Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party

[sinewave]

Oh boy... Some good stuff here:

Ann Coulter Fires Back
In an interview with TIME's John Cloud, the conservative author responds to the conflagration over her criticism of 9/11 widows http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1202110,00.html

Its new just posted today June 8 2006.

Part of it:

TIME: ...Why couldn't you offer your (already provocative) point that some “9/11 victims turned themselves into the arbiters of what anyone could say about 9/11” without the name-calling?

AC: Name calling? The use of language is “name calling.” Harpies and witches is what I think they are, which is why I used those words. And I must say, I certainly have spotlighted the issue with my alleged “name-calling.” The entire country is now riveted on the left's device of using victims to advance their half-baked, unsaleable ideas. From now on, every time the left showcases another sobbing, hysterical woman as their spokesperson, people will say — “gosh she looks like she's having a good time.” So I'd say my “name calling” has been a smashing success. And by the way, I've got a few more names in my bag.
-------------

TIME: ...I'm 35, and when I got to the sentence in Chapter 7 that began “A 1985 issue of People magazine…,” I got pretty bored. Won't this seem like ancient history to readers?

AC: I, along with Lynn Cheney, have little patience for young people's boredom with history.
------------

TIME: Finally, the greatest contradiction about you is that you can be charming and personable when you meet new people, even liberals whom you stridently oppose. (I've seen you be quite sweet to both Janet Reno AND New York City journalists.) And yet you are so acid and unforgiving on TV and in print. That makes a lot of people think either the charm or the harshness is an act. Which is it?

AC: The charm is real and so are the opinions. I just don't give an inch in response to liberal bullying, which is apparently interpreted as “mean.”


"liberal bullying"? has she paid attention to her conservative brethren these last six years?

reagrdless of if she thinks her petty name-calling is justified or not, if she's intelligent as we're supposed to believe she is, she should be able to argue the points of the 9/11 widows without having to stoop to name-calling. after all, as cass would say, "liberals resort to name-calling when they know they can't win an argument." i guess it's not party exclusive.

[rdh007]

I thought liberals were too wimpy to be bullies. :confused:

[sinewave]

sounds great to me, and a-freaking-men to the part about name-calling.
Words are NAMES for things+people and we humans are advanced enough to name things in a poetic, figurative OR literal way, and I love it.

The notion of this desired THX-1138 "Utopia" where no one's pulse ever quickens and no one's face ever reddens and no one ever nastily snickers and no one's ever sarcastic and everyone holds hands with their sworn enemies and politely "agrees to disagree" makes me ill.

what the heck are you going on about? :confused:

[Darthphere]

sounds great to me, and a-freaking-men to the part about name-calling.
Words are NAMES for things+people and we humans are advanced enough to name things in a poetic, figurative OR literal way, and I love it.

The notion of this desired THX-1138 "Utopia" where no one's pulse ever quickens and no one's face ever reddens and no one ever nastily snickers and no one's ever sarcastic and everyone holds hands with their sworn enemies and politely "agrees to disagree" makes me ill.


Youre an odd and intriguing creature.

[cass]

i've never said that you can't question them, so please don't group me in with all liberals. all i said was that the way she went about it was in poor taste. look, if ann coulter had a problem with their political agenda then by all means, she had every right to respond to that, but to revel in their pain and make obnoxious comments like, "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much." and then going on to refer to them as "harpies" and wishing that their dead husbands had cheated on them or divorced them prior to the disaster. that doesn't seem mean spirited to you? all because they dared to have a different opinion and political ideology than her? why not make valid points against their charges instead of stooping to making personal attacks on them? she's not presenting anything more than shallow animosity and spite. why defend that? regardless of political affiliation, you have to admit that's pretty sleazy.

It seems what she stated up until "enjoying death" are facts. And with those facts it certainly seems like they're doing their best to enjoy themselves. Stating facts is mean spirited? Oh, forgot who I was talking to here. As opposed to the harpies, Coulter fights fire with fire. Look at what's written about her here, what's said about Katherine Harris' appearance, etc.(Oh, but these widows are victims!) Liberals seem to have no problem dishing it out but can't quite take it.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

aaAAAaaand, I knew it.
This very weird (to me) idea that smart people don't use insults and that insults are exclusively the ear-mark of an intellectual inferior who is "stooping".:confused:
The smartest people I know or have heard express themselves have the greatest insults in their quivers.
I think the smarter you are, the more you see that deserves to have verbal scorn heaped upon it.
Also it makes for a hell of lot more amusement than some clinical debate, and I stress, A.C. is NOT an elected official, a policy maker, a queen, what exactly do you all THINK she is? why do people give her money?

[rdh007]

TIME: ...Why couldn't you offer your (already provocative) point that some “9/11 victims turned themselves into the arbiters of what anyone could say about 9/11” without the name-calling?

AC: Name calling? The use of language is “name calling.” Harpies and witches is what I think they are, which is why I used those words. And I must say, I certainly have spotlighted the issue with my alleged “name-calling.” The entire country is now riveted on the left's device of using victims to advance their half-baked, unsaleable ideas. From now on, every time the left showcases another sobbing, hysterical woman as their spokesperson, people will say — “gosh she looks like she's having a good time.” So I'd say my “name calling” has been a smashing success. And by the way, I've got a few more names in my bag.

The left's device of using victims? How many times have Republi-fascists and their ilk hid behind troops/their wives/9-11/the flag or something else to conduct their awful dealings? Where was she on that? Cashing her sizable checks, most likely.

I'm guessing that the next time there's a sobbing woman (or man for that matter, if Frau Colter will allow us the privilege) on tv, it's a result of something awful a Republican did.

I don't have a problem with her name calling, and that is what we're talking about here, but what I have a problem with is how wrong she generally is.

[Abaddon]

It seems what she stated up until "enjoying death" are facts. And with those facts it certainly seems like they're doing their best to enjoy themselves. Stating facts is mean spirited? Oh, forgot who I was talking to here. As opposed to the harpies, Coulter fights fire with fire. Look at what's written about her here, what's said about Katherine Harris' appearance, etc.(Oh, but these widows are victims!) Liberals seem to have no problem dishing it out but can't quite take it.


I'm sorry what Liberals made the kinds of personal attacks she did made against the widows?:confused:

[Darthphere]

http://starsandgarters.blogs.com/oh_my_stars_and_garters/merry-go-round.jpg

[JLBats]

Looks to me like Coulter got the exact reaction she was looking for.

[Abaddon]

aaAAAaaand, I knew it.
This very weird (to me) idea that smart people don't use insults and that insults are exclusively the ear-mark of an intellectual inferior who is "stooping".:confused:
The smartest people I know or have heard express themselves have the greatest insults in their quivers.
I think the smarter you are, the more you see that deserves to have verbal scorn heaped upon it.
Also it makes for a hell of lot more amusement than some clinical debate, and I stress, A.C. is NOT an elected official, a policy maker, a queen, what exactly do you all THINK she is? why do people give her money?

She pretty much welcomes the kind of verbal lashing she dishes out.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

http://starsandgarters.blogs.com/oh_my_stars_and_garters/merry-go-round.jpgIt's disappointing to see you stoop to insults.:(

[Darthphere]

It's disappointing to see you stoop to insults.:(


I know.:(

[sinewave]

It seems what she stated up until "enjoying death" are facts. And with those facts it certainly seems like they're doing their best to enjoy themselves. Stating facts is mean spirited? Oh, forgot who I was talking to here. As opposed to the harpies, Coulter fights fire with fire. Look at what's written about her here, what's said about Katherine Harris' appearance, etc.(Oh, but these widows are victims!) Liberals seem to have no problem dishing it out but can't quite take it.

you're argument is weak. tell me what these women said that was so peronally offensive to ann that warranted that backlash? i had never even heard of the "9/11 widows" before this whole flap. but, from what i've read about them, their only offense is researching the events of 9/11, drafting their own plan to fight terrorism, marketing their plan and criticizing the bush administration's plan. what's wrong with that? since they, more than any of us, were directly affected by the events on 9/11, that makes them pretty good candidates to actually state their opinion on the governements attempts to prevent further events like that. why take it personally and stoop to petty insults and slander when someone steps up and speaks their mind on an issue that has personally affected them, all because it differs from your viewpoint? that sounds pretty childish to me. your claim that the women are ejoying themselves, what do you base that on? do you have video of them sitting around laughing their asses off at the whole thing? as i stated, this is the first i've herad of them and i've yet to see hard and fast proof that they're getting any pleasure out of this ordeal. i'm sure they'd trade it all away just to have their husbands back. you claim that coulter is "fighting fire with fire", but i don't recall these women attacking her on national tv or at all, for that matter. as a matter of fact, their resonse to her remarks were very civil and intelligent, unlike ann's. do you blame people for being a little upset about seeing innocent people slandered for voicing their honest, heart-felt opinions? what the heck does katherine harris have to do with this? yeah, i poked fun at her appearance before, but i don't have an audience of millions and, to be quite honest, she doesn't shy away from the tv cameras and nobody forced her to pile on the makeup or appear on hannity and combs displaying her ample and fake looking breasts like a baywatch cast-off. anywho, your arguments aren't really holding up too well.

[sinewave]

Looks to me like Coulter got the exact reaction she was looking for.

yup. she's a carnival barker. she's just trying to draw a crowd.

[jaguarr]

I stress, A.C. is NOT an elected official, a policy maker, a queen, what exactly do you all THINK she is? why do people give her money?


I consider her an entertainer/author. Like Patrick F. McManus with fewer fishing stories. Nothing more.

jag

[cass]

you're argument is weak. tell me what these women said that was so peronally offensive to ann that warranted that backlash? i had never even heard of the "9/11 widows" before this whole flap. but, from what i've read about them, their only offense is researching the events of 9/11, drafting their own plan to fight terrorism, marketing their plan and criticizing the bush administration's plan. what's wrong with that? since they, more than any of us, were directly affected by the events on 9/11, that makes them pretty good candidates to actually state their opinion on the governements attempts to prevent further events like that.

You're just proved her right.

what the heck does katherine harris have to do with this? yeah, i poked fun at her appearance before, but i don't have an audience of millions and, to be quite honest, she doesn't shy away from the tv cameras and nobody forced her to pile on the makeup or appear on hannity and combs displaying her ample and fake looking breasts like a baywatch cast-off. anywho, your arguments aren't really holding up too well.

You just complained about attacking, but Katherine Harris is okay because she doesn't shy away from cameras? The widows certainly didn't shy away from cameras either, but don't attack them, they're victims!

You don't even have an argument.

[Darthphere]

I consider her an entertainer/author. Like Patrick F. McManus with fewer fishing stories. Nothing more.

jag


Ann COulter doesnt tell fishing stories?

[JLBats]

yup. she's a carnival barker. she's just trying to draw a crowd.

So why are you guys giving her the reaction she wants?

[Abaddon]

You're just proved her right.



You just complained about attacking, but Katherine Harris is okay because she doesn't shy away from cameras? The widows certainly didn't shy away from cameras either, but don't attack them, they're victims!

You don't even have an argument.


There's nothing wrong with criticizing their ideas and political agenda(however wrong that might be),but to make ridiculous statements about their personal lives makes her a jerk.

[jaguarr]

Ann COulter doesnt tell fishing stories?

Have you read any of her books?

jag

[sinewave]

You're just proved her right.

you're not making any sense here.


You just complained about attacking, but Katherine Harris is okay because she doesn't shy away from cameras? The widows certainly didn't shy away from cameras either, but don't attack them, they're victims!

You don't even have an argument.

what did i say about katherine harris that's not common knowledge? she wears a lot of make-up and she's proud of her boobs. is that wrong? it's not like saying "i wish her husband would cheat on her and divorce her and she's laughing her ass off at helping to steal the 2000 election." get some prespective, then try and add something to this debate. otherwise, you're just making yourself look foolish.

[Darthphere]

Have you read any of her books?

jag


No, it was sarcasm.

[sinewave]

So why are you guys giving her the reaction she wants?

i'm not. i'm having fun with my pal cass. so step-off, i saw him first! ;)

[jaguarr]

No, it was sarcasm.

Answer the question! :mad:

jag

[cass]

you're not making any sense here.



what did i say about katherine harris that's not common knowledge? she wears a lot of make-up and she's proud of her boobs. is that wrong? it's not like saying "i wish her husband would cheat on her and divorce her and she's laughing her ass off at helping to steal the 2000 election." get some prespective, then try and add something to this debate. otherwise, you're just making yourself look foolish.

Maybe if you had a clue what you were talking about, you'd see it makes perfect sense. But like most liberals, you don't.

[JLBats]

Maybe if you had a clue what you were talking about, you'd see it makes perfect sense. But like most liberals, you don't.

This way lies madness. Liberals and Conservatives are both extremely capable of idiocy. Let's try not to play the generalisation card here.

