I'm not sure how Bill Gates donating his personal wealth means that companies should devote large portions of revenue to unskilled labor

jordo212000;1226312 wrote:I'm not sure how Bill Gates donating his personal wealth means that companies should devote large portions of revenue to unskilled labor

You should go study liberal working schematics. If you give people money they will buy your products!

Con_Alma;1226309 wrote:??? What's completely false.?

The fact that Bill gates was charitable with his income? The fact that he had an obligation to increase shareholder equity? The fact that Henry Ford increased pay from profits?

The fact that the world labor supply price will continue to reduce US labor costs?

You and Jordo need to look him up. Not gonna do it for you. But I will say this. Bill Gates chose to pay his workers above and beyond the going wage for top level computer geeks...much more that what the supposed "market would bear" and, he was a pioneer in promoting flexible hours which ultmately dipped into his bottom line. He followed virtually no so called "pro business" rules as one would read at the top business colleges of the day. He had a renegade style...and he viewed his people as much more than a cost on a balance sheet....something that you and Jordo can't seem to grasp.

In today's world, you are correct. By and large, the oligarchs that control the government policy view the world globally only, and as such, don't care about Americans. All the rhetoric from the political parties is just that...rhetoric...when it comes to helping the job situation in the private sector. Although I will give Obama credit where it is due. He has initiated legislation to correct the outsourcing...something the gutless swine Bush the 43rd would never do.

jordo212000;1226312 wrote:I'm not sure how Bill Gates donating his personal wealth means that companies should devote large portions of revenue to unskilled labor

You need to pay attention to what I actually say for a change. Moreover, you cannot comprehend a very simple concept that I've had to explain 3 times now.

jordo212000;1226289 wrote:Unions are killing us. They used to have a place, but not anymore IMO. They protect the average

Unions killed us several decades ago. Unions today are not that big of a problem. Do you know the history of unions? Why they were formed in the first place? Do you even understand what labor abusive policy consisted of? It's clear to me that you don't.

Footwedge;1226265 wrote:Got an example of Obama playing the race card? Didn't think so. Holder is not Obama.

What about this: http://www.barackobama.com/african-americans
[video=youtube;BdjoHA5ocwU][/video]

Quote from his own book,[INDENT]” I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER’S RACE”

“The emotion between the races could never be pure….. the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart.”

“I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites”

He has been the one who has kept racism alive on the front lines of his administration and this country.

[/INDENT]

That video suggests he's a racist? Really? Try again. Try showing something, whereby he claims Whitey is keeping him down, Or Whitey still dominates America. As a politician he is asking for the support of African Americans...and that makes him a racist?

SMH, I think the racism issue is embedded in your head...or you have allowed the race baiters to crack your skull. Did you have a problem with Romney addressing an entire group composed of blacks last week? Well he did. Guess what? Romney was asking for the African American vote. Is Romney also a racist?

I Wear Pants;1226042 wrote:Yeah, unlike the noble venture that was all the birther bull****. :rolleyes: They both blow.

What does the birther issue have to do with Obama/Romney? Unless Romney was a part of the group claiming Obama is a natural born citizen, which I am unaware if he was or not, I don't see the relevance of bringing the issue up. I am merely pointing out that Obama is using smear tactics to which I think is unbecoming of a sitting US president.

dwccrew;1226345 wrote:What does the birther issue have to do with Obama/Romney? Unless Romney was a part of the group claiming Obama is a natural born citizen, which I am unaware if he was or not, I don't see the relevance of bringing the issue up. I am merely pointing out that Obama is using smear tactics to which I think is unbecoming of a sitting US president.

A fuckload of people crying about the tax returns being unfair/irrelevant/bullshit had no problem with people demanding all sorts of different proofs that Obama was a citizen even though it was never an issue because he had provided the relevant documents. Just hypocritical is all. It's fine as long as it's whatever douche party you support, or at least that's the attitude of most people.

