Brown/Whitman Race Gets Nasty! (crime, loans, home)

[Twinkle Toes]

No, it isn't Whitman "bull frog". It's Twinkle "bull frog". I don't need a spokesperson, TYVM.

[UB50]

I think it's important that a governor have some sense of morals and ethics and I don't believe Meg Whitman has either. I'm basing this on all the years she was at eBay.

I'm thankful for the Brown campaign finally giving a name to that stuff she does without any regard to morals or ethics.

[clongirl]

Originally Posted by californio sur

I agree. If Brown is a better person he will apologize for the word; it makes him look more mature and dignified to apologize. Whatever Whitman did to compromise her support may be pandering but to call her a "*****" and not apologize is beneath a professional person.

First of all he did apologize.

Secondly, HE didn't say it. Shall people hold you responsible for what your coworker says in private??

Thirdly, if you listen to what was actually being said (which very oddly was being recorded) , her actions absolutely scream "w***". Just like the word "as$#ole" describes a certain personality trait.

As a mom to four children, I don't have a problem with using the word "w****" to describe a male or a female (I've said it about certain musicians too) ...it's about giving something up to get some personal gain monetarily. Don't pretend you haven't called someone a jerk or something far worse behind their back. The boo hooing from people about someone calling her a name (in private) is really frickin' sad.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Why is it bad to get this union on Megs side? Isn't that what Jerry had done with all the other Unions? What is wrong with her getting them on her side? That is the Democrat game isn't it? When a Republican takes an idea from the Democrats playbook and uses it that candidate becomes a W....

[Gurbie]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Why is it bad to get this union on Megs side? Isn't that what Jerry had done with all the other Unions? What is wrong with her getting them on her side? That is the Democrat game isn't it? When a Republican takes an idea from the Democrats playbook and uses it that candidate becomes a W....

It's NOT bad (in my book) for Meg to get the unions on her side. My dad was in a cement worker's union for 35 years, and I've been in a police officer's "association" for thirty yrs (technically, as cops, we're not allowed to call them "unions"- that's why they're called "protective leagues", "associations", "benevolent societies", etc)

I WANT to support pols who support unions. It's what Whitman is alleged to have done to win the LAPD workgroup's support that is the issue (OK, here comes that dreaded "context" stuff again. Brace yourselves, Righties! )

The fact is, Whitman, like most corporate capitalists, DOES NOT support labor unions. She wants to break them up, because they allow workers to unite for better wages, working conditions, and benefits, all of which cut into the all-important profit margin. One way of doing that is by undermining their influence by, for example, attacking their pension plans.

Just about the only unions left in the US that still have great pension plans are the public worker's groups. The LAPD belongs to one such group. While Meg made all kinds of promises during her campaign to push for "reforms" for public employees' pensions, she apparently cut a side deal with the LAPD to lay off their pension, in exchange for their endorsement. The Protective League endorsed Whitman on 09-16-10, catching Brown by surprise. Once he found out what was up, he made the now infamous call to the League president.

So, it's not that Repub Whitman stole Dem Brown's idea (though he probably wishes he'd thought of it first). It is that Whitman is a HYPOCRITE on this issue (see a pattern yet?) She campaigned for one thing, then back-doored her supporters when it was politically expedient.

If I was Meg, I'd keep the ***** word floating as long as possible, lest anyone see through to the real issue that is exposed here, i.e., her HYPOCRACY!!!

[UB50]

Gurbie,

If you read up on Whitman and eBay, you'll find her "word" is not worth very much.

I found this last night and thought it was interesting, if nothing else: What Does Carmen Electra, Cyber-Terrorism and Meg Whitman Have In Common? eBay! - Blogs - Digital Point Forums

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by Gurbie

It's NOT bad (in my book) for Meg to get the unions on her side. My dad was in a cement worker's union for 35 years, and I've been in a police officer's "association" for thirty yrs (technically, as cops, we're not allowed to call them "unions"- that's why they're called "protective leagues", "associations", "benevolent societies", etc)

I WANT to support pols who support unions. It's what Whitman is alleged to have done to win the LAPD workgroup's support that is the issue (OK, here comes that dreaded "context" stuff again. Brace yourselves, Righties! )

The fact is, Whitman, like most corporate capitalists, DOES NOT support labor unions. She wants to break them up, because they allow workers to unite for better wages, working conditions, and benefits, all of which cut into the all-important profit margin. One way of doing that is by undermining their influence by, for example, attacking their pension plans.

Just about the only unions left in the US that still have great pension plans are the public worker's groups. The LAPD belongs to one such group. While Meg made all kinds of promises during her campaign to push for "reforms" for public employees' pensions, she apparently cut a side deal with the LAPD to lay off their pension, in exchange for their endorsement. The Protective League endorsed Whitman on 09-16-10, catching Brown by surprise. Once he found out what was up, he made the now infamous call to the League president.

So, it's not that Repub Whitman stole Dem Brown's idea (though he probably wishes he'd thought of it first). It is that Whitman is a HYPOCRITE on this issue (see a pattern yet?) She campaigned for one thing, then back-doored her supporters when it was politically expedient.

If I was Meg, I'd keep the ***** word floating as long as possible, lest anyone see through to the real issue that is exposed here, i.e., her HYPOCRACY!!!

It's always ironic that those who strongly oppose unions are generally people who have never had the benefit of an association that lobbies for the average man and woman in the workplace. The typical Republican opposes anything unless they personally benefit. So if they happen to have a job that has union support they are pro-union but if they do not have a union where they work than they become resentful of those who do and demonize them. It is a total disconnect from empathy or a regard for their fellow man and woman. Republicans are only motivated by self interest and lack any concern for the community and nation if it means they have to contribute.

Democrats are on the side of the average person. Republicans are on the side of themselves and make great capitalists totally unconcerned about their fellow employees or citizens; thus: Whitman and Fiorina.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by californio sur

Republicans are only motivated by self interest and lack any concern for the community and nation if it means they have to contribute.

Democrats are on the side of the average person. Republicans are on the side of themselves and make great capitalists totally unconcerned about their fellow employees or citizens; thus: Whitman and Fiorina.

Look who drank the Democrat Kool-Aid!

Anybody who thinks there's only one side of the argument is suffering delusions.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

Anybody who thinks there's only one side of the argument is suffering delusions.

Ah, but MY delusions are more valid and real than other peoples'!

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

I think that both Whitman and Brown are a joke. I also do not support the unions and have no idea why a state worker has a union in the first place.