Guide To The Liberal Mind

[Boss]

I saw a show once where the KKK in Alabama set fire to a bus full of freedom riders. They called them commies, marxists and socialists too. All I saw were some black men and women and their white friends trying to ride a greyhound bus from Alabama to Mississippi.

Boss if he were around back then would have seen "Marxists".

Boss was around back then, his mother marched with Dr. King.

 

[rightwinger]

Be sure to include Carl Jung in your footnotes. Karl Marx too. Of course you have to read them first.

American middle class made it's most gains from the election of FDR until around 1995 when Clinton decided to cave in and enact republican policies like nafta and ending welfare as we know it. These years, the republicans almost never controlled congress. Careful what you wish for if you think republicans will ever do anything for anybody but the very wealthy. Why are people always bringing up Marx anyway. We've never had a marxist politician although some have been led to believe Obama is one when he's not being a muslim.

I'm betting you've never read Marx? You should read the Communist Manifesto, it sounds as if it could be the DNC platform.

You demonstrate a point made in the OP about the liberal mind when you mention NAFTA. Liberals supported it, some Republicans supported it, so a Democrat signed it into law, claiming it was the best thing since sliced bread. As conservatives predicted, it has been a terrible thing for us. Now comes the liberal laying the blame on conservatives, oblivious to the facts.

Like a dog returning to it's vomit, you are back to talking about the "middle class" as if America is only comprised of people belonging to established classes they can't escape. The fact is, in a free capitalist system, people move into and out of this so-called "middle class" all the time.

That's why I said the middle class made gains till around 1995! Reread my post and you'll see.
I read Marx in high school early 60's. Reread it in the navy where I became interested in other philosophies. I don't see anything Marxist about present day democrats. We do not have a free capitalistic system like you say either. We have one or two big players in each industry that get together to set prices. This used to be called monopolies. We had a president who talked against this about a hundred years ago. Teddy Roosevelt. He gave us anti trust legislation, but our politicians, bought off with big money, choose not to pursue trust busting or illegal immigration busting either. We now have very conservative democrats like obama and clinton because the conservative DLC vetted candidates, making sure that we would never get a liberal, progressive, or man of the people such as: Kucinich, Wellstone, Gravel or a number of other decent candidates. You say liberals supported Nafta? Wrong. The democrats voters were against Nafta. Clinton was no liberal and neither is Obama and our elected democrats go along with them. But these guys are the choices democrat voters are given, and we believe that they're better choices than anything republicans have to offer.

I saw a show once where the KKK in Alabama set fire to a bus full of freedom riders. They called them commies, marxists and socialists too. All I saw were some black men and women and their white friends trying to ride a greyhound bus from Alabama to Mississippi.

Boss if he were around back then would have seen "Marxists".

That is a little extreme, don't you think?

Do you hate the opposition that much?

BTW, back then the KKK was full of blue-dog Democrats.

And now it is full of Republicans

 

[mudwhistle]

By Bryce G. Hoffman / The Detroit News

WAYNE -- Ken Pool is making good money. On weekdays, he shows up at 7 a.m. at Ford Motor Co.'s Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, signs in, and then starts working -- on a crossword puzzle. Pool hates the monotony, but the pay is good: more than $31 an hour, plus benefits.

"We just go in and play crossword puzzles, watch videos that someone brings in or read the newspaper," he says. "Otherwise, I've just sat."

Pool is one of more than 12,000 American autoworkers who, instead of installing windshields or bending sheet metal, spend their days counting the hours in a jobs bank set up by Detroit automakers and Delphi Corp. as part of an extraordinary job security agreement with the United Auto Workers union.

The jobs bank programs were the price the industry paid in the 1980s to win UAW support for controversial efforts to boost productivity through increased automation and more flexible manufacturing.

As part of its restructuring under bankruptcy, Delphi is actively pressing the union to give up the program.

With Wall Street wondering how automakers can afford to pay thousands of workers to do nothing as their market share withers, the union is likely to hear a similar message from the Big Three when their contracts with the UAW expire in 2007 -- if not sooner.

