Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Democrat policies
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,248
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Democrat policies
This really isnt a 'humor' thread, but this one might be darkly labeled that.... I really didnt know where to place it.....

Real news item, Planned Parenthood fired its CEO, Leanna Wen today, 8 months into her tenure.

Some of the bloggers have jumped on this with dark humor:

"Planned Parenthood Aborts New President After Eight Months."

"Can’t call them hypocrites. PP has always strongly supported the right to terminate in the third trimester."

"A nonprofit should have absolute control of its own (governing) body."
(This post was last modified: 07-16-2019 09:11 PM by tanqtonic.)
07-16-2019 09:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,248
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Democrat policies
Interesting point --- how is that the Flynn case has shown erstwhile liberals – people who a little more than a decade ago were marching en masse in the streets over the civil liberties implications of Cheney’s War on Terror apparatus – have morphed into defenders of the spy state.

Warrantless surveillance, multiple illegal leaks of classified information, a false statements charge constructed on the razor’s edge of Miranda, and the use of never-produced, secret counterintelligence evidence in a domestic criminal proceeding – this is the “rule of law” we’re being asked to cheer.

Additionally progressive politicians and pundits across the last four years have rolled their eyes at attorney-client privilege, the presumption of innocence, the right to face one’s accuser, the right to counsel and a host of other issues, across a raft of issues not associated with Trump or his policies. They regularly denounce civil rights worries as red-herring excuses for Trumpism.

And not just in matters of Trump. In the process, they’ve raised a generation of followers whose contempt for civil liberties is now genuine-to-permanent. Blue-staters have gone from dismissing constitutional concerns as Trumpian ruse to sneering at them, in the manner of French aristocrats, as evidence of proletarian mental defect.

The people who were aghast at the revelations of Snowden and the items he brought to light at the depth and pervasiveness of a government charging wholeheartedly into all encompassing intrusion, now seemingly cheer that intrusiveness.

The major points of an opinion piece I read last night.
05-17-2020 08:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,139
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1766
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #23
RE: Democrat policies
(05-17-2020 08:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Interesting point --- how is that the Flynn case has shown erstwhile liberals – people who a little more than a decade ago were marching en masse in the streets over the civil liberties implications of Cheney’s War on Terror apparatus – have morphed into defenders of the spy state.

Which is exactly why I opposed the patRIOT act and all the other civil and constitutional liberties that we violated in the aftermath of 9/11. I took a lot of flak from my conservative brethren (and sisteren) on here for doing that, but my point was always, the other side can use these things too. And that's exactly what happened.

Think back. On the morning of 9/12, every news service in the world had photos of the 19 hijackers, and the identity of the 20th who didn't make it. They didn't get those from the survivors. That means that enough information was in the system already to have prevented 9/11, if only the damn bureaucrats had done their jobs. But no, my career comes first, my agency comes second, and doing my job comes third. And turf battles prevented our being ready to respond. When those 19 guys bought airplane tickets, bells and whistles should have gone off. But none did, and we paid the price. We didn't need a patRIOT act or a FISA court, we just needed bureaucrats to put their damn jobs first and do them.
(This post was last modified: 05-17-2020 09:45 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
05-17-2020 09:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 33,772
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 875
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #24
RE: Democrat policies
(07-10-2019 01:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 11:51 AM)At Ease Wrote:  
Quote:The greatest effects would be felt by those living below the poverty line, who would see a 5.3 percent increase in earnings. Wages would increase for as many as 27.3 million workers, roughly one in six Americans. That includes “many of the 10 million workers whose wages would be slightly above the new federal minimum,” according to the CBO; as the minimum wage kicks everyone up to $15 an hour, those slightly above that level would likely bargain for and get a raise as well. Workers would see total wages increase by $44 billion in the aggregate, with virtually all of that going to the poor. And 1.3 million Americans would rise out of poverty.

Now for the costs in the cost-benefit analysis. According to the study, 1.3 million Americans would lose their jobs. Half of these would be teenagers, and a large segment of the 700,000 adults losing jobs would be part-timers. Consumers would pay around 0.3 percent more for their goods and services, as the wage increase gets partially passed on, and business owners would lose $14 billion, a trivial amount of total business income.

Link

Thanks for posting. Interesting that the jobs lost are primarily teenagers and part-time workers. A lot less of a problem, IMO, than 1.3 million full-time adult earners losing their jobs. Big difference in those categories.

I've only done a cursory review of this thread and may be way off...

But if I'm understanding the comment, this is demonstrating the very clear point that people like me want to make on this issue.

You're putting 'part time and teenagers' ... the very people who should be earning the 'minimum' wage.... out of work by instituting a supposedly living wage that shouldn't apply to them... as employers become more picky about whom they want to pay $10-$15 or whatever the 'minimum' wage is to full time and more experienced workers.

If you take those part-time and teenage workers out of the current numbers, I wonder how much of an impact this is really having on the average wages earned by full-time and more experienced workers? It seems self-evident to me that if I had to pay $15 to someone that I previously paid $10 to... that in addition to 'letting go' of those whose skills and experience wouldn't warrant a doubling of their wage, that I'd simply demand more work out of the remaining workers.... not hire as many... so now I have someone with experience who is working harder and earning more, but they're still an 'entry level' employee... and I'm going to keep them there as long as it takes. Sure, if I can raise prices I will, but I don't see anyone accepting meaningfully higher healthcare prices... or gas prices... or rent... or especially food (a very high labor product)...

so what really happens is that the young, those returning to the workplace etc etc get kept out... employees who 'were' rising up the ladder are now set back at a minimum wage... with young and hungry people willing to take their places... AND most importantly... those currently earning say $15-20/hr... who WERE earning a living wage, are now seeing their net income cut... because prices of things like food rise.

