Another Liberal Myth Exploded

because you seem so concerned about Hillary's earnings....

d'uh.



"How foreign cash made Bill and Hillary ‘filthy rich’
Hillary Rodham Clinton used her clout as secretary of state to do favors for foreign donors who gave millions to her family foundation — and who paid millions more to her husband, Bill, in speaking fees, a new book charges.

....shady foreign money flowing into the Clinton Foundation — and what actions Hillary took in her official capacity in exchange for the cash.

“During Hillary’s years of public service, the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of large transactions,” writes author Peter Schweizer, according to The New York Times, which first reported the story."
How foreign cash made Bill and Hillary filthy rich New York Post

Post probative (do you know the meaning of the word?) evidence that Sect. Clinton violated the law. Do it now or be forever known as the partisan asshole you are.



One can always tell when Liberal fools like you have been skewered by the truth....
...vulgarity.

It's one of those psychological tells that you can't hide.

Wrong again. An asshole is an acronym: A is for Arrogant, SS is for self serving; and HOLE is a noun which describes something empty, without substance. All of which describes dishonest narcissistic partisan hacks like you.

Your tell is when you use an ad hominem and circular reasoning in response to a response you lack the knowledge, education and intelligence to rebut. It tells us you are an asshole, defined above.



You've been nailed.

Bet everyone recognizes the retreat.
Post probative (do you know the meaning of the word?) evidence that Sect. Clinton violated the law. Do it now or be forever known as the partisan asshole you are.

CNN political commentator Errol Lewis just threw some logs on that fire:

"My guess is that the issues raised by the book will prompt Team Clinton to put its candidate on the road, where she can continue holding loosely scheduled, informal meetings with ordinary Americans -- the sorts of people more concerned about local jobs than whether some foreign government or company paid a big speaking fee to Bill Clinton in hopes of getting special treatment by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

It's not that the alleged conflicts aren't potentially serious; as I recently noted in these pages, they are. According to The Wall Street Journal, in 2014 the Clinton Foundation "received money from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Oman, among others. The donors included Canada's foreign affairs department, which is promoting the Keystone XL pipeline."

Will new book dent Hillary Clinton s chances Opinion - CNN.com


And this related event....

"It was the 1996 Khobar Towers terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, where 19 U.S. servicemen died and more than 370 were wounded.

President Clinton had sent the FBI to investigate and promised Americans that those responsible would pay. "The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished. Let me say it again: we will pursue this. America takes care of our own. Those who did it must not go unpunished," the president said.

But [Louis Freeh director of the FBI] says the President failed to keep his promise.

The FBI wanted access to the suspects the Saudis had arrested but then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar said the only way to get access to prisoners would be if the president personally asked the crown prince for access.

Freeh says Clinton did not help him. He writes in his book:

"Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudi's reluctance to cooperate, and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library."

"That's a fact that I'm reporting," says Freeh."
Ex-FBI Chief On Clinton s Scandals - CBS News


Money, money, money.

Why expect Bill's wife to be any different.

bill was better than any president the right elected in my lifetime.

i'd hope she's even better. i know she's better than anyone in your clown car.
 
The OP is very astute. And by OP I mean the first post, not the author of the first post.

I already have a tremendous regard for the author.

The flailing libs here seem to have no ability to actually discuss the POINT of the OP, much less refute it.

They are still working up a lather, however, on their skills at ad hominem.
 
1. Liberal elites and their hand-wringing simpleton paracletes have been moaning about 'income inequality' in an attempt to convince those who function via envy and jealousy that they are VICTIMS!

The playbook never changes.

2. And as proof, they point to CEO salaries...and whine about how unfair the disparity is when compared to the 'average worker.'

"Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners. With CEO compensation analysis season in full swing, the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating that American CEOs in 2013 earned an average of $11.7 million–an eye-popping 331 times the average worker's$35,293.Apr 15, 2014"
Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average ...
www.forbes.com/.../report-ceos-earn-331-times-as-much-as-average-...

a. Reading further, the report should give one pause:
"...the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating blah blah blah....."





