What Does Obama Do Best?

[mudwhistle]

"He said no such thing!"

Yeah, he did.

" Weekly Address: America Is a Place Where Hard Work Should Be Rewarded Increasing the national minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would benefit 28 million Americans,


Ready to admit you lie about everything?

Why can't you admit a mistake? Isn't it clear and accurate that a person making over the minimum wage. say $9 per hour, will benefit if the minimum wage goes up to $10.10? Either your reading comprehension is horrible or you are pushing this lie you seem to be stuck on.

1. "Why can't you admit a mistake?"
OK....I'll admit one.
I'm never wrong...I thought I was once, but I was mistaken about that.


2. "Isn't it clear and accurate that a person making over the minimum wage. say $9 per hour, will benefit if the minimum wage goes up to $10.10?"
No, you dope.
The explanation of your asininity is found in Dr. Thomas Sowell's "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One."

As you Liberals don't think beyond stage one....let me help: it matters not how much he was about to make as he is fired because the business finds his new salary impacts the bottom line.
He can only earn what his productivity allows.
Get it????


3 ."Either your reading comprehension is horrible or you are pushing this lie you seem to be stuck on."
I never lie.....your misapprehension is based on being so very less intelligent than I.

Oh, now I understand, if we raise to minimum to 10.10, everyone making below that amount will be fired. But would about the replacement workers who start out at 10.10? Couldn't you say they benefited? Trying to see your logic, but unfortunately all I see is a desperate liar trying to weasel her way out of admitting a mistake.

No, Dumbass. MW laws are based on what is considered full-time employment. We're already dropping that to 30 hrs. Care to see it drop further? How bout 25?. So somebody who was working 40 hrs a week at $7.25/hr has to get two jobs just to make the same amount, because nobody can pay a waitress $10.10 hr and still offer you a meal that is affordable. They'll instead hire two people to do the same job one full-time employee used to do. Either that or they'll decrease the hours they're open. The last thing they can do is jack up prices forcing people to stay home and cook ... and that's what they'll do.

Seems like a lot of deflection, changing subject, weaseling, speculative based opinions and wild guessing just over the refusal of a kind of normal PC type lie or lack of character to admit a mistake.

Yes, we know you're full of shit ... but I spent enough time in college to figure out that if you raise the costs of doing business ... businesses have to pass the costs onto the customer ... you fucking tool!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The people that benefits from artificially raised wages is the Democrats that advocate such a thing. At the same time these idiots are saying they want to raise wages, they're driving them down by bringing millions of low-income workers into the workforce with their silly immigration policies.

yes, liberals are very very stupid. they want higher wages and 20 million illegals to drive wages down!! This is the nature of liberalism. It is based in pure ignorance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Saddled with a dearth of skills when it comes to guiding the nation, Liberal heartthrob, Barack Hussein Obama, does have one skill that he burnishes regularly.
Hint: who was the hands-down winner of the 2013 'Lie of the Year'?

You got it!



1. Let's take a look at Obama's latest offer: " Weekly Address: America Is a Place Where Hard Work Should Be Rewarded Increasing the national minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would benefit 28 million Americans, and make our economy stronger. " Weekly Address America Is a Place Where Hard Work Should Be Rewarded The White House

2. Gotta', hand it to the guy: he shamelessly jumps right into it:
The current number of employed American workers is 144 million. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, among those paid by the hour,1.6 millionAmericans earned the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour in 2012.
Reminder: 1.1 Percent of U.S. Workforce MakesMinimum...
Reminder 1.1 Percent of U.S. Workforce Makes Minimum Wage National Review Online


Now, to be fair, he has four aces that allow him to play his hand with lies:

a. The media will not expose his lies the way they would if a Republican did so.
b. He has the support of the most dim-witted voters in history...or close to it....
c. It's tough for him to break the habit
d. He is a Democrat, it's part of their nature ("I did not have sex with that woman....")




3. I love this one : "...[it will] make our economy stronger."
If you had the abysmal record in failing to improve the US economy, as Obama does, would you dare use a phrase that would spotlight same??

Need a reminder?
a. "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted)median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession."
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the Recovery as During the Recession The Weekly Standard



How about his 'war on women'?

b. "(CNSNews.com) - The real median income of American women dropped a little more than four percent in the first three full years after the end of the last recession,..... Census Bureau income data, the median income of American women was $21,520 in constant 2012 dollars. That was down $914 dollars—or about 4.1 percent—from 2009." Median Income of Women Dropped 4 --In First 3 Years of Recovery CNS News


Wadda ya' say....shoo-in for 2014 'Lie of the Year'??
It's what he does best.

