What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[M14 Shooter]

So you're disdainful of the people who work at McDonald's?
What a pig.

Well, duh. Thats what self-entitled kids, living off their well-off parents, do: Look down their noses at the lower classes.

 

[Syphon]

So you're disdainful of the people who work at McDonald's?

What a pig.

im disdainful of mcdonalds. they serve unhealthy food, pay a crap wage and contribute to americans being obese.

but apparently youre ok with that.

 

[koshergrl]

Omg, you're just crazy.

I shouldn't have wasted any time on you. Good bye, you're too immature to discuss this topic. Obviously you've never had to support yourself and obviously you haven't spent any time out in the world.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's the thing, see...

You have basement-dwelling, snot-nosed, never-had-a-job dumbass kids like Syphon who defines ‘living wage’ as ‘that which would allow for my chosen standard of living’, when in fact the things people like him define as 'necessities' are, as you and I duscussed, luxuries.

Point being that inexpensive housng exists, and so 'living wage' need not be indexed to that $1200/mo apartment in the nice part Riverside.

Syphon says he lives in Rancho Cucamonga - and I believe him. No one brags about living in Rancho. So chances are that his claim of the 6 figure salary is boasting, you don't move to the wind-tunnel when you can afford a better area. Don't get me wrong, they're nice houses - in the McMansion mold, you know 3000 sq ft house on a 3000 sq ft lot. But it's desert - windy, dry, hot.

We all live at our own level. I run with a crowd that makes a lot more money than I do. They have season tickets for the Lakers and Malibu beach houses. I live in OC and go to Angel games. I go to Matsuhisa or equivalent about once a year, they go every week. I view myself as middle class. I live well, I admit it - but I have to work to maintain my lifestyle. The wealthy can live well without working.

 

[Foxfyre]

I haven't lived in an apartment in 30+ years, I'm no expert. But my daughter can't find one for less than $1,200 in the decent part of Riverside - single bedroom.

Ditto for my daughter who lived in Palo Alto when she was in college. A tiny, and I do mean tiny, one bedroom unfurnished and not all that nice walk up with no amenities other than basic heat and plumbing was $1,100. She could have lived out away from Palo Alto for a lot less, but she was within walking or bicycle distance of work and school in that apartment so toughed it out with a regular day job plus whatever odd jobs she could get (she is a great blues bass player and also hired out as a tutor and taught some college classes) to make ends meet. Fortunately she is a smart gal and had earned a full scholarship to get her Masters and PhD or her education wouldn't have been possible for her on top of the other expenses.

according to M14 she should have lived in the slums and sacrificed until the made "real money"

If the slums was all she could afford, then yes, that is where she would have lived. She, however, chose to work enough hours at whatever work she could get--and as is the case with a lot of us, she wasn't always able to be picky about that--so that she could afford something better than the slums. She did not expect you or anybody else to pay for her to live in a nicer place.

Anyway, those who live in the slums are going to be mostly people who are living off of money that other people earned. That's why they are slums. They weren't always slums. Most were once shiny new project housing,. But it is one sad result of perpetual government benefits that people who live off the work of others too often don't take care of even what little they have. People who work for their living usually take better care of the property they occupy.

Of course with your six figure income and all (cough) perhaps you never experienced having to work for what you have.

 

[Syphon]

So you're disdainful of the people who work at McDonald's?
What a pig.

Well, duh. Thats what self-entitled kids, living off their well-off parents, do: Look down their noses at the lower classes.

bwhahahaha.

oh good one! you so got me there!!!!!

speaking of self entitled kids, tell the story about how your kid wanted you pay for his bills because hes entitled. then again.... wait a min.. how did he get entitled??? oh yeah you raised him that way.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's the thing, see...

You have basement-dwelling, snot-nosed, never-had-a-job dumbass kids like Syphon who defines ‘living wage’ as ‘that which would allow for my chosen standard of living’, when in fact the things people like him define as 'necessities' are, as you and I duscussed, luxuries.

Point being that inexpensive housng exists, and so 'living wage' need not be indexed to that $1200/mo apartment in the nice part Riverside.

Syphon says he lives in Rancho Cucamonga - and I believe him. No one brags about living in Rancho.

THAT is true. My company does a lot of business in Rancho, and I hear all the time about how crappy it is.

We all live at our own level....

You also live in SoCal - 12k/mo net where I am gets all the things you mention that others have but you do not. The weather isn't as nice, however.

 

[UpAndAbout]

So you're disdainful of the people who work at McDonald's?

