Venezuela continues to sink in misery

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 hours ago, mthebold said:

It's the original, correct definition.  The term "liberal" was commandeered by idiots, unfortunately.  The question is whether Jan can successfully take it back. 

Paul, thank you for pointing this out.  The hijacking of original concepts by political partisans is a continuing problem.  The Liberal is a person with a certain upbringing and approach to life.  Yes, it was hijacked by political partisans, who have corrupted the concept beyond recognition.  No, I cannot successfully take it back.  I have very, very little input into the political input-stream. 

On the same continuum, lunatic partisans have hijacked just about everything else, to the point where original words and definitions have become meaningless, to be replaced by strident shouting.  The word "Conservative" had a specific original meaning.  A Conservative was, at one time, a person who sought to conserve the gains in society and social thinking.  Thus, a person who was inclined to adhere to the original meanings in the US Constitution, known generically as "Originalists," would be  a Conservative.  

A Conservative generally would be inclined to be careful with runaway taxes, would want a limited-powers government, and would seek to place all residual, unenumerated powers, into the hands of, and be reserved to, the People.  

Where problems start to arise is when the opponents to these positions start to try to belittle the other side, to the extent you can divide people politically into "sides."  Was John F. Kennedy a Liberal or a Conservative?  You can make a good argument for the case that he was both - he certainly wanted to see society continue to evolve into one "more just", as Dr. Zhivago famously said upon returning to his Moscow home and finding another 17 families living in it,  while simultaneously seeking to retain [American] society's cultural evolution, away from the primitivism of the 1800's. 

Today the politics has become so poisonous and so loaded with code-words that the fanatical elements have taken over, and I see little hope for any return to normalcy as to the political landscape. Conservatives, believing in limited government and limited taxes, get shouted down as Nazis and Fascists.  Liberals, believing in treating all with decency and expanded government social programs  (and the enhanced taxes to pay for it) get shouted down as Communists and Socialists and Libtards and Morons and all kinds of other unflattering, vulgar epithets.  None of this is helpful. 

Looking at academia, you find this useful term "a liberal education."  the "liberal" part in there references a large measure of the study of the classics, say  of Faust by Goethe.  It would also include the study and mastery of German, and French, at least.  It would include study of the writings of Voltaire, and Shakespeare, and Plato.  And it would include a healthy dip into the sciences, including biology, physics,chemistry and medicine, as without an understanding of the physical world one does not have a well-rounded education.  The person that emerges from all this effort then has an appreciation of the cultural basis from which he springs, and is tempered in ideas of radicalism by that appreciation. 

And you can say a lot similarly of the Conservative.   A lot of all this has been lost in the current vicious political climate. It has been devolving into camps of political authoritarianism, with both camps being authoritarian and seeking total control of society, according to their visions,  IN that sense, the political camps are both seceding into both Communist authoritarianism and Fascist authoritarianism, and the abuses and murders that flow naturally from those lines of social thinking.  

I cry for America. 

[Rodent + 1,424]

10 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Thus, a person who was inclined to adhere to the original meanings in the US Constitution, known generically as "Originalists," would be  a Conservative.  

A Conservative generally would be inclined to be careful with runaway taxes, would want a limited-powers government, and would seek to place all residual, unenumerated powers, into the hands of, and be reserved to, the People.  

I believe this is precisely what it still means today. I might replace "originalist" with "constitutionalist" but then I'd just be splitting hairs. 

Regarding the "liberal" definition: 

Webster: "of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives"

Oxford: "Regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change" and " favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform." That too seems pretty applicable. 

oldest definition I could fine of liberal as a noun "

liberal (n.)

1820, "member of the progressive and reformist political party of Great Britain, an anti-Whig," from liberal (adj.). General meaning "person of liberal political principles or tendencies" (without reference to party) is by 1832; in reference to persons of a political ideology not conservative or fascist but short of socialism, from c. 1920. Also used from early 20c. of ministers from less-dogmatic Christian churches.

