The Liberal Thread #2 - No Debate Please

[eclectics]

BINGO! At the time I saw this as an opportunity for us to lose a lot of jobs, knowing that jobs would be shipped across borders.

Initially this was "supposed" to create jobs, it didn't, just took them. Look at just our imbalance with China at the moment, it's simply disgusting.... What is it 1 to 10 now?

Not to mention them holding so much of our debt (thanks Dubya ). China is literally laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[crcormier]

I was deeply troubled to read that article about the coffee drinkers. You see, I have a serious Starbucks habit.

And that means I'm secretly for... Obama??!!

YOu may now return to your regularly scheduled thread...

You're slowly finding out Zip, that to be right, means you need to be left.

 

[LuvDuke]

Here's my take on the whole Hillary vs Barak debate: I don't care who comes out the winner. Either one of them will be an improvement over a Republican. I can count on either Hillary or Barak not to appoint a "Strip Search Sammie" Alito to the Supreme Court. I can count on either Hillary or Barak not to kiss the *** of the religious right nor ask for their advice as to policy or government appointments. I could go on and on, but I think the point has been made.

What we on this side of the aisle have to concentrate is giving the heave-ho to as many Congressional Republicans as possible. As long as they have anything that can impact the filibuster numbers, neither Hillary nor Barak will get anything done. The Congressional Republicans have no interest in "reaching across the aisle". They have a "scorched policy" that will torpedo any hopes of universal healthcare, rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, etc.

For all you people who love divided government because you think it gives the insurance goal against whatever you want to be insured against, think on how many times the Congressional Republicans have stood in the way in the last 13+ months. If you want this country to move forward, get rid of these bums.

 

[profdsny]

A couple of thoughts on NAFTA, and I have no idea if I'm right. It's interesting that in Europe the borders between countries are open. One is a citizen of Europe first, (almost) then of a nationality. Goods, and people move there freely. At the same time, we have now walled off Canada and Mexico. We now need a passport to go places that we went smoothly just a few years ago, and for a hundred years before that. Yeah, I know, supposedly this is about terrorism and illegal workers (remember the huge Chinese armies that were supposed to be stationed in Mexico in the 60s? What ever happened to them?) and all that. But we have become isolated from our neighbors while much of the world is doing the opposite.
NAFTA, as I understand it, was supposed to be between US and our neighbors. It didn't have anything to do with China, India, etc., as I understand it.
The use of countries outside the US now for our goods and service simply has to do with greed. Both on the part of company owners, and also on the part of stockholders. If acme can make explosives outside the US, then their profit is much greater, and as such the value of the stock is greater. Then, stockholders, and as such the DJ and all the other indexes are up.
Bob's Big Box can't make a profit if they have to sell men's shirts at $60 because they are made in the US, while We Got Everything Super Store has their items made in Sri Lanka and can sell the very same shirt for $2.99.
Who's going to buy stock in Bob's? No one, and as such Bob goes under, and any stockholders lose money and the DJ goes down.
There are lots of factors at work here. I don't think NAFTA is to blame by a long shot for much of what is occurring now. Maybe.

 

[profdsny]

This is from an article a few pages back.

"People are trading down from Starbucks to Dunkin' Donuts. These may not be the best circumstances for Mr Obama's soaring rhetoric of hope in the future. His hope has to be that things do not get so bad that fear overwhelms it."


Geez, I thought I was the only one trading down. Talking to an intern yesterday who works at Starbucks, as her 'real job', at one of the prime locations in Chicago, she told me sales were way down. And, for those of you who liked them, they are discontinuing the breakfast sandwiches.

