PDA

View Full Version : Bush: Hurting the little man again!!!



Balloonknot
25th August 04, 10:02 AM
That's right folks, our good old friend GW is up to his "help the common man" tricks again!! There's no better way to show support for the common man than taking his overtime pay away from him and forcing him to work 10/20 or 30 hours extra for nothing. Maybe Bush's master plan is to help us thru hardship? You know, love your work and all and your happiness will fall in place. Dear lord, this man hasn't done a damn thing right has he? Matter of fact, every month Bush is in office it becomes another BAD month. I'm still waiting for the "turning the corner" rah-rah speech to kick in for me, maybe then I'll understand what Bush is up to. Until then, I have to stick to my original thoughts that Bush is AGAINST the little man; he is a corporate blow-job artist all the way.

Oh yeah, by the way, here's a nice little article to read. Don't worry it's not too long so some of you infidels might make it through it even though there's no pictures.

__________________________________________________ ______
by ROSS EISENBREY
Detroit Free Press
August 19, 2004

On Monday, the Bush administration will take away the right to receive overtime pay from millions of employees in a broad range of occupations, from office workers in financial services to embalmers, nursery school teachers and restaurant chefs and assistant managers. Despite four disapproving votes in Congress, the Bush administration is using its power and authority to accomplish the biggest rollback in employee rights in more than half a century.

The administration denies it is weakening overtime rights and claims to be taking overtime pay from workers earning $100,000 a year or more. But the new regulations have their biggest impact on employees earning far less. Salaried employees earning as little as $24,000 a year are subject to the new rules, which make it far easier for employers to deny overtime pay.

It might shock people to think the government would lie to them, but there is no nice way to describe the administration's campaign of disinformation around the new overtime regulations.

Secretary Elaine Chao's spin -- that she is only interested in clarity and helping low-wage workers -- is belied by the regulations themselves. According to three top experts on the Fair Labor Standards, virtually every change in the new regulations will weaken or eliminate the right to overtime pay. These nonpartisan experts, first appointed in the Reagan administration, include the Department's top two Fair Labor Standards lawyers for most of the last 20 years and the top career official responsible for enforcing the law during that same period. They also conclude the new regulations are so confusing and self-contradictory that they will provoke additional court litigation.

Looking only at 10 of the dozens of changes in the law, six million employees will lose the right to overtime pay. Those hit hardest will be low-level supervisors, who will be classified as executives by the new rules, even if they spend 90 percent of their time doing the same kind of labor as the two employees they supervise. Team leaders in factories, construction and office settings will lose overtime rights, and hundreds of thousands of employees without a college education will be called professionals and denied overtime pay.

This is a corruption of the Fair Labor Standards Act and its exemptions, by which Congress intended to ensure that all but a narrow class of well-paid top officials and professional employees would get time-and-a-half pay when they work long hours.

The Bush administration has sided with employer groups, who oppose regulation and resent having to pay extra for overtime work. They want the flexibility to work employees 50 or 60 hours a week without paying any more than they would for 40. One restaurant chain worked low-paid assistant managers 85 or 90 hours a week without any additional pay. The new rules will make that kind of abuse legal.

As we approach Labor Day, founded as part of the original campaign for an 8-hour workday and a 40-hour work week, it is critical to speak out against these new regulations. Unless Congress can block these regulations this fall, millions will lose overtime pay and find themselves working longer hours. It took 100 years of struggle to pass the Fair Labor Standards Act and create a 40-hour work week. It has taken the Bush administration less than four years to turn back the clock.

ROSS EISENBREY is vice president and policy director of the Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit and nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C. Write to him at Economic Policy Institute, 1660 L Street NW, Suite 1200, Washington, D.C. 20036.

CaptShady
25th August 04, 10:16 AM
On Monday, the Bush administration will take away the right to receive overtime pay from millions of employees in a broad range of occupations, from office workers in financial services to embalmers, nursery school teachers and restaurant chefs and assistant managers.

While I agree, this is total crap, looking at that first line right there shows complete and utter biased reporting, and begs to question, "am I getting the whole story?".

Chupacabra
25th August 04, 10:16 AM
sooooooo.... people don't get paid overtime anymore?

