1) The left is not afraid of her. She will do herself in. Just like how Palin energized the the right then that quickly changed.
2) The difference between Bachman & Palin is that Michelle actually believes in her craziness. I give her credit in that aspect that she truly thinks her way is the way is the way that will bring America back (where it went I don't know). Palin on the other hand knows nothing and just spews out shit that she had no idea about and or really believes in it. She a figure head for the brand name of "Who gives a shit".
No offense, but I don't care if you're a Texan or not. It's not relevant. I was not talking about him as governor. I was talking about him as President and his treatment during that time.
Bush ran against Kerry, and one could argue Bush was more intelligent than Kerry. He received higher grade point average at the same school. But, Bush was help up as stupid and Kerry was held up as an intellectual. It's a game. That's the point. The media (which is still liberal, outside of a few sources - like Fox, wsj) put labels on candidates. They do it over and over again, and ironically, it's always the same label. According to them,... Reagan was dumb, so was Bush Sr., so was Quayle, so was Dole, so was Bush Jr., so was Palin, now Bachmann is dumb. It's getting old. Is Obama dumb? Was Gore? Because if all it takes is eloquence to be considered smart, I'd be worried about for Bachmann... she's pretty good there.
I only claim my residency to point out that Texans got to listen to his misstatements for 8 years longer than the rest of the country. He always struck me as one of those people who got where he was because he had a rich daddy.
As far as Bush vs. Kerry and how they were portrayed, I don't think that was the media so much as their personalities and habits. Kerry wrote poetry and spoke French. Most people would think that was intellectual. Bush had a Big Mouth Billy Bass. That says redneck to most people. Right or wrong, that's how people may have perceived them. And I do not consider Bush a redneck.
I disagree that Bush I was regarded as dumb. Many people thought he was out of touch, like the time he visited a grocery store and marveled that the cashiers used scanners, but not that he was stupid. Nor do I remember people talking about Reagan as dumb. He saw things in absolutes, which I don't think is particularly helpful in a world leader. I never saw Dole portrayed as stupid. Clumsy, negative, and rigid but not as dumb. I was disappointed that he dropped his sense of humor (my favorite thing about him) while he ran for president. Quayle, I don't know. He did seem dumb to me.
No offense, but I don't care if you're a Texan or not. It's not relevant. I was not talking about him as governor. I was talking about him as President and his treatment during that time.
Bush ran against Kerry, and one could argue Bush was more intelligent than Kerry. He received higher grade point average at the same school. But, Bush was help up as stupid and Kerry was held up as an intellectual. It's a game. That's the point. The media (which is still liberal, outside of a few sources - like Fox, wsj) put labels on candidates. They do it over and over again, and ironically, it's always the same label. According to them,... Reagan was dumb, so was Bush Sr., so was Quayle, so was Dole, so was Bush Jr., so was Palin, now Bachmann is dumb. It's getting old. Is Obama dumb? Was Gore? Because if all it takes is eloquence to be considered smart, I'd be worried about for Bachmann... she's pretty good there.
I only claim my residency to point out that Texans got to listen to his misstatements for 8 years longer than the rest of the country. He always struck me as one of those people who got where he was because he had a rich daddy.
As far as Bush vs. Kerry and how they were portrayed, I don't think that was the media so much as their personalities and habits. Kerry wrote poetry and spoke French. Most people would think that was intellectual. Bush had a Big Mouth Billy Bass. That says redneck to most people. Right or wrong, that's how people may have perceived them. And I do not consider Bush a redneck.
I disagree that Bush I was regarded as dumb. Many people thought he was out of touch, like the time he visited a grocery store and marveled that the cashiers used scanners, but not that he was stupid. Nor do I remember people talking about Reagan as dumb. He saw things in absolutes, which I don't think is particularly helpful in a world leader. I never saw Dole portrayed as stupid. Clumsy, negative, and rigid but not as dumb. I was disappointed that he dropped his sense of humor (my favorite thing about him) while he ran for president. Quayle, I don't know. He did seem dumb to me.
It's the media. The media creates the portrayal. They accentuate the negatives in Republicans and accentuate the positives in Democrats. Fox (maybe WSJ) does the opposite. As far as fairness goes, the problem is Fox is only so big and honestly we should just be fair and it would eliminate the need for Fox. ABC, NBC, CBS, pop culture shows like Comedy Central, SNL etc... they create the portrayal. They paint the pictures of the dumb Republican.
There's nothing wrong with it, if the reader/viewer knows the bias is instilled. Problem is some don't know the NYT, for instance, is incredibly bias.
It's just fact that Obama does not take the same amount of heat that Bush took on CNN, the Daily Show or SNL. I don't really care too much, until the next candidate come up on the Republican side and they start the slander right from the get-go about how they're unintelligent and so on... like I said, it's very, very, very old and tired.
I don't care that the Daily Show isn't fair. I find the Daily Show very, very funny. Yet, I know he's very, very bias. Some don't. That's fine... just don't use the "dumb or uninformed" lines anymore about Republican candidates, when you have a President sitting in the White House who has pretty much contradicted half of the things he ran on. In that sense, Obama is making his supporters (and the media who doesn't go at him on these issues) seem uninformed.
