quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

It wasnt reported as such. When you report lies you are a liar. I would be interested specifically in why if the highest earners have seen an avg increase in pay of 8 percent a yr for 30 yrs along with 20 percent reduction in tax rate you sight busdrivers as a problem for being greedy and not those who have seen triple the pay increase.


You accused unions of not aiding in organizing or assiting those hurt by illegal company actions. I pointed out the root cause of why that can happen is the eviseration of the NLRB by conservatives. I pointed out they did in fact fight for them but when the vehicle to enforce labor laws is purposefully hobbled and the penalties for breaking llabor laws negligible management hires consultants to break laws..that's the way it works. Unionism is beat down by illegal actions

Your referenced an obsolete picture of public assistance. i thought it worthy to educate you a lot of it is driven by a corporate culture that has lost all sense of the traditional 20th century social contract revolving around employment and a living wage abut nafta but it really was just signed by him it was pure Reagan Bush and marketed so well it would of passd a veto

Alrighty then. So your comprehension is on par with your spelling, and you tell stupid lies.

Sorry, kid, but I just don't see you making the cut for my dance card this season. Maybe get a feel for the positions people actually take, before trying to tell them what they think.

Oh. And welcome to boards. [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

It wasnt reported as such. When you report lies you are a liar. I would be interested specifically in why if the highest earners have seen an avg increase in pay of 8 percent a yr for 30 yrs along with 20 percent reduction in tax rate you sight busdrivers as a problem for being greedy and not those who have seen triple the pay increase.


You accused unions of not aiding in organizing or assiting those hurt by illegal company actions. I pointed out the root cause of why that can happen is the eviseration of the NLRB by conservatives. I pointed out they did in fact fight for them but when the vehicle to enforce labor laws is purposefully hobbled and the penalties for breaking llabor laws negligible management hires consultants to break laws..that's the way it works. Unionism is beat down by illegal actions

Your referenced an obsolete picture of public assistance. i thought it worthy to educate you a lot of it is driven by a corporate culture that has lost all sense of the traditional 20th century social contract revolving around employment and a living wage abut nafta but it really was just signed by him it was pure Reagan Bush and marketed so well it would of passd a veto

Alrighty then. So your comprehension is on par with your spelling, and you tell stupid lies.

Sorry, kid, but I just don't see you making the cut for my dance card this season. Maybe get a feel for the positions people actually take, before trying to tell them what they think.

Oh. And welcome to boards. [:)]

Mean what you say or saywhat you mean. Here are the things you didnt say and positions you didnt take in your words
Your words

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

Oh damn ever wish you could just restart the day?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

Oh damn ever wish you could just restart the day?

Too late now, ain't it? It is nice to see you can post at least somewhat coherently when you are properly motivated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

I suppose if one looks at it on a global scale, the ideological center of the U.S. political establishment would be viewed as liberal. On a global standard, the U.S. would be correctly called a liberal democratic republic (as opposed to fascism, monarchism, communism, or other authoritarian regimes). Of course, you're correct that over the course of time, the world changes, our culture changes, our values change, etc. Consequently, the political center has shifted.

Lincoln, of course, was an Abolitionist, and many Abolitionists would be perceived as hardcore religious zealots by today's standards. They would never have supported abortion or gay marriage, causes which liberals commonly support nowadays. Teddy Roosevelt might also be called "progressive," which is another term that gets tossed around and associated with liberals. T. Roosevelt was also a militarist and led America into what is often referred to as "imperialism," something that liberals generally oppose nowadays.

Of course, there's nothing about liberalism that necessarily has to include pacifism. Liberals can be warmongers, too, depending on whether their liberalism stops at our national boundaries. Teddy's distant cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was also a brilliant and pragmatic geopolitical strategist, in addition to being a liberal. We had a virtual command economy under FDR during World War II, which was not only necessary to get us out of the Great Depression but also to harness our industries and resources to be able to help supply our allies and prevail in that struggle. Not to mention the unprecedented prosperity which we enjoyed in the decades which followed, along with great strides in the area of social reform.

The real tricky part about all of this is that the core ideal of liberalism is in "liberty," a related term. Rights, freedom, liberty - these are ideals supported by both conservatives and liberals of today. A conservative business owner might argue that the government is infringing upon his property rights by imposing minimum wage laws, OSHA, and other such measures. Would that make him a liberal, since he's arguing for his own freedom against a government imposing laws upon him?

My point here is, no matter what side one might be in this political divide, the argument always seems to fall within the framework of rights and freedom, with the only real difference being whose ox is gored (along with who ends up with most of the money).

