[LWC]

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7hcSK...40299.html

Sooooooo, who all is offically running now?

[Real Badman]

why? She's just going too lose.

[SKINNYPIG]

why? She's just going too lose.

???

[Hoot Gibson]

With the candidates who are officially in the race at this point, I would put Bachman's chances of winning the nomination near the top of the heap. As for winning the general election, if any Republican cannot beat the sad sack incumbent in a landslide, then Americans will only have themselves to blame for the coming depression.

More Americans are out of work now than at the peak of the Great Depression. That will be a troublesome fact for Obama and his sychophants to overcome.

Unemployment among African-Americans has reached 16%. I hope that Republicans at least challenge Obama among black voters during the campaign and show them how little he has done for black Americans, white Americans, and for every other subgroup of Americans that Democrats are so fond of pitting against each other during campaigns. It is time to unite against a common enemy - a self-professed enemy of the private sector.

[I Am The Genius]

With the candidates who are officially in the race at this point, I would put Bachman's chances of winning the nomination near the top of the heap. As for winning the general election, if any Republican cannot beat the sad sack incumbent in a landslide, then Americans will only have themselves to blame for the coming depression.

More Americans are out of work now than at the peak of the Great Depression. That will be a troublesome fact for Obama and his sychophants to overcome.

Unemployment among African-Americans has reached 16%. I hope that Republicans at least challenge Obama among black voters during the campaign and show them how little he has done for black Americans, white Americans, and for every other subgroup of Americans that Democrats are so fond of pitting against each other during campaigns. It is time to unite against a common enemy - a self-professed enemy of the private sector.

:Thumbs:

[TheRealVille]

If the republicans would get out of the union busting state of mind, they couldn't be beat. They would gain 11% more votes. To the average union person, that's the only reason they vote democrat.

[Hoot Gibson]

The majority of union members in this country work for the government. I don't see how how "small government" Republicans will ever appeal to "big government" union members. The public sector unions already have one major political party in their pockets and there is not room for another one there.

[TheRealVille]

The majority of union members in this country work for the government. I don't see how how "small government" Republicans will ever appeal to "big government" union members. The public sector unions already have one major political party in their pockets and there is not room for another one there.

The 11% I talk about is private sector unions.

[TheRealThing]

I've been a union member in the private sector since the sixties. Back then there was a widely held belief that the Dems protected working people which, obviously included the union members, maybe especially union members. The sixties were the union man's heyday. Union craftsmen were respected across the nation as the best trained and talented builders, mill workers etc. available. The reason was because they had to go through a 4 year apprenticeship program where they were trained in the classroom and on the job. Comparable in every way to a college degree including an internship without equal.

Somewhere along the way teachers and government employees got it in their head that the benifits and wages in their respective career fields could be greatly enhanced if they went union too. Union men in the construction trades and industry made more money by comparision back then. So these professional people hitched their wagon to the union movement. Two problems I see with all this, first, everybody can't expect to bargain collectively for union benifits and wages unless the feds jump in and regulate all labor in the same way they regulate minimum wage. Second, it is true that unions brought the 40 hour work week, overtime pay for weekends and holidays and all hours worked after 40, job safety, benifits, in short basically everything that makes the workplace tolerable. But, the discipline that got America's working man the money and respect he deserves was, and is, a process that's earned by the sacrifice of those who are members in the workplace. Training, skill/experience and knowledge have been rewarded over the last 6 or 7 decades with money and benifits. Guess who wasn't there helping make the sacrifices I have mentioned? The professional types like the ones discussed here, teachers, federal and state employees and the like. They have recognized what works and hitched their wagon to our trolley and declared themselves a part of it all and guess what, they're not part of it all.

Unions barely communicated with each other until very lately. This idea that all union brothers are all equal and joint heirs fighting for what is right and reasonable, is completely a total load of baloney. We don't have a joint heritage of burden and sacrifice with hardly anyone. The united auto workers never stood a pickett line with me. Neither did the united mine workers or hospital workers, or atomic and chemical workers, or armco steel workers, or dock workers, or warehousemen, or anybody for that matter. I certainly can say that no government employee or teacher ever came anywhere close to any union meeting, strike, or pickett line I ever walked.

