Members Help!I'maRock! Posted October 1, 2011 Members Share Posted October 1, 2011 I do get the feeling this is all about slapping Gibson around a bit. The DOJ seems to be making a point more so than making a case. for what though? is the director of Fish & Wildlife a Fender man or something? everything except the news article in this thread is pure speculation. nobody knows and we'll continue to not know unless Gibson is actually charged with something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Doctor Morbius Posted October 1, 2011 Members Share Posted October 1, 2011 Actually, it's not LEGAL wood. That's the whole point. Again, I disagree that they shouldn't be able to import it legally, but it's India's law that makes it illegal, not ours. If you think about it reciprocally, if it is illegal for us to export F-22 fighters, why shouldn't it be illegal for another country to import them? Yes, I realize military products with unmatched capabilities and classified technology are not equal to some simple planks of wood, but I'm trying to make a point of the principle.I meant to say endangered wood, not legal. Sorry. I just don't think it's our responsibility to enforce India's labor laws, providing they aren't using child labor or something disgusting like that. It's one of India's protectionist laws. Let them enforce it. That example is kind of a stretch. Nobody is going to start a war with 11mm rosewood planks. But I understand your point. I think there are a lot of countries out there that would love to get their dirty little hands on our F-22 fighter jets legal or otherwise. The U.S. even broke it's own export laws during the Iran Contra affair. Iran didn't seem to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Deadbeat Son Posted October 1, 2011 Members Share Posted October 1, 2011 The U.S. even broke it's own export laws during the Iran Contra affair. Iran didn't seem to mind. As to your point, I agree that our own leaders don't always follow their own rules. It's hard to see things in black & white and not as shades of gray, but I have a tendency to do that too often. I guess I'm just a hopeless idealist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Doctor Morbius Posted October 1, 2011 Members Share Posted October 1, 2011 People are living longer than ever before, so it's common sense what has to change with SS. The age has to be raised.Unfortunately, not everyone ages gracefully. Some people are all used up by the time they are 65. And, as my Dad always said, stop giving SS to people who don't need it. He received SS checks but was already well set for retirement. Social Security is already means tested. And to tax it as one is drawing it out is double taxation as it was taxed as income when it went into the imaginary "trust fund" that never existed. Also, our country can raise taxes without shooting ourselves in the foot. Just look at others countries that are thriving and the wealthy pay higher taxes. Agreed. Trickle down economics is a farce. I agree with Warren Buffet that two new income tax classifications on the wealthy need to be enacted into law. Of course, politicians really hate it when you leave the theoretical world of their BS and move to actual, real world examples. If we could just get rid of the two major parties that have been messing up this country for so long, we'd have a chance. Oh well, that's my theoretical fantasy. Sorry about the tangent.Yep, it's a pretty BS world they live in and it serves their respective parties more than the American public. Unfortunately, I feel both parties have a death grip on the American political system and they'll be around for many generations, even though they are so very out of touch now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mymindsok Posted October 1, 2011 Members Share Posted October 1, 2011 People are living longer than ever before, so it's common sense what has to change with SS. The age has to be raised. And, as my Dad always said, stop giving SS to people who don't need it. He received SS checks but was already well set for retirement. Also, our country can raise taxes without shooting ourselves in the foot. Just look at others countries that are thriving and the wealthy pay higher taxes. Of course, politicians really hate it when you leave the theoretical world of their BS and move to actual, real world examples. If we could just get rid of the two major parties that have been messing up this country for so long, we'd have a chance. Oh well, that's my theoretical fantasy. Sorry about the tangent.I do get the feeling this is all about slapping Gibson around a bit. The DOJ seems to be making a point more so than making a case. OMG...! Finally, theres someone posting on this thread who has a working brain. It aint the Democrats or the Republicans. It's the damn politicians! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Doctor Morbius Posted October 1, 2011 Members Share Posted October 1, 2011 OMG...!Finally, theres someone posting on this thread who has a working brain. It aint the Democrats or the Republicans. It's the damn politicians!It's not the democrats or the republicans. It's the democrats and the republicans! Both parties are pretty messed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jpnyc Posted October 1, 2011 Members Share Posted October 1, 2011 I don't understand how it's a dumb law to outlaw imports that are banned from export from the originating country. I may not agree with the law of the originating country, but I still respect it -- same as I expect foreign countries to obey the laws of our country when dealing with it. Because dealing with export laws correctly is not always possible in some countries. India, for example, is a massive nation with dozens of major languages. The government is a relic of old-fashioned English colonial bureaucracy; it has at least few hands in everything and the people they Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members etawful Posted October 1, 2011 Members Share Posted October 1, 2011 Social Security and National Defense take up 40% of the federal budget. let's start there and work our way backwards, shall we? Social Security is self-funded. The problem is that the government has been BORROWING from Social Security to pay for the other B.S. And to anyone who says "only give SS to people who need it". . . . EVERYONE who pays into the system should be able to draw from the system as soon as they become eligible, without exception. Also - if you raise the age of eligibility, that means that somehow you must ensure that jobs are available for people over the current age of eligibility. Not many companies are out to hire people over 65. The more people in this age bracket that continue working, the fewer jobs there are in other age brackets, which perpetuates a problem with unemployment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members foppy Posted October 1, 2011 Members Share Posted October 1, 2011 OMG...!It aint the Democrats or the Republicans. It's the damn politicians! Who we are responsible for voting for, or not. So it's look in the mirror time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RaVenCAD Posted October 1, 2011 Members Share Posted October 1, 2011 Political discussion suck, so I'll say only one thing: When you next go to vote, remove all the incumbents from office. They're the people that got us into this mess, and only by removing them from office can we ever hope to get out of it. That goes for Democrats and Republicans, as well as Tea Baggers. Neither party has done jack {censored} but sit there and argue with each other. {censored} em, they've all GOT TO GO.