I would agree wholeheartedly that JFK would not be classified politically today the same way he was during his presidency.

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, Rodent said:

I believe this is precisely what it still means today. I might replace "originalist" with "constitutionalist" but then I'd just be splitting hairs. 

 

The term "Originalist" is that of Mr. Justice Antonin Scalia.  He avoided "constitutionalist" in that the original Constitution has been amended multiple times.  This is not to suggest that Justice Scalia would obstruct the various Amendments or for that matter any Statute of Congress.  Indeed, Justice Scalia wrote a powerful Opinion on the enforcement of Congressional Statute, as written by Congress, and not to be tampered with by the judiciary, in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc,, 574 U.S. ___ , 135 S. Ct. 790; 190 L. Ed. 2d 650.   Interestingly, large numbers of Judges, particularly State Court judges, have been ignoring Jesinoski, mostly because they don't like the result it requires.  Justice Scalia roundly slapped them down.  

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

17 hours ago, SERWIN said:

I feel so sorry for your babies, starving to death before life even began.... Why do the children have to be on the front lines here? Dying because of a horrible government's lack of self control, destroying the one resource that could have kept all this from happening. I feel so sad inside when I see those pictures of emaciated little children, and the parents that have them must feel so horrible about what is going on. It's torture to watch someone die a slow death.

So true. 

We need to get back on topic.

[Bobby Cullari + 1]

WELCOME TO UTOPIA! 

[Stormin 0]

On 12/10/2018 at 7:05 AM, Rodent said:

Venezuela's only hope is that China or Russia will come in with some seriously big dollars. not of course to save the Venezuelan people out of the goodness of their heart, but to get their hands on all the oil. 

Russia has already floated Venezuela some more money. money that is supposed to add 1 million BPD to Venezuela's oil production. of course it's going to take way more money than that and I have no faith that this batch of money is going to produce that significant of a result. I agree that Venezuela's problems are so deep that it will take a near-miracle.

I can't even imagine living in those kinds of conditions. I think it is only a matter of time before the people, starving and dying, revolt and overthrow their shady government.

@jose chalhoub

I think the only hope for Venezuelans are Cryptos Dash maybe to control inflation.

forget Venezuela USA will be Argentina & soon with inflation out of control powers at be not giving a Damn!

Edited December 22, 2018 by Stormin

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 12/17/2018 at 9:46 AM, TXPower said:

 2016 Centers for Disease Control statistics demonstrate that 38,658 people died as a result of firearms in the U.S.  The vast majority, 22,938, were self-inflicted.  Of the total firearms deaths 14,415 were homicide.  The same year statistics from the CDC show that 38,748 people were killed in traffic related accidents.  I guess we could lower that by confiscating motor vehicles.  

The U.S. does have a higher rate of gun deaths per capita than your example of Denmark.  Viewed in context however, with US population in 2016 at 325 million and Denmark at 5.73 million, we were bound to have more.

 

Self-inflicted deaths are still deaths.  Suicide attempts are not always effective - you don't get much of a "cry for help" when there is a gun in the house.

Do you know what "per capita" means?

Almost everyone drives a car.

Edited December 22, 2018 by Enthalpic

[Illurion + 894]

2 hours ago, mthebold said:

Upon rereading this, I realized I'm not familiar with the "primitivism" of the 1800's, and that limits my understanding of my own culture.  Can you expand on that concept or point me towards a good resource? 

Uh Oh

You just opened a can of worms.

Remember,  in another thread,  Red and Jan had no problem with the recent politically correct weaponization of the definition of NATIONALISM,  and as Jan had earlier presented a very "sweet" definition of LIBERALISM,   (which of course,  by opposite effect, weaponized the definition of CONSERVATISM),    so what do you think he will write about this ?

Seat belts please...

