Republican Judgement

[Johnfromokc]

 

[Johnfromokc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diw_KhEM21M

 

[Stone]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diw_KhEM21M

I gotta say....that was a good rebuttal of Schnatter's claims.
But the part time job conversion is still going to be an issue.
It's already being reported in large restaurant chains like Olive Garden.

 

[Minor Axis]

Excellent CNN video John...

There was a sequence this morning on Morning Joe (MSNBC) about Republican soul searching after the election. They had clips from Bobby Jindle and in the round table discussion, saying that "our" (the Republican) message is wrong- People want to work, we need to embrace immigration reform, we have to stop talking down to our electorate, we have to emphasis how conservatism is good for everyone, not just a few with policies that do help everyone, stop dividing, and we have to stop blindly supporting the military industrial complex and endless wars. There was also harsh criticism of "right wing entertainment", the likes of Limbaugh and others who launch firestorms upon any Republican candidate who does not comply with the right wing agenda 100%, consequently producing a processions of clowns in the GOP primaries trying to bend to the will of the right, which I might add, does not necessarily represent the GOP as a whole. At least I hope that.

After watching this I was impressed, however I have to ask, when turning on a dime, like Romney tried to do in the debates, after 2 years of sustained anti-populace rhetoric, is this really soul searching or are they chameleons, simply changing their positions, adopting targets of opportunity to regain the advantage?

In other words, what the hell do they really believe in? And what will they do with the Tea Party hung around their necks?

 

[Stone]

Excellent CNN video John...

There was a sequence this morning on Morning Joe (MSNBC) about Republican soul searching after the election. They had clips from Bobby Jindle and in the round table discussion, saying that "our" (the Republican) message is wrong- People want to work, we need to embrace immigration reform, we have to stop talking down to our electorate, we have to emphasis how conservatism is good for everyone, not just a few with policies that do help everyone, stop dividing, and we have to stop blindly supporting the military industrial complex and endless wars. There was also harsh criticism of "right wing entertainment", the likes of Limbaugh and others who launch firestorms upon any Republican candidate who does not comply with the right wing agenda 100%, consequently producing a processions of clowns in the GOP primaries trying to bend to the will of the right, which I might add, does not necessarily represent the GOP as a whole. At least I hope that.

After watching this I was impressed, however I have to ask, when turning on a dime, like Romney tried to do in the debates, after 2 years of sustained anti-populace rhetoric, is this really soul searching or are they chameleons, simply changing their positions, adopting targets of opportunity to regain the advantage?

In other words, what the hell do they really believe in? And what will they do with the Tea Party hung around their necks?

They're politicians sharing a motivation with Democrats.......get elected......but until the Repubs choose a satisfactory moderate to lead, this about face that Romney pulled isn't likely to sell in the future any more than it did this time.
The question is......will the far right maintain it's grip on the GOP?

GIA posted an interesting video ( not realizing it didn't support his argument )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jHc-yMcfAY4

In it it shows how the GOP changed direction after Johnson established welfare support and the religious south, which had been typically Democrat in the past, responded with religious/moral concerns and began embracing the Republican platform.....and of course. it's easy to see that the GOP has further embraced that direction in it's quest for influence.

So....moderation should logically include divorcing itself from radicalized fundamentalism.

I doubt that's going to happen. It's become a large segment of the GOP base

 

[Minor Axis]

They're politicians sharing a motivation with Democrats.......get elected......but until the Repubs choose a satisfactory moderate to lead, this about face that Romney pulled isn't likely to sell in the future any more than it did this time.
The question is......will the far right maintain it's grip on the GOP?

Again, it boils down to what do they believe? If they really believe that 47% of the country are takers and slackers, I'd rather them say this than pretend something else to get elected. They've been saying what they really believe about immigrants, about contraception, about womens reproductive rights, corporate sexism, corporate welfare, 1% welfare, anti-regulation, trickle down, about war, about guns, and a variety of social wedge issues. The premise of we don't want government... except in your bedroom is preposterous. The GOP has to decide what it stands for. I want them to be honest. If this is who they are, say it straight up so I know who not to vote for... Maybe the GOP moderates should start a new party something along the lines of the GOP from the 1960s.

 

[Alien Allen]

Again, it boils down to what do they believe? If they really believe that 47% of the country are takers and slackers, I'd rather them say this than pretend something else to get elected. They've been saying what they really believe about immigrants, about contraception, about womens reproductive rights, corporate sexism, corporate welfare, 1% welfare, anti-regulation, trickle down, about war, about guns, and a variety of social wedge issues. The premise of we don't want government... except in your bedroom is preposterous. The GOP has to decide what it stands for. I want them to be honest. If this is who they are, say it straight up so I know who not to vote for... Maybe the GOP moderates should start a new party something along the lines of the GOP from the 1960s.

and how did that work for the party back then ?

sure you would love for them to crawl in a cave and let the liberals run roughshod

 

[Stone]

Again, it boils down to what do they believe? If they really believe that 47% of the country are takers and slackers, I'd rather them say this than pretend something else to get elected. They've been saying what they really believe about immigrants, about contraception, about womens reproductive rights, corporate sexism, corporate welfare, 1% welfare, anti-regulation, trickle down, about war, about guns, and a variety of social wedge issues. The premise of we don't want government... except in your bedroom is preposterous. The GOP has to decide what it stands for. I want them to be honest. If this is who they are, say it straight up so I know who not to vote for... Maybe the GOP moderates should start a new party something along the lines of the GOP from the 1960s.

