How did we get from Gasoline Gouging to the cheep Crap. Huck
Yes, I think I stipulated that under those conditions it would only be fair and not Gouging.
Pennylynn wrote:
Huck,
A catastrophic event should not raise prices of goods. The product was already manufactured and for the most part delivered. If you are talking about a store raising prices, then my opinion this is wrong.... if the product is on hand. However, there are times when the product has to be delivered to the store or the customer, if the shipper raises prices because of t***sportation costs, then I do not have a problem with the additional charges to be passed to the customer. In the end, I agree with you for the most part. And yes... gas companies are and have been price gouging for more years than I can remember....
Huck, br br A catastrophic event should not raise... (
show quote)
Is it Gouging, or Supply and Demand?
There is a very fine line technically between a business gouging the consumer and a fair price for the product based on the cost of production and a fair profit margin. I personally believe the margin that gasoline producers have been using at least since the OPEC fuel crises of 1973 has become a form of gouging and an unfair business practice that has actually become accepted by all consumers of gasoline. As the saying goes, “Gasoline prices rise like a rocket and come down like a feather.” If that’s the case then it would appear that the fuel industry is getting a little extra unintended margin (profit) at both ends. 1) They immediately are raising the price of gasoline at the pump that has been purchased and produced at a lower price – an immediate higher profit on that gasoline that was not originally intended. 2) When the crises ends and the price stabilizes there is a lag before the price is lowered at the pump – a period of extra margin gain (profit) on the down side. Now ask yourself is that gouging or just good business practices? It would appear to this uneducated consumer that it is a form of gouging because there is no doubt it could be controlled a little tighter to insure the consumer is receiving the fair market price previously determined.
Some years ago I had a deference of opinion concerning gouging with a then very prominent radio commentator who has long ago retired. He thought local merchants had a right to raise prices on portable generators the moment the crises began and demand increased and referred to it as a matter of supply and demand. I called it gouging, or personal greed, because it’s taking advantage of a crises beyond the control of the victims at a time when they needed their hard earned money the most. If those generators could have been purchased at anytime for the price advertised, but the price was doubled because everyone now needed one has to be considered gouging. On the other hand, had a merchant went out of his way and with great effort and additional expense on his part to acquire additional generators that were badly needed, would have had every right to raise the price to recover his additional expense and at the same percent of profit of the original generators would not be considered gouging. I suggested that the citizens of that area where the price was doubled should have treated this business as a pariah in the future.
It’s obvious that there will always be a fine line between gouging and supply and demand and the educated consumer alone will have to decide which.
What do you think?
Huck
PeterS – Those states that chose to secede from the union were American citizens thinking they were exercising their Constitutional rights to do so. How can you possibly lump them in with international enemies of the state such as our enemies of WWII. These are two completely different issues. Surely you could have used a better analogy than that. I fear what we have here is another shallow thinker. Huck
acknowlodgeurma, Your thinking is a little too shallow, start thinking a little deeper. Yes they were all born into a social structured system they did not create nor could not escape from any easier than the s***es themselves. It’s so easy today to stand in judgment of those living in a time that we today cannot truly empathize with. We cannot relate our social evolvement into what we become today into what they had to live within in their day. Yes, Lee, Jackson and Davis were all historical figures that help create the greatest country man had ever known, but were they saints, No! However, maybe they even knew that s***ery would someday have to end and all have now faced that great Judgment Day in the sky for all their sins here on earth. They were not however the founding fathers that signed their life away on the Declaration of Independence Or the Constitution and these are also being the patriots whose pictures and statues must be destroyed simply because they were s***e holders. The attempts to change history by destroying the symbols of history have not changed history and never will and those that do are ignorant fools or catering to it for personal gain. Huck.
Randy131, Thanks and I understand, but I just don't have time for it. At 88, I've been around the block a couple times and my instincts and memory have served me well over the years. Also I'm very involved with book writing and my time on OPP is limited, but thanks. You are right on. Huck.
Randy131, Then I take it you agree with me. Huck
StraightUp –
I want to start by telling you that you have written a very accurate and comprehensive piece that I agree with totally. Now comes the However part: What you don’t say is that the ACLU always wins because they take cases that are constitutionally right, but always favors the left. Oh yes, they have their token right wing cases to claim impartiality, but they are basically considered a left wing organization and I believe rightly so.
