Obama & Alinsky - Latest Comments

Re: Are McDonald’s hiring practices discriminatory?

Tccoins4me — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 10:24:16 -0000

Thank-you for your comments!!!! My husband and I went to a McDonalds in Malibu yesterday. We should have walked out. If McDonalds cant find 1 english speaking employee to take an Americans order then why do I continue to bother going there? The McDonalds and every other fast food in my area is all nonenglish speaking employees. (Pomona). The good news is my health will be much better without all of them!!

Re: Lynn Rosenthal – domestic violence czar

Jim — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:06:28 -0000

A much needed appointment! If she is just for domestic violence against women then we also need one to help combat family violence against children.
It is too bad that Congress is blocking all of President Obama's appointments to the agencies that are already in place. But the czar idea is working almost as good for him. AND FOR US WHO NEED THE HELP IT CAN PROVIDE!!!
..

Re: Herb Allison – tarp czar

Nothanks — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 08:15:06 -0000

He ruined our economy. Why not let him try to fix it. He's crazier than Obama.

Re: Are McDonald’s hiring practices discriminatory?

Bob the ethics professor — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 00:07:19 -0000

I grew up in Reading, Massachusetts where the population is overwhelmingly white and English Speaking.
Mostly people of various British and other European descent. When I was growing up in the 70's, it was all English speaking. Now when I go to fast food restaurants as well as to many area suburban towns North of Boston with similar demographics I find almost everyone working there is of hispanic background of some kind and very much spanish speaking.
They're usually pleasant enough but they get things wrong a lot on orders because of limited Knowledge of English and often because they don't get what they're hearing through those lousy drivethrough speakers which a native English speaker could decipher better!! My question is why are hispanic workers so disproportionately represented in the staff of these area restaurants where the general population is still mostly non-hispanic? Secondly what has made the traditionally non-hispanic/native English speaking workers less attractive to hire than they used to be??

Re: Should the FED be setting salaries for corporations?

Salaries In Dubai — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:45:03 -0000

Depends. If its based on agreement, then yes. Otherwise, it's a big NO.

Re: Should the FED be setting salaries for corporations?

Salaries In Dubai — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:43:52 -0000

test

Re: Are McDonald’s hiring practices discriminatory?

Diann — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 08:29:24 -0000

In case you haven't noticed sir,it is happening everywhere. Instead of this being the Great USA..it is now becoming the new MEXICO etc.. All white people and black people step aside because our country is now becoming United States of Foreigners..instead of all speaking,writing and learning our language..we will soon be learning a different one,just to do business to even buy grocerys or a Big Mac. I see the signs everywhere I go. I am a truck driver and travel to many parts and we are being invaded and taken over from the inside of our boundrys and yet the Goverment or ourselves,we are doing nothing to stop it. We will not have to worry about whats outside our country attacking us. They are already here and doing it. That's my opinion. Thank You, Diann

Re: Are McDonald’s hiring practices discriminatory?

Chuck Thompson — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:50:38 -0000

Thank you for your comments Fernando. Now that you mention it, the employees at my neighborhood McDonald's do appear to have an excellent work ethic. They are always busy, working hard to maintain the atmosphere there and to keep the restaurant clean. I'll take it a step further, since you brought it up, and say that generally speaking, the Latinos I see working are always working hard and do not seem to resent hard work. It's a very good point and I appreciate you making it.

However, you addressed neither of my major points: the rudeness of speaking a foreign language in the workplace and the difficulty of working and training in such an environment. You've given a very good reason why an employer would want to hire a Latino, but you haven't explained why the employer does not require English to be spoken any time a non-English speaker is present. Thank you again for your comments.

Re: Are McDonald’s hiring practices discriminatory?

Fernando Luciano — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:48:45 -0000

Hello Mr. Chuck Thompson,

I just finished reading your thoughts on the possible discriminatory hiring practices of the McDonalds in your neighborhood. But I am willing to offer you a different vantage point. I have worked in the food industry since I turned 16 I am now 23. I have done everything from sit down restaurants to fast food; my focus here will be my fast food experience.

