Re: Petition Sawstops Directly

Page 3 of 3  
Kevin Craig snarls:

I noted then, "Wanna bet that the owners of Sawstop are registered Republicans with a conservative bent?"
The only politics in that statement is an attribution of probable political party.
You find that offensive? Mistaken?
Charlie Self
If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to. Dorothy Parker
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:55:26 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:

Baseless.
-Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Winterburn responds:

Ah. OK. I'd see if I can dig up that business card and call the guy and ask if he's STILL a Republican, but the card is probably tossed, along with a lot of other stuff that picked up aromas in my home office. I just figured since he'd voted for Shrub, he was Republican, because I sure as hell don't know any Democrats who did.
Charlie Self
If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to. Dorothy Parker
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:37:41 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:

His sales pitch or business card trumpets his politiacl affiliations and voting record?
-Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Read what I wrote, Doug. I wanted the card to call him, not as an indicator of his politics.
Charlie Self
If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to. Dorothy Parker
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 20:42:38 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:

When you wrote:
"I'd see if I can dig up that business card and call the guy and ask if he's STILL a Republican, but the card is probably tossed, along with a lot of other stuff that picked up aromas in my home office. I just figured since he'd voted for Shrub, he was Republican, because I sure as hell don't know any Democrats who did."
It indicated to me that somehow you knew this fellow was a Republican and that he the voted for Bush. That's why I also asked if not the card if that info wasn't part of his pitch. I was aware from what you wrote that the card would allow you to call him to inquire of any changes in his political leanings.

I wonder if DP was referring to these folks in the last article:
http://www.christianbailey.com/2002/06/25.html
-Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I find it a use of political labels. Two posts later in the thread, you (correctly) said that it doesn't pay to use political labels in such situations.
Offensive? No. Ironic? Yes.
That's why I wanted to know if you intended it as sarcasm when you implied the SawStop owners were Republicans with a conservative bent. I can't imagine any basis for your statement otherwise, and it leaves me scratching my head as to your possible meaning.
Kevin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.combleah says...

Given the current behavior a la Medicare Prescription drug benefits, letting Teddy Kennedy craft the education bill, the unconstitutional denial of free speech rights in the campaign finance reform bill, you could be correct.

Hardly. More descriptive labels here would be "statist" / "libertarian -- with a small 'l'". The statist believes in the over- riding interest of the state over the individual, while the anti-statist libertarian holds that the state should limit its reach and exercise only the minimum power needed to maintain peace and secure borders. Unfortunately, we have been electing way too many statists of varying degrees from both parties. It used to be that the Republican party was predominantly anti-statist and promoted smaller federal government. This sadly appears to have changed, with a competition between both parties to see who can provide more "benefits" and "entitlements" in order to win votes.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@att.net says...

... snip

Nice thought, particularly if implementation of SS causes accompanying loss of precision, alignment or other problems.
However, I will bet dimes to donuts that the clever so-and-so's making the rules will have already thought of that, and in crafting their regulations will make removal and/or alteration of an SS equipped saw, or providing retrofits for said saws a felony in the same manner as removing or altering a car's emission control system.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

from
Disclaimer: I ain't gonna get political, and I find this kind of "marketing" strategy offensive. However...
Given the climate of personal security in the country--e.g., lots of people fall back on perceived "safety" as the reason for buying an SUV--SawStop is very clever. This is necessarily a SWAG, but if they can get before a government committee or into court, they can force saw manufacturers to appear and defend the safety equipment presently on saws and explain why it is "good enough." When it comes out that a high percentage (90?) of woodworkers remove the clunky blade guards and spliters now installed as original equipment, SawStop can step forward with a working system that they can demonstrate as being safer and non-removable. Again, this is just a hunch. One probable strategy is to lease SawStop's technology to existing manufacturers rather than market their own saws; the recent installation on a Powermatic may have been a demo of their system's effectiveness and practicality. Or they can settle for a "go away" payment from the manufacturers. They certainly won't be able to sell their product on its safety merits alone. The auto manufacturers found out a long time ago that safety doesn't sell and they didn't install belts, air bags, etc. until they were forced. IMHO, this was a good thing for the public, and so is the SawStop.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"marketing"
people
is
it
they
on
doesn't
The auto industries did not succumb to government pressure, but to pressure from insurance companies, which were losing a fortune in jackpot jury awards. Insurers threatened to triple insurance premiums for non-safety-equipped cars, and the auto industry knuckled under. -- Ernie
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sawstop does nothing to stop binding and kickback, so you're talking apples and oranges. Not that it wouldn't convince a politician, though....
This is necessarily a SWAG, but if they can get before a

it
they
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tchswood asks:

Check out "corporate welfare" some day. I interviewed a small factory owner some years ago, and got a lesson in how big and small companies take from the government and, sometimes, even do a payback. It was the "sometimes" that bothered him, so he refused any corporate welfare for his company (managed to run it for upwards of 40 years with never a lay off, increasing in size from about 100 employees to almost 400 in that time). Check out Enron. Check out Ms. Stewart. Check out...the beat goes on.
Too many people espouse conservatism and then expect it to apply only to the other guy. Very similar to most other things in today's life.
Charlie Self
Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child. Dan Quayle
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.