 

[eclectics]

A couple of thoughts on NAFTA, and I have no idea if I'm right. It's interesting that in Europe the borders between countries are open. One is a citizen of Europe first, (almost) then of a nationality. Goods, and people move there freely. At the same time, we have now walled off Canada and Mexico. We now need a passport to go places that we went smoothly just a few years ago, and for a hundred years before that. Yeah, I know, supposedly this is about terrorism and illegal workers (remember the huge Chinese armies that were supposed to be stationed in Mexico in the 60s? What ever happened to them?) and all that. But we have become isolated from our neighbors while much of the world is doing the opposite.
NAFTA, as I understand it, was supposed to be between US and our neighbors. It didn't have anything to do with China, India, etc., as I understand it.
The use of countries outside the US now for our goods and service simply has to do with greed. Both on the part of company owners, and also on the part of stockholders. If acme can make explosives outside the US, then their profit is much greater, and as such the value of the stock is greater. Then, stockholders, and as such the DJ and all the other indexes are up.
Bob's Big Box can't make a profit if they have to sell men's shirts at $60 because they are made in the US, while We Got Everything Super Store has their items made in Sri Lanka and can sell the very same shirt for $2.99.
Who's going to buy stock in Bob's? No one, and as such Bob goes under, and any stockholders lose money and the DJ goes down.
There are lots of factors at work here. I don't think NAFTA is to blame by a long shot for much of what is occurring now. Maybe.

My confusion and apprehension with NAFTA had to do with Mexico and still does. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how it benefits us.

Our trade practices with the rest of the world revolves around greed, as you said. The bottom line is ALWAYS money related.

 

[Chloe'sMom]

This is from an article a few pages back.

"People are trading down from Starbucks to Dunkin' Donuts. These may not be the best circumstances for Mr Obama's soaring rhetoric of hope in the future. His hope has to be that things do not get so bad that fear overwhelms it."


Geez, I thought I was the only one trading down. Talking to an intern yesterday who works at Starbucks, as her 'real job', at one of the prime locations in Chicago, she told me sales were way down. And, for those of you who liked them, they are discontinuing the breakfast sandwiches.

I miss Starbucks - what was once an everyday occurence is now the rare treat. Can't afford $4.00 coffee everyday anymore. I brew my own coffe or *gulp* drink the free coffee provided at work and bring my own flavored creamer, I also brown bag it now - where as I use to go out to eat 3 to 4 days a week. And when I say out to eat I mean at a sit down resturant where a server earned a tip. With the prices of everything going up - we can't afford to live like we use to. Now when we go out to dinner there is always either a coupon or a gift card I swear I am becoming my parents in the early 1990's.

We are going to Disney in April - we use to eat a sit down meal every day - now we have 2 scheduled, and they are both at lunch when the prices are cheaper............I've been lurking on the budge board

~Amanda

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

My confusion and apprehension with NAFTA had to do with Mexico and still does. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how it benefits us.

Our trade practices with the rest of the world revolves around greed, as you said. The bottom line is ALWAYS money related.

I think that you will find that most supporters of NAFTA, when it comes to Mexico, will say that the eventual lift to the Mexican economy, and it's benefit to the US economy and/or decline in illegal immigration is a long term strategy that is still many years in the making. I'm certainly not arguing in favor of it, I'm just saying it is what it is.

 

[chris1gill]

My confusion and apprehension with NAFTA had to do with Mexico and still does. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how it benefits us.

Our trade practices with the rest of the world revolves around greed, as you said. The bottom line is ALWAYS money related.

It never benefited us... our jobs went their for pennies on the dollar and we still have the illegal immigration from Mexico....

As for NAFTA and how it relates to our trade policy, NAFTA was a springboard to see how rich the company's really could get by shipping jobs over the border in North America, and then shipping goods back in, once that was realized, the trickle down or, waterfall down started from all the other countries that our corporations (and corporations abroad) could see as a cheap place to make goods and then export into the U.S. we make virtually nothing anymore.... and here we are...

 

[chris1gill]

I think that you will find that most supporters of NAFTA, when it comes to Mexico, will say that the eventual lift to the Mexican economy, and it's benefit to the US economy and/or decline in illegal immigration is a long term strategy that is still many years in the making. I'm certainly not arguing in favor of it, I'm just saying it is what it is.

