User Profile: mvfoley1215

Member Since: December 30, 2011


  • [2] September 15, 2016 at 12:08am

    Bayless is has ignorant as so many are regarding the meaning of racism. Offensive behavior has nothing nothing to do with the meaning of racism. Racism is an “ism” meaning in short that it is a belief not an action or behavior. While beliefs may influence some action and/or behaviors it is other emotionally based reasons that have the greatest influence on our overt actions.

  • [2] June 7, 2016 at 5:06pm

    As is typical, Grair does not know the meaning of the words racism or racist. For the sake of explanation a racist is someone who subscripts to a belief in racism. Racism is a belief that there are differences between races that confer superior qualities to some race over other races. Grair like far too many confuse racism with things like bigotry, stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination to name a few. People who are truely racist don’t give their racism a second thought. They are not intimated or threaten (financially, socially or economically) by those races they deem as inferior. They are more likely to offer financial charity to the people of that race or support government assistance, based on there belief that the people of that race simply can’t do things for themselves. The are more likely not to feel sorry for those of the group that are the worst off, much in the same way that some people can’t no understand the fuse made over dogs who are mistreated or roaming the streets starving.

    Gentrification, microaggression, diversity have nothing to do with racism. What is exactly “anti-racism work”? Racism is not by definition confirmed or exclusive to a single race. “POC” can and are just as likely to be racist, against of races of color or white. Grair claim that if you are white you are racist, is like saying if you are white you are Christian. Being White as nothing to do with it. It is how you view other racists.

  • [4] May 26, 2016 at 4:38pm

    It is more than just wanting to unionize the fast food industry. An increase in the minimum wage, especially one as large as this, impacts all hourly wage rates. On average a person who enters a minimum wage job advances beyond the minimum wage within 6 months. Supervisors who had worked their way up the ladder and now earning between $15 and $20 and hour, meaning that the business values them 2 to 3 times more than a beginning worker earning minimum wage. Now all of a sudden the beginning worker starts at $15. The Supervisors are going to have to have their hourly rate bumped up as well, but it would be extremely doubtful that a company could afford to value them at the same rate. And these rate increases continue to work their way through the system and they will have an impact on union jobs too. If a starting rate for a union job is currently $15 an hour if the minimum rate goes to $15 that union job will be increased. All of this without a single increase in productivity, meaning it is a net loss to the business. A business only choice will be to automate and/or get by with less employees. The extent to which businesses cannot cut payroll and/or increase productivity they will have to increase prices. These price increases will be purely inflationary, meaning that there is no increase in quality, service etc.
    Unemployment will go up and the group that will be hardest hit are those unskilled workers and young people working their first jobs. So the cost of l

  • May 18, 2016 at 5:28pm

    PolitiFact is dishonest in their appraisal of Reid’s comments regarding obstructing Supreme Court nominees. Reid wants a free pass and claims that He did obstruct a Supreme Court nominees. But that is only true because his efforts failed. And PolitiFact is not being factual is agreeing with Reid. That would be like Senator Mike Lee saying he never tried to repeal Obamacare based on the fact that it wasn’t repealed. I doubt PolicitFact would give Lee a free pass on that claim. The Facts are Reid wanted to obstruct the Supreme Court nomination of Alito, but he failed because he couldn’t control enough Democrat Senators. It is what you do that counts.

  • May 18, 2016 at 5:17pm

    This group of AG’s should be investigated under the very RICO statues that they are abusing to order to try and bully and shut down free speech. I mean the have even given themselves a name “AGs for Green Energy” and they are trying to use the law to make it illegal to disagree with them. If that isn’t a perfect definition of a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization I don’t know what is.

  • [-1] May 18, 2016 at 5:02pm

    The EPA is certainly an extremely bad agency that we have thanks to Richard Nixon, and is totally out of control. However, the employee mentioned in the article was a convicted “child molester”. Meaning that he had done his time and now re-enter society. Does Representative Chaffetz think that anyone convicted of a crime should never be allowed to work again????? Unfortunately, this seems to be the position of to many politicians an people in general.

    I know some are going to response in a predictable bigoty way, especially since this employee is a convicted ‘child molester’. And unless you have studied and researched the issue of how draconian our legal system has become and how absolutely damaging it has become for those convicted to ever be able to rejoin society and become productive members again. It is shameful. And Chaffetz does not say this employee has done anything wrong since his release or that he isn’t do the job, it is all based on the fact that he has served time.

  • [6] May 15, 2016 at 4:09pm

    I am no Trump supporter and my question about all this BS is so what, who gives a dam. What is the possible suggestion if it was Trump who made the calls, so what. Is anyone going to claim that they didn’t know he was/is a self promoter? Gi e me break. The same people, like MSNBC, NBC etc have spent more time on this than they have actually investigating Clinton’s email and bengazi lies.

