The Democrat Convention 2012

[Accountable]

Actually, I would argue that the foundation of our society was saying "No" to laws which were unreasonable and unfair to the people.

For us, the citizenry, yes. For the President of the United States?? No.

 

[The Man]

Actually, I would argue that the foundation of our society was saying "No" to laws which were unreasonable and unfair to the people.

This hasnt been deemed unreasonable.

 

[Patch]

Total bull shit. The "democrats" are just as ****ed up as the republicans are.

Obama is nothing more than a decent speaker.

I've had enough of him the last 4 years, time to try something new. Not that it will make a difference.

Pretty much sums it up. You get to either pick Obama who in my book will go down as the worst Preident ever or Romney if elected will be a close match. Until We decide to change the two party system we I'll hav what we have now. Neither one of them will ever do us any good.

 

[Accountable]

Well said, except that the Minor Axes of this world will never permit a history book to declare the first black president to also be the worst one. It just wouldn't look right.

 

[Tim]

Pretty much sums it up. You get to either pick Obama who in my book will go down as the worst Preident ever or Romney if elected will be a close match. Until We decide to change the two party system we I'll hav what we have now. Neither one of them will ever do us any good.

:24: I guess you slept through the Bush years :24:

 

[Alien Allen]

The Peanut Gov would rank the worst in mylifetime

Everything was in the crapper and all he could do is whine and whimper about the Great Malaise

Bar None the worst President both in and out of office which this country has seen many years

 

[Accountable]

Scary stuff!

[video=youtube;07fTsF5BiSM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07fTsF5BiSM[/video]

 

[Minor Axis]

Well said, except that the Minor Axes of this world will never permit a history book to declare the first black president to also be the worst one. It just wouldn't look right.

Nice try. :giggle

Scary stuff!

[video=youtube;07fTsF5BiSM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07fTsF5BiSM[/video]

So you are making a case this is the prevailing view of Democrats? He found some people who when they got a mic shoved in their face were willing to agree with HIS idea of "banning" profits. Others said "cap", which I agree with, and others said they did not have enough info. Why do you think any knowledgeable person would want to ban profits? Or why would some people have anger to direct at corporations, hmm?

 

[Accountable]

So you are making a case this is the prevailing view of Democrats? He found some people who when they got a mic shoved in their face were willing to agree with HIS idea of "banning" profits. Others said "cap", which I agree with, and others said they did not have enough info. Why do you think any knowledgeable person would want to ban profits? Or why would some people have anger to direct at corporations, hmm?

Gee, I wonder if I would find your comments on an almost identical video about Tea Partiers as measured and accepting. I'm sure they're here somewhere.

Yes, I know you have some insane idea that placing an arbitrary number on profits and declaring that at that point a company has made "enough" would have some kind of positive impact (rather than driving the most successful businesses out of our country so that another can enjoy the revenue), but you're a guy sitting at a computer. Some of those idiots he was talking to may have been on the committee to decide the national party platform.

 

[Accountable]

So you are making a case this is the prevailing view of Democrats?

Actually, this is the prevailing view of Democrats. What say you?

[video=youtube;t8BwqzzqcDs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8BwqzzqcDs[/video]

 

[The Man]

Nice try. :giggle



So you are making a case this is the prevailing view of Democrats? He found some people who when they got a mic shoved in their face were willing to agree with HIS idea of "banning" profits. Others said "cap", which I agree with, and others said they did not have enough info. Why do you think any knowledgeable person would want to ban profits? Or why would some people have anger to direct at corporations, hmm?

I just responded to your post in another thread where you essentially just took the same position{regarding the automakers}..you referred to them as "greedy bastards" not sharing the wealth...They obviously over shared the wealth or there was none to share...The fact they were heavily in debt is no concern to you.

 

[Tim]

Actually, this is the prevailing view of Democrats. What say you?

I would have voted no if I were there, how about you?

 

[Minor Axis]

Actually, this is the prevailing view of Democrats. What say you?

I disagree. No one in their right minds want to ban profits. They key is "reasonable" not "extreme". In many cases executive receive extreme compensation. I don't care how smart and effective they are, the sky is not and should not be the limit. I know, in your world view, those those who are smart enough to position themselves and make out like bandits deserve to act like bandits.

