[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Dude, it’s a political forum! What are you, a debater?!
Obviously, you log in to high-five those who share your opinion and ignore the rest.
[/quote]
This is why I rarely log on and post anymore. Nothing but an ultra right wing, religiously driven, conservative circle jerk. My last go’round in the SCOTUS-DOMA thread once again proved this.
And the whole placing people on ignore thing is lame and childish. I mean, several people placed me on ignore for using the word “honkey”. LOL…good grief.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Dude, it’s a political forum! What are you, a debater?!
Obviously, you log in to high-five those who share your opinion and ignore the rest.
[/quote]
This is why I rarely log on and post anymore. Nothing but an ultra right wing, religiously driven, conservative circle jerk. My last go’round in the SCOTUS-DOMA thread once again proved this.
And the whole placing people on ignore thing is lame and childish. I mean, several people placed me on ignore for using the word “honkey”. LOL…good grief.
What a bunch of uptight honkey’s.
[/quote]
i know i shouldnt, i just cant freaking resist.
i cant remember if you are a peckerwood or a tanto. care to enlighten me?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Dude, it’s a political forum! What are you, a debater?!
Obviously, you log in to high-five those who share your opinion and ignore the rest.
[/quote]
This is why I rarely log on and post anymore. Nothing but an ultra right wing, religiously driven, conservative circle jerk. My last go’round in the SCOTUS-DOMA thread once again proved this.
And the whole placing people on ignore thing is lame and childish. I mean, several people placed me on ignore for using the word “honkey”. LOL…good grief.
What a bunch of uptight honkey’s.
[/quote]
i know i shouldnt, i just cant freaking resist.
i cant remember if you are a peckerwood or a tanto. care to enlighten me?
[/quote]
I suppose I might be referred to as a peckerwood, depending on where we’re at geographically here in the good ol’ US of A, but I rather prefer honkey or cracker.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Dude, it’s a political forum! What are you, a debater?!
Obviously, you log in to high-five those who share your opinion and ignore the rest.
[/quote]
This is why I rarely log on and post anymore. Nothing but an ultra right wing, religiously driven, conservative circle jerk. My last go’round in the SCOTUS-DOMA thread once again proved this.
And the whole placing people on ignore thing is lame and childish. I mean, several people placed me on ignore for using the word “honkey”. LOL…good grief.
What a bunch of uptight honkey’s.
[/quote]
i know i shouldnt, i just cant freaking resist.
i cant remember if you are a peckerwood or a tanto. care to enlighten me?
[/quote]
I suppose I might be referred to as a peckerwood, depending on where we’re at geographically here in the good ol’ US of A, but I rather prefer honkey or cracker. [/quote]
lol, fair enough. I was in a goofy mood when I posted that… But since you are one means you can use the word, doesnt it?
I have always been fond of white bread. Not because of my complexion (I am 1/8 Iroquois so I tan well) but because I loves me some good old bleached flour white bread.
This is why I rarely log on and post anymore. Nothing but an ultra right wing, religiously driven, conservative circle jerk. My last go’round in the SCOTUS-DOMA thread once again proved this.
[/quote]
lol…
Your perception and reality are two entirely different things. But by all means, continue to ignore, purposely misinterpret and utterly misrepresent what people say if it helps you sleep at night.
This passive aggressive swipe in a totally irrelevant topic thread is as childish as your constant use of internet memes to try and make a point. I think everyone befits from your lack of logging on, your better served picking up new cool e-lingo to “pwn” people with…
I like Pitt, he can be a bit weird, but he is ok. Zepplin on the other hand by all means put him on ignore.[/quote]
Already have zep on ignore. I can’t stand when people hold onto and defend positions that have been shown to be stupid, and it’s easier to just not see their posts in the first place, since debating with them is pointless. [/quote]
Please go the way of ddmadox as like him, you contribute nothing of substance.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I just can’t comprehend how people convince themselves, logically, big companies must be inherently evil.
The people that are making minimum wage there are virtually always UNskilled workers. You’re not supposed to be able to live well without any skills. That’s why we get skills and use them in a workplace. You can, however, live off of minimum wage. It’s just not gonna be all super cushy, but as long as you’re smart with your money and live within your means, absolutely possible. People having these ridiculous entitlements and feeling they deserve a nice car and 2 more bedrooms than they have residents, an iphone, and go out to eat every day, that is the real problem. [/quote]
If big companies are taxed at a lower rate than small companies than the big company is at a huge advantage of the small company. A lot of time in retail profit is in the single digit percent range . Walmart may pay %0 and Ma and pa may pay %25 . Sales tax rates are more erroneous .