In order to ask you the next question I have to express my despicable hatred For the KKK and all W***e S*******y organizations in order not to be accused of supporting them and hopefully you’ll believe me. However, I need to ask if you can document a time in recent history when either these two or any other rightwing organization that were marching and demonstrating legally wherever - threw the first punch? I’ve watched many of these protests that have erupted into violence and yet to see the radical, so-called rightwing group, start the fight. As h**ed as they are they had every right to protest legally wh**ever without hindrance from radical leftwing groups, but for reasons you should know well, they are always given the blame.
Regardless of how we feel personally about these groups, right or left, the blame has to be honestly placed where it belongs. The stupid sap that ran over and k**led a lady happened after a long day of r**ting and did not cause the initial eruption. Do you know who started it?
Overall StraightUp, your post appears to have an overall slightly blue haze surrounding it. Hopefully I’m wrong.
Huck
straightUp wrote:
I want to take a moment to issue my opinion about the role the A****a takes in what appears to be a rise in violent confrontations between Americans. I don't personally know anyone who is associated with A****a and to be honest, I don't know much about the organization, other than the fact that they consider themselves anti-f*****t, which I am too but are they really helping the current resistance to f*****m?
I have two separate reactions to the recent fuss over A****a depending on the argument I am responding too.
To those on the right, who seem to jump at the chance to make A****a the centerpeice of blame or a distraction from the antics of w***e s*******y groups. I say this... If you're going to promote bigotry and hatred, don't be surprised if you get some backsplash.
To those on the left, who support A****a, I say this... Chill out.
As frustrating as the current government might be, it is still bound by a functioning framework of laws so it's not too late to leverage that constitutional system. In fact it's this system of laws that has so far stopped every white nationalist aspect of Trump's agenda in it's tracks. What the resistance needs is more emphasis on laws and local politics. A good example of resistance is the ACLU, an organization viciously h**ed by the right *because* they are so effective. And the ACLU is effective because they focus on our system of laws. Whenever you hear someone on the right saying "the liberals are destroying America", they are almost always describing their frustration (whether they know it or not) over ACLU victories within the context of our constitutional framework.
In contrast, A****a is totally counterproductive. I *do* understand the frustration young Americans are feeling toward Trump and the white nationalists and the attraction of confronting them. I understand the feeling that you just want to beat the living s**t out them. But this is the sentiment we hear being expressed by right-wing extremists about liberals, Jews, b****s and... well anyone who isn't a white nationalist. Do we really want to stoop to the same level? ...it's not a winning strategy.
Noam Chomsky recently described A****a as a "major gift to the Right, including the militant Right, who are exuberant." Indeed they are because every time we accuse right-wing extremism of violence or intolerance, they have the ability to accuse the left-wing of the same thing and in the tiny minds that seem to gravitate to the extremes, one sin is a good excuse for another. So why give them such an easy pitch?
I'm not saying there will never be a point where violence *IS* the answer and I will admit that A****a is a nice reminder that plenty of Americans are willing to confront the f*****m of the white national movement but I don't think we've reached a point yet where we've run out of better alternatives. I think we need to give the constitutional system a little more faith because so far it's proving to be the better strategy.
Leave the violence to the f*****ts on the right and let the law handle it. Recognize the self-defeating nature of their violence. Look at Ruby Ridge, Waco and any of their i***t "stand-offs" did they win ANY of them? Look where their violence got them in Charlottesville... They went in with the intention of preserving one statue of Robert E. Lee and because of their violence (specifically, the murder of an American citizen) they came out loosing something like 19 different Confederate monuments throughout the country. That's what you call a backfire.
This is why the alt-right is loosing the America they want, because groups like the ACLU keep winning legal battles in the system, where the less-capable alt-right depends on public outrage to drive the battle which often results in violations of the legal system and guaranteed defeat.
We should try to keep it that way, at least while we still have a functioning constitutional system.
I want to take a moment to issue my opinion about ... (
show quote)
Don’t offend me by being offended!
What right does anyone have the to desecrate or destroy historical monuments simply because they are offended. What right or law guaranteed them the right not to be offended? As has been said here by another they are offended by a******n clinics but does that give them the right to destroy them? No!
