'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate

Judged:

2

1

1

frank wrote:

The (not so) amusing Mr. Romney proposed that the Constitution be amended to require that all presidential candidates have a minimum of three years of business experience. Without this qualification, a candidate could not run for President. Romney boasted, quote: "I’d like to have a provision in the Constitution that, in addition to the age of the president, and the citizenship of the president and the birthplace of the president being set by the Constitution, I’d like it also to say that the president has to spend at least three years working in business before he could become president of the United States."
Had the Founding Fathers come up with this doozy of a provision, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower would have been disqualified. There would have been no JFK and no Ronald Reagan. Even crazier, a look at the best presidents reveals that six out of the 10 top presidents had no business experience. Conversely, two of the worst presidents of the twentieth century, actually had business experience – Gdub and Hoover.

hewwwwwwwwhawwwwwww wrote:

<quoted text>...he WORKED for it! HE can use it the way he wants! How about you work hard, get rich AND keep that notion you have! wow oh wow. Feeling entitled to anothers property are ya?

Judged:

1

1

1

use ur brain wrote:

<quoted text>
Good Lord man, does being so dumb hurt? I would imagine you are in constant pain if it hurts to be stupid. Does everyone in the Frank and Ernest dumb ass family get a crazy check or are you the only one the government recognizes as being the grand poopah idiot of your clan? Being a struggling talking head for the democrat party didn't turn out to be as lucrative as you had hoped, huh?
It's scary that idiots like you are allowed to vote yet it explains a lot as to why our country is circling the sewer drain as we speak. Priceless!

frank wrote:

<quoted text>
Wealth re-distribution is an ugly word and not the best way to put forth the whole idea. A much better way to look at it to connect it to the spending power of the middle class – the wag-earners – more, much more, of corporate profits should reach the wage-earner instead of millions upon millions going to CEO’s and other corporate mangers. In this way the money would be put back into the economy by the huge spending and shopping by the middle class. It would be one thing if the high incomes of those at the top were the result of greater contributions to society, but the Great Recession showes otherwise: even bankers who had led the global economy, as well as their own firms, to the brink of ruin, yet they received outsize bonuses.
Some have obtained their wealth by exercising monopoly power; others are CEOs who have taken advantage of deficiencies in corporate governance to extract for themselves an excessive share of corporate earnings; and still others have used political connections to benefit from ... either excessively high prices for what the government buys (drugs), or excessively low prices for what the government sells (mineral rights). Likewise, part of the wealth of those in finance comes from exploiting the poor, through predatory lending and abusive credit-card practices.

Judged:

1

1

frank wrote:

<quoted text>
Someone tie your skivvies in a knot, pissed in your wheaties -- what?

I vote democrat wrote:

What exactly is wrong with wealth redistribution? Some old rich guy has alot of money just sitting in a bank somewhere collecting dust when it could be used by someone else and spent. Then it goes around the economy and people pay taxes on it as it passes through their hands to the next person.
Quit being a money hog and pass it along!

Judged:

1

frank wrote:

<quoted text>
Wealth re-distribution is an ugly word and not the best way to put forth the whole idea. A much better way to look at it to connect it to the spending power of the middle class – the wag-earners – more, much more, of corporate profits should reach the wage-earner instead of millions upon millions going to CEO’s and other corporate mangers. In this way the money would be put back into the economy by the huge spending and shopping by the middle class. It would be one thing if the high incomes of those at the top were the result of greater contributions to society, but the Great Recession showes otherwise: even bankers who had led the global economy, as well as their own firms, to the brink of ruin, yet they received outsize bonuses.
Some have obtained their wealth by exercising monopoly power; others are CEOs who have taken advantage of deficiencies in corporate governance to extract for themselves an excessive share of corporate earnings; and still others have used political connections to benefit from ... either excessively high prices for what the government buys (drugs), or excessively low prices for what the government sells (mineral rights). Likewise, part of the wealth of those in finance comes from exploiting the poor, through predatory lending and abusive credit-card practices.

