Disqus - Latest Comments for tomhanna

Re: A Valid Point In Support of Auto Bailouts?

tomhanna — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 22:41:58 -0000

To the extent this point is valid, Congress could solve it by pledging funds to support any successor company and funding existing warranties/recalls in the event of a bankruptcy. Right now, I wouldn't buy a car from any of the Big Three because bankruptcy is still likely. Any contract they enter post bankruptcy filing will have to be honored. Any contract they enter now, like a warranty, as far as I know, would be voided by the bankruptcy. Bankruptcy would, for a rational consumer, improve the situation over the current one.

Re: Yup: Over Seventy Buck per Hour

tomhanna — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:07:43 -0000

Interesting that a blog about philosophy would be the place with enough actual detail about the business that even a rank amateur should be able to spot a potential huge cost savings for GM - take some of the guys sitting in the "Job Bank" getting paid not to work and use them to eliminate the 300+ hours per active worker of overtime per year. Clearly this company doesn't need a bailout, it needs managers with half a brain and a few less corporate jets.

Re: rizzn's personal blog

tomhanna — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 02:02:08 -0000

I remember going through the same thing with LiveJournal several years ago, which led to starting a blog on my own site. I still have the Livejournal, but now use it for nothing more controversial than sharing recipes and "Twitterfeeds".

Re: The True North Strong and Freer Than Ever

tomhanna — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:51:56 -0000

The list kind of puts the relative importance of economic freedom in perspective though - I'll take the US or Canada either one over getting caned for spitting on the sidewalk or reading Playboy magazine (with or without my body covered in green Jello) any day.

Re: What Books Would You Ban?

tomhanna — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 02:57:36 -0000

If I were banning books, I would go for horribly written pretentious garbage like Heart of Darkness.

Re: MPAA Hacking: Is It Wiretapping?

tomhanna — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:17:11 -0000

"One’s online communications should be as protected from government searches as a letter I have stored in my house. "

If the email is unencrypted, it's more like a postcard than a letter. If you mailed a postcard detailing the details of a crime with a heading "How we're going to steal $1,000,000", would you expect that it's not going to be read by someone handling it? The encryption doesn't need to be high grade, but just putting it there is sort of a notice to the government and your ISP "this is private" much like putting a letter in an envelope. Sure, the government can steam it open and you'll be none the wiser, but they have to have a reason to do so.

Given the extensive privacy policies of ISPs that usually guarantee they won't read your email, I'd say that contractually they should be held to at least as high a standard as the gubmnt.

Re: Values Politicians: Tom Rants

tomhanna — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:29:29 -0000

Yeah, I understand that to some extent. For some people it's the default issue. "If I don't know anything else about the candidates, I want to know which one says he's a Christian." I have my default issue, too - taxes. I don't want to lay the blame at the feet of voters who are doing the best they can to just sift through the crap from the media, the campaign advertising and everything else to make a decision. And I especially don't want to lay the blame at the feet of voters whose main concern is protecting unborn babies and who gravitate to these "values" politicians out of that concern. The ultimate problem is that power corrupts and Republicans aren't immune to that. The solution is less government power.

Re: Values Politicians: Tom Rants

tomhanna — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:55:44 -0000

Oh, definitely. Republican politicians just need to be a lot more careful not to needlessly open themselves (and their supporters by extension) up to accusations of hypocrisy. Just a quick reference back to those first principles of the religions they claim to espouse would go a long way.

Re: GOP Convention fun in Branson: Tom Rants

tomhanna — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:53:00 -0000

Thanks for all the comments. The single biggest point I was trying to make about the Convention was that there is much more in common than separating a Huckabee supporter from a Ron Paul supporter, for example. (I'll leave Mitt Romney and his great hair out of it for the moment.) I don't have any idea what Ron Paul's plans are for the future aside from continuing to serve his District in Congress, but I look forward to working with all of you (even AG) on common causes in the future. And perhaps helping Sarah Steelman win the Governor's mansion this year.

