Trent

Members
  • Content

    2,077
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by Trent

  1. Hey, whatever gets them off the couch! I thought it was a cute movie. Luckily, I timed it right to see it in an almost empty theater. Unfortunately, some chump came and dumped his kids (4 of them under 6yrs or so) in the theater while he went to go see something else. They behaved, but I thought that was hugely irresponsible. Just one more reason not to go to the theaters. Oh, hello again!
  2. I think a lot of the indignant rage, if you're so inclined as to blame everyone BUT the people themselves, should now be directed towards CHINA, who is snapping up resources in Africa faster than anyone else. Hey, if they have to make deals or pay off the same people who machete entire villages, so what?? As long as they're not the "West" or "White" or "American", they should get a pass. Let's just blame the US, it's more fun. Oh, hello again!
  3. How many times have I heard this when people come complaining that so-and-so's prices are a hundred or so cheaper??? It DOES cost more to offer good service. You can find some dealers on the internet that will sell you gear at just over cost. What will they do for you? Forward your order to the manufacturers and take your money. What do local dealers do? They measure you, advise on options, hook you up with demos, help you pick colors, help you save a few bucks on the stuff you don't need, point you towards gear that may be better for you than what you originally wanted, help you with any issues you may have with new gear, assemble your gear, repack it, hold it for you, look out for it when you're gone, let you pay in installments, hook you up with cheaper rentals once you've ordered, help you sell it when you downsize... but that's just one or two things. There was a time when everyone was some kind of dealer and was just hooking people up so they could be "the man". Manufacturers have worked hard to cut that kind of thing out, but they're still out there. Dealers who follow the rules abide by the manufacturers low-price limits. That lets them offer gear under MSRP, but still make a bit of money. Once people go under, or way under, those prices... your local store will not be able to compete. All that being said, I'm glad that most of our customers here have seen the value of doing business locally. I've only had to tell a few people that they should buy their gear elsewhere when their prices were lower. They usually buy their next rigs from us... strange. Edit: But yes, shop around. Get to know what gear costs. Usually it's not THAT much different that it worth sacrificing the extra service. Oh, hello again!
  4. A good "micro" example of how making things "faaaaiir" (in a whiny, sniveling voice) does not allow the best to rise to the top. Soon, we'll all just have to settle for the lowest common denominator so no one's feelings are hurt. Oh, hello again!
  5. OR..... how about this one? The governments (local and fed) learned their lessons by the screw ups during Katrina and got on this one in a quicker and more organized fashion. Could be? Oh, hello again!
  6. And the rest of the quote (without paying $50 to get the research) goes... Not exactly conclusive. Like I said, I think the bill (if it ever had a chance) could be drafted to minimize that sort of nonsense. Profit margin limits DURING the break, etc. BUT, free market could be fine too. Oh, hello again!
  7. I'm not sure I agree with your logic in your example. It's actually been done before and did it raise the prices more than they would have increased on their own? What about my question here? Oh, hello again!
  8. How does removing the tax that the consumer pays at the pump translate to higher profits and more expensive gas? A smart bill would have wording that would prevent companies from raising prices beyond the normal barrel fluctuations while the tax break is in effect. Does the fact that New York, Houston, and a few other cities have declared "Sales Tax Holidays" for a week at a time cause the price of all goods to go UP? Try telling the Dems. In my opinion, their "profit tax" would more directly and quickly do that than any other proposed action. Oh, hello again!
  9. So answer it then, smart guy? Why's it coming from a GOP guy now and now the Dem? Never mind... LOOK OVER THERE!!! SOMETHING SHINY!! Oh, hello again!
  10. I'm pretty sure you guys are agreeing on a strawman argument. The McCain "gas tax holiday" is a suspension of the consumer tax on gas from all that I've read. To make it even better... it's funded by eliminating or reducing earmarks and discretionary spending. Why are Dems against that? LOL Oh, hello again!
  11. When? Recently? Cuz prices haven't dropped anything significant in a while. I understood it would eliminate the consumer tax on gasoline. Is that not correct? If it was to eliminate some tax on the oil companies, then yeah, that's stupid to think it'd even remotely cause a similar drop in prices. But if it's on the consumer side, I can see it working a little... but not forever. I think ONE of those TWO politicians has a worse idea. I think many dems will agree that the bill was stupid, you do. I think Obama should not be in office for myriad reasons. If I'd had my say (if the world was perfect) I would not put McCain there either. But, alas, he is "less evil". Oh, hello again!
