Republican Traitors Declare War on the American People

[SFC Ollie]

WMD Lies - (Bush Administration) George W. Bush and his Lying Friends - YouTube

they lied

You Lie.

 

[Mr.Nick]

WMD Lies - (Bush Administration) George W. Bush and his Lying Friends - YouTube

they lied

You Lie.

You ought to just put TM on ignore.

I know for a fact they found a bunker of yellow cake in some desert bunker.

Anyone could hide WMD's in the desert..... No doubt in 100+ years some camel herder will be walking along and fall right into one of those bunkers and be like "what is all this stuff?"

The Egyptians actually did that with tombs when looters were found taking shit from the pyramids.....

The majority of the pharaohs tombs are underground to prevent looting.

It wouldn't be shocking if Saddam employed the same tactics for his WMD's, especially his chemical weaponry (which he used on the Kurds).

 

[SFC Ollie]

WMD Lies - (Bush Administration) George W. Bush and his Lying Friends - YouTube

they lied

You Lie.

You ought to just put TM on ignore.

I know for a fact they found a bunker of yellow cake in some desert bunker.

Anyone could hide WMD's in the desert..... No doubt in 100+ years some camel herder will be walking along and fall right into one of those bunkers and be like "what is all this stuff?"

The Egyptians actually did that with tombs when looters were found taking shit from the pyramids.....

The majority of the pharaohs tombs are underground to prevent looting.

It wouldn't be shocking if Saddam employed the same tactics for his WMD's, especially his chemical weaponry (which he used on the Kurds).

Well they did find 30 MIGs buried in the sand. And they found a warehouse under the desert (empty) that was large enough for 7 football fields.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ignorance is not an excuse. Ironic, you mention 'realities of the market'. The Godfather of realities of the market is Adam Smith...

In his Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith recognized that rising real wages lead to the "improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of people" and are therefore an advantage to society. Growth and a system of liberty were the means by which the laboring poor were able to secure high wages and an acceptable standard of living. Rising real wages are secured by growth through increasing productivity against stable price levels, i.e. prices not affected by inflation. A system of liberty, secured through political institutions whereupon even the "lower ranks of people" could to secure the opportunity for higher wages and an acceptable standard of living.

"Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged."

Smith WN, I .viii.36

Smith advocated that labor should receive an equitable share of what labor produces; According to Smith, this equitable share amounts to more than subsistence. Smith equated the interests of labor and the interests of land with overarching societal interests. He reasoned that as wages and rents rise, as a result of higher productivity, societal growth will occur thus increasing the quality of life for the greater part of its members.

Like all other collectivists and union flag wavers Smith had it partially correct.
The key is not "rising wages". That's inflationary and at the end of the day helps no one. Because if wages rise so do prices. The net result is a wash.
Not rising wages. It's called increasing one's skills to increase their value to an employer which in turn will allow that more skilled worker to EARN more.
There is no magic wage increase fairy. I wish you lefties would get this through your heads...That the money has to come from somewhere. And no employer has this mysterious pot of money on which he or she sits. So stow it.

Adam Smith was a 'collectivist and union flag waver'... WOW, you truly are an idiot.

You have gleaned what feeds your dogma and doctrinaire and ignored the KEY of what Smith said.

Smith advocated that labor should receive an equitable share of what labor produces.

And as usual, the marketist morons are blinded by the urge to serve your beloved opulent and dismiss the working man.

IF company A could raise the prices on their company A widgets, they would do it TODAY. What stops them from raising their prices TODAY Einstein???

Unions are not "collectives"?
Arbitrary price increases( just because they can) are impossible. Prices are controlled by the marketplace. The marketplace is what people like Smith ignore. They insist on wage fluctuations irrespective of the health of the economy or the business charged with paying said wages. The unionist solution is "just pay the wages and don't ask questions. We're not interested in your( business owner's) problems".
Here is reality. Labor.....Is NOT a collective. Labor is a commodity. Supply and demand. The cost of labor is in the individual worker's value to the company. So if a business requires a job to be filled, the owner first researches whether or not the employee's completed tasks will result in a profit for the firm. Hiring workers that help a business LOSE money is illogical.
Please spare me the unions are God horse crap. Take our hammer and sickle mantra and sell it elsewhere.
Define "working man".

