Religious right asks what happened
Too_Many_Tools
PERVERTS might be the wrong way of trying to effect change in the
United States.
And trying to shove your values down the throats of others might also
have something to do with.
TMT
Religious right asks what happened
Wed Nov 8, 9:13 PM ET
SUMMARY: Voters' support of stem-cell research in Missouri, abortion
rights in South Dakota and equality in Arizona signals a change in the
culture wars.
>From the country's heartland, voters sent messages that altered
America's culture wars and dismayed the religious right -- defending
abortion rights in South Dakota, endorsing stem cell research in
Missouri, and, in a national first, rejecting a same-sex marriage ban
in Arizona.
Conservative leaders were jolted by the setbacks and looked for an
explanation Wednesday. Gay rights and abortion rights activists
celebrated.
The verdict on abortion rights was particularly clear. Oregon and
California voters defeated measures requiring parents to be notified
before a girl under 18 could get an abortion, and South Dakotans -- by
a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent -- rejected a new state law that
would have banned all abortions except to save a pregnant woman's life.
"This was really a rebellion in the heart" of anti-abortion Republican
territory, said Sarah Stoesz, head of the Planned Parenthood chapter
that oversees South Dakota. "It sends a very strong message to the rest
of the country."
South Dakota legislators had passed the law in expectation it would
trigger a court challenge and lead to a possible Supreme Court reversal
of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
Anti-abortion leaders said the Republicans shared some of the blame for
the defeat. The Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of Human Life
International, said President Bush and other top Republicans failed to
campaign strongly for the South Dakota abortion ban and against the
Missouri stem cell measure.
"While South Dakotans fought valiantly to defend their babies, we once
again witnessed an almost total lack of support from the national
leadership," Euteneuer said.
Operation Rescue president Troy Newman said the election results meant
any legislation from Congress restricting abortion would be "virtually
impossible" for the next two years.
Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America suggested that
Republicans -- some of them entangled in corruption and sex scandals --
had lost some of the selling power of the "family values" themes they
had pushed in recent elections.
"Families had such high hopes when conservatives were in power; they
ended up discouraged, disappointed and disillusioned," she said.
In Missouri, anti-abortion groups, evangelical Christian clergy and the
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis campaigned hard against the
stem cell measure, contending it would condone life-destroying
embryonic research.
Voters in six states also approved ballot boosting their minimum wage
above the federally mandated $5.15 an hour, getting a jump on newly
empowered Democrats in Congress who have vowed to raise the wage
nationwide.
The measures won with support ranging from 76 percent in Missouri to 53
percent in Colorado, where business groups mounted an aggressive
opposition campaign. Arizona, Montana, Nevada and Ohio also approved
increases, joining 23 other states that already have set their minimum
wages above the federal level.
Liberal groups did have some setbacks. Michigan voters approved a ban
on some types of affirmative action programs, Colorado and Arizona
passed measures targeting illegal immigrants, and seven states approved
same-sex marriage bans, joining 20 that had done so in previous
elections.
However, gay rights supporters took heart at the relatively close
results in some of the seven states, notably in South Dakota, where the
ban received only 52 percent of the vote.
In Arizona, the defeat of the ban stemmed in part from its scope. It
not only would have reinforced an existing state law against same-sex
marriage, but also would have barred any government entities from
recognizing civil unions or domestic partnerships in providing benefits
to employees.
Gay rights leaders said the election results were likely to shelve any
serious push for a federal marriage amendment. They also were pleased
by the defeats of several Republicans whom they considered archenemies,
notably Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Indiana Rep. John
Hostettler.
"It's the end of an era for divisive, gay-bashing politics -- at least
in the minds of the American people," said Joe Solmonese, president of
the Human Rights Campaign.(AP) If you'd like to know more, you can find
stories related to Religious right asks what happened.
Robert Sturgeon
<too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Well dealing with The Devil in the form of REPUBLICAN PEDOPHILE
>PERVERTS might be the wrong way of trying to effect change in the
>United States.
>
>And trying to shove your values down the throats of others might also
>have something to do with.
Both major American political parties have been "trying to
shove (their) values down the throats of others" for
decades, and longer. Pretending that Republicans do it but
Democrats don't is ludicrous. I see that now the Democrats
are going to try to raise the minimum wage. They have a
nonstop war going on against tobacco smokers. They have a
nonstop campaign to force anti-abortion people to pay
through their taxes for abortions. They have let up on
their crusade against the right to keep and bear arms, but
that's probably only temporary. Get it through your thick
head -- politicians and activists try to use the power of
government to "shove (their) values down the throats of
others."
I'm going to have to KF you again if you don't stop trying
to bore me to death.
(rest snipped)
--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
robw
Busch never really came through on his promises, and now they realise how
out of touch they are with mainstream America.
And it serves them right.
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163112980....@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
bushlied
Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>
> Both major American political parties have been "trying to
> shove (their) values down the throats of others" for
> decades, and longer. Pretending that Republicans do it but
> Democrats don't is ludicrous. I see that now the Democrats
> are going to try to raise the minimum wage.
The minimum wage is not a "values" issue; it is a survival issue
>They have a nonstop war going on against tobacco smokers.
No, they are trying to protect non smokers from the annoyance and
health hazards of second-hand smoke; people are still free to smoke but
they can't adversely affect the health and safety of others with their
smoke
>They have a nonstop campaign to force anti-abortion people to pay
> through their taxes for abortions.
There is no "nonstop campaign"
However, woman have a legal right to an abortion and if they are poor
and cannot afford medical care, would you deny them that?
Robert Sturgeon
<appl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>
>>
>> Both major American political parties have been "trying to
>> shove (their) values down the throats of others" for
>> decades, and longer. Pretending that Republicans do it but
>> Democrats don't is ludicrous. I see that now the Democrats
>> are going to try to raise the minimum wage.
>
>The minimum wage is not a "values" issue; it is a survival issue
Of course it's a "values" issue. I value sound economics
and liberty. Those who want to have a minimum wage, and
raise it, value government intervention in the labor market.
When these values clash, it's a values issue.
>>They have a nonstop war going on against tobacco smokers.
>
>No, they are trying to protect non smokers from the annoyance and
>health hazards of second-hand smoke; people are still free to smoke but
>they can't adversely affect the health and safety of others with their
>smoke
This explains why they tried to increase tobacco taxes in
California by $2.60 per pack of cigarettes??? Face it, they
did that to try to keep people from smoking ANYWHERE, not
just where the smoke might harm, or even merely offend,
others.
>>They have a nonstop campaign to force anti-abortion people to pay
>> through their taxes for abortions.
>
>There is no "nonstop campaign"
The abortions, and the spending on abortions, goes on every
day. If that's not nonstop, I don't know what is.
>However, woman have a legal right to an abortion and if they are poor
>and cannot afford medical care, would you deny them that?
The idea that a woman has a legal right to an abortion is,
itself, a values issue. The idea that others should pay for
it is also a values issue. What prevents you from
understanding that???
Bill CIGAR Clinton
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> Well dealing with The Devil in the form of REPUBLICAN PEDOPHILE
> PERVERTS might be the wrong way of trying to effect change in the
> United States.
>
> And trying to shove your values down the throats of others might also
> have something to do with.
what about Dems killing babies, and the fact that same sex marriage
FAILED on the vote in about states ? Doesn't sound like Pedo to me
sounds like CONSERVATIVE MODERATE AMERICANS voting out your liberal
shit-ethics
gee, you left that out mighty quick...
Too_Many_Tools
> I'm going to have to KF you again if you don't stop trying
> to bore me to death.
>
Hmm..so your definition of free speech is it is okay for you to express
your views but not for me to express mine?
Sorry but when you killfile anyone, you are the loser.
But again it is a free country (at least for the moment) so go ahead
and do whatever you need to do.
Personally I would like to keep you around Robert since you do
contribute good ideas on a regular basis.
Now back to the show...if the Religious Right wants to forward their
values into mainstream America, it is evident from this recent vote
that they have done it in a manner that has caused the mainstream
American to recoil in disgust. They need to do some real soul searching
and house cleaning before they try it again.
TMT
G-Net
news:tb79l2l58lor64l73...@4ax.com...
> On 9 Nov 2006 17:57:05 -0800, "bushlied"
> <appl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Both major American political parties have been "trying to
>>> shove (their) values down the throats of others" for
>>> decades, and longer. Pretending that Republicans do it but
>>> Democrats don't is ludicrous. I see that now the Democrats
>>> are going to try to raise the minimum wage.
>>
>>The minimum wage is not a "values" issue; it is a survival issue
>
> Of course it's a "values" issue. I value sound economics
> and liberty. Those who want to have a minimum wage, and
> raise it, value government intervention in the labor market.
> When these values clash, it's a values issue.
I agree with you. The other part of the minimum wage issue also has to do
with what the increase will do to small business. There will be people who
lose their jobs as result of the increase because the businesses cannot
afford to increase all their employee's salaries.
>>>They have a nonstop war going on against tobacco smokers.
>>
>>No, they are trying to protect non smokers from the annoyance and
>>health hazards of second-hand smoke; people are still free to smoke but
>>they can't adversely affect the health and safety of others with their
>>smoke
>
> This explains why they tried to increase tobacco taxes in
> California by $2.60 per pack of cigarettes??? Face it, they
> did that to try to keep people from smoking ANYWHERE, not
> just where the smoke might harm, or even merely offend,
> others.
Well, maybe in part but I think it also involves the government seeing yet
another opportunity to make money off the stupidity of people. If people
are that stupid to smoke despite the mountain of evidence that it's
lethal, then the government can make a little more money off of them.
And to be honest, there may be some rationale to do that because people
who smoke have more health issues and will have more health issues in
the long run to deal with for medicare, medicaid, etc.
>>>They have a nonstop campaign to force anti-abortion people to pay
>>> through their taxes for abortions.
>>
>>There is no "nonstop campaign"
>
> The abortions, and the spending on abortions, goes on every
> day. If that's not nonstop, I don't know what is.
Yeah, I absolutely agree with you.
>>However, woman have a legal right to an abortion and if they are poor
>>and cannot afford medical care, would you deny them that?
>
> The idea that a woman has a legal right to an abortion is,
> itself, a values issue. The idea that others should pay for
> it is also a values issue.
And I would add that it may be a responsibilities issue as well. Why
should it be anyone else's responsibility to have to pay for a woman
who goes out and gets pregnant?
> What prevents you from
> understanding that???
>
> --
> Robert Sturgeon
> Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a
> government agency.
> http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
LOL, agreed!
Sue
wrote:
And people who are obese are also a burden on the health care system.
Where is the suggestion of extra taxes on candy bars, chips, ice
cream, Hostess and Little Debbie stuff, sugary sodas? Childhood
obesity and the resultant increase in childhood diabetes is a problem
here and now - not some potential problem that children *might* take
up smoking so let's tax the hell out of cigarettes to keep them from
doing so. However, it seems that fat people are a protected class and
cigarette smokers are almost a criminal class.
Sue - ex-smoker (and damned proud of it) who has *not* turned into an
anti- smoking nazi as so many do.
Last cigarette smoked was seven months, two weeks, six days, 13 hours,
59 minutes and 5 seconds. 7741 cigarettes not smoked, saving
$1,288.69. Life saved: 3 weeks, 5 days, 21 hours, 5 minutes.
<snipped rest of stuff which I pretty much agree with>
Life is a coin. You can spend it anyway you wish, but you can only spend it once."
Robert Sturgeon
<too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm going to have to KF you again if you don't stop trying
>> to bore me to death.
>>
>
>Hmm..so your definition of free speech is it is okay for you to express
>your views but not for me to express mine?
When your ideas amount to a constant rant, with no
interesting material to make me willing to wade through the
crap, I am tempted to stop looking at them. Of course you
have every right to continue, but I don't have to pay you
any attention. And I'm getting pretty close to that
decision.
>Sorry but when you killfile anyone, you are the loser.
If you think so...
>But again it is a free country (at least for the moment) so go ahead
>and do whatever you need to do.
>
>Personally I would like to keep you around Robert since you do
>contribute good ideas on a regular basis.
I hope so. But lately, your posts have come to be like a
useless broken record.
>Now back to the show...
Your show has too many reruns.
>if the Religious Right wants to forward their
>values into mainstream America, it is evident from this recent vote
>that they have done it in a manner that has caused the mainstream
>American to recoil in disgust. They need to do some real soul searching
>and house cleaning before they try it again.
Do you think the left will do any soul searching about how
well or poorly they inflict their values on mainstream
America? They sure did when they came to the realization
that their monomaniacal pursuit of extreme gun control cost
them a series of elections, reaching a crescendo in 2000
when their presidential candidate lost his "home" state of
Tennessee, his mentor's home state of Arkansas, and the
usually reliable state of West Virginia -- almost certainly
all over the issue of gun control.
You should face the fact that politics is ALWAYS about
putting forward a party's, or faction's, or leader's values.
Doing it successfully results in political power. Doing it
unsuccessfully results in political failure. But it is
ALWAYS about values.
Robert Sturgeon
<netn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Robert Sturgeon" <rst...@inreach.com> wrote in message
>news:tb79l2l58lor64l73...@4ax.com...
>> On 9 Nov 2006 17:57:05 -0800, "bushlied"
>> <appl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Both major American political parties have been "trying to
>>>> shove (their) values down the throats of others" for
>>>> decades, and longer. Pretending that Republicans do it but
>>>> Democrats don't is ludicrous. I see that now the Democrats
>>>> are going to try to raise the minimum wage.
>>>
>>>The minimum wage is not a "values" issue; it is a survival issue
>>
>> Of course it's a "values" issue. I value sound economics
>> and liberty. Those who want to have a minimum wage, and
>> raise it, value government intervention in the labor market.
>> When these values clash, it's a values issue.
>
>I agree with you. The other part of the minimum wage issue also has to do
>with what the increase will do to small business. There will be people who
>lose their jobs as result of the increase because the businesses cannot
>afford to increase all their employee's salaries.
Regardless of which side of the minimum wage argument one
takes, his position concerns a "values" issue. Same with
all the other issues discussed below.
I'm not taking a pro- OR anti-abortion position here; I'm
just pointing out that the issue is a "values" issue, as is
just about EVERY other political issue. Those who lambaste
those on the right for trying to push THEIR values are being
hypocrites if they don't also lambaste every other political
faction for trying to do exactly the same thing.
