myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Time to gloat
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12 ... 18, 19, 20  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 7638
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
Scores of large chains laying off workers, cutting workers' hours back to <28 hrs/wk, raising employee-paid health care insurance premiums by 33%, adding 5% "Obamacare" surcharges to restaurant bills ... some of that may be opportunism, but competition will weed that minority, if it exists, out. Good going, boss.

On the bright side, the Teamsters' Union may make us healthier by permanently shutting down Hostess by striking while Hostess is reorganizing under bankruptcy. Another 18,000 jobs on the line today thanks to union greed. Good going, boss; you keep on sucking up to these leeches.

seriously iso, you have not one shed of intellectual ability in reasoning. No offense.

But I would rate you one step below a lemming.....

What? you want everyone to work with walmart benefits don't you. Because they are a right wing trust fund kids you and anti-union they are heroes to you. What, they are the new number one in retail sales and what percent of the employees are part time, and that is your american model?

That in a year about 80 percent of the walmart workers are on welfare because they the most profitable retailer pays slave non livable wages and thats is what you want for america. These are people who are working and this is what your trust fund kids have in mind for americans.

Walmart's employees receive $2.66 billion in government help every year, or about $420,000 per store. They are also the top recipients of Medicaid in numerous states. Why does this occur? Walmart fails to provide a livable wage and decent healthcare benefits, costing U.S. taxpayers an annual average of $1.02 billion in healthcare costs. This direct public subsidy is being given to offset the failures of an international corporate giant who shouldn’t be shifting part of its labor costs onto the American taxpayers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 10271
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the satisfaction I have gotten over the election results, one of my few regrets is that mrgybe hasn't stepped up to the plate to eat his plate of crow, lightly salted. If we think back, he spent quite a bit of effort explaining how the Catholic bishops understand the importance of religious freedom, and would explain it to the laity, who would send Obama into retirement. So how did they do?

Well, the Bishops seem about as pursuasive with their flock as the gybester is here:

(Reuters) - Post-election polling shows U.S. Roman Catholics were as likely to favor President Barack Obama as the general population in 2012, continuing the Catholic record as the bellwether of the popular vote.

Catholics - the country's largest religious group with one-quarter of the population - have supported the winner of the popular vote in every election since 1972.

Reuters/Ipsos exit polling found that 51 percent of Catholics favored President Barack Obama, compared with 48 percent for Republican contender Mitt Romney. A report by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public
Life had a similar finding, with 50 percent of Catholics for Obama and 48 percent for Romney, the same as the popular vote in the general population.

Hispanic Catholics were far more likely to favor Obama - by 76 percent to 23 percent - than white Catholics, who favored Romney by 56 percent to 43 percent, according to the Reuters poll. Black Protestants favored Obama by 97 percent to 3 percent, while white Protestants favored Romney by 69 percent compared to 29 percent for Obama.

"When you talk about Catholics, there are really two Catholic votes, the white vote and the Hispanic vote, which look starkly different," said Robert Jones, chief executive of the Public Religion Research Institute. He said exit polls found that overall, voters were focused mainly on economic

This election year saw strong advocacy on the conservative side of some issues by Catholic bishops, which caused discomfort for liberal Catholics. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops protested the Obama administration's health care mandate which requires Catholic hospitals and colleges to carry insurance that provides free contraception as a violation of religious liberty.

Church leaders also protested against same-sex marriage, which was on the ballot in four states. Some individual bishops took exceptionally strong positions, with Springfield, Illinois Bishop Thomas Paprocki warning his flock that if they voted for someone who promotes abortion their souls would be in jeopardy.

The bishops' stands did not seem to have much influence on the vote, said Jones. Catholic attitudes on the healthcare mandate were unchanged in March and September polls, despite advocacy by church leaders.

"If the (Republican Party) has some reflecting to do about its inability to reach an increasingly multicultural country, Catholic leaders could benefit from similar soul searching when it comes to their own diverse flock," said John Gehring, Catholic program director at Faith in Public Life, a liberal advocacy group.

Some Catholic bishops and nuns also protested the budget plan of Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan, a Catholic, because of cuts to anti-poverty programs.

Catholic support for Obama was stronger in 2008, with 54 percent going for the Democrat compared with 45 percent for Republican contender John McCain, Pew reported. But this also reflected the population at large.

Well if it wasn't about religious freedom, and the Catholic voters in America continue to ignore the bishops, as they long have on birth control, what is their hysteria about? I think Randy Newman explains it. It's money that matters. According to an article by Rob Boston, the Catholic Church has turned increasingly to performing government-like functions in order to make money. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops got a grant in 2006, from Shrub, to dole out $19 million to oversee government services to relieve women who had been forced into involuntary labor and prostitution. But of course, they denied such women referrals for abortion or birth control. Jusdt the tip of the iceberg--Catholic charities of various stripes got $2.9 billion from the government in 2010--62% of its total budget. But, many on the right argue, that's ok because churches are so much more efficient than governmental agencies. Perhaps that can be subscribed to inside the bubble--but it turns out that, at least in the matter of the bishops helping women who had been abused--the organization spent about a third of the money on administration.

