Fox News/GOP hypocrisy exposed...AGAIN!

Originally Posted by Teflon Don

It's only 16 million who cares
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal

Care to back that up with some valid references? Or are you once again just parroting something that Limbaugh/Drudge/Hannity/Levin/Kristol/Krauthhamer pulled out of their collective asses?



Its the figure given by mediamatters you idiot.....

The CBO report that popular Democratic proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, championed by President Obama, could reduce total employment by 500,000 workers by the second half of 2016.

So its obvious that is a transfer of wealth from those losing their jobs, to those whose jobs will see a raise....should be simple logic even for TaichiMORON.

Once again, our resident neocon/teagagger IDIOT grabs a headline, but does not/will not read the actual content of the subsequent story. For those interested in the whole truth:


WASHINGTON — A popular Democratic proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, championed by President Obama, could reduce total employment by 500,000 workers by the second half of 2016. But it would also lift 900,000 families out of poverty and increase the incomes of 16.5 million low-wage workers in an average week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/b...us-study-of-increasing-minimum-wage.html?_r=0

Thanks for proving yet again what a right wing tool you are, Nova....you can't even adequately come to the rescue of your fellow fools!
 
Originally Posted by NOVA View Post
Its the figure given by mediamatters you idiot.....

The CBO report that popular Democratic proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, championed by President Obama, could reduce total employment by 500,000 workers by the second half of 2016.

So its obvious that is a transfer of wealth from those losing their jobs, to those whose jobs will see a raise....should be simple logic even for TaichiMORON.


Past increases show the to be a myth

http://www.businessforafairminimumw...-minimum-wage-increases-do-not-cause-job-loss


Please, our numbskull Nova isn't even fully aware of what's going on NOW, much less any history.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
so clearly you should stop braying like an ass, because like it or not the contents of the site on this matter PROVES my subject title. TFB if you don't like it or don't have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge it.
It shows that Fox did not object to a raise to current levels. It showed they do object to raising it further. You pretend the two are contradictory positions. They are not.

Which was the purpose of the overly exaggerated numbers I used. To show you that the LEVEL to which you want to raise the minimum wage does indeed matter. It is not a simple 'I am always against or always for' position.

Your exaggerated numbers are indicative of your exaggerated belief that your opinion is a substitute for facts. Here's what the article pointed out that differs from your interpretation:


The attacks have become something a cornerstone to Fox's program in early 2014. This, while Republicans stand firmly opposed to Obama's wage proposal, to the point where it's unlikely to come to a vote, just as Republicans earlier this month filibustered an effort to extend unemployment insurance for U.S. workers.

Here's what's interesting and what helps put into perspective the radical turn that not only Fox News has taken in recent years, but the entire conservative movement in America: In early 2007, after Democrats had gained control of both the House and the Senate, one of their top legislative priorities was passing a bill to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25. The two-plus dollar boost was the first in a decade.

And you know what the collective Fox News reaction was to the prospect of an increased minimum wage in 2007? Nobody seemed that upset. Based on a review of Fox News' nighttime transcripts via Nexis, the issue was mostly dealt with -- when dealt at all -- in news updates as Democratic and Republicans negotiated the Fair Minimum Wage Act's certain approval.

There wasn't endless hand wringing, condemnations, or predictions of economic doom. For instance, in January of 2007, Fox contributor Mara Liasson described passing the minimum wage as "low-hanging fruit" for Democrats since the idea wasn't at all "controversial." (Indeed, 26 Republican House members had previously urged party leaders to schedule a minimum wage vote.)

That same month when Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace sat down with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to discuss the year's legislative agenda, the senator assured the host, "We're going to be able to get off to a good start with ethics reform and probably craft a minimum-wage increase that's acceptable to both sides and see how far we can get on a cooperative basis." (Then as now, increasing the minimum wage was widely popular with voters.)

There was no cavalcade of snide commentary in the winter of 2007. There was no denouncing the minimum wage as "black teenage unemployment act," which a regular Fox News guest did recently.

Instead, the bill, which included tax cuts for small businesses, passed 94-3 in the Senate and 315-116 in the House, and President Bush, who in 2004 had previously endorsed a minimum wage bill that had been championed by a Republican senator, signed the bill into law. On Fox, the issue wasn't presented as a deeply contentious one (when the bill came up for a vote, the House debate was "limited" reported the New York Times), nor were affected low-wage workers depicted as lazy and unmotivated.


