Nope. Lots of generalizing going on here. ‘Republicans all want X’…‘Rush or Tea Partiers are the Republicans’…‘all wealthy folks are Republicans’…makes it easy to go after them, I guess.
Rush is one of the self appointed leaders of the GOP. The chairman of the Republican Party answers to Rush. The stage full of would be Republican candidates for POTUS were kissing Rush’s toes. What can a poor democrat do but put tu and tu tugether.
So a big mouth blow hard says he’s important, and you believe him?
A great many Republicans believe him. A great many Republican politicians fear him. And more and more conservative Republicans keep their admiration of Rush “in the closet” these days. When it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and smokes big cigars like a duck but will only get in the water when no one is watching IT’S STILL A DITTO DUCK.
OK, lets forget Rush etc. My problem is that folks seem to think there’s a goldmine of untaxed income in the ‘1%ers’ pockets that will save us. That’s not the case. They’re paying taxes, folks may want to tax them more, but the total $$ aren’t enough to dig us out of the hole we’ve created. A while back I calculated that we’d have to take 80% of ALL income above, I think, $200k just to balance the budget. 80%!
The GOP demands that the pittance paid to the unemployed be cut off while they adamantly support the total elimination of capital gains tax. If my income as a small business owner is taxed at 42% why should the $Billions that the Waltons are paid for sitting on their investments only be taxed at 15%? Why must I pay 250% the rate of billionaires? That’s outrageous. And I am no longer gullible enough to fall for the GOP line that would have me think that they were on my side. I saw the light several years ago.
@Same Many thanks or the references !
As we speak there is little incentive for either party to take any more money from the so called job creators. IMO, it’s not the companies that are the job creators. Henry Ford got that. It’s the consumers that are the real job creators. Putting money in the hands of the consumer expands business. One of the dirty little secrets that conservatives will not tell you is…one the biggest domestic stimulus packages there ever was is Social Security and other welfare benefits. Germany gets it. That’s why guaranteeing minimum income levels for all of it’s people means a win, win for both and consumers and business.
@VDC
Good story. How can anyone look up to Rush, who according to his mother, was a man who couldn’t pass a post seondary academic course if he tried. There are lots of skilled and knowlegible people without degrees but Rush Limbaugh isn’t one of them.
Though neither party has shown the fortitude to really take a lead in doing what is right, I must say that any party that supports and promotes marginalizing the voting rights of it’s people does not deserve to be an integral part of a democracy.
A bill introduced by Montana state Rep. Steve Lavin would give corporations the right to vote in municipal elections:
Provision for vote by corporate property owner. (1) Subject to subsection (2), if a firm, partnership, company, or corporation owns real property within the municipality, the president, vice president, secretary, or other designee of the entity is eligible to vote in a municipal election as provided in [section 1].
(2) The individual who is designated to vote by the entity is subject to the provisions of [section 1] and shall also provide to the election administrator documentation of the entity’s registration with the secretary of state under 35-1-217 and proof of the individual’s designation to vote on behalf of the entity.
Wonder if the Corporation would have to show an id!
https://movetoamend.org/ if you think corporations are not people and want to sign the petition.
So what are your common definitions of people, or singular person, and if you were the judge would you call a corporation a person?
What do people do?
Go to movies, get married, have kids, work at a job, drive to and from work, cut the grass, wash clothes, cars and dishes, vacuum and clean the house, cut the grass, sounds not like a typical corporation to me.
Good story. How can anyone look up to Rush, who according to his mother, was a man who couldn't pass a post seondary academic course if he tried. There are lots of skilled and knowlegible people without degrees but Rush Limbaugh isn't one of them.
Do a google search on Rush’s LIES…and you’ll find HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS. He’s a pathological liar. Anyone remember this quote “Vince Foster Found dead in apartment owned by Hillary Clinton.” And that was TAME compared to some of his other whoppers. He knows just enough facts to convince the person who knows NOTHING…that he knows what he’s talking about.
Well corporations screw people too, just like people. I can understand they are stakeholders in municipal matters but the employees after-all can do the voting to represent the interests of the entity. Sounds really stupid to me.
“So what are your common definitions of people, or singular person, and if you were the judge would you call a corporation a person?”
I will agree that a corporation is a person when I see a corporation behind bars for violating the law.
“Do a google search on Rush’s LIES…and you’ll find HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS. He’s a pathological liar.”
In addition to the lies, let us not ignore his hypocrisy.
From his broadcast pulpit, he has long ranted about drug addicts, yet he was (perhaps still is) strongly addicted to prescription Opiod painkillers.
