QUESTION: Why Did Jack Ryan Drop Out of Illinois Senate Race in 2004 (which paved the way for Obama’s rise)
Dear HillBuzz,
I had always heard that Jack Ryan dropped out of that race (the 2004 Senate race where Barack Obama ultimately was elected to the Senate). Are you saying that the Repubs pressured him out, or that he could have run if they had stuck by him?
(Backstory: When Jack Ryan was running against Dr Utopia for the US Senate, the Ryans’ (sealed) divorce records were mysteriously unsealed and leaked to the press. Though the divorce itself was amicable – Jeri “Seven of Nine” Ryan had nothing to do with the leak – the records were deeply embarrassing to Jack Ryan. He ended up leaving the race. The Party of Stupid decided to run Alan Keyes in his place. And that’s how Barack Obama became a U.S. Senator.)
Thanks,
A.A.
*************************************
Dear Readers,
The above was a comment that I lifted off another thread and wanted to answer here because a lot of people don’t know the story of how Barack Obama’s rise to the presidency was set in motion. The only reason Obama is President today is because the criminally stupid Cocktail Party fools in the Illinois GOP — the very same people who are pushing Willard “Mittens” Romneycare’s nomination in 2012 — demanded Jack Ryan withdraw from the Senate race in 2004 after he had already won the nomination.
Ryan is the ex-husband of Jerri Ryan, a woman who played a cyborg of some sort on the Star Trek series that many people apocryphally believe starred Katherine Hepburn as a spaceship captain; Ryan, the actress, currently plays a mortician on some CBS show where Dana Delany drinks chardonnay while solving crimes as a medical examiner. During their marriage, Jack Ryan used to openly talk about sexual fantasies he had of his wife Jerri, the most graphic of which is that Jack wanted to fly his wife to Paris and take her to the Cleopatra Club — which was a high-priced sex dungeon where the two of them could have sex in front of other wealthy people while utilizing various swings and other contraptions. The Ryans never did any of this — it was purely Jack’s fantasy, and he wanted to do this with his own wife (while other men and women watched them). When filing for divorce, Jerri’s divorce attorney put references to these fantasies into the filing to embarrass Jack (who wanted to have a political career). The intent on Jerri’s part was to force a quick and lucrative divorce settlement so that the Cleopatra Club fantasies would never get out into the open.
In essence, Jerri Ryan blackmailed Jack Ryan into a much more generous divorce settlement than she would have received if she hadn’t made his unrealized sex fantasies a part of the filing.
The divorce agreement was supposed to be sealed and unavailable to reporters; once she had her loot, Jerri Ryan never talked about any of the Cleopatra Club stories again. Her intent was never to hurt Ryan, just to blackmail him for the best divorce settlement possible.
Flashforward to 2004. The Obama Senate campaign illegally obtains Jack Ryan’s sealed divorce filing and sees the Cleopatra Club references. Obama’s operatives release the embarrassing sexual fantasy material to the media, and the criminally stupid Cocktail Party here in Illinois makes the decision to force Ryan to withdraw from the Senate race after he was already picked as the nominee. I need to use bold for this, but Jack Ryan would have won that Senate race if the Cocktail Party GOP establishment had not forced him off the ballot.
Barack Obama would not have been elected to the Senate in 2004, and he would not have been elected President in 2008. None of the terrible things that have happened to our country in the last three years would have taken place if the criminally stupid Cocktail Party hadn’t forced Ryan to withdraw from the Senate race for having sexual fantasies about his own wife.
After they got rid of Jack Ryan, the Cocktail Party decided it was Alan Keyes’ turn to run for Senate…even though he had never lived in Illinois. Keyes quickly bought as small a parcel of land as he could find and the Cocktail Party slapped him onto the ballot to run against Obama. The end result wasn’t even close.
A Senate race the Republicans would have won was lost in Illinois because the Cocktail Party GOP establishment insisted “Alan Keyes was more electable” and they maneuvered to take the man people wanted to vote for off the ballot and force their “it’s his turn!’ candidate in his place.
That’s all in bold, too, because the Cocktail Party is up to these sorts of trick in Virginia and in other states as the 2012 primary race is underway and they are doing everything they can to force Willard “It’s His Turn!” Romneycare onto voters as the GOP nominee…when fewer people want this than wanted Alan Keyes in 2004 here in Illinois.
This is how the “Party of Stupid” has earned its reputation.
But — amazingly — EVERY SINGLE PERSON responsible for this still has his job with the Illinois GOP, is still calling the shots in Illinois, and is currently working for the Romneycare campaign.
K.D. for H.B.
© 2011, Kevin DuJan. All rights reserved.
Help HillBuzz by Shopping Amazon
"Bee" Advised!
I look forward to your comments. Please follow these simple guidelines:
- Please do not complain about your comment not yet showing up
- Stay on topic of the article ("This is OT, but..." = bad!)
- I will STING if you troll, spam, bait, swear or attack someone
how oh how oh HOW are obamao's records still sealed? i mean, if karl rove and dick cheney combined are some kind of voltron apocolyptic antichrist capable of great evil due to their involvement with haliburton and wall street and fox news and whatever else the libs are screaming about- how come they haven't "illegally" obtained and leaked teh won's records?
I remember that his ex-wife, Jerri, even came out in a press conference with him to support him. It certainly seemed to me that it was a scandal that would blow over. When they decided on keyes we all knew it was a mistake. I never saw it as a "his turn" move, just a stupid one where they thought people in that district would vote for him because he was black. He held many views that were popular with the far right, but he was not very likeable and would have never appealed to your average person.
