They Should Just Make Being Poor and a CheapAss a Crime Already

[RedvsBlue]

I had asked a long time ago if on a microscopic level, if a neighborhood, or even city where the majority power was controlled by blacks (i.e. Baltimore; 60%+ Black) if it was possible for a race other then whites to be racist---according to this philosophy. I disagree with DD's assertion but if that is his belief then it has to run both ways.... right? While white population may by the majority population for the time being, trends tend to indicate that won't always be the case. And the day it isn't, then is it safe to say that white's can no longer be racist? Or would they have to give up all power?

There are plenty of areas and industries where the majority of the "power" and "influence" is not held by white interest. HBCU's and hip hop would be two examples. Can the people within those "habitats" be racist towards non-blacks? Or do they just fall under the guise of "hate" and "ignorance". And if that is the excuse----I would like a clear definition of what exactly racism is because too often I see similar actions defined differently depending on who is responsible for them or where they occur.

acism is about more than sheer majority though, for instance, during South African Apartheid the whites were the minority yet they were still able to significantly oppress the black majority.

Further, while you're seeing the public face of hip hop being mostly made up of blacks, there still significant control behind the scenes being wielded by white producers and executives of the record labels.

 

[dohdough]

You should actually try to use a dictionary some time. Here is the definition of dickhead from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

[background=#ffffff]a stupid or contemptible person[/size][/background]

So, no, in this instance all I would require is a dictionary to understand that it is an insult. Thank you for proving my point about how useful dictionaries are.

Yeah, your dictionary quote totally explains the etymology of the term. Thanks to you, I know everything I would need or want to know about dickheads.

I'm going to read the definition of dark matter and insist that MIT gives me a legit doctorate in astrophysics with a Nobel Peace Prize because I will know everything there is to know about it when everyone else is too ing dumb to just read about it in the dictionary.

 

[UncleBob]

Holy carp, what a strawman. Not a single person has claimed that knowing what something is equates to being an expert on every aspect of that something.

Keep reaching, DD. One day, you'll catch a star.

 

[egofed]

Wow!!! Doh and I had this same "debate" a few months ago, but it keeps getting funnier each time. The gift that keeps on giving. Doh, do you have an answer about my question on your stance on amnesty versus a lack of current jobs for people on welfare?

 

[dohdough]

Wow!!! Doh and I had this same "debate" a few months ago, but it keeps getting funnier each time. The gift that keeps on giving. Doh, do you have an answer about my question on your stance on amnesty versus a lack of current jobs for people on welfare?

Have you somehow forgotten this?

-The ability to make those millions is dependent on a lot of infrastructure and regulatory bodies that create a system to make it possible. Apple doesn't make billions of dollars solely on the fact that it makes shitty shiny products. Even without physical infrastructure, you have laws and agencies that protect it from copyright infringement, patent violations, and straight up killing their domestic workforce. It's a little more complicated than just using roads. That's a simple example to highlight a simple concept that apparently, some people are too simple to understand. Not my problem.

So you either used ideological rhetoric to purposely distort the concepts you're bringing up or you outright have no ing clue about what you're attempting to talk about. Which is it because you're ing up the basics. Yeah, I'm totally going to write a 1000+ word treatise to get trolled by the vs. clowns. In case you're wondering, yes, I include you in that group.

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

Have you stopped peeing your underoos yet?

I find it more amusing that you're stalking me. It's as flattering as it is creepy.

 

[dohdough]

[background=#23252b]I find it more amusing that you're stalking me. It's as flattering as it is creepy. [/background]

Looks like I touched a nerve!

inb4 you cut'n'paste this post back to me. You clowns make me laugh and laugh...

 

[RPGNinja]

[background=#23252b]I find it more amusing that you're stalking me. It's as flattering as it is creepy. [/background]

He is a Bill Ayers acolyte. You don't expect him to be rational and make sense do you?