7. "There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, Oct. 2006
10. "I don't know where they're going to get all this money because we're running out of rich people in this country." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, accusing the Obama administration of plotting to divert money from Republican to Democratic districts and planning to tax the wealthy to fund the windfalls, Feb. 2009
This is true.
I very highly doubt you could find hundreds of scientists that have a Nobel prize who believe in intelligent design. I would be amazed if this was true.
I assume she was being sarcastic about the 'running out of rich people' comment. I was under the impression that the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer... And that the gap between the rich and poor is still steadily increasing. But I guess the amount of rich people might be less.. but (and maybe because) they still have all the money!
I very highly doubt you could find hundreds of scientists that have a Nobel prize who believe in intelligent design. I would be amazed if this was true.
I disagree. 83% of Americans, for instance, claim to belong to a religious denomination. Even if that number was slightly less in the scientific community, I bet you'd find a high number of scientists. As far as the Nobel Prize winners, I don't know for sure their stance on the issue.
I assume she was being sarcastic about the 'running out of rich people' comment. I was under the impression that the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer... And that the gap between the rich and poor is still steadily increasing. But I guess the amount of rich people might be less.. but (and maybe because) they still have all the money!
I also think she was being sarcastic. The gap between the rich and poor will increase if both the rich and the poor make 10% more each year. Are both parties (the rich and the poor) better off? Yep. But, one could still bitch about the gap growing. The growing gap argument is simplistic and not very well thought-out. As for her point, believe it or not a lot of wealthy folks have been losing their jobs. It's not just the poor and middle class. In fact, that's one reason why tax revenues are down because the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of taxes. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% pay no income tax at all. One reason tax revenues are coming up short is those top earners, who pay the heavy heavy majority of taxes, aren't earning as much and in some cases have been laid off. Although sarcastic, she's pretty correct in her statement.
No problem. I think liberals paint who they fear as dumb, to be honest. For instance, I think Bush was easy to pick on because of his accent. But, was he dumb? I'd say no. He was not dumb. He wasn't incredibly eloquent, I'd agree with that. But, dumb? No.
I agree that Bush wasn't as stupid as many people believed but he's no rocket scientist. I'm a Texan and trust me, nobody in this state singled him out because of his accent. After enduring 8 years of him as governor, I feel safe in saying that he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But he didn't do a lot of damage because in Texas governors are essentially figureheads with very little power. Bush was fortunate enough to have a savvy, experienced state comptroller named Bob Bullock who pretty much ran things.
No offense, but I don't care if you're a Texan or not. It's not relevant. I was not talking about him as governor. I was talking about him as President and his treatment during that time.
Bush ran against Kerry, and one could argue Bush was more intelligent than Kerry. He received higher grade point average at the same school. But, Bush was help up as stupid and Kerry was held up as an intellectual. It's a game. That's the point. The media (which is still liberal, outside of a few sources - like Fox, wsj) put labels on candidates. They do it over and over again, and ironically, it's always the same label. According to them,... Reagan was dumb, so was Bush Sr., so was Quayle, so was Dole, so was Bush Jr., so was Palin, now Bachmann is dumb. It's getting old. Is Obama dumb? Was Gore? Because if all it takes is eloquence to be considered smart, I'd be worried about for Bachmann... she's pretty good there.
You have to define "dumb" before the argument starts. Conservatives dance around the evidence that Bush Jr. is dumb because they will come back with their own evidence that Bush isn't dumb and everyone ends up chasing a dragons tail. I'm not sure if you were around during Reagan, but he wasn't labelled as dumb, although many suggested senility in his second term. Out of touch and manipulative were more common labels. I don't recall bush Sr. as ever being labelled dumb. Quayle was a confirmed idiot. Dole wasn't labelled dumb, just a cranky old bastard. I agree that Bachmann and Palin have been labelled dumb.
Well, speaking as a woman, I find it pretty insulting to suggest that we're all so shallow that we'll vote for her just because she's a successful woman. If that were the case, the Mondale/Ferraro ticket would have been successful, not to mention McCain/Palin. It reminds me of when we were all supposed to be swooning over GHW Bush's choice of Dan Quayle as a running mate because he supposedly looked like Robert Redford. (He didn't BTW.)
And even if women are supposedly split 50-50 on abortion and will make their voting choices on that factor, we comprise half the population, meaning 25% of the country will vote against her solely because they're pro-choice. However, us wimmin-folk aren't the Borg all thinking identically. We actually spend some time in thought and evaluate our candidates on many factors. To suggest that I might support someone simply because of her gender is, as I said, pretty insulting.
The analogy of blacks supporting Obama because of race is equally ludicrous. If that were the case, Jesse Jackson (or Al Sharpton!) would have been electable.
My wife is also a woman, and she really liked her after the debate. That's one example.