Of course freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. And it includes the unfettered right of churches to impose qualifications on those it serves with charitable donations it solicits on its own. And it includes the ability to politic from the pulpit--but not to then claim an exemption from taxation. The Bishops have evolved the church into an institution that depends on governmental funding to cover much of its administrative overhead--but then wants to behave as if it can discriminate without compunction in the granting of those funds.

It is hardly surprising to find the Catholic bishops to be as hypocritical as many other elements of the right. It is, however, heartening to see the American--and Catholic voters--reject the transparent hypocrisy of the good old boys.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 4613
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2014 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm back!
Vegas baby, 8 days!!! Including Halloween at the Hard Rock, yikes!!! But so worth it!
This thread has a new comical meaning to me now.
It may become one of my faves!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 4442

PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2014 11:34 pm    Post subject: Re: Time to gloat Reply with quote

mac wrote:
A time for peace, a time for war--and a time to gloat. Iso, NW, mrgybe, matty, bard--not enough angry white guys to make up for the demographic changes. And Elizabeth Warren to boot. Let me be the first to thumb my nose at you all, and say enjoy the next four years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 10271
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2014 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Turnout baby turnout. Enjoy your two years--if your party, which abandoned all understanding of tactics for six years, can remember how to accomplish anything with the threat of a veto in the corner office. Gloating is fine, I expect no less, but let's see what happens when you add the amateurs and bomb-throwers to the mix. That's what you wanted, amateurs. Let's see how they do. Don't hold your breath.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 7259

PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2014 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Obama could still be the best president the America ever had if he'd embrace what the American people are telling him.

Stop being divisive
Enable small business to flourish
Modify obamacare
Work with conservatives and sign some bills
Drop the Hubris and be humble
Get off the campaign trail
End the race war
Promote personal responsibility
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 18397

PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2014 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Make some decisions rather than leaking trial balloons through surrogates.
Back up any global threats or promises you make.
Acknowledge the existence of and fight terrorism that poses any risk to the U.S. or its allies.
Stop spitting on Israel and Netanyahu.
Obey the Constitution.
Obey your oath of office.
Defend your citizens.
Enforce immigration laws.
Stop lying to us.
Stop making promises you have no intention of keeping.
Realize that Keynes was wrong.
Treat the GOP and its supporters with at least a TINY smidgeon of respect. (Barking at John McCain that "*I* won the election" -- meaning STFU, you loser -- is about the shittiest thing I can remember any president ever saying in public.)
Appoint some advisers willing to tell you the truth rather than only what you want to hear.
WAKE UP when honest people like Geithner quit rather than obey your orders to lie to the public about the economy.
Remember that there are three branches to the federal government.
Find a credible AG and Sec of State and National Security Advisor, for God's sake. Yours, like you, are worldwide laughing stocks.

Last edited by isobars on Fri Nov 07, 2014 2:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 8756

PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2014 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why is it always about President Obama and heaping blame in his direction? I have to say that I'm much more worried about Congress and the upcoming agenda of the newfound Republican majorities. The election is over, and it's time to change the channel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 10271
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Too funny that no body bothers to post on the 2014 election thread, about the 2014 elections. Be very afraid republicans, there are 47 million voters out there that didn't vote this time, and they are much more liberal than the cranky old men who voted this week. Don't believe me, this hits the nail right on the head:

WASHINGTON (AP) — With President Barack Obama vowing to press ahead on immigration, prominent Hispanic Republicans are worried about the reaction of staunch conservatives. They fear it will harm the party's ability to win over Latinos in the next presidential election and beyond.

While immigration was generally a muted issue in midterm elections dominated by the GOP, Obama promised the next day to move ahead on his own to remove the threat of deportation or grant work permits to an unspecified number of immigrants living here illegally.

"The initial reaction from Republicans is going to be very ugly and not well- thought-out, unfortunately," said Alfonso Aguilar, former chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship in the George W. Bush administration and executive director of Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles.

Aguilar said congressional Republicans must offer a plausible alternative to the president's plan, echoing the calls of some of the party's potential 2016 candidates to reach out to Hispanic voters in some way.

"Just saying 'let's repeal this,' or 'let's not fund it' — if that's the only reaction, that's going to antagonize Hispanics," Aguilar said.

But House Republican aides note that Speaker John Boehner and others have no effective way to tone down comments of members who stridently oppose looser immigration rules. Indeed, many of those members are proud to defy party leaders.