 

[dohdough]

He is a Bill Ayers acolyte. You don't expect him to be rational and make sense do you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs4Gj7JsET4

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

Looks like I touched a nerve!

inb4 you cut'n'paste this post back to me. You clowns make me laugh and laugh...

I dun know, I sense sadness behind those words.

 

[megma42]

Yeah, your dictionary quote totally explains the etymology of the term. Thanks to you, I know everything I would need or want to know about dickheads.

I'm going to read the definition of dark matter and insist that MIT gives me a legit doctorate in astrophysics with a Nobel Peace Prize because I will know everything there is to know about it when everyone else is too ing dumb to just read about it in the dictionary.

Do you actually not understand what a dictionary is? It doesn't just include the etymology of a term, it includes the meaning of the word as well.

You do realize that you are attempting to argue that the dictionary is wrong - right?

If this is not the case, respond with an actual argument, give reasons why you disagree with my statement, or actually tell me what part of the definition is incorrect.

Also, the second part of your post above is an appeal to ridicule, another fallacy. You are actually ridiculing me for looking to a dictionary for the meaning of a word.

You sir are ridiculous (not an insult, just an etymological callback to the type of fallacy you used).

 

[dohdough]

Do you actually not understand what a dictionary is? It doesn't just include the etymology of a term, it includes the meaning of the word as well.

Appeal to authority

You do realize that you are attempting to argue that the dictionary is wrong - right?

Strawman

If this is not the case, respond with an actual argument, give reasons why you disagree with my statement, or actually tell me what part of the definition is incorrect.

Tu quoque

Also, the second part of your post above is an appeal to ridicule, another fallacy. You are actually ridiculing me for looking to a dictionary for the meaning of a word.

Personal incredulity

You sir are ridiculous (not an insult, just an etymological callback to the type of fallacy you used).

Ad hominem

Here's a better ad hom: I'm happy for you that you think "penis head" is sufficient as the etymology for dickhead. It must be nice to have such a low standard for intellectual rigor.

 

[RPGNinja]

Hahaha.. I think Doughy Boy has more problems than worrying about what a dictionary is. The guy is mentally insane.

And guys don't worry when he keeps talking about "ad hominem" attacks. He is the first one to do it all the time. Another hypocritical liberal.

 

[Msut77]

Let me guess. When people claim most people are in welfare. They are taking into account people who collect social security, a system people have paid in to their whole life.

 

[megma42]

Appeal to authority


Strawman


Tu quoque


Personal incredulity


Ad hominem

Here's a better ad hom: I'm happy for you that you think "penis head" is sufficient as the etymology for dickhead. It must be nice to have such a low standard for intellectual rigor.

You surely don't understand many fallacies either.

First of all, appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority is questionable. If you define my use of the dictionary to define the word racist as fallacious, you instantly must remove your indication that I use the strawman fallacy since it would then be completely accurate and therefore no longer a fallacy. A logical mind can't see both of them as fallacies.

Personal incredulity - This may actually be a true instance of me using a fallacy. I will ask you again, please explain how only the privileged can be racist. Also, in accordance with the logic for this argument, can only men be sexist?

Tu Quoque - Here you are wrong, I did not make a statement that you were inconsistent in your action or in what you said, just that you have not presented a rational argument or defense of your point.

Ad hominem - Yes, you are right. My apologies.

Also, please explain how the slave you spoke of earlier that hated all whites is not a racist. Do you think that a person's (the slave in this case) mistreatment by a few people of a specific race gives that person (the slave) the right to prejudice against all others in that race? I will answer this for myself - I do not.

 

[dohdough]

You surely don't understand many fallacies either.

First of all, appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority is questionable. If you define my use of the dictionary to define the word racist as fallacious, you instantly must remove your indication that I use the strawman fallacy since it would then be completely accurate and therefore no longer a fallacy. A logical mind can't see both of them as fallacies.

