First they went after Free Speech… Now it’s the Free Press (updated with video link)
Published by Mike Stark November 4th, 2006 in UncategorizedToday, in my capacity as field reporter for Air America and The Young Turks, I attended a political rally for George Allen. If given the opportunity, I intended to ask the Senator about his remarks concerning his opponents and his desire to “knock their soft teeth down their whiny throats“. I was wondering if that desire had anything to do with him deciding to do nothing when his campaign staff and supporters assaulted me last Tuesday.
Well, his supporters supported him again today. They really are a bunch of jock straps.
As the Senator finished his speech, I tried to ask my question. They did something that is absolutely acceptable. They shouted louder than me. “Six more years. Six more years!” Fair enough. They crowded between me and the Senator. Equally fair.
I however, saw an opening. There was no obstruction between me and the door through which the Senator had to pass in order to get to the tarmac. I made haste to establish position so that I could ask my question before the Senator left. I had just about arrived when I saw a blur out of my peripheral vision. A kid that had stood in front of me during Allen’s speech (whispering things back and forth to whom I thought was his mom) just barely clipped my arm and took a dive.
There was a cop right there. “Why did you push him?” he asked as he grabbed my arms and began the process of handcuffing me. Of course, I did nothing of the sort. I knew the entire time that I was at that event that I needed to be on my best behavior. And I was.
I had been questioned hostily throughout the wait for the Senator and I answered all questions with patience, sincerity and politeness.
The beautiful part about all of this? There’s video of everything that happened. Look for it soon.
In the meantime, I thought I’d help Senator Allen with his oppo research. He will certainly be putting out another press release detailing my sordid past. I want to get out in front of that and confess some stuff.
- ’tis tru that when I was in the sixth grade, I burped obnoxiously and disrupted class. For that, I was sent to the principle’s office. It is a part of my permanent record.
- More than once, I’ve gone to bed at night without brushing my teeth.
- I sometimes sit too close to the TV
- I once grew my hair long and listened to heavy metal music.
- In my past, I engaged in pre-marital sex. Usually after drinking too much. Sometimes I regretted it.
- I’m a Darwinist. Yes, that’s right, I believe in that radical thing called science …
- I was once married to a Jewish girl. We divorced, and now I am one half of an inter-racial marraige. And we’ve created progeny.
Anyway, that stuff is a little juicier than the stuff in his last hit piece - that I actually engage in the electoral process and write about it on the internets…
232 Responses to “First they went after Free Speech… Now it’s the Free Press (updated with video link)”
- 1 Pingback on Nov 4th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
- 2 Pingback on Nov 4th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
- 3 Pingback on Nov 5th, 2006 at 6:49 am
- 4 Pingback on Nov 5th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
- 5 Pingback on Nov 5th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
- 6 Pingback on Nov 11th, 2006 at 2:41 am
Leave a Reply
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
Don’t give up Mike.
Stay with it… We’ve got your back, cuz you’ve got ours!
peace
Stop stalking the guy. You’ve had your 15 minutes. Get over it.
The unbelievable nerve of Allen’s campaign to try crap while the country is watching. My bad, he’s in the mold of the GWB cabal. Keep it up Mike, we’ve got them on the ropes.
I also want to add this great quote from Mark Twain that may be apropos to your situation (at least as I see it.)
“In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.”
In addition to the criminal proceedings against his staffers, Mike please consider civil suits against Allen, his campaign staff, and perhaps their tame cop. Methinks Macaca needs schooling!
I have to commend you for your persistence. I lost faith in the press a long time ago. It doesn’t hurt to try and make an impact, though, so keep it up!
Allen’s people are just plain dumb. There are precious few news cycles between now and when the polls open. There is absolutely no percentage for Allen in having more Mike Stark stories written and aired. Especially if the video shows Mike doing nothing while the kid takes a dive.
Mike-
Nice attempt today. You want everyone to answer your questions, yet, while you’re being led out of a rally in shame with your hands in cuffs behind your back you don’t want to answer anyone else’s questions. Wait, unless there is a camera involved. You’re nothing more than a cheap hack dying for publicity. You represent everything wrong with the world and remind every moderate what a liberal really is. You want recognition and your best shot is to make yourself look like a fool. You aren’t making an impact, you shame the University of Virginia and you shame yourself. I want you to come to every single political event for George Allen, I want you to continue doing what you do because with every appearance you make you reinforce another vote for Allen. Everytime your mouth opens you guarantee the support of another moderate for George Allen. So thank you.
Eric
Good job, Mike. You have real courage.
And many at UVA Law are very proud of you.
LOL So Stark gets peeved when the “take a dive” tactic that he used at the Omni is used against him.
Again I ask, when do you switch to Squeaky Fromme tactics, Mike? Was there a gun in your backpack today?
Eric’s Freeper checklist
Attack the messenger - Check
Ad hominem - Check
Hyperbole - Check
Complete absence of factual information - Check
Kudos lil’ freeper, “mission accomplished”
Absence of factual information? Let’s just say that I was very much there and your hero didn’t say a word unless he was confident a camera was on him, and then he was all about talking. Ad hominem? Stark has NOTHING but ad hominem attacks in his bag of tricks. Asking if Allen spit on his first wife? Give me a break. How can you sit there and defend the guy? If Stark had anything remotely important to talk about he has plenty of outlets to do it. He can use this blog, he can write op-eds and he can call all of the media he wants. The fact of the matter is, Mike Stark contributes NOTHING to political discussion. He is a punchline to a bad joke. You want factual information? There it is, not a single falsehood. Give me three legitimate things Stark wants to talk about. Erroneous personal attacks and asking why he got thrown to the ground are NOT legitimate issues. Protecting this country from terrorists and taxes are. If Mike Stark wants to make a difference, I suggest he try that route. Like all other things, he too shall pass.
You go Mike, Congrats on the AAR and YT work. Can’t wait for the video.
In the mean time, my owner made this vid of me and my ‘lover’. He has a thing for puppy porno.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrd2200ON3Y
Eric…One word of advice. Xanax. Mike Stark is not running for office. G. Felix Allen is. Allen, and You, are scared shitless of the damage that Allen staffers caused to the congressman’s campaign in the first encounter. Hence, your presence here, and the reaction today. I have no doubt that the Allen camp has Mike under surveillance when he attends your events. No fear…you only have four days of the torment left, and then Allen can move on to his after-career lobbying. Calm down and take a xanax until then. It will be all over but the crying soon.
Hush lil freeper, don’t say a word
Macaca’s gonna let you parrot his words.
You being there does not make your account factual. There is your typical approach: what you say is factual, what anyone else says that disagrees with you is fictional. Gainsay is not acceptable.
Defending Mike and defending his right to speak are two separate things and I ascribe to the latter. The truly sad thing is that you should too. You say you love your country but look at the horrendous things that your party has done to the country that I, too love. The difference between us is that I am capable of admitting my fallability. You and those of your party never, ever under any circumstances accept blame. You are all so busy pointing the finger at everyone but yourselves that you can’t even be honest. So I cannot waste my time on someone who is physically incapable of change. Sorry.
Oh and btw, I didn’t give you your 3 things because you cannot dictate the terms of our discourse without making it a monologue. If you need three of his points, read the blog. I haven’t the time to spoonfeed you.
Here ya go, no “monologue”
- read the blog and i figured it out, he can’t get a real media job
- i may not agree with what he says but he’s free to do it, i don’t have a problem if he wants to discuss an actual issue - it hasn’t happened yet
- yeah, the GOP has strayed from its roots, but the liberals have strayed further… you all used to stand for something other than “opposite of what that guy says”
- let’s address the macaca thing - GET SOMETHING NEW, be creative for once, Dr. Seuss rhymes don’t get you anywhere
- finally, for you chickfu, for someone that doesnt have the time to “spoonfeed” you sure are hanging around for awhile
Jeff- it’s becoming quite clear that it is YOU who needs the Xanax. to stoop so low as to recommend an anxiety drug? i knew you folks were low, but thats pretty bad. it’s going to be a long night for you on Tuesday, so i’ll save some Xanax for you
Two attacks by Allen’s robots, and two vids to back up your actions and prove your case. The first one is an easy lawsuit- go with it. The second one- the set up- should be used as an opportunity for discovery- if the Mom & kid, plus the cop are in on a set up, then they all need a deposition, and then maybe a suit, to let them know what reality is.
In both cases, you were within your Constitutional rights to be there and ask questions, the first as a private citizen, the second as a member of the press. In neither case were the actions against you legal- in both cases they were also acts of intimidation.
America needs more of you- this is what a patriot is, and you’re a Marine, to boot. Certainly more of an American than those pansy draft dodgers that rn this country and think they have the room to criticize those who have served.
But meanwhile, i love to read the trolls here, that try to attack what you are doing, try to tie you to Webb, try to lie about you, try about anything to slander or smear you, and, every time, they slink away when the truth is told. They are amusing, as it shows fully the desperate tactics the repugs will use to try to save their corrupt lying asses. Pathetic, weak attempts, one and all.
This is what I hate about activists: the ego. This campaign is not about you. It’s about George Allen and Jim Webb. Stop trying to make yourself a story. Regardless of who’s right and who’s wrong, there is absolutely no reason to spend the final days of the campaign debating your antics in tussling with random Allen people. Again, this is all as lame as the constant stealing of lawn signs and other such rabble-rousing: it accomplishes nothing, proves nothing, and just wastes everyone’s time while drawing the campaigns off the message they have planned.
Eric….I’ll be here Wednesday A.M. first thing…stop on by for a chat, and I’ll give you a few comforting words, because you are in for a HUGE letdown Tuesday night. The era of the Neo-Con comes to a close in oh…about 38 hours by my watch. See you then…I’ll be the one passing our complementary crying towels to folks like you…that’s called compassionate liberalism.
Good on ya’ Mike. Thanks.
Eric said:
Here ya go, no “monologue”
- read the blog and i figured it out, he can’t get a real media job
Personal attack. Didn’t you see a dozen or so of his points?
- i may not agree with what he says but he’s free to do it, i don’t have a problem if he wants to discuss an actual issue - it hasn’t happened yet
Wrong. If Allen spat on his wife, that’s assault. Your camp is only concerned with the criminal wrongdoings of those with whom you disagree? Be consistent.
- yeah, the GOP has strayed from its roots, but the liberals have strayed further… you all used to stand for something other than “opposite of what that guy says”
Poor logic. “I may be bad but the other guy is worse.” No personal responsibility there, and I thought the Republican party was the party of personal responsibility.
- let’s address the macaca thing - GET SOMETHING NEW, be creative for once, Dr. Seuss rhymes don’t get you anywhere
Wrong on both counts. First that was not Dr. Suess but words to a song. Second, and more importantly, racism doesn’t bother you? Well, not enough to be a man and say he was wrong.
- finally, for you chickfu, for someone that doesnt have the time to “spoonfeed” you sure are hanging around for awhile
I am writing a long paper on hypertension and I come back here for a study break. Seems as though we are both hanging around here but it’s only bad for me? Hypocrite. To be more fair to you than you would ever be to your greatest enemy, the people you hate more than terrorists, those gawdawful librals, I misspoke. I should have said I don’t have the patience to spoon feed you.
Eric, aka Borat:
The best defense for Allen to prove that Mike Stark was all those things you claim was to stop, be polite and answer him.
If Stark was everything you say, Allen’s best behavior would have brought it out and Stark would have walked away with his tail between his legs while Allen would havve been described as “composed and senatorial”
Instead of smart, Allen chose force and let his goon squad squash a dissenting voice.
Above average Senators do not do this
Borat, on the other hand, might allow it.
http://www.e-Merges.com
What is so amusing about you, Mike, is that you’re too narccisistic and clueless to realize that people just don’t like pushy assholes. So while your little cheerleading section here jerks off to the thought of you yelling at Allen, I suspect many of those undecided voters will associate Webb with that dickhead kid who disrupts Allen events and thinks he’s big shit. Really Mike, you’re a silly child. And your self-aggrandizing tactics are likely to cost webb some undecided votes. Thanks asswipe; I’ll look for you at webbs concession speech.
I’ve been watching a show on the History Channel about the KKK and I swear I saw Macaca Allen as a teenager. Here’s his new GOTV ad ~ GOP style:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCn-QAw_nmU&eurl=
Before you can begin to think about politics at all, you have to abandon the notion that there is a war between good men and bad men.
-Walter Lippmann
I’m currently a 2L… and looking back at my 1L year, I barely had time to eat. How do you manage to follow a politian around the state and maintain a full-time blog? Just remember this when finals come knocking at your door. And they’re right around the corner.
mike is now a field reporter for the young turks and air america…he therefore cannot be considered “a stalker”
mike has put the fear of god into the allen campaign
shouting him down? isnt that rather childish?
taking a dive so that he can be arrested?
why not let him ask his questions, the senator can ignore it and it becomes a non story
they wont do that because mike speaks the truth
chickfu
i have the luxury of being able to tool around on here, so it doesnt make me a hypocrite to be on here. im not the one who said you didnt have time to spoonfeed me. so basically you lack simple logic skills. typical
you have to know your enemies to defeat them, so yeah, ill drop a personal attack, im not above it.
the spitting thing? get real, his ex-wife said it was a crock. its a moot point (im assuming you know what that means)
a “Dr. Seuss rhyme” isnt a literal thing. i made the assumption that you would understand what that is. in case you dont, its a term for a simple rhyme. so im sorry for assuming that you’d get it. racism? are you kidding me? keep beating that drum
“Poor logic. “I may be bad but the other guy is worse.” No personal responsibility there…” WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? i never said anything remotely close, so im assuming that you’re making stuff up (big surprise). oh wait! i forgot about your poor logic skills
do yourself a favor, write your hypertension paper, maybe that’s a topic you make sense on
and yeah…. an off topic point….. but everything that is wrong with American can be found in the mind of a liberal
FREEDOM: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm2OXQh3duI
Eric Nov 4th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
and yeah…. an off topic point….. but everything that is wrong with American can be found in the mind of a liberal
Proof of principle: you are a fool and not worth the bandwidth.
good response chickfu… well said… your intellect amazes me
Eric Nov 4th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
and yeah…. an off topic point….. but everything that is wrong with American can be found in the…
ACTIONS of the GOP
http://leenrage.blogspot.com/2006/05/gop-culture-of-corruption-indeed_18.html
That’s more like it…
The $100 One Breath challenge.
These sort of antics should show everyone why Air America is going belly-up.
Cindy Shaheen called. She wants her schtick back.
Mr. Stark,
I’d like to thank you for your actions the past few days. This is exactly the direction political discourse should take–crazy youngsters yelling hysterical accusations at a political candidate for national office. Why, I fathered this very tactic when I demanded to know of Mr. Hamilton why he punched a baby in the mouth for three shillings.
I’d also like to congratulate you on being hired by that epitome of prestige in the radio world, Air America. Your salary is certainly a worthy expense, bankrupt radio network or not.
Finally, allow me to express my gratitude for drawing such positive attention to the school I founded, the University of Virginia. Let there be no doubt that when I expressed my desire for a legal education to be provided at my university, I hoped that one day it would cater to such well-balanced, polite, and dignified people such as yourself.
I am especially grateful for the administration to accept you. Long ago I suggested a form of affirmative action for hysterical morons. I am glad to see the current dean has embraced the concept and allowed you to attend.
For, indeed, this is America. And in America you’re allowed to make a fool of yourself. You’re allowed to become the butt of jokes in your own law school. You’re allowed to disgrace my institution, to drag an already-low Senate race even lower into the muck, and you’re allowed to add to the cacophony that drowns out serious discourse. If we weren’t allowed to do such, we’d be living in Canada.
So thank you, Mike. Thank you for not allowing us to become Canada–which, as far as I know, remains a British territory to this day.
Sincerely,
Thomas Jefferson
PS. Tell Adams I died first, the uninformed bastard!
“They won’t do that because Mike speaks the truth.”