(rest snipped)
Renee
bombarded by society with the insinuation that we are not good enough
and that our bodies are unacceptable to moral and visual standards. We
are blamed constantly for many of societies ills from out of control
healthcare costs to a recent study regarding the cause of global
warming. But there is a big difference between the obese and those who
choose to smoke. The difference is, fat people don't spread their
toxicity to unsuspecting bystanders the way that smokers do. That makes
us much harder to demonize by the government and the media machine.
Childhood smoking is more than a potential problem. The only
demographic in the US. that shows a rise in smoking is among teenagers,
especially girls. But you are correct when you insinuate that tobacco
taxes are ridiculous as a means to combat this problem. Because the
notion of taxation on a particular consumer good means diddlysquat to
the average teenager.
As far as childhood obesity goes, if parents would just actively parent
their children and teach the value of a healthy diet, childhood obesity
would drop back down to pre 1990s levels. When I was a child there was
always a fat kid in the neighborhood, I was one of them. But unlike
today, the fat kids of my generation were active and only received junk
food as an occasional treat or reward. Somewhere in the past 15 or so
years it has become perfectly acceptable to allow our children to sit
in front of computers, TV, and video games for hours on end while
consuming vast quantities of sugar. This type of behavior must be
changed and it will NOT be achieved through the taxation of consumer
goods. Education and lifestyle changes are the key and people must be
allowed to decide for themselves the right and the wrong of it.
BTW, congratulation on your success at quitting the smoking habit.
BR
richard schumacher
> Of course it's a "values" issue. I value sound economics
> and liberty. Those who want to have a minimum wage, and
> raise it, value government intervention in the labor market.
Kinda like trying to keep millions of Mexicans out of the labor market.
Joe
<rst...@inreach.com> wrote:
>On 9 Nov 2006 17:57:05 -0800, "bushlied"
><appl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Both major American political parties have been "trying to
>>> shove (their) values down the throats of others" for
>>> decades, and longer. Pretending that Republicans do it but
>>> Democrats don't is ludicrous. I see that now the Democrats
>>> are going to try to raise the minimum wage.
>>
>>The minimum wage is not a "values" issue; it is a survival issue
>
>Of course it's a "values" issue. I value sound economics
>and liberty. Those who want to have a minimum wage, and
>raise it, value government intervention in the labor market.
>When these values clash, it's a values issue.
It would suck to have no skills, and to depend on the gov't to force
an employer to pay more than you'd otherwise be worth. But yeah, If
the gov't wishes to ensure a fair wage, they should get rid of illegal
labor. Hire illegal labor - Big fine. Do it again - Huge fine.
Again? - Jail time. Harsher as the companies get larger, of course.
So who would invoke such legislation? No one.
>>>They have a nonstop war going on against tobacco smokers.
>>
>>No, they are trying to protect non smokers from the annoyance and
>>health hazards of second-hand smoke; people are still free to smoke but
>>they can't adversely affect the health and safety of others with their
>>smoke
Some cities say you can't smoke in bars. WTF? I EXPECT to have smoke
in bars. Sure, I have no problem with a bar owner saying "No Smoking"
But the gov't is out of place to make that ruling FOR the owner.
I'm an ex-smoker, and I expect to smell smoke in bars, especially the
lovely aroma of cigars... Ahhhh!
>This explains why they tried to increase tobacco taxes in
>California by $2.60 per pack of cigarettes??? Face it, they
>did that to try to keep people from smoking ANYWHERE, not
>just where the smoke might harm, or even merely offend,
>others.
Can you not buy bulk tobacco and roll your own? There are even
machines that'll make them look like cigarettes, instead of joints, if
you're paranoid. Unless that's too much work to get your fix. Fine,
pay the damned tax.
>>>They have a nonstop campaign to force anti-abortion people to pay
>>> through their taxes for abortions.
Hey, I'm anti-war, but I pay taxes to kill folks. Fix that for me &
I'll have more sympathy for your *cause*.
>>There is no "nonstop campaign"
>
>The abortions, and the spending on abortions, goes on every
>day. If that's not nonstop, I don't know what is.
Sure, just TRY to get an abortion on Christmas Day.
>>However, woman have a legal right to an abortion and if they are poor
>>and cannot afford medical care, would you deny them that?
>
>The idea that a woman has a legal right to an abortion is,
>itself, a values issue. The idea that others should pay for
>it is also a values issue. What prevents you from
>understanding that???
Roe vs. Wade. Abortion is legal. Get used to it. Sucks for the
taxpayers to foot the bill, but what would the bill to society be if
an unwanted, unloved kid is born? Long term.
"They won't let me smoke, but they will allow her to get an abortion."
Too funny.
--
The last official act of any government is the looting of the nation.
Robert Sturgeon
wrote:
(snips)
>Hey, I'm anti-war, but I pay taxes to kill folks. Fix that for me &
>I'll have more sympathy for your *cause*.
I'm not pushing any particular cause in this thread. I am
merely pointing out that politics is ALL about values. In
your case here, it is a conflict about the values involved
in war and the payment of taxes to fund war.
(snips)
>"They won't let me smoke, but they will allow her to get an abortion."
>Too funny.
Both are about values, aren't they???
firel...@hotmail.com
> Well, maybe in part but I think it also involves the government seeing yet
> another opportunity to make money off the stupidity of people. If people
> are that stupid to smoke despite the mountain of evidence that it's
> lethal, then the government can make a little more money off of them.
> And to be honest, there may be some rationale to do that because people
> who smoke have more health issues and will have more health issues in
> the long run to deal with for medicare, medicaid, etc.
Strangely enough, it's historically been exactly the opposite.
Smokers die early and relatively quickly compared to those
who don't smoke, and tend to die right before or immediately
after they'd be collecting their retirement benefits.
This may be historically true rather than currently true, as
our medical technology now allows us to spend hundreds
of thousands of dollars to keep someone with terminal
lung cancer alive for another month or two.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
PerfectlyAble
Society has a safety net to keep people rioting. Soceity
provides healthcare coverage to keep people becoming
conduits for disease and lousy moaning workers. Society
wants women to control their ability to have children
because society gets wealthier by it. Less children
means less education taxes, it means less child poverty
because women wait until the right time when they have
the money, the stablity. Abortion is good, it stops rapists
breeding, it keeps the extremely deformed from sucking
a family dry emotionally and financially. As for the values
question, why is it not ok for me to tell you what to do
but you to ban abortion. Why is it ok for you to not listen to
the pacistists who want to disarm America, or the fascists
who want to bring back slavery. Its just plain senile to
argue that because my values differ from yours you don't
have to pay for abortion. Thats democracy, thats what
happens when the law says abortion is not only necessary
its a right for a women to protect themselves from a
murderous foetus bent on killing them both, a retarded
ill foetus that would destroy their family if it live till it
was five. Aborting a incest baby, ok by me! Fact is
you have to have a callous disregard and a hopelessly
simplestic outlook to be against abortion. Life is hard,
decisions are never easy but the American way, no
the westerm civilisationed way, has always believed
that the individual has to make the decisions that
impack on them. Being against Abortion is like being
against Capitalism. People make choices, have to
live with the consequences. Forcing a women to
stay into the face of her rapist mirrored in her child
because she couldn't prove rape is just cruel and
unusual punishment. Innocent people don't need to
be punnished. Stupid Jesus freaks pickingup lame
values do.