Bottom line, the impact of such decisions are much more complex than studies like these ever seem to take into account. The markets are all about 'balance', and if you change one component, EVERYTHING will adjust to create a new equilibrium. SOme jobs will go away and be replaced by higher paying ones, but unless unemployment is very low (which runs counter to the premise in the first place) all you're doing is shuffling who is really paying the cost.... and no matter how you look at it, it will STILL be people at the bottom of the ladder paying the price.

The guy buying the car that takes 300 man-hours to build will now be paying $1500 more for his $100,000 car... and while the 10 guys building that car now make $15 rather than $10/hr, so $450 rather than $300... the owner lays off the one of them that can't now do 10 hours of work in 9 hours.
05-18-2020 01:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
At Ease Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,068
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 117
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Democrat policies
Quote:American Politics Is Now Democrats Versus Authoritarians

When one party respects the rule of law but the other doesn’t, political discourse can’t be normal.



The Democratic Party now confronts a predicament familiar to democratic political parties in authoritarian states such as Hungary and Russia. As those parties have learned, there is no good answer to the problem.

In the midst of the current national emergency, the executive branch has largely refused to acknowledge the House, disregarding dozens of letters sent by its committees seeking information on the coronavirus pandemic. At least nine requests to Cabinet officials to attend a hearing, briefing or videoconference have been rejected.

McConnell and his Republican colleagues have aggressively abetted Trump’s lawlessness, including the coverup of his shakedown of Ukraine and the subsequent purge of officials whose professionalism, patriotism or honesty enraged him. Attorney General William Barr is working diligently to supplant the facts of the Mueller investigation into Trump’s dalliance with Russia in 2016 with a wonderland of right-wing fantasy. Meanwhile, armed Trump allies don militia gear to intimidate political opponents.

So how do Democrats respond? The Republican subpoenas will be saturated in bad faith. Why should Democrats honor them? In politics, isn’t turnabout fair play?

Many Democrats will say so. But for a democratic party seeking to sustain rule of law against authoritarian attacks, turnabout also threatens to undermine the very values and norms that the party is fighting to preserve.

“In a democratic context, with two parties, when one party begins to violate or break the rules, the second party has no clear winning strategy,” Steven Levitsky, co-author of “How Democracies Die,” said in an email.

One hallmark of authoritarian politics, in addition to an adversarial relationship with the truth, is ignoring the law as it applies to party interests while deploying it as a weapon against political opponents. For example, party politicians might ignore lawful subpoenas intended to expose their corruption while subsequently using subpoenas of their own to construct a phony case of wrongdoing by opponents.

Because neither the news media nor the nation’s larger political culture has reckoned with the GOP’s authoritarian evolution, the habitual response is to mislabel GOP authoritarianism as hypocrisy. Calling out hypocrisy is a pointless shaming mechanism for a party that has broken free of shame. Worse, it camouflages a war on democracy as democratic politics as usual.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articl...nd=opinion
(This post was last modified: 05-27-2020 09:29 AM by At Ease.)
05-27-2020 09:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,205
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #26
RE: Democrat policies
(05-27-2020 09:28 AM)At Ease Wrote:  Calling out hypocrisy is a pointless shaming mechanism for a party that has broken free of shame.

IOW, they are shameless.
05-27-2020 09:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,139
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1766
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #27
RE: Democrat policies
(05-27-2020 09:28 AM)At Ease Wrote:  
Quote:American Politics Is Now Democrats Versus Authoritarians
When one party respects the rule of law but the other doesn’t, political discourse can’t be normal.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articl...nd=opinion

Umm, Bloomberg is hardly what one would consider an objective observer.

IMO it's exactly the opposite. Democrats ARE the Authoritarians. My complaint is that republicans aren't doing enough to oppose them.
05-27-2020 10:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,248
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Democrat policies
Lolz ---- Democrats as non-authoritarians. Good grief.

Progressivism exists for the combination of collectivism through government action.

Anyone with any iota of political philosophy, or any iota relating the roots of progressivism understand the deep relationship between modern progressivism and authoritarian philosophy.

As for 'rule of law' --- the party that put together the Russia collusion shitshow certainly did not have any sense of the 'rule of law' in the fing slightest. Sometimes the whack a mole really displays a deep understanding of grape kool aid in the highest sense.
05-27-2020 11:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 13,046
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 514
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #29
RE: Democrat policies
(07-16-2019 09:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  This really isnt a 'humor' thread, but this one might be darkly labeled that.... I really didnt know where to place it.....

Real news item, Planned Parenthood fired its CEO, Leanna Wen today, 8 months into her tenure.

Some of the bloggers have jumped on this with dark humor:

"Planned Parenthood Aborts New President After Eight Months."

"Can’t call them hypocrites. PP has always strongly supported the right to terminate in the third trimester."

"A nonprofit should have absolute control of its own (governing) body."

similarly, thought this had to go somewhere on our borad...
[Image: 5ed090bb3a429.jpeg]
05-31-2020 12:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,248
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Democrat policies
06-09-2020 06:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.