Uuummmm bacci, just what truth are you talking about? This is why I can’t stand liberals. Mike and his goofy cheerleaders want to get all huffy and indignant and say that mikey was just exercising his right to ask a question. But your statement that “he speaks the truth” exposes all that nonsense as the bullshit it is. Mikey is a silly child who really doesn’t even have a point to make. It’s all about his own fragile ego and the attention he gets from acting like a fool. As for why Allen doesn’t answer his “questions” - beside the fact that mikey is an obnoxious little zit who isn’t worthy of Allens time - is that mikey’s antics are only making webb look bad. Do you seriously think there’s some undecided voter out there thinking, gosh I’m gonna go with webb now that some hysterical child yelled an obnoxious question to Allen??? I’m sure delusional mikey does, but do you really believe that? It’s more likely that some undecided voter is watching mikey act like an ass, and associating his childish tantrums with the webb campaign. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think Allen will benefit from mikeys antics.
Here are a couple more stories
http://www.whsv.com/news/headlines/4567107.html
http://www.whsv.com/news/headlines/4567637.html
“The first story claims “Two supporters say Stark pushed them to the gound as he tried to ask Allen questions.”
“The two supporters say they’re not sure if they will press charges yet.”
Pretty soon they’ll say you knocked down 10 people.
The second story identifies and shows the people you supposedly knocked down.
“Stark says he brushed by an Alex Davis who fell.
Davis didn’t comment on the incident but other Allen supporters told a different story.
Ann Taetzsch says she was pushed as Stark rushed by.
“I was in a crowd of folks and Mr. Stark pushed me out of the way and into the camera in order to get around the folks to get to the senator,” says Taetzsch.”
I wonder if this is the same Anne Taetzsch who according to this site:
http://www.swacgop.org/Staunton.html
is identified as The Chairman of the Staunton City Republican Committee?
I’m sure she’d have no reason to claim something that wasn’t true, would she?
Mike,
Any chance you can go after Goodlatte next? I had the misfortune of sitting next to him at a pep rally at Old Dominion Job Corps Center, when I was the Director of Education there in 2005. He kept trying to make small talk and then insinuated that Job Corps only existed because somebody has to “dig the ditches and flip the burgers”. Then he proceeded to vote against the grant legislation for black and hispanics, a few months later. I’m telling you, the guy has a Klan hoody hanging in his closet. He reminds me of Homer Stokes in “Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou?”.
Amazing amount of trollage here since Mike was Macaca’d. You can always tell how much they are hurt by a story by how many operatives they dispatch to hurl invectives and disinformation. Rather than defend their candidate’s record, they have to attack the other guy. Pity.
“This is exactly the direction political discourse should take–crazy youngsters yelling hysterical accusations at a political candidate for national office.”
…I’m not sure, but I don’t think a 36 year old is a “youngster”. I could be wrong.
Although, I’m quite sure that Mr. “look-at-me”, surrounded by other 1L’s (average age: 22) would love to be considered a “youngster”.
Thanks for posting a link to the youtube video over on DK.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cowy6y0-55Y
It’s clear from looking at the speed you are walking, and the reaction of the guy that falls, that he did “take a dive”.
“Amazing amount of trollage here since Mike was Macaca’d. You can always tell how much they are hurt by a story by how many operatives they dispatch to hurl invectives and disinformation. Rather than defend their candidate’s record, they have to attack the other guy. Pity.”
Everything with chickfu’s name attached to it is ridiculous. “Macaca’d?” What does that even mean… are you making up words over there? I’ve yet to see an incentive or some disinformation come from a Republican here. Again, I think you’re just making stuff up as you go along.
Allen has a record of fighting terrorists and taxes. He’s fighting terrorists at home and abroad. Liberals want to pick up and leave Iraq, let it turn into a bastion of terrorism. You should be ashamed. Your people have the gall to stand and say that Iraq was better off with Saddam Hussein. Tell that to the millions of dead Iraqis who were persecuted and executed by a tyrannous regime. You say you support the war on terror, yet you allow men like John Kerry to allude that our fighting men and women are dumb.
Allen understands fiscal and economic policy. He won’t trick the working class into supporting a mimimum wage that anyone who has taken an Econ 101 class know will only put those people out of work. He understands that low taxes mean economic expansion. You laugh and tow the party line of “tax cuts only help the wealthy.” Erroneous.
You want talk about issues? Let’s talk about issues. Mike, your 15 minutes of fame are over.
Where does all this hate come from anyway? If you don’t like the guy, don’t vote for him man. Going to his rally’s looking for a fight puts you right up there with that religous nut group that protests around military funerals declaring ‘God hates gays.’ Don’t get all whiney and indignant because a bigger kid gave you a bloody nose after you took a swing at him. This isn’t trolling or adgenda pushing, hell I usually vote independent or democrat, but curiousity brought me here and listening to you boast about basically being a smartassed jerk like it’s some kind of virtue is depressing and childish, and inspired a response. Sorry if it’s not one any of you like, but given what I have seen of you and your beliefs, a response is exactly the kind of thing you crave. Maybe it’s justification, or maybe it’s just attention of any kind you live for.
Thanks for contributing to the polarization of this country, in which right and wrong are no longer black and white, but rather Conservative and Democrat. People like you, Ann Coulter, etc continue to make me proud to be Independent.
Hey Mike, the kid in the video took a dive faster than a pro wrestler on Friday Night Smackdown. You can tell he’s been ‘learned’ real well. I blame his parents. Actually the whole crowd acted like a bunch of ‘MORANS’! *Note the right tilt.
I’ve given a bunch of money to Jim Webb’s campaign and I don’t even live in Virginia. I want to see him win. What you are doing is not helping. Lay off.
The unedited video was interesting but sadly did not get the angle of the “dive” the kid took. However, I’m sure other angles from other cameras will surface.
Telling tidbits: the LOUD voice that claims “HEY! He knocked down that kid” didn’t sound rehearsed what so ever. The guy in an orange shirt push Mike just as the cops starting walking out with him. The “reporters” questioning Mike during the perp walk to the cop car. Too bad the camera panned down to the hood of the car and not show the faces of the guys asking the loaded questions and giving information.
I’m glad Mike went on record to say he regretted saying “He’ll own this county”. It sounded a tad too melodramatic. Notice Mike did not resist arrest and cooperated fully.
By this way, this is not Civil Disobediance. Mike completely followed the law, in an act of civil obediance. Faking an assault (likely performed by the kid) however is against the law and should be followed up on IF there’s video evidence showing that the kid did it on purpose. It would be even better should there be a matter of public record of the kid saying it happened yet declined to press charges. Should be interesting, so long as the video exists.
Mike, keep up the good work, while you can. Enjoy your studies and let’s hope you don’t experience repurcussions 5 to 10 years down the road. The public’s memory is short, not those in power.
Mr. Stark:
I’ve been a Webb supporter since before there was a Webb Campaign. I was one of the earlier members in the “Draft James Webb” movement. I have poured my heart and soul into this campaign. I have dedicated much of this year to helping a group of dedicated Democrats take Webb from 30 points down to a slim lead. A lead that could easily disappear.
DON’T ROCK THE BOAT!
I have to put to much into this campaign to have the last few days become about your antics (and the question WAS inappropriate) and let those antics kill this Webb momentum we have worked so hard to attain. Stop making noise, and stop changing the subject of discussion. These last few days should be about why Jim Webb should be United States Senator, and how he has failed Virginians in every way WHEN IT COMES TO THE ISSUES. We don’t need to know if George Allen spit on his wife, because it doesn’t matter. We already know his character, and it is weak. No need to further reinforce it by acting in a way that leads to police officers.
I ask you to keep silent for these last few days, and let Jim Webb run his own campaign. Let’s make these last few days about the corruption in Congress. Let’s make these last few days about Iraq. Let’s make these last few days about Health Care, Social Security, and College Tuition costs. Let’s make these few days about change. I don’t want to pick up the paper and see your face. I don’t want to see you on the local news. This isn’t Mike Stark’s time. This is Jim Webb’s. The news should be about him, not about you.
All you are doing is linking your own actions with Jim Webb. Now, you should know that a man of honor and integrity, like Jim Webb, would never condone your actions. He wouldn’t encourage them, and he certainly wouldn’t be “pleased.” He has never attacked Allen over these charges, as Jim Webb has chosen to focus on the issues. Do as Jim Webb would do, and talk about the issues. Drop some lit, make some phone calls. DO NOT try to start something that could cut our slim lead apart.
Mr. Stark, I’m sure you are a dedicated Democrat. But this campaign isn’t about Guerilla politics. It’s about honor and integrity. Jim Webb is a war hero, and he got that reputation by facing his foes with courage and honor. There is nothing honorable about interrupting an Allen rally accusing George Allen of spitting on his wife. For the love of God, shut up. Stop talking about yourself, and start talking about Jim Webb, a REAL hero.
Dannyboy
(Dan Geroe)
http://www.whsv.com/news/headlines/4567637.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cowy6y0-55Y&NR
Interesting thing about the top link, you’ll see the overweight, blond woman in a blue cardigan blatantly rallying the crowd at the beginning. This suggests she has a prominent role in the group. Next, you see her yelling right at Mike Stark (you’d think you’d yell toward the senator you’re supporting, but I digress). Lastly, you see her right at where Mike gets taken hold of by the police on the other side of the room.
Is this the woman Mike was talking about? Is this the “mother” of Alex Davis (the “victim” in the black shirt and white pants) he saw whispering to Alex prior to the dive? Either way, she made her way around the rally to be right where Mike was at.
I like how Anne Taetzsch said “I was trying to protect the Senator”. Good to know, what with the hostile crowd surrounding the Senator.
The youtube video is good but ends a bit early. Good to know who was around Alex during the fall. Plus, I’d like another angle of the man in the orange shirt that pushes Mike after the police take custody of him.
Sorry Charlie, but mikey isn’t likely to be around in 5-10 years. He’s a suicide statistic waiting to happen when the election ends and he realizes he’s still a nobody. Mikey is a child throwing a temper tantrum. He lives in an alternate reality where he really matters - hence the 5-year-old “I’ll own this county” idiocy. His stunts have nothing to do with Allen. He’s just a bitter little boy, desperate to be noticed, and this is his way of assauging his feelings of worthlessness. It’s all about him. And judging from his melodramatic narccisism, he’ll probably blow his brains out and leave the mess for his family. Personally, I think he should go with self immolation to protest Allens victory over webb.
I thought Mike acquitted himself very well in the “unedited” version of the local CBS video. Unfortunately, the footage does not show the actual incident. (But if that kid’s dive was as good as Mike said, he should consider changing his nationality and trying out for the Italian national soccer team.)
You are engaging in criminal stalking activity.
You belong in prison or in a rubber room. I know that you may have problems with reality and cannot understand what I say, but you want to stop these stalking activities.
SOME IDIOT SAID: “Allen has a record of fighting terrorists and taxes. He’s fighting terrorists at home and abroad. Liberals want to pick up and leave Iraq, let it turn into a bastion of terrorism. You should be ashamed.”
Sorry, you wingnut, but voting 96% with Bush is not the same as “fighting terrorists”.
• The terrorists are in Afghanistan…yet we are hopelessly mired in Iraq babysitting a country that has fallen into kaos, with absolutely no hope of maintaining the democracy Bush tried to sell the American public at a cost the lives of three thousand American troops and over a third of a trillion dollars.
• Osama Been Forgotten is still breathing free air five and a half years after the largest attack on American soil in American History.
• North Korea has PROVEN to have Nukes. And we do not have the resources to blocade because we are hopelessly mired in Iraq.
• The Military Times newspapers are slated to publish an editorial tomorrow morning calling for the resignation or fireing of Donald Rumsfeld….when the TROOPS are no longer confident in the failed Iraq war policy of the Bush Administration or the Republican rubber-stamping of those policies in congress…what is it going to take for people like you to pull your collective heads out of your collective asses and FINALLY support them?
America needs change now. America is calling for change now. Face it, Eric…for you and people who think like you, it’s all over but the crying come Tuesday.
I admire those who aspire to larger-than-life nitwittery. Way to go Mike! Truly, the libs aren’t quite extreme enough in my estimation.
“Truth is always the enemy of power. And power the enemy of truth.”
The ugly reality of the American political system is right here for all to see. Republicans using the word liberal as if it’s some sort of pejorative. Name calling. Personal attacks. Little discussion of the real issues.
Democrats telling a dissenting citizen to “be quiet.” I was so shocked by that I had to go back and read it again.
The Republicans and the Democrats want to keep everything wrapped up into two nice little packages, and maintain their control and power. In their world, you’re either conservative or liberal. Republican or Democrat. Apparently,there’s no political recourse to bring an end to our never-ending lack of choice between the “evil of two lessers” that we have suffered through for the last 50 years of so. The system keeps getting worse, not better. We seem mired in a dive for the lowest common denominator, and it gets lower every four years.
The United States government is not a democracy and has never been. It is a representative republic in which representatives to the central government are chosen in a winner-take-all popular vote and have no responsibility to follow the will of the people once elected into office. Elections are funded by corporate and individual bribery, trading political contributions for political favor.
“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”
Well, I’ve got some news for you, folks. There are actual thinking people on this continent that aren’t buying tickets to the national charade. Both of these parties are an embarrassment. All of you should be ashamed of yourselves for supporting any of these knuckle dragging louts.
All of you are little more than foot soldiers for the power parties. They want to keep the party going. Keep the military industrial complex humming along. Think about it. Approximately 300,000 soldiers in 130 countries. All for American capitalism.
It’s all about keeping markets open. Clinton was damn good at it. Bush and his toadies are the ultimate. At least Clinton was smart and interesting.
“The tragedy of modern war is not so much that the young men die but that they die fighting each other–instead of their real enemies back home in the capitals.”
My suggestion is to stop wasting time with folks like Allen. Do you think he’s really going to answer a question about his pathetic moral character? Do you really think any Democrat is going to truly work to bring about meaningful change?
Since when? On the core issues, both of the major parties are in lock step with one another. Open your eyes.
And when you do, start working to build real democracy in your communities. Democracy is found there, not in War$hington.
Be careful.
The focus in the next two days should be solely on Jim Webb.
These kinds of stories can easily backfire, and turn sympathy (however unmerited) towards Allen, especially in the minds of mature voters. I.e., some college kids will enjoy the kerfuffles but older voters will find it annoying and perhaps publicity-seeking.
There is no connection between the Webb campaign and Mike. NO CONNECTION!!
I am happy to see other members of the angry, bitter left chime in with us really cool progressives and let the truth be told that Bush Lies and People Dies and that Karl Rove is the puppeteer while smirking Bush is the puppet. If not for Internet chat boards, the really cool progressives might not have a voice to compete with the jingoistic flag-waving of the corporate controlled media.
The angry, bitter left all know for a fact that Bush’s war for oil in Iraq is illegal. By speaking out on Internet chat boards and using the façade of communist/socialist groups like A.N.S.W.E.R. and MoveOn.org, the really cool progressives are becoming a powerful force on the Internet chat boards.
The Internet also allows us really cool progressives to question authority. Really cool progressives like me and the Web Fairy question authority and have intellectual discussion on the fact that it was squib charges and holograms used on 9/11, not the propaganda put out by the corporate controlled media of 19 hijackers and jet airplanes.
I am somewhat of an expert on 9/11. I can look at a 72 dpi image on a really cool progressive Web site and tell you more than any aerospace or civil engineer what really happened.
There’s a lot more going on in the 9/11 cover-up than meets the eye. People who buy every word that the corporate-controlled media says should go buy George Orwell’s 1984 and practice up; it won’t be long before the hopelessly indoctrinated manage to get the clocks to thirteen here. Peace. – Scott Laughrey
Jim Webb must be proud of this bi-polar nut.
Congratulations, you have become a Liberal Icon in the likes of Cindy Sheehan. You are a publicity turd!!! I believe voters will express that they find most Democrat candidates as contemptible as you are on Tuesday. I can’t wait!!!
