Cap and Trade vote on Friday

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Huh?


I've been GOP since the 70's. The GOP that's in the eye of public perception today is what we used to keep in the closet, and let out only during conventions.

Huh? Like freeing slaves, looking out for US intersts, helping out the working man, keeping us strong and supporting our ALLIES?

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Huh? Like freeing slaves, looking out for US intersts, helping out the working man, keeping us strong and supporting our ALLIES?

lincoln?

and here i thought carter was going old school.

it's like the southern strategy never happened.

i'm looking forward to throwing william jennings bryan, bi-metalism, and free silver into a discussion about modern democratic economic proposals.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Huh? Like freeing slaves, looking out for US intersts, helping out the working man, keeping us strong and supporting our ALLIES?

Freeing slaves? Um, that wasn't a "GOP party" thing, and neither was it what the Civil War was about. And notice how many descendents of those slaves are GOP faithful? That would be ... little to none.

Helping out the working man? Yes, "Vote GOP - signed, the UAW and Teamsters" The GOP has never been known for "helping out the working man". Maybe the boss and owner. And the local banker.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Freeing slaves? Um, that wasn't a "GOP party" thing, and neither was it what the Civil War was about. And notice how many descendents of those slaves are GOP faithful? That would be ... little to none.

Helping out the working man? Yes, "Vote GOP - signed, the UAW and Teamsters" The GOP has never been known for "helping out the working man". Maybe the boss and owner. And the local banker.

Well, Holy Obvious Conclusion Batman -- guess what? The Democrats with their tax hikes don't help ANY working person. By the way -- the guys who went to college and busted their butts studying WORK too, even though they might have to wear a suit instead of another uniform.

The Democrats can care less about the working person -- you know how we can tell? For all the blowhards hollering in Congress, nobody's life has gotten any better getting another 50 cents added to the minimum wage, especially when the owner of the business will then lay people off to cover the wage increase. This is not because he's mean or a Republican, but because he must remain profitable to stay in business or there is no business.

GM and Chrysler's epitaph is already written because the Congress and Obama wanted to save the UAW and could care less about the actual profitability of the two countries. Again, we can tell because they will force GM and Chrysler to make "smaller cars" because they call the shots. Not all Americans want smaller cars, so their losses will continue. When's the next bailout or liquidate meeting?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Well, Holy Obvious Conclusion Batman -- guess what?

Nice rant. Wrong century.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Nice rant. Wrong century.

Unfortunately, sarcasm does not qualify as an actual rebuttal to a logical argument.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by joeydb

The Democrats can care less about the working person -- you know how we can tell? For all the blowhards hollering in Congress, nobody's life has gotten any better getting another 50 cents added to the minimum wage, especially when the owner of the business will then lay people off to cover the wage increase. This is not because he's mean or a Republican, but because he must remain profitable to stay in business or there is no business.

?

Joey-

You are aware that George W. Bush signed the bill raising the minimum wage in 2007 and the latest increase is simply the last increment of that bill. You are aware of this arent you?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by joeydb

GM and Chrysler's epitaph is already written because the Congress and Obama wanted to save the UAW and could care less about the actual profitability of the two countries. Again, we can tell because they will force GM and Chrysler to make "smaller cars" because they call the shots. Not all Americans want smaller cars, so their losses will continue. When's the next bailout or liquidate meeting?

Blaming Chrysler and GM's woes on Obama are about as silly as blaming a fireman for soaking the carpet. Their epitaph's were written long before Obama came into office. They were written long before Obama ran for ANY office.

[joeydb]

OK, so Bush passed a minimum wage correction. I didn't say that there should not be a minimum wage -- there should be or we would have workers forced to negotiate their labor down to unsustainable wages. But, that minimum wage, whatever the "reasonable" number is, ought to be corrected at a rate no higher than the amount of inflation or consumer price impact that is necessary to maintain the buying power of that money from year to year.

It should be the result of an equation, not of class warfare speeches and emotional leverage. Problems whose solutions lie in the realm of mathematics should be easy to fix.

The Democrats have gravitated toward that issue as a matter of routine, and, as I said, if you make the employer decide between his profitability and the size of his workforce, he will choose his profit every time. That is the mechanism by which a Democratic Party, the self proclaimed party "of the little guy", can actually hurt its people by causing more of them to be layed off.

