Lyft Industrial Deals Fall Reading Shop new men's suiting nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Alexa on Mobile Get 10% cashback on thousands of musical instruments with your Amazon.com Store Credit Card Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon Spider-Man: Homecoming available to buy Spider-Man: Homecoming available to buy Spider-Man: Homecoming available to buy  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held Trade in. Get paid. Go shopping. Shop Now STEMClubToys17_gno
Customer Discussions > Politics forum

What exactly do people have against hippies/liberals?

Discussion moved to this forum by Amazon on Jul 26, 2012, 7:09:31 AM PDT.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 12:51:32 PM PDT
Bob says:
Paul Ryan does not set the agenda. Try again.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 12:47:59 PM PDT
J. D. Baker says:
I'm not going to chase the red herring.

Staying on point:
Senator Reid has made deliberate and unlawful decisions to actively obstruct adoption of any budget in the Senate for three years.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 12:44:39 PM PDT
J. D. Baker says:
While you ignore Media Matters, and the extreme left-wing blogosphere who are wholly in the bag for their political masters and patrons.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 12:40:04 PM PDT
J. D. Baker says:
You say unions are run on one man, one vote. Yet, when union members have the right to determine their own fate, how does it work out?

Hence, sharp declines in USA union membership for the real economy (i.e., "private sector") and growing number of Right to Work states.

And, finally, after decades of kicking the can down the road, with American finances deteriorating and government spending out of control, serious attention is being paid to costs and liabilities accrued by/for unions in government.

Government payroll and head count must be slashed - Americans can't afford it. Afscme Council 24, which represents Wisconsin state workers, watched its membership plunge last year by two-thirds to 7,100 from 22,300. More will follow.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 12:28:59 PM PDT
J. D. Baker says:
BLS 2011 Data:
Union membership for Public Sector workers is 37% vs. 6.9% in private sector.

As the unfunded pensions, problems, and liabilities mount, the USA will be forced to deal honestly with the inherent conflict of interest between unionized government workers and taxpayers. It's already underway.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 12:23:23 PM PDT
Bob says:
The facts are a top line budget with no proposal backbone is a trick.

Both the republicans AND the democrats have engaged in it during the past. I will call it out as a pointless trick everytime I see it no matter what side is doing it.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 12:04:38 PM PDT
J. D. Baker says:
There you go again....
If you can't address the facts, ignore them and simply accuse others of being partisan. Interesting. Exactly the same approach taken by Reid.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 12:01:55 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 6, 2012, 12:27:00 PM PDT
Bob says:
Actually I am using foxnews as my source to the history of this show vote;

---

House Republicans last tried this same tactic in 2000 on President Clinton's budget.
House Democrats floated three of President Reagan's budgets in the 1980s. Those budgets collected 28, 15 and one votes, respectively.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/28/gop-run-house-easily-rejects-obama-budget/#ixzz22nHx1B00

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 11:59:16 AM PDT
J. D. Baker says:
You reiterate the Democrat position:

Democrats disputed the budget was actually the president's plan, arguing that the amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document (reminder: that ran thousands of pages!).

But you ignore that Republicans used all the president's numbers in the proposal. Feel free to respond (with facts) to Sen. Sessions challenge: he invited Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers and promised he would correct them. As far as I know, this is a challenge no Democrats took up.

Other than making it clear you don't like Senator Sessions, you are unable to offer any factual rebuttal to the deliberate and unlawful decisions by Senator Reid to actively obstruct adoption of any budget in the Senate for three years.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 11:50:25 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 6, 2012, 11:58:13 AM PDT
witchie+ says:
I often wonder how well paid these folks are who spew right-wing talking points for the Heritage Foundation. I know one who was paid to paste on Thom Hartmann's site was paid by he word.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 11:49:06 AM PDT
witchie+ says:
JDB: "Union leadership is regularly involved in corruption, including for their own benefit. Union membership regularly butts heads with leadership"

Of course unions butt head with leadership. That is how democracies work.

Union corruption? I belong to a union as a retiree and have found no corruption in my union, but I have certainly had differences with the majority of the members. That is how democracies work. I know that the majority rules.

Union corruption can be no worse than corporate corruption.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 11:45:59 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 6, 2012, 11:50:44 AM PDT
witchie+ says:
I have held stock and the control is dominated by those with the most invested. Union are run truly with one person one vote.

I do not take a dim view of corporations. I do know that some corporations are run ethically and some are not. Having served on a board of directors, I know their are options as to how a corporation is run.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 11:45:54 AM PDT
J. D. Baker says:
Congressional Research Service, James V. Saturno Section Research Manager March 15, 2011; The Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution: Interpretation and Enforcement

FYI: Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. CRS is well-known for analysis that is authoritative, confidential, objective and nonpartisan. Its highest priority is to ensure that Congress has 24/7 access to the nation's best thinking.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 11:45:52 AM PDT
Bob says:
I have not seen such partisan spewing of one sided taking points in so long.

From republican senators to the heritage foundation. JD Baker is a machine when it comes to partisan spewing.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 11:43:28 AM PDT
witchie+ says:
The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing think tank with 0 credibility in terms of representing workers.

JDB: "Alternative professional associations exist and serve as a good option for those teachers looking for an organization that will provide liability insurance and legal fees, without the political agenda that the NEA pushes."

Is the Heritage foundation run democratically by its members as labor unions are? I am reading nothing about democratically run organizations.

