I get the info from NPR.


You can check out rush, hannity, warroom.com, levin, Beck, and others. A book I enjoyed except the part on abortion, (I don't dwell on abortion but I think partial birth abortion is the most evil thing going on in this world), was from John Stossel and his web site is pretty interesting - especially for libertarians.

Here is what he reported on our healthcare system. He is a pretty no nonsense kind of guy.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html

There are some other sites that are good newsmax.com and the heritage foundation for example (and if you act now you can get a free pocket copy of the constitution from the heritage foundation to carry with you).

http://www.drudgereport.com/ this one is pretty good too.

*gag*

I think I just gave karma to Airwolf.

OLB wrote:

Knucklehead wrote:

In the end, I find myself asking why I should continue to support a party that would never allow someone like me or my sons (not a slide on women, I only have boys in my family) to be their candidate for president because of our religious convictions.

I understand your frustration. Let me address your concern in the following manner:

Romney was not defeated because of anti-Mormon elements. He was defeated because 1) some Republican voters believe that McCain has a better chance of defeating Clinton or Obama in November than Romney; 2) some Republicans thought that Huckabee was more of a conservative than Romney; 3) the "flip-flop" job that the media, his Republican opponents, and others threw out there was tough to combate.

Just because Romney didn't get the nomination doesn't mean that people voted against him because of his religious beliefs and heritage. The fact is, Romney garnered more than 4 million votes compared to McCain's 4.7 million. It just came down to the fact that McCain won key states and seemed to be able to win tight races. How is that indicitive of religious bias?

So where are you going to turn? To the Democrats, whose social values are completely opposite to your values? To the Constitution party, which has zero political traction and not one (not one!) member in any seat on any state or national level.

This isn't a time to take your ball and go home. Damn it, it is a time to stay, to fight, and to keep fighting until you win. That may take years and many elections. But you don't abandon a party or a candidate that you agree with 75 or 80 percent of the time so that another candidate that you agree with 10-20 percent of the time can take power.

The Republican voters have demonstrated that their capacity for rational analysis of the candidates is just as poor as the Dims.

Else why would more Republicans concerned with the state of the economy vote for McCain than Romney.

Also, why would Republicans consider Huckabee as conservative when his record as governor was not conservative?

Plain and simple, the majority of the Huckabee vote was from anti-Mormon evangelical bigots. Huckabee's lack of support outside of the states with a large evangelical base is proof of that.

Let's see... One thing Obama has ever done??? Well, shall we start with he got an "A" in a college class or two (although unfortunately that doesn't seem to be a requirement for becoing president).

I'd better quit now... I was actually about to head up to the Obama HQ in SLC when I got sidetracked on this thread. I read about 2 pages worth... any more and I'd be here all day.

Lol, my Karma is dipping... oh well.

imuakahuku wrote:

I get the info from NPR. :lol:


You can check out rush, hannity, warroom.com, levin, Beck, and others. A book I enjoyed except the part on abortion, (I don't dwell on abortion but I think partial birth abortion is the most evil thing going on in this world), was from John Stossel and his web site is pretty interesting - especially for libertarians.

Here is what he reported on our healthcare system. He is a pretty no nonsense kind of guy.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html

There are some other sites that are good newsmax.com and the heritage foundation for example (and if you act now you can get a free pocket copy of the constitution from the heritage foundation to carry with you).

http://www.drudgereport.com/ this one is pretty good too.

lol, NPR must be a good source, it has "bi-partisan" support

Airwolf84 wrote:

OLB wrote:

Airwolf84 wrote:

People making minimum wage can't get by at all... their monthly income would be $960 (even less than that after taxes)... not even enough to make a rent payment in a lot of places. The minimum wage of $5.75 is an atrocity!!! The name of the game in today's society is shortchanging employees and cutting costs no matter the expense in order to improve the bottom line. It's no accident that today's CEO makes an obscene $575 to every $1 one of their employees makes. 50 years ago, this ratio was about 50 to 1 and the average family could survive on one income just fine, but not anymore.