Anyway, no offense, but you're putting words in my mouth. I am not saying women will vote for a woman just because they are a woman. I am saying some may be inclined to take her side because of their similarities.
My original point was, in general, woman politicians have been treated unfairly relative to men. From Hillary to Palin. In my opinion, they are tossed around a bit worse than male politicians (particularly Obama who in my opinion has gotten a free pass with the media) ...and feminists, I believe, are starting to take notice. If it's racist to be anti-Obama, then it's sexist to be anti-Bachmann or anti-Hillary or anti-Palin. Clearly, it shouldn't be that way. But, the game was already set up with Obama and the pounding Palin took has made this issue real now. I'm no Palin fan, but she was attacked by the media and treated unfairly.
Regardless of whether you agree with that or not, President Obama received record African American votes. I'm not being racist in saying "some" of these votes were based on a societal linkage to him, via skin color. Did all African Americans vote for Obama based on his skin color? Absolutely not! But, did some? Yes.
I believe, on net, there would be a few women who maybe slightly indifferent between the two candidates now that may make their linkage to one based on a societal linkage, in this case, it would be their sex. In the other case, it may be race. Would all women do this? Absolutely not. But, could some? Yes.
To deny that is to deny reality. People like people who are similar to them. Then their defense of that candidate will grow from there. But, the societal link started it. That's what I am saying in a nutshell.
You're backpedaling. What you said is that Bachmann could "steal" votes from Obama because a woman would disregard her belief system and vote for a woman candidate instead. That's the insulting part.
I very highly doubt you could find hundreds of scientists that have a Nobel prize who believe in intelligent design. I would be amazed if this was true.
I disagree. 83% of Americans, for instance, claim to belong to a religious denomination. Even if that number was slightly less in the scientific community, I bet you'd find a high number of scientists. As far as the Nobel Prize winners, I don't know for sure their stance on the issue.
I assume she was being sarcastic about the 'running out of rich people' comment. I was under the impression that the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer... And that the gap between the rich and poor is still steadily increasing. But I guess the amount of rich people might be less.. but (and maybe because) they still have all the money!
I also think she was being sarcastic. The gap between the rich and poor will increase if both the rich and the poor make 10% more each year. Are both parties (the rich and the poor) better off? Yep. But, one could still bitch about the gap growing. The growing gap argument is simplistic and not very well thought-out. As for her point, believe it or not a lot of wealthy folks have been losing their jobs. It's not just the poor and middle class. In fact, that's one reason why tax revenues are down because the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of taxes. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% pay no income tax at all. One reason tax revenues are coming up short is those top earners, who pay the heavy heavy majority of taxes, aren't earning as much and in some cases have been laid off. Although sarcastic, she's pretty correct in her statement.
As for the 'rich people' part, I agree with you.. although her sarcasm is what made her statement seem weird to me.
But the Nobel prize/intelligent design thing is just ridiculous. Unless she knows these people personally, its a stupid comment. There's no sense in her making such a dumb comment to back her opinion. it makes her look like she's stretching to fit her agenda. I googled it and found one person, but I doubt there's even 200 Nobel prize winning scientists around that have ever commented on intelligent design.
1. "I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another, then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, on the 1976 Swine Flu outbreak that happened when Gerald Ford, a Republican, was president, April 28, 2009
She said she's not blaming it on Obama. This is making something out of nothing.
No. This is NOT making something out of nothing.
This is a bat-shit crazy person spreading paranoid delusions and conspiracy theories. First.. she got her facts wrong.. the Swine Flu spread under Ford... he was a Republican.. and second.. you'd have to be a paranoid schizophrenic wearing a tin foil hat to make a comparison like that.
You really think someone who'd say that is reliable enough to be a bus driver, let along president?
Although the general public may not know the word Keynesian, they aren't dumb. We will be Greece, if we're not careful. We need to stop spending and this President came in and immediately setup another entitlement, when we can't afford the ones we have.
If you owed money on your credit card, you wouldn't be saying "let's bring in more money, that will solve the problem." Because there's no guarantee you can. Instead a rational person would say, "I need to stop spending on my credit card until it becomes manageable." The average voter has had to cut back, they understand this. The government does not. Democrats will lose on the economy for this reason and the fact that close to 20% of our population is out of work.
The whole "America's economy is just like Greece's" was started over a year ago by certain conservative media outlets (again, you may have thought it up on your own, though). You say that you have knowledge of the economy, then you should know this is an attempt to manipulate through fear. To say the U.S. economy is like Greece's is avoiding looking at other economic factors between the two.
You have to define "dumb" before the argument starts. Conservatives dance around the evidence that Bush Jr. is dumb because they will come back with their own evidence that Bush isn't dumb and everyone ends up chasing a dragons tail. I'm not sure if you were around during Reagan, but he wasn't labelled as dumb, although many suggested senility in his second term. Out of touch and manipulative were more common labels. I don't recall bush Sr. as ever being labelled dumb. Quayle was a confirmed idiot. Dole wasn't labelled dumb, just a cranky old bastard. I agree that Bachmann and Palin have been labelled dumb.
