Shocker! A Liberal Attack On Success

[kaz]

Apparently she thinks they are too stupid to know when a job is worth taking and when it isn't because if you don't offer them an acceptable wage, they will still take the job. She really thinks workers are stupid, doesn't she? I actually think unlike her that workers are smart enough to know that if they can get more money from another job, they'll take the other job. Maybe that's just me...

FYI I'm not female.

There aren't 'other jobs'.

What????

Now you're blaming Obama.....?


Got a point there.....

I'm thinking it's still W, it's only been what, 5 1/2 years? How can Obama be responsible already?

 

[PoliticalChic]

FYI I'm not female.

There aren't 'other jobs'.

What????

Now you're blaming Obama.....?


Got a point there.....

I'm thinking it's still W, it's only been what, 5 1/2 years? How can Obama be responsible already?

Bear in mind, Liberals do not cotton to sarcasm nor satire when it comes to their messiah.



Facts, on the other hand.....


1. "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession | The Weekly Standard

2. "(CNSNews.com) - The real median income of American women dropped a little more than four percent in the first three full years after the end of the last recession,..... Census Bureau income data, the median income of American women was $21,520 in constant 2012 dollars. That was down $914 dollars—or about 4.1 percent—from 2009." Median Income of Women Dropped 4%--In First 3 Years of Recovery | CNS News

3. "US economy slowed to 0.1 percent growth rate in Q1
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. economy slowed drastically in the first three months of the year... to a barely discernible 0.1 percent annual rate in the January-March quarter, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. That was the weakest pace since the end of 2012 and was down from a 2.6 percent rate in the previous quarter.... the anemic growth last quarter is surely a topic for discussion at the Federal Reserve's latest policy meeting,..."
My Way News - US economy slowed to 0.1 percent growth rate in Q1




Uh, oh.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Weren't you the one yelling for links earlier? It's high time you provided some of your own, to back up this "context" of yours. Calling me a partisan is not a valid argument. Your "context" can only be in part due to the biases of your own skepticism as a liberal, and not rooted in actual empirical evidence.

Please don't lecture me about partisanship when you're the one referring to PC as "PoliticalSpice." That is overtly childish, it only shows you came to antagonize her and not take her points seriously. Honestly, I would expect this garbage out of Jake, but not from you. How disappointing.

I am using your own link, TK. Are you missing the context of your own link?

I am contrasting the difference between partisanship and skepticism. If you cannot be skeptical of your own links then that demonstrates a partisan bias. This rule applies as much to me as it does to you. I am equally skeptical of all claims regardless of the source. Until they can be established as credible they are treated with skepticism.

Your link was from Stanford which is a reputable source which is why I then read through it. That was when it became apparent that the "headlines" were not true reflections of the content. This is where context matters. The statistics show that charter schools are a mere 4% of all schools and of that 4% at least 1% is a complete and utter failure that should be shut down irrespective of the reasons.

Further reading indicated that the majority of the charter schools were no better than their public school peers. That eliminated another 2% of the charter schools. So what was left? A number so small as to be all but irrelevant for the purposes of making the claim of "success".

And to be non-partisan I am skeptical of public schools and know full well that there those that are so bad they need to be closed too. Plus there are some that are excellent and produce above par educations. The vast bulk of them are somewhere in the middle. This is the exact same profile as it is for charter schools.

So in context there is nothing in your Sanford link that supports your claim and if you were skeptical you would have learned that for yourself without my having to point it out to you.

Moving on to your allegation about PoliticalSpice. She calls everyone who criticizes her facile posts names. And those names are far worse than the one that I am using which is more appropo of her posting style without being rude or vulgar in any way. When it comes to name calling those who engage in it cannot complain when they earn a nickname that suits them in my opinion. And yes, I have been called many names and I really don't care one way or another. A nickname will only stick if it is truly reflective of the poster concerned. So PolitcalSpice has nothing to worry about if I am wrong about her.

Nope. I see other people taking it out of context, though. I read the whole thing. I didn't sit there and fish quotes out of it. That is why I posted the study alongside.

I am very skeptical. I'd also like to think I am one of the more objective posters here. If I don't scrutinize my links before I post them, then I don't belong here, and I have betrayed what I stand for. People who claim to be nonpartisan are the ones making partisan analyses and assertions.

