Toyota recall hearings

[Zanza]

It is a simple statement of facts, which answers your question (which was apparently based on your perception that the US government followed EU law, else you wouldn't have brought up EU law in discussing US government procurement).  As I note, I have no clue why you brought up German Army procurement; not even you could think that affects US government procurement.

Oh, you really mean it? Sorry then.
I guess I should not have assumed that everybody is aware of the Marrakesh Agreement on Government Procurement of 1994 which harmonized the government procurement rules in the EU and the USA. That's why citing EU procurement rules - at least in the very general terms I did here - makes sense when you talk about US government procurement. They are bound by international treaties to have the same non-discrimination rules for foreign goods and services. I thought that everybody who would weigh in on a debate on government procurement would at least know these very basics, but I guess I should have expected ignorant readers such as you as well. So sorry for not considering your ignorance when I made my initial post. Next time, I will state it so that even people who have no idea at all about the topic at hand, can contribute in a meaningful way.

By the way, the German Army procurement is an example that I used to illustrate my point. Examples are a pretty common figure of speech in debates. If you are attentive while reading I am sure you can find other instances of that figure of speech. You should try it sometime.

[Neil]

Oh snap.

[Caliga]

Every time I see this thread on the board I read it as "Total recall hearings"


SEN. AL FRANKEN:  How long will your testimony last, Mr. Quaid?
QUAID:  Two weeks.
SEN. AL FRANKEN:  So tell us about the recall process.
QUAID: Two weeks.
SEN. AL FRANKEN: Excuse me?
QUAID: Two weeks. Twooo weeks.  TWOWEEKS... twoWEEEEEEEEKS

*blam blam blam blam blam*

[grumbler]

I guess I should not have assumed that everybody is aware of the Marrakesh Agreement on Government Procurement of 1994 which harmonized the government procurement rules in the EU and the USA. That's why citing EU procurement rules - at least in the very general terms I did here - makes sense when you talk about US government procurement. They are bound by international treaties to have the same non-discrimination rules for foreign goods and services. 

I think you completely misunderstand the Agreement on Government Procurement.  It doesn't make the US subject to Eu procurement law, nor does it harmonize procurement law.  It simply states that government procurement will consider foreign sources (of signatory nations) no less favorably than domestic sources when making procurement decisions over a certain value.

Had you cited the GSA or US procurement law when questioning why the US government didn't buy Toyotas,* rather than irrelevant EU law, you would have a point.  Note that, if you replace "US" with "Polish" as the subject government, all your points suddenly become relevant.  That should indicate that you are off base applying those arguments to the US (which isn't in the EU).

I thought that everybody who would weigh in on a debate on government procurement would at least know these very basics, but I guess I should have expected ignorant readers such as you as well.

Ah, the old "weasel wrapped around a personal insult" ploy!    It doesn't work, you know.  The weasel isn't credible, and the personal insult doesn't sting.  I'm not the one that looks bad when you stoop to these ploys.

So sorry for not considering your ignorance when I made my initial post. Next time, I will state it so that even people who have no idea at all about the topic at hand, can contribute in a meaningful way.

Just keep your facts relevant to the topic at hand and you won't need to engage in these petty displays of petulance.  I suppose they have a bit of entertainment value but they are largely a waste of lifespan.

By the way, the German Army procurement is an example that I used to illustrate my point. Examples are a pretty common figure of speech in debates. If you are attentive while reading I am sure you can find other instances of that figure of speech. You should try it sometime.

The problem with your "example" is that it says nothing whatever about US procurement, which is what the issue was.  Getting prissy about my pointing that out does not make your example any more relevant.  If anybody needs to "try it sometime," it is you who needs to look at examples and see if they have any bearing on the point you are trying to make.


*Not that I am convinced that the US government does not buy Toyota vehicles.

[Zanza]

I'm not the one that looks bad when you stoop to these ploys.

I think you could be wrong in that assertion.

[DGuller]

Ah, the old "weasel wrapped around a personal insult" ploy!    It doesn't work, you know.  The weasel isn't credible, and the personal insult doesn't sting.  I'm not the one that looks bad when you stoop to these ploys.

I think I speak for most people here when I say that yes, you are the one who looks bad here, and pretty much by default.  It's like when a school bully gets in a fight with a well-mannered A student.  You pretty much know exactly what happened just by seeing who the two participants in a brawl are.

[Martinus]

Ah, the old "weasel wrapped around a personal insult" ploy!    It doesn't work, you know.  The weasel isn't credible, and the personal insult doesn't sting.  I'm not the one that looks bad when you stoop to these ploys.