[cass]

This way lies madness. Liberals and Conservatives are both extremely capable of idiocy. Let's try not to play the generalisation card here.

"Hey, leave facts out of this! They hurt liberals!"

[Darthphere]

Cass is funny. I didnt know he had it in him.

[rdh007]

So why are you guys giving her the reaction she wants?
A) Because, as Wilhelm so rightly pointed out, it's amusing.

B) I hate myself for doing it, but I can't stop

[JLBats]

"Hey, leave facts out of this! They hurt liberals!"

cass, I have a great deal of respect for you. But this kind of partisan bashing isn't creative enough for you.

[sinewave]

Maybe if you had a clue what you were talking about, you'd see it makes perfect sense. But like most liberals, you don't.

that's not a bad ann coulter impersonation. do sean hannity next. pretty please?!?

[Emrys]

Maybe if you had a clue what you were talking about, you'd see it makes perfect sense. But like most liberals, you don't.

thanks for showing us the essence of every Ann Coulter argument.

Evil ungodly liberal traitors! It always goes back to the evil ungodly liberal traitors.

The woman is like a broken record.

[bored]

"Hey, leave facts out of this! They hurt liberals!"


You ARE Ann Coulter, aren't you?

[blind_fury]

Wasn't Coulter voted "most likely to eat her own young" in high school?

[Emrys]

Wasn't Coulter voted "most likely to eat her own young" in high school?
I wouldn't put it past her to get an abortion if a pregnancy was somehow "inconvenient" to her career. Someone who shows so little compassion and understanding towards her fellow man is generally not someone who is capable of loving anything else than their overinflated ego.

[deemar325]

I'm reading some of her quotes... amazing. I cannot believe she is actually liked by anyone of the face of the planet...


"My only problem with Tim Mcvay is that he did not go to the New York Times Buiding."

"The terrorists that attacked the United States on 9/11 were Arabs. Therefore, all Arabs are terrorists."

"Liberals hate America."
"Liberals hate all religions except Islam."
"Democrats actually hate working-class people."

"Liberals hate society."

"There are no good democrats"

"People like you caused us to lose the war." (to a disabled Vietnam Veteran)

"Thats the whole point of being a liberal: to feel superior to people with less money."

"The thing I like about Bush is I think he hates liberals."

"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."

"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

Heh, that is one crazy beootch!

[Man-Thing]

Do you actually have anything to say about her/or what she said... or did you just come in here to fight with other users?

I think it's funny that it ALWAYS drives you up a wall regarding what cass says.:D
Nearly every post he makes you quote him with something like that.:rolleyes::D

[deemar325]

Bumpty bump!!

[8Ball2/JanG5]

Is that you talking or the girl in your avatar? :o

[deemar325]

LOL! Both.

POPO ZOW!

[Mr.Webs]

Heh, that is one crazy beootch! My good God...so close-minded, it's amazing.:eek: :(

[deemar325]

My good God...so close-minded, it's amazing.:eek: :(

That's pretty funny coming from you.

So...um nice avy.

[Mr.Webs]

Hey, I was talking about Ann Coulter's idiotic quotes, not you.

Just want to make sure you knew that.:up: I just quoted you because...well, you quoted the quotes.:confused:

And...um, thanks? Not sure if you meant it in a 'nice' way.

[ScottyBBadd]

So why are you guys giving her the reaction she wants?

Personally, JL, I get a kick out of her.

[ScottyBBadd]

I read one of her books, "Treason" and when she defended McCarthy, I had to take the book back to the library. I almost ruptured an internal organ since I was laughing so hard.

I have to check that out.

[ScottyBBadd]

I thought liberals were too wimpy to be bullies. :confused:

I was under the same "missconception".:confused:

[ScottyBBadd]

Whoah. I haven't seen that one in a long time.
A long, glorious, beautiful time.

Thank you, I think.

[Addendum]

I view the late junior senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy, as one of this nation's disgraces

[ScottyBBadd]

I view the late junior senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy, as one of this nation's disgraces

Ya think.

[terry78]

Another sad sign of the times.

Ever since this “Ann Coulter vs. the 9/11 Widows” story broke, I’ve been thinking of the double standards between conservatives and liberals. Remember when Democratic representatives criticized some of George W. Bush’s policies in temperate terms? Republicans, such as Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), were quick to characterize such criticism as “hate speech.”

Now, Ann Coulter bombards liberals and the 9/11 victims with all kinds of vituperative ad hominem verbal attacks, and some conservatives bend over backwards to say why it isn’t hate speech. Mary Matalin on Don Imus’ radio show was one such apologist.

I was trying to think of who Ann Coulter’s liberal counterpart might be. I personally do not see anyone on the left — at least not anyone with Coulter’s high media exposure — stooping to her brand of venomous name-calling. Then, I read that several people on the right are comparing her with filmmaker Michael Moore. I don’t see it. While Moore has often used conservatives’ words against them, I don’t see him indulging in the same tactics as Coulter.

[Kurosawa]

Another sad sign of the times.

Ever since this “Ann Coulter vs. the 9/11 Widows” story broke, I’ve been thinking of the double standards between conservatives and liberals. Remember when Democratic representatives criticized some of George W. Bush’s policies in temperate terms? Republicans, such as Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), were quick to characterize such criticism as “hate speech.”

Now, Ann Coulter bombards liberals and the 9/11 victims with all kinds of vituperative ad hominem verbal attacks, and some conservatives bend over backwards to say why it isn’t hate speech. Mary Matalin on Don Imus’ radio show was one such apologist.

I was trying to think of who Ann Coulter’s liberal counterpart might be. I personally do not see anyone on the left — at least not anyone with Coulter’s high media exposure — stooping to her brand of venomous name-calling. Then, I read that several people on the right are comparing her with filmmaker Michael Moore. I don’t see it. While Moore has often used conservatives’ words against them, I don’t see him indulging in the same tactics as Coulter.

Moore doesn't have the complete hatred of conservatives that Coulter has of liberals either.

[sinewave]

Another sad sign of the times.

Ever since this “Ann Coulter vs. the 9/11 Widows” story broke, I’ve been thinking of the double standards between conservatives and liberals. Remember when Democratic representatives criticized some of George W. Bush’s policies in temperate terms? Republicans, such as Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), were quick to characterize such criticism as “hate speech.”

Now, Ann Coulter bombards liberals and the 9/11 victims with all kinds of vituperative ad hominem verbal attacks, and some conservatives bend over backwards to say why it isn’t hate speech. Mary Matalin on Don Imus’ radio show was one such apologist.

I was trying to think of who Ann Coulter’s liberal counterpart might be. I personally do not see anyone on the left — at least not anyone with Coulter’s high media exposure — stooping to her brand of venomous name-calling. Then, I read that several people on the right are comparing her with filmmaker Michael Moore. I don’t see it. While Moore has often used conservatives’ words against them, I don’t see him indulging in the same tactics as Coulter.


the only one that i can think of on the liberal side would be randi rhodes, one of the talk show hosts on air america. she's not really as mean spirited as ann coulter, but she's very loud, opinionated and partisan.

[kane9321]

i listen to randi rhodes everyday..shes the "****"

[sinewave]

i listen to randi rhodes everyday..shes the "****"

yeah, i didn't mean to imply that she's as sensationalistic as ann coulter, just that they're both very vocal and opinionated on their side of the political spectrum. i do agree with some of the things randi rhodes says, but i've never listened to her show. i've only seen her appear as a guest on a few news programs.

[ScottyBBadd]

i listen to randi rhodes everyday..shes the "****"

Not familair with her. The only one by that name I am familar with is the late guitarist.

[deemar325]

I've heard of Randi.

Don't know her politics.

[bored]

Air America isn't carried where I live :(. I imagine I'd enjoy at least some of it.

[C.F. Kane]

I was trying to think of who Ann Coulter’s liberal counterpart might be. I personally do not see anyone on the left — at least not anyone with Coulter’s high media exposure — stooping to her brand of venomous name-calling. Then, I read that several people on the right are comparing her with filmmaker Michael Moore. I don’t see it. While Moore has often used conservatives’ words against them, I don’t see him indulging in the same tactics as Coulter.

I think Al Franken comes the closest.

Of course, when he spits venom at conservatives, he's smart enough to use clever dodging and biting insult at the same time: go through Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them and count the number of times he says, "If Ann Coulter was a liberal, she would say...[silly toxic partisan rant aimed at a conservative]". :)

[sinewave]

Air America isn't carried where I live :(. I imagine I'd enjoy at least some of it.


you can stream it on the web.

[deemar325]

Another sad sign of the times.

Ever since this “Ann Coulter vs. the 9/11 Widows” story broke, I’ve been thinking of the double standards between conservatives and liberals. Remember when Democratic representatives criticized some of George W. Bush’s policies in temperate terms? Republicans, such as Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), were quick to characterize such criticism as “hate speech.”

Now, Ann Coulter bombards liberals and the 9/11 victims with all kinds of vituperative ad hominem verbal attacks, and some conservatives bend over backwards to say why it isn’t hate speech. Mary Matalin on Don Imus’ radio show was one such apologist.

I was trying to think of who Ann Coulter’s liberal counterpart might be. I personally do not see anyone on the left — at least not anyone with Coulter’s high media exposure — stooping to her brand of venomous name-calling. Then, I read that several people on the right are comparing her with filmmaker Michael Moore. I don’t see it. While Moore has often used conservatives’ words against them, I don’t see him indulging in the same tactics as Coulter.

I agree completely.

[celldog]

Originally Posted by terry78
Another sad sign of the times.

Ever since this “Ann Coulter vs. the 9/11 Widows” story broke, I’ve been thinking of the double standards between conservatives and liberals. Remember when Democratic representatives criticized some of George W. Bush’s policies in temperate terms? Republicans, such as Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), were quick to characterize such criticism as “hate speech.”

Now, Ann Coulter bombards liberals and the 9/11 victims with all kinds of vituperative ad hominem verbal attacks, and some conservatives bend over backwards to say why it isn’t hate speech. Mary Matalin on Don Imus’ radio show was one such apologist.

I was trying to think of who Ann Coulter’s liberal counterpart might be. I personally do not see anyone on the left — at least not anyone with Coulter’s high media exposure — stooping to her brand of venomous name-calling. Then, I read that several people on the right are comparing her with filmmaker Michael Moore. I don’t see it. While Moore has often used conservatives’ words against them, I don’t see him indulging in the same tactics as Coulter



Howard Dean.

[celldog]

LOL! Both.

POPO ZOW!


Hey Deemar....your Avatar is killin' me!! :up:

[deemar325]

Hey Deemar....your Avatar is killin' me!! :up:

Gotta love the Pum Pum!

:up: :)

[bored]

Howard Dean.


What about him?

[celldog]

What about him?
Dean defends view of GOP as
'Christian party'Democratic Party

chairman tries to turn attention to other issues
FREE VIDEO

EXCLUSIVELY ON MSNBC.COM


Updated: 10:01 a.m. ET June 8, 2005
WASHINGTON - Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean on Wednesday defended his recent harsh criticism of Republicans, including his observation that they are “pretty much a white, Christian party.”

Dean noted that he, too, is a white Christian. But he said the GOP is too narrow in its scope and the Democratic Party is far more diverse.

While even prominent Democrats in recent days have distanced themselves from some of his comments, the outspoken Dean, appearing on NBC's “Today” show, said criticism of him is meant by Republicans to divert attention from the country’s problems and make him the issue instead.

Raising eyebrows
Asked about it on the “Fox & Friends” show, GOP Party Chairman Ken Mehlman joked that “a lot of folks who attended my bar mitzvah would be surprised” he heads a Christian party.

“We gotta get ourselves beyond this point where when we disagree about politics, we call the other guy names,” he said.

The former Vermont governor also recently raised eyebrows when he told a group of progressives that Republicans “never made an honest living in their lives,” a comment he was forced to explain a day later.

The one-time presidential candidate also said that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who has not been accused of any crime, ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence.

Some Democrats distance selves
On Wednesday, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said that while Dean was "doing a great job" as party chairman, "I don't think the statement that the governor made was a helpful statement."

She later added that it "is not a fair assessment to characterize the Republicans" the way Dean did.

Democratic New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said Tuesday that Dean is doing a good job, but is not the party’s spokesman.

Last weekend, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., and 2004 vice presidential candidate John Edwards criticized Dean for his recent remarks, saying he doesn’t speak for them.

[JLBats]

That's hardly as bad as Coulter:confused:

[deemar325]

Dean defends view of GOP as
'Christian party'Democratic Party

chairman tries to turn attention to other issues
FREE VIDEO

EXCLUSIVELY ON MSNBC.COM


Updated: 10:01 a.m. ET June 8, 2005
WASHINGTON - Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean on Wednesday defended his recent harsh criticism of Republicans, including his observation that they are “pretty much a white, Christian party.”

