Gingerkid's comment history

Gingerkid said...

@frontrowgentleman- "Be honest with yourselves for one minute. Do you really think you are a better person because you are Manager/Junior Partner somewhere? You probably wish you could forget most of the things you have learned/seen.."

This statement alone shows exactly why you don't appreciate the value of years of experience in business and in life generally. You cannot appreciate something you do not have. It's okay. When I was 25, I thought I knew everything, too. At 33, I realize that I was woefully wrong. I'm sure at 43, I'll realize how much of an idiot I am right now.

So, that begs the question: What is an appropriate age to run for Congress? It's certainly different for each person, but I'll bet the farm that 25 is way too young. Further, I am very, very hesitant to vote anyone into Congress that (1) is not married and (2) has no children. Those two parts of life are so very important to personal development that they cannot be overstated.

December 5, 2011 at 4:42 p.m.
Gingerkid said...

I'll be 33 this week. It is astounding when I think about how much I've learned via life and business experience since I was 25. As I reflect about why I find WW's campaign offensive, I think it's a combination of fators. I do not necessarily object to him being a former Congressman's son. I do not object to young man being in Congress. However, a 25 year old who is the son of the former Congressman just doesn't pass the smell test for me. To say he lacks experience is a resounding understatement.

December 5, 2011 at 4:29 p.m.
Gingerkid said...

@Hambone--I agree that an honest poll worker would stop it. That's the problem. The poll workers don't stop it. The funny part is that you keep referencing "that" case the "the ones." This happens ALL THE TIME. There isn't much documentation/prosecution because there's almost no way in the world to catch the wrong-doers--either they vote as someone else or they walk out the door when told they can't vote--how do you propose we arrest those folks? If the poll worker is allowing people to vote with no registration card, then anybody can walk in and vote as anybody else, unless that person has already voted in that election.

What the photo ID law provides is the basis for a poll watcher (not worker) to challenge a voter who cannot prove who he or she is. Previously, all that potential voter would have to do is sign an affidavit promising that they are the voter on the rolls. Well, if a person is immoral enough to walk into a poll and claim to be someone else, why not sign an afidavit?

Please don't compare your admittedly small town polling place to an inner city poll in Memphis. They might as well be on different planets. I have seen with my own eyes, busloads of voters wait until 10 minutes before the poll closed, then they all got off the buses at the same time and crowded into the polling place, thereby rushing the workers (who just want to go home and are now less likely to demand proof of ID). It works like a charm. Also, the TV news just happened to show up at this "under-served" polling precinct where voters had to wait in line for an hour. Well, they could've voted 10 minutes earlier when no voters were in the building and they were sitting in the parking lot. It's the political games that make me angry. I'm sure it was just a coincidence that the TFP showed up at the DMV and this story broke. It was clearly a setup.

October 23, 2011 at 3:19 p.m.
Gingerkid said...

@Echo - Please shut up. @mymy - Democrat voter fraud in Shelby County start LONG before 2008. It's been going on for decades. @Hambone - "like all other cases of voter fraud" is certainly a broad stroke. In Memphis, if a person walked into a poll and said he was "Jim Smith" and lives at "123 Main St" but didn't have his voter card, they let him vote in many cases, with no proof that he is Jim Smith. It was not uncommon, after the fact, to discover (i) Jim Smith was recently deceased but not yet expunged from the voter rolls OR (ii) 123 Main St is a vacant lot.

When I lived in Memphis, I was on the GOP team that helped investigate the Ophelia Ford election in 2004(I think that the year). All we needed to find was 14 illegitimate votes to nullify the results. We found 15 without trying hard. Requiring a photo ID is the simplest way to solve both of these common voter fraud techniques.

October 22, 2011 at 10:07 p.m.
Gingerkid said...

First of all, headcoconut clearly has a full understanding of the electronic voting machines, considering the company is called Diebold, not diabol. You have obviously done lots of research on your own to determine your own opinion of the voting machines, instead of just relying on scare mongers' scare tactics. [sarcasm]

Secondly, the assertion that the photo ID law hurts or helps one side more than the other is just plain false. We should all be happy about this step to legitimize the voting process. The instances of dead people voting, people voting more than once, and people who claim to live at addresses where there is no dwelling have all been well-documented, especially in Shelby County. The best way to remedy this problem is to require the photo ID that 99% of voting citizens have on their person all the time anyway--a photo ID. End of story.

October 22, 2011 at 11:07 a.m.
Gingerkid said...

Too soon, Weston, way too soon. The phrase "born on third base and claiming to have hit a triple" comes to mind. More than any other reason not to vote for Weston, the arrogance and plain old lack of respect are top on my list. The suggestion that any 24 year old (especially one who is unmarried and has no children) is a proper selection for Congress is disturbing.

October 3, 2011 at 3:38 p.m.
Gingerkid said...

This poll is a joke, right? Anybody who has owned a VW or Audi will give an emphatic answer of NO to this question. Unless you have a full coverage warranty at all times or just like blowing money on repairs, never buy a VW/Audi.

