Michele Bachmann

Prince Of Dorkness · June 2011

inlet13 wrote:

Are you all ok with increasing the minimum wage to $100/hour? Why not if it doesn't cause unemployment?

Why, when it's finally proven that they are wrong, do conservatives always resort to saying absurd crap like ^that^?

No matter how much you might like it or not like it... the world isn't all black and white. There has to be a balance and there has to be a "sweet spot." Allowing employers to pay pennies per day and then not giving a social safety net to workers would create a slave population, desperately poor. Crime would sky-rocket along with poverty, hunger and the gap between the very rich and very poor would be astronomical. We'd be like a third-world nation in months.

The point of a minimum wage is that it's supposed to allow employers to pay a fair wage but still be able to turn a profit from the employee's work. If you're talking about someone whose job it is to say "would you like fries with that," an employer isn't going to be able to sustain his business if he has to pay $100 per hour.

Are you sure you're a PhD in economics?

I guess us "liberals" are able to find a middle ground and conservatives only understand extremes in either direction?

Prince Of Dorkness · June 2011

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Maybe the answer is that minimum wage needs to decrease just a bit??

Or maybe raise it a bit to stimulate the economy from the bottom since giving mega tax breaks to billionaires clearly doesn't work?

Give it to people who'll actually spend it instead of the people who just stock-pile it?

gimmesometruth27 · June 2011

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

she, like anyone else against the minimum wage, is pro-business and anti-worker. just like the governors of wisconsin, ohio, florida, indiana, and many other states. this alone makes her unelectable.

News flash: Being pro-business is being pro-worker.

no, NEWS FLASH...being probusiness is being PRO PROFIT at the expense of and on the backs of said workers.

why is it called pro business and not pro worker when a corporation moves operations and maunfacturing overseas when it cuts american jobs?? they do that to avoid paying american workers what the workers command and for the tax breaks.

pro business? yes.

pro worker? fuck no.

Godfather. · June 2011

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

she, like anyone else against the minimum wage, is pro-business and anti-worker. just like the governors of wisconsin, ohio, florida, indiana, and many other states. this alone makes her unelectable.

News flash: Being pro-business is being pro-worker.

no, NEWS FLASH...being probusiness is being PRO PROFIT at the expense of and on the backs of said workers.

why is it called pro business and not pro worker when a corporation moves operations and maunfacturing overseas when it cuts american jobs?? they do that to avoid paying american workers what the workers command and for the tax breaks.

pro business? yes.

pro worker? fuck no.

XLNT POST GIMMI !

:thumbup:

Godfather.

shadowcast · June 2011

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

she, like anyone else against the minimum wage, is pro-business and anti-worker. just like the governors of wisconsin, ohio, florida, indiana, and many other states. this alone makes her unelectable.

News flash: Being pro-business is being pro-worker.

no, NEWS FLASH...being probusiness is being PRO PROFIT at the expense of and on the backs of said workers.

why is it called pro business and not pro worker when a corporation moves operations and maunfacturing overseas when it cuts american jobs?? they do that to avoid paying american workers what the workers command and for the tax breaks.

pro business? yes.

pro worker? fuck no.

Let me add to this. I work at a hotel (Marriott) and the past 3 years have been kind of shitty. Not terrible but worse months than years prior. The first thing corporations do to make bigger profit is cut the hourly worker hours. It's a fact. That is the best way to make budget is to cut hourly pay. Corporations are looking for ways to cut hourly workers. That's why they have tried these automatic check in kiosks, to cut out the worker completely. What happened was you start losing the "Human" experience and guest scores go down. So now they are doing it the old fashioned way by putting fewer workers on a shift for overall lower hours. That’s what corporations do.

butterjam · June 2011

Getting back to the topic, there is no way in hell I'm voting for Bachman. I'm done with voting for turd sandwich and giant douche. If Ron Paul, or even Gary Johnson(snowballs chance) doesn't get the nomination, I will not vote for Obama or the Republican. Its been the same back and forth BS for too many years.

Who will actually change our foreign policy? Who will change the government corporatism? Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Gary Johnson. I will vote for anyone that will actually do something about it.

shadowcast · June 2011

311jj wrote:

Getting back to the topic, there is no way in hell I'm voting for Bachman. I'm done with voting for turd sandwich and giant douche. If Ron Paul, or even Gary Johnson(snowballs chance) doesn't get the nomination, I will not vote for Obama or the Republican. Its been the same back and forth BS for too many years.

Who will actually change our foreign policy? Who will change the government corporatism? Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Gary Johnson. I will vote for anyone that will actually do something about it.

I'm kinda with you on the Ron Paul ticket but I would like to hear his take on the seperation of church and state. As this has come up in many debate forums before.