Balloonknot
25th August 04, 10:19 AM
It's a non-partisan article dude. Say what you will but this is just the beginning if Bush gets re-elected. God help us!!

Chupacabra
25th August 04, 10:21 AM
do hourly employees still get overtime or not?

PeedeeShaolin
25th August 04, 10:22 AM
This IS bullshit. I can't believe they're even considering this.

Ever hear of "undertime"?

I know several people that work for the Post Office that get an extra hour and a half of work every day that they're required to comlete in the same 8 hour day with no pay raise.

If someone hires me to walk their dog and tells me they'll pay me $5 for it and then expectsme to walk their dog, feed him, buy his food and brush him for the same amount the answer is "go fuck yo momma".

PeedeeShaolin
25th August 04, 10:24 AM
do hourly employees still get overtime or not?

I think it depends on how much you make. The numbers are idiotic too. If I remember right if you make under $22K a year you ARE entitles but if you make anywhere from $22K+ to something like $55K your fukked.

Does anyone have the exact forumla? It was in most of the papers.

CaptShady
25th August 04, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by PeedeeShaolin
This IS bullshit. I can't believe they're even considering this.

Ever hear of "undertime"?

I know several people that work for the Post Office that get an extra hour and a half of work every day that they're required to comlete in the same 8 hour day with no pay raise.

If someone hires me to walk their dog and tells me they'll pay me $5 for it and then expectsme to walk their dog, feed him, buy his food and brush him for the same amount the answer is "go fuck yo momma".

The only way around the legislation would be to say "go fuck yo momma" when you're hired, or the policy at your work is changed to this crap. But I don't think the American workforce would unite enough to do it.

Balloonknot
25th August 04, 10:28 AM
I don't have the exact numbers but check this out.....

http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/overtimepay/underattack.cfm

PeedeeShaolin
25th August 04, 10:35 AM
U.S. workers fought long and hard to get the 40 hour work week and everything else we enjoy as a result. Peple DIED in the process. Read up on it.

This administration is trying hard to take all of that away and give another boost to big business. They pay the bills after all.

CaptShady
25th August 04, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by PeedeeShaolin
U.S. workers fought long and hard to get the 40 hour work week and everything else we enjoy as a result. Peple DIED in the process. Read up on it.

This administration is trying hard to take all of that away and give another boost to big business. They pay the bills after all.

And I'd bet money that legislation would soon follow, if not already "attached" to this bill, taking away power from unions.

Peter H.
25th August 04, 10:41 AM
Huh? Do you guys realize how many people/jobs were already exempt from overtime?
Commission sales = exempt
Salaried Management = exempt
Some government positions = exempt
US Military = exempt
Independent contractor positions = exempt
Owning your own business = exempt

Most of what was listed in that first paragraph was exempt from overtime pay for one reaosn or another already.

Leodom
25th August 04, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Balloonknot
I don't have the exact numbers but check this out.....

http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/overtimepay/underattack.cfm

That's a bullshit resource. The AFL/CIO is a wing of the Democrat party.

The truth about this overtime deal is this. Those on salaries earning less than 23000 a year will now be eligible for overtime when before they were not. This will affect thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of fast food managers and assistant managers. Of course, the price of a Big Mac may go up :)

The Labor Department (news - web sites) says no more than 107,000 workers will lose overtime eligibility from the changes, but about 1.3 million will gain it.

Union workers covered by contracts will not be affected by changes.

Once again, The sky is NOT falling.

Try to find an un-biased resource and read it. NO ONE really knows who will be affected. Most companies aren't going to go and eliminate their employees' overtime pay but they will immediately start to pay overtime to those newly eligible in order to avoid lawsuits.

BK, are you affected by this legislation or are you playing chicken little?

Leodom
25th August 04, 10:46 AM
New overtime rules at a glance.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040820/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/overtime_glance

Highlights of the Labor Department (news - web sites)'s new overtime regulations taking effect Monday:



_Workers earning $23,660 annually or less are eligible for overtime pay for working more than 40 hours a week. The department says about 1.3 million workers will be newly eligible.


_White-collar workers earning $100,000 or more a year are newly exempt from overtime pay.


