Dear John Schnatter

Dear John Schnatter,

I read your petulant comment that since it will require a 14 cent increase per pizza to provide healthcare to your employees, you've decided to just reduce full-time employees to 30 hours.  Sort of like you're sticking it to everyone that the election didn't go your way.

I am a very very loyal Papa John's customer but I have some news for you. 

You're a "ME TOO" product.  Pizza, even good pizza, can be found just about anywhere. 

I read the article today of your position on the issue.  Hey, you have the right to do whatever you like; it's your company.  But did you know that Starbucks offers healthcare to all of their employees, even their part-timers? It doesn't seem to hurt their bottom line.

After having read this article today, I found myself craving pizza like nobody's business.  So, I decided to log into Domino's and give them a try since it's been so long.  I discovered something while there.  They have a new crust called called Brooklyn Style.  OMG, that is my favorite.  They get what makes it so great.

You lost me the first time because of your petulance; but now you've lost me because I just discovered, Dominos has a better pizza.

There's a really really important saying in business, "People like doing business with people they like."  I think that's true for companies, too.  I don't like you anymore Papa John, you seem petulant and shortsighted;  I don't won't to contribute to your profits.

You just lost your first loyal patron.

GFT

Oh no he didn't!

Romney said "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/18/romney-sticks-by-victims-comments-but-calls-them-off-cuff/#ixzz26pqc1ahs

I cannot believe how stupid this man is.  I really cannot but what's worse is how disappointed I am that so many people continue to believe that he can lead our country through anything.  

Does anyone have a clue how hard Obama is working to win this election?  While serving the role of President, he is also campaigning his heart out.  He has pulled in the assistance of the Clintons and others to help him.  Does Romney really believe that Obama is working this hard for a bunch of free-loaders?  

Though not in this quote, he also said these people don't pay taxes.  Really?  Is that why Romney has been so forthcoming with his own returns?  Because the way I see it, he's hiding the truth about his personal responsibility.

You know, he may have a great plan to get us out of debt but his stupidity will create such chaos and disorder that he'll end up driving us deeper into this hole.  He opens his mouth without thinking; and when he's caught in the error, he doubles-down.  Rather than correct his path, his pride drives him further into it.  I see him getting us into a useless war simply because he refused to rethink a position.

But here's the real question.  If Obama's supporters are all free-loaders looking for government handouts, who's funding his campaign?  Obama has raised a lot of money!  I suspect that Romney's constituents have allowed the wealthier among them to fund his campaign while Obama's constituents have taken matters into their own hands.

The Nasties are back.

During the conventions, especially the Republican convention, I noticed how nasty my Republican Facebook friends were being.  Interestingly, they were cyber-nasty.  I see a lot of these people in public and they are very nice and cordial; and more than likely would not say what they say on Facebook directly to my face.  This is an interesting phenomenon to me.

I think the nasty was an attempt to lower support for Obama in order to help bump Romney.  Romney didn't get a bump.  I don't even think he got a nudge.

Then came the Democratic convention.  And though Fox News disagrees, they hit it out of the park.  Michele Obama, Julian Castro and Bill Clinton really drove it home and after the convention, Barack Obama got quite a nice bump ahead of Romney.

Well, my Republican friends, though they don't want to admit it, are discovering that Romney just cannot do what needs to happen to come up in the polls. So, they are back to nasty cyber attacking in order to tear down the lead the Obama has.

I really hate it; and people I liked and had respect for are falling so far from grace.  It makes me wonder about their character.    I get the same icky feeling I would get when I was young and being picked on in school.  These cyber bullies are adults yet they behave like they are 12 and 13. 

I've heard people say this is the most important election in their lifetime; but it was being said by the Republicans.  And they said as though there was nothing but doom on the horizon.  I thought they were exaggerating.  But I don't feel that way anymore.  It is the most important election in my lifetime; I fear that we will lose our freedom to speak out if Obama loses.  The cyber bullies will win.

I think I need to sign off now so I can donate to Obama's campaign.

Mounting anger with the Republican Party

Here are two very interesting events. Event probably isn't the right word but I'm at a loss for something more appropriate.

Here is the first.

And the second:

I'm seeing a pattern of frustration in dealing with the Republican Party. They have become so dishonest and extreme and when you talk to them, they don't want to address any specific points. If you'll notice in the second video, the chairman continues to answer questions with questions. He won't address the issue. THERE IS NO DIALOG.

I'm seeing this with my extreme right peers.