Didn't the idiot Cocktail Party ask Mike Ditka to run after they forced Jack Ryan out? If he had agreed, Obummer would still be voting "Present" in the Illinois Senate and only stealing from there.
Ditka would have been a shoo-in. Yeah , he had skeletons in his closet, but let me ask you this; In 2004, would most people vote for some guy with a strange name or "Da Coach".?
I think the main reason Ryan dropped out was to shield his autistic son from media scrutiny.
Read Ann Coulter's "Guilty" (yeah, I just recommended Coulter) for the full story.
Re: Alan Keyes. It was only "His Turn" if by that you mean "His Turn to enter political oblivion".
He was already an embarrassment to the establishment by then, and this was their way of getting rid of him without being called racists. Only the Dems are allowed to openly dump on black candidates without racial repercussions. IIRC, the conventional wisdom was that Keyes had a reputation as a gifted rhetorician, would thus be able to go toe to toe with Obama. Sound familiar?
The fact that they parachuted him into the state, in slapstick homage to Hillary's airborne assault on NY, shows either Alinskyite cunning in furtherance of a hidden agenda or gobsmacking incompetence. Why couldn't a sacrificial Native Son be found to runagainst Obama? Because everyone knew the drill but Keyes.
It was “his turn” because the Cocktail Party had him on the list of black candidates they wanted to run somewhere, when they felt they had to run a black candidate.
They looked at their list and decided they wanted to have a black man run against Obama…and it was Alan Keyes’ turn on that list.
Kevin, allow me to explain this to you. I love women and I love woman. In my younger days I enjoyed the pleasantries of a number of ladies. I doubt I could ever have entered into a monogamous relationship had I not sampled a good deal from the buffet of woman. All that being said, when a man, in particular a conservative male takes a bride he tends to put here on a pedestal and men often alter some of their sexual antics as a show of respect to their wife. Some of the things I considered normal with the bimbo of the week I woudl never engage in with the wife. The wife is the mother of your children, the woman you don not flaunt your sexual domination with, your equal your mate, someone special.
Ryan's ideas were perverse. You do not show off the mother of your children the way he fantasized about. That is what made is so sick – she was his wife. Your wife giving you oral sex in the privacy of your own bedroom is one thing, wanting to have her kneeling before you, servicing you in front of strangers is quite another.
My view is that is why people ran from Ryan. There is just something innately sick about thinking of subjugating your wife to your domination in the presence of strangers or wanting others to see your wife pleasing you in so intimate an act, or for strangers to see your wife reduced to her most bestial impulses (orgasm).
That is why Ryan was tossed overboard. He has issues. And I would suggest any man who wants to share his wife with others, have people watch your wife during sexual acts is a pervert of some type.
As for Keyes, he was brought in so the GOP could prove that a staunch conservative could not win in IL so they could run old Judy Barr Topinka and other lefties like Kirk. Keyes run was to poison the conservative well of candidates.
By the way Keyes did a great job against Obama, I was at the debates and he annihilated Obama – it is just no one cared.
I have to agre that Alan Keyes annihilated Obama in the senate debate. Unfortunately many Americans don't care that Obama strongly supported infanticide when he fought solo against the IL's sate version of The Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Alan Keys is a moral man. I hate when perverts get elected to the semate and presidency. Ryan could have been a real problem for the GOP had he been elected. IL is a screwed up place and Obama is perfect for the communist republic of IL. Soros would have gotten his boy into the white house one way of the other. He is the hip hop facade of the Soros shadow govenment. Obama modes nothing but play golf while Soros plans his evil global dictatorship without a word form the republicans.
My understanding was that it was some reporter (who was tipped off) who got a California Judge (a Democrat) to unseal the child custody agreement (which had the references to the sex club thing) who then wrote a story about it in a Chicago paper even though both Ryan's had requested it stay sealed. Either way, pretty nasty politics. I wonder which of the Democrat behnd the scenes leaders thought that Obama was a good bet at the time? With his record of well, nothing accomplished he wasn't going to rise out of state politics without being blessed by the powers that be.
That's pretty similiar to what I heard, except the articles that were written after the "scandal" came out made it sound like he drug her kicking & screaming to the club & tried to force just her to take part while he watched.
As for the boy king, I honestly believe that the Dems thought they could control him, not realizing the moster they were creating.
Hi Melp. I think you're right. I seem to recall now that the allegations were that he forced to her go to these clubs even though she refused and that she felt degraded or some such thing. I suspect that HillBuzz is right in that the "scandal" was leaked first. I think to give cover to the reporter and ulimately the judge for hijacking the legal system to use as a political weapon.
A good article on how Obama got his national start. I guess Obama put what he learned about how to get elected from his state senate races into a national senate race. But here is my take on the Alan Keyes aspect to this thing. I think Alan Keyes is getting dumped on here a bit more than he deserves. As I recall, the IL Republican Party looked in state for credible (translation:electible) candidates after Ryan got the boot and that Coach Ditka was their first choice as already mentioned. If you may recall back then Alan Keyes had done a lot better than some of the non-Bush 2000 REpublican Presidential candidates and of course he speaking ability makes Obama look like a stuttering fool even with his ever present teleprompters. Since nobody local would run at that time the party needed someone with at least some name recognition since they had to go out of state. It was a desperate time and after Ryan got the shaft in this deal they had to be willing to take some chances since no one else in IL had the balls to jump in. As I recall the IL Republican party came after Keyes, he didn't go looking for this gig. I think he knew after agreeing to run that he was going to be a sacrificial lamb especially knowing that his criticizing Hillary for her carpetbagger run for the NY Senate would be easily used against him in an IL run. But Obama was/is so awful (as we all know now) Keyes felt that he couldn't ignore the request. Yeah, he had no chance but he answered the call. Instead of dumping on him I think he deserves our respect. (If memory serves I also think that as soon as he was in the race he had little to no support from the party once they had a name to put on the ballot but I can't swear to that.) Keyes did this for all the right reasons knowing he had little chance to organize and fund a credible campaign given the circumstances. because he did no better than could be expected of him given the situation he gets blasted for at least being willing to try. I think the take on Keyes should be gratitude for at least being willing to try and stop Obama when no one else would step up.