Boehner himself likened Obama's remarks to playing with matches. "He's going to burn himself if he continues to go down this path," Boehner said Thursday, a day after Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell warned the president not to act without congressional approval. Such a move, McConnell said, "poisons the well" for potential bipartisan efforts.

A Congress controlled by the GOP come January "will defend itself and our citizens from these lawless actions," said Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, adding "Americans do not want their borders erased."

Aguilar and others are concerned that conservative firebrands will go further in their rhetoric, perhaps by calling for Obama's impeachment or for mass deportations — creating a political sweet spot for Democrats not long after the Republican triumph at the polls and exposing a rift inside the GOP just as the party assumes control of both chambers.

"Republicans have a knack for shooting themselves in the foot," said Carlos Gutierrez, a commerce secretary under Bush who led that administration's failed effort in 2007 to enact comprehensive immigration changes. "The Republicans can overreact and give the impression that they're not so much against the concept of executive action but that they're against immigrants. And that would be a big problem."

Some possible GOP presidential contenders, including Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, have signaled a desire to tackle an overhaul of the nation's immigration system next year. Others outside Washington, including Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Rick Perry of Texas, have taken measures to appeal to Hispanics, including passing laws that allow some children of immigrants here illegally to pay in-state tuition at public colleges.

And not all Republicans agree that aggressive opposition to an executive action will yield an electoral disaster. Republican consultant Mike McKenna, who conducts polls and focus groups in several states, said that unless the president's effort is modest, "he's going to sink the (Democratic) party for 2016."

Obama faces enormous pressure to act from Latinos, an important part of the Democratic base. Immigrant advocates, labor leaders and others called on the president Thursday to act boldly, and dared Republicans to stand in his way.

"If they come after him," said AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka, Democrats will say, "Look, the lunatics are already running the asylum."

Advocates say the White House is weighing actions that would apply to those who meet a certain term of U.S. residency, perhaps 10 years. Also under consideration is whether to include parents of those who received deportation deferrals under Obama, or only parents of children who are U.S. citizens because they were born here.

Hispanic voters were an important part of Obama's support in his presidential campaigns and are seen as a crucial voting bloc in the years to come. A Republican Party "autopsy" of the 2012 election made only one policy recommendation: The GOP should embrace "comprehensive immigration reform."

That phrase typically means enhancing border security along with addressing the status of the roughly 11 million immigrants living illegally in the United States.

But many House Republicans, and some senators, owe their elections largely to GOP primary voters who adamantly oppose any form of legalization.

Exit polls of voters in Tuesday's midterms found that while 57 percent of Americans favor offering immigrants living here illegally a chance to apply for legal status, the issue splits along party lines: 78 percent of Democratic voters supported providing a way for immigrants to remain in the country, while 56 percent of Republican voters said they should be deported.

Mitt Romney won just 27 percent of the Latino vote in 2012, the worst performance for a GOP nominee in 16 years. Many Republicans attribute it to his hardline stance on immigration.

Voters "don't care what you know until they know you really care about them," said Hector Barreto, who has advised Republican presidential campaigns since 2000. "I don't see how you go into 2016 and you brag about how great you're going to be for the Hispanic community and you never did anything on this issue."


Associated Press writer Erica Werner c
ontributed from Washington.


I predict that the Reps will be too busy gloating to realize that they need to stop the bleeding with Hispanic voters. Hispanics will be a plurality in Texas by 2020, and there is a prospect of the Hispanic vote turning Texas, Arizona, and Colorado blue by 2016. Bush II understood that, and courted Latinos. But too many of the current crop sound just like Bard--nastily nativist. Obama's threat of executive action is the first step in the 2016 campaign, and the Republicans are liable to step right into the punch. If they were smart, Boehner would explain things to his members, bring the Senate immigration bill to a vote, and perhaps make some cosmetic changes that would be acceptable to the Senate leadership. He would do it in the lame duck session before the even craziers get there. I'm betting he's too stupid.

The Democrats have stolen a page from Karl Rove's play book. Karl used abortion and gay rights as wedge issues to galvanize the base. Obama and the Democrats are going to let the Republicans say enough vile things to galvanize the Hispanic vote. Watch.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3598

PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2014 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The GOP ran a good fake on the voters with the Blame Obama network.

They convinced enough voters that everything wrong with our rotten gov. was Bamas fault.
Voters reelected some of the worst legislators in American history both Dems and Repubs.
The US Congress had an approval rate of less than 8% and voters re elected almost all of them.

They are marching back into office singing "Blame Obama, Blame Obama...."
You guys should join them. We get the government we deserve.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12 ... 18, 19, 20  Next
Page 11 of 20

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group