"It's an albatross around their necks," said Steven Szakaly, an economist with the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor. "It's a huge number of workers doing nothing. That has a very large effect on their future earnings outlook."

*snip*

source: http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/17/A01-351179.htm

(Excerpt) Read more at detnews.com ...

The executives running the company are responsible for making products that consumers will purchase.

Blaming the workers because of the failure of the executives is why conservatives are losing political support. They don't hold their beloved "job creators" responsible and accountable for doing their jobs...which is to actually create jobs.

Their job isn't to create jobs. That's what your problem is. Businesses are in existence to make money, not provide jobs. It just so happens that when they make money usually it creates jobs. If the workers become a liability then they have to explore alternatives. First rule of business when you have to cut costs is the usual 30% they have to spend on wages and benefits, they are the first to be axed. Unions exasperate this problem.

Then why did you call them "job creators" and give them massive tax cuts?

Where you lying to the American people again?

They are job creators. And tax cuts are incentives designed to create even more jobs. Increasing taxes is the best way I know to destroy job creation.

 

[mudwhistle]

Besides, the only "job creators" that suffer from massive tax increases is small business owners.

 

[Redfish]

liberal mind is an oxymoron.

 

[Boss]

Be sure to include Carl Jung in your footnotes. Karl Marx too. Of course you have to read them first.

American middle class made it's most gains from the election of FDR until around 1995 when Clinton decided to cave in and enact republican policies like nafta and ending welfare as we know it. These years, the republicans almost never controlled congress. Careful what you wish for if you think republicans will ever do anything for anybody but the very wealthy. Why are people always bringing up Marx anyway. We've never had a marxist politician although some have been led to believe Obama is one when he's not being a muslim.

I'm betting you've never read Marx? You should read the Communist Manifesto, it sounds as if it could be the DNC platform.

You demonstrate a point made in the OP about the liberal mind when you mention NAFTA. Liberals supported it, some Republicans supported it, so a Democrat signed it into law, claiming it was the best thing since sliced bread. As conservatives predicted, it has been a terrible thing for us. Now comes the liberal laying the blame on conservatives, oblivious to the facts.

Like a dog returning to it's vomit, you are back to talking about the "middle class" as if America is only comprised of people belonging to established classes they can't escape. The fact is, in a free capitalist system, people move into and out of this so-called "middle class" all the time.

That's why I said the middle class made gains till around 1995! Reread my post and you'll see.
I read Marx in high school early 60's. Reread it in the navy where I became interested in other philosophies. I don't see anything Marxist about present day democrats. We do not have a free capitalistic system like you say either. We have one or two big players in each industry that get together to set prices. This used to be called monopolies. We had a president who talked against this about a hundred years ago. Teddy Roosevelt. He gave us anti trust legislation, but our politicians, bought off with big money, choose not to pursue trust busting or illegal immigration busting either. We now have very conservative democrats like obama and clinton because the conservative DLC vetted candidates, making sure that we would never get a liberal, progressive, or man of the people such as: Kucinich, Wellstone, Gravel or a number of other decent candidates. You say liberals supported Nafta? Wrong. The democrats voters were against Nafta. Clinton was no liberal and neither is Obama and our elected democrats go along with them. But these guys are the choices democrat voters are given, and we believe that they're better choices than anything republicans have to offer.

Kucinich ran for president, he couldn't get votes. Wellstone died, you have to be alive to run. My guess is, he couldn't have gotten votes either. You do understand how the political process works in America, right? No one is preventing liberals from running for president.

Most of your rant here is delusional. We don't have one or two big players in each industry setting prices, if we did, a bunch of small players would come along and undercut their prices and eat their lunch. We don't have monopolies, we do bust them up, ask Microsoft. Obama is not a conservative, he is a Marxist like his parents and mentors. Liberals supported NAFTA because conservatives opposed it.