I worked for Wendy’s in Richardson for just about 3 year’s maybe a little less. There are a few key points in your thoughts that struck me, not only because I have had the same train of thought, only with a few differences.

You basically described the Wendy’s I worked for; as a matter of fact it’s the training store for all other managers that are to be sent to manage other Wendy’s in the surrounding areas. It’s my opinion that the reason it’s all Spanish behind the counter is because of the work ethic. It’s not that the hiring practices are unfair, rather simple work ethic. I saw many “Non-Hispanics” hired and fired. You see, in my time as an employee for Wendy’s, we hired several non-Hispanic personnel, but their work ethic was as good as a boat in a desert.

Management was always great; they would bend over backwards for any employee, but some how it was never enough for certain people. Now your rhetorical question actually does have an answer!

“Why would anyone even apply for a job in an environment which conducts business in a language an employee didn’t understand?”

Easily answered, to give them an opportunity to prove their work ethic, the current employees English is not in question since they have understood your order for the past 10 years, and you “Rarely order anything in the standard configuration”. Of course anyone can flourish in any environment as long as their work ethic deems them so.

There was a running joke while I worked for Wendy’s and I’m sure it’s still in place, anyone that lasted 6 months would last forever, and were made “An honorary Mexican” . And I can recall a few good non-Hispanics, that were employed that were not lazy, did not feel they were owed days off, who actually provided a clean, well managed, and welcoming environment that keeps patrons like you happy for 10 years and hopefully several more to come!

I thoroughly enjoyed your thoughts, and welcome a response from you!

Have a great day!

-Fernando

Re: what to do? what to do?

Chuck Thompson — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:47:48 -0000

What specifically is it you want to find out about?

Re: what to do? what to do?

medical_malpractice_lawyer — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:46:23 -0000

I wanna find more info about this, anybody could?

Re: blowoutcongress.com

Clay Meyers — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:55:57 -0000

If they're good then let them reapply for their position. You dislike Charlie Rangel...well, maybe there are a few that like him....obviously he's been in since 1971. Just like how you state that you like your congressman. What Jeff has started is a great movement for us to try and take our country back. There's another movement called goooh.com (Get Out of Our House) ...do you feel the same way about them or is it just that you're against Jeff and his blowoutcongress.com site????

Re: blowoutcongress.com

Chuck Thompson — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:29:06 -0000

"Jeff isnt advocating just replacing the congressmen with any old soul that happens up to DC. We will replace them with people who are intelligent and not out for themselves." I understand that. If I thought it was otherwise, my article would have been much different. And I agree that many congresspeople have been in office much too long and should be replaced.

My issue is about "throwing the baby out with the bath water". Surely you don't believe that there are absolutely no good congresspeople. There must be at least a few. Why do they have to get fired? Why not focus on the radicals, corrupt, brain-dead ones instead of firing them all? And, you really don't know that the replacements will be any better - they could be worse. And, that doesn't even address committee appointments which are handed out based on seniority. With Jeff's plan the replacements would be junior and might have replaced a good guy with committee experience. We are at a critical juncture here - we're only a few steps away from socialism.

Its easy to get worked up and easier to advocate firing everyone, but it's not practical or, in my view, smart. What is practical, is to focus on the bad ones. Cast the light of truth on their misdeeds, expose them for the crooks they are and influence their departure. My favorite choice today would be Charlie Rangel. Apply the same exposure to his many misdeeds as has been applied to ACORN and his rat friends will bail on him. If he didn't have the influence he has he wouldn't be able to get the earmarks he gets and without the earmarks he wouldn't be nearly as popular where he comes from - his constituents vote for him because, in effect, he buys their votes with earmarks. Get it?

Re: blowoutcongress.com

Shane M — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:22:52 -0000

You keep pointing to Obama being a symptom of people voting on an "anything would be better approach." I say we got Obama simply because the general public are foolish, generally uneducated (politically speaking) sheep. I voted based on who I thought would best uphold our Constitutional Republic based on my independent research, and he was neither a democrat nor republican.

Only a few of the people I have spoken to indicated that they voted based on your emotional premise. Most of the people I have talked with voted based on their ignorance and lack of knowledge of the system and the person for whom they voted. Most people believe that the mainstream media tells the truth and is not agenda driven, which is far from the actual truth of the matter. When the majority of people allow themselves to be led like sheep by the controlled mainstream media, we get presidents such as Obama and Bush.