Personal incredulity - This may actually be a true instance of me using a fallacy. I will ask you again, please explain how only the privileged can be racist. Also, in accordance with the logic for this argument, can only men be sexist?

Tu Quoque - Here you are wrong, I did not make a statement that you were inconsistent in your action or in what you said, just that you have not presented a rational argument or defense of your point.

Ad hominem - Yes, you are right. My apologies.

Also, please explain how the slave you spoke of earlier that hated all whites is not a racist. Do you think that a person's (the slave in this case) mistreatment by a few people of a specific race gives that person (the slave) the right to prejudice against all others in that race? I will answer this for myself - I do not.

Oh me...another chowderhead that can't follow their own posts.

First, you said:

Wait, is there some debate that a person's race is not genetically determined? Please fill me in, I have not heard about this.

And then you said:

OK, I read about that idea. I completely disagreed with it since I understand the definition of the word "racist".

Race is NOT based on genetics as the variation between white and black(and others) are insignificant. The idea of biological races was refuted over 40 years ago and it is accepted that race is a social construct, rather than a biological one. If you bothered to define "race," your argument would've been proven irredeemably wrong even by you're own ideological rigidity by adhering to the Merriam-Webster definition of "racism" without referencing the same source's definition of "race."

An inquiring mind might go even further and do some thinking about why categorizations of race were created, who created them, and what they were used for. But hey, that seems to be just a little too much thinking for most conservatives.

 

[megma42]

OK, here is the post and the reply in order. Not the two you reply to with the second taken out of context.

No but there has been debates in which our resident race expert has proclaimed that if you're white you're automatically racist because you're automatically born into power and privileged. The same expert has said that it is impossible for any minority to be racist because they don't universally hold enough wealth or power or the numbers to effectively be racist.

OK, I read about that idea. I completely disagreed with it since I understand the definition of the word "racist".

My reply is about the fact that you don't have to be privileged to be racist. I am still waiting for a response from you about this, but have not read one. This is what I want to know - why must you be privileged to be racist?

Race is NOT based on genetics as the variation between white and black(and others) are insignificant. The idea of biological races was refuted over 40 years ago and it is accepted that race is a social construct, rather than a biological one. If you bothered to define "race," your argument would've been proven irredeemably wrong even by you're own ideological rigidity by adhering to the Merriam-Webster definition of "racism" without referencing the same source's definition of "race."

An inquiring mind might go even further and do some thinking about why categorizations of race were created, who created them, and what they were used for. But hey, that seems to be just a little too much thinking for most conservatives.

Thank you. So, you just wanted point that it is "not a biological construct". Why does this matter? Is it because it shows that people are of equal worth regardless of race? If it is, I agree. If you think the idea of race should be abolished, great. Viewing race as a social construct doesn't speak to the argument about how only the privileged can be racist.

Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of race now that you finally state your point:

a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits

As you stated earlier, I am bound to agree since it is from the dictionary. Indeed, yes, I do agree with this definition of race and believe that the "certain distinctive physical traits" (skin color, eye shape, etc.) are most often defined by the person's genetics. So, semantics is the source of our argument unless you define race as something other than "physical traits". If so, please let me know how you define race.

Why don't you just fill me in on the last part of your post if you would and let me know why it matters with our present discussion. Or better yet, tell me how it makes it impossible for a non-privileged person to be racist.

This is the question - why must a person be privileged to be racist? Not all of the junk above that distracts from the question. Why must a person be privileged to be racist? Why can't a non-privileged person be a racist?

Please answer either question, or the last question from my previous post:

Do you think that a person's (the slave in this case) mistreatment by a few people of a specific race gives that person (the slave) the right to prejudice against all others in that race? I will answer this for myself - I do not.