What Obama does best...is reason in ways most self identified "conservatives" do not.

What a stupid statement.

Look at the result of Obama policies in the Middle East.
Look at NYC, after Obama tells racist protesters to 'Stay The Course!'
Look at the economy after six years of Obama policies.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[rightwinger]

Obama has been intentionally jacking up the price of everything. I remember this tactic in California. They make the cost of living so expensive that you constantly worry about making ends meet. Then you give in and start collecting government handouts and they have you hooked. All they need to do from then on is claim Republicans are out to take your benefits away.

This is how they win elections.

How has gas been doing?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think what Obama should be doing is coming up with words that are truthful, not misleading. Obama has this habit of shading the truth rather than being completely frank. The fact is, he knows exactly what raising the MW will do. Cause more and more to either lose their jobs or have their hours cut so the company won't have to pay $10.10 hr for a job that doesn't require any skills. Let's not forget the costs the consumer will have to absorb as well. Sure, millions will be effected by this silly raise ... but not in a good way I'm afraid.

There was nothing misleading in Obama's words which is why the Right has to change them to fabricate their lie.

Since you lied about what Obama said, why should any honest person believe what you claim will be the consequences of raising the MW???

"There was nothing misleading in Obama's words..."

Always is.

He lies, and morons like you swear he didn't say it....


How about this lie:
" If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that."

Just another lie designed to support the collective, as every communist, socialist, Liberal, Progressive does......



I love when they go over the top.....and know they put their foot in it.....

....like this one:

Now you are desperately trying to change the subject.
Your surrender is accepted.

It is the subject, so, of course you wouldn't understand that.

"In reality, raising the minimum wage from its current $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will cause all of these negative effects: employers will lay off workers, hire fewer workers, and raise prices."
People Support Raising The Minimum Wage Until Told The Costs - Forbes

We all know the Right lies in packs, but the real world facts expose their lies.

One more time:

You can continue to keep repeating counterintuitive results....
What would those results be without the destructive minimum wage increases?

 

[rightwinger]

What does Obama do best?

I would have to say pissing off Conservatives
So far it involves:

Being the President
Teleprompter reading
Using Air Force One
Playing golf
Taking vacation twice a year
Being a negro
Actually acting like a President

"I would have to say pissing off Conservatives."

i.e., all those who love the America that the Founders gave us....

...you know, the one that didn't need fundamental change.

Our founders were liberals...they used to tar and feather conservatives

Classical liberals....what would be called conservatives today.
Simple to prove: the believed government based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Caught you lyin' again, huh?


You know that communist John Dewey changed the name of the 'Socialist' party to 'Liberal,' dontcha'?

Our founding fathers would be repulsed by todays conservatives. They would still want to tar and feather them

The term "Classical Liberal" was coined by todays conservatives to reflect the point that conservatives are finally catching up with what was liberal thought 200 years ago.

 

[edthecynic]

There was nothing misleading in Obama's words which is why the Right has to change them to fabricate their lie.

Since you lied about what Obama said, why should any honest person believe what you claim will be the consequences of raising the MW???

"There was nothing misleading in Obama's words..."

Always is.

He lies, and morons like you swear he didn't say it....


How about this lie:
" If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that."

Just another lie designed to support the collective, as every communist, socialist, Liberal, Progressive does......



I love when they go over the top.....and know they put their foot in it.....

....like this one:

Now you are desperately trying to change the subject.
Your surrender is accepted.

It is the subject, so, of course you wouldn't understand that.

"In reality, raising the minimum wage from its current $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will cause all of these negative effects: employers will lay off workers, hire fewer workers, and raise prices."
People Support Raising The Minimum Wage Until Told The Costs - Forbes

We all know the Right lies in packs, but the real world facts expose their lies.

One more time:

You can continue to keep repeating counterintuitive results....
What would those results be without the destructive minimum wage increases?

Reality is only "counterintuitive" to the Right.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What does Obama do best?

I would have to say pissing off Conservatives
So far it involves:

Being the President
Teleprompter reading
Using Air Force One
Playing golf
Taking vacation twice a year
Being a negro
Actually acting like a President

"I would have to say pissing off Conservatives."

i.e., all those who love the America that the Founders gave us....