Dean noted that he, too, is a white Christian. But he said the GOP is too narrow in its scope and the Democratic Party is far more diverse.

While even prominent Democrats in recent days have distanced themselves from some of his comments, the outspoken Dean, appearing on NBC's “Today” show, said criticism of him is meant by Republicans to divert attention from the country’s problems and make him the issue instead.

Raising eyebrows
Asked about it on the “Fox & Friends” show, GOP Party Chairman Ken Mehlman joked that “a lot of folks who attended my bar mitzvah would be surprised” he heads a Christian party.

“We gotta get ourselves beyond this point where when we disagree about politics, we call the other guy names,” he said.

The former Vermont governor also recently raised eyebrows when he told a group of progressives that Republicans “never made an honest living in their lives,” a comment he was forced to explain a day later.

The one-time presidential candidate also said that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who has not been accused of any crime, ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence.

Some Democrats distance selves
On Wednesday, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said that while Dean was "doing a great job" as party chairman, "I don't think the statement that the governor made was a helpful statement."

She later added that it "is not a fair assessment to characterize the Republicans" the way Dean did.

Democratic New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said Tuesday that Dean is doing a good job, but is not the party’s spokesman.

Last weekend, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., and 2004 vice presidential candidate John Edwards criticized Dean for his recent remarks, saying he doesn’t speak for them.

I love Howard Dean!

[ScottyBBadd]

Deemar, great avatar.

[bored]

Dean defends view of GOP as
'Christian party'Democratic Party

chairman tries to turn attention to other issues
FREE VIDEO

EXCLUSIVELY ON MSNBC.COM


Updated: 10:01 a.m. ET June 8, 2005
WASHINGTON - Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean on Wednesday defended his recent harsh criticism of Republicans, including his observation that they are “pretty much a white, Christian party.”

Dean noted that he, too, is a white Christian. But he said the GOP is too narrow in its scope and the Democratic Party is far more diverse.

While even prominent Democrats in recent days have distanced themselves from some of his comments, the outspoken Dean, appearing on NBC's “Today” show, said criticism of him is meant by Republicans to divert attention from the country’s problems and make him the issue instead.

Raising eyebrows
Asked about it on the “Fox & Friends” show, GOP Party Chairman Ken Mehlman joked that “a lot of folks who attended my bar mitzvah would be surprised” he heads a Christian party.

“We gotta get ourselves beyond this point where when we disagree about politics, we call the other guy names,” he said.

The former Vermont governor also recently raised eyebrows when he told a group of progressives that Republicans “never made an honest living in their lives,” a comment he was forced to explain a day later.

The one-time presidential candidate also said that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who has not been accused of any crime, ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence.

Some Democrats distance selves
On Wednesday, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said that while Dean was "doing a great job" as party chairman, "I don't think the statement that the governor made was a helpful statement."

She later added that it "is not a fair assessment to characterize the Republicans" the way Dean did.

Democratic New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said Tuesday that Dean is doing a good job, but is not the party’s spokesman.

Last weekend, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., and 2004 vice presidential candidate John Edwards criticized Dean for his recent remarks, saying he doesn’t speak for them.


Okay, pretty silly, indeed. Nothing as hateful and sick as Coulter specializes in, though, and he's not a commentator, so you don't hear from him as much.

[celldog]

Okay, pretty silly, indeed. Nothing as hateful and sick as Coulter specializes in, though, and he's not a commentator, so you don't hear from him as much.


Depends on your perspective,

[bored]

Depends on your perspective,


The first part of my comment, maybe, but that he's not a regular commentator isn't exactly opinion.



Btw, here's some more fun tidbits about Ms. Coulter for all to enjoy:


6/9/2006
Because Some Things Are More Profane Than Profanity - Ann Coulter's Possible Plagiarism:
Here's the segment of yesterday's post on Ann Coulter that deserves more attention. If you want the full double-barrel of anti-Coulter rudeness, you can still check it out. But for those with delicate constitutions who want to take Coulter down, here ya go:

Ann Coulter has a bad habit. And that habit, as mentioned before by the Rude Pundit (followed up by Raw Story), is that she appears to like to copy whole sentences from other sources without putting them in as quotes or even citing where she might have "paraphrased" from. You judge for yourself:

Here's Coulter from Chapter 1 of Godless: The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River in Maine, was halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant previously believed to be extinct.

Here's the Portland Press Herald, from the year 2000, in its list of the "Maine Stories of the Century": The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River, is halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant believed to be extinct.

Strangely similar, no? By the way, that's a story from 1976. Coulter doesn't tell you that little tidbit, making you think it happened last week. The next one's from 1977:

Here's Coulter writing about an attack on the Alaska pipeline: A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil.

Here's something from the History Channel: The only major oil spill on land occurred when an unknown saboteur blew a hole in the pipe near Fairbanks, and 550,000 gallons of oil spilled onto the ground.

Why, in this age of the "terrorist," would Coulter use "saboteur," a quaint term, to be sure? Could it be a cut and paste job with a couple of words changed, like a good college freshman?

So you judge. Sure, it's just two incidents in a single chapter. But does it speak to other potential strange similarities throughout the book? Is it plagiarism? The Rude Pundit's not saying it is plagiarism, but he's not saying it's not. How harshly would Coulter judge a liberal writer for doing the same? Or would she have to be silent?


// posted by Rude One @ 9:16 AM

[sinewave]

Dean defends view of GOP as
'Christian party'Democratic Party

chairman tries to turn attention to other issues
FREE VIDEO

EXCLUSIVELY ON MSNBC.COM


Updated: 10:01 a.m. ET June 8, 2005
WASHINGTON - Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean on Wednesday defended his recent harsh criticism of Republicans, including his observation that they are “pretty much a white, Christian party.”

Dean noted that he, too, is a white Christian. But he said the GOP is too narrow in its scope and the Democratic Party is far more diverse.

While even prominent Democrats in recent days have distanced themselves from some of his comments, the outspoken Dean, appearing on NBC's “Today” show, said criticism of him is meant by Republicans to divert attention from the country’s problems and make him the issue instead.

Raising eyebrows
Asked about it on the “Fox & Friends” show, GOP Party Chairman Ken Mehlman joked that “a lot of folks who attended my bar mitzvah would be surprised” he heads a Christian party.

“We gotta get ourselves beyond this point where when we disagree about politics, we call the other guy names,” he said.

The former Vermont governor also recently raised eyebrows when he told a group of progressives that Republicans “never made an honest living in their lives,” a comment he was forced to explain a day later.

The one-time presidential candidate also said that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who has not been accused of any crime, ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence.

Some Democrats distance selves
On Wednesday, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said that while Dean was "doing a great job" as party chairman, "I don't think the statement that the governor made was a helpful statement."

She later added that it "is not a fair assessment to characterize the Republicans" the way Dean did.

Democratic New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said Tuesday that Dean is doing a good job, but is not the party’s spokesman.

Last weekend, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., and 2004 vice presidential candidate John Edwards criticized Dean for his recent remarks, saying he doesn’t speak for them.


that's great. dean says something that's basically true without throwing in any vile hate-speach like coulter, yet you can't differentiate the two?

i like this line from ken mehlman, "We gotta get ourselves beyond this point where when we disagree about politics, we call the other guy names." has he payed any attention to the things that cheney and rove have said about the democrats?

[kane9321]

Air America isn't carried where I live :(. I imagine I'd enjoy at least some of it.

960 the quake...real talk :up:

[Superman]

Air America isn't carried where I live :(. I imagine I'd enjoy at least some of it.http://www.airamericaradio.com/

[The Batman]

Ann Coulter is an ignorant, piece of garbage....

But goddamn...shes kinda hot.....

[Oakley]

She's an attention whore and needs to go away. A woman who talks like that about others is just asking to get a crack across the mouth. I only wish that Matt Lauder would have done it.

[The Batman]

man, how could someone that good looking be such a worthless human being?

[sinewave]

man, how could someone that good looking be such a worthless human being?

dude, just because she's blonde and anorexic, don't mistake her for being hot. picture her with brown hair and 30 pounds on her. would she be hot then?

[Nightwing]

I dislike her comments regarding the women who lost their husbands during 911 as, "enjoying the fame." She obviously has no idea what it's like to lose a loved one, and I wonder how it'd be if the tables were turned on herself. The death of those who perished has allowed her to enjoy "fame" with her statements. This is also allowing her controversy to sell her new book therefore making money using others sorrow.

[Black Panther]

I dislike her comments regarding the women who lost their husbands during 911 as, "enjoying the fame." She obviously has no idea what it's like to lose a loved one, and I wonder how it'd be if the tables were turned on herself. The death of those who perished has allowed her to enjoy "fame" with her statements. This is also allowing her controversy to sell her new book therefore making money using others sorrow.

Yep! I agree with Batman, well said. :up:

Not to mention how she's a fake blonde.....




On a side note though...deemar! Dude it's been awhile since we last talked man. :)

[ScottyBBadd]

man, how could someone that good looking be such a worthless human being?

It happens more often than you think.

[deemar325]

Deemar, great avatar.

Yes, yes it is.

:)

[War Lord]

Air America isn't carried where I live. :( I imagine I'd enjoy at least some of it.

Don't worry, it's not really carried by anybody anymore.

[Superman]

Don't worry, it's not really carried by anybody anymore.Prove that.

[War Lord]

Prove that.

Just turn on the radio.

That should be proof enough.

[Superman]

In the two years that they have been in operation AAR has grown to be on 84 radio stations in the US in a conservative dominated market. 47 are in the top 100 U.S. radio markets. They are growing. They may not beat Rush right now but I think it's just a matter of time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_Radio

BTW that's not including the hits they get from the webcast.

[sinewave]

here's some quotes on ann's statements towards the 9/11 widows from actual republicans. it's nice to see they aren't as soulless and cold as some of the posters on this board.

from: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115017687147737 423

"Redstate: I am somewhat reluctant to write about Ann Coulter this week. The last thing I want to do is help her sell more copies of her book. But I am willing to take that chance in order to denouce her, to show that she is one of the greatest dangers that exists to the conservative movement.

[...]

Captain Ed says it best about this:

...impugning the grief felt by 9/11 widows regardless of their politics is nothing short of despicable. It denies them their humanity and disregards the very public and horrific nature of their spouses' deaths. The attacks motivated a lot of us to become more active in politics in order to make sure our voices contribute to the debate, and it is impossible to argue that the 9/11 widows (and widowers, and children, and parents) have less standing to opine on foreign policy than Ann Coulter...

Of course Ed isn't the only conservative denoucing Coulter on this.

-----

Hugh Hewitt:

Ann Coulter owes an apology to the widows of 9/11, and she should issue it immediately. This is beyond callous, beyond any notion of decency. It is disgusting.

RedState:

this sort of savage attack on people who have suffered a horrible tragedy is beyond any excusing and, really, beyond any apology. Coulter, who was a friend of Barbara Olson (killed on the plane that hit the Pentagon), should know better; heck, any first-grader would know better. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The Anchoress:

...she is embodying everything I currently cannot abide in the "conservative movement", the arrogant presumption of absolute moral certitude (which is ugly, ugly, ugly coming from the left, so honey, it's not pretty when it's from the right, either), combined with the sense of over-confidence which is sending so many on the right into a self-destructive Roy Moore/Tom Tancredo plunge off a cliff.

Ace of Spades:

this nastiness is uncalled for. Even if something is actually felt deep inside -- even if you're filled with toxic hatred for very annoying, very presumptuous, very left-leaning women with an overweening sense of entitlement -- most people would find less abrasive ways to express such an emotion. Does that mean that Ann is just more honest than us "nancy boys"? Not really. A lot of the time the excuse of "I was just being honest" is just a code for "I'm basically an inconsiderate [butthead] who cannot be bothered to modify my behavior in even the slightest fashion in order to observe basic conventions of social decency."

[celldog]

She's an attention whore and needs to go away. A woman who talks like that about others is just asking to get a crack across the mouth. I only wish that Matt Lauder would have done it.


Kinda' like Cindy Sheehan?

http://www.cabalofdoom.com/archives/mt-static/images/cindy_bin_laden_.jpg http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20050926/160_sheehan2_050926.jpg http://e-biscuit.com/images/uploads/CindyPeaceSignsAlone.jpg http://www.mytakeonthings.com/images/cindysheehan/cindy_sheehan_pain_in_spain.jpg http://www.danegerus.com/weblog/images/MuthaBlows.jpg http://calpeacepower.org/0201/images/cindy_jesse.jpg http://www.politicaldogs.org/blogphotos/cindy-sheehan-arrested.jpg

[bored]

Kinda' like Cindy Sheehan?