 

[dohdough]

OK, here is the post and the reply in order. Not the two you reply to with the second taken out of context.
My reply is about the fact that you don't have to be privileged to be racist. I am still waiting for a response from you about this, but have not read one. This is what I want to know - why must you be privileged to be racist?
Thank you. So, you just wanted point that it is "not a biological construct". Why does this matter? Is it because it shows that people are of equal worth regardless of race? If it is, I agree. If you think the idea of race should be abolished, great. Viewing race as a social construct doesn't speak to the argument about how only the privileged can be racist.

Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of race now that you finally state your point:

[background=#ffffff]a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits[/size][/background]


As you stated earlier, I am bound to agree since it is from the dictionary. Indeed, yes, I do agree with this definition of race and believe that the "certain distinctive physical traits" (skin color, eye shape, etc.) are most often defined by the person's genetics. So, semantics is the source of our argument unless you define race as something other than "physical traits". If so, please let me know how you define race.

Why don't you just fill me in on the last part of your post if you would and let me know why it matters with our present discussion. Or better yet, tell me how it makes it impossible for a non-privileged person to be racist.

This is the question - why must a person be privileged to be racist? Not all of the junk above that distracts from the question. Why must a person be privileged to be racist? Why can't a non-privileged person be a racist?

Please answer either question, or the last question from my previous post:

Ahhh...I see, so you'd rather be intellectually dishonest than admit that you're wrong. Gotcha.

If a half black/half white man looks white and crosses your path, which race would you categorize him if asked and you knew nothing about him? If a half Chinese/half black woman looks black and crosses your path, which race would you categorize her? If David Beckham has more genes in common with Christian Reynaldo than Patrick Stewart, what does that say? Given these examples, what is the importance of the genetic aspect of race if those individuals clearly look like a specific race, but are genetically not or have less genes in common with someone that looks similar?

If everything is ing genes, genes, genes, then why are some traits considered superior? WHO defines that? And once it's defined, what purpose does that serve?

For someone that likes to bitch about context and namedrop logical fallacies, you like to shit them out! It's not like you missed a completely different entry that wasn't right below the one you decided to puke on the interwebz that's longer than everything above it! Good for you!

 

[megma42]

You can call it intellectually dishonest, but I actually do agree with the dictionary on the definition.      

I ask you for an answer to a question and almost your entire post is questions, not one answer, but a ton of questions.

As to all of your questions:

1. half black/half white man looks white - I assume he is white.

2. half Chinese/half black - I don't know if she looks more black I assume she is black & if she looks more Chinese I assume she is Chinese.  Maybe I just don't really know what race she is, better yet I doubt that I actually care.

3. I have no idea what that says about racism or David Beckham or anything.  I actually don't care at all who has genes similar to his.

4. The importance is not different than what I stated previously - genetics determines how people look and people are divided into race by how they look.  So, if someone looks black or Chinese or like David Beckham people will assume that they are black or Chinese or David Beckham.  That is what I put forward, nothing more.  

5. I don't know so far as the physical attributes that would indicate race are concerned.

6. Here are some of my guesses: society at large, the media, people in positions of authority, people with influence, people on cheap video game deals message boards. I don't really think there is one specific answer to that question.  However, I do not think it is the World Health Organization.

7. To separate things into groups like we humans tend to do. 

As to your last paragraph, I honestly don't know what you are talking about other than to criticize me.  I get the vague sense that you believe you somehow answered my question though.  I don't understand your answer if you did.

Now, I answered seven of your questions, please answer one of mine.  

Why must a person be privileged to be racist?  Or, could you just give me your definition of the word racist?

 

[RPGNinja]

LOL Doh Dough is getting his ass kicked in this thread. This is beautiful to watch.

And as usual he is so quick to pull out the race card when he is losing. What a coward.

 

[egofed]

Dude, I am telling you that Doh and I went back and forth like this almost word for word a few months ago. I think he did the same thing a few months prior to that with a different member also. I think that might have been when he claimed he knew a "secret" about me but would never divulge it..   The thing is, he is obviously well read and educated, so how does someone get so indoctrinated that they refute the definition of a word? He has thrown the racist accusation at me several times, I hate cultures that promote single motherhood and generational welfare, be they white or black. I don't care about genetics, I just don't want to pay for your irresponsibility. 