Mr. UVA Law School Student,
First of all, it’s spelled principal, not principle.
Second of all, I couldn’t agree with Eric more. Keep showing your ugly face at his rallys. Everytime you show up and open your mouth, you just reinforce that Allen is the right choice for our state. You show the idiotic and asinine liberal agenda for what it’s worth.
Your 15 seconds of fame are definitely over. Do you intend to keep this nonsense up for the next 6 years when Sen. Allen is re-elected on Tuesday? Because if so, for the sake of our commonwealth, I hope the next guy DOES decide to press charges.
You just continue to support the “vast-right-wing” cause by your obnoxious tirades, so for all of us “vast-right-wing-water-carriers in the commonwealth of VA”, I say, please, keep right on talking. Oh, and thanks for your help in re-electing a fine, upstanding Senator.
Meg wrote: “There is no connection between the Webb campaign and Mike. NO CONNECTION!!”
Meg, there’s an implicit connection in the minds of Virginia voters. It’s inevitable. That’s why, imho, I’d prefer Mike stay out of the limelight…. we’re SO CLOSE to Webb winning. We don’t need to create scenes. All the trends are going against Allen. He’s buried himself. We don’t need to aid him any further. He’s doing a fine job by himself.
Yep, Eric & the usual bunch of hypocritical republican trolls are still here, trying their best to distract attention away from the real issues. Pray tell, trolls, how do you defend the “Free Speech Zones”, the long existing Repub tactic of hauling away dissenters, of misusing law enforcement? How do you defend the intimidation tactics of your fellow so called conservatives? You don’t- you, as usual, use projection, name calling & smear, to hide your far worse tactics.
Tell you what, though, let’s rewind by to the days when you idiots were howling after Bill Clinton, and see if any of your arguments make sense. They don’t- you were guilty of far worse when you were working to find anything to bring down President Bill Clinton- your gang of thugs asked a lot of insulting questions, spread lies all over, even attacked his daughter because you though she wasn’t attractive. You lied, you smeared, you intimidated, you asked loaded questions, and you expect us to forget that and accept your sanctimony & righteous indignation? You are truly dense, if you do.
And i will wager that few, if any, of you, have served. And I wager few, if any have read the Constitution all the way through, and have sworn to defend it, as Mike has. Your responses on this board are all anti American- you refuse to acknowledge that it is Mike’s right, as it is anyone’s right, to attend and ask questions of the people who want to represent him. Mike has never been insulting, certainly not like you clowns were insulting to President Clinton, and has stayed within the law. You don’t like what Mike has done and want to stop him? Then leave America, for you damn sure don’t give a rat’s ass about the Bill of Rights & the Constitution and the principles of the founding fathers. Leave now, before you drag America down any further. Maybe you can get a place next to Bush in Paraguay- looks like Bush is setting up his very own banana republic and i am sure you will be welcome there.
“there’s an implicit connection in the minds of Virginia voters”
I know, and it worries me. If you dislike Allen, somehow, you are automatically working for the Webb campaign. Hmmm…
WOW - 2 more days and this nonsense MIGHT come to an end (there could be court challenges etc. if the Va. Senate election is as close as all the polls show). To Eric and all the other Allen Kool-Aid drinkers ….. this thing does not look good for you. The undecideds are breaking for Webb and all the recent polls I have seen show Allen losing after once having a huge lead. I do not live in Va. (thank God ) but I do want the Dems to take control of the Senate so, of course, I have been watching several races closely - and I now like our chances BUT we have to get that vote out on Tuesday. It would make me very happy to see a couple of things early Wed. morning - Allen making a concession speech and Hannity, Rush, Coulter etc.
spinning “how the GOP losing both the House AND Senate was not so horrible and because the DEMS didn’t do it as impressively as they should have, then that just shows how weak the Dems really are.” Mark my words, if the Dems do win the Senate (the House is over - sorry GOP) the forementioned spinning will be the Republican talking point and I will be giggling. The stuck pig always squeal the loudest and right now the GOP sure is squaling.
Wow… I go to sleep for a couple of hours and there’s nonsense posted EVERYWHERE here. It’s a whole case of characters! It’s almost as if I’m reading a script for “Let’s See How Stupid We Can Sound!”
We’ve got a guy a who thinks he’s “somewhat of an expert on 9/11″ who can take us all to a progressive website and make all of our dreams come true. There’s also a guy who think that “voting 96% with Bush” is not the same as fighting terrorists. OF COURSE ITS NOT! However, instead of reciting a TV ad, look at the voting record, there’s a lot of terrorist fighting in there. Nice non sequiter though, you and Mike read the same playbook. We’ve got another person who doesn’t condone “projection, name calling & smear,” yet wants to call conservatives “Republican trolls,” “clowns” and “anti-American.” AND then has the nerve to call me a hypocrite. We’ve got another guy who thinks I belong to a cult and am ready to take a Kool-Aid slumber. That’s cute, it’s not like we haven’t heard that one before.
You people blow my mind. You call my a hypocrite, then do the same thing. You embrace the liberal agenda because I have YET to hear anything other than the typical, “Iraq this, Ira
q that” paired with “Allen’s going to lose, other people will cry.” Come up with a policy or something; if you’ve got one. Which, if you toe the party line, like it seems you all do, you don’t have a single idea in your brains. You win the House and the Senate, I can’t wait to see this crap you idiots push through. Maybe it will be then that Americans realize how bankrupt the Democrat party is, and how it’s full of people like you. Thankfully, that’s not going to happen, pray tell that one day it will and Americans will realize why they should always vote Republican.
Eric…if all that is true, then why are you here? Go away and the pain will stop.
Unless you are some sort of a masochist..It’s okay…we all know that you conservitives, our “bastions of morality” are the biggest closet kink freaks in the world. Preaching morality over a bullhorn while fondling a little boy under the lecturn.
Answer the question Eric…if you are feeling so attacked and that liberals are evil and cannot be debated with, what purpose do you serve by coming back to be beat up over and over again?
Seems to me only an IDIOT would do that.
And miss hearing that kind of crap? You’ve gotta be kidding me. There’s no pain here, and there’s even less beating. You think you can beat me down with your name calling? Think again. My purpose here was to tell Mike to keep doing what he’s doing, because I love hearing that voters “aren’t voting for that Webb fellow because of that law student boy on TV.”
There it is Jeff, there’s your answer. I’ve yet to have my question answered. By any of you. So I’ll just hang out and wait to hear what the Democrat party actually stands for. Or do you guys even know?
Do you really think that this makes you look good? You’re thirty-eight years old. The statute of limitations on the “youthful indiscretion” defense passed a decade ago. What was acceptable, even “charming,” of a twenty year old undergrad looks ridiculous at your age. You bring negative publicity to yourself, to your school, and to your political cause, as you remind people constantly that a vote for Jim Webb is not merely a vote for a Vietnam hero but for the less moderate factions of the Democratic Party.
We’ll see if Eric has the balls to post after Tuesday. He probably will, but he’ll be “spinning” the same BS Coulter has already started …… that the Dems should have won even BIGGER ! - Just a couple of weeks ago, these right wingers were saying that they were actually going to hold on to the House. I do not hear even one goofy enough to predict that now. How about it, Eric? Does your beloved GOP maintain control of the House? I predict we will hear no answer to that one from our boy, Eric.
I think its premature to be predicting a GOP hold of the House. It’s an uphill battle, no point in arguing against that. However, I think that it will come down to the wire. IF the GOP holds, it won’t be by more than 3 seats. I think you all are counting your chickens before they hatch. It will be an interesting night for the House of Representatives. That being said, it will be VERY difficult for the GOP to hold the House.
The Senate is a different story. A GOP hold is far more likely. I predict a three seat loss for the GOP, maintaining a three seat majority.
Nance, consider yourself proven wrong.
Still no word of Democrat stands on issues. I predicted nobody would come up with anything.
Eric…How do I put this….it seems you are basing your “predictions” more on wishful thinking than on any form of facts or reality.
There is not one single reliable pollster today that is predicting a GOP hold in any way, and many are now putting the range of DEM pickups on the 22-35 bracket, with the upper number reaching as high as 42-50 Even electionprojection.com, which is a FAR RIGHT CONSERVITIVE REPUBLICAN maintained site shows the DEMS gaining 16 seats.
As for the senate…even the McLaughlan Group..INCLUDING TONY BLANKLY Placed their predictions on the senate races as odds-on favorite for a Dem takeover of the senate.
Nobody here is picking out drapes and carpet, son…we are just stating the obvious dire prediciment the GOP is in this election cycle….and with two days left, there ain’t much turf left for your imaginary “uphill battle” to take place.
Talk about whistling on the way to the gallows.
……but you just keep singing “the sun will come out, tomorrow” if that helps you to maintain your obviously tennuous grasp on sanity.
Jeff… let’s get two things straight…. I’m not your son and I’m no expert, nor do I pretend to be. I was asked my opinion, and I freely gave it. My own opinion, not a regurgitated one from a pundit.
My access to “forms of facts and reality” is… how do I say this… better than yours.
If you want to live your life on the whims of a poll, by all means do it. If you want to hold hands with a pundit, by all means do it.
Yeah, my prediction is an extremely positive one, but that’s why they call it a prediction.
Still waiting for an issue…….
SOME IDIOT SAID: “There it is Jeff, there’s your answer. I’ve yet to have my question answered. By any of you. So I’ll just hang out and wait to hear what the Democrat party actually stands for. Or do you guys even know?”
What do Democrats stand for? Well, Eric..you sure won’t find the answer listening to Rush or Sean or with your head stuck up FAUX News’ ass.
Howzabout DNCC Chair Rahm Emanuel on Meet The Press this morning…(sorry…that’s not a show on Fox, but it’ll have to do) We can start with the Democratic plan for Iraq…I know reading big words gives people like you a headache, but try to stick with it, SON.
REP. EMANUEL: Here’s what we’re going to do: We’re not going to divert our resources from focusing on capturing Osama bin Laden five years after 9/11; we are going to work with our allies on making sure that North Korea, when we issue a red line, doesn’t cross it without any sense of consequences; and we are going to work also at making sure that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon. So let me say one thing clear about the principles we’re going to have. Whether Senator Biden’s idea on Iraq—which I think is a strong idea—Senator Levin’s program, Congressman Jack Murtha, and Congressman Ike Skelton, there are five basic principles that hold Democrats together on our approach to Iraq: First, regional cooperation; second, reconciliation among the parties; third, reconstruction of the economy; fourth, responsibility for results; and fifth is redeployment from Iraq. Those are the five principles. All Democrats say we have to change the policy. These guys have—the Republicans and the president—and I’ll say this, the president’s got what he needed for this war totally from Congress, except for the one thing that the Republicans have denied him, and that’s oversight and accountability.
MR. RUSSERT: Would the Democrats consider cutting off funding for the war?
REP. EMANUEL: No, we’re not going to hurt our troops like that. We’re going to make sure we have a new policy, and when the Baker…
MR. RUSSERT: OK, OK.
REP. EMANUEL: And when the Baker and Lee Hamilton approach comes, our approach will not be what the vice president said, steam—full steam ahead. We’re going to listen to that approach, and work in a bipartisan fashion to solve the worst national security challenge America’s faced in over two generations.
What say you now, Eric?
Oh…and ERIC, In case you have never heard of the Biden Plan, here is a synopsis from the August 24 editorial Biden wrote in the Washington Post:
“First, the plan calls for maintaining a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis their own regions. The central government would be left in charge of common interests, such as border security and the distribution of oil revenue.
Second, it would bind the Sunnis to the deal by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of oil revenue. Each group would have an incentive to maximize oil production, making oil the glue that binds the country together.
Third, the plan would create a massive jobs program while increasing reconstruction aid — especially from the oil-rich Gulf states — but tying it to the protection of minority rights.
Fourth, it would convene an international conference that would produce a regional nonaggression pact and create a Contact Group to enforce regional commitments.
Fifth, it would begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces this year and withdraw most of them by the end of 2007, while maintaining a small follow-on force to keep the neighbors honest and to strike any concentration of terrorists.
This plan is consistent with Iraq’s constitution, which already provides for the country’s 18 provinces to join together in regions, with their own security forces and control over most day-to-day issues. This plan is the only idea on the table for dealing with the militias, which are likely to retreat to their respective regions instead of engaging in acts of violence. This plan is consistent with a strong central government that has clearly defined responsibilities. Indeed, it provides an agenda for that government, whose mere existence will not end sectarian violence. This plan is not partition — in fact, it may be the only way to prevent violent partition and preserve a unified Iraq.”
So, now, howabout you do us all a favor and quit spewing the lame-assed talking point that “Libs and dems don’t have a plan” It is beneath contempt for ANYONE to continue spreading that meme.
Here’s what I say to that son, quote Rahm Emanuel all you want. I prefer to shy away from socialists, but to each his own right.
There’s nothing in there that I haven’t heard before. Which leads me to rephrase my previous statement. The Democrat party is a party of one issue. They don’t like the war in Iraq. That’s fair.
The 5 principle plan that Emanuel speaks of is exactly that. Its a plan of principle, not a plan of action.
If you want to play hardball with me you’re going to need a little more than Rahm Emanuel.
Still a plan of principle. Biden and Emanuel want to create jobs? HOW? By picking up and leaving?
Hell, I’m all for accountability of Iraqis for their own security. I just don’t think you’re going to get that without being there.
It’s a difference of opinion….
And you’re STILL a one issue party
Eric…you either failed to read, or failed to absorb the things you TRIED to read.
What a loser you are.
Name calling…. you’ve gotta be in middle school still
Oh…Did I mention Pelosi’s plan for the first 100 hours?
As in the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats — in her fondest wish — win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel as the first Madam Speaker in history.
Day One: Put new rules in place to “break the link between lobbyists and legislation.”
Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds — “I hope with a veto-proof majority,” she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.
All the days after that: “Pay as you go,” meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.
To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above “a certain level.” She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era.
Sure sounds like more than one issue to me, son…but then again, your side condemned her for having “no plan” and then attacked her on announcing it for “picking the carpet and drapes”. Can’t have it both ways.
Man…you must feel like a real idiot right about now. Sorry for making you look so uninformed….but, unfortunately, that’s what happens to “FAUX Noos” viewers.
Eric…stating that you are an uninformed idiot is not name calling…it’s a simple observation. Stating that you are a LOSER, is borderline…so I’ll ammend it…Today, you are only an Imminent loser….Come TUESDAY, you will most certainly be a full-fledged loser. Hows that? Feel better now?
ROTFLMAO
As was foretold, the proof is on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cowy6y0-55Y
Watch the end where the kid takes a dive … the look on Mike’s face is priceless.
First Allen hid behind the wife’s skirt and now he has a kid tell lies to the police. A complete absence of character.
Her “100 hour plan” is going to a moot point because a veto-proof majority won’t exist. But I’ll humor you and talk about this 100 hour plan. Actually, I’m going to skip the ridiculous stuff and go straight to what really SHINES here.
Raising the minimum wage. I hope to god you guys do this. Let all those people lose their jobs, then they’ll see what they did with their vote. You raise the minimum wage and congratulations, you alienate your base, minimum wage workers. You can’t raise the minimum wage by 40% without increasing unemployment. Clearly, neither you nor Nancy Pelosi has taken an Econ 101 class.
Pay as you go economics. Congratulations, you’ve discovered the worst economic policy in history. Rolling back the tax cuts that have spurred this economy won’t help anything. Washington doesn’t have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. Revenues are at an all time high, so clearly that isn’t a problem.
Negotiating with big pharma. Great idea! Let’s screw up the economy even more! Why do liberals hate business? Forcing pharmaceuticals to change their business practices only raises prices. Same with oil companies. You want to tax them higher? Say hello to high gas prices again. Again, basic economics.
I applaud Pelosi for wanting to enact the recommenations of the September 11th Commission. I just hope she isn’t blowing smoke.