...you know, the one that didn't need fundamental change.

Our founders were liberals...they used to tar and feather conservatives

Classical liberals....what would be called conservatives today.
Simple to prove: the believed government based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Caught you lyin' again, huh?


You know that communist John Dewey changed the name of the 'Socialist' party to 'Liberal,' dontcha'?

Our founding fathers would be repulsed by todays conservatives. They would still want to tar and feather them

The term "Classical Liberal" was coined by todays conservatives to reflect the point that conservatives are finally catching up with what was liberal thought 200 years ago.

When do you get around to admitting that you're lying?



1.Classical liberalism

a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp

b. Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent, but the voters didn’t agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where ‘men of action’ were creating utopias. Also, John Dewey renamed Progressivism as ‘liberalism,’ which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.

c. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=

d. “DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion. In this essay, Dewey purportedly recounts the "history of liberalism." "Liberalism," he suggests, is a social theory defined by a commitment to certain "enduring," fundamental principles, such as liberty and individualism. After defining these principles in the progressives' terms--…”http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=

e. From Croly: The remedy for ‘chaotic individualism of our political and economic organization’ was a ‘regeneration’ led by a heroic-saint who could overthrow the tired doctrines of liberal democracy in favor of a restored and heroic nation. Herbert Croly, “The Promise of American Life,”p.14

So, where is the line between fascism and Progressivism?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"There was nothing misleading in Obama's words..."

Always is.

He lies, and morons like you swear he didn't say it....


How about this lie:
" If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that."

Just another lie designed to support the collective, as every communist, socialist, Liberal, Progressive does......



I love when they go over the top.....and know they put their foot in it.....

....like this one:

Now you are desperately trying to change the subject.
Your surrender is accepted.

It is the subject, so, of course you wouldn't understand that.

"In reality, raising the minimum wage from its current $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will cause all of these negative effects: employers will lay off workers, hire fewer workers, and raise prices."
People Support Raising The Minimum Wage Until Told The Costs - Forbes

We all know the Right lies in packs, but the real world facts expose their lies.

One more time:

You can continue to keep repeating counterintuitive results....
What would those results be without the destructive minimum wage increases?

Reality is only "counterintuitive" to the Right.

What????

I even have to teach you vocabulary, in addition to logic???


1. Businesses are generally very close to the break-even line, with profits being in single digits if any....thanks to Liberal policies, taxation, and regulation.

2. Mandating increases in costs, e.g., increases in minimum wages, cuts further into what little profits exist.

3. Only a moron (raise your paw) would not recognize that mandating costs would decrease hiring of more workers, or cause layoffs of current workers.


Don't you know ANYTHING?????

 

[rightwinger]

What does Obama do best?

I would have to say pissing off Conservatives
So far it involves:

Being the President
Teleprompter reading
Using Air Force One
Playing golf
Taking vacation twice a year
Being a negro
Actually acting like a President

"I would have to say pissing off Conservatives."

i.e., all those who love the America that the Founders gave us....

...you know, the one that didn't need fundamental change.

Our founders were liberals...they used to tar and feather conservatives

Classical liberals....what would be called conservatives today.
Simple to prove: the believed government based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Caught you lyin' again, huh?


You know that communist John Dewey changed the name of the 'Socialist' party to 'Liberal,' dontcha'?

Our founding fathers would be repulsed by todays conservatives. They would still want to tar and feather them

The term "Classical Liberal" was coined by todays conservatives to reflect the point that conservatives are finally catching up with what was liberal thought 200 years ago.

When do you get around to admitting that you're lying?



1.Classical liberalism

a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp

b. Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent, but the voters didn’t agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where ‘men of action’ were creating utopias. Also, John Dewey renamed Progressivism as ‘liberalism,’ which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.

c. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=

d. “DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion. In this essay, Dewey purportedly recounts the "history of liberalism." "Liberalism," he suggests, is a social theory defined by a commitment to certain "enduring," fundamental principles, such as liberty and individualism. After defining these principles in the progressives' terms--…”http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=

e. From Croly: The remedy for ‘chaotic individualism of our political and economic organization’ was a ‘regeneration’ led by a heroic-saint who could overthrow the tired doctrines of liberal democracy in favor of a restored and heroic nation. Herbert Croly, “The Promise of American Life,”p.14

So, where is the line between fascism and Progressivism?