 

[thereisnospoon]

Adam Smith was a 'collectivist and union flag waver'... WOW, you truly are an idiot.

You have gleaned what feeds your dogma and doctrinaire and ignored the KEY of what Smith said.

Smith advocated that labor should receive an equitable share of what labor produces.

And as usual, the marketist morons are blinded by the urge to serve your beloved opulent and dismiss the working man.

IF company A could raise the prices on their company A widgets, they would do it TODAY. What stops them from raising their prices TODAY Einstein???

Then Smith was a communist and had no clear idea how markets work.

If you invent a product, put all the time, risk and capital into bringing that product to market, you think some grunt who simply assmebles parts should get an EQUAL SHARE to the guy who risked practically everything he had to make it a reality???

The guy assembling parts has no risk in this! The guy who's investing is taking the risk.

That's an EXTREMELY IGNORANT view of capital, risk, and investing in general.

Your Adam Smith never ran a real company did he? Why don't you admit that.

Like all liberal "big thinkers" he just thought he should run a company.

You REALLY need to control your over-emotionalism, it is clouding your little brain. Do you know the difference between 'equitable share' and 'EQUAL SHARE'? Clearly NOT. Of course, labor's 'equitable share' should not be an 'EQUAL SHARE'.

MY Adam Smith... now THAT is funny!
You really don't know who Adam Smith was, do you?

In economics, invisible hand or invisible hand of the market is the term economists use to describe the self-regulating nature of the marketplace. This is a metaphor first coined by the economist Adam Smith.

Adam Smith is considered to be the founding father of right-wing free market economics. In England, the Adam Smith Institute is a bulwark of Thatcherism. In the United States, The Leadership Institute markets an Adam Smith necktie that is proudly worn by such conservative luminaries as House Majority Leader Dick Armey, former U.S. attorney-general Edwin Meese, Nobel laureate Milton Friedman and National Right to Work Committee president Reed Larson.

Adam Smith has been celebrated by advocates of free market policies as the founder of free market economics, a view reflected in the naming of bodies such as the Adam Smith Institute in London, the Adam Smith Society and the Australian Adam Smith Club, and in terms such as the Adam Smith necktie.

Too bad Milton Friedman is dead, you could have asked why he often sported an Adam Smith necktie.


NOW, let's see if you can answer my question:

IF company A could raise the prices on their company A widgets, they would do it TODAY. What stops them from raising their prices TODAY Einstein???

No pro business or free market supporter would come out with "labor( as a collective) should take an equitable share". The two are mutually exclusive.
An individual however, is able to share equitably, based not on his mere presence on the job, but by his accomplishments in his work.

 

[teapartysamurai]

You REALLY need to control your over-emotionalism, it is clouding your little brain. Do you know the difference between 'equitable share' and 'EQUAL SHARE'? Clearly NOT. Of course, labor's 'equitable share' should not be an 'EQUAL SHARE'.

MY Adam Smith... now THAT is funny!
You really don't know who Adam Smith was, do you?

In economics, invisible hand or invisible hand of the market is the term economists use to describe the self-regulating nature of the marketplace. This is a metaphor first coined by the economist Adam Smith.

Adam Smith is considered to be the founding father of right-wing free market economics. In England, the Adam Smith Institute is a bulwark of Thatcherism. In the United States, The Leadership Institute markets an Adam Smith necktie that is proudly worn by such conservative luminaries as House Majority Leader Dick Armey, former U.S. attorney-general Edwin Meese, Nobel laureate Milton Friedman and National Right to Work Committee president Reed Larson.

Adam Smith has been celebrated by advocates of free market policies as the founder of free market economics, a view reflected in the naming of bodies such as the Adam Smith Institute in London, the Adam Smith Society and the Australian Adam Smith Club, and in terms such as the Adam Smith necktie.

Too bad Milton Friedman is dead, you could have asked why he often sported an Adam Smith necktie.