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members etawful Posted October 1, 2011 Members Share Posted October 1, 2011 Political discussion suck, so I'll say only one thing: When you next go to vote, remove all the incumbents from office. They're the people that got us into this mess, and only by removing them from office can we ever hope to get out of it. That goes for Democrats and Republicans, as well as Tea Baggers. Neither party has done jack {censored} but sit there and argue with each other. {censored} em, they've all GOT TO GO.. Best way to do this? No private funding of candidates. All campaigning is publicly funded with equal funds to all candidates. Eliminate ALL special interests and corporate donations. Do this, and you end up with candidates who aren't beholden to big money and aren't selling their votes to the highest bidder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hardtdc Posted October 1, 2011 Members Share Posted October 1, 2011 I copied this from the article: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TunaNugget Posted October 1, 2011 Members Share Posted October 1, 2011 What I find hard to comprehend is that why only Gibson? All other American guitar manufacturers (PRS, Martin, etc) that are using rosewood and ebony fretboard blanks must be importing similar "unfinished" blanks also. Yet they have not been raided. It just smells politically motivated to me. Besides all the technical issues there (like: where are they importing the wood from, are they using old stocks of wood, what thickness of wood are they using, etc.), it's just pretty naive to think that career federal law enforcement officers and judges are going to play ball with any political side. And if they did all suddenly go insane and find they needed a way to conspire against Henry, I'll bet they could frame him for something a lot more juicy. And last, it doesn't even matter. If you broke the law, arguing that your more-politically-connected competitors got away with the same thing is a really crappy defense in a court of law. I'm going with the first: the other manufacturers are using legal stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChrisGansz Posted October 1, 2011 Members Share Posted October 1, 2011 I don't THINK so - there cetainly IS a lot of funny business going on here - and not the laughing kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members twotimingpete Posted October 1, 2011 Members Share Posted October 1, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members twotimingpete Posted October 1, 2011 Members Share Posted October 1, 2011 Political discussion suck, so I'll say only one thing: When you next go to vote, remove all the incumbents from office. They're the people that got us into this mess, and only by removing them from office can we ever hope to get out of it. That goes for Democrats and Republicans, as well as Tea Baggers. Neither party has done jack {censored} but sit there and argue with each other. {censored} em, they've all GOT TO GO.. this wouldn't solve the real problem. the overreaching problem is money in politics. period. if you wiped out every last encumbant and filled the chairs with absolutely anyone on earth, it wouldn't matter, it'll always be business as usual as *long as big money is in politics. my or your political alignment or beliefs are irrelevant, and the fact that we have beliefs that may be different is not the problem. the problem is big money. it twists everything. that's my answer to the political argument; sitting here arguing about philosphical differences on matters of governing isn't really a bad thing. the big money in the system is what's perverting everything, and that's the real problem. most of our politicians are currently beholden to wallstreet because of political contributions. I have liberal beliefs, but yes, even obama has accepted large political donations from wallstreet. and it's a problem. leveraging and playing casino with other peoples' money out of sheer greed is what drove the country into the ground. and now the police are busting heads and arresting nonviolent protesters of wallstreet while not a single wallstreet guy has ever been arrested. not one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TunaNugget Posted October 1, 2011 Members Share Posted October 1, 2011 Gibson, who seem to be admitting that they deliberately broke a law that they helped lobbied for. Why was Henry lobbying for this law? If I have a conspiratorial thought, it's that Henry was trying to hurt competitors with it, and he lost count when he pulled the pin on the hand grenade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bbreaker Posted October 1, 2011 Members Share Posted October 1, 2011 Obama must be a PRS man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ralph onion Posted October 1, 2011 Members Share Posted October 1, 2011 This country is run (ruined) by corporate America. Henry should stick his nose and dollars up some rodent politicians nasty ass and he would be fine. I cant wait to find out what Bank and what rodent politician he pissed off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Help!I'maRock! Posted October 1, 2011 Members Share Posted October 1, 2011 Social Security is self-funded. The problem is that the government has been BORROWING from Social Security to pay for the other B.S.And to anyone who says "only give SS to people who need it". . . . EVERYONE who pays into the system should be able to draw from the system as soon as they become eligible, without exception.Also - if you raise the age of eligibility, that means that somehow you must ensure that jobs are available for people over the current age of eligibility. Not many companies are out to hire people over 65. The more people in this age bracket that continue working, the fewer jobs there are in other age brackets, which perpetuates a problem with unemployment. thanks for your opinions. i never said what to do with Social Security, only that it needed to be addressed. if you guys want to fill in the blanks, that's your choice. FYI - this month's Music Trades is all about the Gibson debacle and features the cover headline "Are Guitars Illegal?". so they're certainly doing their part to fuel the discussion. that said, there was no more information in the article and editorial than what we've seen here on HC. i had hoped the publication would have been a bit more objective, but understand why they chose to side with Gibson. it is, after all, a music industry publication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.