3. "....this frequently cited AFL-CIO analysis of CEO pay is an example of “statistical bait-and-switch.” Or call it a “statistical canard” or a “statistical fallacy.” Here’s why:

The AFL-CIO is comparing: a) the average salary of a small sample (350) of the highest paid US CEOs, out of a total CEO population in 2013 of 248,760 CEOs, according to BLS data here, and b) the average worker pay for production and nonsupervisory workers, which represents only 8.5 million factory workers out of a total of 136.3 million payroll employees nationwide.

a. "...the AFL-CIO’s reported “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” of 331:1 is calculated by ignoring 99.9% of all US CEOs and 93.8% of all US workers.

b....more accurate description would be to call it a ratio of the pay for 350 of the highest-paid US CEOs to the pay of only 6.2% of the American labor force, or a ratio of an unrepresentative, infinitesimally small, and statistically insignificant group of CEOs to a small minority and unrepresentative group of US factory workers. It’s a completely bogus and meaningless comparison.



4. ....a more statistically valid comparison of CEO pay to average worker in the US pay by considering: a) theaverage annual pay of all US CEOs in every year from 2002 to 2013 (data here) and b) theaverage annual pay of all US workers in a comprehensive, national BLS dataset that includes workers in 22 major occupational groups, 94 minor occupational groups, 458 broad occupations, and 821 detailed occupations (132.6 million workers for 2013). Based on those data, the average CEO earned $178,400 last year, the average worker earned $46,440, and the “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” was 3.84:1,


5. ...the real CEO-to-worker pay ratio has not been increasing as is frequently reported, but instead has been remarkably constant over the last 12 years, averaging 3.8:1 in a tight range between a maximum of 3.89:1 in 2004 and a minimum of 3.69:1 in both 2005 and 2006.


6. In 2013, a full-time minimum wage worker earned $14,500, and therefore the CEO-to-minimum-wage-worker pay ratio was only 12.3:1 compared to the grossly inflated 774:1 ratio reported by the AFL-CIO."
When we consider all US CEOs and all US workers the CEO-to-worker pay ratio falls from 331 1 to below 4 1



Liberal and 'Liar" both begin with "L."
Coincidence?
Hardly.




So sorry that the above post involved numbers, facts, and logic.....

....which, of course, removes said content from the interests of Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats.

Among other notable attributes of the OP, it compelled me to look up "paracletes."

Notable attributes? List them, if you please.
 
Simple solution, add a fee to all products moved to a foreign from our soil and then imported to the US in order to save labor costs...

Let me get this right. You think products are moved from our soil and shipped to foreign countries just so they can be imported to the US and that all that saves labor costs?
I need to know what you are smoking and where I can get some.

I don't smoke, only fools and those on a death trip smoke. I wrote this:

"Simple solution, add a fee to all products (should have been production) moved to a foreign (country, should have been added) from our soil and then imported to the US in order to save labor costs, in the amount equal to what a consumer would pay for a product made in America. Then, provide incentives to domestic companies who chose to hire American workers and produce products like shoes, clothing, appliances and electronics, paying a fair wage and health insurance as required by the PPACA.

I admit the gaps, but reading the post one should be able to infer I was speaking to products once produced in our country and now moved to a foreign country to increase the profits of those who do not labor at the expense of those who do.

Now, what solution do you have to keep American jobs in America?

In the 1970s we chased away whole smokestack industries because of their negative environmental impact. It was the desired result and there was no one to punish. Today we lose jobs to the global economy and to off-shoring because we make it - through gov't regs, taxation and inefficient production - unprofitable to manufacture here. Instead of further punishing job creators with more gov't mandated inefficiencies, let's try removing some of the disadvantages we place on our businesses.
Wadaya say?
 
1. Liberal elites and their hand-wringing simpleton paracletes have been moaning about 'income inequality' in an attempt to convince those who function via envy and jealousy that they are VICTIMS!

The playbook never changes.

2. And as proof, they point to CEO salaries...and whine about how unfair the disparity is when compared to the 'average worker.'

"Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners. With CEO compensation analysis season in full swing, the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating that American CEOs in 2013 earned an average of $11.7 million–an eye-popping 331 times the average worker's$35,293.Apr 15, 2014"
Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average ...
www.forbes.com/.../report-ceos-earn-331-times-as-much-as-average-...

a. Reading further, the report should give one pause:
"...the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating blah blah blah....."





3. "....this frequently cited AFL-CIO analysis of CEO pay is an example of “statistical bait-and-switch.” Or call it a “statistical canard” or a “statistical fallacy.” Here’s why:

The AFL-CIO is comparing: a) the average salary of a small sample (350) of the highest paid US CEOs, out of a total CEO population in 2013 of 248,760 CEOs, according to BLS data here, and b) the average worker pay for production and nonsupervisory workers, which represents only 8.5 million factory workers out of a total of 136.3 million payroll employees nationwide.

a. "...the AFL-CIO’s reported “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” of 331:1 is calculated by ignoring 99.9% of all US CEOs and 93.8% of all US workers.

b....more accurate description would be to call it a ratio of the pay for 350 of the highest-paid US CEOs to the pay of only 6.2% of the American labor force, or a ratio of an unrepresentative, infinitesimally small, and statistically insignificant group of CEOs to a small minority and unrepresentative group of US factory workers. It’s a completely bogus and meaningless comparison.



4. ....a more statistically valid comparison of CEO pay to average worker in the US pay by considering: a) theaverage annual pay of all US CEOs in every year from 2002 to 2013 (data here) and b) theaverage annual pay of all US workers in a comprehensive, national BLS dataset that includes workers in 22 major occupational groups, 94 minor occupational groups, 458 broad occupations, and 821 detailed occupations (132.6 million workers for 2013). Based on those data, the average CEO earned $178,400 last year, the average worker earned $46,440, and the “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” was 3.84:1,


5. ...the real CEO-to-worker pay ratio has not been increasing as is frequently reported, but instead has been remarkably constant over the last 12 years, averaging 3.8:1 in a tight range between a maximum of 3.89:1 in 2004 and a minimum of 3.69:1 in both 2005 and 2006.


6. In 2013, a full-time minimum wage worker earned $14,500, and therefore the CEO-to-minimum-wage-worker pay ratio was only 12.3:1 compared to the grossly inflated 774:1 ratio reported by the AFL-CIO."
When we consider all US CEOs and all US workers the CEO-to-worker pay ratio falls from 331 1 to below 4 1



Liberal and 'Liar" both begin with "L."
Coincidence?
Hardly.




So sorry that the above post involved numbers, facts, and logic.....

....which, of course, removes said content from the interests of Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats.

Among other notable attributes of the OP, it compelled me to look up "paracletes."

Notable attributes? List them, if you please.

A person with a mind as resolutely welded shut as you (and your mind) is hardly worth any additional effort.
 
The OP is very astute. And by OP I mean the first post, not the author of the first post.

I already have a tremendous regard for the author.

The flailing libs here seem to have no ability to actually discuss the POINT of the OP, much less refute it.

They are still working up a lather, however, on their skills at ad hominem.

Actually the OP has already been discredited. It's quite obvious that ceos keep making more and more. In the 60's they made 40X the average worker. There is no reason why they now should make so many more times that to do the same job. This inequality is slowing our economy and hurting the country.
 
[

A whiny sniveling socialist kind of greed.

It comes from a greedy entitlement mentality where they think they are due to the money that other people earn simply because they are alive. It is disgusting.

could you know less if you tried?


I know that welfare is thievery. Taking money from those that earned it and giving it to those that didn't earn it through the force of filthy government. That seems to be more than you know.
 
[

A whiny sniveling socialist kind of greed.

It comes from a greedy entitlement mentality where they think they are due to the money that other people earn simply because they are alive. It is disgusting.

could you know less if you tried?


I know that welfare is thievery. Taking money from those that earned it and giving it to those that didn't earn it through the force of filthy government. That seems to be more than you know.
UMAD.jpg
 
The OP is very astute. And by OP I mean the first post, not the author of the first post.

I already have a tremendous regard for the author.

The flailing libs here seem to have no ability to actually discuss the POINT of the OP, much less refute it.

They are still working up a lather, however, on their skills at ad hominem.