This election is really important. The Republicans are out of control and I fear the consequences if they get re-elected in office. I've never been so concerned as this.

In both instances, the men are venting their frustration with the party. They are not allowing themselves to be interrupted because their point needs to be made.

Chris Matthews has a really strong B.S. meter.

Wilkes, Akin and the Republican Party

I think that a lot of people don't understand the significance of the Akin slip. When Akin discussed the issue of legitimate rape, he was serious. He really did, and possibly still does, believe that to be true. Afterall, a real doctor said so.

But what does this doctor have to do with the rest of the Republican Party?

The Pro-Life movement wants all abortions banned; even in cases where the pregnancy is a result of rape and incest. The only political party that is going to make that happen is the Republican Party. The problem is that a lot of the men in that party are having problems with the idea of a woman being forced to carry her rapists baby.

So, forward steps Dr. Wilkes, whose role it is to help get these folks over the idea that a woman would have to be forced to carry her rapist's baby.

Recently, I used the word uterus on my facebook page during an argument with a right wing male friend during an argument about Akin. At the very mention of this organ, my friend decided to exit the argument - said the word uterus made him queasy. I believe this is very typical. The men in Washington who are being encouraged to legislate this law have no interest in understanding the biology and anatomy of the female body. If a doctor comes along and tells these men what they need to know, without using words like vagina and uterus, then that would be more comfortable.

Akin believed Dr. Wilkes when he said that a woman's body shuts down during a rape and prevents pregnancy. And I'm certain when he got that particular lesson on female biology, that he was among many of his Right Wing colleagues. His colleagues accepted this argument because it helped them to find it conscionable to ban abortion, even in the case of rape. If indeed a rape victim got pregnant, then the rape was not legitimate and the lawmaker doesn't have to feel guilty for his position on the subject.

Romney is not that far removed from Wilkes. As discussed in this article. He's trying to distance himself from Akin's remarks. And truth-be-told, Romney probably doesn't believe Wilkes' rhetoric. The problem, however, is that Romney probably wasn't vocal enough against it because he wants the Party's support.

The disturbing issue here is that Akin inadvertently pulled back the curtain and let us look inside. And what we saw was that men wanted to make decisions about the rights of women based on bogus information. It left us with the question regarding other bogus information they received on other issues. It revealed a complete lack of interest in gathering accurate information. The Republican Party has become a group of really ignorant people who have made it a point to remove themselves as far as they possibly can from the people they govern. They set rules without regard to impact.

Obama really needs to win this election. If he loses, I believe women are at risk of becoming less than 2nd class citizens. The Pro Life Movement wants to reduce the significance of a woman to less than that of a zygot and the Republican Party is about to deliver it to them.

Paul Ryan for President....er, I mean, Vice President

Interesting choice this Paul Ryan for VP.

You know, I can almost hear Romney say "How do you like me now!?, Huh?....Huh?" He can't win this standing on his own two feet, so he picked someone younger, more vibrant, and with stronger ideas than his own.

In other words, he's defining himself through his Vice President.

So, Ryan's first stop is to campaign in Iowa while Obama is there. He's putting his VP up against Obama instead of facing him off on his own. Does this mean that Romney will face off against Biden?

So this leads to the next question.

Who, exactly, is the GOP presenting as it's choice for President? Romney or Ryan?

Romney's introduction of Ryan as the Next President of the United States sort of has a Freudian slip feel to it. Even when he talks up Ryan on 60 Minutes, he touts Ryan as a leader and a man who gets things done. In other words, it almost sounded like he was saying he had his own "Obama" on his team now.

Barack Obama doesn't need a strong V.P. pick to win this election; he's got what it takes to do it on his own. I think that's what it comes down to between these two men. Ryan claims that Obama isn't a leader but he's wrong. Romney is the one lacking leadership skills, that's why he's picking Ryan. People are going to listen to Romney but they are going to wait to hear what Ryan has to say.

Ryan's not the kind of man to compromise. He is very tough on his positions and I feel pretty certain that there is a gentleman's agreement between Romney and Ryan that in order for Ryan to agree to take this place on the ticket, Romney has to agree to Ryan's Plan for Prosperity.

Ryan has taken a huge risk; if they lose this election, this could be the end of his influence in Congress. People won't have as much confidence in his ideas.

I do have to say that I'm glad Romney chose him. In doing so, he really did clearly define the differences between the two options.