Edited January 2, 2019 by Illurion

[Illurion + 894]

31 minutes ago, mthebold said:

 There's a more general principle we can glean from these "sweet" definitions: when we discuss, we must always look for the good in what the other person is saying.  When we intentionally look for the bad, we're nitpicking. 

We usually agree,  but in my own defense,  i was not "intentionally" looking for (or expecting)  bad in what Jan could write about "primitivism"....

I was simply saying that his answer may very well send us off into a long series of posts and counter-posts if Jan "sweetens" whatever definition he presents.

In other words,  i was making a joke.

I guess the joke is on me.

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, Illurion said:

We usually agree,  but in my own defense,  i was not "intentionally" looking for (or expecting)  bad in what Jan could write about "primitivism"....

I was simply saying that his answer may very well send us off into a long series of posts and counter-posts if Jan "sweetens" whatever definition he presents.

In other words,  i was making a joke.

I guess the joke is on me.

 

Not at all.  I got it.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

7 hours ago, mthebold said:

I was present for that conversation; participated in it, actually.  In fact, Jan's definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" are precisely why I want his thoughts on "primitivism". 

Far from "weaponizing" the definition of conservatism, Jan offered an equally "sweet" definition that factually presented conservatism's core idea: preservation of value already obtained.  That's the Important Thing(TM) conservatism aims to achieve.  In addition to presenting the original motivations for and factual definitions of "liberal" and "conservative", Jan offered something practical: definitions we can all respect, learn from, and discuss.  I.e. he re-framed the discussion such that the rest of us could break out of our vitriolic loop.  Even if his definitions were historically wrong, I'd adopt them for that practical merit alone. 

There's a more general principle we can glean from these "sweet" definitions: when we discuss, we must always look for the good in what the other person is saying.  When we intentionally look for the bad, we're nitpicking.  Nitpicking devolves the conversation into a battle, after which both sides end up frustrated, more entrenched in their own position, and somehow less informed of their opponent's point of view.  By contrast, when we look for the good in what they say - temporarily glossing over perceived errors - we can understand their intent and find common ground.  E.g. I can disagree with the specific policies a leftist proposes while acknowledging that the Important Thing they aim to achieve is progress.  Acknowledging the value of their Important Thing puts us on the same team.  From there, we can make progress.

Taking a slightly different tack on "look for the good", no one is perfect.  At no point will a person express themselves perfectly.  At no point will their words be free of emotional bias.  At no point will their views be independent of the traumas and heartaches they, personally, have experienced.  I'm OK with that because I'm no better than they are.  To communicate through all this imperfection, each person must intentionally look for the Kernel of Truth(TM) in the other's words.  Once the kernels are found, they're able to truly see and acknowledge each other.  From that rudimentary foundation of respect, trust, and understanding, people can discuss.  Not talk at each other, as usually happens; actually discuss.  From discussion, solutions can emerge. 

I don't agree with everything Jan says - and trying to envision his intellectual world is certainly work - but he usually offers an excellent Kernel of Truth.  It's worth the effort. 

Wow.  Paul, I remain staggered and humbled by the power of your intellect. 

(  And incidentally, I remain a Monarchist.  That posture allows me to conveniently side-step the issue of being pigeon-holed as either a "liberal" or a "conservative."  And relating to the issue of expressions, please do remember that English, which is a difficult enough language to master, is not my native language (!)   So that gives me yet another excuse and more wriggle room(!)  So the definitions I developed for your contemplation are not loaded with dogma, they remain simply passive definitions, proffered by a Monarchist.   ). 

Edited January 2, 2019 by Jan van Eck
spelling error

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

7 hours ago, Illurion said:

Uh Oh

You just opened a can of worms.

Remember,  in another thread,  Red and Jan had no problem with the recent politically correct weaponization of the definition of NATIONALISM,  and as Jan had earlier presented a very "sweet" definition of LIBERALISM,   (which of course,  by opposite effect, weaponized the definition of CONSERVATISM),    so what do you think he will write about this ?