_Changes to duties that determine whether an employee is a professional, executive or administrative and exempt from overtime will result in "very few, if any" workers losing overtime. Critics disagree, saying 6 million could lose overtime.


_ Union workers covered by contracts will not be affected by the change.


_ People identified as generally exempt from overtime pay include pharmacists, funeral directors, embalmers, journalists, financial services industry workers, insurance claims adjusters, human resource managers, management consultants, executive and administrative assistants, purchasing agents, registered or certified medical technologists, dental hygienists, physician assistants, accountants, chefs, athletic trainers with degrees or specialized training, computer system analysts, programmers and software engineers.


Department officials say employers should determine on a case-by-case basis.

PeedeeShaolin
25th August 04, 10:47 AM
And I'd bet money that legislation would soon follow, if not already "attached" to this bill, taking away power from unions.

Here in NY the unions are slowly being crushed to death already. The carpenters union built more in my state than I can fathom but they're being killed by big business and strikes and unions dont matter anymore.

You're right on target with the legislation that will soon follow, if it isn;t already a footnote in the current.

War on the middle class. Let them all work at Walmart.

PeedeeShaolin
25th August 04, 10:56 AM
And Leodom thinks he has an unbiased source. Lets take a look at what people are saying:


_Workers earning $23,660 annually or less are eligible for overtime pay for working more than 40 hours a week. The department says about 1.3 million workers will be newly eligible.

Well lets see here what Jerry Hunter, a labor lawyer at Bryan Cave LLP in St. Louis and former general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board during the first Bush administration told to CNN.

To be candid, no one knows,"

This is designed to reduce employers costs by eliminating overtime pay from hard working Americans who ALREADY work more hours on avergage than EVEN THE JAPANESE.

Estimates of how many workers will lose their overtime eligibility range from 107,000 to 6 million. Workers who could become newly eligible range from very few to 1.3 million.

"Not only is the Labor Department unsure, but a lot of people in a lot of industries are unsure," Hunter said. "This is all very fluid right now."


Critics say the changes will eliminate overtime for millions of middle-class Americans struggling in a weak jobs market.

"These are drastic changes that will hurt working families," said Karen Nussbaum, executive director of Working America, an AFL-CIO organization created for workers unable to join unions. The AFL-CIO is holding a protest outside the Labor Department on Monday.

Labor Secretary Elaine Chao has created a task force that will be "looking very closely and critically at any reclassifications that result in workers losing their overtime status," said Steven Law, deputy secretary.

Leodom
25th August 04, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by PeedeeShaolin
And Leodom thinks he has an unbiased source. Lets take a look at what people are saying:



Well lets see here what Jerry Hunter, a labor lawyer at Bryan Cave LLP in St. Louis and former general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board during the first Bush administration told to CNN.


This is designed to reduce employers costs by eliminating overtime pay from hard working Americans who ALREADY work more hours on avergage than EVEN THE JAPANESE.

I quoted from Yahoo news. If you think they are biased, in which direction? Definitely not to the right.

You consider a labor lawyer un-biased? You are naive. The estimated number of people who no longer MUST be paid overtime varies from 107,000 (from the labor department, a bunch of bureaucrats paid to do this type of statistical work) to 6 million, (over two percent of the entire US Population) estimated by a wing of the Democratic party also known as AFL/CIO. Check the party donations of the AFL/CIO and then try to tell me they are un-biased.

I did mention in an earlier post that NO ONE knows how many will be affected positively or negatively.

A bottom line, the lowest income earners, those on salaries of less than $23,660 per year, the littlest of the little guys are now ALL eligible for overtime pay, when before this legislation they were not.

PeedeeShaolin
25th August 04, 11:09 AM
A bottom line, the lowest income earners, those on salaries of less than $23,660 per year, the littlest of the little guys are now ALL eligible for overtime pay, when before this legislation they were not.

The bottom line is that you think taking overtime AWAY from certain Americans so that OTHERS can have overtime is idiotic.

Big business gets a free hand job either way and the Americans who actually work and pay taxes get the shaft. Why you would be all for your own countrymen being shafted and losing pay for doing the exact same job is beyond me.

PeedeeShaolin
25th August 04, 11:11 AM
You must also believe the Bush Administration when they tell you outsourcing is good for our country.