You're either lying about reading Marx or lying about your understanding of Marx because virtually everything coming from the liberal left is straight out of the Communist Manifesto. You see it all in the rhetoric with the constant talking up of "class" and "workers." Your memes are all from 19th century eastern Europe where people were born into classes of either "workers" or "elite" and the proletariat were the worker class. We don't have that in America, we're a free society. People don't have to be "workers" or remain in any "class" because they have freedom and liberty.

 

[Redfish]

Be sure to include Carl Jung in your footnotes. Karl Marx too. Of course you have to read them first.

American middle class made it's most gains from the election of FDR until around 1995 when Clinton decided to cave in and enact republican policies like nafta and ending welfare as we know it. These years, the republicans almost never controlled congress. Careful what you wish for if you think republicans will ever do anything for anybody but the very wealthy. Why are people always bringing up Marx anyway. We've never had a marxist politician although some have been led to believe Obama is one when he's not being a muslim.

I'm betting you've never read Marx? You should read the Communist Manifesto, it sounds as if it could be the DNC platform.

You demonstrate a point made in the OP about the liberal mind when you mention NAFTA. Liberals supported it, some Republicans supported it, so a Democrat signed it into law, claiming it was the best thing since sliced bread. As conservatives predicted, it has been a terrible thing for us. Now comes the liberal laying the blame on conservatives, oblivious to the facts.

Like a dog returning to it's vomit, you are back to talking about the "middle class" as if America is only comprised of people belonging to established classes they can't escape. The fact is, in a free capitalist system, people move into and out of this so-called "middle class" all the time.

That's why I said the middle class made gains till around 1995! Reread my post and you'll see.
I read Marx in high school early 60's. Reread it in the navy where I became interested in other philosophies. I don't see anything Marxist about present day democrats. We do not have a free capitalistic system like you say either. We have one or two big players in each industry that get together to set prices. This used to be called monopolies. We had a president who talked against this about a hundred years ago. Teddy Roosevelt. He gave us anti trust legislation, but our politicians, bought off with big money, choose not to pursue trust busting or illegal immigration busting either. We now have very conservative democrats like obama and clinton because the conservative DLC vetted candidates, making sure that we would never get a liberal, progressive, or man of the people such as: Kucinich, Wellstone, Gravel or a number of other decent candidates. You say liberals supported Nafta? Wrong. The democrats voters were against Nafta. Clinton was no liberal and neither is Obama and our elected democrats go along with them. But these guys are the choices democrat voters are given, and we believe that they're better choices than anything republicans have to offer.

Kucinich ran for president, he couldn't get votes. Wellstone died, you have to be alive to run. My guess is, he couldn't have gotten votes either. You do understand how the political process works in America, right? No one is preventing liberals from running for president.

Most of your rant here is delusional. We don't have one or two big players in each industry setting prices, if we did, a bunch of small players would come along and undercut their prices and eat their lunch. We don't have monopolies, we do bust them up, ask Microsoft. Obama is not a conservative, he is a Marxist like his parents and mentors. Liberals supported NAFTA because conservatives opposed it.

You're either lying about reading Marx or lying about your understanding of Marx because virtually everything coming from the liberal left is straight out of the Communist Manifesto. You see it all in the rhetoric with the constant talking up of "class" and "workers." Your memes are all from 19th century eastern Europe where people were born into classes of either "workers" or "elite" and the proletariat were the worker class. We don't have that in America, we're a free society. People don't have to be "workers" or remain in any "class" because they have freedom and liberty.

 

[Derideo_Te]

By Bryce G. Hoffman / The Detroit News

WAYNE -- Ken Pool is making good money. On weekdays, he shows up at 7 a.m. at Ford Motor Co.'s Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, signs in, and then starts working -- on a crossword puzzle. Pool hates the monotony, but the pay is good: more than $31 an hour, plus benefits.

"We just go in and play crossword puzzles, watch videos that someone brings in or read the newspaper," he says. "Otherwise, I've just sat."

Pool is one of more than 12,000 American autoworkers who, instead of installing windshields or bending sheet metal, spend their days counting the hours in a jobs bank set up by Detroit automakers and Delphi Corp. as part of an extraordinary job security agreement with the United Auto Workers union.

