What exactly do republicans have to offer blacks?

[ding]

Let’s say a company has 50,000 employees and the CEO gets a $21,000,000 compensation package with pay, bonus and stock options. Now let’s say we reduce his package to 1 million bucks and give the difference to the 50,000 employees. That’s a whopping $400 increase in pay per employee.

Wow, that really made a difference.

Your imagination is active but why not change the above to an actual case. You can't because you are lying. Why? Because that's the only way to make a "case" in your fantasy world.

Show us the thousands of companies, with 50,000 employees where the CEO earns $21 MILLION. You can't.

It’s an extreme case but it highlights the point.

You can zero out every CEO’s compensation and use it to increase the pay of the other employees and it wouldn’t change the calculus.

Now am I lying or am I lying?

Let's say we solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner;

would the Poor really have to care how much the richest make, for political purposes?

Have you looked around the world? You are never going to solve “poverty.” We will always have the “poor.” It’s all relative anyway, right?

Our “poor” would be considered “rich” in many other parts of the world, right?

So yes people will always complain that others have it better. It’s human nature.

I agree to disagree. Solving simple poverty under our form of Capitalism simply means Persons have more opportunity costs to consider.

What is wrong with taking the Darwinian view of survival of the fittest and fuck my fellow man. In fact, couldn't it be argued that it is better to let them darwinize themselves out of existence as soon as practically possibly?

 

[beagle9]

There is no democratic plantation. Blacks are able to think for ourselves. The two major reforms relative to racial equality of the last 60 years were democratic proposals. The overall platform of the democratic party deals with issues the large majority of blacks face. So what exactly does the republican party offer blacks?. We are free, so republicans don't offer that. So aside from the fact Lincoln signed a piece of paper 153 years ago, what does the republican party have to offer?

You only get offered the same things that every other American race in this nation is offered.

Nothing more and nothing less, and if that don't suit you then move on to somewhere that might get you that special attention you require above and beyond other American's here.

Education pre-school to 12th is free if required, busing is free if required, food is free if required, health care is free if required, housing is free if required, transportation is free if required. Good lawdy what more can any American want ? Now if want above and beyond these nessesities in life, then choices have to be made by each individual in their life. The choices are simple - Either apply oneself to anything one wants to do in life or decide to become a dependent who falls back into the safety nets in place. And quit complaining and blaming others for ones problems in life. Done.

 

[beagle9]

Choices -

Enough said.

 

[danielpalos]

Your imagination is active but why not change the above to an actual case. You can't because you are lying. Why? Because that's the only way to make a "case" in your fantasy world.

Show us the thousands of companies, with 50,000 employees where the CEO earns $21 MILLION. You can't.

It’s an extreme case but it highlights the point.

You can zero out every CEO’s compensation and use it to increase the pay of the other employees and it wouldn’t change the calculus.

Now am I lying or am I lying?

Let's say we solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner;

would the Poor really have to care how much the richest make, for political purposes?

Have you looked around the world? You are never going to solve “poverty.” We will always have the “poor.” It’s all relative anyway, right?

Our “poor” would be considered “rich” in many other parts of the world, right?

So yes people will always complain that others have it better. It’s human nature.

I agree to disagree. Solving simple poverty under our form of Capitalism simply means Persons have more opportunity costs to consider.

What is wrong with taking the Darwinian view of survival of the fittest and fuck my fellow man. In fact, couldn't it be argued that it is better to let them darwinize themselves out of existence as soon as practically possibly?

how droll.

The whole and entire concept of natural rights, precludes that.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oh, God! Daniel's trying to sound smart again! This is going to get ugly...

 

[hadit]

Did your mother smoke crack when you were in the womb, Daniel?

He keeps repeating over and over again something about equal protection of the law. But he rarely explains what that means. Even when he does it still doesn't seem to make sense to me 5 days later when I hear him repeat it. So maybe he should stop repeating that because it means nothing to the rest of us.

He must think repeating it over and over will make it catch on but when we don't know what he's talking about it just makes him come off as one of the nuts on this board. Like LARAMFAN.

He claims the law providing unemployment benefits is not applied equally because it requires you to have been laid off from a job before you can get the benefit. He literally wants anyone who simply decides not to work a job at all be paid.

it is about equal protection of employment at the will of Either party laws, not your subjective social morals on a national basis.

Which you've admitted means you want to be paid whether you work a job or not. That's the bottom line.

