Romney: Income inequality is just "envy"

[drsmith1072]

So you'd like the choice of joining a union while forcing others to join with you even if they would rather not.

OK we know where you stand on personal choice.

You have a choice not to work at a company that employs more than 50 workers meaning that you would not fit into the standards proposed by joe. You make the choice to work in a union shop then you have only yourself to blame.

Say that when every place is union like in the trades.

it's extortion plain and simple for a union to force people to pay tens of thousands of dollars to them over a working lifetime simply to be able to work

Nice spin but you made a claim about how you were "forced" to join a union in order to get a job and yet you CHOSE to take that job. You were not forced to take the job and if you didn't know that it was a union workplace then your ignorance is no ones fault but your own.

Your rhetoric about unions is nothing but the typical line of right wing anti union talking point bs but then I have come to expect that from those on the right.

 

[bripat9643]

So are you for or agaisnt the minimum wage? The minimum wage is the government defining and regulating the minimum amount of money paid to employees in this country so why is it ok for the bottom to be defined and regulated but not the top??

Aside from left-wingers, whoever said that was OK?

Your argument is that since left-wingers approve of one thing, Republicans are hypocrites if the don't approve of something else left-wingers want.

Seldom do you see an argument that stupid in black and white.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You have a choice not to work at a company that employs more than 50 workers meaning that you would not fit into the standards proposed by joe. You make the choice to work in a union shop then you have only yourself to blame.

Say that when every place is union like in the trades.

it's extortion plain and simple for a union to force people to pay tens of thousands of dollars to them over a working lifetime simply to be able to work

Nice spin but you made a claim about how you were "forced" to join a union in order to get a job and yet you CHOSE to take that job. You were not forced to take the job and if you didn't know that it was a union workplace then your ignorance is no ones fault but your own.

Your rhetoric about unions is nothing but the typical line of right wing anti union talking point bs but then I have come to expect that from those on the right.

I had to take that job because it was the only one I could get to at the time. I was in school and didn't have a car because I was saving for tuition.

And the only thing I said about unions were that they should not be able to force people to join them and pay dues.

 

[bripat9643]

You could have "chosen" to work somewhere else. However, you "chose" to work there and were required to work under the rules that applied to that job before you "chose" to take it. Seems to me that you had a porblem with the "choice" that you made.

Rules imposed by union thugs are pure coercion. Unions are third parties who insert themselves into the negotiations using force. They are no different than the "rules" Guido the Leg Breaker imposes on local businesses that choose to open on his turf.

That's your conception of "choice."

 

[drsmith1072]

So are you for or agaisnt the minimum wage? The minimum wage is the government defining and regulating the minimum amount of money paid to employees in this country so why is it ok for the bottom to be defined and regulated but not the top??

Aside from left-wingers, whoever said that was OK?

Your argument is that since left-wingers approve of one thing, Republicans are hypocrites if the don't approve of something else left-wingers want.

Seldom do you see an argument that stupid in black and white.

Uh that is why I asked the question moron. Furthermore based on the fact that I don't see any republicans talking about repealing the minimum wage my guess is that it's not going anywhere anytime soon. Therefore, I presented an argument based on the fact that one exists and is defined by the government and is not going anywhere so why can't the other.

It only takes common sense, something that you obviously lack, to ask why is one ok and the other not.

Then in true moronic right wing avoidance fashion you failed to answer even such a simple question.

When the right starts campaigning on a platform of repealing the minimum wage then you can proclaim that the right is against it until then your rhetoric is pointless and a waste of space.

 

[bripat9643]

Nice spin but you made a claim about how you were "forced" to join a union in order to get a job and yet you CHOSE to take that job. You were not forced to take the job and if you didn't know that it was a union workplace then your ignorance is no ones fault but your own.

Your rhetoric about unions is nothing but the typical line of right wing anti union talking point bs but then I have come to expect that from those on the right.