With the exception of that single idea, her “plan” is little more than a 100 hour countdown towards economic destruction. Congratulations, you’ve proposed to send us back into a recession.
Jeff, I’ll let you make the character statements. I’ll stick to the issues with you.
More good news for you folks…. check out Pew’s newest generic congressional ballot.
Not like these things show anything anyways.
So, don’t put too much faith in these “polls” and neither will I
Oh…here’s a few from Democrats.org Next time you want to know what democrats stand for, don’t try to find it in a Bush campaign stump speech. Try doing a little digging for yourself…it’s called “research”…it’s what SMART people do, son.
HONEST AND OPEN GOVERNMENT
Democrats will end the Republican culture of corruption and restore a government as good as the people it serves, starting with real ethics reform. The Democratic Party is committed to real ethics reform and meaningful campaign finance reform that protects our rights and ensures that elected officials act ethically — not just within the law, but within the spirit of the law. Democrats offer an aggressive reform package to reverse Republican excesses and restore the public trust. We are committed to immediate change to lead our country in a new direction, to put an end to Republican business as usual, and to make certain our nation’s leaders serve the people’s interests, not special interests. For us, this commitment spans our lifetime, as we were elected to represent the people, not the powerful. Our goal is to restore accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of government. To do so, we will create and enforce rules that demand the highest ethics from every public servant, sever unethical ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, and establish clear standards that prevent the trading of official business for gifts.
REAL SECURITY
Democrats will protect Americans at home and lead the world by telling the truth to our troops, our citizens and our allies. We believe in a strong national defense that is both tough and smart, recognizing that homeland security begins with hometown security. Democrats have a plan that is comprehensive– from repairing our military, to winning the war on terror, to protecting our homeland security, to ensuring success in Iraq and freeing America of its dependence on foreign oil–and it will finally prepare America for the security needs of the 21st Century. And we honor the sacrifices our troops, their families and veterans by making sure we take care of them when they come home. Democrats are unwavering in our commitment to keep our nation safe. For Democrats, homeland security begins with hometown security. That’s why we led the fight to create the Department of Homeland Security and continue to fight to ensure that our ports, nuclear and chemical plants, and other sensitive facilities are secured against attack and support increased funding for our first responders and programs like the COPS program so we keep our communities safe. We want to close the remaining gaps in our security by enacting the 9/11 Commission recommendations.
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
Democrats will create a cleaner, greener and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop energy alternatives, and investing in energy independent technology. Energy independence puts America in the driver’s seat to pursue affordable and efficient energy solutions that will benefit all Americans, improve America’s security, reduce the burden on American families, and help clean our environment. American families should not have to pay the price for a failed national energy policy. They deserve an energy policy that creates a cleaner and stronger America that reduces our dependence on foreign oil and also creates new jobs for American workers. By clearing the pathways to innovation, investing in our workers and infrastructure, and providing American consumers with broader, more responsible choices, the Democratic plan will provide the tools to help move America forward, toward real energy security for the 21st century.
ECONOMIC PROSPERITY AND EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE
Democrats will create jobs that stay in America and restore opportunity for all Americans, starting with raising the minimum wage, expanding Pell grants and making college tuition tax deductible. We also believe in budget discipline that reduces our deficit. Democrats believe that the most effective way to increase opportunity for our families is a high quality, good paying job. The Democratic Party supports fair trade agreements that raise standards for all workers here and abroad, while making American businesses more competitive, and we don’t believe in tax giveaways that reward companies for moving American jobs overseas. We also believe in balanced budgets and paying down our national debt, while Republicans continue to put huge burdens on future generations by borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from foreign nations. We want to restore the budget discipline of the 1990s that helped eliminate deficits and spur record economic growth. Democrats know that the key to expanding opportunity is to provide every child with a strong foundation of education. We will also help expand educational opportunities for college by making college tuition tax deductible, expanding Pell Grants, and cut student loan interest rates.
A HEALTHCARE SYSTEM THAT WORKS FOR EVERYONE
Democrats will join 36 other industrialized nations in making sure everyone has access to affordable health care, starting by fixing the prescription drug program and investing in stem cell and other medical research. In the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth, no one should have to choose between taking their child to a doctor and paying the rent. Democrats are committed to making sure every single American has access to affordable, effective health care coverage. We want to fix the disastrous Medicare Part D and ensure our seniors can afford their prescription drugs. We also believe in investing in life saving stem cell and other medical research that offers real hope for cures and treatment for millions of Americans.
RETIREMENT SECURITY
We will ensure that a retirement with dignity is the right and expectation of every single American, starting with pension reform, expanding saving incentives and preventing the privatization of social security. Democrats believe that after a life of hard work, you earn a secure retirement. Our commitment to protecting the promise of Social Security is absolute. Democrats also recognize that Americans rely on more than just Social Security for a secure and dignified retirement. Democrats will continue to fight for genuine pension reform that protects employees’ financial security from future Enron-style abuse. We also want to work on new ways to help hard-working Americans create retirement savings.
ENVIRONMENT
The Democratic Party believes that it is our responsibility to protect America’s extraordinary natural resources. The health of our families and the strength of our economy depend on our stewardship of the environment. We reject the false choice between a healthy economy and a healthy environment. Farming, fishing, tourism, and other industries require a healthy environment. New technologies that protect the environment will create new high-paying jobs. A cleaner environment means a stronger economy. Far too many Americans live with unhealthy air or water quality. Democrats will fight to strengthen the laws that ensure we have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. And Democrats will make sure these laws are enforced. Democrats know that a sensible energy policy is key to a strong economy, our national security, and a clean environment. Democrats are committed to the next generation of affordable and renewable energy for the 21st century and to conservation measures that will immediately reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
CIVIL RIGHTS & JUSTICE
Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws, and every law that protects workers. Most recently, Democrats stood together to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight. We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America.
ELECTION REFORM
A fundamental tenet of our democracy is the right to vote and have that vote counted. We must be vigilant in protecting this right and ensuring that our voting system is fair for every American. Democrats are determined to reform the voting system in this country so that it includes verification, accountability, and accuracy. It is imperative that we modernize election equipment, and guarantee access to polls with common sense reforms such as Election Day registration, shorter lines, and early voting. The Democratic Party is committed to election reform and will fight for federal standards that restore confidence in our voting process.
Guess you never heard any of that on FAUX NOOZ, didja, ERIC?
Eric…There you have it….irregardless of if you agree with their plans and what they stand for, even you have to agree that congressional democrats,
1.) DO have a plan for Iraq,
and
2.) They HAVE publicly stated what their stance is on virtually every topic important to voters.
So drop the silly “NO PLAN/DON’T STAND FOR ANYTHING” meme that the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh spoon-feed people like you, and face the fact that there exists an overwhelming number of American voters who are voting Democratic this time NOT because they “hate Bush”, as you would like to believe, but because they are sick and tired of what a Republican-controlled congress has done to this Nation.
that’s cute… posting the party platform
You have got to be kidding me! You think that’s research?
Give me a break.
“Try doing a little digging for yourself…it’s called “research”…it’s what SMART people do, son.”
That’s a miserable attempt at an insult. If you want to compare intellect I’ll gladly play that game. It isn’t why we’re here though. I mean, it may be why you’re here, but I don’t think I need to compare brain pads with a child. Oh, and there shouldn’t be a comma after ‘do.’ Clearly neither policy nor grammar are your strong suits.
Unlike you, I don’t need the party line to know what the issues are.
Some idiot said: “Raising the minimum wage. I hope to god you guys do this. Let all those people lose their jobs, then they’ll see what they did with their vote. You raise the minimum wage and congratulations, you alienate your base, minimum wage workers. You can’t raise the minimum wage by 40% without increasing unemployment. Clearly, neither you nor Nancy Pelosi has taken an Econ 101 class.”
Okay, Mr. Economics 101…Explain to me why, your scenerio has NOT occurred in the nine states that have reised the minimum wage state-wide…In fact, the OPPOSITE has occurred in every instance. Why is that happening, Mr. Doom and Gloom?
Eric, as proof that you are wrong, hereare excerpts from an article by Wall Street Journal reporter Deborah Solomon from the edition last Friday:
“During the 2002 debate in Oregon, foes of a minimum-wage increase argued that it would chase away business and cripple an economy that traditionally had higher unemployment than the national average. “With so many Oregonians already unemployed, raising the minimum wage and then increasing it annually would devastate our economic recovery,” Bill Perry, head of the Oregon Restaurant Association, wrote at the time….Four years later, though it is impossible to say what would have happened had the minimum not been raised, Oregon’s experience suggests the most strident doomsayers were wrong. Private, nonfarm payrolls are up 8% over the past four years, nearly twice the national increase. Wages are up, too. Job growth is strong in industries employing many minimum-wage workers, such as restaurants and hotels. Oregon’s estimated 5.4% unemployment rate for 2006, though higher than the national average, is down from 7.6% in 2002, when the state was emerging from a recession….Academic economists traditionally have argued that raising the minimum wage inevitably leads employers to hire fewer workers. The experience of the late 1990s and a landmark study of employment in the fast-food industry by economists David Card and Alan Krueger in New Jersey (which raised its wage) and Pennsylvania (which didn’t), has undermined that view.”
Wow…sounds like just the OPPOSITE happened to me.
FIRST, SOME IDIOT SAID: I’ll just hang out and wait to hear what the Democrat party actually stands for. Or do you guys even know?”
THEN, THE SAME IDIOT SAID: “that’s cute… posting the party platform You have got to be kidding me!”
ERIC…UMMM…let me dumb it down so you can understand….A “PARTY PLATFORM” is a statement of exactly “what the party stands for”, you ninny.
Do you even understand how silly you look right now?
While I don’t have the space to give you an economics lesson, I’ll give you the Reader’s Digest version.
Your statement that unemployment hasn’t risen in the nine states that raised the minimum wage is false. In the late 90s, in states that already had a minimum wage above the federal leve, those states that raised their rates experienced an almost equal percentage increase of unemployment as the percentage increase in minimum wage. Government shouldn’t fix wages, markets should. A wage is like any other price. I have seen the statistics you referred to, and here’s why you think what you do. In those studies, unemployment as a WHOLE was measured, not unemployment in minimum wage jobs. It’s an acceptable mistake, but a mistake none the less.
Jeff,
The country was emerging from a recession; it is virtually impossible to figure out what portion of Oregon’s drop in unemployment owed to “coattails” of a national recovery and what part owed to its own policies. So long as the minimum wage reflects, rather than artificially inflates, the going rate for menial labor, a minimum wage increase is unlikely to have a significant detrimental effect on employment. But it is precisely because it reflects the going rate that it has minimal impact on poor families, few of whom subsist on the minimum wage. It is a red herring, a policy advertised as a boon to the poor that does a good deal more for the pimple-faced teenager.
Jeff, do you understand that everytime you call me a “ninny” or say how silly I look that you’re acting like you’re on a playground?
If I wanted the party platform I would have read it. It’s what I like to call a rhetorical question (that’s a question that doesn’t need an answer). The point of that is to demonstrate your personal inability to to tell me what Jim Webb stands for without quoting me the party line. It’s an exercise in futility to remind you that this election has strayed from the issues.
And you only drive that point home. With all of your name calling and insults I’ve yet to get anything proprietary from you. I can quote the RNC and F.A. Hayek all day if you want. I’d prefer to let you know what I think.
Anonymous couldn’t have said it better. I wish I would’ve known you were speaking of Oregon before I sent my reply, I would’ve had another laugh!
Eric…what’s that smell? Oh..I see you pulled that statement OUT OF YOUR ASS!
Sorry, son, but read and try to follow:
“A 1995 study by Princeton University economists David Card and Alan B. Krueger found that increases in state and federal minimum wages led “to increases in pay, but no loss in jobs.” Though Card and Krueger’s study is now more than a decade old, their conclusions regarding state-level wages were backed up by a report released recently by the nonpartisan Fiscal Policy Institute. That report, released in March 2006, found that “employment and payrolls in small businesses grew faster in the states with minimum wages above the federal level.”
Sorry, but FACTS always trump opinion.
ERIC SAID: “I wish I would’ve known you were speaking of Oregon before I sent my reply,”
Sorry, Eric…Oregon was only metioned five times in the paragraph….perhaps you should actually READ it instead of just formulating the nect thing you are trying to say…that is how debate works, son.
Easy killer… look at Card and Krueger’s methodology before you bring them into the equation. I shouldve anticipated you’d trot out those two.
“employment and payrolls in small businesses grew faster in the states with minimum wages above the federal level.”
This has more to do with the individual states than anything else. It’s a false analogy. It also doesn’t address unemployment outside of small businesses. Small businesses a far less likely to pay a minimum wage. You can’t arrive at a postulate “a priori”.
For further explanation of this, when those studies were released in 2006, the Bush tax cuts had been enacted. These tax cuts benefit small businesses the most. So, not only do your logic skills need improvement, you may want to examine why something happens instead of knowing that it did. It proves little more than that tax cuts work. Thanks for doing my work for me.
Son… when I’m typing a reply and you post I can’t refresh the browser. Honest mistake, grow up
Okay, son..then try Bernstein and Brocht:
“Opponents of minimum wage increases frequently argue that the policy is misguided, since it prices low-wage workers out of the labor market, forcing employers to lay them off after the increase takes effect. This claim has been carefully studied by labor economists interested in testing the actual impact of increases in the minimum wage among low-wage workers. This research, summarized in Bernstein and Schmitt (1998), has generally found the job-loss effect to be either small or nonexistent. …..The most recent increase in the minimum wage - the $0.90 increase phased in over the 1996-97 period - is a case in point. The study noted above examined the short-term effects of the increase and found that the policy had its intended effect: it raised the wages of low-wage workers from low-income families without leading to job losses.”
Funny….I have yet to see you site a single report or statistical resource to back up your thinking…odd.
Zounds, Jeff, you’re a bit of a jerk, aren’t you?
I remember, back in undergrad days during the 2004 election, attending a debate between the campus Democrats and Republicans with an apolitical acquaintance of mine.
The Republicans were dignified and decent, arguing their side with passion, yes, but also politeness and respect. Kind of like how Eric is doing here.
The Democrats were rude and obnoxious. As they usually are. Because they’re the kind of people prone to ridiculous hyperbole, and doing silly, silly, silly things like storming after a U.S. Senator while yelling unmerited accusations about spousal abuse.
They used petty insults, got all huffy and puffy, and deployed the usual playbook. Kind of like Jeff is here.
Afterwards, my friend asked me to remind her which were the Democrats and which were the Republicans. When I told her which was which, she said, “The Democrats were a bunch of jerks. I’m voting Republican.”
There’s a reason Republicans hold “values” in such high esteem: We wouldn’t want to elect someone like you, who trots out the “SON” thing and “SOME IDIOT SAID” like its respectable, even in an internet message board debate, to office. We also wouldn’t want to elect someone who calls the U.S. military rapists, murderers, and idiots repeatedly over a 30-year span to the presidency.
So everytime Eric responds decently, keep it up with the “SOME IDIOT SAID” and “SON” comments. You look foolish. You look immature. And I’m sure both of those perceptions are confirmed by reality.
You’re angry and you’re bitter. I don’t really care about your politics, but I bet you’re not a terribly agreeable person no matter what medium you communicate through.
Love,
Your 3rd President
PS. Seriously, how sweet was the Louisiana Purchase? C’mon now, let me hear the love.
Jeff
Advertising one’s self as nonpartisan and being nonpartisan are two different things. Heritage calls itself nonpartisan but it isn’t. Brookings calls itself nonpartisan but it isn’t. And the Fiscal Policy Institute calls itself nonpartisan but it isn’t.
Joint Economic Committee of Congress disagreed with Card and Kreuger… their research flew in the face of EVERY piece of emperical data to that point.
National Bureau of Economic Research study, which concluded that the higher minimum wage rates passed by Congress in 1996 and 1997 increased the number of poor families by 4.5 percent.