Re: GOP Convention fun in Branson: Tom Rants

tomhanna — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 03:05:16 -0000

R!

I almost missed your comment among the folks calling me names with my own microphone. Next, I'm going to be accused of censorship for not taking it lying down.

So you were among the 5%? It only took 20 years and a change of party by the Congressman to get your vote. Now see, if these hotheads could just learn that given twenty years a little acorn can grow into a mighty oak. Or at least one more vote. Damn the Man!

Re: GOP Convention fun in Branson: Tom Rants

tomhanna — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 02:43:43 -0000

AG, I'll get to you, but since CD9 Delegate was polite, I'm going to answer him first.

The "committed patriots" comment was sarcastic. There was a comment which came to my email that had that phrase. I thought it was posted here and I see that it wasn't. Sorry for the confusion. I don't question their commitment generally, but in the context of only 10% of them showing up for the credentials committee hearing. Remember that the GOP and the credentials committee (all volunteers) had not choice in whether to hear these challenges. Again at least some of these challenges came from crackpots, not any "establishment" politicians.

I'm not sure if there was any "plan" to move to adjourn, but the look on the Chair's face, the fact that he wasn't quite ready to deal with it and that he practically had to beg the crowd to stay long enough to say a few words of thanks (including thanks to all the first time delegates) made me think he wasn't done. Judging from the 2000 convention, I am fairly sure the "planned program" wasn't over. (The 2004 convention was adjourned two hours early due to the death of Ronald Reagan, so I only have 2000 to really go by.)

AG:

I'll get to your questions, but first - you're being an ass. This is my microphone, if you don't like how I use it - here's double your money back. I was carrying petitions to put Ron Paul on the ballot in Missouri when some of this current crop were still twinkles in their parents' eyes. In 1988 we petitioned, met the requirements and were shut out at the last minute because the petitions listed Ron Paul and Andre Marrou instead of listing the Presidential electors. I was listed as a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the state of Missouri and Roy Blunt that came out of that situation. (Since then, I've seen Blunt do good things, bad things and lots of mediocre things. I've also seen Ron Paul vote against free trade and get pork barrel earmarks for his district in Texas.)

It really irks me to be told off by people who only discovered the Constitution in the last six months.and somehow think it's their prerogative to brand me a liar, a fascist and a bigot on the strength of their recent conversion on the road to Branson. Are you one of the antiwar crowd who've gone from crucifying conservatives to crucifying Republicans because you don't think they're conservative enough?

In 20 years, we've gone from both Republican and Democratic politicians using the power of the state to prevent Ron Paul from being on the ballot to people explicitly supporting Ron Paul controlling a third of the GOP state convention. Plus, whether you want to believe it or not there are a lot of potentially sympathetic people in the other 2/3. But since the the 1/3 seem to have a real problem in the manners department, that sympathy is likely to die as quickly as the rest of us can nurture it.

Second, I'm not obligated to answer your questions at all. I came home from Branson and headed to work Sunday and have put in about 20 hours since the end of the convention. I will answer your questions, because I choose to. If the timetable isn't to your liking, tough.

As to your initial questions.

"Were Riders and deputy sheriffs posted solely around contested delegates and alternates to protect them from some imagined threat from the main body?"

Asked and answered. I already said that I didn't see this happen. Perhaps it did, but the pages in my area were not the least bit intimidating and were certainly unarmed. Unfortunately, as I said, video devices weren't allowed or I'd have proof. Those who've known me longer than 24 hours will take me at my word.

"If in your area, you experienced your own congressional district posing several suited Republicans shoulder-to-shoulder, blocking the aisle between you and your microphone, would you not be concerned about their behavior? Would you not question your party's policies as a result of this demonstration?"

