Wednesday, September 27, 2006

The #136: Marsh vs. Owen on Minimum Wage

Republican Rep. B.J. Marsh (#136) said if forced to, he could not live on Missouri's current minimum wage, but added that he still does not know how he will vote on a ballot initiative on the issue this November.

Marsh said he has "mixed feelings" about a proposed ballot initiative to raise the state's minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.50 an hour. "I know I couldn't live on it. That being said, I'm not saying I'm for it or against it," Marsh told me in a recent interview. "It's certainly difficult to raise a family on it right now," he said.

When I asked if his constituents deserve to know how he will ultimately vote on the issue, Marsh replied, "I don't tell anyone how I vote."

"I don't tell anyone how I'm going to vote before I cast a vote in the legislature, that's just how I am," Marsh added.

Democratic challenger in the #136, James Owen, said he will vote to raise the minimum wage.

"It will raise the standard of living, produce jobs and attract a stronger, more professional workforce," Owen said.

Opponents of the minimum wage increase have said the cost of the hike would fall on small businesses, and could force some of them to leave the state or shut down altogether.

"I don't believe that," Owen replied, when I put that argument to him. "I believe it will improve the jobs we already have."

Why should the government have anything to do with setting workers wages?

"That's like saying we shouldn't have government people inspecting meat. We need to have the free market be as effective as possible, but it also needs to be fair. Everything else is going up with inflation," Owen said.

In his nightly door-to-door travels, Owen said he has met countless people in the #136 district who depend on the minimum wage.

"A lot of people are on it, and they are not just in college or high school. They are older people, raising families. Maybe they don't have time to train for a higher wage or promotion. I don't think those people should be punished," Owen said.

So far, Owen estimates he has talked to around 3,500 people in the district. He said while people are split, "basically 50-50 on stem cells," he has not met one person against the minimum wage.


Unknown said...


Thank you highlighting this race. I am in this distinct. It might surprise Mr. Owens that I am dead against raising the minimum wage. I would love to have him come to my door and I would be glad to discuss it with him. I think Mr. Marsh is trying to hide his support or opposition to this popular issue. I would be interested in hearing their opinions on the MAWD cuts.

Thanks again.

Rev Chris M Fluharty said...

Mr. Owens I believe is exaggerating on this one. I have a hard time believeing that a lot of people in the 136th are living on minimum wage when the 137th is a much poorer district and those who do work make more then minimum. Even McDonald's starts over 6.00. The market will dictate the wages, as will the earner. If the worker is not worth his wage then he shouldn't be paid that. To have the governemnt force a business to pay a certain wage is wrong. If you want that move to Cuba or Russia.

Citizenkan said...

Marsh has "mixed feelings?" I'll say!

"I know I couldn't live on it.
"I'm not saying I'm for it or against it..."
"It's certainly difficult to raise a family on it right now."
"I don't tell anyone how I vote....that's just how I am."

I like representatives who actually present their views!

That's just how I am.

bobicus tomatocus said...

I know Mr. Marsh from years ago. He is not an idealogue, but a pragmatist and a straight shooter.

He is a small business owner I respect him for what he has done in building his business.

Owen, like many who support the min wage increase, may very well not know the first thing about running a business, let a lone a small business.

Here is a basic question of economics. If my business is making x ammount of dollars and Y goes to running the business. Z is the profit which allows the business owner to pay their selves after everyone else.

If you increase Y yearly without any efficiency or performance incrase how is that going to create a job? It doesnt. In fact it will eat into Z. At that point the business owner may very well decide to close up shop or fire people to return Z to its previous state.

Unless you are the government where you can just tax people to get more money - it takes hard work to run and build a business.

I take personal offense to government officials telling me how to run my business. They dont know or understand how much I can afford to pay my employees, and I am paying them so little, there is always the opportunity to go somewhere else.

Thats the wonderful thing about capitalism. If you dont like it, work some where else.

Some people are right. The minimum wage is a moral issue - its immoral to take other people's money by mandating yearly raises through law.

The Libertarian Guy said...

Any government that can impose a MINIMUM wage, could conceivably impose a MAXIMUM wage. Do we really want that?

Tim said...


If you cannot see the correct answer in your comments, maybe I can spell it out for you.

Representative Marsh is telling the truth when he said "I know I couldn't live on it." At the same time, it is a moot point. Marsh is a small business owner, and a creator of jobs.

Given his present circumstances (that of running a small business, employing others, paying taxes, insurance and a myriad of other expenses that are associated with the creation of wealth) he could not currently live on $5.50 an hour.