Again, it boils down to what do they believe? If they really believe that 47% of the country are takers and slackers

I wouldn't have put it that high, myself.....probably more like 25 to 30%
Again, view the vid that GIA posted......it's really quite illuminating as to why the far right makes a claim like that.

I'd rather them say this than pretend something else to get elected.

Wouldn't we all.....but they are politicians and the reality is that to get elected, they present images of themselves generated to appeal to the greatest audience.

They've been saying what they really believe about immigrants, about contraception, about womens reproductive rights, corporate sexism, corporate welfare, 1% welfare, anti-regulation, trickle down, about war, about guns, and a variety of social wedge issues.

And yet, there you are, having argued in the past for a perfect world with socialist arguments.
As much as you are polarized by current Republican policy......so are Republicans polarized by your position.
BTW......this is one reason I'm no longer a member of the Republican party.....going Independent allows me to criticize both sides as I choose.

The GOP has to decide what it stands for. I want them to be honest.

Indeed.....but the same standard applies to the Democrat party.

Maybe the GOP moderates should start a new party something along the lines of the GOP from the 1960s.

It would likely wind up a splinter group. Reality...the far right has the think tanks, the Repub media, corporate support and much of the South to insure it's influence.
IMO.....they aren't going to hand off power willingly to a Moderate faction either, as some influence in national politics is better than none. ( their mentality, not mine )

The Republican base needs to change to reflect real change within the party platform.
Reality.....given the current shifting to dependence on entitlements.....not likely.

I expect the same shit from both parties in the next general election.

 

[Minor Axis]

and how did that work for the party back then ?

What your are implying begs for further clarification on your part. I assume you know the list of Presidents and their political parties.

 

[Alien Allen]

What your are implying begs for further clarification on your part. I assume you know the list of Presidents and their political parties.

who controlled congress in the 60's? I know for sure the house was heavily democrat. Not positive if the republicans ever had a majority of the senate. I am thinking no but would have to look.

As to president you had zero republicans until 1968 and then one could argue Nixon was closer to being a democrat than a republican given the programs he promoted.

You seem to have a misunderstanding about history

 

[Stone]

....................

As to president you had zero republicans until 1968 and then one could argue Nixon was closer to being a democrat than a republican given the programs he promoted.

You seem to have a misunderstanding about history

You've forgotten Eisenhower.
Nixon could have been seen as a moderate Republican if it hadn't been his intention to illegally steal an election.

Reagan and Bush(especially) are the dark clouds of neo-conservatism that have vilified the Republican party.
It's going to take a long time to forget them, AA.

 

[Alien Allen]

You've forgotten Eisenhower.
Nixon could have been seen as a moderate Republican if it hadn't been his intention to illegally steal an election.

Reagan and Bush(especially) are the dark clouds of neo-conservatism that have vilified the Republican party.
It's going to take a long time to forget them, AA.

I did not reference Ike, Bush or Reagan because I thought he referenced the 60's

I could be wrong but also I don't think current losses by Romney and McCain had to do with being neocons. The republicans lost a lot of women voters due to their stance on womens issues and the republicans did not have a viable plan to deal with illegal immigration which further pushed the latinos over to the democrat side.

 

[The Man]

I disagree......in a competitive market, he's trapped into making a choice....downgrade quality and/or lessening overhead ( derived from and driven by health care taxation boundaries in order to legally evade taxation).


If Schnatter decided to negotiate supply, that impinges on the supplier to be more efficient ( including a reduction in labor expenses ....and part-timing is now an effective solution for the supplier)
If Schnatter eats the expense by including less product in his pizza, the pressure on the supplier isn't as great to go part time, but it's still there as he's not moving as much product.
But if Schnatter eats the whole expense and maintains product quality and cost....the supplier isn't affected. But....Schnatter's business model will have to adjust if it isn't a profitable venture and he's back to the above considerations.
As you can see......the scenario is quite variable.



In a bad economy in the process of recovery, a domino effect is a risk and more likely.
The issue is ...how much loss can a business maintain and how much inflation can the consumer afford?


This is why expanding entitlements in a recovering economy is a negative.

I disagree......in a competitive market, he's trapped into making a choice....downgrade quality and/or lessening overhead ( derived from and driven by health care taxation boundaries in order to legally evade taxation).