Actually the OP has already been discredited. It's quite obvious that ceos keep making more and more. In the 60's they made 40X the average worker. There is no reason why they now should make so many more times that to do the same job. This inequality is slowing our economy and hurting the country.

Actually -- horseshit.

This is all a not very subtle part of the "1%" vs the "99%" OWS Soros inspired blather.

You far left wing horseshit munchers couldn't "discredit" the essence of the OP if you had a fact and credibility on your side. You have neither.
 
bill was better than any president the right elected in my lifetime. i'd hope she's even better. i know she's better than anyone in your clown car.

LOL! Monica Lewinsky's Ex-Boyfiend's wife, is never going to be elected president of the US.

I mean, at the end of the day:

"WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES [THE TRUTH] MAKE?"
 
The OP is very astute. And by OP I mean the first post, not the author of the first post.

I already have a tremendous regard for the author.

The flailing libs here seem to have no ability to actually discuss the POINT of the OP, much less refute it.

They are still working up a lather, however, on their skills at ad hominem.

Actually the OP has already been discredited. It's quite obvious that ceos keep making more and more. In the 60's they made 40X the average worker. There is no reason why they now should make so many more times that to do the same job. This inequality is slowing our economy and hurting the country.

Actually -- horseshit.

This is all a not very subtle part of the "1%" vs the "99%" OWS Soros inspired blather.

You far left wing horseshit munchers couldn't "discredit" the essence of the OP if you had a fact and credibility on your side. You have neither.

The OP does nothing to prove it's not true. CEO pay is going through the roof. That is a fact. In the 60s a CEO made 40X the average worker. Just look at what they make now.
 
The OP is very astute. And by OP I mean the first post, not the author of the first post.

I already have a tremendous regard for the author.

The flailing libs here seem to have no ability to actually discuss the POINT of the OP, much less refute it.

They are still working up a lather, however, on their skills at ad hominem.

Actually the OP has already been discredited. It's quite obvious that ceos keep making more and more. In the 60's they made 40X the average worker. There is no reason why they now should make so many more times that to do the same job. This inequality is slowing our economy and hurting the country.

Actually -- horseshit.

This is all a not very subtle part of the "1%" vs the "99%" OWS Soros inspired blather.

You far left wing horseshit munchers couldn't "discredit" the essence of the OP if you had a fact and credibility on your side. You have neither.

The OP does nothing to prove it's not true. CEO pay is going through the roof. That is a fact. In the 60s a CEO made 40X the average worker. Just look at what they make now.

Actually, it does.

And the fact is, the entire "argument" is premised on the wealth-envy communist socialist bullshit belief system lends no credence to the entire "discussion" perpetrated by Soros and his OWS cadre.
 
The OP is very astute. And by OP I mean the first post, not the author of the first post.

I already have a tremendous regard for the author.

The flailing libs here seem to have no ability to actually discuss the POINT of the OP, much less refute it.

They are still working up a lather, however, on their skills at ad hominem.

Actually the OP has already been discredited. It's quite obvious that ceos keep making more and more. In the 60's they made 40X the average worker. There is no reason why they now should make so many more times that to do the same job. This inequality is slowing our economy and hurting the country.

Actually -- horseshit.

This is all a not very subtle part of the "1%" vs the "99%" OWS Soros inspired blather.

You far left wing horseshit munchers couldn't "discredit" the essence of the OP if you had a fact and credibility on your side. You have neither.

The OP does nothing to prove it's not true. CEO pay is going through the roof. That is a fact. In the 60s a CEO made 40X the average worker. Just look at what they make now.

Actually, it does.

And the fact is, the entire "argument" is premised on the wealth-envy communist socialist bullshit belief system lends no credence to the entire "discussion" perpetrated by Soros and his OWS cadre.

Then please explain in what way it does. In he 60s CEOs made 40X the average worker. Now they obviously make far more than that. Nothing in the OP changes that. There is no reason they should make so much now to do the same job.
 


And there is no doubt she will run based on the same Liberal myth exposed in the OP.

You're not trying to say that there HASN'T been a semi steady raise in income inequality going on since the 1970s, are you? Because that would be false.