[/quote]
You typed nothing that was relevant to his post.
Nada.
Why not address that you CAN in fact live off minimum wage if you are not an entitled ass.[/quote]
I see people that live off the minimum wage. 2 wage earners, maybe a couple of kids and they barely scrape by. Some rent apartments, some have small houses with nothing inside them, 1 car that is held together with duct tape and baling wire. If you have no mortgage (or live with parents in their basement…), the situation is better. Retirement… what’s that? These people will work until they’re 75 unless they flee the US. Lots of immigrants do this, bust ass for 30 years, go back home and live like kings. They deposit part of every check diligently to a bank there. Their own version of the IRA. Do people in the US do that? Maybe if you have an IRA through work for a forced-savings.
I said this before and most of my conservative friends here have jumped on me like I was insane/communist/closeted lib, but there is nothing wrong with paying a person doing honest work, no matter how unskilled - a real livable wage for a full work week.
No one is crying to have them drive BMWs or live in 4000’ ocean front between trips to buy high end electronics and cruises.
Most of the work is thankless, mind-numbingly dull, or disgusting.
If you somehow do not see value of shelves being stocked, floors swept & toilets cleaned, garbage being picked up, fast food being made even though you utilize these services daily; then you probably need a dose of humility and thankfulness that you were fortunate to have a better situation than they.
By this reckoning, the lineman that gets hurt does not deserve to be looked at by the team doctor, much less helped off of the field. Damn he should have been smart enough to be the quarterback or fast enough to be the running back.
[quote]treco wrote:
I said this before and most of my conservative friends here have jumped on me like I was insane/communist/closeted lib, but there is nothing wrong with paying a person doing honest work, no matter how unskilled - a real livable wage for a full work week.
No one is crying to have them drive BMWs or live in 4000’ ocean front between trips to buy high end electronics and cruises.
Most of the work is thankless, mind-numbingly dull, or disgusting.
If you somehow do not see value of shelves being stocked, floors swept & toilets cleaned, garbage being picked up, fast food being made even though you utilize these services daily; then you probably need a dose of humility and thankfulness that you were fortunate to have a better situation than they.
By this reckoning, the lineman that gets hurt does not deserve to be looked at by the team doctor, much less helped off of the field. Damn he should have been smart enough to be the quarterback or fast enough to be the running back.[/quote]
Fucking Communist , totally agree , I don’t get it the conservatives want welfare to be more profitable than working for a living , go figure
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Fucking Communist , totally agree , I don’t get it the conservatives want welfare to be more profitable than working for a living , go figure
[/quote]
Welfare recipients certainly do work for their income. As long as those who contribute nothing are allowed to vote, they will continue to do so. They do exactly what their employer wants them to.
I don’t think many people you describe as “conservative” want welfare at all.
To claim “conservatives want welfare to be more profitable than working for a living,” would be like the government limiting each McDonald’s restaurant to selling one burger a day, then opening its own fast food restaurants and claiming the results prove government is more efficient than private enterprise.
[quote]treco wrote:
I said this before and most of my conservative friends here have jumped on me like I was insane/communist/closeted lib, but there is nothing wrong with paying a person doing honest work, no matter how unskilled - a real livable wage for a full work week.
No one is crying to have them drive BMWs or live in 4000’ ocean front between trips to buy high end electronics and cruises.
Most of the work is thankless, mind-numbingly dull, or disgusting.
If you somehow do not see value of shelves being stocked, floors swept & toilets cleaned, garbage being picked up, fast food being made even though you utilize these services daily; then you probably need a dose of humility and thankfulness that you were fortunate to have a better situation than they.
By this reckoning, the lineman that gets hurt does not deserve to be looked at by the team doctor, much less helped off of the field. Damn he should have been smart enough to be the quarterback or fast enough to be the running back.[/quote]
I completely agree that there’s nothing wrong with paying people a “living wage.” I totally disagree that anyone should be forced to pay another anything other than what those two have agreed to.
Your scenario has nothing to do with this issue. It would be closer if you said a cashier at the grocery store down the street from the stadium was denied medical attention in the team’s facilities after being hurt at the store. A lineman has a contract, which I’m sure guarantees medical attention.
[quote]treco wrote:
I said this before and most of my conservative friends here have jumped on me like I was insane/communist/closeted lib, but there is nothing wrong with paying a person doing honest work, no matter how unskilled - a real livable wage for a full work week.