I suppose. But again, I didn't see this. I was seated directly across the aisle from 170 Ron Paul delegates from Jackson County, who were given full access to the microphone. Within my own district at least one county was almost entirely composed of Ron Paul delegates. (all unchallenged) and they were duly counted on every question. It sounds like, there was a real problem with that district (or distrtictcs). It certainly wasn't a statewide effort. The "officials" from my district (the 7th district), ranging from county chairs to the 7th district executive secretary (I may have that title wrong) were of the opinion that several hundred committed conservative, grassroots activists would be an asset to the party both in terms of winning elections and in terms of setting the party's agenda in the right direction. Sorry if your experience is different.

As to your next set of statements/questions:

"Our party, yours and mine, made the rule to remove primary voters one-step away from nominating the candidate. "

That's not correct. The Missouri Presidential Preference Primary was started by the state legislature in 1988 when Dick Gephardt, Missouri's favorite Democratic son, was running for President and has been renewed several times since, mostly because either Gephardt or John Ashcroft were expected to run. Prior to that, Missouri chose its nominee by caucus and convention. The caucus and convention is a holdover, an anachronism. The nominee is chosen through the primary and the convention is a relic of a bygone era in the first place. In past years the slates of electors and delegates were simply chosen by the winning candidate's campaign. For 20 years, the convention has been a party for the nominee and a chance to debate a few relatively inconsequential platform planks. It's mostly about sitting in uncomfortable chairs and hoping for a little excitement. In the excitement category, this year was better, not worse. In the uncomfortable seating category, it was right in line with the past. But maybe they knew I was a Ron Paul supporter in 2000 and my uncomfortable chair that year was part of an Illuminati plot. I'm sorry if you expected different. I'll send a memo to Jared Craighead - "Dear Jared, as I've asked before, please get better chairs."

"Second, to «engage in an effort» means to participate. Are you suggesting by your comment that the open-door policy of our party means that folks of differing views ought not to participate?"

I never said or suggested anything of the sort.

"Third, your bombastic assertion that each individual citizen, invited by published calls, while asserting his own view in caucuses around the state was somehow an organized collective?"

Yes, that is exactly the case and not merely a "bombastic assertion." I was an early contributor to the Ron Paul Exploratory Committee and received the emails from the campaign asking me to help in the post-primary effort to subvert the election. It was an organized effort. I will post the emails, if you insist on calling me a liar.

Re: GOP Convention fun in Branson: Tom Rants

tomhanna — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:50:03 -0000

I'm not sure that I'd call the challenges "the party's trick". I think you're misinformed about how the challenges happened. Remember there was no challenge of the Jackson County delegates, almost all of whom were Ron Paul supporters, despite the irregularities at that caucus.

Over 10% of the challenges came from the crackpot Scott Magill (spelling may be wrong). This is the crackpot who put forward the 3 conspiracy theory platform resolutions. The delegates he challenged were seated. Only about 1 out of 10 challenged delegates bothered to attend the Credentials Committee hearing, but roughly 9 out of 10 were seated anyway - hardly "committed patriots".

Perhaps most importantly though, you "committed patriots" should remember that you were engaging in an effort to overturn the results of an election, to disenfranchise the Missouri Republican primary voters who voted 95% against Dr. Ron Paul. You lost the election in a landslide and still got 1/3 of the delegates at the convention.

Re: GOP Convention fun in Branson: Tom Rants

tomhanna — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:58:22 -0000

Katrinka: No insult intended to Alan Keyes. I'm simply saying that once he made the decision to leave the GOP, the GOP had no further obligation to him.

ag: What numbers do you think are wrong? The delegate count was closer to 1,700, but was an estimate. Regarding your own post:

Security was provided by members of the Taney County Sheriff's Department, in uniform. The pages nearest me were college kids. The one closest was a girl of about 20. The guy handling the microphone nearest me was an elderly gentleman and was much more intimidated by the people yelling at him than he was intimidating himself.

