Did you know that Denver , Colorado got the bid over New York to host the National Democratic Convention?

Other. I didn't hear about it...And I honestly don't care.

no

btw: wheres the option for "yes", "no"

Other. Didn't hear about this.

I hadn't heard about this. And, frankly, I don't care where convention is held. As long as it's not in my city, I'm happy.

I could care less about politics. (I'm a Libertarian.) Hadn't heard of this before this survey.

Ooh, no I didn't. Tell me more so that I can move there and have fun a-plenty.

Did you want me to actually answer the question or just marvel at what a nice place you seem to think Denver is?

Denver sounds nice, but the people there seems a little odd.

Auto racing through the streets of the city? Fun. Can I try out for a pedestrian position?

I did hear about the DNC, if not about all the other things.

Yes, I heard about this. I'm also a Democrat and watch NBC local and national news every day.

Denver is also home to Animal Planet's "Emergency Vets".

I was just so happy and delighted to hear about this, and to see History repeating itself
and back so many years ago in the 1920's Denver had it's first Democratic Convention and placed Colorado on the map and here we are again wow

Who cares about the sales pitch in the explanation? You forgot to mention Denver is in a bowl and has smog, has few decent paying jobs, the altitude can make you dizzy/have nosebleeds, and there isn't a tree in sight for most the of entire state east of the mountains.

I take it creator lives in Denver, Colorado?

Well duh, I live here how could I not know? I'm certainly excited.

> Who cares about the sales pitch in the explanation?
> You forgot to mention Denver is in a bowl and
> has smog, has few decent paying jobs, the altitude
> can make you dizzy/have nosebleeds, and there
> isn't a tree in sight for most the of entire state
> east of the mountains.

So I can add liar to the list of negative things to say about you? Dude, I fudging live here. There are tons of trees, the smog actually drifts over from China's skyscraping smokestacks, and there are plenty of jobs here, especially in the communications industry.

> |> Who cares about the sales pitch in the explanation?
> |> You forgot to mention Denver is in a bowl and
> |> has smog, has few decent paying jobs, the altitude
> |> can make you dizzy/have nosebleeds, and there
> |> isn't a tree in sight for most the of entire state
> |> east of the mountains.
>
> So I can add liar to the list of negative things to say about you?
> Dude, I fudging live here. There are tons of trees, the smog actually
> drifts over from China's skyscraping smokestacks, and there are plenty
> of jobs here, especially in the communications industry.

Weren't you complaining a few months ago how because of Bush there are not enough jobs in your area and there was a mini-flame war over whether or not its Bush's fault or not. I think you even gave an example of where one of your friends had a college degree but was working in McDonalds.

Or is my memory bad and I am taking things out of context?

The trees in the inhabited areas are there only because someone planted them. There maybe jobs but nothing that can pay wages comparable to any other major city like Chicago, New York or here in Cali.
The smog comes over from China and settles in Denver??

not to nitpick you, but you might want to control the lower wages against the lower cost of living in Denver against, say, somewheres in Cali.

You got the "out of context" part right. What I was talking about was the lack of jobs that paid a living wage in CO (excepting telecomm), but with the new minimum wage law that's no longer true. It's called time. It moves forward, and occasionally things in one point in time will be different.

Although it'll likely be forever more that Republicans will be the party of increased human misery, suffering, pain, and death.

> The trees in the inhabited areas are there only
> because someone planted them. There maybe jobs
> but nothing that can pay wages comparable to any
> other major city like Chicago, New York or here
> in Cali.
> The smog comes over from China and settles in
> Denver??

Yep. I learned this talking to a pilot who is also an expert in the field of alternative energies. We worked on the Kucinich campaign together back in the day. And you're still wrong about the treees. This place is beautiful, so with no due respect, bite me.

You got the "out of context" part right. What I was talking about was the lack of jobs that paid a living wage in CO (excepting telecomm),

And wasn't that ck's point, was it not?


but with the new minimum wage law that's no longer true.

You're also failing to take into account that different cities have different costs of living, so whats considered a "living wage" in one town is not in another. A one size fits all FEDERAL increase of the minimum wage helps how? As a sidebar I could go on into how minimum wage, price floors and price cellings cause inefficiency and how increasing the minimum wage would actually contribute to unemployment, but flamewars on this topic have been done to death.


It's called time. It moves forward, and occasionally things in one point in time will be different.

ok fair enough


Although it'll likely be forever more that Republicans will be the party of increased human misery, suffering, pain, and death.

well, I guess you COULD blame all the worlds problems on the Republicans. Its a very fortunate thing they exist then? What would you do without them?

Wee hee.... get the potato chips here we go!

> You got the "out of context" part right. What
> I was talking about was the lack of jobs that
> paid a living wage in CO (excepting telecomm),
>
>
> And wasn't that ck's point, was it not?

No, he said no jobs period. There are jobs here. It's just that most of them (prior to the new minimum wage law) sucked if you wanted to actually, you know, live.

>
> but with the new minimum wage law that's no
> longer true.
>
> You're also failing to take into account that
> different cities have different costs of living,
> so whats considered a "living wage" in one town
> is not in another.

Did I? Um, no, not relaly, sicne I was talking about Denver.

> A one size fits all FEDERAL
> increase of the minimum wage helps how? As a
> sidebar I could go on into how minimum wage, price
> floors and price cellings cause inefficiency and
> how increasing the minimum wage would actually
> contribute to unemployment, but flamewars on
> this topic have been done to death.

It's also untrue, but that's okay, I expect nothing less from an apologist for GOP evil policy.

> It's called time. It moves forward, and occasionally
> things in one point in time will be different.
>
> ok fair enough
>
>
> Although it'll likely be forever more that Republicans
> will be the party of increased human misery, suffering,
> pain, and death.
>
> well, I guess you COULD blame all the worlds
> problems on the Republicans. Its a very fortunate
> thing they exist then? What would you do without
> them?

I'd be happier, and so would everyone else in the world. But hey, don't take my word for it. Check out a Podcast called Blast The Right by Jack Clark. He covers the topic of Republican caused misery, pain, suffering, and death better than I could ever do.

Other.
My reason is I don't care where it is. As long as it is not in my neighborhood. What's the big deal anyway, will there be free gifts for stopping by? Are they selling cotton candy, corn dogs and elephant ears?
Please excuse my enthusiasm cannot come any where near yours, SC, but I don't understand why it's a big friggin deal where, or why it is.
Hmmm, is this a monkeeee survey?

Honestly, I do not care. Whatever happens, things will be the same where I live. It always is the same.

Pfft

hmmmm, i was just going to ask, "where is brian, i haven't seen him lately??"
hey brian, how are you?

Fine, thank you.

"No, he said no jobs period. There are jobs here. It's just that most of them (prior to the new minimum wage law) sucked if you wanted to actually, you know, live."

No, I think he mentioned no good jobs in his later points. I won't go into how raising the minimum wage will cause massive inflation plus unemployment, which will in turn cause the cost of living to go up again, thus you will be back where you started.



"It's also untrue, but that's okay, I expect nothing less from an apologist for GOP evil policy."

You should seriously take an into to economics class some time (I am assuming its too late this semester); so that you could at least understand the arguments against price controls. You don't have to agree with them, at least make the effort to understand what is it that you are disagreeing. And off course, since I am able to think and choose to do so, I agree with the Democrats on some issues and with the Republicans on other issues. So I guess agreeing with some things on the conservative side makes me a blind apoligist for the evil GOP.



"I'd be happier, and so would everyone else in the world. But hey, don't take my word for it. Check out a Podcast called Blast The Right by Jack Clark. He covers the topic of Republican caused misery, pain, suffering, and death better than I could ever do."

So then you are saying that the Republicans are responsible for 100% for all that is wrong with the world and that there are no idiotic liberal policies out there that have contributed to pain/suffering/death. Because you know, its not like its impossible for one side to be always right and one side to be always wrong.

I remember seeing this in qualification, but I more or less forgot about it because it couldn't possibly interest me much less than it does.

I'm familiar with Denver. I believe it is the largest city in Colorado. Nice to see that the Denver Chamber of Commerce is creating surveys on SC now.

> "No, he said no jobs period. There are jobs here.
> It's just that most of them (prior to the new
> minimum wage law) sucked if you wanted to actually,
> you know, live."
>
> No, I think he mentioned no good jobs in his later
> points. I won't go into how raising the minimum
> wage will cause massive inflation plus unemployment,
> which will in turn cause the cost of living to
> go up again, thus you will be back where you started.

If you think that's true, what you just said about the minimum wage, you relaly need to get out more, because everything I've seen and read shows you wrong, from city level examples, to the fact that nation wide adjusting for inflation a minimum wage worker in this country maeks les than they did in 1973, and when they make les they spend less and the economy suffers. Stop repeateing right wing economic rhetoric as fact. It makes you look dumb, just like my poor spelling makes me look dumb.

> "It's also untrue, but that's okay, I expect nothing
> less from an apologist for GOP evil policy."
>
> You should seriously take an into to economics
> class some time (I am assuming its too late this
> semester); so that you could at least understand
> the arguments against price controls. You don't
> have to agree with them, at least make the effort
> to understand what is it that you are disagreeing.
> And off course, since I am able to think and
> choose to do so, I agree with the Democrats on
> some issues and with the Republicans on other
> issues. So I guess agreeing with some things
> on the conservative side makes me a blind apoligist
> for the evil GOP.

Not all things obviously, there are always exceptions, but just generally speaking, yes.

> "I'd be happier, and so would everyone else in
> the world. But hey, don't take my word for it.
> Check out a Podcast called Blast The Right by
> Jack Clark. He covers the topic of Republican
> caused misery, pain, suffering, and death better
> than I could ever do."
>
> So then you are saying that the Republicans are
> responsible for 100% for all that is wrong
> with the world and that there are no idiotic liberal
> policies out there that have contributed to pain/suffering/death.

More like 99.8%. Liberals are human, so of coruse we'll have bad ideas. The difference here is with intent. Liberals don't come up with ideas designed to kill or maim. That is the purview of the Right Wing, who thinks that since trapped miners may have to wait a day or two for rescue should only be allolwed 2 hours of oxygen.

> Because you know, its not like its impossible
> for one side to be always right and one side to
> be always wrong.

I'm not saying Righties are never right, but I could count on one hadn the number of times it's happened in the past 100 years. Righties have consistently been on the wrong side of history. They thought we should ally with Hitler in WWII. They thought we should just nuke Vietnam. They thought that blacks and women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Hell, Right Wingers are even responsible for the sad decline of the Republican party in the past century and a half. 150 years ago, the Republican party was where the Liberals were.

> I remember seeing this in qualification, but I
> more or less forgot about it because it couldn't
> possibly interest me much less than it does.
>
> I'm familiar with Denver. I believe it is the
> largest city in Colorado. Nice to see that the
> Denver Chamber of Commerce is creating surveys
> on SC now.

I'm just glad nobody blames me for this one. Don't get me wrong, I love this city, and I don't want to live anywhere else, but this survey is just plain silly as writen.

I did wonder...

But your surveys are much better than this.

Incidentally, I'm getting at what you were saying about Murray Leinster. I've been alternating between some of his books and some by Fritz Leiber (Yeah, I didn't get around the store much that day in spite of the fact that I made a record spending spree) and I'm finding the Leiber stuff to be a relief. Much more interesting and imaginative. Leinster is kind of fun, but most of it is pretty pedestrian. I haven't read any brain-bleeders yet, but I haven't got to "Miners in the Sky" yet either.

The options really do not match the question.
I did not know that Denver is hosting the National Democratic Convention.

Whose survey is this? The Public Relations Committee of Denver???

If you like darkly comic fiction, I highly reccomend Peter David. Sir Apropo of Nothing, the first chapter alone was a gut-buster. Heck, eve his Star trek are rife with moments of dark humor you would NEVER get from the TV shows. In fact, the novel "Once Burned" features what is probably the only known instance of an oral sex joke in a Star Trek story.

"If you think that's true, what you just said about the minimum wage, you relaly need to get out more, because everything I've seen and read shows you wrong, from city level examples, to the fact that nation wide adjusting for inflation a minimum wage worker in this country maeks les than they did in 1973, and when they make les they spend less and the economy suffers. Stop repeateing right wing economic rhetoric as fact. It makes you look dumb, just like my poor spelling makes me look dumb."

And exactly whose numbers do you go by when measuring inflation? Ask 5 economists how much inflation had occured between now and 1973 and you get 6 different opinions. What basket of goods are you referring to when you decide to mesure your level of inflation?

btw- my spelling is pretty bad too. I won't bother addressing that portion of the argument.



"More like 99.8%."

Its more like somewhere between 40 to 55% if you ask me, with the conservatives being right about 45-60% of the time, depending on how you count it. Off course that is just my count, no more valid than the guy next door. Anyway, what exactly falls into the catagory liberal and conservative, may I ask you? Thats not always so black and white. For instance, LDH (or whatever her username it) is super right wing, but she's also against chemicals being put in foods we eat and believes that 9/11 was a US government conspiracy, which she stated in some survey. The "left-wing" has also been known for paranoid conspiracies and fear mongering among a section of the environmentalist movenment. How many people have died from malaria because DDT was banned due to trumped up fear. How about the irrational fear of genetic modified foods. I could go on. Clearly some of LDH opinions borderline being classifed as paranoid left-wing nut even though she's more of a paranoid right-winger. How convient of wing nuts to reclassify things that they don't agree with as part of the other side.


Liberals are human, so of coruse we'll have bad ideas. The difference here is with intent. Liberals don't come up with ideas designed to kill or maim. That is the purview of the Right Wing, who thinks that since trapped miners may have to wait a day or two for rescue should only be allolwed 2 hours of oxygen."



"The difference here is with intent. Liberals don't come up with ideas designed to kill or maim."

Intent doesn't change the fact that people get killed or maimed. And how many people had been killed or maimed because of bad liberal policies as a result of unintended consequences. See my example of banning DDT.


"That is the purview of the Right Wing, who thinks that since trapped miners may have to wait a day or two for rescue should only be allolwed 2 hours of oxygen."

Secondly, saying that "rightwingers" intent is to kill or maim is a pretty much a worthless ad honimem attack that doesnt hold any water. I am sure that most of the people on the right want the best for the country (a few people in GWB's administration notwithstanding) just as much as you do. Its just that they have a different approach of attaining that goal, and sometimes their solution is more realistic. (note: I did say sometimes). Also, where do you get the idea that minors are only ALLOWED 2 hours of oxygen. Is there a law on the books saying "oh gee, sorry, you cant go in there, so sir have too much oxygen on you." Policies that YOU may precieve as heartless are simply either a nessasairly evil or a reasonable risk people engage in.

In conclusion, saying that the conservatives are heatless is just as idiotic slander as saying that liberals hate America. So frosty, you tell us, just why do you hate American so much? (see what I mean)

So I would suggest you stick to attacking people's arguments and not the people making them.


"I'm not saying Righties are never right, but I could count on one hadn the number of times it's happened in the past 100 years. Righties have consistently been on the wrong side of history. They thought we should ally with Hitler in WWII. They thought we should just nuke Vietnam. They thought that blacks and women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Hell, Right Wingers are even responsible for the sad decline of the Republican party in the past century and a half. 150 years ago, the Republican party was where the Liberals were."

I gues you are right, if you conviently overlook that most blacks generally voted Republican and the white poor rednecks voted Democrat until the Nixon election where the campaining stragedies and voting patterens flipped flopped. But that doesn't neglect that on most issues the paries haden't flipped flopped. Ok, also the Democrats were the crazy interventionalist warmongers and the Republicans the non-interventionalist pussies until that flipped flopped at some point when Carter ran for president as well (note: I am using hyperbolly here, don't take what I just said literally). Then lets not forget that it was a Democrat who put the Japanese in interminant camps. Nevertheless, the Republicans were still the party for the rich, so your argument that the Republicans were the liberals of the day pretty much falls apart here.

