Come on, man....

[RIROCKHOUND]

Seriously.
There are legitimate candidates from the GOP who will participate in his debate? Whats next? The Comedy Central Roast of Newt or Perry?

Trump hits ‘joke candidates’ Paul and Huntsman – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

go away, Trump

[JohnnyD]

Says the guy who's entire candidacy was a joke.

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Says the guy who's entire candidacy was a joke.

Newt met with him today in NYC, Newt on Celebrity Apprentice 2012
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Agree, this is pretty absurd.

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

If they are smart the front runners will all decline and leave it to Perry and Buddy Rommer....

[Jim in CT]

It is very embarassing. I wish one of them would have the dignity to refuse. I remember in 2008, none of the democratic candidates had the guts to stay away from the Daily Kos convention...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Agree, this is pretty absurd.

-spence

Almost as absurd as saying it's bad for the nation when companies buy political influence, and then denying saying that when confronted with an obvious hypocrisy that you don't care when labor unions do the same thing. I'm still waiting for a response...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Almost as absurd as saying it's bad for the nation when companies buy political influence, and then denying saying that when confronted with an obvious hypocrisy that you don't care when labor unions do the same thing. I'm still waiting for a response...

WRONG. I gave you a response, I asked when I ever said such a thing.

Asking someone to resolve a negative statement isn't rational, it's the kind of circular argument that dooms corporate lobbyists like Newt Gingrich to the private sector and drives geologists like RIROCKHOUND crazy.

What you say is the common thread? For both, it's all in the record

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Seriously.
Trump hits ‘joke candidates’ Paul and Huntsman

ummmmm...if you have been campaigning for months and are still struggling to maintain your whopping 1-2% in the polls and solidly ensconced in last place against much maligned powerhouses like Bachmann and your greatest support as a candidate for the Republican nomination comes from people that voted for marxists and morons like Obama and Chaffee...

you are just a bit of a joke...aren't you?

[Redsoxticket]

^true but at least Paul and Huntsman are not quitters like Trump.

Nevermind, forgot he never actual announced his candidacy but still

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

I'm mad Cain won't be there. His responses (or lack of responses) where always good for a laugh.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

WRONG. I gave you a response, I asked when I ever said such a thing.

Asking someone to resolve a negative statement isn't rational, it's the kind of circular argument that dooms corporate lobbyists like Newt Gingrich to the private sector and drives geologists like RIROCKHOUND crazy.

What you say is the common thread? For both, it's all in the record

-spence

"WRONG. I gave you a response, I asked when I ever said such a thing."

Yes, you asked me when you ever said any such thing. And I responded to that WITH YOUR QUOTE. Since it didn't sink in, here it is again. #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& asked what the occupiers were protesting, and here is what you wrote...

"How corporate influence over our political process is rigging the game in favor of the wealthy."

Spence, in tennis, this is what is known as game, set, and match. Those are your words. Deny it all you want when it's convenient, but that's what you said.

So one more time, here is my question Spence. If corporations buying political influence is a legitimate threat, why isn't it a similar threat when public labor unions do it? If you have a shred of intellectual honesty, let's see a response. Stop telling us you didn't say what I'm claiming you said.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

ummmmm...if you have been campaigning for months and are still struggling to maintain your whopping 1-2% in the polls and solidly ensconced in last place against much maligned powerhouses like Bachmann and your greatest support as a candidate for the Republican nomination comes from people that voted for marxists and morons like Obama and Chaffee...

you are just a bit of a joke...aren't you?

Except Paul has pretty regularly been in the top 2 during polling, even with the obvious media black out, bias at debates and preemptive character attacks.

Then you have ABC News posting stories regarding Iowa with titles like: "Gingrich Leads in Des Moines Register Poll, Romney Drops to Third", with a vague mention of who that person in second is.
Gingrich Leads in Des Moines Register Poll, Romney Drops to Third - ABC News

I was just reading the NBV/Marist poll for Iowa and it shows Newt in the lead amongst the Republican candidates, but also showed that the only Rep. candidate that could beat Obama if the election was tomorrow is Paul.

