Way to go Minnesota
WaveCameCrashin
Posts: 2,929
Why the hell would you want some one like Al Frankin representing you ? Are your brains frozen from all the snow or what. Obviously Jesse Ventura wasn't enough. It's bad enough he's a far left kook but please tell me what makes this guy qualified to be a U.S. senator. Did anybody Listen to this guy on Air America ? What a freakin joke. :roll:
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Two words:
Arnold Schwartzenegger
I don't know much else about her, but anyone who has the balls to question the Federal Reserve is alright in my book.
Arnold does deserve way more respect the Frankin. Arnold is an extremely successful businessman prior to his political career. Frankin is more or less a laughing stock and its very hard to take him seriously.
lol I would.
thats one of the dumber things I've heard in awhile.
Arnold is governor. governors are in charge of budgets. being a successful business man goes a long way in that regard.
so if you had a choice, you would vote for the candidate who failed in the real world? pure genius. :roll:
But business = corporations and corporations = bad, right?
Kidding... I do agree with you... While I don't want Donald Trump as a governor, I'd much rather have someone in that position who has been successful in the business world than some career politician.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I think you mean Arnold's manager was a successful businessman. And what the hell do I care? My dad's a successful attorney. My mom was a successful x-ray tech. My buddy is a successful pizza store manager. Do they deserve to be governor because they're good at their job like they're supposed to be?
You mean like our last president? Didn't you vote for him? The guy that tanked every business he ever touched?
personally, I like to know that the people I vote for are competent and successful in real life and the business world before I give them the power to manage something as important as my entire state's budget. but thats just me.
do they deserve to be governor? I dont know, maybe. it does help though that they are successful.
I voted for bush in 2000 but not in 2004. and Obama this time around. and no, Bush didnt tank every business he touched, last I checked the Rangers are doing just fine.. besides, I dont voted primarily on a candidates business resume. anything else?
Yes, if Arnold is such a successful businessman that is obviously completely qualified to be governor of California, why is that state on the verge of bankruptcy?
yeah, democracy sucks.... :roll:
again, being a successful business man doesnt make someone "completely qualified". not sure why you keep saying that.
and they are on the verge of bankruptcy because this country is in the worst economic crisis in the history of its existence. not sure if you noticed. that said, I would feel a million times more comfortable with a intelligent business man running the show, the a washed up comedian (Franklin) with little to no business skills.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
its a one party system. either way they are a business candidate. and wages reflect that. They've been stagnant for 40 years. while CEO's have seen exponential increases in salaries. they're making more money, the workers aren't.
so yeah, another business candidate is not my idea of a good choice.
its not that i would vote for the guy that failed, i would vote for the guy with no ties to Haliburton or wherever.
wages arent stagnant. my wages have continued to go up since I started working when I was 16. you know how? hard work and determination. theres are novice idea eh?
Wages for you and me aren't stagnant... our careers/jobs are still escalating. I'm 34, and am now making more than 3 times as much as I did right out of college.
But for people our parents' age who are working the same job for the past 10-20 years, their wages aren't going up as fast as inflation and the cost of living.
It's easy to say to work harder and try for a promotion or a better job, but for a person in their mid-50's, that is easier much said than done.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
bullshit. most companies provide yearly raises based on performance no matter how long you've been there. just because you are at a company a long time, doesnt mean you are entitled to shit.
it doesn't surprise me i can't find a link to any study showing that, Yes, wages have been stagnant since 1979. Berkely did a study on it, and there were a few others. and they found that the average wage in the United States has not gone up, relative to inflation, since 1979. this while CEO's and managers have seen exponential increases.
Which means there has been a redistribution of wealth. Wheres the fucking right when you need them? Teabaggin for a transit system, not for the important shit I guess.
I worked at a fast food restaurant in highschool. I went on to get more an more for my labor too, advanced myself. my wages went up. its not the point.
average, nationwide, relative to inflation, wages for each industry have remained stagnant for 30 years now, according to Berkely, and others. and fuck that.
labor is slavery.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Maybe that just means that wages were artifically inflated in the 70's (ie too high) and since then they have been levelling off. Did any of those studies look into that?