Preston Miller, a leading economist.
You give me two sources, one of which was a flawed study. Nice “research”
Scanned the report you cited, Eric, and the only reference on the impact to employment was in reference to part time workers. I quote:
“The most startling finding of the report is that the largest negative effects of a minimum
wage increase are felt by minimum wage workers. At the time of an increase, if a
minimum wage worker is working part time, they are more likely to be laid off than
someone working full time. As companies look for ways to mitigate the impacts of an
increase in labor costs, they eliminate part-time positions.”
your statement was:
“Raising the minimum wage. I hope to god you guys do this. Let all those people lose their jobs, then they’ll see what they did with their vote.”
Show me where the study said increasing the minimum wage will result in massive job losses.
Don’t just name Preston Miller….Cite how it supports your opinions, please.
Preston Miller was an economic advisor to the Federal Reserve of Minneapolis.
“My case against a higher minimum wage is that it distorts the labor market’s signals. A falling wage for lower-skilled and less-educated workers is saying that the economy needs fewer of these workers. In contrast, a higher minimum wage encourages more people to take the jobs covered by the minimum wage and so perversely increases the supply of such workers.”
ECON 101 - When you increase the supply of something that has a demand (as all things do) and when that supply exceeds that demand, a surplus results. A surplus when it comes to jobs means unemployment.
“As companies look for ways to mitigate the impacts of an increase in labor costs, they eliminate part-time positions.”
LOGIC 101 - When you eliminate part-time positions it means those jobs are gone. That’s the essence of unemployment. In terms of scale, its industry specific. So wherever there are part-time jobs to be lost, that’s where you’ll find those people losing their jobs. Scale is irrelevant, I didn’t use the term ‘massive,’ YOU did.
Jeff, I’d really like you to address the small business growth statement you quoted in relation to when the study was done. Correct me if I’m wrong, but 2006 comes after 2003, and small businesses definetly benefit from those tax cuts. It was an interesting point that you made. I don’t think I could’ve made the case better myself.
Again, my mistake not citing Mr. Miller sooner. I made the incorrect assumption that you knew who he was. I apologize.
I know who Miller is, but you failed to cite WHAT it is he said to establish your point, Eric. The fact that Miller is unpublished, and is not very highly regarded across the field, does little to support his statements. Miller is fringe at best.
Try reading the October 26 article in THE ECONOMIST…October 26 2006 is later than 2003, isn’t it?…it reads,
“Overall, economists have become less worried about the job-destroying effects of a modest hike in the minimum wage. But most still reckon that it is at best a blunt instrument for fighting poverty.
The academic argument—and there has been plenty of it in recent years—has focused on the employment effects. Elementary economics would suggest that if you raise the cost of employing the lowest-skilled workers by increasing the minimum wage, employers will demand fewer of them. This used to be the consensus view. But a series of studies in the 1990s—including a famous analysis of fast-food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania by David Card at Berkeley and Alan Krueger of Princeton University—challenged that consensus, finding evidence that employment in fast-food restaurants actually rose after a minimum-wage hike. Other studies though, particularly those by David Neumark of the University of California at Irvine and William Wascher at the Federal Reserve, consistently found the opposite. Today’s consensus, insofar as there is one, seems to be that raising minimum wages has minor negative effects at worst. Lawrence Katz, an economist at Harvard University and signatory of the EPI’s letter, agrees that “most reasonably well-done estimates show small negative effects on employment among teenagers”.”
Sorry, Eric. you seem to be trumped again.
Sorry…I forgot to highlight the “Elementary economics would suggest that if you raise the cost of employing the lowest-skilled workers by increasing the minimum wage, employers will demand fewer of them. This used to be the consensus view.” part of the statement…you are right…Economics 101 it is. However, once you get beyone the “Elementary economics” you mightjust discover the fallacy in your beliefs….simply put, counter to your statement, raising the minimum wage has a negligible effect on unemployment.
First off… Miller is published.
Secondly, you keep referring back to Card and Krueger, and like I said before, you may want to look at their methodology before you invest so heavily in them, as the article you cite does. In that very quote, there is another study that found the opposite of Card and Krueger. So I don’t know what you’re trying to prove there.
The “consensus” that they speak of is a letter from the EPI. The EPI is well known as a liberal think tank on economic policy. It’s worth noting that many of the economists that provided the “consensus” on the minimum wage also provided a consenus that Bush should not have cut taxes in 2003, and we all know how that worked out. So you’ll forgive me if I don’t put a lot of faith on the shoulders of the EPI.
Here’s another look at raising the minimum wage. Let’s say for a second that unemployment doesn’t increase. That the businesses absorb the wage hike. Do you really think that they’re going to let that wage hike eat at their profits. That would be a little naive of you. So where else can they stick that increase? I’ll give you the answer, prices. If unemployment doesn’t increase, then prices will. Either way, somebody loses and unless you own that business, you’re going to get shafted.
You can’t fanagle your way out of that. It’s one way or the other. A business WILL NOT allow their profits to suffer if they can pass the burden to someone else. I’ll guarantee that.
Jeff, you’ve yet to address the small business issue. I think you may be avoiding it. Prove me wrong.
Caught what happened to you on Keith Olbermanns Countdown this week and would ask why the hell you let them assault you like that?
When are we the citizen going to stop being pushed around, attacked and assaulted by people who think they can but are subject to the same law and justice as the rest of us.
Personally as an ex British special forces, I would have broken that old idiots arm and chucked the younger cretin through the window and still could have claimed self defence and reasonable force. (I know, it would not have been the right thing but it makes my blood boil to see peaceful and law abiding people bullied and attacked so…)
I wish you luck in your endeavours and hope that the two men that attacked you get their just desserts and end up playing host to some rough trick in prison…
Ancient One
http://votao.blogspot.com
I think I am beginning to see your thinking…anything that disagrees with your statement is “liberal” and anything that agrees with your statement is “mainstream”…sorry…but that thinking just don’t hold water.
The article last cited was in from the last 30 days, addressed the specific issue we are discussing, and comes from the Economist. That’s mainstream.
Beyond your protests of Card and Krueger, the article stated, “Today’s consensus, insofar as there is one, seems to be that raising minimum wages has minor negative effects at worst. ” and quoted Lawrence Katz as stating “most reasonably well-done estimates show small negative effects on employment among teenagers”
Sorry, but that’s good enough for any reasonable person, Eric.
You are relying solely on the Economic Policy Institute. The Economist is very mainstream, I have a subscription, and that article is based on the EPI. Lawrence Katz is a member of the EPI.
Katz is a supporter of big labor and he was an economic advisor to Clinton, so again, you’ll forgive me if I don’t put a lot of faith in his opinion.
You can operate under a banner of being non-partisan but that doesn’t make it so. The EPI is a liberal think tank. Much like the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank.
Furthermore, I never used the term “mainstream” and you still have not addressed the small business growth remark you made. I would also like to hear your thoughts on the alternative view of the effect of raising the minimum wage on prices.
The deceit you speak of is a direct result of the corporate controlled media being nothing more than a jingoistic flag-waver for the Bush illegal war for oil.
The really cool progressives and others on the left flock to the Internet chat boards because this is where we have meaning. Most of us don’t have much significance in the real world so we instead post on Internet chat boards, and this gives credence to the really cool progressive things we all say like Bush Lies and People Dies.
That is why the communist/socialist groups like A.N.S.W.E.R. and MoveOn.org search the Internet for anti-war protesters who they can convince to hide behind the anti-war message when in reality it is mostly the hate Amerika message that they are promoting. Any really cool progressive can see that.
There’s a lot more going on in the 9/11 cover-up than meets the eye. People who buy every word that the corporate-controlled media says should go buy George Orwell’s 1984 and practice up; it won’t be long before the hopelessly indoctrinated manage to get the clocks to thirteen here. Peace. – Scott Laughrey
I was hoping this guy would come back.
Scott, give me a break. Wait! Where’s the “I’m an expert on 9/11″ quote. I liked that one. It’s almost as classic as “really cool progressives.”
Hang around here for a couple minutes, I want to hear what you have to say. I always need a good laugh.
You shame the lives of the thousands of innocent Americans killed that day. Your comments disgust me, and while you may have the right to say it, you truly should be ashamed of yourself.
When you come out of your World of Warcraft trance and see the reality of the world we live in, then your opinion can count for something. Until then, do yourself a favor and keep your “really cool progressive” opinions in your head.
Hey, Eric - in one paragraph, you say that Scott’s comments give you a good laugh …. then in the next you say his comments disgust you. Which one is it? Are you truly disgusted and outraged? Or do you spend all day on this site because you find us liberals comically stupid? I know one thing - I would not choose to spend 10 minutes or 10 sentences “debating” with Rush Libaugh listeners because I am smart enough to see how futile it would be. You do what you like, though. It’s a free country.
Hey, fellas (and Nance)- Scott is obviously (I guess not-so-obviously) illustrating the absurdity of liberlism by BEING ABSURD.
He’s joking. Satire. Parody. Get it?
Sorry to break up the party, but I want the discussion to get back to the fat, balding, 38 year old first year law student who doesn’t go to class, but follows a politician around the state and maintains a full-time blog!
I’m a second year law student and I still don’t remember having so much free time.
Borat struck again Eric…do you really believe Scott is for real?
http://www.e-Merges.com
liberlism = liberalism (no spellcheck!)
In fact, “Eric” are you also “Scott”?
http://www.e-Merges.com
I have the ability to find something hilarious and absolutely vile.
I’m also mature enough to be able to discuss an issue with someone from the other aisle. It may be futile, it may be worthwile, either way I have the maturity to handle it.
Nance, I notice how you pick MY comments to talk about instead of his. It’s no more than an observation. It was also you who thought I wouldn’t make a call on the election on Tuesday.
You were wrong then and your inability to speak with “Rush Limbaugh listeners” makes me question your conviction now.
Scott is for real, he spreads his conspiracy theories across the Web and seems to very much believe in them. I wondered if he was for real, so I sent his name through Google and sure enough, he is. So Shawn, yeah, I think the guy is for real, which only makes it THAT much worse.
2L, I asked him that question on Saturday while he was in the back of a police car. I didn’t have a video camera (still isn’t good enough for him) so he wouldn’t answer me. But I’m dying to know the answer.
Eric, your dismissal of the economist proves your far-right-of-the-spectrum partisan thinking.
It is obvious that regardless of the nature of any topic, you will never find total concurrance from the entire field of study…hence the term “Todays concensus, as far as there is one.”
Attitudes aside, the majority of the economic field sees that there is little or no corrolation between raising minimum wage and increasing unemployment.
You can argue singular opinions till the cows come home, but those opinions exist and will remain in the minority, and do little to effect or refute the strength of the majority opinion…sorry.
Scott is obviously a bogus liberal foil perpetuated by a conservative. I just Googled and his same satire is everywhere:
The latest talking points fed to us from A.N.S.W.E.R. and MoveOn.org DEMAND that we impeach the Bush regime. That is why the Internet chat boards are full of really cool progressives like me and Cindy Sheehan and other members of the angry, bitter left who have very few other means to express our collective voices since we are pretty much regarded [politically] as the fringe minority.
But we will DEMAND that Rep. John Conyers set up more informal hearings [they can’t be formal since we are the fringe minority] and that he and other members of the angry, bitter left talk about the Downing Street Memos some more and maybe then Dr. Dean will chime in with how Bush stole the election in Ohio.
These Internet chat boards have given us really cool progressives a voice and we are using Internet chat to let the people of the world know that a lot of us have a lot of free time and also that Bush Lies and People Dies.
Peace. – Scott Laughrey
Posted by: Scott Laughrey | Wednesday, 19 October 2005 at 06:21
http:??www.e_merges.com
Jeff, just once I would like a post from you that doesn’t make up something I said.
I never dismissed The Economist. I would read that before I read anything else. Now, while I agree wholeheartedly that total concurrance in a field of study is impossilbe, I think that kind of speaks for itself.
Furthermore, I find your assumption that 650 economists represents a majority to be naive. We’ll say there are 4,000 (a conservative number) post-secondary instiutions. We’ll say 3/4 (again, conservative number) of those have economics programs. Within those 3,000 post secondary institutions with economic programs each program has 4 (yet another conservative estimate) economics professors. That means that, conservatively, there are 12,000 economists in the US. That means that ~5% of economists are represented in your “consensus” as opposing the minimum wage. FAR from a majority.
You still haven’t addressed my questions. I shouldn’t be surprised.
Shawn- You’re counting on the fact that he’s a conservative masquerading as a liberal? That’s more than a little weak.
Can everyone feel the democratic chill in the air today? I spoke to a few dem friends today and they all had the same sense of diminishing confidence. They also all thought that mikey has aided Allen. One friend equated mikey’s antics with webb bringing cindy sheehan to VA to talk about her admiration for Chavez. She actually thinks Mikey will come off even worse than sheehan, because while sheehan has a dead son to fall back on, Mikey just seems like an obnoxious dick.
Eric, you have yet to show ANY form of concensus opinion to support your ORIGINAL assumption. All you have provided is singular opinions far outside of the mainstream…that does not cut it. Lets deal with one question at a time.
2 things:
TO ERIC -
1. I said that I will be surprised if you post on this site after the election when the GOP loses the House.
I followed that up by saying if you surprise me and do post, you will spin the elections saying that the Democrats should have won more seats so while in fact, they did win back at least the House (I do not know about the Senate - it is obvious if you check reputable polling that the Sen. is up for grabs ….. the House is undoubtedly changing - IT’s OVER !)they are a weak party because they did not win big enough. Until you actually post a comment here on Wed. then NO, you have not proven me wrong. I hope you will, and I look forward to hearing you cry about the elections.
TO CURRENT 2L -
2. Have you ever thought that maybe why Mike is able to complete his studies and be politically active and you were not is that he is smarter than you? I’m not trying to insult you. It’s just that sems to be the logical answer to the question that you seem obsessed with right now (that and Mr. Stark’s age/ physical appearance).
Jeff-
The call was never for consensus. I also dont find the National Bureau of Economic Research to be outside the mainstream.
Now, I’ve demonstrated that the EPI’s “consensus” is ~5% of economists in the country. Now, I’m no mathematician but I’m pretty sure that’s a weak consensus. Also, it makes me wonder if the consensus of the EPI was only developed because the minority opinion needed a rally point? I can reach that postulate ‘a priori’ but that’s not an acceptable form of argument, so we’ll leave it at a curious question.
You can focus on your “consensus building” if you want, but it will prove to be an exercise in futility. You brought your 650 signatures to me and I gave you 11,350 that DIDN’T sign. You know what, we’re going to assume that 3/4 of those weren’t asked their opinion, so ~2,838 economists think that an increase in the minimum wage will result in an increase in unemployment.
Your refusal to address the question that, incidentally, you brought up and the alternative theory of my own is getting tired. Either you don’t know the answer, or (more likely) you don’t have a quote handy.
Nance-
I’m glad you rely so heavily on polling. Since that’s the case, I want to remind you of the Generic Congressional Ballot poll taken right before 1994. Now, this is a poll that you should put NO faith in and this is why; in 1994 the GCB had the Democrats ahead by 4%, and we all remember how that ended.
You want to focus on polls? How about the fact that nearly every poll in contested races has closed the gap between the Democrats and Republicans.
Before you count all of your chickens, I’d take a deep breath and be ready to pull an all-nighter.
And you can make book on me being here Wednesday morning. GOP loses the House, it’s a shame, but thats how elections work. GOP holds the Senate, it will remind the powers that be to return the GOP to its conservative roots.
Do you really think that if the liberals win on Tuesday that you’ll hang on for more than two years? I’m sorry, but that won’t happen. People say they want change, but it’s not your prescription of change they want.
No spin will come from here. I’ll let the numbers speak for themselves.
Eric…Provide me a single example supporting your opinion with a similar number of people signed on…that’s all you have to do.