It is more cost effective than welfare because it solves simple poverty in a market friendly manner by increasing market based participation and engendering a positive multiplier effect upon our economy. That is the Capital bottom line, not Your subjective Social values on a National basis.

It is not more cost effective because, as all good socialists do, you don't account for human nature. When you incentivize someone to not work, they will not work, even when they can. They then become a drain on society instead of being productive. When you have more people taking from society than producing, it collapses. We've seen that happen over and over again.

Socialism only works when people are willing to enter into it and are willing to continue producing. When they stop, it fails, usually violently. Short term help, like unemployment compensation until you get back to work, or time limited welfare until you can find work, do help society, because it keeps people going until they can provide for themselves again. What you want doesn't do that. It makes people dependent on continued societal largess.

 

[sealybobo]

Your imagination is active but why not change the above to an actual case. You can't because you are lying. Why? Because that's the only way to make a "case" in your fantasy world.

Show us the thousands of companies, with 50,000 employees where the CEO earns $21 MILLION. You can't.

It’s an extreme case but it highlights the point.

You can zero out every CEO’s compensation and use it to increase the pay of the other employees and it wouldn’t change the calculus.

Now am I lying or am I lying?

Let's say we solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner;

would the Poor really have to care how much the richest make, for political purposes?

Have you looked around the world? You are never going to solve “poverty.” We will always have the “poor.” It’s all relative anyway, right?

Our “poor” would be considered “rich” in many other parts of the world, right?

So yes people will always complain that others have it better. It’s human nature.

I agree to disagree. Solving simple poverty under our form of Capitalism simply means Persons have more opportunity costs to consider.

What is wrong with taking the Darwinian view of survival of the fittest and fuck my fellow man. In fact, couldn't it be argued that it is better to let them darwinize themselves out of existence as soon as practically possibly?

That’s why I like abortion.

 

[ding]

It’s an extreme case but it highlights the point.

You can zero out every CEO’s compensation and use it to increase the pay of the other employees and it wouldn’t change the calculus.

Now am I lying or am I lying?

Let's say we solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner;

would the Poor really have to care how much the richest make, for political purposes?

Have you looked around the world? You are never going to solve “poverty.” We will always have the “poor.” It’s all relative anyway, right?

Our “poor” would be considered “rich” in many other parts of the world, right?

So yes people will always complain that others have it better. It’s human nature.

I agree to disagree. Solving simple poverty under our form of Capitalism simply means Persons have more opportunity costs to consider.

What is wrong with taking the Darwinian view of survival of the fittest and fuck my fellow man. In fact, couldn't it be argued that it is better to let them darwinize themselves out of existence as soon as practically possibly?

how droll.

The whole and entire concept of natural rights, precludes that.

Morals are just opinions, right?

 

[ding]

It’s an extreme case but it highlights the point.

You can zero out every CEO’s compensation and use it to increase the pay of the other employees and it wouldn’t change the calculus.

Now am I lying or am I lying?

Let's say we solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner;

would the Poor really have to care how much the richest make, for political purposes?

Have you looked around the world? You are never going to solve “poverty.” We will always have the “poor.” It’s all relative anyway, right?

Our “poor” would be considered “rich” in many other parts of the world, right?

So yes people will always complain that others have it better. It’s human nature.

I agree to disagree. Solving simple poverty under our form of Capitalism simply means Persons have more opportunity costs to consider.

What is wrong with taking the Darwinian view of survival of the fittest and fuck my fellow man. In fact, couldn't it be argued that it is better to let them darwinize themselves out of existence as soon as practically possibly?

That’s why I like abortion.

I know that's why you do. You don't believe in morals.

 

[beagle9]

Let's say we solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner;

would the Poor really have to care how much the richest make, for political purposes?

Have you looked around the world? You are never going to solve “poverty.” We will always have the “poor.” It’s all relative anyway, right?

Our “poor” would be considered “rich” in many other parts of the world, right?

So yes people will always complain that others have it better. It’s human nature.

I agree to disagree. Solving simple poverty under our form of Capitalism simply means Persons have more opportunity costs to consider.

What is wrong with taking the Darwinian view of survival of the fittest and fuck my fellow man. In fact, couldn't it be argued that it is better to let them darwinize themselves out of existence as soon as practically possibly?

how droll.

The whole and entire concept of natural rights, precludes that.

Morals are just opinions, right?