Thanks

You defined it exactly like I expected

Liberals are liberals are liberals

They look at each generations challenges and issues and develop ways to resolve them. The idea that libralism is somehow trapped in some 18th century time warp is conservatism at its best. It was conservatives who attacked our founding fathers and threatened them with death. It was conservatives who supported the monarchy.
Nice to see conservatives eventually acknowledged the error of their ways
Liberalism, by definitition, involves evolution. To pretend somehow that it stopped in the 18th century is ridiculous

 

[PoliticalChic]

"I would have to say pissing off Conservatives."

i.e., all those who love the America that the Founders gave us....

...you know, the one that didn't need fundamental change.

Our founders were liberals...they used to tar and feather conservatives

Classical liberals....what would be called conservatives today.
Simple to prove: the believed government based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Caught you lyin' again, huh?


You know that communist John Dewey changed the name of the 'Socialist' party to 'Liberal,' dontcha'?

Our founding fathers would be repulsed by todays conservatives. They would still want to tar and feather them

The term "Classical Liberal" was coined by todays conservatives to reflect the point that conservatives are finally catching up with what was liberal thought 200 years ago.

When do you get around to admitting that you're lying?



1.Classical liberalism

a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp

b. Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent, but the voters didn’t agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where ‘men of action’ were creating utopias. Also, John Dewey renamed Progressivism as ‘liberalism,’ which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.

c. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=

d. “DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion. In this essay, Dewey purportedly recounts the "history of liberalism." "Liberalism," he suggests, is a social theory defined by a commitment to certain "enduring," fundamental principles, such as liberty and individualism. After defining these principles in the progressives' terms--…”http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=

e. From Croly: The remedy for ‘chaotic individualism of our political and economic organization’ was a ‘regeneration’ led by a heroic-saint who could overthrow the tired doctrines of liberal democracy in favor of a restored and heroic nation. Herbert Croly, “The Promise of American Life,”p.14

So, where is the line between fascism and Progressivism?

Thanks

You defined it exactly like I expected

Liberals are liberals are liberals

They look at each generations challenges and issues and develop ways to resolve them. The idea that libralism is somehow trapped in some 18th century time warp is conservatism at its best. It was conservatives who attacked our founding fathers and threatened them with death. It was conservatives who supported the monarchy.
Nice to see conservatives eventually acknowledged the error of their ways
Liberalism, by definitition, involves evolution. To pretend somehow that it stopped in the 18th century is ridiculous

Thanks....you verified my original presumption: Liberal liars are likely to lie.


Something about old dogs and new tricks....

 

[Camp]

Why can't you admit a mistake? Isn't it clear and accurate that a person making over the minimum wage. say $9 per hour, will benefit if the minimum wage goes up to $10.10? Either your reading comprehension is horrible or you are pushing this lie you seem to be stuck on.

1. "Why can't you admit a mistake?"
OK....I'll admit one.
I'm never wrong...I thought I was once, but I was mistaken about that.


2. "Isn't it clear and accurate that a person making over the minimum wage. say $9 per hour, will benefit if the minimum wage goes up to $10.10?"
No, you dope.
The explanation of your asininity is found in Dr. Thomas Sowell's "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One."

As you Liberals don't think beyond stage one....let me help: it matters not how much he was about to make as he is fired because the business finds his new salary impacts the bottom line.
He can only earn what his productivity allows.
Get it????


3 ."Either your reading comprehension is horrible or you are pushing this lie you seem to be stuck on."
I never lie.....your misapprehension is based on being so very less intelligent than I.

Oh, now I understand, if we raise to minimum to 10.10, everyone making below that amount will be fired. But would about the replacement workers who start out at 10.10? Couldn't you say they benefited? Trying to see your logic, but unfortunately all I see is a desperate liar trying to weasel her way out of admitting a mistake.

No, Dumbass. MW laws are based on what is considered full-time employment. We're already dropping that to 30 hrs. Care to see it drop further? How bout 25?. So somebody who was working 40 hrs a week at $7.25/hr has to get two jobs just to make the same amount, because nobody can pay a waitress $10.10 hr and still offer you a meal that is affordable. They'll instead hire two people to do the same job one full-time employee used to do. Either that or they'll decrease the hours they're open. The last thing they can do is jack up prices forcing people to stay home and cook ... and that's what they'll do.

Seems like a lot of deflection, changing subject, weaseling, speculative based opinions and wild guessing just over the refusal of a kind of normal PC type lie or lack of character to admit a mistake.