Then I guess you could neglect the fact that it was labor unions (traditionally and still are today the liberals) who pushed for xenophobic anti-imigration polices. Did I mention how some of the anti-free trade arguments are at least partially designed to play on people's racisim. As if John Kerry was such an angel when he said "yes GWB created jobs, in China." Don't act like the left doesn't resort to playing on racism and fear mongering any less than the right. Notwithstanding anything I just said, I guess you're right. The "Republican party" was on the wrong side every time.

I gues if you fully take advantage of how blurry the lines of whats considered left-wing and right-winged are and classify it in your favor you could make just about any argument that generalizes the left this and the right that.


I will say this though. The liberals were the ones pushing for public education and mandatory schooling until a certain age and the more conservative/libertarians were opposed. In the end the liberals turned out to be right on that one.

I've never actually read any of the Star Trek novels. I haven't heard good things about them for the most part. Then again, I tend to disagree with the "experts" in these matters anyway.

I'll keep an eye out.

> "If you think that's true, what you just said
> about the minimum wage, you relaly need to get
> out more, because everything I've seen and read
> shows you wrong, from city level examples, to
> the fact that nation wide adjusting for inflation
> a minimum wage worker in this country maeks les
> than they did in 1973, and when they make les
> they spend less and the economy suffers. Stop
> repeateing right wing economic rhetoric as fact.
> It makes you look dumb, just like my poor spelling
> makes me look dumb."
>
> And exactly whose numbers do you go by when measuring
> inflation? Ask 5 economists how much inflation
> had occured between now and 1973 and you get 6
> different opinions. What basket of goods are
> you referring to when you decide to mesure your
> level of inflation?

The Department of Labor statistics, which are still pretty solid, in spite of the monkey in the oval office.

>
> btw- my spelling is pretty bad too. I won't bother
> addressing that portion of the argument.
>

I'm glad. For some people, that's the best argument they have.

> How many people have died from malaria
> because DDT was banned due to trumped up fear.

It's not trumped up, but I understand your point. I just disagree with it.

> How about the irrational fear of genetic modified
> foods.

What;s irraitonal about wanting to know what all the hell is going in our food?

> "The difference here is with intent. Liberals
> don't come up with ideas designed to kill or maim."
>
> Intent doesn't change the fact that people get
> killed or maimed. And how many people had been
> killed or maimed because of bad liberal policies
> as a result of unintended consequences. See my
> example of banning DDT.

Not that many. Certainly not enough for anyone to be able to write encyclopedic volumes of examples.


> Secondly, saying that "rightwingers" intent is
> to kill or maim is a pretty much a worthless ad
> honimem attack that doesnt hold any water.

Only to those who don't pay attention. In fact, it holds enough water to drown people. I suggest you take a look at the disgusting Right Wing response to the 2 hours of air when 48 are needed for those miners; "Yeah! Republciasn are so great, they doubled the oxygen our miners get!" Yeah, doubled from 1 hour to 2, when they knew full well it wouldn't be enough. it was disgusting, it was cynical, and it was designed to make a quick buck off of dead bodies. These people are ghouls. They are vampires (metaphorically speaking, calm down). But hey, don't take my word for it. http://www.seanhannityevildoer.com/audio/50-mineox...

> I
> am sure that most of the people on the right want
> the best for the country (a few people in GWB's
> administration notwithstanding) just as much as
> you do.

Maybe they think they do, but in reality they do what they do for themselves and their bank accounts.

> Its just that they have a different approach
> of attaining that goal, and sometimes their solution
> is more realistic. (note: I did say sometimes).
> Also, where do you get the idea that minors
> are only ALLOWED 2 hours of oxygen. Is there
> a law on the books saying "oh gee, sorry, you
> cant go in there, so sir have too much oxygen
> on you." Policies that YOU may precieve as
> heartless are simply either a nessasairly evil
> or a reasonable risk people engage in.

http://www.seanhannityevildoer.com/audio/50-mineox... His sources are better than mine.

> In conclusion, saying that the conservatives are
> heatless is just as idiotic slander as saying
> that liberals hate America.

Um, no. "liberals Hate America" is a cheap political slogan to appeal to a base-thinking base. My point about misery, sufeirng, pain and death is based on hisotircal context, research, and observation. In others, I'm just calling it as I see it, they're just tyring to make me look bad. Huge difference.

> So frosty, you tell
> us, just why do you hate American so much? (see
> what I mean)
>
> So I would suggest you stick to attacking people's
> arguments and not the people making them.

I try to do both.

> Then I guess you could neglect the fact that it
> was labor unions (traditionally and still are
> today the liberals) who pushed for xenophobic
> anti-imigration polices. Did I mention how some
> of the anti-free trade arguments are at least
> partially designed to play on people's racisim.

Unfortuantely yes, which is probably why thsoe abd bills passed; becuase racist nutcases were as oppsoed to them as rational fair traders like me were. Sigh. much as one might want to, one can't always choose their allies.

> The Department of Labor statistics, which are still pretty solid,
> in spite of the monkey in the oval office.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of an economics book. The thing is, some economists say that inflation is only 2.5%, another might say its more like 3.0% and another one might say its like 3.5%. So you tell me, which one is right? The Department of Labor is made up of economists who are all human and all have a different take, and eventually they come up with a number just to have one. Another thing that you are neglecting is that inflation affects different people differently. If housing prices rise, does that affect people who are so poor they don't own houses and won't any time soon. Should the drop in prices of computers be averaged in with the number, since most people own computers. Also how do you count the rising medical costs, since not all people get sick in a given year. In fact, the prices are so high allready that getting sick if you dont have insurance will pretty much wipe you out to bankrupcy, so you won't end up paying most of the bill anyway. Do you go by the mean or the median? Inflation is very difficult to measure.

Anyway, this is kinda a moot point since I am arguing cause and effect here. The botton line, if you increase minimum wage, inflation will only get worse than it allready is. So that 3-4% will only get even worse, unless you have some offsetting factors.



> It's not trumped up, but I understand your point. I just disagree
> with it.

For an example that you can better relate to, how about all the trumped up anti-drug commericals exagerations that smoking pot (I am not saying you do that ) will contribute to terror.



> What;s irraitonal about wanting to know what all the hell is going
> in our food?

Nothing wrong with knowing, I am talking about the actual fear of knowing that your food is geneticlly modified. I think some peole blow the fears out of proportion.



> Not that many. Certainly not enough for anyone to be able to write
> encyclopedic volumes of examples.

Well, theres quite a few though. Its not just the left that does it.



> |> Secondly, saying that "rightwingers" intent is
> |> to kill or maim is a pretty much a worthless ad
> |> honimem attack that doesnt hold any water.
>
> Only to those who don't pay attention. In fact, it holds enough water
> to drown people. I suggest you take a look at the disgusting Right
> Wing response to the 2 hours of air when 48 are needed for those miners;
> "Yeah! Republciasn are so great, they doubled the oxygen our miners
> get!" Yeah, doubled from 1 hour to 2, when they knew full well it
> wouldn't be enough. it was disgusting, it was cynical, and it was
> designed to make a quick buck off of dead bodies. These people are
> ghouls. They are vampires (metaphorically speaking, calm down). But
> hey, don't take my word for it. http://www.seanhannityevildoer.com/audio/50-mineox...

point #1) not all trapped miners get trapped for more than a full day. It also wouldn't hurt to give them all GPS devices.

point #2) oxygen weighs some amount and having the minors carry all of it can be a harrard in itself (I think you might know more on that since you mentioned you've worked with oxygen)

point #3) 2 hours worth is now the new MINIMUM. That means the employers have the option to increasing it to more than 2 hours, they just can't give them less than 2 hours worth. That seems fairly reasonable. Don't blame the lawmakers, blame the mining companies, for they're the ones who should be supplying them with oxygen. No one is forcing anyone to become a minor. Also, if people die that means you have to pay their severace pay to their families, your insurance will go up, possible lawsuits, etc. People dying will hurt their pockets just as much, so I dont see where they make their quick buck. I would imagine that mining accidents are relativly rare but its just a matter of it making the news.





> Maybe they think they do, but in reality they do what they do for
> themselves and their bank accounts.

And the Demoracts don't, since you said it yourself they are just as bad and that you're green. Or are you using a very small sample of the GWB administration and generalizing to Republicans in general.





> Um, no. "liberals Hate America" is a cheap political slogan to appeal
> to a base-thinking base. My point about misery, sufeirng, pain and
> death is based on hisotircal context, research, and observation. In
> others, I'm just calling it as I see it, they're just tyring to make
> me look bad. Huge difference.

And your trying to make the people on the right look bad by saying they're all evil demons. I still don't see how your generalization is any different than the "liberals hate America".




> |> Then I guess you could neglect the fact that it
> |> was labor unions (traditionally and still are
> |> today the liberals) who pushed for xenophobic
> |> anti-imigration polices. Did I mention how some
> |> of the anti-free trade arguments are at least
> |> partially designed to play on people's racisim.
>
> Unfortuantely yes, which is probably why thsoe abd bills passed; becuase
> racist nutcases were as oppsoed to them as rational fair traders like
> me were. Sigh. much as one might want to, one can't always choose
> their allies.

Thats hardly an excuse then. Then the same can be said with the people on the right having to make deals with big business, etc. My main point was that whats considered left and right is sometimes very blurry. Thus using anything that happened over 100 years ago, hell even 50 years ago is not a good reference point. Its better to argue political issues of today. How many people are alive today that still want to do away with intergration? Lets see here: LDH. Thats one. Ok, and then theres... um... You get the idea.

>
> |> The Department of Labor statistics, which
> are still pretty solid,
> |> in spite of the monkey in the oval office.
>
> Actually, I was thinking more along the lines
> of an economics book. The thing is, some
> economists say that inflation is only 2.5%, another
> might say its more like 3.0% and another one might
> say its like 3.5%. So you tell me, which one
> is right? The Department of Labor is made up
> of economists who are all human and all have a
> different take, and eventually they come up with
> a number just to have one. Another thing that
> you are neglecting is that inflation affects different
> people differently. If housing prices rise, does
> that affect people who are so poor they don't
> own houses and won't any time soon. Should the
> drop in prices of computers be averaged in with
> the number, since most people own computers.
> Also how do you count the rising medical costs,
> since not all people get sick in a given year.
> In fact, the prices are so high allready that
> getting sick if you dont have insurance will pretty
> much wipe you out to bankrupcy, so you won't end
> up paying most of the bill anyway. Do you go
> by the mean or the median? Inflation is very
> difficult to measure.
>
> Anyway, this is kinda a moot point since I am
> arguing cause and effect here. The botton line,
> if you increase minimum wage, inflation will only
> get worse than it allready is. So that 3-4% will
> only get even worse, unless you have some offsetting
> factors.

That is a lie. Just ask all the cities, states, and municipaltieis that raised the minimum wage in the years befor eCOngress finally got around to doing it nationally that are doing just fine thank you. Also check out the Economic Policy Institute. http://www.epinet.org/stmt/economistsminwage200410...

> |> It's not trumped up, but I understand your
> point. I just disagree
> |> with it.
>
> For an example that you can better relate to,
> how about all the trumped up anti-drug commericals
> exagerations that smoking pot (I am not saying
> you do that ) will contribute to terror.

You're absolutely corect about the pot/terror connection being bullcrap, I think we all know that, but DDT IS harmful. So far the only people I've heard say otheriwse have been far Right politcos who take money from the industries that make that poison.

> |> What;s irraitonal about wanting to know
> what all the hell is going
> |> in our food?
>
> Nothing wrong with knowing, I am talking about
> the actual fear of knowing that your food is geneticlly
> modified. I think some peole blow the fears out
> of proportion.

So Frankenfoods are okay with you? What's next, soylent green? It sounds ridiculous right now but I put nothing past these people.

> |> Not that many. Certainly not enough for
> anyone to be able to write
> |> encyclopedic volumes of examples.
>
> Well, theres quite a few though. Its not just
> the left that does it.

Funny how people who say that NEVER have an example, whereas I have so many examples to cite in debates that people will often tell me to shut up once I get started. Yet you've provided none except the myth about DDT not being harmful. As for the pot/terror bogus connestion, it's not the Liberals who do that, unless you have absolutely no clue what a Liberal actually is and you genuinely beleive that they are the ones doing that.

> |> |> Secondly, saying that "rightwingers"
> intent is
> |> |> to kill or maim is a pretty much a
> worthless ad
> |> |> honimem attack that doesnt hold any
> water.
> |>
> |> Only to those who don't pay attention. In
> fact, it holds enough water
> |> to drown people. I suggest you take a look
> at the disgusting Right
> |> Wing response to the 2 hours of air when
> 48 are needed for those miners;
> |> "Yeah! Republciasn are so great, they doubled
> the oxygen our miners
> |> get!" Yeah, doubled from 1 hour to 2, when
> they knew full well it
> |> wouldn't be enough. it was disgusting, it
> was cynical, and it was
> |> designed to make a quick buck off of dead
> bodies. These people are
> |> ghouls. They are vampires (metaphorically
> speaking, calm down). But
> |> hey, don't take my word for it. http://www.seanhannityevildoer.com/audio/50-mineox...
>
> point #1) not all trapped miners get trapped for
> more than a full day. It also wouldn't hurt to
> give them all GPS devices.

True, but on average trapped miners aren't reached by rescue workers for a day or two.

> point #2) oxygen weighs some amount and having
> the minors carry all of it can be a harrard in
> itself (I think you might know more on that since
> you mentioned you've worked with oxygen)
>
> point #3) 2 hours worth is now the new MINIMUM.
> That means the employers have the option to increasing
> it to more than 2 hours, they just can't give
> them less than 2 hours worth. That seems fairly
> reasonable.

OMFG. That is disgusting! Reasonable to give them less than a third of what they need to live in the event of an accident, an accident which will be more likely now that Bush has appoitned mining company shills to MSHA?

> Don't blame the lawmakers, blame
> the mining companies, for they're the ones who
> should be supplying them with oxygen.

Oh beelive, they get a share of the blame too but it is absolutely foolish to blame them alone, espeically considering how much they give to NON-Liberal politicains, and when NON-Liberla poltiicians appoint these monsters to key psotions in the government relating to mining and mine safety regulations.

> No one
> is forcing anyone to become a minor.

Depends on the economics of the area, but youa re still a cynical piece of crap for saying that, as if it justifies things like lax safety standards, pitifully little oxygen, forced overtime, and unsafe working conditions. Blaming the miners for the deaths among them caused by Republcian governmental and social policies is like blaming the rape and murder of a pre-teen girl on the victim beucase "if she hadn't been so cute the pedophile wouldn't have noticed her."

> Also, if
> people die that means you have to pay their severace
> pay to their families, your insurance will go
> up, possible lawsuits, etc. People dying will
> hurt their pockets just as much, so I dont see
> where they make their quick buck. I would imagine
> that mining accidents are relativly rare but its
> just a matter of it making the news.

Mining accidents are up. Look it up. Corproations have decided it would cost less to just occasionally pay off victims families then to take the measures neccesary to prevent the disatsers in the first place. Corproations generally don't think much further ahead than the next fiscal quarter. Next time you satrt to get back into this mind set you're in now about "Well corporations would never do something so callous as deliebratley ignroe their consumers safety," talk to John Edwards. Ask him about that little girl he represented in court whose intenstines were sucked out becuase one of your beloved corporations wouldn't spend $00.5 on an extra screw for their pool pumps.

> |> Maybe they think they do, but in reality
> they do what they do for
> |> themselves and their bank accounts.
>
> And the Demoracts don't, since you said it yourself
> they are just as bad and that you're green. Or
> are you using a very small sample of the GWB administration
> and generalizing to Republicans in general.

Not all Democrats, and certainly not most of the new Democrats (small n, since there's an organziation called New Democrats that is awful) that came in in the '06 "thumpin'". And the example I give is not a small one, nor is it the only one. You can find examples throughout history of the Right Wing being all about increased human msiery, suffering, pain, and death, but really, tjhe past 6 years alone if put in book form would make Stephen King retch.

>
> |> Um, no. "liberals Hate America" is a cheap
> political slogan to appeal
> |> to a base-thinking base. My point about
> misery, sufeirng, pain and
> |> death is based on hisotircal context, research,
> and observation. In
> |> others, I'm just calling it as I see it,
> they're just tyring to make
> |> me look bad. Huge difference.
>
> And your trying to make the people on the right
> look bad by saying they're all evil demons. I
> still don't see how your generalization is any
> different than the "liberals hate America".

