Huh? Like freeing slaves, looking out for US intersts, helping out the working man, keeping us strong and supporting our ALLIES?

lincoln?

and here i thought carter was going old school.

it's like the southern strategy never happened.

i'm looking forward to throwing william jennings bryan, bi-metalism, and free silver into a discussion about modern democratic economic proposals.

Freeing slaves? Um, that wasn't a "GOP party" thing, and neither was it what the Civil War was about. And notice how many descendents of those slaves are GOP faithful? That would be ... little to none.

Helping out the working man? Yes, "Vote GOP - signed, the UAW and Teamsters" :D The GOP has never been known for "helping out the working man". Maybe the boss and owner. And the local banker.

Well, Holy Obvious Conclusion Batman -- guess what? The Democrats with their tax hikes don't help ANY working person. By the way -- the guys who went to college and busted their butts studying WORK too, even though they might have to wear a suit instead of another uniform.

The Democrats can care less about the working person -- you know how we can tell? For all the blowhards hollering in Congress, nobody's life has gotten any better getting another 50 cents added to the minimum wage, especially when the owner of the business will then lay people off to cover the wage increase. This is not because he's mean or a Republican, but because he must remain profitable to stay in business or there is no business.

GM and Chrysler's epitaph is already written because the Congress and Obama wanted to save the UAW and could care less about the actual profitability of the two countries. Again, we can tell because they will force GM and Chrysler to make "smaller cars" because they call the shots. Not all Americans want smaller cars, so their losses will continue. When's the next bailout or liquidate meeting?

Nice rant. Wrong century.

Unfortunately, sarcasm does not qualify as an actual rebuttal to a logical argument.

Joey-

You are aware that George W. Bush signed the bill raising the minimum wage in 2007 and the latest increase is simply the last increment of that bill. You are aware of this arent you?

Blaming Chrysler and GM's woes on Obama are about as silly as blaming a fireman for soaking the carpet. Their epitaph's were written long before Obama came into office. They were written long before Obama ran for ANY office.

OK, so Bush passed a minimum wage correction. I didn't say that there should not be a minimum wage -- there should be or we would have workers forced to negotiate their labor down to unsustainable wages. But, that minimum wage, whatever the "reasonable" number is, ought to be corrected at a rate no higher than the amount of inflation or consumer price impact that is necessary to maintain the buying power of that money from year to year.

It should be the result of an equation, not of class warfare speeches and emotional leverage. Problems whose solutions lie in the realm of mathematics should be easy to fix.

The Democrats have gravitated toward that issue as a matter of routine, and, as I said, if you make the employer decide between his profitability and the size of his workforce, he will choose his profit every time. That is the mechanism by which a Democratic Party, the self proclaimed party "of the little guy", can actually hurt its people by causing more of them to be layed off.

Now, had the amount of increase been only a "cost of living" adjustment in the true sense, as I allude to above, there would not be a negative impact on employment.

Chrysler and GM were going to go out of business. So we bailed them out so it would not be necessary for them to go into bankruptcy protection or to liquidate. So after they were given billions by Congress and Obama, they go into bankruptcy anyway? And this bankruptcy, especially for GM which was the more recent, was handled in record time with the U.S. Government getting an almost 70% share of the company. This was done solely to protect the UAW, Obama and the Democrats' powerful union ally. They could give a damn about the company except to make sure that it was not put through a bankruptcy in the traditional sense, because they would be able to break the union as part of those proceedings.

The excesses of that particular union -- unions in general certainly have a legitimate role in preventing workers rights -- have resulted in layed off workers keeping 95% of their wage so that they don't want to come back to work and a lot of other arrangements that run counter to the profitability of the company. If the company folds, the union worker gets nothing, so it is both stupid and silly for the Democrats to advocate so hard for the union worker that they hurt them.

So now, we the taxpayers are unwilling shareholders in two losing companies. If we want our money back, we should let the companies do whatever actually increases profits so they can pay us back, not force them to make cars nobody wants so they can go bankrupt again on our dime. That's the meddling by Obama and the Democrats that I object to.

I didnt say whether its a good thing or a bad thing. YOU said it was a democrat thing and I was merely highlighting a point that seems lost to you-that George W. Bush passed the legislation that raised the minimum wage in three parts. This has nothing to do with Obama although he is in office now when the last of the three parts is coming into effect.