Your skepticism is synergistic. It is fueled by the skepticism of the person making the argument in this case. Nevermind the credibility of where she gets her material from. Apparently she isn't worth giving a serious response to. I find that overtly puerile and beneath myself or anyone else as high caliber as you are. Call me chivalrous is you want, but if someone makes an intelligent argument, I feel like they deserve an intelligent rebuttal, not playground antics.

Moving on to your allegation about PoliticalSpice. She calls everyone who criticizes her facile posts names. And those names are far worse than the one that I am using which is more appropo of her posting style without being rude or vulgar in any way.

In this case however, a liberal drew the first blood. Then you came along and started making snide remarks. Yes, she's criticizing liberals, but she wasn't intentionally trying to provoke anyone, simply an intelligent debate. There is a difference between criticism and provocation. I try not to make up derogatory nicknames for people, it only takes away from the point I'm trying to make. It also takes away from the seriousness of the debate.

And yes, I have been called many names and I really don't care one way or another. A nickname will only stick if it is truly reflective of the poster concerned. So PolitcalSpice has nothing to worry about if I am wrong about her.

Like I said before, I would expect not to be taken seriously if I started making up derogatory and chiding nicknames for someone in lieu of an argument. Do what you want, just my two cents.

While you may claim to be skeptical the content of your links you posts do not reflect any skepticism whatsoever.

As far as your claim of "drawing first blood" is concerned that means that you trying to rewrite the rules to suit yourself. PoliticalSpice doesn't get a clean slate when her current OP is just as facile and bereft of substance as all of her prior failed OPs. The current OP is based upon an unproven premise and doesn't withstand even the most cursory of scrutiny. Once challenged she couldn't provide anything more than her usual quota of out of context quotes from biased sources without any links to back them up. She doesn't provide the links because she already knows that they are biased and out of context and the links will simply make it easier to establish that fact. Furthermore this is a well established pattern of behavior on her part and duly noted and exposed by many other posters.

So irrespective of your misplaced chivalry PoliticalSpice has dug her own hole and she has to deal with the consequences. To be brutally frank she is so easy to debunk it is barely worth my time anymore. She appears to be incapable of learning from her own mistakes because she repeats them over and over again.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

um; the Left's next presidential sits, or sat; on the board of WalMart

understand?
oh and the loony Left would rather see people unemployed than working at WalMart; thats why they actually refuse to let WalMart build stores in some very blue areas. why should libs care?
they have hundreds of billions of other people's money to dole out in the form of welfare and food stamps

do you thing the RECORD welfare and food stamps on Progressive's watch is a coincidence?

I'm sorry does this interrupt your delusions? Wal-Mart doesn't pay their people enough money to not live off of state aid. How do you not know this?

So when will it start to sink in that the lefts continuous over spending and high unemployment is leading to inflation. Looked at the price of food, gas or just about anything else these days??

Because of the current administrations policies and the refusal to create jobs the money that would normally be enough to live on is just not making it any more. It ain't justt Wally worlds folks that are seeing this. Now it is not the business fault, they are caught up in the same sad economy Obummbler has imprisoned us in since the inception of his administration.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Keep pretending. PC posted information from a thinktank that funds and profits from charter school legislation. No more and no less.

The real reason that you have no interest is because you simply want to disband public education for profit. No more and no less.

And then you go twisting my words. I don't want Public Schools to be disbanded, but improved upon. The only people I want to profit are the children.

So, what do you have to say for yourself, Disir?

I don't have to twist your words. I just need to kick back and let you spew long enough so your Libertopia becomes obvious.

You have lost this argument. Your ad hominem makes that clearly evident.

 

[The T]

FYI I'm not female.

There aren't 'other jobs'.

What????

Now you're blaming Obama.....?


Got a point there.....

I'm thinking it's still W, it's only been what, 5 1/2 years? How can Obama be responsible already?

They have nothing else. They refuse to face the truth that they have hitched their wagons to failure. They ought to be pissed off at themselves rather than those of us opening their eyes to the truth.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am using your own link, TK. Are you missing the context of your own link?

I am contrasting the difference between partisanship and skepticism. If you cannot be skeptical of your own links then that demonstrates a partisan bias. This rule applies as much to me as it does to you. I am equally skeptical of all claims regardless of the source. Until they can be established as credible they are treated with skepticism.