Maybe teachers are no longer contributing now because their wages are so low.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 11:39:08 AM PDT
J. D. Baker says:
Union leadership is regularly involved in corruption, including for their own benefit. Union membership regularly butts heads with leadership who insist on pumping hundreds of millions of worker's union dues into politics. Then these same leaders go hat in hand to their political patrons demanding more taxpayer dollars. Pay for play. Votes for money. Corruption.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 11:36:36 AM PDT
J. D. Baker says:
Using your own logic, Publicly held corporations are democratically controlled by their voting shareholders. Yet, you take a dim view of all things corporate even while granting a blanket stamp of approval for all things Union.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 11:34:51 AM PDT
J. D. Baker says:
"Are American teachers' interests really being served paying dues to support this bloated organization and its leftist political agenda? In states like Utah and Washington that have paycheck protection laws, less than 10 percent of teachers continued to contribute their money to political causes when given the chance to opt-out.

Alternative professional associations exist and serve as a good option for those teachers looking for an organization that will provide liability insurance and legal fees, without the political agenda that the NEA pushes.

Two associations - The Association of American Educators and Christian Educators Association International - serve many of the same functions for teachers as the NEA does, minus the partisanship."

Lindsey Burke
NEA Doesn't Represent All Teachers

Education Notebook
The Heritage Foundation
July 2, 2008

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 11:08:43 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 6, 2012, 11:15:30 AM PDT
Bob says:
Wow a talking point machine.

At least put quote marks when you use Sen. Jeff Sessions, (Alabama Republican) exact words.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 11:08:39 AM PDT
Dixie Recht says:
Simply a comment with zero proof or backup. To say that there is any movement for a return to feudalism is comical.

Today, in the USA, anyone can make it regardless of whether they are from "landed gentry" or otherwise. Take the many examples of those born with little that are now wealthy.

I've found those that want extra taxes on "the rich" are those that are dissatisfied with their lot in life, their job, the poor decisions made in the past that caused the despair that now occupies the long dreary days. So, live your life of quiet desperation, blaming everything wrong in your life on "Republicans" and "Faux News" and "the greedy corporations". So sad really.

But I know...if only Obama could force the greedy rich to pay more in taxes all would be right in the world. If only...

Posted on Aug 6, 2012, 11:03:57 AM PDT
J. D. Baker says:
The Senate (under majority Democrat "leadership") last passed a budget, on April 29, 2009.

Inconvenient Truths:

1. During that time, the federal government has spent $10.4 trillion and added another $4.5 trillion to our total debt.

2. Adopting a budget is not optional. It is required by law. Under the 1974 Congressional Budget Act, the Senate must move a budget out of the Budget Committee by April 1 of every year and adopt a budget resolution on the floor by April 15.

3. The House has completed its budget work each of the past two years since the GOP attained a majority in that chamber; meanwhile, the Democratic controlled Senate is continuing deliberate, open defiance of budget law for the third year in a row.

4. The Senate majority (i.e., Democrats) can bring a budget to the floor anytime it wants and can pass it with just 51 votes. It cannot be filibustered.

5. In 2010, despite a 60-vote majority Senate Democrats decided to prevent their own committee-passed budget from receiving a vote in the full Senate.

6. In 2011, Majority (Democrat) Leader Harry Reid said it would be "foolish" for Democrats to do a budget, so they never even wrote one.

7. In 2012, Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad was forced by his own majority (Democrats) to cancel what would have been the first committee votes on a budget resolution in more than two years.

8. The "budget" offered by President Obama received zero votes from either party, offering the fifth straight trillion-dollar deficit and proposed 62 percent increased spending over the next 10 years.

9. America's per capita government debt is worse than that of Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Greece (PIIGS), and France. Reminder: PIIGS are the countries primarily responsible for pulling the eurozone into financial catastrophe.

10. Worse yet, under Obama's plan gross federal debt will reach $75,000 per capita by 2022.

11. Reminder: Under Senate rules, if a budget is opened for consideration on the Senate floor, it begins a period of extensive amendment and debate. Consequence: Senators would then be forced to face public accountability for how much they wish to tax and spend.

Summary:
Reid's determination to keep a budget off the floor is part of a deliberate strategy to shield his members (Democrat Senators) from tough votes and electoral risk; this trumps duty, law and accountability to the American people.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 11:03:53 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 6, 2012, 11:07:35 AM PDT
Bob says:
It was a top line amendment done for a show vote. Not a real proposal in either the House or Senate. Seriously is that what we take for as real politics now the House putting out a 20 page document as a "budget" to simply be able to go on the news to say Obama sucks... and people fall for it is the sickening part.

The same trick was played by the democrats with a couple of Ronald Reagan budgets - one time the amendment got ONE vote in the house and senate.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 10:56:57 AM PDT
Ataraxia says:
In medieval times, the serfs worked for a lord who owned the land. They paid him for use of the land (which was most of what they could make during the year). They did not often say "...wow, that guy did well and I wish I could too, let me make an effort". Why?

Those serfs worked very hard, but often did not have a thousandths of what their lord did. They were not forced to stay there. They could leave whenever they wanted to. They were not slaves. Why didn't they? And was that lord that much smarter and harder working than they were?

So when our modern conservatives talk about a return to "traditional values", they are not kidding! They are nostalgic for a return to medieval feudalism.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 10:50:23 AM PDT
Dixie Recht says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012, 10:47:09 AM PDT
witchie+ says:
Unions are not a corrupting influence on government because unions are democratically controlled by their membership. Unions would not be doing anything without approval from the membership. Obviously, you have never been involved in union affairs and don't know how they work. There are political issues within unions just like in government.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Health forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  324
Total posts:  1483
Initial post:  Sep 10, 2011
Latest post:  Aug 10, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 22 customers