Yes, we know you're full of shit ... but I spent enough time in college to figure out that if you raise the costs of doing business ... businesses have to pass the costs onto the customer ... you fucking tool!!!

You didn't need the years of college for this situation. Grade school math would have been enough for this one.

 

[rightwinger]

Our founders were liberals...they used to tar and feather conservatives

Classical liberals....what would be called conservatives today.
Simple to prove: the believed government based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Caught you lyin' again, huh?


You know that communist John Dewey changed the name of the 'Socialist' party to 'Liberal,' dontcha'?

Our founding fathers would be repulsed by todays conservatives. They would still want to tar and feather them

The term "Classical Liberal" was coined by todays conservatives to reflect the point that conservatives are finally catching up with what was liberal thought 200 years ago.

When do you get around to admitting that you're lying?



1.Classical liberalism

a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp

b. Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent, but the voters didn’t agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where ‘men of action’ were creating utopias. Also, John Dewey renamed Progressivism as ‘liberalism,’ which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.

c. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=

d. “DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion. In this essay, Dewey purportedly recounts the "history of liberalism." "Liberalism," he suggests, is a social theory defined by a commitment to certain "enduring," fundamental principles, such as liberty and individualism. After defining these principles in the progressives' terms--…”http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=

e. From Croly: The remedy for ‘chaotic individualism of our political and economic organization’ was a ‘regeneration’ led by a heroic-saint who could overthrow the tired doctrines of liberal democracy in favor of a restored and heroic nation. Herbert Croly, “The Promise of American Life,”p.14

So, where is the line between fascism and Progressivism?

Thanks

You defined it exactly like I expected

Liberals are liberals are liberals

They look at each generations challenges and issues and develop ways to resolve them. The idea that libralism is somehow trapped in some 18th century time warp is conservatism at its best. It was conservatives who attacked our founding fathers and threatened them with death. It was conservatives who supported the monarchy.
Nice to see conservatives eventually acknowledged the error of their ways
Liberalism, by definitition, involves evolution. To pretend somehow that it stopped in the 18th century is ridiculous

Thanks....you verified my original presumption: Liberal liars are likely to lie.

Something about old dogs and new tricks....

Liberals have given us every single social change in our nations history
Abolition, womens rights, worker rights, civil rights, environmental protections, gay rights
Conservatives have fought every step of the way

 

[mudwhistle]

1. "Why can't you admit a mistake?"
OK....I'll admit one.
I'm never wrong...I thought I was once, but I was mistaken about that.


2. "Isn't it clear and accurate that a person making over the minimum wage. say $9 per hour, will benefit if the minimum wage goes up to $10.10?"
No, you dope.
The explanation of your asininity is found in Dr. Thomas Sowell's "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One."

As you Liberals don't think beyond stage one....let me help: it matters not how much he was about to make as he is fired because the business finds his new salary impacts the bottom line.
He can only earn what his productivity allows.
Get it????


3 ."Either your reading comprehension is horrible or you are pushing this lie you seem to be stuck on."
I never lie.....your misapprehension is based on being so very less intelligent than I.

Oh, now I understand, if we raise to minimum to 10.10, everyone making below that amount will be fired. But would about the replacement workers who start out at 10.10? Couldn't you say they benefited? Trying to see your logic, but unfortunately all I see is a desperate liar trying to weasel her way out of admitting a mistake.

No, Dumbass. MW laws are based on what is considered full-time employment. We're already dropping that to 30 hrs. Care to see it drop further? How bout 25?. So somebody who was working 40 hrs a week at $7.25/hr has to get two jobs just to make the same amount, because nobody can pay a waitress $10.10 hr and still offer you a meal that is affordable. They'll instead hire two people to do the same job one full-time employee used to do. Either that or they'll decrease the hours they're open. The last thing they can do is jack up prices forcing people to stay home and cook ... and that's what they'll do.

Seems like a lot of deflection, changing subject, weaseling, speculative based opinions and wild guessing just over the refusal of a kind of normal PC type lie or lack of character to admit a mistake.

Yes, we know you're full of shit ... but I spent enough time in college to figure out that if you raise the costs of doing business ... businesses have to pass the costs onto the customer ... you fucking tool!!!

You didn't need the years of college for this situation. Grade school math would have been enough for this one.

So you're saying you didn't finish grade-school?

