Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The pt is, it seems to me the OP and your posts evidence a belief that we should do nothing to help those who try hard but don't do as well ....
That's because you're a moron who thinks that we are helping people if and only if the government does it. You're FOS.
You take zero personal responsibility, you say they should get their insurance paid for free, then you send government out to do it with money confiscated by force. You pat yourself on the back for having done zero and condemn the people who actually paid for it.
Just a day at the office for a liberal...
oh fuck you if all you have is name calling.
You can't even try to address the point that some people work hard but through no fault of their own do not earn enough for a "liveable wage" or health care beyond out of pocket trip to the doc for a sore throat or something. The pt is that if society can redress that fact without costing the rest of us workers a hell of a lot, we can either try or do nothing. You choose nothing. And you can't even say why.
My intention was to make several posts, covering each area of contention, rather than one massive, and less readable one.While the other thread implies that Republicans are against higher wages because business will suffer, you seem to be against them because poor people are undeserving of higher wages.
Are both true at the same time?
Or is the former given as the excuse, while the real reason is the latter?
I asked concrete questions with specific examples. You chose not to answer them and instead opted to make general and negative comments about my motives. Thus, I choose not to answer your questions. If you would like to try again with a post which is more related to my OP and not so personal, perhaps I will reconsider.
But first, I wanted to see where you were coming from...if you would actually say...or refuse to.
But why is it wrong for me to counter with a post questioning your motives? I had just read this response in the previous thread,
"Why should they even have to work at all? They should be allowed to have as big a family as they want and sit home and paint and get subsidized healthcare and housing and food."
I was using that quote for a baseline for discussion, rather than your op. Perhaps I shouldn't? Are we starting all over? You don't mean that any more?
You now have great personal respect for the downtrodden?
Cons always ask for examples of something that wont change their minds. I think they prefer wasting everyones time and when someone refuses to waste time they claim victory from being ignorant of the answers.
That's because you believe that a twisted, self serving liberal slant is an "example" of something we asked for?
I'm a libertarian, not a con, but for this it's the same thing. You give evidence which would convince only the most partisan of Democrats (e.g., you), then ask why we aren't convinced.
My intention was to make several posts, covering each area of contention, rather than one massive, and less readable one.I asked concrete questions with specific examples. You chose not to answer them and instead opted to make general and negative comments about my motives. Thus, I choose not to answer your questions. If you would like to try again with a post which is more related to my OP and not so personal, perhaps I will reconsider.
But first, I wanted to see where you were coming from...if you would actually say...or refuse to.
But why is it wrong for me to counter with a post questioning your motives? I had just read this response in the previous thread,
"Why should they even have to work at all? They should be allowed to have as big a family as they want and sit home and paint and get subsidized healthcare and housing and food."
I was using that quote for a baseline for discussion, rather than your op. Perhaps I shouldn't? Are we starting all over? You don't mean that any more?
You now have great personal respect for the downtrodden?
Noted: You, like bendog, appear to be determined to hold me accountable for your beliefs about my beliefs.
You may counter with whatever you want -- public forum and all. And bendog can continue to maintain that the OP has some "premise" of his own invention.
And I can take note of people who go personal with their preconceived notions rather than answering the questions asked in the OP.
My intention was to make several posts, covering each area of contention, rather than one massive, and less readable one.I asked concrete questions with specific examples. You chose not to answer them and instead opted to make general and negative comments about my motives. Thus, I choose not to answer your questions. If you would like to try again with a post which is more related to my OP and not so personal, perhaps I will reconsider.
But first, I wanted to see where you were coming from...if you would actually say...or refuse to.
But why is it wrong for me to counter with a post questioning your motives? I had just read this response in the previous thread,
"Why should they even have to work at all? They should be allowed to have as big a family as they want and sit home and paint and get subsidized healthcare and housing and food."
I was using that quote for a baseline for discussion, rather than your op. Perhaps I shouldn't? Are we starting all over? You don't mean that any more?
You now have great personal respect for the downtrodden?
Noted: You, like bendog, appear to be determined to hold me accountable for your beliefs about my beliefs.
You may counter with whatever you want -- public forum and all. And bendog can continue to maintain that the OP has some "premise" of his own invention.
And I can take note of people who go personal with their preconceived notions rather than answering the questions asked in the OP.
The pt is, it seems to me the OP and your posts evidence a belief that we should do nothing to help those who try hard but don't do as well ....
That's because you're a moron who thinks that we are helping people if and only if the government does it. You're FOS.
You take zero personal responsibility, you say they should get their insurance paid for free, then you send government out to do it with money confiscated by force. You pat yourself on the back for having done zero and condemn the people who actually paid for it.
Just a day at the office for a liberal...
oh fuck you if all you have is name calling.
You can't even try to address the point that some people work hard but through no fault of their own do not earn enough for a "liveable wage" or health care beyond out of pocket trip to the doc for a sore throat or something. The pt is that if society can redress that fact without costing the rest of us workers a hell of a lot, we can either try or do nothing. You choose nothing. And you can't even say why.
That's because you're a moron who thinks that we are helping people if and only if the government does it. You're FOS.
