The Republican Thread

[StrangeSox]

Rahm Emmanuel is a traitor to the cause and will be dealt with in due time.

 

Seriously though he's a Democrat through-and-through but he barely qualifies as a liberal. Which I guess makes him perfect to the Democratic party. They don't care about labor either, at least as long as they still get political organizing support from them while doing absolutely nothing for labor.

Edited August 31, 2012 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

For the politicos on here is this article fairly factual?

 

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/...romney-20120829

 

The NY Mag has an article on this article here:

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/did-m...ork+Magazine%29

 

RS's description of what happened seems accurate, but it's a stretch to say they were bailed out by the taxpayers directly. Still seems like the main thrust of the article is fair and accurate.

 

Bain's debt negotiation was nothing like the taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailouts of 2008 and 2009. In fact, it wasn't funded by taxpayers at all.

 

It's confusing, because the FDIC is a government agency. And government agencies tend to be funded by taxpayers. But the FDIC is a special case. Essentially, it's a bank guarantor that is funded by the banks it guarantees. Every year, banks write a proverbial check to the FDIC for the equivalent of life insurance, and in return, the FDIC promises to backstop them if they're ever about to go out of business. The agency gets no funding — as in, zero dollars — from the government's coffers.

 

So while Romney's deal may have been unseemly (Dickinson points out that the FDIC chairman at the time was an adviser to George Romney during his 1968 run for president), it didn't screw taxpayers, at least directly.

 

[mr_genius]

They shouldn't stop their b****ing because plenty in this country constantly attack teachers and their hard-fought wages and benefits.

 

The problem is, to expand their pay and benefits requires taking money from middle class workers and stealing their hard-earned wages. Just taxing 'rich people more' isn't going to fix it. Last I checked Chicago teachers were demanding 50% pay raise. They can f*** off.

Edited August 31, 2012 by mr_genius

[RockRaines]

The problem is, to expand their pay and benefits requires taking money from middle class workers and stealing their hard-earned wages. Just taxing 'rich people more' isn't going to fix it. Last I checked Chicago teachers were demanding 50% pay raise. They can f*** off.

Where was that from?

[southsider2k5]

Where was that from?

 

It's actually 30%. Which is in direct response to Rahm taking away their previously agreed upon raise, and then attempting to force longer school days and years on teachers.

[mr_genius]

It's actually 30%. Which is in direct response to Rahm taking away their previously agreed upon raise, and then attempting to force longer school days and years on teachers.

 

Ok, maybe it was 30% (and they can still f*** off). I also believe Chicago has one of the shortest school days right now. so it is an increase on that.

 

Most kids in Chicago's public schools spend just five hours and 45 minutes in school a day. It's one of the shortest school days in the country.

 

but of course Rahm went overboard

 

Since taking office last year, he has been pushing to lengthen the day to 7 1/2 hours in every school, which would make Chicago's elementary school days among the country's longest.

 

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/23/151047543/ch...es-want-details

Edited August 31, 2012 by mr_genius

[RockRaines]

Ok, maybe it was 30% (and they can still f*** off). I also believe Chicago has one of the shortest school days right now. so it is an increase on that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/23/151047543/ch...es-want-details

It's an ask as part of a negotiation.

 

Second, the amount of money those teachers have to pay out of pocket just to get basic materials for their students is HUGE. CPS doesnt even have working computers in many of the schools, do you realize how ridiculous that is? I dont envy CPS teachers because of the bulls*** they have to put up with from not only their kids but the horribly crooked government that screws them every chance they get.

[StrangeSox]

They should not f*** off, they should be compensated for increased workload.

 

Sans union organization, though, they probably would have to f*** off and take the abuse from management like most workers do.

Edited August 31, 2012 by StrangeSox

[mr_genius]

They should not f*** off, they should be compensated for increased workload.

 

yes they should. there's a lot of people in Chicago that make less and work a lot harder than these teachers. these are the people that will be forced to pay for this extravagant increase.