I'm a Small Business Owner and I support Barack Obama

I have to admit that I fell for the trick. The GOP did a great job distorting what Barack Obama said about businesses. So, now that I have it all in perspective, I don't believe that our President is setting the ground for communist policies. It's all good.

Thank you Jon Stewart - you put it all in perspective.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

"You Didn't Build That" - a blunder, methinks.

As anyone who reads my blog knows, I strongly support Barack Obama. But even I had to take pause when I read his statement that because business owners got help along the way, they didn't build their businesses.

I have my own business. And yes, I received an SBA loan. But I also paid that loan back and I paid for it with money I earned. I have sacrificed a lot to get myself where I am today. I forfeited vacations and a lot of play time. I also endured an audit that shut me down for 6 weeks. I can assure you, no one else earned my money for me.

I understand where he is coming from but there is still an underlying concern that is gnawing away at me. Karl Marx argued this, too. I believe it was his Labor Theory of Value. Something to the effect that the laborers did all the work not the business owner and therefore the laborers should be compensated with almost everything the product yielded minus the cost of the materials used to create it.

In this argument, it doesn't seem to matter that the owner invested his own money into the capital equipment that made it possible for the laborer to do his job. Everyone ignores the fact that the owner identified a need for the service or product and created a way to produce it and deliver it to the market. There are many things that a laborer cannot or is not willing to do to create such opportunities for himself.

There is a reason that not every real estate agent becomes a broker. It's true that if one is the broker, one can earn a greater percentage from each transaction. But it also leaves one with the responsibility of building a brand, purchasing office equipment, insurance, advertising, etc. I don't know if Karl Marx was ever able to place a value on risk. But if you want to know why more people don't just jump out there and start their own business, the answer lies within one's comfort level in taking risk.

My second major concern about this comment is that even though he may not have meant it to it's extreme, the man coming behind Obama might. If we leave this comment unchecked and unchallenged, someone with very real dreams of power would have the stage set. I can't help but think of Lenin; if I'm not mistaken, when he discovered his "New Deal" was not working, he was going to put property back into the hands of the private sector. Stalin had him killed before he could do it; and well, we know how that turned out. There is someone in Obama's shadow that could see lots of potential here.

Now this scenario is the extreme. We all have seen that communism doesn't work and I don't for one second believe that this is going to lead to communism; but his statement lays the groundwork for it. Our country, and capitalism specifically, is based on the idea that we create our own wealth.

On the flip side, this does not mean that I support Mitt Romney. I think Mitt Romney is a fake and will sell this country down the river. He has abandoned his ideals in exchange for a place in the White House. Once there, he's going to owe a lot of crooked people a lot of favors. He's not going to make this country better. He's going to go with status quo and continue policies that help people that don't need help.

I'm stuck and I need to know Obama knows better.

Joe Biden Hits the Nail on the Head

"“A job is about a lot more than a paycheck. It’s about your dignity. It’s about your self-respect. It’s about your place in your community. It’s about who you are.” —VP Biden on the road in Ohio.

He gets me....he really gets me.

I don't like who I become when the only goal in life becomes the money.

A Letter to Romney

Dear Romney:

Why should I vote for you to be President of the U.S.? I see that you are a financial success and that you found ways to make money by exploiting opportunities. Yes, you're very clever at making money.

I am not in a position to exploit any situation in order to make a living and I don't have money to put into a Swiss bank but am in a position to earn my living. I work very hard earning my money.

My problem is that I want to like the choices I've made at the end of the day; can you relate to that? Having money in the bank is important, yes. Being able to meet all my financial obligations is important, yes. But I need to like who I am at the end of the day.

Should I be finding more ways to exploit the system so that I can put more money in my bank account? When you decided that outsourcing was a good idea, did you care about how this would impact anyone? If these tough choices were necessary in order to keep making money for yourself, what tough choices should I expect you to be making if you're President? Who will you really be thinking about when you make those tough choices?

Do you believe it's ok to make a buck anyway you can....as long as it's legal? Is that the standard, now?

"Make a buck anyway you can as long as it's legal" I wonder how long I would be in business if that were my motto.

I have to believe that I can be an honest, forth-right person and still be able to make a living and even have something in the bank. It's detrimental to my happiness.

I just don't think you get that. Something tells me, it's all about the win and the money. Everything else can fall to the wayside.

Tell me, how are you a better choice than Barack Obama?

