As expected, your response is @ a grade 4 level.Seem to work for YOU.... bon ami!....
Do you not get tired of making an absolute fool of yourself?
wall street protests...is this the start of the revolution?
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
Do you not get tired of making an absolute fool of yourself?
I doubt he specifically promised anyone jobsAnd those 'better jobs' YOU promised were coming to replace them, NEVER CAME!....
However I suspect those that do determine where the jobs are allocated took a hard look at the US unions, saw you as their poster boy and moved on.
Why would anyone in their right mind hire a group of obnoxious loud mouths who do not want to work, will demand more all the time and then disrupt the organization with strikes and has zero interest in working with the company to wards a partnership?
No Thanks.
Of coarse you are also unwilling to even entertain the thought of how the other side might view this issue are you?
I bet you lack the stones to answer that question directly and will conveniently ignore or brush it off
It is an interesting theory, but how do you account for the many historic US periods of lower unemployment and higher growth when personal taxes were higher than they are now?
2:45 and they say the left doesn't have hotties, lol
2:53 - 3:03 sums up exactly what's happening today.
Alzheimer's setting in bon ami???
bottie and all the globalist goofballs armed with their fuzzy math chirped millions of new jobs would be the result of their corporate brain fart. They were right! Only all those jobs were created for the commies you pal around with, not Americans who you lied too!....
Again your "No I am not, you are " response is at a grade 4 levelWell it doesn't seem to bother you doing the same bon ami.....
Please respond intelligently or shut your festering gob
As I pointed out earlier, I doubt onthebottom made those specific promisesAlzheimer's setting in bon ami???
bottie and all the globalist goofballs armed with their fuzzy math chirped millions of new jobs would be the result of their corporate brain fart. They were right! Only all those jobs were created for the commies you pal around with, not Americans who you lied too!....
This is just another of you delusions where you assign blame out of convenience and ignore facts
Do you ever stop to wonder how much damage you do to the left wing cause
Their message may be relevant and important, however when you deliver it with your irrational,childlike rants all credibility goes out the window
It is far easier to ignore the message from a fool / clown vs. someone who is rational, focused on facts and makes credible arguments
Pekkkr can add the POTUS and a large majority in Congress to his list of "globalist goofballs armed with their fuzzy math":
Congress passes 3 free trade agreements
WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress approved free trade agreements Wednesday with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, ending a four-year drought in the forming of new trade partnerships and giving the White House and Capitol Hill the opportunity to show they can work together to stimulate the economy and put people back to work.
In rapid succession, the House of Representatives and Senate voted on the three trade pacts, which the administration says could boost exports by $13 billion and support tens of thousands of American jobs. None of the votes were close, despite opposition from labor groups and other critics of free trade agreements who say they result in job losses and ignore labor rights problems in the partner countries.
President Barack Obama said passage of the agreements was "a major win for American workers and businesses."
"Tonight's vote, with bipartisan support, will significantly boost exports that bear the proud label 'Made in America,' support tens of thousands of good-paying American jobs and protect labor rights, the environment and intellectual property. ... I look forward to signing these agreements."
The agreements would lower or eliminate tariffs that American exporters face in the three countries. They also take steps to better protect intellectual property and improve access for American investors in those countries. The last free trade agreement completed was with Peru in 2007.
The House also passed and sent to Obama for his signature a bill to extend aid to workers displaced by foreign competition. Obama had demanded that the worker aid bill be part of the trade package.
Years in the making, the votes come just a day after Senate Republicans were unified in rejecting Obama's $447 billion jobs creation initiative.
The agreement with South Korea, the world's 13th largest economy, was the biggest such deal since the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada in 1994.
The votes were 278-151 for South Korea, 300-129 for Panama and 262-167 for Colombia. The Senate votes were 83-15 for Korea, 77-22 for Panama and 66-33 for Colombia.
"We don't do much around here that's bipartisan these days," said Republican Sen. Rob Portman, who was U.S. Trade Representative during the George W. Bush administration. "This is an example of where we can come together as Republicans and Democrats realizing that with 14 million Americans out of work, we need to do things to move our economy forward."