What a pig.

im disdainful of mcdonalds. they serve unhealthy food, pay a crap wage and contribute to americans being obese.

but apparently youre ok with that.

They pay a great wage to high school kids. Nothing wrong with honest work. They do have low calories foods. But nobody is holding a gun to your head to make you eat there. Nobody gives a shit. Just because YOU don't like it, it shouldn't exist? Aren't we pompous! I LOVE McDonald's, it's fun and after a 30 mile bike or a 10 mile walk, it's not going to hurt me. It's McDonald's fault people are obese? My God! You are nuts!

 

[Syphon]

That's the thing, see...

You have basement-dwelling, snot-nosed, never-had-a-job dumbass kids like Syphon who defines ‘living wage’ as ‘that which would allow for my chosen standard of living’, when in fact the things people like him define as 'necessities' are, as you and I duscussed, luxuries.

Point being that inexpensive housng exists, and so 'living wage' need not be indexed to that $1200/mo apartment in the nice part Riverside.

Syphon says he lives in Rancho Cucamonga - and I believe him. No one brags about living in Rancho. So chances are that his claim of the 6 figure salary is boasting, you don't move to the wind-tunnel when you can afford a better area. Don't get me wrong, they're nice houses - in the McMansion mold, you know 3000 sq ft house on a 3000 sq ft lot. But it's desert - windy, dry, hot.

We all live at our own level. I run with a crowd that makes a lot more money than I do. They have season tickets for the Lakers and Malibu beach houses. I live in OC and go to Angel games. I go to Matsuhisa or equivalent about once a year, they go every week. I view myself as middle class. I live well, I admit it - but I have to work to maintain my lifestyle. The wealthy can live well without working.

you go where the job is.... the high paying job was in RC, not orange county.

i dont have to prove myself to anyone other than myself and my family.

RC also isnt the desert.

 

[Uncensored2008]

im disdainful of mcdonalds. they serve unhealthy food, pay a crap wage and contribute to americans being obese.

but apparently youre ok with that.

Then don't eat there. No one is forcing you to.

 

[Syphon]

That's the thing, see...

You have basement-dwelling, snot-nosed, never-had-a-job dumbass kids like Syphon who defines ‘living wage’ as ‘that which would allow for my chosen standard of living’, when in fact the things people like him define as 'necessities' are, as you and I duscussed, luxuries.

Point being that inexpensive housng exists, and so 'living wage' need not be indexed to that $1200/mo apartment in the nice part Riverside.

Syphon says he lives in Rancho Cucamonga - and I believe him. No one brags about living in Rancho.

THAT is true. My company does a lot of business in Rancho, and I hear all the time about how crappy it is.

We all live at our own level....

You also live in SoCal - 12k/mo net where I am gets all the things you mention that others have but you do not. The weather isn't as nice, however.

not so crappy after all

https://www.clrsearch.com/Rancho_Cucamonga_Demographics/CA/Quality-of-Life

 

[Syphon]

im disdainful of mcdonalds. they serve unhealthy food, pay a crap wage and contribute to americans being obese.

but apparently youre ok with that.

Then don't eat there. No one is forcing you to.

havent in over 20 years.

 

[UpAndAbout]

im disdainful of mcdonalds. they serve unhealthy food, pay a crap wage and contribute to americans being obese.

but apparently youre ok with that.

Then don't eat there. No one is forcing you to.

havent in over 20 years.

Good, but they haven't missed you. They are making money hand over fist.

 

[Syphon]

Then don't eat there. No one is forcing you to.

havent in over 20 years.

Good, but they haven't missed you. They are making money hand over fist.

and are one of the biggest reasons there is an obesity epidemic in the US.

but thats ok, making millions of dollars a year is fine even though you contribute to that 10 fold in the increase in health care costs.

 

[Uncensored2008]

you go where the job is.... the high paying job was in RC, not orange county.

Uh, I work in Norwalk - I sure the hell am not going to live there.

i dont have to prove myself to anyone other than myself and my family.

RC also isnt the desert.

Yeah, all that cactus is just decoration.... (We've got PLENTY of prickly pear here, so that is sort of a joke.)

 

[Syphon]

you go where the job is.... the high paying job was in RC, not orange county.

Uh, I work in Norwalk - I sure the hell am not going to live there.

i dont have to prove myself to anyone other than myself and my family.

RC also isnt the desert.

Yeah, all that cactus is just decoration.... (We've got PLENTY of prickly pear here, so that is sort of a joke.)

id prefer not to commute (such as you do, but thats your choice) hence why i live where i work. i probably also have a much lower gas bill than you do as well as a much lower mortgage payment. but then again, thats the choice you make.

there isnt much cactus in RC anymore, i guess its been a while since you been out this way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

People often talk about big or small government. It's the wrong way to frame it, in my opinion. We should be discussing effective government vs ineffective government.

Then where we differ is simply a matter of priorities as opposed to dogmatic nonsense.

I believe the government is there to keep the country in a path that is in line with the Constitution, to defend our borders and to defend the people. From anyone who would take away their constitutionally protected rights.

I see the current biggest threat to those rights as the über rich/multinational corporation and their influence over our system. Therefore, I expect our government to limit their power do that it is in line with that of the people, no more, no less.

It's is the exploitation of the blue collar working man by the multinational corporations that inform my politics. If the Republicans were to truly address that issue, I would vote for them, but they seem to be willing to allow foreign entities with no allegiance to our country to run amok.

Currently, however, only the Democrats are paying lip service to it. And while the Dems are no where near doing enough to deal with it. They are at least discussing it as a threat to our way of life. So they get my vote.

"Exploitation of the blue-collar working man by multinational corporations". You mean, by giving them jobs so they can make a living? THAT "exploitation"?

And exactly what sort of "addressing" did you want?

(This, of course, is all aside from my laughter at your "doesn't matter how big government is, as long as it's 'effective'" schtick.)

Do you know the term "cost externalization"?

It's an amazing little trick corporations use to increase their profits. It's all based on making someone else pay for their own costs, thereby increasing their profits.

Its a beautiful scam.

Cost externalizing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Take WalMart for example. ( and they are only one of hundreds of examples )They pay low wages, offer high cost health care they know their employees can't afford and when those employees need health care, the tax payer picks up the tab. Cost externalization.

Of course, to take this rant seriously, one must first assume that the cost of WalMart's employees' health care properly belongs to WalMart and is WalMart's problem to deal with in the first place. You might want to consider, before you talk, that not everyone in the world operates from the same "Waahhh! I'm helpless! Take care of me!" state of mind that you apparently do.

And all that money saved gets put into the pockets of the Walton family, who now control more wealth than the bottom 30% of the country.

Did they get this wealth through hard work and sacrifice?

Nope. That was their Dad. They got it the old fashioned way. It was handed to them.

What's it to you where WalMart's money goes or how Sam Walton's kids got their money? If you're pissed off that YOU didn't inherit millions, I suggest you go take it up with YOUR father about whatever it was he did for a living that left you having to work and whining about it, and lose this incipient attitude of "I have a right to disapprove of other people's life choices" you're exhibiting.

And what do they do with that wealth?

Led by Sam Walton's only daughter, Alice, the family spent $3.2 million on lobbying, conservative causes and candidates for last year's federal elections. That's more than double what it spent in the previous two elections combined, public documents show.

Again, what's it to you what someone else does with his or her money? It's not yours, it never has been yours, and it never will be yours, and I don't know of anyone right offhand who's taking votes on how they live their personal lives, from you or anyone else. Mind your own business.

Dear old Sam earned his money. His daughter Alice and others inherited it and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The issue arises when they use that money to buy influence in politics so they can exploit the system and have our tax dollars, which would be better spent replacing our crumbling bridges, researching new medicines, increasing our law enforcement, fire protection, invested in our schools, gearing up our military or any of a hundred other things that would make our country stronger.

Oh, suuuure you think there's nothing wrong with inheriting money. That's why you're spending all this time blathering about it.

No "issue has arisen" except that you can't wrap your mind around the fact that your shit-sandwich life does NOT entitle you to sit as Grand High Arbiter of other people's lives.

Being rich gives you a wider variety of choices in every area of life. Being poor sucks. This is not new, it is not startling, and only leftists muddle through life in fresh bewilderment every day by this reality.

So what sort of addressing?

How about we go after the corrupt politicians and their handlers? Both Republican and Democrat. - and if anyone thinks their side is the only one playing true, you're delusional.

Well, that depends on if we're talking about REAL corruption, or leftie-defined corruption, which is basically "Ohmigod, that politician is acquainted with rich people I don't approve of!" I think it's rapidly becoming obvious which one of those I think YOU lean toward.

REAL campaign finance reform, strictly enforced.

You wanna take money out of politics? The answer isn't to restrict the First Amendment rights of the people by limiting where they can and can't spend their money. The answer is to make politicians less valuable in general by limiting their ability to hand out government goodies. Oh, but I'm betting THAT wouldn't fit in with your vision for the future, would it?