However, the poll also says Paul is the candidate best suited to face Obama in an election.

Against Paul, 42 percent of registered voters in Iowa support Obama and the same number — 43 percent — support Paul. Paul’s popularity among independents could be a crucial advantage. Paul leads Obama 42 percent to 35 percent among independent voters, according to the poll, and he also attracts 15% of Iowa’s Democrats. Not to mention that 16 percent of voters were undecided.

Against the rest of the field, Obama wins a hypothetical race handily.

Ron Paul | Iowa | Poll | The Daily Caller

[Jim in CT]

Spence, no comeback? Nothing??

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Except Paul has pretty regularly been in the top 2 during polling, even with the obvious media black out, bias at debates and preemptive character attacks.

Then you have ABC News posting stories regarding Iowa with titles like: "Gingrich Leads in Des Moines Register Poll, Romney Drops to Third", with a vague mention of who that person in second is.
Gingrich Leads in Des Moines Register Poll, Romney Drops to Third - ABC News

I was just reading the NBV/Marist poll for Iowa and it shows Newt in the lead amongst the Republican candidates, but also showed that the only Rep. candidate that could beat Obama if the election was tomorrow is Paul.


Ron Paul | Iowa | Poll | The Daily Caller

huh...

today Gallup Tracking- nationally.... Gingrich 37, Romney 22, Paul 8, Perry 7, Bachmann 6, santorum 3......"no joke"Huntsman- "1"
RealClearPolitics - Latest Polls

Paul is tied for second with Romney in several of the Iowa polls but when you continue to the other states Paul is at ...S. Carolina-4, NH- 16...behind Romney and Gingrich(39/23) and also NBC/Marist, Colorado-6, Florida-4...his best showing is 17 or 18%


guess you can believe NBC if you want to.......

[sburnsey931]

Okay the boats away and I'd like to be a part of the conversation.
I've been trying to follow a conversation between spence and jim in ct.
I have yet to read anything Spence has said I agree with..... and I believe he likes to throw stuff out there to keep the conversation going....
good for him.
Jim I think the "Game ,Set and Match" quote tells me all I need to know....
I'm in!

Quote:
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
What exactly are they protesting again?

How corporate influence over our political process is rigging the game in favor of the wealthy.

-spence

Ah Spence is concerned that "corporations" wield too much political influence. Spence, are you equally concerned about the politicalinfluence bought by public labor unions?
Jim in CT

Spence, can you please enlighhten me as to why that is?

Spence, I'm STILL waiting for you to explain why it's bad for America when "corporations" buy political influence, but it's OK when public unions do it?
Jim in CT

When did I ever make that assertion?

-spence


Spence, do yourself a favor. When dealing with me, assume you're not dealing with a moron, OK? Really Jim?


Almost as absurd as saying it's bad for the nation when companies buy political influence, and then denying saying that when confronted with an obvious hypocrisy that you don't care when labor unions do the same thing. I'm still waiting for a response...

Spence never said it was ok for public unions.... he only said what the Occupiers were protesting about political influence.
Burnsey

Perhaps your desire to Zing has clouded your vision.
Burnsey



And Spence, what unions do is worse for everyone else, and here's why. For the most part (there are some exceptions), corporations can buy all the influence they want, but in the end, they can't force me to buy their product. But when public labor unions buy influence, that gets forced on all of us in the form of property taxes, which I have no choice but to pay.

When companies buy influence, it has nowhere near the detrimental impact on folks, as when public labor unions run amuck.
Jim in CT

Jim it appears you have a property tax bill that lets you believe the unions have screwed you over royally. Maybe, maybe not.
To be clear I own an Open Shop Company. I'm getting picketed daily....I'm not a fan of the Unions...
What they do impacts my taxes....but it pales in comparision to the impact of Corporation's Political Influence on our economy....
Corporations have and continue to influence economic policy in this country.
I am sure my best interest is not there priority.
Yes we don't have to buy their product.... no matter someone will... we'll just have to pay a little more taxes somewhere somehow for their tax break loophole...