However, Marsh hasn't sat around waiting for someone to give him money -- he has worked hard for what he has. Marsh is living the American dream, and so can anyone else in America who so chooses.

I know a lot of people in this city, and almost without exception all of them make above or well above the minimum wage. I know of no printing business, for instance, that pays that little -- they could not attract and keep workers for $5.50 an hour.

The exceptions to this are a few teenagers in school who have part time jobs. Even a niece of mine, a former welfare recepient, makes well more than minimum wage -- and is in an unskilled job!

If Owen says he is finding "countless" people in the 136th District who are living on minimum wage, then I suggest that you look at his known record of lying about Representative Marsh's Pro-Life record and stand. I know for a fact that he lied about that issue, so nothing that he says can be believed unless he proves otherwise. His word is worthless.

Tim Trower

Tim said...

Frankly, this fits a lot of small business owners, including myself some weeks! Humor aside, a lot of small business owners, once they compute the number of hours worked as compared to their check at the end of the week, won't really think this is funny.


A man owned a small ranch in Montana. The Montana Department of
Labor claimed he was not paying proper wages to his help and sent an agent out to interview him.

"I need a list of your employees and how much you pay them," demanded the agent.

"Well," replied the rancher, "There's my ranch hand who's been with me for 3 years. I pay him $600 a week plus free room and board. The cook has been here for 18 months, and I pay her $500 per week plus free room and board.

Then there's the half-wit who works here about 18 hours every day and does about 90% of all the work around here. He makes $10 per week, and I buy him a bottle of bourbon every Saturday night."

"That's the guy I want to talk to -- the half-wit," says the agent.

"That would be me," replied the rancher

bobicus is right again said...

Once again bobicus has cut to the heart of the matter and I have seen the light.

Recently "Y" (the cost of running my business) increased due to higher raw material costs. This has definitely decreased "Z" (my profits). I had considered passing on this cost to my customers, but now, thanks to bobicus' wisdom, I know that I must close my doors.

luv ya bob!

marcus alrealius alrightus said...

A progressive tax structure can work in much the same manner as a maximum wage cap.

People should be able to make as much as they want. They just need to have the understanding that they have a responsibility to pay back into the system that allowed them to make that money in the first place.

Anonymous said...

I too live in the 136th and have never had much to say bad about Mr. Marsh, until now. I do not like, at all, his vacillating on how he would vote on particular issues. Certainly, everyone has his/her right to a secret ballot, but as a State Representative, he must be naive to think that he gives up just a bit of such privacy, to his constituents at the very least.

With that said, I'm far from sold on Mr. Owen. I smell more than a whiff of political opportunism combined with Jovan Musk for Men.

journeyer417 said...

Based upon Mr. Marsh's comments regarding stem cell and minimum wage, it appears he is anything but a "straight-shooter."

B.J. is in a tough spot... caught between the PAC donors and political establishment that opposes stem cell and minimum wage and a public that overwhelmingly supports the measures. Perhaps he should take a cue from Norma and just not talk about anything to anyone.

journeyer417 said...

We can waste a lot of breath debating the minimum wage increase. Truth is, it will pass overwhelmingly, even here in SWMO. The only real story here is that B.J. is a flip-flopper who can't take a firm position on any issue.

Also, to Tim... have a little self-respect man. Don't make stuff up about Owen and then call HIM a liar. Let's keep this a clean debate/election about real issues.

Citizenkan said...


Thanks for trying to spell it out for me, but I'll take a pass on your words of wisdom. I, too, have been a business owner for most of my adult life and know the ins and outs of all that you cited.

When I first started voluntarily raising minimum hourly wages on a consistent basis for my employees, I worried about how expensive it was going to be and that I'd never be able to afford it. All I can say now is BS. It amped-up the playing field for me all the way around. Yes, once in awhile I had to raise the price of an item TEN to TWENTY-FIVE CENTS in order to cover the spread during tight times, but that's what ALL business owners do. If you have to close your doors over price increases, you weren't going to make it anyway. Sorry.

We have become a nation of predatory capitalists and if regulations are not put in place, the cheaters always take advantage. That's why the libertarian way will never work.

Rev Chris M Fluharty said...

It worked just fine for many years. If we were to remove all the government handouts businesses would collapse and the market would crash. The market was much more self supported in our early history. Now we are forced to bend to the government and to rely to heavily on thier handouts. You and the republicans are turing us into Russia more and more evryday. God to have the libertarian way again as it was in the start. Read some history your way is called communism

Tim said...

