Shocker! A Liberal Attack On Success

[NYcarbineer]

Who is "us"?

You have a tapeworm?

I have a question you can't answer.

Can you tell us what percent of Walmart employees buy $1800 worth of Walmart stock per year?

Are you still mulling over this one?

What, exactly, do you suppose goes into the thought processes of those individuals who voluntarily fill out a Wal-Mart job request?

Where I live, the largest Walmart sits on a site that once was the site of a huge factory complex where hundreds worked in good paying union jobs.

I imagine that people filling out paperwork to work for shit wages occasionally think about that, along with the many thousands of similar jobs that disappeared from around here.

Jobs that paid reasonable wages; jobs that provided companies reasonable profits.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have a question you can't answer.

Can you tell us what percent of Walmart employees buy $1800 worth of Walmart stock per year?

Are you still mulling over this one?

What, exactly, do you suppose goes into the thought processes of those individuals who voluntarily fill out a Wal-Mart job request?

Apparently she thinks they are too stupid to know when a job is worth taking and when it isn't because if you don't offer them an acceptable wage, they will still take the job. She really thinks workers are stupid, doesn't she? I actually think unlike her that workers are smart enough to know that if they can get more money from another job, they'll take the other job. Maybe that's just me...

FYI I'm not female.

There aren't 'other jobs'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And how easily the lie is uncovered.


So....how did Wal-Mart get any employees if the above were not true?


Now...a lesson in English.
A premise is something assumed.

That Wal-Mart has employees is observable.

Dolt.

LOL, I tried to rep you, but it said I have to spread it around more. Funny how people take unacceptable wages, isn't it? Liberals don't grasp freedom.

Is stealing to make a living acceptable? People do it all the time.

I think kaz's stunned silence has answered this question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Astounding how quickly Leftists lapse into lying.


"1. The wages are more than acceptable, or folks wouldn't be lining up for 'em.

False premise.


And how easily the lie is uncovered.


So....how did Wal-Mart get any employees if the above were not true?


Now...a lesson in English.
A premise is something assumed.

That Wal-Mart has employees is observable.

Dolt.

And China has millions working for 50 cents an hour or so.
Is that an acceptable wage?

If a person steals to make a living is that 'acceptable' because the person is willing to do it?

Your retreat is both obvious and amusing.



Advice: become a conservative so that the facts are on your side.....then lying would be unnecessary.

Okay so you concede that 50 cents an hour is not an acceptable wage?

Then why did you try to claim that any wage is acceptable as long as someone will take it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Back on the topic. Why do conservatives want a costly taxpayer funded government program, namely vouchers, to subsidize parents who want to send their kids to private school?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I do read my own links. You're cherry picking them. If 1 in 5 were closed, while 4 out of 5 weren't, this comes out an 80-85% success rate. The 15-20% that were closed weren't necessarily closed for poor academic performance, reasons include lack of funding, mismanagement, lack of adequate facilities, or obstacles in the desired district. To say it was purely because of academic performance is false, and a blatant lie.

One other thing you missed, in bolded red.

Once again context is everything. That is not an 80% "success rate". The majority of charter schools did no better than their public school peers thereby exposing the fallacy of PoliticalSpice's allegation. The minute number of charter schools that "outperformed" public schools ,+/-1000, or so represents by only the most optimistic of estimates 1% of the total number of schools in the nation. That alone is well below the margin of error.

So the allegation that charters schools are a "success" is based upon a tiny fraction of a fraction. No investment banker would take a statistical blip of that infintisimal magnitude and use that to place a financial stake of any magnitude.

The numbers are simply not there to justify the allegations. PoliticalSpice is pulling her usual act of throwing out specious quotes and claiming that they amount to "proof". However as soon as you drill down you find a distinct lack of substance. Those who have a vested interest in the success of charter schools are trying their utmost to trumpet what are mere deviations from the norm as "evidence" when they are nothing of the sort.

Please note that your skepticism when it came to the claims about Obamacare were front and center but somehow that same critical review is sadly lacking when it comes to something you have a partisan interest in supporting.