Because obviously you haven't learned anything in economics or even Distributive Education arena.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Classical liberals....what would be called conservatives today.
Simple to prove: the believed government based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Caught you lyin' again, huh?


You know that communist John Dewey changed the name of the 'Socialist' party to 'Liberal,' dontcha'?

Our founding fathers would be repulsed by todays conservatives. They would still want to tar and feather them

The term "Classical Liberal" was coined by todays conservatives to reflect the point that conservatives are finally catching up with what was liberal thought 200 years ago.

When do you get around to admitting that you're lying?



1.Classical liberalism

a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp

b. Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent, but the voters didn’t agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where ‘men of action’ were creating utopias. Also, John Dewey renamed Progressivism as ‘liberalism,’ which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.

c. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=

d. “DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion. In this essay, Dewey purportedly recounts the "history of liberalism." "Liberalism," he suggests, is a social theory defined by a commitment to certain "enduring," fundamental principles, such as liberty and individualism. After defining these principles in the progressives' terms--…”http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=

e. From Croly: The remedy for ‘chaotic individualism of our political and economic organization’ was a ‘regeneration’ led by a heroic-saint who could overthrow the tired doctrines of liberal democracy in favor of a restored and heroic nation. Herbert Croly, “The Promise of American Life,”p.14

So, where is the line between fascism and Progressivism?

Thanks

You defined it exactly like I expected

Liberals are liberals are liberals

They look at each generations challenges and issues and develop ways to resolve them. The idea that libralism is somehow trapped in some 18th century time warp is conservatism at its best. It was conservatives who attacked our founding fathers and threatened them with death. It was conservatives who supported the monarchy.
Nice to see conservatives eventually acknowledged the error of their ways
Liberalism, by definitition, involves evolution. To pretend somehow that it stopped in the 18th century is ridiculous

Thanks....you verified my original presumption: Liberal liars are likely to lie.

Something about old dogs and new tricks....

Liberals have given us every single social change in our nations history
Abolition, womens rights, worker rights, civil rights, environmental protections, gay rights
Conservatives have fought every step of the way

Well, as I have shown you to be often,...you are both insane and incorrect.

1."Liberals have given us every single social change in our nations history
Abolition..."
See....now you want to claim the Republican Party as Liberals....true only if you mean classical Liberals....conservatives.
In that case, Jim Crow was an example of Democrat liberal big government in action.


2. "...womens rights,..."
Women's suffrage was due to Republicans, not Democrats.


3. "..environmental protections,....I may just OP this one, as the reference is to a spinoff of communism.


"Conservatives have fought every step of the way."

So....lying Liberals are likely to lie, huh?

 

[rightwinger]

Our founding fathers would be repulsed by todays conservatives. They would still want to tar and feather them

The term "Classical Liberal" was coined by todays conservatives to reflect the point that conservatives are finally catching up with what was liberal thought 200 years ago.

When do you get around to admitting that you're lying?



1.Classical liberalism

a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp

b. Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent, but the voters didn’t agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where ‘men of action’ were creating utopias. Also, John Dewey renamed Progressivism as ‘liberalism,’ which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.

c. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=

d. “DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion. In this essay, Dewey purportedly recounts the "history of liberalism." "Liberalism," he suggests, is a social theory defined by a commitment to certain "enduring," fundamental principles, such as liberty and individualism. After defining these principles in the progressives' terms--…”http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=

e. From Croly: The remedy for ‘chaotic individualism of our political and economic organization’ was a ‘regeneration’ led by a heroic-saint who could overthrow the tired doctrines of liberal democracy in favor of a restored and heroic nation. Herbert Croly, “The Promise of American Life,”p.14

So, where is the line between fascism and Progressivism?

Thanks

You defined it exactly like I expected

Liberals are liberals are liberals

They look at each generations challenges and issues and develop ways to resolve them. The idea that libralism is somehow trapped in some 18th century time warp is conservatism at its best. It was conservatives who attacked our founding fathers and threatened them with death. It was conservatives who supported the monarchy.
Nice to see conservatives eventually acknowledged the error of their ways
Liberalism, by definitition, involves evolution. To pretend somehow that it stopped in the 18th century is ridiculous

Thanks....you verified my original presumption: Liberal liars are likely to lie.

Something about old dogs and new tricks....

