Political Update

[WuDrWu]

Democrats have no faith in the markets, only faith in themselves to control them.

I would also contend that the vast majority of minimum wage jobs are entry level/part time/little or no experience required jobs and not intended by the EMPLOYEE to be a living wage job.


I love this sentence by RS but I also think it can be expanded to include the vast majority of politicians that are so arrogant that they think they are the only ones capable of making decisions that affect all of us.

The power wielded by the folks in office forever (and as conservative as I am, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd and Henry Waxman are not much more of a problem than Orin Hatch, Lindsey Graham and Todd Tiahrt) and the arrogance associated with that tenure and power is a BIG part of our political problem in my opinion.

We must have term limits for all of our federal elected officials if we ever want to truly change the status quo.

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

Democrats have no faith in the markets, only faith in themselves to control them.

We must have term limits for all of our federal elected officials if we ever want to truly change the status quo.

I oppose term limits for one reason and one reason only...they already exist.

Every 2, 4, or 6 years an officials term is up and he/she must reapply with his/her constituents. They decide whether or not they remain in office.

While I do believe some people overstay thier worthiness, the power is in the hands of the people, and they are the ones who for 4 years complain about the state of Washington, and how they wish things would change. Then they go to the voting booth and ask their spouse, "Who do we usually vote for?"

I hate to say it, but the ploy in "The Distinguished Gentleman" would actually garner a large number of votes in today's world. That is scary.

[WuDrWu]

Democrats have no faith in the markets, only faith in themselves to control them.

We must have term limits for all of our federal elected officials if we ever want to truly change the status quo.

I oppose term limits for one reason and one reason only...they already exist.

Every 2, 4, or 6 years an officials term is up and he/she must reapply with his/her constituents. They decide whether or not they remain in office.

While I do believe some people overstay thier worthiness, the power is in the hands of the people, and they are the ones who for 4 years complain about the state of Washington, and how they wish things would change. Then they go to the voting booth and ask their spouse, "Who do we usually vote for?"

I hate to say it, but the ploy in "The Distinguished Gentleman" would actually garner a large number of votes in today's world. That is scary.

DTSB,

In theory I totally agree with you that we already have term limits; they are called elections. HOWEVER, in the application we have skewed the playing field so far in favor of re-election AND we have (actually the people in power have voted themselves) given them the perks and money and benefits that make it almost insane to give up (salary, health benefits, power, staff, ability to contact their own constituents, redistricting etc) that it is almost impossible to vote one of these arrogant asses from office. It really takes a monumental blunder on their own behalf to force themselves out.

[WuDrWu]

Example:


In the past 5 months I have gotten 5 phone calls, 3 mailers and at least 4 emails from Todd Tiahrt and every last one of these contacts is at the taxpayers expense.

What chance does a possible opponent have to get his or her name out there at even 1/10 the same rate?


Answer, none unless that person is a self made billionaire.

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

Monumental Blunder....

Air Force Tanker Deal....

I think an opponent has a very good chance at the next election to unseat each and every KS Rep and Senator.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Just a couple of blogs I read.

you can read it and take it in FWIW. Or completley blow it off. Doesnt matter. The important thing is you dont take one sides take of it and completly run with it. You can atleast gets 2 sides to the story. And I dont mean the one sides version or things.

http://www.xxlmag.com/online/?p=20462

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/

*FYI Disclaimer - When I say one side im not calling anybody out. Whether your you are to the right or to the left. Conservative or Liberal, Gay or Straight - to many times people listen to just one side and thats actual truth and fact*

[SFL]

This explains everything!!! :D


Political Science for Dummies


DEMOCRATIC

You have two cows.

Your neighbor has none.

You feel guilty for being successful.

Barbara Streisand sings for you.

REPUBLICAN

You have two cows.

Your neighbor has none.

So?

SOCIALIST

You have two cows.

The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.

You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.

COMMUNIST

You have two cows.

The government seizes both and provides you with milk.

You wait in line for hours to get it.

It is expensive and sour.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE

You have two cows.

You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE

You have two cows.

Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk the other, and then pours the milk down the drain.

AMERICAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.

You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses.

Your stock goes up.

FRENCH CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You go on strike because you want three cows.

You go to lunch and drink wine.

Life is good.

JAPANESE CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk

They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.

Most are at the top of their class at cow school.

GERMAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.

Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.

ITALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows but you don't know where they are.

While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman.

You break for lunch.

Life is good.

RUSSIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You have some vodka.

You count them and learn you have five cows.

You have some more vodka.

You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.

The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.

TALIBAN CORPORATION

You have all the cows in Afghanistan , which are two.

You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts.

You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons.

IRAQI CORPORATION

You have two cows.

They go into hiding.

They send radio tapes of their mooing.

POLISH CORPORATION

You have two bulls.

Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.

BELGIAN CORPORATION

You have one cow.

The cow is schizophrenic.

Sometimes the cow thinks he's French, other times he's Flemish.

The Flemish cow won't share with the French cow.

The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow's milk.

The cow asks permission to be cut in half.

The cow dies happy.

FLORIDA CORPORATION

You have a black cow and a brown cow.

Everyone votes for the best looking one.

Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally vote for the black one.

Some people vote for both.

Some people vote for neither.

Some people can't figure out how to vote at all.

Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you think is the best-looking cow.

CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

You have millions of cows.

They make real California cheese.

Only five speak English.

Most are illegals.

[Ixiah]

Democrats have no faith in the markets, only faith in themselves to control them. This isn't the early 20th century anymore. If an employer doesn't pay a competitive wage, their competitor will and the cheapskate will be unable to hire quality help and lose business.

Okay lets use something similar and see how your 'theory' stacks up. Lets say I want to borrow money and go to a bank. They will then look through my financial history, stability of employment, wages per year, etc. A decision is made and I am either given the loan, denied, or perhaps offered it at very high rate of interest. Now under your theory I could just go to bank after bank until I essentially got what I want. Do you honestly think that would happen? Of course not. The market would set the rate based upon how desperate the need.

Finding employment is very similar to this. The employer is going to evaluate your abilities, work history, etc and decide your risk. If its high they will either turn you down or exploit you.

The minimum wage is like usury laws - it limits predatory practices. One has only to view all those payday loans places to realize there are plenty ready, willing, and able to exploit the desperate. As Herbert Hoover once said "You know, the only trouble with capitalism is capitalists. They’re too darn greedy".

Btw guys....don't want to sound like a socialist. I am a staunchly in favor of capitalism but I do strongly believe in some government or industry self regulation. One has only to look at the cattle industry and see the small fortune lost because of mad cow disease due to some slaughterhouses desire to pinch pennies.

Also there are certain instances where the free market does not work well such as healthcare (insure only those that done need it).

[WuDrWu]

Tort reform.

[Ixiah]

Tort reform.

I'll agree with that -- I served on a jury and listened to a case where a lady got her hair caught in a machine. There was no theoretical way she could have done what she said she did and have her hair get caught. Still, only an engineer and myself thought she was in any way responsible for her own injuries.....

[SubGod22]

Tort reform.

I'll agree with that -- I served on a jury and listened to a case where a lady got her hair caught in a machine. There was no theoretical way she could have done what she said she did and have her hair get caught. Still, only an engineer and myself thought she was in any way responsible for her own injuries.....

What ever happened to personal responsibilities? I understand there are exceptions but something NEEDS to be done. The system has been abused for years.

[wu_shizzle]

New Hillary video

[jocoshock]

On my first on-campus job interview in the fall of 1979 or spring of 1980, I interviewed with Garvey Industries, the Wichita based family owned agribusiness empire. A man came in and introduced himself as the president of Amortibanc, an GI subsidiary involved in Real Estate development. He then said, "come on in and I will introduce you to Mr. Garvey." Lo and behold there in all his splendor was Willard Garvey, the second generation head of GI, a man whose personal net worth had to be around $100 million. Dressed in a Shocker gold blazer, he proudly told me was a conservative Republican who did not believe in big government (this is just before the Reagan Revolution). In the very next breath, he proceded to tell me about the millions and tens of millions of dollars his companies (plural) made off government subsidies to agriculture, foreign aid, an numerous other forms of corporate welfare. He ended this elevator speech, by saying, "Hey, I don't make the rules, I just play by them."

