Friday, July 27, 2012

On Cory Booker

The Cory Booker who stood up for venture capitalism and was "nauseated" by negative campaigning - thumbs up.......The Cory Booker who backtracked and capitulated to the Obama and Axelrod "everyone must conform to the blue-plate special" mind-machine - thumbs down.

35 comments:

w-dervish said...

Thumbs down.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

That's easy for you, wd. You're all thumbs (probably one of the reasons why you can't get a job).

w-dervish said...

It makes sense, that as a wealthy worshiping stooge you'd approve of Cory Booker's defense of the job destroying Bain. And, you believing that most of the people you work with are losers explains why they all hate you so much.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Huh? Where did I EVER say that most of the people that I work with are losers and that they hate me? 70-80% of them I genuinely respect and have excellent relations with. Only the lazy ones who show up late and/or hungover do I not respect and even them I'm quite respectful to.......You're just making shit up now.

Rational Nation USA said...

wd's BACK, and as delusional and ill informed as ever!

w-dervish said...

I know these facts about you the same way you know what you think you know about me.

dmarks said...

Will said: "Only the lazy ones who show up late and/or hungover do I not respect and even them I'm quite respectful to..."

Sounds like your workplace needs a union, in order to stand up for them!

Rusty Shackelford said...

I dont have a problem with Cory Booker or how he walked back his comment.When you're dealing with a common as dirt Chicago machine,the line must be toed.Booker has his eye on higher office and if he wants the partys backing he did what he had to do.

Booker has done a good job running a city that 10 years ago resembled what Detriot is today.

Take a lesson here WD....us conservatives can give praise to a dem.

dmarks said...

No wealthy-worwhipping in the above comment. Or from anyone else's comment in known history on this blog, at least.

Rational Nation USA said...

@ wd... you said - "I know these facts about you the same way you know what you think you know about me."

Gibberish from a mind filled filled with gibberish thoughts is your specialty wd.

Perhaps the most partisan goosestepping leftist ideologue I've ever had occasion to read is you wd. Nothing but hidebound progressive ideological drivel and blind dogma springs from your keyboard of rainbows and unicorns dude.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I noticed that all of my conservative colleagues (save for maybe HR) were at least willing to consider Mr. Schumer's compromise. wd, Ema, and Jerry I'm still waiting on (I'm guessing that Marcus and John Myste would be far more willing)............."Nothing but hidebound progressive ideological drivel and blind dogma springs from your keyboard of rainbows and unicorns dude." Les! LOL Hey, Russ, you got some competition here.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And, Russ, I would also say that Cuomo (NY) and Malloy (CT) have also done some decent governing. Compare this to wd who's never said a good thing about any Republican, not even Eisenhower or Rockefeller.

w-dervish said...

Not sure I understood all of RN's gibberish but it sounded like a compliment. I thank him for that. Apparently he has lost the ability to read and comprehend the English language...

As for compromising, I'm with Jerry on this. There is no longer any need to compromise... we simply allow the tax cuts to expire. Although, if the Republicans wanted to compromise I'm sure the Democrats would accept the figure Chuck Schumer put forward. I'd be OK with either outcome... although I'm hoping they don't compromise and the Democrats stand fast.

As for dead Republicans, yes, there were some decent ones. They just have nothing to do with the current Republican Party and I don't spend much time thinking about them.

dmarks said...

"....we simply allow the tax cuts to expire."

Which is really a tax hike; one that clobbers the middle-class most of all.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

You think a lot about dead Democratic Presidents to the point where try to whitewash their misdeeds.

dmarks said...

Rusty said: "Booker has done a good job running a city that 10 years ago resembled what Detriot is today."

As opposed to a man who is perhaps the worst mayor in history, Coleman A. Young, who took the vibrant Arsenal of Democracy and turned it into what Detroit is today.

Chief Pontiac and his alliance of Native Americans tried to destroy Detroit 200 years before, but Coleman A. Young finally succeeded. And the damage was so bad that the work of decent honest men like Mayors Archer and Bing can't seem to make much of a dent in it.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Which is really a tax hike; one that clobbers the middle-class most of all.

If it clobbers dmarks I'm all for it.

Will: You think a lot about dead Democratic Presidents to the point where [you] try to whitewash their misdeeds.