    Responses (2) +
  • May 10, 2016 at 11:45am

    Trump’s total lack of understanding of even basic economics is astounding. The primary reason companies go to China or other countries is because assembling or manufacturing their products does not require skilled labor and the price of unskilled labor in this country cost way to much. So Trump’s plan is to increase the starting wage for unskilled labor even higher and putting tariffs on products US companies make abroad and ship back into the US. Note he states he will put tariffs on only US companies. So he will force more and more US companies either out of business altogether or force them to completely leave the country, because he would be giving an foreign companies a US government sactioned advantage.

    In addition he would also artificially be raising the price of many products to US consumers. The government making or forcing business to artificially set or raise the starting wage will never make that wage what they claim they want to do, create a “liveable wage”. The average lenght of time a current employee spends making minimum wage is around 6 months. Raising the minimum wage impacts all other wages up the line, forcing companies to raise prices, cut payroll (either in people, hours) or all of the above, with no increase in productivity.

    Never mind that Trump himself manufactures products over seas for these very reasons. Who would be hurt most by his actions? The unskilled and poor.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] May 4, 2016 at 2:32pm

    It is a matter of principal, something that appears lacking in so many Trump supporters. There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Donald Clinton and Hillary Trump. Not when you look at their long-standing position on many of the key issues of the day. Chief among then is respect for and belief that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land that can’t be changed or modified by Court rulings or laws that are in conflict with it.

    Trump, who has been a Democrat for 99% of his adult life, claims now to be a republican, says he will build a wall and instead of answering his critics with well thought out arguments simply calls them names and makes outrageous claims against them. He has on numerous occasions during the primary season made statements that betray his real belief system.

    I have voted in every presidential election since 1972, until last year when I decided that never again will I vote against my core values and beliefs simply because the candidate has the Republican tag. If we can’t stop and reverse the slide over the edge it is better that we should get out of the way and let it continue at full speed. The sooner that happens the sooner that a real and true reset can happen. But voting for someone who won’t even slow down the fall just so make yourself feel good is wrong and irresponsible to all freedom and liberty loving people and our kids and grandkids.

  • [1] April 28, 2016 at 9:34pm

    It comes as on surprise at all to me that Boehner is supporting Trump, after all Boehner doesn’t have any core values either, is only interested in building his own power base and will say anything in order to do it.

    It is no wonder that Boehner would think Cruz is the devil. Evil unprincipled individuals always think those who expose them are the bad guys. A common tactic of evil people is to call those who expose them the name that most aptly applies to them.

    What a sorry excuse of a person Boehner is. Bet he is begging Trump to be considered as a VP candidate. God help us all.

  • [2] April 28, 2016 at 9:28pm

    I guess the editor of the Guardian has just talked himself out of a job, since one of the things a editor does to is catch and correct grammar.

  • [3] April 16, 2016 at 2:02pm

    Obama is putting lipstick on a pig as it heads to the slaughter house while trying to convince us that the pig is being protected. Government CAN NOT advance free markets and competition. All the government can do is decide which business and industries to favor and which to limit or destroy, PERIOD. Beware of Socialist bearing gifts.

  • [3] April 16, 2016 at 1:56pm

    Its nice to know despite all the times Jane has been wrong in her life on political issues that she nevertheless remains stead fast in her narrow minded socialist beliefs. I mean, really there will be violence in the street if Clinton becomes President because she is a woman. Give me a break. While there will not be any violence in the streets, the sounds you will hear will be the people building fences and locking up their property to protect it from her. But lets consider other possible reasons for people wanting to take violence to the streets if Clinton is elected. A criminal will have become President, a liar will be President (oh wait that will not be any different than what we have now), the rule of law will be mute, a fascist in the White House (versus a socialist/communist), we will have a criminal first husband, a further blow to the few remaining post holding up what remains of the Constitution, the end of the few remaining freedoms.

  • April 16, 2016 at 1:46pm

    Facebook’s claim is hollow. Just look at their action in North Carolina. So what they really mean is that “Voting is a core value of democracy and we believe that supporting civic participation is an important contribution we can make to the community,” Unless we disagree with the outcome in which case we will do everything in our power to punish the people who participated.

    What a bunch of hypocritical fascist. Facebook is one of the companies trying to use economic terrorism to force states to fall in line with Facebook’s CEO’s personal beliefs. While I would hope that people would start boycotting these companies, for many Facebook as become such a large part of their daily lives I doubt many would do so. I personally was almost ready to open a Facebook account but their actions in GA & NC convinced me to not do it. Other companies on my boycott list include Paypal (I have closed by account), Angie’s List, Arby’s, Coke, to name a few.

  • [5] March 30, 2016 at 6:38pm

    Nothing could point out better Trumps liberal progressive worldview than his own words stating that healthcare and education are two of the three main functions of the Federal government. Based on what does he come to this conclusion? Considering that the federal government has only been active in education since the 70′s and national healthcare since 2010 and the national healthcare and the publics hate of it are prime reasons why Trump is where he is.