VINNY GOOMBA · June 2011

311jj wrote:

Getting back to the topic, there is no way in hell I'm voting for Bachman. I'm done with voting for turd sandwich and giant douche. If Ron Paul, or even Gary Johnson(snowballs chance) doesn't get the nomination, I will not vote for Obama or the Republican. Its been the same back and forth BS for too many years.

Who will actually change our foreign policy? Who will change the government corporatism? Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Gary Johnson. I will vote for anyone that will actually do something about it.

^ This exactly. I'd definitely vote for Nader again (or the Libertarian or Constitution Party nominee) if Paul or Johnson found no to be nominated as Republicans or as 3rd party guys.

butterjam · June 2011

shadowcast wrote:

311jj wrote:

Getting back to the topic, there is no way in hell I'm voting for Bachman. I'm done with voting for turd sandwich and giant douche. If Ron Paul, or even Gary Johnson(snowballs chance) doesn't get the nomination, I will not vote for Obama or the Republican. Its been the same back and forth BS for too many years.

Who will actually change our foreign policy? Who will change the government corporatism? Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Gary Johnson. I will vote for anyone that will actually do something about it.

I'm kinda with you on the Ron Paul ticket but I would like to hear his take on the seperation of church and state. As this has come up in many debate forums before.

What are do you mean specifically? He is for both economic and personal freedom. I know is generalizing, but I think it is pretty simple to me.

shadowcast · June 2011

311jj wrote:

shadowcast wrote:

311jj wrote:

Getting back to the topic, there is no way in hell I'm voting for Bachman. I'm done with voting for turd sandwich and giant douche. If Ron Paul, or even Gary Johnson(snowballs chance) doesn't get the nomination, I will not vote for Obama or the Republican. Its been the same back and forth BS for too many years.

Who will actually change our foreign policy? Who will change the government corporatism? Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Gary Johnson. I will vote for anyone that will actually do something about it.

I'm kinda with you on the Ron Paul ticket but I would like to hear his take on the seperation of church and state. As this has come up in many debate forums before.

What are do you mean specifically? He is for both economic and personal freedom. I know is generalizing, but I think it is pretty simple to me.

Ron Paul Quote "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion."

The Word God never appears in the constitution. It does appear inThe Declaration of Independence but this is not a legal document for this nation. What this means is that it has no authority over our laws, our lawmakers, or ourselves. It cannot be cited as precedent or as being binding in a courtroom

shadowcast · June 2011

Also another Ron Paul quote

“The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.”

So is he against personal freedom here?

This also worries me

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52941.html

I thought Libertarian meant, you mind your business -I will mind my own.

inlet13 · June 2011

shadowcast wrote:

Let me add to this. I work at a hotel (Marriott) and the past 3 years have been kind of shitty. Not terrible but worse months than years prior. The first thing corporations do to make bigger profit is cut the hourly worker hours. It's a fact. That is the best way to make budget is to cut hourly pay. Corporations are looking for ways to cut hourly workers. That's why they have tried these automatic check in kiosks, to cut out the worker completely. What happened was you start losing the "Human" experience and guest scores go down. So now they are doing it the old fashioned way by putting fewer workers on a shift for overall lower hours. That’s what corporations do.

I wouldn't say that's the first thing "corporations do".

I'd say they try a myriad of approaches to max profit when faced with tough economic situations ( and lower demand for their product). I agree that one could be, corporations cutting back on costs in order to continue maximizing profit. That behavior is not bad, it's predictable and understandable given the circumstances. The corporation goal is to continue to operate... they don't like making their workers unhappy, but economic conditions are forcing their hand.

So many of you act like you are entitled. You're entitled to nothing. If your employer wants to cut your hours, you can cry/bitch or moan. I'm not saying you shouldn't be upset, I'm saying it won't do any good. You aren't entitled to anything. You can act like you are, but you're not. You should be thankful to have a job in this economic climate, even if you make less or work a bit less.

inlet13 · June 2011

shadowcast wrote:

Also another Ron Paul quote

“The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.”

So is he against personal freedom here?

This also worries me

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52941.html

I thought Libertarian meant, you mind your business -I will mind my own.

Libertarians don't think it's okay to kill people. They believe every human being is entitled to life and personal freedom. If a human is attached to another human, neither person should be permitted to kill the other because, of course, you'd be restricting one person's personal freedom by killing that person.

mikepegg44 · June 2011

shadowcast wrote:

Also another Ron Paul quote

“The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.”

So is he against personal freedom here?

This also worries me

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52941.html

I thought Libertarian meant, you mind your business -I will mind my own.

libertarian does mean that, and no he isn't against personal freedoms, he just defines the aborted fetus as a person. so if you think it is a human being, it wouldn't be very libertarian of you to allow it to be killed with no legal repercussion. I disagree with him here, but there are so many more important things that I agree with for this to be a big concern.

