Test for the rightwing: tell me the differences between the far left and the moderate left

[OKTexas]

But you must admit that profit is critical for having a sustainable economy. There would have to be individuals benefiting from it and becoming more wealthy. This allows them to produce, We need a profiting wealthy class. I would, of course, just suggest that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth and there must be laws guaranteeing fair wages for the lower classes.

The entire concept of "profit" wouldn't be relevant in a socialist framework, nor would the concept of wealth in reference to abstract value.

So you think you can alter human nature, what a fool.

I'm sorry, but I have to jump into this with a simple posting I found, feudalist supports could have made the same argument..
You capitalists are profoundly deluded. Your economic system is bad for these reasons:

• A land baron deserves all of his great wealth because of the great risk involved in his job. He has to manage an entire region full of serfs and direct the entire economic process. If he fails, there would be total disarray, but since he has not then this system is clearly justified. In exchange the serfs keep some of the food they produce and a hovel. Everybody gains!
  
  
• Feudalism is a part of human nature. Like a child needs a parent, humans need a baron to control the land while the serfs work the land. It represents an orderly and stable system based upon our real human nature. If we gave this land away to capitalists then serfs would have to wander and find employment and their own new parent. There would be no incentive to work from all this chaos in economic society.
  
  
• Capitalism and liberal democracy sound nice in theory but can only fail in practice. Have you not heard of the Reign of Terror? Every time capitalism is put into practice it ends up either failing or surviving but producing misery and death.
  
  
• Feudalism has produced wonders for society and should be celebrated rather than attacked. All your pitchforks, swords, daggers, armor, and horses you own - that was created by the wonder of feudalism. A serf is better off now than they ever were in history through the growing standard of living feudalism provides.
  
  
• Instead of ending feudalism, it would be smarter to reform and better it. We should concentrate on increasing the amount of grain a serf is allowed to keep while still respecting the hard work, wisdom, and intelligence a baron possesses that entitles them to their riches.

I urge you to reconsider your position. It is just a phase in your youth and you'll see how quickly you'll abandon it.

Long live the King!
See what I'm saying? Plus, human history is massive, and the majority of our history takes place in a world without capitalism, markets, feudalism, more so, primitive communism, if you will. Human nature, a funny term, is formed by the economic, social, etc effects, it's not concrete nature to do one thing. Anyone who has ever looked into anthropology, history, etc would know this.

OMG, you read it on the internet so it must be true, right? LMAO Grow up and get a freaking life.

That's all you got out of that comment? That's... saddening, but whatever, trying to reason with someone who uses the "human nature" argument is a joke to me at this point.

Bullet point 3 is a total crock of crap, I gave you the response your ignorance deserves.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Fast food workers mostly being teenagers is a thing of the past.

Irrelevant. It does not change the nature of the work.

I also don't think you give these workers enough credit. Sure it doesn't require any prior skill, but that doesn't make the job easy.

Neither is ditch digging easy, but it's hardly worth $15.00 PH.

It is non stop productivity with asshole customers on top of it. It is much more than flipping a burger. It's a miserable job and someone has to do it.

Actually no. No one has to do it. It's a choice.

All this being said, they deserve to make a decent wage.

They deserve a wage commensurate with the value of the work. Nothing more.

Given today's inflation and cost of living standards, it must be at least $15. I'm all for paying skilled workers more, but if 18 million people make less than 10.10 per hour, something must be done about it

Why? They can better themselves to earn more, or not.

 

[Billy000]

Fast food workers mostly being teenagers is a thing of the past.

Irrelevant. It does not change the nature of the work.

I also don't think you give these workers enough credit. Sure it doesn't require any prior skill, but that doesn't make the job easy.

Neither is ditch digging easy, but it's hardly worth $15.00 PH.

It is non stop productivity with asshole customers on top of it. It is much more than flipping a burger. It's a miserable job and someone has to do it.

Actually no. No one has to do it. It's a choice.

All this being said, they deserve to make a decent wage.

They deserve a wage commensurate with the value of the work. Nothing more.

Given today's inflation and cost of living standards, it must be at least $15. I'm all for paying skilled workers more, but if 18 million people make less than 10.10 per hour, something must be done about it

Why? They can better themselves to earn more, or not.