Bottom line, and my point, Republicans can be more intelligent than Democrats and vice versa. Yet, time and time again, Republicans are unfairly categorized in the media (and places like here) as not being intelligent.
It's sad that people can't take it for what it is... two different view points. That's all, no more no less.
To provide a bit of levity, if someone doesn't believe gay marriage is a good policy, that doesn't mean they "hate gays" as some here say (I've seen this in other posts, and it's sad). Everyone always tends to exaggerate issues, I'm at fault sometimes too. That doesn't make it OK. Just because Obama decided to use force in Libya doesn't make him a war monger. Just because our economy is in shambles doesn't mean our President is not smart. Just because he goes golfing doesn't mean he's a bad President.
If we stick to issues and our opinions on them, discourse on political issues would be a hell of a lot more sound. I am just tired of our President getting a pass. He deserves scrutiny on the issues. As do the new Presidential candidates. But, if this is a "fair" race, the media will do a hell of a lot of fact checking on Obama's time in office. And, in my opinion, those facts will be mostly poor. If they want to do some fact checking and break stories on the candidates, great. But, let those stories be about issues. Not blanket statements like, she's "uninformed". Because, once again, that statement could have been tossed around about pretty much every single politician using one angle or another.
That's why the minimum wage causes unemployment. She's 100% right and 99% of economists would tell you that.
A minimum wage prevents wide-spread, abject poverty and a massive, unsustainable class of desperately poor people.
Yes... I suppose technically, if you're allowed to pay people 1¢ per hour, you can hire 700 times more people. But those people won't be able to live on what they're paid and the country will collapse.
Since I guess you stopped at Economics 101, I guess your'e about as qualified as she is.
This is a bat-shit crazy person spreading paranoid delusions and conspiracy theories. First.. she got her facts wrong.. the Swine Flu spread under Ford... he was a Republican.. and second.. you'd have to be a paranoid schizophrenic wearing a tin foil hat to make a comparison like that.
You really think someone who'd say that is reliable enough to be a bus driver, let along president?
Really?
This is kinda what I'm talking about. She has a different point of view and you call her "bat-shit crazy person". Sorry, but you're clearly not level-headed enough to discuss politics with if you are going to have to start with name calling to get your points across. This was my point.
Anyway, she noted when Swine Flu began and when it returned. Maybe she was slightly off in her assessment. I don't know for sure, and honestly I don't really care. That video from that quote is old. And was it really relevant to the question asked? I have no clue. All the videos I saw are edited to show no context of the question and the context. Regardless, she said she's not blaming it on Obama. So, to me, was never a great point, but it doesn't bother me at all. So, case closed.
2. "I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out: Are they pro-America or anti-America?" -Rep. Michelle Bachmann, calling for a new McCarthyism, Oct. 2008
What exactly is wrong with this statement? Do you want people in Congress to be anti-American? That's ridiculous!
Of course not, Senator McCarthy. Now... can you tell us what "anti-American" is? And who gets to decide?
And... you don't think that sounds a bit... paranoid?
3. "Take this into consideration. If we look at American history, between 1942 and 1947, the data that was collected by the Census Bureau was handed over to the FBI and other organizations at the request of President Roosevelt, and that's how the Japanese were rounded up and put into the internment camps. I'm not saying that that's what the Administration is planning to do, but I am saying that private personal information that was given to the Census Bureau in the 1940s was used against Americans to round them up, in a violation of their constitutional rights, and put the Japanese in internment camps." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, June 2009
This is a libertarian stance. It's for privacy. The analogy may not have been great, but I 100% agree with her. Anyone who doesn't want the government in their personal life... SHOULD... agree with her underlying point here.
Ah... so filling out a Census form means that they're going to round the people up and put them into concentration camps? You don't think that sounds a bit... paranoid delusional? Not even a little?
5. "That's why people need to continue to go to the town halls, continue to melt the phone lines of their liberal members of Congress, and let them know, under no certain circumstances will I give the government control over my body and my health care decisions." -Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), a pro-lifer who completely missed the irony of using the same slogan as the pro-choice movement in arguing against health care reform
Once again, I completely agree with her here too. You see, pro-abortion folks don't consider a fetus to be "alive". She does. Here she was talking about Obamacare. She also used the words "my" and "I". She believes in individual choice. Her belief if that the fetus is alive and therefore deserves the same rights. You may not agree, but there's no contradiction here.
6. "Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas." -Rep. Michelle Bachmann, April, 2009
We breathe out CO2 and plants breathe/inhale it.
Um... while that's technically true... we only breath out a bit. Huge factories chug it out faster than plants can "inhale it," especially since we're cutting down all the trees. This causes a huge build up which breaks down the ozone layer which leads to melting ice caps and desalinization of the oceans leading to extreme weather conditions. You need a diagram?
7. "There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, Oct. 2006
8. "I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country." -Rep. Rep. Michele Bachmann, March 2009
Semantics, I suppose are your concern. I guess you'd get upset with every football coach in America who uses military terms to talk about football. This is reaching.