The jobs bank programs were the price the industry paid in the 1980s to win UAW support for controversial efforts to boost productivity through increased automation and more flexible manufacturing.

As part of its restructuring under bankruptcy, Delphi is actively pressing the union to give up the program.

With Wall Street wondering how automakers can afford to pay thousands of workers to do nothing as their market share withers, the union is likely to hear a similar message from the Big Three when their contracts with the UAW expire in 2007 -- if not sooner.

"It's an albatross around their necks," said Steven Szakaly, an economist with the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor. "It's a huge number of workers doing nothing. That has a very large effect on their future earnings outlook."

*snip*

source: http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/17/A01-351179.htm

(Excerpt) Read more at detnews.com ...

The executives running the company are responsible for making products that consumers will purchase.

Blaming the workers because of the failure of the executives is why conservatives are losing political support. They don't hold their beloved "job creators" responsible and accountable for doing their jobs...which is to actually create jobs.

Their job isn't to create jobs. That's what your problem is. Businesses are in existence to make money, not provide jobs. It just so happens that when they make money usually it creates jobs. If the workers become a liability then they have to explore alternatives. First rule of business when you have to cut costs is the usual 30% they have to spend on wages and benefits, they are the first to be axed. Unions exasperate this problem.

Then why did you call them "job creators" and give them massive tax cuts?

Where you lying to the American people again?

They are job creators.

But you just said that they weren't job creators. Were you lying then or are are lying now?

And tax cuts are incentives designed to create even more jobs.

Facts not in evidence. No jobs were created as a result of those massive Republican tax cuts.

Increasing taxes is the best way I know to destroy job creation.

Except that the FACTS prove you 100% wrong.

The biggest increase in job creation followed the 2 largest tax increases in the history of this nation. Bush sr and Clinton both passed massive tax increases and the economy boomed and 20 million new jobs were created. Unemployment was at record lows and poverty and crime levels dropped. There was even a surplus to reduce the deficit.

Compare that to what happened when you Republicans demanded "your money" in the form of tax cuts. The economy stagnated, wages dropped, poverty and crime levels went up as the national debt rose by trillions.

So obviously you have it assbackwards when it comes to the FACTS about job creation and tax cuts/increases.

 

[Boss]

Dorito, stop being a dumb ass. It makes no logical sense that if a company has to pay out more in taxes they suddenly have more money to hire new employees. Even you can't be that stupid.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Dorito, stop being a dumb ass. It makes no logical sense that if a company has to pay out more in taxes they suddenly have more money to hire new employees. Even you can't be that stupid.

Your comprehension of taxation and investing is non existent.

If an investor can make more money by bribing politicians to give him tax cuts that is what he is going to do.

On the other hand if his taxes go up he has to find an alternative way to make money and that means investing in corporations that hire people to make things that people will buy.

Apply that to what what happened after the Bush/Clinton tax increases and the Bush jr tax cuts and the results speak for themselves in terms of job creation.

Even the wealthy need an incentive and in their case it just happens to be higher tax rates.

 

[Boss]

Your comprehension of taxation and investing is non existent.

If an investor can make more money by bribing politicians to give him tax cuts that is what he is going to do.

On the other hand if his taxes go up he has to find an alternative way to make money and that means investing in corporations that hire people to make things that people will buy.

You are so fucking stupid it is almost beyond my ability to comprehend. So what in the living hell was the investor investing in BEFORE? Corporations that don't hire people or make things people will buy???? Regardless of what happens with taxes, investors invest in companies that may or may not return a profit on the investment. It is a microcosm of what makes up the economy.

Apply that to what what happened after the Bush/Clinton tax increases and the Bush jr tax cuts and the results speak for themselves in terms of job creation.

Even the wealthy need an incentive and in their case it just happens to be higher tax rates.