I am sure he will make it work...however I would still fire him for making the statement when he has not taken all into consideration,as now he stated to the public it will cost the company 15 more cents a pizza...later if he decides he has to raise prices more than that or shrink pizza sizes it will make him look like he is taking advantage of the customers.

If Schnatter decided to negotiate supply, that impinges on the supplier to be more efficient ( including a reduction in labor expenses ....and part-timing is now an effective solution for the supplier)

He may very well...but the supplier is also suffering his same fate..to negotiate a reduction in prices while costs have went up for him is not favorable.

If Schnatter eats the expense by including less product in his pizza, the pressure on the supplier isn't as great to go part time, but it's still there as he's not moving as much product.

With that scenario the supplier would be producing less product and should reduce his work force accordingly.

But if Schnatter eats the whole expense and maintains product quality and cost....the supplier isn't affected. But....Schnatter's business model will have to adjust if it isn't a profitable venture and he's back to the above considerations.
As you can see......the scenario is quite variable.

Which is possible,but with less profits means less taxes paid ...which means {as a whole of consumers and business} taxes will have to go up either on business or consumers paychecks.

In a bad economy in the process of recovery, a domino effect is a risk and more likely.
The issue is ...how much loss can a business maintain and how much inflation can the consumer afford?


This is why expanding entitlements in a recovering economy is a negative.

Agreed,
The main thing the ceo didnt take into consideration is sales reductions due to his customer base also being pinched by the same.

With added costs to an employer those costs are shifted to the consumer and pay reduction to the employee {in general}

With his customer base making less /other goods and services going up,they will have less money to buy pizza.

Also with such as driven with, less blow money by the general public jobs are lost in general which causes people to have to go on the govt tit which will raise taxes which compounds the problem further/which again compounds it again.

The economy is driven by the purchase of non necessity items {after we pay our bills} to buy pizza ,house wares, toys,new shoes, haircuts, etc...with out these purchases all jobs would need to essentially be restricted to necessities as there would be no demand for the others

 

[Stone]

Since John posted the vid......it's pretty much a moot point with pizzas......the franchises are largely independent with small workforces and an unknown part time work force all ready in place.
The issue really goes to the manufacturing facilities and transportation.....obviously a much smaller impact.

The 15 cent hike on each pizza wasn't there.

Papa John was bullshitting us ( I am shocked )
I don't like his pizzas anyway.

 

[Stone]

I did not reference Ike, Bush or Reagan because I thought he referenced the 60's

I could be wrong but also I don't think current losses by Romney and McCain had to do with being neocons. The republicans lost a lot of women voters due to their stance on womens issues and the republicans did not have a viable plan to deal with illegal immigration which further pushed the latinos over to the democrat side.

Ike finished up in the very early 60's

Bush generated much hatred and any Republican following him is going to get painted with a wide brush.
Romney was said to have had a lot of leftover neo-con advisors from the Bush administration.
No doubt his position on women's issues and Latinos hurt him, but to many I suspect Romney was seen as a repackaging of a 'fiscal' Bush.
While few seem to see the neo-con label.....it's still behind the scenes in the Rep party.....even in the Libertarian movement.

 

[Minor Axis]

who controlled congress in the 60's? I know for sure the house was heavily democrat. Not positive if the republicans ever had a majority of the senate. I am thinking no but would have to look.

As to president you had zero republicans until 1968 and then one could argue Nixon was closer to being a democrat than a republican given the programs he promoted.

You seem to have a misunderstanding about history

You completely missed my point. I mentioned the 60's as a time when Republicans were reasonable people. Get it? Your last comment does not merit a response.

 

[The Man]

You completely missed my point. I mentioned the 60's as a time when Republicans were reasonable people. Get it? Your last comment does not merit a response.

LOL
So they are not reasonable now?...but ok people in the 60s.

Same could be said for the liberals....At one time it stood for something...Its now out of control.

 

[Minor Axis]

LOL
So they are not reasonable now?...but ok people in the 60s.

Same could be said for the liberals....At one time it stood for something...Its now out of control.

Only through your perspective aligned with a party that has moved 500% to the right since the 60s. To you the Dems look 500% left, except it was your political party were the ones that placed the distance between them.

 

[The Man]

Only through your perspective aligned with a party that has moved 500% to the right since the 60s. To you the Dems look 500% left, except it was your political party were the ones that placed the distance between them.

I belong to neither party..
Neither party has made big distance from the other...certainly not 1000 percent.
So...how were they ok on the 60s..and not ok now...what is the 500 percent change you speak about

 

[Catavenger]

If they really believe that 47% of the country are takers and slackers,

Is that what Romney or his people said? Or did they say that no matter what 47% of the people wouldn't vote for him so they should target the undecided people? If that was their thinking wasn't he right since Romney got around 47% of the popular vote and Obama the rest?