Seat belts please...

Illurion, I am not at all certain that I should attempt it  (going into primitivism).  I do not intend to "weaponize" anything, as I am neither a Liberal nor a Conservative,  Although I have chums form both political spectra.  You (I gather) view me as some ultra-leftist, or "liberal."  It might surprise you to learn that I was a chum of President Bush going back over 50 years. When the guys went down to visit and have a nice lunch at the White House, we travelled by private train  (yes, including a bar car(!).  That, I suggest, is the ultimate expression of the image of Privilege and Conservatism.  But those guys are not what you might think.  They, and I, care deeply about the inequities in society, and the hurt that current social organization visits on the poorer.  A number of the guys that made serious money would set up Foundations to be run by elite prep schools, to provide free-education scholarships to any kid who made the grade intellectually but came from a family with no cash.  Look around you, and it is the "Conservatives" that put their own cash on the line,for the betterment of the greater society. 

See, that is one of the problems of the Clintonista-brand of faux-liberals, what I call (derisively) the limousine-liberals.  When Mrs. Clinton was asked by some college in I think California to give the Commencement Address, did she accept with humility, at the great honor?  Not exactly.  She demanded a Speaker's Fee of roughly $375,000, plus the renting of a private jet to and from Washington to California, not just any jet, but specifically a Gulfstream Five, the most expensive ($50,000,000) private jet then built - just for her.  She demanded first-class air tickets for her "staff," the entourage.  She demanded a stretch limo to meet her at the private airport terminal,  She demanded a luxurious hotel room, not just any first-class room, but the Presidential Suite at the best five-star hotel.  All in, that little speech set the University back some $800,000. 

Handing her that money meant that poor kids would get no Scholarship and end up without that education.  Yes, it is definitely a zero-sum game. 

Do you see where this is going?  It is all about Clinton, not the school.  (and the University actually caved in to these demands.)  No Conservative of the Yale and George Bush group would dream of doing that.  They might fly in on a private jet (with themselves at the controls), but they would pick up their own tab.  Same with the hotel - their own nickel.  And they likely would also write a nice check to the college for scholarship money.  It is not about "them."  It is about the society.  With the limousine-liberal crowd, it is about "them"" only and  &%#k  the society.  

Are there one percenters that act like total pigs?  Sure there are.  That fellow that became president of Home Depot and demanded a salary of over $200 million  (to run a big hardware store) is one example. He is stealing from a public company,  That fellow that ran Walt Disney and demanded a salary of $650 million is another, very glaring, example.  More stealing.  That fellow Jamie Dimon, the pig who announces that he can do whatever he wants "Because I am richer than you"?  Yes, another example of vulgar, thieving, crass behaviour.  Totally outre.  But remember this: those guys do not come from good families, families with breeding.  Those guys are psycho louts that learned at an early stage to steal, and have badly deformed and warped personalities.  Those are the guys, like that fellow Harvey Weinstein and his raping of young girls, that go out and rape women, some by the hundreds.   Those guys are pigs from the gutter.  

Don't blame Yale men for those behaviors.  Guys from conservative schools understand that, with privilege, comes great responsibility. 

Edited January 2, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[Illurion + 894]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Illurion, I am not at all certain that I should attempt it  (going into primitivism).  I do not intend to "weaponize" anything, as I am neither a Liberal nor a Conservative,  Although I have chums form both political spectra.  You (I gather) view me as some ultra-leftist, or "liberal."  It might surprise you to learn that I was a chum of President Bush going back over 50 years. When the guys went down to visit and have a nice lunch at the White House, we travelled by private train  (yes, including a bar car(!).  That, I suggest, is the ultimate expression of the image of Privilege and Conservatism.  But those guys are not what you might think.  They, and I, care deeply about the inequities in society, and the hurt that current social organization visits on the poorer.  A number of the guys that made serious money would set up Foundations to be run by elite prep schools, to provide free-education scholarships to any kid who made the grade intellectually but came from a family with no cash.  Look around you, and it is the "Conservatives" that put their own cash on the line,for the betterment of the greater society. 

See, that is one of the problems of the Clintonista-brand of faux-liberals, what I call (derisively) the limousine-liberals.  When Mrs. Clinton was asked by some college in I think California to give the Commencement Address, did she accept with humility, at the great honor?  Not exactly.  She demanded a Speaker's Fee of roughly $375,000, plus the renting of a private jet to and from Washington to California, not just any jet, but specifically a Gulfstream Five, the most expensive ($50,000,000) private jet then built - just for her.  She demanded first-class air tickets for her "staff," the entourage.  She demanded a stretch limo to meet her at the private airport terminal,  She demanded a luxurious hotel room, not just any first-class room, but the Presidential Suite at the best five-star hotel.  All in, that little speech set the University back some $800,000. 

Handing her that money meant that poor kids would get no Scholarship and end up without that education.  Yes, it is definitely a zero-sum game. 

Do you see where this is going?  It is all about Clinton, not the school.  (and the University actually caved in to these demands.)  No Conservative of the Yale and George Bush group would dream of doing that.  They might fly in on a private jet (with themselves at the controls), but they would pick up their own tab.  Same with the hotel - their own nickel.  And they likely would also write a nice check to the college for scholarship money.  It is not about "them."  It is about the society.  With the limousine-liberal crowd, it is about "them"" only and  &%#k  the society.  

Are there one percenters that act like total pigs?  Sure there are.  That fellow that became president of Home Depot and demanded a salary of over $200 million  (to run a big hardware store) is one example. He is stealing from a public company,  That fellow that ran Walt Disney and demanded a salary of $650 million is another, very glaring, example.  More stealing.  That fellow Jamie Dimon, the pig who announces that he can do whatever he wants "Because I am richer than you"?  Yes, another example of vulgar, thieving, crass behaviour.  Totally outre.  But remember this: those guys do not come from good families, families with breeding.  Those guys are psycho louts that learned at an early stage to steal, and have badly deformed and warped personalities.  Those are the guys, like that fellow Harvey Weinstein and his raping of young girls, that go out and rape women, some by the hundreds.   Those guys are pigs from the gutter.  

Don't blame Yale men for those behaviors.  Guys from conservative schools understand that, with privilege, comes great responsibility. 

This has got to be one of your better posts Jan. ☺️

However.

I never met W.

I did not vote for him in the first election,  as i was not impressed with how he was "unavailable" to serve overseas in battle despite our government having trained him to fly.

Nonetheless,  when 9/11 occurred,  i was much relieved that W was in office instead of Gore.

I did vote for W the second time.

 

I do not consider W to have been a successful President,   as he showed that he was not a "multi-tasker".

By that,  i mean,  that he spent all of his time,  and all of our money,  on war.

He made practically no attempt to manage the economy.

The swamp grew massively under W.

And because of that,  the economy suffered.

He managed to rip the Republican party apart with his wars,  and his failed economy.

He messed things up so bad,  that we ended up with Obama....

 

Now,  does that mean i dislike W.

No,  i love the guy,  especially how he and Laura carried themselves.

BUT,  after leaving office,  NOT A PEEP OUT OF W IN REFERENCE TO ALL THE CORRUPTION OF OBAMA AND HIS PEOPLE...

AND W CONTINUED A "FAR TOO FRIENDLY" RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CLINTONS...

 

I met Jeb several times,  though i doubt he would remember me.

 

But Jeb,  like W and their Father,   are just too "weak" on doing what is necessary to resolve the major problems that are hurting our country.

 

I met Trump once,  long ago,  and that one event left a lasting , positive, impression on me.

Trump has guts,   and as i stated,  i have more faith in his guesses than in most peoples facts.