All you are doing here is playing fast and loose with statistics that mean absolutely nothing. There are probably twenty or more factors involved in whether new jobs are created or old jobs are lost. It is far too complex to simply say increasing tax rates creates jobs or kills jobs. If there were some magic formula of government action that could create jobs and robust economy, that would be all we'd ever see come election time, from republicans AND democrats. EVERY politician would be on board with doing those specific things to create more jobs and robust economy. The FACT is, much of this is out of their control.

For the most part, the so-called "wealthy" do not give one single solitary damn about income tax rates, most of them are not earning incomes. Their money is mostly tied up in securities and tax-deferred investments. If you lower the top marginal rates enough, they may be inclined to take some risks with that money and actually earn some income you can tax. That's what happened when Reagan lowered the top marginal rates from 70% to 38%, and it created an economic boon that lasted for nearly 30 years. It is that economic prosperity which enabled job creation because of supply and demand, not tax rates.

 

[Friends]

you toss out a cherry-picked statistic about the Dow and presidents, then defend Keynesian economics...

If ANY president had the power and ability to control actual economic prosperity, would we ever see bad economic conditions happen? .

My "cherry picked statistic" about the better performance of the stock market under Democratic presidents comes from The Wall Street Journal.

What an Obama Win May Mean for Stocks - MarketBeat - WSJ

The Wall Street Journal has also reported that from the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush there have nearly always been more jobs created per year under Democratic presidents.

Bush On Jobs The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Now, let me address your point about presidents having "the power and ability to control academic prosperity."

I believe that Republican leaders like a fairly high degree of unemployment because it relieves employers of the need to compete for employees.

Their economic policies harm the stock market, because they are based on the dogmas of classical economics. Karl Marx pointed out that the natural tendency of unregulated capitalism is to accumulate wealth at the top, and to experience increasingly destructive economic downturns. That is just exactly what did happen until the adoption of Keynesian economic policies during the Roosevelt administration.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

Keynesian economic policies increase average incomes by raising the minimum wage, and strengthening labor unions. They also raise taxes on the well to do, and spread the wealth around. Consequently, aggregate demand increases. Consumption increases. This encourages employers in the private sector to hire more people to produce and sell what is consumed.

Shorten this and keep it simple because it is sooo true what you are saying and somehow the righties just ignore the facts and keep on arguing for trickle down even though we've clearly went way too far with the tax breaks for the rich concept.

And they have to admit that whoever they run in the midterms or general election that righty is going to be just like GW Bush who got us in the mess we are in. The GOP obstructed Obama and now want to be rewarded that he didn't do a good enough job, so no we have to go back to what broke us in the first place?

Are the American people that dumb? They are. Why? Because they won't show up this November. They will in 2016 but midterms are how the rich keep their control over our democracy.

It is difficult for me to believe that very many right wing Americans really believe that tax cuts for the rich benefit anyone who is not rich. Some believe, however irrationally, that they will become rich before they die.

Others have become so alienated from the government, that they think the only way they can control the government is to bankrupt it. These are low income whites who think that the government does not represent their interests, but the interests of non whites. Some are Christian conservatives who see the government as a force that is hostile to Christianity.

 

[Moonglow]

Be sure to include Carl Jung in your footnotes. Karl Marx too. Of course you have to read them first.

American middle class made it's most gains from the election of FDR until around 1995 when Clinton decided to cave in and enact republican policies like nafta and ending welfare as we know it. These years, the republicans almost never controlled congress. Careful what you wish for if you think republicans will ever do anything for anybody but the very wealthy. Why are people always bringing up Marx anyway. We've never had a marxist politician although some have been led to believe Obama is one when he's not being a muslim.

I'm betting you've never read Marx? You should read the Communist Manifesto, it sounds as if it could be the DNC platform.

You demonstrate a point made in the OP about the liberal mind when you mention NAFTA. Liberals supported it, some Republicans supported it, so a Democrat signed it into law, claiming it was the best thing since sliced bread. As conservatives predicted, it has been a terrible thing for us. Now comes the liberal laying the blame on conservatives, oblivious to the facts.