Bushes economic policy is just FANTASTIC! Thats why our defecit is the worst in history and Kerry just recieved the backing of 10 Nobel Prize-winning economists on Wednesday.



The Democratic presidential nominee released a letter from the economists saying the Bush administration had "embarked on a reckless and extreme course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation."


They cited "poorly designed" tax cuts that instead of creating jobs have turned budget surpluses into enormous budget deficits, a "fiscal irresponsibility threatens the long-term economic security and prosperity of our nation."


The endorsement, in the form of an open letter American voters, was signed by George Akerlof and Daniel McFadden of the University of California at Berkeley, Kenneth Arrow and William Sharpe of Stanford University, Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University, Lawrence Klein of the University of Pennsylvania, Douglass North of Washington University, Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow of MIT and Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University.

None of those guys know what they're talking about. They're all dumb obviously.

Leodom
25th August 04, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by PeedeeShaolin
You must also believe the Bush Administration when they tell you outsourcing is good for our country.

Bushes economic policy is just FANTASTIC! Thats why our defecit is the worst in history and Kerry just recieved the backing of 10 Nobel Prize-winning economists on Wednesday.



None of those guys know what they're talking about. They're all dumb obviously.

If they think tax cuts caused the deficit, they are dumb and so is anyone who believes them. The deficit is MUCH larger than the relatively small tax cuts. The deficit is caused by increased spending. The Democrats in Congress are used to being in charge and getting their spending proposals passed. The Republicans can now get their spending proposals passed and don't have the nads to stop the Democrats. This, combined with the war, a drop in tax revenues due to a mild recession has led to a huge deficit. If, however, you watch economic cycles, you will know that tax revenues ALWAYS increase after tax cuts. Kennedy's tax cut, Reagan's tax cut, and now Bush's. Yes, there were deficits immediately following, but after the Reagan tax cuts we had the roaring nineties that Bill Clinton got to take credit for. What's gonna kill us, and is hurting additional growth, is the fact that the Bush tax cuts will go away in a couple of years and we will automatically revert back to pre 2001 tax rates. This uncertainty is keeping many companies from expanding because they don't know if they will be able to afford it once tax rates go up again.

Back on topic. Are you affected by this legislation or are you also playing chicken little.

I predict that the vast majority of companies will NOT stop paying overtime for existing employees but will phase in the new rules with new employees. They will, however, IMMEDIATELY start paying overtime for newly eligible employees. Also, keep in mind that many states have additional laws that will prevent companies from reducing or eliminating overtime pay.

PeedeeShaolin
25th August 04, 11:35 AM
I predict that the vast majority of companies will NOT stop paying overtime for existing employees but will phase in the new rules with new employees

HAHAHAHAAA!!!!!

First 10 Nobel Prize winning economists are dumb and now huge corporations, who have been downsizing and outsourcing American jobs, will do THE RIGHT THING.

You, my friend, are a salesman's wet dream.

Jolly_Roger
25th August 04, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Leodom


Once again, The sky is NOT falling.


But I know what you're feeling.
The creeping realization that, while it hasn't fell off yet, it's slowly inching it's way down.....

Leodom
25th August 04, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by PeedeeShaolin
HAHAHAHAAA!!!!!

First 10 Nobel Prize winning economists are dumb and now huge corporations, who have been downsizing and outsourcing American jobs, will do THE RIGHT THING.

You, my friend, are a salesman's wet dream.

Do you even have a job? Yes, most businesses will do the right thing. It is in their best interests. The news making corporations who screw their employees are the exception, not the rule. Companies who outsource do it because they are competing with companies worldwide and failure to remain competitive will result in the entire company being out of business and ALL of their employees losing their jobs rather than a few. Companies which relocate their headquarters overseas to avoid taxes are doing the same thing. The United States is the only industrialized nation that charges domestic companies taxes on revenues earned overseas. By moving their headquarters overseas, they still pay taxes to the United States on income earned in the US, but no longer have to pay BOTH foreign and domestic taxes on revenue earned overseas.