I Wear Pants;1226349 wrote:A ****load of people crying about the tax returns being unfair/irrelevant/bull**** had no problem with people demanding all sorts of different proofs that Obama was a citizen even though it was never an issue because he had provided the relevant documents. Just hypocritical is all. It's fine as long as it's whatever douche party you support, or at least that's the attitude of most people.

Ok, I still don't see why that is relevant to what I was saying about Obama being disgraceful as a sitting president feeling the need to run a smear campaign against his opponent, instead of running on his record (most likely b/c Obama can't run on his record). Why do you keep bring up the birther issue? I have never questioned Obama's citizenship nor do I care about that issue. My primary concern is that Obama runs a dirty, sleazy campaign. It comes as no surprise though, Chicago politics at its finest.

I am not a Romney supporter at all, I just think that the POTUS should run a better campaign and not look so desperate as to run smear campaigns with exaggerated "facts".

dwccrew;1226355 wrote:Ok, I still don't see why that is relevant to what I was saying about Obama being disgraceful as a sitting president feeling the need to run a smear campaign against his opponent, instead of running on his record (most likely b/c Obama can't run on his record). Why do you keep bring up the birther issue? I have never questioned Obama's citizenship nor do I care about that issue. My primary concern is that Obama runs a dirty, sleazy campaign. It comes as no surprise though, Chicago politics at its finest.

I am not a Romney supporter at all, I just think that the POTUS should run a better campaign and not look so desperate as to run smear campaigns with exaggerated "facts".

It seemed to work for the last guy with the Swift Boat stuff. I'm guessing that's why they're taking this route because really they're in a similar position to what Bush was in. Polarizing that is.

Not saying it's right, just that's probably the reasoning behind it.

Footwedge;1226319 wrote:You and Jordo need to look him up. Not gonna do it for you. But I will say this. Bill Gates chose to pay his workers above and beyond the going wage for top level computer geeks...much more that what the supposed "market would bear" and, he was a pioneer in promoting flexible hours which ultmately dipped into his bottom line. He followed virtually no so called "pro business" rules as one would read at the top business colleges of the day. He had a renegade style...and he viewed his people as much more than a cost on a balance sheet....something that you and Jordo can't seem to grasp.

In today's world, you are correct. By and large, the oligarchs that control the government policy view the world globally only, and as such, don't care about Americans. All the rhetoric from the political parties is just that...rhetoric...when it comes to helping the job situation in the private sector. Although I will give Obama credit where it is due. He has initiated legislation to correct the outsourcing...something the gutless swine Bush the 43rd would never do.

???? I didn't dispute what he payed his people. When it comes to intellectual propert,y human capital is a significant asset. What have I disputed there? That's not what we have been discussing.

A governemnt from one country isn't going to "correct" outsourcing. Over time, restricting outsourcing will force complete production elsewhere.

I Wear Pants;1226156 wrote:So your argument is that manufacturing jobs are more important than other jobs? Because all I was saying is that a service or other "white collar" job is just as valuable to the economy as a manufacturing job, but most conservatives I talk to seem to disagree.

This. I don't think there's some real, tangible value that comes from being a country filled with people who "make stuff" as opposed to "do stuff." 75 years ago, as the agricultural sector in the US was shrinking through productivity growth, people complained that losing all the farmers would forever alter the state of the US in a worse way because we've be divorced from the land. At this point, fewer than 1% of workers are farmers, yet farm output is at an all-time high. Those who used to work on farms are now productively reemployed in other sectors, providing better returns for the country as a whole.

What makes manufacturing so unique? What arguments apply to manufacturing that don't apply to farming and were already proved wrong?

Manufacturing in the US isn't dying; it's booming. Manufacturing employment is shrinking, but that's because we're able to do more with less. I don't view this as a bad thing.

fan_from_texas;1226439 wrote:.... Manufacturing employment is shrinking, but that's because we're able to do more with less. I don't view this as a bad thing.

This.

Manufacturing production is very high....the labor numbers are not.

It's not a bad thing. It's a great thing. It's efficient and more competitive.

Obama just pizzed away $100 million attacking an issue no one cares about, and didn't even budge the needle. Mittens continues the rope-a-dope strategery to perfection.