Doh also thinks he answered my question about illegal immigrants and the lack of jobs for people on welfare by saying he won't be trolled into explaining his view.... . Why do I continue to talk with him? Because it cracks me up every time! I would love to meet him in person, but he said he despises me.

 

[Msut77]

I think ego isn't very honest about the color blind thing, or being against welfare abuse. Every time I engage ego it is the same canned inanity or they stop posting. I never even got ego to define terms.

 

[detectiveconan16]

This morning I read the story about a white  family with a few kids who, after the collapse, still drives around in a 2003 Mercedes Benz, and has to depend on Food Stamps. The family earns about $25K now, and the car was paid for before their life turned to sour. But all the trolls could focus on was that why didn't they just sell the car for a clunker. Turns out the car needs very little maintenance, and since it is 11 years old can't possibly be worth the same as when the husband bought it.  One person pointed out that the family were lucky to still have such a resilient car, when they could've taken a bigger risk with whatever clunker they could've gotten on their current budget, thus costing the family even more money they now couldn't afford.

When I finished that story, I was reminded of the woman who was practically on top of the world at some big bank company she worked for, in charge of all those people who sends people notices for debts that should've expired after the statute of limitations, and now she lives in Florida off her ex-Marine dad with her children.

 

[Msut77]

Let me guess. When people claim most people are in welfare. They are taking into account people who collect social security, a system people have paid in to their whole life.

 

[egofed]

This morning I read the story about a white family with a few kids who, after the collapse, still drives around in a 2003 Mercedes Benz, and has to depend on Food Stamps. The family earns about $25K now, and the car was paid for before their life turned to sour. But all the trolls could focus on was that why didn't they just sell the car for a clunker. Turns out the car needs very little maintenance, and since it is 11 years old can't possibly be worth the same as when the husband bought it. One person pointed out that the family were lucky to still have such a resilient car, when they could've taken a bigger risk with whatever clunker they could've gotten on their current budget, thus costing the family even more money they now couldn't afford.

When I finished that story, I was reminded of the woman who was practically on top of the world at some big bank company she worked for, in charge of all those people who sends people notices for debts that should've expired after the statute of limitations, and now she lives in Florida off her ex-Marine dad with her children.

"But we don't, because we are hypocrites. If you are living directly within your means, you are the exception. It is far more likely that your car is more than you can afford, so is your house, so are your clothes, and so is your grocery bill. You have no sense of real job security, and it could all go to pot in a heartbeat, and if it did, through the fog of depression, worry, and uncertainty about your future, you too might hold onto the one nice thing you had left, and that choice might even be laced with a little optimism that it was a symbol of better times still to come."

I guess I am the exception, so I get to make judgments against welfare recipients having cable, hi speed internet, $100/month IPhone plans, and nicer cars than I drive on the tax payer's dime. My 2014 Ford Focus is paid for, I could pay off my $94,000 mortgage if the tax deduction wasn't worth it, I have 0 credit card or other outstanding debt, I have no TV plan, I have straighttalk $45/month unlimited phone/text service, and I have saved over $175,000 while only making $43,000 per year(not counting my day trading profits). This is accomplished without even living that frugally. I date a lot (EVEN PAYING FOR MY OWN CONDOMS!!!) and take a couple surf trips a year. Luxury items, ESPECIALLY monthly subscriptions, are not for people who should be trying to better their positions. You have no right to anybody else's money. I wish we would generate even more shame and stigma for those on welfare, some incentive to make them strive to save and do better. Everybody wants everything without working for it these days.....

 

[Msut77]

We should all have government jobs.

 

[RedvsBlue]

We should all have government jobs.