That's where it starts to get more complicated and why the current notions of liberalism and conservatism tend to get watered down, confused, and misunderstood by a lot of people. Neither side seems terribly consistent when it comes to the defining principles of their respective ideology. If only people would just define their principles and stick by them (no matter what they might be), then we'd probably be a lot better off.

I don't think the press is either liberal or conservative. They're just wimpy and spineless. They have no principles whatsoever. This is why I tend to resist comparisons to Lincoln or the Founding Fathers, since they were nothing like the mealy-mouthed jellyfish that we have today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Actually, I've known quite a few science and engineering majors who were pretty darn liberal. Conservatives tend to be business and economics majors, although a lot of conservatives I know are blue collar as well, never having attended college.

.

they are the sad cases. the constant theme of someone else getting over and something for nothing in refernce to the poor comard to their strugles fuels jealousy an danger based on lies It is used to anger them and the reality is more liike my Uncles 238k tax reduction in 2003 from 2000 becaue of the concentrated tax cuts platyoing oe and over and the calls to have them triple medicarecosts when they will retire with social securtity alone because they were anti union their whole lives. fear and misinformatuon drive them to vote against their own interests. they see welafare a s huge wastful program rather then 2 percent of thebudget and time limited. people fed bs cant make reaosned choices. i have a firnd with two special needs kids anunemployed collectingwife an a minumum wage job who says republican policies are good for him while he benefits form democtrats preventing programs he does depend on from being ended

If you really look at the way this country has been governed and the policies we have, there really is very little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. This is especially true when it comes to foreign policy.

Among the poor and working classes, there is definitely a profound resentment on the part of those who work for their money as opposed to those on the dole. Someone busting his butt working minimum wage can clearly see that his neighbors have the same basic standard of living, yet don't work. People at that level shop at the same stores as the food stamp recipients, who are often seen buying junk food on their food stamp cards. They also get state-provided health insurance which many working people can't afford. So, yeah, I can see why working people would tend to vote Republican.

As for being anti-union, not everyone has the option to join a union. I've worked in places where people get fired for attempting to start a union, but do any of the wealthy and powerful unions step up to help these people? Of course not. The unions only care about their own little cadres, and they don't give two shits about working people who could certainly use the help of a union. Union employees earn more money, get better benefits, and generally enjoy a higher standard of living. As long as they're perfectly happy with that, then they don't need to care about those who are beneath them on the food chain.

That's why a lot of people rolled their eyes in disgust over those union government employees in Wisconsin making a big stink. These people get all kinds of benefits and perks, living in nice homes and enjoying a luxurious lifestyle compared to those who have to truly struggle. They just want what (they think) is theirs, and they don't give a crap about ALL workers in America. Until these unions start putting their money where their mouth is, why shouldn't non-union working people be anti-union? What have the unions ever done for them?

Another example is here in Tucson, the local bus company is controlled by the Teamsters. So, in order to keep them happy, they keep raising bus fares, which affects the poor and working classes the most severely. In essence, by selfishly demanding so much for themselves, the unions are taking food out of the mouths of the poor and disadvantaged. So, yes, a lot of these people are probably going to be resentful of unions, and for good reason. Look at a heavily-Democratic, union-dominated city like New York, and examine how much it actually costs to live in a city like that. Many people in America could never even dream of affording to live in a city like that, yet Democrats are supposedly caring and compassionate about the poor? Maybe if they'd start demonstrating these qualities in their backyards, people in other areas of the country might actually believe them. It's the same in other heavily-Democratic cities like Los Angeles and Chicago. If one actually goes to these cities and see how Democrats truly operate when they're in their own element, then it's a real eye-opener.

I don't really like Republicans either, so I'm not defending or advocating for them either. A lot of working people tend to feel that they're screwed by both parties. While it is often said that people vote their pocketbooks, the sad fact remains that no matter which is in power, the pocketbooks of a lot of working people remain relatively the same. Since neither party seems willing to help out working people fill up their pocketbooks, then a lot of people tend to make their choices based on social issues, since they feel they'll be screwed economically either way. That's why the Republicans have been heavily pushing their social agenda more and more. The immigration issue has also become more divisive as well, and a lot of working people see that as threatening to their jobs and standard of living. So, they vote Republican because they think that will improve their standard of living.

The worst thing the Democrats can do at this point is to try to challenge the Republicans on that basis. What they need to do is go back and borrow a few pages from older strategies, but they seem too blind and myopic to do that. Case in point: Obamacare. They went about it all wrong. Instead of throwing so much money at that black hole called the medical industry, what they should have done was keep the same system and impose price controls. They could have made health care more affordable and accessible simply by imposing price controls on doctor, hospital, and pharmaceutical fees.