I don't need to make them "look" bad. The stuff they actually do is so awful making something up (setting aside the dishoensty for just a moment) would be redundant.

>
> |> |> Then I guess you could neglect the
> fact that it
> |> |> was labor unions (traditionally and
> still are
> |> |> today the liberals) who pushed for
> xenophobic
> |> |> anti-imigration polices. Did I mention
> how some
> |> |> of the anti-free trade arguments are
> at least
> |> |> partially designed to play on people's
> racisim.
> |>
> |> Unfortuantely yes, which is probably why
> thsoe abd bills passed; becuase
> |> racist nutcases were as oppsoed to them
> as rational fair traders like
> |> me were. Sigh. much as one might want to,
> one can't always choose
> |> their allies.
>
> Thats hardly an excuse then.

Well, actually yeah, at least partly.

> Then the same can
> be said with the people on the right having to
> make deals with big business, etc.

Only if you don't get out much. Nobody has to make deals with these people. People can and have gotten ahead without tkaing blood money from the bad corproations, or they have done something decent and only taken money from those corporations out there that don't treat their workers like garbage in roder to save a buck. Costco, Rite Aid, and Ben & Jerry's are the only ones that immediately come to mind, but there are a few others, at least until the anti-American Bush Crime Family lets them get bought out and we see another Robber Barron/Great Depression era. That's another thing about Righties. They have memories like swiss cheese. How else do you explain them repeating so many of the same types of mistkaes ad nauseum and expectin different results, fitting the classic Mark Twain defintion of insanity?

> My main point
> was that whats considered left and right is sometimes
> very blurry.

Is it relaly blurry, or as it simply been blurred by years of the GOP dragging the Center towards the Right, and the mainstream media, so afriad of being called Liberal (as if that necceasarily were a bad thing) goes right along with it?

> Thus using anything that happened
> over 100 years ago, hell even 50 years ago is
> not a good reference point.

That would be true IF the Right Wing wasn't making the same kinds of mistakes. The circumstances may be different, but the results are tragiclaly often the same or even worse.

> Its better to argue
> political issues of today.

That's what I'm doing, I'm just adding something Right Wingers and small children never consider (or want to consdier), and thta's hisotircal context. Facts without context are meaningless. I imagine you're sick of that phrase by now, but I use it so much because it's true.

> How many people are
> alive today that still want to do away with intergration?
> Lets see here: LDH. Thats one. Ok, and then
> theres... um... You get the idea.

She's not alone, she's just more upfront in her beleiefs, which while disgusting, is more honest than people who try to hide their bigotry in flowerly language and buzz phrases like "quotas" and "welfare queens," Right Wing code words for "too many niggers" and "female niggers."

> That is a lie. Just ask all the cities, states, and municipaltieis
> that raised the minimum wage in the years befor eCOngress finally
> got around to doing it nationally that are doing just fine thank you.
> Also check out the Economic Policy Institute. http://www.epinet.org/stmt/economistsminwage200410...

Are you fudging kidding me. Nowhere in this document did they counteract the argument about inflation being CAUSED by raising the minimum wage . Also they conviently forgot to mention that about 50% of all the work force works for small or medium sized business. Forcing small businesses to pay their workers more will drasticlly make them even less competetive when they have to raise prices. Dude, have you been to Walmart lately, where they have those automatic scanners nowadays. Raising the minimum wage will only push for more of those machines, definatly over the long run. Forcing employers to pay their workers more will only cause them to raise prices, thus hurting the consumer. Never mind that if poor people got paid more then the landlords will only take advantage of that situation by rasing prices knowing they can extract more $$ from their tenants. So for every dollar that they get, a few dozen cents out of that will go into higher rent. Even with whatever benefits they gain, raising the minimum wage will help the very poor at the expense of the people who previously made $7-10 an hour.

Ok, now I am not saying that the government should never increase the minimum wage. I think some intervention is reasonable. HOWEVER, it should be done so sparringly, carefully looking at both the ups and the downs. Its ok to disagree with me and be in favor of raising the minimum wage, but good god, at least make a gosh darn effort to understand the arguments against it. Since you don't even know what you're arguing against, I don't even know why I am wasting my time trying to explain the basic laws of economics to you. Dude, just goggle search the terms "deadweight loss", "economic reasoning", "inflation", "supply and demand", "supply and demand charts". If you ever get a chance, dude, seriously, take an intro to economics class. It would explain a lot what I am trying to say.

Like I said eariler, you don't have to agree with anyone; but at least make the effort to understand what you're arguing against, something socialists and communists in general need to do. Just like LJD and to a much lessor extent glassa pretty much ignored what people said and not bothered to understand what is being argued, try understand what is being argued first and then reply to it.




> You're absolutely corect about the pot/terror connection being bullcrap,
> I think we all know that, but DDT IS harmful. So far the only people
> I've heard say otheriwse have been far Right politcos who take money
> from the industries that make that poison.

No, not really. Yes, DDT is harmful, but as it turned out its not as harmful as people made it out to be. My point is people have trumped up how harmful it is. There's conflicting evidence, but no conclusive proof. I am sure its bad for you, just like a lot of other things. There were a lot of studies done on DDT showing it had little or no effect. Gee, I wonder how many of those were conviently sweept into the desk drawer. Face it frosty, the enviornmentalist college-know-it-all hippies are just as dishonest and unrealiable as the large corporations, therefore I have trouble trusting either one. So if you ask me the jury is still out on this one. Its probabbly one of those common mispreceptions, but just because most people believe something to be true doesn't make it so. How long have most people believed that masterbation was gonna kill you?



> So Frankenfoods are okay with you? What's next, soylent green? It
> sounds ridiculous right now but I put nothing past these people.

I think slate wrote on article about this recently. Dude, enough with the conspiracy theories. Seriously, I am begining to start to think the left is just as loony and anti-science as the right-wing nuts. I hope that is not the case. Its one thing to rather error on the side of being overcautious verses erroring on the side of "Frankenfood", but it sounds like a bunch of paranoia to me.




> Funny how people who say that NEVER have an example, whereas I have
> so many examples to cite in debates that people will often tell me
> to shut up once I get started. Yet you've provided none except the
> myth about DDT not being harmful. As for the pot/terror bogus connestion,
> it's not the Liberals who do that, unless you have absolutely no clue
> what a Liberal actually is and you genuinely beleive that they are
> the ones doing that.

I really don't care whose doing the fearmongering. It makes no difference if its comming from the right, the left, the center, the something else. Fearmongering is fearmongering. I could give you a long list if you wish:

-- DDT. I think I allready went over that one.
-- asbestous. While it does kill people who inhale a lot of it, cancer fears about it have been trumped up.
-- those drug commericals. Covered
-- global warming. Yes, its real. But really, I do think the doomsayers are exaggerating the actual threats.
-- hormones in chicken. I have my doubts on that one as well.
-- transfats
-- the fact that theres no conclusive proof that second-hand smoke kills
-- violence in the media causing violence in real life. Boy, I had plenty of arguments over that one.
-- suntanning causing skin cancer. I am sure it does, I just wonder if the numbers had been fudged, you know, just a little.

And don't get me started on any bullcrap that comes out of the New Age Movement. I just roll my eyes every time I hear the word "toxin".



> True, but on average trapped miners aren't reached by rescue workers
> for a day or two.
>

And you're assuming that this won't improve over time as new technology gets invented. GPS devices, AI rescue robots. Its a very hot research topic in engineering and computer science departments.



> OMFG. That is disgusting! Reasonable to give them less than a third
> of what they need to live in the event of an accident, an accident
> which will be more likely now that Bush has appoitned mining company
> shills to MSHA?

Ok, again, tell me what are the logistics of actually carring around a large tank of oxygen? I don't know how much Oxygen weighs and how much the average person uses up a minute. Besides, even if a minor gets trapped, I am sure its still possible to drop some oxygen to them in intervals before they get resued. So giving them more oxygen might streach their window of opportunity. You're really being one sided about this.



> Depends on the economics of the area, but youa re still a cynical
> piece of crap for saying that, as if it justifies things like lax
> safety standards, pitifully little oxygen, forced overtime, and unsafe
> working conditions. Blaming the miners for the deaths among them caused
> by Republcian governmental and social policies is like blaming the
> rape and murder of a pre-teen girl on the victim beucase "if she hadn't
> been so cute the pedophile wouldn't have noticed her."

Anything LJD ever said notwithstanding, this has got to be one of the most retarded arguements I have heard in months. There are jobs out there, McDonalds, construction, WalMart, Burger King, landscaping, etc. Even if you're on the economic bottom, there are always menial jobs out there. But guess what, I am pretty sure mining pays considerally more than McDonalds (and rightfully so), because few people will take such a dangerous job. Unlike rape victims, these men know what they were getting into and made a concious choice, preferring to make more money while taking a higher risk. Had the employers improved the safty standards, more people would be willing to do the job, therefore they would save money by having to pay their workers less. Google search "law of supply". Hell, didn't LongHaulTrucker say he earned a lot of money. His job was tough, with lots of overtime, possibly unsafe; which is the reason why he ultimately quit. Seriously, you would compare a rape victim to someone who took their job volentary. I am sure the women's rights groups would love to hear your elequent argument on that one. I just hope you have a good health insurance plan that covers bodilly injury.



> Mining accidents are up. Look it up. Corproations have decided it
> would cost less to just occasionally pay off victims families then
> to take the measures neccesary to prevent the disatsers in the first
> place. Corproations generally don't think much further ahead than
> the next fiscal quarter. Next time you satrt to get back into this
> mind set you're in now about "Well corporations would never do something
> so callous as deliebratley ignroe their consumers safety," talk to
> John Edwards. Ask him about that little girl he represented in court
> whose intenstines were sucked out becuase one of your beloved corporations
> wouldn't spend $00.5 on an extra screw for their pool pumps.
>

And now, what would be the reason for mining accidents going up? More mining work being done, possible statistical fluke? Also, considering the millions of dollar lawsuits that come with wrongful death verdicts, I am trying to imagine why would a corporation let it happen. Lets do some math here. That girl's parents probabbly got say $10 million. So for it to be worth it, they would have to save on 20 million screws ($10 mill / ($0.5 / screw) = 20 mill screws). Its not JUST that one pool pump, its millions of pools. With mining accidents, for all the costs the companies have to worry about, I am sure theres a lot of cost saving that makes it worth while. If after the multi-million dollar lawsuits they still see it worth it, what does that tell you. Its so easy for you to be so one sided about this, you even haven't bothered it see it from the other sides point of view. You really don't think the increased safty standards on the workers won't come out of their paychecks, assuming those BIG EVIL corporations can afford to implement them in the first place.



> Not all Democrats, and certainly not most of the new Democrats (small
> n, since there's an organziation called New Democrats that is awful)
> that came in in the '06 "thumpin'". And the example I give is not
> a small one, nor is it the only one. You can find examples throughout
> history of the Right Wing being all about increased human msiery,
> suffering, pain, and death, but really, tjhe past 6 years alone if
> put in book form would make Stephen King retch.

Like I said earlier, define "Right Wing" and then define "Left Wing." So far its been the Democrats who were against integration, were it not?




> I don't need to make them "look" bad. The stuff they actually do is
> so awful making something up (setting aside the dishoensty for just
> a moment) would be redundant.

My point still stands. How is "the Right Wing hates humanity" any different than "Liberals hate America." Its the SAME ARGUEMENT, except in reverse. And it is true, MOST people who hate America are liberals. And no, I am NOT saying most liberals hate America, I am saying most people who hate America are liberals (two different things). Certainly a lot of the ones on the fringe are, you're not one of them. On that note, MOST people who DILIBRATLY cause human suffering probabbly are conservatives. I give you that one. But thats not the same thing as most conservatives dilibrarly causing mass human suffering. As I said before, try concentrating on attacking people's arguments, not the people themselves. Otherwise you look foolish.




> Is it relaly blurry, or as it simply been blurred by years of the
> GOP dragging the Center towards the Right, and the mainstream media,
> so afriad of being called Liberal (as if that necceasarily were a
> bad thing) goes right along with it?

Ok whatever. You're obviously missed my point. I was point out that left/right wing isn't linear and sometimes its hard to figure out what constitutes a liberal policy from a conservative policy. You're still looking at it linearly.



> That would be true IF the Right Wing wasn't making the same kinds
> of mistakes. The circumstances may be different, but the results are
> tragiclaly often the same or even worse.

Again, what party was it that opposed the Civil Rights Movement, up until Nixon started running for office? Which party were all the segragationists in the South?



> That's what I'm doing, I'm just adding something Right Wingers and
> small children never consider (or want to consdier), and thta's hisotircal
> context. Facts without context are meaningless. I imagine you're sick
> of that phrase by now, but I use it so much because it's true.

In historical context, its very hard to determine which policies qualify as liberal and which ones classify as conservative. Since we're talking about present day politics, arguing over policies that have been settled decades ago are pretty much moot. How many woman who couldn't vote simply because they're woman are still alive today (I doubt that many). How many ex-slave owners are still alive today? I rest my case.



> She's not alone, she's just more upfront in her beleiefs, which while
> disgusting, is more honest than people who try to hide their bigotry
> in flowerly language and buzz phrases like "quotas" and "welfare queens,"
> Right Wing code words for "too many niggers" and "female niggers."

I guess if you can make this kind of a stretch, you can argue just about anything.

>
> |> That is a lie. Just ask all the cities,
> states, and municipaltieis
> |> that raised the minimum wage in the years
> befor eCOngress finally
> |> got around to doing it nationally that are
> doing just fine thank you.
> |> Also check out the Economic Policy Institute.
> http://www.epinet.org/stmt/economistsminwage200410...
>
> Are you fudging kidding me. Nowhere in this document
> did they counteract the argument about inflation
> being CAUSED by raising the minimum wage . Also
> they conviently forgot to mention that about 50%
> of all the work force works for small or medium
> sized business.

Cite your source. in other words, I showed you mine...

> Forcing small businesses to pay
> their workers more will drasticlly make them even
> less competetive when they have to raise prices.

Wrong. Dude, it's being going on at the city level for years, get over it.

> Dude, have you been to Walmart lately, where
> they have those automatic scanners nowadays.

I don't go to Wal-Mart, or as a wonderuflly snarky Harry Potter fan once described it to me, Volde-Mart.

> Raising the minimum wage will only push for more
> of those machines, definatly over the long run.

Only in the sense that coproate bastards will do anything to avoid having to actually pay their workers anything. Given free reign thesse butt-holes would brign back child slavery and indentured servitude. And the GOP would be all for that if they could find some way to say we have to do it or else gays will take over.

> Forcing employers to pay their workers more
> will only cause them to raise prices, thus hurting
> the consumer.

I've ehar dthis argument made, and debunked so many tiems over my eyes just corssed reading it again.

> Never mind that if poor people
> got paid more then the landlords will only take
> advantage of that situation by rasing prices knowing
> they can extract more $$ from their tenants.

That is called extortion.

> So for every dollar that they get, a few dozen
> cents out of that will go into higher rent.
> Even with whatever benefits they gain, raising
> the minimum wage will help the very poor at the
> expense of the people who previously made $7-10
> an hour.

All lies, as demonstrated by the regions of the country where the minmum wage had bene higher than the national for years and theya re doing quite fine. I again refer you to Santa Fe, NM.

> Ok, now I am not saying that the government should
> never increase the minimum wage. I think some
> intervention is reasonable. HOWEVER, it should
> be done so sparringly, carefully looking at both
> the ups and the downs. Its ok to disagree with
> me and be in favor of raising the minimum wage,
> but good god, at least make a gosh darn effort
> to understand the arguments against it.

I do, and they are wrong. I've been following this topic for as long as I've been working (almost 7 years now).