I call Mr. Owen a liar because he is one. In a conversation in the driveway of their house on August 27th of this year, Tim and Terri Piatchek were told by James Owen that B.J. Marsh was pro-abortion and was being supported by Planned Parenthood.

(Mr. Owen apparently did not realize that the Piatcheks are Republican Central Committee members.)

These allegations are patently false. Marsh has a long record of supporting Pro-Life positions 100% and has not taken money or support from Planned Parenthood. This is public record. Don't believe me -- look it up yourself.

Therefore, since James Owen has demonstratively lied about this issue during a door to door visit, then nothing he says can be believed as the truth unless it can be proven otherwise.

Point is, Owen is claiming to meet all sorts of people in the 136th District who are struggling to live on minimum wage. If this is true, then Mr. Owen must prove it. He can no longer be believed otherwise.

Tim Trower

jack said...

Tim, no big surprise about your remarks about BJ. You are his campaign manager after all. Nothing like "fair and balanced".

bobicus tomatocus said...

Point is, Owen is claiming to meet all sorts of people in the 136th District who are struggling to live on minimum wage. If this is true, then Mr. Owen must prove it.

I would hope that everyone on both sides of the isle would agree to backing up claims like this with facts.

And BIRA, you go ahead and raise your rates. I will keep my business down and grow it and have a wider margin. Who will survive in the long run? Thanks.

Citizenkan said...

Business owners AND hard-working employees all deserve to survive in the long run. You're welcome.

bobicus tomatocus said...

Business owners AND hard-working employees all deserve to survive in the long run. You're welcome.

Then leave the business running to the business owners.

If the business owners treat their employees poor enough, then they can always find another job.

I know there are bone headed businessmen, but in the end the employee can always find another job.

It should not be the government's business to tell business owners how to do things.

Tim said...


Would you please prove that I am B.J. Marsh's campaign manager.

(Yet another unfounded attack. Sheesh.)

Tim Trower

PbBut said...

Government tells business how to do things all the time, they are called clean water standards, clean air standards, Family Medical Leave Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, agricultural price supports, and on. What do businesses get? Access to utilities, roads built to their door, an accessible workforce, and on. It's a negotiable symbiosis that benefits all.

The Libertarian Guy said...


Here's about the most pudding-headed thing I've read all year:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Congress Daily reported today that the Democratic Party's ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Rangel (D) of New York, all but guaranteed tax increases in the Democratic agenda if they take back the house in November. *When approached about whether tax increases across the income spectrum would be considered, Rep. Rangel responded, "No question about it.*"

I added the *'s for emphasis on the pudding-headed portion. Read that last sentence over and over, then tell us why it's necessary to raise ANYONE'S taxes.

Tim said...

Since James Owen has posted about Dave Catanese's comments about the race for the 136th District on Owen's blog, and has attacked me in the same forum for my comments on this blog about his lack of truthfulness, I am posting what I just wrote on my personal blog:

The lying Democrat opponent of B.J. Marsh, James Owen, is trying to spin my comments on his lie about B.J. Marsh's Pro-Life record. On his blog, he has posted the following (condensed somewhat, but the gist is there, and I've changed no words nor meanings of words).

"You know how my yard signs are being stolen left and right, despite my vow to put up two for every one removed? .... Now, I don't want to point fingers but there is person (sic) who lives in this district with a pretty nasty temper. He's Tim Trower, B.J. Marsh's "right-hand man" (his words when I introduced myself at the 4th of July parade) and the guy who called me a " lying liar who likes to lie" on the KY3 blog last night.

"Well, I find his use of the word "lie" (and its deviations) very interesting. Let me give you some background: This summer, Mr. Trower ran the 135th legislative district primary race of a gentleman named David Dunn. Mr. Dunn was running against State Representative Charlie Dennison. It seems that Mr. Trower has a bit of a "thing" against Rep. Dennison because he said some pretty nasty things against Representative and his campaign on the KY3 blog as well.

"Also curious, several of Rep. Dennison's BIG 4 by 8 signs were defaced with the word "LIAR" spray-painted all over them.

"Did I mention that a few of those signs also had gunshot holes through them? It's true.

"Isn't that interesting? But I am sure this is just a coincidence. I am sure none of these things will happen to my BIG signs when they are put up.

"What do you think?"

I think that Mr. Owen has not only lied again, but is bordering on slander with these comments. For starters, I've gone back to the KY3 blog and looked at each of the comments that I made concerning the truthfulness of James Owen. Note that in his above post, he quotes me as saying that he is a "lying liar who likes to lie".