This was the exact desire they wanted to see, unfortunately as we all know, 13 years, almost 14 years after it's inception, and it's been a disaster.

 

["Got Disney"]

I think that you will find that most supporters of NAFTA, when it comes to Mexico, will say that the eventual lift to the Mexican economy, and it's benefit to the US economy and/or decline in illegal immigration is a long term strategy that is still many years in the making. I'm certainly not arguing in favor of it, I'm just saying it is what it is.

Living in San diego and being only 20 minutes or so from the Mexican borders I agree.
I can tell you this. If I lived in Mexico near the borders I would try to get here also. There is sooooo much poverty there. We go into Mexico all the time and drive in about 2 hrs through Mexico and it is poor.

There is no where to really work and many live in shacks and when it rains and those shacks fall down they put the 4 walls back right there. No bathrooms, electricity, heat...anything.

In mexico you are either poor or rich and no in between. The schools are nasty and the education is terrible. I do not blame it on the people , many want better(that is why they will die trying to get over here) I blame there past GOV.

so do I like illegals being here ...no I don't...do I understand ...yes....would I try to sneak over the border...you betcha!!!!!

So if trade with Mexico will help there economy that I am for it as long as we are Economy is not forgotten in the midst of things.

Also I cant see how sending all the millions of illegals back to there country is feasible...not just the money it would cost but the country in a whole...the turmoil would be horrendous.

I say have them work on becoming legal over here and put ALL THAT money to securing our borders and keeping any others from slipping through the cracks!

 

[chris1gill]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";23090842]Living in San diego and being only 20 minutes or so from the Mexican borders I agree.
I can tell you this. If I lived in Mexico near the borders I would try to get here also. There is sooooo much poverty there. We go into Mexico all the time and drive in about 2 hrs through Mexico and it is poor.

There is no where to really work and many live in shacks and when it rains and those shacks fall down they put the 4 walls back right there. No bathrooms, electricity, heat...anything.

In mexico you are either poor or rich and no in between. The schools are nasty and the education is terrible. I do not blame it on the people , many want better(that is why they will die trying to get over here) I blame there past GOV.

so do I like illegals being here ...no I don't...do I understand ...yes....would I try to sneak over the border...you betcha!!!!!

So if trade with Mexico will help there economy that I am for it as long as we are Economy is not forgotten in the midst of things.

Also I cant see how sending all the millions of illegals back to there country is feasible...not just the money it would cost but the country in a whole...the turmoil would be horrendous.

I say have them work on becoming legal over here and put ALL THAT money to securing our borders and keeping any others from slipping through the cracks![/QUOTE]

I will not disagree with a thing you've said. But, as it stands, Nafta made the rich richer and it did not go into the economy of the people for which you've spoken. What have they received? Absolutely nothing, and much of Mexico is the same way.... You're right, in Mexico there isn't much in between rich and poor. That's their government's corrupt policies, we all know, we all turn our backs on it, and we allow it.... We have to protect our border, our interests and give people a path to get here legally. I don't know about you, but my ancestors were here legally, my DH's grandmother's and grandfather's all immigrated here from Europe legally, it can be done, it just takes time and resources. Course we know those people don't have the resources, thus the problem..

I can see why Americans are so mad about the immigration problem, it really does take away jobs from people who are here legally or live here legally. I also feel bad for the people risking their lives everyday to try to make the trip across the border... Unless the Mexican government is given incentive to clean up their act, they just never will, that's what my gut tell's me.... they haven't thus far, and I don't see it in the near future...

 

["Got Disney"]

I can see why Americans are so mad about the immigration problem, it really does take away jobs from people who are here legally or live here legally. I also feel bad for the people risking their lives everyday to try to make the trip across the border... Unless the Mexican government is given incentive to clean up their act, they just never will, that's what my gut tell's me.... they haven't thus far, and I don't see it in the near future...