Outlaw organizations like ALEC. - Multinational corporations, owned by foreign nationals, should not be writing US law.

And there you are: the answer is always restricting other people's freedom. Don't stem the flow of government largesse; limit the ability of people YOU don't like to petition the government.

End the Bush Tax cuts. On EVERYONE, not just the rich. You want a strong country? Well, that takes CASH. ( and don't worry about the Chinese debt. In 15 years, we will start paying that back in wheat, when they can no longer produce rice. Long story. Look it up. )

Learn the difference between tax rates and tax revenues. No matter how hard Obama tries to conflate the two, they AREN'T the same thing.

All we hear from our politicians is how they're going to fix everything...and it's not going to cost us a dime. Anyone that tells you that IS LYING! They just want power. The truth is both Republican and Democrat politicians have sold out our country. ( See Phil and Wendy Gramm for a real eye opener. )

And you just want to continue that, all the while feeling noble and virtuous for bitching about it. "A strong country takes CASH, but politicians only want power!" On what planet does that constitute logic?

So you have a choice. Keep up with he rhetoric, the finger pointing, blaming teachers and unions, illegals and black people.

Or you can turn on the people who are stealing your hard earned money and using it to destroy the future of our country.

Yeah, I can sit around and ***** about greedy, corrupt politicians "stealing our hard-earned money" while insisting on giving them even more of that money, and meanwhile totally ignore the people who are selling their votes to those politicians for a share of that hard-earned money. Unfortunately, I'M neither illogical nor stupid, so that plan's going to be a bit tough for me.

Obama is going to win the next election. It's a done deal. Not because he will win the vote, but because he is what they need to push us along their path. In 2016, a republican candidate will win again and he will push us further down that path.

What's the destination? Look at Greece and Italy. Brought down by bankers and now run by bankers. Globalization means that multinationals are worldwide powers, stronger than any government. But to solidify their power, they have to keep us in debt.

Don't fool yourself into believing its not happening. They aren't even hiding it anymore. They don't need to. They are "too big to fail".

Oh, goody. Now we've descended into frothing conspiracy theories.

 

[Cecilie1200]

People often talk about big or small government. It's the wrong way to frame it, in my opinion. We should be discussing effective government vs ineffective government.

Then where we differ is simply a matter of priorities as opposed to dogmatic nonsense.

I believe the government is there to keep the country in a path that is in line with the Constitution, to defend our borders and to defend the people. From anyone who would take away their constitutionally protected rights.

I see the current biggest threat to those rights as the über rich/multinational corporation and their influence over our system. Therefore, I expect our government to limit their power do that it is in line with that of the people, no more, no less.

It's is the exploitation of the blue collar working man by the multinational corporations that inform my politics. If the Republicans were to truly address that issue, I would vote for them, but they seem to be willing to allow foreign entities with no allegiance to our country to run amok.

Currently, however, only the Democrats are paying lip service to it. And while the Dems are no where near doing enough to deal with it. They are at least discussing it as a threat to our way of life. So they get my vote.

"Exploitation of the blue-collar working man by multinational corporations". You mean, by giving them jobs so they can make a living? THAT "exploitation"?

And exactly what sort of "addressing" did you want?

(This, of course, is all aside from my laughter at your "doesn't matter how big government is, as long as it's 'effective'" schtick.)

just because a company gives a man a job, does not mean that company pays a living wage.

you can work for McDonalds and make minimum wage, thats not exactly a living wage
you can work for walmart and make $10 an hour, thats not exactly a living wage

Just because you babble catch-phrases like "living wage" doesn't mean they're a basis for policy decisions.

You can try to support yourself as an adult by working at McDonald's, but that's not exactly intelligent. And your stupidity and laziness are not my problem or anyone else's. Ditto anywhere else you're working and sniveling about how little you make. YOUR problem, not mine.

 

[Cecilie1200]

just because a company gives a man a job, does not mean that company pays a living wage.

you can work for McDonalds and make minimum wage, thats not exactly a living wage
you can work for walmart and make $10 an hour, thats not exactly a living wage

Define "living".

Living to me means paying the rent, the heat, and food. That's a living wage, because those are the things you need to live.

where can you do that on $10 an hr?

Tucson, for starters. Where the **** are YOU living?

 

[Syphon]

Define "living".

Living to me means paying the rent, the heat, and food. That's a living wage, because those are the things you need to live.

where can you do that on $10 an hr?

Tucson, for starters. Where the **** are YOU living?

so a family of 4 can live on $10 an hour in Tucson?