I agree to a large extent with one exception. The seat should have fallen to Jim Oberweis who came in 2nd in the Republican primary. Other than that I think you are spot on. I attended/reported on the Keyes Obama debates and I have never seen a worse intellectual beating delivered than the one administered by Keyes. Obama had no answers to Keyes and was ripped apart in moments. Despite all the hype, I came away with the onion Obama cannot debate. When challenged he becomes a petulant child. Lat election he went up against John McCain who is a lousy orator.
I have to say I think watching Romney and Obama debate would be hilarious. Both if them whining to the moderator and citing rules, they both are a couple of fem-types. I think is Romney is the candidate we should add in a fashion show or something so both he and Obama can live out their dream of being in a beauty pageant – but I digress.
I remember reading about the race at the time. What I recall is that Jeri Ryan alleged Jack Ryan took her to some odd sex clubs while on vacation in Paris and made her feel pressured to take part in sexual activities in public. I also recall that Jack Ryan released a statement that while on vacation they had visited lots of night clubs and that some of them turned out to be odd, they then left, and there was no pressure applied to Ms. Ryan. I do not recall that it was simply a matter of discussing sexual fantasies without ever trying to act on them. My memory is that the Chicago Tribune was tipped about the scandal, and it filed a suit to have the sealed custody agreement and divorce records from the California divorce unsealed on a fishing expedition in case there was something "the people should know". A compliant CA judge uncracked the custody records and Ryan was embarrassed out of the race. Supposedly, Ryan angered the Republican establishment because he allegedly was asked if there was anything embarrassing in his divorce and he supposedly said there was nothing to it. Ryan would have made it a much closer race than the last-minute parachuting of a non-resident like Alan Keyes, but it's not obvious to me that the charismatic hometown media favorite Obama would have lost to a Mr. Ryan. Mr. Ryan was a very appealing candidate prior to the odd scandal, but he had an R next to his name in a blue state. Look how close the race between Mark Kirk and Alexi G. turned out to be despite the Republican wave of 2010, the festering Obama scandals, and Alexi G's very unsavory background. It was a shame Ryan was forced out by such nonsense, but high-level politics is a ruthless game, and it's dangerous to run with anything ugly laying around to be raked up.
Let's face it. Obama got to be pur president becuase our nation is lousy with commies. They dominate the film industry, the department of education, the teachers unions, the entire popular culture. I real conservative is mocked and slandered by the marxist new media and by marxist fools like Bill Maher, Jon Stewart and Stephan Colbert. The July 2008 issue of New Yorker magazine (with the controversial cover) tells the story of Obama's raise to power well. He was promoted and gromed by every hard left radical and unfortunately this country has way too many off them and they are effective in getting even conservatives to vote against thier own interrests.
I have a question:
As a Catholic and a gay man, what do you think of this story?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/us/for-bishops-…
Oh, and I read on another post that you and Justin were going to get hitched in 2012 (Congratulations!!). What's your take on gay marriage vs. civil unions? And for that matter, what does the gay community REALLY think of gay marriage? We hear from a few vocal people, but that's not the same as the average gay/lesbian opinion.
The answers missing from all these stories is this:Who was the reporter who reported this,who was the judge that released the records,and who were the democrat party creeps who worked to bring this out?Chances are we would recognize those names.Chances are these people are getting away with definite crimes.Who are they?
Remember Obama had to first defeat Blair Hull in the Dem primary. Obama was way behind until Hull’s divorce records were made public. Hull’s wife had accused him of abuse. The records came out and Hull went into a tailspin.
you republicans are abunch of greedy selfish bastards go fuck yourselves
Another intelligent response from the liberal left. Would you possibly like to include examples of “greed” or “selfishness?” Of course you won’t, because your opinion is one that’s been spoon fed to you.
you republicans want to roll back the clock to the turn of the last century when there was no social security, no medicaid,no medicare,no minimum wage laws,no paid vacation,no paid maternity leave,no rent control laws no child labor laws. the republican party does not believe in these things because they never believed or supported these programs.republicans have consistently voted against these issues.all of these programs have all been written by voted on passed by and signed by democrats.republicans have stood in the way of all this legislation.republicans have stood in the way and opposed civil rights. women’s rights and gay rights.the republican party is the party of the rich ,by the rich and for the rich.if the republicans could turn back the clock and have slavery again they would.they are the party of sink or swim.if you swim fine if not and you drown too bad.the republicans can be summed up in one sentence -greedy and selfish at home ,warmonger abroad.
Wow, I’ve never seen so much blind ignorance in a single (barely cohesive) “sentence”.
Troll fail.
By the way, look up the history of civil rights. Educate yourself on which party actually pushed for the Civil Rights act of 1957. Hint: it wasn’t the Democrats. Also educate on which party held a record-setting filibuster in an effort to block desegregation. Hint: it wasn’t the Republicans.