Definitely, I choose fireman so I can drive the truck. Weeooooweeeooooweeeoooo

 

[UncleBob]

I can't help but wonder if some folks still think they're the valiant 'Defenders of the Vs. Forum' or if they've finally realized what complete and absolute trolls (with nothing of value to add) they've been this entire time and have just decided to embrace their true nature to its fullest.

 

[egofed]

Definitely, I choose fireman so I can drive the truck. Weeooooweeeooooweeeoooo

It is pretty badass sometimes.

 

[rebelschs]

"But we don't, because we are hypocrites. If you are living directly within your means, you are the exception. It is far more likely that your car is more than you can afford, so is your house, so are your clothes, and so is your grocery bill. You have no sense of real job security, and it could all go to pot in a heartbeat, and if it did, through the fog of depression, worry, and uncertainty about your future, you too might hold onto the one nice thing you had left, and that choice might even be laced with a little optimism that it was a symbol of better times still to come."

I guess I am the exception, so I get to make judgments against welfare recipients having cable, hi speed internet, $100/month IPhone plans, and nicer cars than I drive on the tax payer's dime. My 2014 Ford Focus is paid for, I could pay off my $94,000 mortgage if the tax deduction wasn't worth it, I have 0 credit card or other outstanding debt, I have no TV plan, I have straighttalk $45/month unlimited phone/text service, and I have saved over $175,000 while only making $43,000 per year(not counting my day trading profits). This is accomplished without even living that frugally. I date a lot (EVEN PAYING FOR MY OWN CONDOMS!!!) and take a couple surf trips a year. Luxury items, ESPECIALLY monthly subscriptions, are not for people who should be trying to better their positions. You have no right to anybody else's money. I wish we would generate even more shame and stigma for those on welfare, some incentive to make them strive to save and do better. Everybody wants everything without working for it these days.....

You are the motherin' man.

That is in no way derogatory or sarcastic. You have done well, and done a good job of LIVING WITHIN YOUR MEANS. I wish more people were like you.

 

[detectiveconan16]

I guess I am the exception, so I get to make judgments against welfare recipients having cable, hi speed internet, $100/month IPhone plans, and nicer cars than I drive on the tax payer's dime.

From what I understand, food stamps per single person is at best $200 a month, and cash assistance can only give $923 in Alaska to $170 in Mississippi. That freakin' pales to a salary of $2000 a month, even if such recipients can only find work at minimum wage. If all welfare recipients can drive Lexus cars and eat T-bone steaks every day on the government dime, where can I move?!

 

[rebelschs]

It's not that people are on welfare that is the problem, it's that generations of people never work and live off the government. There are too many programs to give people free stuff. You just sign up for everything, because they will never kick you off, pop out a few kids and you are set for life. The extent of things they will pay for is astounding. 

Some states will even give you a car if you are on welfare. I guess having a job and working for shit just isn't fair enough for the leeches. 

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

From what I understand, food stamps per single person is at best $200 a month, and cash assistance can only give $923 in Alaska to $170 in Mississippi. That freakin' pales to a salary of $2000 a month, even if such recipients can only find work at minimum wage. If all welfare recipients can drive Lexus cars and eat T-bone steaks every day on the government dime, where can I move?!

Florida.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/03/29/authorities-look-for-lavish-couple-living-on-food-stamps/

 

[GBAstar]

From what I understand, food stamps per single person is at best $200 a month, and cash assistance can only give $923 in Alaska to $170 in Mississippi. That freakin' pales to a salary of $2000 a month, even if such recipients can only find work at minimum wage. If all welfare recipients can drive Lexus cars and eat T-bone steaks every day on the government dime, where can I move?!

And if you have four or five people in a household all eligible for food stamps at $100-$200 each that's a pretty nice pot to choose from. Not to mention most corner stores in most cities will buy EBT cards for pennies on the dollar and then ring up fake sale or use the cards to buy products at Walmart or Sam's club to resell in their stores.... because you know.... they're there for the people.