First entry:
"I call Mr. Owen a liar because he is one. In a conversation in the driveway of their house on August 27th of this year, Tim and Terri Piatchek were told by James Owen that B.J. Marsh was pro-abortion and was being supported by Planned Parenthood.

"(Mr. Owen apparently did not realize that the Piatcheks are Republican Central Committee members.)

"These allegations are patently false. Marsh has a long record of supporting Pro-Life positions 100% and has not taken money or support from Planned Parenthood. This is public record. Don't believe me -- look it up yourself.

"Therefore, since James Owen has demonstratively lied about this issue during a door to door visit, then nothing he says can be believed as the truth unless it can be proven otherwise.

"Point is, Owen is claiming to meet all sorts of people in the 136th District who are struggling to live on minimum wage. If this is true, then Mr. Owen must prove it. He can no longer be believed otherwise."

I see no mention of the quote that he is a "lying liar who likes to lie". On to the next blog entry that I made on the KY3 blog.

"If Owen says he is finding "countless" people in the 136th District who are living on minimum wage, then I suggest that you look at his known record of lying about Representative Marsh's Pro-Life record and stand. I know for a fact that he lied about that issue, so nothing that he says can be believed unless he proves otherwise. His word is worthless."

Again, his overactive imagination is proven wrong. On to the next blog entry on the KY3 Blog.

"But, having said that, I make a point of not lying nor exaggerating in my comments on this blog. I can back up -- with a notarized statement if need be -- my comments about Mr. Owen lying to my friend and his wife. Oh, and their children were listening as well."

And the next entry.

"Furthermore, Mr. Owen, while visiting the household of a Pro-Life family (also personal friends of mine) stated that B.J. Marsh was pro-abortion and that Planned Parenthood was backing him. Both statements are patently false, and Owen was intentionally lying about Marsh's stand and record."

And the next ...

"Representative Marsh has a long history of supporting medical research, but all the while holding firm to his Pro-Life position. James Owen says that he is Pro-Life, but lies about Marsh's record; Owen's comments about Amendment 2 confirm to me that he is lying about his own Pro-Life stance as well."


Clearly, James Owen, the liar, has a problem with making up quotes. Again, in his blog post, he refers to State Representative Charlie Denison, but he mis-spelled the name Denison as "Dennison". Twice! But, that is quibbling, and is the least of my problems with his comments. He characterizes me as someone who ran the campaign of David Dunn for the Republican Primary in the 135th District. Guess again. I was one of several senior campaign advisors of David Dunn. But I sure wasn't in charge! Again, a minor point, but one that must be addressed.

"Now, I don't want to point fingers, but there is person (sic) who lives in this district with a nasty temper. He's Tim Trower ..."

Really. He says he doesn't want to point a finger, but then clearly infers that I was responsible for the defacing of several of Representative Denison's large signs (bullet holes, no less), and he whines about his yard signs being stolen "left and right". Mr. Owen is accusing me of these actions. This is as despicable as it gets in politics.

Point. The last time I touched an opponents yard sign was in the summer of 2000, when I collected one sign each from Republican candidate Jerry Riley and his Democratic candidate wife Jennifer Graham. They were used as exhibits for a complaint with the Missouri Ethics Commission -- very few of their signs had a "Paid For" designation on them, making them illegal according to Missouri State Statutes. If Mr. Owen can produce witnesses that can prove otherwise, then let him do so. But given his status as a known liar, I would be able to refute his accusations with the truth.

Point. The closest I came to a Charlie Denison sign was at the annual TARGET Barbecue held at Phelps Grove Park this August. Mr. Denison had a banner that, upon close examination, did not at that time have a "Paid For" designation on it. I was about six inches away from, but did not touch, this banner. (Witnesses were present to vouch for this.)

Point. The closest I have come to a James Owen sign was to drive past one on our street a few days ago. I haven't even bothered to see if they have a "Paid For" line on them. After all, Mr. Owen claims to be a lawyer, and should know the law. (Is he really a lawyer? Since he is a known liar, he must prove it to me.)

If Mr. Owen is to make these accusations and infer that I have illegally stolen his yard signs, damaged Representative Denison's road signs and have plans to steal Mr. Owens' large signs, then he is merely trying to deflect attention away from his lies by attacking me. How very little of him. For a tall person, he sure can stoop quite low.

Tim Trower

marcus alrealius alrightus said...

libertarian guy -- The reality of our current situation is that the United States is deeply, deeply, in debt. I've read some reports on the amount of national debt per man, woman, and child and it's truly staggering. No doubt, our financial future and national security are at risk.

At some point we're going to have to have some serious discussion about this on a national level. Of course, this would divert us from the more important matters of gay marriage and American Idol. I don't think I'll hold my breath.