Also educate yourself on the civil war. In case you forgot (more likely you failed every history course ever, or were simply “educated” in a heavily liberal district) it was the southern DEMOCRATS who were fighting to keep slavery, while the norther REPUBLICANS were fighting for freedom. So your claim that Republicans would go back to slavery is just flat-out idiotic.
I don’t even need a whole sentence to sum up your comment. I only need a single word: “ignorant”
party labels mean nothing one has to look at the intent ,values and human nature behind one’s politics because after all one’s politics is ultimately a reflection of ones human nature the republican party is the heir to the old confederacy their hatred of the federal government,emphasis on states rights and fixation on religion and guns mimics the old south exactly you only have to superimpose a map of the red state/blue state divide over a civil war era map to see how closely they match the republicans do well in the south and mid west because they wave around the flag ,the bible and guns and the poor white trash scots-irish fall for it these issues are all bullshit and a smokescreen what should be emphasized are good paying jobs health care and affordable housing but as the saying goes they live poor and vote rich lincoln spoke of the civil war as a conflict between the better angels and worse angels of our nature the republican party represents the worst angels of human nature -greed selfishness and warmongering by the way the senator who filibustered the civil rights bill was strom thurmond a southern democrat who became guess what a republican which proves that the modern republican party are the heirs to the old confederacy lincoln would not recognize todays republican party he’d be a democrat
I shouldn’t be surprised at your complete lack of wisdom or facts, considering your total inability to form a coherent statement. Ever heard of punctuation?
“States rights” was an issue used by the confederacy as an attempt to legitimize slavery. It was not the cause of slavery. Only a complete fool would oppose states rights. Larger, centralized government is ALWAYS less efficient and more oppressive than smaller, distributed government.
Your comments also highlight a complete lack of understanding about basic human psychology, economics, and business administration. I would not be surprised one bit if you are employed by a government agency.
Your diatribe about Lincoln is idiotic. Your account of religious folks is bigoted. Your opposition to guns is ignorant.
Strom Thurmond became a Republican, true, but he obviously saw the error of his ways. He was one of the first members of the South Carolina congressional delegation to appoint a black person to his staff. He later supported making MLK day a federal holiday. Hardly the actions of someone who held long-running, deep-seated racism in his heart.
Thurmond even cited the civil rights movement as changing his mind about his party affiliation and switching him to a Republican.
But let’s not forget Robert Byrd, lifelong democrat and former member/support of the KKK. He didn’t specifically renounce the KKK for decades, and even then it was lukewarm. So let’s not pretend that you can fairly measure Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd by different yardsticks.
Also, Thurmond was ONE of the people who filibustered, but he wasn’t the only one. He set the personal record, but the Democrats as a whole set the party record. So let’s not simply edit out that inconvenient truth.
You still haven’t given any actual, concrete examples of what you claim the Republicans want/are doing. Which does not surprise me. Your lack of factual knowledge is par for the course for folks of your nature. I strongly encourage you to actually educate yourself before returning. There’s no point in continuing to approve and debate your drivel.
you continue to miss my brilliant point that one has to look beyond party labels and to the nature and motives of the people the spirit and motivations behind the confederacy is alive and well in todays republican party they are the party of greed and selfishness their constant moves to eliminate social security medicare medicaid minimum wage laws food stamps welfare and rent control laws is well known i repeat they want to eliminate these programs because they have never believed in these programs in the first place the republican view of society is the law of the jungle survival of the fittest sink or swim your on your own they want to eliminate any and all protections for the people republicans believe in a extremest fanatical version of capitalism the democrats are the true moderates i reiterate if they could return to the days of slavery and pay people nothing the would in foreign policy they believe in shoot first ask questions later they have never met a war they did not like during the debates they each tried to out do each other on who would go to war sooner with iran or any other adversary they are warmongers pure and simple but the republicans days are numbered with the changing of the population the so called browning of america the immigrants from asia africa latin and cental america india and other areas the attitudes and evil human nature of the german scots-irish with their greedy selfish nature and obsession with guns[read a book learn a foreign language or musical instrument or exercise instead] and religion[there is no god] will come to an end
Keep talking. Your self-proclaimed “brilliance” is simply more proof of your blatant bias and ignorance.
I’m fairly certain you could not actually infer motives if they were literally plastered upon ones face. Your obvious bigotry and lack of understanding about basic human psychology is only exceeded by your bombastic stereotyping of about 150 million Americans. Whichever group has spoon-fed you your opinion has certainly done so with magnificence. I would be interested to know the process.
If people like you are the future of this country then every single one of us is totally screwed, and you most of all. In “your” America, there won’t be a place for someone as thoroughly doltish as you are. You’ll be the victim of eugenics, George Bernard Shaw style.
Thank GOD we live in a country where people have the freedom to be as ignorant as you are. It gives the rest of us opportunity to highlight the obvious failures of our education system.
You should look up stats on charity.
US citizens are by far the most charitable people on earth, even though we’re supposedly “evil” and “selfish”. Of US citizens, religious people are the most charitable. Conservatives are more charitable than liberals. This is proven fact, corroborated by multiple sources (charity navigator being one of them). Go look it up yourself.
By the way, not only do I believe in God and own guns, but I also have learned music (as an adult), speak one foreign language (Spanish) fairly well and am learning another (Italian), run about 7 miles a week, and I read more books per year than you’ve probably read in the last 5. Oh, and I’ve voted for both Democrats and Republicans, so your lecture about looking beyond party labels falls flat.
