Dec 7, 2013 at 19:40:03
“It's quite possible Mr Ramos couldn't answer that question. Personally, I don't think his knowledge of economic issues, and many other things, is all that great. He may be very much in favor of immigration reform and concerned about the deportation and general circumstaces of undocumented fellow Mexicans in this country, but don't think that makes him a big leftist or liberal, one concerned with workers exploitation and such. If you really listen to Ramos, you get the idea that he's overall quite conservative.”
roger allen on Dec 7, 2013 at 20:22:51
“Ramos is a LaRaza "All Illegal, all the time" traitor.”
“I believe he's turned down the fancy castle and probably the "trinkets". At any rate, the castle isn't his but comes with the job. He should be careful inviting strangers over, though, seeing how in a very short time he's already stepped on a lot of toes.
Regardles of how one feels about the Church, this Pope seems to be a nice one, someone who may bring needed change. A pope who manages to arouse suspicion in Sarah Palin is probably one on the right track.”
illinidiva on Dec 4, 2013 at 07:18:56
“Apparently he has had strangers over to stay with him at least once. One family with a desperately one-year-old girl, Noemi, got a cold call from the Pope as well as a visit from "Don Corrado" and an invite to Domus Santa Marta. Francis had everyone pray for Noemi at his weekly general audience. However, inviting over random homeless people is probably not in the cards.
I do think that Francis may turn Castel Gandolfo into something because he certainly isn't going to be using it.”
“I don't know... then why did he keep so quiet during the Bush administration? With so many opportunies to make that point! ..when lies had such terrible consequences!
I'm just saying... I don't kow.”
creek73 on Dec 4, 2013 at 07:31:23
“....could be because he was pushing those "lies" before Bush was in office.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998”
KBHallSr on Dec 4, 2013 at 01:58:31
“Bill kept quiet because it didn't serve his purpose”
marinemomof3 on Dec 4, 2013 at 00:58:51
“Thank you for remembering our military, Fav'd, already a Fan !!”
“I am opposed to money inpolitics period. The system must be changed, but try to get Republicans to vote for that. The system is as it is, open to corruption , more so than in some so-called less developed countries we look down on. Big money, particularly corporate money, is a threat to democracy. We now have corporate advocates in the judicial branch of govt - Supreme Court judges who tell us that McDonald's is a person with the same rights as an individidual and that whatever money McDonalds, Walmart or any other corporation wishes to contribute should be considered as their constitutional right, same as you and I have - money is free speech, which means their right to free speech is far bigger than ours.
Knowing the role money plays in political campaigns...who would you want on your side if you were running for office? McDonalds, the multinational corporation, or the person cooking your burger for $7 an hour?
Then maybe I shouldn't be telling you all this, seeing as you seem so very fond of McDonalds and their CEOs and so determined to defend them. I can only say, don't let your hostility for Obama, Oprah, Eric Holder or whoever blind you as towhereyour interests lie. It is not with McDonalds or their CEOs - they're doing quite well, better than ever. Your support is more needed by thosewho work long , hard hours selling their products and get little in return.”
mcgowann on Dec 4, 2013 at 00:07:20
“Nobody is forcing anyone to work at Walmart or McDonald's (which are mostly franchisees). If they don't feel they're being paid enough, they can quit and look for work elsewhere.
As long as businesses pay taxes, then business owners have the right to group together to raise funds for candidates who are pro-business. The current administration has been passing 6,000 new business regulations a year and new regulations cost businesses over $40 billion this year alone. If they can't group together to support candidates of their choice and oppose ANTI-business candidates, then the people who own those businesses have lost their freedom of speech. That's why the Supreme Court upheld Citizens United. Without Citizens United, businesses can't defend themselves agains an abusive and over-reaching government who opposes business.
I don't eat at McDonald's because it always gives me indigestion. However, I owned 2 IHOP franchises for 12 years and I think that those of you thinking the McDonald's franchisee's can afford to pay their employees $15 an hour don't realize that would bankrupt about 80% of them. The franchisees do work hard along with their employees. I think most of you don't understand the logistics of their corporate offices either in overseeing 35,000 locations and supplying proprietary items to all of them. It's so much more complicated than most of you assume.”