Inside celldog's head: "Omgomgomfg I've got a great idea! I'm going to name a famous liberal who HAPPENS TO BE THE SAME SEX! It's brilliant!"


Everyone else's heads: "What does that have to do with anything?"

[celldog]

Inside celldog's head: "Omgomgomfg I've got a great idea! I'm going to name a famous liberal who HAPPENS TO BE THE SAME SEX! It's brilliant!"


Everyone else's heads: "What does that have to do with anything?"


Someone said "media whore". :up:

[cass]

Brain damaged liberals heads: "What does that have to do with anything?"

Fixed that for you ;)

[bored]

Cass, you are adorable. I want to pinch your little cheeks and talk about how big your getting. Hey, if you finish all your chores tomorrow, maybe you'll get to go to the zoo this weekend!

[Rayne]

Better yet I'd get her drunk and have sex with her and send the pics of our incounter to her ever loving WASP Mother and Father.

My big Black ass drilling their daughter would kill them on the spot.

Gee, I'm not surprised at all to hear this coming from you.

So...very...typical.

[Rayne]

I ordered the book from my conservative book club and can't wait to get it. I'd love to marry Ann Coulter.

[Slipknot]

I ordered the book from my conservative book club and can't wait to get it.
Haha, you're in a conservative book club? I find it funny that such a thing exists.

[Rayne]

I find this all very hilarious since not long ago at all the media elite and the ACLU and the liberal commies nationwide were up-in-arms in defense of University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill when he called 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns", crying for the First Amendment and Churchill's freedom of speech. Now, the same people who defended him and lambasting Ann Coulter. What a bunch of ****ing hypocrites.

[Rayne]

Haha, you're in a conservative book club? I find it funny that such a thing exists.

www.americancompass.com

[sinewave]

Haha, you're in a conservative book club? I find it funny that such a thing exists.

it sounds like an oxymoron, like "christian scientists". :)

[sinewave]

I ordered the book from my conservative book club and can't wait to get it. I'd love to marry Ann Coulter.

you two would make a great couple.

[sinewave]

I find this all very hilarious since not long ago at all the media elite and the ACLU and the liberal commies nationwide were up-in-arms in defense of University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill when he called 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns", crying for the First Amendment and Churchill's freedom of speech. Now, the same people who defended him and lambasting Ann Coulter. What a bunch of ****ing hypocrites.

is this aimed at any specific posters on this board? i don't recall anyone defending that idiot ward churchill on here.

[bored]

I find this all very hilarious since not long ago at all the media elite and the ACLU and the liberal commies nationwide were up-in-arms in defense of University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill when he called 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns", crying for the First Amendment and Churchill's freedom of speech. Now, the same people who defended him and lambasting Ann Coulter. What a bunch of ****ing hypocrites.


Yes, that's right, everyone was SO defensive of him :rolleyes:. It doesn't count if most of them are in your head, Rayne. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Superman79]

I find this all very hilarious since not long ago at all the media elite and the ACLU and the liberal commies nationwide were up-in-arms in defense of University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill when he called 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns", crying for the First Amendment and Churchill's freedom of speech. Now, the same people who defended him and lambasting Ann Coulter. What a bunch of ****ing hypocrites.

That is quite a bit of a double standard.

[Slipknot]

www.americancompass.com
Wonderful. Did you get you're cozy fleece for free when joining too?

[bored]

That is quite a bit of a double standard.


If only it were true.

[Rayne]

is this aimed at any specific posters on this board? i don't recall anyone defending that idiot ward churchill on here.

No, it wasn't. I didn't discuss Churchill on this board so I couldn't recall and I apologize if that was a blanketing statement. There was, however, support around the country by pundits and organizations for free speech and yadda yadda yadda. That's what pissed me off, especially when now people from the same side are bashing Coulter for employing the same right.

[Rayne]

you two would make a great couple.

Don't get me excited.

[Rayne]

Yes, that's right, everyone was SO defensive of him :rolleyes:. It doesn't count if most of them are in your head, Rayne. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Yawn.

[Rayne]

Wonderful. Did you get you're cozy fleece for free when joining too?

Ohhhhhhhhh how biting! You supreme being, so full of wit!

[Rayne]

If only it were true.

Yeah, and how isn't it? Liberals are calling for Coulter's new book to be BANNED! How is that in support of Freedom of Speech??? It's pure hypocrisy, and it's prevalent at every turn of the liberal socialists scattered about our country.

[Slipknot]

Ohhhhhhhhh how biting! You supreme being, so full of wit!
"Join today and get a Cozy Fleece for FREE!" It was a serious question. Did you get your cozy fleece for free when joining? It says that you are supposed to get one.

[Slipknot]

Yeah, and how isn't it? Liberals are calling for Coulter's new book to be BANNED! How is that in support of Freedom of Speech??? It's pure hypocrisy, and it's prevalent at every turn of the liberal socialists scattered about our country.
You say that as if every Liberal is calling for this. I don't want her book banned. I'm pretty sure that I hate her... but I believe she should be able to speak or write whatever the hell she wants.

[sinewave]

Yeah, and how isn't it? Liberals are calling for Coulter's new book to be BANNED! How is that in support of Freedom of Speech??? It's pure hypocrisy, and it's prevalent at every turn of the liberal socialists scattered about our country.

i haven't seen anyone asking for her booked to be banned. boycotted maybe, but not banned. she can say whatever she wants to say, doesn't mean we have to like it, or that it has any credibility to it.

[bored]

Yeah, and how isn't it? Liberals are calling for Coulter's new book to be BANNED! How is that in support of Freedom of Speech??? It's pure hypocrisy, and it's prevalent at every turn of the liberal socialists scattered about our country.


TWO PEOPLE are calling for it. Don't generalize.

[sinewave]

TWO PEOPLE are calling for it. Don't generalize.

don't take away his only tactic. ;)

[ScottyBBadd]

Yeah, and how isn't it? Liberals are calling for Coulter's new book to be BANNED! How is that in support of Freedom of Speech??? It's pure hypocrisy, and it's prevalent at every turn of the liberal socialists scattered about our country.

If this were true, it would be hypocritical.

[bored]

But it isn't, so it's a moot point.

[Emrys]

Fixed that for you ;)

http://www.xeye.org/1995-2000/Pictures/Lemmings/lemming.jpg

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Hahaha, what?

a liberal wants to ban her book?!?

hilarious.

Who is the moron?

[Wilhelm-Scream]

oh wait, are you talking about New Jersey state Assemblywomen, Joan Quigley and Linda Stende?
'cause they didn't say it should be banned.

They said, "No one in New Jersey should buy this book and allow Ann Coulter to profit from her hate-mongering. We are asking New Jersey retailers statewide to stand with us and express their outrage by refusing to carry or sell copies of Coulter's book. Her hate-filled attacks on our 9-11 widows has no place on New Jersey bookshelves."

Big Difference.

[Addendum]

Hahaha, what?

a liberal wants to ban her book?!?

hilarious.

Who is the moron?
...Found this when I googled "moron"... :D
http://mattfitt.com/gallery2/d/3411-3/Moron_WarOn_edit.jpg

[sinewave]

oh wait, are you talking about New Jersey state Assemblywomen, Joan Quigley and Linda Stende?
'cause they didn't say it should be banned.

They said, "No one in New Jersey should buy this book and allow Ann Coulter to profit from her hate-mongering. We are asking New Jersey retailers statewide to stand with us and express their outrage by refusing to carry or sell copies of Coulter's book. Her hate-filled attacks on our 9-11 widows has no place on New Jersey bookshelves."

Big Difference.

that's still pretty stupid. i can see asking for a boycott, but it's a little unreasonable to ask that stores not carry the book at all.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

yes, stupid, but not criminally stupid and hypocritical as "banning" would've been.
I'm disappointed.
Please, when you're talking s***, get your facts straight people, k? k.:)

[Wilhelm-Scream]

...Found this when I googled "moron"... :D
http://mattfitt.com/gallery2/d/3411-3/Moron_WarOn_edit.jpg


fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap

[sinewave]

yes, stupid, but not criminally stupid and hypocritical as "banning" would've been.
I'm disappointed.
Please, when you're talking s***, get your facts straight people, k? k.:)

people like rayne and cass don't rely on facts, silly. they make up or twist everything to fit their ugly world view.

[celldog]

No, it wasn't. I didn't discuss Churchill on this board so I couldn't recall and I apologize if that was a blanketing statement. There was, however, support around the country by pundits and organizations for free speech and yadda yadda yadda. That's what pissed me off, especially when now people from the same side are bashing Coulter for employing the same right.


And Churchill's comments were about the "victims" of 911...not the families. A much worse comparison.....he's a scum bag. :down :mad:

[Addendum]

And Churchill's comments were about the "victims" of 911...not the families. A much worse comparison.....he's a scum bag. :down :mad:
I may disagree with his comments, but I support his right to say it

[Superman79]

Wasn't there some other 9/11 widows saying the same types of things about the 4 widows in question? Saying they were taking advatage of their grief and the situation...

Or something along the lines of "we lost our husbands too" but they voiced support for the president and so were ignored?

I can't remember...I may need to look on Lexis...

[Mr Sparkle]

LOL....I don't get it.
I have seen all the people that fancy themselves "independents" defend coulter in this thread.
yet, some hate michael moore for the exact same things that coulter is repulsive, and at least, Michael Moore is less evil.
seems you're all not as "independent" as you thought. Coulter is a hate monger, and is only popular because she tells people what they want to hear.

[terry78]

What it boils down to is, since 9/11 it's become popular to be in extreme support of the country. It was popular before to speak out against the government, but two landmarks falling changes a lot.

[jaguarr]

What it boils down to is, since 9/11 it's become popular to be in extreme support of the country. It was popular before to speak out against the government, but two landmarks falling changes a lot.

The REAL problem is that people haven't learned to differentiate between extreme support of your country and extreme support of your government. There is a HUGE difference between the two and way too many people in this country don't get that.

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

The REAL problem is that people haven't learned to differentiate between extreme support of your country and extreme support of your government. There is a HUGE difference between the two and way too many people in this country don't get that.

jag

I was once talking to a lady about my dislike for the Iraq war.
and she said "it's easy for you, you're not american. it's not your soldiers dying"

I was like "lady, one has nothing to do with the other"

good, it's like a football game with "teams" and **** to some people.

[Illuminati]

Coulter what a harpy.

Here is your cwown your majesty :)

[bored]

Wasn't there some other 9/11 widows saying the same types of things about the 4 widows in question? Saying they were taking advatage of their grief and the situation...

Or something along the lines of "we lost our husbands too" but they voiced support for the president and so were ignored?

I can't remember...I may need to look on Lexis...


If she can't make fun of them, Ann Coulter doesn't like to talk about people.

[Edd Extraordinaire]

Ann Coulter is a whore. She's a media whore. If she did her homework and research, she'd want to re-open the 9/11 case too. Those widows just want to know the truth about what really happened that caused their husband's death. They have every right to do so.

[Illuminati]

Ann Coulter is a whore. She's a media whore. If she did her homework and research, she'd want to re-open the 9/11 case too. Those widows just want to know the truth about what really happened that caused their husband's death. They have every right to do so.

:up: Agreed

[sinewave]

Ann Coulter is a whore. She's a media whore. If she did her homework and research, she'd want to re-open the 9/11 case too. Those widows just want to know the truth about what really happened that caused their husband's death. They have every right to do so.

yup, apparently questioning bush is equal to treason in her eyes.

[Edd Extraordinaire]

yup, apparently questioning bush is equal to treason in her eyes.

It's amazing. You can't even ask a question anymore. It's ridiculous.

[bored]

yup, apparently questioning bush is equal to treason in her eyes.


Mind you that was basically the premise to one of her previous books.

[jaguarr]

yup, apparently questioning bush is equal to treason in her eyes.

Sadly, many of the neo-cons have tried to spread that perspective, which is frightening to me since so many have accepted it. They try to smear anyone who dares question this administration as unpatriotic and being un-American. Ridiculous.

jag

[sinewave]

Sadly, many of the neo-cons have tried to spread that perspective, which is frightening to me since so many have accepted it. They try to smear anyone who dares question this administration as unpatriotic and being un-American. Ridiculous.

jag

i'm sure that's a rovian tactic.

[Superman]

Yeah, and how isn't it? Liberals are calling for Coulter's new book to be BANNED! How is that in support of Freedom of Speech??? It's pure hypocrisy, and it's prevalent at every turn of the liberal socialists scattered about our country.I've yet to hear anyone say they want it "BANNED":rolleyes: Show me where anyone has said that. I have heard some say that people should boycott it but that's not the same.

If you are going to accuse people of stuff like this you should either get your facts straight and prove it or just not say it at all.