Choosing a job doesn't mean both parties voluntarily agreed to the terms imposed by a gang of thugs. The employer didn't agree voluntarily. The union forces the employer to accept its terms at gun point. It's the same as if some armed crooks entered a bank and forced the clerks to hand out money to anyone who entered the lobby at gunpoint. Great for a lucky few, but not good for the bank or its depositors.

That's your conception of "voluntary." It's the kind of "choice" a mugger offers you: your money or your life.

 

[drsmith1072]

Say that when every place is union like in the trades.

it's extortion plain and simple for a union to force people to pay tens of thousands of dollars to them over a working lifetime simply to be able to work

Nice spin but you made a claim about how you were "forced" to join a union in order to get a job and yet you CHOSE to take that job. You were not forced to take the job and if you didn't know that it was a union workplace then your ignorance is no ones fault but your own.

Your rhetoric about unions is nothing but the typical line of right wing anti union talking point bs but then I have come to expect that from those on the right.

I had to take that job because it was the only one I could get to at the time. I was in school and didn't have a car because I was saving for tuition.

And the only thing I said about unions were that they should not be able to force people to join them and pay dues.

LOL. You did not HAVE to take that job. No one forced you to take it, you made a CHOICE and are now whining about it.
Furthermore, you said a lot more than just that. You presented a claim to try and personalize your spin and claimed that you were forced to join a union and pay dues in order to get the job and yet it was your CHOICE on whether or not to take that job and you knew ahead of time the requirements BEFORE you took it.
That is all on you and you alone.

 

[bripat9643]

Uh that is why I asked the question moron. Furthermore based on the fact that I don't see any republicans talking about repealing the minimum wage my guess is that it's not going anywhere anytime soon. Therefore, I presented an argument based on the fact that one exists and is defined by the government and is not going anywhere so why can't the other.

So your argument is that since the government does one stupid thing, then there's no reason it shouldn't do another?

It really is a hoot watching you call other people stupid!

It only takes common sense, something that you obviously lack, to ask why is one ok and the other not.

Doing too stupid things instead of one stupid thing is your conception of "common sense?"

The laughs just keep rolling whenever you post, don't they?

Then in true moronic right wing avoidance fashion you failed to answer even such a simple question.

What question, why we can't do two stupid things instead of just one? To ask the question is to answer it = that is, after everyone stops laughing.

When the right starts campaigning on a platform of repealing the minimum wage then you can proclaim that the right is against it until then your rhetoric is pointless and a waste of space.

The right has often campaigned against the minimum wage, so you're looking especially stupid now, aren't you?

 

[bripat9643]

LOL. You did not HAVE to take that job. No one forced you to take it, you made a CHOICE and are now whining about it.
Furthermore, you said a lot more than just that. You presented a claim to try and personalize your spin and claimed that you were forced to join a union and pay dues in order to get the job and yet it was your CHOICE on whether or not to take that job and you knew ahead of time the requirements BEFORE you took it.
That is all on you and you alone.

I already pointed out that your conception of "choice" is the same kind of choice that a mugger gives you.

Like all leftwingers, you're nothing but a cheap thug.

 

[amrchaos]

So you aren't angry with the rich because they have more money than you? Isn't that the very definition of envy?

I don't think it is just "envy" that propel people to talk about wealth inequality.

The thing that tends to strike a chord with, say, the lower and middle class working folks is "What the hell did they do to get so rich?"

Yes, some rich people worked hard to become rich--but not all of them.
And for those that hit the genetic jackpot, why are they excused from the working class due to the activities of their parents(Their mom or pop may have worked hard, but the child maybe a lazy bum that could not survive the real world if left in it for a week!)


In short, the make-up of the wealthy is not soley dependent on talent and hardwork. There are other factors that determine who will become rich and who will not. Is that a good thing or bad thing depends on which side of the capitalist arguement you sit on.

(Personally, I like the idea of becoming rich without working hard. Not only does it fly into the face of rights arguements for capitalism, It also flies into the face of leftist arguement for socialsim! Luck is an MF global executive!)