You also make it sound like people collecting benefits can't earn any additional income.... I guess all street level drug dealers are blue collar workers.

 

[Msut77]

Source most, how much fraud can you prove as a percentage? Not Going To Touch The Insinuation They Are All Drug Dealers.

 

[detectiveconan16]

Hey, everybody conveniently ignores that MOST people on welfare are just barely scraping by. They focus on the welfare queens at the bottom, not at the VERY top.

The vitriol here just shows that if you're a single working mother, or a veteran, or somebody struggling to make rent or food, they should either sell their body or drugs or just off the government teat. They should just learn to live within their means of a minimum wage job.

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

Amazing that people actually believe they are entitled to financial help from the government.

 

[detectiveconan16]

Tell that to our corporate citizens.

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

I tell it to everyone. 

 

[rebelschs]

Amazing that people actually believe they are entitled to financial help from the government.

I can't believe you would want to take that away from those people.

Next thing, people will argue against taxing people who make over a certain amount and give it to the people who make less. We need everything to be fair. It's just not right to pick on those poor lazy people who just want to lay around and suck Obama's dick for a dollar.

They need to abolish welfare. When a politician has the balls to say that is his goal in office, I will move to vote for him. I will hit the streets and spread the word just to get that person elected.

Of course no one will say that, they needs those votes for re-election.

 

[Msut77]

Define welfare.

 

[GBAstar]

Source most, how much fraud can you prove as a percentage? Not Going To Touch The Insinuation They Are All Drug Dealers.

I will bet my own money that there are more street level drug dealers that also receive welfare benefits of some type then those that don't. And I'm not going to touch the "he said drug dealers so he must mean people of color" bullshit that you're trying to imply.

And it is quite obvious you've never been in a true corner store because I've NEVER been in one that hasn't committed or at least aided in EBT fraud not to mention sold lose cigarettes... which if you didn't know.. is err.. illegal.

But all in the name of "poor people helping poor people.... stay poor"

 

[Msut77]

I am ggiving you a chance to try and have an honest discussion. I can understand why you don't want to even try.

 

[egofed]

I don't think anyone here supports corporate welfare. I do like how some liberals bitch against it then congratulate the gov't for "saving" GM with the bailout......  . I wonder if any of the settlement money GM pays to victim's families will be taxpayer money?

 

[rebelschs]

I don't think anyone here supports corporate welfare. I do like how some liberals bitch against it then congratulate the gov't for "saving" GM with the bailout...... . I wonder if any of the settlement money GM pays to victim's families will be taxpayer money?

They will probably just declare bankruptcy and never pay a dime...

Of course GM could use all the money it saved on making shittier cars to pay...

I drive a Toyota because my friends helped make it. My wife drives a Nissan, my uncle helped make it. Yes, they work at the manufacturing plants.

I don't drive GM cars because they lose so much value so fast and they are made in other countries.

 

[detectiveconan16]

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20140719_ap_d105c49adc9846e6a086df3903ee82e5.html?c=r

How can anybody be expected to run a business if minimum wages are forced to be $10 an hour?

 

[GBAstar]

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20140719_ap_d105c49adc9846e6a086df3903ee82e5.html?c=r

How can anybody be expected to run a business if minimum wages are forced to be $10 an hour?

Edit:

It's not just because I disagree with raising the minimum wage (I'd love for it to succeed but I think it's a very short sighted and simple band-aid to a more complex problem/issue) but these articles stink of misinterpreting data that to be honest can't even really exist at this point

 

[UncleBob]

The funny thing is, that article uses the same data that we already discussed and poked holes through on this very forum.

But anywhoo, let's raise minimum wage to $50/hour! Power to the people!

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

Don't forget free contraception and rent. After all what could all those added expenses do to a business? 

 

[UncleBob]

Hey, I think you're on to something.

Let's just have corporations house the employees, feed them and take care of them in exchange for working for them. I mean, that has worked out so well in the past.