Change comes from the education of people. Jeff is making the attempt to educate the people in opposition to the controlled mainstream media sources. Yes, let's vote out all of the incumbents and send the message that we will not tolerate their tyrannical policies. Let's also stray from the democrat/republican two headed serpent system and vote in independent and third party candidates. Then lets blow them out when they screw the pooch, until We the People send a clear message to our public servants - Don't Tread on Me!

I hold no hope that congress will get blown out. There are too many Americans that are just to comfortable to care about the country they live in, the freedoms they are giving up, and the political system they refuse to take and active roll in. America will soon fall with a whimper and applause into a full blow oligarchy, and when it is too late to do anything about it, people will finally be asking the questions they should have been asking 108 years ago when the first progressive socialists took office in this country.

Re: blowoutcongress.com

Carol Peacock — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:22:24 -0000

I understand your concern, but Jeff isnt advocating just replacing the congressmen with any old soul that happens up to DC. We will replace them with people who are intelligent and not out for themselves. And if we get hoodwinked again, we will vote that one out too. But keeping the same old people there just because you recognize the name on the ballot is bad politics and is what has led to some reps and senators being there 40 years. Also, we know they have a staggered election cycle so ony about a third are replaced at a time. Only a few of them will be there who look like a calf looking at a new gate. You underestimate the American people. there are plenty of qualified people who would get in there and stop the frickin pork and tax hikes etc. It's not rocket science... and now Jeff has started a new website about improving congress, I dont remember the name right now, but its focus is to build up congress. Maybe that is the name...oh well. As for Jeff running for office, you are probably right, he should step down from KLIF if he is campaigning.

Re: blowoutcongress.com

Chuck Thompson — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:45:30 -0000

I agree that our leadership is foundering, corrupt and self-serving as a whole. "shake up the system and return power to the voters". The power is already in the hands of the voters. The voters elected those in congress now. The problem is the voters wanted change for the sake of change with no consideration for ability, honesty, etc. And it is that very "change for the sake of change" approach in Jeff's plan which I dispute.

Start a blowoutradicals.com or blowoutrsocialists.com or blowoutliberals.com or blowoutthieves.com and I'll be all over it.

Re: blowoutcongress.com

Me — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:22:47 -0000

I think the point is that both parties have turned in terribly wrong directions. To put an end to that you cannot support one party over the other by voting for incumbents. The only way to shake up the system and return power to the voters is to vote everybody out. A large majority of American people think that Congress is doing a poor job yet most of them think their own Congressperson is okay. How can that be? Wake up and realize that the reason Congress is messed up is because the members of Congress are messed up, even your own.

Re: blowoutcongress.com

Chuck Thompson — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:50:06 -0000

Thank you for your comments.

The following is quoted directly from blowoutcongress.com "BlowOutCongress.com advocates the complete replacement of all 535 members of congress in the next election cycles. "

Now I don't know how that could be more clear. And what it means to me is Obama-style change. Change because we're not happy. But Obama is living proof that just changing is not enough. It has to be change for the better. Blowing out congress in its entirely sounds good - IF we KNEW the replacements would be better than the incumbents. But they haven't even announced yet so we don't know if they'd be better. And that's the rub. Obama was elected because people thought anyone would be better than a Republican. But they were clearly wrong. They elected a socialist based upon the "anything would be better" approach. And what Jeff is promoting is essentially an "anything would be better" approach. That is my entire problem with it.

"That being said, I find it understandable that Jeff Bolton may not choose to have you on his radio show to talk about BlowoutCongress.com considering that all appearances point to you not advocating a congressional change." Just for the record, I've never called the show about blowoutcongress - my comments were in relation to other topics about which I've called.

"all appearances point to you not advocating a congressional change.". I advocate change when it is called for. I happen to like my congressman and don't want to see him changed just because Jeff thinks ALL of congress should be blown out . That sort of thinking is what got us Obama.