I think I speak for most people here when I say that yes, you are the one who looks bad here, and pretty much by default.  It's like when a school bully gets in a fight with a well-mannered A student.  You pretty much know exactly what happened just by seeing who the two participants in a brawl are.

grumbler is not as much a school bully as the weird kid who smells, always wears sweat pants covered in dog hair, eats his own boogers and screams words like "penis" and "vagina" repeatedly.

[grumbler]

I'm not the one that looks bad when you stoop to these ploys.

I think you could be wrong in that assertion.

No, I am pretty sure that when you call people stupid for pointing out logical flaws in an argument, you don't persuade people.  Sure, the dogpilers will dogpile on the statement, but are those the people you really wanna have on your side?

[grumbler]

I think I speak for most people here when I say that yes, you are the one who looks bad here, and pretty much by default.  It's like when a school bully gets in a fight with a well-mannered A student.

Ah, the old "I think I speak for most people here" claim!    Didn't we know that was coming?  I wasn't sure whether you or Marti would claim to be the leader of Languish, but I was pretty sure it would be one of the two.

As for who has been well-mannered and who has been name-calling and claiming that only stupid people could fail to agree with them, I think the record speaks for itself.

You pretty much know exactly what happened just by seeing who the two participants in a brawl are.

Interesting that you call this a "brawl" when I certainly don't see it as one, but even more interesting that you concede that you draw your conclusions based on who is posting rather than what is posted.

That explains a lot, actually.

[grumbler]

grumbler is not as much a school bully as the weird kid who smells, always wears sweat pants covered in dog hair, eats his own boogers and screams words like "penis" and "vagina" repeatedly.

I am just quoting this so you cannot delete it and pretend you never said it.  I am just gonna leave this hanging in cyberspace so i can point at it whenever you claim you are logical.

[DontSayBanana]

BTW, Grumbler, I'm having a hard time finding hard numbers about federal fleet vehicles, but I can confirm that at least local and state governments do use Toyotas as fleet vehicles.

SOURCE: http://www.government-fleet.com/News/List/Tag/Toyota.aspx

Oh, and there's nothing excluding Toyotas from federal government procurement.

The relevant information regarding vehicle procurement for the federal government: http://www.gsa.gov/gsa/cm_attachments/GSA_DOCUMENT/41cfr101-26.501_R2OI2Q_0Z5RDZ-i34K-pR.pdf

[grumbler]

BTW, Grumbler, I'm having a hard time finding hard numbers about federal fleet vehicles, but I can confirm that at least local and state governments do use Toyotas as fleet vehicles.

SOURCE: http://www.government-fleet.com/News/List/Tag/Toyota.aspx

Oh, and there's nothing excluding Toyotas from federal government procurement.

The relevant information regarding vehicle procurement for the federal government: http://www.gsa.gov/gsa/cm_attachments/GSA_DOCUMENT/41cfr101-26.501_R2OI2Q_0Z5RDZ-i34K-pR.pdf

The quick check I did found Toyotas in the US government auctions, but as these could have been ones seized by customs I didn't mention them in passing.

Not that my point is impacted by whether or not Toyotas are purchased by the US government. Yi is the one who argued that "I very much doubt the US government has ever bought any Toyotas" and even that wasn't very emphatic.

[dps]

I guess I should not have assumed that everybody is aware of the Marrakesh Agreement on Government Procurement of 1994 which harmonized the government procurement rules in the EU and the USA. That's why citing EU procurement rules - at least in the very general terms I did here - makes sense when you talk about US government procurement. They are bound by international treaties to have the same non-discrimination rules for foreign goods and services.

All Toyotas sold in the US are made in the US (at least in recent years--obviously, this wasn't always the case), so non-discrimination against foreign goods isn't even germane to the discussion.

[DontSayBanana]

The quick check I did found Toyotas in the US government auctions, but as these could have been ones seized by customs I didn't mention them in passing.

Not that my point is impacted by whether or not Toyotas are purchased by the US government. Yi is the one who argued that "I very much doubt the US government has ever bought any Toyotas" and even that wasn't very emphatic.

Yeah, sorry about that.  Got mixed up there, I did.

Where did you find feds auctioning Toyotas, BTW?  I checked GSA's link and didn't even see a possibility to search with "Toyota" as make, so I gave up early; just typical government-issue laziness about categorizing?

[DontSayBanana]

All Toyotas sold in the US are made in the US (at least in recent years--obviously, this wasn't always the case), so non-discrimination against foreign goods isn't even germane to the discussion.

They're foreign goods as products of a business that's headquartered outside of the US.  You made a funny.