Nance,
I may not be as “smart” as a deranged stalker, but I know I’m smarter that you. All I was saying is that during your first year of law school (especially the first), you really don’t have time for anything else. That’s not my opinion, its a fact. Ask any real, full-time 1L.
As far as my remarks as to Mr. “Look at me!”’s appearance, I was just sinking to the level of liberal name-calling.
Kinda like Scott’s illustrating absurdity by being absurd.
Wow! My numbers were way off!!
I’m really sorry. I was really wrong.
13,860 labor economists with the American Economics Association believe minimum wage hikes have a negative effect on employment.
I’m sorry I was off with my estimate. The study was done by the University of New Hampshire.
THATS a consensus
Now you can finally address the other issues that I’ve been waiting for Jeff. I’m ready for a quote from someone! Another socialist maybe?
The suspense is killing me!
I am not talking about GCB …. I follow the individual races. The House will be decided way early. Indiana polls close early and three House seats are turing from Red to Blue there alone.
And who knows what the political climate will be like 2 years from now? It is comical that you think you know how long either party might maintain control of congress. I have followed politics long enough to know that the future is very unpredictable. I think your comment about the Dems being in control for just two years and then losing it back to the GOP probably came from your heart, not your head.
…and by the way- Nancy, Mr. “Did you spit on your wife?” is not simpy “politically active”. I’m politically active- I vote, I man a phone bank, have a sign in my yard, etc.
Mr. “I’ll look like a typical democrat on TeeVee” follow (stalks?) a politician around a state? What about his classes? At my school, you’re only allowed to miss a certain number of hours.
AND he mans a full-time blog? I’d love to see Mr. “Smart” come exam time.
You’re a scream Nance. Individual races eh? OK, how about the aforementioned state of affairs that is the narrowing of every race. We all know what effects those races, and I think that we all know who benefits from that effect. I don’t think I need to spell it out. For those of you who don’t, the GOP is far better at turning out their voters.
I’ve never pretended to be an expert. Just making an observation is all.
Your comment about the House being decided early and that the Indiana seats flipping is more than a little premature. You’re counting Chocola out, even though the most recent poll has him down only 3 and Sodrel is AHEAD in his race!
Also keep in mind that the GOP isn’t the only party losing seats this election. Look for a few Democrat losses in GA and a VERY interesting race in Indiana-7. Illinois-8 is another curious one showing the GOP candidate making a close.
It is naive to assume that this contest will be decided early.
Current 2L,
Your obssession with Mr. Stark might be slightly unhealthy. Why do you even care if he does well in Law school or not? And you claim to know that you are smarter than me. Maybe you are, maybe not. I think it is funny that you KNOW that you are smarter than me. You (and Eric) seem to be very angry. Now that I think of it, that’s kind of how I felt in 1994 when down deep, I knew my party was about to lose so I do empathize.
Sorry, Eric…Thought you would go for the Employment Policies Institute media statement….unfortunately for you, the 650 signatures supporting the rise in minimum wage include five Nobel Prize winners and six past presidents of the American Economics Association…heavy hitters.
Nancy, I guess by my “obsession” you refer to the fact I called out Mr. Jackass on his pathetic attempt at attention. I only pointed out that at age 38, he’s apparently having a mid-life crisis. He IS a fat, balding middle-aged man surrounded by the 20-somethings in his class. Maybe that makes him feel young, I don’t know. I don’t claim to be that smart.
Just smarter than you. I base that claim upon your posts/rantings on this site.
I can sum up your contibutions to this site by quoting from that famed masterpiece of cinematic history, Billy Maddison:
“Nancy, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Nance is a dummy.
To all readers - please note the aforementioned anger in Current2L’s last post.
Also, to C2L ….. please cite one rant of mine on this blog. You will not find one because I try to be thoughtful and even civil. I might not agre with you or Eric politically, but calling you names (or ranting) is not in my nature.
To all readers…
Nance is still a dummy.
Eric,
I know it is hard to come to terms with the inevitable, but I even heard Ann Coulter and Fred Barnes today saying that much to their chagrin the House will flip. I see no need to discuss this even further because we both have agreed to post here Wed. and one of us surely will admit to the other that they were wrong and the other was right.
Just a dummy, Current2L ? Do you not wish to also call me fat? or old? or balding?
I wasn’t aware that having a Nobel made you better than anyone? As heavy hitting as you may want them to be, they are still ONE person.
You asked for a document supporting my statements, and I brought you one. Thing is, mine came with 13,000 supporters and yours did not. So, I’ll take my 13,000 and you can have your 650 which includes some Nobel winners.
I’m baseing this all on the idea that 13,000 is more than 650. Like I’ve said, I’m no mathematician.
You can’t pick and choose what you want me to use as supporting evidence by giving a Nobel qualifier. You asked, and I delivered.
Now, are you EVER going to address the other issues at hand? Or will you stick with your precious 650 signatures and throw that out there everytime you need a cushion to fall back on?
Nance-
You can run away from the discussion if you want. But I’ll sit here and discuss each and every contest with you. Think you can handle that?
I don’t base my opinions on Ann Coulter and Fred Barnes, they don’t dictate what I think and don’t think. I’m hoping Al Franken and John Kerry don’t do the same for you.
But based on your tactic of running away from discussion, I’m thinking that my hopes are wrong.
Also… Nance… please don’t preach this self-righteous crap of not name calling:
“To Eric and all the other Allen Kool-Aid drinkers”
– clearly name calling, and actually really hateful, wishing suicide on people, thats low –
“I would not choose to spend 10 minutes or 10 sentences “debating” with Rush Libaugh listeners because I am smart enough to see how futile it would be”
– not name calling, but def. a sign of immaturity, i’d expect more from a liberal –
Eric,
My comment about Kool-Aid drinkers certainly in no way implied I was wishing suicide on anyone. You seem like an intelligent person so I am pretty sure that you know what I meant by that was people who do not think for themselves and just follow what their “leaders” (like Limbaugh, Hannity etc.) say. So I think I was accurate when I stated that I have not stooped to name calling. I concede that many passionate liberals do get right down there in the gutter and call names and throw out superfluous insults. As do, many conservatives - but I feel like our exchanges on this blog have mostly been civil. That’s not “self-righteous crap” just my assessment.
Also, my comment about not wanting to waste my time getting on a pro Rush Limbaugh blog and debate with his listeners was just a way to try to shed some light on the obvious. It is a futile exercise. I would be a lone voice crying in the wilderness and no one on that site would be open minded enough to hear me out. Just like mostliberals on here will not concede a single point you make. I fail to see how that makes me immature but maybe Current 2L is right and I’m a dummy.
Ah… it’s your refusal to do something because of fear of being ill received. A sign of maturity is the ability to face being called names and ridiculed. Maybe I was wrong about you, perhaps you are willing to hang. I don’t mind being wrong every now and then.
Now, the Kool-Aid thing. I know what you meant by it, and it was NOT an allusion to following a leader. Well, in a way it was, because those that follow a leader till suicide usually end up with a Kool-Aid cocktail in their hands. Play it off, say what you will, but we both know there are better allusions to make when making “follow the leader” references. You made one that leads to suicide. Poor choice of words? Maybe. Name calling? Perhaps. But I think I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and apologize for my “self-righteous crap” comment.
HOWEVER, our discussion (for the most part, save a few, I won’t name names) here has been largely civil. So, if anything good comes from the behavior of Mike Stark it is a civil exchange of ideas.
Jeff seems to have disappeared from our discussion of the minimum wage. I asked him about an alternate view, that even if unemployment didn’t increase, prices would. Therefore, either way somebody gets the shaft and that nothing good comes from raising the minimum wage.
Jeff also brought up a wonderful point a couple of hours ago. I’ll just quote him:
“That report, released in March 2006, found that “employment and payrolls in small businesses grew faster in the states with minimum wages above the federal level.”
Now, I found this most interesting because it speaks of employment and payrolls growing in small businesses. That seemed interesting enough, BUT THEN I saw the date of the report and realized why employment and payrolls grew quickly in small businesses. The answer my friends, is because of the Bush tax cuts. I asked Jeff to address this, and he hasn’t been willing to since 6:00 today.
So, Jeff, if you’re still there with your 650 signatures, I’m waiting for your response.
Also,
I am not “running away from the discussion” of the House races. I am just stating what I feel is the obvious - in two days, we will know who was right so let’s just wait and see the proof. I say I am confident that the House will go to the Dems. I have stated why I feel so sure of this. Your position is that it is not a done deal. You seem to admit that it will be a challenge for the GOP to hold the House but it is possible. You have done an adequate job of explaining your reasoning. Let’s just wait two days - and then if you are right, I will post here and admit that I was wrong. If I am right, you can post whatever you want ….. but to discuss each and every close House contest at this point seems futile (there is that word again) to me. It would be like me going on and on about why I think Notre Dame will beat USC in a few weeks and you contending that I am wrong. You might say you are confident that USC will win the football game. We both might give logical reasons as to why we feel the contest will end the way we predict. We both might be passionate about how we want the game to end. But the game will end. One of us will be right, the other wrong.
So all the discussion before the contest does nothing but gives us each an opportunity to exercise our debating skills. I do not claim to be a GREAT debater. I do like to follow politics and have strong opinions about certain issues as obviously, you do too. The real challenge is to disagree with someone in a civil manner which is what I felt you and I have been doing. That’s why I was surprised you pulled a couple of my comments and tried to make me out to be a name caller or mean spirited.
Good thing the cop wasn’t an elderly man. Mike would have gotten his rear end handed to him AGAIN from a Senior Citizen.
Damn, Eric, get a life. It seems clear that you’ve taken up residence here by the fact that you are still having your trademark patronizing exchanges with someone, Jeff, who appears to have left. Really, man, get up outta that chair and go outside. Take a break.
Oh, and by the way, Nobel prize winners, at least in science, are generally on another level from the rest of the masses (and I include myself in that mass).
Also, can you include citations/links to back up your assertions please?
chickfu- I have the luxury of being able to stay on this blog from wherever I am. So before you tell me to “get a life” you may want to consider being a little more civil.
I don’t think you’re in a position to comment on my “trademark patronizing exchanges.” I’m curious as to what qualifies them as patronizing?
Now, onto the Nobel prize winner issue. They may be on another level than the masses, their opinion is just another one, perhaps it holds more weight. But when it comes to 13,000 economists vs. 645 5 Nobel laureats, I’m inclined to believe that those 645 5 represent a minority opinion. Again, just numbers.
Also, citations to back up assertions. Some assertions can be reached through deductive reason. An example being the rise in small business employment and payroll. Tax cuts benefit small businesses, there really is no denying this. So, when taxes are cut and I hear that small business employment and payrolls rise, any logical person can deduce that the two are related. If you want other citations just ask nicely.
Nance, remember that we were just discussing how civil the tone has been today? I think we can wipe that assertion off the table now.
Eric,
I specifically cited the civility between you and myself. I compliment you on stying on point and not personally attacking the other people posting here. I felt Like I had to defend myself when you came at me with your “cut the self-righteous crap” comment and then cherry picked two of my comments that I felt were not demeaning or mean spirited. Of course, I have no control over ChickFu and what she posts. She has the right to say whatever she wants … if she wants to tell you “to get a life” etc. Of course, she can. I just simply do not see how it benefits the discussion. Nor do I feel that Current2L’s repeatedly calling me a “dummy” does much to raise the bar when it comes to the aforementioned civility. Any thoughts, Eric?
“any logical person can deduce that the two are related. ”
Patronizing and not a citation so you are in error when you say
“If you want other citations just ask nicely.”
Still no proof of your assertion on that 13000 number.
I have been as civil to you as you’ve been to me so don’t assume the victim role, it doesn’t suit you.
If assertions in economics are simply the result of deductive reasoning, as in just about anything else, why would we need economists? Meteorologists? Scientists? The mere fact that you keep referencing (without a link) the 13000 vs 650 suggests that there are those that don’t share your position on the ‘facts’ whatever they may be.
I don’t think its necessary, I think it detracts from discussing the issues. But, like you said, I don’t have any control over Current2L.
You’ll note that I apologized for the “self-righteous crap” comment. It was a temporary moment of weakness.
Civility in discussion is essential with heated debate. Without it, we all stopp to a level in which we should despise ourselves. Calm, clear and thought out responses should be something to strive for. Without civility, we’re little more than animals.
chickfu, please read the discussion that took place. It cites a study by the University of New Hampshire. The number is actually 13,860 economists that agree a hike in the minimum wage destroys jobs. You can find that at www.epionline.org.
Instead of accusing me of patronizing, I encourage you to join in the discussion.
Now, I never said economics was purely deductive. You won’t find that in anything I said. The deduction that was made was between two statements, neither have anything to do with economics. So that becomes a moot point.
Also, I think we may be able to find a different tactic other than a line by line analysis of things I say. Again, let me encourage you to join the discussion. I welcome your input.
Well, first off ….. we are animals, just the most highly evolved but I agree with your sentiment. We can rise above inferior animals by displaying the most positive of human attributes. I accept your apology for the “self-righteous” comment. As far as the Kool-aid comment goes …. that’s just a common political comment used by both sides of the political aisle to describe those that follow blindly and do not think independently. If it conjured up thoughts of Jonestown or suicide - then I, too, apologize if it came off as insensitive. I will “meet” you here on Wed. if not before. My predictions (you know you are dying to hear them, Eric) -
House…… DEMS 225, GOP 210
Senate….. GOP 50 DEMS 50 (counting IND)
Thanks for the predictions. I’d by lying if I said I wasn’t curious what you thought. Interesting though; VERY optimistic in the house, that’s basically winning all of the Toss-Up races and all of the GOP seats that lean Democrat right now. VERY optimistic, but so is my prediction of a GOP hold!
The Senate in a tie is VERY VERY optimistic. I just don’t see you picking up Tennessee and Missouri or Virginia, although the latter two will be fun to watch.
Thanks for the predictions though, and I will certainly see you on Wednesday.
Eric,
You must admit that you came in here throwing flames, which invites retribution. If you want civility, I can do that. But that won’t stop me from pointing out flaws in your arguments. To whit, you passed off syllogism as deductive reasoning:
13K are more than .6K. More is right. Therefore the 13K are correct.
I don’t mean to snipe, but you impugned my logic on an earlier post so I must comment. My stock and trade is deductive reasoning and that is why I pick that nit. Not to be flip.
Thank you for the citation, although in my line of work, a citation is a direct url or, journal name, date, volume and page number. Nonetheless, it was a citation and upon searching their homepage, I found several links that may contain your support. I did, in point of fact, read the discussion but vague references to a NH study wasn’t too helpful to those of us that aren’t economists. Again, with all due respect, economics doesn’t speak to me so I cannot speak intelligently about specifics of the same. I am not an economist. So you’ll forgive me if I beg off and sign off.
May we agree that whatever the result on Tuesday, hopefully the whole country will be better off? I think were the tables reversed, you’d be more in favor of divided government. That’s all I want because I fervently believe that both parties are bad, I just think that the dems are slightly less bad at this point in time.
The website Eric gets his employment/wage info from (epionline.org) is a front group that promotes the interest of low-wage-paying industries.
Eric, are you gay? Friendless? Mentally ill? Wife buried in the back yard? CW has become where most believe that all (irrationally) angry conservatives are hiding something, most often from themselves.
I used to troll sites just like you. Projection, denial, misdirection, partisan links, exaggeration, namecalling (all faked) - for the sole purpose of disrupting any and all discussions. And like you, I responded to anything substantial anyone had to say with more garbage.
As things collapsed for Republicans virtually all conservative websites moved to eliminate comments, require membership, ban anything liberal, or became heavily moderated. When I moved on to liberal sites I was successfully confronted and had to face my issues. After extensive therapy I’m much better now. I understand what you’re going through. Just trying to help.
Eric…”consensus” here seems to be that the impending doom of neo-conservitivism is currently turning the rational thought centers in your already taxed brain into tapioca.