You take zero personal responsibility, you say they should get their insurance paid for free, then you send government out to do it with money confiscated by force. You pat yourself on the back for having done zero and condemn the people who actually paid for it.
Just a day at the office for a liberal...
oh fuck you if all you have is name calling.
You can't even try to address the point that some people work hard but through no fault of their own do not earn enough for a "liveable wage" or health care beyond out of pocket trip to the doc for a sore throat or something. The pt is that if society can redress that fact without costing the rest of us workers a hell of a lot, we can either try or do nothing. You choose nothing. And you can't even say why.
I'm sick of the brain dead crap that you liberal idiots endlessly spew that if we don't believe in government distribution schemes then we're against charity. Grow a pair and argue like a man. Fuck you and the fart that blew you in. Pussy.
Cons always ask for examples of something that wont change their minds. I think they prefer wasting everyones time and when someone refuses to waste time they claim victory from being ignorant of the answers.
Who are these cons of whom you speak?
That's because you're a moron who thinks that we are helping people if and only if the government does it. You're FOS.
You take zero personal responsibility, you say they should get their insurance paid for free, then you send government out to do it with money confiscated by force. You pat yourself on the back for having done zero and condemn the people who actually paid for it.
Just a day at the office for a liberal...
This is the angle supporters of ObamaCare took that gets me the angriest. The unbelievable idea that those who are being forced to pay for the slackers in our society are the "freeloaders".
One third of the involuntarily uninsured are high school dropouts. These people will have to be carried by the rest of us. THEY are the freeloaders. THEY are being supported after making bad decisions.
And yet those who love ObamaCare call those who are being forced to buy insurance the freeloaders. Those who must be forced to buy insurance at rates higher than they deserve so they will offset the real freeloaders.
Simply incredible.
Well I don't love obamacare, but the fact is I was already carrying these folks because the present their sick kids to ERs when they are REALLY sick kids, don't pay and the bill get's forwardered to my insurer/employer, and ultimately passed to me or product cost hikes.
I object to the notion of "doing nothing."
And ps, not everyone who drops out of school had the ability to get through it or evidences malingering.
Cons always ask for examples of something that wont change their minds. I think they prefer wasting everyones time and when someone refuses to waste time they claim victory from being ignorant of the answers.
Who are these cons of whom you speak?
You're one of them
oh fuck you if all you have is name calling.
You can't even try to address the point that some people work hard but through no fault of their own do not earn enough for a "liveable wage" or health care beyond out of pocket trip to the doc for a sore throat or something. The pt is that if society can redress that fact without costing the rest of us workers a hell of a lot, we can either try or do nothing. You choose nothing. And you can't even say why.
I'm sick of the brain dead crap that you liberal idiots endlessly spew that if we don't believe in government distribution schemes then we're against charity. Grow a pair and argue like a man. Fuck you and the fart that blew you in. Pussy.
good eat shit and die, bitch. And let's ignore each other.
ps, if you're a female please read leaking asshole rather than bitch
Who are these cons of whom you speak?
You're one of them
I am not a con.
You make an interesting point
But as a follow up. If your employee doesn't earn enough to support himself, should the taxpayer make up the difference?
Should an employer have the taxpayers support his employees just so that he can profit off of substandard wages?
My intention was to make several posts, covering each area of contention, rather than one massive, and less readable one.
But first, I wanted to see where you were coming from...if you would actually say...or refuse to.
But why is it wrong for me to counter with a post questioning your motives? I had just read this response in the previous thread,
"Why should they even have to work at all? They should be allowed to have as big a family as they want and sit home and paint and get subsidized healthcare and housing and food."
I was using that quote for a baseline for discussion, rather than your op. Perhaps I shouldn't? Are we starting all over? You don't mean that any more?
You now have great personal respect for the downtrodden?
Noted: You, like bendog, appear to be determined to hold me accountable for your beliefs about my beliefs.
You may counter with whatever you want -- public forum and all. And bendog can continue to maintain that the OP has some "premise" of his own invention.
And I can take note of people who go personal with their preconceived notions rather than answering the questions asked in the OP.
10/10 not one question was touched. Skillz
I knew you were going to try that angle.
A rose by any other name...
In another thread someone claimed that people have a right to be paid enough to support a family. I'd like to hear input from others on this.
Does a person with a paper route have the right to be paid enough to support a family?
Should a grocery bagger get paid enough to support a family?
What is the lowest level of job where you think the employers should be required to pay their employees enough to support a family? And how large of a family should this job be able to support?
If my brother quit his computer job and went to work as a Wal-Mart stocker, should he be able to expect Wal-Mart to pay him enough to support his six children?
Should an employer have the taxpayers support his employees just so that he can profit off of substandard wages?
You make an interesting point
But as a follow up. If your employee doesn't earn enough to support himself, should the taxpayer make up the difference?
Should an employer have the taxpayers support his employees just so that he can profit off of substandard wages?
End state welfare.. corporate and individual..
You don't make enough??.. work more jobs.. or do what you have to do...
Good answer....
But it assumes there are two or three additional low paying jobs available for the millions of people who do not make enough to support themselves or their families