Your link was from Stanford which is a reputable source which is why I then read through it. That was when it became apparent that the "headlines" were not true reflections of the content. This is where context matters. The statistics show that charter schools are a mere 4% of all schools and of that 4% at least 1% is a complete and utter failure that should be shut down irrespective of the reasons.

Further reading indicated that the majority of the charter schools were no better than their public school peers. That eliminated another 2% of the charter schools. So what was left? A number so small as to be all but irrelevant for the purposes of making the claim of "success".

And to be non-partisan I am skeptical of public schools and know full well that there those that are so bad they need to be closed too. Plus there are some that are excellent and produce above par educations. The vast bulk of them are somewhere in the middle. This is the exact same profile as it is for charter schools.

So in context there is nothing in your Sanford link that supports your claim and if you were skeptical you would have learned that for yourself without my having to point it out to you.

Moving on to your allegation about PoliticalSpice. She calls everyone who criticizes her facile posts names. And those names are far worse than the one that I am using which is more appropo of her posting style without being rude or vulgar in any way. When it comes to name calling those who engage in it cannot complain when they earn a nickname that suits them in my opinion. And yes, I have been called many names and I really don't care one way or another. A nickname will only stick if it is truly reflective of the poster concerned. So PolitcalSpice has nothing to worry about if I am wrong about her.

Nope. I see other people taking it out of context, though. I read the whole thing. I didn't sit there and fish quotes out of it. That is why I posted the study alongside.

I am very skeptical. I'd also like to think I am one of the more objective posters here. If I don't scrutinize my links before I post them, then I don't belong here, and I have betrayed what I stand for. People who claim to be nonpartisan are the ones making partisan analyses and assertions.

Your skepticism is synergistic. It is fueled by the skepticism of the person making the argument in this case. Nevermind the credibility of where she gets her material from. Apparently she isn't worth giving a serious response to. I find that overtly puerile and beneath myself or anyone else as high caliber as you are. Call me chivalrous is you want, but if someone makes an intelligent argument, I feel like they deserve an intelligent rebuttal, not playground antics.

In this case however, a liberal drew the first blood. Then you came along and started making snide remarks. Yes, she's criticizing liberals, but she wasn't intentionally trying to provoke anyone, simply an intelligent debate. There is a difference between criticism and provocation. I try not to make up derogatory nicknames for people, it only takes away from the point I'm trying to make. It also takes away from the seriousness of the debate.

And yes, I have been called many names and I really don't care one way or another. A nickname will only stick if it is truly reflective of the poster concerned. So PolitcalSpice has nothing to worry about if I am wrong about her.

Like I said before, I would expect not to be taken seriously if I started making up derogatory and chiding nicknames for someone in lieu of an argument. Do what you want, just my two cents.

While you may claim to be skeptical the content of your links you posts do not reflect any skepticism whatsoever.

As far as your claim of "drawing first blood" is concerned that means that you trying to rewrite the rules to suit yourself. PoliticalSpice doesn't get a clean slate when her current OP is just as facile and bereft of substance as all of her prior failed OPs. The current OP is based upon an unproven premise and doesn't withstand even the most cursory of scrutiny. Once challenged she couldn't provide anything more than her usual quota of out of context quotes from biased sources without any links to back them up. She doesn't provide the links because she already knows that they are biased and out of context and the links will simply make it easier to establish that fact. Furthermore this is a well established pattern of behavior on her part and duly noted and exposed by many other posters.

So irrespective of your misplaced chivalry PoliticalSpice has dug her own hole and she has to deal with the consequences. To be brutally frank she is so easy to debunk it is barely worth my time anymore. She appears to be incapable of learning from her own mistakes because she repeats them over and over again.

While you may claim to be skeptical the content of your links you posts do not reflect any skepticism whatsoever.

So, you can read minds, eh? Perhaps I'll let you read my palm next. Otherwise, stop trying to tell me what goes through my head.

So irrespective of your misplaced chivalry PoliticalSpice has dug her own hole and she has to deal with the consequences. To be brutally frank she is so easy to debunk it is barely worth my time anymore. She appears to be incapable of learning from her own mistakes because she repeats them over and over again.

What consequences are those? More childishness from you and your friends? I'm not really concerned with what she did to you. If she were so easy, why call her names? Why make up fantastical monikers for her? Look, your arrogance is showing. It takes place of any intelligent arguments you may have had. You are no more superior to her than she is to you. I get real tired of others looking down on someone else with such utter impunity.