 

[drsmith1072]

You could have "chosen" to work somewhere else. However, you "chose" to work there and were required to work under the rules that applied to that job before you "chose" to take it. Seems to me that you had a porblem with the "choice" that you made.

Rules imposed by union thugs are pure coercion. Unions are third parties who insert themselves into the negotiations using force. They are no different than the "rules" Guido the Leg Breaker imposes on local businesses that choose to open on his turf.

That's your conception of "choice."

WOW more entertainment presented as fact. LOL

How do unions use "force" to insert themselves?? Care to explain how unions are no different than "quido"?? Got proof or are you just running of the fiction that you have been fed about unions for years? Oh yeah those evil teachers unions are going to break peoples legs. Then there are the postal workers if you tick them off they might just have to crumble your junk mail up. oh don't forget the firefighter and polce unions those are the worst.

Your hyperbole only serves to make you look ridiculous.

The fact is that IF skull's story is based on fact and he had to join a union in order to get a job then he knew that going into the job and made a CHOICE to take the job anyway knowing full well what to expect and if he didn't know then that his own fault.

 

[drsmith1072]

Nice spin but you made a claim about how you were "forced" to join a union in order to get a job and yet you CHOSE to take that job. You were not forced to take the job and if you didn't know that it was a union workplace then your ignorance is no ones fault but your own.

Your rhetoric about unions is nothing but the typical line of right wing anti union talking point bs but then I have come to expect that from those on the right.

Choosing a job doesn't mean both parties voluntarily agreed to the terms imposed by a gang of thugs. The employer didn't agree voluntarily. The union forces the employer to accept its terms at gun point. It's the same as if some armed crooks entered a bank and forced the clerks to hand out money to anyone who entered the lobby at gunpoint. Great for a lucky few, but not good for the bank or its depositors.

That's your conception of "voluntary." It's the kind of "choice" a mugger offers you: your money or your life.

More moronic hyperbole from you. Is that all that you have to offer?? You be sure to let me know when you want to discuss this like an adult, then we can talk. until then keep your childish inane and baseless rantings to yourself. gun point?? LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

Uh that is why I asked the question moron. Furthermore based on the fact that I don't see any republicans talking about repealing the minimum wage my guess is that it's not going anywhere anytime soon. Therefore, I presented an argument based on the fact that one exists and is defined by the government and is not going anywhere so why can't the other.

So your argument is that since the government does one stupid thing, then there's no reason it shouldn't do another?

It really is a hoot watching you call other people stupid!

It only takes common sense, something that you obviously lack, to ask why is one ok and the other not.

Doing too stupid things instead of one stupid thing is your conception of "common sense?"

The laughs just keep rolling whenever you post, don't they?

Then in true moronic right wing avoidance fashion you failed to answer even such a simple question.

What question, why we can't do two stupid things instead of just one? To ask the question is to answer it = that is, after everyone stops laughing.

When the right starts campaigning on a platform of repealing the minimum wage then you can proclaim that the right is against it until then your rhetoric is pointless and a waste of space.

The right has often campaigned against the minimum wage, so you're looking especially stupid now, aren't you?

I clearly defined my argument. The fact that you have to try and redefine it to suit your needs shows how dishonest you are. Apparently, all you have to offer are personal attacks and hyperbole that only serves discredit your argument the moment you try to make it.

 

[drsmith1072]

LOL. You did not HAVE to take that job. No one forced you to take it, you made a CHOICE and are now whining about it.
Furthermore, you said a lot more than just that. You presented a claim to try and personalize your spin and claimed that you were forced to join a union and pay dues in order to get the job and yet it was your CHOICE on whether or not to take that job and you knew ahead of time the requirements BEFORE you took it.
That is all on you and you alone.

I already pointed out that your conception of "choice" is the same kind of choice that a mugger gives you.

Like all leftwingers, you're nothing but a cheap thug.

LOL you present nothing but hyperbole and actually believe that you are making a valid argument?? Really??