He has long railed against people who are sexually promiscuous, yet the police in The Dominican Republic found him to be carrying hundreds of doses of Viagra in his luggage when he arrived there for a one-week vacation. Whether he was going to engage in mass promiscuity or whether he was intending to sell those drugs, either way his actions were further strong evidence of his hypocrisy.
I need one of you to take credit for this great idea. If we give corporations the right to vote like people, they also loose the rights of corporations with the CEO, or whomever has that right, being personally held accountable for any malefesants. Corporate law presently provides immunity from personal liability for wrongdoing by the coloration at large. an entirely different set of laws relative to corporate liability exist for corporation…they want they cake and eat it too. Watch out if any laws like this get passed.
@MikeInNh
If you remember the Romney fubar during the debate when he accused Obama of not calling the attack on our embassy and “act of terror”. Most of these guys operate (Rush especially) in their own world. They keep repeating so many lies, even they start believing it themselves. When pushed, politicians will cite sources for their comments from think tanks that support their own cause whose sole job it seems is to come up with a big enough lie.
In addition to the lies, let us not ignore his hypocrisy.
He’s also known as a chicken-hawk…He’s constantly talking about sending our troops into war yet he was too chicken to serve himself. After applying for several deferments he finally was given a 4F (after his politically connected father made some connections)…for a boil on his butt. I was in the Army with men who had reconstructed knee-surgery and Rush gets a pass for a boil on his butt??? Give me a break…And EVERY SINGLE ONE of the ditto heads I know of…NOT ONE HAD THE GUTS TO SERVE THEIR COUNTRY…Just like Rush…and Chaney.
Rush Limbaugh was born into the entitlement mindset of the overly indulged child. His father was one of the owners of a Cape Girardeau radio station where Rush was handed a microphone and told he was a star. But like so many successful people these days who were born on third base he insists he hit a triple.
1 Like
Koch Brothers considering purchase of Tribune company newspapers.
Clarence Page, a liberal Chicago Tribune columnist who opposes Koch ownership, said the Kochs “seem to be coming in upfront with the idea of using a major news media as a vehicle for their political voice."
“Murdoch, for all his flaws, is a newspaper man. The Kochs are not,” a Chicago Tribune journalist told media writer Jim Romenesko. “I have no faith in their belief in the importance of a free and robust watchdog press. Frankly, such a press seems antithetical to their goals and harmful to their influence in the political process.”
The Tribune Co., emerging from bankruptcy and looking to reshape itself, is now considering the sale of all its newspapers — including the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, The Baltimore Sun and five other regional newspapers. It’s still very early in the sale process; although the newspaper unit has been valued at $623 million, significant debts are also attached, and Tribune has signaled that it reserves the right not to sell if there isn’t a worthy bid.
Possible buyers of those papers include David and Charles Koch,
some info from http://www.npr.org/2013/04/26/179179653/billionaire-koch-brothers-increase-their-role-in-u-s-politics
The greatest lie of the Republican Party continues to be babbled, though
Tax cuts will not increase tax revenue. To cut the deficit and pay the bills taxes must be raised on those who are profiting most from the current economic situation.
Gosh look at what happened, thanks @rod_Knox
And regarding drug testing for entitlements to single mothers. Here in the state of Mississippi, maternity hospitals run blood tests on mothers and if they test positive for illegal drugs the law requires that the results are forwarded to social services and local law enforcement. Often the mother is not allowed to take the newborn home until social services has investigated the situation and finds there is adequate support at home. Many babies are put in foster care, never being turned over to their mothers.
^
I don’t think that is unique to Mississippi, Rod.
My last job was as a Paralegal for NJ’s child protective agency, and I wrote many court complaints as a result of mothers testing positive for dangerous drugs during the course of their maternity hospitalization.
Sometimes the new-born babies also tested positive for drugs, and in those cases, the child was immediately placed into the custody & care of the state, and turned over to foster parents.
In other cases, only the mother was found to be “under the influence”, and she was allowed to take the baby home, albeit with weekly social worker visits, and weekly urine tests for drugs. A second failed drug test would result in the child being taken away, and placed in foster care.
In both instances, if the mother was able to show “clean” results on weekly urine screens for one year, then the matter was considered to be resolved, and custody was no longer an issue. If the mother could not remain “clean” for one year, then I had to write the court complaint seeking to sever the woman’s guardianship of the child, and we won every one of these cases. Family Court judges will not allow young children to remain in the custody of drug-addicted mothers.