pillhead Pete wrote:

<quoted text>
Okay I agree with you. I am a drug addict and never worked an honest day in my life. I suck the government dry by receiving every freebie offered to me and then some. I don't take responsibility for the children I brought into this world. The government supports me and it can damn well support my kids and their baby mama's too! Now, since we should all share in the wealth you better back up what you claim. I want what you have and I should, according to your theory, have exactly what you have even though I never worked for what you have. Please, to prove you really really believe, sign your home over to me and deposit your savings into my bank account and hand over the keys to your cars. My opinion, which is the only opinion that really matters, is that you are an old turd and your mind is collecting dust and I can make better use of your money than you ever could.
Prove that you believe. Give me everything you have because even you believe I deserve what you have worked for! I looooove socialism! Need my bank account number to get started?

Judged:

1

lol wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you talking about the guy that made millions off of betting that people wouldn't be able to afford their mortgage payments on Obama's watch when he worked on Wall Street then gave himself millions in a bonus after Obama granted his company a big tax payer bailout? Is that the type of person you are talking about? Wonder what happened to those horrible greedy awful people? Check out Obama's staff. He hired a bunch of them to oversee our tax dollars. Does Jack Lew ring a bell? He is Obama's latest Chief of Staff. Check it out frank. It will be a good lesson for you to learn to research some of the crazy crap you post unless you just don't mind being the topix moron. lol

Judged:

1

1

I vote democrat wrote:

What exactly is wrong with wealth redistribution? Some old rich guy has alot of money just sitting in a bank somewhere collecting dust when it could be used by someone else and spent. Then it goes around the economy and people pay taxes on it as it passes through their hands to the next person.
Quit being a money hog and pass it along!

Judged:

1

I vote democrat wrote:

Another thing, most business owners are rich. They think just because they write the check they are better than their employees. If you don't have a union then they take advantage of you, like not keeping the factory air conditioned. I had to quit a job because it was too hot and I would sweat everyday in the summer. Where the boss worked in the office it was air conditioned and he only sweated because he was fat. If we could have struck we could have shut them down and then they would be sorry.
I wish I owned that factory then I would put in a big air conditioner so those people would be comfortable during work.
Rich people suck!!
Obama 2012!!!!!!!!!!

WakeUp wrote:

<quoted text>
To grow the wealth of the middle class, well, we need middle class jobs. Which means we need a demand for the types of employment that generate that wealth. Like any commodity (which labor is) the more demand for that labor, the higher the wages paid.
We don't have that demand (half of all college graduates this year are underemployed or out right unemployed) because those companies don't exist or aren't expanding.
It has nothing to do with the pay of CEO's. It has everything to do with the actual business climate of our country. This isn't the 1950's and 60's when there was no one to compete with on the global scale (as they had all been bombed into oblivion during WWII)
The major issues you've touched upon are due more to corporate cronyism and intervention by the government into the free market than some evil "ceo" not contributing to society. Predatory lending was allowed b/c the government was buying those worthless loans (fannie and freddie) and allowing them to be resold (SEC, etc) and the banks knew that there was no downside to making loans to those who would not be able to afford them. Thanks to government intervention.
The fallacy with the non contributing CEO should be obvious. How many millionaires and middle class Americans owe their wealth to the likes of Steve Jobs or Bill Gates? Look at some of the flagship companies such as Coke.

The Irate Republican wrote:

<quoted text>
The two party system is part of a larger design to keep us at one another, so won't have the time, or be able to keep our eyes on what is really going on. Control the peoples emotions, and you can control the people. That's really an old principal. Works like a champ also
TIR

CaptainObvious2U wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually the two party system was designed fora much smaller populace; there were usually very few issues to concern the populace. The two party system was born of "simplicity" much like a checker game you are black and your opponent is white. I agree we need more choice!

frank wrote:

<quoted text>
How exactly does my post tie in with your wingnuz rant?

Judged:

1

1

I vote democrat wrote:

If we could have struck we could have shut them down and then they would be sorry.