Despite the strong majorities, the debate was not without rancor.
Republicans criticized Obama for taking several years to send the agreements, all signed in the President George W. Bush administration, to Congress for final approval. Many among Obama's core supporters, including organized labor and Democrats from areas hit hard by foreign competition, were unhappy that the White House was espousing the benefits of free trade.
Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, said the "job-killing" agreements were a "complete flip-flop for President Obama, who won crucial swing states by pledging to overhaul our flawed trade policies."
In Cartagena, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos said, "Today is a historic day for relations between Colombia and the United States." He added that the agreement with his country "is going to generate much well-being for our peoples."
But Tarsicio Mora, president of Colombia's CUT labor federation, said Colombia's economy was not ready to compete with the U.S.
"Our country isn't developed, it does not have the expertise much less the requirements for trade at this level," Mora said. "The country should be clear as to who is responsible for the coming massacre, because industry, large and small businesses are going to be hit because we are not in a condition to compete."
Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli said the trade agreement will help to attract foreign investment and increase commerce with the U.S., contributing to the creation of new jobs in the Central American country.
"We, Panamanians, have to prepare to take advantage of this agreement," Martinelli said in a statement.
Panama's Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture called it "a historic moment for Panama."
"This is a historic moment for Panama. A treaty with the largest trading partner in the world has been ratified and this will open the doors to a very important market," said chamber president Federico Humbert in a statement.
"We hope this agreement will bring great opportunities for Panama, while encouraging competitiveness and attract more foreign investment to our country," Humbert said.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said that before taking up free trade agreements the House should be considering legislation passed by the Senate on Tuesday that would punish China for keeping its currency undervalued, a practice that makes its exports cheaper and contributes to China's huge trade surplus with the United States. House Republican leaders oppose the currency bill and a Democratic attempt to attach it to the Colombia agreement was rejected.
Democratic opposition was particularly strong against the agreement with Colombia, where labor leaders long have faced the threat of violence.
"I find it deeply disturbing that the United States Congress is even considering a free trade agreement with a country that holds the world record for assassinations of trade unionists," said Rep. Maxine Waters.
To address Democratic objections to the deals, the White House demanded linking the trade bills to extension of a Kennedy-era program that helps workers displaced by foreign competition with retraining and financial aid. The Senate went along; the House passed it Wednesday, 307-122.
But with the focus in both the White House and Congress on jobs, the trade agreements enjoyed wide bipartisan support.
The administration says the three deals will boost U.S. exports by $13 billion a year and that just the agreement with South Korea, America's seventh largest trading partner, will support 70,000 American jobs.
Supporters say the three trading partners already enjoy almost duty-free access to U.S. markets and the agreements will lower tariffs on U.S. goods, making them significantly more competitive.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce notes that U.S. farm products sold to South Korea face 54 percent tariffs, compared with 9 percent for Korean agricultural goods in the United States, and that U.S. automakers are hit with a 35 percent tariff in Colombia, compared with 2 percent for any vehicles coming from Colombia.
The administration says the trade deal with South Korea could increase exports by $10 billion, enough to eliminate the current $10 billion surplus Seoul has with the United States. It would make 95 percent of American consumer and industrial goods duty free within five years.
The vote came a day before Korean President Lee Myung-bak is to address a joint meeting of Congress. On Wednesday he said in a speech at the Chamber of Congress that the agreement would "send a powerful message to the world that the United States and South Korea stand together in rejecting protectionism and that we are open to free and fair trade."
Republicans welcomed the prospect of increased exports but said those benefits could have come sooner if Obama had acted more quickly. They said American businesses have paid $3.8 billion in tariffs to Colombia since the trade agreement was signed, and that Americans are losing markets in South Korea because of a Korea-European Union free trade agreement that went into effect in July.
In the past year the administration has succeeded in winning concessions from South Korea to open up its markets further to U.S. vehicles and concluded an agreement to bring transparency to banking practices in Panama, known as a tax haven.
It has prodded Colombia into putting together a plan designed to protect labor rights and crack down on violence against labor leaders.
The United States has free trade relations with 17 nations. It could still take several months to work out the final formalities before the current agreements go into force. The South Korean parliament is expected to sign off on its agreement this month.