You posted here 40 times in a ten hour period, and have been reduced to spouting that the opinion of a Nobel lauriate avtually has no more weight than your own.
Take a little advice from a friend…Give it a rest. Get out of Mom’s basement and go to starbucks or something. It will all be history in a few hours anyways.
You got balls. It takes balls to do this kind of non-violent activism. You could easily have taken down any person, but you remained civil and polite.
I admire your courage.
Still not willing to address the other issues Jeff. Still spouting insults. The whole lot of you.
And I didn’t come here trolling. I came here to ask Mike to keep up his antics. What happened from there is evident in the insults that are here now.
You know you’ve got someone on their heels when they’re reduced to insults instead of addressing an issue. Congratulations guys.
Oh. And the Employment Policy Insititute is no more partisan than the Economic Policy Institute that Jeff pulled his “consensus”
The issues have been thoroughly addressed, Eric…you came here with a closed mind, and though irrefutable evidence has been presented, you have refused to accept it with weak excuses and partisan dismissal.
Failure to get you to change your mind is no loss on our part, son…It is you who have failed to accept truth.
Irrefutable evidence?
Where?
You’ve brought NOTHING of the sort Jeff. You cited a document with 650 signatures! You think that’s irrefutable? You cited TWO studies, one of which featured flawed methodology. You call THAT irrefutable? Come on
And the issues have not been thoroughly addressed. You’ve yet to comment on the small business growth issue OR the alternative effect on prices of increasing the minimum wage. You’ve run away from them. I think you don’t know what to say and you don’t have a quote handy.
You come here throwing insults and calling me “son” and refusing to address anything but your 650 signature evidence. You think you’ve won something? You think I’m bringing excuses and partisan dismissal?
Wrong, I accepted your 650 signatures and brought 13,000 of my own. It’s called a counter-point and your rebuttal was something to the effect of, “well… mine has some Nobel laureates.” Clearly debate was never your strong suit.
You’re going to need more than 10th grade logic and debate here.
***P R E S S R E L E A S E***
Hey everyone… LOOK AT ME!!! LOOK AT ME!!! I’m really a daring radio reporter who asks the “tough questions”, not a 38 year old, fat, balding, middle-aged man who gets laughed at by the REAL law students in my class.
You know, the 1L’s who actually go to class and don’t follow a polictician around the state shouting nonsense?
I’m trying to get that evil George Allen to focus on the ISSUES, damn it! Like “Did you spit on your 1st wife?” and “Why don’t people like me?”
I’m a YOUNG TURK- fighting for the TRUTH!
-Mike Stark
***P R E S S R E L E A S E***
Employment Policy Institute — Front group founded by pro-business lobbyist; claims to be concerned with employment growth, but focuses on curbing growth of the minimum wage and employee benefits. Web site does not provide information about board of directors or staff. Established in 1991; name chosen to create confusion with well-established Economic Policy Institute.
Economic Policy Institute — Not a front group; activities are in keeping with stated mission. Web site provides full disclosure. Established in 1986.
Sorry, Eric, but as pointed out above, Employment Policies Institute is a lobbying shill, and clearly not reputible. I quote:
“The Employment Policies Institute was launched in 1991, around the time of the economic recession that led to the electoral defeat of then-president George Bush. EPI deliberately attempted to create confusion in the eyes of journalists and the general public by adopting a name which closely resembles the Economic Policy Institute, a much older, progressive think tank with ties to organized labor. In addition to imitating the name and acronym of the Economic Policy Institute, Berman’s outfit even used the same typeface for its logo. In reality, the two groups have dramatically different public policy agendas. The Economic Policy supports a living wage and mandated health benefits for workers. Berman’s organization opposes both and in fact opposes any minimum wage whatsoever.”
and,
“In 1995, EPI lashed out at Princeton University professors David Card and Alan Krueger, after they published a survey of fast-food restaurants which found no loss in the number of jobs in New Jersey after implementing an increase in the state’s minimum wage. Berman accused Card and Krueger of using bad data, citing contrary figures that his own institute had collected from some of the same restaurants. But whereas Card and Krueger had surveyed 410 restaurants, Berman’s outfit only collected data from 71 restaurants and has refused to make its data publicly available so that other researchers can assess whether it “cherry-picked” restaurants to create a sample that would support its predetermined conclusions.”
You opt to cite THESE clowns in an attempt to refute the opinions of five Nobel Prize winners and six past presidents of the American Economics Association?…and then you have the audacity to dismiss the opinion of a Nobel lauriate in economics stating it has no greater weight than you own….Sorry, but when your citations prove to be worthless, your arguement collapses.
citations for these quotes……
since you’re all about citations
AND… before I even begin to address the blatantly partisan comments of Jeff and uberpatriot let me remind you that you had the audactity to accuse me of partisan excuses. Just because you don’t like the politics of a group, doesn’t mean their viewpoints are wrong.
Either way, the Employment Policies Institute did NOT do the survey. It was conducted by the University of New Hampshire.
Eric…First, I referenced a post above by uberpatriot at 2:56 a.m.. That is where the quotations are from. I assumed you were intellegent enough to figure that out by the fact that I stated “as pointed out above”. If you still have challenges finding it, here is a convenient link: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Employment_Policies_Institute
As for your assertion that you cited the UNHsurvey… Sorry, but you cited EPI’s statements about the survey, not the survey itself…If you would like to provide citations for the servey itself, I would be more than happy to take a look and determine for myself if EPI cherry picked their findings from that survey too. Please provide a reference or link.
Eric…I’ve done a little more digging, and something is fishy.
I believe you stated:
“chickfu, please read the discussion that took place. It cites a study by the University of New Hampshire. The number is actually 13,860 economists that agree a hike in the minimum wage destroys jobs. You can find that at www.epionline.org.”
Funny…but the EPI reference cites the “The 2000 Living Wage Survey was conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center for the Employment Policies Institute in February and March, 2000. Three hundred thirty-six (336) labor economists in the United States completed mail questionnaires for the survey. A list of economists was obtained from the American Economic Association (AEA) and consisted of all AEA members who indicated that their primary or secondary area of expertise is labor economics.”
336 completed questionnaires somehow grew to “13,860 economists that agree”. What gives, son?
Being unfamiliar I had to do some light reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Allen_(U.S._politician)
Is George Allen a near-psychopath?
Really grasping for straws aren’t you.
The study you reference is in regards to a living wage. There’s a difference. Therefore, the two aren’t the same. A simple check of dates would have verified that for you. So, good try but next time you MAY want to do a little closer reading. The EPI press release does NOT reference that study. They are two seperate things.
Now, as to the reputation of the Employment Policies Institute. You’re honestly going to use sourcewatch.org as your backing? It’s a project of the Center for Media and Democracy which was founded by left-wing activist John Stauber who writes books about propaganda. sourcewatch doesn’t even have listing for Economic Policy Institute.
They even teach you how to research front groups! But wait, only certain ones… conservative ones.
Yeah, they don’t have an agenda. Using THEM as a source of reputable information is a joke.
Post the link, eric.
Ehem,
Hey 2L, you wet-behind-the-ears, snarky little bitch, who’s obviously never held a job that wasn’t for daddy in his short, wasted, selfish, arogant life. Fuck you.
You’re talking about a guy who’s got more experience in the last 2 weeks than you’ll get in the next 5 years of working 80 hour weeks. He’s a Marine, and you don’t even have the knowledge to know what theat means! You are clueless, and besides that, you have no conviction. None. You’re a sad reminder of what’s wrong with the civics education in this country, and why guys like Allen get elected. It’s posuers like you and your ilk that are too frightened to admit that you haven’t a clue to what’s what in this world, but the boss man votes ReNAMBLAcan, and that’s good enough for you. Go do something with your life. Law school is for little bitches with more money than guts, and real people who know what the world needs and who have the drive to get it done.
Guess which you are?
Trick question- you already told us.
You. astoundingly. pretentious. dick. BTW, Georgetown is a great law school. Why didn’t you go there? Oh, because you’re too stupid.
Blue Patriot…. easy there boss…. before you insult law school, keep in mind Stark is a law student. And before you make engage in a character assassination of someone you don’t know, take a few minutes.
Because honestly, your childish rants aren’t getting you far in life.
Hmm. UVA is ranked up there with G-town… But, Mike Stark was admitted, even though the Awesome Annonymous 2L also got in. Apparently, in 2L’s perfect little motherland, only pretty people get good educations. Becasue he’s a shallow bitch with Rightwing Authoritarian tendencies.
2L’s still an astoundingly pretentious dick.
To the link obsessed:
Bio on John Stauber: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stauber
Center for Media and Democracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Media_and_Democracy
Researching Front Groups: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=How_to_research_front_groups
As biased a report on Sourcewatch.org as theirs on the Employment Policy Institute: http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/12
Lack of write up on Economic Policy Institute: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?search=Economic Policy Institute&go=Go
AND before you EVEN START hacking at Wikipedia, SourceWatch.org is a wiki, its writeups can be edited by anyone.
Eric… Actually, no…it is the right study. Son, it appears that Employment Policy Institute, in order to boost their figures in an attempt to refute the the figures presented in the Card/Krueger study, simply extended the percentages of the 336 actual respondants to the University of New Hampshire study to project the same percentage as if it were entire population of the AEA.
Unfortunately for them and you, that would be dishonest and deceiving.
So, I would like to know, Eric…where can I find this “other” mysterious University of New Hampshire study that 13,860 economists responded to?
I’d really like to see it.
Does it actually exist?
I really look forward to you presenting your citation on this one.
I’m waiting.
Eric…Here’s yet another article from the May ‘06 issue of The American Prospect that excellently refutes the Employment Policies Institute claims, and exposes their partisan agenda:
“Card and Krueger surveyed 331 fast food restaurants in New Jersey and 79 restaurants in eastern Pennsylvania, just before the April 1992 increase took effect. They then re-interviewed the same restaurants about eight months later, after the minimum wage rose in New Jersey. Using the Pennsylvania restaurants as a “control” group, Card and Krueger were able to estimate the employment impact of the minimum-wage hike by comparing employment changes in the two state samples. They found that employment actually grew more in New Jersey than in Pennsylvania, though the difference was not statistically significant using their best measure of the effects.
In early 1995 a vicious counterattack began, substantially underwritten by the fast food industry. In March the Employment Policies Institute, the leading employers group opposing the minimum wage, unveiled a counter-study. Richard Berman, a lobbyist for restaurant companies and the executive director of the Employment Policies Institute, wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. He claimed to possess evidence from the payroll records of 71 fast food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania that directly contradicted Card and Krueger’s telephone survey data. He alleged that Card and Krueger’s data were “grossly inaccurate” and “worse than flawed.” The more accurate payroll data, he said, demonstrated that employment fell in New Jersey as a result of the minimum-wage increase. To support his position, Berman cited a March 1995 research paper by economists David Neumark of Michigan State University and William Wascher of the Federal Reserve Board, to whom the Employment Policies Institute had made the data available for analysis.
Of course, Berman’s op-ed piece saw the light of day only because the standards for publishing “research” on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal are considerably less stringent than at the American Economic Review. While Card and Krueger explain in excruciating detail how they identified and selected restaurants for inclusion in their sample—the heart of proper survey design—Berman to this day has not revealed how the Employment Policies Institute assembled its own, much smaller sample.
Neumark and Wascher, the economists on whom Berman and the fast food industry relied, became uneasy. A careful reading of their paper revealed that the payroll data did not, in fact, differ much from Card and Krueger’s. In one of two statistical tests, the Employment Policies Institute data showed no statistically significant loss of employment. In a second test, the job losses were only weakly significant by standard statistical criteria.
Neumark and Wascher clearly recognized that the fuzzy results obtained with the Employment Policies Institute’s small sample of restaurants would not convince most economists. They also felt obliged to answer concerns that the Employment Policies Institute, which they acknowledged in a later version of their study had “a stake in the outcome of the minimum wage debate,” may have provided them with data that were “falsified so as to undermine [Card and Krueger’s] results.” They set out to verify the Employment Policies Institute data and, separately, to gather their own payroll data from a larger group of restaurants.
Neumark and Wascher contacted those restaurants that supplied data to the Employ ment Policies Institute and checked the responses. They also conducted their own survey of restaurant payroll records in the same areas originally surveyed by Card and Krueger. In the end, Neumark and Wascher had a sample of 230 restaurants, 80 supplied by the Employment Policies Institute and 150 that they had gathered themselves. (Card and Krueger attempted to interview 473 restaurants and obtained responses from 410.)
When Neumark and Wascher analyzed the Employment Poli cies Institute sample and their own sample separately, a funny thing happened. The slightly expanded Employment Policies Institute sample indicated that the minimum wage did have a significant negative impact on employment in New Jersey (at least in one of the two statistical tests). But Neumark and Wascher’s own data found no statistical difference in employment growth in the two states. Quite unintentionally, Neumark and Wascher had vindicated Card and Krueger.
The irony is sweet. Neumark and Wascher, the two experts used by the fast food industry to impeach Card and Krueger, effectively ratified them. Neumark and Wascher’s own original work also leaves one wondering about the Employment Policies Institute’s data.
There are two ways to resolve that issue. The first is through a full account of how the Employment Policies Institute gathered its data. But neither the Institute nor Neumark and Wascher have so far provided such an account. The second is a direct analysis of the Employment Policies Institute and Neumark and Wascher samples by all parties in the debate. But the most outrageous feature of the whole attack on the New Jersey study is that it has been waged entirely with a “secret data set.” While Card and Krueger have shared their data with Neumark and Wascher and any other interested parties (it is posted on the Internet), the Employment Policies Institute and Neumark and Wascher have turned down all requests to make their data available to the public.
The fast food industry and their conservative allies have cooked up a whopper. But when the statistics settle, where does the debate on the employment effects of the minimum wage stand? Despite the attacks on Card and Krueger, or perhaps because of them, the economics profession has shown some signs of accepting the notion that moderate increases in the minimum wage may have little or no effect on employment. In October, 101 economists, including three Nobel laureates and four other past presidents of the American Economics Asso ciation, signed a letter calling for a 90 cent increase in the minimum wage. They stated their belief that a moderate increase would not “significantly jeopardiz[e] employment opportunities.”
Full text of the article can be found at
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=4928
Jeff… it is the wrong study
Or do you not understand the difference in a minimum wage and a living wage
Eric…If you believe that to be true, either post the link to the UofNH study that EPI referenced, you know…the mystery UofNH study that supposedly supports your contention that 13,860 AEA members agree with you, or admit that it was likely fabricated.
The ONLY UofNH study referenced in the EPI wepage is the one I cited, and it shows their “71%” reference.
Either post the link, Eric, or just back down.
Oh…Another thing, Eric…you were dead wrong on your small business assumptions too…
ERIC SAID: “Jeff, you’ve yet to address the small business issue. I think you may be avoiding it. Prove me wrong.”
Let me cite:
Retail and small business job growth
“A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses or in the retail industry (FPI 2006). Examining government data, FPI found that none of the many states that have raised their minimum wages above the federal level have seen labor market or other economic problems arising from their higher rates. This study is consistent with a 30-year study that found “no discernable correlation between minimum wage increases and a rise in business failures, either in the year the increase occurred or in the following year” (Waltman et al. 1998).
An analysis done by the Center for American Progress and Policy Matters Ohio had similar findings. They found that employment in small businesses grew faster (9.4%) in states with higher minimums than states with the federal minimum wage (6.6%). They also found more positive growth in the number of small business establishments and payrolls in higher minimum wage states (Burton and Hanauer 2006).”
Find that UofNH “13,860″ study yet, son?
What are you talking about? That quote does NOTHING to address the small business assumption that I made.
“employment and payrolls in small businesses grew faster in the states with minimum wages above the federal level.”