Since I guess you stopped at Economics 101, I guess your'e about as qualified as she is.
I don't like to get into this, because it's not relevant at all.... but, since you went there... I have a PhD in economics, so I didn't stop at econ 101, I teach it.
She gets her facts wrong, tries to suggest that when there's a democrat in office the country suffers an epidemic... and that doesn't bug you... at all?
To me, that's being nuts. Crazy.
And not because she has a different point of view from me. Because she's nuts.
Condoleeza Rice has a different point of view from me. So does Mitt Romney. But I don't think either one of them are nuts. I think Michelle Bachmann is.
I don't like to get into this, because it's not relevant at all.... but, since you went there... I have a PhD in economics, so I didn't stop at econ 101, I teach it.
Well good. Maybe you can point to some prosperous countries with no minimum wage and no social safety net?
I mean, I just direct porn movies, so I apparently don't know of this Utopian economic powerhouse.
Although the general public may not know the word Keynesian, they aren't dumb. We will be Greece, if we're not careful. We need to stop spending and this President came in and immediately setup another entitlement, when we can't afford the ones we have.
If you owed money on your credit card, you wouldn't be saying "let's bring in more money, that will solve the problem." Because there's no guarantee you can. Instead a rational person would say, "I need to stop spending on my credit card until it becomes manageable." The average voter has had to cut back, they understand this. The government does not. Democrats will lose on the economy for this reason and the fact that close to 20% of our population is out of work.
The whole "America's economy is just like Greece's" was started over a year ago by certain conservative media outlets (again, you may have thought it up on your own, though). You say that you have knowledge of the economy, then you should know this is an attempt to manipulate through fear. To say the U.S. economy is like Greece's is avoiding looking at other economic factors between the two.
It's not an attempt to manipulate through fear. Just like Greece, our national debt is a serious problem that won't just go away. Greece is an example of what could happen, but if it happened here it would be way, way worse. We can't get bailed out. We're too big.
Spain, Portugal and Ireland are also being compared to Greece, so is that wrong? I don't think so. The problem is debt. Greece is an example of a country that got screwed by their debt problem.
I don't like to get into this, because it's not relevant at all.... but, since you went there... I have a PhD in economics, so I didn't stop at econ 101, I teach it.
Well good. Maybe you can point to some prosperous countries with no minimum wage and no social safety net?
I mean, I just direct porn movies, so I apparently don't know of this Utopian economic powerhouse.
Singapore. No minimum wage and real GDP growth in the double digits.
I don't like to get into this, because it's not relevant at all.... but, since you went there... I have a PhD in economics, so I didn't stop at econ 101, I teach it.
Well good. Maybe you can point to some prosperous countries with no minimum wage and no social safety net?
I mean, I just direct porn movies, so I apparently don't know of this Utopian economic powerhouse.
Singapore. No minimum wage and real GDP growth in the double digits.
Ok... And tell us about the country. What is the standard of living there?
Like... Do they have a small upper class and massive class of extreme poverty?
Ok... And tell us about the country. What is the standard of living there?
Like... Do they have a small upper class and massive class of extreme poverty?
Do they have socialized medicine?
haha... I'm not being paid to research for you. Look it up. What I know off-hand is that they are a developed country, one of the fastest growing in the world, that does not have a minimum wage and has an unemployment rate that's roughly 2%.
I'm not saying Singapore is the be-all-end-all. You asked for a successful country (economically) that does not have a min. wage, and I showed you one.
I don't like to get into this, because it's not relevant at all.... but, since you went there... I have a PhD in economics, so I didn't stop at econ 101, I teach it.
Well good. Maybe you can point to some prosperous countries with no minimum wage and no social safety net?
I mean, I just direct porn movies, so I apparently don't know of this Utopian economic powerhouse.
Singapore. No minimum wage and real GDP growth in the double digits.
Singapore has huge government housing programs so insure no homeless and welfare programs. They also rule with no trial by jury, have a population of only 5 million and a land area that it TINY.
Please never compare a country the size of Seattle to the US.
Singapore has huge government housing programs so insure no homeless and welfare programs. They also rule with no trial by jury, have a population of only 5 million and a land area that it TINY.
Please never compare a country the size of Seattle to the US.
apples to orangoutangs.
Please read things in context before you jump in. I was asked for an example of a country that is relatively successful economically and has no minimum wage. I did as asked.
I never said that it is a good country to compare to the U.S. In fact, I can't think of a country that could easily be compared to the U.S. at all.
The woman's a dangerous idiot, and if she, or someone like her, ever gets elected President, then the whole world will be fucked.
ha ha ha I'm not arguing with you Byenzie you could very well be spot on the money but I gotta tell ya man
a bunch of people said the same thing about obama.
Godfather.
No they didn't. Nobody said Obama was a dangerous idiot.
I received pay "under the table" as a dishwasher when I was 14. The money was nice to have. If my employer paid the minimum wage, I wouldn't have had that money or a job.