Sue
wrote:
>In article <9nb9l2dsos7ev4v5k...@4ax.com>, seb...@thegrid.net
>says...
>>
>
>>Last cigarette smoked was seven months, two weeks, six days, 13 hours,
>>59 minutes and 5 seconds. 7741 cigarettes not smoked, saving
>>$1,288.69. Life saved: 3 weeks, 5 days, 21 hours, 5 minutes.
>>
>Well, hang in there. I quit cold turkey in 1964. I could be back on the cancer
>sticks in an instant.
Thanks. I've done an 8 year quit, a 2 year quit and 1 1/2 year quit
and other various lengths. I'm hoping that this one is the permanent
quit. As you and I both know (and I hope I keep remembering as time
goes by) there's no such thing as just one (for most of us).
Sue
Sue
Are businesses allowed to not hire you because you're fat? Many
businesses now refuse to hire smokers. I'm pretty sure that if a
business *did* refuse to hire you and made it clear that it's because
you're overweight you would be able to sue and win. But, it isn't
anything I've really studied up on.
> We
>are blamed constantly for many of societies ills from out of control
>healthcare costs to a recent study regarding the cause of global
>warming.
That's a new one to me. IIRC there was some study done that said that
overweight people are a greater burden on the health care system than
smokers and then "they" withdrew that conclusion.
> But there is a big difference between the obese and those who
>choose to smoke. The difference is, fat people don't spread their
>toxicity to unsuspecting bystanders the way that smokers do. That makes
>us much harder to demonize by the government and the media machine.
The issue here isn't spreading any sort of toxicity. We're talking
about the tax as being a way to make smokers stop smoking - even in
their own homes. That's different than restricting where people can
smoke.
>
>Childhood smoking is more than a potential problem.
I'm meaning children, say 6, 7, 8 years old.
> The only
>demographic in the US. that shows a rise in smoking is among teenagers,
>especially girls. But you are correct when you insinuate that tobacco
>taxes are ridiculous as a means to combat this problem. Because the
>notion of taxation on a particular consumer good means diddlysquat to
>the average teenager.
>
>As far as childhood obesity goes, if parents would just actively parent
>their children and teach the value of a healthy diet, childhood obesity
>would drop back down to pre 1990s levels.
I agree that the parents are to be held accountable. Two of my four
children were a bit pudgy but never terribly overweight. They're both
fine now but both smoke.
> When I was a child there was
>always a fat kid in the neighborhood, I was one of them. But unlike
>today, the fat kids of my generation were active and only received junk
>food as an occasional treat or reward. Somewhere in the past 15 or so
>years it has become perfectly acceptable to allow our children to sit
>in front of computers, TV, and video games for hours on end while
>consuming vast quantities of sugar.
<sigh> My grandchildren.
> This type of behavior must be
>changed and it will NOT be achieved through the taxation of consumer
>goods. Education and lifestyle changes are the key and people must be
>allowed to decide for themselves the right and the wrong of it.
My opinion is that this is also true of smoking.
>
>BTW, congratulation on your success at quitting the smoking habit.
Thanks. I've never had much of a weight problem which has boiled down
to nothing more than "lucky me". However, now that I'm old (60) I
don't quite have the excellent metabolism that I had when I was
younger. I gained about 25 pounds when I quit smoking and now I'm
having a hell of time getting it off. I honestly think that in some
ways it's easier to quit smoking. The thing is that when you quit
smoking you, well, quit. Unfortunately, you can't simply quit eating.
Being a chocoholic doesn't help.
I want you to know that I meant no meanness in my post. Even though
I'm no longer a smoker I get rather defensive of them and the weight
thing is, to me, a perfect example of the unfairness of the sin tax on
cigs.
Sue
>
>BR
hudley...@hotmail.com
the Norplant? To expect kids to be sexually mature but not have sex is
pretty stupid.
Hudley Pearse
Too_Many_Tools
I like to think of the Democrat landslide as the gift that just keeps
giving and giving and giving.....
The PEDOPHILE REPUBLICAN Party is SO SCREWED.
Laugh....laugh...laugh....
TMT
Fafnir wrote:
> In article <1163174674....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> Every single committee chairman in the new Congress will be a
> Democrat.
>
> Democrats 'have a little list' of investigations
>
> By Alex Massie
> Last Updated: 2:01am GMT 09/11/2006
>
> The Democrats' takeover of the House of Representatives will
> give the party more power on Capitol Hill than it has enjoyed
> since 1994, including control of powerful committees,
> responsibilities for the federal budget and the opportunity to
> investigate the White House.
>
> That raises the prospect of what conservatives fear will be a
> "blizzard of subpoenas" being issued.
>
> "As the Lord High Executioner said in The Mikado, 'I have a
> little list'," John Dingell, the veteran Michigan Democrat, said
> recently.
> advertisement
>
> Mr Dingell, who was first elected to Congress in 1955, earned a
> reputation as an aggressive chairman of the Commerce Committee
> during Ronald Reagans's administration. It is a role he intends
> to play again. Mr Dingell has announced that he plans
> investigations into everything from the administration's
> response to Hurricane Katrina to energy policy by way of
> environmental policy, the Food and Drug Administration, port
> security, nuclear waste management and trade policy.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/08/
> wuspols308.xml
Curly Surmudgeon
Well, look at the people who are pushing this bullshit: Crazymotherfucker
christers...
When I see them on tv its easy to imagine them with a bone through their
nose, ears, cheeks, a grass skirt, spear and dancing around a bon fire
after partaking of some jimson weed or peyote...
Our problem is trying to be egalitarian and treating crazymotherfuckers as
equals. They're not, they're barbarians with manicures and haircuts.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time to dust off the guillotine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Sturgeon
<too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>snicker<....yeah a LITTLE list.
>
>I like to think of the Democrat landslide as the gift that just keeps
>giving and giving and giving.....
You call THAT a "landslide"???
>The PEDOPHILE REPUBLICAN Party is SO SCREWED.
WHAT "PEDOPHILE REPUBLICAN Party"??? You're the one who is
screwed -- UP.
>Laugh....laugh...laugh....
That's what the folks in the "home" do...
robw
That's "Conservative America"???
All those tats, piercing, style of dress, mixed
couples...................????
"America" is not the 2 million people who watch FNC.
It's not even the Rush-Hannity people.
"Bill CIGAR Clinton" <dutyhono...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163174674....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Too_Many_Tools
Been to a church lately....you don't have to imagine...it's for real.
TMT
Curly Surmudgeon
> Well said Curly.
>
> Been to a church lately....you don't have to imagine...it's for real.
Not for many years. Even now that I live in Argentina where most are
Catholic, I refuse to attend. Each time I wind up in an arguement with
the cross-dresser up front over the precious metals and gems in his dress
while most of the devout are in clothing that you or I would have wiped up
the garage floor with.
Attending church is punishment, not entertainment.
--
Gunner
>But there is a big difference between the obese and those who
>choose to smoke. The difference is, fat people don't spread their
>toxicity to unsuspecting bystanders the way that smokers do.
Unless one is blind..the morbidly obese poison most who view them.