BTW, regarding Nobel Prize winners, Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize. As far as I'm concerned the Nobel committee has no credibility. The Nobel prize is an extremely political prize nowadays.

katana
25th August 04, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by PeedeeShaolin
This administration is trying hard to take all of that away and give another boost to big business. They pay the bills after all.

Here's news for you Peedee: Big business pays everyone's bills by providing jobs.

I don't know why people continue to think that companies are somehow made up of big black holes where all the money goes. The money a company saves goes somewhere: Hiring more people, growing the business, increasing marketing, etc.

This articles is too biased to make an assessment of the new law. Most salaried workers don't get overtime already. I'm not sure what the impact is to blue collar workers, but as an employer you have to remember that you WANT happy employees. Screwing over your workers at every turn kills your business. So many people may simply ignore these rules and pay overtime because that's what workers expect. People make the products that make the business. Without good people you have a bad company.

Balloonknot
25th August 04, 12:12 PM
PeeDee don't bother with Leodom, he KNOWS better than Nobel winners and top scientists and economic professors. After all, he's Leodom. And by the way, that "Reagan tax cuts which gave us the roaring nineties that Bill Clinton got to take credit for" is total fabrication and only a right-wing radical nut believes that. Eveyone else who's sane knows the truth. Reagan was a disaster as a president, not even close to Clinton.

katana
25th August 04, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Balloonknot
PeeDee don't bother with Leodom, he KNOWS better than Nobel winners and top scientists and economic professors. After all, he's Leodom. And by the way, that "Reagan tax cuts which gave us the roaring nineties that Bill Clinton got to take credit for" is total fabrication and only a right-wing radical nut believes that. Eveyone else who's sane knows the truth. Reagan was a disaster as a president, not even close to Clinton.

Market cycles go up and down largely independent of the President. Economies can't be reliably "managed" by anyone. You can have idiotic policies that can harm the economy, but most of the time businesses will work around the small tweaks that legislators impose. Clinton wasn't a financial genius, he simply left things alone to work out themselves. With respect to free-market economies, doing nothing is often the best choice. So you could argue that Clinton was a genius after all when it came to economic matters.

Leodom
25th August 04, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Balloonknot
PeeDee don't bother with Leodom, he KNOWS better than Nobel winners and top scientists and economic professors. After all, he's Leodom. ...

You're damn right BIATCH!!! I may just have a new sig.

PeedeeShaolin
25th August 04, 01:03 PM
I wonder why Leo hasn't posted on the thread where Robert Thurlow and the rest of the Swift Boat Vets are proven to be liars?

Gelid Light
25th August 04, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by katana
Market cycles go up and down largely independent of the President. Economies can't be reliably "managed" by anyone. You can have idiotic policies that can harm the economy, but most of the time businesses will work around the small tweaks that legislators impose. Clinton wasn't a financial genius, he simply left things alone to work out themselves. With respect to free-market economies, doing nothing is often the best choice. So you could argue that Clinton was a genius after all when it came to economic matters.

The bailout of the Mexican peso was not "nothing".

Freddy
25th August 04, 01:29 PM
_Workers earning $23,660 annually or less are eligible for overtime pay for working more than 40 hours a week.
_White-collar workers earning $100,000 or more a year are newly exempt from overtime pay.


So if you make between $23,660 - $100,000 your basically screwed?

Freddy
25th August 04, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Leodom
A bottom line, the lowest income earners, those on salaries of less than $23,660 per year, the littlest of the little guys are now ALL eligible for overtime pay, when before this legislation they were not.

Providing they work OVER 40 hrs per week. And providing they are not making $23,661 per year.

"Workers earning $23,660 annually or less are eligible for overtime pay for working more than 40 hours a week. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally posted by Leodom
I did mention in an earlier post that NO ONE knows how many will be affected positively or negatively.



Thats one hell of a economic experiment. I do have to wonder about those Economic think tanks "specialists" (who are getting huge salaries). Its strange they all of a sudden have their exppert economic analysis disappear out of thin air? Hymmm????

katana
25th August 04, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Gelid Light
The bailout of the Mexican peso was not "nothing".

There are too many variables on this planet that can effect an economy. You can't control for all of them. How about the Russian debt defaults in 1998 and the default crisis that spread to South America? What about Long Term Capital Management blowing up in 1998 threatening world markets? How about the Internet boom in 1999-2000? So Clinton was responsible for the latter, but not the former?