Either you are equally skeptical or you are partisan. Your choice.

Weren't you the one yelling for links earlier? It's high time you provided some of your own, to back up this "context" of yours. Calling me a partisan is not a valid argument. Your "context" can only be in part due to the biases of your own skepticism as a liberal, and not rooted in actual empirical evidence.

Please don't lecture me about partisanship when you're the one referring to PC as "PoliticalSpice." That is overtly childish, it only shows you came to antagonize her and not take her points seriously. Honestly, I would expect this garbage out of Jake, but not from you. How disappointing.

I am using your own link, TK. Are you missing the context of your own link?

I am contrasting the difference between partisanship and skepticism. If you cannot be skeptical of your own links then that demonstrates a partisan bias. This rule applies as much to me as it does to you. I am equally skeptical of all claims regardless of the source. Until they can be established as credible they are treated with skepticism.

Your link was from Stanford which is a reputable source which is why I then read through it. That was when it became apparent that the "headlines" were not true reflections of the content. This is where context matters. The statistics show that charter schools are a mere 4% of all schools and of that 4% at least 1% is a complete and utter failure that should be shut down irrespective of the reasons.

Further reading indicated that the majority of the charter schools were no better than their public school peers. That eliminated another 2% of the charter schools. So what was left? A number so small as to be all but irrelevant for the purposes of making the claim of "success".

And to be non-partisan I am skeptical of public schools and know full well that there those that are so bad they need to be closed too. Plus there are some that are excellent and produce above par educations. The vast bulk of them are somewhere in the middle. This is the exact same profile as it is for charter schools.

So in context there is nothing in your Sanford link that supports your claim and if you were skeptical you would have learned that for yourself without my having to point it out to you.

Moving on to your allegation about PoliticalSpice. She calls everyone who criticizes her facile posts names. And those names are far worse than the one that I am using which is more appropo of her posting style without being rude or vulgar in any way. When it comes to name calling those who engage in it cannot complain when they earn a nickname that suits them in my opinion. And yes, I have been called many names and I really don't care one way or another. A nickname will only stick if it is truly reflective of the poster concerned. So PolitcalSpice has nothing to worry about if I am wrong about her.

 

[kaz]

LOL, I tried to rep you, but it said I have to spread it around more. Funny how people take unacceptable wages, isn't it? Liberals don't grasp freedom.

Is stealing to make a living acceptable? People do it all the time.

I think kaz's stunned silence has answered this question.

Actually, a stunned silence is what you would get if you came up with a lucid response.

Just to remind you, you are on my ignore list. In fact, you are my ignore list. You're the only one I have on ignore in any site that I post on. I check sometimes when you directly quote me, but I am not addressing your posts until as I have repeatedly told you, you stop saying, "so what you are saying is" and then you say something that has nothing to do with anything that I said. If you simply came up with the idiotic drivel the rest of the liberals do without endlessly saying I said things I didn't say, mean or think then you'd be fine.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is stealing to make a living acceptable? People do it all the time.

I think kaz's stunned silence has answered this question.

Actually, a stunned silence is what you would get if you came up with a lucid response.

Just to remind you, you are on my ignore list. In fact, you are my ignore list. You're the only one I have on ignore in any site that I post on. I check sometimes when you directly quote me, but I am not addressing your posts until as I have repeatedly told you, you stop saying, "so what you are saying is" and then you say something that has nothing to do with anything that I said. If you simply came up with the idiotic drivel the rest of the liberals do without endlessly saying I said things I didn't say, mean or think then you'd be fine.

You are on my ignorant list.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Once again context is everything. That is not an 80% "success rate". The majority of charter schools did no better than their public school peers thereby exposing the fallacy of PoliticalSpice's allegation. The minute number of charter schools that "outperformed" public schools ,+/-1000, or so represents by only the most optimistic of estimates 1% of the total number of schools in the nation. That alone is well below the margin of error.

So the allegation that charters schools are a "success" is based upon a tiny fraction of a fraction. No investment banker would take a statistical blip of that infintisimal magnitude and use that to place a financial stake of any magnitude.