Before you spout off your crap about minimum wage, why don't you check out the Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm

Do you even have a freaking clue who the minimum wage earners are in our society? More than half of all minimum wage earners are under the age of 25. A quarter of all minimum wage earners are teenagers. In other words, at least half of all minimum wage earners are either teenagers in high school or young adults who are probably working while they go to school or learn a trade. This is backed up by the fact that more than 50 percent of minimum wage earners work less than 35 hours a week. So these minimum wage earners are living at home or are sharing apartments with other people (kind of like what one does when they are young, single, and going to school).

You make it sound like people are trying to have families while working a minimum wage job. The fact is that 60 percent of all minimum wage earners have never been married. These are people that live with roommates so they can share living and utility costs.

While I am sympathetic about your rant on CEO salaries, the fact is that the average American has more material wealth today than 10, 20, or 50 years ago. I won't argue that the average American is better off today, because much of "better off" has to do with the way one lives his/her life. But nobody can dispute that American's live better.

Today most Americans have air conditioned homes, air conditioned cars, cable television, multiple TVs, computers, DVDs and DVD players, I-Pods, cell phones, digitial cameras, high speed internet, etc. How many people had these things even 15 years ago?

I'm well aware of the age group factor with minimum wage OLB, however, are you going to sit there and tell me that there isn't one adult with a family to support who isn't working minimum wage? As far as I am concerned, anyone who is an adult with a family to provide for who is earning less than $6 per hour is a victim of unethical compensation and greed, plain and simple! I know people who use to make $75,000 per year (computer programmers, I.T. Analysts, etc.) who were laid off after the dotcom bubble of the '90's burst in 2000 and had to settle for $8 per hour or less working at places like Home Depot! My point is that the minimum wage is beyond absurd and doesn't allow ANYONE to even pay for their roof over the head, let alone for food, a vehicle, insurance, utilities, etc.!!!

No, I didn't say that there wasn't one adult with a family working at minimum wage. But the number of people in that situation are so small that to even bring them up is simply disengenous. It is calling the anomoly the norm.

By and large, if you are an adult and you are working at a minimum wage job and you have a family, you have probably screwed up somewhere along the line. You didn't get enough education, you don't work hard, you aren't dependable, you have an addiction problem, or you spent time in the slammer. But you are not a victim of anything except yourself. I will grant that persons with a skill set are forced to take on minimum jobs, either for supplemental income or to help them get through a strech of unemployment. I talk about that in a few paragraphs. But skilled workers, and those with real experience, do not make minimum wage.

Lets suppose that a 25 year old guy with a wife and two kids is unemployed. He goes into the McDonalds and gets hired at minimum wage flipping burgers. If this guy even has an inkling of smarts inside his brain, and shows up 97% of the time, and works relatively hard, the guy will be a shift manager within 6 months. Easy. If the guy is like you and I, he'll probably be a shift manager in 3 months and managing his own store in 18-24 months.

I didn't want to go all Churchie on you, but you leave me no other choice: President Hinkely (God rest his soul) said it best: "Get a good eduction. The world will largely pay you what they think you're worth." If you are only getting paid minimum wage, its because the world only thinks you're worth that much. And if you believe that you have a skill set that demands more money, then you need to find another job.

I know of a few computer programmers that lost their nice paying jobs because of the tech bubble. One of them worked at the local Lowes for 18 months until the market recovered. He was working near minimum wage. He had a skill set, but it simply took many months to find a spot. But he eventually did find a new job, and it pays many times more than minimum wage. So your example about programmers getting the shaft is more an example of collateral damage when markets collapes and less of an example of day-to-day, year-to-year, and decade-to-decade examples of person that are perpetually stuck at or near minimum wage.

I agree with you that the minimum wage doesn't allow for someone to pay for their own place, buy food, make a car payment, pay insurance, utilities, etc. But the fact is if you are making minimum wage, you are probably single, living with family/roommates, depend on a parent for health insurance, and you probably take the bus.