I Wear Pants;1040748 wrote:If the government followed the laws of economics it would have ended much of what it does by this point. They don't.

I Wear Pants;1040746 wrote:So shit like advertising $9 fares is cool when it isn't true at all?

Cleveland Buck;1040763 wrote:As long as they don't say it is $9 and charge your card for $200. That is theft, and a legal matter, not a federal matter.

But if their advertising is that deceitful there are many ways to spread the word so that people will stop using that airline, at least until the feds lock down the internet.

majorspark;1040762 wrote:I am not talking about the government voluntarily following the laws of economics. It will come by force.

I Wear Pants;1040767 wrote:So false advertising is acceptable then?

Look, I'm not for making it harder to operate businesses. It's already hard enough. But being a shady business shouldn't even be an option. It's not good for businesses to have to compete with these people and it isn't good for consumers.

Cleveland Buck;1040772 wrote:Did I say it was acceptable? Or that it can be dealt with without being a federal case? And it depends on what you mean by "shady business". Businesses and people that commit fraud or theft should be prosecuted. Businesses that advertise one price and then tell you a higher price in person will have to deal with enough hostile people and loss of business that they will either change their ways or close their doors.

I Wear Pants;1040774 wrote:I disagree about the last part in a market where the modus operandi is to do this for all the companies involved and the start up cost to create a competitor makes it almost impossible for new competitors to enter the field.

Cleveland Buck;1040780 wrote:Well in a free market that isn't the case and those laws are unnecessary. If you are talking about our fascist economy right now, sure. But getting of rid of federal consumer protection laws like that is the last thing I would fix if I were tasked with restoring a free market economy to this country.

I Wear Pants;1040800 wrote:In a free market what I said still applies. If all the airlines decide that not posting the actual price is a cool thing to do then the consumers lose because being realistic about the costs of doing so there aren't going to be new competitors popping up which is sort of the crux of a free market working properly. If this was like a coffee chain or something I'd agree with you because it's easier to just buy from somewhere else or for a newer, more customer friendly competitor to enter the fold. Not really the case in industries like the airlines, electric, etc where the cost of entry to the market is impossibly high.

QuakerOats;1041073 wrote:The only upcoming war I see on the horizon is the civil war we are going to have between the producers and the takers, the providers and the dependency class, the tax payers and the tax takers.

QuakerOats;1041073 wrote:The only upcoming war I see on the horizon is the civil war we are going to have between the producers and the takers, the providers and the dependency class, the tax payers and the tax takers.

QuakerOats;1041166 wrote: Of course, they will be gone a year from now anyway; whether we can survive until then is the only question.

QuakerOats;1041073 wrote:The only upcoming war I see on the horizon is the civil war we are going to have between the producers and the takers, the providers and the dependency class, the tax payers and the tax takers.

Cleveland Buck;1041297 wrote:Huntsman is Obama. There is literally zero difference between them in their policies. There is no way he would beat him. Romney, Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum would never beat him either. The only one that can beat him is Paul, but if he wins the nomination the Republicans and bankers will put up someone like Trump or Palin as a 3rd party to make sure Obama wins.

derek bomar;1041364 wrote:Go on...

And for the sheep that will get behind Huntsman when he gets his media push at the last minute before New Hampshire, here is his record. Maybe we can nip this shit in the bud.

Spending increased 34% during his term as governor of Utah.

Wants to maintain a permanent military presence in Afghanistan.

Would preemptively attack Iran without provocation.

In 2008, Governor Huntsman “announced a plan in his state budget proposal that would include $400 million in bond funding through the Utah Housing Corp. to buy mortgage-backed securities from Utah lenders.” The President of the Utah Housing Corporation at the time described the plan, which would “…essentially have the agency acting as the state's version of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.”

Quote supporting amnesty:
"Well, then you have to deal realistically with the fact that you've got 12 million people here who've broken the law. I think fines are in order, coming up with a process whereby they pay fines, the learn English, other criteria must be met. But there would be some sort of legitimate pathway that brings them into some safer status and out from the shadows."

Quote about Obama's stimulus:
"I guess in hindsight we can all say that there were some fundamental flaws with it. It probably wasn’t large enough and, number two, there probably wasn’t enough stimulus effect."

Huntsman Supports Health Insurance Mandate
http://youtu.be/86DbFEszjr0

"Stimulus Would Be Welcome Relief"
http://youtu.be/3K3Nqt7JNbY

Huntsman Supports TARP Bailouts
http://youtu.be/OJjggxdfkho

Huntsman Supports Cap and Trade
http://youtu.be/_YcCFDZvNec

Cleveland Buck;1041297 wrote:Huntsman is Obama. There is literally zero difference between them in their policies. There is no way he would beat him. Romney, Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum would never beat him either. The only one that can beat him is Paul, but if he wins the nomination the Republicans and bankers will put up someone like Trump or Palin as a 3rd party to make sure Obama wins.

Footwedge;1041295 wrote:The providers are heavy, heavy favorites to win. Maybe Hitler had the right idea, no? Wiping out all the bottom feeders could be called "the final solution..part 2". More soup for us I figger.

fish82;1041369 wrote:Both Mittens and Newt are currently polling 3-5 points ahead of Bam in the 13 swing states that will decide the election. Paul leads Bam in none of them. Your "Paul is the only one who can win" schtick is both wrong and tiresome.

derek bomar;1041280 wrote:Wanna bet? Not that I prefer him, but he would beat Romney, Perry, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul. I actually think Huntsman could beat him, but Republicans for some reason hate the guy. Go figure.