As far as your claim of "drawing first blood" is concerned that means that you trying to rewrite the rules to suit yourself. PoliticalSpice doesn't get a clean slate when her current OP is just as facile and bereft of substance as all of her prior failed OPs.

No, I play by the rules. It is you making all of the assumptions and self flagellating. I don't make up rules, I use the existing rules to my advantage. And perhaps you shouldn't judge people so much. You are just as guilty for doing the same things you claim she has done. Your attacks are facile, and "bereft" of substance as well. I've debated you before, and you've given me a run for my money a few times, but this is just beneath your maturity level.

Once challenged she couldn't provide anything more than her usual quota of out of context quotes from biased sources without any links to back them up. She doesn't provide the links because she already knows that they are biased and out of context and the links will simply make it easier to establish that fact. Furthermore this is a well established pattern of behavior on her part and duly noted and exposed by many other posters.

And when I stepped in, you tried using my own links against me, and failed. And to tell the truth, people who sit there and willfully provoke others are challenges easily met and conquered. She provided cites, to the studies themselves. It wouldn't hurt you to google them. If you think it is easy to disprove her, provide some links of your own. But alas, you stick to telling her she's out of context, and that she uses biased sources. Come now. What have you actually done to disprove her? Sorry, I don't care what other posters think. If you're going to call someone out for something, make sure you aren't doing it too.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Take those quotes that are not sourced and Google the whole quote, you will have the source ...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you still mulling over this one?

What, exactly, do you suppose goes into the thought processes of those individuals who voluntarily fill out a Wal-Mart job request?

Where I live, the largest Walmart sits on a site that once was the site of a huge factory complex where hundreds worked in good paying union jobs.

I imagine that people filling out paperwork to work for shit wages occasionally think about that, along with the many thousands of similar jobs that disappeared from around here.

Jobs that paid reasonable wages; jobs that provided companies reasonable profits.

I'd consider anyone who pretends a misunderstanding of the question so that they don't have to confront the basis of the question, a moron.


Are you a moron?


1. Walmart employs an astounding 2.1 million people. In the United States alone, the company employs 1.4 million people. This is a staggering 1% of the U.S.'s 140 million working population.
Walmart Employs 1% Of America. Should It Be Forced To Pay Its Employees More? - Business Insider


2. . Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had 5 years ago.

3. 90% of all Americans live within 15 miles of a Wal-Mart.


Clearly, the question asked of you has nothing to do with the one store unhealthily located in proximity to the refrigerator box you call home.




I believe you understand the question.

Although veracity has never been a filter for your posts, an honest answer would be that your vulgar characterization of Wal-Mart wages is patently false.

False.

Well over a million workers freely decided that the Wal-Mart offer suits them, and is a fair enough reason for them to show up, there, each day.


Get it?

When there are no better jobs around, people take Walmart jobs. When it takes 2 jobs to pay the bills in a household where it once took one,

people take Walmart jobs.

People take jobs in sweatshops, under terrible conditions and terrible pay, all over the world.

I guess that proves the greatness of the sweat shop - people deciding that working there 'suits them'.

btw, should a person like you who doesn't work be setting yourself up as an expert on work?

 

[NYcarbineer]

FYI I'm not female.

There aren't 'other jobs'.

What????

Now you're blaming Obama.....?


Got a point there.....

I'm thinking it's still W, it's only been what, 5 1/2 years? How can Obama be responsible already?

As I said to someone else, if you want to try to prove that President Obama is somehow responsible for the de-industrialization of America over the last 30 years,

by all means, let's hear it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

C'mon....you're not still sulking because they wouldn't hire you as a 'greeter'?

Answer me this,

when Koreans hear the old saying 'the dog's breakfast',

do they think the word 'dog's' is possessive, or a contraction?

Excellent example of you flying the white flag.

An unconditional surrender.

I've already proven you full of shit on every point you've attempted in this thread. Now go sit down, there's a good girl.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And China has millions working for 50 cents an hour or so.
Is that an acceptable wage?

If a person steals to make a living is that 'acceptable' because the person is willing to do it?

Your retreat is both obvious and amusing.



Advice: become a conservative so that the facts are on your side.....then lying would be unnecessary.

Okay so you concede that 50 cents an hour is not an acceptable wage?

Then why did you try to claim that any wage is acceptable as long as someone will take it?

So you agree that Wal-Mart pays acceptable and competitive wages.

Good.

lol, I'd like to see you try to live on a Walmart cashier's wages. Better yet I'd like to see you have to work, period.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Answer me this,

when Koreans hear the old saying 'the dog's breakfast',

do they think the word 'dog's' is possessive, or a contraction?

Excellent example of you flying the white flag.

An unconditional surrender.

I've already proven you full of shit on every point you've attempted in this thread. Now go sit down, there's a good girl.

Ohhhhh....you don't like me?

Understandable....it's usually the way a pig feels about the butcher.




No, you've lost on every single point.....but, drooling idiot that you are, you keep claiming you've won....

Why? To save face?
You have none to save.


The clearest proof is how you fall to vulgar language every time you realize you've lost.




Here.....let's rub it in....again.....explain this:



"Why Do 1.4 Million Americans Work At Walmart, With Many More Trying To?

Little wonder that when Walmart opens a new store, it’s not uncommon for as many as 10,000 people to apply for just 300 jobs."
Why Do 1.4 Million Americans Work At Walmart, With Many More Trying To? - Forbes




You've been challenged twice already to explain why so many are rushing to obtain jobs at Wal-Mart......

...and you Liberals can't.




You're a loser......

 

[PoliticalChic]

Okay so you concede that 50 cents an hour is not an acceptable wage?

Then why did you try to claim that any wage is acceptable as long as someone will take it?

So you agree that Wal-Mart pays acceptable and competitive wages.

Good.

lol, I'd like to see you try to live on a Walmart cashier's wages. Better yet I'd like to see you have to work, period.

Watch me skewer you again:

"The average Walmart "associate," Wake Up Walmart reports, makes $11.75 an hour. That's $20,744 per year. Those wages are slightly below the national average for retail employees, which is $12.04 an hour.

... these wages are far above minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. They also aren't THAT FAR below the national retail average (only 2.5% below). In a two-earner household, moreover, these wages would produce a household income of $40,000+, which, in some areas of the country, is comfortably middle-class. Walmart offers benefits to some of its employees, as well as store discounts and profit-sharing plans." Walmart Employs 1% Of America. Should It Be Forced To Pay Its Employees More? - Business Insider

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you agree that Wal-Mart pays acceptable and competitive wages.

Good.

lol, I'd like to see you try to live on a Walmart cashier's wages. Better yet I'd like to see you have to work, period.

Watch me skewer you again:

"The average Walmart "associate," Wake Up Walmart reports, makes $11.75 an hour. That's $20,744 per year. Those wages are slightly below the national average for retail employees, which is $12.04 an hour.

... these wages are far above minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. They also aren't THAT FAR below the national retail average (only 2.5% below). In a two-earner household, moreover, these wages would produce a household income of $40,000+, which, in some areas of the country, is comfortably middle-class. Walmart offers benefits to some of its employees, as well as store discounts and profit-sharing plans." Walmart Employs 1% Of America. Should It Be Forced To Pay Its Employees More? - Business Insider

I made 30,000 a year in industry - transportation to be precise, but industrially related, IN 1988. That plus full health benefits, pension benefits, vacation, sick days.

That was a fairly common wage around here back then. I was 'just' a clerk, too.

Those jobs are rare now. Walmart-type jobs have replaced them. Why that seems to give you so much glee and satisfaction is truly a mystery.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Are you still mulling over this one?

What, exactly, do you suppose goes into the thought processes of those individuals who voluntarily fill out a Wal-Mart job request?

Where I live, the largest Walmart sits on a site that once was the site of a huge factory complex where hundreds worked in good paying union jobs.

I imagine that people filling out paperwork to work for shit wages occasionally think about that, along with the many thousands of similar jobs that disappeared from around here.

Jobs that paid reasonable wages; jobs that provided companies reasonable profits.

Geez, and you're the only person I know that thinks someone with a union job is better than someone else with a regular job. Just where do you get this stuff? Are you saying the unioneer is more entitled to a job than a Wal-Mart worker?

Weren't you just fighting for them to make a living wage earlier? Stop contradicting yourself.

Non sequitur!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nope. I see other people taking it out of context, though. I read the whole thing. I didn't sit there and fish quotes out of it. That is why I posted the study alongside.

I am very skeptical. I'd also like to think I am one of the more objective posters here. If I don't scrutinize my links before I post them, then I don't belong here, and I have betrayed what I stand for. People who claim to be nonpartisan are the ones making partisan analyses and assertions.