We don't have to maintain anything. OUr economy is in shambles. There's millions of people sucking on a government teet that is borrowing it's milk (money if you didn't get the analogy) from chinese and other foreign cows.
People would work for money if they "want" to. Stop telling people what they will and won't do. Let them decide. If the minimum wage disappeared and no one would work for $4 hour... then guess what, the employer would probably decide to pay $5/hour... or maybe $6.... maybe they would keep boosting it up until they got someone who was willing to work for that wage. Let the markets decide. People lined up in thousands for jobs at McDonalds recently. People want jobs. Allow business to give them jobs, and stop the government from getting in the way.
The government is the most inefficient source of anything. They ruin everything. I favor Republicans because I realize how bad the government f's things up. Including the Republicans, they are a horrid, horrid body of liars, power-hungry douche bags. That's why I favor minimizing government. Unfortunately, in our two party system, the only party that has any hope of doing that economically is Republicans.
actually, I think you have it backwards. a minimum wage was established to make sure the poor were not taken advantage of, as in "guy #1 will work for less than guy #2, so I'm going to hire guy #1". the wages would get LOWER, not higher, because there's always going to be someone who will do it for less, which is dangerous.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I received pay "under the table" as a dishwasher when I was 14. The money was nice to have. If my employer paid the minimum wage, I wouldn't have had that money or a job.
We don't have to maintain anything. OUr economy is in shambles. There's millions of people sucking on a government teet that is borrowing it's milk (money if you didn't get the analogy) from chinese and other foreign cows.
People would work for money if they "want" to. Stop telling people what they will and won't do. Let them decide. If the minimum wage disappeared and no one would work for $4 hour... then guess what, the employer would probably decide to pay $5/hour... or maybe $6.... maybe they would keep boosting it up until they got someone who was willing to work for that wage. Let the markets decide. People lined up in thousands for jobs at McDonalds recently. People want jobs. Allow business to give them jobs, and stop the government from getting in the way.
The government is the most inefficient source of anything. They ruin everything. I favor Republicans because I realize how bad the government f's things up. Including the Republicans, they are a horrid, horrid body of liars, power-hungry douche bags. That's why I favor minimizing government. Unfortunately, in our two party system, the only party that has any hope of doing that economically is Republicans.
actually, I think you have it backwards. a minimum wage was established to make sure the poor were not taken advantage of, as in "guy #1 will work for less than guy #2, so I'm going to hire guy #1". the wages would get LOWER, not higher, because there's always going to be someone who will do it for less, which is dangerous.
Nah, I don't have it backwards. In our society, a U.S. citizen would not need to work for $5/hour if they don't want to. No one can force someone into work, that's called slavery.
In your example, guy #2 should move on to find a job that's compatible with what he thinks he deserves. He could go to company #2 and get more than guy #1... that is, if he's actually worth it. If guy #2 is really good at what he does, company #3 may then try to steal him away for even more money. Markets work. Government doesn't.
Bottom line: the minimum wage causes unemployment, and does so at the expense of people who would be willing to work for that amount --- hence, the poor. It's 100% regressive in nature. Once again, no one can force someone to work. A person chooses to take a job. If they take a job for $5/hour, they make that choice. Because the government intervenes and thinks it knows what people want, it creates unemployment.
Comments
2) The difference between Bachman & Palin is that Michelle actually believes in her craziness. I give her credit in that aspect that she truly thinks her way is the way is the way that will bring America back (where it went I don't know). Palin on the other hand knows nothing and just spews out shit that she had no idea about and or really believes in it. She a figure head for the brand name of "Who gives a shit".
As far as Bush vs. Kerry and how they were portrayed, I don't think that was the media so much as their personalities and habits. Kerry wrote poetry and spoke French. Most people would think that was intellectual. Bush had a Big Mouth Billy Bass. That says redneck to most people. Right or wrong, that's how people may have perceived them. And I do not consider Bush a redneck.
I disagree that Bush I was regarded as dumb. Many people thought he was out of touch, like the time he visited a grocery store and marveled that the cashiers used scanners, but not that he was stupid. Nor do I remember people talking about Reagan as dumb. He saw things in absolutes, which I don't think is particularly helpful in a world leader. I never saw Dole portrayed as stupid. Clumsy, negative, and rigid but not as dumb. I was disappointed that he dropped his sense of humor (my favorite thing about him) while he ran for president. Quayle, I don't know. He did seem dumb to me.
It's the media. The media creates the portrayal. They accentuate the negatives in Republicans and accentuate the positives in Democrats. Fox (maybe WSJ) does the opposite. As far as fairness goes, the problem is Fox is only so big and honestly we should just be fair and it would eliminate the need for Fox. ABC, NBC, CBS, pop culture shows like Comedy Central, SNL etc... they create the portrayal. They paint the pictures of the dumb Republican.
There's nothing wrong with it, if the reader/viewer knows the bias is instilled. Problem is some don't know the NYT, for instance, is incredibly bias.