[Superman]

oh wait, are you talking about New Jersey state Assemblywomen, Joan Quigley and Linda Stende?
'cause they didn't say it should be banned.

They said, "No one in New Jersey should buy this book and allow Ann Coulter to profit from her hate-mongering. We are asking New Jersey retailers statewide to stand with us and express their outrage by refusing to carry or sell copies of Coulter's book. Her hate-filled attacks on our 9-11 widows has no place on New Jersey bookshelves."

Big Difference.Yeah, I saw them on Larry King the other night saying that.

[sinewave]

The Republican-controlled Senate nixed the the proposal to raise the minimum wage in America. Buncha greedy old pricks. :mad:



Bid to increase minimum wage nixed

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Republican-controlled Senate smothered a proposed election-year increase in the minimum wage Wednesday, rejecting Democratic claims that it was past time to boost the $5.15 hourly pay floor that has been in effect for nearly a decade.

The 52-46 vote was eight short of the 60 needed for approval and came one day after House Republican leaders made clear they do not intend to allow a vote on the issue, fearing it might pass.

Sixty votes were required because the plan was proposed as an amendment to an unrelated defense bill.

The Senate vote marked the ninth time since 1997 that Democrats there have proposed -- and Republicans have blocked -- a stand-alone increase in the minimum wage. The debate fell along predictable lines.

"Americans believe that no one who works hard for a living should have to live in poverty. A job should lift you out of poverty, not keep you in it," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Massachusetts. He said a worker paid $5.15 an hour would earn $10,700 a year, "almost $6,000 below the poverty line for a family of three."

Republicans said a minimum wage increase would wind up hurting the low-wage workers that Democrats said they want to help.

"For every increase you make in the minimum wage, you will cost some of them their jobs," said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia.

He described the clash as a "classic debate between two very different philosophies. One philosophy that believes in the marketplace, the competitive system ... and entrepreneurship. And secondly is the argument that says the government knows better and that topdown mandates work."

The measure drew the support of 43 Democrats, eight Republicans and one independent. Four of those eight Republicans are seeking re-election in the fall.

Democrats had conceded in advance that this attempt to raise the minimum wage would fare no better than their previous attempts. At the same time, they have made clear in recent days they hope to gain support in the coming midterm elections by stressing the issue. Organized labor supports the legislation, and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, said that contrary to some impressions, most minimum wage workers are adults, not teenagers, and many of them are women.

"When the Democrats control the Senate, one of the first pieces of legislation we'll see is an increase in the minimum wage," said Kennedy.

His proposal would have increased the minimum wage to $5.85 beginning 60 days after the legislation was enacted; to $6.55 one year later; and to $7.25 a year after that. He said inflation has eroded the value of the current $5.15 minimum wage by 20 percent.

With the help of a few rebellious Republicans, House Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee succeeded in attaching a minimum wage increase last week to legislation providing funding for federal social programs. Fearing that the House would pass the measure with the increase intact, the GOP leadership swiftly decided to sidetrack the entire bill.

"I am opposed to it, and I think a vast majority of our (rank and file) is opposed to it," House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Tuesday.

Pressed by reporters, he said, "There are limits to my willingness to just throw anything out on the floor."

While Democrats depend on organized labor to win elections, Republicans are closely aligned with business interests that oppose any increase in the federal wage floor or would like changes in the current system.

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyoming, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, offered an alternative that proposed a minimum wage increase of $1.10 over 18 months, in two steps.

The increase was coupled with a variety of provisions offering regulatory or tax relief to small businesses, including one to exempt enterprises with less than $1 million in annual receipts from the federal wage and hour law entirely. The current exemption level is $500,000, and a Republican document noted the amount had "lagged behind inflation."

Additionally, Republicans proposed a system of optional "flextime" for workers, a step that Enzi said would allow employees, at their discretion, to work more than 40 hours one week in exchange for more time off the next. Unions generally oppose such initiatives, and the Republican plan drew 45 votes, with 53 in opposition.

Nine Senate Republicans voted against both proposals.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/21/minimum.wage.ap/index.html

Who actually thinks the Republican party cares about anyone but big business and the top 10% in income in America? You're fooling yourself if you do.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

If you're not making enough at your minimum wage job, get a better job.

[The Squirrel]

If they raised minimum wage wouldn't everything else just go up aswell?

It wouldn't really change anything.

[TheSumOfGod]

Minimum wage up here in Canada is $7.75 or $7.85 per hour, and now that Bush done f***ed up the American economy, the Canadian dollar is worth about as much as your own dollar, so our minimum wage kicks your minimum wage's ass! ;) :D

[Abaddon]

the raise in merely wage would be to accodomate the higher cost of living.

[FunBobPants]

people need to realize that we're spending too much money as it is. sure, it would be great to be paid more. but America's in debt. move to Canada if you want more money

[Wilhelm-Scream]

If they raised minimum wage wouldn't everything else just go up aswell?

It wouldn't really change anything.I was in a class once where this girl asked the teacher why the government doesn't just print a bunch of money and give it to all of the poor people. She was convinced that she had solved the world's problems and thought we, who were trying to explain why that wouldn't work, were morons.
Hahahaha, it was hilarious.:up:

[kainedamo]

A person working a full time job deserves a good minimum wage. If the pay isn't enough to get by, then the minimum wage is too low. As simple as that really.

It really shocks me the general attitude of Americans who's opinion I have seen on the Internet. The person working full time, say, cleaning up other people's **** in the cinema... why doesn't that guy deserve a decent minimum wage??

It makes no sense to me at all. "Get a better job". What stupid logic. We can't all be high rollers!! We can't all be investers, bankers, lawyers, actors, models, photographers, you see what I'm saying??

****ing idiots.

[terry78]

If it was that easy to get a good paying job, we'd all be at the top. Poor and unable to afford decent education to get said job are hurdles.

[War Lord]

The Republican-controlled Senate nixed the the proposal to raise the minimum wage in America. Buncha greedy old pricks. :mad:



http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/21/minimum.wage.ap/index.html

Who actually thinks the Republican party cares about anyone but big business and the top 10% in income in America? You're fooling yourself if you do.

Having a higher minimum wage results in fewer workers working because raising the minimum wage doesn't automatically increase the amount a business is able to set aside for wages.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

It really shocks me the general attitude of Americans who's opinion I have seen on the Internet. The person working full time, say, cleaning up other people's **** in the cinema... why doesn't that guy deserve a decent minimum wage?? I worked at a movie theater. That is not "work". If you think someone should be able to make a decent living based solely on their corn-popping and sweeping skills then you are the idiot. Working at a theater is a great summer job for teens who live with their parents or for retired people to suppliment their income. It's not a f***ing career.

We can't all be high rollers!! We can't all be investers, bankers, lawyers, actors, models, photographers, you see what I'm saying??If you choose to put those limitations on yourself then yeah, you never will be any of those things.
Also, I didn't say, "Become an investment banker if you don't like minimum wage.
My parents were not "high rollers", nor am I. But none of us were stupid enough to try and subsist on a minimum wage job.


:rolleyes:

[rdh007]

Having a higher minimum wage results in fewer workers working because raising the minimum wage doesn't automatically increase the amount a business is able to set aside for wages.

Or it results in fewer workers because the greedy old pricks referred to earlier are indeed greedy old pricks. Of course, we can probably blame this all on Clinton and the Republican congress with their NAFTA, which essentially said it was alright to pay people nothing to do hard work.

We don't value work anymore, just investment and information. It makes me sad.

[Equint77]

this looks like a job for communism.

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:_oksAtM9lISWMM:http://www.wellredusa.com/images/hammer_sickle_r_y.jpg

[Sarge 2.0]

A person working a full time job deserves a good minimum wage. If the pay isn't enough to get by, then the minimum wage is too low. As simple as that really.

It really shocks me the general attitude of Americans who's opinion I have seen on the Internet. The person working full time, say, cleaning up other people's **** in the cinema... why doesn't that guy deserve a decent minimum wage??

It makes no sense to me at all. "Get a better job". What stupid logic. We can't all be high rollers!! We can't all be investers, bankers, lawyers, actors, models, photographers, you see what I'm saying??

****ing idiots.This post basically translates to "Many people are too lazy to obtain actual careers to support themselves. Raise minimum wage!". :down

[blind_fury]

I used to support a living wage (9 dollar minimum wage). But that would only cause rapid inflation and would end up hurting the poor even more. :(

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Kd just made me sick.
My dad was the produce guy at a large grocery store. My Mom cleaned vacated apartments and the homes of some really wealthy people.

No college degree acquired or REquired. No class privelege involved whatsoever. But they still made way more than minimum wage.

Lazy punk pours butter on popcorn, rips tickets and cleans cups out of theaters and probably thinks that entitles him to have a large screen TV and a cottage near the beach.

Pffff, pathetic.

[sinewave]

Having a higher minimum wage results in fewer workers working because raising the minimum wage doesn't automatically increase the amount a business is able to set aside for wages.

Of course, the old stand-by Republican talking point. You're wrong. The minimum wage hasn't been increased in almost ten years. Since then gas prices have increased 140% and home heating oil has increased by 120%. If these greedy business owners would stop pinching every penny and respect their workers enough to keep them above the poverty line, we'd have a better economy. Here's a fact for you, from CNN.com "According to the Fiscal Policy Institute, since 1998, states with higher minimum wages experienced better job growth than states paying only the federal minimum wage. Among small retail businesses in those higher minimum-wage states, job growth was double the rest of the country." Please, quit sucking up to your greedy Republican masters and admit it, in America, the powerful country in the free world, citizens who work fulltime should not fall under the poverty line. The businesses are making enough money, they should respect their workers and pay them what they're due.

If Congress can give themselves raises for that last 7 years in a row, why can't they raise the minimum wage? The gap between the upper and lower classes is getting wider and wider. :down

[sinewave]

Kd just made me sick.
My dad was the produce guy at a large grocery store. My Mom cleaned vacated apartments and the homes of some really wealthy people.

No college degree acquired or REquired. No class privelege involved whatsoever. But they still made way more than minimum wage.

Lazy punk pours butter on popcorn, rips tickets and cleans cups out of theaters and probably thinks that entitles him to have a large screen TV and a cottage near the beach.

Pffff, pathetic.

not everyone has a highschool education or can qualify for a decent paying job.

[terry78]

I don't think we have any poor or formerly poor people on here. I mean dirt poor mother****ers. Not lower class, I mean painfully not knowing if you were going to eat the next day poor.

[kainedamo]

I worked at a movie theater. That is not "work". If you think someone should be able to make a decent living based solely on their corn-popping and sweeping skills then you are the idiot. Working at a theater is a great summer job for teens who live with their parents or for retired people to suppliment their income. It's not a f***ing career.

Glad you had a good experience working in a cinema. I didn't. Well, ok, it was fun and all... but I would sweat buckets at the end of some shifts, and I wasn't the only one. Incompetent management and bad training meant that alot of things went wrong. I worked there for two years, 18 to 20 years old. It was up to me to lead the floor team, and the floor team's job was to clean the cinema screens. We would sometimes have to clean a cinema that had been packed with 500 people, messy ****ing people, and do it in in about 15 minutes, sometimes less, all because the management would screw up ALL the time with the movie times, keeping the movies waaaaay too close to each other with the end times and finishing times. I swear to God, sometimes the start time of a movie was earlier than the end time of the previous movie, making us go WTF? and do alot of explaining to angry customers. The concessions area. Lines of dozens, sometimes hundreds of people. Little to no help from management. It was hard work sometimes! Sure, when there are crap movies on, the work can be clean and easy for a couple of weeks. But when the big movies roll around, be ready for chaos.

I don't know what cinema you worked in. I'll assume you worked in one that didn't have any customers.

If you choose to put those limitations on yourself then yeah, you never will be any of those things.
Also, I didn't say, "Become an investment banker if you don't like minimum wage.
My parents were not "high rollers", nor am I. But none of us were stupid enough to try and subsist on a minimum wage job.

Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid, a million times stupid. I'm not calling you stupid, I don't mean to offend, you're just making a really idiotic point. "Don't put limitations on yourself" "Don't be stupid enough to subsist on a minimum wage job".

Dude, some people are happy enough where they are, ya know? There could be a MILLION reasons why a person would CHOOSE to, say, work as a bartender, or work as a carpenter, or a million other jobs that don't pay the best. Say there's a guy in his 30s that works full time in a cinema. If he's good at what he does, if he likes where he works, and if he does indeed work hard when the need arrises, WHY shouldn't he get a good minimum wage? I haven't heard one good reason. Like I said, there could be a million reasons why he doesn't want another job. He could enjoy it. He could be mentally disabled or limited in some capacity that prevents him from getting a job that would put too much pressure on him, maybe he's desperate and it's a second job.