The numbers are simply not there to justify the allegations. PoliticalSpice is pulling her usual act of throwing out specious quotes and claiming that they amount to "proof". However as soon as you drill down you find a distinct lack of substance. Those who have a vested interest in the success of charter schools are trying their utmost to trumpet what are mere deviations from the norm as "evidence" when they are nothing of the sort.

Please note that your skepticism when it came to the claims about Obamacare were front and center but somehow that same critical review is sadly lacking when it comes to something you have a partisan interest in supporting.

Either you are equally skeptical or you are partisan. Your choice.

Weren't you the one yelling for links earlier? It's high time you provided some of your own, to back up this "context" of yours. Calling me a partisan is not a valid argument. Your "context" can only be in part due to the biases of your own skepticism as a liberal, and not rooted in actual empirical evidence.

Please don't lecture me about partisanship when you're the one referring to PC as "PoliticalSpice." That is overtly childish, it only shows you came to antagonize her and not take her points seriously. Honestly, I would expect this garbage out of Jake, but not from you. How disappointing.

I am using your own link, TK. Are you missing the context of your own link?

I am contrasting the difference between partisanship and skepticism. If you cannot be skeptical of your own links then that demonstrates a partisan bias. This rule applies as much to me as it does to you. I am equally skeptical of all claims regardless of the source. Until they can be established as credible they are treated with skepticism.

Your link was from Stanford which is a reputable source which is why I then read through it. That was when it became apparent that the "headlines" were not true reflections of the content. This is where context matters. The statistics show that charter schools are a mere 4% of all schools and of that 4% at least 1% is a complete and utter failure that should be shut down irrespective of the reasons.

Further reading indicated that the majority of the charter schools were no better than their public school peers. That eliminated another 2% of the charter schools. So what was left? A number so small as to be all but irrelevant for the purposes of making the claim of "success".

And to be non-partisan I am skeptical of public schools and know full well that there those that are so bad they need to be closed too. Plus there are some that are excellent and produce above par educations. The vast bulk of them are somewhere in the middle. This is the exact same profile as it is for charter schools.

So in context there is nothing in your Sanford link that supports your claim and if you were skeptical you would have learned that for yourself without my having to point it out to you.

Moving on to your allegation about PoliticalSpice. She calls everyone who criticizes her facile posts names. And those names are far worse than the one that I am using which is more appropo of her posting style without being rude or vulgar in any way. When it comes to name calling those who engage in it cannot complain when they earn a nickname that suits them in my opinion. And yes, I have been called many names and I really don't care one way or another. A nickname will only stick if it is truly reflective of the poster concerned. So PolitcalSpice has nothing to worry about if I am wrong about her.

I am using your own link, TK. Are you missing the context of your own link?

Nope. I see other people taking it out of context, though. I read the whole thing. I didn't sit there and fish quotes out of it. That is why I posted the study alongside.

I am contrasting the difference between partisanship and skepticism. If you cannot be skeptical of your own links then that demonstrates a partisan bias. This rule applies as much to me as it does to you. I am equally skeptical of all claims regardless of the source. Until they can be established as credible they are treated with skepticism.

I am very skeptical. I'd also like to think I am one of the more objective posters here. If I don't scrutinize my links before I post them, then I don't belong here, and I have betrayed what I stand for. People who claim to be nonpartisan are the ones making partisan analyses and assertions.

Your skepticism is synergistic. It is fueled by the skepticism of the person making the argument in this case. Nevermind the credibility of where she gets her material from. Apparently she isn't worth giving a serious response to. I find that overtly puerile and beneath myself or anyone else as high caliber as you are. Call me chivalrous is you want, but if someone makes an intelligent argument, I feel like they deserve an intelligent rebuttal, not playground antics.

Moving on to your allegation about PoliticalSpice. She calls everyone who criticizes her facile posts names. And those names are far worse than the one that I am using which is more appropo of her posting style without being rude or vulgar in any way.