It's just fact that Obama does not take the same amount of heat that Bush took on CNN, the Daily Show or SNL. I don't really care too much, until the next candidate come up on the Republican side and they start the slander right from the get-go about how they're unintelligent and so on... like I said, it's very, very, very old and tired.
I don't care that the Daily Show isn't fair. I find the Daily Show very, very funny. Yet, I know he's very, very bias. Some don't. That's fine... just don't use the "dumb or uninformed" lines anymore about Republican candidates, when you have a President sitting in the White House who has pretty much contradicted half of the things he ran on. In that sense, Obama is making his supporters (and the media who doesn't go at him on these issues) seem uninformed.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
stephen colbert
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I very highly doubt you could find hundreds of scientists that have a Nobel prize who believe in intelligent design. I would be amazed if this was true.
I assume she was being sarcastic about the 'running out of rich people' comment. I was under the impression that the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer... And that the gap between the rich and poor is still steadily increasing. But I guess the amount of rich people might be less.. but (and maybe because) they still have all the money!
I disagree. 83% of Americans, for instance, claim to belong to a religious denomination. Even if that number was slightly less in the scientific community, I bet you'd find a high number of scientists. As far as the Nobel Prize winners, I don't know for sure their stance on the issue.
I also think she was being sarcastic. The gap between the rich and poor will increase if both the rich and the poor make 10% more each year. Are both parties (the rich and the poor) better off? Yep. But, one could still bitch about the gap growing. The growing gap argument is simplistic and not very well thought-out. As for her point, believe it or not a lot of wealthy folks have been losing their jobs. It's not just the poor and middle class. In fact, that's one reason why tax revenues are down because the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of taxes. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% pay no income tax at all. One reason tax revenues are coming up short is those top earners, who pay the heavy heavy majority of taxes, aren't earning as much and in some cases have been laid off. Although sarcastic, she's pretty correct in her statement.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
You have to define "dumb" before the argument starts. Conservatives dance around the evidence that Bush Jr. is dumb because they will come back with their own evidence that Bush isn't dumb and everyone ends up chasing a dragons tail. I'm not sure if you were around during Reagan, but he wasn't labelled as dumb, although many suggested senility in his second term. Out of touch and manipulative were more common labels. I don't recall bush Sr. as ever being labelled dumb. Quayle was a confirmed idiot. Dole wasn't labelled dumb, just a cranky old bastard. I agree that Bachmann and Palin have been labelled dumb.
You're backpedaling. What you said is that Bachmann could "steal" votes from Obama because a woman would disregard her belief system and vote for a woman candidate instead. That's the insulting part.
As for the 'rich people' part, I agree with you.. although her sarcasm is what made her statement seem weird to me.
But the Nobel prize/intelligent design thing is just ridiculous. Unless she knows these people personally, its a stupid comment. There's no sense in her making such a dumb comment to back her opinion. it makes her look like she's stretching to fit her agenda. I googled it and found one person, but I doubt there's even 200 Nobel prize winning scientists around that have ever commented on intelligent design.
No. This is NOT making something out of nothing.
This is a bat-shit crazy person spreading paranoid delusions and conspiracy theories. First.. she got her facts wrong.. the Swine Flu spread under Ford... he was a Republican.. and second.. you'd have to be a paranoid schizophrenic wearing a tin foil hat to make a comparison like that.
You really think someone who'd say that is reliable enough to be a bus driver, let along president?
Really?
The whole "America's economy is just like Greece's" was started over a year ago by certain conservative media outlets (again, you may have thought it up on your own, though). You say that you have knowledge of the economy, then you should know this is an attempt to manipulate through fear. To say the U.S. economy is like Greece's is avoiding looking at other economic factors between the two.
Bottom line, and my point, Republicans can be more intelligent than Democrats and vice versa. Yet, time and time again, Republicans are unfairly categorized in the media (and places like here) as not being intelligent.
It's sad that people can't take it for what it is... two different view points. That's all, no more no less.
To provide a bit of levity, if someone doesn't believe gay marriage is a good policy, that doesn't mean they "hate gays" as some here say (I've seen this in other posts, and it's sad). Everyone always tends to exaggerate issues, I'm at fault sometimes too. That doesn't make it OK. Just because Obama decided to use force in Libya doesn't make him a war monger. Just because our economy is in shambles doesn't mean our President is not smart. Just because he goes golfing doesn't mean he's a bad President.
If we stick to issues and our opinions on them, discourse on political issues would be a hell of a lot more sound. I am just tired of our President getting a pass. He deserves scrutiny on the issues. As do the new Presidential candidates. But, if this is a "fair" race, the media will do a hell of a lot of fact checking on Obama's time in office. And, in my opinion, those facts will be mostly poor. If they want to do some fact checking and break stories on the candidates, great. But, let those stories be about issues. Not blanket statements like, she's "uninformed". Because, once again, that statement could have been tossed around about pretty much every single politician using one angle or another.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
A minimum wage prevents wide-spread, abject poverty and a massive, unsustainable class of desperately poor people.