Why don't Democrats support price controls and tariffs on imports anymore? Did they wimp out, or what? Why did Clinton support and sign NAFTA into law, betraying working people and many of his own fellow Democrats? The Democrats have truly picked some strange battles in the past few decades, which has alienated large segments of the population who would have otherwise supported them. They're no longer the party of the working man; they're the party of the non-working man.

The party of FDR and JFK sold out a long time ago. That's the only reason why Republicans can get into office at all. Republicans don't win elections as much as Democrats lose elections. After Nixon went down in flames, the Democrats were in a highly advantageous position in which they had a chance to make some real changes for the better in this country. They blew it.

So, yeah, a lot of people who would probably benefit more by a Democratic leadership still don't vote Democratic because they might feel betrayed or have no confidence in their ability to run things. So, they vote Republican because they think it's the lesser of two evils. People who feel betrayed have good reason to be resentful and bitter, even if it means cutting off their nose to spite their face. But...that's politics for ya.

see, the thing is most people on the Dole work. We have undercut labor laws and support for unions to the degree it's impossible to organize and unethical shop. An example the wall mart greeter with 2 kids and a wife a cashier. He gets food stamps, he gets childrens health insurance subsidies he may get fuel oil assitance and his kids free lunch. That's what the dole looks like now. Meanwhile walmart makes huge profits and can continue to pay the man nothing because we make up the difference between what he is paid and a living wage. It is the worker on the dole it's walmart who through those programs and the rights slow strangulation of a relevant minimum wage can pass off some salary on taxpayers. Welfare is time restricted now the idea of a generational dole is gone. the worst though is the tax fairness. The right pretends social security hasnt been taxed twice cost for 26 yrs and that 15 percent tax on wages doesnt count. 7.5 is the employer portion of that but really it's calculated into the paid wage. By ignoring that they can claim we have a progressive tax system and the wealthy pay to much. The thing is when you ad in social security my rate is triple Mitt Romneys and no they call for more high end cuts? Whoreports that a guy making 105k is paying triple Mitt Romney or George Soros tax rate now? hell whenSheriff racist from AZ started spouting birther nonsense we got another 2 weeks of press about a disproven lie

You are aware aren't you that, the average Wal-Mart employee makes over $11.00 an hour (easy work) and that when a Wal-Mart opens (anywhere on Earth), with ZERO ads, there are lines for blocks for applications to work there and I, as an employer who pays starting wages of $22.00 an hour (VERY fucking difficult work) can't get 3 people to show up with 7 ads in 7 local papers?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Fair enough then, Mupainurpleasure. You'll find enough inflammatory ideas next to my window on the world, without putting somebody else's on me, and demanding I account for them. The same goes with ideology. I speak for myself, not conservatives or Republicans at large. I will defend the free speech rights of anyone, but that doesn't obligate me to defend how they use them. I never paid much mind to Breitbart, and I don't watch Fox News, unless I'm channel surfing in a breaking news situation, and find them doing it well.

FF, or dictation to a sexretary/slave, I just needed to be able to read it. [:)] Some of the snippets told me you were a bright guy, and now I can see you have a sense of humor as well.

You want to know if a "little" bias is worse than lying. Well of course it is. Bias is the environment where lying becomes easy. Shared bias is the environment where lies and vile assertions get lifted to the top of the news cycle for 24 hours, and maybe a quiet debunking later. Bias is the climate where a Rathergate can happen.


Liberals who deny a bias in the media aren't lying, for the most part. They share the worldview, and it all seems perfectly reasonable and normal to them. I saw a memorable example once, that made me laugh out loud, in an LA Times expose about some uncovered waste in county government, and how the amount being spent on unused phone lines in county offices would be enough to pay for XX many new social workers. There is an assumption there, about the automatic priorities, and proper role of government, that not all will share. People who don't share those assumptions might be thinking about potholes, and entire neighborhoods that flood when it rains.

In the current partisan environment, I do not believe we are being well served by the news media, or that our free press is meeting its obligations to a free society. I believe the best way to address bias in the media is with the broadest diversity of sources and outlets possible. Conflicting accounts frequently paint the clearest picture. I hear the wannabe censor in the recurring shrieks of, "oh how awful Fox is," and I don't think we are well served by that either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

I agree with everything you say. I personally blame the parties for the watering down and vacillating political positions. Energize the base, triangulate, etc...
If we had a way to support more parties, maybe we would have more honest politicians.
Do we really need our politicians to represent locations? How about professions or just let anyone who can get a certain number of voters to endorse them gets a house seat?

quote:

The "Liberal Press" or "Liberal Media Bias" is a myth created by the Right-Wing-controlled media.

quote:

(VERY fucking difficult work) can't get 3 people to show up with 7 ads in 7 local papers?