It took several years for me to realize that any talk of big government vs. small, or self-reliance and personal responsibility on the part of conservatives is really that just talk. The reality is that EVERYONE in this country relies on the government in some form or another. Big government is only big when the money is not going into the hands of the party you support. When it's going into your pockets (Republican or Democrat) then hey! Your're not not making the rules, your're just playing by them. This was confirmed by a very good conservative repuclican friend of mine (and KU grad) when he said he lived by the Golden Rule (he who has the gold, makes the rules).

This talk of Reverend Wright is a sham. I am sure many of you feel the way you fee because of who you are and it doesn't fit your view of the world. The fact is that many conservative, evangelical ministers have said things just as outrageous (and they are on YouTube also). Whether a political candidate went to their church for 20 years or not, thousands of conservative, republican, causcasions attend those churches every Sunday. Do you not think this causes concern with people who may not share those views? Rob Parsley, who suports McCain accuses the federal government of practicing genocide on African Americans through Planned Parenthood, James Hagee has videos where he calls the Catholic Church, the great whore, and says Hitler justified the Holocaust by saying he wasn't doing anything the Catholic Church didn't do, he was just doing it quicker and with more passion (paraphrasing). And John McCain SOUGHT OUT HIS ENDORSEMENT.

Do you ever stop to think that other people regardless of skin color, race or ethnicity, might find those types of folks frightening, or question the Christianity or patriotism of people who support them?

For the record, I am a middle-aged, college educated, white, independent voter who does not subscribe to the ideology of either party. I did not become an Independent to hide from anything (as SFL or some other poster wrote). I did it because this country has been locked into some kind of all-or-nothing ideological meltdown for at least twenty years. I don't recognize Republicans or Democrats as having the values they used to stand for, which by the way, allowed for rational discussion and compromise on issues and values in order to get things done. I for one am FAR less scared of what Reverend Wright said than I am from people I hear on Talk Radio everyday.

I also find it interesting by the way that we, WSU graduates, are having this discussion on a forum dedicated to WSU basketball. Had it not been for big government, and the redistribution of wealth, courtesy of the State of Kansas, there would be no Wichita State University. The University of Wichita would likely have closed it's doors, and if so, where would all of us hard-working, working-class guys/gals have gotten our education? Just like Willard Garvey, we didn't make the rules, "we just played by them."

[ABC]

Big government is only big when the money is not going into the hands of the party you support. When it's going into your pockets (Republican or Democrat) then hey! Your're not not making the rules, your're just playing by them.

This talk of Reverend Wright is a sham. I am sure many of you feel the way you fee because of who you are and it doesn't fit your view of the world. The fact is that many conservative, evangelical ministers have said things just as outrageous (and they are on YouTube also).

Please provide a link to an evangelical preacher saying anything even approaching what Rev. Wright said. "G** Damn America."

Republican were defeated in 2006 at least in part b/c they did become that party of big government. The Repulicans are the party of big government and the Democrats are the party of bigger government.

However, many Republican/conservative/free market folks are very consistent on fiscal issues, which is why many stayed home and didn't vote for the big-govt conservatives. So your statement that "big government" is defined when your party is out of power simply isn't true.

Just look at the rhetoric of Obama/Clinton and many Demcrat party leaders. They want to raise taxs which will make govt bigger.

[SubGod22]

I know a lot of conservative republicans who have been pretty upset with the republican party for the past 20 years or so. I don't know all there is about either party, just enough to know neither one has it entirely correct. But there's almost two parties within each and they're fighting for power. I notice it more on the republican side since that's where the majority of my friends are and the way I lean.

Regardless, voters need to stop voting for who the media tells them too and start paying attention and doing thier own research. I find it hard to believe that the three still running are the best this nation and either party has to offer.