I don't know who came up with the idea to parlay all the unions executive boards into one big central oversight committee that would wield enormous power and essentially become the 4th branch of the federal government. One thing I know for sure though, it's a new and I believe dangerous, idea.

To address this idea that Republicans are in effect 'union busting' in their basic tenents IMO couldn't be farther from the truth. Who would really want to break up the foundation and infrastructure that produces the greatest working men and women in the world? Nobody would. The republicans know that we depend on unions to build everything from nuclear power plants to every building of any appreciable stature, to dams and the monumental earth moving projects, bridges; believe me they're not stupid. Do you think it's possible that dems would create controversy to stay in office by saying that republicans are anti-union, anti-social security, anti-working man, anti-health care, anti-you name it? A politcian's greatest fear is that he will be alienated to any diverse group and if he can be made to look predjudiced against any group, the hope is that the dempcrat party, the lovers of everybody will pick up these votes. So the plan is smear, smear and smear some more. That's why the dems blame the republicans for everything from the unemployment crisis to the gulf war on the republicans, heck, they've cause everything bad that ever happened. If by this time, anybody wants to say they can't see the truth about how these guys operate, only conclusion I can come to is that they would rather turn a blind eye to it all rather than see the truth.

I hope no American allows any politician whether republican or democrat to give them their opinion ever again. If we allow either party to tell us what we think they will tell us anything they want to.

[Hoot Gibson]

The 11% I talk about is private sector unions.

In 2010, 11.9% of workers belonged to unions. Less than half of them worked in the private sector. It would be crazy for the Republican Party to pander to unions in the way that Democrats do. Unions have no place in government entities because politicians who negotiate contracts have little to lose when they agree to unreasonable contracts - they simply borrow money to buy votes.

[OrangenowBlue]

Kentucky state government employees are not unionized and receive no union benefits. The teachers on the other hand are a different story.

[nky]

Kentucky state government employees are not unionized and receive no union benefits. The teachers on the other hand are a different story.

FYI
teachers in Kentucky have no collective bargining.

[OrangenowBlue]

FYI
teachers in Kentucky have no collective bargining.

Yes but KEA is a very powerful organization in Kentucky. KASE(Kentucky Association of State employees) is useless as tits on a boar hog.

[vector]

1830 - 12,866,020
1840 - 17,069,453
1850 - 23,191,876
1860 - 31,443,321
1870 - 38,558,371
1880 - 50,189,209
1890 - 62,979,766
1900 - 76,212,168
1910 - 92,228,496
1920 - 106,021,537
1930 - 123,202,624
1940 - 132,164,569
1950 - 151,325,798
1960 - 179,323,175
1970 - 203,302,031
1980 - 226,542,199
1990 - 248,709,873
2000 - 281,421,906

FACTS about this decade.1930's

Population: 123,188,000 in 48 states

Unemployment rises to 25%

population 2010 somewhere 310,000,000 people

unemployed people 9.1% = 28,301,000

in the 1930's population 123,188,000

Unemployment rises to 25% = 30,797,000

this was before we ship most of our jobs oversea

we had these tax cut's for over ten years now WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

don't blame the black guy for everything

[SKINNYPIG]

1830 - 12,866,020
1840 - 17,069,453
1850 - 23,191,876
1860 - 31,443,321
1870 - 38,558,371
1880 - 50,189,209
1890 - 62,979,766
1900 - 76,212,168
1910 - 92,228,496
1920 - 106,021,537
1930 - 123,202,624
1940 - 132,164,569
1950 - 151,325,798
1960 - 179,323,175
1970 - 203,302,031
1980 - 226,542,199
1990 - 248,709,873
2000 - 281,421,906

FACTS about this decade.1930's

Population: 123,188,000 in 48 states

Unemployment rises to 25%

population 2010 somewhere 310,000,000 people

unemployed people 9.1% = 28,301,000

in the 1930's population 123,188,000

Unemployment rises to 25% = 30,797,000

this was before we ship most of our jobs oversea

we had these tax cut's for over ten years now WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

don't blame the black guy for everything

I didn't see where anyone was blaming the "black guy" for everything. You MUST agree that he deserves his fair share of blame though, right? At this time the buck does stop with him, right? Surely you're not implying he's getting all the blame because he's the "black guy" are you?

[Hoot Gibson]

Brilliant idea. The unemployment rate is 9.1% with the current tax rates. Let's raise taxes until employers cry uncle and start hiring again! And while we're at it, let's hire more federal workers, transfer more wealth from job producers to non-working moochers, impose thousands of new regulations, attack the oil and coal industries to drive up energy prices, borrow trillions from the Chinese and other foreign governments, and.... In a nutshell, that is Obama's economic plan and it has been an epic failure.

Obama's own economic experts say that the jobs created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (a/k/a the Obama "Stimulus" plan) cost American taxpayers $278,000 per job. Many of those jobs, including one that I had for one-year, were temporary in nature. That job, BTW, was to create software to report how federal stimulus funds were being spent by various state agencies.

[Hoot Gibson]

I didn't see where anyone was blaming the "black guy" for everything. You MUST agree that he deserves his fair share of blame though, right? At this time the buck does stop with him, right? Surely you're not implying he's getting all the blame because he's the "black guy" are you?

I believe that was, in fact, the implication. There was no other reason to mention Obama's race. I think the assumption was that Obama's critics must be racists to not recognize him as a towering economic genius. :biggrin:

[vector]

Congress raised the debt ceiling seven times during President George W. Bush's administration
U.S. workers averaged $46,742 in 2010, up 2.6% from 2009. A June GovernanceMetrics analysis found average
compensation among S&P 500 CEOs rose to $12 million in 2010, up 18% from 2009
John Hammergren, McKesson Corp. The health care services CEO pulled in $150.7 million,
up 190% from 2010's $51.8 million. Hammergren, 52, received $32 million in salary,
incentive pay and perks, although $112.1 million came from exercising stock options.

I DON'T BELIEVE THESE GUYS ARE HURTIN

if they was serious about the debt problem raise tax's and cut spending
but the republican party just want obama to fail

[Hoot Gibson]

Congress raised the debt ceiling seven times during President George W. Bush's administration
U.S. workers averaged $46,742 in 2010, up 2.6% from 2009. A June GovernanceMetrics analysis found average
compensation among S&P 500 CEOs rose to $12 million in 2010, up 18% from 2009
John Hammergren, McKesson Corp. The health care services CEO pulled in $150.7 million,
up 190% from 2010's $51.8 million. Hammergren, 52, received $32 million in salary,
incentive pay and perks, although $112.1 million came from exercising stock options.

I DON'T BELIEVE THESE GUYS ARE HURTIN

if they was serious about the debt problem raise tax's and cut spending
but the republican party just want obama to fail

Obama had a Democratic controlled Congress for two full years. He promised that if his stimulus package became law that the unemployment rate would not rise above 8 percent. The Obama economy (the DNC Chairwoman says that Democrats own this recovery) has convinced a growing number of people that this country has begun an irreversible decline. Morale in this country has not been so low since Jimmy Carter left DC.

If Obama wins a second term, his apologists will be blaming Bush until the day that he leaves the White House.

The fact is, Obama has taken a bad situation and made it worse. The slow pace of this recovery is unprecedented in the case of other recessions since World War II and Bush has not been in charge of the recovery, Obama has.

[vector]

with cards that was dealt to him in early 2009 he's done a pretty decent job not perfect but we have forgoten what kind of mess it was in

[Hoot Gibson]

with cards that was dealt to him in early 2009 he's done a pretty decent job not perfect but we have forgoten what kind of mess it was in

Unemployment when Obama took office was well below 8 percent. You seem to be the one who has forgotten how things were when Obama took over. Obama has been fighting brush fires with gasoline and the result was predictable. Republicans were powerless to stop the damage until after the 2010 elections and even now, they only control the House of Representatives. Almost 800 days have passed since the US Senate passed its last annual budget, which is required by law and Harry Reid says that they would be crazy to pass one now.

Where the economy is concerned, Democrats have been AWOL for more than two years. As Debbie Wasserman-Shultz says, they own the economic recovery and we should all be giving credit where credit is due.