Your skepticism is synergistic. It is fueled by the skepticism of the person making the argument in this case. Nevermind the credibility of where she gets her material from. Apparently she isn't worth giving a serious response to. I find that overtly puerile and beneath myself or anyone else as high caliber as you are. Call me chivalrous is you want, but if someone makes an intelligent argument, I feel like they deserve an intelligent rebuttal, not playground antics.

In this case however, a liberal drew the first blood. Then you came along and started making snide remarks. Yes, she's criticizing liberals, but she wasn't intentionally trying to provoke anyone, simply an intelligent debate. There is a difference between criticism and provocation. I try not to make up derogatory nicknames for people, it only takes away from the point I'm trying to make. It also takes away from the seriousness of the debate.


Like I said before, I would expect not to be taken seriously if I started making up derogatory and chiding nicknames for someone in lieu of an argument. Do what you want, just my two cents.

While you may claim to be skeptical the content of your links you posts do not reflect any skepticism whatsoever.

As far as your claim of "drawing first blood" is concerned that means that you trying to rewrite the rules to suit yourself. PoliticalSpice doesn't get a clean slate when her current OP is just as facile and bereft of substance as all of her prior failed OPs. The current OP is based upon an unproven premise and doesn't withstand even the most cursory of scrutiny. Once challenged she couldn't provide anything more than her usual quota of out of context quotes from biased sources without any links to back them up. She doesn't provide the links because she already knows that they are biased and out of context and the links will simply make it easier to establish that fact. Furthermore this is a well established pattern of behavior on her part and duly noted and exposed by many other posters.

So irrespective of your misplaced chivalry PoliticalSpice has dug her own hole and she has to deal with the consequences. To be brutally frank she is so easy to debunk it is barely worth my time anymore. She appears to be incapable of learning from her own mistakes because she repeats them over and over again.

So, you can read minds, eh? Perhaps I'll let you read my palm next. Otherwise, stop trying to tell me what goes through my head.




What consequences are those? More childishness from you and your friends? I'm not really concerned with what she did to you. If she were so easy, why call her names? Why make up fantastical monikers for her? Look, your arrogance is showing. It takes place of any intelligent arguments you may have had. You are no more superior to her than she is to you. I get real tired of others looking down on someone else with such utter impunity.

As far as your claim of "drawing first blood" is concerned that means that you trying to rewrite the rules to suit yourself. PoliticalSpice doesn't get a clean slate when her current OP is just as facile and bereft of substance as all of her prior failed OPs.

No, I play by the rules. It is you making all of the assumptions and self flagellating. I don't make up rules, I use the existing rules to my advantage. And perhaps you shouldn't judge people so much. You are just as guilty for doing the same things you claim she has done. Your attacks are facile, and "bereft" of substance as well. I've debated you before, and you've given me a run for my money a few times, but this is just beneath your maturity level.

Once challenged she couldn't provide anything more than her usual quota of out of context quotes from biased sources without any links to back them up. She doesn't provide the links because she already knows that they are biased and out of context and the links will simply make it easier to establish that fact. Furthermore this is a well established pattern of behavior on her part and duly noted and exposed by many other posters.

And when I stepped in, you tried using my own links against me, and failed. And to tell the truth, people who sit there and willfully provoke others are challenges easily met and conquered. She provided cites, to the studies themselves. It wouldn't hurt you to google them. If you think it is easy to disprove her, provide some links of your own. But alas, you stick to telling her she's out of context, and that she uses biased sources. Come now. What have you actually done to disprove her? Sorry, I don't care what other posters think. If you're going to call someone out for something, make sure you aren't doing it too.

Your link failed to support the OP's baseless allegation and established beyond any shred of doubt that you had no idea of the facts contained in it and how they pertained to the real world.

Which probably explains why you are defending PoliticalSpice because she has the same shortcomings.

 

[PoliticalChic]

lol, I'd like to see you try to live on a Walmart cashier's wages. Better yet I'd like to see you have to work, period.

Watch me skewer you again:

"The average Walmart "associate," Wake Up Walmart reports, makes $11.75 an hour. That's $20,744 per year. Those wages are slightly below the national average for retail employees, which is $12.04 an hour.