Congress passes 3 free trade agreements
WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress approved free trade agreements Wednesday with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, ending a four-year drought in the forming of new trade partnerships and giving the White House and Capitol Hill the opportunity to show they can work together to stimulate the economy and put people back to work.
In rapid succession, the House of Representatives and Senate voted on the three trade pacts, which the administration says could boost exports by $13 billion and support tens of thousands of American jobs. None of the votes were close, despite opposition from labor groups and other critics of free trade agreements who say they result in job losses and ignore labor rights problems in the partner countries.
President Barack Obama said passage of the agreements was "a major win for American workers and businesses."
"Tonight's vote, with bipartisan support, will significantly boost exports that bear the proud label 'Made in America,' support tens of thousands of good-paying American jobs and protect labor rights, the environment and intellectual property. ... I look forward to signing these agreements."
The agreements would lower or eliminate tariffs that American exporters face in the three countries. They also take steps to better protect intellectual property and improve access for American investors in those countries. The last free trade agreement completed was with Peru in 2007.
The House also passed and sent to Obama for his signature a bill to extend aid to workers displaced by foreign competition. Obama had demanded that the worker aid bill be part of the trade package.
Years in the making, the votes come just a day after Senate Republicans were unified in rejecting Obama's $447 billion jobs creation initiative.
The agreement with South Korea, the world's 13th largest economy, was the biggest such deal since the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada in 1994.
The votes were 278-151 for South Korea, 300-129 for Panama and 262-167 for Colombia. The Senate votes were 83-15 for Korea, 77-22 for Panama and 66-33 for Colombia.
"We don't do much around here that's bipartisan these days," said Republican Sen. Rob Portman, who was U.S. Trade Representative during the George W. Bush administration. "This is an example of where we can come together as Republicans and Democrats realizing that with 14 million Americans out of work, we need to do things to move our economy forward."
Despite the strong majorities, the debate was not without rancor.
Republicans criticized Obama for taking several years to send the agreements, all signed in the President George W. Bush administration, to Congress for final approval. Many among Obama's core supporters, including organized labor and Democrats from areas hit hard by foreign competition, were unhappy that the White House was espousing the benefits of free trade.
Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, said the "job-killing" agreements were a "complete flip-flop for President Obama, who won crucial swing states by pledging to overhaul our flawed trade policies."
In Cartagena, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos said, "Today is a historic day for relations between Colombia and the United States." He added that the agreement with his country "is going to generate much well-being for our peoples."
But Tarsicio Mora, president of Colombia's CUT labor federation, said Colombia's economy was not ready to compete with the U.S.
"Our country isn't developed, it does not have the expertise much less the requirements for trade at this level," Mora said. "The country should be clear as to who is responsible for the coming massacre, because industry, large and small businesses are going to be hit because we are not in a condition to compete."
Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli said the trade agreement will help to attract foreign investment and increase commerce with the U.S., contributing to the creation of new jobs in the Central American country.
"We, Panamanians, have to prepare to take advantage of this agreement," Martinelli said in a statement.
Panama's Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture called it "a historic moment for Panama."
"This is a historic moment for Panama. A treaty with the largest trading partner in the world has been ratified and this will open the doors to a very important market," said chamber president Federico Humbert in a statement.
"We hope this agreement will bring great opportunities for Panama, while encouraging competitiveness and attract more foreign investment to our country," Humbert said.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said that before taking up free trade agreements the House should be considering legislation passed by the Senate on Tuesday that would punish China for keeping its currency undervalued, a practice that makes its exports cheaper and contributes to China's huge trade surplus with the United States. House Republican leaders oppose the currency bill and a Democratic attempt to attach it to the Colombia agreement was rejected.
Democratic opposition was particularly strong against the agreement with Colombia, where labor leaders long have faced the threat of violence.
"I find it deeply disturbing that the United States Congress is even considering a free trade agreement with a country that holds the world record for assassinations of trade unionists," said Rep. Maxine Waters.
