That's all I wanted to know. I'm not deflecting at all. Just make no sure it's not all anti-left with you.
Important Breaking News....
- Thread starter bornaneer
- Start date
I won't get defensive. It's an easy answer. Sure I had problems with certain aspects of all of them.
I liked Reagan and Clinton. I thought they both did a great job. There were things about them I didn't like for sure, but I think overall, they were successful for our country.
Dubya was a buffoon. Obama, has been as bad if not worse. I'm trying to give Trump an open mind but he is making it difficult.
I'll call out the right when it's required. I wasn't on this board during the Bush years so I don't have known history of being critical of him. The Iraq thing is what it is. I participated in it and loved every second of my time doing it both during the invasion on active duty and my trips back over during the occupancy as a contractor. Ditto with AFG. Iraq is not what I'm critical of. I didn't like is overreach with EOs, I fvcking loathe the Patriot Act, but I loved him in the wake of 9/11.
From the WaPo
Yep, no trend here. You really need to wake up and realize the reality of the world around you bubble boy.
I wonder if Democrats and the Left in this country really understand how much of their agenda is being summarily rejected by most Americans?
They can't be honest with us and come right out and tell us what they really want to do to the country, but somehow most people are figuring it out anyway and the overwhelming answer is "no Thanks". California mostly and some of New York gave the Dems a "popular vote" majority, but do we want an America that's California? A Nation of New York city?
Pass.
Yeah cause Kentucky and Mississippi are such wonderful places, low unemployment, low welfare, high ranking in education.
You do know up until a few election cycles ago both were run by so called "Blue Dog" Democrats?
They have Republican governors, they have Republican controlled state legislatures and they have a majority of Republican US Representatives.
The Kentucky gubernatorial election took place on November 3, 2015, to elect the Governor of Kentucky. Incumbent Democratic Governor Steve Beshear was not eligible to run for re-election to a third term due to term limits established by the Kentucky Constitution.
In Mississippi:
Although the Democratic party retained their majority (27D to 25R) in the state Senate after the 2003 general election, a party switch by former Democratic Senator, James Shannon Walley of Leakesville threw control of the chamber to the Republicans. Walley was elected as a Democrat in 2003 to represent District 43, which includes George, Greene, Stone, and Wayne counties, then announced he was switching parties and won re-election as a Republican. Because the Lieutenant Governor at that time, Amy Tuck, was a Republican (and also a previous party switcher), this gave Republicans control of the Senate for the first time since Reconstruction and a defacto majority only on a tie vote.
Until January 2008, the Senate contained 25 Democrats and 27 Republicans. Democrats enjoyed a net gain of three seats in the November 6, 2007 statewide elections and won back control of the chamber by a 28–24 margin until Senator Nolan Mettetal announced his party switch in February, 2008. The Senate balance was 27–25, with the Democrats holding the slim majority until Cindy Hyde-Smith switched parties, giving the GOP a 26–26 de facto majority, with Lieutenant Governor Phil Bryant holding the tiebreaker vote. After the switch of Ezell Lee on February 17, 2011, the GOP expanded their majority to 27–24, with one vacancy. The majority was expanded in the general election later that year to 31-21, including the party switch of Sen. Gray Tollison
Finally
States run by Republican Governors are better off than those run by Democrat Governors
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ates-in-america-democrats-dominate-the-worst/
Alabama is another wonderful example. Fourth lowest high school graduation rate in the country. The state legislature just passed legislation preventing municipalities from raising the minimum wage.
Republican states have high unemployment, high welfare and very low graduation rates.
California and New York have the highest individual tax rates in the country, and lose more population annually per capita than the next 12 States in population combined. Both run by Democrats.
Local municipalities should not be setting wages for private businesses. More Leftist ideology being rejected.
You aren't even logical enough to have a debate with. Florida isn't a Republican state.
Like I said, the states with the highest unemployment rates and lowest high school graduation rates are Republican southern states, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky.
If the private businesses don't like it, they can leave. I respect a town that says if you are a business located in our town, you will pay a minimum wage of whatever they establish.
Sorry to disappoint you countryroads89, but Rick Scott who is Governor of Florida is Republican my friend.
Those stats you cite about those Republican dominated states are true countrtyroads89, but as I mentioned up until the last decade or so most if not all of them were run by Democrat controlled legislatures and Democrat Governors.
Now, thankfully voters have thrown most of them out and brought in Republicans who favors things like school vouchers and choice options, lower taxes, in some cases lowering personal income tax rates or even eliminating them, tax credits for business expansion, balanced budgets to reduce the debt Dems had run up through decades of pork barrel spending and a host of other Government reforms to turn those formally poorly run Democratic dominated states around.
Here in Georgia for instance, we're one of the fastest growing states in terms of attracting businesses in the past 10 years. We're like #4 and still growing. Most Democrat run states by comparison are losing manufacturing jobs, population, and still are running crushing deficits. California and New York are prime examples.
As I said, that's the formula being rejected by most responsible Americans.
Why not have the bureaucrats set the prices too countryroads89? Set the profit margins too, why stop at labor? Fix the ROI. Capital expenditures. Balance sheet reserves. Cost of machinery. Advertising budgets. Casualty and Liability Insurance rates. Dividend shares. Amortization schedules on the debt?
Why just fix labor costs? If you want the Government running private businesses, why not have 'em run everything? I mean why not let the Government just "fix" all business expenses and costs?
Or maybe that is what you really do want?
Hope not. So why stop at labor? It's just one part of running a business.
Last edited:
Exxagerate much?
That's one of the Republican philosophies that I absolutely despise, bitching about wage costs of people making minimum wage. That really reflects poorly on Christian principals and values.
If Republicans had it their way, there would be no labor laws, there would be no safety laws and everybody would owe their soul to the company store and be paid in scrip.
Well countryroads89 that's not the issue. Everyone who believes in free markets wants folks to get paid what they're worth and that's really the point. You can't just arbitrarily "fix" labor costs. There are all sorts of factors that go into what company A pays for its labor, and skill needed to do the job is just one of those factors.
You didn't answer my question about fixing only labor costs by the Government. Why just stop at labor?
A Christian principle on this topic can be found in what Christ taught about labor and effort. Give a man a fish and you only feed him for a day. Teach that same man how to fish and he can feed himself for the rest of his Life.
The Bible also says he who does not work, should not eat. Finally we all have worth, and arbitrarily setting what someone's "minimum" worth for labor should be only penalizes his "maximum" potential to earn whatever he is ultimately capable of earning.
Then why would you bother making a post saying "well if it wasn't for those 2 states she wouldn't have led"? Clearly it means enough to you to have made that post.
Also, considering that those 2 states are two of the largest economic entities in our union, that the votes there aren't quite meaningless.
Make up your mind, we're either a Christian based nation or not, you can't have it both ways depending on the argument.
I was replying to someone who made the point, and I clarified it more. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't have a dog in this fight. Negan didn't win the election.
Umm, the US Constitution makes it abundantly clear we are not a Christian nation.
Once again, I am mocking the hypocrisy of Republicans voting their "Christian values", not debating whether or not laws have been established to enforce Christian values.