Re: blowoutcongress.com

Shane M — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:06:21 -0000

I do not think that Jeff Bolton is promoting an "anything but this" strategy through BlowoutCongress.com. I listen to his show most days since he started at KLIF, and am familiar with his approach to things, and have heard of BlowoutCongress.com since its inception, I am of the opinion that his intention is to wake up Americans to the status quo of congress and its incumbents. He wants to energize the population into thoughtful action, in hopes that they will inform themselves about their incumbent as well as candidates running against them, and make a well considered vote against the status quo, especially when confronted with the poor representation delivered by such an incumbent.

I cannot imagine that people actually believe that the congressional incumbents are doing a good job. Even the slanted polls suggest that this country is disgusted with congress with 30% and lower approval ratings. The fact is that our politicians are ruining the democratic Republic that our forefathers spilled blood to create. What remains to be seen is if the American people will actually get involved, allow third party candidates an opportunity, and question every statement and answer that our current and running politicians make in order to justifiably kick out the rotten congressional incumbents.

That being said, I find it understandable that Jeff Bolton may not choose to have you on his radio show to talk about BlowoutCongress.com considering that all appearances point to you not advocating a congressional change. You can plainly see that fear controls congressional members. They change parties just to keep their job; they change votes just to keep their job; they know that they are screwing up, and Jeff is trying to push them out, yet you think this is a bad idea. Your post sounds like a protectionist political speech to me.

As for Jeff possibly running for office, this has nothing to do with BlowoutCongress.com, but has everything to do with him using common sense when discussing most topics. People are attracted to common sense. People want to get behind common sense. BlowoutCongress.com is common sense when you take the data from the polls, the data from recent and past town halls, an the simple fact that congress has been overstepping their authority for years with no backlash from We the People of these United States. Personally, I only agree with about half of what Jeff's policies would be if he were to become a congressman. I would personally have difficulty voting for him over someone else that may be running for the position, but would easily vote for him over the incumbent.

As for the "up against a commercial break," and being on hold for 20+ minutes, I have to agree with you. The policies of KLIF, and the incessant 7-8 minute commercial breaks are considerably annoying. It is one of the reasons why I no longer listen to the program on a daily basis. Jeff also has a bad tendency of dominating the conversation from time-to-time, which is also annoying.

Regardless of how anyone feels about this topic, your views, or mine, I still stand firm that this country needs better leaders in all branches of the federal government. We need men and women who stand for liberty, and will not be bullied into signing bills they do not agree with, will not stand for 11th hour amendments slipped in under the cover of darkness, will not tolerate out of control spending, will not be swayed by money, fame, or lobbyists to sell out this country for little temporary safety, and will limit themselves as set forth in the Constitution which protects the people from government intrusion into our lives and liberties.

To our currently serving congressmen I leave this quote: "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

To those who may wish to replace them and serve The People, I leave this: "Against us are... all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty... We are likely to preserve the liberty we have obtained only by unremitting labors and perils." -Thomas Jefferson

"For those looking for security, be forewarned that there's nothing more insecure than a political promise." - Harry Browne

Re: blowoutcongress.com

Chuck Thompson — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:10:25 -0000

Thank you for taking the time to both read and politely comment on my post.

1. The strategy to which I refer is the strategy of firing them all regardless of the job they are doing. The result of that strategy, were it successful, would be a national slate of new candidates to replace those in office. The problem I have with that is some of those in office may be worthy and we don't know that any of the new candidates would be any better - just like Obama. Obama ran on hope and change. He had absolutely no experience and we now see the results of that lack of experience. But those who voted him in felt that anything was better than the status quo - like Jeff and BOC.To me, that is a rash strategy - just like Obama's and will have the same results.

2. "Nowhere does the Constitution mandate that a certain number of members of the House of Representatives should be held over and endlessly re-elected" Nor does it demand they be replaced - it allows for their replacement.

3. I have read the site. Yes, it promotes learning about your candidates before electing them. However, you would have to learn about untested candidates because they would be the only ones running. My contention is that in some cases it would be better to work with the representatives we have. "Better the devil you know".

4. "Well I say that the experience you speak of is what has expanded this government well beyond its Constitutional mandate," I couldn't agree more - it is my entire point. Jeff's plan would fill congress with inexperienced congressmen.