Most of the jobs here that the Mexicans do is hard labor jobs that our citizens wont do. Also many construction workers here higher illegals because they work very hard(are not lazy like many Americans are) and work for a lot less.

They are trained workers and are taken advantage of. Again it comes down to greed. When you buy something made in the USA it is so expensive and much of it is made crappy...

I agree that it has gotten out of control and we need to bring back more USA products but as long as the rich strive to get richer here in this country and the price of everything goes up we wont.

If we stop import/exporting than we are in trouble even more. The companies that have there companies like Sony and so on can run there companies cheaper over seas there for at least keeping down the prices a little less. Other wise if here they will have to pay more for land., pay higher salaries ,because US citizens will not work for pennies...unless they higher illegals to do it, there for the mighty buck gets passed on to us.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";23091176]Most of the jobs here that the Mexicans do is hard labor jobs that our citizens wont do. Also many construction workers here higher illegals because they work very hard(are not lazy like many Americans are) and work for a lot less.

They are trained workers and are taken advantage of. Again it comes down to greed. When you buy something made in the USA it is so expensive and much of it is made crappy...

I agree that it has gotten out of control and we need to bring back more USA products but as long as the rich strive to get richer here in this country and the price of everything goes up we wont.

If we stop import/exporting than we are in trouble even more. The companies that have there companies like Sony and so on can run there companies cheaper over seas there for at least keeping down the prices a little less. Other wise if here they will have to pay more for land., pay higher salaries ,because US citizens will not work for pennies...unless they higher illegals to do it, there for the mighty buck gets passed on to us.[/QUOTE]

I really take exception to your two statements I bolded above. Those kinds of sweeping generalizations feed the same beast that say that "All blacks are lazy" or "All Italians are linked to the mob" or "All Irish are drunks".

I own an America based manufacturing operation, and you know what's been amazing for my business in particular? NAFTA has been great for much of my successes over the last decade, but not in the way that was intended. I own a textile manufaturing company that sells either directly or through distributors to the healthcare industry. When NAFTA was signed into law, we, like many other manufacturers in my field, were courted big time by Mexican manufacturing companies who wanted our business. Idea was, you'd shut down manufacturing operations here in the States, ship them to Mexico, and pay half the price for labor, including freight cost. The majority of our larger competitors took the bait and moved their operations south of the border.

I refused to. Being made in America means something to me and I refused to toss my 18 employees (at the time) out into the street to make an extra couple of dollars. And then, a funny thing happened. Those competitors who moved to Mexico could no longer compete with my delivery times, which is everything the the medical industry. If you can get product to them in a week or two, when it takes the rest of your competition, manufacturing in Mexico, 6-8 weeks, they'll happily pay a premium for it. Amazingly, by not moving, and paying a fair wage to high quality American workers, we quickly went from a little fish in a highly competitive market to a major industry player in about 5 years. Now, we're seeing those same competitors who left for the quick money, starting to trickle some of their operations back to the US.

I know you didn't mean to offend. I just wish people, even while trying to make valid, common sense points, would leave the sweeping generalizations out of it.

 

["Got Disney"]

I really take exception to your two statements I bolded above. Those kinds of sweeping generalizations feed the same beast that say that "All blacks are lazy" or "All Italians are linked to the mob" or "All Irish are drunks".

I own an America based manufacturing operation, and you know what's been amazing for my business in particular? NAFTA has been great for much of my successes over the last decade, but not in the way that was intended. I own a textile manufacturing company that sells either directly or through distributors to the health care industry. When NAFTA was signed into law, we, like many other manufacturers in my field, were courted big time by Mexican manufacturing companies who wanted our business. Idea was, you'd shut down manufacturing operations here in the States, ship them to Mexico, and pay half the price for labor, including freight cost. The majority of our larger competitors took the bait and moved their operations south of the border.