To address Democratic objections to the deals, the White House demanded linking the trade bills to extension of a Kennedy-era program that helps workers displaced by foreign competition with retraining and financial aid. The Senate went along; the House passed it Wednesday, 307-122.
But with the focus in both the White House and Congress on jobs, the trade agreements enjoyed wide bipartisan support.
The administration says the three deals will boost U.S. exports by $13 billion a year and that just the agreement with South Korea, America's seventh largest trading partner, will support 70,000 American jobs.
Supporters say the three trading partners already enjoy almost duty-free access to U.S. markets and the agreements will lower tariffs on U.S. goods, making them significantly more competitive.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce notes that U.S. farm products sold to South Korea face 54 percent tariffs, compared with 9 percent for Korean agricultural goods in the United States, and that U.S. automakers are hit with a 35 percent tariff in Colombia, compared with 2 percent for any vehicles coming from Colombia.
The administration says the trade deal with South Korea could increase exports by $10 billion, enough to eliminate the current $10 billion surplus Seoul has with the United States. It would make 95 percent of American consumer and industrial goods duty free within five years.
The vote came a day before Korean President Lee Myung-bak is to address a joint meeting of Congress. On Wednesday he said in a speech at the Chamber of Congress that the agreement would "send a powerful message to the world that the United States and South Korea stand together in rejecting protectionism and that we are open to free and fair trade."
Republicans welcomed the prospect of increased exports but said those benefits could have come sooner if Obama had acted more quickly. They said American businesses have paid $3.8 billion in tariffs to Colombia since the trade agreement was signed, and that Americans are losing markets in South Korea because of a Korea-European Union free trade agreement that went into effect in July.
In the past year the administration has succeeded in winning concessions from South Korea to open up its markets further to U.S. vehicles and concluded an agreement to bring transparency to banking practices in Panama, known as a tax haven.
It has prodded Colombia into putting together a plan designed to protect labor rights and crack down on violence against labor leaders.
The United States has free trade relations with 17 nations. It could still take several months to work out the final formalities before the current agreements go into force. The South Korean parliament is expected to sign off on its agreement this month.
LOL! They probably wish he'd stfu as well and wish they could put hi on ignore.
These VALID protests are growing and our cadre of cackling corporate bootlickers are worried!.....
you and the protesters have one thing in commonThese VALID protests are growing and our cadre of cackling corporate bootlickers are worried!.....
All are shills and have no real passions other than the money you are promised.
Not true little one.
Spend some time talking with the Buffalo protesters and you just may learn something about the despicable vermin YOU mindlessly shill for!....:eyebrows:
Spend some time talking with the Buffalo protesters and you just may learn something about the despicable vermin YOU mindlessly shill for!....:eyebrows:
I think many people think capitalism is synonymous with corruption these days. It doesn't have to be. The fundamentals behind capitalism are sound. We've just screwed up the practice.
I am not worried one tiny bitThese VALID protests are growing and our cadre of cackling corporate bootlickers are worried!.....
In the end they will have zero credibility as they spout off about issues they do not understand, have asked for demands which nobody will take seriously and have absolutely zero leverage.
That's what they thought in Egypt, too.
The protests there started off as protests about high food costs, but morphed when the government didn't respond.
So you insist on drawing parallels between this and Egypt, despite the fact that there are no fundamental similarities whatsoever. They are superficially the same, but that's all
Ann nails it in her traditionally offensive manner....
WINGLESS, BLOODSUCKING AND PARASITIC: MEET THE FLEA PARTY!
Ann Coulter
October 12, 2011
So far, the only major accomplishment of the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters is that they have finally put an end to their previous initiative, "Occupy Our Mothers' Basements."
Oddly enough for such a respectable-looking group -- a mixture of adolescents looking for a cause, public sector union members, drug dealers, criminals, teenage runaways, people who have been at every protest since the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, Andrea Dworkin look-alikes, people 95 percent of whose hair is concentrated in their ponytails and other average Democrats -- they can't even explain what they're protesting.
The protesters either treat inquiries about their purpose as a trick question, or -- worse -- instantly rattle off a series of insane causes: "No. 1, abolish capitalism; No. 2, because 9/11 was an inside job; No. 3, because Mumia is innocent ..."