NOW, let's see if you can answer my question:

IF company A could raise the prices on their company A widgets, they would do it TODAY. What stops them from raising their prices TODAY Einstein???

Dude, as I pointed out already, this is akin to "living wage" and that only hurts those who need the help the most.

When you are unskilled and looking for a start in the work force you don't need someone keeping you out, because they are insisting you get paid just as much as someone who's skilled (aka a "living wage.")

That means the employer has the choice of hiring someone who already has the skills (and he doesn't need to train) or someone he will have to take the expense to train.

It isn't hard to figure out who's going to lose on that one.

It's always well intentioned but in reality, it just doesn't work.

AGAIN, YOUR dogma and doctrinaire demands that the other side take a polarized position, when the ONLY polarized position is YOURS.

Even 'evil' unions don't insist 'unskilled' and 'looking for a start' get paid just as much as someone who's skilled.

Here is your word for the day: apprenticeship

NOW, are you going to answer my question???

IF company A could raise the prices on their company A widgets, they would do it TODAY. What stops them from raising their prices TODAY Einstein???

NOTICE THIS GENIUS won't address what I'm saying. He's just making personal attacks, and accusing me of 'crimes against humanity" blah blah blah (aka, I'm "polarizing him," oh the humanity! )

But what you will NOT address how your "living wage" actually HURTS the very people you claim will help.

And that isn't coming from some idiot in the 1700s that's coming from conservative economists TODAY, including Thomas Sowell.

But you will just go back to ranting your stupidity and refuse to address the reality.

 

[teapartysamurai]

The republican party places in a place of honor the ideas of a man who said right out in public he wants to see the government the founders designed for us DEAD.

they do his bidding over the people they are elected to serve.


The republican party wants to kill Democracy in the US.

hell look at how they have brainwashed their braindead to hate the very word Democracy

And the only evidence you have for any of this is Grover Norquist and like your evidence we want to keep blacks from voting is an article in the LA Times from 1985.

You live in your own world.

 

[teapartysamurai]

they lied

Can libs explain how Bush made Clinton and Democrats in the 90s lie about WMDs??????

CLINTON: Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world, Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish. Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

　

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAMS." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his WEAPONS PROGRAMS. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAMS. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, AND WILL KEEP TRYING TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to BUILD NUCLEAR WEAPONS, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Boy that's a LOT OF DEMOCRATS going back to the 90s that lied about WMDs!

How did Bush and Cheney get Clinton to lie like that????

 

[thereisnospoon]

Dude, as I pointed out already, this is akin to "living wage" and that only hurts those who need the help the most.

When you are unskilled and looking for a start in the work force you don't need someone keeping you out, because they are insisting you get paid just as much as someone who's skilled (aka a "living wage.")

That means the employer has the choice of hiring someone who already has the skills (and he doesn't need to train) or someone he will have to take the expense to train.

It isn't hard to figure out who's going to lose on that one.

It's always well intentioned but in reality, it just doesn't work.

AGAIN, YOUR dogma and doctrinaire demands that the other side take a polarized position, when the ONLY polarized position is YOURS.

Even 'evil' unions don't insist 'unskilled' and 'looking for a start' get paid just as much as someone who's skilled.

Here is your word for the day: apprenticeship

NOW, are you going to answer my question???

IF company A could raise the prices on their company A widgets, they would do it TODAY. What stops them from raising their prices TODAY Einstein???

NOTICE THIS GENIUS won't address what I'm saying. He's just making personal attacks, and accusing me of 'crimes against humanity" blah blah blah (aka, I'm "polarizing him," oh the humanity! )

But what you will NOT address how your "living wage" actually HURTS the very people you claim will help.

And that isn't coming from some idiot in the 1700s that's coming from conservative economists TODAY, including Thomas Sowell.

But you will just go back to ranting your stupidity and refuse to address the reality.

There is a chart for which you'll see the link after I get through this. Thew chart indicates that a worker's "living wage" for a family of 4 in Los Angeles County is over $33 per hour.
REALLY?....An unskilled entry level worker( convenience store clerk for example) making Thirty bucks an hour...That's absurd.