I've never done this.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

LBJ (starting a vile and unnecessary war), FDR (violating the 1864 Geneva Conventions).

dmarks said...

it is not surprising from you, WD. It fits in with your general idea that tax policy should mainly be used as a way for government to punish people in a fashion that violates the due process requirements of the Constitution.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: ...your general idea that tax policy should mainly be used as a way for government to punish people in a fashion that violates the due process requirements of the Constitution.

I don't believe that at all. I was joking... or lying (which is what dmarks calls jokes by people he doesn't like).

The Democrats plan on introducing new legislation to lower tax rates on 250k and under after the old legislation expires. It is the way to go, since Republicans can't vote for the Democrat's legislation until the old legislation expires... due to them taking their marching orders from some guy named Grover... instead of the voters.

Will: LBJ (starting a vile and unnecessary war), FDR (violating the 1864 Geneva Conventions).

I didn't "whitewash" either of those. What about your whitewashing of bush's war crimes?

dmarks said...

" due to them taking their marching orders from some guy named Grover... instead of the voters."

Their promise to Grover (to be fiscally responsible and not further impoverish America by plundering more money from people) is rather popular with the voters, and for good reason.

w-dervish said...

Grover's pledge concerns legally collected taxes, not "plundering". As such, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote. Since this this "promise to Grover" you describe does not exist it is impossible for it to be "rather popular" with the voters.

That said, Grover Norquist's actual pledge is unpopular with the voters, as polls show a majority of voters support raising taxes on the wealthy.

dmarks said...

Like pirates on the high seas: forcibly taking someone's property. But legal, yes. So it is legal plundering.

And anyone who is civicaly aware realizes that this is something that should only be done when absolutely necessary, not willy-nilly, and not for bad reasons (unjustified reasons include wanting to "punish" people using the tax cude. This violates the principle of due process).

"That said, Grover Norquist's actual pledge is unpopular with the voters, as polls show a majority of voters support raising taxes on the wealthy."

Actually, most are opposed to the ruling elites forcibly taking more of the people's property.

Sorry, WD, not as many people are greedy and jealous like you.

w-dervish said...

Sorry dmarks, not as many people are greedy like you... when the government borrows money (like for illegal wars, for instance) the taxpayer is obligated to pay it back. dmarks is a deadbeat who wants to go to war but not pay back the money we borrowed to do so.

dmarks: Actually, most are opposed to the ruling elites forcibly taking more of the people's property.

Impossible. You're talking about people who don't exist ("ruling elites") doing something that doesn't happen in the United States (forcible taking). Here in the United States we have elected representatives. And taxes are legally assessed and collected – usually without incident. Force is very rarely used.

Also, the article you linked to says it is referencing a "McClatchy-Marist poll" but there is no link. The article contains a lot of other links, but no link to this poll that supposedly says Americans don't want to tax the wealthy. Since Townhall is a Conservative website, I'm not buying it.

A CBS News poll I found says, "Polls show most Americans support raising taxes on wealthy". This includes 52 percent of non-tea party Republicans, 80 percent of Democrats, and 57 percent of Independents (63 percent overall).

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Actually, wd, I'm a part of that whatever percent who thinks that the top tax rates should go. But a) I don't like the way that the President is framing the issue, b) I think that the threshold should go up ($250,000 family and $200,000 individual are way too low). And c) I much prefer that the additional revenue go to paying down the deficit and NOT for additional Republican and Democratic pet projects.......So I guess that I agree with you partly here.

dmarks said...

WD said: "...when the government borrows money (like for illegal wars, for instance)"

1) Neither war you are referring to is illegal.

2) As national defense is a top priority of government, and much more than enough money came in in actual revenue to pay for fighting back against the terrorists, there was $0 borrowed.

"dmarks is a deadbeat who wants to go to war but not pay back the money we borrowed to do so."

Since the total is $0, I am glad to pay that back. But even if you do the silly thing and count the cost of the wars on the debt, it is only about one EIGHTH of it.

"Impossible. You're talking about people who don't exist ("ruling elites")"

They exist. The US is not anarchy. We have a government, which means we have ruling elites.

"doing something that doesn't happen in the United States (forcible taking)."

All tax money is taken forcibly, and none is given voluntarily.

"Here in the United States we have elected representatives."

So? You are merely describing some details of our ruling elites.