It is you, sir, who appear incapable of looking beyond party labels. You paint “republicans” with an immeasurably broad brush, exhibiting just the kind of hypocrisy I’ve come to expect from small minded people.
you conservatives always mention charity to show you are generous this is a cop out charity as we know is voluntary it is not a substitute for solving society’s problems with charity it is up to the individual if to give when to give how much to give it has no force of law this is not the way to solve many of society’;s pressing problems such as poverty homelessness hunger joblessness and lack of health care only the force of law through a comprehensive tax policy applied to everyone equally will hope to solve these problems one cannot solve these complex problems of society hoping on the good will of people to rely on the whim of people to give -if when and how much is not policy and a solution to our problems
Charity is huge. Charity is good for the giver AND the receiver. There are actually studies that prove this.
Welfare/entitlements, on the other hand, are bad for both. The government forcibly takes money from someone who earned it (who then resents the fact that it was taken), literally wastes 30% of it, and then poorly distributes the remaining 70% to people who don’t appreciate it, don’t feel incentive to get off the program, and keep voting for more benefits for themselves. Some success… that’s a formula for epic collapse.
It seems like you liberals hate charity. Why else would you literally call the charity of a person a ‘cop out’? I suppose because you consider it your responsibility not to actually PERSONALLY help your fellow man, but to sit in the comfort of your mom’s basement and bloviate on how OTHER people need to be required to help people. Yeah, real insightful and generous. You people are always generous with OTHER people’s money. Completely ass-backwards.
50 years ago, the family poverty rate was about 12%. In 2010, the family poverty rate was about 12%. Liberals have spent $15 trillion dollars on the so-called “war on poverty” and we’ve literally made zero progress. The “war on poverty” also completely ignores the concept of income mobility.
None of the problems you outlined are solvable by more government involvement.
The failed “war on poverty” proves the government can’t “fix” poverty through entitlement programs.
If liberals are so worried about hunger, why do they pass bills that drive up the cost of food? Corn ethanol requirements makes a staple more expensive, which hurts lower-income people the MOST and also causes hunger problems worldwide.
Joblessness can’t be solved by passing entitlement programs. The only statistic reliably correlated with unemployment is GDP growth. Government is strangling our economic growth with burdensome regulation, not that I would ever expect you to believe that since you obviously have no idea how business actually works. Still, you must have the capacity to use the Internet, so go research GDP, unemployment, poverty, and tax revenues. It ALL hinges on GDP growth. Get government out of the way and unleash the full potential of our economy, THEN problems like poverty, unemployment, and homelessness will start solving themselves.
the republican plan to slash taxes and regulations and hope the benefits trickle down is a fallacy the objective of any company is to turn a profit a company will do it with as few workers or if possible no workers as possible they are not going to hire people out of the goodness of their heart nor will they pay a living wage health care and pension contributions paid vacation sick leave and maternity leave all this was accomplished with government action likewise environment and workplace safety and product integrity all came about through government agencies such as the epa fda osha and other agencies private business would have never done these things on their own because maximizing profit and cutting costs is the name of the game you conservatives want to give capitalists a free reign you trust them to do the right thing i don’t without government acting like a watchdog history has shown the greedy capitalists will try to get away with any and everything including slavery after all slavery was a capitalist institution go read upton sinclairs the jungle in which he describes the meat packing industry at the turn of the last century and the abuses that went on teodore roosevelt in reaction to it created the fda you conservatives want to get rid of taxes and governmental regulations because it cuts down your profit margins its for the same reason you deny global warming you conservatives say you believe in god but your real god is the almighty dollar
OK now you really are venturing into downright stupidity.
Show me where in history there has ever been a capitalist dictator?
Show me where a free market has ever resulted in totalitarian rule?
It’s IMPOSSIBLE. The only way slavery and totalitarianism can occur is WITH THE SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT. No private citizen or company has the power to make you a slave. But government does. No person can bust into your house and take something from you by force and get away with it, but the government can.
The government does have a role to play. That role is to ensure my rights cannot be trampled by you. That includes the right to KEEP what *I* produce for use by me and my family before having it taken from me to pay for someone who doesn’t work as hard as I do. If a person works at the behest of someone else, how is that not slavery in and of itself?
Let me ask you something: assuming you are actually employed (which seems to be a big “if” at this point) do you show up at your job and expect no pay?
Of course not. You expect compensation for your time. Your profit margin is as large as the number of hours you’re willing/able to work. You would never go to work for 8 hours without PROFITING from your investment of time.
PROFIT is a good thing, because PROFIT only occurs when one side produces a good that someone else is willing to pay for. If PROFIT didn’t exist, there would be no such thing as an economy. Your vilification of profit reveals a serious amount of ignorance about the realities of a strong economy.
Your comments about the EPA, OSHA, and FDA continue to reveal your ignorance. Obviously you’ve never run a business or had to comply with these rules. You might as well be telling an engineer how to build an airplane. I don’t think you’d actually want to fly in said airplane, yet somehow you trust your (complete lack of) knowledge to be relevant when discussing business. What a laugh.
Trickle-down is also a misnomer and once again reveals your ignorance about business. If you had ever actually started a business, you would realize that the people who get paid FIRST are the employees, the vendors, the suppliers, etc. The business owner is the LAST guy to get paid. Most small businesses fail, and most that succeed do not become profitable for years.
All you have to do is turn on the Food Network and watch Restaurant Impossible for a perfect example of small business owners who put themselves last. THEY HAVE TO! Employees won’t show up if they don’t get paid. Vendors won’t deliver food if they don’t get paid. Yet the owners — the very same people you vilify as evil and rich — will continue to show up for YEARS without ever making a profit because they believe in the dream and they have a passion for it.