A Girl from Texas

Romney Supports Health Insurance for Everyone

"I think my plan is a good plan that should be adopted by other states...... I would not mandate at the federal level that every state do what we do. But what I would say at the federal level is, "We'll keep giving you these special payments we make if you adopt plans that get everybody insured." I want to get everybody insured. " Mitt Romney 2008 TRANSCRIPT: ABC News

"The former Massachusetts governor said the mandate was necessary to achieve universal coverage in the state.

In order to qualify for the tax exemption, Romney added "...you gotta have health insurance because we want everybody in the system. No more free riders."

During the interview Romney held up his health care law as a model that "could inform Washington on ways to improve health care for all Americans." CNN Romney's health care mandate included tax penalty.

Affordable Health Care - we need the facts

Ok, Ms. Stephanie Cutter, we need the hard facts on the Affordable Health Care Act so we can let people understand what it is the Republicans want to take away from us. Ever heard of the "take away close"? You have a great opportunity here to use the Republicans determination to take this act away from us to actually win on the Affordable Health Care Act.

*********************************************************************************

Here is great information from Stephanie Cutter.

Stephanie Cutter...telling it like it is.

Here's another video by Stephanie Cutter. She's talking about Mitt Romney's track record as it relates to outsourcing.

Romney, out of touch? Really?

I'm shocked! Truly, I am. Here's the story.

Please make more like this

I love this ad. It's easy for me to post it on my facebook without feeling "political". It doesn't flame anyone and it isn't cynical. I don't feel manipulated when I view it. So, to the powers that be.....Please, make more like this one! Thanks GFT

Borrow the Money from your Parents

Did he really say this?  Mitt Romney seems to think that students who want further education but can't afford to pay for it themselves actually have a choice to borrow the money from their parents.  First of all, most parents want more for their children than they have for themselves and would pay for their children's education if they could afford it.  Secondly, parents don't loan education money to their children, they give it to them.  It's their own investment as they hope their children will be in a position to help them in their "golden years".

C'mon, Mitt, I'm just waiting for it.....when are you gonna say it?  "Let them eat cake",  you're so close.

Ann Romney and being a "stay at home mom".

There's a lot of hoopla over Ms. Romney's statement that she chose to be a stay at home mom.

Politicians, like those running for President or any other office, are public servants. We vote them in. So they have to convince the majority of us, so to speak, to buy into their rhetoric. How do they do that?

Well, there are a variety of approaches. A common one is to convince the public their future is in danger of various dastardly events and then present yourself as the savior or solution. Then combine that savior image with the idea that you are just like your voters.

This latter half can be a more difficult challenge because it's hard to hide who you are. In the case of Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann, they are very wealthy. There is nothing wrong with success or with wealth. The problem goes back to the idea that Mr. Romney is running to be a public servant. Does he understand the public and what we need from our leaders? That's the question.

So, when Ann steps forward and says she chose to be a stay at home mom to raise 5 boys while sitting by her husband, it is seen as part of a campaign, or "sales pitch" for the "we're just like you" part of the marketing strategy. It's her way of connecting to the women of this country and demonstrating herself as a traditional mom. But it's also a way of trying to demonstrate that she and her husband are a typical family, like the rest of us, and that this qualifies them to understand the "public" challenges and needs.

In my opinion, here is where the problem lies. Yes, she stayed at home and raised her beautiful boys. That is wonderful. I respect her choice. But does making this decision really make her just like every other woman who made this same choice? I don't think it does. She had the financial means to hire maids, nannies, chefs, etc. to help her so she could be freed up to do some things that fulfilled her. She has a wardrobe of beautiful evening wear that she actually had multiple occasions to enjoy. Spending a day at the spa to get a break and rejuvenate with girlfriends was easy. In other words, feeling the pressure of making her life work financially was not part of the equation. I doubt she clipped coupons. I doubt there was much concern regarding the cost of sending her boys to college. A trip to Disney World or anywhere else was just a matter of fitting it on the schedule.

Whether or not there's truth in the claim that Marie Antoinette said "let them eat cake", a book I read put the statement into this context. A party was being held at the castle and a hungry, angry mob was at the gate. When she and the king were informed of their presence and the angry calls, she had a moment of compassion and suggested that they be given the pastries and such from their party. Obviously she meant well but she was clueless regarding their true plight.

So, if you hear the economic outlook from the Right side of the argument, it's dire. Is it as dire as it was in revolutionary France? It depends on which Fox pundit is speaking, perhaps. But I can't see much difference between the King and Queen of France and Mr. and Mrs. Romney. I absolutely do not believe they have a clue regarding the public they wish to serve.