"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
If the government is not exercising many of its
functions, responsibilities and duties now, why would any sane
person let them acquire additional power and responsibility?

Because it's been extremely succesful in - - - - Canada.

You must have noticed that their own banking and financial
services industry avoided ( by direction ) the noose the rest
of the world ran it's neck into.
snip
=========
A good argument for outsourcing. How much do you think Canada
would charge to run the US? Nothing else seems to have
worked....

I doubt that you could wrap a big enough ball of cash around that
order to get them interested.
LOL

I wish I'd saved the link to a piece Christia Freeland wrote for
the Financial Times recently.
You might have seen it anyway.

It's he

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/db2b340a-0...44feabdc0.html

Worth reading, IMO.

Off the subject completely but LaHood made a statement today that
Toyota drivers ought to stop driving their cars until they can be
fixed.
How's that for poking your biggest competitor right in the eye!
I wonder if these turkey's EVER think before they speak. I'd be mad
as hell
if I were a Toyota shareholder right about now.
My tax payments would have just enabled one of my competitors to
mess with sales figures and the valuation of my equity.

He was a little over the top, but, as you mention in another post, he
pulled back from that one.

It's an interesting question: Should the government keep its mouth
shut about a safety problem in order to preserve the profitability of
stockholders at some particular company?

The government ordinarily exercises great restraint in these matters Ed.
Something else disturbing in the weekend news was Obama/Holder's statement
that we were going to try, convict, and then execute criminal defendants.
He's contaminated the entire US jury pool. WTF?

Free speech. g I don't think that jury pools are contaminated by a
statement by a prosecutor, no matter how high up he is. Prosecuters argue
for execution right in their faces, while they're sitting in the jury box.


Such statements aren't without precedent but they are extremely ill
advised,
prejudicial, and cause for a mistrial.

If it was a judge saying that, I'd agree with you.

They make a mockery of the purpose of bringing the Gitmo detainees to US
soil for their day in court and I thought that was the entire reason the
administration wanted to proceed that way in the beginning.
Idiots......

--
John R. Carroll