Maybe an other wise good 17 year old guy knocks up a girl. He decides to take responsibility and get a job. Works in McDonalds AND Burger King. Oh no, he's just a peace of ****!!!

When you say "If you choose to put those limitations on yourself then yeah, you never will be any of those things." it sounds like you're full of yourself. It sounds like you look down on other people. You look down on people that lack the education that you do. You look down on people that earn less than you.

When you look down on another person because of wage or education, you are a fascist.

That is why what you said is so stupid. It makes you look like a fascist looking down on the poor people on your high horse.

[kainedamo]

I worked at a movie theater. That is not "work". If you think someone should be able to make a decent living based solely on their corn-popping and sweeping skills then you are the idiot. Working at a theater is a great summer job for teens who live with their parents or for retired people to suppliment their income. It's not a f***ing career.

Glad you had a good experience working in a cinema. I didn't. Well, ok, it was fun and all... but I would sweat buckets at the end of some shifts, and I wasn't the only one. Incompetent management and bad training meant that alot of things went wrong. I worked there for two years, 18 to 20 years old. It was up to me to lead the floor team, and the floor team's job was to clean the cinema screens. We would sometimes have to clean a cinema that had been packed with 500 people, messy ****ing people, and do it in in about 15 minutes, sometimes less, all because the management would screw up ALL the time with the movie times, keeping the movies waaaaay too close to each other with the end times and finishing times. I swear to God, sometimes the start time of a movie was earlier than the end time of the previous movie, making us go WTF? and do alot of explaining to angry customers. The concessions area. Lines of dozens, sometimes hundreds of people. Little to no help from management. It was hard work sometimes! Sure, when there are crap movies on, the work can be clean and easy for a couple of weeks. But when the big movies roll around, be ready for chaos.

I don't know what cinema you worked in. I'll assume you worked in one that didn't have any customers.

If you choose to put those limitations on yourself then yeah, you never will be any of those things.
Also, I didn't say, "Become an investment banker if you don't like minimum wage.
My parents were not "high rollers", nor am I. But none of us were stupid enough to try and subsist on a minimum wage job.

Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid, a million times stupid. I'm not calling you stupid, I don't mean to offend, you're just making a really idiotic point. "Don't put limitations on yourself" "Don't be stupid enough to subsist on a minimum wage job".

Dude, some people are happy enough where they are, ya know? There could be a MILLION reasons why a person would CHOOSE to, say, work as a bartender, or work as a carpenter, or a million other jobs that don't pay the best. Say there's a guy in his 30s that works full time in a cinema. If he's good at what he does, if he likes where he works, and if he does indeed work hard when the need arrises, WHY shouldn't he get a good minimum wage? I haven't heard one good reason. Like I said, there could be a million reasons why he doesn't want another job. He could enjoy it. He could be mentally disabled or limited in some capacity that prevents him from getting a job that would put too much pressure on him, maybe he's desperate and it's a second job.

Maybe an other wise good 17 year old guy knocks up a girl. He decides to take responsibility and get a job. Works in McDonalds AND Burger King. Oh no, he's just a peace of ****!!!

When you say "If you choose to put those limitations on yourself then yeah, you never will be any of those things." it sounds like you're full of yourself. It sounds like you look down on other people. You look down on people that lack the education that you do. You look down on people that earn less than you.

When you look down on another person because of wage or education, you are a fascist.

That is why what you said is so stupid. It makes you look like a fascist looking down on the poor people on your high horse.

[terry78]

edit

[terry78]

I don't think we have any poor or formerly poor people on here. I mean dirt poor mother****ers. Not lower class, I mean painfully not knowing if you were going to eat the next day poor.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I don't think we have any poor or formerly poor people on here. I mean dirt poor mother****ers. Not lower class, I mean painfully not knowing if you were going to eat the next day poor.Well, you're wrong. I've been homeless before. Can't get much poorer than that.

[THWIP*]

The Republican-controlled Senate nixed the the proposal to raise the minimum wage in America. Buncha greedy old pricks. :mad:



http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/21/minimum.wage.ap/index.html

Who actually thinks the Republican party cares about anyone but big business and the top 10% in income in America? You're fooling yourself if you do.



DO WE REALLY NEED "FURTHER PROOF"? :confused:

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid, a million times stupid. I'm not calling you stupid, I don't mean to offend, you're just making a really idiotic point. "Don't put limitations on yourself" "Don't be stupid enough to subsist on a minimum wage job". Again, my Mom scrubbed floors on her hands and knees and cleaned ovens, vaccumed, etc. She sometimes brought me along to help. She made more than minimum wage, way more. No "education" involved in any way. And in the case of my Dad, I'm sorry, he didn't have to go to M.I.T. before they'd let him spray down the broccoli and stack the banana crates. And again, WaAay more than minimum wage.

Dude, some people are happy enough where they are, ya know? There could be a MILLION reasons why a person would CHOOSE to, say, work as a bartender, or work as a carpenter, or a million other jobs that don't pay the best. Say there's a guy in his 30s that works full time in a cinema. If he's good at what he does, if he likes where he works, and if he does indeed work hard when the need arrises, WHY shouldn't he get a good minimum wage?Um, because society doesn't value the work he does regardless of how much he "enjoys" it. Welcome to the real world. People don't pay you because they want to make sure you're enjoying yourself. It's 'cause they want something done that a) they don't want to do. or b) they can't do themselves.
You really have no idea who you're talking to because you're describing me. I have a lot of money but it's only by my standards and because I have simple tastes. I'm not buying a house, I don't own a car. I don't have kids.
No one has to have those things. If they WANT them, then they'd better figure out a way to afford them. A minimum wage job is not, nor should it ever be, the way.

It sounds like you look down on other people. Good, because I most definitely do look down on many people.

You look down on people that lack the education that you do. What education do I have? Please tell me.
You look down on people that earn less than you.No I don't. Mainly because my family was poor, most of my friends were poor, I've been homeless before and by many, many people's standards, I'm poor right now.

[sinewave]

DO WE REALLY NEED "FURTHER PROOF"? :confused:

:) according to folks like jonty, this isn't proof at all.

it kills me, between this b.s., the tax cuts for the rich and the republicans' proposal to cut the estate tax, how can anyone seriously think the republican party cares about the average, hardworking american citizen? all they do is pander to the wealthy. the republican party has the lower and middle-class republicans wrapped around their finger with wedge issues like gay marriage and the iraq war, but couldn't really care less about them. wake the f*#k up!!!!

[Fred_Fury]

not wanting to raise minimum wage = HATES POOR PEOPLE GRRR OMGOMGOMGOMG RETHUGLIKKKANS!!! VIVA REVOLUTION1!

[Darthphere]

Didnt these guys just give themselves a raise?

[Superman]

Didnt these guys just give themselves a raise?Yup, I think it was last week they did that.

[Darthphere]

Yup, I think it was last week they did that.


You know they need that money with the rising oil prices and milk and stuff.:rolleyes:

[MaskedManJRK]

:) according to folks like jonty, this isn't proof at all.

it kills me, between this b.s., the tax cuts for the rich and the republicans' proposal to cut the estate tax, how can anyone seriously think the republican party cares about the average, hardworking american citizen? all they do is pander to the wealthy. the republican party has the lower and middle-class republicans wrapped around their finger with wedge issues like gay marriage and the iraq war, but couldn't really care less about them. wake the f*#k up!!!!

A-f**king-men. :up:

[kainedamo]

Also.

Aren't prices of things in general rising in the US? Haven't they been rising steadily over the years?? And yet, the minimum wage hasn't been raised in well over a decade!! It's ****ed up! And STILL people defend it!

[deemar325]

Minimum wage up here in Canada is $7.75 or $7.85 per hour, and now that Bush done f***ed up the American economy, the Canadian dollar is worth about as much as your own dollar, so our minimum wage kicks your minimum wage's ass! ;) :D

But we still have a military that could overrun your country in two weeks or less.

Cheers! :)

[deemar325]

The Republican-controlled Senate nixed the the proposal to raise the minimum wage in America. Buncha greedy old pricks. :mad:



http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/21/minimum.wage.ap/index.html

Who actually thinks the Republican party cares about anyone but big business and the top 10% in income in America? You're fooling yourself if you do.

I agree.

Couldn't agree more.

:up:

[comicgirl]

I think it's a known fact that God loves those with higher bank accounts.......let them live on what we do!

[deemar325]

Your avy is the god of badass avys!

[comicgirl]

Your avy is the god of badass avys!thanks, babe...I like your little gnome guy, too

[Abaddon]

comicgirl hasnt been around much.

[comicgirl]

comicgirl hasnt been around much.No, I've been fighting something worse than villians

[Abaddon]

College Professors?:(

[comicgirl]

College Professors?:(cancer

[Abaddon]

cancer


ouch. It was the first thing that popped in my head and it still hurts to hear. I hope youre doing well and I wish you a speedy recovery:up: .

[comicgirl]

ouch. It was the first thing that popped in my head and it still hurts to hear. I hope youre doing well and I wish you a speedy recovery:up: .thank you , my friend............this thing won't get me without a fight:ghost:

[MaskedManJRK]

cancer

Jesus, that has to be horrorible. :(

I hope you beat that motherf**ker into submission, m'dear. :up:

[JLBats]

This thread had a very fast and gut wrenching tonal shift:(

[comicgirl]

Jesus, that has to be horrorible. :(

I hope you beat that motherf**ker into submission, m'dear. :up:I will....I cannot see any other way; hell I'm young and refuse to be a statisic. I have a Sinead O' Connor look right now...cancer be damned!

Sorry about the thread shift JLBATs.....let's bright it back

[Sarge 2.0]

Oh ****, I hope you' get well comicgirl. :(

I remember you being one of the only posters who was as big an Alice in Chains fan as myself.

[blind_fury]

thank you , my friend............this thing won't get me without a fight:ghost:
If anyone deserves good health, it's you. :O

*hugs*

*cues Rocky music*

Now kick some ass for all of us! :mad:

[jaguarr]

Lou Dobbs has it right.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/20/dobbs.june21/

Dobbs: Congress stiffs working Americans

By Lou Dobbs
CNN

Editor's note: Lou Dobbs' commentary appears every Wednesday on CNN.com.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Without much fanfare, the House of Representatives last week voted to give members of Congress yet another pay raise, as it has done almost every year for nearly a decade.

For some reason, our elected officials decided against holding a news conference. Maybe that's because they didn't want to draw attention to the fact that they raise their own salaries almost every year while refusing to raise the pay of our lowest-paid workers.

Corporate America, the Bush administration and the national economic orthodoxy with which they're in league have consistently argued against helping working men and women at the lowest end of the wage scale by raising the minimum wage. Big business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say it will harm the economy and eliminate jobs. As is so frequent with the faith-based economics that grips both political parties in Washington, such concerns have absolutely nothing to do with reality.

For example, it's impossible to deny the national minimum wage of $5.15 is not enough for a family to live above the poverty line. The annual salary for workers earning the national minimum wage still leaves a family of three about $6,000 short of the poverty threshold.

Raising the minimum wage to $7.50 would positively affect the lives of more than 8 million workers, including an estimated 760,000 single mothers and 1.8 million parents with children under 18. But even this 46 percent increase would get them only to the poverty line. Don't you think these families just might need that cost-of-living increase a bit more than our elected officials who are paid nearly $170,000 a year?

With no Congressional action on raising the minimum wage since 1997, inflation has eroded wages. The minimum wage in the 21st century is $2 lower in real dollars than it was four decades ago and now stands at its lowest level since 1955, according to the Economic Policy Institute and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Also, since the last time Congress increased the minimum wage for our lowest-paid workers, buying power has fallen by 25 percent. Yet over that time our elected representatives have given themselves eight pay raises totaling more than 23 percent.

Raising the minimum wage isn't simply about the price of labor. It's also about our respect for labor. One of this country's greatest business innovators, Henry Ford, made history almost a century ago by raising the salaries of his production-line workers far beyond the prevailing wage. Ford not only paid his employees well enough to buy the products they built, but he kept his employees loyal and productive. That's also very good business.

The myth that raising the minimum wage will lead to job cuts is just that: a myth. In fact, research suggests just the opposite. According to the Fiscal Policy Institute, since 1998, states with higher minimum wages experienced better job growth than states paying only the federal minimum wage. Among small retail businesses in those higher minimum-wage states, job growth was double the rest of the country.

The House Appropriations Committee has passed a $2.10 increase as part of a spending bill, but the business lobby pressured the House leadership to hold up the measure.

"I think it's disgraceful that we waited nine years to do this," says Rep. David Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin. "We have seen gas prices go up by 140 percent since the minimum wage was increased. We have seen home heating oil go up by 120 percent. We have seen health care go up by almost 45 percent."

This administration, our Republican-led Congress and the dominant corporate interests in this country want cheap labor. And to achieve that goal they're outsourcing middle-class jobs, importing illegal labor and cutting retirement and health-care benefits.