5. "We need elected officials that are more concerned with the direction of the United States of America than they are the direction of their party. " Again, I couldn't agree more. My ENTIRE point is that I don't agree with firing congress and replacing it with inexperienced new guys just because we don't like some/most of the ones in office.

Final comment. You are wrong about that too. I've been listening to Jeff from the first days when he was "Mayor of Commonsenseville" and believe him to be an honest, family-minded patriot. I just don't like his idea for blowoutcongress. Thanks again for your comments.

Re: blowoutcongress.com

Cliff Sosamon — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:01:14 -0000

Having read you commentary on Mr. Bolton and the BlowOutCongress.com (BOC.com) movement, I feel the need to counter some of your comments.

First off, let me say that the strategy of BOC.com is not the same strategy that President Obama used in the 2008 elections. BOC is not espousing “Hope and Change” or even “Change you can believe in”. It is, however, advocating that the American electorate stand up and stop the ruling elite that have taken over the governance of this great country and put the power back where it is Constitutionally mandated…in the hands of the American people. BOC.com is not playing on people’s emotions either. It is giving those who have never taken an active role in government an avenue to have their voice heard. The way that BOC.com is doing that is with the daily blow out list. Giving people the information they need to contact elected officials and letting those “representatives” know that America is watching, more informed, and will no longer put up with “politics as usual”.

Second, the replacement of all Congressional members up for election in 2010 is not “change for change sake”. Those who have actually taken the time to read the document that established this great nation and that laid the very foundation that our current civilization rests on, know that the Congressional electoral system was actually set up to replace all members of the House of Representatives every 2 years and one third of the Senate every 6 years. Nowhere does the Constitution mandate that a certain number of members of the House of Representatives should be held over and endlessly re-elected to ensure continuity. And by the way, it has been said, that if you follow your first instinct you are usually right…not stupid.

Third, if you had done any research on BOC.com, you would know that the organization does not promote electing any person who willy nilly throws their hat in the political ring. In fact, a simple read of the web site will bring to light that BOC.com does not promote any one person or candidate for any office. It does, however, encourage folks to get involved do some research and pick the candidate that best represents them. Having a firm belief in the brilliance of the American citizenry, it is my thought that if we, as a people, are smart enough to recognize ills of the current Congress, we are smart enough to pick their replacements.

Fourth, you state in your commentary that “I didn’t like the idea of electing someone with absolutely no experience other than rabble-rousing”. Well I say that the experience you speak of is what has expanded this government well beyond its Constitutional mandate, ran up trillions of dollars in debt which has weakened the dollar to the point that there are calls for a new international currency, allowed our boarders to be so porous that our national sovereignty is slipping away, and on and on and on.

We need elected officials that are more concerned with the direction of the United States of America than they are the direction of their party. We need elected officials that are more concerned with the well being of the American people than they are their political careers. We need elected officials that are more concerned with plight of the American people than they are with the size of their campaign war chests. It is time for the people once again take control of their government and not the other way around.

One final comment on your last three paragraphs, it is clear that you have not listened to the Jeff Bolton Morning show, on 570 AM KLIF, for very long.

Re: ACORN – what a bunch of dopes.

fh — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:01:18 -0000

I thought it was a crime to not turn in criminals
they should all be in pens

Re: the fallacy of campaign promises

orwellwasright — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:04:12 -0000

We know when a politician is lying because we can see their lips moving. In the US and UK we have the same problem - a supposedly more "liberal" party taking over from the conservative party and continuing the same line of policies as before - Blair extending Thatcher's neoliberal economic policies and warmongering; Obama continuing and expanding Bush's wars, economic looting and the rest of it. Plus ca change, as they say, but people, for the most part politically apathetic/ignorant, never seem to learn.

Nice blog, Chuck

Re: Herb Allison – tarp czar

Chuck Thompson — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 05:34:19 -0000

I agree. In fact I don't think we need most of the czars. Thanks for visiting and commenting.

Re: Herb Allison – tarp czar

Daryl L. Boyd — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:30:38 -0000

Why not let the Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner do his job, we don't need nor can we afford a Tarp Czar.