My typical example is this.....I've been in my house for 7 years now....When we moved in I ran to Walmart to buy my new 4 slice toaster.. for 20 bucks.....
It's no longer made by GE in America.....It's GE in China.....
I just had to buy my 5th one..... but I got a great deal on it only 20 bucks....
My Grandmother had a GE toaster for 30 years.....
Loss of jobs...stagnant wages.... terrible returns on my Invested money...property values dropping......corporate influence is killing us.....
Burnsey

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by sburnsey931

Okay the boats away and I'd like to be a part of the conversation.
I've been trying to follow a conversation between spence and jim in ct.
I have yet to read anything Spence has said I agree with..... and I believe he likes to throw stuff out there to keep the conversation going....
good for him.
Jim I think the "Game ,Set and Match" quote tells me all I need to know....
I'm in!

Quote:
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
What exactly are they protesting again?

How corporate influence over our political process is rigging the game in favor of the wealthy.

-spence

Ah Spence is concerned that "corporations" wield too much political influence. Spence, are you equally concerned about the politicalinfluence bought by public labor unions?
Jim in CT

Spence, can you please enlighhten me as to why that is?

Spence, I'm STILL waiting for you to explain why it's bad for America when "corporations" buy political influence, but it's OK when public unions do it?
Jim in CT

When did I ever make that assertion?

-spence


Spence, do yourself a favor. When dealing with me, assume you're not dealing with a moron, OK? Really Jim?


Almost as absurd as saying it's bad for the nation when companies buy political influence, and then denying saying that when confronted with an obvious hypocrisy that you don't care when labor unions do the same thing. I'm still waiting for a response...

Spence never said it was ok for public unions.... he only said what the Occupiers were protesting about political influence.
Burnsey

Perhaps your desire to Zing has clouded your vision.
Burnsey



And Spence, what unions do is worse for everyone else, and here's why. For the most part (there are some exceptions), corporations can buy all the influence they want, but in the end, they can't force me to buy their product. But when public labor unions buy influence, that gets forced on all of us in the form of property taxes, which I have no choice but to pay.

When companies buy influence, it has nowhere near the detrimental impact on folks, as when public labor unions run amuck.
Jim in CT

Jim it appears you have a property tax bill that lets you believe the unions have screwed you over royally. Maybe, maybe not.
To be clear I own an Open Shop Company. I'm getting picketed daily....I'm not a fan of the Unions...
What they do impacts my taxes....but it pales in comparision to the impact of Corporation's Political Influence on our economy....
Corporations have and continue to influence economic policy in this country.
I am sure my best interest is not there priority.
Yes we don't have to buy their product.... no matter someone will... we'll just have to pay a little more taxes somewhere somehow for their tax break loophole...

My typical example is this.....I've been in my house for 7 years now....When we moved in I ran to Walmart to buy my new 4 slice toaster.. for 20 bucks.....
It's no longer made by GE in America.....It's GE in China.....
I just had to buy my 5th one..... but I got a great deal on it only 20 bucks....
My Grandmother had a GE toaster for 30 years.....
Loss of jobs...stagnant wages.... terrible returns on my Invested money...property values dropping......corporate influence is killing us.....
Burnsey

"Spence never said it was ok for public unions.... he only said what the Occupiers were protesting about political influence.
Burnsey"

Burnsey, yes really, I'mnot a moron. Spence is denying that he said it's bad when corporations buy influence. He's denying that, in my opinion, because even he knows that no sane person can say it's bad when companies do it, but it's OK when unions do it.

"Jim it appears you have a property tax bill "

You see, because I'm not a moron, I don't make blanket statements just based on what's happening to ME. When I say that public unions are screwing everyone else, I don't mean that I'm the only one unhappy with my tax bill. You see, I do some research, so I know that most cities and states are facing crippling unfunded liabilities due to insane benefits that public unions "bought" by funding campaigns of Democrats. That's true almost everywhere. Your "rebuttal" doesn't even come close to refuting my point. In CT, RI, and Mass, there are unfunded liabilities for union benefits that can never, ever be paid for. But the unions always want more, more, more. It's never, ever enough.