It’s not “trickle down” at all. Business can’t operate without paying it’s bills FIRST. So what if the guy at the top finally strikes it rich? More power to him, he put in his time.
By the way, conservatives don’t trust capitalists to “do the right thing.” You’ve got it totally wrong.
We trust the nature of the MARKET to do the right thing. Which is to say, we believe in the power of the CONSUMER. A business can’t be successful unless it produces a product or service that other people are actually willing to fork over hard-earned cash to have or use. Well, either that or the business needs a powerful friend in your beloved government bureaucracy to help them monopolize a market (like health insurance companies not being allowed to compete over state lines).
If a business fails to produce a compelling product or service, they will go bankrupt because the CONSUMER will not trade their money for it. THAT is the interaction in which we conservatives place our trust. Not in the guys at the top. Those guys want to make a buck, sure… but they can’t do it without convincing the rest of us that they deserve the money. I trust in their desire to do that, and my own ability to be a selective consumer.
Another thing you fail to recognize is the value of profit margin to the everyday person. With a wall street company, where do you think that profit goes? Thousands of companies deliver their profit out to investors in the form of dividends. Even if they don’t issue dividends, the fact that the company continues to produce profits drives their stock value higher, which increases the value of investments (such as mutual funds) in that company.
And guess who is invested in the stock market? Somewhere around 70% of this country is invested in the stock market one way or another, either via individual stocks, mutual funds, 401Ks, IRAs, or other managed or individual investments. So for all your talk about cutting the profit margin, the end-result of your strategy would actually be to lessen the value of the retirement investments for the vast majority of the country. Yeah, that’s a great idea there genius.
BTW, clearly you have not bothered to research much about Sinclair’s work. The Jungle was filled with deliberate misrepresentation of fact, sensationalism, and cherry-picked examples that were not representative of the overall industry.
You also fail to comprehend the ramifications.
His book let to the giants in the industry to call for greater regulation from Congress. Congress complied and passed laws, which drove the cost of doing business up. This increase in the cost of doing business drove the small players out of the industry, leaving only the big companies who had the money and personnel to more easily absorb the cost of the new regulations. In essence, big government and big business engaged in crony capitalism to force out competition under the guise of protecting the consumer from a problem that didn’t really exist. It was such a bad consequence that even Sinclair himself opposed it. But I guess you didn’t know that.
Also, Roosevelt despised Sinclair. This is what he wrote about him: “I have an utter contempt for him. He is hysterical, unbalanced, and untruthful. Three-fourths of the things he said were absolute falsehoods. For some of the remainder there was only a basis of truth.” So it’s interesting you link the two together. Interesting, but not surprising. Facts typically don’t get in the way of your kind of argument.
Your trust in the government agencies is sorely misplaced. If the FDA is so amazing, why is Avandia still on the market? The company’s own research shows that it increases the risk of stroke and heart attack. It is literally killing people, the FDA has known about it since at least 2005, and yet they have taken no action. The FDA’s approval of a drug signals to consumers as well as to doctors that the drug is safe. The FDA’s continued refusal to pull approval for Avandia continues to signal that the drug is safe.
If the FDA didn’t exist, there would be independent review boards to do the same job, only they wouldn’t be harboring entrenched interests or intentionally doing lower quality work as a way to strongarm Congress into increasing its funding. Likewise, drug companies wouldn’t be relying on lobbying (aka “bribery”) of government officials to forcibly suppress FDA objections. Think Consumer Reports but for drugs instead of cars and TVs.
The problem with your ideology is that you really have no imagination. For some reason, your brain just automatically goes to “more government!” as the answer to everything. You really cannot even begin to fathom the solutions to our societal problems that could arise if the government would actually let it happen. Instead, it creates some sluggish, monolithic, inefficient bureaucracy that claims to protect you but actually does a poor job at it.
Frankly, I can’t believe people are stupid enough to keep signing on for more government at all.
there are numerous examples of companies cutting corners by cutting costs maintenance and safety have been compromised resulting in serious injury and death to workers customers and consumers these incidents have occurred at home and aboard and are too numerous to list but just to name a few airlines coal mines factories and this was with some government regulations imagine what would happen with no government oversight as you would like capitalists cannot be trusted to do the right thing because money and profits are at stake and where there is money there is greed and where there is greed there is evil if capitalists cold be trusted to do the right thing the great karl marx would never have had to write the communist manifesto he wrote this in london in 1880′s after witnessing the deplorable working conditions in the workhouses and sweat shops of the industrial revolution-a condition greedy conservative capitalists like yourself would like to return to with your union busting and opposition to a minimum wage let alone a living wage karl marx was right when he said -workers of the world unite you have nothing to lose but your chains!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was wondering when Marx would make his appearance. Communism is responsible for more death and oppression than basically any other form of government. Stalin, Lenin, Mao. Communism is a lie which people like you latch onto because you loathe the responsibility of actually making it on your own. You would literally rather have some “politburo” making decisions about your life than having to do it yourself.
Go pick up Pastor, Martyr, Prohpet, Spy by Bonhoeffer if you want to know the REALITY of Communism.
You are so bloody ignorant its appalling. You think the conditions were bad during the industrial revolution? You should think about how thing were BEFORE the industrial revolution. Yes, workplace safety and conditions were bad during those days. But people still went to work WILLINGLY. Why? Because the industrial revolution created opportunity. Prior to those sweatshops, families toiled away the same amount but did so on their own farms. The diversification of labor is what allow people to advance beyond the days of growing their own food and bartering at the market.