> Since
> you don't even know what you're arguing against,
> I don't even know why I am wasting my time trying
> to explain the basic laws of economics to you.
> Dude, just goggle search the terms "deadweight
> loss", "economic reasoning", "inflation", "supply
> and demand", "supply and demand charts". If
> you ever get a chance, dude, seriously, take an
> intro to economics class. It would explain a
> lot what I am trying to say.

Again, real world examples prove you wrong.

> Like I said eariler, you don't have to agree with
> anyone; but at least make the effort to understand
> what you're arguing against, something socialists
> and communists in general need to do. Just like
> LJD and to a much lessor extent glassa pretty
> much ignored what people said and not bothered
> to understand what is being argued, try understand
> what is being argued first and then reply to it.

I did. I made a case and you repeated old Right Wign rhetoric as the reply. I guess I could call you a Knee-Jerk Off.

> |> You're absolutely corect about the pot/terror
> connection being bullcrap,
> |> I think we all know that, but DDT IS harmful.
> So far the only people
> |> I've heard say otheriwse have been far Right
> politcos who take money
> |> from the industries that make that poison.
>
> No, not really. Yes, DDT is harmful, but as it
> turned out its not as harmful as people made it
> out to be. My point is people have trumped up
> how harmful it is. There's conflicting evidence,
> but no conclusive proof. I am sure its bad for
> you, just like a lot of other things. There were
> a lot of studies done on DDT showing it had little
> or no effect.

Funded by whom I ask?

> were conviently sweept into the desk drawer.
> Face it frosty, the enviornmentalist college-know-it-all
> hippies are just as dishonest and unrealiable
> as the large corporations, therefore I have trouble
> trusting either one.

Even though one is paid to lie to you and the other deicated to finding the truth? When did false equivalency become okay in this country?

> So if you ask me the jury
> is still out on this one. Its probabbly one of
> those common mispreceptions, but just because
> most people believe something to be true doesn't
> make it so. How long have most people believed
> that masterbation was gonna kill you?

Fasle equivalnecy again; something that ahs never bene proven versus something that has been rpoven repeatedly.

> |> So Frankenfoods are okay with you? What's
> next, soylent green? It
> |> sounds ridiculous right now but I put nothing
> past these people.
>
> I think slate wrote on article about this recently.
> Dude, enough with the conspiracy theories. Seriously,
> I am begining to start to think the left is just
> as loony and anti-science as the right-wing nuts.

You'd be thinking wrong then. Oh, and please, stop using the phrase "conspriacy theorist" the way old racist whites use the word nigger okay? Conspiracies do happen. All the time. very day. By deifntion, a suprirse birthday party is a "conspiracy." America was founded by a conspiracy. Stop turning it into a dirty word. It reeks of Orwellian langauge manipulation.

> I hope that is not the case. Its one thing to
> rather error on the side of being overcautious
> verses erroring on the side of "Frankenfood",
> but it sounds like a bunch of paranoia to me.

Given what;s gone on in this country over the past 20 years, I'm amazed people aren't more paranoid. You really trust these big comapnies genetically modifying stuff that we EAT? Well you're a braver man than me. I bet you could even swim naked with sharks with an unheald paper cut with stones like that.

> Funny how people who say that NEVER have
> an example, whereas I have
> |> so many examples to cite in debates that
> people will often tell me
> |> to shut up once I get started. Yet you've
> provided none except the
> |> myth about DDT not being harmful. As for
> the pot/terror bogus connestion,
> |> it's not the Liberals who do that, unless
> you have absolutely no clue
> |> what a Liberal actually is and you genuinely
> beleive that they are
> |> the ones doing that.
>
> I really don't care whose doing the fearmongering.

Your mistkae is to call it fearmongering.

> It makes no difference if its comming from the
> right, the left, the center, the something else.
> Fearmongering is fearmongering. I could give
> you a long list if you wish:
>
> -- DDT. I think I allready went over that one.

Barely.

> -- asbestous. While it does kill people who
> inhale a lot of it, cancer fears about it have
> been trumped up.

Accoridng to whom? Dick Cheney and the companies that make the crap. Try again ass face.

> -- those drug commericals. Covered

Agreed.

> -- global warming. Yes, its real. But really,
> I do think the doomsayers are exaggerating the
> actual threats.

People said the same thing about Cassandra.

> -- hormones in chicken. I have my doubts on
> that one as well.

Get out more.

> -- transfats

Read.

> -- the fact that theres no conclusive proof that
> second-hand smoke kills

If there wer j sutice, all the poeple who never smoked a day in their life but got tobacoo related lung cancer and died would claw out of the grave and go Dawn of the Dead on your butt.

> -- violence in the media causing violence
> in real life. Boy, I had plenty of arguments
> over that one.

This we also agree on mostly. I think the media violence contributes ONLY becasue of our repressed culture. Laid back cultures like Canda show movies like our sall the time but have never had someone inspired by it to kill.

> -- suntanning causing skin cancer. I am sure
> it does, I just wonder if the numbers had been
> fudged, you know, just a little.

Base don waht? A gut feleing? Dude, skin cancer rates have gone up sicne we started destroying the ozone.

> And don't get me started on any bullcrap that
> comes out of the New Age Movement. I just roll
> my eyes every time I hear the word "toxin".

Toxins are real crap head. If you doubt that, just have your cat waltz over and crap on your hot dog before youe at it and see what happnes. That's not liberal media bias making you sick. That's TOXINS.

> |> True, but on average trapped miners aren't
> reached by rescue workers
> |> for a day or two.
> |>
> And you're assuming that this won't improve over
> time as new technology gets invented.

No, you're being a dick. I'm talking about the here and now where miners need mroe than they are getting, but Right Wingers are putting their donor's banka cocutns ahead of hard working Americans.

> GPS devices,
> AI rescue robots. Its a very hot research topic
> in engineering and computer science departments.
>
And it will all mean dick if the mining industry is allowed to continue to police themselves. Only a Pollyanna about the world would trust that the CEOs of mining companies would ivnest in any of this stuff. They don't care about life. if they did, they woul follow the safety rules wouldn't they.

> |> OMFG. That is disgusting! Reasonable to
> give them less than a third
> |> of what they need to live in the event of
> an accident, an accident
> |> which will be more likely now that Bush
> has appoitned mining company
> |> shills to MSHA?
>
> Ok, again, tell me what are the logistics of actually
> carring around a large tank of oxygen? I don't
> know how much Oxygen weighs and how much the average
> person uses up a minute. Besides, even if a minor
> gets trapped, I am sure its still possible to
> drop some oxygen to them in intervals before they
> get resued. So giving them more oxygen might
> streach their window of opportunity. You're really
> being one sided about this.

I'm being one sided? You're making excuses for de facto murderers. The oxygen isn't in tanks on their backs, it's in the areas of the mine set up for miners to go in the event of a collapse if they can make it, and these "rooms" are the ones that need more oxygen, but the Right Wing would ratehr let people suffocate than spend a few extra bucks. Increased human misery, suffering, pain, and death.

> |> Depends on the economics of the area, but
> youa re still a cynical
> |> piece of crap for saying that, as if it
> justifies things like lax
> |> safety standards, pitifully little oxygen,
> forced overtime, and unsafe
> |> working conditions. Blaming the miners for
> the deaths among them caused
> |> by Republcian governmental and social policies
> is like blaming the
> |> rape and murder of a pre-teen girl on the
> victim beucase "if she hadn't
> |> been so cute the pedophile wouldn't have
> noticed her."
>
> Anything LJD ever said notwithstanding, this has
> got to be one of the most retarded arguements
> I have heard in months. There are jobs out there,
> McDonalds, construction, WalMart, Burger King,
> landscaping, etc. Even if you're on the economic
> bottom, there are always menial jobs out there.

You don't get it. You relaly thinke veryone is truly free and has a choice 100% of the time. Well they don't. I've never lived in a mining town, but I know epopel who do. Unless you can get a scholarship, or know somebody who knows somebody, the mine is where you are going to end up.

> But guess what, I am pretty sure mining pays
> considerally more than McDonalds (and rightfully
> so), because few people will take such a dangerous
> job. Unlike rape victims, these men know what
> they were getting into and made a concious choice,
> preferring to make more money while taking a higher
> risk.

And to sue that to justify providing proper safety standards is disgusting. I stand by my intial statement.

> Had the employers improved the safty standards,
> more people would be willing to do the job, therefore
> they would save money by having to pay their workers
> less. Google search "law of supply". Hell, didn't
> LongHaulTrucker say he earned a lot of money.
> His job was tough, with lots of overtime, possibly
> unsafe; which is the reason why he ultimately
> quit. Seriously, you would compare a rape victim
> to someone who took their job volentary. I am
> sure the women's rights groups would love to hear
> your elequent argument on that one.

Your ignorance of the real world astounds me, it really does. You sound like a gosh darn computer when you talk like this. I guess for you it's better that people die unneccesarily than a big corporation have to actually pay their workers, who they shoudlt ahnk eveyr day for having, a decent enough wage that they can fee dthier families or care for their kids when they get sick. You and the other Right Wing evil fasicsts who really need to either die or find another plant on the other ahnd look at it this way; "You want a health care one? Here's ours; don't get sick."

> I just hope
> you have a good health insurance plan that covers
> bodilly injury.

Yeah, liek that'll happen in a for profit health care system.

> |> Mining accidents are up. Look it up. Corproations
> have decided it
> |> would cost less to just occasionally pay
> off victims families then
> |> to take the measures neccesary to prevent
> the disatsers in the first
> |> place. Corproations generally don't think
> much further ahead than
> |> the next fiscal quarter. Next time you satrt
> to get back into this
> |> mind set you're in now about "Well corporations
> would never do something
> |> so callous as deliebratley ignroe their
> consumers safety," talk to
> |> John Edwards. Ask him about that little
> girl he represented in court
> |> whose intenstines were sucked out becuase
> one of your beloved corporations
> |> wouldn't spend $00.5 on an extra screw for
> their pool pumps.
> |>
>
> And now, what would be the reason for mining accidents
> going up? More mining work being done, possible
> statistical fluke? Also, considering the millions
> of dollar lawsuits that come with wrongful death
> verdicts, I am trying to imagine why would a corporation
> let it happen.

It does. Cursory research will turn it up.

> Lets do some math here. That
> girl's parents probabbly got say $10 million.
> So for it to be worth it, they would have to
> save on 20 million screws ($10 mill / ($0.5 /
> screw) = 20 mill screws). Its not JUST that one
> pool pump, its millions of pools. With mining
> accidents, for all the costs the companies have
> to worry about, I am sure theres a lot of cost
> saving that makes it worth while. If after the
> multi-million dollar lawsuits they still see it
> worth it, what does that tell you. Its so easy
> for you to be so one sided about this, you even
> haven't bothered it see it from the other sides
> point of view. You really don't think the increased
> safty standards on the workers won't come out
> of their paychecks, assuming those BIG EVIL corporations
> can afford to implement them in the first place.

Here's the facts. It took me all of 3 minutes to find them.

On June 24, 1993, Valerie Lakey was playing in a wading pool at the Medfield Area Recreation Club in Wake County, NC (a few miles down the road from where I live in Raleigh). The drain cover on the only suction outlet in the pool had been removed sometime previously, probably by other children earlier that day. When Valerie approached the uncovered outlet, the suction was strong enough to pull her down and suck 80% of her small intestine and 50-70% of her large intestine out through her anus. Four adults could not free her until the pool's pumps had been turned off. It sounds like some kind of urban legend but it's not. It's happened multiple times, actually.

Valerie survived, but has to spend 12 -14 hours (often 7pm to 7am) being fed by a tube in her chest dripping nutrients into her body. The expensive procedure will probably be required for the rest of her life, among other medical treatment. Her parents sued the club, the county, the maker of the pool's circulation pump and Sta-Rite, the manufacturer of the missing drain cover, with the help of John Edwards and his partner David Kirby. The first three defendants settled before trial for a total of $5.9 million. Sta-Rite, a subsidiary of the Wisconsin Energy Corporation, offered $100,000. The Lakeys declined and the case went to a jury. Here's how the Washington Monthly described what happened next:

...[Edwards] discovered that 12 other children had suffered similar injuries from Sta-Rite drains. The company raised its offer to $1.25 million. Two weeks into the trial, they upped the figure to $8.5 million. Edwards declined the offer and asked for their insurance policy limit of $22.5 million. The day before the trial resumed from Christmas break, Sta-Rite countered with $17.5 million. Again, Edwards said no...the jury found Sta-Rite guilty and liable for $25 million in economic damages (by state law, punitive damages could have tripled that amount). The company immediately settled for $25 million, the largest verdict in state history.

The Lakeys accepted the settlement in January 1997, giving up the potentially massive punitive damages the jury could have awarded in exchange for Sta-Rite's waiving of appeals that could have gone on for years. The jury award thus wouldn't have been affected by punitive damage caps, even as the settlement broke records and made Edwards a fortune - an interesting twist to the trial lawyer discussion. Most of the judgment was paid by Zurich, Sta-Rite's insurance company, but not before Zurich's failure to honor Edwards' request for the $22.5 million policy limit resulted in Sta-rite filing its own lawsuit.

In other words, the corporation ended up paying more yes, but only because unlike most American families the Lakey's didn't just accept the hush money beign offered them. And that was what I was talking about when I said that Corproations have decided it would cost less to just occasionally pay off victims families then to take the measures neccesary to prevent the disatsers in the first place.

> |> Not all Democrats, and certainly not most
> of the new Democrats (small
> |> n, since there's an organziation called
> New Democrats that is awful)
> |> that came in in the '06 "thumpin'". And
> the example I give is not
> |> a small one, nor is it the only one. You
> can find examples throughout
> |> history of the Right Wing being all about
> increased human msiery,
> |> suffering, pain, and death, but really,
> tjhe past 6 years alone if
> |> put in book form would make Stephen King
> retch.
>
> Like I said earlier, define "Right Wing" and then
> define "Left Wing." So far its been the Democrats
> who were against integration, were it not?

Now I know you're a fudging moron. You know how I like to say that facts without cotnext are meaningless? Well, while it is true that a large number of Dems voted against the 1964 civil rights act, against intergreation, guess what party most of them (execpt for now reitred Zell Miller and now liberal Senator Byrd) joined after wards. Give you a hint; their name satrts with an R and they have a large tusked animal as their mascot.

> |> I don't need to make them "look" bad. The
> stuff they actually do is
> |> so awful making something up (setting aside
> the dishoensty for just
> |> a moment) would be redundant.
>
> My point still stands. How is "the Right Wing
> hates humanity" any different than "Liberals hate
> America." Its the SAME ARGUEMENT, except in reverse.

Again, it is not the same because one is generally speaking true and the other generally speaking a lie. Not the same. not, the, samne. N-O-T space T-H-E space S-A-M-E exclamation point.

> And it is true, MOST people who hate America
> are liberals.

No it isn't, but keep trying Eichman.

> And no, I am NOT saying most liberals
> hate America, I am saying most people who hate
> America are liberals (two different things).

Which is a lie again, you sick pathetic fudge.

> Certainly a lot of the ones on the fringe are,
> you're not one of them. On that note, MOST people
> who DILIBRATLY cause human suffering probabbly
> are conservatives. I give you that one. But
> thats not the same thing as most conservatives
> dilibrarly causing mass human suffering. As I
> said before, try concentrating on attacking people's
> arguments, not the people themselves. Otherwise
> you look foolish.

Oh and you didn;'t just now with your neo-nazi propagada about Liberals hating America? Only if you define tyring to fix it's flaws so it can live up to ti's potetnial as hatred, but by that defintion, teachers hate their students, coaches hate their players, and artists hate their successes. Well okay maybe that last one was a bad example, plenty of artists have hated thing sthat their fans thought were awesome.

> |> Is it relaly blurry, or as it simply been
> blurred by years of the
> |> GOP dragging the Center towards the Right,
> and the mainstream media,
> |> so afriad of being called Liberal (as if
> that necceasarily were a
> |> bad thing) goes right along with it?
>
> Ok whatever. You're obviously missed my point.
> I was point out that left/right wing isn't linear
> and sometimes its hard to figure out what constitutes
> a liberal policy from a conservative policy.
> You're still looking at it linearly.
>
> |> That would be true IF the Right Wing wasn't
> making the same kinds
> |> of mistakes. The circumstances may be different,
> but the results are
> |> tragiclaly often the same or even worse.
>
> Again, what party was it that opposed the Civil
> Rights Movement, up until Nixon started running
> for office? Which party were all the segragationists
> in the South?

The self-described Dixiecrats who nearly all became Republicans after the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights act. Again, you lie by removing context. You are just a sad little man aren't you?

> |> That's what I'm doing, I'm just adding something
> Right Wingers and
> |> small children never consider (or want to
> consdier), and thta's hisotircal
> |> context. Facts without context are meaningless.
> I imagine you're sick
> |> of that phrase by now, but I use it so much
> because it's true.
>
> In historical context, its very hard to determine
> which policies qualify as liberal and which ones
> classify as conservative. Since we're talking
> about present day politics, arguing over policies
> that have been settled decades ago are pretty
> much moot. How many woman who couldn't vote simply
> because they're woman are still alive today (I
> doubt that many). How many ex-slave owners are
> still alive today? I rest my case.

That is a really stupid arguemnt. I could just as easily say "How many nazi war criminals are still alive? Why should we be brining up the Holocaust for any reason?"

> |> She's not alone, she's just more upfront
> in her beleiefs, which while
> |> disgusting, is more honest than people who
> try to hide their bigotry
> |> in flowerly language and buzz phrases like
> "quotas" and "welfare queens,"
> |> Right Wing code words for "too many niggers"
> and "female niggers."
>
> I guess if you can make this kind of a stretch,
> you can argue just about anything.

> Cite your source. in other words, I showed you mine...

I've took 6 hours of economics and 3 hours of business. All my professors pretty much said my point in class. I guess if I had a tape recorder and taped the lecture and put it up on youtube just for you I would have given you the link. But alas, I didn't have the forsight to predict that I would be have a flamewar over the subject, so my bad. I've also googled searched a lot about economics and how it relates to everyday life, and I did something unprecidented, I ACTUALLY read my text book, along with all the graphs. Dude, just like evolution, economic theory has been pretty much proven.



> Wrong. Dude, it's being going on at the city level for years, get
> over it.

I guess in CERTAIN cities, where inflation and the cost of living is so high that jobs that pay at the minimum wage are fairly rare, rasing it won't have a major impact.


> don't go to Wal-Mart, or as a wonderuflly snarky Harry Potter fan
> once described it to me, Volde-Mart.
>

Then no wonder your always complaining about not getting a LIVING wage. You shop at more expensive places where you could get the same crap for a lot cheaper. Funny how the people who always dog about how the cost of living is raising are usually the ones who avoid Walmart. The cost of things in Walmart haven't really gone up by that much as compared to the smaller stores. Like I said earlier, if you want to measure inflation, whose basket are you going by? Cities that let Walmarts in are doing just fine.



> Only in the sense that coproate bastards will do anything to avoid
> having to actually pay their workers anything. Given free reign thesse
> butt-holes would brign back child slavery and indentured servitude.
> And the GOP would be all for that if they could find some way to say
> we have to do it or else gays will take over.

Regardless of how you feel about jobs being lost because those scanner things were invented, its gonna happen regardless whether you like it or not. Forcing stores to pay their workers higher wages will only accelerate that process. You can call them evil corporate bastards all you want, but its not going to change the fact that more jobs will be lost if the minimum wage gets raised when you can just replace them cheap robots, at least over the long run. The same thing had happened with those old switchboards. Literally tens of thousands of jobs were lost (most of them women employees) when phone companies figuered it would be cheaper to electroniclly switch calls. Yet the number of women employed today is much higher than in 1950, and yet our unemployment rate is about the same as during around 1950's. Even with bellhoppers, another useless job. Should we bring back bellhoppers to help us press buttons going up the elevators?

And btw, thats actually a ligitimate argument in favor of increasing the minimum wage. By forcing companies to pay their employees more, they will simply fire all the workers that do the jobs that a monkey (or robot) can do, because its cheaper, and then if the government steps in and pays them enough unemployment, they can use that free time to learn a new skill. Over the long haul things will get better but sometimes things have to get a lot worse before they get better. Also, when the government stepped in to force free public education, things have improved a lot. Which the liberals were responsible.

I am in no way a spokesman for the GOP since I actually agree with the left on some issues and I DO believe that sometimes the government should step in. I am not 100% libertarian by a long shot. I am simply pointing out that generally speaking, when the government steps in and starts to regulate industries, MOST of the time things turn to crap.

See, thats the difference between conservatives and liberals (of today). Convervatives would rather error on the side of not enough intervention but the liberals would rather error on the side of too much intervention. Off course, duh, the whole point is not to error in the first place. Frosty, its ok to be a liberal. Theres nothing wrong with being liberal. Thats fine AS LONG AS you are will admit that you would rather error on the side of too much government intervention than not enough government intervention. Where you went wrong is how you conviently ignore all the bad things that government intervention did. If you're going to argue your case in favor of liberals, at least have the balls to take in the bad with the good.



>
> |> Forcing employers to pay their workers more
> |> will only cause them to raise prices, thus hurting
> |> the consumer.
>
> I've ehar dthis argument made, and debunked so many tiems over my
> eyes just corssed reading it again.
>

Debunked by whom? Socialist progoganda websites. Your statement defies common sense. How do I argue with someone who won't even acknoledge basic economics.




> |> Never mind that if poor people
> |> got paid more then the landlords will only take
> |> advantage of that situation by rasing prices knowing
> |> they can extract more $$ from their tenants.
>
> That is called extortion.

I agree. But my point is that it will happen. Its called the real world. As long as the same people are competing for the same limited resource (in this case rent), the prices will be determined by how much the highest bidders are willing to pay, especially when you consider how price inelastic something like rent is. So for every dollar or so the poor will get, about 60 cents (my guestamite) of that or so will get eaten up by higher rent costs.

Also heres a guestion I got for you: if you increase the wages from $5.25 to $7.00, then wouldn't the wages for the people that allready make $7.00 would go up as well. And then the people who make like $8 an hour will want maybe $9. Explain to me how will that not cause inflation.




> All lies, as demonstrated by the regions of the country where the
> minmum wage had bene higher than the national for years and theya
> re doing quite fine. I again refer you to Santa Fe, NM.

You obviously haven't heard my arugment. Yes, they're doing FINE, you could say that, just like the people who live in places that didn't raise minimum wage, because the cost of living isn't unbearable in places that didn't raise their minimum wage. Anyway, inflation is a problem that will kick in over the long run. The imediate effects won't be felt until some time later in the future, but by then the people will simply dog to raise the minimum wage even more. Thus a vicious cycle.




> Again, real world examples prove you wrong.
>

No not really. You must be really dilutional not to see it. Economic theory of supply and demand is real. I've seen it for myself.



> Funded by whom I ask?
>

Using one of your arguments against you, a lot of countries didn't ban DDT and they did ok. Theres actually a big discussion about it somewheres. I'll go look for the link.




> Even though one is paid to lie to you and the other deicated to finding
> the truth? When did false equivalency become okay in this country?
>

I tend to be very suspicious to anyone "dedicated to finding the truth". Whats usually code phrase for "I am so over-zelous for my cause that I will look for evidence to support my alarmist thesis rather than look for evidence first and THEN make the conclusion."





> You'd be thinking wrong then. Oh, and please, stop using the phrase
> "conspriacy theorist" the way old racist whites use the word nigger
> okay? Conspiracies do happen. All the time. very day. By deifntion,
> a suprirse birthday party is a "conspiracy." America was founded by
> a conspiracy. Stop turning it into a dirty word. It reeks of Orwellian
> langauge manipulation.
>

Ok, I apoligize. Allow me to be more specific and less general. From now on, instead of using the phrase "conspiracy theory" I will use "crackpot conspiracy theory" to specify more precisly what I mean. My bad.



> Given what;s gone on in this country over the past 20 years, I'm amazed
> people aren't more paranoid. You really trust these big comapnies
> genetically modifying stuff that we EAT? Well you're a braver man
> than me. I bet you could even swim naked with sharks with an unheald
> paper cut with stones like that.

Wow, isn't it amazing how the more things change, the more they stay the same? People have for centuries been predicting that the earth was doomed. Everytime a radically new technology gets invented, there are always luddites yelling "the sky is falling." The human race has survived two world wars, the burbanic plauge (result of human activity btw), the Cold War, European imprealism, epic wars in ancient times, France verses England battles, Viking attacks, you name it; and yet we're still alive. So tell me brian, why do you hippie libs hate the present so much? If you hate present day America so much, in the words of the pro-war redneck, "you can just geeeehht ouuuut". If you libs hate the present so much, maybe we should all build you a time machine and send you back to the 1400's. Then you can live peacefully in an era where the world climate was over 0.5 degress Celius lower than it is today, no artificial chemicals in your food, and best of all, not corporations. And while you're at it, do all of us a favor and take LJD with you, since she'd probabbly be happier in the past just as well. Have fun spending your last 4 years of your life vacationing in the past, since I hear their lifespan is around 28.




> |> -- the fact that theres no conclusive proof that
> |> second-hand smoke kills
>
> If there wer j sutice, all the poeple who never smoked a day in their
> life but got tobacoo related lung cancer and died would claw out of
> the grave and go Dawn of the Dead on your butt.
>

ok, I am not talking about people who live in a closed enviornment where the smoke just sits there and acumulates. I am talking about if someone smokes a cigarette close by and you walk by.




> Base don waht? A gut feleing? Dude, skin cancer rates have gone up
> sicne we started destroying the ozone.

The hole in the ozone is the cause of the way the earth tilts. The hole actually accumulate over the poles because of gravitational spin. Skin cancer rates go up I guess because perhaps theres more people alive today than in the past, possibly because cancer in general goes up. I guess that might be due to people, you know, living longer, so that they actually die of cancer because they don't die of something else sooner. Nevermind how the CFCs causing ozone depletion to be trumped up.



>
> |> And don't get me started on any bullcrap that
> |> comes out of the New Age Movement. I just roll
> |> my eyes every time I hear the word "toxin".
>
> Toxins are real crap head. If you doubt that, just have your cat waltz
> over and crap on your hot dog before youe at it and see what happnes.
> That's not liberal media bias making you sick. That's TOXINS.
>

I am talking about a different kind of toxins, those kinds that the New Agers think they can flush out of your system.

Stan Marsh from South Park: has anybody actually seen a toxin?
his mom (or some New Age hippie): now Stan, don't be such a smartass





> I'm being one sided? You're making excuses for de facto murderers.
> The oxygen isn't in tanks on their backs, it's in the areas of the
> mine set up for miners to go in the event of a collapse if they can
> make it, and these "rooms" are the ones that need more oxygen, but
> the Right Wing would ratehr let people suffocate than spend a few
> extra bucks. Increased human misery, suffering, pain, and death.
>

A few extra bucks? So its true then, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Considering the amount of money it costs the companies whenever somebody dies. Think workers compensation, potential lawsuits, PR damage, the cost to train new workers, you name it. If you don't think that people dieing on their watch hurts their wallet you really are dense. Not to mention people dieing on their property brings in the government regulators. Enough dead bodies and even the GOP will intervene. The mining companies have every incentive for their workers not to die. If the companies know whats good for them and want to continue to police themselves and have the government safty nazis off their backs, they have every reason in the world to avoid accidents like the plague. Do you honestly don't think that introducting new safty standards will come out of the workers paychecks?




> You don't get it. You relaly thinke veryone is truly free and has
> a choice 100% of the time. Well they don't. I've never lived in a
> mining town, but I know epopel who do. Unless you can get a scholarship,
> or know somebody who knows somebody, the mine is where you are going
> to end up.

No, not 100%. More like 80-90%. To get out of a mining town, all you need is a car, or know someone with a car, and take a chance to live somewhere else. Hell, you can even take a Grayhound bus. If you're young, don't have kids yet; as they say "go West young man." I guess if you never take risks and want to live in the same town for the rest of your life, you might not get any job other than a mining job.



> And to sue that to justify providing proper safety standards is disgusting.
> I stand by my intial statement.
>

ok, whatever. A person would have to be pretty thick not to understand the risks that come with their jobs. EVERY job, ever, has some risk involved. The idea is to minimize the risk by a reasonable amount. Sorry if what YOU consider reasonable is too high a standard to what the free market calls for.




> Your ignorance of the real world astounds me, it really does. You
> sound like a gosh darn computer when you talk like this. I guess for
> you it's better that people die unneccesarily than a big corporation
> have to actually pay their workers, who they shoudlt ahnk eveyr day
> for having, a decent enough wage that they can fee dthier families
> or care for their kids when they get sick. You and the other Right
> Wing evil fasicsts who really need to either die or find another plant
> on the other ahnd look at it this way; "You want a health care one?
> Here's ours; don't get sick."
>

I won't bother with such a flaggerant knee jerk reaction from you.





> Here's the facts. It took me all of 3 minutes to find them.
>
> On June 24, 1993, Valerie Lakey was playing in a wading pool at the
> Medfield Area Recreation Club in Wake County, NC (a few miles down
> the road from where I live in Raleigh). The drain cover on the only
> suction outlet in the pool had been removed sometime previously, probably
> by other children earlier that day. When Valerie approached the uncovered
> outlet, the suction was strong enough to pull her down and suck 80%
> of her small intestine and 50-70% of her large intestine out through
> her anus. Four adults could not free her until the pool's pumps had
> been turned off. It sounds like some kind of urban legend but it's
> not. It's happened multiple times, actually.
>
> Valerie survived, but has to spend 12 -14 hours (often 7pm to 7am)
> being fed by a tube in her chest dripping nutrients into her body.
> The expensive procedure will probably be required for the rest of
> her life, among other medical treatment. Her parents sued the club,
> the county, the maker of the pool's circulation pump and Sta-Rite,
> the manufacturer of the missing drain cover, with the help of John
> Edwards and his partner David Kirby. The first three defendants settled
> before trial for a total of $5.9 million. Sta-Rite, a subsidiary of
> the Wisconsin Energy Corporation, offered $100,000. The Lakeys declined
> and the case went to a jury. Here's how the Washington Monthly described
> what happened next:
>
> ...[Edwards] discovered that 12 other children had suffered similar
> injuries from Sta-Rite drains. The company raised its offer to $1.25
> million. Two weeks into the trial, they upped the figure to $8.5 million.
> Edwards declined the offer and asked for their insurance policy limit
> of $22.5 million. The day before the trial resumed from Christmas
> break, Sta-Rite countered with $17.5 million. Again, Edwards said
> no...the jury found Sta-Rite guilty and liable for $25 million in
> economic damages (by state law, punitive damages could have tripled
> that amount). The company immediately settled for $25 million, the
> largest verdict in state history.
>
> The Lakeys accepted the settlement in January 1997, giving up the
> potentially massive punitive damages the jury could have awarded in
> exchange for Sta-Rite's waiving of appeals that could have gone on
> for years. The jury award thus wouldn't have been affected by punitive
> damage caps, even as the settlement broke records and made Edwards
> a fortune - an interesting twist to the trial lawyer discussion. Most
> of the judgment was paid by Zurich, Sta-Rite's insurance company,
> but not before Zurich's failure to honor Edwards' request for the
> $22.5 million policy limit resulted in Sta-rite filing its own lawsuit.
>
> In other words, the corporation ended up paying more yes, but only
> because unlike most American families the Lakey's didn't just accept
> the hush money beign offered them. And that was what I was talking
> about when I said that Corproations have decided it would cost
> less to just occasionally pay off victims families then to take the
> measures neccesary to prevent the disatsers in the first place.
>


If you wish to resort to sensational emotional arguments, I won't bother to address them and they certainly won't work on me. You are no different than what the right-wing does when they use sensationalism to make people afraid of terror. So you're telling me that less than a 100 people died from something out of millions of people who used the same swimming pool. And tell me something, was the company aware of the potential risks until it was too late. That "50 cents" cost saving multiplied by a million pools. Unless its something that caused more deaths than the number of people that died from getting struck by lighting last year, don't bother cause I don't care. You mean something went wrong that affected less than one in a million of their customers because of some remote unforseen problem, and thats a reason to crusify the big corporations. Only a leftist wing-nut or a safty nazi would make such an argument. Hell, why not argue "hey, some kid somewheres drowned in a pool cause they couldn't swim. Sue the swimming pool company."



> Now I know you're a fudging moron. You know how I like to say that
> facts without cotnext are meaningless? Well, while it is true that
> a large number of Dems voted against the 1964 civil rights act, against
> intergreation, guess what party most of them (execpt for now reitred
> Zell Miller and now liberal Senator Byrd) joined after wards. Give
> you a hint; their name satrts with an R and they have a large tusked
> animal as their mascot.

Your point is moot since the Civil Rights Action was passed BEFORE the people flipped parties. The Dixiecrats went Republican AFTER the Civil Rights laws were passed, so they were Democrats while they were fighting desegragation. If you want to look at it from a scientific standpoint, the data is the data. You don't get to throw out results because its doesn't fit your conclusion.




> |> And no, I am NOT saying most liberals
> |> hate America, I am saying most people who hate
> |> America are liberals (two different things).
>
> Which is a lie again, you sick pathetic fudge.

I was being half way sacrastic.



> Oh and you didn;'t just now with your neo-nazi propagada about Liberals
> hating America? Only if you define tyring to fix it's flaws so it
> can live up to ti's potetnial as hatred, but by that defintion, teachers
> hate their students, coaches hate their players, and artists hate
> their successes. Well okay maybe that last one was a bad example,
> plenty of artists have hated thing sthat their fans thought were awesome.
>

Again, I was being fasicious, making a point. I made the retarded argument about liberals hating America to show you how retarded your argument sounds to me when you slander "the right-wing." Funny thing is, to me you left-wing nuts and the right-wing nuts are pretty much the same person. If you gonna slander the political right by saying that because they error on the side of evil corporations running amok due to too little govenment regulation by saying they hate humanity; then its fair game to tell you that liberals hate America because they sometimes error on the side of not enough government intervention when fighting terrorists and whatnot. I don't see anything wrong with fighting slander with more slander.

Botton line is, theres nothing wrong with being a conservative just like there is nothing wrong with being a liberal. The difference is that one side will have a preference to error on one side while the other side will error on the opposite side. Ideally you wouldn't error on either side, but that won't happen. You're philosophy is simply to error on the side of too much government, hence, making you a liberal, and theres nothing wrong with that. However, don't lie and be so one sided you only see the benefit of government action (or inaction in the case of wars) but ignore all the harm that has been done. At least acknoledge all the errors the left made and take the bad with the good.




> The self-described Dixiecrats who nearly all became Republicans after
> the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights act. Again, you lie by removing
> context. You are just a sad little man aren't you?

Again, moot point. The Dixiecrats were Democrats while the fight for Civil Rights was in progress, therefore they're "your" people. Get over it.




> That is a really stupid arguemnt. I could just as easily say "How
> many nazi war criminals are still alive? Why should we be brining
> up the Holocaust for any reason?"

No, actually thats is a pretty good argument. Since the probabbility of the Holocaust happening again is very remote, it is not relavant to anything that even remotely resembles current debates; unless we're talking about Israel or something. Unless of course you're going to break Godwin's Law and somehow try to justify how its ok for YOU to do it but not everyone else.

> |> don't go to Wal-Mart, or as a wonderuflly
> snarky Harry Potter fan
> |> once described it to me, Volde-Mart.
> |>
>
> Then no wonder your always complaining about not
> getting a LIVING wage. You shop at more expensive
> places where you could get the same crap for a
> lot cheaper. Funny how the people who always
> dog about how the cost of living is raising
> are usually the ones who avoid Walmart. The cost
> of things in Walmart haven't really gone up by
> that much as compared to the smaller stores.
> Like I said earlier, if you want to measure inflation,
> whose basket are you going by? Cities that let
> Walmarts in are doing just fine.

Which is a lie, but I expect nothing less from on you at this point. There have been documetnaries, websites, books, all dedicated to showing through demosntrable evidence the NEGATIVE impact Wal_marts have on communties. You are truly a fool if you buy into that "tax cuts for major corproatiosn help" grabage. The unemplyment and homeless rates of the last 6 years prove that wrong.


> |> Only in the sense that coproate bastards
> will do anything to avoid
> |> having to actually pay their workers anything.
> Given free reign thesse
> |> butt-holes would brign back child slavery
> and indentured servitude.
> |> And the GOP would be all for that if they
> could find some way to say
> |> we have to do it or else gays will take
> over.
>
> Regardless of how you feel about jobs being lost
> because those scanner things were invented, its
> gonna happen regardless whether you like it or
> not. Forcing stores to pay their workers higher
> wages will only accelerate that process. You
> can call them evil corporate bastards all you
> want, but its not going to change the fact that
> more jobs will be lost if the minimum wage gets
> raised when you can just replace them cheap robots,
> at least over the long run. The same thing had
> happened with those old switchboards. Literally
> tens of thousands of jobs were lost (most of them
> women employees) when phone companies figuered
> it would be cheaper to electroniclly switch calls.
> Yet the number of women employed today is much
> higher than in 1950, and yet our unemployment
> rate is about the same as during around 1950's.
> Even with bellhoppers, another useless job.
> Should we bring back bellhoppers to help us
> press buttons going up the elevators?
>
> And btw, thats actually a ligitimate argument
> in favor of increasing the minimum wage. By forcing
> companies to pay their employees more, they will
> simply fire all the workers that do the jobs that
> a monkey (or robot) can do, because its cheaper,
> and then if the government steps in and pays them
> enough unemployment, they can use that free time
> to learn a new skill. Over the long haul things
> will get better but sometimes things have to get
> a lot worse before they get better. Also, when
> the government stepped in to force free public
> education, things have improved a lot. Which
> the liberals were responsible.

This retarded argument is abse don the false impression that people actualy take advanatge of those self-s canning things in alrge numbers. They don't, I've seen it with my own eyes in stores all over the city. people don't use those things they absoltuely have to (like on say the day before Chrismas when the Express (10 itmes or less) Lane is moving at a crawl. People don't trsut those things, and they absolutely despise the automated phone systems that companiee use now. They may be tyring this crap now, but the corproations are going to take a hit when they relaize that sometimes customers have complaints that a computer can't help with. Like say, me being charged for a DVD set that never got shipped. Fudging Columbia House. They can pay their people and still make a profit, but NO, the CEO wants an extra 0 on his year end bonus, like the 6 that are already there aren't more than enough.

You know, given your economic view of the world, your heartless view, why don't we laud drug dealers as pillars of society since rofit is the most improtant thing? I'm not against making money, but I draw the line at what amount to ruining thosudans of lives and the country that allowed you to do business in it in the first place in the bargain.

> I am in no way a spokesman for the GOP since I
> actually agree with the left on some issues and
> I DO believe that sometimes the government should
> step in. I am not 100% libertarian by a long
> shot. I am simply pointing out that generally
> speaking, when the government steps in and starts
> to regulate industries, MOST of the time things
> turn to crap.

Oh, and deregualtion has worked? You are so full of crap, hey are your eyes brown? Ever since de-regualtion, people have had to pay MORE for things that are of lower quality than what they were getting before in terms of gas, medication, energy, etc. Youa re telling me that it's better to let foxes guard the henhouse. Over the course of the 20th century, government intervention and union representation of workers led to a growing middle class. Over the course of the past three decades, though, we have witnessed reduced government intervention, declining union membership, and a shrinking middle class – and all under the guise of "reform."

> See, thats the difference between conservatives
> and liberals (of today). Convervatives would
> rather error on the side of not enough intervention
> but the liberals would rather error on the side
> of too much intervention. Off course, duh, the
> whole point is not to error in the first place.
> Frosty, its ok to be a liberal. Theres nothing
> wrong with being liberal. Thats fine AS LONG
> AS you are will admit that you would rather error
> on the side of too much government intervention
> than not enough government intervention.

In other words I should just be what your narrow mind defines me as.

> Where
> you went wrong is how you conviently ignore all
> the bad things that government intervention did.

While you ignore or flat out lie about all the good. I guess we're even.

> If you're going to argue your case in favor
> of liberals, at least have the balls to take
> in the bad with the good.

Except you have a defintion of "bad" that is way off, so by default, like a religous fanatic I can't win with you. This will ahve to continue later, I need to get some sleep before school tomorrow.

>
> |>
> |> |> Forcing employers to pay their workers
> more
> |> |> will only cause them to raise prices,
> thus hurting
> |> |> the consumer.

Crap, I have to respond to that one. Why keep repeating this? Did you attend the Hitler School of Debate? You fudgetard, unless you conisder a two cent price hike on hamburgers to be a burden, shut up with this one already, it's getting tire.d Tired, like I am. Good night and good luck.

> |>
> |> I've ehar dthis argument made, and debunked
> so many tiems over my
> |> eyes just corssed reading it again.
> |>
>
> Debunked by whom? Socialist progoganda websites.
> Your statement defies common sense. How do
> I argue with someone who won't even acknoledge
> basic economics.
>
>
>
>
> |> |> Never mind that if poor people
> |> |> got paid more then the landlords will
> only take
> |> |> advantage of that situation by rasing
> prices knowing
> |> |> they can extract more $$ from their
> tenants.
> |>
> |> That is called extortion.
>
> I agree. But my point is that it will happen.
> Its called the real world. As long as the same
> people are competing for the same limited resource
> (in this case rent), the prices will be determined
> by how much the highest bidders are willing to
> pay, especially when you consider how price inelastic
> something like rent is. So for every dollar or
> so the poor will get, about 60 cents (my guestamite)
> of that or so will get eaten up by higher rent
> costs.
>
> Also heres a guestion I got for you: if you increase
> the wages from $5.25 to $7.00, then wouldn't the
> wages for the people that allready make $7.00
> would go up as well. And then the people who
> make like $8 an hour will want maybe $9. Explain
> to me how will that not cause inflation.
>
>
>
>
> |> All lies, as demonstrated by the regions
> of the country where the
> |> minmum wage had bene higher than the national
> for years and theya
> |> re doing quite fine. I again refer you to
> Santa Fe, NM.
>
> You obviously haven't heard my arugment. Yes,
> they're doing FINE, you could say that, just like
> the people who live in places that didn't raise
> minimum wage, because the cost of living isn't
> unbearable in places that didn't raise their minimum
> wage. Anyway, inflation is a problem that will
> kick in over the long run. The imediate effects
> won't be felt until some time later in the future,
> but by then the people will simply dog to raise
> the minimum wage even more. Thus a vicious cycle.
>
>
>
>
> |> Again, real world examples prove you wrong.
> |>
>
> No not really. You must be really dilutional
> not to see it. Economic theory of supply and
> demand is real. I've seen it for myself.
>
>
>
> |> Funded by whom I ask?
> |>
>
> Using one of your arguments against you, a lot
> of countries didn't ban DDT and they did ok.
> Theres actually a big discussion about it somewheres.
> I'll go look for the link.
>
>
>
>
> |> Even though one is paid to lie to you and
> the other deicated to finding
> |> the truth? When did false equivalency become
> okay in this country?
> |>
>
> I tend to be very suspicious to anyone "dedicated
> to finding the truth". Whats usually code phrase
> for "I am so over-zelous for my cause that I
> will look for evidence to support my alarmist
> thesis rather than look for evidence first and
> THEN make the conclusion."
>
>
>
>
>
> |> You'd be thinking wrong then. Oh, and please,
> stop using the phrase
> |> "conspriacy theorist" the way old racist
> whites use the word nigger
> |> okay? Conspiracies do happen. All the time.
> very day. By deifntion,
> |> a suprirse birthday party is a "conspiracy."
> America was founded by
> |> a conspiracy. Stop turning it into a dirty
> word. It reeks of Orwellian
> |> langauge manipulation.
> |>
>
> Ok, I apoligize. Allow me to be more specific
> and less general. From now on, instead of using
> the phrase "conspiracy theory" I will use "crackpot
> conspiracy theory" to specify more precisly what
> I mean. My bad.
>
>
>
> |> Given what;s gone on in this country over
> the past 20 years, I'm amazed
> |> people aren't more paranoid. You really
> trust these big comapnies
> |> genetically modifying stuff that we EAT?
> Well you're a braver man
> |> than me. I bet you could even swim naked
> with sharks with an unheald
> |> paper cut with stones like that.
>
> Wow, isn't it amazing how the more things change,
> the more they stay the same? People have for
> centuries been predicting that the earth was doomed.
> Everytime a radically new technology gets invented,
> there are always luddites yelling "the sky is
> falling." The human race has survived two world
> wars, the burbanic plauge (result of human activity
> btw), the Cold War, European imprealism, epic
> wars in ancient times, France verses England battles,
> Viking attacks, you name it; and yet we're still
> alive. So tell me brian, why do you hippie libs
> hate the present so much? If you hate present
> day America so much, in the words of the pro-war
> redneck, "you can just geeeehht ouuuut". If
> you libs hate the present so much, maybe we should
> all build you a time machine and send you back
> to the 1400's. Then you can live peacefully in
> an era where the world climate was over 0.5 degress
> Celius lower than it is today, no artificial chemicals
> in your food, and best of all, not corporations.
> And while you're at it, do all of us a favor
> and take LJD with you, since she'd probabbly be
> happier in the past just as well. Have fun spending
> your last 4 years of your life vacationing in
> the past, since I hear their lifespan is around
> 28.
>
>
>
>
> |> |> -- the fact that theres no conclusive
> proof that
> |> |> second-hand smoke kills
> |>
> |> If there wer j sutice, all the poeple who
> never smoked a day in their
> |> life but got tobacoo related lung cancer
> and died would claw out of
> |> the grave and go Dawn of the Dead on your
> butt.
> |>
>
> ok, I am not talking about people who live in
> a closed enviornment where the smoke just sits
> there and acumulates. I am talking about if someone
> smokes a cigarette close by and you walk by.
>
>
>
>
> |> Base don waht? A gut feleing? Dude, skin
> cancer rates have gone up
> |> sicne we started destroying the ozone.
>
> The hole in the ozone is the cause of the way
> the earth tilts. The hole actually accumulate
> over the poles because of gravitational spin.
> Skin cancer rates go up I guess because perhaps
> theres more people alive today than in the past,
> possibly because cancer in general goes up.
> I guess that might be due to people, you know,
> living longer, so that they actually die of cancer
> because they don't die of something else sooner.
> Nevermind how the CFCs causing ozone depletion
> to be trumped up.
>
>
>
> |>
> |> |> And don't get me started on any bullcrap
> that
> |> |> comes out of the New Age Movement.
> I just roll
> |> |> my eyes every time I hear the word
> "toxin".
> |>
> |> Toxins are real crap head. If you doubt
> that, just have your cat waltz
> |> over and crap on your hot dog before youe
> at it and see what happnes.
> |> That's not liberal media bias making you
> sick. That's TOXINS.
> |>
>
> I am talking about a different kind of toxins,
> those kinds that the New Agers think they can
> flush out of your system.
>
> Stan Marsh from South Park: has anybody actually
> seen a toxin?
> his mom (or some New Age hippie): now Stan, don't
> be such a smartass
>
>
>
>
>
> |> I'm being one sided? You're making excuses
> for de facto murderers.
> |> The oxygen isn't in tanks on their backs,
> it's in the areas of the
> |> mine set up for miners to go in the event
> of a collapse if they can
> |> make it, and these "rooms" are the ones
> that need more oxygen, but
> |> the Right Wing would ratehr let people suffocate
> than spend a few
> |> extra bucks. Increased human misery, suffering,
> pain, and death.
> |>
>
> A few extra bucks? So its true then, you don't
> know what the hell you are talking about. Considering
> the amount of money it costs the companies whenever
> somebody dies. Think workers compensation, potential
> lawsuits, PR damage, the cost to train new workers,
> you name it. If you don't think that people dieing
> on their watch hurts their wallet you really are
> dense. Not to mention people dieing on their
> property brings in the government regulators.
> Enough dead bodies and even the GOP will intervene.
> The mining companies have every incentive for
> their workers not to die. If the companies know
> whats good for them and want to continue to police
> themselves and have the government safty nazis
> off their backs, they have every reason in the
> world to avoid accidents like the plague. Do
> you honestly don't think that introducting new
> safty standards will come out of the workers paychecks?
>
>
>
>
> |> You don't get it. You relaly thinke veryone
> is truly free and has
> |> a choice 100% of the time. Well they don't.
> I've never lived in a
> |> mining town, but I know epopel who do. Unless
> you can get a scholarship,
> |> or know somebody who knows somebody, the
> mine is where you are going
> |> to end up.
>
> No, not 100%. More like 80-90%. To get out of
> a mining town, all you need is a car, or know
> someone with a car, and take a chance to live
> somewhere else. Hell, you can even take a Grayhound
> bus. If you're young, don't have kids yet; as
> they say "go West young man." I guess if you
> never take risks and want to live in the same
> town for the rest of your life, you might not
> get any job other than a mining job.
>
>
>
> |> And to sue that to justify providing proper
> safety standards is disgusting.
> |> I stand by my intial statement.
> |>
>
> ok, whatever. A person would have to be pretty
> thick not to understand the risks that come with
> their jobs. EVERY job, ever, has some risk involved.
> The idea is to minimize the risk by a reasonable
> amount. Sorry if what YOU consider reasonable
> is too high a standard to what the free market
> calls for.
>
>
>
>
> |> Your ignorance of the real world astounds
> me, it really does. You
> |> sound like a gosh darn computer when you talk
> like this. I guess for
> |> you it's better that people die unneccesarily
> than a big corporation
> |> have to actually pay their workers, who
> they shoudlt ahnk eveyr day
> |> for having, a decent enough wage that they
> can fee dthier families
> |> or care for their kids when they get sick.
> You and the other Right
> |> Wing evil fasicsts who really need to either
> die or find another plant
> |> on the other ahnd look at it this way; "You
> want a health care one?
> |> Here's ours; don't get sick."
> |>
>
> I won't bother with such a flaggerant knee jerk
> reaction from you.
>
>
>
>
>
> |> Here's the facts. It took me all of 3 minutes
> to find them.
> |>
> |> On June 24, 1993, Valerie Lakey was playing
> in a wading pool at the
> |> Medfield Area Recreation Club in Wake County,
> NC (a few miles down
> |> the road from where I live in Raleigh).
> The drain cover on the only
> |> suction outlet in the pool had been removed
> sometime previously, probably
> |> by other children earlier that day. When
> Valerie approached the uncovered
> |> outlet, the suction was strong enough to
> pull her down and suck 80%
> |> of her small intestine and 50-70% of her
> large intestine out through
> |> her anus. Four adults could not free her
> until the pool's pumps had
> |> been turned off. It sounds like some kind
> of urban legend but it's
> |> not. It's happened multiple times, actually.
> |>
> |> Valerie survived, but has to spend 12 -14
> hours (often 7pm to 7am)
> |> being fed by a tube in her chest dripping
> nutrients into her body.
> |> The expensive procedure will probably be
> required for the rest of
> |> her life, among other medical treatment.
> Her parents sued the club,
> |> the county, the maker of the pool's circulation
> pump and Sta-Rite,
> |> the manufacturer of the missing drain cover,
> with the help of John
> |> Edwards and his partner David Kirby. The
> first three defendants settled
> |> before trial for a total of $5.9 million.
> Sta-Rite, a subsidiary of
> |> the Wisconsin Energy Corporation, offered
> $100,000. The Lakeys declined
> |> and the case went to a jury. Here's how
> the Washington Monthly described
> |> what happened next:
> |>
> |> ...[Edwards] discovered that 12 other
> children had suffered similar
> |> injuries from Sta-Rite drains. The company
> raised its offer to $1.25
> |> million. Two weeks into the trial, they
> upped the figure to $8.5 million.
> |> Edwards declined the offer and asked for
> their insurance policy limit
> |> of $22.5 million. The day before the trial
> resumed from Christmas
> |> break, Sta-Rite countered with $17.5 million.
> Again, Edwards said
> |> no...the jury found Sta-Rite guilty and
> liable for $25 million in
> |> economic damages (by state law, punitive
> damages could have tripled
> |> that amount). The company immediately settled
> for $25 million, the
> |> largest verdict in state history.
> |>
> |> The Lakeys accepted the settlement in January
> 1997, giving up the
> |> potentially massive punitive damages the
> jury could have awarded in
> |> exchange for Sta-Rite's waiving of appeals
> that could have gone on
> |> for years. The jury award thus wouldn't
> have been affected by punitive
> |> damage caps, even as the settlement broke
> records and made Edwards
> |> a fortune - an interesting twist to the
> trial lawyer discussion. Most
> |> of the judgment was paid by Zurich, Sta-Rite's
> insurance company,
> |> but not before Zurich's failure to honor
> Edwards' request for the
> |> $22.5 million policy limit resulted in Sta-rite
> filing its own lawsuit.
> |>
> |> In other words, the corporation ended up
> paying more yes, but only
> |> because unlike most American families the
> Lakey's didn't just accept
> |> the hush money beign offered them. And that
> was what I was talking
> |> about when I said that Corproations have
> decided it would cost
> |> less to just occasionally pay off victims
> families then to take the
> |> measures neccesary to prevent the disatsers
> in the first place.
> |>
>
>
> If you wish to resort to sensational emotional
> arguments, I won't bother to address them and
> they certainly won't work on me. You are no different
> than what the right-wing does when they use sensationalism
> to make people afraid of terror. So you're telling
> me that less than a 100 people died from something
> out of millions of people who used the same swimming
> pool. And tell me something, was the company
> aware of the potential risks until it was too
> late. That "50 cents" cost saving multiplied
> by a million pools. Unless its something that
> caused more deaths than the number of people that
> died from getting struck by lighting last year,
> don't bother cause I don't care. You mean something
> went wrong that affected less than one in a million
> of their customers because of some remote unforseen
> problem, and thats a reason to crusify the big
> corporations. Only a leftist wing-nut or a safty
> nazi would make such an argument. Hell, why not
> argue "hey, some kid somewheres drowned in a pool
> cause they couldn't swim. Sue the swimming pool
> company."
>
>
>
> |> Now I know you're a fudging moron. You know
> how I like to say that
> |> facts without cotnext are meaningless? Well,
> while it is true that
> |> a large number of Dems voted against the
> 1964 civil rights act, against
> |> intergreation, guess what party most of
> them (execpt for now reitred
> |> Zell Miller and now liberal Senator Byrd)
> joined after wards. Give
> |> you a hint; their name satrts with an R
> and they have a large tusked
> |> animal as their mascot.
>
> Your point is moot since the Civil Rights Action
> was passed BEFORE the people flipped parties.
> The Dixiecrats went Republican AFTER the Civil
> Rights laws were passed, so they were Democrats
> while they were fighting desegragation. If you
> want to look at it from a scientific standpoint,
> the data is the data. You don't get to throw
> out results because its doesn't fit your conclusion.
>
>
>
>
>
> |> |> And no, I am NOT saying most liberals
> |> |> hate America, I am saying most people
> who hate
> |> |> America are liberals (two different
> things).
> |>
> |> Which is a lie again, you sick pathetic
> fudge.
>
> I was being half way sacrastic.
>
>
>
> |> Oh and you didn;'t just now with your neo-nazi
> propagada about Liberals
> |> hating America? Only if you define tyring
> to fix it's flaws so it
> |> can live up to ti's potetnial as hatred,
> but by that defintion, teachers
> |> hate their students, coaches hate their
> players, and artists hate
> |> their successes. Well okay maybe that last
> one was a bad example,
> |> plenty of artists have hated thing sthat
> their fans thought were awesome.
> |>
>
> Again, I was being fasicious, making a point.
> I made the retarded argument about liberals
> hating America to show you how retarded your argument
> sounds to me when you slander "the right-wing."
> Funny thing is, to me you left-wing nuts and
> the right-wing nuts are pretty much the same person.
> If you gonna slander the political right by saying
> that because they error on the side of evil corporations
> running amok due to too little govenment regulation
> by saying they hate humanity; then its fair game
> to tell you that liberals hate America because
> they sometimes error on the side of not enough
> government intervention when fighting terrorists
> and whatnot. I don't see anything wrong with
> fighting slander with more slander.
>
> Botton line is, theres nothing wrong with being
> a conservative just like there is nothing wrong
> with being a liberal. The difference is that
> one side will have a preference to error on one
> side while the other side will error on the opposite
> side. Ideally you wouldn't error on either side,
> but that won't happen. You're philosophy is simply
> to error on the side of too much government, hence,
> making you a liberal, and theres nothing wrong
> with that. However, don't lie and be so one sided
> you only see the benefit of government action
> (or inaction in the case of wars) but ignore all
> the harm that has been done. At least acknoledge
> all the errors the left made and take the bad
> with the good.
>
>
>
>
> |> The self-described Dixiecrats who nearly
> all became Republicans after
> |> the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights act.
> Again, you lie by removing
> |> context. You are just a sad little man aren't
> you?
>
> Again, moot point. The Dixiecrats were Democrats
> while the fight for Civil Rights was in progress,
> therefore they're "your" people. Get over it.
>
>
>
>
> |> That is a really stupid arguemnt. I could
> just as easily say "How
> |> many nazi war criminals are still alive?
> Why should we be brining
> |> up the Holocaust for any reason?"
>
> No, actually thats is a pretty good argument.
> Since the probabbility of the Holocaust happening
> again is very remote, it is not relavant to anything
> that even remotely resembles current debates;
> unless we're talking about Israel or something.
> Unless of course you're going to break Godwin's
> Law and somehow try to justify how its ok for
> YOU to do it but not everyone else.

> Which is a lie, but I expect nothing less from on you at this point.
> There have been documetnaries, websites, books, all dedicated to showing
> through demosntrable evidence the NEGATIVE impact Wal_marts have on
> communties. You are truly a fool if you buy into that "tax cuts for
> major corproatiosn help" grabage. The unemplyment and homeless rates
> of the last 6 years prove that wrong.
>

I guess if your minimum criteria of a "documentry" is a Michael Moore moive, sure, I conceed your point. You know, I once had to read a book called "Sidewalk", a documentry on the lives of homelessness. That book was sooo awfull because of how one sided the author made it; even some of the liberal people in the class were complaining about it in their presenation.

And no, I am not in favor of the tax cuts. I am not as right-winged as you imagine. I am against the flat tax and I am in favor or bringing back the estate tax. So I don't really care what a super lefty like yourself thinks of me. I'll just decide for myself what side I will take on every issue based on its own merit looking at the arguments on both sides. So far I did nothing but present my arguement for why I think raising the minimum wage will do more harm than good over the long run, and all you did was do your knee-jerk reaction and not bothered to refute any of my points.

In any case, I won't bother arguing minimum wage with you until you either a) take an intro to economics class, or b) show me some evidence that you understand how supply and demand works and what deadweight loss is. I had to analyze tons of graphs, apply it to real world senarios, and even do some calculations. I actually did the math for myself, so I won't be convienced by some book that says I am wrong until they show some kind of math to prove me wrong. In the words of Eric Cartman, "dude I am not going to argue with you. Just go with it."




However, I will argue your other points.



> This retarded argument is abse don the false impression that people
> actualy take advanatge of those self-s canning things in alrge numbers.
> They don't, I've seen it with my own eyes in stores all over the city.
> people don't use those things they absoltuely have to (like on say
> the day before Chrismas when the Express (10 itmes or less) Lane is
> moving at a crawl. People don't trsut those things, and they absolutely
> despise the automated phone systems that companiee use now. They may
> be tyring this crap now, but the corproations are going to take a
> hit when they relaize that sometimes customers have complaints that
> a computer can't help with. Like say, me being charged for a DVD set
> that never got shipped. Fudging Columbia House. They can pay their
> people and still make a profit, but NO, the CEO wants an extra 0 on
> his year end bonus, like the 6 that are already there aren't more
> than enough.

I really don't care about CEO salaries because most of that money will simply end up sitting in a bank. None of these CEO's will actually use that money and it will just sit there, thus not having any effect on the economy one way or the other. This is assuming they're not eating up real world resources, which would be bad. However CEO's raising their pay will eventually either a) piss off the stockholders, b) cause prices to go up, or c) make the workers more miserable so that they will eventually quit if they get a better job offer and new workers will be reluctant to join the company unless its their last resort.

If you have such a problem with how the CEO's do things, go buy their company's stock and vote the overpaid bums out. Since none of the stockholders are bothering to ban together to actually do that, they by defalt lose their right to complain.

As for Fudging Columbia House, if you make an effort to complain to them and they give you the run-around; call your credit card company and do a chargeback on their ass, and then feel free to call your state's attorny general or complain to your states chamber or commerce. If you really want to get vicious, contact the FTC. A chargeback by the credit card company will not only refund your $$, but they will incure a $15 penalty and will have a hard time complaining back when the attorny general calls. I have no problem with government intervention when false advertisment is at play. Heres a link: www.ago.state.co.us/





> You know, given your economic view of the world, your heartless view,
> why don't we laud drug dealers as pillars of society since rofit is
> the most improtant thing? I'm not against making money, but I draw
> the line at what amount to ruining thosudans of lives and the country
> that allowed you to do business in it in the first place in the bargain.

Ruining lives? They don't HAVE to hire anybody if they don't want to, its their right. Me being a realist, I know that businesses will simply leave the area if they have to incurr too many regulations. I don't care to hear about doomsayers senario about the world going in a handbasket. I won't bother arguing with you anything you won't convince me and I won't convience you. I don't care if you think I am heartless, I just understand how reality works.




> While you ignore or flat out lie about all the good. I guess we're
> even.

um, no.



> Except you have a defintion of "bad" that is way off, so by default,
> like a religous fanatic I can't win with you. This will ahve to continue
> later, I need to get some sleep before school tomorrow.

Wow, thats one thing we agree on. School is more important than some stupid mini-flame war. I hope you're doing good in your classes. Did you figure out that that WP thing stands for yet?





> Crap, I have to respond to that one. Why keep repeating this? Did
> you attend the Hitler School of Debate? You fudgetard, unless you conisder
> a two cent price hike on hamburgers to be a burden, shut up with this
> one already, it's getting tire.d Tired, like I am. Good night and
> good luck.

You broke the Godwin's Law. I guess that means I WIN. Does that mean that I automaticlly win the entire the thread and therefore don't have to argue with you anymore? See, I am not familiar how that whole Godwin thing works exactly. I am new to this whole thing.



In any event, since I might not have too much free spare time, if I don't reply back to you, its not because I am dilibratly trying to ignore you. Boy, I sure do miss Matty though. Even though I disagree with him on so many things, at least I like arguing with him. To give you the benefit of the doubt, I guess it is possible to argue your arguments if you actually make any. No, don't give me links or tell me what books I need to read. Make your arguements and counter-arguments up front. Don't tell me what some economist said; tell me what arguments he made to reach his conclusion. I don't care to hear rethoric, show me some math.

>
> |> Which is a lie, but I expect nothing less
> from on you at this point.
> |> There have been documetnaries, websites,
> books, all dedicated to showing
> |> through demosntrable evidence the NEGATIVE
> impact Wal_marts have on
> |> communties. You are truly a fool if you
> buy into that "tax cuts for
> |> major corproatiosn help" grabage. The unemplyment
> and homeless rates
> |> of the last 6 years prove that wrong.
> |>
>
> I guess if your minimum criteria of a "documentry"
> is a Michael Moore moive, sure, I conceed your
> point. You know, I once had to read a book called
> "Sidewalk", a documentry on the lives of homelessness.
> That book was sooo awfull because of how one
> sided the author made it; even some of the liberal
> people in the class were complaining about it
> in their presenation.

Actually I was talking about Robert Greenwald, but let's stay on Moore for a minute. What exactly do you havea gaisnt him? Is it that he's willing to do what journalists won't anymore and ask ahrd questions?

> And no, I am not in favor of the tax cuts. I
> am not as right-winged as you imagine. I am against
> the flat tax and I am in favor or bringing back
> the estate tax. So I don't really care what a
> super lefty like yourself thinks of me. I'll
> just decide for myself what side I will take on
> every issue based on its own merit looking at
> the arguments on both sides. So far I did nothing
> but present my arguement for why I think raising
> the minimum wage will do more harm than good over
> the long run, and all you did was do your knee-jerk
> reaction and not bothered to refute any of my
> points.

Well, actually I did and you insulted my soruces.

> In any case, I won't bother arguing minimum wage
> with you until you either a) take an intro to
> economics class, or b) show me some evidence that
> you understand how supply and demand works and
> what deadweight loss is. I had to analyze tons
> of graphs, apply it to real world senarios, and
> even do some calculations. I actually did the
> math for myself, so I won't be convienced by some
> book that says I am wrong until they show some
> kind of math to prove me wrong. In the words
> of Eric Cartman, "dude I am not going to argue
> with you. Just go with it."
>
> However, I will argue your other points.
>
> |> This retarded argument is abse don the false
> impression that people
> |> actualy take advanatge of those self-s canning
> things in alrge numbers.
> |> They don't, I've seen it with my own eyes
> in stores all over the city.
> |> people don't use those things they absoltuely
> have to (like on say
> |> the day before Chrismas when the Express
> (10 itmes or less) Lane is
> |> moving at a crawl. People don't trsut those
> things, and they absolutely
> |> despise the automated phone systems that
> companiee use now. They may
> |> be tyring this crap now, but the corproations
> are going to take a
> |> hit when they relaize that sometimes customers
> have complaints that
> |> a computer can't help with. Like say, me
> being charged for a DVD set
> |> that never got shipped. Fudging Columbia
> House. They can pay their
> |> people and still make a profit, but NO,
> the CEO wants an extra 0 on
> |> his year end bonus, like the 6 that are
> already there aren't more
> |> than enough.
>
> I really don't care about CEO salaries because
> most of that money will simply end up sitting
> in a bank. None of these CEO's will actually
> use that money and it will just sit there, thus
> not having any effect on the economy one way or
> the other. This is assuming they're not eating
> up real world resources, which would be bad.
> However CEO's raising their pay will eventually
> either a) piss off the stockholders, b) cause
> prices to go up, or c) make the workers more miserable
> so that they will eventually quit if they get
> a better job offer and new workers will be reluctant
> to join the company unless its their last resort.
>
> If you have such a problem with how the CEO's
> do things, go buy their company's stock and vote
> the overpaid bums out. Since none of the stockholders
> are bothering to ban together to actually do that,
> they by defalt lose their right to complain.
>
> As for Fudging Columbia House, if you make an
> effort to complain to them and they give you the
> run-around; call your credit card company and
> do a chargeback on their ass, and then feel free
> to call your state's attorny general or complain
> to your states chamber or commerce. If you really
> want to get vicious, contact the FTC. A chargeback
> by the credit card company will not only refund
> your $$, but they will incure a $15 penalty and
> will have a hard time complaining back when the
> attorny general calls. I have no problem with
> government intervention when false advertisment
> is at play. Heres a link: www.ago.state.co.us/

I didn't use a credit card. Don't have one, and never will. I used a check card. And I've tried the FTC. They never got back to me.

>
> |> You know, given your economic view of the
> world, your heartless view,
> |> why don't we laud drug dealers as pillars
> of society since rofit is
> |> the most improtant thing? I'm not against
> making money, but I draw
> |> the line at what amount to ruining thosudans
> of lives and the country
> |> that allowed you to do business in it in
> the first place in the bargain.
>
> Ruining lives? They don't HAVE to hire anybody
> if they don't want to, its their right. Me being
> a realist, I know that businesses will simply
> leave the area if they have to incurr too many
> regulations. I don't care to hear about doomsayers
> senario about the world going in a handbasket.
>
> I won't bother arguing with you anything you
> won't convince me and I won't convience you.
> I don't care if you think I am heartless, I just
> understand how reality works.
>
> |> While you ignore or flat out lie about all
> the good. I guess we're
> |> even.
>
> um, no.
>
> |> Except you have a defintion of "bad" that
> is way off, so by default,
> |> like a religous fanatic I can't win with
> you. This will ahve to continue
> |> later, I need to get some sleep before school
> tomorrow.
>
> Wow, thats one thing we agree on. School is more
> important than some stupid mini-flame war. I
> hope you're doing good in your classes. Did you
> figure out that that WP thing stands for yet?
>

No. Also, I couldn't make it to class today because of serious back pains that had me laid up for 8 hours.

> |> Crap, I have to respond to that one. Why
> keep repeating this? Did
> |> you attend the Hitler School of Debate?
> You fudgetard, unless you conisder
> |> a two cent price hike on hamburgers to be
> a burden, shut up with this
> |> one already, it's getting tire.d Tired,
> like I am. Good night and
> |> good luck.
>
> You broke the Godwin's Law. I guess that means
> I WIN. Does that mean that I automaticlly
> win the entire the thread and therefore don't
> have to argue with you anymore? See, I am not
> familiar how that whole Godwin thing works exactly.
> I am new to this whole thing.
>

I didn't say you were Hitler, just pointing out the similarites in arguing tactics. If you choose to take that as me calling you an anti-Semitic failed art student dictator with an ugly mustache you can, but you'd be wrong.

>
> In any event, since I might not have too much
> free spare time, if I don't reply back to you,
> its not because I am dilibratly trying to ignore
> you. Boy, I sure do miss Matty though. Even
> though I disagree with him on so many things,
> at least I like arguing with him. To give you
> the benefit of the doubt, I guess it is possible
> to argue your arguments if you actually make any.
> No, don't give me links or tell me what books
> I need to read. Make your arguements and counter-arguments
> up front. Don't tell me what some economist
> said; tell me what arguments he made to reach
> his conclusion. I don't care to hear rethoric,
> show me some math.

I could but you'd find a way to spin them. I could point out for example Oregon, which increased its minimum wage to $7.50 in 2002. Four years later, "Oregon's experience suggests the most strident doomsayers were wrong," according to a November 3, 2006, Wall Street Journal article. Indeed, private, nonfarm payrolls have increased there at twice the national rate, industries that employ many minimum-wage workers have experienced considerable job growth, and unemployment has dropped to 5.4 percent from 7.6 percent in 2002. Then there is an April 2004 study by the Fiscal Policy Institute found that, between 1998 and 2001, the number of small businesses (defined as those with fewer than 50 employees) grew twice as quickly in states with higher minimum wages, which kills an argument you made the other day. They explain this phenomenon by pointing to "[n]ew economic models," which recognize that employers in low-wage labor markets "may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale." This may also help explain why most small business owners (three out of four, according to a March 2006 Gallup poll) believe a higher minimum wage would have no effect on them.

> Actually I was talking about Robert Greenwald, but let's stay on Moore
> for a minute. What exactly do you havea gaisnt him? Is it that he's
> willing to do what journalists won't anymore and ask ahrd questions?

I have no idea who Robert Greenwald is. As for Moore, I don't have anything personal against him and I am sure he's an ok guy; I just don't exactly consider him the bastian of truth. Its like he's so anti-Bush, his passion is distoring his objectivity. Its almost as if he's fighting Bush's bullcrap with his own bullcrap. I guess if you want to argue that they cancel out then ok. As for his "asking tough questions", I don't like his tactics and the way he skews their answers with his loaded questions. I also think he's relying too much on emotional arguments, using whats called the "ad cortium" logical fallacy.





> Well, actually I did and you insulted my soruces.

Its not that I have anything against your sources, but its just that I expect that you think for yourself and at least show me that you understand their arguments rather than just repeating what they said and posting their stats. Since I actually had to understand the arguments behind deadweight loss and how supply and demand works in order to do well on my tests, I don't see why I need to give you quotes of any prominent economist. It makes no difference who makes the argument, it matters what the actual argument says.




> No. Also, I couldn't make it to class today because of serious back
> pains that had me laid up for 8 hours.

Fair enough. I hope your back is doing better.





> I didn't say you were Hitler, just pointing out the similarites
> in arguing tactics. If you choose to take that as me calling you an
> anti-Semitic failed art student dictator with an ugly mustache you
> can, but you'd be wrong.

Since I don't know too much about Hitler's argument tactics, your comparison is pretty much meaningless to me. But you still broke the Godwin's Law, you brought up the NAZIS in an argument that had nothing to do with them. What kind of an arguing tactic is that?





> I could but you'd find a way to spin them. I could point out for example
> Oregon, which increased its minimum wage to $7.50 in 2002. Four years
> later, "Oregon's experience suggests the most strident doomsayers
> were wrong," according to a November 3, 2006, Wall Street Journal
> article.


ok, fair enough. There are some people out there who are exaggerating the negative effects of raising the minimum wage. I guess you could call that fear mongering as well. However, that doesn't change the fact that unemployment causes unintended harm like inflation and/or higher unemployment. Just like global warming, inflation and harm from raising the minimum wage is real. Also, like global warming, the effects aren't immediate.



Indeed, private, nonfarm payrolls have increased there at
> twice the national rate, industries that employ many minimum-wage
> workers have experienced considerable job growth, and unemployment
> has dropped to 5.4 percent from 7.6 percent in 2002. Then there is
> an April 2004 study by the Fiscal Policy Institute found that, between
> 1998 and 2001, the number of small businesses (defined as those with
> fewer than 50 employees) grew twice as quickly in states with higher
> minimum wages,

That argument has many fallicies in them. Number one, the unemployment as a result of raising the minimum wage isn't always imediate. It cumulative over the years. So in other words, the effects can propagate over the next 5, 10, maybe 20, even 50 years. They will also be gradual and not noticible in the short term. So the unemployment might get increased by .2 percent per year for the next 30 years causing a total of 6% increase in unemployment over a long term. Secondly, this finding confused cause and effect. The number one law of science is "correlation does not equate causation." For all we know, the minimum-wage was increased BECAUSE unemployment was expected to go down as opposed to unemployment going down because minimum-wage was getting increased; or better yet there was a third factor. History shows that people are more willing to fight when expectations are high. This may explain why policy markers chose that period of time to increase the minimum wage. It was just good timing. For all we know, unemployment may have falled down to 5.2 from 7.6 instead of the 5.4 had we NOT implemented the raise. There are MANY factors affecting employment rates and very likely theres a cycle to them.

The argument above is similar to the righty argument agaist global warming. Thats like saying "oh look, there was a minus 50 degrees bilzard in Buffolo, the lowest in 10 years, wheres that global warming when we really need it." Just like with global warming, where the temperature drops are on the order of .1 degrees every century; which is barely noticable but over time accumulate; increasing the minumum wage has the same effect.

Anyway, I am more worried about the inflation that increasing minimum wage will cause rather than the the unemployment.





> They
> explain this phenomenon by pointing to "[n]ew economic models," which
> recognize that employers in low-wage labor markets "may be able to
> absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity,
> lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased
> worker morale." This may also help explain why most small business
> owners (three out of four, according to a March 2006 Gallup poll)
> believe a higher minimum wage would have no effect on them.


And those new economic models are fundamentally flawed. I have heard this argument before, refuted it after some thinking, and then read arguments against this model to confirm what I previous thought.

What your arugment is essentially saying is that by increasing wages; the employee morale will go up, thus the business will make that up in productivity, less absenism, etc. The problem with that argument is, if empoyers think that increasing wages will have that effect on their productivity, they will choose to pay their employees more on their own without government intervention. The employers are smart enough to know that if you pay someone more to work, they will be less likely to quit their job and be more productive; therefore they will weight the pros and cons whether or not to increase their workers salaries. Private employers make a better judge how much is each employees work worth.



> "may be able to
> absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity,
> lower recruiting and training costs,

So to be politically incorrect about it, in other words, hire LESS workers. That is not contributing to unemployment how?



> (three out of four, according to a March 2006 Gallup poll)
> believe a higher minimum wage would have no effect on them.

Could it be because those 3 employers ALLREADY pay most their workers significantly above the minimum wage or they're on the verge of increasing their wages on their own, in which case it won't hurt them at all? Ok, but what do you tell that forth busniess. My primary concern is how that forth business will be affected. 1/4th of all small businesses is STILL a lot.

You're really stretching. I give you the information you ask for then you just dismiss it out of hand. I wodner why I even try. You're like the LJD of economics.

Dude, ok, whatever. All I did was argue with the arguments you gave me and stated my case. I have just about heard all the arguments on BOTH sides, and I've allready heard everything that you told me and more. You haven't given me any NEW information that I haven't heard before. After hearing all the arguments from both sides, I am simply convinced that "your" side is wrong on this issue. Don't take it so personally. I simply don't think we should be raising the minimum wage to keep up with inflation, and I think doing so would be bad policy. I happen think that hyper inflation should be a very high priority, right up there with the national deficit.

If its any consolidation, I do honestly think that there should be some sort of compromise. Something like, for every 100% inflation, minimum wage should be raised 75%. Most of my disagreement is with the amount. I honestly think that $7/hr is a tad bit too much. Perhaps we should raise it to around $6, or $6.50 at most.

And no, I am not the LJD of economics, I am more like the glassa of economics. In any event, this conversation seems pretty much dead. This whole thread is getting kinda exhausting.

No. But I heard that Denver closed off its downtown to traffic, unless it's public transport.

> Dude, ok, whatever. All I did was argue with
> the arguments you gave me and stated my case.
> I have just about heard all the arguments on
> BOTH sides, and I've allready heard everything
> that you told me and more. You haven't given
> me any NEW information that I haven't heard before.
> After hearing all the arguments from both sides,
> I am simply convinced that "your" side is wrong
> on this issue.

Based on your own opinion, not on any real world facts. I gave figures, you give me a gut feeling based on an old textbook. What will you do when the minimum wage hikes in the States that pased it (since the Right Wingers filibustered it in the Senate, an ironic twist considering their whole "nuclear option" thing from last year.

> Don't take it so personally.
> I simply don't think we should be raising the
> minimum wage to keep up with inflation, and I
> think doing so would be bad policy. I happen
> think that hyper inflation should be a very high
> priority, right up there with the national deficit.
>
> If its any consolidation, I do honestly think
> that there should be some sort of compromise.
> Something like, for every 100% inflation, minimum
> wage should be raised 75%. Most of my disagreement
> is with the amount. I honestly think that $7/hr
> is a tad bit too much. Perhaps we should raise
> it to around $6, or $6.50 at most.

That's retarded. Back wehn I was amking $10/hour at the oxygen plant I was barely able to make ends meet. You're saying you want hard working productive American to live within one unexpected injury or illness away from living on the street. it's inhuman, disgusting, and a policy worthy of a brutal third world dictatorship.

>
> And no, I am not the LJD of economics, I am more
> like the glassa of economics. In any event,
> this conversation seems pretty much dead. This
> whole thread is getting kinda exhausting.

Yeah, do that. Whatever.

> Based on your own opinion, not on any real world facts. I gave figures,
> you give me a gut feeling based on an old textbook. What will you
> do when the minimum wage hikes in the States that pased it (since
> the Right Wingers filibustered it in the Senate, an ironic twist considering
> their whole "nuclear option" thing from last year.

um, no. I actually had to calculate deadweight loss and jobs lost based on supply and demand graphs. As for stats and figures, you obviously haven't read my rebuttal. As for what I will do, probabbly nothing since theres nothing anyway I can do since I am not in politics. All I know its that its bad policy, the only thing I can do is cross my fingers and hope that I am wrong. Allthough I might make the best of a bad situation and maybe go spending spree knowing I have less incentive to save.



> That's retarded. Back wehn I was amking $10/hour at the oxygen plant
> I was barely able to make ends meet. You're saying you want hard working
> productive American to live within one unexpected injury or illness
> away from living on the street. it's inhuman, disgusting, and a policy
> worthy of a brutal third world dictatorship.

Yeah, and raising the minimum wage will cause more inflation, so you'd still be one injury away from being out on the street. Would you rather make $10 an hour and face today's cost of living or make $15 an hour and face 150% of the cost of living of today? In the long run thats exactly where you'll be.