Whilst I have your attention. What's the Libertarian take on yesterday's vote in the Senate? From what I've read it looks like the writ of habeas corpus is no longer a guaranteed constitional right.

Citizenkan said...

Riiiiight, Bobi. No one told Enron how to run their business. No one told WorldCom, no one told Tyco, Global Crossing, big pharma, et al. We have become a nation of cheaters and we require overseeing of the predators.

watcher said...

Tim, Tim, Tim,
Take a breath already. There's a long way to go before this election is over. If BJ is pro-life then why doesn't he prove it. So far the only thing that can be proved is that his campaign manager is pro-life and that he really likes to blog...alot. I am sure that Rep. Marsh would be a little upset knowing that his campaign manager is bordering on the verge of libel and slander. If BJ and Owen need to prove anything then why not have a debate and let the people of the 136th decide.

newpoliticsstudent said...

I am an unbiased and unattached political science student at one of the university's in town. I have been assigned to watch this blog for a class paper. With that said, i feel I need to enter a comment about how ridiculous this race seems. I don't know either candidate running but the comments on this blog blow my mind. I don't know who Tim is either but wow. He's kind of fired up about this thing. Mr. Catanese I think you should call this rants and raves by Tim.

Tim said...


Would you kindly point out where I am " bordering on the verge of libel and slander".

I sir, am the one who has been attacked by the known liar, James Owen.

Also, Watcher, can you prove that I am Representative Marsh's campaign manager? (I know that you can't, but I'd like to see you try.)


Would you kindly point out where I am ranting and raving. I point out the truth, and am seemingly accused of going over the edge. For that matter sir or madame, what is your name? I certainly have no problem attaching my name to what I post. Do you?

Tim Trower

bobicus tomatocus said...

A few comments.

I am an unbiased and unattached political science student

I am very skeptical of this.

No one told Enron how to run their business.

Not true. They violated a number of laws and got what they deserved.

You know darned well what I meant about the government telling a business how to run its self.

There is nothing wrong with putting common sense laws which shield the consumer and workers from those bone headed employers I was talking about before.

However, when you are talking about telling a bussiness how much they MUST pay an employee it smacks of communism. It is immoral and against the foundations of this country.

the United States is deeply, deeply, in debt.

Then lets start cutting spending. Especially regarding the entitlement programs.

From what I've read it looks like the writ of habeas corpus is no longer a guaranteed constitional right.

It as never applicible in times of civil war and invasion. In the particular circumstances we face right now and with the new law, from my understanding, it builds on this and covers those who are alien to this nation. That means habeas corpus would still apply.

If you remember, Abraham Lincoln suspended it.

Now my question is this, why are we more concerned with giving terrorist rights when we should be focused on defeating them.

Mind you with the mind set of many Democrats and how they hate people who have faith and wish to pratice it; I can see why it is important to have a check on someone wishing to just throw someone in jail.

However when we catch a jihadist on the battlefield doing our troops and country harm I just cannot bring my self to believing that we need to read them their miranda rights.

Citizenkan said...

Bobi, there was no oversight of the predator activities Enron was engaged in until it was too late. And basically, no one ended up getting what they deserved.

And I certainly don't hate people who have faith and wish to practice it. I practice my faith daily, but I don't feel that it's my business to go spreading it around. We should all practice it and stop pushing it. But may I comment on what an un-Christian attitude you display towards democrats and others who don't agree with you. Do you not see what a hypocrit you are when you drape yourself in religion and then proceed to spew forth....

"Mind you with the mind set of many Democrats and how they hate people who have faith and wish to pratice it..."

You are a poor judge of character.

PbBut said...

Bob, you point out perfectly why and how government got involved in the business of business. You state that: "There is nothing wrong with putting common sense laws which shield the consumer and workers from those bone headed employers I was talking about before."
There can be little disagreement with that. The reality is that these laws are extant because they were necessary.
Why do we have child labor laws? Because we had businessmen who worked children 18 hrs a day in dangerous jobs. This wasn't a few bone headed businessmen, this was the norm, the price of remaining competitive. How is this significantly different than what is happening with the multi-nationals today? It doesn't count if it's not American kids actually putting profits in our pockets? I understand our reluctance to get involved in the policies of a sovreign nation that hasn't attacked us militarily, but you would think that we could bring our moral position to these countries with our economic influence. We don't because it will damage the bottom line of the balance sheet.
When in doubt, ask who is making $$$ on the deal.

The Libertarian Guy said...