I refused to. Being made in America means something to me and I refused to toss my 18 employees (at the time) out into the street to make an extra couple of dollars. And then, a funny thing happened. Those competitors who moved to Mexico could no longer compete with my delivery times, which is everything the the medical industry. If you can get product to them in a week or two, when it takes the rest of your competition, manufacturing in Mexico, 6-8 weeks, they'll happily pay a premium for it. Amazingly, by not moving, and paying a fair wage to high quality American workers, we quickly went from a little fish in a highly competitive market to a major industry player in about 5 years. Now, we're seeing those same competitors who left for the quick money, starting to trickle some of their operations back to the US.

I know you didn't mean to offend. I just wish people, even while trying to make valid, common sense points, would leave the sweeping generalizations out of it.

No I did not mean to offend you....sorry that I did...I am just calling it as I have seen it and heard it....like you

My DH sells tools and equipment by phone all over the US and Canada and other countries and he has a life time warranty on the tools he sells(we will use this as an example)...he is a fair business man and that is why he has so many customers that go now where but to him

Almost all the tools(with exceptions to a few) that said "Made in America" were coasting an arm and a leg and no sooner did they get them did they brake...

Customers were asking for tools made over seas because they last longer, were better made and they were less expensive so if they lost them it was not a big deal to have to spend the money to replace them.

I did not say ALL Americans but many are...they want to work less hrs and get paid more and not put out the work needed to do that. It has been no secrete and mentioned in the media for years and years how lazy Americans have become.

If they need a job and have nothing to feed there families with many would prefer to "Not work at McDonald's" than to work there for minimum wage till something else comes a long. Again not saying everyone but face it ...

there are many people I know in business that would rather hire a hard working illegal that is trained than a American that comes in and wants $20.00 an hr for a job that should only pay $10.00 and if they hire them they will give then $10.00 worth of there effort.

We are all in America made to feel that we are entitled to free GOV , Food stamps and such so why work at a MacDonald's when you can stay home and get welfare....I blame the GOV for that and greedy employees

So if businesses come back here that the companies need to be willing to pay more to there employees and loose some money out of there pockets....not ours

There is nothing worse than calling a customer service center for something you buy or even Tutoring on line and getting someone from India or somewhere else that you can not understand....

or it says...if you are English press 1... should it not be if you are Spanish or what ever here that you should be the one to press 1...

Like my DH you are the exception to the rule and care about others welfare but we are talking big Businesses that are falling on there faces and many just cant curt it here so they fold.....

Look at the greed behind ENRON.....there motto was "ALL for one ....ME"

 

[JARNJ3]

Switching topics - here's an article from the WSJ about the Mi and Fl do-overs:

bolding emphasis mine:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120251551654655203.html

A Do-Over? Democrats' Fate May Ride on It
By JUNE KRONHOLZ
February 9, 2008; Page A1

In a primary season full of odd twists, consider this one: Florida and Michigan, which currently don't have a single vote at the Democrats' August convention, could determine who is elected president.

With the Democratic nomination essentially deadlocked after this week's Super Tuesday primaries, and no clear resolution imminent in a series of smaller contests this weekend, party attention is turning to the unusual situation of the two big states. Voters have already cast their ballots there, but the voting took place in violation of party rules.

Because they voted earlier than they were supposed to, the two states have been denied a say at the Denver convention. But leaders of the state parties -- backed by Hillary Clinton, who did well in the nonbinding votes -- are agitating for a voice.

That's putting pressure on the two states to come up with a new delegate-selection process, perhaps a caucus or convention, that satisfies party rules.

A do-over has political risks. It would mean tossing out 1.8 million primary ballots cast in Florida on Jan. 29 and 600,000 ballots cast in Michigan on Jan. 15, possibly angering voters who could take their revenge in November against the Democrats.