Con_Alma;1226445 wrote:This.

Manufacturing production is very....the labor numbers are not.

It's not a bad thing. It's a great thing. It's efficient and more competitive.

And there's a shortage of machine operators and technicians (read: SKILLED labor). Of course, the liberals have made trades a second class citizen. Santorum botched the delivery, but he was villified for suggesting that college doesn't make sense for everyone.

No doubt there are areas of need but when you look across the entirecountry, manufacturing output is very high, while labor numbers reamain low.

fish82;1226628 wrote:Obama just pizzed away $100 million attacking an issue no one cares about, and didn't even budge the needle. Mittens continues the rope-a-dope strategery to perfection.

No one cared about the swift boat stuff either, but the narrative it helped build was enough to carry the president back into the White House in 2004.

The Bain stuff is all about building the narrative, and if you don't see that it is starting to take hold then you might want to look again.

It's not about polls this week or last, but about defining Willard. This stuff is sucking the air out of the room, and not a word has been mentioned about the economy in weeks. That is exactly what the Chicago mob want.

If it wasn't working, you wouldn't see the increasing amount of Republicans of late calling on Willard to release the tax returns.

You are giving the American people far too much credit as far as seeing through all of this as the diversion it is.

IggyPride00;1227030 wrote:No one cared about the swift boat stuff either, but the narrative it helped build was enough to carry the president back into the White House in 2004.

The Bain stuff is all about building the narrative, and if you don't see that it is starting to take hold then you might want to look again.

It's not about polls this week or last, but about defining Willard. This stuff is sucking the air out of the room, and not a word has been mentioned about the economy in weeks. That is exactly what the Chicago mob want.

If it wasn't working, you wouldn't see the increasing amount of Republicans of late calling on Willard to release the tax returns.

You are giving the American people far too much credit as far as seeing through all of this as the diversion it is.

I think you are correct in that the Left wants to paint Mitt as a cheating, scheming, lying businessman that got rich on the backs of others. It is his strength and they're trying to knock him down a peg or two. I suppose it's about the only strategy they have as they can't run on the damage they've done to the economy, their unmitigated assault on the national debt, their corruption of our borders, or anything else they've tried to accomplish in 3.5 years.

Regarding the bolded part, what we're witnessing from the RINOs is the same old tried-and-true tactics of compromising with the other side. If they want all of Mitt's tax returns, why not give them, they say. Just give in and it will all be better. Coalesce and we can all sing kumbaya. Do the Rodney King two-step and see if we can all just get along. Ball-less RINOs that got us to where we are today.

Mitt should go on TV and wave his tax returns at Barry and tell him if he wants 'em, release your college transcripts. That'll shut 'em up. Stand up for what's right, Mitt, and tell those RINOs to go back to their constituents and explain why they gave up their testicles and refuse to fight.

I think you are correct in that the Left wants to paint Mitt as a cheating, scheming, lying businessman that got rich on the backs of others. It is his strength and they're trying to knock him down a peg or two. I suppose it's about the only strategy they have as they can't run on the damage they've done to the economy, their unmitigated assault on the national debt, their corruption of our borders, or anything else they've tried to accomplish in 3.5 years.

It is the Karl Rove strategy of trying to turn your opponents biggest strength into a liability.

In 2004 Democrats thought they had innoculated themselves from national security attacks by nominating a war hero, and Rove managed to turn it into the Swift boat stuff.

Willard has hinged his whole candidacy on his business experience (which is extensive and impressive) so just like Kerry if you can hang a big enough cloud of suspicion over it you get re-elected.

Somewhere I am thinking that Willard wishes they would have litigated this stuff in the primary season instead of having Rush/Hannity and the like shut it down by screaming that Newt was anti-capitalist by bringing this stuff up. Newt gave up that line of attack almost immediately when the hard right started shouting him down for daring to mention it.

It would be old news by now, instead of just blowing up as it is.

IggyPride00;1227030 wrote:No one cared about the swift boat stuff either, but the narrative it helped build was enough to carry the president back into the White House in 2004.