Living Wage Calculator - Living Wage Calculation for Los Angeles County, California

 

[Bfgrn]

Dude, as I pointed out already, this is akin to "living wage" and that only hurts those who need the help the most.

When you are unskilled and looking for a start in the work force you don't need someone keeping you out, because they are insisting you get paid just as much as someone who's skilled (aka a "living wage.")

That means the employer has the choice of hiring someone who already has the skills (and he doesn't need to train) or someone he will have to take the expense to train.

It isn't hard to figure out who's going to lose on that one.

It's always well intentioned but in reality, it just doesn't work.

AGAIN, YOUR dogma and doctrinaire demands that the other side take a polarized position, when the ONLY polarized position is YOURS.

Even 'evil' unions don't insist 'unskilled' and 'looking for a start' get paid just as much as someone who's skilled.

Here is your word for the day: apprenticeship

NOW, are you going to answer my question???

IF company A could raise the prices on their company A widgets, they would do it TODAY. What stops them from raising their prices TODAY Einstein???

NOTICE THIS GENIUS won't address what I'm saying. He's just making personal attacks, and accusing me of 'crimes against humanity" blah blah blah (aka, I'm "polarizing him," oh the humanity! )

But what you will NOT address how your "living wage" actually HURTS the very people you claim will help.

And that isn't coming from some idiot in the 1700s that's coming from conservative economists TODAY, including Thomas Sowell.

But you will just go back to ranting your stupidity and refuse to address the reality.

I did address your dogma and doctrinaire. Even 'evil' unions don't insist or expect unskilled and looking for a start in the work force to get paid just as much as someone who's skilled.

But your dogma and doctrinaire NEEDS that to be my position.

'crimes against humanity'? Your comments tell me you don't believe in 'humanity', they are not 'human', they are merely commodities, UNLESS you are among the opulent, THEN they are worthy of worship.

Conservative Book Club’s Conservative Leadership edition

The Wealth of Nations
Smith, Adam

No book has done more to instruct, enlighten, and inform conservatives about economics that Adam Smith’s undisputed classic, The Wealth of Nations. Published in 1776, it was the intellectual counterpart of the volleys fired at Lexington and Concord – a stirring cry for economic freedom that resonates to this day. It is the very basis for the thoughts of contemporary conservative economists like Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell.

Here is the third volume of the Conservative Book Club’s Conservative Leadership Series - the rarely seen, complete and unabridged The Wealth of Nations in one volume, with the classic, long-missing Ludwig von Mises introduction “Why Read Adam Smith Today?” The real question of course, is how can we afford not to.

The Best Quotes From Thomas Sowell's 'The Vision Of The Anointed'

"Although Adam Smith regarded the intentions of businessmen as selfish and anti-social, he saw the systematic consequences of their competition as being far more beneficial to society than well-intentioned government regulation." -- P. 126

 

[Dot Com]

Repubs think capitalism is a form of government.

 

[Liability]

Repubs think capitalism is a form of government.

libs make up stories about what Republicans and Conservatives "believe."

Sadly, truth is never an impediment to such libs' willingness to tell their silly stories..

 

[teapartysamurai]

AGAIN, YOUR dogma and doctrinaire demands that the other side take a polarized position, when the ONLY polarized position is YOURS.

Even 'evil' unions don't insist 'unskilled' and 'looking for a start' get paid just as much as someone who's skilled.

Here is your word for the day: apprenticeship

NOW, are you going to answer my question???

IF company A could raise the prices on their company A widgets, they would do it TODAY. What stops them from raising their prices TODAY Einstein???

NOTICE THIS GENIUS won't address what I'm saying. He's just making personal attacks, and accusing me of 'crimes against humanity" blah blah blah (aka, I'm "polarizing him," oh the humanity! )

But what you will NOT address how your "living wage" actually HURTS the very people you claim will help.

And that isn't coming from some idiot in the 1700s that's coming from conservative economists TODAY, including Thomas Sowell.

But you will just go back to ranting your stupidity and refuse to address the reality.