Liberals have given us every single social change in our nations history
Abolition, womens rights, worker rights, civil rights, environmental protections, gay rights
Conservatives have fought every step of the way

Well, as I have shown you to be often,...you are both insane and incorrect.

1."Liberals have given us every single social change in our nations history
Abolition..."
See....now you want to claim the Republican Party as Liberals....true only if you mean classical Liberals....conservatives.
In that case, Jim Crow was an example of Democrat liberal big government in action.


2. "...womens rights,..."
Women's suffrage was due to Republicans, not Democrats.


3. "..environmental protections,....I may just OP this one, as the reference is to a spinoff of communism.


"Conservatives have fought every step of the way."

So....lying Liberals are likely to lie, huh?

You never heard of Liberal Republicans?

You must have been born after 1980

 

[Uncensored2008]

Freak you out.

Is there an echo?

Oh wait, Rati has her head up her ass and it's reverberating...

Carry on...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Liberals have given us every single social change in our nations history
Abolition, womens rights, worker rights, civil rights, environmental protections, gay rights
Conservatives have fought every step of the way

Shitflinger, if you couldn't lie, would you be able to craft any sort of phrase at all?

 

[PoliticalChic]

When do you get around to admitting that you're lying?



1.Classical liberalism

a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp

b. Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent, but the voters didn’t agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where ‘men of action’ were creating utopias. Also, John Dewey renamed Progressivism as ‘liberalism,’ which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.

c. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=

d. “DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion. In this essay, Dewey purportedly recounts the "history of liberalism." "Liberalism," he suggests, is a social theory defined by a commitment to certain "enduring," fundamental principles, such as liberty and individualism. After defining these principles in the progressives' terms--…”http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=

e. From Croly: The remedy for ‘chaotic individualism of our political and economic organization’ was a ‘regeneration’ led by a heroic-saint who could overthrow the tired doctrines of liberal democracy in favor of a restored and heroic nation. Herbert Croly, “The Promise of American Life,”p.14

So, where is the line between fascism and Progressivism?

Thanks

You defined it exactly like I expected

Liberals are liberals are liberals

They look at each generations challenges and issues and develop ways to resolve them. The idea that libralism is somehow trapped in some 18th century time warp is conservatism at its best. It was conservatives who attacked our founding fathers and threatened them with death. It was conservatives who supported the monarchy.
Nice to see conservatives eventually acknowledged the error of their ways
Liberalism, by definitition, involves evolution. To pretend somehow that it stopped in the 18th century is ridiculous

Thanks....you verified my original presumption: Liberal liars are likely to lie.

Something about old dogs and new tricks....

Liberals have given us every single social change in our nations history
Abolition, womens rights, worker rights, civil rights, environmental protections, gay rights
Conservatives have fought every step of the way

Well, as I have shown you to be often,...you are both insane and incorrect.

1."Liberals have given us every single social change in our nations history
Abolition..."
See....now you want to claim the Republican Party as Liberals....true only if you mean classical Liberals....conservatives.
In that case, Jim Crow was an example of Democrat liberal big government in action.


2. "...womens rights,..."
Women's suffrage was due to Republicans, not Democrats.


3. "..environmental protections,....I may just OP this one, as the reference is to a spinoff of communism.


"Conservatives have fought every step of the way."

So....lying Liberals are likely to lie, huh?

You never heard of Liberal Republicans?

You must have been born after 1980

Your post is one more of the stories that Liberals tell so as to hide their history of racism and communism.

True story.

 

[edthecynic]

Now you are desperately trying to change the subject.
Your surrender is accepted.

It is the subject, so, of course you wouldn't understand that.

"In reality, raising the minimum wage from its current $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will cause all of these negative effects: employers will lay off workers, hire fewer workers, and raise prices."
People Support Raising The Minimum Wage Until Told The Costs - Forbes

We all know the Right lies in packs, but the real world facts expose their lies.

One more time:

You can continue to keep repeating counterintuitive results....
What would those results be without the destructive minimum wage increases?

Reality is only "counterintuitive" to the Right.

What????

I even have to teach you vocabulary, in addition to logic???


1. Businesses are generally very close to the break-even line, with profits being in single digits if any....thanks to Liberal policies, taxation, and regulation.

2. Mandating increases in costs, e.g., increases in minimum wages, cuts further into what little profits exist.

3. Only a moron (raise your paw) would not recognize that mandating costs would decrease hiring of more workers, or cause layoffs of current workers.


Don't you know ANYTHING?????