IMO, if our gov't attempted to deny habeus rights to American citizens, I'd be in agreement with you. But, if we're talking enemy combatants, they do not deserve such, nor do they deserve ANY Constitutional or Geneva protections. At least, that's how it SHOULD be.

But hey, we give illegal aliens too much - if they can get hold of bogus SS numbers, they can get IDs and wind up voting, gain access to welfare, and other goodies that should ONLY belong to American citizens. IMO, restricting illegals to receiving emergency-room care would go a long way to keeping them from taxing our system.

Mexico has resources and a labor force. They COULD fix their own problems, and not depend on US dollars being sent back by their ex-patriates. It's not up to us to turn Mexico into what it *can* be; it's up to its government to fix itself.

If Mexicans and other-than-Mexicans, want to come here and go through the process, that's another thing. Do it legally, don't be a burden on the system, and you'd be welcomed; sneak in, not so much.

As for being "deeply... in debt", you're right. And with a federal budget and gov't that keeps growing exponentially, it won't get any better, but even if we raised taxes on EVERYONE (which Charlie Rangel espoused as a possibility), we couldn't confiscate enough largesse to get ourselves out of the hole.

Over fifty percent of the national budget goes solely to Socialist Security and Medicare. Someday, it will be closer to 75%. God help us if it ever becomes the WHOLE budget.

newpoliticsstudent said...

I have no problem with open and free discussion and taking credit where credit is due. But frankly after reading some of your material you scare me and I don't want you to know my name. If you were capable of having a fair discussion without sounding crazy, I would love to give you my name...We'll see how that goes.
Furthermore I will tell you that I may or may not be a student at the University that your candidate is taking credit for its name change. Didn't Sen. Norma Champion do that? Sen. Champion might be a little upset with your candidate taking credit for this. After all they didn't even invte him to the bill signing.

Tim said...


If you don't want to use your name, fine. Just the idea that you are hiding behind an anonymous profile makes me wonder out loud if you are a shill for the opposition.

However, if you really understood the SMSU/MSU name change, you would know these facts: In the Senate, Norma Champion was the sponsor of the legislation and successfully passed the name change in the Senate.

In the House, B.J. Marsh was the sponsor of the legislation and successfully passed the name change in the House.

Both worked in concert with the other -- neither could have passed the legislation without the support of the other.

In a speech last night, (September 30, 2006) Governor Matt Blunt specifically mentioned the work of both Champion and Marsh for the successful name change -- with both receiving high praise from the Governor for this work.

As for the bill signing, contact the Governor's office for confirmation (since I don't expect you to take my word for any of this) and you will find that Representative Marsh was indeed invited to the bill signing for the MSU name change but was unable to attend.

B.J. Marsh had worked on this legislation as far back as the early 1990s, and to try and take credit away from him is to ignore what actually happened.

You may or may not be a student at MSU, but surely you are not clueless about this issue.

By the way, you have yet to address the intentional lies of James Owen about Representative Marsh as well as myself. Why not?

Tim Trower

bobicus tomatocus said...

@tim: the guy is a shill. That is pretty transparent at this point. If not a on staff shill, definitely a student with an angle.

@kan: No, I am a pretty good judge of character. My response about Democrats hating Christians is centered on the recent attacks by Rosie Odonol and people like your self who seem threatened if we decided to voice our opinions and it is opposition to your own. However, you feel a okay to force your beliefs down our throats.

I believe that if Christians continue to vote values and stop some from getting power that there will be attempts to silence us. I believe the first step is how the IRS is deciding to try and change the tax status of churches who dare to speak on political issues from their pulpit.

Keep in mind that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke mostly in churches in addition to rallies. It is up to each church and pastor to make their determination how they preach, but make no doubt this is a way to try and silence churches because they are making a difference in elections.

I mean, where do we draw the line? If my preacher talks about an issue what way will the IRS decide to come down on them? Make no doubt, there is a war on Christianity because we are a threat to certain people rising to power.

As for Democrats, my arguments are to the point policy discussions. If you have a different point of view, lets talk about the merrits of the arguments and policy discussion. Because I do not rubber stamp stuff or make things all sunshiny does not mean a thing.

If we are to truly hash through good policy it requires good, tough discussion on all sides. I think that is the problem for your side, including the media, though. You are not used to being challanged and adapting on an intellectually honest level. That means asking hard questions of both sides.

That also means conceding to the other side when they have a point and realizing just because one person is on side x that they are not automatically right or wrong.

@pb: I can agree with you that again, common sense measures should be in place to protect people from harm in the work place and customers from bone headed or slimely business people.