There is a chart for which you'll see the link after I get through this. Thew chart indicates that a worker's "living wage" for a family of 4 in Los Angeles County is over $33 per hour.
REALLY?....An unskilled entry level worker( convenience store clerk for example) making Thirty bucks an hour...That's absurd.

Living Wage Calculator - Living Wage Calculation for Los Angeles County, California

EXACTLY! No employer in their right mind is going to hire an unskilled worker at those wages.

What these "living wage" idiots don't get is, jobs aren't supposed to "support" you. They think jobs are some kind of "welfare." That's supposed to support you.

That's not what a job is for. It's supposed to PAY you for your time, and what the employer thinks YOU ARE WORTH. If you are just starting out, you agree to lower pay to get the experience you need for higher paying jobs.

That's why people just starting out may still live at home, or work two jobs, or go to school at night (etc) to better him/herself.

Is a person going to do that, if he's automatically paid $33 a hour? NO!

And the people who really need those jobs aren't going to get them, because they will be held by people who aren't interested in bettering themselves and moving on, but they are getting $33 an hour. Why move?

Living wage hurts those it's supposed to help. But you can't tell the self righteous ignoramouses that push this nonsense. They aren't interested in facts or what actually helps the poor.

They are only interested in their own vanity and "moral superiority." People like that don't care how many people they hurt in their efforts to "help them." These attention whores only care about showing off how much they "care."

 

[teapartysamurai]

AGAIN, YOUR dogma and doctrinaire demands that the other side take a polarized position, when the ONLY polarized position is YOURS.

Even 'evil' unions don't insist 'unskilled' and 'looking for a start' get paid just as much as someone who's skilled.

Here is your word for the day: apprenticeship

NOW, are you going to answer my question???

IF company A could raise the prices on their company A widgets, they would do it TODAY. What stops them from raising their prices TODAY Einstein???

NOTICE THIS GENIUS won't address what I'm saying. He's just making personal attacks, and accusing me of 'crimes against humanity" blah blah blah (aka, I'm "polarizing him," oh the humanity! )

But what you will NOT address how your "living wage" actually HURTS the very people you claim will help.

And that isn't coming from some idiot in the 1700s that's coming from conservative economists TODAY, including Thomas Sowell.

But you will just go back to ranting your stupidity and refuse to address the reality.

I did address your dogma and doctrinaire. Even 'evil' unions don't insist or expect unskilled and looking for a start in the work force to get paid just as much as someone who's skilled.

But your dogma and doctrinaire NEEDS that to be my position.

'crimes against humanity'? Your comments tell me you don't believe in 'humanity', they are not 'human', they are merely commodities, UNLESS you are among the opulent, THEN they are worthy of worship.

Conservative Book Club’s Conservative Leadership edition

The Wealth of Nations
Smith, Adam

No book has done more to instruct, enlighten, and inform conservatives about economics that Adam Smith’s undisputed classic, The Wealth of Nations. Published in 1776, it was the intellectual counterpart of the volleys fired at Lexington and Concord – a stirring cry for economic freedom that resonates to this day. It is the very basis for the thoughts of contemporary conservative economists like Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell.

Here is the third volume of the Conservative Book Club’s Conservative Leadership Series - the rarely seen, complete and unabridged The Wealth of Nations in one volume, with the classic, long-missing Ludwig von Mises introduction “Why Read Adam Smith Today?” The real question of course, is how can we afford not to.

The Best Quotes From Thomas Sowell's 'The Vision Of The Anointed'

"Although Adam Smith regarded the intentions of businessmen as selfish and anti-social, he saw the systematic consequences of their competition as being far more beneficial to society than well-intentioned government regulation." -- P. 126

In other words all you are going to do is keep reciting the same nonsense we have already debunked.

Got ya. You aren't interested in reality.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

We need to borrow, print and spend a few more TRILLIONS in social justice programs for this horrible "war" to end................

The people have wants.....................lol

 

[teapartysamurai]

Repubs think capitalism is a form of government.

That's like saying we think free speech is a form of government.

Your above statement displays far more how LIBERALS see government.

Conservatives are looking for things TO KEEP GOVERNMENT IN CHECK!

