, spurn getting a better education, get a credit card, or take out a loan. Most people seem to struggle with these basic concepts.

    Wal-Mart could avoid the tax by providing benefits in a manner so that taxpayers wouldn't have to subsidize them.

    What about local grocery stores? How about McDonalds or other chains? I lived off of under-the-table work below minimum wage for 4 years while I attended college and finished without any debt because I understood the limitations of my money. I'm all for cutting back welfare though. I know way to many people that won't even try to find a job because the pay outs from welfare are so good.

    I lived in an unheated basement with no car working every odd job I could find. For me, accepting a government handout would be the a failure both to myself and my family. Welfare strips away a person's dignity and their self-respect. That's why I've always viewed it as among the most corrupt parts of society.

    Posted in: U.S. Supreme Court bars mass sex bias case vs Wal-Mart

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    Bulgar is 81 years old and has been living comfortably on the run for 16 years. The trial is going to take forever and he may very well die before it's over.

    passing himself off as just another elderly retiree, albeit one who kept a .357 Magnum and more than 100 rounds of ammunition in his modest apartment

    Considering .357 ammo comes in boxes of 25 and 50 rounds, and how cheap it is, that isn't really that impressive. Then again, we're talking about the mob not a gang.

    Posted in: Boston mob boss captured near LA after 16 years on run

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    The case as it is was stupid. There were too many people from too many income levels to put forward a viable case. If infractions occurred they should be handled o a case by case basis anyway.

    Wal-mart is a wonderful distribution and supply chain management model. I frequent their stores because they deliver exactly what they guarantee and are generally a benefit to the community at large despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

    Posted in: U.S. Supreme Court bars mass sex bias case vs Wal-Mart

  • -1

    TheQuestion

    My only complaint is how dry Lotteria's stuff is. If I want a patently terrible burger, and rest assured I do, I want it dripping with grease with a side of onion rings and a 36 oz coke and I want it in 5 minutes. Then again this doesn't seem like that much to me, I'm a big guy. This is merely a challenge...I accept.

    I myself would prefer an onigiri rice ball with kombu and katsuobushi, which at least has no cholesterol and valuable minerals, washed down with green tea.

    Bah only when I'm in polite company do I eat that light. Grew up in Detroit living off spam, Faygo, and sardines in tomato sauce. The fact I'm as healthy as I am is a miracle of modern science and good genes. I normally eat out when I'm in the Tokyo branch, otherwise my bento would be the size of a suitcase.

    Posted in: Tower Cheeseburger

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    Good, now we can get back to yelling at each other over other more or less important stuff. Though I will mourn the passing of the Weiner jokes, fortunatly they will be survived by Boehner jokes but it's just not the same.

    Posted in: U.S. congressman Weiner resigns in wake of sex photos scandal

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    Don't worry Hef, she'll come around. A woman can only resist your charm and undeniable sex appeal for so long.

    It's so gross seeing them together.

    Well yeah. Love is beautiful...even if some of the participants are not. I try not to think of the physical mechanics.

    Posted in: Hef gets the heave-ho as fiancee calls off wedding

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

View all