So you think you deserve $15/hr. at Mc-Donald's? Meet your replacement.

abandonconflict said:
No, it contradicts your view on pedophilia being consensual, but thanks for putting the bullshit in the first sentence so that I don't have to read the entire jeremiad which is a tedious task.

Tl;dr.
Click to expand...

My view has been consistent, things that people actually consent to are consensual. People that champion nonconsensual interactions, like you, on one hand, then actively seek a benefit from them on the other hand are confused or hypocritical or both..."Anarchist".


Nice use of jeremiad though.
 
funny-mcdonalds-meme-pictures-300x222.jpg
 
cronyedit.

huddlescheme.

censorcrusade.

echochamber.

bubbledefense.

sockpuppetconspiracy.

minimiumwagetofreedom.

teambotinterference.

rollihelp.

windupdollSOP.

2lol. again. :fire::arrow:
 
god1 said:
Pad likes to quote a study that enumerates the gains of the people in the top 1% vs the rest. But he always manages to leave out an important point in that study; the people making big gains in the top 3,5 through 10 percent are people with "skills" working for wages vs the rentier class of years past.
Click to expand...
FT_14.09.08_MinimumWage.png
productivity-and-earnings.jpg
6a00e54ffb9698883301676665a37b970b-pi

Great-Prosperity-vs-Great-Recession.jpg


Where did all these "skills" come from simultaneously right around 1980, when wages for the top earners skyrocketed while everyone else's stayed the same?

Why do two specific supreme court decisions that deal directly with campaign finance take place in the mid-late 1970's, directly before the disparity began; Buckley v. Valeo & First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti?

Buckley v. Valeo struck down limits on spending in campaigns, and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti held that corporations have first amendment rights to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns. Then, to nobody's surprise, corporate money flows in as "political contributions" aka legal bribes, and politicians begin to cater to their corporate donors interests, not the American voters who put them there. This happens in both political parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti

Here are two more supreme court decisions equally as relevant to the problem of campaign finance reform; Citizens United v. FEC & McCutcheon v. FEC

Citizens United v. FEC prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions and other associations, and McCutcheon v. FEC held that aggregate contribution limits are unconstitutional

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._FEC

(exact same court, exact same 5 judges concurring in both cases, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito & Thomas)
Graph_of_Martin-Quinn_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1937-Now.png


For whatever reason, you can't accept that business and corporate interests have rigged our political system in their favor, many studies prove this, here's one from Princeton;

https://www.princeton.edu/csdp/events/Trounstine020509/Trounstine020509.pdf

And here's a short clip that explains how it works pretty well;

 
Last edited:
Uncle Ben said:
Yeah, where these misguided people get this McDonald's=financial security stuff is beyond me. Apples and oranges.
It's kinda like the Social Security program. It was never designed to provide a real comfortable standard of living. If you are say......60 and don't have a bunch of financial cushions by now, it's your own damn fault.

Not sure about this gov. forced privatization stuff. I wish the gov. would allow me to privitized my SS contributions by playing the stock market, investing it. I'd be a multi-million by now. GW tried but the liberal tards did the nanny thing saying only they can make such decisions.

"Government solutions" - man do they suck especially when you got the likes of Obama and his cronies pulling the levers. Never seen such a collection of dumb asses as this administration.
Click to expand...

Where do you get off giving whole industries a free pass to exploit their employees? THAT'S what's wrong with your whole line of thinking; EVERYONE who works deserves a living wage, whether you think so or not.
 
schuylaar said:
then i'm gonna say we'll have an even bigger problem than we do now, which will only make the case for some form of socialism.

why do you think bernie sanders is drawing huge crowds?
Click to expand...
Because his supporters are all unemployed layabouts with no job to prevent them from going.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
FT_14.09.08_MinimumWage.png
productivity-and-earnings.jpg
6a00e54ffb9698883301676665a37b970b-pi

Great-Prosperity-vs-Great-Recession.jpg


Where did all these "skills" come from simultaneously right around 1980, when wages for the top earners skyrocketed while everyone else's stayed the same?

Why do two specific supreme court decisions that deal directly with campaign finance take place in the mid-late 1970's, directly before the disparity began; Buckley v. Valeo & First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti?

Buckley v. Valeo struck down limits on spending in campaigns, and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti held that corporations have first amendment rights to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns. Then, to nobody's surprise, corporate money flows in as "political contributions" aka legal bribes, and politicians begin to cater to their corporate donors interests, not the American voters who put them there. This happens in both political parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti

Here are two more supreme court decisions equally as relevant to the problem of campaign finance reform; Citizens United v. FEC & McCutcheon v. FEC

Citizens United v. FEC prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions and other associations, and McCutcheon v. FEC held that aggregate contribution limits are unconstitutional

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._FEC

(exact same court, exact same 5 judges concurring in both cases, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito & Thomas)
Graph_of_Martin-Quinn_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1937-Now.png


For whatever reason, you can't accept that business and corporate interests have rigged our political system in their favor, many studies prove this, here's one from Princeton;

https://www.princeton.edu/csdp/events/Trounstine020509/Trounstine020509.pdf

And here's a short clip that explains how it works pretty well;

Click to expand...

You can't use logic to argue with the irrational.
 
ttystikk said:
Where do you get off giving whole industries a free pass to exploit their employees? THAT'S what's wrong with your whole line of thinking; EVERYONE who works deserves a living wage, whether you think so or not.
Click to expand...
A business that pays you more than you produce will soon be defunct, leaving you with no job at all. Your ideology blinds you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

printer
Impeachment proceedings against Biden.
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
printer
printer
Jimski
Jimski's Grow Journal
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
Jimski
Jimski
G
Pleased to meet you Coco and the Fairies
Replies
5
Views
435
Growneasy
G
MarsHydrofactory
based on your experience, what other accessories do you think should be added here?welcome to comment
Replies
15
Views
782
Frank Nitty
Frank Nitty
Steep Hill
Legalization in the U.S. - What Do You Think?
Replies
0
Views
803
Steep Hill
Steep Hill
Back
Top