Like a dog returning to it's vomit, you are back to talking about the "middle class" as if America is only comprised of people belonging to established classes they can't escape. The fact is, in a free capitalist system, people move into and out of this so-called "middle class" all the time.

That's why I said the middle class made gains till around 1995! Reread my post and you'll see.
I read Marx in high school early 60's. Reread it in the navy where I became interested in other philosophies. I don't see anything Marxist about present day democrats. We do not have a free capitalistic system like you say either. We have one or two big players in each industry that get together to set prices. This used to be called monopolies. We had a president who talked against this about a hundred years ago. Teddy Roosevelt. He gave us anti trust legislation, but our politicians, bought off with big money, choose not to pursue trust busting or illegal immigration busting either. We now have very conservative democrats like obama and clinton because the conservative DLC vetted candidates, making sure that we would never get a liberal, progressive, or man of the people such as: Kucinich, Wellstone, Gravel or a number of other decent candidates. You say liberals supported Nafta? Wrong. The democrats voters were against Nafta. Clinton was no liberal and neither is Obama and our elected democrats go along with them. But these guys are the choices democrat voters are given, and we believe that they're better choices than anything republicans have to offer.

Kucinich ran for president, he couldn't get votes. Wellstone died, you have to be alive to run. My guess is, he couldn't have gotten votes either. You do understand how the political process works in America, right? No one is preventing liberals from running for president.

Most of your rant here is delusional. We don't have one or two big players in each industry setting prices, if we did, a bunch of small players would come along and undercut their prices and eat their lunch. We don't have monopolies, we do bust them up, ask Microsoft. Obama is not a conservative, he is a Marxist like his parents and mentors. Liberals supported NAFTA because conservatives opposed it.

You're either lying about reading Marx or lying about your understanding of Marx because virtually everything coming from the liberal left is straight out of the Communist Manifesto. You see it all in the rhetoric with the constant talking up of "class" and "workers." Your memes are all from 19th century eastern Europe where people were born into classes of either "workers" or "elite" and the proletariat were the worker class. We don't have that in America, we're a free society. People don't have to be "workers" or remain in any "class" because they have freedom and liberty.

So now you are claiming that Reagan and Bush Sr. were not conservatives? Since both sought out a free trade agreements, it was Congress that took several years to rubber stamp it...

 

[Friends]

.

If you lower the top marginal rates enough, they may be inclined to take some risks with that money and actually earn some income you can tax. That's what happened when Reagan lowered the top marginal rates from 70% to 38%, and it created an economic boon that lasted for nearly 30 years. It is that economic prosperity which enabled job creation because of supply and demand, not tax rates.

When Jimmy Carter was president an average of 2,600,000 jobs were created every year. When Ronald Reagan was president that declined to 2,000,000 jobs per year.

Bush On Jobs The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The Reagan Recession, that lasted from July 1981 to November 1982 was the longest and deepest since the Hoover Recession of August 1929 to March 1933.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

Let us not forget about the increase in the national debt that happened because of the fraud of supply side economics.

History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

National Debt Graph by President

The economic recovery that is supposed to have happened under Ronald Reagan was as shallow and superficial as he was.

 

[Friends]

Speaking of which:

Democrats support unions and unions kick back donations to Democrats. Without unions Democrats couldn't compete with Republicans for campaign funds. Unions chase businesses put of states and even chase em out of the country. So Democrats not only attack businesses with taxes and massive regulations, but they also back the groups primarily responsible for job loss in America.

During the 1950's one third of the work force was unionized. Most Americans got play raises every year that beat inflation.

 

[Friends]

They pay shitty wages in China because they have the form of government you want here.

They pay low wages in China because the country is a dictatorship that protects the interests of the rich and powerful.

There is more economic inequality in China than in the United States.

The World Factbook

If China adopts a democratic form of government, and I believe it will, China will have independent labor unions, and at least one political party that defends the economic interests of labor.

The example of China demonstrates that a dictatorship is an inappropriate government for a socialist economy. It does not demonstrate that democratic socialism is an inappropriate economic system.

 

[AmericanFirst]

What about decreasing cost per unit don't you understand?