These great Americans whose statues attest to the greatness of this nation’s accomplishments and freedoms were born into a social structured system they did not create or could not escape from any more than the s***es themselves, but through their wisdom a system of ending s***ery the world over was created by their desire to create a government that would eventually provide equal freedom and opportunity for all men regardless of color. To destroy their monuments will not destroy their accomplishments that will forever be recorded in the annuals of history.
Yes, many of our great patriotic leaders of that time were s***e holders, but many expressed there abhorrence to s***ery and knew that in time it would have to go, but to judge them in contemporaneity is wrongheaded and thoughtless. I’m sure the first couple of generations of freed s***es would not agree nor would they have v**ed for those of today that want to destroy all memory of these great American patriots. They damn sure wouldn’t be v****g the Democrat ticket today after living several generations under the Democrat’s Jim Crow laws. There are too many government leaders today in both parties that need to be reeducated.
Huck
Molly2399 wrote:
As a member of the Convention of States you are right on.
I am replying to all here when I say that we can never have another convention if you like the country the way it is supposed to be now. The mischief that can be created in a convention with lawmakers of today would destroy this country as we know it. The amendment process as outlined within the Constitution is the only sound and fair way to change those areas we would like to see changed. Huck
Quitarman, The last thing anyone in their right mind should want is another convention of states. Every one of the items, except #3 can best be handled by the normal Amendment process now outlined within our Constitution. It’s a purposely slower process but the safest. There is still debate going on concerning the right of states to secede from the union. I believe many states would not have ratified the Constitution if they had any thought it was so and I believe some states constitutions have that so written. It’s wise to stay away from another Convention in this day and age – you wouldn’t recognize your country after its ratification. Huck
Ipmmajor, are you out of your mind? Politicians the world over meet with other political operatives almost on a daily basis. That in itself is not a crime. A crime may be based on the purpose or intent, but not contact. He did not have to recluse himself. He did it because he is a responsible Republican conservative, like most, that will always unnecessarily give away the store to just get along. No Democrat would have ever reclused him, or herself, in the same situation and you know it. Huck
Are we at the brink of disaster?
Is our country virtually on the brink of disaster? Is the experiment in Representative Government about over? If you have been watching the news and aware of current events you would have to consider it so!
The forces of evil, being the Democrat Party, Deep State, progressive movement and many elected members of the Republican Party that are not sure where their loyalties lie, have over the past few decades been promoting one Global Government, but the destruction of a Representative government by the people must happen first.
The forces of evil did not go quietly into the night with the e******n of Donald Trump as losers of e******ns have done in the past, which has separated us from other Tin Pot Democracies around the world. They would not accept the results of the people, but to the contrary, they doubled down harder and have marshaled there forces to this point very effectively.
With the appointment of Sessions as Attorney General, who naively, but mistakenly recluses himself from any Russian Collusion investigation, gave the left the opening they needed to possibly bring Trump’s administration to an end by events that followed.
If you look back closely to what happened with the firing of FBI director Comey and his intent to have a Special Prosecutor look into the Russian Collusion matter you can see how all this was coming together. With the appointment of Rosenstein as deputy Attorney General, who by the way was confirmed by 42 Democrat Senators, which makes him a little suspect from the very beginning because we know the Democrats v**e by ideology not qualification like the Republicans have done in the past and have had it all come back and bite them in the ass.
Because Sessions had reclused himself it was the sole choice of Rosenstein to appoint Mueller as Special Counsel who immediately surrounded himself with a large cadre of left wing lawyers and investigators to look into Russian Collusion, but now have spread out looking far beyond his original intent.
They have now put Trump in a very precarious position that may be best left alone and let events take their course. Trump personally cannot fire Mueller. The only person that can fire Mueller would have to be the person that appointed him and that would be Rosenstein. Trump can only ask Rosenstein to do it and we now know he would probably resign before doing so. If that would occur Trump would have to go down the line of succession to find one who has been confirmed by the senate within the Justice department to do it (Remember the Saturday night massacre) and it would not turn out good for Trump.
I personally think Trump should fight back with another special Counsel appointed by Sessions to investigate all the Democrat law breaking and the counsel would have free reign over who and what to investigate.
It appears to me that the forces of evil have laid there trap well and I feel the outcome looks very bleak for Trump and his administration and the consequences, or fallout from this could very well create a real civil war that would be disastrous for our nation. The evil forces within our government at this time are far more dangerous to the future of our way of life than all the foreign forces combined.
Huck