Comments (14) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   Right_On said, 5 months ago

   She’s spot on.

   Initiate radical blanket statement, then create more and more individual exceptions.

2. 

   MILDOG172 said, 5 months ago

   Animal Farm by Goerge Orwell

3. 

   dtroutma said, 5 months ago

   Actually the key regulation proposed is to restore voting rights to shareholders, and restrict the power of CEOs and their friends on the board to make “unitary” decisions, instead of democratic ones. How ghastly!

4. 

   ANandy said, 5 months ago

   BozOTUS is leveling the playing field until everyone has nothing. But it’s fair.

5. 

   LLeRay said, 5 months ago

   Hey, I thought the clique was we were Chardonnay sippers. Well, beer works for me.

   ANandy would rather be a slave to those unaccountable executives rather than admit that President Barrack Obama isn’t to blame for everything that’s going wrong.

6. 

   dtroutma said, 5 months ago

   He also seems unaware that “Arbusto”- Bush’s oil company he named, is Spanish for “Shrub”. Ivins’ name for him was of his own derivation. There are a lot of negative associations “liberals” directed at Bush relative to his competence, but like Rush, I think the “conservatives” protest too much their claim they’re the ones abused. Civil discourse remains above the intellect of those still in pre-school awaiting true education in the real world.

7. 

   danielsangeo said, 5 months ago

   Let’s see how this would play out in the real world:

   “Hey! Let’s set pay limits on ALL execs, not just those who got bailouts!”

   “You’re drunk.”

   “Am not!”

   “Listen, go back to the Republican table. You’re not a Democrat. No Democrat would suggest such a thing.”

8. 

   ANandy said, 5 months ago

   dtroutma said: “He also seems unaware that “Arbusto”- Bush’s oil company he named, is Spanish for “Shrub”. Ivins’ name for him was of his own derivation. There are a lot of negative associations “liberals” directed at Bush relative to his competence, but like Rush, I think the “conservatives” protest too much their claim they’re the ones abused. Civil discourse remains above the intellect of those still in pre-school awaiting true education in the real world.”

   ANandy replies: I’m not sure who the he is but I’m going to correct some misinformation in your post. Arbusto is a Spanish, Italian and Portugese noun translated as shrub or bush. Kindly explain what the translated name of an energy company, in which Bush has had no interest since 1990, has to do with any issue we are dealing with.
   I’m not aware what Limbaugh, whom I assume your reference is, said but I don’t feel abused. I am saddened that our Country is being bankrupted, I suspect deliberately, by the Socialist leadership chosen by a foolish electorate.
   You are proof of your own statement about civil discourse.

9. 

   nomad2112 said, 5 months ago

   Yeah, Let’s cap executive pay so all of those people who depend on them for an income - manufactures of luxury cars, boats, clothing, all loose their jobs. Then we can stand down at the unemployment office and tell all their ex-nannies, grounds keepers, drivers and, pool boys etc. to get real jobs.

   What idiots … .

10. 

    danielsangeo said, 5 months ago

    So, you want the government to give taxpayer money to executives for use on their own lavish lifestyle, nomad2112? Remember, these executives came to the goverment for help. The government has a right to stipulate how that money is used.

    Don’t want to limit executive pay, you don’t get government help.

    It’s that simple.

    Unless you have evidence that we’re capping pay of executives that did NOT go to the government for help….

11. 

    nomad2112 said, 5 months ago

    danielsangeo, capping exec. pay won’t do anything except satisfy your fill for class warfare. Their “lavish lifestyle” keeps more people employed than my and possibly your income.

12. 

    danielsangeo said, 5 months ago

    “danielsangeo, capping exec. pay won’t do anything except satisfy your fill for class warfare.”

    Actually, it’ll do a lot more than that (considering I’m not engaging in class warfare).

    “Their “lavish lifestyle” keeps more people employed than my and possibly your income.”

    So, let me make sure it’s perfectly clear. You want taxpayer money to fund lifestyles of corporate executives, correct?

13. 

    nomad2112 said, 5 months ago

    Yeah, that’s what I said rolls eyes.

14. 

    danielsangeo said, 5 months ago

    So, what, exactly, are you saying?

    You either want taxpayers to pay for their lifestyles or you would rather their lifestyles be cut back if they want our money?

    Which is it?