Your assessment that capitalists and CEOs don’t care about their workers is also false. Most companies provide safety courses well beyond the minimum government requirements. Nobody WANTS their employees to get sick or die. Even if you believe the CEOs to be evil, that doesn’t change the fact that the company still has a lot invested in a good employee. Training, experience, productivity, loyalty. These are important to business owners, not that you would know because you’re clearly clueless about business in general.
So, sorry, but you’re just flat out wrong. History is not on your side here. You should move to China or Russia for awhile and see if you agree or disagree.
Mr., James, I have to disagree with you here therefore lets pick it apart. Well I disagree with you both on many levels however; I will only address this one.
“(1) Your assessment that capitalists and CEOs don’t care about their workers is also false. Most companies provide safety courses well beyond the minimum government requirements.
(2) Nobody WANTS thier employees to get sick or die.
(3) Even if you believe the CEOs to be evil, that doesn’t change the fact that the company still has a lot invested in a good employee. Training, experience, productivity, loyalty. These are important to business owners, not that you would know because you’re clearly clueless about business in general”
My reply to Sir
1. The only reason why “safety courses” are in place is because people died and fought for better working conditions over the decades, and I shall elaborate why with sarcasm, “DUH” government requirements. Then why would there be a need for “government requirements if you truly believe in what you are saying?”
2. From my experience it is an inconvenience because it is too time consuming, and costly to train and replace someone. It hurts the bottom line.
True story here: we had one fellow die and were instructed to put him on a pallet so production can continue. This was in early 2000.
3. Evil, no! Just a different mindset because most do think they are superior and his or her employees is a tool to a means and nothing more. Why do you think corporation outsource or move their operations to Mexico or overseas? Not because they care about you! I have heard these people talk and the truth is not pretty, the shareholders and the bottom dollar dictates their action regardless what you may think.
Furthermore lets take loyalty since they sure don’t give a crap about your loyalty because at the first opportunity they will dump a loyal employee first chance they get to save a buck and put millions in their pocket and so would you. Of course they have a lot invested and they will protect that investment without second thought for you or your family and oddly enough when corporations do start down sizing, outsourcing or whatever, it generally is around holidays, go figure.
In conclusion I will not summarize this up for you, you do it because right now you are clueless with your above statement, just look at the trend and see for yourself. Checkout HP, Western digital, Xerox, Standard brands (Fleischmann’s yeast) Planters, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Lays, and most recently Hostess with to many others to list, cheap labor without government interference is one of the reason why they relocate not to mention to avoid paying a living wage and health-care.
I don not necessarily agree with all what John Brown is saying or how it is expressed however he does have some valid points and for you to negate everything he is saying is only showing your ignorance.
Billy
if greedy capitalists like you would have their way we would see a small economic elite at the top and a race to the bottom for the rest of us with little or no middle class if unbridled capitalism created prosperity and justice in the first place there would have been no slavery no sweat shops to begin with the fact of the matter is capitalism did not correct these abuses and exploitation of its own accord but had to be pushed and forced to do right thing by unions protests marches demonstrations and voting for left-wing political parties that brought pressure to bear to force them to do the right thing it has always been the left and progressives who fostered change and progress for society it was they who created unions social security medicare medicaid minimum wage laws fought for civil rights womens rights and gay rights you right-wing reactionaries stood in the way time and time again and opposed these programs there’s a reason you’re called conservative because you want to conserve the past as it was with no social change or progress if conservative capitalists could have maintained slavery they would after all why bother paying a minimum wage if you could pay no wage more profits right!!! the fact of the matter is conservatives want to roll back the clock on all this progress we’ve made and go back to a time when workers had no rights and no voice this must be fought tooth and nail forever we will never surrender and continue to fight you greedy conservative bastards to the end of time
if conservative capitalists like you have their way there would be a small economic elite at the top and a race to the bottom for the rest of us with little or no middle class the fact remains that capitalism would have never corrected its abuses like slavery sweatshops and economic exploitation of workers of its own accord but had to be pushed constantly throughout time and history by left-wing progressive groups and organizations you right-wingers want to turn the clock back to a time when workers had no rights and no voice there’s a reason you conservatives are called conservative because you want to conserve the past with no social change or progress time and time again you people have stood in the way of all social reforms and progress it was the left-wing and progressive groups who fought for workers rights civil rights womens rights gay rights minimum wage laws social security medicare medicaid rent control laws you greedy conservative bastards fought all these things you conservatives want to roll back the clock on all of these things if you could you would go back to slavery after all why pay minimum wage when you could pay no wage more profits for you right!!!!!!! we on the left will fight and oppose you to the bitter end the end of time we will never retreat never surrender until we see ground into the dust
Man, I don’t think you’ve said one correct thing this entire conversation.
In the U.S., it was the northern Republican businessmen who supported ending slavery. They recognized that free people were far more productive than slaves, and that free people were also able to consumers of their goods. Slavery is actually IMPOSSIBLE under true free-market capitalism.
However, the southern Democrats used GOVERNMENT to retain slavery, and even used GOVERNMENT to leave the Union in an effort to protect their entrenched interests.
Freedom and free-market capitalism go hand in hand. Communism, Socialism, and all the other collectivist ideologies are what actually leads to oppression and enslavement.
Since you obviously have no interest in actually utilizing your brain, I imagine you won’t bother to read that book I recommended. It’s long and you’ll probably find it boring. Go pick up “Shakedown Socialism” instead. It’s short enough that the average person can read it in a single sitting. It’s written by someone who has actually lived under the system of government you want. Read it.