You keep forgetting that it's not as simple as you just inserting your personal opinion, supposition and conjecture and thinking that everyone else just puts their brains on hold and goes along with you.
 
I did read it and honestly I could not care less. I do not watch Fox News. I do not watch MSNBC. I've read articles from Media Matters and they are just a very partisan left-wing site. It's the same reason I don't read a site like Breibart.

I thought you didn't read any of those sites because, well, you couldn't read!
 
Your exaggerated numbers are indicative of your exaggerated belief that your opinion is a substitute for facts. Here's what the article pointed out that differs from your interpretation:


The attacks have become something a cornerstone to Fox's program in early 2014. This, while Republicans stand firmly opposed to Obama's wage proposal, to the point where it's unlikely to come to a vote, just as Republicans earlier this month filibustered an effort to extend unemployment insurance for U.S. workers.

Here's what's interesting and what helps put into perspective the radical turn that not only Fox News has taken in recent years, but the entire conservative movement in America: In early 2007, after Democrats had gained control of both the House and the Senate, one of their top legislative priorities was passing a bill to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25. The two-plus dollar boost was the first in a decade.

And you know what the collective Fox News reaction was to the prospect of an increased minimum wage in 2007? Nobody seemed that upset. Based on a review of Fox News' nighttime transcripts via Nexis, the issue was mostly dealt with -- when dealt at all -- in news updates as Democratic and Republicans negotiated the Fair Minimum Wage Act's certain approval.

There wasn't endless hand wringing, condemnations, or predictions of economic doom. For instance, in January of 2007, Fox contributor Mara Liasson described passing the minimum wage as "low-hanging fruit" for Democrats since the idea wasn't at all "controversial." (Indeed, 26 Republican House members had previously urged party leaders to schedule a minimum wage vote.)

That same month when Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace sat down with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to discuss the year's legislative agenda, the senator assured the host, "We're going to be able to get off to a good start with ethics reform and probably craft a minimum-wage increase that's acceptable to both sides and see how far we can get on a cooperative basis." (Then as now, increasing the minimum wage was widely popular with voters.)

There was no cavalcade of snide commentary in the winter of 2007. There was no denouncing the minimum wage as "black teenage unemployment act," which a regular Fox News guest did recently.

Instead, the bill, which included tax cuts for small businesses, passed 94-3 in the Senate and 315-116 in the House, and President Bush, who in 2004 had previously endorsed a minimum wage bill that had been championed by a Republican senator, signed the bill into law. On Fox, the issue wasn't presented as a deeply contentious one (when the bill came up for a vote, the House debate was "limited" reported the New York Times), nor were affected low-wage workers depicted as lazy and unmotivated.


You keep forgetting that it's not as simple as you just inserting your personal opinion, supposition and conjecture and thinking that everyone else just puts their brains on hold and goes along with you.

You should read Darla on Superfreak she has him pegged pretty good. In fact, better than anyone else here!
 
WASHINGTON — A popular Democratic proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, championed by President Obama, could reduce total employment by 500,000 workers by the second half of 2016. But it would also lift 900,000 families out of poverty and increase the incomes of 16.5 million low-wage workers in an average week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/b...us-study-of-increasing-minimum-wage.html?_r=0

Thanks for proving yet again what a right wing tool you are, Nova....you can't even adequately come to the rescue of your fellow fools!

Exactly what we've been saying....a transfer of wealth from those that loose their jobs to those that will keep theirs....

6th grade Reading Comprehension...maybe 5th grade.

The only fool exposed here is you TootsieRoll....
 
I did read it and honestly I could not care less. I do not watch Fox News. I do not watch MSNBC. I've read articles from Media Matters and they are just a very partisan left-wing site. It's the same reason I don't read a site like Breibart.
Which could explain why you're not a total asshole on politics. ;)
 
Care to back that up with some valid references? Or are you once again just parroting something that Limbaugh/Drudge/Hannity/Levin/Kristol/Krauthhamer pulled out of their collective asses?


Oh you want me to back it up? Really? Are you sure?

OK. But, remember, you asked for it. I was going to cut and paste the salient quote in the article, but I then I decided to make you work for it. Fetch


http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...06818e-4803-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html
 
I did read it and honestly I could not care less. I do not watch Fox News. I do not watch MSNBC. I've read articles from Media Matters and they are just a very partisan left-wing site. It's the same reason I don't read a site like Breibart.


So what do you read? Seriously.
 