But the alternative of sticking with the status quo and excluding the two states is equally risky. Michigan is a reliable Democratic state with big African-American and union populations. Florida is a toss-up state that the Democrats hope to win this year.

If nothing is done now, the resolution of the issue would likely be left to the convention. That's perhaps the riskiest scenario of all, should New York Sen. Clinton remain neck-and-neck with Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, or nearly so. Sen. Clinton's edge among the two states' 366 convention votes would likely clinch the nomination for her in that case. An ugly fight could break out, leaving scars that could cost the Democrats the presidency.

"It's in the party's interest, if they want to win in November, to stop this thing," says American University political scientist James Thurber.

National party leaders for now are trying to avoid the question. "At the end of the day we want to unify the party, including Michigan and Florida, and that will be my job," Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic Party, said on CNN this past week. "But right now that's not on my horizon."

While the Super Tuesday contest across 22 states was once expected to settle the nomination, it instead left the two candidates with roughly equivalent delegate strength. Sen. Obama won 13 states to Sen. Clinton's eight. One state, New Mexico, remains too close to call. Sen. Clinton won majorities in more big states, notably New York and California.

The Associated Press calculates that Sen. Clinton has 1,045 delegates to Sen. Obama's 960. A total of 2,025 votes are needed to win the nomination.

Neither candidate is seen breaking away anytime soon. Both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama spent Friday wooing voters in Washington state, which holds caucuses Saturday. Sen. Obama got a boost from the endorsement of Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire.

Three other states are voting this weekend: Louisiana, Nebraska and Maine. Sen. Obama is seen as having the edge in all of them, as well as in the "Potomac Primary" of Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., on Tuesday. But Sen. Clinton's campaign claims to have the upper hand in the next big states voting: Ohio and Texas, which hold primaries March 4.

Michigan party leaders have begun suggesting they're willing to consider a caucus that would restore at least some of their votes. But Florida's party so far is resisting any sort of re-vote. It says the estimated $10 million price tag for a primary is too high, and a caucus would disenfranchise voters, such as military personnel overseas, who couldn't come to it.

Mr. Obama's campaign said this week that it hasn't talked with either state party but implied it has all along supported a re-vote. "Senator Obama is disappointed that Florida will have no role in selecting delegates for the Democratic nominee, but looks forward to competing and winning in Florida during the general election," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

Mrs. Clinton, meanwhile, laid firm claim to Florida's delegates after her win in the state's primary two weeks ago. She promised voters that "I will do everything I can to make sure not only are Florida's Democratic delegates seated, but Florida is in the winning column for the Democrats in 2008."

The national party allowed states to hold their caucuses or primaries starting Feb. 5, making exceptions only for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Legislatures in Michigan and Florida, hoping to give their states a greater influence in the nomination, defied the party and scheduled January primaries. Under pressure from the national party, the Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign in either state, and Sen. Obama withdrew his name from the ballot in Michigan.

Sen. Clinton left her name on the Michigan ballot and received 55% of the vote to 40% for "uncommitted." In Florida, she won with 50% of the vote to Sen. Obama's 33%.

Both state parties said they were assured by the campaigns that the delegations would be seated when it became clear who the nominee was.

National party leaders have said for weeks that the states could regain their delegate seats by holding new caucuses. But Mrs. Clinton's campaign is certain to fight that: She has done poorly in this winter's caucuses, and would have trouble raising the money to organize turnout in two big states.

If the dispute drags on, it will be handed in late June to the party's credentials committee, which could seat some, all or none of the Florida or Michigan delegates, as it chooses. Any decision by the 186-member credentials committee would then go to the convention floor for a final vote by all delegates.

The catch is that each state delegation elects members to the credentials committee based on how well each candidate did in the primary. For example, Sen. Obama won Georgia with 66% of the vote, entitling him to about that percentage of Georgia's seats on the credentials committee. If the delegates remain evenly split, the credentials committee could be too, setting off a floor fight.