Gunner
Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"
Raymond
Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 19:50:51 -0800, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>
> > Well said Curly.
> >
> > Been to a church lately....you don't have to imagine...it's for real.
>
> Not for many years. Even now that I live in Argentina where most are
> Catholic, I refuse to attend. Each time I wind up in an arguement with
> the cross-dresser up front over the precious metals and gems in his dress
> while most of the devout are in clothing that you or I would have wiped up
> the garage floor with.
>
> Attending church is punishment, not entertainment.
According to the Bible, God was ignorant, a ruthless liar and cheat; he
broke his pledges, changed his mind so often that he grew weary of
repenting. He was a murderer of children, ordered his people to slay,
rape, steal, and lie and commit every foul and filthy abomination in
human power. In fact, the more I read the Bible the less I find in it
that is either credible or admirable.
I do not go to church because I find no honesty in the pulpit toward
the religion preached or the religions preached against. I am
constantly horrified by the extreme unfairness of Christians toward men
of other religions. There is no distortion or concealment that they
will not stoop to in their zeal.
Of how many million members must it be true, that they are afraid to
examine their own Bible? Everywhere I turn I find the same flat
contradictions. One proverb says, "Answer a fool according to his
folly;" the next says, "Answer not a fool according to his folly"
(Proverbs xxvi, 4, 5). When a skeptic mentioned this to me as a
schoolboy, I laughed off the difficulty as mere quibbling. Yet I was
terribly disturbed to find God giving his children two directly
opposite bits of advice.
The God of the Bible punishes all who do not believe, including those
who never heard of him. Trillions of them must be screaming somewhere
for mercy. What then must be waiting for me? for I have not their
excuse. I have heard the gospel. I had it put before me. I accepted it,
and then let it slip!
My faith in the Bible as an inspired work went from me slowly, like
sand slipping down a hill. I was reading the Bible from cover to cover,
and being young and curious I was tempted to dip into the Song of
Solomon. But I had read that it was considered by the old Israelites
such delicate matter that Hebrews were not permitted to read it until
they were thirty-five years old, though little American boys and girls
were given rewards for reading it along with the entire Bible. I was
sorely troubled, but I did what I thought very heroic and virtuous: I
refrained from peeking into the Song of Solomon until I had read
everything preceding it including every last one of the "begats" and
all the filthy stories. Then I read Solomon's Song with what solemnity
I could muster.
Such literature for a boy to read! a compendium of the most lusciously
lascivious amorous anatomy that could be devised. And at the top of
each erotic chapter some such legend as "The Church and Christ
congratulate one another," "The Church having a taste of Christ's love
is sick of love," "A Description of Christ by his graces." I do not
dare quote the text here; it is too voluptuous; yet it is given into
the hands of children and it is left in the rooms of hotels by a
society
The Bible begins with two stories of creation by two different gods of
two different names in two different orders -- two ill- edited clumsy
myths told by two ignorant barbarians; and ends with the clamorous
hysteria of a color-mad, blood-thirsty lunatic with a magnificent
literary style.
Between these two extremes is almost every conceivable kind of writing,
including every known atrocity, indecency, degeneracy, nobility, a
cyclopedia of anecdotes, genealogy, mythology, criminology, stories of
incest, of sodomy, of bestiality; of angels, "sons of God," coming to
earth and taking women; of daughters having children by their fathers.
How can anyone defend that picture of graves opening, hells yawning,
sheep, goats, trumpets blaring, scarlet women riding; a city coming
down from the sky dressed like a bride with twelve gates for the twelve
tribes of Jews? How can the Christians hope to get into the New
Jerusalem since it contains only entrances for Jews -- and Christ
himself said he came only to the lost sheep of Israel?
OY VEY !
SEE:
Why I Quit Going To Church
With Answers to Critics and Correspondents
by Rupert Hughes
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/rupert_hughes/why_i_quit_going_to_church.html
SEE Atrocities in the Bible
http://www.geocities.com/closetatheist/dmatrocities.htm
bushlied
Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>
> This explains why they tried to increase tobacco taxes in
> California by $2.60 per pack of cigarettes??? Face it, they
> did that to try to keep people from smoking ANYWHERE, not
> just where the smoke might harm, or even merely offend,
> others.
>
The increase in taxes is to cover the health cost of smoking
Why should I have to pay for your filthy habit
You smoke, the republican tobacco companies get rich, and the American
people are stuck with the bill for your lung cancer
> The idea that a woman has a legal right to an abortion is,
> itself, a values issue. The idea that others should pay for
> it is also a values issue. What prevents you from
> understanding that???
>
It is a freedom issue, the freedom to do with your body what you please
> --
> Robert Sturgeon
> Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
> http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Sturgeon, your arguments are, to coin a phrase, FISHY
bushlied
Renee wrote:
> >
> Fat people are not as protected as you think, we are constantly
> bombarded by society with the insinuation that we are not good enough
> and that our bodies are unacceptable to moral and visual standards.
That is absolute horse manure
It is not that fat people are not considered good enough or that your
boides are unacceptable
But let's face facts: you are fat for one reason and one reason only,
that you are intaking more calories than you are burning off
Exercise and limit your calorie intake
You have the right to be fat if you wish but you increase your risk of
many diseases including heart disease, diabetes and that adds to my
health care costs (if you are part of a group that includes obese
people, you have to pay for their diseases)
>We are blamed constantly for many of societies ills from out of control
> healthcare costs
Which is true
> But there is a big difference between the obese and those who
> choose to smoke. The difference is, fat people don't spread their
> toxicity to unsuspecting bystanders the way that smokers do.
OK, I will grant you that
BUT
I remember seeing the Today show where someone was suing Southwest
airlines because the airline made them buy two seats
They were too big for one seat
Which means that the person sitting next to them is not getting their
seat (their fat is overhanging and taking away their space)
That's not fair and that is not right
bushlied
Sue wrote:
> >BTW, congratulation on your success at quitting the smoking habit.
>
> Thanks. I've never had much of a weight problem which has boiled down
> to nothing more than "lucky me". However, now that I'm old (60) I
> don't quite have the excellent metabolism that I had when I was
> younger. I gained about 25 pounds when I quit smoking and now I'm
> having a hell of time getting it off. I honestly think that in some
> ways it's easier to quit smoking. The thing is that when you quit
> smoking you, well, quit. Unfortunately, you can't simply quit eating.
I recently dropped forty pounds, and that is after I dropped thirty
something years ago
I am almost 60 and very fit, I can get into suits I bought twenty years
ago
But I also walk five miles a day and I cut out sugar sodas and I eat
very sensibly (no fried chicken anymore even though I love it, limit on
cakes and ice cream)
Obesity is caused by one thing and one thing only: taking in more
calories than you burn off
Period
End of sentence
For those of you who say the problem is you metabolism, fine
Eat less period, you do not need all those calories or your body would
be burning them off
Exercise, this increases your metabolism
bushlied
Joe wrote:
>
> Some cities say you can't smoke in bars. WTF? I EXPECT to have smoke
> in bars. Sure, I have no problem with a bar owner saying "No Smoking"
> But the gov't is out of place to make that ruling FOR the owner.