  12. And you're getting better at the dipshit one-liner attacks, I see! Good for you, Bill! Did ya get past the one word that seemed to get your panties in a ruffle or are you just gonna actually change tunes now to defend how smart an idea it is to raise taxes and expect prices to drop??? Oh, hello again!
  13. It's been done many times before. At least it isn't as naive as to INCREASE taxes thinking that SOMEHOW it'll decrease prices! Hey, if the government wants to STOP taxing something, why would that be a bad thing? On the outside it doesn't appear to be a "Hey the dems hate the little guy" ploy. At least, the very least, it isn't as stupid as the Dem bill. Oh, hello again!
  14. For Bill.... 3. The Dems (or backing Reps) are stupid enough to assume that everyone else is as stupid as they are. They don't deserve to be in office. Oh, hello again!
  15. Two possibilities here: 1. The Dems (and any backing Reps) are so completely idiotic that they actually think that any tax they put on a company or product won't be passed on to consumers. These people are to stupid to be in office. 2. The Dems (and any backing Reps) are, yet again, pandering to the lowest common denominator so that they can point fingers and say "Oh, Republicans hate the average guy... they didn't support our oil bill that would have punished the evil companies for *gasp* making money." These people also don't deserve to be in office. Of interesting note is that Obama supported the bill... he doesn't deserve to be in office. Oh, hello again!
  16. LOL... how much hay did you have to cut to build that one?? Oh, hello again!
  17. So, because he's got prisoners working, sweating, not getting cable, smokes, porn, and gyms he's a Neanderthal? Or is it for some other reason. Who cares if his jails have no measured impact on recidivism?? As long as it isn't significantly higher, he's getting prisoners to do work that needs to be done, and housing them for a hell of a lot cheaper than any other prison. Man, our prisoners live better than many millions all over the world and we STILL complain about the poor dearies' having pink undies and living in tents... Oh, hello again!
  18. Like I said in the original post... And thanks for giving! I still think Obama may just have enough, but your coin... at least you put other stuff first! Oh, hello again!
  19. "Soros said that removing President George W. Bush from office was the 'central focus of my life' and 'a matter of life and death.'" Sounds as nutty as threatening to leave the country if so and so is elected. I like his millions going into our elected officials through donations and back channels as much as you like corporate money doing the same. His left-wing looniness has nothing to do with his business, charity, or sex life however... in case you were wondering. OH LOOK!! Something shiny over there! Oh, hello again!
  20. Well, the campaign finance rules and disclosures are SUPPOSED to prevent that, but like most other things... it's broken. Here's a question for you: What laws are there to stop a large left wing looney from buying candidates? For example: Soros Oh, hello again!
  21. But many people DO say that, hence... this thread. While I'm not sure about your solution, I agree on the idea... I'm not happy about any of my representatives being bought and paid for from either side of the aisle. Oh, hello again!
  22. So, if someone raised $400 and $300 of it came from one person and the rest from 50, you'd be more worried about it than a guy who raised $1300 and got $650 from one person? At the end of the day... money is money. Obama's gotten way more from the $200 plus crowd than McCain. (besides, that wasn't my criteria) So Obama's got more money from the "big" donors than McCain, but McCain still owes more to them somehow? I'd say that $129 mil is a lot more "influential" than $65 mil. In keeping with the supposedly generous and socially conscious mindset that Obama supporters like to pretend to have... I'd suggest donating that money to charity, where it will really go for a good cause. I'm thinking that Obama might just have enough at this point. Oh, hello again!
  23. Over $200 donors.... Obama collected $129,202,690 from 124,253 donors. Average of $1039/donor McCain collected $65,972,896 from 51,368 donors. Average of $1284/donor. Not THAT far off there to be making the "corporations own him" argument. Besides... who owes more to the "big" donors?? Someone who got $65 Mil from them or someone who got $129 Mil from them? It doesn't say anything about WHO the $200 or under donations came from, just that it was less than $200. Using your Bush example, you can see that it doesn't take a genius to get around the donation rules either. Oh, hello again!
  24. Obama NET Contributions (Other than Loans) $264,492,300.66 McCain NET Contributions (Other than Loans) $89,206,848.36 I've heard the argument that McCain is beholden to the evil corporations and PACs, so we shouldn't vote for him. With numbers like those above, who do you think is more in the pocket of people, owes more favors? The guy who's raised $89 Million or the guy who's raised $264 Million? I'm sure there's some perfectly reasonable explanation on why McCain is still on the take and Obama is a saint who just isn't like the rest, but I still find it curious. Oh, hello again!