 

ps:   those special train rail cars that you liked.   they come from here in North Florida.    every election time,  they get rented out by all the Presidential candidates.     when i was a kid long ago,   i helped wash them one summer.

 

 

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Thanks for sharing your opinions and putting a few things in a nutshell in the process.  I agree with most of what you write, although I have never met any of them.  Your perspective and Jan's perspective come from pretty different places, making them both correct since they are from your perspectives.  Having never met any of the characters myself, I appreciate you guys sharing your experiences.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Wow.  Paul, I remain staggered and humbled by the power of your intellect. 

Wholly agree.  Well done, sir!

[JoMack + 547]

Venezuelans were promised "free" stuff and cheered and voted in Chavez.  Then Chavez dismantled the judicial system and expanded the powers of the President (guess who).  He called it a promise for  "safety" and confiscated all guns from the citizens.  He took over the oil and gas fields and threw out all of the oil companies who owned the wells and fields.  The biggest economic power of Venezuela became a giant rust bucket barely producing 1.2 million a day.  We should be worried since last week Madura is standing with big smiles and promises from Putin.  China is also circling like a wolf.  Unfortunately for the people of Venezuela, the vote they made in 1999 has come to haunt them and it doesn't look like it's going to get any better.  However, there is one light at the end of the tunnel and that is that Russia and China have decided to play in the hemisphere of the United States.  I'd say, that is not a smart move.  But may be the saving grace for the people of Venezuela.

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, mthebold said:

 

 I am worried, however, that y'all have pegged me as a narcissist

No chance.   Out of the question.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

55 minutes ago, JoMack said:

  Unfortunately for the people of Venezuela, the vote they made in 1999 has come to haunt them and it doesn't look like it's going to get any better.  However, there is one light at the end of the tunnel and that is that Russia and China have decided to play in the hemisphere of the United States.  I'd say, that is not a smart move.  But may be the saving grace for the people of Venezuela.

 

It assuredly will not be getting any better with either Russia or China on deck.  That crowd is not into international relief efforts.  China was prepared to spend an extraordinary amount of time, cash, and political reputation on shelling two tiny little fly-specks of rock off its shores, Quemoy and Matsu.  Today China spends a ton of its international credibility on dredging vast amounts of sand off the ocean bottom and depositing it inside little coral reefs, to build a solid "aircraft carrier" on a runway hogging the man-made island.  It is to the extreme that the Philippines are now offering five or seven basis, including Clark Field and Subic Bay, once again to the Americans, so worried are they about getting invaded and robbed.  Inviting the US Navy back to Subic Bay is a bit like the Americans going to London and apologizing for that Revolution and the War of 1812:  "We are very sorry about all that, but in our defense, those guys were hotheads, so please come back, send us Will and Kate, or Harry and Meaghan,  they can practice on being King and Queen over in the White House.  Love to have you folks!"  

Meanwhile the Russian idea of international relief efforts is playing out in Ukraine, where the workers in the Donbas coal mines have not been paid in two years.  And is playing out in Syria, where the population gets bombed by Sukhoi jets.  Not exactly promising of peace and goodwill, now is it?  Inviting Russia in is a bit like Prague inn 1956:   "This is the roach hotel.  The Roaches check in; they don't check out." 

[SERWIN + 749]

6 hours ago, JoMack said:

Venezuelans were promised "free" stuff and cheered and voted in Chavez.  Then Chavez dismantled the judicial system and expanded the powers of the President (guess who).  He called it a promise for  "safety" and confiscated all guns from the citizens.  He took over the oil and gas fields and threw out all of the oil companies who owned the wells and fields.  The biggest economic power of Venezuela became a giant rust bucket barely producing 1.2 million a day.  We should be worried since last week Madura is standing with big smiles and promises from Putin.  China is also circling like a wolf.  Unfortunately for the people of Venezuela, the vote they made in 1999 has come to haunt them and it doesn't look like it's going to get any better.  However, there is one light at the end of the tunnel and that is that Russia and China have decided to play in the hemisphere of the United States.  I'd say, that is not a smart move.  But may be the saving grace for the people of Venezuela.