And FREEDOM is one of those things that does that.

FREE SPEECH
FREE RELIGION
FREE MARKETS.

YOU on the other hand, want the opposite. You want government to keep those FREEDOMS IN CHECK.

Never fails. When liberals dry to describe conservatism, all they end up doing is projecting their own failures.

 

[teapartysamurai]

We need to borrow, print and spend a few more TRILLIONS in social justice programs for this horrible "war" to end................

The people have wants.....................lol

You ever notice that we spent far more on the "War on Poverty" than we have ever spent on War World II to the Iraq War, and YET the ONLY time libs have a fit about "war" spending is when it's actually what the constitution says the government should do (like protect the country.)

But "WAR" on Poverty? Oh the only answer there is to spend more.

Pretty hypocritical.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Come on libs! You were talking a blue streak about how "Bush lied" about WMDs. How come you aren't talking any more?

Come on tell us! How did Bush get all those Dems in the 90s to lie about WMDs. I want to know! I even bolded the quotes from the 90s to make it easier for you.

Tell us! Why so quiet all of a sudden??????

CLINTON: Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world, Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish. Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

　

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAMS." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his WEAPONS PROGRAMS. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAMS. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, AND WILL KEEP TRYING TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to BUILD NUCLEAR WEAPONS, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

 

[teapartysamurai]

Hey guys, you're right. Republicans are declaring War. Here's the evidence right here!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/226366-republicans-declare-war.html

 

[freedombecki]

Isn't it funny how the truth keeps rearing it's ugly head? And does anyone find it funny that the same faux news parrots keep repeating the same denials?

And isn't hysterical that whenever hard evidence is presented, terms like cut& paste become the first line of defense?

But PLEASE stay on your mission, don't let any liberals talk you out of your social Darwinism.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

truth?
calling the people traitors and saying they are waging a war...
what truth is in that..?
with the Progressives it's always a WAR on something..
women
gays
blacks
and especially the war on the poor poor Government

it's all become a YAWN

I guess this guy is a 'progressive' too, huh Monica?

Alan Simpson Slams Fellow Republicans For Unwillingness To Compromise

Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) lashed out at members of his party on Sunday, slamming them for their unwillingness to compromise on proposed tax increases.

In his characteristically colorful style, Simpson told CNN's Fareed Zakaria that Republicans' rigid opposition to new tax revenues has hampered productivity and diminished the chances of reaching an agreement with Democrats on debt reduction.

"You can’t cut spending your way out of this hole," Simpson, who was appointed as co-chair of President Obama's Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform in 2010, said. "You can’t grow your way out of this hole, and you can’t tax your way out of this hole. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, we tell these people. This is madness."

Simpson continued: "If you want to be a purist, go somewhere on a mountaintop and praise the east or something. But if you want to be in politics, you learn to compromise. And you learn to compromise on the issue without compromising yourself. Show me a guy who won’t compromise and I’ll show you a guy with rock for brains."

The former senator, along with debt commission co-chair Erskine Bowles, developed a plan in 2010 for bringing down the top tax rate and lowering the deficit by repealing a number of tax cuts and credits. The initial plan, commonly known as Simpson-Bowles, was mostly ignored by lawmakers. A bipartisan budget modeled after their report was rejected by the House earlier this year.

During the interview Sunday, he expressed frustration with his party's focus on social issues, as well as the ability of outspoken figures like Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist to drive the conversation.

"I guess I'm known as a RINO now, which means a Republican in name only, because, I guess, of social views, perhaps, or common sense would be another one, which seems to escape members of our party," Simpson said. "For heaven’s sake, you have Grover Norquist wandering the earth in his white robes saying that if you raise taxes one penny, he’ll defeat you. He can’t murder you. He can’t burn your house. The only thing he can do to you, as an elected official, is defeat you for reelection. And if that means more to you than your country when we need patriots to come out in a situation when we’re in extremity, you shouldn’t even be in Congress."

If then-Senator Simpson had said such a thing as that in the Equality State, that would have been his last term as Senator.

Things change, but I don't think Wyoming has.