As for your other points, it was Republicans who originally pushed for civil rights and Democrats who opposed it. It was Republicans who originally pushed for women to have the right to vote, and about 50% of Democrats opposed it.
Minimum wage drives up the cost of goods that minimum wage workers want to buy, or sends the minimum wage jobs overseas, thereby reducing the jobs actually available to minimum wage employees. It never actually lets a minimum wage worker get ahead. Minimum wage is a farce and failure and only an intellectually stunted individual fails to understand this basic logic.
No conservative wants slavery. Your bombastic charges are without merit and, frankly, are the ugliest and most dishonest charge you can level at us. I laugh at your ignorance.
No business owner wants to pay their employees nothing. They want to pay the employee whatever the employee is willing to earn to do the job. If the pay is too low, the employee will quit and find a better job. This does not benefit the employer, who spent anywhere from 2 weeks to 6 months training said employee. Again, your comments reveal a crippling ignorance about how business functions.
Social security is broken. 75% of all people who pay into it never receive in benefits the full value of their investment. Despite that, it’s still on track to become insolvent.
Medicare and Medicaid are broken. They are a band-aid on a broken arm. This doens’t necessarily mean they should be eliminated entirely. Providing health care for the elderly is a complicated problem since they obviously cannot get regular health insurance due to the high likelihood of illness. It’s a falsehood to say all conservatives want to get rid of these programs. But we do recognize they are broken. It’s only you so-called “progressives” who actually want to “conserve” the broken system as-is.
Laughably stupid.
by the way bonhoeffer was a german lutheran minister who spoke out against the right wing nazis not communists and was executed for it your eagerness to smear communism caused you to make a massive blunder genius
Nazi’s weren’t “right wing” by USA standards. Nazi’s were socialists. Socialism is not “right wing” here in this country, it’s “left wing.” Socialism and Communism are cut from the same collectivist, big-government cloth. Clearly your research ability is limited.
Also, Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state. Conservatives do not believe in totalitarianism. So either way, you’re flat out wrong to associate Nazis with “right wing.” That’s just another tired and inaccurate talking point that you picked up somewhere and dutifully repeated without bothering to look into it.
BTW, in the German election of 1933 the Communist party supported the Socialist Hitler. Although the Communists didn’t specifically agree with Socialism, they felt that defeating Capitalism was more important. Well, you see where that ended up.
Communism and Fascism go hand in hand. When you trumpet Communism, you’re basically asking to be ruled by a dictator. History has proven this over and over yet you ignore it.
Here, I’ll help you out with some research on Communist dictators:
- Joseph Stalin: Between 20 and 100 million dead from starvation and government-sponsored murder
- Mao Tse Tung: 50 to 80 million dead from famine, torture, and Geroge Bernard Shaw-style eugenics
- Vladimir Lenin: Upwards of 8 million dead from starvation, disease, and execution
- Kim Il Sung: 1.5 – 2 million killed imprisoned and killed in “purges”
- Pol Pot: 1.7 to 2.5 million dead (in just THREE YEARS!) from malnutrition, poor medical care, and forced labor
- Mengistu Mariam: 500K to 1.5 million dead from genocide
- Kim Jong Il: Upwards of 1 million dead from starvation
The list goes on. The track record of your beloved Communist system isn’t very good. Only a downright fool would support the ideology that has led to so much oppression and death.
One final tidbit for you to chew on.
The USSR was a socialist state by constitutional authority, but was ruled by the Communist Party in a single-party system. Proof that both Communism and Socialism are cut from the same cloth and both ultimately tend to lead towards despotic oppression. Communism especially.
what you said about the nazis is flat out wrong the nazis were supported by the wealthy industrialists landowners aristocracy and the clergy all these groups had one thing in common hatred of communism the nazis were viewed as a bulwark against the left the nazis hated communism and hitler blamed the reichstag fire on the communists which the nazis actually set one of hitlers main motivations to invade russia in operation barbarossa was his hatred of communism the nazis used the socialist label as a smokescreen to garner votes the nazis wanted to co-opt the socialist name because socialism was very popular in germany among the people especially after ww1 the nazis were not a true socialist party as far as the us is concerned all the neo-nazis nazi-skins skinheads white supremacists kkk and nra all identify with the right wing and the republican party when david duke a former kkk leader ran for office it was no coincidence that he ran as a republican the republicans nazis fascists and other right -wing groups all have one thing in common –hatred of the left you can be assured that all the neo-nazis naziskins white supremacists kkk and other right-wing groups like the nra will all be voting for your friend romney come november there ‘s an old saying “show me your friends and i’ll see what you are” friends like these speaks volumes about the republican party
I figured it out. You are motivated by nothing more than petty jealousy. You want what other people have, or at least want them to not have it if you can’t. And then you have the audacity to call other people evil. Huh, sad.
Sorry but the Nazi party was a socialist party. Go look it up. Obviously you can’t argue it, so you’re hedging and diverting by saying they weren’t a “true” socialist party.
Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK and a lifelong Democrat.
David Duke ran as a Democrat in 1988. He also renounced his KKK affiliation. When he ran as a Republican, he was repudiated by the Republican party. He won a special election in Louisiana in a district that voted for Bill Clinton just a short while later. Duke was an opportunist, and his affiliation was resented by the Republican party. Of course, there’s no law saying people can’t call themselves Republicans. None of these things are adequate for creating causal relationships.
No mainstream Republican supports the KKK. No true conservative who believes in free market capitalism is a racist. The two views don’t mix.
This is extremely embarrassing for Jacky Ryan. Party replaces him that’s the big shock for him. Divorce records are very crucial records and used in important cases.