So which crises/success does a politiciation take credit for and which do they disavow? Politicians aren't economists, and economists are never certain of anything anyway. Saying that one person steered an free-market economy through a tumultous period without acknowledging luck is lying.

katana
25th August 04, 01:53 PM
A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.

The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly."

Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four."

Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says "What do you want it to equal?"

Gelid Light
25th August 04, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by katana
There are too many variables on this planet that can effect an economy. You can't control for all of them. How about the Russian debt defaults in 1998 and the default crisis that spread to South America? What about Long Term Capital Management blowing up in 1998 threatening world markets? How about the Internet boom in 1999-2000? So Clinton was responsible for the latter, but not the former?

So which crises/success does a politiciation take credit for and which do they disavow? Politicians aren't economists, and economists are never certain of anything anyway. Saying that one person steered an free-market economy through a tumultous period without acknowledging luck as the primary contributor is a lying.

I couldn't agree more. What I merely pointed out was that Clinton was not inactive.

I hope you'll concede that partisans only advance the thesis that presidents can't steer the economy when they are either attempting to avoid blame for failure, or can't credibly take credit for success.

Notice Leodom attempted to credit Ronald Reagan for the tech boom of the 90's, despite the entire discipline of economics, and common sense, being solidly against that.

Freddy
25th August 04, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by katana
Here's news for you Peedee: Big business pays everyone's bills by providing jobs.



Its call tokenism.
Its like how someone in the slave era can argue slave masters benifit slaves by giving them food and shelter.

katana
25th August 04, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Gelid Light
I couldn't agree more. What I merely pointed out was that Clinton was not inactive.

I hope you'll concede that partisans only advance the thesis that presidents can't steer the economy when they are either attempting to avoid blame for failure, or can't credibly take credit for success.

Notice Leodom attempted to credit Ronald Reagan for the tech boom of the 90's, despite the entire discipline of economics, and common sense, being solidly against that.

I'd agree mostly with this. I think most politicians don't impact the economy as much as they take credit for. However their policies can have unintended consequences down the road both good and bad. It's too hard to really predict the long-term outcome of most decisions unless they are clearly bad (such as many socialist countries attempting to centrally manage economies).

katana
25th August 04, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Freddy
Its call tokenism.
Its like how someone in the slave era can argue slave masters benifit slaves by giving them food and shelter.

This is a free country. If you don't like your boss, fire them and start your own business or get a new job.

Leodom
25th August 04, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by PeedeeShaolin
I wonder why Leo hasn't posted on the thread where Robert Thurlow and the rest of the Swift Boat Vets are proven to be liars?

Because I have read the arguments on both sides several times and no one is proven to be a liar. There are good points made on both sides. You'll believe who you want to believe. Anyone who took a video camera to Vietnam and re-enacted events on tape for their future presidential campaign is too opportunistic for my tastes and I would question their intentions on just about anything. Kerry is not to be trusted. The Swift Boat Vets have just as much a right to what they are doing as does MoveOn.org and all the other 527 organizations that benefit Kerry. Kerry is a crybaby. He made his 4 months in Vietnam the center of the campaign, now he cries foul when those 4 months are questioned.

I have no interest in your views on the subject.

PeedeeShaolin
25th August 04, 02:02 PM
I have no interest in your views on the subject.

They aren't my views. This was released today and is front page baby! Way to avoid it though HAHAHAHA!

So now we know, when the going gets tough, Leo runs for cover.

Balloonknot
25th August 04, 02:03 PM
Typical republican (leodom).... Takes my quote out of context and uses it against me. As Ralph Cramden use to say..... You're a laugh riot Leo!!! One of these days!!!

Leodom
25th August 04, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by PeedeeShaolin
They aren't my views. This was released today and is front page baby! Way to avoid it though HAHAHAHA!

So now we know, when the going gets tough, Leo runs for cover.

Of course it's front page. Always remember the media template. If it will help John Kerry, it's front page news, if it will help George Bush, bury it until it can no longer be ignored, then belittle it.