In this case however, a liberal drew the first blood. Then you came along and started making snide remarks. Yes, she's criticizing liberals, but she wasn't intentionally trying to provoke anyone, simply an intelligent debate. There is a difference between criticism and provocation. I try not to make up derogatory nicknames for people, it only takes away from the point I'm trying to make. It also takes away from the seriousness of the debate.

And yes, I have been called many names and I really don't care one way or another. A nickname will only stick if it is truly reflective of the poster concerned. So PolitcalSpice has nothing to worry about if I am wrong about her.

Like I said before, I would expect not to be taken seriously if I started making up derogatory and chiding nicknames for someone in lieu of an argument. Do what you want, just my two cents.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I have a question you can't answer.

Can you tell us what percent of Walmart employees buy $1800 worth of Walmart stock per year?

Are you still mulling over this one?

What, exactly, do you suppose goes into the thought processes of those individuals who voluntarily fill out a Wal-Mart job request?

Where I live, the largest Walmart sits on a site that once was the site of a huge factory complex where hundreds worked in good paying union jobs.

I imagine that people filling out paperwork to work for shit wages occasionally think about that, along with the many thousands of similar jobs that disappeared from around here.

Jobs that paid reasonable wages; jobs that provided companies reasonable profits.

Geez, and you're the only person I know that thinks someone with a union job is better than someone else with a regular job. Just where do you get this stuff? Are you saying the unioneer is more entitled to a job than a Wal-Mart worker?

Weren't you just fighting for them to make a living wage earlier? Stop contradicting yourself.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are you still mulling over this one?

What, exactly, do you suppose goes into the thought processes of those individuals who voluntarily fill out a Wal-Mart job request?

Apparently she thinks they are too stupid to know when a job is worth taking and when it isn't because if you don't offer them an acceptable wage, they will still take the job. She really thinks workers are stupid, doesn't she? I actually think unlike her that workers are smart enough to know that if they can get more money from another job, they'll take the other job. Maybe that's just me...

FYI I'm not female.

There aren't 'other jobs'.

Well of course there "aren't other jobs"! We have a Democrat in the White House!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Apparently she thinks they are too stupid to know when a job is worth taking and when it isn't because if you don't offer them an acceptable wage, they will still take the job. She really thinks workers are stupid, doesn't she? I actually think unlike her that workers are smart enough to know that if they can get more money from another job, they'll take the other job. Maybe that's just me...

FYI I'm not female.

There aren't 'other jobs'.

Well of course there "aren't other jobs"! We have a Democrat in the White House!

Go ahead and prove that President Obama is responsible for the de-industrialization of the upstate NY area where I live that has been going on for the last 35 years.

I want to hear this.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you still mulling over this one?

What, exactly, do you suppose goes into the thought processes of those individuals who voluntarily fill out a Wal-Mart job request?

Where I live, the largest Walmart sits on a site that once was the site of a huge factory complex where hundreds worked in good paying union jobs.

I imagine that people filling out paperwork to work for shit wages occasionally think about that, along with the many thousands of similar jobs that disappeared from around here.

Jobs that paid reasonable wages; jobs that provided companies reasonable profits.

Geez, and you're the only person I know that thinks someone with a union job is better than someone else with a regular job. Just where do you get this stuff? Are you saying the unioneer is more entitled to a job than a Wal-Mart worker?

Weren't you just fighting for them to make a living wage earlier? Stop contradicting yourself.

Unions are employee organizations that fight for better wages. I'm surprised you don't know that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Back on the topic. Why do conservatives want a costly taxpayer funded government program, namely vouchers, to subsidize parents who want to send their kids to private school?

Nobody? Nobody on the right, including the author of this thread who included it in her OP,

wants to defend a government run voucher program?

It's one of the key elements of conservative education reform. Why are all of you scared to defend it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Moving on to your allegation about PoliticalSpice. She calls everyone who criticizes her facile posts names. .

She's a Michelle Malkin wannabe. Without the charm lol.

 

[NYcarbineer]

um; the Left's next presidential sits, or sat; on the board of WalMart

understand?
oh and the loony Left would rather see people unemployed than working at WalMart; thats why they actually refuse to let WalMart build stores in some very blue areas. why should libs care?
they have hundreds of billions of other people's money to dole out in the form of welfare and food stamps

do you thing the RECORD welfare and food stamps on Progressive's watch is a coincidence?