"And taxes are legally assessed and collected – usually without incident. Force is very rarely used."

The threat of force is always there. And the collection is MANDATED. Individuals don't have a choice: it is forced.

"but no link to this poll that supposedly says Americans don't want to tax the wealthy."

I can't imagine such a situation existed! Because now the wealthy are taxed at a very strong, high rate. I have never heard of a poll to say don't tax them.

"Since Townhall is a Conservative website, I'm not buying it."

Yet, you expect us to buy the leftist sites you always link to.

dmarks said...

As for the poll I referred to, it took me 2 seconds to find the extended detail you were too lazy to find:

click here

"The poll found 52 percent of registered voters saying they want all the tax cuts extended, including the tax cuts for incomes above $250,000, while 43 percent want the cuts extended just for incomes below that threshhold."

dmarks said...

Also, let's catch up on some whoppers from earlier. WD in an earlier comment in this item said: "...Cory Booker's defense of the job destroying Bain...."

From his own favorite "Factcheck"

"We found no evidence to support the claim that Romney — while he was still running Bain Capital — shipped American jobs overseas."


Also, from Marketwatch: "the number of new employees hired minus those who lost jobs directly due to Bain Capital’s ownership and activities — I suspect one could still show that more than 100,000 net new employees were hired by companies owned by Bain Capital."

(The Marketwatch article raises concerns about "indirect job loss" due to competition from the strong Bain companies.... which might subtract some from the 100,000. And still leave a balance of many thousands of net jobs created by Bain Capital on Romney's watch.)

WD, there simply no 'job destroying' Bain to defend. Only a job creating one, once you look at the facts.

This fits in with when WD earlier said that Bain outsourced more jobs than Imment and GE. I asked him how many, and he crumbled and admitted that he had just made up the claim.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Neither war you are referring to is illegal.

They both are, but that isn't the point. The point was you being a deadbeat/not wanting to pay for them.

dmarks: As national defense is a top priority of government [blah, blah, blah] there was $0 borrowed.

The government overspends in the EXTREME on "national defense". If any "plundering" going on, it is on this budget item. That said, protecting Americans from terrorists is important, but the illegal wars you refer to actually made us less safe. They also had nothing to do with "fighting back against the terrorists" because these wars swelled the ranks of the terrorists by radicalizing many more Muslims.

Using your logic the entire cost of both wars is borrowed. In the end the wars are estimated to cost in excess of 5.5 trillion (4.4 trillion plus 1 trillion in interest).

dmarks: Since the total is $0... even if you do the silly thing and count the cost of the wars on the debt, it is only about one EIGHTH of it.

The total is not zero. And adding the total to the debt isn't "silly", because, as I already pointed out, the wars had nothing to do with protecting us from the terrorists or fighting back against them. Also, the debt is currently $15.8 trillion, which means the cost of the wars will most likely end up being a hell of a lot more than 1/8 of the national debt.

dmarks: They exist... we have ruling elites.

We're a democracy. A democracy has representatives, not ruling elites.

dmarks: All tax money is taken forcibly, and none is given voluntarily.

Many people are happy to pay their taxes. Like the patriotic millionaires for instance. They want their taxes increased.

dmarks: You are merely describing some details of our ruling elites.

I'm describing their true nature. You're describing the rulers of some dictatorship or kingdom like Saudi Arabia.

dmarks: The threat of force is always there. And the collection is MANDATED. ...it is forced.

Force is rarely used because most people realize paying taxes is necessary. Just because the threat of force is needed to get you to pay does not mean everyone else is a greedy deadbeat like you. Only a minority are.

dmarks: I can't imagine such a situation existed! ...the wealthy are taxed at a very strong, high rate. I have never heard of a poll to say don't tax them.

You can't imagine such a situation existed because you are ignorant of historical tax rates. Taxes are at an all time low, including taxes on the wealthy.

dmarks: Yet, you expect us to buy the leftist sites you always link to.

I don't "always" link to "leftist" websites. I just linked to CBS news poll. That poll says a majority of Americans are with the president in regard to raising taxes back to the rates they were under Clinton.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Also, let's catch up on some whoppers from earlier.