No one is crying to have them drive BMWs or live in 4000’ ocean front between trips to buy high end electronics and cruises.
Most of the work is thankless, mind-numbingly dull, or disgusting.
If you somehow do not see value of shelves being stocked, floors swept & toilets cleaned, garbage being picked up, fast food being made even though you utilize these services daily; then you probably need a dose of humility and thankfulness that you were fortunate to have a better situation than they.
By this reckoning, the lineman that gets hurt does not deserve to be looked at by the team doctor, much less helped off of the field. Damn he should have been smart enough to be the quarterback or fast enough to be the running back.[/quote]
I completely agree that there’s nothing wrong with paying people a “living wage.” I totally disagree that anyone should be forced to pay another anything other than what those two have agreed to.
Your scenario has nothing to do with this issue. It would be closer if you said a cashier at the grocery store down the street from the stadium was denied medical attention in the team’s facilities after being hurt at the store. A lineman has a contract, which I’m sure guarantees medical attention.[/quote]
While this sounds good and fair in theory “I completely agree that there’s nothing wrong with paying people a “living wage.” I totally disagree that anyone should be forced to pay another anything other than what those two have agreed to.” what is it’s real world application? The poor are being trampled under foot by people like the Waltons. I see no reason why the German government placed demands on the Waltons and Walmart still opened and made a good profit but the U.S. cannot do the same thing.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The poor are being trampled under foot by people like the Waltons. I see no reason why the German government placed demands on the Waltons and Walmart still opened and made a good profit but the U.S. cannot do the same thing.[/quote]
You’re a good little socialist. I, on the other hand, see no reason people can’t refuse to work for Wal-Mart for less than the worth they assign themselves.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The poor are being trampled under foot by people like the Waltons. I see no reason why the German government placed demands on the Waltons and Walmart still opened and made a good profit but the U.S. cannot do the same thing.[/quote]
You’re a good little socialist. I, on the other hand, see no reason people can’t refuse to work for Wal-Mart for less than the worth they assign themselves.[/quote]
And you see no reason to stand up to the powerful and demand more. A total coward who doesn’t care about the public.
Plus you have no real answer to the Germany question other than to call me a socialist. You have no argument as to why the U.S. cannot do the same thing.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
You’re a good little socialist. I, on the other hand, see no reason people can’t refuse to work for Wal-Mart for less than the worth they assign themselves.[/quote]
And you see no reason to stand up to the powerful and demand more. A total coward who doesn’t care about the public.
Plus you have no real answer to the Germany question other than to call me a socialist. You have no argument as to why the U.S. cannot do the same thing. [/quote]
I believe if you take a look at my second sentence, you’ll see that I see no reason workers can’t “stand up to the powerful and demand more.”
What other answer are you looking for in regards to Germany? You don’t believe people should be free. I do. I don’t believe I ever said the U.S. can’t do the same. Can and should are different.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
You’re a good little socialist. I, on the other hand, see no reason people can’t refuse to work for Wal-Mart for less than the worth they assign themselves.[/quote]
And you see no reason to stand up to the powerful and demand more. A total coward who doesn’t care about the public.
Plus you have no real answer to the Germany question other than to call me a socialist. You have no argument as to why the U.S. cannot do the same thing. [/quote]
I believe if you take a look at my second sentence, you’ll see that I see no reason workers can’t “stand up to the powerful and demand more.”
What other answer are you looking for in regards to Germany? You don’t believe people should be free. I do. I don’t believe I ever said the U.S. can’t do the same. Can and should are different.[/quote]
Why can’t government elected officials do the same thing?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Why can’t government elected officials do the same thing?
[/quote]
I already said they can. They SHOULD not because they’re an uninvolved third party. If you offer to pay for someone’s food at McDonald’s, then he/she decides he/she wants you to pay for his/her meal at Outback, should the first person you two pass on the street be able to make you pay for dinner wherever he/she wants(while pointing a gun at you)?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Why can’t government elected officials do the same thing?
[/quote]
I already said they can. They SHOULD not because they’re an uninvolved third party.[/quote]
In an actual free market economy the government should be an uninvolved third party. The United States is many decades removed from free markets. At every level the ‘state’ determines; through a variety of means; who the winners and losers will be.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Why can’t government elected officials do the same thing?
[/quote]
I already said they can. They SHOULD not because they’re an uninvolved third party.[/quote]
In an actual free market economy the government should be an uninvolved third party. The United States is many decades removed from free markets. At every level the ‘state’ determines; through a variety of means; who the winners and losers will be.
[/quote]