[TheRealThing]

Unemployment when Obama took office was well below 8 percent. You seem to be the one who has forgotten how things were when Obama took over. Obama has been fighting brush fires with gasoline and the result was predictable. Republicans were powerless to stop the damage until after the 2010 elections and even now, they only control the House of Representatives. Almost 800 days have passed since the US Senate passed its last [B]annual budget, which is required by law and Harry Reid says that they would be crazy to pass one now.[/B]Where the economy is concerned, Democrats have been AWOL for more than two years. As Debbie Wasserman-Shultz says, they own the economic recovery and we should all be giving credit where credit is due.

The manner in which the present political, energy, financial, border control and foreign policy boondoggle, which is the most gracious term I can think of to describe the present administration's botched attempt at governance, manages to escape critisim is unbelievable. If we had a republican majority in the Senate that not only failed to act on a budget for 800 days and, then put out the statement that Reid did, the media and would be on it 24/7. The outcry would be such that one could reasonably expect a democratic sweep in the elections of 2012, along with the appearance of paralyzing ineptitude of the party in control. My question is, will this be the scenario which will befall the democrats in 2012? Never have I witnessed an administration that deserved the ouster more.

[Amun-Ra]

She just ended her run.... Taken from another site....


Tonight, Michele Bachmann became the first presidential candidate to sign a pledge created by THE FAMiLY LEADER, an influential social-conservative group in Iowa. By signing the pledge Bachmann “vows” to “uphold the institution of marriage as only between one man and one woman” by committing herself to 14 specifics steps. The ninth step calls for the banning of “all forms” of pornography. The pledge also states that homosexuality is both a choice and a health risk. You can read all the details of the pledge here.

here is link to article.
http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM187_marriage.pdf


Two things I thought about her.
1. I thought she's supposed to be the "small government libertarian" candidate.
2. I thought she's supposed to be the "defender of the Constitution".

[Hoot Gibson]

She just ended her run.... Taken from another site....


Tonight, Michele Bachmann became the first presidential candidate to sign a pledge created by THE FAMiLY LEADER, an influential social-conservative group in Iowa. By signing the pledge Bachmann “vows” to “uphold the institution of marriage as only between one man and one woman” by committing herself to 14 specifics steps. The ninth step calls for the banning of “all forms” of pornography. The pledge also states that homosexuality is both a choice and a health risk. You can read all the details of the pledge here.

here is link to article.
http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM187_marriage.pdf


Two things I thought about her.
1. I thought she's supposed to be the "small government libertarian" candidate.
2. I thought she's supposed to be the "defender of the Constitution".

Wishful thinking. From the pledge:

Therefore, in any elected or appointed capacity by which I may have the honor of serving our fellow citizens in these United States, I
the undersigned do hereby solemnly vow* to honor and to cherish, to defend and to uphold, the Institution of Marriage as only
between one man and one woman. I vow* to do so through my:

• Personal fidelity to my spouse.
  
• Respect for the marital bonds of others.
  
• Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, supporting the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.
  

.

That's not exactly what I would call an attack on the US Constitution.

The biggest enemy to the US Constitution among the declared 2012 presidential candidates is Barrack Hussein Obama and he is the only candidate who has a record of failing to uphold the basic tenets of that document.

[BillyB]

It always comes back around to Obama.

[Hoot Gibson]

It always comes back around to Obama.

The guy is conducting an illegal war against Libya and members of his staff have openly suggested that he might ignore his constitutional duty to get Congressional approval to ignore the debt limit imposed by Congress. Compared to Bachmann signing a pledge to defend traditional marriage, which one do you think has more disdain for the US Constitution?

[BillyB]

The guy is conducting an illegal war against Libya and members of his staff have openly suggested that he might ignore his constitutional duty to get Congressional approval to ignore the debt limit imposed by Congress. Compared to Bachmann signing a pledge to defend traditional marriage, which one do you think has more disdain for the US Constitution?

Neither.

[Hoot Gibson]

Neither.

Really. Then you must think that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional because it requires the president to get Congress's permission to engage American forces in hostile actions for more than 60 days. Maybe you agree with Obama that bombing the citizens of Libya does not constitute "hostilities."

As to the second issue, do you believe that Obama has the authority to borrow and spend money without the approval of Congress?

It's easy to dismiss a statement with which you disagree with one or two words but you seem to come up short on facts to support your position.

(Or maybe you meant that both Obama and Bachmann have a deep disdain for the US Constitution. One word is not much to go on but nobody has died as a result of Bachmann signing a pledge.)