How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens

Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private sector employer, is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid. According to Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, in many states, Wal-Mart employees are the largest group of Medicaid recipients. They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients. Wal-mart’s "associates" are paid so little, according to Grayson, that they receive $1,000 on average in public assistance. These amount to massive taxpayer subsidies for private companies.

How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens - Bloomberg

C'mon....you're not still sulking because they wouldn't hire you as a 'greeter'?

Answer me this,

when Koreans hear the old saying 'the dog's breakfast',

do they think the word 'dog's' is possessive, or a contraction?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have a question you can't answer.

Can you tell us what percent of Walmart employees buy $1800 worth of Walmart stock per year?

Are you still mulling over this one?

What, exactly, do you suppose goes into the thought processes of those individuals who voluntarily fill out a Wal-Mart job request?

Where I live, the largest Walmart sits on a site that once was the site of a huge factory complex where hundreds worked in good paying union jobs.

I imagine that people filling out paperwork to work for shit wages occasionally think about that, along with the many thousands of similar jobs that disappeared from around here.

Jobs that paid reasonable wages; jobs that provided companies reasonable profits.

I'd consider anyone who pretends a misunderstanding of the question so that they don't have to confront the basis of the question, a moron.


Are you a moron?


1. Walmart employs an astounding 2.1 million people. In the United States alone, the company employs 1.4 million people. This is a staggering 1% of the U.S.'s 140 million working population.
Walmart Employs 1% Of America. Should It Be Forced To Pay Its Employees More? - Business Insider


2. . Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had 5 years ago.

3. 90% of all Americans live within 15 miles of a Wal-Mart.


Clearly, the question asked of you has nothing to do with the one store unhealthily located in proximity to the refrigerator box you call home.




I believe you understand the question.

Although veracity has never been a filter for your posts, an honest answer would be that your vulgar characterization of Wal-Mart wages is patently false.

False.

Well over a million workers freely decided that the Wal-Mart offer suits them, and is a fair enough reason for them to show up, there, each day.


Get it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens

Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private sector employer, is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid. According to Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, in many states, Wal-Mart employees are the largest group of Medicaid recipients. They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients. Wal-mart’s "associates" are paid so little, according to Grayson, that they receive $1,000 on average in public assistance. These amount to massive taxpayer subsidies for private companies.

How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens - Bloomberg

C'mon....you're not still sulking because they wouldn't hire you as a 'greeter'?

Answer me this,

when Koreans hear the old saying 'the dog's breakfast',

do they think the word 'dog's' is possessive, or a contraction?

Excellent example of you flying the white flag.

An unconditional surrender.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you still mulling over this one?

What, exactly, do you suppose goes into the thought processes of those individuals who voluntarily fill out a Wal-Mart job request?

Apparently she thinks they are too stupid to know when a job is worth taking and when it isn't because if you don't offer them an acceptable wage, they will still take the job. She really thinks workers are stupid, doesn't she? I actually think unlike her that workers are smart enough to know that if they can get more money from another job, they'll take the other job. Maybe that's just me...

FYI I'm not female.

There aren't 'other jobs'.

What????

Now you're blaming Obama.....?


Got a point there.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

False premise.


And how easily the lie is uncovered.


So....how did Wal-Mart get any employees if the above were not true?


Now...a lesson in English.
A premise is something assumed.

That Wal-Mart has employees is observable.

Dolt.

And China has millions working for 50 cents an hour or so.
Is that an acceptable wage?

If a person steals to make a living is that 'acceptable' because the person is willing to do it?

Your retreat is both obvious and amusing.



Advice: become a conservative so that the facts are on your side.....then lying would be unnecessary.

Okay so you concede that 50 cents an hour is not an acceptable wage?

Then why did you try to claim that any wage is acceptable as long as someone will take it?

So you agree that Wal-Mart pays acceptable and competitive wages.

Good.