Yes... I suppose technically, if you're allowed to pay people 1¢ per hour, you can hire 700 times more people. But those people won't be able to live on what they're paid and the country will collapse.
Since I guess you stopped at Economics 101, I guess your'e about as qualified as she is.
This is kinda what I'm talking about. She has a different point of view and you call her "bat-shit crazy person". Sorry, but you're clearly not level-headed enough to discuss politics with if you are going to have to start with name calling to get your points across. This was my point.
Anyway, she noted when Swine Flu began and when it returned. Maybe she was slightly off in her assessment. I don't know for sure, and honestly I don't really care. That video from that quote is old. And was it really relevant to the question asked? I have no clue. All the videos I saw are edited to show no context of the question and the context. Regardless, she said she's not blaming it on Obama. So, to me, was never a great point, but it doesn't bother me at all. So, case closed.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Of course not, Senator McCarthy. Now... can you tell us what "anti-American" is? And who gets to decide?
And... you don't think that sounds a bit... paranoid?
Ah... so filling out a Census form means that they're going to round the people up and put them into concentration camps? You don't think that sounds a bit... paranoid delusional? Not even a little?
Nobody is "Pro-abortion."
Um... while that's technically true... we only breath out a bit. Huge factories chug it out faster than plants can "inhale it," especially since we're cutting down all the trees. This causes a huge build up which breaks down the ozone layer which leads to melting ice caps and desalinization of the oceans leading to extreme weather conditions. You need a diagram?
You wanna provide a link to that?
Tell that to Gabriel Giffords.
I don't like to get into this, because it's not relevant at all.... but, since you went there... I have a PhD in economics, so I didn't stop at econ 101, I teach it.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Ah. Case closed.
She gets her facts wrong, tries to suggest that when there's a democrat in office the country suffers an epidemic... and that doesn't bug you... at all?
To me, that's being nuts. Crazy.
And not because she has a different point of view from me. Because she's nuts.
Condoleeza Rice has a different point of view from me. So does Mitt Romney. But I don't think either one of them are nuts. I think Michelle Bachmann is.
Well good. Maybe you can point to some prosperous countries with no minimum wage and no social safety net?
I mean, I just direct porn movies, so I apparently don't know of this Utopian economic powerhouse.
It's not an attempt to manipulate through fear. Just like Greece, our national debt is a serious problem that won't just go away. Greece is an example of what could happen, but if it happened here it would be way, way worse. We can't get bailed out. We're too big.
Spain, Portugal and Ireland are also being compared to Greece, so is that wrong? I don't think so. The problem is debt. Greece is an example of a country that got screwed by their debt problem.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Singapore. No minimum wage and real GDP growth in the double digits.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7h4f7PRFRw&feature=player_embedded#at=90
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Ok... And tell us about the country. What is the standard of living there?
Like... Do they have a small upper class and massive class of extreme poverty?
Do they have socialized medicine?
Hm... This doesn't paint a very nice picture of the "rich get a whole lot richer and the poor get thrown away like garbage" economy over there.
They also flog people in the streets for chewing bubble gum and littering.
Just saying.
haha... I'm not being paid to research for you. Look it up. What I know off-hand is that they are a developed country, one of the fastest growing in the world, that does not have a minimum wage and has an unemployment rate that's roughly 2%.
I'm not saying Singapore is the be-all-end-all. You asked for a successful country (economically) that does not have a min. wage, and I showed you one.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Said it before, if everyone in an economy's incomes go up 10%. The gap between the rich and the poor grows. Yet, everyone's better off.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Singapore has huge government housing programs so insure no homeless and welfare programs. They also rule with no trial by jury, have a population of only 5 million and a land area that it TINY.
Please never compare a country the size of Seattle to the US.
apples to orangoutangs.
Please read things in context before you jump in. I was asked for an example of a country that is relatively successful economically and has no minimum wage. I did as asked.
I never said that it is a good country to compare to the U.S. In fact, I can't think of a country that could easily be compared to the U.S. at all.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
No they didn't. Nobody said Obama was a dangerous idiot.
actually, I think you have it backwards. a minimum wage was established to make sure the poor were not taken advantage of, as in "guy #1 will work for less than guy #2, so I'm going to hire guy #1". the wages would get LOWER, not higher, because there's always going to be someone who will do it for less, which is dangerous.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Nah, I don't have it backwards. In our society, a U.S. citizen would not need to work for $5/hour if they don't want to. No one can force someone into work, that's called slavery.
In your example, guy #2 should move on to find a job that's compatible with what he thinks he deserves. He could go to company #2 and get more than guy #1... that is, if he's actually worth it. If guy #2 is really good at what he does, company #3 may then try to steal him away for even more money. Markets work. Government doesn't.
Bottom line: the minimum wage causes unemployment, and does so at the expense of people who would be willing to work for that amount --- hence, the poor. It's 100% regressive in nature. Once again, no one can force someone to work. A person chooses to take a job. If they take a job for $5/hour, they make that choice. Because the government intervenes and thinks it knows what people want, it creates unemployment.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="