Who Princess · June 2011

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

she, like anyone else against the minimum wage, is pro-business and anti-worker. just like the governors of wisconsin, ohio, florida, indiana, and many other states. this alone makes her unelectable.

Her family farm has also received more than $250K in federal subsidies in the last 10 years. Looking forward to hearing her explain her way out of that one.

inlet13 · June 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

libertarian does mean that, and no he isn't against personal freedoms, he just defines the aborted fetus as a person. so if you think it is a human being, it wouldn't be very libertarian of you to allow it to be killed with no legal repercussion. I disagree with him here, but there are so many more important things that I agree with for this to be a big concern.

I also like Ron Paul a lot. I think he's a great candidate. He understands the economy, from what I've seen, better than any other candidate. My only concern is that he can't win the Republican primary. I do think he could beat Obama.

We'll see. I have a lot of respect for him.

mikepegg44 · June 2011

inlet13 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

libertarian does mean that, and no he isn't against personal freedoms, he just defines the aborted fetus as a person. so if you think it is a human being, it wouldn't be very libertarian of you to allow it to be killed with no legal repercussion. I disagree with him here, but there are so many more important things that I agree with for this to be a big concern.

I also like Ron Paul a lot. I think he's a great candidate. He understands the economy, from what I've seen, better than any other candidate. My only concern is that he can't win the Republican primary. I do think he could beat Obama.

We'll see. I have a lot of respect for him.

As long as he continues to be allowed to debate, he may not win but his questions about the fed and our economic and foreign policies will need to be addressed...Either way his name will be hand written on my ballot if it has to be

Prince Of Dorkness · June 2011

whoprincess wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

she, like anyone else against the minimum wage, is pro-business and anti-worker. just like the governors of wisconsin, ohio, florida, indiana, and many other states. this alone makes her unelectable.

Her family farm has also received more than $250K in federal subsidies in the last 10 years. Looking forward to hearing her explain her way out of that one.

She also gets free health care.

VINNY GOOMBA · June 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

shadowcast wrote:

Also another Ron Paul quote

“The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.”

So is he against personal freedom here?

This also worries me

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52941.html

I thought Libertarian meant, you mind your business -I will mind my own.

libertarian does mean that, and no he isn't against personal freedoms, he just defines the aborted fetus as a person. so if you think it is a human being, it wouldn't be very libertarian of you to allow it to be killed with no legal repercussion. I disagree with him here, but there are so many more important things that I agree with for this to be a big concern.

I know that on a personal level, the more I have studied libertarian philosophy and classical liberalism, the less divisive I find this issue to be. Fundamentally I do believe the fetus is a life that should be protected by law, especially if viable or is not a threat to the life of its mother. But, I also believe that making laws against abortion isn't going to change all that much from the desired net result for everyone: less abortions. If abortion were made illegal tomorrow, there would be a larger abortion black market, a lot of it using modern technology -- it's not going to be all coat hangers in a back alley somewhere. However those types of abortion will also rise in numbers again.
Bottom line, abortion isn't going anywhere until people choose to stop having them. I think improving life for those already alive and breathing will bring down the number of abortions more than any laws against it will.

shadowcast · June 2011

inlet13 wrote:

shadowcast wrote:

Let me add to this. I work at a hotel (Marriott) and the past 3 years have been kind of shitty. Not terrible but worse months than years prior. The first thing corporations do to make bigger profit is cut the hourly worker hours. It's a fact. That is the best way to make budget is to cut hourly pay. Corporations are looking for ways to cut hourly workers. That's why they have tried these automatic check in kiosks, to cut out the worker completely. What happened was you start losing the "Human" experience and guest scores go down. So now they are doing it the old fashioned way by putting fewer workers on a shift for overall lower hours. That’s what corporations do.

I wouldn't say that's the first thing "corporations do".

I'd say they try a myriad of approaches to max profit when faced with tough economic situations ( and lower demand for their product). I agree that one could be, corporations cutting back on costs in order to continue maximizing profit. That behavior is not bad, it's predictable and understandable given the circumstances. The corporation goal is to continue to operate... they don't like making their workers unhappy, but economic conditions are forcing their hand.

So many of you act like you are entitled. You're entitled to nothing. If your employer wants to cut your hours, you can cry/bitch or moan. I'm not saying you shouldn't be upset, I'm saying it won't do any good. You aren't entitled to anything. You can act like you are, but you're not. You should be thankful to have a job in this economic climate, even if you make less or work a bit less.

Never said I was entitled slick. Actually I am one that feels the same way about people and the me, me, me generation. But let's cut the shit. First thing that goes is hours. Always is always will be. So explain this one Corporate Carl. Why have so many companies (Walgreens, Goodyear, GameStop, Del Monte Foods, Apple, Anheuser Busch & every oil company just to name a few cause the list is much larger than this) have banner record breaking 1st quarters but job growth is down? Because they cut hours.

Michele Bachmann

Comments

Categories