Who else is looking forward to the next President Clinton?

[Faun]

Why the hell would I be supporting a lesbian?

Lesbian are great. What real man doesn't love lesbians? You must be a fag.

 

[Conservative65]

It's not the government's job to decide fairness. Fairness can't be reached because making something fair for one inevitably makes it unfair for another. To give someone low income person food stamps involves taking earned money from someone else. That's not fair to one who earned it.

When a workers invests the money the owner does in the company, the worker can have a say.

If "unfairness" by you means a rich person can't buy another dressage Horse because he has to pay the people who did the work a fair wage... I'm totally good with that.

If he's paying a $8/hour skilled worker $8/hour, that's a fair wage. Seems to you fair means that owner should give up more so someone with $8/hour skills can make $15/hour. If someone is uneducated with low skills, they are going to make a low wage. It isn't unfair to pay them one if all they offer is low skills.

Should low skilled workers be paid on existence?

 

[Conservative65]

Why the hell would I be supporting a lesbian?

Lesbian are great. What real man doesn't love lesbians? You must be a fag.

What real woman would be one.

 

[JoeB131]

If he's paying a $8/hour skilled worker $8/hour, that's a fair wage. Seems to you fair means that owner should give up more so someone with $8/hour skills can make $15/hour. If someone is uneducated with low skills, they are going to make a low wage. It isn't unfair to pay them one if all they offer is low skills.

Should low skilled workers be paid on existence?

No, low paid workers should be paid for the labor they perform. If you can't afford to pay your employees a living wage, you shouldn't be in business. Why should the rest of us subsidize undercapitilized businesses?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If he's paying a $8/hour skilled worker $8/hour, that's a fair wage. Seems to you fair means that owner should give up more so someone with $8/hour skills can make $15/hour. If someone is uneducated with low skills, they are going to make a low wage. It isn't unfair to pay them one if all they offer is low skills.

Should low skilled workers be paid on existence?

No, low paid workers should be paid for the labor they perform. If you can't afford to pay your employees a living wage, you shouldn't be in business. Why should the rest of us subsidize undercapitilized businesses?

 

[JoeB131]

Take a Step Back pays for Wal-Mart's food stamps and then wonders why people vote for Democrats.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Take a Step Back pays for Wal-Mart's food stamps and then wonders why people vote for Democrats.

I pay for your food stamps too, Toad. Let's go ahead and eliminate welfare all together. I'm for that. Then no one can take advantage of it and voluntary charity will become popular again. What say you, Job? You ready to get off the govt. teat and stand on your own feet?

 

[JoeB131]

Take a Step Back pays for Wal-Mart's food stamps and then wonders why people vote for Democrats.

I pay for your food stamps too, Toad. Let's go ahead and eliminate welfare all together. I'm for that. Then no one can take advantage of it and voluntary charity will become popular again. What say you, Job? You ready to get off the govt. teat and stand on your own feet?

Guy, I don't take food stamps. ANd obviously, eliminating welfare isn't an option. You probably don't remember when we had riots in the 1960's, but I do.

But when you have a company like WalMart that gets all sort of government breaks, and then the rest of us are paying to subsidize their employees through food stamps, section 8 and Medicaid, you scratch your big monkey cranium and wonder why these people feel more loyalty to the government and the Democratic Party than they do to their employer.

Which leads me to conclude you just aren't very bright.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Take a Step Back pays for Wal-Mart's food stamps and then wonders why people vote for Democrats.

I pay for your food stamps too, Toad. Let's go ahead and eliminate welfare all together. I'm for that. Then no one can take advantage of it and voluntary charity will become popular again. What say you, Job? You ready to get off the govt. teat and stand on your own feet?

Guy, I don't take food stamps. ANd obviously, eliminating welfare isn't an option. You probably don't remember when we had riots in the 1960's, but I do.

But when you have a company like WalMart that gets all sort of government breaks, and then the rest of us are paying to subsidize their employees through food stamps, section 8 and Medicaid, you scratch your big monkey cranium and wonder why these people feel more loyalty to the government and the Democratic Party than they do to their employer.

Which leads me to conclude you just aren't very bright.

Eliminating welfare is an option. If monkey's like you want to riot in the streets because you didn't get educated and have no skills, leading to destruction of property we could always just shoot the monkeys and eliminate the problem too. You just hate that thought because you're firmly planted among the low skill, moronic monkeys..

 

[JoeB131]

Eliminating welfare is an option. If monkey's like you want to riot in the streets because you didn't get educated and have no skills, leading to destruction of property we could always just shoot the monkeys and eliminate the problem too. You just hate that thought because you're firmly planted among the low skill, moronic monkeys..

Yeah, guy, again, they tried that in the 1960's and decent people were kind of sickened by it.

Now, here's the real problem, the 1%ers you jump for have taken a lot of those jobs that the poor could have done and sent them to China.

Honestly, you seem like an angry little man.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Eliminating welfare is an option. If monkey's like you want to riot in the streets because you didn't get educated and have no skills, leading to destruction of property we could always just shoot the monkeys and eliminate the problem too. You just hate that thought because you're firmly planted among the low skill, moronic monkeys..

Yeah, guy, again, they tried that in the 1960's and decent people were kind of sickened by it.

Now, here's the real problem, the 1%ers you jump for have taken a lot of those jobs that the poor could have done and sent them to China.

Honestly, you seem like an angry little man.

 

[Conservative65]

If he's paying a $8/hour skilled worker $8/hour, that's a fair wage. Seems to you fair means that owner should give up more so someone with $8/hour skills can make $15/hour. If someone is uneducated with low skills, they are going to make a low wage. It isn't unfair to pay them one if all they offer is low skills.

Should low skilled workers be paid on existence?

No, low paid workers should be paid for the labor they perform. If you can't afford to pay your employees a living wage, you shouldn't be in business. Why should the rest of us subsidize undercapitilized businesses?

They are being paid for their labor. That it's low because of the skills being offered, that's not the fault of the payer but the payee for having low level skills.

You answered no but your explanation says yes. If someone is being paid a skill level wage, even if it's low, they are being paid for their labor at a rate equivalent to the value of it. To say they should be getting a living wage means you think a business should pay them more than the value of that labor. When you use the word living wage, you're saying an employer should pay someone enough to support themselves even if it means paying them more than what they are doing is worth. That's paying on existence not skill level. If you believe that, at least be a man and be honest about it.

By the way, if someone's skills are worth a certain amount, they get that certain amount, yet it's not enough, I agree, we shouldn't subsidize that worker. Difference between the two of us is that you blame the employer even when he/she pays a skill level equivalent wage and I blame the worker for having low skills.

 

[Conservative65]

If he's paying a $8/hour skilled worker $8/hour, that's a fair wage. Seems to you fair means that owner should give up more so someone with $8/hour skills can make $15/hour. If someone is uneducated with low skills, they are going to make a low wage. It isn't unfair to pay them one if all they offer is low skills.

Should low skilled workers be paid on existence?

No, low paid workers should be paid for the labor they perform. If you can't afford to pay your employees a living wage, you shouldn't be in business. Why should the rest of us subsidize undercapitilized businesses?

Seems Joe doesn't understand that someone being paid $8/hour for $8/hour skills is being paid fairly. The only way he can make the claim that it's unfair is by thinking he has a say in what a business he doen't own pays its employees.

 

[Conservative65]

Eliminating welfare is an option. If monkey's like you want to riot in the streets because you didn't get educated and have no skills, leading to destruction of property we could always just shoot the monkeys and eliminate the problem too. You just hate that thought because you're firmly planted among the low skill, moronic monkeys..

Yeah, guy, again, they tried that in the 1960's and decent people were kind of sickened by it.

Now, here's the real problem, the 1%ers you jump for have taken a lot of those jobs that the poor could have done and sent them to China.

Honestly, you seem like an angry little man.

Decent people don't demand someone else support them.

 

[Conservative65]

Take a Step Back pays for Wal-Mart's food stamps and then wonders why people vote for Democrats.

I pay for your food stamps too, Toad. Let's go ahead and eliminate welfare all together. I'm for that. Then no one can take advantage of it and voluntary charity will become popular again. What say you, Job? You ready to get off the govt. teat and stand on your own feet?

Guy, I don't take food stamps. ANd obviously, eliminating welfare isn't an option. You probably don't remember when we had riots in the 1960's, but I do.

But when you have a company like WalMart that gets all sort of government breaks, and then the rest of us are paying to subsidize their employees through food stamps, section 8 and Medicaid, you scratch your big monkey cranium and wonder why these people feel more loyalty to the government and the Democratic Party than they do to their employer.

Which leads me to conclude you just aren't very bright.

The rest of us shouldn't be subsidizing someone because THEIR skills are low.

If bleeding hearts like you didn't vote for politicians that made it happen, it couldn't happen. Typical Liberal claiming programs in place are the fault of those that didn't vote the ones in passing the laws creating them. Here's your way of thinking. We, meaning Liberals, will pass laws doing such thing then blame the other side when people use them. If the programs weren't created, they couldn't be used.

 

[Wyld Kard]

NO, guy, insane would be electing a third president Bush after the first two did so much to fuck up the country.

Just sayin'.

America doesn't need another Bush as president, and sure in the hell doesn't need another Clinton as president.

Just sayin'.

 

[Sarah G]

I think a lot of people are very excited to have two Clintons in the WH again. This country will move forward faster with Democrats continuing what President Obama started.

 

[HenryBHough]

Will Slick's Durable Power of Attorney override The Constitution's succession provision when Hillary's brain damage reveals it sufficiently that even the most dotty of liberals cannot deny it without being forced onto Aricept?

 

[Sarah G]

Will Slick's Durable Power of Attorney override The Constitution's succession provision when Hillary's brain damage reveals it sufficiently that even the most dotty of liberals cannot deny it without being forced onto Aricept?

Do you understand how government works at all oh talking point king?

 

[Wyld Kard]

I think a lot of people are very excited to have two Clintons in the WH again. This country will move forward faster with Democrats continuing what President Obama started.

The only one's who are exicited are the Kool-Aid drinking libbies, who want to see yet another corrupt person in office and leading our country.