PeedeeShaolin
25th August 04, 02:04 PM
Hey! Why do you think that the Swift Boat Vets said there was NO enemy fire but when their leader, Robert Thurlow's records were obtained they said the Bronze Star he got was in the face of "enemy fire"?

Pretty interesting contradiction don't you think?

You don;t even WANT to see both sides.

In case you live in a cave son, this debate is OVER. Kerry wins and the Swift Boat Liars lose. Thats pretty much the end. If you want to be educated as to why then read the Navy report and find out. Otherwise you're living in self-imposed ignorance.

Freddy
25th August 04, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by katana
Here's news for you Peedee: Big business pays everyone's bills by providing jobs.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Freddy
Its call tokenism.
Its like how someone in the slave era can argue slave masters benifit slaves by giving them food and shelter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by katana
This is a free country. If you don't like your boss, fire them and start your own business or get a new job.

No kidding huh.

Leodom
25th August 04, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by PeedeeShaolin
Hey! Why do you think that the Swift Boat Vets said there was NO enemy fire but when their leader, Robert Thurlow's records were obtained they said the Bronze Star he got was in the face of "enemy fire"?

Pretty interesting contradiction don't you think?

You don;t even WANT to see both sides.

In case you live in a cave son, this debate is OVER. Kerry wins and the Swift Boat Liars lose. Thats pretty much the end. If you want to be educated as to why then read the Navy report and find out. Otherwise you're living in self-imposed ignorance.

Was it Thurlow who said he didn't read the citation until he got back to the states and he was surprised to learn that there was "enemy fire" Was it Thurlow or one of the other Swift Boat Vets who still stood by his story. If the citations were issued based on Kerry's report, that would put it in the Naval record as fact whether it happened or not. Still not conclusive evidence. As I said, you'll believe what you choose to believe, so will I.

What debate?

PeedeeShaolin
25th August 04, 02:10 PM
Of course it's front page. Always remember the media template. If it will help John Kerry, it's front page news, if it will help George Bush, bury it until it can no longer be ignored, then belittle it.

One last bitch smack before I head off.

It was reported by FOX NEWS. Its STILL front page RIGHT NOW on FOX.

Thats spelled F-O-X.

Do you know who FOX is? The leading RIGHT WING news group. I'd say that makes your last statement about as true as a bucket of warm piss labeled "lemonade".

Gelid Light
25th August 04, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Leodom
Was it Thurlow who said he didn't read the citation until he got back to the states and he was surprised to learn that there was "enemy fire" Was it Thurlow or one of the other Swift Boat Vets who still stood by his story. If the citations were issued based on Kerry's report, that would put it in the Naval record as fact whether it happened or not. Still not conclusive evidence. As I said, you'll believe what you choose to believe, so will I.

What debate?

Thurlow's Bronze Star citation was signed and recommended by another member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. So tell me, are they just illiterate? Or do they choose not to read these documents?

PeedeeShaolin
25th August 04, 02:11 PM
*POP*

PeedeeShaolin
25th August 04, 02:12 PM
(That sound was Leo pulling his head out of his ass in order to see what everyone is talking about)

CaptShady
25th August 04, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by PeedeeShaolin
Hey! Why do you think that the Swift Boat Vets said there was NO enemy fire but when their leader, Robert Thurlow's records were obtained they said the Bronze Star he got was in the face of "enemy fire"?

That's already been addressed, over a week ago IIRC. The part that made it interesting is that more than one document of the event exists. Thurlow already stated that if his award claimed shots fired, then his medal is a lie as well, and that it's possible Kerry did the write ups for them.

PeedeeShaolin
25th August 04, 02:14 PM
I think Gelid is calling your name on the other thread Capt :D

Gelid Light
25th August 04, 02:16 PM
Thurlow’s medal recommendation, for example, says he helped the PCF-3 crew “under constant enemy small arms fire.” That recommendation is signed by George Elliott, another member of the anti-Kerry group. It lists as the only witness for the incident Robert Eugene Lambert, an enlisted man who was not on Kerry’s boat who also won the Bronze Star that day.

It's not just the SBVfT that don't read.

Shuma-Gorath
25th August 04, 05:00 PM
Balloon, you live in a six-figure house and have a three-figure heating bill. Stop pretending like you give a shit about the "common man".