You may be right that GE makes products in China now, but I don't see what that has to do with union abuse.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;905684
You see, because I'm not a moron, .[/QUOTE]

no...a moron buys a crappy 20 dollar 4 slice toaster from Walmart that fails...then buys another that fails, and another that fails, and another and another...and then bitches about the quality of his 5 toasters while bragging about the great deal he got on them..... and then blames corporations for ruining his life and his toast apparently...

http://www.toastercentral.com/

sorry, that was too easy

[sburnsey931]

Jim , Maybe it's you who need it to be made perfectly clear for.

Spence, I'm STILL waiting for you to explain why it's bad for America when "corporations" buy political influence, but it's OK when public unions do it?
Jim in CT

When did I ever make that assertion?

-spence


Spence only stated What they were protesting. No more no less. He never even stated if he agreed with them...just a simple statement of what they were protesting. My only point.
You however continue to imply the statement is his belief and it apply's to political influence and not union influence and you demand to know why...A real stretch don't you think.

My reference to the moron and tennis wording...Really Jim?
It's what made me want to get invloved. Your Arrogance.

Corporate influence or union influence...
Let me ask.
Do you think corporate political influence has helped to raise or lower the cost of any of the following items?
Gasoline, Oil, Electricity
Groceries
Autos
Cell service
Internet
Mortgage rates
Insurance Rates
My point : it all is very connected to Corporate political influence and it far outweighs anything the state of mass could stick me for.....

[sburnsey931]

Sottw I was being sarcastic......
Sorry I wasn't clear
My point was I hear about these great deals at walmart...low prices live better.....chinese crap that doesn't last.......

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Stop telling us you didn't say what I'm claiming you said.

I think you just answered your own question.

But anyway, the focus of Occupy is weighted towards wall street influence on Washington. This doesn't mean that labor unions are exempt from any criticism and I've never said labor union influence on politics is exempt from any criticism. They're just not a focus of this movement. Labor unions are usually seen as fighting for the rights of the worker, not the capital.

DUH!

As usual, you're trying to have the argument you with you were having rather than one about what's really going on in society.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, no comeback? Nothing??

Sorry, I've given up waiting for a handout and instead find working toprovide more consistent food for my family. Just please don't tell anyone at MSNBC

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think you just answered your own question.

Labor unions are usually seen as fighting for the rights of the worker, not the capital.

-spence

You are really, really bonkers.

I am a "worker", though not in a union. So please tell me, when my town's teachers union demands rich pensions that can never be reasonably funded, and healthcare at lower out-of-pocket costs that private sector folks cannot imagine, please tell me how that union is looking out for me, "the worker"?

Spence, it's this simple. When Wall Street banks donate to politicians, they are looking out for their own selfish interests. When labor unions donate to politicians, they are doing the same exact thing.

The only difference is this...for the most part (there are exceptions), what banks do doesn't have to impact me unless I choose to do business wih them. What labor unions do impacts every single person, in the form of taxes, there is literally no way to avoid it. Those insane benefits drive up municipal property taxes, state income taxes, and business property taxes (which businesses have to pay for with higher prices).

You go ahead and tell me where that's wrong Spence.

This liberal notion that labor unions are looking out for "the little guy" is a total lie. Less than 10% of the working population belngs to a union, and most non-union folks are NOT rich, but rather are also "the little guy". Lots of non-unionized little guys are seriously hurt by the gross injustices of labor union practices. Liberals like you hide that by painting this struggle as rich versus poor. That makes a great sound byte, but it's very dishonest.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by sburnsey931

Sottw I was being sarcastic......
Sorry I wasn't clear
My point was I hear about these great deals at walmart...low prices live better.....chinese crap that doesn't last.......