They are out there, people are inherently not good.

However, for those of us who are honest business people, the bar should not be raised at being able to run our own business.

Likewise, I have issues with the government dictating a continuing increase in wages. That is essentially a government mandated pay raise.

Could I accept some form of minimum wage? Depends on how much it is. My experience and gut tells me, though, that it is communism at the very least. What do I mean by that? I mean the government is dictating to me how to run an essential part of my business for the sole purpose of "social justice."

What people do not understand is how it will hurt busineses because in many cases the pay scale is based on minimum wage. This ranges from government jobs (that means the state of Missouri will be required to increase the pay of all of its people, automatically bloating the government even more) to union jobs to those of us who run small businesses.

In the end the people who will be hurt the worst are small businesses. We wont be able to keep up the pace without cutting somthing somewhere.

Perhaps what is the worst element of the proposal is for employers to have to constantly increase this. Is there a cap or does this keep going forever?

The higher you push that level, the harder it becomes for small businesses to operate.

Everyone wants to "stick it to the man," but few think about the honest little guy who works hard to make ends meet and has become their own man.

Citizenkan said...

Bobi, judge democrats by what Rosie O'Donnell says? Surely you jest. And for you to claim ownership of Christianity and say democrats hate Christians it the height of stupidity and hatred. I AM A CHRISTIAN and so are millions of other democrats.

And since you're a proclaimed "values voter" Bobi, are you standing up with your moral outrage at the lack of action from the House leaders on removing Mark Foley from office months ago or at least putting him in front of the ethics committee? They knew of his behavior as early as last year and did NOTHING! But I suppose, you'll find a way to justify their behavior.

Finally, Libertarian Guy, just wait until we become the North American Union, courtesy of the Bush administration and all your worries about illegal immigrants will become moot. The borders of Mexico and Canada will become blurred and corporate America will be dancing for joy.

watcher said...

You are obviously not a lawyer nor do you have any concept or understanding of the law. You have continuously called Owen a liar with absolutely no basis for doing so. This, my friend, is not good technique. It is senseless badgering. Also Tim, why don't you start proving the things that you say. "Prove it" hs such a juvenille tone and is fairly predictable. Why prove that you are BJ's campaign manager when you make it so obvious that you are nothing more than a Republican hack.

Rev Chris M Fluharty said...

Tim we owe the name change to J Q Hammons. Had he not offered to build MU a new building then Chuck Grahmn would have never ended his fiilabuster. This issue was won by lobbyist not the legislature. I was working as a staffer when t passed and could not believe the whelling and dealing that took place between the lobbyist.

newpoliticsstudent said...

Tim and Bob,
I am no shill but I have learned about people like you in some of my classes. You are not concerned with voicing convincing arguments for your party. Instead you are focussed on attacking those that share different beliefs than yours. This is what is wrong with American politics in the 21st century. You are too worried about proving your point to no end so that the people who relly need help go unnoticed and unprotected at the expense of your self-rightous views. This is shameful. Try to help people...that is what politics is supposed to be about, not this constant bickering that you display. Say something valid and helpful or don't say anything at all.

bobicus tomatocus said...

@kan: Yeah, uhuh.

I am sure there are Democrats who are Christian. Several are friends of mine. I am okay with that. It is their personal belief system.

That does not mean, however, that everyone believes the same exact thing and that is the only type of belief is the only system which should be used.

You are making my point. There are many of us who vote and run for office based on our conscience and principles read in the Bible and believe in. That does not mean we are forcing people to covert like your popagandist would like people to fear.

It should not be a disqualification like many in the Democratic party believe it to be, though.

I have given instances where Democrats, not Republicans, try to force their "religion" (in in many cases, lack there of) on communities and now even churches themselves.

It is the Democratic party in many cases who side with those, and takes action to make religion somthing that is to be not uttered in a public form and supressed. In essence they are replacing religion with no religion or government.

In either case, you still never addressed my point I made earlier.

Then again, it all goes back to trying to achive power. DNC party leaders knowing how many of us Christians vote and try to either disable that block from voting, disrupt "communications" (e.g. talking from the pulpit or holding assymbly of people - very basic tennets of our constitution) or intimidate by making Christian candidates looking like whackos.

When Democrats stop attacking Christians for voting our conscience and exercising our most basic of rights, then we can have a discussion about who fits what label.

@new student: What did I say? If you are not a campaign shill (I still believe you are) then you have an angle which you are taking. That is not in and of its self a bad thing, but you are certainly not unbiased and all that which you claimed to be.

Your comments tell me that you lean to the socialism/communism perspective.