Here's just one study.

p5.png



By all means, tell me if you don't like that source, there are THOUSANDS out there that show the same trend. I could post another for you.

It's also interesting that the political parties became more polarized within this same time frame.
 
1. Liberal elites and their hand-wringing simpleton paracletes have been moaning about 'income inequality' in an attempt to convince those who function via envy and jealousy that they are VICTIMS!

The playbook never changes.

2. And as proof, they point to CEO salaries...and whine about how unfair the disparity is when compared to the 'average worker.'

"Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners. With CEO compensation analysis season in full swing, the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating that American CEOs in 2013 earned an average of $11.7 million–an eye-popping 331 times the average worker's$35,293.Apr 15, 2014"
Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average ...
www.forbes.com/.../report-ceos-earn-331-times-as-much-as-average-...

a. Reading further, the report should give one pause:
"...the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating blah blah blah....."





3. "....this frequently cited AFL-CIO analysis of CEO pay is an example of “statistical bait-and-switch.” Or call it a “statistical canard” or a “statistical fallacy.” Here’s why:

The AFL-CIO is comparing: a) the average salary of a small sample (350) of the highest paid US CEOs, out of a total CEO population in 2013 of 248,760 CEOs, according to BLS data here, and b) the average worker pay for production and nonsupervisory workers, which represents only 8.5 million factory workers out of a total of 136.3 million payroll employees nationwide.

a. "...the AFL-CIO’s reported “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” of 331:1 is calculated by ignoring 99.9% of all US CEOs and 93.8% of all US workers.

b....more accurate description would be to call it a ratio of the pay for 350 of the highest-paid US CEOs to the pay of only 6.2% of the American labor force, or a ratio of an unrepresentative, infinitesimally small, and statistically insignificant group of CEOs to a small minority and unrepresentative group of US factory workers. It’s a completely bogus and meaningless comparison.



4. ....a more statistically valid comparison of CEO pay to average worker in the US pay by considering: a) theaverage annual pay of all US CEOs in every year from 2002 to 2013 (data here) and b) theaverage annual pay of all US workers in a comprehensive, national BLS dataset that includes workers in 22 major occupational groups, 94 minor occupational groups, 458 broad occupations, and 821 detailed occupations (132.6 million workers for 2013). Based on those data, the average CEO earned $178,400 last year, the average worker earned $46,440, and the “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” was 3.84:1,


5. ...the real CEO-to-worker pay ratio has not been increasing as is frequently reported, but instead has been remarkably constant over the last 12 years, averaging 3.8:1 in a tight range between a maximum of 3.89:1 in 2004 and a minimum of 3.69:1 in both 2005 and 2006.


6. In 2013, a full-time minimum wage worker earned $14,500, and therefore the CEO-to-minimum-wage-worker pay ratio was only 12.3:1 compared to the grossly inflated 774:1 ratio reported by the AFL-CIO."
When we consider all US CEOs and all US workers the CEO-to-worker pay ratio falls from 331 1 to below 4 1



Liberal and 'Liar" both begin with "L."
Coincidence?
Hardly.




So sorry that the above post involved numbers, facts, and logic.....

....which, of course, removes said content from the interests of Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats.

Among other notable attributes of the OP, it compelled me to look up "paracletes."

Notable attributes? List them, if you please.

A person with a mind as resolutely welded shut as you (and your mind) is hardly worth any additional effort.

I see. You emulate her and her constant use of the ad hominem in defense of her (and your) extremism.

I wonder though, oh wise one, if you would be so kind as to educate us of the lesser intellect, on why she and you never offer anything in terms of a sagacious solution(s) to the myriad of problems facing our nation? Talking points abound, as do character assassinations by the one you so admire do too.

So far she has demeaned not only the character of Presidents Wilson, FDR, Carter, Clinton and Obama (how has she missed JFK?), but any policy which benefits the poor or spending by the government to provide preventative health care (which she once claimed as impossible) and social services for the poor. Any such policy is claimed by her is attacked as Marxist/Socialist/Communist/Fascist or all of the above.