The Platform Committee incorporated far more of the proposed amendments than in years past, when the Platform has largely been passed unamended. This is the nature of having a single day of convention. The unpaid, elected volunteer members of the State Committee do the work the other 1,460 days of the election cycle. These folks are unpaid, elected volunteers chosen by the local county committees who are themselves unpaid, elected volunteers chosen by the Republican primary voters. My first suggestion if you have concerns is to raise them with your current County Chair and State Committeeman and Committeewoman. If you find, after dealing with them as human beings and not as Bilderbergers, which they aren't, that you aren't satisfied, then try organizing at the committee level.

Re: Bob Barr: Man of principle or spoiler?: Tom Rants

tomhanna — Tue, 27 May 2008 15:21:21 -0000

I thought John Hutchison was Hank Rearden, but apparently he's John Galt. Who is Brad Pitt?

Re: Bob Barr: Man of principle or spoiler?: Tom Rants

tomhanna — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:34:10 -0000

I need to know more about a candidate than that he's an American. The political labels are often a decent, though obviously not perfect, shorthand to give some idea of the candidates basic philosophy. Clinton, Obama, McCain, Barr, Keyes, David Duke, Lyndon Larouche - all Americans, but certainly not all people I'd vote for. Labels aren't perfect. I t would certainly be nice to be able to simply see into the heart of every candidate, but barring that labels have a use. It's not tragic to try to understand where candidates are coming from or to have a consistent philosophy.

Re: Gramm and the subprime crisis: Tom Rants

tomhanna — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:58:08 -0000

True. And in the late 90s, Chase (through a couple of its subsidiaries) was one of the big players in subprime mortgages, so arguably it may have been the combination that gave the combined company the strength to weather the early storm.

Re: What happened to «Yes, we can»?: Tom Rants

tomhanna — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:12:55 -0000

McCain is strong on free trade and strong on limiting government spending. If the limiting government spending translates into tax cuts, that's miles ahead of the tax increases proposed by the others.

If Hillary were really 4 more years of Bill, she'd be a strong second choice, but unfortunately she's repudiated the best parts of her husband's adminstration such as the expansion of free trade and the relative spending restraint.

Obama....well, who knows what he really stands for?

Re: Paul campaign still working: Tom Rants

tomhanna — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 04:43:13 -0000

I know it's not mumbly-pegs, as no one in the the history of Missouri has played mumbly-pegs or cricket.

I'd sooner denounce John McCain as a fishmonger for mongering Iraqi fish than denounce him for his position on the Iraq war. One of the areas I've agreed with him on for some time is that, assuming we were taking action there in the first place, the action should have been decisive rather than wishy-washy.

I'm sure Texas has lots of great people to potentially send to Washington, but Congress really needs at least one guy who just automatically votes no on almost all legislation on principle, because, almost all legislation is bad.

Finally, the Machtergreifung was not an armed action and was within the rules. On the other hand, the Nazis had 33% electoral support, not 5%, so it's hardly fair to make the comparison. *Godwin's Law Invoked Discussion Over*

Re: Paul campaign still working: Tom Rants

tomhanna — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:48:38 -0000

The Gore lawsuit was "within the rules" in 2000, too. It helped generate the mistaken belief that Gore won Florida, with all the attendant consequences. Anyone truly principled understands that "within the rules," "right" and "sensible" are not always the same thing.

Re: MiniRants: Michael Reagan nails it and it doesn't always begin with Ayn Rand: Tom Rants

tomhanna — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:16:01 -0000

If he had, or we had reason to think he had, specific beliefs that might be relevant, I could handle respectfully asking him about them - that goes to issues. Just smearing him on religion or ancestry isn't useful, though. And making fun of someone's middle name is schoolyard bully stuff.

Re: Dick Morris Advice to GOP: Tom Rants

tomhanna — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:05:02 -0000

From Obama's public performance, especially the way he acted under pressure in the debates, I don't see any problem with his temperament. Do I think he could make a decision well under that kind of pressure? Yes. Do I think he'd make the right one? I'm not sure. But I'm not sure about Hillary either.