... these wages are far above minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. They also aren't THAT FAR below the national retail average (only 2.5% below). In a two-earner household, moreover, these wages would produce a household income of $40,000+, which, in some areas of the country, is comfortably middle-class. Walmart offers benefits to some of its employees, as well as store discounts and profit-sharing plans." Walmart Employs 1% Of America. Should It Be Forced To Pay Its Employees More? - Business Insider

I made 30,000 a year in industry - transportation to be precise, but industrially related, IN 1988. That plus full health benefits, pension benefits, vacation, sick days.

That was a fairly common wage around here back then. I was 'just' a clerk, too.

Those jobs are rare now. Walmart-type jobs have replaced them. Why that seems to give you so much glee and satisfaction is truly a mystery.

Wow.....were you overpaid!



"Those jobs are rare now. Walmart-type jobs have replaced them."


"Observe any hiring center for a new Walmart and you will see thousands of individuals eager to become a Walmart associate. Many already have jobs at fast food restaurants, supermarkets, or other retail stores.... aptly summarizes the sentiments of many applicants: “They are huge, so I know there is a huge amount of opportunity.”
Why Do 1.4 Million Americans Work At Walmart, With Many More Trying To? - Forbes




Busted again, huh?

 

[Bfgrn]

Just how far, to what lengths....of should I ask, to what depths will Liberals sink in their efforts to attack 'success'?

Here....to set the stage, the explanation for the Left's hatred of capitalism and the free market, e.g., Wal-Mart: it is a system which produces winners and losers, a painful fact that the Left would rather not see.





Add the current debate over charter schools and vouchers, clearly more successful than public schools....and you have the explanation for the following:



1. ".... this past weekend’s front-page news article in the New York Times... about the Walton Family Foundation and what the Times called “its many tentacles.”.

2. ... the article goes on to explain that the foundation, backed by members of the family that founded Walmart, “has helped fuel some of the fastest growing, and most divisive, trends in public education — including teacher evaluations based on student test scores and publicly funded vouchers for students to attend private schools.”

3. The article reports, for example, that “Walton’s Mr. Sternberg, who started his career in Teach for America and founded the Bronx Lab School, a public school in New York City, does not apologize for Walton’s commitment to charter schools and vouchers.”

4. Why would he apologize? Why should he be expected to apologize? He’s helping to make schools better. .... If anyone should apologize here, it is the Times, for suggesting that an apology is in order.




5. .... in this case it taps in to a broader and highly significant political trend, which is the tendency by the left to blame spending by right-of-center or free-market-oriented billionaires for just about every twist and turn in the public policy debate.

6. ... Charles and David Koch are imagined as puppeteers behind the Tea Party or the Keystone pipeline, or Sheldon Adelson is the reason for pro-Israel sentiment in the Republican Party.
Never mind that there are left-wing billionaires like George Soros or Thomas Steyer, not to mention labor unions, spending large sums,...




7. If parents were perfectly satisfied with regular public schools, the charter and voucher movements would face a tougher battle than they already do...haven’t made school vouchers widely available other than in a few unusual and narrow cases of a failing school, a poor family or special-needs student, and a rare state or local government that has managed to pass a voucher law over teachers’ union opposition.





8. For a sense of what a non-Walton public school is like, one need look no further than P.S. 111, the Adolph S. Ochs School in Manhattan. It is a taxpayer funded New York City public school named after the patriarch of the family that controls the New York Times. Over the years the New York Times Company and its foundation have been involved with the school .... suggesting a certain hypocrisy of the Times in objecting to the Walton family’s efforts.

9. The Times’ tentacles on the Adolph Ochs school may not have been “divisive,” but neither have they been particularly successful; the school earned a grade of “D” for its school environment in its most recent evaluation from the city, and the city’s quality reviewobserves “the principal acknowledges that teachers have not received written feedback this year.”

a. Only 19% of the school’s sixth graders pass the state English test and only 24% of the school’s fifth graders pass the state math test.




10. If the Walton Foundation can provide a voucher or charter school option to escape this status quo, perhaps the Times should thank the Waltons rather than imply that an apology is in order."
Waltons Derided by N.Y. Times As Its Own School Charity Fails - The New York Sun





As Winston Churchill observed:
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

For the Liberal NYTimes, the equal sharing of non-education is a virtue.

You have only one problem...people who READ.

The NYT article is not an attack, it presents a balanced view.

The NY Sun article is an attack...

You're welcome.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just how far, to what lengths....of should I ask, to what depths will Liberals sink in their efforts to attack 'success'?