>
How about the people working in the bars being subject to second hand
smoke
Should you have to risk your life for a job
Gunner
bushlied
Gunner wrote:
> On 11 Nov 2006 00:58:37 -0800, "bushlied" <appl...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Joe wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Some cities say you can't smoke in bars. WTF? I EXPECT to have smoke
> >> in bars. Sure, I have no problem with a bar owner saying "No Smoking"
> >> But the gov't is out of place to make that ruling FOR the owner.
> >>
> >
> >How about the people working in the bars being subject to second hand
> >smoke
> >
> >Should you have to risk your life for a job
>
> Most of them smoke also.
>
>
That's your brilliant answer
What about those who don't
RadicalModerate
> That's your brilliant answer
> What about those who don't [want to be exposed to second hand tobacco
smoke in a barroom as part of their employment]
They shouldn't work in a bar then.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From: address IS Valid.
Robert Sturgeon
<appl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Joe wrote:
>
>>
>> Some cities say you can't smoke in bars. WTF? I EXPECT to have smoke
>> in bars. Sure, I have no problem with a bar owner saying "No Smoking"
>> But the gov't is out of place to make that ruling FOR the owner.
>>
>
>How about the people working in the bars being subject to second hand
>smoke
None of them were drafted.
>Should you have to risk your life for a job
You do if you want to be a circus performer, or an oil rig
worker, or a movie stuntman, or a soldier, or a... LOTS of
work is risky. Don't want the risk -- don't take the job.
Gunner
wrote:
Yes, it is. Despite the fact you dont like it..its quite true.
>
>What about those who don't
They were free to have sought employment in other industries and never
set foot in a bar, where smoking is a known factor. If one has an
allergy to a substance, say paint for example..it doesnt make a hell
of a lot of sense to become a painter, does it?
Robert Sturgeon
<appl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>
>>
>> This explains why they tried to increase tobacco taxes in
>> California by $2.60 per pack of cigarettes??? Face it, they
>> did that to try to keep people from smoking ANYWHERE, not
>> just where the smoke might harm, or even merely offend,
>> others.
>>
>
>The increase in taxes is to cover the health cost of smoking
>
>Why should I have to pay for your filthy habit
You shouldn't. You shouldn't pay for ANY of my health
problems.
>You smoke, the republican tobacco companies get rich, and the American
>people are stuck with the bill for your lung cancer
Only because the political system, which theoretically
represents the wishes of the voters, makes it so. I'd just
as soon stop all that.
>> The idea that a woman has a legal right to an abortion is,
>> itself, a values issue. The idea that others should pay for
>> it is also a values issue. What prevents you from
>> understanding that???
>>
>It is a freedom issue, the freedom to do with your body what you please
But not if that includes smoking a cig, or drinking some
Scotch, or ... well, or anything you don't happen to like?
Yes, it IS a values issue. You have stated YOUR values --
that getting an abortion is a matter of rights, but smoking
a cig isn't. Why are you having trouble understanding that?
Callisto
G-Net wrote:
> "Robert Sturgeon" <rst...@inreach.com> wrote in message
> news:tb79l2l58lor64l73...@4ax.com...
> >>> shove (their) values down the throats of others" for
> >>> decades, and longer. Pretending that Republicans do it but
> >>> Democrats don't is ludicrous. I see that now the Democrats
> >>> are going to try to raise the minimum wage.
> >>
> >>The minimum wage is not a "values" issue; it is a survival issue
> >
> > Of course it's a "values" issue. I value sound economics
> > and liberty. Those who want to have a minimum wage, and
> > raise it, value government intervention in the labor market.
> > When these values clash, it's a values issue.
>
> I agree with you. The other part of the minimum wage issue also has to do
> with what the increase will do to small business. There will be people who
> lose their jobs as result of the increase because the businesses cannot
> afford to increase all their employee's salaries.
Sorry, dear, but I spent last Christmas ringing the bell to raise money
for the needy in our community, such needy people being low wage
workers who, after they work two jobs, have to rely on charity to keep
from freezing in the winter.
I do not see why I should freeze my toes so that the businesses who
employ those people can make a profit. If you cannot survive unless
you get the subsidy of people like me - taken shameless advantage of
because of my tender heart - then maybe you should consider if you
should be in business in the first place. I am willing to led a
helping hand in cases of genuine need, but not to encourage dependency
on business owners.
Sue
wrote:
>
>Sue wrote:
>
>> >BTW, congratulation on your success at quitting the smoking habit.
>>
>> Thanks. I've never had much of a weight problem which has boiled down
>> to nothing more than "lucky me". However, now that I'm old (60) I
>> don't quite have the excellent metabolism that I had when I was
>> younger. I gained about 25 pounds when I quit smoking and now I'm
>> having a hell of time getting it off. I honestly think that in some
>> ways it's easier to quit smoking. The thing is that when you quit
>> smoking you, well, quit. Unfortunately, you can't simply quit eating.
>
>I recently dropped forty pounds, and that is after I dropped thirty
>something years ago
>
>I am almost 60 and very fit, I can get into suits I bought twenty years
>ago
That's very admirable. I don't have any clothes that I had 20 years
ago so I can't compare.
>
>But I also walk five miles a day and I cut out sugar sodas and I eat
>very sensibly (no fried chicken anymore even though I love it, limit on
>cakes and ice cream)
I only walk a few miles on the weekends. I've not "cut out" sugar
sodas because I've never imbibed. Not even as a teenager. I only
drink tea - hot or cold - no sugar, no sweetener. I still eat fried
chicken but without the skin. No cake, no ice cream. Unfortunately
my supervisor at work keeps those miniature Hershey bars on her desk
and the lady who sits next to me has a good supply of miniature
Tootsie Rolls. <sigh>
>
>Obesity is caused by one thing and one thing only: taking in more
>calories than you burn off
I 100% agree with you.
>
>Period
>
>End of sentence
>
>For those of you who say the problem is you metabolism, fine
Last year I lost 25 pounds rather easily. This year it isn't going so
well. I honestly believe it's partly a slower metabolism. Of course,
those chocolate bars don't help.
>
>Eat less period, you do not need all those calories or your body would
>be burning them off
Absolutely. I say again, I agree.
>
>Exercise, this increases your metabolism
That's my bete noir. I'm lazy.
I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination, fat. 5'5" 144 lbs. I'd
like to be 125 lbs. Fully clothed I look pretty darned good.
Sue
Sue
wrote:
>
People do it all the time. There are many jobs that are dangerous
that I have chosen not to do.
Sue
wrote:
>
>Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>
>>
>> This explains why they tried to increase tobacco taxes in
>> California by $2.60 per pack of cigarettes??? Face it, they
>> did that to try to keep people from smoking ANYWHERE, not
>> just where the smoke might harm, or even merely offend,
>> others.
>>
>
>The increase in taxes is to cover the health cost of smoking
No, it wasn't. 10% was to go to smoking cessation education. The
rest was to go to children's health (Healthy Families), emergency
rooms (IIRC) and so forth.
>
>Why should I have to pay for your filthy habit
You shouldn't. Anymore than smokers should have to pay for the other
things their taxes were going to go to.
>
>You smoke, the republican tobacco companies get rich, and the American
>people are stuck with the bill for your lung cancer
I don't believe that Mr. Sturgeon smokes.