Curiously, the only point universally agreed upon by the protesters and their admirers in the Democratic Party and the mainstream media is that "Occupy Wall Street" should be compared to the tea party. Yes, that would be the same tea party that has been denounced and slandered by the Democratic Party and the mainstream media for the last three years.
As a refresher: The Democratic National Committee called the tea partiers "angry mobs" and "rabid right-wing extremists." ABC said they were a "mob." CNN accused them of "rabble rousing." Harry Reid called them "evil mongers." Nancy Pelosi said they were "un-American." CNN's Anderson Cooper and every single host on MSNBC called the tea partiers a name that referred to an obscure gay sex act.
But apparently liberals couldn't even convince themselves that tea partiers were an extremist group unworthy of emulation.
At least they're embarrassed about what the OWS protesters really are: wingless, bloodsucking and parasitic. This is the flea party, not the tea party.
Contrary to all the blather you always hear about how lawless street protests and civil disobedience are part of the American tradition -- "what our troops are fighting for!" -- they are not. We are an orderly people with democratic channels at our disposal to change our government.
The very reason we have a constitutional republic is because of a mob uprising. Soon after the American Revolution, Shays' Rebellion so terrified and angered Americans that they demanded a federal government capable of crushing such mobs.
For nearly 200 years, Americans understood that they lived in a country capable of producing bad politicians and bad policies, but that was subject to change through peaceful, democratic means. There was no need to riot or storm buildings because we didn't have a king. We had a representative government.
Even when injustice existed, there were constitutional mechanisms to right wrongs.
For nearly a century after the Civil War, congressional Republicans kept introducing bills that implemented the civil rights amendments -- only to be blocked by segregationist Democrats. But then, attorney Thurgood Marshall came along and began winning cases before the Supreme Court, redeeming black Americans' constitutional rights through the judiciary.
As long as a Republican sat in the White House, those victories were enforced. In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Ark., to walk black children to school in defiance of the segregationist, Democratic governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus -- Bill Clinton's friend.
This is what our Constitution was designed for: to use the force of the federal government to uphold the law when the states couldn't (Shays' Rebellion) or wouldn't (segregationist Democrats).
If Richard Nixon had won the 1960 election instead of John F. Kennedy -- as some say he did -- there never would have been a need for Rosa Parks, the Freedom Rides and the rest of the civil disobedience of the civil rights movement.
But as soon as the Democrats got control of the White House, enforcement of the Supreme Court's civil rights rulings came to a crashing halt. Elected Democrats in the states were free to violate legitimate constitutional rulings without interference from Democratic presidents.
The ingenious system given to us by our founding fathers faltered on the morally corrupt obstructionism of elected Democrats. They simply refused to abide by the rules -- with glee at the state level, and at the federal level, with cowardice.
Here, finally, was an appropriate case for nonviolent protest. There hasn't been another justification for civil disobedience in this country until the Supreme Court invented a "right" to abortion in Roe v. Wade -- another act of lawlessness by liberals.
Now liberals compare their every riot, every traffic blockage, every Starbucks-window-smashing street protest to the civil rights movement –- which was only necessary because of them. These "Occupy Wall Street" ignoramuses seem to imagine they are blacks living in 1963 Alabama under Democratic governor George Wallace.
To the contrary, the Wall Street protesters have no specific objections and no serious policy proposals in a country that is governed, as Abraham Lincoln put it, "by the people." They protest because they enjoy creating mayhem, not because the law is being ignored or their rights violated without penalty by government officials.
They are not in the tradition of the tea partiers, much less our founding fathers. They are not in the tradition of the civil rights movement or Operation Rescue. They are in the tradition of Shays' Rebellion, the Weathermen and Charles Manson.
WINGLESS, BLOODSUCKING AND PARASITIC: MEET THE FLEA PARTY!
Ann Coulter
October 12, 2011
So far, the only major accomplishment of the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters is that they have finally put an end to their previous initiative, "Occupy Our Mothers' Basements."