This has more to do with the individual states than anything else. It’s a false analogy. It also doesn’t address unemployment outside of small businesses. Small businesses are far less likely to pay a minimum wage. You can’t arrive at a postulate “a priori”.
For further explanation of this, when those studies were released in 2006, the Bush tax cuts had been enacted. These tax cuts benefit small businesses the most. So, not only do your logic skills need improvement, you may want to examine why something happens instead of knowing that it did. It proves little more than that tax cuts work. Thanks for doing my work for me.
Now, send me the link to your press release on “The 2000 Living Wage Survey was conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center for the Employment Policies Institute in February and March, 2000. Three hundred thirty-six (336) labor economists in the United States completed mail questionnaires for the survey. A list of economists was obtained from the American Economic Association (AEA) and consisted of all AEA members who indicated that their primary or secondary area of expertise is labor economics.” Please.
What did I say that was ‘partisan’? I just stated some facts.
To borrow a line from Truman: I never said anything partisan; I just told the truth, and the wingnuts thought it was partisan.
Reality has a well-known liberal bias. — Stephen Colbert
And I didn’t come here trolling. I came here to ask Mike to keep up his antics. — Eric the Troll
Oh, Eric….Find that UofNH “13,860″ study yet, son?
Whatcha stalling for Eric….does the study you cited exist or not?
Does the Living Wage Survey YOU cited actually exist?
Send me a link
The BEST WAR EVER:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qGAqA-muYU&eurl=
AND….it’s never ending. Get your ribbons now:
http://freewayblogger.blogspot.com/2006/10/endless-war.html
But it’s really only all about the OIL:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/07/iraq-all-about-the-oil/
*Even Reorgie says so:
Fight the good fight Mike…so we can stop fighting the bad one!
You actually can’t find it, can you, Eric? That’s because it was fabricated,Eric. Man, I really do feel sorry for you…ithout any actual proof that the “13,860″ really exists, your arguement just totally collapses for lack of credibility…you must feel like a real idiot right now.
I’ll give you one more chance, Eric. Post the study, or just back down, son.
One more thing, son…Ironically, the link to the NH survey on Living wage came from YOU. It is posted in PDF format in the research section of the EPI wabpage, and is part of the EPI report….the two paragraphs I cited are from the foreword discussing methodology.
By the way…Thanks for providing it.
Now, son…where is a link to thr 13,860?
Jeff, you make me laugh. You truly are a fool, for several reasons:
1) Your living wage report: There’s a six year difference in when the studies were done. And your hunch that “it appears that Employment Policy Institute, in order to boost their figures in an attempt to refute the the figures presented in the Card/Krueger study, simply extended the percentages of the 336 actual respondants to the University of New Hampshire study to project the same percentage as if it were entire population of the AEA,” is very wrong. A simple check in your math will tell you that. Don’t try to say the two are the same, it makes you look silly. You can’t compare an apple to an orange because they’re both round.
2) You’re basing a sense of credibility on a SURVEY. Congratulations, you’ve just banked your theory not only on flawed research (Card and Kreuger) but on a SURVEY. I took a survey this morning of how many people think liberals lack basic motor skills, according to several folks with PhDs and several with MBAs, liberals do indeed lack basic motor skills. You see, a survey is a ridiculous thing to back a theory on.
3) Your insistence on calling me “son” and an “idiot.” It demonstrates to me that you’re threatened by the opposite viewpoint and suffer from a maturity issue. Suck it up big guy, you’ll be OK. And while you may wish I was your son, I already have a father, but thanks for your thoughts.
4) Yeah, I’m having a little trouble getting my hands on that survey, and here’s why. It was done in October (that’s last month) meaning that UoNH hasn’t finished with their final analysis. Because the study was commissioned by EPI they had the luxury of being able to see the poll in its raw form. Now, clearly you’ve never performed a study of that magnitude, so you’ll just have to show a little patience. But again, I think it’s a basic skill you’ve yet to master.
And another thing: You’re miserable attempt to counter my thoughts on small businesses and low taxes is little more than a desperate deflection.
AND YOU STILL haven’t said anything about the effect on prices of raising the minimum wage. You can’t be a one issue fella Jeff, unless that’s the way you roll. In which case I’m sorry.
I’m really anxious to hear your thougts about that. Honestly I don’t think you’ll address it, but one can still hope.
Eric….I just got off the phone with EPI. According to them, the survey you speak of is the one I quoted.
Don’t believe me? Here, son…I’ll help you with your “research”.
Here is the link to the University of New Hampshire Survey Center…Please go there and find the link to this mystery survey.
http://www.unh.edu/survey-center
I’ll wait for you to either produce it, or admit the fabrication.
Anyone else catching a trend here?
I produce citations from:
1.) The Wall Street Journal
2.) The Economist
3.) The American Prospect
4.) 5 Nobel Lauriates in Economics
5.) 6 past-presidents of the American Economics Assoc.
To show the fallacy in Eric’s thought process. He submits a single reference made in a PRESS RELEASE from a pro-industry lobbyest to support his contentions, and when the partisanship nature of the organization is exposed, as well as the inability for Eric to produce the mythical 13,860 citation, Eric wants to run away and declare victory.
Sorry, but it don’t work that way, son
Ladies and gentlemen we have a winner by knockout.
Jeff pwned Eric.
Jeff wins because Eric has had two days to provide evidence or, as any normal person with a point would do, come up with another supporting study.
ERIC WHINED: “Yeah, I’m having a little trouble getting my hands on that survey, and here’s why. It was done in October (that’s last month) meaning that UoNH hasn’t finished with their final analysis.”
Gee Eric….Interesting…Would you like to at least provide a citation where you found THIS information out? No disrespect intended, but I’d kinda like to verify that too.
Go ahead, Eric…Please tell us what the information source was for this little tid-bit (Hee-hee-hee).
BTW: The Phone # for EPI is 202-463-7100…you won’t find it on the EPI webpage…you have to go through the parent company, Berman & Co. Public Affairs…you know…the lobbyist for the Reastraunt Industry. EPI is managed out of an office at Berman & Co.
You cite a SURVEY from a Big Labor lobby like its from God himself…..
Neumark-Nizalova-
“The evidence indicates that even as individuals reach their late 20’s, they work less and earn less the longer they were exposed to a higher minimum wage, especially as a teenager.”
Encyclopedia of Economics-
“Raising the minimum wage when it applies to a relatively small proportion of occupations will not necessarily increase unemployment. Some people will lose their jobs in covered occupations and withdraw from the labor market entirely. These people are not included in the unemployment statistics. Others who lose their jobs or are offered fewer hours of work will seek jobs at lower pay in uncovered occupations. This labor influx drives down wages in the uncovered sector, but people do find jobs and unemployment remains constant. As minimum wage legislation expands to cover more occupations, however, the shrinking uncovered sector may not be able to absorb all of the people thrown out of work, and unemployment may increase.”
Steven Landsburg-
“The minimum wage is nothing but a huge off-the-books tax paid by a small group of people, with all the proceeds paid out as the equivalent of welfare to a different small group of people. If a tax-and-spend program that arbitrary were spelled out explicitly, voters would recoil. How unfortunate that when it is disguised as a minimum wage”
ALAN GREENSPAN-
Greenspan said increasing the wage probably would push inflation higher. But he said his main concern was “individuals who become unemployed because of the minimum wage.” “Being unemployed when you’re a teenager… is very detrimental to… learning by training and becoming a productive member of the work force,” he said.
Your sacred Card and Kreuger-
“‘The minimum wage is a blunt instrument for reducing overall poverty, however, because many minimum-wage earners are not in poverty and because many of those in poverty are not connected to the labor market.”
Im playing hardball now…. expect more sunshine
Eric…Quit stalling and trying desparately to change the subject and just provide us with your source for your statement that the “13,860″ study was conducted last month.
LONG LONG AGO, IN A GALAXY FAR FAR AWAY, ERIC SAID: “Raising the minimum wage. I hope to god you guys do this. Let all those people lose their jobs”
That was the question, son…the effect of minimum wage on unemployment…plain and simple.
On that point, you have been repeatedly proven wrong, and everything you have presented for evidence to support your claim has faded into the ether.
An modest increase in the minimum wage historically has never shown a commensurate increase in unemployment. Greenspan even presented his comments with the caviat that it “might” only effect teenagers and part-timers…not that it “would”, son…it “might”.
Eric…I mean no harm when I tell you this:
You are an idiot, son.
I once got into it with a troll about global warming. The truth was, I really didn’t understand much about the issue either way but wanted to learn more. Playing the devils advocate with a worthy opponent saves time, eh? But after I’d decided the troll wasn’t worthy I became fascinated with how his brain deflected every single counterpoint – HAD to deflect every single counterpoint - and then projected any “techniques” he used (and logical fallacies) onto me. It appeared that while he’d absorbed facts and details that supported his argument quite well, he mentally defensed against all flaws and inconsistencies in the interrelationships between those facts and details as though his life depended on it.
A true conservative mindset?
“On that point, you have been repeatedly proven wrong, and everything you have presented for evidence to support your claim has faded into the ether.”
I’ve given you a source for that survey. You tried to give a false one. The source is the Employment Policy Institute. It was a survey conducted by the University of New Hampshire for their own research. It was NOT released to the media. Therefore, there is no hard copy on their website as of now. Because of that, I’m in the process of getting a hard copy just for you.
Keep up saying things like this. Pretentious kid that you are. You’ve done none of the sort, “reapeatedly” proving me wrong. Clearly you’re no economist and I don’t think you have the ability to “prove” me wrong on an issue with such debate. Your so stuck on this survey you can’t wrap your mind around it. And I’m not even HALFWAY done with my end of it. You continue to pick through the quotes I throw up, I’ll give you something to do with your life.
The bottom line is this, your childish antics of “I win, You lose” remind me of a six year old. You can’t “prove” me wrong with quotes and surveys. To think so is ridiculous. I revel in the fact you think you’re proven right because you can cite surveys and quote economists who think raising the minimum wage is great. I’ll cite surveys and quote economists all day Jeff. So before you think you’re “right,” before you refer to me as an “idiot” clean out your locker and grow up.
Eric…Eric, Eric….
Let us recap.
To defend your arguement, you attempted to quote a survey you have never actually seen, cannot produce, and you do not even know the title of….. and after two days of getting your clock cleaned about it, you were finally forced to admit that you have never even actually SEEN a copy of the survey, but read a one-line filler about it that was contained in a press release from an industry shill.
Case closed.
Son, you are OWNED!
I’ve ridden your dead carcass enough, boy…you may be excused now.
David Neumark-
Card and Krueger collected their data by conducting two rounds of phone interviews with the managers of area fast-food restaurants. Critics charged that ambiguities in the survey questions made the survey results unreliable. In a pair of studies in 2000, Card and Krueger were unable to replicate their results using government payroll data, and an analysis of payroll records obtained directly from the fast-food restaurants found that New Jersey’s minimum wage increase led to employment declines.
Other case studies have found that higher minimum wages do indeed lower the job prospects of young workers. A 2006 study replicated Card and Krueger’s “case study” technique in a study of the effects of an increase in Illinois’s minimum wage between 2003 and 2005. They found that the increase reduced employment in restaurants in Illinois
It seems that Card and Kreuger made some errors in their research.
How about some more studies:
Dr. David McPherson, Florida State University - an actual economist:
“The minimum wage increase is projected to cause 4,627 workers to lose their jobs with about two-thirds of the job losses in the leisure and hospitality industry. This will cause an annual income loss to these workers of $54.8 million”
If you want more, I’ll play this game a little longer. You still refuse to address the price issue of raising the minimum wage. Are you a coward? Do you not know? Who cares if it wasn’t the original question, other questions arise in the course of a discussion. Answer it
Eric…you blew any credibility, son…give it up. You had your opportunity and lost.
Go sit down.
Jeff, let ME recap for YOU
You haven’t proven anything. You can’t cite anything other than a survey and a flawed study. Everything you say is based on those TWO things.
Have YOU seen the survey for the Economic Policy Institute list of names? Or are you basing your “claims” on a Big Labor industry shill.
You have a lot of aggression for a small child. Nobody else uses the term “owned.” Your quick claim of victory is a childish maneuver. Does you kiss your mother with that mouth?
And still with the “son” and “boy?” You must want me to be a part of your family. I’m sorry, I’m not into that kind of stuff.
If you want to base your opinion on an issue on a SURVEY, by all means, to each his own. Just don’t expect to go very far with that. You haven’t even started to clean my clock. And YOU can’t prove that the survey doesn’t exist. Really you’ve got nothing to go on except your precious survey.
Claim victory if it make you feel a little better about yourself. I’m all for helping a kid with low self esteem.
Regardless, you’ve won nothing. The only thing you’ve proven is your childish tactics. You haven’t answered a single thing I proposed and you can’t keep a discussion civil. Congratulations, you represent everything wrong this country.
saw the first allen clip on olbermann-yur famous!
Are so quick to bow out…. if you can’t take any more then go ahead.
I haven’t based my entire around a survey. You on the other hand are FIXATED on it. Like a fat kid and a cupcake. You want that survey more than I do.
I don’t think a survey means ANYTHING in the face of empirical evidence. Bring me some more of that and then we can talk about “winning”
If you want to run then run. Coward
Right, Eric….whatever keeps you connected to that fragile bubble of reality is fine with me….I’m off to watch election returns and get drunker than a circus monkey celebrating….In your state of mind, I suggest you abstain from consuming alcohol this evening. Depression and Tequila are bad partners.
Where’s Cletus ?!?!?!?!?
Time to fisk Eric’s original comment:
Nice attempt today. — It’s always good to start with a compliment.
You want everyone to answer your questions, yet, while you’re being led out of a rally in shame with your hands in cuffs behind your back you don’t want to answer anyone else’s questions. Wait, unless there is a camera involved. — ‘Everyone’ must be Allen’s code name, or something; it doesn’t seem like Mike felt any shame; it’s hard to answer questions that don’t make any sense; cameras were involved.
You’re nothing more than a cheap hack dying for publicity. — Mike’s not cheap, he’s thrifty.
You represent everything wrong with the world and remind every moderate what a liberal really is. — Ergo, a liberal is everything wrong with the world? Moderates beware!
You want recognition and your best shot is to make yourself look like a fool. — Eric’s area of expertise?
You aren’t making an impact, you shame the University of Virginia and you shame yourself. — If he’s not making an impact, how can he shame anyone? Seems like he’s doing a pretty good job of making Allen’s people look like a bunch of thugs.
I want you to come to every single political event for George Allen, I want you to continue doing what you do because with every appearance you make you reinforce another vote for Allen. Everytime your mouth opens you guarantee the support of another moderate for George Allen. — Mike, whatever you do, DON’T OPEN YOUR MOUTH! It has magical powers.
So thank you. — Because Allen’s always looking for another opportunity to look like a goon.
hey senator macaca!!!!!!!!!!
bwaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!1
congratulations on the House…. semi-congratulations on the Senate
try not to screw this one up
Hello, Eric. Switch over to the newest strand for your posts (Housekeeping) so all of our posts will be on the latest strand and we don’t have to keep clicking back to this one to hear your valued observations on a historical evening.
Nance
Thank god we have real United States Citizens like Mike to show us how our founding fathers meant for this country to be. I don’t know what you silly rethugs keep talking about, but what I learned was “No taxation without representation” (pssst, that means they work for YOU!), e pluribus unum (that’s french I think, do we get french benefits?), then there’s that whole silly …. what’s it called? bill of … fear?… no… patrioot..act? yea, act like a patriot… no wait.. that’s not it.. eh… well there’s some kind of bill that says “Hey kid, I like you, here have some good ol’ fasioned rights to go along with your responsibilites in this government your forefathers created.”
Anyhow, thanks Mike. We need more “damn librulz!” like you. Oh … no make that “el33t libr4lz”. Har! Cheers.
Eric,
Go Fuck Yourself.
Creative Kevin…. in true liberal fashion
Found that study yet, Eiic? Don’t come back here till you do, boy.