A corporation that operates in America has to both make a profit and benefit the citizens. If it doesn't, it can fuck off.

Well, they do. Unions throw a monkeywrench in the works. When GM started taking a bailout they were paying a couple of thousand employees not to work as per the union contract. The only reason for the bailout was to pay for their benefits, insurance, pension plans and bonuses.

I remember when the right attacked unions for this. Yes, it was a stupid thing GM agreed to. I have a feeling GM gave in to this demand and planned on using it to make the unions look bad. It sure worked.

So that policy is no longer. What else do you hate about labor unions?

Talk about twisting the facts. The Obama admin bailed out GM as a gift to the UAW for their undying support. Get a grip.

God Damn right they did. They better if they want their support. I will not believe it if Rick Snyder wins in Michigan this November. It'll mean Michiganders and Unions are done. We'll be like Arkansas or Kentucky or Mississippi. The masses will be broke, not middle class. We see the poorest states are red ones. Why is that?

By the way, Rick Snyder is a pussy and an example of how you guys would do in a National Public Debate against us liberals. Rick Snyder doesn't want to debate his opponent because he'll get blasted. Instead he wants to do 10 Town Hall events. Be prepared for Mark Schauer to show up Rick.

By the way, based on his unspellable, I am not confident we're going to win. Based on how dumb voters are, they won't vote for this guy just based on his name. Too hard to spell. LOL. They have done tests where they ask people to pick 3 and they give them choices of pod, jkb, zlq, bod, jag, xpt and sap and almost everyone picked bod, jag and sap because they were recognizable. That's how dumb the average voter is. LOL.

Libtard lies. Detroit run by dimwits and biggest disaster.

 

[Friends]

More concepts coming out of the Liberal Mind..
1. The 40-hour work week.
2. Weekends
3. Vacations
4. Women’s Voting Rights
5. The Civil Rights Act of 1964
6. The right of people of all colors to use schools and facilities.
7. Public schools.
8. Child-labor laws.
9. The right to unionize
10. Health care benefits
11. National Parks
12. National Forests
13. Interstate Highway System
14. GI Bill
15. Labor Laws/Worker’s Rights
16. Marshall Plan
17. FDA
18. Direct election of Senators by the people.
19. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Workplace safety laws
20. Social Security




8211 150 Achievements Of Liberalism That Conservatives Seek To Destroy

Oh please......Modern liberals could not even begin to conceptualize ANY of these things.
Your side gets ZERO credit for any item on this list....And do not insist. Because you'd be wrong

Conservatives STILL have a problem supporting these concepts

Why do you say things you know to be false, are you attempting humor?

What did BluesLegend say that is not true?

 

[AmericanFirst]

They pay shitty wages in China because they have the form of government you want here.

They pay low wages in China because the country is a dictatorship that protects the interests of the rich and powerful.

There is more economic inequality in China than in the United States.

The World Factbook

If China adopts a democratic form of government, and I believe it will, China will have independent labor unions, and at least one political party that defends the economic interests of labor.

The example of China demonstrates that a dictatorship is an inappropriate government for a socialist economy. It does not demonstrate that democratic socialism is an inappropriate economic system.

China is communist idiot.

 

[jasonnfree]

A corporation that operates in America has to both make a profit and benefit the citizens. If it doesn't, it can fuck off.

Well, they do. Unions throw a monkeywrench in the works. When GM started taking a bailout they were paying a couple of thousand employees not to work as per the union contract. The only reason for the bailout was to pay for their benefits, insurance, pension plans and bonuses.

I remember when the right attacked unions for this. Yes, it was a stupid thing GM agreed to. I have a feeling GM gave in to this demand and planned on using it to make the unions look bad. It sure worked.

So that policy is no longer. What else do you hate about labor unions?

The question is not what else to hate about unions. But what NOT to hate about them.[/QUOTE]

Anything that makes assholes like you (and your union hating buddies) apoplectic is a good thing IMO. Including unions. I sure do like me some unions. You I don't much care for.