Oddly enough for such a respectable-looking group -- a mixture of adolescents looking for a cause, public sector union members, drug dealers, criminals, teenage runaways, people who have been at every protest since the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, Andrea Dworkin look-alikes, people 95 percent of whose hair is concentrated in their ponytails and other average Democrats -- they can't even explain what they're protesting.
The protesters either treat inquiries about their purpose as a trick question, or -- worse -- instantly rattle off a series of insane causes: "No. 1, abolish capitalism; No. 2, because 9/11 was an inside job; No. 3, because Mumia is innocent ..."
Curiously, the only point universally agreed upon by the protesters and their admirers in the Democratic Party and the mainstream media is that "Occupy Wall Street" should be compared to the tea party. Yes, that would be the same tea party that has been denounced and slandered by the Democratic Party and the mainstream media for the last three years.
As a refresher: The Democratic National Committee called the tea partiers "angry mobs" and "rabid right-wing extremists." ABC said they were a "mob." CNN accused them of "rabble rousing." Harry Reid called them "evil mongers." Nancy Pelosi said they were "un-American." CNN's Anderson Cooper and every single host on MSNBC called the tea partiers a name that referred to an obscure gay sex act.
But apparently liberals couldn't even convince themselves that tea partiers were an extremist group unworthy of emulation.
At least they're embarrassed about what the OWS protesters really are: wingless, bloodsucking and parasitic. This is the flea party, not the tea party.
Contrary to all the blather you always hear about how lawless street protests and civil disobedience are part of the American tradition -- "what our troops are fighting for!" -- they are not. We are an orderly people with democratic channels at our disposal to change our government.
The very reason we have a constitutional republic is because of a mob uprising. Soon after the American Revolution, Shays' Rebellion so terrified and angered Americans that they demanded a federal government capable of crushing such mobs.
For nearly 200 years, Americans understood that they lived in a country capable of producing bad politicians and bad policies, but that was subject to change through peaceful, democratic means. There was no need to riot or storm buildings because we didn't have a king. We had a representative government.
Even when injustice existed, there were constitutional mechanisms to right wrongs.
For nearly a century after the Civil War, congressional Republicans kept introducing bills that implemented the civil rights amendments -- only to be blocked by segregationist Democrats. But then, attorney Thurgood Marshall came along and began winning cases before the Supreme Court, redeeming black Americans' constitutional rights through the judiciary.
As long as a Republican sat in the White House, those victories were enforced. In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Ark., to walk black children to school in defiance of the segregationist, Democratic governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus -- Bill Clinton's friend.
This is what our Constitution was designed for: to use the force of the federal government to uphold the law when the states couldn't (Shays' Rebellion) or wouldn't (segregationist Democrats).
If Richard Nixon had won the 1960 election instead of John F. Kennedy -- as some say he did -- there never would have been a need for Rosa Parks, the Freedom Rides and the rest of the civil disobedience of the civil rights movement.
But as soon as the Democrats got control of the White House, enforcement of the Supreme Court's civil rights rulings came to a crashing halt. Elected Democrats in the states were free to violate legitimate constitutional rulings without interference from Democratic presidents.
The ingenious system given to us by our founding fathers faltered on the morally corrupt obstructionism of elected Democrats. They simply refused to abide by the rules -- with glee at the state level, and at the federal level, with cowardice.
Here, finally, was an appropriate case for nonviolent protest. There hasn't been another justification for civil disobedience in this country until the Supreme Court invented a "right" to abortion in Roe v. Wade -- another act of lawlessness by liberals.
Now liberals compare their every riot, every traffic blockage, every Starbucks-window-smashing street protest to the civil rights movement –- which was only necessary because of them. These "Occupy Wall Street" ignoramuses seem to imagine they are blacks living in 1963 Alabama under Democratic governor George Wallace.
To the contrary, the Wall Street protesters have no specific objections and no serious policy proposals in a country that is governed, as Abraham Lincoln put it, "by the people." They protest because they enjoy creating mayhem, not because the law is being ignored or their rights violated without penalty by government officials.
They are not in the tradition of the tea partiers, much less our founding fathers. They are not in the tradition of the civil rights movement or Operation Rescue. They are in the tradition of Shays' Rebellion, the Weathermen and Charles Manson.