I just responded to your post in another thread where you essentially just took the same position{regarding the automakers}..you referred to them as "greedy bastards" not sharing the wealth...They obviously over shared the wealth or there was none to share...The fact they were heavily in debt is no concern to you.

Because you can point at one bad union, you think all unions can be disbanded. I can point at one bad corporation, but I don't think all corporations should be disbanded.

Each case is different and it depends upon who you are talking about. There are definitely greedy bastards residing at the wheel of huge multinational corporations. For every General Motors, which btw, I don't approve of how the UAW has done business over the last many decades, there are corporations like Walmart who don't share anything if they can help it. You see, they, management there is just too damn valuable. I've used this analogy before, but they are like the brain who thinks it deserves 80% of the blood while allowing the rest of their corporate organism to scrape by on 20%. How do they get them to work? Threaten amputation...

 

[Accountable]

I would have voted no if I were there, how about you?

Don't pretend you don't get it. The leadership wouldn't have given a shit how you voted. It was for show, but apparently some faithful dems didn't get the memo.

 

[Accountable]

I disagree. No one in their right minds want to ban profits.

The video I posted has nothing to do with profits, but I suspect you know that and prefer to turn suddenly blind.

 

[The Man]

I disagree. No one in their right minds want to ban profits. They key is "reasonable" not "extreme". In many cases executive receive extreme compensation. I don't care how smart and effective they are, the sky is not and should not be the limit. I know, in your world view, those those who are smart enough to position themselves and make out like bandits deserve to act like bandits.



Because you can point at one bad union, you think all unions can be disbanded. I can point at one bad corporation, but I don't think all corporations should be disbanded.

Each case is different and it depends upon who you are talking about. There are definitely greedy bastards residing at the wheel of huge multinational corporations. For every General Motors, which btw, I don't approve of how the UAW has done business over the last many decades, there are corporations like Walmart who don't share anything if they can help it. You see, they, management there is just too damn valuable. I've used this analogy before, but they are like the brain who thinks it deserves 80% of the blood while allowing the rest of their corporate organism to scrape by on 20%. How do they get them to work? Threaten amputation...

Wow so you admit it is a bad union then defend it in the very same post...Well done

 

[Tim]

I just responded to your post in another thread where you essentially just took the same position{regarding the automakers}..you referred to them as "greedy bastards" not sharing the wealth...They obviously over shared the wealth or there was none to share...The fact they were heavily in debt is no concern to you.

You are absolutely right but for the wrong reasons. In the 90's the pension funds were fully funded so pensions were not their downfall. The company was flush with cash and instead of reinvesting back into the company so they can remain competitive they doled it out to the share holders.

So yes, GM over shared the wealth, but it didn't go to the union workers it went to the share holders.

It would be nice if you would get just one fact right once in a while.

And here is the source which I highly doubt you will read
http://www.today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/081015_gm-downfall_sanford-jacoby.aspx

 

[The Man]

You are absolutely right but for the wrong reasons. In the 90's the pension funds were fully funded so pensions were not their downfall. The company was flush with cash and instead of reinvesting back into the company so they can remain competitive they doled it out to the share holders.

So yes, GM over shared the wealth, but it didn't go to the union workers it went to the share holders.

It would be nice if you would get just one fact right once in a while.

And here is the source which I highly doubt you will read
http://www.today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/081015_gm-downfall_sanford-jacoby.aspx

LOL...fully funded means they could meet the pensions in the 90s.
See the problem is all the people that started to get pensions /that started working years ago..its not retire when you are 65,but put in your little dab of time in then draw a big pension then live like a king
Even with your biased link...it proves my point..as it states they should have looked ahead that pensions would be catching up to them soon.
Doled it out to the shareholders LOL ...like they shouldn't receive.

Obama came in and re negotiated the unions...As you would say / I mean if they weren't the problem then why did he renegotiate/
Gm is making good profits now...why? welll its not because shareholders doled back any money..it is because operating costs were cut.

Its about the only thing I approve of {not the bailout}...but sticking a dick up the unions ass

 

[Tim]

You never made it past the 8th grade, did you. I mean seriously, simple concepts go right over your head,

 

[The Man]

You never made it past the 8th grade, did you. I mean seriously, simple concepts go right over your head,

That would be so much easier for you wouldnt it...you may want to start thoroughly reading your links before posting them.