>
>> The idea that a woman has a legal right to an abortion is,
>> itself, a values issue. The idea that others should pay for
>> it is also a values issue. What prevents you from
>> understanding that???
>>
>
>It is a freedom issue, the freedom to do with your body what you please
Why do you see the abortion issue as a freedom issue but not the
smoking? You see nothing wrong with the tax payers paying for
abortion after abortion for women who can't keep their pants on and
yet you go on about having to pay for a smoker's lung cancer.
Sue
>
>> --
>> Robert Sturgeon
>> Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
>> http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
>
>Sturgeon, your arguments are, to coin a phrase, FISHY
Life is a coin. You can spend it anyway you wish, but you can only spend it once."
Sue
You don't think that businesses should make a profit? Hmmm. If I had
a business that wasn't making a profit I'd close it and lay off all of
my employees. Then they would have $0 income.
Sue
> If you cannot survive unless
>you get the subsidy of people like me - taken shameless advantage of
>because of my tender heart - then maybe you should consider if you
>should be in business in the first place. I am willing to led a
>helping hand in cases of genuine need, but not to encourage dependency
>on business owners.
Life is a coin. You can spend it anyway you wish, but you can only spend it once."
Callisto
I believe that they should make a profit, but not with my unwittng
subsidy. I see their argument to have me keep their employees not
freeze to death in order to make a profit the same way I would look at
them mail me their electric or water bills so that they can make a
profit.
Profit is what you make after you pay your costs. Your costs. If you do
not pay your costs, what you are making is not a profit, but
freeloading.
Robert Sturgeon
wrote:
(snips)
>Sorry, dear, but I spent last Christmas ringing the bell to raise money
>for the needy in our community, such needy people being low wage
>workers who, after they work two jobs, have to rely on charity to keep
>from freezing in the winter.
Trying to force anyone to pay more for anything than it's
worth in the marketplace causes less of that thing to be
traded. Raising the minimum wage doesn't magically make the
work of people with marginal job skills worth more money.
How would driving them out of the hourly wage labor market
help their income earning capacity?
>I do not see why I should freeze my toes so that the businesses who
>employ those people can make a profit.
Were you drafted into that bell ringer job?
> If you cannot survive unless
>you get the subsidy of people like me - taken shameless advantage of
>because of my tender heart - then maybe you should consider if you
>should be in business in the first place.
Your subsidies are going to the workers without job skills
worth much money. Raising the minimum wage won't increase
their job skills, so some of them will be forced out of the
hourly wage market. I suppose they can then pick up
aluminum cans or do yard work on a contract basis -- which
will still not be worth much money. Their problem is not
that the minimum wage is too low, but that their job skills
just aren't worth much money.
> I am willing to led a
>helping hand in cases of genuine need, but not to encourage dependency
>on business owners.
Business owners are willing to pay market rates for labor.
Trying to force them to pay above-market rates will cause
unemployment among those with job skills which aren't worth
the minimum wage. You could do the same thing to auto
manufacturers by requiring that all new cars sell for at
least $50,000. Doing so wouldn't magically make all new
cars worth $50,000. It would just reduce the number of new
cars sold.
Economics -- it really isn't all that complicated.
bushlied
So in other words they have to risk their health to provide for
themselves and their kids
Wonderful
bushlied
Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>
>
> But not if that includes smoking a cig, or drinking some
> Scotch, or ... well, or anything you don't happen to like?
>
I am a civil libertarian, unlike the repugs and the religious right
People can smoke only their right to smoke stops when it interferes
with my right to breath fresh air; I would never interfere with a
person's right to smoke in their homes, indeed, that includes smoking
things other than tobacco if they choose
Scotch, not to my taste but I love a good French Bordeaux and I imbibe
quite often (drank a Lynch-Bages 1989 in celebration Tuesday night)
I don't like smoking because I don't like second-hand smoke and smokers
have no right to subject me to that
I see smokers walking down the street, holding a lit cigarette spewing
cancerous smoke everywhere. Why should I have to be subject to that;
if they want to smoke them don't force me to share that
PerfectlyAble
Rules of losing weight.
i.) Eat less.
ii.) Exercise more.
iii.) Don't eat fat, raw suger.
MOST IMPORTNAT iv.) Never eat processed food.
Processed food is crap. It takes time and money to
prepare, it cost more than the raw products and
allows manufactures to pump the food with every
form of crap making you fat. Basically you can't
see it but it pays capialists (the bad kind) to
pump up the food with crap so it can stay on the
shelves, etc, etc. Process food concentrates
energy, so the more you eat the quicker you
reach your required calories for the day. If you
love food, you wouldn't be eating processed foods.
Get serious, people who are fat are self-abusing.
bushlied
Sue wrote:
>
>
> Why do you see the abortion issue as a freedom issue but not the
> smoking?
People can smoke themselves to death for all I care, just don't subject
me to second hand smoke
Callisto
The la
Robert Sturgeon wrote:
> On 11 Nov 2006 08:10:57 -0800, "Callisto" <rx...@psu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> (snips)
>
> >Sorry, dear, but I spent last Christmas ringing the bell to raise money
> >for the needy in our community, such needy people being low wage
> >workers who, after they work two jobs, have to rely on charity to keep
> >from freezing in the winter.
>
> Trying to force anyone to pay more for anything than it's
> worth in the marketplace causes less of that thing to be
> traded. Raising the minimum wage doesn't magically make the
> work of people with marginal job skills worth more money.
> How would driving them out of the hourly wage labor market
> help their income earning capacity?
>
How do you decide what a job is worth? As I recall it depends on the
willingness of the seller and the buyer to accept it. But thanks to
public and private charity, we have made it possible for people to sell
their services at lower rates (there is one absolute floor to any price
- which that it has to cover costs). It costs so much to live on. If
what you make is less then in order to keep working you need a subsidy
- call it welfare, call it charity, call it what you will, it amounts
to a subsidy by people who do not see a cent of the profits of the
employer.
As they said, handoouts encourage dependency. The handouts that are
given to low wage workers encourage dependency on the parat of their
employers. Those employers are basically freeloading on us, and I
would like to put a stop to it. I do not want to pay their rents. I do
not want to pay their elecric bills. And I do not want to subsidize
their work force. As to how they can afford, and what it is worth and
the rest, they can solve it teh way they solve their rent, and electric
and water bills.
> >I do not see why I should freeze my toes so that the businesses who
> >employ those people can make a profit.
>
> Were you drafted into that bell ringer job?
>
> > If you cannot survive unless
> >you get the subsidy of people like me - taken shameless advantage of
> >because of my tender heart - then maybe you should consider if you
> >should be in business in the first place.
>
> Your subsidies are going to the workers without job skills
> worth much money. Raising the minimum wage won't increase
> their job skills, so some of them will be forced out of the
> hourly wage market. I suppose they can then pick up
> aluminum cans or do yard work on a contract basis -- which
> will still not be worth much money. Their problem is not
> that the minimum wage is too low, but that their job skills
> just aren't worth much money
I would not mind, as I said, that my charity money be given to cases of
genuine need, nor employed in giving them the tools to avoid further
dependency. But I do wish it used to further dependency nor
freeloading.
>
> > I am willing to led a
> >helping hand in cases of genuine need, but not to encourage dependency
> >on business owners.
>
> Business owners are willing to pay market rates for labor.