The question is not what else to hate about unions. But what NOT to hate about them

What do we have to show since the decline of unions?

Stagnant wages
Loss of benefits
Loss of job security
Inability to support a family on one income
Increased corporate profits

It's strange that conservatives hate labor union

Be sure to include Carl Jung in your footnotes. Karl Marx too. Of course you have to read them first.

American middle class made it's most gains from the election of FDR until around 1995 when Clinton decided to cave in and enact republican policies like nafta and ending welfare as we know it. These years, the republicans almost never controlled congress. Careful what you wish for if you think republicans will ever do anything for anybody but the very wealthy. Why are people always bringing up Marx anyway. We've never had a marxist politician although some have been led to believe Obama is one when he's not being a muslim.

I'm betting you've never read Marx? You should read the Communist Manifesto, it sounds as if it could be the DNC platform.

You demonstrate a point made in the OP about the liberal mind when you mention NAFTA. Liberals supported it, some Republicans supported it, so a Democrat signed it into law, claiming it was the best thing since sliced bread. As conservatives predicted, it has been a terrible thing for us. Now comes the liberal laying the blame on conservatives, oblivious to the facts.

Like a dog returning to it's vomit, you are back to talking about the "middle class" as if America is only comprised of people belonging to established classes they can't escape. The fact is, in a free capitalist system, people move into and out of this so-called "middle class" all the time.

That's why I said the middle class made gains till around 1995! Reread my post and you'll see.
I read Marx in high school early 60's. Reread it in the navy where I became interested in other philosophies. I don't see anything Marxist about present day democrats. We do not have a free capitalistic system like you say either. We have one or two big players in each industry that get together to set prices. This used to be called monopolies. We had a president who talked against this about a hundred years ago. Teddy Roosevelt. He gave us anti trust legislation, but our politicians, bought off with big money, choose not to pursue trust busting or illegal immigration busting either. We now have very conservative democrats like obama and clinton because the conservative DLC vetted candidates, making sure that we would never get a liberal, progressive, or man of the people such as: Kucinich, Wellstone, Gravel or a number of other decent candidates. You say liberals supported Nafta? Wrong. The democrats voters were against Nafta. Clinton was no liberal and neither is Obama and our elected democrats go along with them. But these guys are the choices democrat voters are given, and we believe that they're better choices than anything republicans have to offer.

Kucinich ran for president, he couldn't get votes. Wellstone died, you have to be alive to run. My guess is, he couldn't have gotten votes either. You do understand how the political process works in America, right? No one is preventing liberals from running for president.

Most of your rant here is delusional. We don't have one or two big players in each industry setting prices, if we did, a bunch of small players would come along and undercut their prices and eat their lunch. We don't have monopolies, we do bust them up, ask Microsoft. Obama is not a conservative, he is a Marxist like his parents and mentors. Liberals supported NAFTA because conservatives opposed it.

You're either lying about reading Marx or lying about your understanding of Marx because virtually everything coming from the liberal left is straight out of the Communist Manifesto. You see it all in the rhetoric with the constant talking up of "class" and "workers." Your memes are all from 19th century eastern Europe where people were born into classes of either "workers" or "elite" and the proletariat were the worker class. We don't have that in America, we're a free society. People don't have to be "workers" or remain in any "class" because they have freedom and liberty.

Kuchinich got very little air time, and wolf blitzer was sent in to make kucinich look like a fool with his question "are you electible. Most democrats were against nafta but the party was for it. Again, very few genuine liberals nowadays. Do some reading on the DLC, how they vetted candidates to weed out anyone that was not conservative enough. Clinton actually ran against these trade deals in his first campaign, but embraced it after becoming president. That's why I said the liberal agenda that raised up the middle class in this country had ended in 1995. But then, Clinton was no liberal and neither is Obama. By the way, Nafta was a bush deal, but he lost the race to clinton, don't you remember? There were even political cartoons with a picture of bush 1 in a tow truck towing american factories to the mexican border. The liberal left, the marxist/commnist agenda? C'mon now.