 

Exactly why I say we need to stay out of this. They were voting for the "free" stuff, not the human refuse behind it. Does anyone actually believe anything is "free"? Can't for the life of me figure that one out. We use that word so much now that the meaning is becoming irrelevant any more. Nothing is free, anyone telling you that is a liar. They may not directly charge you, but I assure you any "free" items are marked into the cost of whatever you are getting. I work in sales, and you would not believe how many companies want "free" shipping. Not smart enough to realize that the "free" shipping is included in the mark up on the items..... But the Venezuelans did get their free stuff. Hows that working out now?

On another note, China and Russia don't have the best track record for human rights, do they? So the ME and SA may be learning soon that neither one of those countries are a good option. May be too late when they realize it though...lmao at them now.

Edited January 2, 2019 by SERWIN
Wasn't finished

[Kit Moore + 50]

14 hours ago, SERWIN said:

Does anyone actually believe anything is "free"?

The phrase "free gift" drives me absolutely bonkers!  I'm getting wound up just thinking about it now!

[SERWIN + 749]

4 hours ago, Kit Moore said:

The phrase "free gift" drives me absolutely bonkers!  I'm getting wound up just thinking about it now!

Drives me insane sometimes, people can be really ignorant sometimes....And I am also getting wound up about it now too. There need to be some laws about advertising and using that word. I am not for more gov't regs, but that would be a good one.... Kinda like the satellite companies telling you your TV service will be 79.95 or whatever. Laws need to be made about truthful advertising that MAKE them show you what your actual cost will be after the "rental" fees, and no more fine print, big letters, just like the ones showing you the advertised price so you can actually read it, and more time to read it as well, not a flash on the screen and gone, poof! And they should have to SAY it as well......

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

It appears to actually be an enforcement question, as usual.  This from the Federal Trade Commission website:

Truth In Advertising

When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence. The Federal Trade Commission enforces these truth-in-advertising laws, and it applies the same standards no matter where an ad appears – in newspapers and magazines, online, in the mail, or on billboards or buses. The FTC looks especially closely at advertising claims that can affect consumers’ health or their pocketbooks – claims about food, over-the-counter drugs, dietary supplements, alcohol, and tobacco and on conduct related to high-tech products and the Internet. The FTC also monitors and writes reports about ad industry practices regarding the marketing of alcohol and tobacco.

[SERWIN + 749]

15 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

It appears to actually be an enforcement question, as usual.  This from the Federal Trade Commission website:

Truth In Advertising

When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence. The Federal Trade Commission enforces these truth-in-advertising laws, and it applies the same standards no matter where an ad appears – in newspapers and magazines, online, in the mail, or on billboards or buses. The FTC looks especially closely at advertising claims that can affect consumers’ health or their pocketbooks – claims about food, over-the-counter drugs, dietary supplements, alcohol, and tobacco and on conduct related to high-tech products and the Internet. The FTC also monitors and writes reports about ad industry practices regarding the marketing of alcohol and tobacco.

I do understand, they make laws and there is no money to enforce it.....

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 minutes ago, SERWIN said:

I do understand, they make laws and there is no money to enforce it.....

Actually, the FTC states that they have 1,140 full time equivalent employees and, get this, their 2019 budget is only a mere $390,700,000!  If that's not enough money to enforce it, what is?  Wow!  The information you can find on the government's own websites!  And that took an act of Congress many years ago (to make budget appropriations public).

2019 Budget for the Federal Trade Commission

 

[SERWIN + 749]

Makes you wonder where 309 million dollars are actually going..... Still, gov't is too cowardly to take on big business and the money it is feeding into the swamp.