The funny thing is that you call me a "cheap thug" and yet you were the one that trolled in and just started calling people names as you spewed a bunch baseless garbage that you know you can't support with anything real even as you pretend that everything that you say is irrefutable fact. LOL
Thank you for being the charlie sheen of the message boards. WINNING! LOL

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nice spin but you made a claim about how you were "forced" to join a union in order to get a job and yet you CHOSE to take that job. You were not forced to take the job and if you didn't know that it was a union workplace then your ignorance is no ones fault but your own.

Your rhetoric about unions is nothing but the typical line of right wing anti union talking point bs but then I have come to expect that from those on the right.

I had to take that job because it was the only one I could get to at the time. I was in school and didn't have a car because I was saving for tuition.

And the only thing I said about unions were that they should not be able to force people to join them and pay dues.

LOL. You did not HAVE to take that job. No one forced you to take it, you made a CHOICE and are now whining about it.
Furthermore, you said a lot more than just that. You presented a claim to try and personalize your spin and claimed that you were forced to join a union and pay dues in order to get the job and yet it was your CHOICE on whether or not to take that job and you knew ahead of time the requirements BEFORE you took it.
That is all on you and you alone.

I didn't have much of a choice. I was 17 (told them I was 18) unskilled and with no transportation.

It was the only job I could take that I could get to at the time. You have no idea what my situation was back then.

 

[drsmith1072]

I had to take that job because it was the only one I could get to at the time. I was in school and didn't have a car because I was saving for tuition.

And the only thing I said about unions were that they should not be able to force people to join them and pay dues.

LOL. You did not HAVE to take that job. No one forced you to take it, you made a CHOICE and are now whining about it.
Furthermore, you said a lot more than just that. You presented a claim to try and personalize your spin and claimed that you were forced to join a union and pay dues in order to get the job and yet it was your CHOICE on whether or not to take that job and you knew ahead of time the requirements BEFORE you took it.
That is all on you and you alone.

I didn't have much of a choice. I was 17 (told them I was 18) unskilled and with no transportation.

It was the only job I could take that I could get to at the time. You have no idea what my situation was back then.

You progressed from "I didn't have MUCH of a choice" all the way to "it was the ONLY job I could take" in one post. LOL 17 year old working at a unionized company that was the ONLY job available?? Your story gets more and more hard to believe the more you spin it. LOL

Your union job was so remote that it was the ONLY job available, you had no transporitation so you couldn't go far, and yet no one in the area or on the job in this remote unionized company knew you well enough to know that you lied about your age?? Sounds too "good" to be true. Did you walk uphill both ways to work too? LOL

 

[Skull Pilot]

LOL. You did not HAVE to take that job. No one forced you to take it, you made a CHOICE and are now whining about it.
Furthermore, you said a lot more than just that. You presented a claim to try and personalize your spin and claimed that you were forced to join a union and pay dues in order to get the job and yet it was your CHOICE on whether or not to take that job and you knew ahead of time the requirements BEFORE you took it.
That is all on you and you alone.

I didn't have much of a choice. I was 17 (told them I was 18) unskilled and with no transportation.

It was the only job I could take that I could get to at the time. You have no idea what my situation was back then.

You progressed from "I didn't have MUCH of a choice" all the way to "it was the ONLY job I could take" in one post. LOL 17 year old working at a unionized company that was the ONLY job available?? Your story gets more and more hard to believe the more you spin it. LOL

Your union job was so remote that it was the ONLY job available, you had no transporitation so you couldn't go far, and yet no one in the area or on the job in this remote unionized company knew you well enough to know that you lied about your age?? Sounds too "good" to be true. Did you walk uphill both ways to work too? LOL

I was living in the middle of nowhere and the construction company lot was only a short bike ride from my house.

And they thought I was 18. I needed the money and they offered all the overtime I wanted to work so you see I could not have saved enough for tuition without that job so I did indeed have to take it.

 

[drsmith1072]

I didn't have much of a choice. I was 17 (told them I was 18) unskilled and with no transportation.

It was the only job I could take that I could get to at the time. You have no idea what my situation was back then.