Now, had the amount of increase been only a "cost of living" adjustment in the true sense, as I allude to above, there would not be a negative impact on employment.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Blaming Chrysler and GM's woes on Obama are about as silly as blaming a fireman for soaking the carpet. Their epitaph's were written long before Obama came into office. They were written long before Obama ran for ANY office.

Chrysler and GM were going to go out of business. So we bailed them out so it would not be necessary for them to go into bankruptcy protection or to liquidate. So after they were given billions by Congress and Obama, they go into bankruptcy anyway? And this bankruptcy, especially for GM which was the more recent, was handled in record time with the U.S. Government getting an almost 70% share of the company. This was done solely to protect the UAW, Obama and the Democrats' powerful union ally. They could give a damn about the company except to make sure that it was not put through a bankruptcy in the traditional sense, because they would be able to break the union as part of those proceedings.

The excesses of that particular union -- unions in general certainly have a legitimate role in preventing workers rights -- have resulted in layed off workers keeping 95% of their wage so that they don't want to come back to work and a lot of other arrangements that run counter to the profitability of the company. If the company folds, the union worker gets nothing, so it is both stupid and silly for the Democrats to advocate so hard for the union worker that they hurt them.

So now, we the taxpayers are unwilling shareholders in two losing companies. If we want our money back, we should let the companies do whatever actually increases profits so they can pay us back, not force them to make cars nobody wants so they can go bankrupt again on our dime. That's the meddling by Obama and the Democrats that I object to.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by joeydb

OK, so Bush passed a minimum wage correction. I didn't say that there should not be a minimum wage -- there should be or we would have workers forced to negotiate their labor down to unsustainable wages. But, that minimum wage, whatever the "reasonable" number is, ought to be corrected at a rate no higher than the amount of inflation or consumer price impact that is necessary to maintain the buying power of that money from year to year.

It should be the result of an equation, not of class warfare speeches and emotional leverage. Problems whose solutions lie in the realm of mathematics should be easy to fix.

The Democrats have gravitated toward that issue as a matter of routine, and, as I said, if you make the employer decide between his profitability and the size of his workforce, he will choose his profit every time. That is the mechanism by which a Democratic Party, the self proclaimed party "of the little guy", can actually hurt its people by causing more of them to be layed off.

Now, had the amount of increase been only a "cost of living" adjustment in the true sense, as I allude to above, there would not be a negative impact on employment.

I didnt say whether its a good thing or a bad thing. YOU said it was a democrat thing and I was merely highlighting a point that seems lost to you-that George W. Bush passed the legislation that raised the minimum wage in three parts. This has nothing to do with Obama although he is in office now when the last of the three parts is coming into effect.

I will comment on your cost of living adjustment idea which is straight out of fantasy land. No offense Joe. You seem like a nice guy. But how in God's name can you adjust minimum employment income by LAGGING INDICATORS that CHANGE MONTHLY????????????????

I think you need to go back to the drawing board on that one.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, I like Obama alot. Yes, alot of what he's doing is different from what I basically believe, but the state of the world and the country are different right now, too. It's quite a mess.

I have no desire to stand upon partisan ideology just for ideology's sake, and I absolutely support the basics of what is being done.

There's plenty of others, Senators and Congressmen, making complete fools of themselves in the name of partisan politics right now, placing partisan politics ahead of the welfare of the country. I won't vote for them again. Plenty of non-extreme, non-stupid GOP out there.

Yup. I'm GOP through and through. We just have to get the party back from the right-wing extremist nut jobs that have become so vocal these past 5-8 years.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...588765812.html

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...588765812.html

And the Bio of this piece?...come on..

William McGurn is a Vice President at News Corporation who writes speeches for CEO Rupert Murdoch. Previously he served as Chief Speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GBBob

And the Bio of this piece?...come on..

William McGurn is a Vice President at News Corporation who writes speeches for CEO Rupert Murdoch. Previously he served as Chief Speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

Shoot the messenger....but what did he say that wasn't factual or true? It isn't easy to find political commentary that isnt going to be considered biased. The issue at the core of the piece is still there. Obama is not who he said he was. Bipartisan, LOL. He is the MOST partisan President perhaps ever.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Shoot the messenger....but what did he say that wasn't factual or true? It isn't easy to find political commentary that isnt going to be considered biased. The issue at the core of the piece is still there. Obama is not who he said he was. Bipartisan, LOL. He is the MOST partisan President perhaps ever.