Your exaggerated numbers are indicative of your exaggerated belief that your opinion is a substitute for facts. Here's what the article pointed out that differs from your interpretation:


The attacks have become something a cornerstone to Fox's program in early 2014. This, while Republicans stand firmly opposed to Obama's wage proposal, to the point where it's unlikely to come to a vote, just as Republicans earlier this month filibustered an effort to extend unemployment insurance for U.S. workers.

Here's what's interesting and what helps put into perspective the radical turn that not only Fox News has taken in recent years, but the entire conservative movement in America: In early 2007, after Democrats had gained control of both the House and the Senate, one of their top legislative priorities was passing a bill to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25. The two-plus dollar boost was the first in a decade.

And you know what the collective Fox News reaction was to the prospect of an increased minimum wage in 2007? Nobody seemed that upset. Based on a review of Fox News' nighttime transcripts via Nexis, the issue was mostly dealt with -- when dealt at all -- in news updates as Democratic and Republicans negotiated the Fair Minimum Wage Act's certain approval.

There wasn't endless hand wringing, condemnations, or predictions of economic doom. For instance, in January of 2007, Fox contributor Mara Liasson described passing the minimum wage as "low-hanging fruit" for Democrats since the idea wasn't at all "controversial." (Indeed, 26 Republican House members had previously urged party leaders to schedule a minimum wage vote.)

That same month when Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace sat down with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to discuss the year's legislative agenda, the senator assured the host, "We're going to be able to get off to a good start with ethics reform and probably craft a minimum-wage increase that's acceptable to both sides and see how far we can get on a cooperative basis." (Then as now, increasing the minimum wage was widely popular with voters.)

There was no cavalcade of snide commentary in the winter of 2007. There was no denouncing the minimum wage as "black teenage unemployment act," which a regular Fox News guest did recently.

Instead, the bill, which included tax cuts for small businesses, passed 94-3 in the Senate and 315-116 in the House, and President Bush, who in 2004 had previously endorsed a minimum wage bill that had been championed by a Republican senator, signed the bill into law. On Fox, the issue wasn't presented as a deeply contentious one (when the bill came up for a vote, the House debate was "limited" reported the New York Times), nor were affected low-wage workers depicted as lazy and unmotivated.


You keep forgetting that it's not as simple as you just inserting your personal opinion, supposition and conjecture and thinking that everyone else just puts their brains on hold and goes along with you.

All you are doing is inserting YOUR opinion and the OPINION of the author of the link you provided. Part of the difference can certainly be assigned to who is in the White House... I get that. But that does not invalidate my point. It does indeed matter what level you are taking the minimum wage to. The higher you go, the more people you will have against it.
 
All you are doing is inserting YOUR opinion and the OPINION of the author of the link you provided. Part of the difference can certainly be assigned to who is in the White House... I get that. But that does not invalidate my point.


That cracks me up....TCPinhead rants ,"You keep forgetting that it's not as simple as you just inserting your personal opinion, supposition and conjecture and

thinking that everyone else just puts their brains on hold and goes along with you.", in the very same post that he fills with his own

personal opinion, supposition and conjecture...thinking everyone else should just put their brains on hold and go along with him...
:palm:



Its also quite telling how they flat out lie to attribute the words of a 'show guest' to the 'show' itself or the 'network'....this tactic actually works well for the
pinheads and they've been getting away with it for years....

they won't attribute the words of a liberal quest worshiping Obama to Fox News but they will immediately attribute the words of a right leaning quest, bitching about Obama to
the network.....
 
Last edited:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
WASHINGTON — A popular Democratic proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, championed by President Obama, could reduce total employment by 500,000 workers by the second half of 2016. But it would also lift 900,000 families out of poverty and increase the incomes of 16.5 million low-wage workers in an average week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/bu...wage.html?_r=0

Thanks for proving yet again what a right wing tool you are, Nova....you can't even adequately come to the rescue of your fellow fools!


Exactly what we've been saying....a transfer of wealth from those that loose their jobs to those that will keep theirs....

6th grade Reading Comprehension...maybe 5th grade.

The only fool exposed here is you TootsieRoll....

My God, you are one stupid SOB, NOVA! Nowhere in the link I provided comes close to the sheer stupidity of the Limbaugh lament you just parroted. Let me dumb it down for you: instead of people working 2 or 3 jobs for crappy pay just to try and afford any type of COBRA or health care need, they can now work ONE job and get that coverage. Got that, bunky?