One thing I am sure of - any post with Hillary Clinton involved has awfully long legs!

Re: Still want government health care?: Tom Rants

tomhanna — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 05:51:37 -0000

KAK, you actually get to the heart of the problem here:
"The main problem with American health care is not quality as much as it is costs. Costs have to be brought under control and it's not happening."

The reasons we have those rapidly escalating costs are 1 - government pouring money into healthcare, too many dollars chasing too few resources and 2 - lack of incentive for consumers to control costs (since the payment is almost always made by a third party). Any government run plan is just doing more of the same and expecting a different result, which is, I believe, the definition of insanity.

Re: Bob Smither on the Fair Tax: Tom Rants

tomhanna — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 01:03:58 -0000

How is this different from the current situation with the income tax?

1 - We tax the income of federal employees and contractors. Is this just "pretending" that the government collected the tax?

2 - Why are Congressman able to suggest that we tax the income of the doctor who provides health care to a dying patient? Because the tax is hidden. Instead of the bill showing $50,000 for the doctor, with the tax on the doctor's income hidden, it will show $37,000 for the doctor and $11,100 tax. Absolutely there will be an outcry. The outcry is past due. That's the single biggest reason I'm in favor of the Fair Tax.

3 - Renters. They're currently taxed indirectly. They pay rent, their landlord pays income tax. They currently see $950 to the landlord and don't see the 25% income tax the landlord pays. When their rent is $730 plus $219, they'll see just what the portion is that goes for the product they want to pay for (a place to live) and what portion goes to pay for government. Outcry likely? Absolutely. That's the point.

Re: Welcome back to the minority: Tom Rants

tomhanna — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 02:22:37 -0000

Agreed, Mark. Compare the Kennedy inaugural address with the second Bush inaugural. The only difference - the variety of totalitarianism they want to confront and where the confrontation will happen. The tools are exactly the same and the words are very similar. Teddy may think Obama will bring back Camelot, but the policy legacy of JFK is clearly in the Republican Party.

Re: Rebating what and why?: Tom Rants

tomhanna — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:57:13 -0000

"returning tax money to people is always a good idea!"

True, but rebates not tied to any real cut in tax rates are just one step removed welfare checks for everybody. I'm not sure that calling it a "tax rebate" really makes it so. And how much pork is going to go with it?

Disqus - Latest Comments for tomhanna

Re: A Valid Point In Support of Auto Bailouts?

Re: Yup: Over Seventy Buck per Hour

Re: rizzn's personal blog

Re: The True North Strong and Freer Than Ever

Re: What Books Would You Ban?

Re: MPAA Hacking: Is It Wiretapping?

Re: Values Politicians: Tom Rants

Re: Values Politicians: Tom Rants

Re: GOP Convention fun in Branson: Tom Rants

Re: GOP Convention fun in Branson: Tom Rants

Re: GOP Convention fun in Branson: Tom Rants

Re: GOP Convention fun in Branson: Tom Rants

Re: GOP Convention fun in Branson: Tom Rants

Re: Bob Barr: Man of principle or spoiler?: Tom Rants

Re: Bob Barr: Man of principle or spoiler?: Tom Rants

Re: Gramm and the subprime crisis: Tom Rants

Re: What happened to «Yes, we can»?: Tom Rants

Re: Paul campaign still working: Tom Rants

Re: Paul campaign still working: Tom Rants

Re: MiniRants: Michael Reagan nails it and it doesn't *always* begin with Ayn Rand: Tom Rants

Re: Dick Morris Advice to GOP: Tom Rants

Re: Still want government health care?: Tom Rants

Re: Bob Smither on the Fair Tax: Tom Rants

Re: Welcome back to the minority: Tom Rants

Re: Rebating what and why?: Tom Rants

Re: MiniRants: Michael Reagan nails it and it doesn't always begin with Ayn Rand: Tom Rants