I think partisan only applies when you don't agree with their agenda. And the same probably applies to me..I can't think of one thing that either Bush did and most of what Reagan did that was 'non-partisan". They may have had to advance Democratic bills because of the Senate and House majorities, but this country elected Democrats and that is what he is advancing.

And I'm not sure if this accurate, to be honest, but let me know if either Bush held over a Dem Cabinet member like Obama did a Republican...I'll You Tube Bush's "Reach Out" speech in case you guys forgot it.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I think partisan only applies when you don't agree with their agenda. And the same probably applies to me..I can't think of one thing that either Bush did and most of what Reagan did that was 'non-partisan". They may have had to advance Democratic bills because of the Senate and House majorities, but this country elected Democrats and that is what he is advancing.

And I'm not sure if this accurate, to be honest, but let me know if either Bush held over a Dem Cabinet member like Obama did a Republican...I'll You Tube Bush's "Reach Out" speech in case you guys forgot it.

If you had read the link your memory of the legislation that Bush got done that was bi partisan would have been refreshed. Biparisan means that it has support from both sides of the aisle, maybe not equal support but more than what has been advanced in 2009. The "Democrats were elected and they get to do whatever they want" argument is a far cry from what was promised to help get the Democrats elected.

Seriously are you going to use the token cabinet member as a show of bipartisan support? That's all you got? Yeah that transportation dept is a vital bipartisan office now. Of course he couldnt find anybody further left in picking his other posts like the fraud who is incharge of the Dept of Labor.

Hey when he has to face a Congress without a majority after the 2010 elections we will see how friendly Obama gets with the other side.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If you had read the link your memory of the legislation that Bush got done that was bi partisan would have been refreshed. Biparisan means that it has support from both sides of the aisle, maybe not equal support but more than what has been advanced in 2009. The "Democrats were elected and they get to do whatever they want" argument is a far cry from what was promised to help get the Democrats elected.

Seriously are you going to use the token cabinet member as a show of bipartisan support? That's all you got? Yeah that transportation dept is a vital bipartisan office now. Of course he couldnt find anybody further left in picking his other posts like the fraud who is incharge of the Dept of Labor.

Hey when he has to face a Congress without a majority after the 2010 elections we will see how friendly Obama gets with the other side.

democrats wanted to cooperate with bush after 9/11 for the good of the country.

republicans see obstruction as good for the party. screw the country.

the obvious conclusion is that democrats are too partisan.

best of luck with your republican majority in 2010.

[dalakhani]

It is hilarious to watch the constant whining by the right wingers in the media and on this forum.

I do agree that hating Bush was pretty much a bi partisan attitude.

Oh the poor right wingers. Read this thread and you can see first hand the problem with your outdated little party. One guy wants to adjust minimum wage with CPI and the other is touting Jeb Bush as your 2012 Presidential candidate.

Keep it up boys.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Unfortunately, sarcasm does not qualify as an actual rebuttal to a logical argument.

You just inserted your argument into the middle of an exchange about the 1800's

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

It is hilarious to watch the constant whining by the right wingers in the media and on this forum.

I do agree that hating Bush was pretty much a bi partisan attitude.
Oh the poor right wingers. Read this thread and you can see first hand the problem with your outdated little party. One guy wants to adjust minimum wage with CPI and the other is touting Jeb Bush as your 2012 Presidential candidate.

Keep it up boys.

There's a difference between hating what Bush did (or what Carter did, or what Regan did, or what Clinton did), and hating Obama. The hate directed against the President personally is disturbing and scary.

Yeah, Bush was repeatedly poked at for being dumb. Where were the daily cries in the media - on the major cable channels - that he was ruining the country, he was Hitler, a communist, a socialist, not an American citizen, etc?

The truely crazy talk was only from the far, far left extremist groups.

I've never seen such overt hate like what is directed towards Obama - not toward the policies, the man - inserted directly into mainstream America, and some people thinking it's acceptable.

That stuff like the utterly ridiculous "Obama isn't a citizen" nonsense even still gets airtime in the mainstream media two years later - unbelievable. Are we really that stupid in this country? Or has our gluttony for all things "reality" desensitized us to crazy and dangerous?