Here's a further clarification for you to ignore:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ypocrisy-exposed-AGAIN!&p=1449194#post1449194
 
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Your exaggerated numbers are indicative of your exaggerated belief that your opinion is a substitute for facts. Here's what the article pointed out that differs from your interpretation:


The attacks have become something a cornerstone to Fox's program in early 2014. This, while Republicans stand firmly opposed to Obama's wage proposal, to the point where it's unlikely to come to a vote, just as Republicans earlier this month filibustered an effort to extend unemployment insurance for U.S. workers.

Here's what's interesting and what helps put into perspective the radical turn that not only Fox News has taken in recent years, but the entire conservative movement in America: In early 2007, after Democrats had gained control of both the House and the Senate, one of their top legislative priorities was passing a bill to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25. The two-plus dollar boost was the first in a decade.

And you know what the collective Fox News reaction was to the prospect of an increased minimum wage in 2007? Nobody seemed that upset. Based on a review of Fox News' nighttime transcripts via Nexis, the issue was mostly dealt with -- when dealt at all -- in news updates as Democratic and Republicans negotiated the Fair Minimum Wage Act's certain approval.

There wasn't endless hand wringing, condemnations, or predictions of economic doom. For instance, in January of 2007, Fox contributor Mara Liasson described passing the minimum wage as "low-hanging fruit" for Democrats since the idea wasn't at all "controversial." (Indeed, 26 Republican House members had previously urged party leaders to schedule a minimum wage vote.)

That same month when Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace sat down with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to discuss the year's legislative agenda, the senator assured the host, "We're going to be able to get off to a good start with ethics reform and probably craft a minimum-wage increase that's acceptable to both sides and see how far we can get on a cooperative basis." (Then as now, increasing the minimum wage was widely popular with voters.)

There was no cavalcade of snide commentary in the winter of 2007. There was no denouncing the minimum wage as "black teenage unemployment act," which a regular Fox News guest did recently.

Instead, the bill, which included tax cuts for small businesses, passed 94-3 in the Senate and 315-116 in the House, and President Bush, who in 2004 had previously endorsed a minimum wage bill that had been championed by a Republican senator, signed the bill into law. On Fox, the issue wasn't presented as a deeply contentious one (when the bill came up for a vote, the House debate was "limited" reported the New York Times), nor were affected low-wage workers depicted as lazy and unmotivated.


You keep forgetting that it's not as simple as you just inserting your personal opinion, supposition and conjecture and thinking that everyone else just puts their brains on hold and goes along with you.


All you are doing is inserting YOUR opinion and the OPINION of the author of the link you provided. Part of the difference can certainly be assigned to who is in the White House... I get that. But that does not invalidate my point. It does indeed matter what level you are taking the minimum wage to. The higher you go, the more people you will have against it.

Learn to READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY, my willfully ignorant and stubborn SuperFreak. It's not "opinion" that this article is using, but FACTS...transcripts, quotes and chronological references....kryptonite to neocon/teabagger toadies like yourself. So in typical fashion, you avoid discussing those facts and just blow out the mental flatulence born of Limbaugh/Kristol rhetoric ad nauseum. Your intellectual cowardice is extraordinary, but parroting that won't change the facts. Nor is LYING about the content of the article.

Let us all know when you've got something stronger to come back with.
 
Learn to READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY, my willfully ignorant and stubborn SuperFreak. It's not "opinion" that this article is using, but FACTS...transcripts, quotes and chronological references....kryptonite to neocon/teabagger toadies like yourself. So in typical fashion, you avoid discussing those facts and just blow out the mental flatulence born of Limbaugh/Kristol rhetoric ad nauseum. Your intellectual cowardice is extraordinary, but parroting that won't change the facts. Nor is LYING about the content of the article.

Let us all know when you've got something stronger to come back with.

I hope you're a young man!
 
Oh you want me to back it up? Really? Are you sure?

OK. But, remember, you asked for it. I was going to cut and paste the salient quote in the article, but I then I decided to make you work for it. Fetch


http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...06818e-4803-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html

that was back in November, you stupid SOB. Here's what has happened since then:


The GOP claim that more Americans have lost insurance than gained it under Obamacare


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ost-insurance-than-gained-it-under-obamacare/




Workers ‘Losing’ Employer Plans?

Posted on January 3, 2014




http://www.factcheck.org/2014/01/workers-losing-employer-plans/
 
Back
Top