http://news.yahoo.com/bush-other-gop-hop...lYwNzYw--#

ERMAGHERD SMERLLER GERVERNMERNT

Why don't they run instead of trying to make politicians puppets?

Sweet.

(08-03-2015 02:57 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Why don't they run instead of trying to make politicians puppets?

They wouldn't get many votes.

(08-03-2015 02:57 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Why don't they run instead of trying to make politicians puppets?

Because they're too busy employing lots of people

(08-03-2015 02:57 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Why don't they run instead of trying to make politicians puppets?

Can't afford the pay cut.

Plus they've got dozens of businesses to run.

Why don't the puppet masters Soros and Steyer run?

(08-03-2015 03:47 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 02:57 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Why don't they run instead of trying to make politicians puppets?

Can't afford the pay cut.

Plus they've got dozens of businesses to run.

Why don't the puppet masters Soros and Steyer run?

Let them all run.

(08-03-2015 02:57 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Why don't they run instead of trying to make politicians puppets?

Scott Walker is younger and much better looking.

(08-03-2015 05:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 02:57 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Why don't they run instead of trying to make politicians puppets?

Scott Walker is younger and much better looking.

Isn't he a little cross eyed?

(08-03-2015 05:16 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 05:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 02:57 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Why don't they run instead of trying to make politicians puppets?

Scott Walker is younger and much better looking.

Isn't he a little cross eyed?

It helps him walk a straight line. Look ahead, look ahead.

Scott Walker is cross eyed? Well he was an eagle scout so he's qualified. LMFAO

(08-03-2015 03:47 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 02:57 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Why don't they run instead of trying to make politicians puppets?

Can't afford the pay cut.

Plus they've got dozens of businesses to run.

Why don't the puppet masters Soros and Steyer run?

The 2 Koch brothers are worth about $100 billion. I think they can afford the pay cut. But, you are correct they do have an empire to run.

(08-03-2015 03:30 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 02:57 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Why don't they run instead of trying to make politicians puppets?

Because they're too busy employing lots of people

In order to make more money. They aren't employing people in some benevolent gesture, they do it to make money.

That in no way makes them evil, or to be vilified. But let's stop with the whole 'job creators' nonsense, unless of course we start calling every employee 'profit creators' also. Because, you know, that's what they do.

(08-04-2015 05:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 03:30 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 02:57 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Why don't they run instead of trying to make politicians puppets?

Because they're too busy employing lots of people

In order to make more money. They aren't employing people in some benevolent gesture, they do it to make money.
That in no way makes them evil, or to be vilified. But let's stop with the whole 'job creators' nonsense, unless of course we start calling every employee 'profit creators' also. Because, you know, that's what they do.

As long as employees remain "profit creators," employers will continue to be "job creators."

What difference does it make whether the objective is to make a profit or to be benevolent? At the end of the day, doesn't the mere act of employing people contribute sufficient benefits to society to justify it?

(08-04-2015 05:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 03:30 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 02:57 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Why don't they run instead of trying to make politicians puppets?

Because they're too busy employing lots of people

In order to make more money. They aren't employing people in some benevolent gesture, they do it to make money.

That in no way makes them evil, or to be vilified. But let's stop with the whole 'job creators' nonsense, unless of course we start calling every employee 'profit creators' also. Because, you know, that's what they do.

Company's are profitable, because the government mandates it.

Yes, OBlunder and the liberals can b*tch about profits until the cows come home, but it is the federal government that requires a company to be profitable.

Therefore, if an employee is not profitable, they are screwing with the company's ability to stay in compliance with the IRS mandate that they be profitable.

(08-03-2015 05:16 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 05:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 02:57 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Why don't they run instead of trying to make politicians puppets?

Scott Walker is younger and much better looking.

Isn't he a little cross eyed?

Scott Walker always looks like he should be riding the short bus. Huckabee has that lazy eye. Trump needs to exploit this.

(08-04-2015 05:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-04-2015 05:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 03:30 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 02:57 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Why don't they run instead of trying to make politicians puppets?

Because they're too busy employing lots of people

In order to make more money. They aren't employing people in some benevolent gesture, they do it to make money.
That in no way makes them evil, or to be vilified. But let's stop with the whole 'job creators' nonsense, unless of course we start calling every employee 'profit creators' also. Because, you know, that's what they do.

As long as employees remain "profit creators," employers will continue to be "job creators."

What difference does it make whether the objective is to make a profit or to be benevolent? At the end of the day, doesn't the mere act of employing people contribute sufficient benefits to society to justify it?

I'm not stating there is a functional difference, and I'm not in anyway attacking him or any business owner for desiring to make a profit. That's literally the entire purpose of a business, and it's definitively amoral. My entire comment revolves around the usage of that silly way of characterizing business owners as 'job creators', because it's an utterly useless distinction dependent on an arbitrary point with a distinct ideological purpose.

Well, unlike the government job creations these other jobs make money instead of just taking IN the money. The government uses a hoe to pay their people and never produce any assets. If it wasn't for businesses who would the government tax?


Big difference.

(08-04-2015 07:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  My entire comment revolves around the usage of that silly way of characterizing business owners as 'job creators', because it's an utterly useless distinction dependent on an arbitrary point with a distinct ideological purpose.

I'd really be interested in an explanation of any logical path by which you reached this conclusion.

I'm fine with the tradeoff being employers are job creators and employees are profit producers. As I suggested in my post, I think that really helps put things into proper perspective. Employers are job producers as long as employees are profit producers. That means that if government wants jobs, then government had better adopt policies which enable employees to produce profits.