Lol stop pretending it was always meant for teenagers. It's not like they made some decry over it.

Higher wage jobs significantly outnumber higher wage jobs. Millions of people HAVE NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs. We are talking about sheer availability. Higher wage jobs have become overly competitive. The same can be said for lower wage. Last year, for instance, 1,000,000 people applied for 50,000 McDonald's jobs.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I don't want to ban the 2nd amendment. I just want limitations on it like any personal freedom.

That's like saying, "I don't want to drill holes in the bottom of the boat on both the right and left sides. I only want to drill them on the right side. But I support the rule that says the boat must be able to float."

It makes no sense whatever.

Likewise, saying you want government to be able to restrict SOME of people's right to own and carry a gun, but that you support the 2nd amendment which says government is forbidden to infringe on their right to own and carry a gun, is equally nonsensical.

Either you support the 2nd amendment's ban on govt infringement, or you don't.

Clearly, you don't.

 

[Billy000]

I don't want to ban the 2nd amendment. I just want limitations on it like any personal freedom.

That's like saying, "I don't want to drill holes in the bottom of the boat on both the right and left sides. I only want to drill them on the right side. But I support the rule that says the boat must be able to float."

It makes no sense whatever.

Likewise, saying you want government to be able to restrict SOME of people's right to own and carry a gun, but that you support the 2nd amendment which says government is forbidden to infringe on their right to own and carry a gun, is equally nonsensical.

Either you support the 2nd amendment's ban on govt infringement, or you don't.

Clearly, you don't.

Again defamation and child pornography are both illegal and they fall under the first. Oh, and your precious 2nd amendment is in the context of a militia.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Oh, and your precious 2nd amendment is in the context of a militia.

(sigh)

Yet another ignoramous who can't read the normal English in the Constitution.

Time for another reprint.

From Taking On Gun Control - The Unabridged Second Amendment

The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The 'to keep and bear arms' is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account of the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be:

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

------------------------------------------

©1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.

 

[Billy000]

Oh, and your precious 2nd amendment is in the context of a militia.

(sigh)

Yet another ignoramous who can't read the normal English in the Constitution.

Time for another reprint.

From Taking On Gun Control - The Unabridged Second Amendment

The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The 'to keep and bear arms' is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account of the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be:

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

------------------------------------------

©1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.

Lol all this guy is saying is that the amendment does not make it clear that the context is only for militia. He's basically saying it isn't wrong to interpret the law either way.

 

[The Rabbi]

Higher wage jobs significantly outnumber higher wage jobs.

That's quote worthy right there. Sig material if I ever saw it.
Congrats!

 

[M14 Shooter]

People on the left can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly.
Moderates will disappear from a debate when you call them on it
Extremists will continue on with the arguments emotion, ignorance and dishonesty, only louder.

So anybody who publicly disagrees with you cannot be a moderate?

^^^
Look -- a liberal arguing from ignorance or dishonesty, in that he either does not understand what I said or does understand and got it wrong on purpose.

You said all moderates will leave the debate when you make that accusation.

Yup.

By your statement, anyone who remains to question your silly remarks can't be a moderate.

"Silly remarks" for which we both know you have no sound response?
You would be right if only liberals could disagree with me..
As that is not the case, your conclusion does not follow.
And thus, you argue from ignorance.
Will you now fade away or prove your extremism?

Perhaps you should reread what you wrote.

Perhaps you should take a 100-level course on logic and reasoning..

 

[M14 Shooter]

Can none of you answer this question?

I answered it, in simple,. clear and concise terms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The united states is a horrifying example of what happens when the interests of the laborer are not represented.

I'm sorry.... I can't read any more, as I fell off my chair, laughing, and hit my head.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh, and your precious 2nd amendment is in the context of a militia.

This is, of course, a (typically liberal) statement of abject ignorance or deliberate dishonesty.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Lol stop pretending it was always meant for teenagers. It's not like they made some decry over it.

LOL yourself. Stop pretending these are career-move jobs, intended to provide a "living wage" and support a family.

Millions of people HAVE NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs. We are talking about sheer availability.

Millions of people have no choice but to accept shitty jobs because they are prepared to compete for no others.

Higher wage jobs have become overly competitive. The same can be said for lower wage. Last year, for instance, 1,000,000 people applied for 50,000 McDonald's jobs.

Again, that does not change the nature of these particular jobs, nor does it increase their worth to the employer. Higher wage jobs have become "overly competitive" because the business environment here has driven industries out of the country and frankly, because the public school system is churning out yet another generation of barely functional idiots even as we import more and more from outside.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In re: Post 192

"In cases in the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms. For example, in United States v. Cruikshank (external link), 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois (external link), 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.” Although most of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated (PDF) into the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment (external link) and thus cannot be impaired by state governments, the Second Amendment has never been so incorporated."

Second Amendment Law Library of Congress

From the same link:

"Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, the last time the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment was in United States v. Miller (external link), 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, Jack Miller and one other person were indicted for transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Miller argued, among other things, that the section of the National Firearms Act regulating the interstate transport of certain firearms violated the Second Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas agreed with Miller. The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which reversed the district court. The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 (external link) of the Constitution, and concluded that “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307 U.S. at 178. The Court concluded that the district court erred in holding the National Firearms Act provisions unconstitutional."

Heller is the opinion of Scalia agreed to by four other conservative justices. Four other justices dissented.

District of Columbia v. Heller Case Brief Summary

 

[kaz]

so how wealthy will you allow a person to be Billy?.....

They can be as wealthy as possible so long as they pay the lower classes fairly.

Circular answer. How much is enough? Enough...

At least $15 per hour. That is the wage that would be kept up with today's average of cost of living.

And what happens when we raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and prices go up because of it and people can't live on that again?

You know the problem with your argument is that it's a zero sum game.

Let's say our economy is A, B and C. B is worth double A, C is worth double B.

So if

A = $7.25, then B = $14.50 and C = $29

What happens if you raise A to $15?

Well, then B adjusts to $30 and C adjusts to $60.

You haven't accomplished anything. And that's the best case. In reality, you cause a slew of A's to get fired or their hours cut for automation and process improvements

The problem with yours is that it isn't a zero sum game. The price increase would be pennies on the dollar. If the wage is raised gradually over a few years and the market has time to respond, the price increase would be slight. This is mostly due to the fact that the increase to consumer demand from bigger paychecks would help the market. Eventually, the market would begin to thrive erg so much extra money being pumped into businesses. Well beyond the cost of businesses having to pay their employees more.

You obviously have never owned a restaurant. I have. Pennies on the dollar, you are full of shit. Most of our costs were labor and food. Sure, it's easy during lunch and dinner and bar rush. My restaurant was across the street from UNC Chapel Hill, but you have no idea obviously how expensive it is to staff the rest of the day, labor is a huge drain. In Chapel Hill across the street from UNC restaurants fail all the time. How is that possible that doubling their labor costs won't affect them?

Stop listening to the idiotic lawyers like Al Gore and Obama Bin Laden who haven't earned a dollar in their lives and have never taken an economics class, they just tell you what they want you to think. Stop thinking it, they are ... wait for it ... lying to you ... Who'd a thought? A lawyer lie to you? A politician lie to you? Actually, that's not the surprising part. The surprising part is you ... believe ... them. BTW, the checks in the mail and we are just friends. Wow. Liberals are so naive

 

[Wry Catcher]

They can be as wealthy as possible so long as they pay the lower classes fairly.

Circular answer. How much is enough? Enough...

At least $15 per hour. That is the wage that would be kept up with today's average of cost of living.

And what happens when we raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and prices go up because of it and people can't live on that again?

You know the problem with your argument is that it's a zero sum game.

Let's say our economy is A, B and C. B is worth double A, C is worth double B.

So if

A = $7.25, then B = $14.50 and C = $29

What happens if you raise A to $15?

Well, then B adjusts to $30 and C adjusts to $60.

You haven't accomplished anything. And that's the best case. In reality, you cause a slew of A's to get fired or their hours cut for automation and process improvements

The problem with yours is that it isn't a zero sum game. The price increase would be pennies on the dollar. If the wage is raised gradually over a few years and the market has time to respond, the price increase would be slight. This is mostly due to the fact that the increase to consumer demand from bigger paychecks would help the market. Eventually, the market would begin to thrive erg so much extra money being pumped into businesses. Well beyond the cost of businesses having to pay their employees more.

You obviously have never owned a restaurant. I have. Pennies on the dollar, you are full of shit. Most of our costs were labor and food. Sure, it's easy during lunch and dinner and bar rush. My restaurant was across the street from UNC Chapel Hill, but you have no idea obviously how expensive it is to staff the rest of the day, labor is a huge drain. In Chapel Hill across the street from UNC restaurants fail all the time. How is that possible that doubling their labor costs won't affect them?

Stop listening to the idiotic lawyers like Al Gore and Obama Bin Laden who haven't earned a dollar in their lives and have never taken an economics class, they just tell you what they want you to think. Stop thinking it, they are ... wait for it ... lying to you ... Who'd a thought? A lawyer lie to you? A politician lie to you? Actually, that's not the surprising part. The surprising part is you ... believe ... them. BTW, the checks in the mail and we are just friends. Wow. Liberals are so naive

Did you own the building where your restaurant was located? Or did you rent? Either way your costs included more than food and labor. The only cost under your control was the cost of labor. Sure, you could have purchased poor quality food stuffs, but that's a dead end if one wants repeat customers.

Now I understand your politics. As I expected, you're one of those "it's all about me" kind of people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I
n re: Post 192
District of Columbia v. Heller Case Brief Summary

1: None of this negates what I said.
2: You and I both know you do not want, nor are you capable of, an honest and open discussion regarding the 2A, and that you will tuck tail and run away from any such thing.
3: Your post only serves to prove the premise I laid out in my first post in this topic.
Well done, Skippy.

 

[kaz]

Circular answer. How much is enough? Enough...

At least $15 per hour. That is the wage that would be kept up with today's average of cost of living.

And what happens when we raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and prices go up because of it and people can't live on that again?

You know the problem with your argument is that it's a zero sum game.

Let's say our economy is A, B and C. B is worth double A, C is worth double B.

So if

A = $7.25, then B = $14.50 and C = $29

What happens if you raise A to $15?

Well, then B adjusts to $30 and C adjusts to $60.

You haven't accomplished anything. And that's the best case. In reality, you cause a slew of A's to get fired or their hours cut for automation and process improvements

The problem with yours is that it isn't a zero sum game. The price increase would be pennies on the dollar. If the wage is raised gradually over a few years and the market has time to respond, the price increase would be slight. This is mostly due to the fact that the increase to consumer demand from bigger paychecks would help the market. Eventually, the market would begin to thrive erg so much extra money being pumped into businesses. Well beyond the cost of businesses having to pay their employees more.

You obviously have never owned a restaurant. I have. Pennies on the dollar, you are full of shit. Most of our costs were labor and food. Sure, it's easy during lunch and dinner and bar rush. My restaurant was across the street from UNC Chapel Hill, but you have no idea obviously how expensive it is to staff the rest of the day, labor is a huge drain. In Chapel Hill across the street from UNC restaurants fail all the time. How is that possible that doubling their labor costs won't affect them?

Stop listening to the idiotic lawyers like Al Gore and Obama Bin Laden who haven't earned a dollar in their lives and have never taken an economics class, they just tell you what they want you to think. Stop thinking it, they are ... wait for it ... lying to you ... Who'd a thought? A lawyer lie to you? A politician lie to you? Actually, that's not the surprising part. The surprising part is you ... believe ... them. BTW, the checks in the mail and we are just friends. Wow. Liberals are so naive

Did you own the building where your restaurant was located? Or did you rent? Either way your costs included more than food and labor. The only cost under your control was the cost of labor. Sure, you could have purchased poor quality food stuffs, but that's a dead end if one wants repeat customers.

I didn't say food and labor were my only cost, I said they were my biggest. Do you know what that means? The biggest cost? What grade are you in?

Now I understand your politics. As I expected, you're one of those "it's all about me" kind of people.

Yes, I want to keep money I earned, you want to take money you didn't at the point of a gun. Obviously between us I'm the one with the it's all about me problem. LOL, what a tool

 

[francoHFW]

Give everyone a iving wage and people have money to spend. At the moment they don't...see sig for 30 years of pander to the rich Reaganism.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Give everyone a iving wage and people have money to spend..

What if your job doesn't merit that level of pay?
Why should an employer pay you more than your job is worth?
Why should the state force them to?