    I know Trump supporters will disregard his very own words as long as he simply continues to attack anyone who attacks him, not with reasoned arguments but with prrsonal insults, many of Trumps supporters will continue to support him even if there core values, the Constitution and founding principle, don’t even come close to his.

    Wake up people and smell the bulls#&@.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] March 29, 2016 at 3:23pm

    Trump doesn’t understand trade either. In the interview he says the “…Our country is getting ripped off left and right by every country we do business with.” Now this isn’t even possible. Every country we do business with as agreed to buy or sell goods at a price mutually agreed upon. To claim that we are being ripped off left and right is akin of an individual saying “I do business with Wal-Mart everyday they always rip me off.” To which a reasonable person would ask either of two questions or both questions. One how are they ripping you off, you decided what to buy and bought it therefore by definition you were not ripped off.” The second question being “If you feel that way why are you doing business with Wal-Mart.” What Trump means by ripped off is the fact that many of those countries are supplying goods at a lower cost than they could be made in the US. His solution to is to either make them charge more for their products or impose a tariff. Bottom line in order to “help” a few thousand workers in this country, by making millions of consumers in this country pay an artificially higher price. A fact that US consumers have already rejected. If the US consumer were willing to pay $5 for a pair of socks and donate $20 dollars to US workers they would have done it. Now Trump’s plan is to force you to do it.
    Nothing Conservative, Free Market about his position.

  • [9] February 22, 2016 at 4:53pm

    I guess you think you know what is meant by “natural born citizen”. A term so familiar to the founders, as used in English common law and the International Laws of Nations, as to not needing further definition by then at the time. There are only four types of citizens period. Two types of which no longer apply, those being all individual who became citizens with the adoption of the Constitution and all former slaves who were made citizens by the 14th amendment. That leave only two types of citizens alive today. Those that are citizens at their birth and those that are not citizens at birth but at some point later become citizens. The latter are called Naturalized Citizens. The former are call Natural Born Citizens. The founders further acknowledged the principal of birth right citizen, a Natural Born citizen born on US soil to non citizen parents (the constitution spells out exactly what is considered US soil for this purpose). And because of this they specifically excluded certain individuals born on US soil from being granted Natural Born citizen status. Namely offspring of foreign emissaries (people in this country working for a foreign country).

    Cruz was a citizen at birth. Making him a Natural born citizen period the end.

  • [23] February 22, 2016 at 4:30pm

    Another millennial I am guessing. Can’t stay focused on anything longer than a slogan of 145 characters. I’ll first notice that you didn’t actually state why you are supporting Trump, only that “we don’t get it” whatever “it” is. Then you pick one thing to challenge the entire article and that is how much Trump donated to Dems. You justify this by claiming the he donated more to the GOP,, thereby missing the point altogether. It is akin brushing off a charge that someone donated money to the communist party by stating that the person donated more to non communist, although the non communist were all socialist.

    How much have you donated to democrats? For over 40 years of being in business and running my own business, of watching and supporting political candidates, I have given exactly ZERO to Democrats. All my financial support, has gone to Republicans, although there are a few of those that I regretted later. Then you claim him to be dishonesty, which actually goes to prove his point, and you are tired of dishonesty. But you are being dishonest in your reply and again missing the point about the donations. It is not a question of how much he gave to the GOP, the fact that he gave anything to Dems in general, but even worst to Pelosi, Reed and Schumer says everything about Trump that any reasonable individual should need to know. If it is dishonest you hate then supporting Trump makes you a moron.

    Responses (3) +
  • [155] February 22, 2016 at 4:05pm

    I am glad you see the truth in Mr. Walsh’s article. However I think it is extremely sad that you and others couldn’t focus long enough to get through the entire article. I am going out on a limb here and wonder if you and the others fall into that category call “millennials”. Where anything longer than 145 characters is simply to difficult to get through. The truth is that anything meaningful truth requires so much more.

    This inability to focus beyond 2 paragraphs is in my opinion one of the main reasons why the Democrats are so successful among the younger voters. It because the Democrats have always been a party of slogans. And slogans can be catchy and require zero critical thinking, or looking beyond the slogan itself. Trump replies heavily on slogans, ‘he is a liar’, ‘I am going to sue’ etc.

    So why I happy that you see the truth, I am disappointed that your weren’t able to get through this outstanding article, for it just shows what an uphill fight is in front of us.

    Responses (5) +
  • [4] February 20, 2016 at 12:54pm

    This is a totally different thing than what is being suggested in that article. Apple developed this encryption as a response to the DOHLS tracking and recording ALL cell phone and internet communication. The new encryption that Apple started, even Apple can’t access without the password. In order to do what the government wants them to do Apple would have to create a completely new program to hack the new phones.

    This is not the same thing as ‘unlocking’ a phone in anyway shape or form.

    I am as anti Apple as anyone can be. But they could start to win me over if they fight the Feds on this issue with everything they have.