I will comment on your cost of living adjustment idea which is straight out of fantasy land. No offense Joe. You seem like a nice guy. But how in God's name can you adjust minimum employment income by LAGGING INDICATORS that CHANGE MONTHLY????????????????

I think you need to go back to the drawing board on that one.

And the Bio of this piece?...come on..

William McGurn is a Vice President at News Corporation who writes speeches for CEO Rupert Murdoch. Previously he served as Chief Speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

Shoot the messenger....but what did he say that wasn't factual or true? It isn't easy to find political commentary that isnt going to be considered biased. The issue at the core of the piece is still there. Obama is not who he said he was. Bipartisan, LOL. He is the MOST partisan President perhaps ever.

I think partisan only applies when you don't agree with their agenda. And the same probably applies to me..I can't think of one thing that either Bush did and most of what Reagan did that was 'non-partisan". They may have had to advance Democratic bills because of the Senate and House majorities, but this country elected Democrats and that is what he is advancing.

And I'm not sure if this accurate, to be honest, but let me know if either Bush held over a Dem Cabinet member like Obama did a Republican...I'll You Tube Bush's "Reach Out" speech in case you guys forgot it.

If you had read the link your memory of the legislation that Bush got done that was bi partisan would have been refreshed. Biparisan means that it has support from both sides of the aisle, maybe not equal support but more than what has been advanced in 2009. The "Democrats were elected and they get to do whatever they want" argument is a far cry from what was promised to help get the Democrats elected.

Seriously are you going to use the token cabinet member as a show of bipartisan support? That's all you got? Yeah that transportation dept is a vital bipartisan office now. Of course he couldnt find anybody further left in picking his other posts like the fraud who is incharge of the Dept of Labor.

Hey when he has to face a Congress without a majority after the 2010 elections we will see how friendly Obama gets with the other side.

democrats wanted to cooperate with bush after 9/11 for the good of the country.

republicans see obstruction as good for the party. screw the country.

the obvious conclusion is that democrats are too partisan.

best of luck with your republican majority in 2010.

It is hilarious to watch the constant whining by the right wingers in the media and on this forum.

I do agree that hating Bush was pretty much a bi partisan attitude.

Oh the poor right wingers. Read this thread and you can see first hand the problem with your outdated little party. One guy wants to adjust minimum wage with CPI and the other is touting Jeb Bush as your 2012 Presidential candidate.

Keep it up boys.;)

You just inserted your argument into the middle of an exchange about the 1800's :D

There's a difference between hating what Bush did (or what Carter did, or what Regan did, or what Clinton did), and hating Obama. The hate directed against the President personally is disturbing and scary.

Yeah, Bush was repeatedly poked at for being dumb. Where were the daily cries in the media - on the major cable channels - that he was ruining the country, he was Hitler, a communist, a socialist, not an American citizen, etc?

The truely crazy talk was only from the far, far left extremist groups.

I've never seen such overt hate like what is directed towards Obama - not toward the policies, the man - inserted directly into mainstream America, and some people thinking it's acceptable.

That stuff like the utterly ridiculous "Obama isn't a citizen" nonsense even still gets airtime in the mainstream media two years later - unbelievable. Are we really that stupid in this country? Or has our gluttony for all things "reality" desensitized us to crazy and dangerous?

^^^

WHAT THE F.UCK?

People were pretty mean to Bush. It got to the point where I felt kind of sorry for the guy.

OK, sorry -- I admit that I missed parts of this thread as of late.

I'm surprised that it's this soon, but Bush's Administration, for all his mistakes, is already "the good old days". This guy Obama is terrible. And I'm not convinced that he's so brilliant either. Just my opinion.

Wait until you see what Obama has in store for us -- not going to go over well with the non-Marxists here who love freedom.

it's generally the party not in power that starts talking about wanting to be bi-partisan. of course the majority party says 'sure, we'll try' and they do no more in that regard then their opposition did when they were the majority. in reality, otherwise there would be no reason to have a party 'in control', if you're the majority-of course you're going to have more things go your way when you're in control. and since one would have to assume the majority of voters wanted that party in power, then you'd have to think voters aren't necessarily striving for bi-partisanship either. they gave control to the dems for a reason i would think... supposedly our system is set up so that no one gets too powerful-and i think for the most part that is the case.

as for who hates who more, we could spend all day playing tit for tat on any issue regarding left vs right-it would all come out equal in the end. because, at the end of the day, these guys are pols first and last. lieberman and specter prove that point.