“Right, because those at the top, billion dollar corporations and their mi/billonaire CEOs, have nothing to do with those elected to government, those who pass legislation that for some strange coicidence benefit those at the very top, those who (also coincidentally) have most generously contributed to their campaign without which funds they would be unable to run, much less win and be in aposition to pass and support laws tha benefit ... well you get the idea
Here's a clue: The Koch brothers have not been handing out millions to politicians out of charity and compassion. The brothers are getting a lot more in return. Much more than the average contributor with average income who is then distracted and riled up, not against the big money contributor thats making a mock of democracy, but against all that "government waste", i.e. programs for the poor, the disabled, hungry children and other such "moochers" (who often refer to those low wage workers whose labor creates much of the wealth for those at the top).
McDonald's and their CEOs may not write tax laws and other legislation that benefits them greatly, but those they put in government through large contributions do. Of course they now can keep all that even more hidden from us, the lowly public ... but you have to wonder why.”
mcgowann on Dec 3, 2013 at 22:53:30
“And there aren't any rich people who handed Obama's campaign or Democrats any money??? Maybe like George Soros, Warren Buffet, Oprah Winfrey, the rich in Hollywood, the music industry and professional athletes. What about GE, who owned NBC and MSNBC, who were big contributors to Obama and the Democrats. Then with Obama's "Green Energy" tax breaks, GE paid zero taxes on $14 Billion in profit. Their CEO, Jeffrey Imelt, was made Obama's jobs czar the same year that he shipped 20,000 U.S. jobs to China. The Koch brothers broke no laws and did nothing but support candidates they beleived in, just as Obama's rich donors did.
Since the SEIU has been trying to unionize Walmart and McDonald's, Huffington Post is looking for any reason to write something negative about them. They broke no laws and other businesses are using the same loophole. It's extremely misleading to call it a "subsidy". If they were breaking tax law, then Attorney General Eric Holder and the IRS can go after them. But that's not the case. They broke no law.
If you took 100% of the McDonald's CEO's $13 million salary and divided it up between their 1.7 million employees, that would be a one time $8 bonus for each of them. This tax law is used by every business, not just McDonald's. Why don't you go after all of them instead of just the one company the SEIU is attempting to unionize.”
“I agree that there's a certain nastiness in it, but I also see a Marie Antoinette-like detached attitude and ignorance about those beneath - a real lack of understanding of the struggles of average people and of their circumstances. We saw that most clearly in the last presidential campaign in Mitt Romney.”
“A loophole can still be a tax accounting practice. It doesn't legitimize it nor does it make it fair or morally acceptable. The one thing it shows is that the system is rigged for the benefit of a very small but powerful group. That system can be changed...if at some point, it will becomes unsustainable.”
craguilar on Dec 4, 2013 at 08:16:09
“The system is rigged for special interests, and they come from all sides of the political spectrum. Want less rigging? Get government out of the economy.”
mcgowann on Dec 3, 2013 at 19:54:18
“So, when you do your taxes, do you tell your accountant or H&R Block to make sure you pay a "fair or morally acceptable" amount in taxes or do you only pay as much as you actually owe? I don't think it's "fair or morally acceptable" how much waste, fraud, and abuse there is related to government spending. They're the ones who write the tax laws, not the CEO of McDonald's. They're the ones who rig the system. They are the small powerful group who write the tax code and wastefully spend our tax dollars.”
“Arrogance and cluelessness. The income gap, or rather chasm, and wealth inequality in America has become such that those at the very top have lost any understanding, much less empathy, for those below them ... in this case, way way below.”
hdvh56 on Dec 3, 2013 at 20:15:59
“I read somewhere that we now have the same level of income disparity as Somalia.”
dquandle on Dec 3, 2013 at 19:10:19
“You give them too much credit. They are far more nasty than clueless. They understand perfectly. They just don't care, and consider themselves worthy of the wealth they have plundered, while considering the lives they have ruined, expendable and using Madeleine Albright's words when describing the deaths of millions of Iraqis whom she and the regime she worked for killed, "worth the cost".”
“You are right. Our government, one party in particular, has put into place legislation that's brought about a huge redistribution of wealth, from the bottom to the very top where wealth has now accumulated as never before in the history of this country. As those at the top acquire greater political power, they can continue to rig the system for their profit and benefit and to the disadvantage of the rest.”