You progressed from "I didn't have MUCH of a choice" all the way to "it was the ONLY job I could take" in one post. LOL 17 year old working at a unionized company that was the ONLY job available?? Your story gets more and more hard to believe the more you spin it. LOL

Your union job was so remote that it was the ONLY job available, you had no transporitation so you couldn't go far, and yet no one in the area or on the job in this remote unionized company knew you well enough to know that you lied about your age?? Sounds too "good" to be true. Did you walk uphill both ways to work too? LOL

I was living in the middle of nowhere and the construction company lot was only a short bike ride from my house.

And they thought I was 18. I needed the money and they offered all the overtime I wanted to work so you see I could not have saved enough for tuition without that job so I did indeed have to take it.

Your story still doesn't make any sense. if it was the ONLY job in the area then parents of students at your highschool possibly even in your class must have worked there as well as possibly some of your neighbors. So how did they not know that you were lying about your age since this was the ONLY job in the area??

I grew up in a small rural community and everyone knew everyone else so how could you lie about your age in such a situation?

Face it dude if your story is based on fact which I highly doubt based on the level of spin you applied and the holes in it the fact remains that you had a choice, no one forced you to take that job.

 

[bripat9643]

How do unions use "force" to insert themselves?? Care to explain how unions are no different than "quido"?? Got proof or are you just running of the fiction that you have been fed about unions for years? Oh yeah those evil teachers unions are going to break peoples legs. Then there are the postal workers if you tick them off they might just have to crumble your junk mail up. oh don't forget the firefighter and polce unions those are the worst.

I was hoping you were stupid enough to continue this argument. The union obviously inserts itself. Otherwise, why is it even involved? When a certification election is held, the government us*es force to impose the result on the employer and the employees, whether they agree with the result or not. You have to be a monumental imbecile to believe unionism is voluntary. A majority vote does not make it voluntary any more than it makes paying the income tax voluntary.

Your hyperbole only serves to make you look ridiculous.

The fact is that IF skull's story is based on fact and he had to join a union in order to get a job then he knew that going into the job and made a CHOICE to take the job anyway knowing full well what to expect and if he didn't know then that his own fault.

Right, and if a businessman decides to start a business in Quido's territory, he knows what Guido's terms were going into the deal and "made a CHOICE" to do it anyway "knowing full well what to expect and if he didn't know then that his own fault." In both cases, those are the kind of choices a thug offers you.

You're a fucking thug.

You aren't fooling anyone.

 

[drsmith1072]

How do unions use "force" to insert themselves?? Care to explain how unions are no different than "quido"?? Got proof or are you just running of the fiction that you have been fed about unions for years? Oh yeah those evil teachers unions are going to break peoples legs. Then there are the postal workers if you tick them off they might just have to crumble your junk mail up. oh don't forget the firefighter and polce unions those are the worst.

I was hoping you were stupid enough to continue this argument. The union obviously inserts itself. Otherwise, why is it even involved? When a certification election is held, the government us*es force to impose the result on the employer and the employees, whether they agree with the result or not. You have to be a monumental imbecile to believe unionism is voluntary. A majority vote does not make it voluntary any more than it makes paying the income tax voluntary.

Your hyperbole only serves to make you look ridiculous.

The fact is that IF skull's story is based on fact and he had to join a union in order to get a job then he knew that going into the job and made a CHOICE to take the job anyway knowing full well what to expect and if he didn't know then that his own fault.

Right, and if a businessman decides to start a business in Quido's territory, he knows what Guido's terms were going into the deal and "made a CHOICE" to do it anyway "knowing full well what to expect and if he didn't know then that his own fault." In both cases, those are the kind of choices a thug offers you.

You're a fucking thug.

You aren't fooling anyone.

So in other words you can't answer simple questions about your own statements and have to try and repeat the same BS over and over again as if repetition makes them true? Got it. You used hyperbole such as "gun point" and accused the unions of using "force" so I asked you to explain and provide something real to support your claims and all you came back with was more of the same BS hyperbole.

Thanks for showing that you have nothing REAL to offer.