McCain ad

Chapdog said:
Problem i have with some of the dems is how transparently biased they are. Before Mccain was presumptive nominee many of you praised him. He has a history of working from a very moderate stand point. You all paint him now as a Bush 3rd term when his history shows hes on the opposite end of the republican leadership.
Click to expand...


What a crock of shit. Even assuming some people praised him, back then he was moderate on some issues. Today, his policy positions on almost everything are indistinguishable from the Bush Administration.
 
Darla said:
did you want to dispute what I actually used the word "average" for? Because I'll take you to your knees and you'll look like a fool: Take a look at what the average CEO makes in comparison to their workers today, versus what they made versus their workers 40 and fifty years ago.
Click to expand...

Lets see... you used the word average in describing their salaries. Yes, I agree that the average CEO makes more today relative to their workers than was the case in the past. Some deserve it, some don't. Just as the average actor makes more today vs the grip than 40 years ago. Just as the average athelete makes far more today than the average worker. Just as the average lawyer makes more today vs the average legal asst.
 
Darla said:
By the way, the “average” CEO of the S & P 500 does make “millions”. Well over ten mil in fact.
Click to expand...

yes, but there is a big difference between "millions" and "hundreds of millions".

The average athlete and actor also make "millions". So does the average lawyer at top law firms.
 
Superfreak said:
Lets see... you used the word average in describing their salaries. Yes, I agree that the average CEO makes more today relative to their workers than was the case in the past. Some deserve it, some don't. Just as the average actor makes more today vs the grip than 40 years ago. Just as the average athelete makes far more today than the average worker. Just as the average lawyer makes more today vs the average legal asst.
Click to expand...

Listen if you want to wallow around down on the simpleton playground, knock yourself out. Top will be around soon to keep you company I’m sure.
 
Darla said:
Listen if you want to wallow around down on the simpleton playground, knock yourself out. Top will be around soon to keep you company I’m sure.
Click to expand...

The above is ironic given that you are now resulting to toppy like insults rather than acknowledging that it is not just those evil CEOs that are making more than those that work with them. I acknowledged your point and your response is a childish insult?

As for the other point... I was right in correcting your exagerated comment.
 
indisputable said:
Don't the members of corporate boards and the shareholders decide how much to pay executives?

How is that anyone's business outside the company?
Click to expand...

The members of the board typically are the ones that approve of executive compensation. Some companies have begun to shift towards shareholder approval... but not many at this point.
 
cawacko said:
An old article regarding Gramm and Enron.

Not Guilty
A conservative lawmaker, and a conservative law, get undeserved blame for Enron.

By Ramesh Ponnuru
February 5, 2002 8:55 a.m.


I. Phil Gramm

You may have heard that Phil Gramm, Republican senator from Texas, had done some of Enron's bidding in 2000. Numerous newspapers, relying on a report by the Naderite group Public Citizen, reported that Gramm had slipped through a provision exempting some of Enron's business from regulation. As New York Times columnist Bob Herbert put it on January 17, "In December 2000 Mr. Gramm was one of the ringleaders who engineered the stealthlike approval of a bill that exempted energy commodity trading from government regulation and public disclosure. It was a gift tied with a bright ribbon for Enron." This was Herbert's first example in a column dedicated to the proposition that "When Senator Phil Gramm and his wife Wendy danced, it was most often to Enron's tune."

Public Citizen had Gramm "muscling through" the offending provision. In fact, Gramm had almost nothing to do with it. He didn't write it: It came to the Senate from the House, where it was part of a bill that passed by a large margin. He didn't usher it through the Senate: It was considered by the Agriculture Committee, of which he was not a member, rather than the Banking Committee, which he chaired. Indeed, Gramm blocked the bill that included the provision for several months because he objected to other provisions. He did, however, eventually vote for the bill, like most congressmen. It included the offending provision, which had hardly been altered during the legislative process.

Several publications have had to print corrections for linking Gramm to the provision — notably the Washington Post, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Herbert's column has not been corrected, but the day after it ran the New York Times ran a story by Jeff Gerth and Richard Oppel that noted the inconvenient truth: "[In late 2000] Senator Gramm, for reasons unrelated to Enron, was single-handedly blocking a futures trading bill the company had dearly prized."

http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr020502.shtml
Click to expand...


The national Review fucking lied!

He co sponsered the bill you fool.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s106-2697


Sponsor: Sen. Richard Lugar [?-IN]hide cosponsors
Cosponsors [as of 2006-07-17]
Sen. Peter Fitzgerald [R-IL]
Sen. Phil Gramm [R-TX]
Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date. Why?
Bill Text: Summaries (CRS)
Full Text
Status: Introduced Jun 8, 2000
Scheduled for Debate Aug 25, 2000
Voted on in Senate -
Voted on in House -
Signed by President -
 
Dungheap said:
What a crock of shit. Even assuming some people praised him, back then he was moderate on some issues. Today, his policy positions on almost everything are indistinguishable from the Bush Administration.
Click to expand...

mccain has disagreed more then not over past 8 years with the bush policies.
 
Desh said:
The national Review fucking lied!

He co sponsered the bill you fool.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s106-2697


Sponsor: Sen. Richard Lugar [?-IN]hide cosponsors
Cosponsors [as of 2006-07-17]
Sen. Peter Fitzgerald [R-IL]
Sen. Phil Gramm [R-TX]
Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date. Why?
Bill Text: Summaries (CRS)
Full Text
Status: Introduced Jun 8, 2000
Scheduled for Debate Aug 25, 2000
Voted on in Senate -
Voted on in House -
Signed by President -
Click to expand...

How does this bill that never became law equate with what the NR people said?
 
Chapdog said:
mccain has disagreed more then not over past 8 years with the bush policies.
Click to expand...

That's not true at all; even remotely. He has had notable, very publicized disagreements on a few select policies, but he has sided with the admin the vast majority of the time.
 
cawacko said:
How does this bill that never became law equate with what the NR people said?
Click to expand...

It contained the Enron loophold and they could not get it passed so they stuck it in as a late night rider on another bill they knew Clinton was going to sign.
 
cawacko said:
One question you can ask is who has been more bi-partisan in the Senate than John McCain over the past decade?
Click to expand...

Pshaw.... who cares about THAT? All that matters now is how many times you can chant "a third Bush term" or "McSame". Those are the only "valid points" you should consider.
 
Desh said:
It contained the Enron loophold and they could not get it passed so they stuck it in as a late night rider on another bill they knew Clinton was going to sign.
Click to expand...

That's what the NR article said, he was not responsible for that and several papers had to retract statements they made that he was.
 
Superfreak said:
The above is ironic given that you are now resulting to toppy like insults rather than acknowledging that it is not just those evil CEOs that are making more than those that work with them. I acknowledged your point and your response is a childish insult?

As for the other point... I was right in correcting your exagerated comment.
Click to expand...

You sound like the same stupid stooge on this thread that you always do. From thread to thread, desperately trying to change the point of the thread, by obsessively masturbating over some stupid thing.
In 1980, the average CEO made 42 times what a typical factory worker made. Today it is over 500 times what a typical factory worker has made, the last time I checked. It could be higher by now.

In the meantime, workers salaries have stagnated. Financial inequality has reached a level not seen since the 1920’s, and many economists have begun to speak of the second gilded age. Average life expectancy in this country has not kept pace with other developed nations. You, the average guy, can expect to live a couple to several years less than your counterparts in France, Canada, England, Sweden, etc. Union membership has fallen from a healthy 30 percent, to a negligible amount, an not unrelated, or, accidental occurrence. “The left” which has been a countervailing force on corporations, has been weakened, for many reasons, but none more so than the purposeful weakening of the union. We do not have the lowest rate of infant mortality, we do not have the highest life expectancy, we do not have the lowest rate of childbirth deaths, our drinking water is contaminated, the middle class is struggling, over 40 million have no health insurance, 18 thousand die every year due to this.

And you want a thank you for CEO’s? Are you out of your fucking mind?

When did any of you stupid, self=destructive pukes ever thank a leftist? Huh? When? Fuck you. More more more. You people are destroying this country, destroying our future, destroying the middle class, killing the poor, decimating the moderating force of unions, and you want MORE. Fuck you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top