September 3, 2011 at 2:54 p.m.
Gingerkid said...
  1. "it has been clear for some time that the reason for the banks’ rapid repayments of TARP aid was to eliminate the prospect of a demand for reimbursement of bonuses." WHAT? This editorial is fraught with faulty causation. 11 of the 17 firms didnt pay the TARP funds back so that they could pay the evil bonuses without worrying about public scrutiny. They paid the TARP funds back because they didn't need them in the first place. I'll say it again, THE FEDS MADE 11 FIRMS TAKE THE TARP FUNDS AND PAY IT BACK WITH INTEREST. MADE them take the money. I would prefer the more logical opinion 11 firms paid the TARP funds back so quickly on the first possible payback day because they didn't want to pay interest on funds they didn't need to borrow in the first place.
  2. More misplaced causation. As important as this writer feel Mr. Feinberg is, I can, without pause, promise you that Mr. Feinberg's criticism of CitiGroup's bonuses is NOT what caused them to sell to Occidental. That is absurd. As stated in your own editorial here, Mr. Feinberg's allegations had no teeth; he wasn't able to do anything to these firms. Since that is the case, Citi would only sell that if it made good business sense. The writer's overinflated sense of Mr. Feinberg's relevance is insulting to the intelligence. The only reason Mr. Fienberg has this job is to make devils out of financial institutions and the "greedy" people who work in the financial industry. The Obama administration knows his lawsuits have no legal teeth. Therefore, we are only left with the conclusion that Feinberg's entire job and his allegations are for a public perception and smear campaign, paid for by your tax dollars.
  3. Lastly, after this year's sovereign debt crisis in Europe, is anyone really looking to Europe for guidance regarding how to run a government? I think this continues to be one of Obama's glaring errors. More like Europe = more financial problems.
July 24, 2010 at 8:36 a.m.
Gingerkid said...

I am not even sure where to start with this editorial, so I'll just go in order of the column. 1. "reckless gambling in derivatives and other exotic, and often toxic"--that is part of what financial institutions do. They make risky investments and hope to make money for their customers. Using hyperbolic adjectives to describe the investments makes them seem evil. Nobody complained when these risky, exotic and toxic investments were making money. They were just as risky and exotic then. The problem lies in the fact that the government should not be in the business of bailing out firms that engage in risky investments. Because, if they get bailed out, the risk is removed and they can do as much of it as they want without fear of losing money. 2. Why does the government have a "special master for executive compensation"? Further, are we surprised that Feinberg's study "confirms what we have suspected about the extent of bankers’ greed that drove them to make those risky investments"? Of course we aren't surprised. The federal government had a huge hand in the meltdown and in the subsequent mandated bailouts and it is very interested in making sure there is a boogeyman other than itself. Repeatedly calling financial institutions "greedy" only serves to fuel that unsubstantiated fire of hatred. 3. Now we get to the meat of the editorial--that bonuses were paid by firms that received TARP money. Two points here:(i)11 of the 17 firms that received TARP money didn't want or need the money. The feds made them take the money and made them pay interest on it. Why should those firms be prevented from paying bonuses? (ii)Most executive bonus packages are contractual obligations of the company. Further, many executives' compensation arrangements spell out that most of their pay is in the form of bonuses. So, if the firm doesn't pay an executive a contractual bonus, what happens? The firm get sued, which will end up costing far more than simply paying the execs. When the feds decided to step in and help, they knew that the funds would be used to satisfy any and all of those firms' obligations. Money is fungible. Firms took the TARP money to lesson the bleeding regarding toxic assets and that freed up funds to help them make bonus obligations.

July 24, 2010 at 8:35 a.m.
Gingerkid said...

This is possibly the most poorly written article I have ever read. First of all, the writer demonstrates his (or her, since the article is unsigned) ignorance of our state’s firearm law by stating that Tennessee residents can obtain “carry concealed weapons” permits. Tennessee residents can obtain a handgun carry permit, after successfully completing a handgun course, demonstrating proficiency in using a handgun, passing a background check, and putting themselves through the ordeal of fingerprinting and applying, including paying $115. This handgun carry permit allows a permit holder to carry a loaded weapon openly or concealed any place that is allowed by state or federal law. Shouldn’t an author be acquainted with the basics of the topic about which he/she is writing? I guess not.

Now to the proposed bills before the General Assembly: Allowing permit holders to carry in establishments that serve alcohol by the drink has been a concern of mine for some time. When I go to Outback, for instance, am I to leave my weapon in my vehicle? Is it not more easily accessible by criminals when the weapon is not on my person? Furthermore, if we take the writer’s perspective, then it begs the following question: If restaurants that serve food and alcohol before 11pm are such bastions of violence, wouldn’t an unknown number of “CCW” holders who are carrying effectively reduce the instances of violence in a given establishment. Back to reality: We’re talking about Applebee’s here. When is the last time you saw a fight in an Applebee’s?

Firearms should be allowed in state parks and wilderness areas for the same reason the writer believes guns should not be allowed. It’s remote. If a predator is to pick a location for horrible, violent crimes, what better place than a state park? You know that the people there aren’t armed, and chances are that your crime won’t be witnessed or even noticed for quite some time. Secondly, aren’t there wild animals in state parks? There have often been times I have wanted my pistol close at hand, as I lie in my tent, with the coyotes howling at what seems like 10 feet away.

The database closure issue doesn’t bother me as much. Allowing the public to access permit holder’s names is no big deal. However, the Commercial Appeal’s database search revealed MY date of birth and address. Why not go ahead and give identity thieves my mother’s maiden name and my social security number? I don’t mind if people know I have a handgun carry permit. In fact, I would say that most people I know already know that I have a permit. However, giving that much personal information is downright irresponsible.

I must admit that there are coherent arguments for the restriction of loaded weapon carry in certain places. I don’t agree with most of them, but at least they make logical sense. However, this writer completely misses the boat. I’m pretty libertarian and “pro-gun,” and I could write a better gun control article than this.

March 3, 2009 at 10:39 a.m.
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.