The Bain stuff is all about building the narrative, and if you don't see that it is starting to take hold then you might want to look again.

It's not about polls this week or last, but about defining Willard. This stuff is sucking the air out of the room, and not a word has been mentioned about the economy in weeks. That is exactly what the Chicago mob want.

If it wasn't working, you wouldn't see the increasing amount of Republicans of late calling on Willard to release the tax returns.

You are giving the American people far too much credit as far as seeing through all of this as the diversion it is.

With all due respect, your dislike for Willard is clouding your view. Increasing number of Republicans? Uh, I've seen like a half dozen. :rolleyes:

Where he's screwing up is not engaging Bam on his level, and giving it right back to him. Romney has already proven he knows how to take the gloves off, he showed that in the primary. The only thing that's dinged him so far was asking for an apology instead of counter-punching. That make him look weak.

Everyone keeps comparing this to swiftboating. Swiftboating worked because it was people that Kerry served with speaking out against him. This is just Bam throwing shit against the wall and hoping something sticks. It isn't "defining" bupkis.

Honestly, if Mitt releases 20 years of tax returns tomorrow, what changes?

I detest Romney as a candidate, but no, I don't care about his exercise of private rights.

Honestly, if Mitt releases 20 years of tax returns tomorrow, what changes?

The entire narrative of the "shady businessman what is he looking to hide from the American people" that is festering right now.

One of the new talking points is "he gave McCain 23 years of tax returns when being vetted for VP, why won't he give the American people the same level of disclosure."

The stuff just builds on itself and turns into a narrative.

"What is he hiding" doesn't go away until the tax returns come out. In fact, since it is becoming a bigger issue that is hurting politicially, the fact he won't give in only fuels the "there must be something really bad in there" if he would rather deal with the negative political consequences of keeping them secret than just release them.

It is a straw man, but it is starting to take hold.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/07/do-american-people-care-about-tax-returns-129180.html

[INDENT] Q12. Do you think Mitt Romney should release his tax returns for the last 12 years, or not?
He should......................................................56%
He should not................................................34%
Not sure........................................................10%
Among independents, it's a 61-27 split in favor of releasing the returns.

[/INDENT]

IggyPride00;1227205 wrote:The entire narrative of the "shady businessman what is he looking to hide from the American people" that is festering right now.

One of the new talking points is "he gave McCain 23 years of tax returns when being vetted for VP, why won't he give the American people the same level of disclosure."

The stuff just builds on itself and turns into a narrative.

"What is he hiding" doesn't go away until the tax returns come out. In fact, since it is becoming a bigger issue that is hurting politicially, the fact he won't give in only fuels the "there must be something really bad in there" if he would rather deal with the negative political consequences of keeping them secret than just release them.

It is a straw man, but it is starting to take hold.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/07/do-american-people-care-about-tax-returns-129180.html[INDENT] Q12. Do you think Mitt Romney should release his tax returns for the last 12 years, or not?
He should......................................................56%
He should not................................................34%
Not sure........................................................10%
Among independents, it's a 61-27 split in favor of releasing the returns.

[/INDENT]

Then he's screwed either way. The idea that someone, somewhere won't dig through them until finding some nugget to blow out of proportion to "create the next narrative" is silly.

Like I said, if I'm him, my response is "Barry, I've released every piece of information required by law. But if we want to go down the road of 'what the people need to see,' what say you make with the college transcripts and then I'll bring the tax returns?"

Then he's screwed either way.

Which is why he should have never been allowed to buy the nomination when anyone with half a brain saw this onslaught was coming. It was always going to be a liability that had the potential to be demagogued to hell and back.

It also doesn't help that his father set the precedent in modern American politics by being the first candidate (he lost the nomination fight) to release 12 years of tax returns while seeking the presidency.

Willard also needs to stop saying that releasing them would give Democrats "ammunition" against him (what he told the National Review today).

While it is true, the wording plays into the liberal narrative he has something to hide. Find a better way wording wise to justify not doing it. The guy is the gift that keeps on giving.