 

the economy sucks, there is no money. deal with it like everyone else has to. pulling down everyone else to give a certain group more is not the way to fix this.

[StrangeSox]

Don't extravagantly increase their workload and refuse to pay them for it. That should be unacceptable for every citizen. Unfortunately, labor rights and representation have been under assault for decades and most Americans simply have to take the s*** served up by owners and management.

[RockRaines]

yes they should. there's a lot of people in Chicago that make less and work a lot harder than these teachers. these are the people that will be forced to pay for this extravagant increase.

 

the economy sucks, there is no money. deal with it like everyone else has to. pulling down everyone else to give a certain group more is not the way to fix this.

If you really think that expense is extravagant I invite you to look at the city's budget. The city is a corporation that we all pay to be a part of, they should pay their employees fair wages based on their education level and workload regardless of where the money comes from. The salaries of teachers are the least of my worries as a tax payer in Chicago. We could find enough budget for this increase if we cut off the disability pay of chicago cops that have second higher paying jobs for god sakes.

[mr_genius]

If you really think that expense is extravagant I invite you to look at the city's budget. The city is a corporation that we all pay to be a part of, they should pay their employees fair wages based on their education level and workload regardless of where the money comes from. The salaries of teachers are the least of my worries as a tax payer in Chicago. We could find enough budget for this increase if we cut off the disability pay of chicago cops that have second higher paying jobs for god sakes.

 

First, in my experience corporations do not pay based on education level. They mostly pay based on skill, knowledge, and/or return on the employee. That can include education level, but education level alone does not warrant high pay. Depends on what they learned or how marketable that 'advanced' education is.

 

Now, as someone who signs the front of the checks and not the back of them at this Chicago corporation, I do indeed think this salary increase is a big deal and I do not approve of it. The rest of the corruption and waste is a big deal too, and I will put up as much of a fight against it. And I will probably lose and my taxes will keep going up up up.

Edited August 31, 2012 by mr_genius

[CanOfCorn]

Did anyone notice that for the first time in as long as I can remember, the Republican nominee didn't really lay out a plan? It was more of a "what hasn't our current President done" speech than a "this is what I'm going to do and how I'm going to do it." Well, it was a "this is what I'm going to do" speech, but not so much of a "and this is how I'm going to do it."

 

There were no empty promises, nor was there a structure for those promises to eventually fill. Strange speech...but it riled up the crowd, that's for sure.

[RockRaines]

First, in my experience corporations do not pay based on education level.

HUH?

 

Corporations dont pay someone with a bachelors degree higher than someone with just a HS diploma? Last time I checked having an MBA usually gets you a jump as well. Where have you worked where this hasnt taken place?

[StrangeSox]

The crowd was also riled up about Obama not closing gitmo and not pulling the troops out of Afghanistan tomorrow, so I don't really think it mattered what he said.

[mr_genius]

HUH?

 

Corporations dont pay someone with a bachelors degree higher than someone with just a HS diploma? Last time I checked having an MBA usually gets you a jump as well. Where have you worked where this hasnt taken place?

 

read the whole post, your answer is in it. by the way, i worked at one of the largest tech companies in the world for a number of years and currently work at another top corporation. also have a successful side business. i'm a big success like Mitt Romney!

Edited August 31, 2012 by mr_genius

[StrangeSox]

Did the FDIC bail you out, too, after you threatened to raid the corporate coffers to pay you and your fellow executives millions in bonuses before going back to your old job and luxurious salary?

[mr_genius]

Did the FDIC bail you out, too, after you threatened to raid the corporate coffers to pay you and your fellow executives millions in bonuses before going back to your old job and luxurious salary?

 

i wish

 

[mr_genius]

Did anyone notice that for the first time in as long as I can remember, the Republican nominee didn't really lay out a plan? It was more of a "what hasn't our current President done" speech than a "this is what I'm going to do and how I'm going to do it." Well, it was a "this is what I'm going to do" speech, but not so much of a "and this is how I'm going to do it."