It's time for the federal government to reverse the trend, to at least substantially raise the minimum wage in this country, and by doing so express how much we value all working Americans.

jag

[Fred_Fury]

you know who needs a pay raise? soldiers

[jaguarr]

cancer

Kick...it's...ASS, comicgirl! :mad: :up:

jag

[comicgirl]

you know who needs a pay raise? soldierspreach, brother!!!

Kick...it's...ASS, comicgirl! :mad: :up:

jagI am, baby...Although, the bald head kinda looks sexy on me

[MaskedManJRK]

I will....I cannot see any other way; hell I'm young and refuse to be a statisic. I have a Sinead O' Connor look right now...cancer be damned!

Sorry about the thread shift JLBATs.....let's bright it back

YOU GO GIRL!

...

Sorry about that. :(

I bet the Sinead look could work for you, just don't tear any pictures of the Pope and I'm sure everyone will enjoy it too. :up:

[sinewave]

I'm sorry to hear about your illness, comicgirl. My mom's currently struggling with cancer right now, too. Good luck to you! :up:

[sinewave]

you know who needs a pay raise? soldiers

I actually agree with this post, unlike your other one earlier.

[comicgirl]

YOU GO GIRL!

...

Sorry about that. :(

I bet the Sinead look could work for you, just don't tear any pictures of the Pope and I'm sure everyone will enjoy it too. :up:yeah, me and the pope are cool...no worries


sinewave, the best to your mom.....well shalll overcome!:up:

[sinewave]

yeah, me and the pope are cool...no worries


sinewave, the best to your mom.....well shalll overcome!:up:

Thank you. :up:

[cryptic name]

The Republican-controlled Senate nixed the the proposal to raise the minimum wage in America. Buncha greedy old pricks. :mad:



http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/21/minimum.wage.ap/index.html

Who actually thinks the Republican party cares about anyone but big business and the top 10% in income in America? You're fooling yourself if you do.

what about the lower and middle class republicans...wait...no, nevermind, taking them into account would make the title of the thread seem stupid and hyperbolic, and we can't have that...

[sinewave]

what about the lower and middle class republicans...wait...no, nevermind, taking them into account would make the title of the thread seem stupid and hyperbolic, and we can't have that...

read post #27.

[hippie_hunter]

Minimum wage up here in Canada is $7.75 or $7.85 per hour, and now that Bush done f***ed up the American economy, the Canadian dollar is worth about as much as your own dollar, so our minimum wage kicks your minimum wage's ass! ;) :D

The United States has a free enterprise economy. That means it is not the government's fault that the economy has gone down the crapper. It naturally did. Just like it is not the government's fault for high oil prices, the trade deficit, and other problems.

Also raising the minimum wage is a bad thing for the economy. It results in higher prices which in the end does nothing to help the lower class but hurt the middle and upper class.

[bored]

you know who needs a pay raise? soldiers


Soldiers need a lot of things that the gov't isn't going to give them, unfortunately.

[hippie_hunter]

Soldiers need a lot of things that the gov't isn't going to give them, unfortunately.

Sad, yet true. If anyone deserves such things though, it's definetly the men and women who put their lives up for their country.

[Man-Thing]

comicgirl, I'm sorry about your illness. I'll pray for you and your doctors.:up:

[Man-Thing]

anyway...

A low-paying job remains the entry point for those with few marketable skills. The minimum wage hurts the so-called hard-core unemployable by forcing an employer to pay more than the fair value of labor. Every time the government raises the minimum wage, thousands of entry-level jobs get destroyed.

[sinewave]

anyway...

A low-paying job remains the entry point for those with few marketable skills. The minimum wage hurts the so-called hard-core unemployable by forcing an employer to pay more than the fair value of labor. Every time the government raises the minimum wage, thousands of entry-level jobs get destroyed.

that's not an excuse. it hasn't been raised in almost ten years. there's such a thing as "cost of living", and that goes up every year. with fuel prices rising dramatically, it's the least the government could do to raise the minimum wage. i never thought i'd have to argue against "big government" with republicans. the minimum wage in the 21st century is $2 less than it was forty years ago, in real dollars. as bluntly as i can put it, we're screwing our lower-class workers. no amount of spin or republican b.s. is going to change that fact.

[Man-Thing]

that's not an excuse. it hasn't been raised in almost ten years. there's such a thing as "cost of living", and that goes up every year. with fuel prices rising dramatically, it's the least the government could do to raise the minimum wage. i never thought i'd have to argue against "big government" with republicans. the minimum wage in the 21st century is $2 less than it was forty years ago, in real dollars. as bluntly as i can put it, we're screwing our lower-class workers. no amount of spin or republican b.s. is going to change that fact.

sorry, but it's not spin. It's pretty simple really, when min-wage laws are increased then companies will look to other countries to produce their product, or will close shop. Minimum wage laws cost the country jobs.

The minimum wage should be abolished. The government shouldn't be in the charity buisness.

[blind_fury]

abolish the minimum wage? You might as well legalize slavery. :rolleyes:

[Man-Thing]

why?

[bored]

why?


Because without one, what's to stop employers from paying people the kinds of wages only illegals would work for now?

I assume it's what he meant.

[Man-Thing]

and what's wrong with that?

Oh yeah, I forgot that part in the constitution where it says that you are entitled to everything even if you don't work hard.:rolleyes:

[Abaddon]

why would it be ok to pay someone 10 cents an hour?:confused:

[Man-Thing]

why would it be ok to pay someone 10 cents an hour?:confused:

Because slavery doesn't exist in our country, and if the person works for ten cents an hour, then it is by THEIR OWN CHOICE. They aren't forced to.:up:

If they need help, then that is what charities and churches are for.:up:

[The Overlord]

and what's wrong with that?

Oh yeah, I forgot that part in the constitution where it says that you are entitled to everything even if you don't work hard.:rolleyes:

Ever heard of the term "working poor"? I guess Jesus was lying when he said "blessed are poor" because many GOP members claim to be Christians and seem to like to treat the poor like trash.

[War Lord]

Of course, the old stand-by Republican talking point. You're wrong. The minimum wage hasn't been increased in almost ten years. Since then gas prices have increased 140% and home heating oil has increased by 120%. If these greedy business owners would stop pinching every penny and respect their workers enough to keep them above the poverty line, we'd have a better economy. Here's a fact for you, from CNN.com "According to the Fiscal Policy Institute, since 1998, states with higher minimum wages experienced better job growth than states paying only the federal minimum wage. Among small retail businesses in those higher minimum-wage states, job growth was double the rest of the country." Please, quit sucking up to your greedy Republican masters and admit it, in America, the powerful country in the free world, citizens who work fulltime should not fall under the poverty line. The businesses are making enough money, they should respect their workers and pay them what they're due.

If Congress can give themselves raises for that last 7 years in a row, why can't they raise the minimum wage? The gap between the upper and lower classes is getting wider and wider. :down

If a company only has x dollars set aside for wages, having a higher minimum wage doesn't mean the company in question can have x +y dollars to include every worker. What the likely result is that it will remain x dollars and however many workers are needed to be let go to make all the wages fit within x is how the company would go about it, unless it wants to raise prices and risk consumers going elsewhere for goods and sercives.

If raising the minimum wage was the answer to poverty, than why not raise it to a million dollars a year for everybody and let everybody become a millionaire?

The better way to combatting poverty is to search for ways to get workers to get better training.

[Abaddon]

Because slavery doesn't exist in our country, and if the person works for ten cents an hour, then it is by THEIR OWN CHOICE. They aren't forced to.:up:

If they need help, then that is what charities and churches are for.:up:


and theyre supposed to depend on those for the rest of their lives?

[War Lord]

not everyone has a highschool education or can qualify for a decent paying job.

Then the answer here is find a way for workers to get training.

[Man-Thing]

Ever heard of the term "working poor"? I guess Jesus was lying when he said "blessed are poor" because many GOP members claim to be Christians and seem to like to treat the poor like trash.

I can't speak for the GOP, but only for what I know. I know that through charity work, my money does more good than the welfare state. I know that charities, unlike the government are dependant upon funds coming to them, whereas the government can just tax others more- thus charities are more effeciant with their funds than the government.

Case in point- every day, I pass a state road crew. I have for three years now. The problem is that the road was supposed to be finished right about now, but they aren't even close to being halfway through. This is because they are government employees who are in the union. They have no need to work hard, because they know that their jobs are secure. On the other hand, if the work was done by a private company, the job would be nearing completion- I know this is true because in the past, private companys done just this.

I know what the term "working poor" means. It was coined by modern victicrats as an atempt to create another liberal doctrine of infallibility as Ann Coulter referred to.

[Danger Mouse]

The Republicans do have a point, you know. (And people in these boards who know me will know enough that I have no love for the Republicans).

I own a business. I have 10 people working for me for $5 per hour. If minimum wage is increased to, say $7.50 (a 50% increase), I will have to make 3 people jobless. Given the current economy, I would be lucky if my business maintains the same income. To keep my business in the black, I can't have 10 people working for me. I will have to lay people off.

So, the Republicans are in a quandary. Maintain minimum wage at the current rate and keep my 10 employees at work? Or raise minimum wage which will force me to lay off 3 of my employees? Less pay, more jobs? Or more pay, less jobs? Either way, the Republicans will be seen as "hating the low and middle income group".

Politicians and policy makers have such unenviable jobs.

[Man-Thing]

and theyre supposed to depend on those for the rest of their lives?

If it's their choice. Bottom line, they are supposed to depend upon themselves and their hardwork for the rest of their lives.

People need to stop thinking that the government needs to hold their hand while they go pee.:down (which is the equalivent to government funded charity.)

[Abaddon]

I see the dark side of capitalism reflected in your eyes.:(

[Man-Thing]

Ever heard of the term "working poor"? I guess Jesus was lying when he said "blessed are poor" because many GOP members claim to be Christians and seem to like to treat the poor like trash.

BTW, I agree with Jesus.

Matthew 20
The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard
1"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. 2He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' 5So they went.

"He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. 6About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'

7" 'Because no one has hired us,' they answered.
"He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'

8"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'

9"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'

13"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? 14Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'

16"So the last will be first, and the first will be last."

[War Lord]

and theyre supposed to depend on those for the rest of their lives?

Most people don't stay on minimum wage forever. People are continually moving up and down the wage scale through out their working lives.

[Man-Thing]

I see the dark side of capitalism reflected in your eyes.:(

But I'm sure you would agree that the government should end all subsidies.:up:

[Victor Von Doom]

They got a point. If wages did go up, jobs would decline.

[Abaddon]

Most people don't stay on minimum wage forever. People are continually moving up and down the wage scale through out their working lives.


I was referring to a hypothetical situation in which there was no minimum wage.

[War Lord]

I was referring to a hypothetical situation in which there was no minimum wage.

Factually, most poor people don't stay poor so your hypothetical situation hardly warrants consideration.

If an employer is going to pay people poorly for the job, he'll end up with workers who give poor service and customers won't want his business.

[ScottyBBadd]

not everyone has a highschool education or can qualify for a decent paying job.

I have only a high school diploma, but I have not had a minimun wage job in 10 years. How was that possible? I live in a red state.

[Man-Thing]

That overstock.com woman is really pretty. I like it when she has pigtails.

[ScottyBBadd]

That overstock.com woman is really pretty. I like it when she has pigtails.

She is hot no matter what she does.

[The Overlord]

I can't speak for the GOP, but only for what I know. I know that through charity work, my money does more good than the welfare state. I know that charities, unlike the government are dependant upon funds coming to them, whereas the government can just tax others more- thus charities are more effeciant with their funds than the government.

Case in point- every day, I pass a state road crew. I have for three years now. The problem is that the road was supposed to be finished right about now, but they aren't even close to being halfway through. This is because they are government employees who are in the union. They have no need to work hard, because they know that their jobs are secure. On the other hand, if the work was done by a private company, the job would be nearing completion- I know this is true because in the past, private companys done just this.

I know what the term "working poor" means. It was coined by modern victicrats as an atempt to create another liberal doctrine of infallibility as Ann Coulter referred to.

We are not talking about government do nothing programs, we are talking about how some poeple are trying to feed to their family on 5 bucks on hour and they are working hard to so. Do you just assume that all poor people are lazy, I guess I misremembered one of the stories from the Bible, the rich man and the widow. See I remember it a certain way, but I guess according the to you the story is Jesus praises the rich man for his good sense in not giving money to lazy people and then spits on widow for being lazy. I don't see how this is a hand out, this paying fair wages for fair labour. What's the bigger threat to the family, gay marriage or daddy making so little that the family can't afford to keep his kids above the poverty level.

Frankly I'm curious, how much time and money do you spend charity?