How can I say that?

You are too worried about proving your point to no end so that the people who relly need help go unnoticed and unprotected at the expense of your self-rightous views.

The sooner you start learning to engage in policy discussion and understand that there are people in the world that are passionate about a different perspective, the sooner you will realize how important it is to question both sides and examine policy.

I would love to hear valid arguments from the other side of the isle. I would love to talk about policy specifics and discuss common ground.

Instead, though, we get responses which are lacking of substance and are wholely made of talking points and a media system which is broke because they take sides with one part of the political party.

My point is that if you really were interested in discussing "positive things" then start talking policy.

Instead, you are more interested in trying to play a game of "gotcha" with a campaign manager.

bobicus tomatocus said...

@kan: One other thing. What Foley did is completely repulsive and deserves to be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law. Period.

Regarding what you are talking about, I will wait and see what the leadership did or did not know. If Hassert knew about the IMs (which is what is what is serious), then he should go - no questions asked.

My understanding, though, is that the IMs just recently game to surface.

I do want to point out that several Democrats had sex with teenagers and pages under their supervision. Where they investigated or any sort of hub ub over this? Nope.

Can you say double standard?

Tim said...


Sigh. You are ingnoring the point I am making. Do you want to see notarized statements from Tim and Terri Piatchek regarding the lies that James Owen told about Representative Marsh's Pro-Life record and stand? Did you miss the mention on James Owen's blog in which he made up a quote attributed to me ("a lying liar who likes to lie")? And did you miss the way I refuted both lies?

Either address the lies of James Owen, or prove that I am lying.

Point is, James Owen has lied during this campaign in an attempt to smear both Representative Marsh and myself (one of his campaign workers -- not his campaign manager!). He is the lawyer -- he should surely know better.

Tim Trower

Tim said...


Oh, you've learned about people like me in class. I am so impressed. Wow.

Once you have grown up and are in the real world, maybe then you will learn that attacking someone who raises legitimate questions is merely a Clinton tactic.

You have yet to respond to my questions, instead blowing smoke about watching blogs and learning about campaigning from books and lectures. Your self-rightous view is clouding your judgement.

I am so impressed. Wow.

Tim Trower

The Libertarian Guy said...


"we become the North American Union, courtesy of the Bush administration"

Believe me, I'm no fan of Bush, but even you have to admit it's not just HIS party that's pushing this one-world nonsense.

However, I must point out, I'm not "worried" about illegal immigrants - Mexican or "Other Than Mexican" - not the way it's been portrayed lately, anyway... the conventional wisdom we've been fed lately is "if you're against people sneaking in over the borders, you're a racist or a xenophobe or just downright hateful of brown people", and I think it's disgraceful and disingenuous to distill it in such a fashion.

All I'm saying is, why bother having an immigration process, or an American citizenship process, if we just let people sneak in? Why should WE be subsidizing the Mexican nation when they could be fixing their own problems? They have resources, and a labor force. Take the corrupt and inefficient Mexican government out, put in effective, pro-capitalist leadership, and let them use their own resources to solve their own dilemma?

I don't care WHO comes here, as long as they're here legally, aren't criminals, work for their own living and stay off the dole, and sign the guestbook on the way through the turnstile. Not too much to ask, really.

Citizenkan said...

Bobi said: "Make no doubt, there is a war on Christianity because we are a threat to certain people rising to power." ..................

'Conservative Christians like to think of themselves as an embattled minority, even as they tighten their stranglehold on our laws, our economy and our culture.'

Hey, but I applaud you for denouncing your party leaders and wanting them out of office if they have, indeed, covered for a pervert. And any democrat who engages in that sort of activity with a minor should be treated in the same manner.

I'm not sure what point you wanted me to address, but if it was about politicking in church, I'm against it. From either side. It immediately becomes a devisive issue in places where people go in search of peace, understanding and brotherly love.

PbBut said...

Thanks, L-Guy, it's amazes me illegals come here because of their "admiration" for the country and the first thing they do is break the law. I'm sorry, but given a choice, that's not a character trait I would choose for a naturalized citizen or a neighbor.
As for the nonsense about performing jobs "no American will do", whatever happened to the concept that the marketplace will decide? Remember when a job in a meatpacking plant and a bricklaying job used to support a middle class family?

bobicus tomatocus said...


the marketplace will decide

Many of us still believe in this concept. I believe that there is at least some common ground here.

Remember, though, the repercussions in a free market. If the cost of production becomes too high, people might move their operations off shore.

Personally, I would like to see tax breaks for those companies who build new industry and businesses here.