Why I Didn't Go Back in the Corps

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And that theory of yours is asinine. Where has that ever been demonstrated?
[/quote]

This is not his theory. In fact, none of the things we keep telling you is some sort of original idea.

Reality is but discoverable if you can open your eye and rationalize.

It does not take a rocket scientist – ha! – to figure out that if you force a business owner to pay higher wages he must either charge more for his products to make up for the short fall or hire less employees. In either case society is damaged in some way because it brings less goods and services in to production when all is said and done – as a result, prices rise anyway and now our previous minimum wage must be raised yet again.

It is, in fact, the minimum wage that is a self-fulling prophecy that the poor will need a minimum wage to continue to “live” – as you put it.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
orion wrote:

Rising wages are an inevitable market function and not something that can be willed by a government.

Inevitable my ass. There’s plenty of jobs that pay so little it would be impossible to live off them. I guess this skipped over those?

In fact, minimum wages only make sure that those who are not productive enough to get paid that wage remain unemployed, i.e. they lead to structural unemployment.

It was made so, as Bill Maher once said, “The lower class doesn’t rise up and kill people like you and me.”

And that theory of yours is asinine. Where has that ever been demonstrated?
[/quote]

And again:

Wages rise with productivity.

THEY MUST BECAUSE CAPITALISTS COMPETE FOR THE WORKFORCE TOO OR ELSE THEIR CAPITAL IS IDLE.

More capital makes the economy more productive.

Therefore, capital accumulation leads to higher wages.

That is not debatable. You can research this or not, but if you understood what I posted you would know that it must be true. There is no need for it to be “proven”, though it can be demonstrated, it is a logical necessity.

The implication of that is of course why you do not research this, because it would mean that government interference hurt the poor the most.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Shelter is not a leisure, I will explain no illogical accusations from me on this one as I can understand fallacy as most people do not inherently understand the situation.

Poorly used? Maybe for the situation.[/quote]

I said poorly formed, not used. FOUR (count’em) prepositional phrases of ambiguous type in a row?!?

Most of your sentences aren’t much better.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
So people should be allowed to smoke on airplanes, in buses, in malls, etc.? That’s what you’re saying, right?

Yes, of course. If the owner permits it.

I may not think that would be a wise business move on the owners part but its not my business whether he drives all of his customers away or not.

I certainly would not do business with such a person, as a nonsmoker.

Except that it is likely that you wouldn’t have a choice, because when things are legal, very, very few ban them.

So you, as a non-smoker, would be effectively forced to deal with cigarette smoke, even in places where allowing it makes absolutely no sense, such as in a plane. And it would have an adverse affect on the health of others, especially people forced to deal with it like waiters and bartenders who might not smoke themselves.

Sounds like a hell of a plan Brownie.[/quote]

Christ, a guy posts then goes to work for a day and look what happens. You bastards have jobs?

Irish, I used to work at a Casino as a card dealer. I did this before the ban was emplaced in Washington and afterwards. I have to admit as a non-smoker it was a lot nicer dealing cards without smoke in your face. That said, it still was an act of majoritarian tyranny.

No one made me work there. No one made someone come into the casino. Hell, in fact wouldn’t you be doing a better public service by discouraging people from gambling by allowing smoking than by saving the health of the non-gamblers from second hand smoke?

We had two rooms in the casino. The room with the table games tended to have the serious gamblers. These tended to be older people with all sorts of other fun nasty habits. They smoked and drank lots of hard liqour. The other room was the poker room. It tended to be inhabited by the younger college crowd. They drank beer and did not smoke.

Both the table games and the poker tables started out in the same room. The college kids bitched and would sit out several hands every hour because of the smoke. The result: a second room was put up and smoking was no longer allowed in the poker room. More college kids came. It was the damndest thing.

About two years later state thuggery revealed its ugly head. Washington passed their statewide smoking ban. The result was the players at my table left several times an hour to go smoke outside. This kept them off of my table and had them returning pissed because it’s cold out there in winter. It made a very noticeable impact on my tips.

I boycott places all the time. I don’t go to WalMart, one of our local chain grocers or one of the local sporting goods stores because they banned the open carry of firearms, a practice legal here. I still went to the bars, and loved the smell of smoke. It may have been gross, but to me it smelled like freedom. Now we are no longer free to choose whether or not to boycott the bars based on our prefences. This also hurts the current bars in town that are non-smoking because they just lost their appeal to a large section of the kids here.

The point of all this is that yes, people do make decisions based on market forces despite the legality of things. Hell, why do you think so many restaurants went smoke-free?

mike

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
…and on an unrelated note, my city council unanimously voted to outlaw smoking in bars. Go fuck yourself America. I would move somewhere else, but there’s nowhere else to go.

mike

I think you’d be surprised to find out how many people who’ve been in the military actually agree with you, Mike.

We’re fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq for what reason, exactly? I dunno. Can anyone here tell me? I guess it’s in our national interests if the Sunnis and Shi’a start offing one another, but it should have been obvious that that was going to happen from the beginning, which rules out Iraq II being a just war.

Anyways, my sister just got a new billet that makes it likely she’ll go to Afghanistan to help try to civilize the Pashtuns - a sisyphian task, if there ever was one. A couple of her close friends have recently died there.

As my pastor recently put it (he’s a former naval officer, btw), “Sending your kids into the military is like offering them to Molech.” [/quote]

Re: Iraq. I agree that we really aren’t doing much for America fighting overseas. But I went specifically for the Iraqis. Can’t say we didn’t do them any good.

mike

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Obama has speeded up the collapse of the country. Whatever is in our future is going to be determined a lot by who is in our military.

[/quote]

Your son’s leadership will be important. While I agree the military will play a big part, only about 40% of the military and 10% of cops are going to be “good guys”

mike

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
People actually read Mike’s post, saw the cartoon, and thought this was a discussion about smoking in bars? Unbefuckinglievable.[/quote]

Yeah, amazing this turned into a conversation on smoking because it’s incredible that there’s even a conversation about something so obvious.

[quote]

Similarly, in the cartoon, I don’t want to see the soldier or Marine or whatever just sitting there with a tear in his eye as he hears about the soft coup d’etat going on quietly behind his back. I want to see him getting mad as hell, getting his friends together, and going out to take his country back from the usurping assholes who are despoiling it.

Now that would be a good cartoon. What say you, Mike?[/quote]

No, I don’t like that idea Varq. It’d be unpatriotic. grin

mike

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

Your son’s leadership will be important. While I agree the military will play a big part, only about 40% of the military and 10% of cops are going to be “good guys”

mike[/quote]

Mike, I just came off four years of (Army) active duty service. I would argue that your 40% is a bit too generous and that the percentage of good guys would be closer to that of cops.

Just my 2 cents.

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Christ, a guy posts then goes to work for a day and look what happens. You bastards have jobs?

[/quote]

looks down no :frowning: