What exactly do republicans have to offer blacks?

[danielpalos]

Practice makes Perfect? Besides, you need more than ad hominems for me to believe you.

Ah...you think I'm attacking you "personally" when I ask you what kind of background you have in economics? I hate to break this to you, Daniel but when you claim to know something about a subject...then make claims that are quite frankly ridiculous...you're going to be queried as to what you're basing those claims on! When you reply with nonsense like "practice makes perfect" you're going to be mocked!

Now did you want to have an intelligent conversation about economics? Or are you going to continue to "practice"?

As I asked before...what's your background in economics? What are you basing your claims on?

dear, you need valid arguments not simply allegations of understanding economics.

you have to know where I am wrong and how, not merey allege you must be right simply because you are on the right wing.

His point is valid. Have you considered a more social forum, discussing some thing less serious?

You can still be surreal and confrontation if you want. People might be more understanding if the discussion is less weighty.

what point is valid?

The point he made in the post you were responding to.



Have you considered a more social forum, discussing some thing less serious?

You can still be surreal and confrontation if you want. People might be more understanding if the discussion is less weighty.

lol. i gainsay your contention.

 

[danielpalos]

Whenever anyone asks you for specifics, Daniel...you post nonsense.

lol. you have to Ask specifics not be totally ignorant but claim you are (on the) right (wing).

...through so much, implication.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ah...you think I'm attacking you "personally" when I ask you what kind of background you have in economics? I hate to break this to you, Daniel but when you claim to know something about a subject...then make claims that are quite frankly ridiculous...you're going to be queried as to what you're basing those claims on! When you reply with nonsense like "practice makes perfect" you're going to be mocked!

Now did you want to have an intelligent conversation about economics? Or are you going to continue to "practice"?

As I asked before...what's your background in economics? What are you basing your claims on?

dear, you need valid arguments not simply allegations of understanding economics.

you have to know where I am wrong and how, not merey allege you must be right simply because you are on the right wing.

I stated quite clearly where I thought you were wrong and even suggested you read Sowell's book regarding the effects that a high minimum wage has on employment, Daniel!

At this point it's become rather obvious that you're ducking my question because you have no background in economics! Which means that it's actually YOU that are basing your statements on your feelings with no economic theory to back those feelings up!

the left has a solution. it is called, solving simple poverty. you simply didn't understand the economic concepts but had to put in your two "Congressional Continentals worth."

So your solution to solving poverty is solving it? Really, Daniel?

I suppose your solution to world peace is bringing peace to the world?

HOW would you solve simple poverty!

We could have solved simple poverty, Yesterday; "but, the Poor benefiting was too much of a social horror for the right wing."

Through equality and equal protection of the law in our at-will employment States. Solving simple poverty can be as simple as solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; through unemployment compensation for merely being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

That post was a perfect example of what I'm talking about! You seem to think if you post incomprehensible doubletalk that you're going to be perceived as intelligent but instead you come across as clueless. What does any of that mean? Do you even know?

 

[Correll]

Ah...you think I'm attacking you "personally" when I ask you what kind of background you have in economics? I hate to break this to you, Daniel but when you claim to know something about a subject...then make claims that are quite frankly ridiculous...you're going to be queried as to what you're basing those claims on! When you reply with nonsense like "practice makes perfect" you're going to be mocked!

Now did you want to have an intelligent conversation about economics? Or are you going to continue to "practice"?

As I asked before...what's your background in economics? What are you basing your claims on?

dear, you need valid arguments not simply allegations of understanding economics.

you have to know where I am wrong and how, not merey allege you must be right simply because you are on the right wing.

His point is valid. Have you considered a more social forum, discussing some thing less serious?

You can still be surreal and confrontation if you want. People might be more understanding if the discussion is less weighty.

what point is valid?

The point he made in the post you were responding to.



Have you considered a more social forum, discussing some thing less serious?

You can still be surreal and confrontation if you want. People might be more understanding if the discussion is less weighty.

lol. i gainsay your contention.

Have you considered a more social forum, discussing some thing less serious?

You can still be surreal and confrontation if you want. People might be more understanding if the discussion is less weighty.

 

[Oldstyle]

Define "simple poverty"? How does it differ from poverty?

What pray tell is "Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment"?

 

[danielpalos]

dear, you need valid arguments not simply allegations of understanding economics.

you have to know where I am wrong and how, not merey allege you must be right simply because you are on the right wing.

I stated quite clearly where I thought you were wrong and even suggested you read Sowell's book regarding the effects that a high minimum wage has on employment, Daniel!

At this point it's become rather obvious that you're ducking my question because you have no background in economics! Which means that it's actually YOU that are basing your statements on your feelings with no economic theory to back those feelings up!

the left has a solution. it is called, solving simple poverty. you simply didn't understand the economic concepts but had to put in your two "Congressional Continentals worth."

So your solution to solving poverty is solving it? Really, Daniel?

I suppose your solution to world peace is bringing peace to the world?

HOW would you solve simple poverty!

We could have solved simple poverty, Yesterday; "but, the Poor benefiting was too much of a social horror for the right wing."

Through equality and equal protection of the law in our at-will employment States. Solving simple poverty can be as simple as solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; through unemployment compensation for merely being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

That post was a perfect example of what I'm talking about! You seem to think if you post incomprehensible doubletalk that you're going to be perceived as intelligent but instead you come across as clueless. What does any of that mean? Do you even know?

lol. no dear. i seem to think you really are ignorant of economic concepts and have no valid questions or rebuttals.

 

[danielpalos]

dear, you need valid arguments not simply allegations of understanding economics.

you have to know where I am wrong and how, not merey allege you must be right simply because you are on the right wing.

His point is valid. Have you considered a more social forum, discussing some thing less serious?

You can still be surreal and confrontation if you want. People might be more understanding if the discussion is less weighty.

what point is valid?

The point he made in the post you were responding to.



Have you considered a more social forum, discussing some thing less serious?

You can still be surreal and confrontation if you want. People might be more understanding if the discussion is less weighty.

lol. i gainsay your contention.

Have you considered a more social forum, discussing some thing less serious?

You can still be surreal and confrontation if you want. People might be more understanding if the discussion is less weighty.

i don't believe you.

 

[Oldstyle]

If it's just the right wing that's holding back the elimination of poverty (simple or otherwise! eye roll) then why didn't you liberals eliminate it when Barack Obama was sitting in the Oval Office and the left controlled the House and the Senate?

 

[Oldstyle]

I stated quite clearly where I thought you were wrong and even suggested you read Sowell's book regarding the effects that a high minimum wage has on employment, Daniel!

At this point it's become rather obvious that you're ducking my question because you have no background in economics! Which means that it's actually YOU that are basing your statements on your feelings with no economic theory to back those feelings up!

the left has a solution. it is called, solving simple poverty. you simply didn't understand the economic concepts but had to put in your two "Congressional Continentals worth."

So your solution to solving poverty is solving it? Really, Daniel?

I suppose your solution to world peace is bringing peace to the world?

HOW would you solve simple poverty!

We could have solved simple poverty, Yesterday; "but, the Poor benefiting was too much of a social horror for the right wing."

Through equality and equal protection of the law in our at-will employment States. Solving simple poverty can be as simple as solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; through unemployment compensation for merely being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

That post was a perfect example of what I'm talking about! You seem to think if you post incomprehensible doubletalk that you're going to be perceived as intelligent but instead you come across as clueless. What does any of that mean? Do you even know?

lol. no dear. i seem to think you really are ignorant of economic concepts and have no valid questions or rebuttals.

What economic "concepts" do you feel I'm ignorant of? Be specific for a change!

 

[danielpalos]

Define "simple poverty"? How does it differ from poverty?

What pray tell is "Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment"?

see dear;

all of those ad hominems to finally admit you really are clueless and Causeless about economics but prefered to "blame the guy in the minority".

 

[Oldstyle]

While I don't claim to be an economist I did take Micro and Macro Economics in college. I have a grasp of economic concepts. You on the other hand don't appear to know anything about the subject. Which is why you post the way you do.

 

[Oldstyle]

Define "simple poverty"? How does it differ from poverty?

What pray tell is "Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment"?

see dear;

all of those ad hominems to finally admit you really are clueless and Causeless about economics but prefered to "blame the guy in the minority".

So I ask you to explain what YOU have posted...something that you obviously can't do...and you respond with more "ad hominems" bullshit?

Two simple questions, Daniel. Why do you struggle so much to answer them?

 

[danielpalos]

While I don't claim to be an economist I did take Micro and Macro Economics in college. I have a grasp of economic concepts. You on the other hand don't appear to know anything about the subject. Which is why you post the way you do.

i gainsay your subjective contention.

you need valid arguments not merely hearsay and soothsay. women gossip; Men have (valid) arguments.

 

[danielpalos]

Define "simple poverty"? How does it differ from poverty?

What pray tell is "Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment"?

see dear;

all of those ad hominems to finally admit you really are clueless and Causeless about economics but prefered to "blame the guy in the minority".

So I ask you to explain what YOU have posted...something that you obviously can't do...and you respond with more "ad hominems" bullshit?

Two simple questions, Daniel. Why do you struggle so much to answer them?

i have no bullshit. i have arguments like Men do.

 

[Correll]

His point is valid. Have you considered a more social forum, discussing some thing less serious?

You can still be surreal and confrontation if you want. People might be more understanding if the discussion is less weighty.

what point is valid?

The point he made in the post you were responding to.



Have you considered a more social forum, discussing some thing less serious?

You can still be surreal and confrontation if you want. People might be more understanding if the discussion is less weighty.

lol. i gainsay your contention.

Have you considered a more social forum, discussing some thing less serious?

You can still be surreal and confrontation if you want. People might be more understanding if the discussion is less weighty.

i don't believe you.

Do you watch tv?

 

[danielpalos]

what point is valid?

The point he made in the post you were responding to.



Have you considered a more social forum, discussing some thing less serious?

You can still be surreal and confrontation if you want. People might be more understanding if the discussion is less weighty.

lol. i gainsay your contention.

Have you considered a more social forum, discussing some thing less serious?

You can still be surreal and confrontation if you want. People might be more understanding if the discussion is less weighty.

i don't believe you.

Do you watch tv?

i watch a lot of YouTube.

 

[sealybobo]

Walmart or the waltons are a good example. Those billionaires aren’t paying enough. They should unionize. I would

Walmart and other retailers have lines of people hoping to go to work for them. How is that a bad thing? Just because they're billionaires, how is that wrong and how does that justify paying employees more?

No they don't. Unemployment is supposedly at zero and companies can't find help. Shut up.

 

[sealybobo]

Well we were worth more in 1970.

Back then the ceo made 30x more today they make 350x more.

No we are not all paid our exact worth unless you are the greedy employer then yes they think things are perfect the way they are now.

Where most people are living paycheck to paycheck.

You know who else is paid what their worth? Mexican workers in Mexico. At least that’s what Mexican corporations think

As I've pointed out previously, send your thank-you note to former President Bill Clinton for the drastic change in top executive income. Besides, what difference does that make?

As I have also pointed out previously, how is anyone NOT paid what they are worth? If someone is not being paid what they believe they are worth, quit and take that higher paying job. We have full employment and more jobs than workers.

"Greedy employer". That's just a stupid, desperate comment that has no meaning. Any successful business is going to be fair with their employees. It is expensive, both time-wise and financially to hire and train new employees. As I have also pointed out previously, there is good and bad greed. Good greed is what has made America great!

If people are living paycheck to paycheck, and many are, is that not personal responsibility? Of course it is. It is also further proof that people have great confidence in our economy.

What does Mexican workers, working in Mexico have to do with anything?

Walmart or the waltons are a good example. Those billionaires aren’t paying enough. They should unionize. I would

You can. Just go to work at your local Walmart and try to unionize. I'm sure they'll just love you.

Actually, not being in a union benefits me personally. Everyone else at my company complains they don't make enough but I make more than enough. They should unionize.

I'm just here arguing for them. For the masses. It's like when Warren Buffet advocates for his secretary. He's not arguing for himself. He's arguing for the masses. THEY aren't making their fair share.

Back when 35% of working Americans were unionized, we made our fair share. Since the corporations broke the unions we have not made our FAIR share but CEO pay has skyrocketed.

 

[sealybobo]

Well we were worth more in 1970.

Back then the ceo made 30x more today they make 350x more.

No we are not all paid our exact worth unless you are the greedy employer then yes they think things are perfect the way they are now.

Where most people are living paycheck to paycheck.

You know who else is paid what their worth? Mexican workers in Mexico. At least that’s what Mexican corporations think

As I've pointed out previously, send your thank-you note to former President Bill Clinton for the drastic change in top executive income. Besides, what difference does that make?

As I have also pointed out previously, how is anyone NOT paid what they are worth? If someone is not being paid what they believe they are worth, quit and take that higher paying job. We have full employment and more jobs than workers.

"Greedy employer". That's just a stupid, desperate comment that has no meaning. Any successful business is going to be fair with their employees. It is expensive, both time-wise and financially to hire and train new employees. As I have also pointed out previously, there is good and bad greed. Good greed is what has made America great!

If people are living paycheck to paycheck, and many are, is that not personal responsibility? Of course it is. It is also further proof that people have great confidence in our economy.

What does Mexican workers, working in Mexico have to do with anything?

Walmart or the waltons are a good example. Those billionaires aren’t paying enough. They should unionize. I would

I read an article the other day that Walmarts profit margin is only around 4%. Ad it is now Walmart employees make as much and often more than the prevailing wage in an area.

Yea, because this is the new normal in America. If Walmart unionized and they paid their employees $25 hr, you'd see the prevailing wage go up.

I don't care that they only make 4%. 4% of a trillion dollars is making the Walton's billionaires. Their employees would be smart to unionize. Walmart can't do what the auto companies and manufacturing companies did. They left for China and Mexico. Walmart has to hire Americans. Their workers are pussies for not striking.

 

[Markle]

the left has a solution. it is called, solving simple poverty. you simply didn't understand the economic concepts but had to put in your two "Congressional Continentals worth."

What have Progressives accomplished regarding simple poverty, whatever that is? Starting with former President Lyndon Johnson, you have accomplished nothing but spending over 21 Trillion going down the tubes.