In fact she has never posted anything which resembles a solution or a policy; her focus is always (and this is not hyperbole) summarized as "ain't if awful", and like you demean anyone who holds opinions which challenge your own as stupid or morally corrupt.
 
1. Liberal elites and their hand-wringing simpleton paracletes have been moaning about 'income inequality' in an attempt to convince those who function via envy and jealousy that they are VICTIMS!

The playbook never changes.

2. And as proof, they point to CEO salaries...and whine about how unfair the disparity is when compared to the 'average worker.'

"Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners. With CEO compensation analysis season in full swing, the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating that American CEOs in 2013 earned an average of $11.7 million–an eye-popping 331 times the average worker's$35,293.Apr 15, 2014"
Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average ...
www.forbes.com/.../report-ceos-earn-331-times-as-much-as-average-...

a. Reading further, the report should give one pause:
"...the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating blah blah blah....."





3. "....this frequently cited AFL-CIO analysis of CEO pay is an example of “statistical bait-and-switch.” Or call it a “statistical canard” or a “statistical fallacy.” Here’s why:

The AFL-CIO is comparing: a) the average salary of a small sample (350) of the highest paid US CEOs, out of a total CEO population in 2013 of 248,760 CEOs, according to BLS data here, and b) the average worker pay for production and nonsupervisory workers, which represents only 8.5 million factory workers out of a total of 136.3 million payroll employees nationwide.

a. "...the AFL-CIO’s reported “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” of 331:1 is calculated by ignoring 99.9% of all US CEOs and 93.8% of all US workers.

b....more accurate description would be to call it a ratio of the pay for 350 of the highest-paid US CEOs to the pay of only 6.2% of the American labor force, or a ratio of an unrepresentative, infinitesimally small, and statistically insignificant group of CEOs to a small minority and unrepresentative group of US factory workers. It’s a completely bogus and meaningless comparison.



4. ....a more statistically valid comparison of CEO pay to average worker in the US pay by considering: a) theaverage annual pay of all US CEOs in every year from 2002 to 2013 (data here) and b) theaverage annual pay of all US workers in a comprehensive, national BLS dataset that includes workers in 22 major occupational groups, 94 minor occupational groups, 458 broad occupations, and 821 detailed occupations (132.6 million workers for 2013). Based on those data, the average CEO earned $178,400 last year, the average worker earned $46,440, and the “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” was 3.84:1,


5. ...the real CEO-to-worker pay ratio has not been increasing as is frequently reported, but instead has been remarkably constant over the last 12 years, averaging 3.8:1 in a tight range between a maximum of 3.89:1 in 2004 and a minimum of 3.69:1 in both 2005 and 2006.


6. In 2013, a full-time minimum wage worker earned $14,500, and therefore the CEO-to-minimum-wage-worker pay ratio was only 12.3:1 compared to the grossly inflated 774:1 ratio reported by the AFL-CIO."
When we consider all US CEOs and all US workers the CEO-to-worker pay ratio falls from 331 1 to below 4 1



Liberal and 'Liar" both begin with "L."
Coincidence?
Hardly.




So sorry that the above post involved numbers, facts, and logic.....

....which, of course, removes said content from the interests of Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats.

Among other notable attributes of the OP, it compelled me to look up "paracletes."

Notable attributes? List them, if you please.

A person with a mind as resolutely welded shut as you (and your mind) is hardly worth any additional effort.

I see. You emulate her and her constant use of the ad hominem in defense of her (and your) extremism.

I wonder though, oh wise one, if you would be so kind as to educate us of the lesser intellect, on why she and you never offer anything in terms of a sagacious solution(s) to the myriad of problems facing our nation? Talking points abound, as do character assassinations by the one you so admire do too.

So far she has demeaned not only the character of Presidents Wilson, FDR, Carter, Clinton and Obama (how has she missed JFK?), but any policy which benefits the poor or spending by the government to provide preventative health care (which she once claimed as impossible) and social services for the poor. Any such policy is claimed by her is attacked as Marxist/Socialist/Communist/Fascist or all of the above.

In fact she has never posted anything which resembles a solution or a policy; her focus is always (and this is not hyperbole) summarized as "ain't if awful", and like you demean anyone who holds opinions which challenge your own as stupid or morally corrupt.