 

There were no empty promises, nor was there a structure for those promises to eventually fill. Strange speech...but it riled up the crowd, that's for sure.

 

it think we all pretty much agree the speech kinda sucked.

[RockRaines]

read the whole post, your answer is in it. by the way, i worked at one of the largest tech companies in the world for a number of years and currently work at another top corporation. also have a successful side business. i'm a big success like Mitt Romney!

Not it's not.

 

And to be like Mitt you would have to come from a ridiculous amount of money and then follow in your father's footsteps with help from rich buddies and the gov. Most likely you are better and more self sufficient man than that.

[MexSoxFan#1]

I watched the replay just now. Thought Romney had a bizarre smirk on his face at times. Do you agree? I think he's kind of creepy. Obama in a landslide.

Obama has the best thing going. He can just say in his conversational tone: "Look folks. It takes longer than four years to fix this mess, especially when the other side tries to block my every move. Give me more time; trust me, it'll all be fine."

The way Romney blinked was wierding me out, yeah I know it's trivial but he is just unlikeable on screen, might be a nice decent dude one on one but on tv he is really awkward. No wonder his negatives are so high, he has trouble connecting with folks.

Edited September 1, 2012 by MexSoxFan#1

[Jenksismyhero]

Did anyone notice that for the first time in as long as I can remember, the Republican nominee didn't really lay out a plan? It was more of a "what hasn't our current President done" speech than a "this is what I'm going to do and how I'm going to do it." Well, it was a "this is what I'm going to do" speech, but not so much of a "and this is how I'm going to do it."

 

There were no empty promises, nor was there a structure for those promises to eventually fill. Strange speech...but it riled up the crowd, that's for sure.

 

I think that's the unwritten playbook for beating an incumbent. You don't offer up solutions, you just talk about the failures of the other guy. That's going to "change" the independent votes more than offering up a competing strategy.

[StrangeSox]

The last time there was a Republican challenging an incumbent Democrat was Dole in 1996. Here's his speech.

 

Before that was Reagan in 1980. Here's his.

 

Both speeches offered some policy proposals. And they referenced policy proposals that the campaigns had already laid out, which Romney really hasn't done.

 

 

(side note: Reagan was positively quoting Thomas Paine in his speech. That's pretty funny.)

 

(other side note: to tie this whole thread together on recent topics, Bob Dole was criticizing teachers unions in his speech!)

 

(this now looks like a Badger post)

Edited August 31, 2012 by StrangeSox

[CanOfCorn]

I think that's the unwritten playbook for beating an incumbent. You don't offer up solutions, you just talk about the failures of the other guy. That's going to "change" the independent votes more than offering up a competing strategy.

 

Usually...like StrangeSox just showed...there's some sort of outline of how. This had none of it. So, I walked away with, "That's great, but how are you going to do these things?" Or course, the disenchanted don't care, they just want change thinking it will be good. Can't say I blame them or that they are wrong, but I can't imagine an election is going to change anything long-term.

[Quin]

I know I'm late to the party, but three things...

 

Akin news conference today at 5ish. Hopefully....he gone.....and the R's can regain that seat.

 

I can tell you right now being here in Missouri, that seat is gone. Hell, whispers around here are that if democrats make a strong enough push, Romney could lose Missouri (which would be very unexpected).

 

 

Looks like the Empire State building shooter was a Democrat Obama voter

 

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/08/24/a-l...effrey-johnson/

 

...and?

 

Also greg, the media is biased both ways. When I saw the Clint Eastwood "speech" I thought about how the Big 3 would report it.

 

MSNBC: Clint Eastwood is disrespecting our country with such brash defiance of the President.

FOX: Clint Eastwood is taking a stand is showing the spirit of a true American.

CNN: