Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :
: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :
: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
: :: :: :: :: :into Mexico, by paying people too little.
: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: There is only so much money in each business to pay labor with. Higher
: :: :: :: :: labor costs per hour mean some businesses (and jobs) go away.
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :Not according to the Bush tax cut plan. That's the whole point of cutting
: :: :: :: :taxes, so jobs DON'T go away.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: You DO realize there is no connection between your first remark and
: :: :: :: this one, right?
: :: :: :
: :: :: :Wrong! The whole point of cutting taxes is so business can grow, thus more
: :: :: :jobs. If I'm wrong, then why cut taxes? So you and I can spend $400 more?!?
: :: :
: :: :: And the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
: :: :: "paying people too little" is?
: :: :
: :: :To give incentive for people to continue to work and not leave the country
: :: :for greener grass. Look at Mexico, if they DID have a minimum wage then
: :: :they wouldn't be crossing the border in droves to your ire. Or do you like
: :: :that sort of thing so as to give the unions fits?
: :
: :: Jesus, try READING THE WORDS, Eric. Let me try again.
: :
: :: What is the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
: :: "paying people too little" and tax cuts?
: :
: :Tax cuts are to boost business.

: Well, you got that much right.

That is the theory anyway.

: :Minimum wage hikes are to keep the
: :business owners from making much more than their workers.

: Got that one wrong, and stupidly wrong at that.

Why have a minimum wage? What is the economic reason for it?

: :The relationship
: :is indirectly related.

: So indirectly related as to be totally disconnected. In other words,
: you still have not answered my question and I think you've
: demonstrated that this is due to an inability on your part to do so.

: :Also, boosting minimum wage generates more tax
: :revenue.

: How's that work, again? You're not stupidly assuming that business
: keep the same number of employees if they have to pay more for them,
: are you?

If business is growing they do. You're coming from a point if staying the
same and shrinking, not from a growing buisness, which is what the tax
cuts were all about in the first place.

: :: :Hard to say where you GOPers are from time to time as you argue one point
: :: :against another without any clue of the cause and effect that both issues
: :: :share.
: :
: :: I'm right where I've always been. Your problem seems to be an
: :: inability to read and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.
: :
: :You're a right winger that tends to be wrong.

: And yet all you manage to do is make yourself look stupid and
: uninformed when you aren't being outright loony.

Says you. You're the one that argues with everyone. Do you actually have a
friend? Or have you chased them all away, too?

: :You confuse being poltically
: :right with being correct (right, as a psychological assessment).

: No, I confuse being "right where I've always been" as equating to "my
: position remains what it has always been" rather than spinning off
: into whatever fantasy world you're reading it in to use other
: definitions of 'right'.

What you admit to is that you're consistent with your position, which is
often wrong. IOW, you're not open and will tend to always believe what you
initially believe never challenging your own position and beliefs. You
want to be right so badly that even when wrong you'll argue as if right
all along or try and change the subject to the point where the topic
changes. We have ALL seem that charateristic in you, McClod. I just hope
you learn something other than to say the other person is wrong, nuts or
some other aspersion of negativity that you like to cast in light of
actual debate.

: Wait, that's not confusion. That's merely being correct.

Sure whatever you say. If you're so clear and correct all the time, then
why all the anger?

: :Fred, your last sentence is a laughable joke, especially coming from you.

: Tu quoqe fallacy. Your problem still seems to be an inability to read
: and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.

Bleating and flaming? Ha, you confuse laughter and wit...

: :: :: :: :: But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :No, it's you that's operating from scarcity again. Try abundance, though
: :: :: :: :it's a new concept for you.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: The only thing you seem to have an 'abundance' of is stupidity, Eric.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :But I and others keep pointing out the flaws in your "logic", so I won't be
: :: :: :emulating you anytime soon.
: :: :
: :: :: The only thing you ever 'point out' is your own ass, Eric.
: :: :
: :: :Not to you Fred, as I'd likely bet that when you cheat on your wife it's
: :: :with another man.
: :
: :: I'm divorced and no matter how much you beg I wouldn't give you a
: :: tumble, even if you do ever actually grow up to be a man.
: :
: :I'm not surprised you're divorced.

: I'm not surprised at your charm and poise.

What comes around goes around. Why do you expect poise and charm when you
dish out mean spiritedness?

Try kindness and see. Do you mistake kindness with weakness? One
wonders...

Eric

: --
: "So many women. So little charm."
: -- Donna, to Josh; The West Wing

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :
:: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :
:: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
:: :: :: :: :: :into Mexico, by paying people too little.
:: :: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: There is only so much money in each business to pay labor with. Higher
:: :: :: :: :: labor costs per hour mean some businesses (and jobs) go away.
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :Not according to the Bush tax cut plan. That's the whole point of cutting
:: :: :: :: :taxes, so jobs DON'T go away.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: You DO realize there is no connection between your first remark and
:: :: :: :: this one, right?
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :Wrong! The whole point of cutting taxes is so business can grow, thus more
:: :: :: :jobs. If I'm wrong, then why cut taxes? So you and I can spend $400 more?!?
:: :: :
:: :: :: And the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
:: :: :: "paying people too little" is?
:: :: :
:: :: :To give incentive for people to continue to work and not leave the country
:: :: :for greener grass. Look at Mexico, if they DID have a minimum wage then
:: :: :they wouldn't be crossing the border in droves to your ire. Or do you like
:: :: :that sort of thing so as to give the unions fits?
:: :
:: :: Jesus, try READING THE WORDS, Eric. Let me try again.
:: :
:: :: What is the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
:: :: "paying people too little" and tax cuts?
:: :
:: :Tax cuts are to boost business.
::
:: Well, you got that much right.
:
:That is the theory anyway.

Yep. It's generally the reality, too.

:: :Minimum wage hikes are to keep the
:: :business owners from making much more than their workers.
::
:: Got that one wrong, and stupidly wrong at that.
:
:Why have a minimum wage? What is the economic reason for it?

There is no economic reason for it. In fact, economic reasoning would
indicate they are a BAD idea.

Minimum Wage laws are a SOCIAL policy, not an economic one.

:: :The relationship
:: :is indirectly related.
:
:: So indirectly related as to be totally disconnected. In other words,
:: you still have not answered my question and I think you've
:: demonstrated that this is due to an inability on your part to do so.
::
:: :Also, boosting minimum wage generates more tax
:: :revenue.
::
:: How's that work, again? You're not stupidly assuming that business
:: keep the same number of employees if they have to pay more for them,
:: are you?
:
:If business is growing they do.

You don't make business grow by artificially increasing their costs
for social policy purposes.

:You're coming from a point if staying the
:same and shrinking, not from a growing buisness, which is what the tax
:cuts were all about in the first place.

It doesn't matter what you assume. If you artificially increase my
labor costs, I will either employ fewer people and try to up their
productivity or I will employ the same number of people and lose
money.

:: :: :Hard to say where you GOPers are from time to time as you argue one point
:: :: :against another without any clue of the cause and effect that both issues
:: :: :share.
:: :
:: :: I'm right where I've always been. Your problem seems to be an
:: :: inability to read and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.
:: :
:: :You're a right winger that tends to be wrong.
::
:: And yet all you manage to do is make yourself look stupid and
:: uninformed when you aren't being outright loony.
:
:Says you. You're the one that argues with everyone. Do you actually have a
:friend? Or have you chased them all away, too?

Yes, now there's a cogent, well-reasoned reply.

I argue with idiots, not everyone. You're an idiot so it seems to you
that I argue with everyone.

:: :You confuse being poltically
:: :right with being correct (right, as a psychological assessment).
::
:: No, I confuse being "right where I've always been" as equating to "my
:: position remains what it has always been" rather than spinning off
:: into whatever fantasy world you're reading it in to use other
:: definitions of 'right'.
:
:What you admit to is that you're consistent with your position, which is
ften wrong.

You're lying again.

:IOW, you're not open and will tend to always believe what you
:initially believe never challenging your own position and beliefs.

You're lying again.

:You
:want to be right so badly that even when wrong you'll argue as if right
:all along or try and change the subject to the point where the topic
:changes.

You're lying again.

:We have ALL seem that charateristic in you, McClod.

Oh? When was the vote taken? Or do you just mean you and the turd in
your pocket when you say 'we'?

:I just hope
:you learn something other than to say the other person is wrong, nuts or
:some other aspersion of negativity that you like to cast in light of
:actual debate.

Perhaps you should try engaging in 'actual debate' for a change, Eric?

When you're wrong I'm going to say you're wrong. When you're nuts I'm
going to say you're nuts. I'm sorry you find the truth so painful.

:: Wait, that's not confusion. That's merely being correct.
:
:Sure whatever you say. If you're so clear and correct all the time, then
:why all the anger?

What anger? Are you overestimating your own importance in the grand
scheme of things again?

:: :Fred, your last sentence is a laughable joke, especially coming from you.
::
:: Tu quoqe fallacy. Your problem still seems to be an inability to read
:: and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.
:
:Bleating and flaming? Ha, you confuse laughter and wit...

Nope. Laughter is what I do at you. Wit is what you lack. No
confusion at all.

:: :: :: :: :: But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :No, it's you that's operating from scarcity again. Try abundance, though
:: :: :: :: :it's a new concept for you.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: The only thing you seem to have an 'abundance' of is stupidity, Eric.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :But I and others keep pointing out the flaws in your "logic", so I won't be
:: :: :: :emulating you anytime soon.
:: :: :
:: :: :: The only thing you ever 'point out' is your own ass, Eric.
:: :: :
:: :: :Not to you Fred, as I'd likely bet that when you cheat on your wife it's
:: :: :with another man.
:: :
:: :: I'm divorced and no matter how much you beg I wouldn't give you a
:: :: tumble, even if you do ever actually grow up to be a man.
:: :
:: :I'm not surprised you're divorced.
::
:: I'm not surprised at your charm and poise.
:
:What comes around goes around. Why do you expect poise and charm when you
:dish out mean spiritedness?

I don't from you. You continue to live down to my expectations.

:Try kindness and see.

'Kindness'? Is poor little Eric feeling picked upon?

Try logic, reason, and fact, Eric. Start with any one of the three
and work your way up to the combination.

o you mistake kindness with weakness? One
:wonders...

Well, at least you ditched that turd in your pocket....

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :
: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :
: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :: :Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
: :: :: :: :: :: :into Mexico, by paying people too little.
: :: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :: :But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :: There is only so much money in each business to pay labor with. Higher
: :: :: :: :: :: labor costs per hour mean some businesses (and jobs) go away.
: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :Not according to the Bush tax cut plan. That's the whole point of cutting
: :: :: :: :: :taxes, so jobs DON'T go away.
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: You DO realize there is no connection between your first remark and
: :: :: :: :: this one, right?
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :Wrong! The whole point of cutting taxes is so business can grow, thus more
: :: :: :: :jobs. If I'm wrong, then why cut taxes? So you and I can spend $400 more?!?
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: And the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
: :: :: :: "paying people too little" is?
: :: :: :
: :: :: :To give incentive for people to continue to work and not leave the country
: :: :: :for greener grass. Look at Mexico, if they DID have a minimum wage then
: :: :: :they wouldn't be crossing the border in droves to your ire. Or do you like
: :: :: :that sort of thing so as to give the unions fits?
: :: :
: :: :: Jesus, try READING THE WORDS, Eric. Let me try again.
: :: :
: :: :: What is the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
: :: :: "paying people too little" and tax cuts?
: :: :
: :: :Tax cuts are to boost business.
: ::
: :: Well, you got that much right.
: :
: :That is the theory anyway.

: Yep. It's generally the reality, too.

Are you going to claim econmics is an exact science like physics and
chemistry? Social science, McClod. Trends, etc. Not pure cause and effect.

: :: :Minimum wage hikes are to keep the
: :: :business owners from making much more than their workers.
: ::
: :: Got that one wrong, and stupidly wrong at that.
: :
: :Why have a minimum wage? What is the economic reason for it?

: There is no economic reason for it. In fact, economic reasoning would
: indicate they are a BAD idea.

****ing off the work force into sense of apatahy might not fit neatly into
your economic number scheme, but any thinking person undertands the
humanistic part of keeping you work force happy. Or do you think slavery
shoud be reinstated for economic reasons?

: Minimum Wage laws are a SOCIAL policy, not an economic one.

So what? Sociology has economic factors and reprecussions. You're just too
dimwitted to actually see it. That is why you're a conservative and by
default at that. You didn't choose it, it chose you!

: :: :The relationship
: :: :is indirectly related.
: :
: :: So indirectly related as to be totally disconnected. In other words,
: :: you still have not answered my question and I think you've
: :: demonstrated that this is due to an inability on your part to do so.
: ::
: :: :Also, boosting minimum wage generates more tax
: :: :revenue.
: ::
: :: How's that work, again? You're not stupidly assuming that business
: :: keep the same number of employees if they have to pay more for them,
: :: are you?
: :
: :If business is growing they do.

: You don't make business grow by artificially increasing their costs
: for social policy purposes.

Right, so the answer is anarchy. Oh, no? Then start with govt. and taxes
and let's see where we go from there.

: :You're coming from a point if staying the
: :same and shrinking, not from a growing buisness, which is what the tax
: :cuts were all about in the first place.

: It doesn't matter what you assume. If you artificially increase my
: labor costs, I will either employ fewer people and try to up their
: productivity or I will employ the same number of people and lose
: money.

Or expand your business. Why did you leave the last option out? You do kno
what ROI is, right? What is done with it?

: :: :: :Hard to say where you GOPers are from time to time as you argue one point
: :: :: :against another without any clue of the cause and effect that both issues
: :: :: :share.
: :: :
: :: :: I'm right where I've always been. Your problem seems to be an
: :: :: inability to read and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.
: :: :
: :: :You're a right winger that tends to be wrong.
: ::
: :: And yet all you manage to do is make yourself look stupid and
: :: uninformed when you aren't being outright loony.
: :
: :Says you. You're the one that argues with everyone. Do you actually have a
: :friend? Or have you chased them all away, too?

: Yes, now there's a cogent, well-reasoned reply.

: I argue with idiots, not everyone. You're an idiot so it seems to you
: that I argue with everyone.

The only idiot is the one who refuses to learn. That one is you. You
really think you know it all.

: :: :You confuse being poltically
: :: :right with being correct (right, as a psychological assessment).
: ::
: :: No, I confuse being "right where I've always been" as equating to "my
: :: position remains what it has always been" rather than spinning off
: :: into whatever fantasy world you're reading it in to use other
: :: definitions of 'right'.
: :
: :What you admit to is that you're consistent with your position, which is
: ften wrong.

: You're lying again.

And you're backpeddling like a wimp again.

: :IOW, you're not open and will tend to always believe what you
: :initially believe never challenging your own position and beliefs.

: You're lying again.

Wimp. Sorry that thinking hurts your brain.

: :You
: :want to be right so badly that even when wrong you'll argue as if right
: :all along or try and change the subject to the point where the topic
: :changes.

: You're lying again.

Beaten too much as a child, Mclod?

: :We have ALL seem that charateristic in you, McClod.

: Oh? When was the vote taken? Or do you just mean you and the turd in
: your pocket when you say 'we'?

You use 'we' as well.

: :I just hope
: :you learn something other than to say the other person is wrong, nuts or
: :some other aspersion of negativity that you like to cast in light of
: :actual debate.

: Perhaps you should try engaging in 'actual debate' for a change, Eric?

: When you're wrong I'm going to say you're wrong. When you're nuts I'm
: going to say you're nuts. I'm sorry you find the truth so painful.

You're entitled to your own opinion, McClod. When I tell you it's
meaningless I'll simply do it. Painful? You? Surely, you jest. I'm just
waiting until the time you killfile me again so I can again declare
victory over you once again.

Some folks are here to learn, others to teach, others neither, so they are
to either be ignored, or trifled with as a form of entertainment. The
latter is YOU, McClod.

: :: Wait, that's not confusion. That's merely being correct.
: :
: :Sure whatever you say. If you're so clear and correct all the time, then
: :why all the anger?

: What anger? Are you overestimating your own importance in the grand
: scheme of things again?

Uh, because you do...

If you ever met yourself it would be a really big fight.

: :: :Fred, your last sentence is a laughable joke, especially coming from you.
: ::
: :: Tu quoqe fallacy. Your problem still seems to be an inability to read
: :: and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.
: :
: :Bleating and flaming? Ha, you confuse laughter and wit...

: Nope. Laughter is what I do at you. Wit is what you lack. No
: confusion at all.

Okay, whatwver you say... snicker

: :: :: :: :: :: But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :No, it's you that's operating from scarcity again. Try abundance, though
: :: :: :: :: :it's a new concept for you.
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: The only thing you seem to have an 'abundance' of is stupidity, Eric.
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :But I and others keep pointing out the flaws in your "logic", so I won't be
: :: :: :: :emulating you anytime soon.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: The only thing you ever 'point out' is your own ass, Eric.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :Not to you Fred, as I'd likely bet that when you cheat on your wife it's
: :: :: :with another man.
: :: :
: :: :: I'm divorced and no matter how much you beg I wouldn't give you a
: :: :: tumble, even if you do ever actually grow up to be a man.
: :: :
: :: :I'm not surprised you're divorced.
: ::
: :: I'm not surprised at your charm and poise.
: :
: :What comes around goes around. Why do you expect poise and charm when you
: :dish out mean spiritedness?

: I don't from you. You continue to live down to my expectations.

Due to your low expectations. If you had high ones you'd see me that way
as well. Too bad your a half-empty-glass sort of guy.

Where you get mad at liberals like me, I laugh at conservatives like you.


: :Try kindness and see.

: 'Kindness'? Is poor little Eric feeling picked upon?

No, it is about you not me...

: Try logic, reason, and fact, Eric. Start with any one of the three
: and work your way up to the combination.

The fact that you think I don't do that says more about you than it does
about me.

: o you mistake kindness with weakness? One
: :wonders...

: Well, at least you ditched that turd in your pocket....

Is that how you viewed you marriage? Maybe your spouse's view...
Why do I get the impression she's is trying to get as much out of you as
possible?

Eric

: --
: "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
: territory."
: --G. Behn

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :
:: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :
:: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :: :Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
:: :: :: :: :: :: :into Mexico, by paying people too little.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :: :But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
:: :: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :: There is only so much money in each business to pay labor with. Higher
:: :: :: :: :: :: labor costs per hour mean some businesses (and jobs) go away.
:: :: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :Not according to the Bush tax cut plan. That's the whole point of cutting
:: :: :: :: :: :taxes, so jobs DON'T go away.
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: You DO realize there is no connection between your first remark and
:: :: :: :: :: this one, right?
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :Wrong! The whole point of cutting taxes is so business can grow, thus more
:: :: :: :: :jobs. If I'm wrong, then why cut taxes? So you and I can spend $400 more?!?
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: And the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
:: :: :: :: "paying people too little" is?
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :To give incentive for people to continue to work and not leave the country
:: :: :: :for greener grass. Look at Mexico, if they DID have a minimum wage then
:: :: :: :they wouldn't be crossing the border in droves to your ire. Or do you like
:: :: :: :that sort of thing so as to give the unions fits?
:: :: :
:: :: :: Jesus, try READING THE WORDS, Eric. Let me try again.
:: :: :
:: :: :: What is the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
:: :: :: "paying people too little" and tax cuts?
:: :: :
:: :: :Tax cuts are to boost business.
:: ::
:: :: Well, you got that much right.
:: :
:: :That is the theory anyway.
:
:: Yep. It's generally the reality, too.
:
:Are you going to claim econmics is an exact science like physics and
:chemistry?

Nope. You having to make **** up and pretend I've said it so you have
something to argue with, again?

:Social science, McClod. Trends, etc. Not pure cause and effect.

Go back and read my actual words again, El Chimpo. Then ask someone
to explain them to you.

:: :: :Minimum wage hikes are to keep the
:: :: :business owners from making much more than their workers.
:: ::
:: :: Got that one wrong, and stupidly wrong at that.
:: :
:: :Why have a minimum wage? What is the economic reason for it?
:
:: There is no economic reason for it. In fact, economic reasoning would
:: indicate they are a BAD idea.
:
:****ing off the work force into sense of apatahy might not fit neatly into
:your economic number scheme, but any thinking person undertands the
:humanistic part of keeping you work force happy. Or do you think slavery
:shoud be reinstated for economic reasons?

I see you're once again making **** up and then lying to pretend I
said it so you have something to argue with.

Go get an education, El Chimpo.

:: Minimum Wage laws are a SOCIAL policy, not an economic one.
:
:So what? Sociology has economic factors and reprecussions.

But that doesn't make social policy "sociology". Nor does it make it
"economic policy".

:You're just too
:dimwitted to actually see it. That is why you're a conservative and by
:default at that. You didn't choose it, it chose you!

Why don't you run along and learn what "sociology" is.

Hint: It has nothing to do with "social policy", any more than
anthropology has to do with ants.

:: :: :The relationship
:: :: :is indirectly related.
:: :
:: :: So indirectly related as to be totally disconnected. In other words,
:: :: you still have not answered my question and I think you've
:: :: demonstrated that this is due to an inability on your part to do so.
:: ::
:: :: :Also, boosting minimum wage generates more tax
:: :: :revenue.
:: ::
:: :: How's that work, again? You're not stupidly assuming that business
:: :: keep the same number of employees if they have to pay more for them,
:: :: are you?
:: :
:: :If business is growing they do.
:
:: You don't make business grow by artificially increasing their costs
:: for social policy purposes.
:
:Right, so the answer is anarchy. Oh, no? Then start with govt. and taxes
:and let's see where we go from there.

This is your idea of a reply? It's so sad. You don't even understand
the issues under discussion, do you?

:: :You're coming from a point if staying the
:: :same and shrinking, not from a growing buisness, which is what the tax
:: :cuts were all about in the first place.
:
:: It doesn't matter what you assume. If you artificially increase my
:: labor costs, I will either employ fewer people and try to up their
:: productivity or I will employ the same number of people and lose
:: money.
:
:Or expand your business.

With what? Your expenses were just artificially raised for the
business you have. What do you expand it WITH?

:Why did you leave the last option out?

Because "expanding your business" isn't a magical incantation. If you
expand your business you either need more of those artificially high
priced workers or the ones you have need to be more productive.

Mere expansion does nothing for you.

:You do kno
:what ROI is, right? What is done with it?

Yes, I do. You do know that the 'I' stands for, right? You do
understand that when costs are artificially elevated that it takes
more 'I' to get a given 'R', right?

Or maybe you don't. You come across pretty stupid so far, after all.

:: :: :: :Hard to say where you GOPers are from time to time as you argue one point
:: :: :: :against another without any clue of the cause and effect that both issues
:: :: :: :share.
:: :: :
:: :: :: I'm right where I've always been. Your problem seems to be an
:: :: :: inability to read and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.
:: :: :
:: :: :You're a right winger that tends to be wrong.
:: ::
:: :: And yet all you manage to do is make yourself look stupid and
:: :: uninformed when you aren't being outright loony.
:: :
:: :Says you. You're the one that argues with everyone. Do you actually have a
:: :friend? Or have you chased them all away, too?
:
:: Yes, now there's a cogent, well-reasoned reply.
:
:: I argue with idiots, not everyone. You're an idiot so it seems to you
:: that I argue with everyone.
:
:The only idiot is the one who refuses to learn.

Like I said, I argue with idiots. You're an idiot, so it seems to you
that I argue with everyone.

:That one is you. You really think you know it all.

No, I just know so much more of it than you do that it seems that way
from your perspective.

:: :: :You confuse being poltically
:: :: :right with being correct (right, as a psychological assessment).
:: ::
:: :: No, I confuse being "right where I've always been" as equating to "my
:: :: position remains what it has always been" rather than spinning off
:: :: into whatever fantasy world you're reading it in to use other
:: :: definitions of 'right'.
:: :
:: :What you admit to is that you're consistent with your position, which is
:: ften wrong.
:
:: You're lying again.
:
:And you're backpeddling like a wimp again.

Let's play horse. I'll be the front end and you be yourself.

:: :IOW, you're not open and will tend to always believe what you
:: :initially believe never challenging your own position and beliefs.
:
:: You're lying again.
:
:Wimp. Sorry that thinking hurts your brain.

Lie and then deny. Yeah, REAL impressive, El Chimpo.

:: :You
:: :want to be right so badly that even when wrong you'll argue as if right
:: :all along or try and change the subject to the point where the topic
:: :changes.
:
:: You're lying again.
:
:Beaten too much as a child, Mclod?

Perhaps you were, but it's not an excuse for lying so much.

:: :We have ALL seem that charateristic in you, McClod.
:
:: Oh? When was the vote taken? Or do you just mean you and the turd in
:: your pocket when you say 'we'?
:
:You use 'we' as well.

No, I don't use you at all. I doubt anyone can find a real use for
you.

:: :I just hope
:: :you learn something other than to say the other person is wrong, nuts or
:: :some other aspersion of negativity that you like to cast in light of
:: :actual debate.
:
:: Perhaps you should try engaging in 'actual debate' for a change, Eric?
:
:: When you're wrong I'm going to say you're wrong. When you're nuts I'm
:: going to say you're nuts. I'm sorry you find the truth so painful.
:
:You're entitled to your own opinion, McClod. When I tell you it's
:meaningless I'll simply do it. Painful? You? Surely, you jest. I'm just
:waiting until the time you killfile me again so I can again declare
:victory over you once again.

If you think being not worth bothering with is a 'victory', you just
go ahead and declare it.

:Some folks are here to learn, others to teach, others neither, so they are
:to either be ignored, or trifled with as a form of entertainment. The
:latter is YOU, McClod.

Do you speak any language that non-gibbering idiots can understand?
Your post is an orgy of stultifying cacophonous verbal depravity; an
exercise in literary impotence, and an offense to all of good taste
and decency.

:: :: Wait, that's not confusion. That's merely being correct.
:: :
:: :Sure whatever you say. If you're so clear and correct all the time, then
:: :why all the anger?
:
:: What anger? Are you overestimating your own importance in the grand
:: scheme of things again?
:
:Uh, because you do...
:
:If you ever met yourself it would be a really big fight.

You amaze me! I didn't think it was possible for one person to possess
such a vast reservoir of undiluted gibberish! Is that a conclusion or
simply the place where you got tired of thinking?

:: :: :Fred, your last sentence is a laughable joke, especially coming from you.
:: ::
:: :: Tu quoqe fallacy. Your problem still seems to be an inability to read
:: :: and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.
:: :
:: :Bleating and flaming? Ha, you confuse laughter and wit...
:
:: Nope. Laughter is what I do at you. Wit is what you lack. No
:: confusion at all.
:
:Okay, whatwver you say... snicker

And they said you were unteachable....

:: :: :: :: :: :: But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
:: :: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :No, it's you that's operating from scarcity again. Try abundance, though
:: :: :: :: :: :it's a new concept for you.
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: The only thing you seem to have an 'abundance' of is stupidity, Eric.
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :But I and others keep pointing out the flaws in your "logic", so I won't be
:: :: :: :: :emulating you anytime soon.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: The only thing you ever 'point out' is your own ass, Eric.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :Not to you Fred, as I'd likely bet that when you cheat on your wife it's
:: :: :: :with another man.
:: :: :
:: :: :: I'm divorced and no matter how much you beg I wouldn't give you a
:: :: :: tumble, even if you do ever actually grow up to be a man.
:: :: :
:: :: :I'm not surprised you're divorced.
:: ::
:: :: I'm not surprised at your charm and poise.
:: :
:: :What comes around goes around. Why do you expect poise and charm when you
:: :dish out mean spiritedness?
:
:: I don't from you. You continue to live down to my expectations.
:
ue to your low expectations. If you had high ones you'd see me that way
:as well. Too bad your a half-empty-glass sort of guy.

Nope. I'm the optimistic sort. I'm sure you'll make an even bigger
ass of yourself, given the opportunity.

:Where you get mad at liberals like me, I laugh at conservatives like you.
:

Uh, El Chimpo? It's USENET, dude. Nobody sane gets mad about
blithering ****ants like you.

:: :Try kindness and see.
:
:: 'Kindness'? Is poor little Eric feeling picked upon?
:
:No, it is about you not me...

I'm busy trying to imagine you with a personality. Maybe you'd be less
boring once I got to know you, but I don't want to take that chance.
Any friend of yours is a lousy judge of character.

:: Try logic, reason, and fact, Eric. Start with any one of the three
:: and work your way up to the combination.
:
:The fact that you think I don't do that says more about you than it does
:about me.

Yes. It says I'm a keen observer of the obvious - like your obvious
deficiencies.

:: o you mistake kindness with weakness? One
:: :wonders...
:
:: Well, at least you ditched that turd in your pocket....
:
:Is that how you viewed you marriage?

Nope.

:Maybe your spouse's view...

Probably, if she ever came across you.

:Why do I get the impression she's is trying to get as much out of you as
ossible?

Because you're even stupider than I was giving you credit for?

--
"Well, I think we ought to let him hang there. Let him twist
slowly, slowly in the wind."
-- John Ehrlichman

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :
: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :
: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: :: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :: :: :Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
: :: :: :: :: :: :: :into Mexico, by paying people too little.
: :: :: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :: :: :But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
: :: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :: :: There is only so much money in each business to pay labor with. Higher
: :: :: :: :: :: :: labor costs per hour mean some businesses (and jobs) go away.
: :: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :: :Not according to the Bush tax cut plan. That's the whole point of cutting
: :: :: :: :: :: :taxes, so jobs DON'T go away.
: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :: You DO realize there is no connection between your first remark and
: :: :: :: :: :: this one, right?
: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :Wrong! The whole point of cutting taxes is so business can grow, thus more
: :: :: :: :: :jobs. If I'm wrong, then why cut taxes? So you and I can spend $400 more?!?
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: And the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
: :: :: :: :: "paying people too little" is?
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :To give incentive for people to continue to work and not leave the country
: :: :: :: :for greener grass. Look at Mexico, if they DID have a minimum wage then
: :: :: :: :they wouldn't be crossing the border in droves to your ire. Or do you like
: :: :: :: :that sort of thing so as to give the unions fits?
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: Jesus, try READING THE WORDS, Eric. Let me try again.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: What is the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
: :: :: :: "paying people too little" and tax cuts?
: :: :: :
: :: :: :Tax cuts are to boost business.
: :: ::
: :: :: Well, you got that much right.
: :: :
: :: :That is the theory anyway.
: :
: :: Yep. It's generally the reality, too.
: :
: :Are you going to claim econmics is an exact science like physics and
: :chemistry?

: Nope. You having to make **** up and pretend I've said it so you have
: something to argue with, again?

: :Social science, McClod. Trends, etc. Not pure cause and effect.

: Go back and read my actual words again, El Chimpo. Then ask someone
: to explain them to you.

: :: :: :Minimum wage hikes are to keep the
: :: :: :business owners from making much more than their workers.
: :: ::
: :: :: Got that one wrong, and stupidly wrong at that.
: :: :
: :: :Why have a minimum wage? What is the economic reason for it?
: :
: :: There is no economic reason for it. In fact, economic reasoning would
: :: indicate they are a BAD idea.
: :
: :****ing off the work force into sense of apatahy might not fit neatly into
: :your economic number scheme, but any thinking person undertands the
: :humanistic part of keeping you work force happy. Or do you think slavery
: :shoud be reinstated for economic reasons?

: I see you're once again making **** up and then lying to pretend I
: said it so you have something to argue with.

: Go get an education, El Chimpo.

I have three damn degrees! I think you need a lesson in life.

: :: Minimum Wage laws are a SOCIAL policy, not an economic one.
: :
: :So what? Sociology has economic factors and reprecussions.

: But that doesn't make social policy "sociology". Nor does it make it
: "economic policy".

: :You're just too
: :dimwitted to actually see it. That is why you're a conservative and by
: :default at that. You didn't choose it, it chose you!

: Why don't you run along and learn what "sociology" is.

I know plenty about it. In fact, the term "Power Elite" is a sociological
term. I suggest you read a book written by a sociologist (C. Wright
Mills), which you refuse to do. Then you lecture me about getting an
education about sociology?

You're not qualified to talk down to me, sonny.

: Hint: It has nothing to do with "social policy", any more than
: anthropology has to do with ants.

: :: :: :The relationship
: :: :: :is indirectly related.
: :: :
: :: :: So indirectly related as to be totally disconnected. In other words,
: :: :: you still have not answered my question and I think you've
: :: :: demonstrated that this is due to an inability on your part to do so.
: :: ::
: :: :: :Also, boosting minimum wage generates more tax
: :: :: :revenue.
: :: ::
: :: :: How's that work, again? You're not stupidly assuming that business
: :: :: keep the same number of employees if they have to pay more for them,
: :: :: are you?
: :: :
: :: :If business is growing they do.
: :
: :: You don't make business grow by artificially increasing their costs
: :: for social policy purposes.
: :
: :Right, so the answer is anarchy. Oh, no? Then start with govt. and taxes
: :and let's see where we go from there.

: This is your idea of a reply? It's so sad. You don't even understand
: the issues under discussion, do you?

Why don't you clarify them and stop acting coy? Do you think you can
honestly contribute something here? Then do it...

: :: :You're coming from a point if staying the
: :: :same and shrinking, not from a growing buisness, which is what the tax
: :: :cuts were all about in the first place.
: :
: :: It doesn't matter what you assume. If you artificially increase my
: :: labor costs, I will either employ fewer people and try to up their
: :: productivity or I will employ the same number of people and lose
: :: money.
: :
: :Or expand your business.

: With what? Your expenses were just artificially raised for the
: business you have. What do you expand it WITH?

Create capital by taking on venture capitalists as partners, get a loan,
etc. There are plenty of ways to raise money.

: :Why did you leave the last option out?

: Because "expanding your business" isn't a magical incantation. If you
: expand your business you either need more of those artificially high
: priced workers or the ones you have need to be more productive.

Right, but it happens all over the country every single day. Examples are
endless. Sure, businesses fail, what, 9 out of 10. It is the 10th one that
you must bank on.

: Mere expansion does nothing for you.

Seems to work for corporations.

: :You do kno
: :what ROI is, right? What is done with it?

: Yes, I do. You do know that the 'I' stands for, right? You do
: understand that when costs are artificially elevated that it takes
: more 'I' to get a given 'R', right?

That's why you see "Made in China" everywhere these days. But, I'm sure
you blame the unions and their high labor costs for that.

: Or maybe you don't. You come across pretty stupid so far, after all.

You're not qualified to talk down to me, sonny.

: :: :: :: :Hard to say where you GOPers are from time to time as you argue one point
: :: :: :: :against another without any clue of the cause and effect that both issues
: :: :: :: :share.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: I'm right where I've always been. Your problem seems to be an
: :: :: :: inability to read and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :You're a right winger that tends to be wrong.
: :: ::
: :: :: And yet all you manage to do is make yourself look stupid and
: :: :: uninformed when you aren't being outright loony.
: :: :
: :: :Says you. You're the one that argues with everyone. Do you actually have a
: :: :friend? Or have you chased them all away, too?
: :
: :: Yes, now there's a cogent, well-reasoned reply.
: :
: :: I argue with idiots, not everyone. You're an idiot so it seems to you
: :: that I argue with everyone.
: :
: :The only idiot is the one who refuses to learn.

: Like I said, I argue with idiots. You're an idiot, so it seems to you
: that I argue with everyone.

I bet you argue with yourself in the mirror as well, too.

: :That one is you. You really think you know it all.

: No, I just know so much more of it than you do that it seems that way
: from your perspective.

Just more full of it, scrub...

: :: :: :You confuse being poltically
: :: :: :right with being correct (right, as a psychological assessment).
: :: ::
: :: :: No, I confuse being "right where I've always been" as equating to "my
: :: :: position remains what it has always been" rather than spinning off
: :: :: into whatever fantasy world you're reading it in to use other
: :: :: definitions of 'right'.
: :: :
: :: :What you admit to is that you're consistent with your position, which is
: :: ften wrong.
: :
: :: You're lying again.
: :
: :And you're backpeddling like a wimp again.

: Let's play horse. I'll be the front end and you be yourself.

I picture you more as a jackass.

: :: :IOW, you're not open and will tend to always believe what you
: :: :initially believe never challenging your own position and beliefs.
: :
: :: You're lying again.
: :
: :Wimp. Sorry that thinking hurts your brain.

: Lie and then deny. Yeah, REAL impressive, El Chimpo.

Anything you say, Fret McClod. Perhaps, La Chimpa, suits you better.

: :: :You
: :: :want to be right so badly that even when wrong you'll argue as if right
: :: :all along or try and change the subject to the point where the topic
: :: :changes.
: :
: :: You're lying again.
: :
: :Beaten too much as a child, Mclod?

: Perhaps you were, but it's not an excuse for lying so much.

: :: :We have ALL seem that charateristic in you, McClod.
: :
: :: Oh? When was the vote taken? Or do you just mean you and the turd in
: :: your pocket when you say 'we'?
: :
: :You use 'we' as well.

: No, I don't use you at all. I doubt anyone can find a real use for
: you.

Six billion people and the planet and I'm arguing with an asshole like
you...

: :: :I just hope
: :: :you learn something other than to say the other person is wrong, nuts or
: :: :some other aspersion of negativity that you like to cast in light of
: :: :actual debate.
: :
: :: Perhaps you should try engaging in 'actual debate' for a change, Eric?
: :
: :: When you're wrong I'm going to say you're wrong. When you're nuts I'm
: :: going to say you're nuts. I'm sorry you find the truth so painful.
: :
: :You're entitled to your own opinion, McClod. When I tell you it's
: :meaningless I'll simply do it. Painful? You? Surely, you jest. I'm just
: :waiting until the time you killfile me again so I can again declare
: :victory over you once again.

: If you think being not worth bothering with is a 'victory', you just
: go ahead and declare it.

Better than claiming "liar, liar" like you do.

: :Some folks are here to learn, others to teach, others neither, so they are
: :to either be ignored, or trifled with as a form of entertainment. The
: :latter is YOU, McClod.

: Do you speak any language that non-gibbering idiots can understand?
: Your post is an orgy of stultifying cacophonous verbal depravity; an
: exercise in literary impotence, and an offense to all of good taste
: and decency.

Yet are still a pompous ass overwhelmed with your own mediocrity.

: :: :: Wait, that's not confusion. That's merely being correct.
: :: :
: :: :Sure whatever you say. If you're so clear and correct all the time, then
: :: :why all the anger?
: :
: :: What anger? Are you overestimating your own importance in the grand
: :: scheme of things again?
: :
: :Uh, because you do...
: :
: :If you ever met yourself it would be a really big fight.

: You amaze me! I didn't think it was possible for one person to possess
: such a vast reservoir of undiluted gibberish! Is that a conclusion or
: simply the place where you got tired of thinking?

I see that you strive for diluted gibberish.

: :: :: :Fred, your last sentence is a laughable joke, especially coming from you.
: :: ::
: :: :: Tu quoqe fallacy. Your problem still seems to be an inability to read
: :: :: and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.
: :: :
: :: :Bleating and flaming? Ha, you confuse laughter and wit...
: :
: :: Nope. Laughter is what I do at you. Wit is what you lack. No
: :: confusion at all.
: :
: :Okay, whatwver you say... snicker

: And they said you were unteachable....

The proverbial 'they'...

: :: :: :: :: :: :: But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
: :: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :: :No, it's you that's operating from scarcity again. Try abundance, though
: :: :: :: :: :: :it's a new concept for you.
: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :: The only thing you seem to have an 'abundance' of is stupidity, Eric.
: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :But I and others keep pointing out the flaws in your "logic", so I won't be
: :: :: :: :: :emulating you anytime soon.
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: The only thing you ever 'point out' is your own ass, Eric.
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :Not to you Fred, as I'd likely bet that when you cheat on your wife it's
: :: :: :: :with another man.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: I'm divorced and no matter how much you beg I wouldn't give you a
: :: :: :: tumble, even if you do ever actually grow up to be a man.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :I'm not surprised you're divorced.
: :: ::
: :: :: I'm not surprised at your charm and poise.
: :: :
: :: :What comes around goes around. Why do you expect poise and charm when you
: :: :dish out mean spiritedness?
: :
: :: I don't from you. You continue to live down to my expectations.
: :
: ue to your low expectations. If you had high ones you'd see me that way
: :as well. Too bad your a half-empty-glass sort of guy.

: Nope. I'm the optimistic sort. I'm sure you'll make an even bigger
: ass of yourself, given the opportunity.

Which really means squat other than to you.

: :Where you get mad at liberals like me, I laugh at conservatives like you.
: :

: Uh, El Chimpo? It's USENET, dude. Nobody sane gets mad about
: blithering ****ants like you.

You give reason to question your sanity.

: :: :Try kindness and see.
: :
: :: 'Kindness'? Is poor little Eric feeling picked upon?
: :
: :No, it is about you not me...

: I'm busy trying to imagine you with a personality. Maybe you'd be less
: boring once I got to know you, but I don't want to take that chance.
: Any friend of yours is a lousy judge of character.

Coming form you, that is just perfect. I'd really get worried if you said
I was a great guy.

: :: Try logic, reason, and fact, Eric. Start with any one of the three
: :: and work your way up to the combination.
: :
: :The fact that you think I don't do that says more about you than it does
: :about me.

: Yes. It says I'm a keen observer of the obvious - like your obvious
: deficiencies.

My deficiencies are stronger than your strengths.

: :: o you mistake kindness with weakness? One
: :: :wonders...
: :
: :: Well, at least you ditched that turd in your pocket....
: :
: :Is that how you viewed you marriage?

: Nope.

: :Maybe your spouse's view...

: Probably, if she ever came across you.

: :Why do I get the impression she's is trying to get as much out of you as
: ossible?

: Because you're even stupider than I was giving you credit for?

Yeah, yeah...

: --
: "Well, I think we ought to let him hang there. Let him twist
: slowly, slowly in the wind."
: -- John Ehrlichman

Who did Ehrlichman say this about? Nixon or was it Dick Helms?

Eric

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :
:: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :
:: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :into Mexico, by paying people too little.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
:: :: :: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: There is only so much money in each business to pay labor with. Higher
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: labor costs per hour mean some businesses (and jobs) go away.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :: :Not according to the Bush tax cut plan. That's the whole point of cutting
:: :: :: :: :: :: :taxes, so jobs DON'T go away.
:: :: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :: You DO realize there is no connection between your first remark and
:: :: :: :: :: :: this one, right?
:: :: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :Wrong! The whole point of cutting taxes is so business can grow, thus more
:: :: :: :: :: :jobs. If I'm wrong, then why cut taxes? So you and I can spend $400 more?!?
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: And the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
:: :: :: :: :: "paying people too little" is?
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :To give incentive for people to continue to work and not leave the country
:: :: :: :: :for greener grass. Look at Mexico, if they DID have a minimum wage then
:: :: :: :: :they wouldn't be crossing the border in droves to your ire. Or do you like
:: :: :: :: :that sort of thing so as to give the unions fits?
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: Jesus, try READING THE WORDS, Eric. Let me try again.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: What is the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
:: :: :: :: "paying people too little" and tax cuts?
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :Tax cuts are to boost business.
:: :: ::
:: :: :: Well, you got that much right.
:: :: :
:: :: :That is the theory anyway.
:: :
:: :: Yep. It's generally the reality, too.
:: :
:: :Are you going to claim econmics is an exact science like physics and
:: :chemistry?
:
:: Nope. You having to make **** up and pretend I've said it so you have
:: something to argue with, again?
:
:: :Social science, McClod. Trends, etc. Not pure cause and effect.
:
:: Go back and read my actual words again, El Chimpo. Then ask someone
:: to explain them to you.
:
:: :: :: :Minimum wage hikes are to keep the
:: :: :: :business owners from making much more than their workers.
:: :: ::
:: :: :: Got that one wrong, and stupidly wrong at that.
:: :: :
:: :: :Why have a minimum wage? What is the economic reason for it?
:: :
:: :: There is no economic reason for it. In fact, economic reasoning would
:: :: indicate they are a BAD idea.
:: :
:: :****ing off the work force into sense of apatahy might not fit neatly into
:: :your economic number scheme, but any thinking person undertands the
:: :humanistic part of keeping you work force happy. Or do you think slavery
:: :shoud be reinstated for economic reasons?
:
:: I see you're once again making **** up and then lying to pretend I
:: said it so you have something to argue with.
:
:: Go get an education, El Chimpo.
:
:I have three damn degrees! I think you need a lesson in life.

Three degrees and still an idiot who has learned nothing. You appear
to be suffering from having been educated in the system envisioned by
C. Wright Mills.

[Why do I think that Eric is going to fail to understand that remark?]

:: :: Minimum Wage laws are a SOCIAL policy, not an economic one.
:: :
:: :So what? Sociology has economic factors and reprecussions.
:
:: But that doesn't make social policy "sociology". Nor does it make it
:: "economic policy".
:
:: :You're just too
:: :dimwitted to actually see it. That is why you're a conservative and by
:: :default at that. You didn't choose it, it chose you!
:
:: Why don't you run along and learn what "sociology" is.
:
:I know plenty about it.

You conceal your knowledge well.

:In fact, the term "Power Elite" is a sociological
:term.

Well, no. The term 'power elite' is an invented notion used as a book
title.

:I suggest you read a book written by a sociologist (C. Wright
:Mills), which you refuse to do. Then you lecture me about getting an
:education about sociology?

When you think 'social policy' and 'sociology' are the same thing, as
you claim above, you bet I suggest you get an education.

:You're not qualified to talk down to me, sonny.

No, I'd have to get a lobotomy to get stupid enough to merely talk
down to you.

:: Hint: It has nothing to do with "social policy", any more than
:: anthropology has to do with ants.
:
:: :: :: :The relationship
:: :: :: :is indirectly related.
:: :: :
:: :: :: So indirectly related as to be totally disconnected. In other words,
:: :: :: you still have not answered my question and I think you've
:: :: :: demonstrated that this is due to an inability on your part to do so.
:: :: ::
:: :: :: :Also, boosting minimum wage generates more tax
:: :: :: :revenue.
:: :: ::
:: :: :: How's that work, again? You're not stupidly assuming that business
:: :: :: keep the same number of employees if they have to pay more for them,
:: :: :: are you?
:: :: :
:: :: :If business is growing they do.
:: :
:: :: You don't make business grow by artificially increasing their costs
:: :: for social policy purposes.
:: :
:: :Right, so the answer is anarchy. Oh, no? Then start with govt. and taxes
:: :and let's see where we go from there.
:
:: This is your idea of a reply? It's so sad. You don't even understand
:: the issues under discussion, do you?
:
:Why don't you clarify them and stop acting coy? Do you think you can
:honestly contribute something here? Then do it...

You can lead El Chimpo to knowledge, but you cannot make him THINK.

:: :: :You're coming from a point if staying the
:: :: :same and shrinking, not from a growing buisness, which is what the tax
:: :: :cuts were all about in the first place.
:: :
:: :: It doesn't matter what you assume. If you artificially increase my
:: :: labor costs, I will either employ fewer people and try to up their
:: :: productivity or I will employ the same number of people and lose
:: :: money.
:: :
:: :Or expand your business.
:
:: With what? Your expenses were just artificially raised for the
:: business you have. What do you expand it WITH?
:
:Create capital by taking on venture capitalists as partners, get a loan,
:etc. There are plenty of ways to raise money.

There are plenty of ways to LOSE money. Why would someone go out to a
venture capitalist to raise money to expand a business that has just
been made LESS profitable by government fiat?

:: :Why did you leave the last option out?
:
:: Because "expanding your business" isn't a magical incantation. If you
:: expand your business you either need more of those artificially high
:: priced workers or the ones you have need to be more productive.
:
:Right, but it happens all over the country every single day. Examples are
:endless. Sure, businesses fail, what, 9 out of 10. It is the 10th one that
:you must bank on.

And that 10th one isn't generally employing a lot of people at minimum
wage.

:: Mere expansion does nothing for you.
:
:Seems to work for corporations.

ROFLMAO!

:: :You do kno
:: :what ROI is, right? What is done with it?
:
:: Yes, I do. You do know that the 'I' stands for, right? You do
:: understand that when costs are artificially elevated that it takes
:: more 'I' to get a given 'R', right?
:
:That's why you see "Made in China" everywhere these days.

Well, I'm pleased you agree (although I'm sure you don't mean to). So,
if only government wasn't artificially elevating expenses in the US
through things like minimum wage laws you believe that many of those
low skill jobs would have stayed right here in the US instead of the
end products being imported from places like China?

That's what you just agreed above.

:But, I'm sure
:you blame the unions and their high labor costs for that.

Yes, well you're sure of all sorts of non-operative 'facts'.

Certainly artificially elevated union wages are part of the problem.
Might I suggest you spend some time studying the history of organized
labour and how it works in this country? That its goals and aims are,
etc.

:: Or maybe you don't. You come across pretty stupid so far, after all.
:
:You're not qualified to talk down to me, sonny.

And I refuse to get a lobotomy to become stupid enough to merely talk
down to you.

:: :: :: :: :Hard to say where you GOPers are from time to time as you argue one point
:: :: :: :: :against another without any clue of the cause and effect that both issues
:: :: :: :: :share.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: I'm right where I've always been. Your problem seems to be an
:: :: :: :: inability to read and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :You're a right winger that tends to be wrong.
:: :: ::
:: :: :: And yet all you manage to do is make yourself look stupid and
:: :: :: uninformed when you aren't being outright loony.
:: :: :
:: :: :Says you. You're the one that argues with everyone. Do you actually have a
:: :: :friend? Or have you chased them all away, too?
:: :
:: :: Yes, now there's a cogent, well-reasoned reply.
:: :
:: :: I argue with idiots, not everyone. You're an idiot so it seems to you
:: :: that I argue with everyone.
:: :
:: :The only idiot is the one who refuses to learn.
:
:: Like I said, I argue with idiots. You're an idiot, so it seems to you
:: that I argue with everyone.
:
:I bet you argue with yourself in the mirror as well, too.

You lose. Shall I tell you where to send the money?

:: :That one is you. You really think you know it all.
:
:: No, I just know so much more of it than you do that it seems that way
:: from your perspective.
:
:Just more full of it, scrub...

Yes, you're SO good at actually supporting your positions.

snicker

:: :: :: :You confuse being poltically
:: :: :: :right with being correct (right, as a psychological assessment).
:: :: ::
:: :: :: No, I confuse being "right where I've always been" as equating to "my
:: :: :: position remains what it has always been" rather than spinning off
:: :: :: into whatever fantasy world you're reading it in to use other
:: :: :: definitions of 'right'.
:: :: :
:: :: :What you admit to is that you're consistent with your position, which is
:: :: ften wrong.
:: :
:: :: You're lying again.
:: :
:: :And you're backpeddling like a wimp again.
:
:: Let's play horse. I'll be the front end and you be yourself.
:
:I picture you more as a jackass.

Yes, well we've already established that reality doesn't intrude up
where you keep your head, haven't we?

:: :: :IOW, you're not open and will tend to always believe what you
:: :: :initially believe never challenging your own position and beliefs.
:: :
:: :: You're lying again.
:: :
:: :Wimp. Sorry that thinking hurts your brain.
:
:: Lie and then deny. Yeah, REAL impressive, El Chimpo.
:
:Anything you say, Fret McClod. Perhaps, La Chimpa, suits you better.

Blah blah blah blah blah.

:: :: :You
:: :: :want to be right so badly that even when wrong you'll argue as if right
:: :: :all along or try and change the subject to the point where the topic
:: :: :changes.
:: :
:: :: You're lying again.
:: :
:: :Beaten too much as a child, Mclod?
:
:: Perhaps you were, but it's not an excuse for lying so much.
:
:: :: :We have ALL seem that charateristic in you, McClod.
:: :
:: :: Oh? When was the vote taken? Or do you just mean you and the turd in
:: :: your pocket when you say 'we'?
:: :
:: :You use 'we' as well.
:
:: No, I don't use you at all. I doubt anyone can find a real use for
:: you.
:
:Six billion people and the planet and I'm arguing with an asshole like
:you...

Now don't you feel stupid? You certainly would if reality intruded
into your world even a little bit.

:: :: :I just hope
:: :: :you learn something other than to say the other person is wrong, nuts or
:: :: :some other aspersion of negativity that you like to cast in light of
:: :: :actual debate.
:: :
:: :: Perhaps you should try engaging in 'actual debate' for a change, Eric?
:: :
:: :: When you're wrong I'm going to say you're wrong. When you're nuts I'm
:: :: going to say you're nuts. I'm sorry you find the truth so painful.
:: :
:: :You're entitled to your own opinion, McClod. When I tell you it's
:: :meaningless I'll simply do it. Painful? You? Surely, you jest. I'm just
:: :waiting until the time you killfile me again so I can again declare
:: :victory over you once again.
:
:: If you think being not worth bothering with is a 'victory', you just
:: go ahead and declare it.
:
:Better than claiming "liar, liar" like you do.

Well, if you dislike being called a liar, Eric, perhaps you should
stop lying?

It would be a novel approach for you.

:: :Some folks are here to learn, others to teach, others neither, so they are
:: :to either be ignored, or trifled with as a form of entertainment. The
:: :latter is YOU, McClod.
:
:: Do you speak any language that non-gibbering idiots can understand?
:: Your post is an orgy of stultifying cacophonous verbal depravity; an
:: exercise in literary impotence, and an offense to all of good taste
:: and decency.
:
:Yet are still a pompous ass overwhelmed with your own mediocrity.

Don't look now, but you're starting to lose the ability to type
complete sentences.

Perhaps you should step back and blot before you short out your
keyboard?

:: :: :: Wait, that's not confusion. That's merely being correct.
:: :: :
:: :: :Sure whatever you say. If you're so clear and correct all the time, then
:: :: :why all the anger?
:: :
:: :: What anger? Are you overestimating your own importance in the grand
:: :: scheme of things again?
:: :
:: :Uh, because you do...
:: :
:: :If you ever met yourself it would be a really big fight.
:
:: You amaze me! I didn't think it was possible for one person to possess
:: such a vast reservoir of undiluted gibberish! Is that a conclusion or
:: simply the place where you got tired of thinking?
:
:I see that you strive for diluted gibberish.

Yes, in that I interpose my remarks in between your gibberish, thus
diluting it.

:: :: :: :Fred, your last sentence is a laughable joke, especially coming from you.
:: :: ::
:: :: :: Tu quoqe fallacy. Your problem still seems to be an inability to read
:: :: :: and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.
:: :: :
:: :: :Bleating and flaming? Ha, you confuse laughter and wit...
:: :
:: :: Nope. Laughter is what I do at you. Wit is what you lack. No
:: :: confusion at all.
:: :
:: :Okay, whatwver you say... snicker
:
:: And they said you were unteachable....
:
:The proverbial 'they'...

And the adverbial 'you'...

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
:: :: :: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :: :No, it's you that's operating from scarcity again. Try abundance, though
:: :: :: :: :: :: :it's a new concept for you.
:: :: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :: The only thing you seem to have an 'abundance' of is stupidity, Eric.
:: :: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :But I and others keep pointing out the flaws in your "logic", so I won't be
:: :: :: :: :: :emulating you anytime soon.
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: The only thing you ever 'point out' is your own ass, Eric.
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :Not to you Fred, as I'd likely bet that when you cheat on your wife it's
:: :: :: :: :with another man.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: I'm divorced and no matter how much you beg I wouldn't give you a
:: :: :: :: tumble, even if you do ever actually grow up to be a man.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :I'm not surprised you're divorced.
:: :: ::
:: :: :: I'm not surprised at your charm and poise.
:: :: :
:: :: :What comes around goes around. Why do you expect poise and charm when you
:: :: :dish out mean spiritedness?
:: :
:: :: I don't from you. You continue to live down to my expectations.
:: :
:: ue to your low expectations. If you had high ones you'd see me that way
:: :as well. Too bad your a half-empty-glass sort of guy.
:
:: Nope. I'm the optimistic sort. I'm sure you'll make an even bigger
:: ass of yourself, given the opportunity.
:
:Which really means squat other than to you.

See what I mean?

:: :Where you get mad at liberals like me, I laugh at conservatives like you.
:: :
:
:: Uh, El Chimpo? It's USENET, dude. Nobody sane gets mad about
:: blithering ****ants like you.
:
:You give reason to question your sanity.

Only insofar as I waste time with you. It's rather like watching a
traffic accident, wondering just how big a rhetorical 'wreck' you'll
create with your senseless maundering replies.

El Chimpo, you would be out of your depth in a parking lot puddle. You
are obviously suffering from Clue Deficit Disorder. Have you ever
noticed that whenever you sit behind a keyboard, some idiot starts
typing? You bring to mind a quote from Josh Billing: "Doesn't know
much, but leads the league in nostril hair."

:: :: :Try kindness and see.
:: :
:: :: 'Kindness'? Is poor little Eric feeling picked upon?
:: :
:: :No, it is about you not me...
:
:: I'm busy trying to imagine you with a personality. Maybe you'd be less
:: boring once I got to know you, but I don't want to take that chance.
:: Any friend of yours is a lousy judge of character.
:
:Coming form you, that is just perfect. I'd really get worried if you said
:I was a great guy.

So would I, but for a much different reason.

:: :: Try logic, reason, and fact, Eric. Start with any one of the three
:: :: and work your way up to the combination.
:: :
:: :The fact that you think I don't do that says more about you than it does
:: :about me.
:
:: Yes. It says I'm a keen observer of the obvious - like your obvious
:: deficiencies.
:
:My deficiencies are stronger than your strengths.

And your odor is stronger than my nose....

:: :: o you mistake kindness with weakness? One
:: :: :wonders...
:: :
:: :: Well, at least you ditched that turd in your pocket....
:: :
:: :Is that how you viewed you marriage?
:
:: Nope.
:
:: :Maybe your spouse's view...
:
:: Probably, if she ever came across you.
:
:: :Why do I get the impression she's is trying to get as much out of you as
:: ossible?
:
:: Because you're even stupider than I was giving you credit for?
:
:Yeah, yeah...

Wow, another biting intellectual response!

Is it starting to sink in why so many have the opinion of you that
they do, El Chimpo?

:: --
:: "Well, I think we ought to let him hang there. Let him twist
:: slowly, slowly in the wind."
:: -- John Ehrlichman
:
:Who did Ehrlichman say this about? Nixon or was it Dick Helms?

Reduced to commenting on .sigs now? Gee, what clueless behaviour will
be next for our El Chimpo?

--
"He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let
that fool you. He really is an idiot."
-- Groucho Marx