Sen. Clinton would almost certainly argue for including the delegations on grounds they are important states to the party. Sen. Obama then would be in the uncomfortable position of seeking to disenfranchise them.

"If it gets that far, then Obama has to look Michigan and Florida in the eye and say, 'I don't want you in my convention.' That's pretty powerful stuff," Mr. Thurber said.

Michigan party leaders suggest they're considering asking the national party to accept some delegates elected in the primary and some elected in a caucus as a compromise solution. Had the state stuck to its original plan to vote on Feb. 12, Michigan pundits note, the state would now be in position to play a deciding role in the nomination.

A clear-cut victory by either Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton in the next primaries would make any re-vote unnecessary. "The best policy now is wait and see," said Florida party spokesman Mark Bubriski.

 

[JARNJ3]

Bumping this post up:

Floridian chiming in here.

Sounds to me like a lot of people have no idea what they are talking about here.

Florida has an overwhelming Republican majority up in Tallahassee. They were the ones that put through a vote to change our primary date and we the people of Florida HAD NO SAY in the matter what so ever. When the DNC said that we had X number of days to move it back - I just about fell over. Our state Dems were going to get the Republicans to make that change why? They had a very vested interest in keeping the primary where it was - not just for Florida to have a larger say in the nomination (why does NH and OH matter that much again? I think we should be fighting for a single national primary - but I digress) but a chance to screw the Dems? Hey they were all over it.

Hillary DID NOT campaign here at anytime. Neither did Obama. However - both of them had fundraising teams here - make no mistake. They were allowed the fundraisers by the rules the DNC set down. Coming to the state after the primaries were over does NOT constitute campaigning.

Finally - how dare you all? Really - how dare you all so casually dismiss me and my vote? Not just mine but a record number of voters on both sides? (The Republicans lost half their delegates due to the date change.) This was done to us by a stubborn state legislature and a wrong headed DNC. I cannot believe that my fellow Americans are not only not standing up and echoing my voice but they are actually part of the move to stifle it. Actually, it seems to be an Obama supporter thing more than a general opinion. Funny things is - I voted for Obama in the primary. But the words and actions of his supporters combined with some other misgivings that I have had, moved me firmly into Hillary's camp.

I am not going to post on this thread anymore. I thought that this thread would be a place to work things out and find common ground. I was stupid enough to think that the need to be right over need to do right was restricted to the other side. I hate that I feel so wrong.

You all talk about Hillary's divisiveness - but she is not creating this divide, is she? So go ahead and tear me up. I am going back to my fluff.

 

[Planogirl]

Not posting about problems certainly won't help solve them. If nothing else a person has the chance to vent. Besides not everyone disagrees.

I'm getting a little tired of some of the squabbling myself though. This is a great time to pull together and get things moving in the right direction once again. But I'll slog on through and hope for the best.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";23092028]No I did not mean to offend you....sorry that I did...I am just calling it as I have seen it and heard it....like you

<snip>

Like my DH you are the exception to the rule and care about others welfare but we are talking big Businesses that are falling on there faces and many just cant curt it here so they fold.....

Look at the greed behind ENRON.....there motto was "ALL for one ....ME"[/QUOTE]


Understood.

You know, I just get a little nuts when I hear someone saying that illegals are hard workers and many Americans are lazy. From my experience, people of all races, social classes, countries and sexes are equally either hardworking or lazy and that no one country holds a monopoly on diligence. In my industry, I've turned away my fair share of illegals who walk in off the street looking for work. Seems they all want the going rate and won't work for anything less. Again, this is only my experience. Somewhere, there must be some hardworking illegal immigrant who's begging to work a knitting machine for $3.00/hour, but I have yet to run into him/her.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Switching topics - here's an article from the WSJ about the Mi and Fl do-overs:

bolding emphasis mine:

I get what you're saying. For the sake of the country, let's just hope it doesn't come down to the inclusion of Michigan and Florida!