[The Overlord]

BTW, I agree with Jesus.

Matthew 20
The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard
1"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. 2He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' 5So they went.

"He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. 6About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'

7" 'Because no one has hired us,' they answered.
"He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'

8"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'

9"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'

13"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? 14Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'

16"So the last will be first, and the first will be last."

That's a parable, parables were never meant be taken literally, Jesus says as much in the Bible. The vinyard is the good works people are supposed to do as Christians, the wages are the rewards of the Kingdom of Heaven the first workers are those who become Christians right away, the later workers are people who become Christians later on and start out as sinners. Jesus is not talking about vinyards, wages or labour in the parable. You completely missed the point of the story.

Look what Jesus said outsides of telling parables "it is easier for camel to pass through the eye of a needle, then it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven" so you and jonty talk about your such great Christians all the time and then you talk abut how you want to be super rich, you are contradicting yourself.

[The Overlord]

If it's their choice. Bottom line, they are supposed to depend upon themselves and their hardwork for the rest of their lives.

People need to stop thinking that the government needs to hold their hand while they go pee.:down (which is the equalivent to government funded charity.)

Bush has spent a billion dollars to promote the family and Congress is strengthening the FCC so parents don't have actually stop their kids from watching shows they don't think are appropriate and you have trhe gal to lecture others on small government. Wow, phsyican, heal thyself.

[sinewave]

Ever heard of the term "working poor"? I guess Jesus was lying when he said "blessed are poor" because many GOP members claim to be Christians and seem to like to treat the poor like trash.

exactly. these guys are hypocrites.

[Man-Thing]

We are not talking about government do nothing programs, we are talking about how some poeple are trying to feed to their family on 5 bucks on hour and they are working hard to so. Do you just assume that all poor people are lazy, I guess I misremembered one of the stories from the Bible, the rich man and the widow. See I remember it a certain way, but I guess according the to you the story is Jesus praises the rich man for his good sense in not giving money to lazy people and then spits on widow for being lazy. I don't see how this is a hand out, this paying fair wages for fair labour. What's the bigger threat to the family, gay marriage or daddy making so little that the family can't afford to keep his kids above the poverty level.

Frankly I'm curious, how much time and money do you spend charity.

Sigh...You missed my point entirely. In no way did I say that people who are poor are just supposed to starve. That is what charities are for! My whole point was that charities do more with a lot less funds than the government could ever do because they are dependant upon donations (which can end, or fall short) whereas the government can ALWAYS rely upon taxes.

To me, the intentions of the founding fathers was to let the people take care of themselves. The purpose of the federal government was/is supposed to establish a military, punish those who commit crimes, and set up the postal service. I don't see anything in there (the U.S. Constitution) about regulating minimum wage nor any other "services".

I blame everything on FDR. His view that the Constitution is a living breathing document in which it was intended to change with popular opinion/society is very harmful to the country, and the intentions of what the country should be based on to the views of the Founding Father's.

Of course, no one who has a heart could say that poor people should starve, but any government charity creates the state we now live in- the welfare state. Of course this is just one more of the many, many distortions that liberals enact against the Constitution.

BTW, I'm not telling how much I give to charity whether it be through monetary or time, for that would be sinful (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:1-18). I will say this however, if the IRS would be abolished, it would drastically help the nations poor. Money from my check instead of going to the government would be going to charities far more than they are now if a NATIONAL SALES TAX were to be implemented. When Reagan cut taxes in the eightys, many charities said that their gross income exceeded the amount that taxes were cut on average. What does this mean? Well, for starters those "evil rich people" as liberals are so inclined to call them gave more- because they had more to give. Not to mention people like Michael Dell (http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/odg/odg_special49?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs) said that the "dot com" boom of the ninetys was in direct response of those same tax cuts, because tech based companies used the extra cash for R&D. I guess it doesn't mean anything though, because Liberals didn't do it.:rolleyes:

I don't understand the mindset of economic Liberals, the whole "corperate thugs" sthichk is getting stale. The truth is America wouldn't be country we are now (the greatest in the history of mankind- despite what your college professor tells you) without ingenuity, hardwork and the the pursuit of the $$$.

How to fix the country if you want to know...

1) Abolish the IRS

2) Reduce Government by 80 percent

3) End Welfare, Entitlements and Special Privileges

4) Abolish the Minimum Wage

5) Legalize Drugs

6) Take Government Out of Education

7) Drop the Davis-Bacon Act

8) Eliminate Corporate Taxes

9) Charity from People Not Government

10) End Protectionism

Also, reading some truthful blunt books like: The Ten Things you can't say in America (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/031226660X/larryelder/103-8358656-9863855?creative=327641&camp=14573&adid=00Q1911HACBTTDWN65ZM&link_code=as1)
Why Government Doesn't Work (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0965603601/larryelder/103-8358656-9863855?creative=327641&camp=14573&adid=1J4RGWNYV6T380ADQSCM&link_code=as1)
and Capitalism (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0915463733/ref=ase_larryelder/103-8358656-9863855?n=283155&tagActionCode=larryelder)

We are doomed to a society where individual thought and free expression is not allowed, unless there are drastic changes.

VIVA LA CAPITALISM!!!

[tomahawk53]

A short economic lesson by Tomahawk53

The Democrats behind recent proposals to increase the federal minimum wage beyond its current level of $5.15 an hour suggest that they are looking out for today's poor working men and women. Truth be told increasing the minimum wage is a misguided and wrong-headed policy that will do far more to hurt the poor than to help them.

Research does in fact conclude that increasing the minimum wage reduces employment. The 1990-91 increase in the minimum wage from $3.35 to $4.25 fits right in. This increase reduced employment from 3 percent to 11 percent for teen-agers and poorly educated adults. A quick look at the numbers following the 1996-97 increase in the minimum from $4.25 to $5.15 shows that teen-age employment has again suffered. Despite the strong economy over the past few years, the employment rate of teen-agers and poorly educated adults in 1997 had yet to achieve the levels of 1989 - the last year of the longest period in recent history without an increase in the minimum wage.

The minimum wage reduces employment, and given its current level relative to other wages, a further increase likely would generate a substantial reduction in the employment opportunities of the least skilled. The bar is already too high - a further increase will prevent an even greater number of low-skill individuals from finding or keeping a job.

The goal of most minimum wage supporters is to raise the cost of cheap labor that threatens higher-priced workers.

Let’s take unions for example. Only 2.4% of it’s memebers stood to benefit from the last increase. Why did they support it then and support it each and every time it comes up? To help the working man? No. Only 2.4% of them would get it. The reason they support it is because they are the higher priced workers that the cheap labor threatens. Raise the cost of cheap labor and they insure that they keep on working.

I’m betting that those Democrats voting to raise the minimum wage were from high-wage states too. Where workers were about 20 percent less likely to be paid low wages than in the states of those voting against a higher minimum. It apparently is easier to cast a vote reducing employment when the jobs will be lost by someone else's constituents.

The minimum wage does not prevent everyone from getting any job. But the minimum wage does make it more difficult for those who already have a hard time getting a job - the least skilled - to begin or continue a career. Passing a law that forces people to earn a minimum amount in order to work seems a cruel policy in an already cruel world.

[tomahawk53]

The Republicans do have a point, you know. (And people in these boards who know me will know enough that I have no love for the Republicans).

I own a business. I have 10 people working for me for $5 per hour. If minimum wage is increased to, say $7.50 (a 50% increase), I will have to make 3 people jobless. Given the current economy, I would be lucky if my business maintains the same income. To keep my business in the black, I can't have 10 people working for me. I will have to lay people off.

So, the Republicans are in a quandary. Maintain minimum wage at the current rate and keep my 10 employees at work? Or raise minimum wage which will force me to lay off 3 of my employees? Less pay, more jobs? Or more pay, less jobs? Either way, the Republicans will be seen as "hating the low and middle income group".

Politicians and policy makers have such unenviable jobs.


EXACTLY! :up: :up:

Thanks for posting this too Danger Mouse...I'm sure it hurt a little to do so. :p

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I like how if you say that raising wages too much means that jobs will disappear, you're told that it's a myth and/or "Republican talking point bulls***", and then, right here on the last page a guy who actually has ten employees says that if he had to raise it he'd be forced to lay three people off.

[sinewave]

If a company only has x dollars set aside for wages, having a higher minimum wage doesn't mean the company in question can have x +y dollars to include every worker. What the likely result is that it will remain x dollars and however many workers are needed to be let go to make all the wages fit within x is how the company would go about it, unless it wants to raise prices and risk consumers going elsewhere for goods and sercives.

If raising the minimum wage was the answer to poverty, than why not raise it to a million dollars a year for everybody and let everybody become a millionaire?

The better way to combatting poverty is to search for ways to get workers to get better training.

this is all spin and a sad excuse to f#*k the working poor over. if the minimum wage was raised and companies started firing employees because the couldn't afford them, as you claim, then the businesses would suffer more from the lack production than they would if they had to shell out a bit more to pay their employees what they're worth. i can't believe people are arguing against a cost of living increase to match the amount of inflation over the last ten years. companies don't fire their executives when they get cost of living increases, so why would they fire the people making minimum wage and actually doing the work that keeps their business afloat, which would receive much lower wage increases, relatively speaking.

[Fred_Fury]

i guess people should be paid $20.00 an hour to flip burgers... and you wonder why all sorts of jobs are being sent over to india and china

[Man-Thing]

That's a parable, parables were never meant be taken literally, Jesus says as much in the Bible. The vinyard is the good works people are supposed to do as Christians, the wages are the rewards of the Kingdom of Heaven the first workers are those who become Christians right away, the later workers are people who become Christians later on and start out as sinners. Jesus is not talking about vinyards, wages or labour in the parable. You completely missed the point of the story.

Look what Jesus said outsides of telling parables "it is easier for camel to pass through the eye of a needle, then it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven" so you and jonty talk about your such great Christians all the time and then you talk abut how you want to be super rich, you are contradicting yourself.

I don't talk about how "great of a Christian I am". :rolleyes: I'm a horrible Christian- I don't even like defending this false accusation that you threw at me.

Anyway, using a little common sense here, of course it's obvious that Jesus' parables have a significant deeper meaning that what is first read, but that doesn't negate the fact that he must have believed them in principle before he said them.

That would be sinful, and that's impossible for him.

[Man-Thing]

Bush has spent a billion dollars to promote the family and Congress is strengthening the FCC so parents don't have actually stop their kids from watching shows they don't think are appropriate and you have trhe gal to lecture others on small government. Wow, phsyican, heal thyself.
OMG!!!

I didn't know that!!!:eek: :rolleyes:

Just many of the reasons why I have distanced myself from the GOP.:up:

[Man-Thing]

I like how if you say that raising wages too much means that jobs will disappear, you're told that it's a myth and/or "Republican talking point bulls***", and then, right here on the last page a guy who actually has ten employees says that if he had to raise it he'd be forced to lay three people off.

That would mean they would have to look outside their socialist fantasy world.:down

[Man-Thing]

this is all spin and a sad excuse to f#*k the working poor over. if the minimum wage was raised and companies started firing employees because the couldn't afford them, as you claim, then the businesses would suffer more from the lack production than they would if they had to shell out a bit more to pay their employees what they're worth. i can't believe people are arguing against a cost of living increase to match the amount of inflation over the last ten years. companies don't fire their executives when they get cost of living increases, so why would they fire the people making minimum wage and actually doing the work that keeps their business afloat, which would receive much lower wage increases, relatively speaking.

Who said anything about firing minimum wage workers? Could it be that your Victicrat talking points have clouded your perception of reality?

[sinewave]

If it's their choice. Bottom line, they are supposed to depend upon themselves and their hardwork for the rest of their lives.

People need to stop thinking that the government needs to hold their hand while they go pee.:down (which is the equalivent to government funded charity.)

it's not charity, though. it's a cost of living increase to match the level of inflation in past ten years. with fuel prices rising to alltime highs, it's just common sense to allow your workers to actually be able to afford gas for their cars to get to work.

[Man-Thing]

it's not charity, though. it's a cost of living increase to match the level of inflation in past ten years. with fuel prices rising to alltime highs, it's just common sense to allow your workers to actually be able to afford gas for their cars to get to work.

No it's common sense for the government to keep it's nose out of the affairs of it's citizens. I think it's funny that nearly every liberal has been screaming lately about a "police state", but want the government to meddle where it has no buisness being.

[sinewave]

BTW, I agree with Jesus.

Matthew 20
The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard
1"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. 2He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' 5So they went.

"He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. 6About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'

7" 'Because no one has hired us,' they answered.
"He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'

8"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'

9"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'

13"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? 14Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'

16"So the last will be first, and the first will be last."

no wonder many christian conservatives are greedy pricks, with lame-ass propaganda like that drivel.