You've accused me of "whoppers" before, but have yet to identify any. In reality the whoppers are yours.

dmarks: From his own favorite "Factcheck"... "We found no evidence to support the claim that Romney — while he was still running Bain Capital — shipped American jobs overseas"

First of all, FactCheck isn't my "favorite". This is a mistake you often make. I quote a person or link to a website that got their facts right, and dmarks assumes the person is my "hero" or the website is my "favorite", and I agree with every single thing they've ever said. When I link to a person or website I'm only saying they got it right this time. I reserve the right to disagree with anything else they've said or may say in the future.

Secondly, I didn't say Bain outsourced under Bain, or that Bain outsourced jobs at all. You're responding to things I didn't say. However, I'll still answer. The fact is Bain did ship jobs overseas under Romney. In this instance FactCheck is wrong.

FactCheck says "false", because, according to the Romney campaign the outsourcing took place after 1999 which is when Bain says Romney left Bain... however, "Romney was listed as Bain's "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president on Securities and Exchange Commission filings until 2002". He's responsible. The "former SEC commissioner Roberta S. Karmel [says claims that Romney isn't responsible because he wasn't there] strains credulity".

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Also, from Marketwatch: "the number of new employees hired minus those who lost... ...more than 100k net new employees were hired by
companies owned by Bain Capital".


I didn't say Bain destroyed jobs in aggregate (dmarks is shifting the goalposts). But the Marketwatch claims are bogus. According to CNN Money, "Despite buyouts being a numbers-intense business, there are no reliable statistics about jobs created or destroyed by private equity; no one in Buyout Land knows or wants to know about it. Bain and its fellow buyout barons don't care in the slightest about whether they create jobs or destroy them. All they care about is making money for their investors and themselves, not necessarily in that order".

So the fact is that nobody knows the exact score, but if you asked the people Romney canned I bet they'd say Bain destroyed their jobs. CNN Money says that after Bain loads a company up with debt, "employees of the now more heavily indebted company are at greater risk because the company is more vulnerable to failing if anything goes wrong. But [Bain's] investors have already made out well. Then [if] the company runs into trouble... workers lose their jobs, but investors and [Bain investors] nevertheless have come out ahead".

I'd say this is WAY more like pirates on the high seas than the government assessing taxes.

dmarks: ...there simply no 'job destroying' Bain to defend. Only a job creating one, once you look at the facts.

Only if you look at invented/bogus "facts". If you look at the real facts you'll find that a lot of the time Romney/Bain destroyed jobs.

dmarks: This fits in with when WD earlier said that Bain outsourced more jobs than Imment and GE. I asked him how many, and he crumbled and admitted that he had just made up the claim.

Will asked the question regarding who outsourced more. I guessed Mitt Romney. I never admitted that I "just made up the claim". I didn't "crumble". I could never have said for certain because the figures simply aren't available. Because they don't want people to know.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: As for the poll I referred to, it took me 2 seconds to find the extended detail you were too lazy to find...

You're the lazy one, because this poll was referenced in the article YOU linked to. I looked for and linked to an article that proves my case... I'm not obligated to search for the link to an article that supports your case.

dmarks: "The poll found 52 percent of registered voters saying they want all the tax cuts extended, including the tax cuts for incomes above $250k..."

John Boner said "The American people don't want us to raise taxes", and PolitiFact rates that statement "mostly wrong". The poll you linked to is an outlier. Most polls show that Americans agree with Barack Obama on allowing taxes on 250k+ incomes to go up.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I'm not a big Romney guy, wd (I find him kinda oily), but John King investigated this story very thoroughly and every former colleague of Mr. Romney's (a fair share of them hard-core Democrats) at Bain concurred that he had little to do with Bain after 1999 and that he was actually working 12-16 hour days on the Olympics.......And he also said that this is a common situation for the former CEO's name to be on the documents during an extended leave of absence. Couple that with the 4 Pinocchios that the Washington Post gave Mr. Obama and you just might want to focus more on the off-shore investments if you want to make some political hay (and I KNOW that ya' do).

dmarks said...

WD: "Politifact" is largely a left-wing opinion site. Their big lie of the 2012 campaign is actually true. They are a poor source to use in such matters, and a lazy-man's substitute for presenting actual facts.

Will: Looking back, has your view of Romney hardened or softened?

dmarks said...

WD [July 27, 2012 at 6:27 PM] presented a combination of poorly considered opinions and outright falsehoods.

Will in response said: "You're just making shit up now."

That says it all..