Here....to set the stage, the explanation for the Left's hatred of capitalism and the free market, e.g., Wal-Mart: it is a system which produces winners and losers, a painful fact that the Left would rather not see.





Add the current debate over charter schools and vouchers, clearly more successful than public schools....and you have the explanation for the following:



1. ".... this past weekend’s front-page news article in the New York Times... about the Walton Family Foundation and what the Times called “its many tentacles.”.

2. ... the article goes on to explain that the foundation, backed by members of the family that founded Walmart, “has helped fuel some of the fastest growing, and most divisive, trends in public education — including teacher evaluations based on student test scores and publicly funded vouchers for students to attend private schools.”

3. The article reports, for example, that “Walton’s Mr. Sternberg, who started his career in Teach for America and founded the Bronx Lab School, a public school in New York City, does not apologize for Walton’s commitment to charter schools and vouchers.”

4. Why would he apologize? Why should he be expected to apologize? He’s helping to make schools better. .... If anyone should apologize here, it is the Times, for suggesting that an apology is in order.




5. .... in this case it taps in to a broader and highly significant political trend, which is the tendency by the left to blame spending by right-of-center or free-market-oriented billionaires for just about every twist and turn in the public policy debate.

6. ... Charles and David Koch are imagined as puppeteers behind the Tea Party or the Keystone pipeline, or Sheldon Adelson is the reason for pro-Israel sentiment in the Republican Party.
Never mind that there are left-wing billionaires like George Soros or Thomas Steyer, not to mention labor unions, spending large sums,...




7. If parents were perfectly satisfied with regular public schools, the charter and voucher movements would face a tougher battle than they already do...haven’t made school vouchers widely available other than in a few unusual and narrow cases of a failing school, a poor family or special-needs student, and a rare state or local government that has managed to pass a voucher law over teachers’ union opposition.





8. For a sense of what a non-Walton public school is like, one need look no further than P.S. 111, the Adolph S. Ochs School in Manhattan. It is a taxpayer funded New York City public school named after the patriarch of the family that controls the New York Times. Over the years the New York Times Company and its foundation have been involved with the school .... suggesting a certain hypocrisy of the Times in objecting to the Walton family’s efforts.

9. The Times’ tentacles on the Adolph Ochs school may not have been “divisive,” but neither have they been particularly successful; the school earned a grade of “D” for its school environment in its most recent evaluation from the city, and the city’s quality reviewobserves “the principal acknowledges that teachers have not received written feedback this year.”

a. Only 19% of the school’s sixth graders pass the state English test and only 24% of the school’s fifth graders pass the state math test.




10. If the Walton Foundation can provide a voucher or charter school option to escape this status quo, perhaps the Times should thank the Waltons rather than imply that an apology is in order."
Waltons Derided by N.Y. Times As Its Own School Charity Fails - The New York Sun





As Winston Churchill observed:
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

For the Liberal NYTimes, the equal sharing of non-education is a virtue.

You have only one problem...people who READ.

The NYT article is not an attack, it presents a balanced view.

The NY Sun article is an attack...

You're welcome.

Let's clear the decks: you were always, and will continue to be, a dunce.

Case in point: "The NYT article is not an attack, it presents a balanced view."



Now for the truth:


1. "the New York Times — ostensibly, at least, more of a straight-down-the-middle outlet than Rolling Stone — about the Walton Family Foundation and what the Times called “its many tentacles.”


And...



2. "...the article goes on to explain that the foundation, backed by members of the family that founded Walmart, “has helped fuel some of the fastest growing, and most divisive, trends in public education — including teacher evaluations based on student test scores and publicly funded vouchers for students to attend private schools.”

Calling an idea “divisive” can be a way for a reporter and an editor to signal that they don’t like it. So is the practice, seen in the Times article, of announcing that the subject of an article has “no apologies.”
Waltons Derided by N.Y. Times As Its Own School Charity Fails - The New York Sun


In simplest terms, how about you adding this to your next job resume: "I get my tentacles into all sorts of places they don't belong, and take pride in being divisive. Nor will I ever apologize...no matter what!!!!"

Actually, in your case, it might well be 'a balance view.'
Moron.




You are simply one of those parents who can never see malignance, hatefullness, in their own children....in this case the NYTimes.


I suspect it is a character trait of yours, as well.
Bet you've heard that a bunch.