lawmakers finally see the light

[bocefus]

Legislation being proposed that would prevent DOD from procuring hardware systems from a manufacturer who receives state aid is quite different from "required to reject it". The beauty is that the legislation would no doubt be challenged in the courts and would bring out the ugly facts of "state aid". This would settle the Airbus versus Boeing subsidies dispute once and for all. After the facts are layed out, those such as yourself will be able to comprehend the reality as opposed to the hyperbole. That is of course if the WTC doesn't settle it first. Just so I understand your position clearly, should DOD only procure what is determined to be the best systems at the best price regardless of country of origin?

 

[TonyC]

Bocephus,


You posted an article that described a proposal that would PROHIBIT the purchase of tankers from Airbus. Do you understand that?


You said there is no requirement for, and no proposal to require, the DOD reject any product offerered by a company that receives state aid.

You're confused.



You suggest that "legislation [that] would no doubt be challenged in the courts [and] ... would bring out the ugly facts of 'state aid' ... [thereby] ... settl[ing] the Airbus versus Boeing subsidies dispute once and for all." What court are you thinking about, and how do you suppose they'll have any effect over Airbus and Boeing? I know you can't be talking about the "World Court," because you refer to that body separately.

You're confused.


When deciding which product the DOD should procure, it should consider:

- acquisition cost

- operating cost

- maintenance cost

- reliability

- performance

- corporate stability

- economic impact

- and a million other things...


The house bill proposes that all Airbus offers be automatically rejected. I believe such an approach is short-sighted. If Airbus has a better product, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, then we ought to purchase the Airbus product. If Boeing has a better product, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, then we ought to buy the Boeing product. No hyperbole there.

Still confused?





.
[Edited to add emphasis]

 

[bocefus]

The house bill proposes that all Airbus offers be automatically rejected. Really? Can you show us where the word Airbus is in the legislation text? Embraer, and Bombardier would be affected also.

I'm afraid it is you who is confused Tony. You cannot see the forest for the pretty trees in the way.

 

[TonyC]

The house bill proposes that all Airbus offers be automatically rejected.

Really? Can you show us where the word Airbus is in the legislation text? Embraer, and Bombardier would be affected also.

I'm afraid it is you who is confused Tony. You cannot see the forest for the pretty trees in the way.

(I took the liberty of fixing your quote tags to make my post more readable.)

Yes, Really! I'd be delighted to show you where the word Airbus is found in THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED. Paragraph four:

While the measure in the 2006 defence authorisation bill does not mention EADS, it prevents the Pentagon from buying goods from any company that receives state aid, which would target Airbus, EADS's parent company.

The language of the legislation does not have to contain the word Airbus to make my statement true. Substitute the name of any other manufacturer that fits the description ("company receives state aid") and the statement is just as valid.









.

 

[bocefus]

Tony ask one of your children, or maybe a neighbor's to explain the difference in the meanings of WOULD, COULD and SHOULD. Also ask them to explain to you how those affected by federal legislation would seek a remedy through the Federal Courts and the role of the courts in determining the validity of Federal legislation. Maybe ask them what sort of factual information would need to be established in order to arrive at a determination. Nahhhh, just keep getting your view of the world from Time magazine and your legal knowledge from Judge Judy.

 

[TonyC]

Tony ask one of your children, or maybe a neighbor's to explain the difference in the meanings of WOULD, COULD and SHOULD. Also ask them to explain to you how those affected by federal legislation would seek a remedy through the Federal Courts and the role of the courts in determining the validity of Federal legislation. Maybe ask them what sort of factual information would need to be established in order to arrive at a determination. Nahhhh, just keep getting your view of the world from Time magazine and your legal knowledge from Judge Judy.

I asked my first grader, and she said you're a moron.

She also said federal legislation and federal courts have no jurisdiction over companies located outside the United States. (She said Airbus is located outside the United States.)

She also said you must have missed the unit in English where the dipthong was discussed. Your screen name, she says, should be bocephus, not bocefus. Actually, she said it should be something else which she couldn't say, because she didn't want me to wash her mouth out with soap.



In the future, if you don't understand what an article says or means, don't bother posting it. Spare yourself the embarrassment.










.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

I asked my first grader, and she said you're a moron.

Good one!

 

[bocefus]

I guess you will never understand how the US court system works when determining the validity or constitutionality of Federal Legislation. Apparently you are on the same intellectual level as your first grader. In the future, I suggest you expand your worldview from that of CNN.

 

[TonyC]

I guess you will never understand how the US court system works when determining the validity or constitutionality of Federal Legislation. Apparently you are on the same intellectual level as your first grader. In the future, I suggest you expand your worldview from that of CNN.

BoceFus,

We're proud of you that you've figured out that Federal Courts can review Federal Legislation. In fact, they can review legislation of states, counties and municipalities, as well, if it comes to that. None of them have jurisdiction over Airbus.



My first grader also wanted me to point this out: Do you realize your Avatar promotes a French clothing line? She said you probably don't, and she imagines you sitting there bellowing a hearty "Beavis and Butthead" chuckle that you've found those four letters jumbled together in a single word. You should have seen the eyeroll she did.


She's so darn cute!

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Bocefus should stop digging. But I'm glad he won't as this public bitch-slap is very entertaining.

 

[bocefus]

Hmmm, US courts can't render decisions on federal legislation that might also affect a foreign entity doing business in the US. Law according to Tony. Your ignorance of the legal system is only exceeded by your half cocked assumptions regarding my name origin/avatar. I suppose in your legal opinion you would argue the reciprocal, that EU courts have no jursidiction over US firms? You would absolutely correct, provided that those firms had no intention of doing business in EU memeber states.

 

[TonyC]

Hmmm, US courts can't render decisions on federal legislation that might also affect a foreign entity doing business in the US.

The beauty is that the legislation would no doubt be challenged in the courts and would bring out the ugly facts of "state aid". This would settle the Airbus versus Boeing subsidies dispute once and for all.

I'd refer you to your kids or the neighbors, but I doubt you have kids that speak to you, and I doubt your neighbors would let you speak to theirs. So, I guess you're on your own here.

Explain how "affect a foreign entity" equates to "bring out the ugly facts of 'state aid'" or "settle the Airbus versus Boeing subsidies dispute once and for all."





You know, BO, you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how ridiculous I think it is. The problem we have here is your response to this statement:

No. Neither should they be required to reject it.

You responded,

To date, no such requirement exists, nor is one proposed..

HOW, pray tell, would you describe the proposed legislation which serves as the subject of the article you posted to begin this thread, if not as a requirement to reject proposals from Airbus?

You're so busy ranting about Federal Courts and neighbors kids, you can't seem to evaluate the simple facts here. Your inability to analyze information confirms the image of childishness your avatar evokes.


Take a deep breath and try to focus on the facts, not the emotions. And if you're so emotionally opposed to the French, stop advertising their clothing.















.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

This reminds me of the proverbial battle of wits with the unarmed opponent.

 

[TonyC]

This reminds me of the proverbial battle of wits with the unarmed opponent.

I've been known to become involved in other hopeless causes, as well. You'd think I'd learn, huh?




Oh, well....







.

 

[TonyC]

By the way, Hugh, what do you think of that HUGH JORDAN tattoo idea?














.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

I've already had one bad choice of a tattoo removed and I think that's plenty!