My typical example is this.....I've been in my house for 7 years now....When we moved in I ran to Walmart to buy my new 4 slice toaster.. for 20 bucks.....
It's no longer made by GE in America.....It's GE in China.....
I just had to buy my 5th one..... but I got a great deal on it only 20 bucks....
My Grandmother had a GE toaster for 30 years.....
Loss of jobs...stagnant wages.... terrible returns on my Invested money...property values dropping......corporate influence is killing us.....
Burnsey


so none of this is true?

this is such an odd thread


btw: if you really investigate the categories that you listed:
Gasoline, Oil, Electricity
Groceries
Autos
Cell service
Internet
Mortgage rates
Insurance Rates

you will find that tinkering by politicians in the form of mandates, regulation and taxation have much more to do with the cost to the consumer than does "corporate political influence"..."corporate political Influence" in most cases is spent to try to fend off even greater mandates, regulation and taxation which would result in.....???

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Liberals like you hide that by painting this struggle as rich versus poor. That makes a great sound byte, but it's very dishonest.

get used to it this is pretty good

"In Teddy Roosevelt's era, President Barack Obama explained to the nation this week, "some people thought massive inequality and exploitation was just the price of progress. ... But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you want from whoever you can."

And he's right. Even today there are people who believe they should have free license to take whatever they want from whomever they can. They're called Democrats."




RealClearPolitics - Obama vs. Capitalism

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You are really, really bonkers.

If by "bonkers" you mean quite rational and well informed...then I agree.

I am a "worker", though not in a union. So please tell me, when my town's teachers union demands rich pensions that can never be reasonably funded, and healthcare at lower out-of-pocket costs that private sector folks cannot imagine, please tell me how that union is looking out for me, "the worker"?

My comment was clearly referring to the rights of union workers...I'm sorry if this went over your head. That was not my intention.

Spence, it's this simple. When Wall Street banks donate to politicians, they are looking out for their own selfish interests. When labor unions donate to politicians, they are doing the same exact thing.

People donate for their own interests??? This changes everything.

The only difference is this...for the most part (there are exceptions), what banks do doesn't have to impact me unless I choose to do business wih them.

Do you keep all your money under a mattress? No credit cards? You don't ever take a loan either do you?

What labor unions do impacts every single person, in the form of taxes, there is literally no way to avoid it. Those insane benefits drive up municipal property taxes, state income taxes, and business property taxes (which businesses have to pay for with higher prices).

Could also just be bad government. I don't think either party has a monopoly on fiscal responsibility.

This liberal notion that labor unions are looking out for "the little guy" is a total lie. Less than 10% of the working population belngs to a union, and most non-union folks are NOT rich, but rather are also "the little guy". Lots of non-unionized little guys are seriously hurt by the gross injustices of labor union practices. Liberals like you hide that by painting this struggle as rich versus poor. That makes a great sound byte, but it's very dishonest.

It's funny, I'm pretty sure I've never started a sentence with "Conservatives like you" in my life.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

If by "bonkers" you mean quite rational and well informed...then I agree.


My comment was clearly referring to the rights of union workers...I'm sorry if this went over your head. That was not my intention.


People donate for their own interests??? This changes everything.


Do you keep all your money under a mattress? No credit cards? You don't ever take a loan either do you?


Could also just be bad government. I don't think either party has a monopoly on fiscal responsibility.


It's funny, I'm pretty sure I've never started a sentence with "Conservatives like you" in my life.

-spence

"If by "bonkers" you mean quite rational and well informed...then I agree."

That's not what I meant. Sorry if it went over your head.

"Do you keep all your money under a mattress? No credit cards? You don't ever take a loan either do you?"

I don't think I ever said that. But I can choose which banks I do business with. If I don't like Bank Of America's practices, there are local banks in my community. No one bank, or any other company, can force me to give them my business.

"My comment was clearly referring to the rights of union workers...I'm sorry if this went over your head. That was not my intention."

Ah. But you see, liberals are constantly framing this union debate as workers versus fatcats. Liberals are always framing this debate to imply that if you want some constraints on union spending, then you are opposed to "the working middle class". That's Obama's entire re-election strategy.