Opinions with consequences if decide to act against them. Funny how that works huh ?

 

[Markle]

Let's say we solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner;

would the Poor really have to care how much the richest make, for political purposes?

For decades you (Progressives) have said that the solution to poverty is to just SPEND MORE MONEY. What have you accomplished? Nothing, zero, zip, nada. What is your solution now? Spend more money?

 

[Markle]

It is more cost effective than welfare because it solves simple poverty in a market friendly manner by increasing market based participation and engendering a positive multiplier effect upon our economy. That is the Capital bottom line, not Your subjective Social values on a National basis.

 

[danielpalos]

Oh, God! Daniel's trying to sound smart again! This is going to get ugly...

you make me wish You were blonde and female.

 

[danielpalos]

He keeps repeating over and over again something about equal protection of the law. But he rarely explains what that means. Even when he does it still doesn't seem to make sense to me 5 days later when I hear him repeat it. So maybe he should stop repeating that because it means nothing to the rest of us.

He must think repeating it over and over will make it catch on but when we don't know what he's talking about it just makes him come off as one of the nuts on this board. Like LARAMFAN.

He claims the law providing unemployment benefits is not applied equally because it requires you to have been laid off from a job before you can get the benefit. He literally wants anyone who simply decides not to work a job at all be paid.

it is about equal protection of employment at the will of Either party laws, not your subjective social morals on a national basis.

Which you've admitted means you want to be paid whether you work a job or not. That's the bottom line.

It is more cost effective than welfare because it solves simple poverty in a market friendly manner by increasing market based participation and engendering a positive multiplier effect upon our economy. That is the Capital bottom line, not Your subjective Social values on a National basis.

It is not more cost effective because, as all good socialists do, you don't account for human nature. When you incentivize someone to not work, they will not work, even when they can. They then become a drain on society instead of being productive. When you have more people taking from society than producing, it collapses. We've seen that happen over and over again.

Socialism only works when people are willing to enter into it and are willing to continue producing. When they stop, it fails, usually violently. Short term help, like unemployment compensation until you get back to work, or time limited welfare until you can find work, do help society, because it keeps people going until they can provide for themselves again. What you want doesn't do that. It makes people dependent on continued societal largess.

Only people who appeal to ignorance of capitalism for their socialism on a nation basis, say that.

 

[danielpalos]

Let's say we solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner;

would the Poor really have to care how much the richest make, for political purposes?

Have you looked around the world? You are never going to solve “poverty.” We will always have the “poor.” It’s all relative anyway, right?

Our “poor” would be considered “rich” in many other parts of the world, right?

So yes people will always complain that others have it better. It’s human nature.

I agree to disagree. Solving simple poverty under our form of Capitalism simply means Persons have more opportunity costs to consider.

What is wrong with taking the Darwinian view of survival of the fittest and fuck my fellow man. In fact, couldn't it be argued that it is better to let them darwinize themselves out of existence as soon as practically possibly?

how droll.

The whole and entire concept of natural rights, precludes that.

Morals are just opinions, right?

it must include some respect for authority.

 

[danielpalos]

Let's say we solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner;

would the Poor really have to care how much the richest make, for political purposes?

For decades you (Progressives) have said that the solution to poverty is to just SPEND MORE MONEY. What have you accomplished? Nothing, zero, zip, nada. What is your solution now? Spend more money?

We have a better understanding of economics now. We merely need solve for the poverty inducing effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis our at-will employment States.

 

[Markle]

Let's say we solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner;

would the Poor really have to care how much the richest make, for political purposes?

For decades you (Progressives) have said that the solution to poverty is to just SPEND MORE MONEY. What have you accomplished? Nothing, zero, zip, nada. What is your solution now? Spend more money?

We have a better understanding of economics now. We merely need solve for the poverty inducing effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis our at-will employment States.

Why did you dodge the point and question?

For decades you (Progressives) have said that the solution to poverty is to just SPEND MORE MONEY. What have you accomplished? Nothing, zero, zip, nada. What is your solution now? Spend more money?

 

[Oldstyle]

Oh, yeah...Daniel is really shoveling it deep!

 

[Oldstyle]

Oh, God! Daniel's trying to sound smart again! This is going to get ugly...

you make me wish You were blonde and female.

Gee, Daniel...from your posts...I was pretty sure you WERE blonde!

 

[Oldstyle]

And for that comment...I sincerely apologize to any blondes here on US Message Board!