“Most people? The key word in your comment is MOST. It shows how little you know and/or think of others, how fond you're of sweeping and mindless generalizations basedon no real facts...or maybe it just shows a tendency to project onto others issues you deal with .
Look around and you'll see people working hard, many of them struggling to make ends meet or just to get by, in spite of their labor. Go into your local Walmart and look at people working, bringing billions in profit to a corporation that encourages them in return to supplement their low wages with government assistance and charity. Pay attention and you may just figure out what this notion of wealth distribution is all about. You may also come to understand how it does,too, affect you.”
“The only thing clear tome is that Abraham Lincoln would not be in today's Republican Party, nor would he be welcome by most of its members. Same goes for Eisenhower, what with his warnings about military industrial complexes. Who knows, maybe even Reagan himself would be suspect to the Tea people inthe party.
Aa far as al those past presidents being. libertarians at heart, you can only speculate. Personally, I find it difficult to conceive being a. a true libertarian without being a big hypocrite. It is also far more fun fancying oneself a Libertarian at a very young age, but not so much as one matures. I think of poor Ms Rand finding herself old and seriously ill and opting to rely on government run health care -- you never know when that socialist stuff can come in handy.”
pgaert on Dec 3, 2013 at 00:02:42
“No, I can read. "I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men’s rights." "You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves." Gosh... I'm not sure if the person who said that was of Libertarian mindset. ;)”
“sorry, but my previous reply was posted with some errors be fore I could edit it, so it may be difficult to understand.
The point is that you cannot go back to Abraham Lincoln or even to Eisenhower or to Republicans of the civil rights era and claim that they represent or even mildly resemble today's GOP. It is also misleading to point to the actions of Southern Democras, many of them racist segregationists, ignoring the fact that the Democratic Party was at that time the party of the South, where it had originated, and that these Dixie Democrats were only represent the views and attitudes of white Southern voters. Republicans, on the other hand, represented Northern states as there were also many Republicans who spoused progressive and "liberal" ideas that would never be tolerated in present day GOP,a very different party than that of the civil rights era...and certainly of Abe Lincoln days.
I can understand the temptation to. ignore history and toss some facts out there totally out of context hoping that no one will notice. But the fact remains that it was a Democratic president that passed the Civil Rights Act, a most important piece of legislation that today Republicans feel is no longer necessary. You should also ask yourself why did all those Southern Dixiecrats decided to switch parties and found a new home in the GOP.”
pgaert on Dec 2, 2013 at 20:36:03
“In fact, what one does is look at a broad portfolio of political beliefs... it's clear, for example, that Abraham Lincoln were he transplanted to modern times would be quite a hard core Libertarian, as would virtually every President who preceded him and most of those up to FDR. JFK's views are well-aligned with today's conservatism, particularly fiscally, and he would make a fine Tea Party member... forced to vote Republican, for lack of truly fiscally conservative party these days.
Looking back, it is the communists, socialists, and eugenists of the early- to mid-twentieth century who would be the lone pols of old slotted into today's Democrat party.
There are, of course, good reasons to observe that much of the CRA of 1964 is no longer necessary. Despite liberal claims to the contrary, we are a vastly different country than in 1964.”
“By "Democrats", are you talking of the Dixiecrats? The Strom Thurmonds and other segregationists of those days? Because sure, they were Democrats, as governor George Wallace was.
The problem with people who use this argument - that there were many racists in the Democratic Party once who favored segregation while many Republicans did not - is that you're iiouiousing these facts out of historical context without going any deeper into this country's history, either because you aren't quite familiar with the facts or because you expect others are. Or both.”
“What do I know....I'll leave it to the RNC and experts like Michele Bachman to teach us about these things. I figure that back when the GOP decided to welcome segegationist Dixiecrats into their part, they weren't thinking. of Abrahan Lincoln.”
pgaert on Dec 2, 2013 at 09:19:08
“So this would be right after these Democrats stood firmly against the Civil Rights Act, being pushed by... Republicans?”
“In case you didn't know, Rosa Parks ended racism just as our founders worked tirelessly to end slavery --Michele Bachman
(Republicans know about this stuff)”
pgaert on Dec 1, 2013 at 21:35:03
“So you're referring to the 3/5th rule, the brilliant maneuver that denied the South the voting power to maintain the institution of slavery under the principles of the Constitution? Psst... Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, who certainly did know a thing or two about ending slavery.”