Whining? lol. Bankers, now there are some whiners...

What world do you live in? Obama has suffered more personal attacks than Bush? Are you kidding? Far, far left groups like CNN or MSNBC or the NY Times?

Give some examples of overt hate toward Obama. Please enlighten us.

Your finest work ever:tro: :tro: .

Lord....He is Hitler? Never heard that show. The socialist argument I understand and in some ways agree with and although I believe he is a citizen just show the original birth certificate if nothing else to save money on the pending lawsuits. So what if he's a year older he's not pitching in the Little League World Series or anything serious. Think you're getting hate confused with disapprove.

And did you forget about the lefties including a former Dem congresswomen that thought 9-11 was orchestrated by the Bush Admin? Starting a war and killing American soldiers just for personal financial interests or some family vendetta? And Grandpa Bush supporting the Nazi's by supplying them oil in WWII?

He isn't brilliant that's for sure. People are catching on, some just have to be hit over the head repeatedly before it sinks in.

Obama has as much credibility as a pushy used car salesman, or as Vince the Sham Wow pitchman. the only difference is the Sham Wow guy is hawking much better products than Obama, and he doesn't lie as much.

This is poor logic. People dont vote for the entire govt, just their own jurisdiction. The party in power is supposed to be representing the entire citizenship of the country and when bills are passed that dont have a single vote from the opposition party they most certainly are ignoring a large segment of that citizenship. Implying that people are "whining" when major and far reaching legislation is passed time and time again on strict party lines shows a distinct partisanship in itself. Knocking Bush or the GOP doesnt make what the Democrats are doing right or healthy for the country. Labeling the GOP obstructionists when they dont roll over is shows a certain amount of ignorance. The party in charge has the responsibility to reachout in a bipartisan manner, not the minority. Duh!

Riot had to be posting drunk last night.. she was even more off base then usual.

Its hilarious to hear that Obama is more attacked then Bush... Here's the second :zz: for me today on a Riot post!

Bush should be in an orange jumpsuit scrubbing urinals with Madoff right now because of what happened to this economy on his watch, in my estimation.



Cheney, Cox, and Paulson too...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/opinion/21brooks.html

Here maybe this author is more palatible for majority party members in here.

The one thing I cant stand is this freaking stupid birth certificate stuff. It makes people sound plain dumb and makes you not want to listen to anything else they have to say. You really think that a man.. any man or woman.. could become the president of the USA without having a birth certificate that proves he was born here?

Honestly its as dumb and annoying as Bush created 9-11 so he could finish his fathers war. If I never heard mention of Obama's birth Cert ever again I would have a better life.

Amazing. You supposedly are making these huge sums of money in the market yet you want to lash out at those who you claim made it possible? Orangejump suits were made for former USC football players.

It is puzzling because people don't lie on the internet.

LOL. we cant blame our problems on tracks or loose shoes.:p

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...3061950.column

"Just last month, the Hawaii Department of Health confirmed to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that the document is the only official record of the president's birth and proves he was born in that state.

But conspiracy theorists argue that the lack of an underlying paper document (the so-called long-form birth certificate) proves a cover-up.

That ignores multiple truths including this one: Hawaii's records, like those in many states, have gone electronic, and the certification document is accepted by both the state and national government as full proof of citizenship. To insist otherwise is to embrace the notion that thousands upon thousands of Hawaiians have obtained their U.S. passports, using similar documents, fraudulently."

To believe the wild theories, one must also accept that Obama's mother -- rather than apply for citizenship for her son as one would expect if he had been born overseas -- launched an elaborate hoax. It would have begun in 1961 with her placing false birth notices in Honolulu's two daily newspapers. Diabolical.

Oh man...that's good. :D

[quote=ArlJim78]He isn't brilliant that's for sure. People are catching on, some just have to be hit over the head repeatedly before it sinks in.

QUOTE]

You supported bush...and we are supposed to respect your ability to judge intelligence in a president?

Somehow, this all makes sense. :)