It is always a pleasure to see you meandering through a discussion so completely lost and clueless.

Why do you ask for "the" solutions?

There might be many. They might all be difficult.

But even if I had none to offer, that doesn't preclude us from recognizing that any "solution" that allows the Iranian scumbags to have a nuclear weapon capacity is not a "solution" at all. Indeed, it is the very thing which we should be trying hardest to avoid.

I wonder WHY that is such a difficult concept for our imbecile President to grasp?
 
The OP is very astute. And by OP I mean the first post, not the author of the first post.

I already have a tremendous regard for the author.

The flailing libs here seem to have no ability to actually discuss the POINT of the OP, much less refute it.

They are still working up a lather, however, on their skills at ad hominem.

Actually the OP has already been discredited. It's quite obvious that ceos keep making more and more. In the 60's they made 40X the average worker. There is no reason why they now should make so many more times that to do the same job. This inequality is slowing our economy and hurting the country.

Actually -- horseshit.

This is all a not very subtle part of the "1%" vs the "99%" OWS Soros inspired blather.

You far left wing horseshit munchers couldn't "discredit" the essence of the OP if you had a fact and credibility on your side. You have neither.

The OP does nothing to prove it's not true. CEO pay is going through the roof. That is a fact. In the 60s a CEO made 40X the average worker. Just look at what they make now.

Actually, it does.

And the fact is, the entire "argument" is premised on the wealth-envy communist socialist bullshit belief system lends no credence to the entire "discussion" perpetrated by Soros and his OWS cadre.

Then please explain in what way it does. In he 60s CEOs made 40X the average worker. Now they obviously make far more than that. Nothing in the OP changes that. There is no reason they should make so much now to do the same job.

Who gives a fuck?

They earn more because what they do is worth more.

If you work at Macy's Department store stocking shelves and I run Macy's national advertising division, why shouldn't I make an assload more than you?

And why should your jealousy govern this discussion or wage laws?

Why shouldn't doctors earn a shit load more than that stock clerks or employees at McDonalds?

How the FUCK is what they earn ANY of your fucking business?

The problem with your position is: I reject your completely baseless & irrational premise. I don't give a rat's ass that some corporate honchos make more than I do -- and I REALLY don't care that they make more than YOU do.
 
Actually the OP has already been discredited. It's quite obvious that ceos keep making more and more. In the 60's they made 40X the average worker. There is no reason why they now should make so many more times that to do the same job. This inequality is slowing our economy and hurting the country.

Actually -- horseshit.

This is all a not very subtle part of the "1%" vs the "99%" OWS Soros inspired blather.

You far left wing horseshit munchers couldn't "discredit" the essence of the OP if you had a fact and credibility on your side. You have neither.

The OP does nothing to prove it's not true. CEO pay is going through the roof. That is a fact. In the 60s a CEO made 40X the average worker. Just look at what they make now.

Actually, it does.

And the fact is, the entire "argument" is premised on the wealth-envy communist socialist bullshit belief system lends no credence to the entire "discussion" perpetrated by Soros and his OWS cadre.

Then please explain in what way it does. In he 60s CEOs made 40X the average worker. Now they obviously make far more than that. Nothing in the OP changes that. There is no reason they should make so much now to do the same job.

Who gives a fuck?

They earn more because what they do is worth more.

If you work at Macy's Department store stocking shelves and I run Macy's national advertising division, why shouldn't I make an assload more than you?

And why should your jealousy govern this discussion or wage laws?

Why shouldn't doctors earn a shit load more than that stock clerks or employees at McDonalds?

How the FUCK is what they earn ANY of your fucking business?

The problem with your position is: I reject your completely baseless & irrational premise. I don't give a rat's ass that some corporate honchos make more than I do -- and I REALLY don't care that they make more than YOU do.

You should care. Too much inequality slows the economy, that is bad for the country.

You are a fool if you think companies can't find just as good of people to work for much less. It's a rigged game obviously.

Again in the 60s they made 40X the average worker. There is no reason they should now be making so much to do the same job.
 

Forum List

Back
Top