Market rates? Before it was what the job was worth. Two different
things. And market rates are what they are because the subsidies given
to the worforce allows them to sell their labor than they would
otherwise. Without the subsidies, they might move out to a place that
might offer better prospects, and that would drive the market rates up
again.
JJ
> Trying to force anyone to pay more for anything than it's
> worth in the marketplace causes less of that thing to be
> traded. Raising the minimum wage doesn't magically make the
> work of people with marginal job skills worth more money.
> How would driving them out of the hourly wage labor market
> help their income earning capacity?
Your free market theories only work if the market is not skewed. Here's
some food for thought: Employers today can buy many types of labor in
developing countries at extremely low rates. American workers, however,
do not have the option to have costs of living comparable to those in a
developing country.
BTW, don't feel too safe with your labor skills. Soon there won't be
many left that aren't available in abundance in India or China ...
Sue
Who is to determine what that profit should be? The government?
> I see their argument to have me keep their employees not
>freeze to death in order to make a profit the same way I would look at
>them mail me their electric or water bills so that they can make a
>profit.
I suspect that many of the recipients of your largesse who you kept
from freezing to death have nice TVs and cable. Some may be driving
nicer cars than you are. In many cases it depends on *how* the
employees spend their money, not on how much they earn as to whether
they need help from charities or government.
>
>Profit is what you make after you pay your costs. Your costs. If you do
>not pay your costs, what you are making is not a profit, but
>freeloading.
How would you determine what the profit margin ought to be to satisfy
you that the business owners aren't freeloading? When no one who is
employed requires public welfare or charity?
Sue
Sue
I definitely agree with you on your first two.
>iii.) Don't eat fat, raw suger.
Somewhat agree with you on the third although I'm not sure what
difference it makes between raw sugar and processed sugar unless you
mean one should use some other sweetener such as honey.
>MOST IMPORTNAT iv.) Never eat processed food.
>
>Processed food is crap. It takes time and money to
>prepare, it cost more than the raw products
I understand what you're saying, but it's a lot cheaper for me to buy
a can of soup than to make it from scratch in that I really don't much
care for freezing things and I couldn't possibly eat chicken soup made
from an entire chicken before it spoiled. Besides which I'd probably
get sick of it. Per serving it may indeed be cheaper but I don't see
that processed food takes more time to fix.
Reminds me of when I used to make bread. Homemade bread was, in my
household, *not* cheaper than store bought because it was so good that
the family would eat three or four homemade loaves to one store
bought.
> and
>allows manufactures to pump the food with every
>form of crap making you fat. Basically you can't
>see it but it pays capialists (the bad kind) to
>pump up the food with crap so it can stay on the
>shelves, etc, etc. Process food concentrates
>energy, so the more you eat the quicker you
>reach your required calories for the day. If you
>love food, you wouldn't be eating processed foods.
I'm not a vegetarian, never will be and I'm not a food conspiracist as
you seem to be. One thing I don't understand though is why in the
hell they put so damned much salt in processed foods. I'm assuming
that people like their soups and whatnot overloaded with salt.
>Get serious, people who are fat are self-abusing.
As are people who smoke (did for years, don't anymore), people who
over drink (aside from occasionally never have had a problem), people
who abuse drugs (absolutely never).
Callisto
Profit is what you have after you cover your costs, and it is what you
can make of it. But if you do no cover your costs, it is because
someone else is, and myt case that someone else is getting tired of
subsidizing you and wants to know what she is getting in return.
> > I see their argument to have me keep their employees not
> >freeze to death in order to make a profit the same way I would look at
> >them mail me their electric or water bills so that they can make a
> >profit.
>
> I suspect that many of the recipients of your largesse who you kept
> from freezing to death have nice TVs and cable. Some may be driving
> nicer cars than you are. In many cases it depends on *how* the
> employees spend their money, not on how much they earn as to whether
> they need help from charities or government.
>
Well, if the Christian charity that is distributing the largesse is not
giving it to those who deserve it, then I want to know it, but last
time I looked, they were quite clean and efficient, or I would have
switched to another that is.
Of course, you may think that Christian charities groups are ninnies
and to be avoided at all costs....
> >
> >Profit is what you make after you pay your costs. Your costs. If you do
> >not pay your costs, what you are making is not a profit, but
> >freeloading.
>
> How would you determine what the profit margin ought to be to satisfy
> you that the business owners aren't freeloading? When no one who is
> employed requires public welfare or charity?
Of course, if your employees are on welfare, that means that the
taxpayres are paying their salary, and why should they?
Freeloading is freeloading no matter who does it, and the public should
not underwrite cheap labor the same way it does not underwrite free
electricity.
Sue
wrote:
Want to be a server? Most restaurants have non-smoking sections.
Sue
Sue
How do you determine this? Do you, as a charity solicitor, have
access to knowing where the recipients are working so that you know
who is getting this unwitting subsidy? What you are almost saying is
that people with more children should be paid a higher wage. Is that
what you think? A person with one or two children might live easily
on what a person with five kids could not. That parent of five is
more likely the one who would be at the charity asking for help with
the winter heating bill. Even welfare in some states no longer gives
more money for more babies.
> and myt case that someone else is getting tired of
>subsidizing you and wants to know what she is getting in return.
Subsidizing me? You are subsidizing me in more ways than you know.
Some would say you aren't getting anything in return.
>
>> > I see their argument to have me keep their employees not
>> >freeze to death in order to make a profit the same way I would look at
>> >them mail me their electric or water bills so that they can make a
>> >profit.
>>
>> I suspect that many of the recipients of your largesse who you kept
>> from freezing to death have nice TVs and cable. Some may be driving
>> nicer cars than you are. In many cases it depends on *how* the
>> employees spend their money, not on how much they earn as to whether
>> they need help from charities or government.
>>
>
>Well, if the Christian charity that is distributing the largesse is not
>giving it to those who deserve it, then I want to know it, but last
>time I looked, they were quite clean and efficient, or I would have
>switched to another that is.
Good for them. I hope so.
>
>Of course, you may think that Christian charities groups are ninnies
>and to be avoided at all costs....
Of course not!!! I have always donated to Salvation Army and refused
to shop at Target when they disallowed the bell ringers in front of
their stores at Christmas. I do more for Kops for Kids though.
>
>> >
>> >Profit is what you make after you pay your costs. Your costs. If you do
>> >not pay your costs, what you are making is not a profit, but
>> >freeloading.
>>
>> How would you determine what the profit margin ought to be to satisfy
>> you that the business owners aren't freeloading? When no one who is
>> employed requires public welfare or charity?
>
>Of course, if your employees are on welfare, that means that the
>taxpayres are paying their salary, and why should they?
I'm not sure if you're meaning a generic you or not. I have no
employees. The taxpayers are paying *my* salary. Some would
certainly ask "why should they?".
>
>Freeloading is freeloading no matter who does it, and the public should
>not underwrite cheap labor the same way it does not underwrite free
>electricity.
I'm still unclear as to how you can determine how much this "subsidy"
is and who is getting it. Usually your argument is reserved for
health care and that's pretty easy to determine.
Sue
Robert Sturgeon
wrote:
>
>The la
>
>Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>> On 11 Nov 2006 08:10:57 -0800, "Callisto" <rx...@psu.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> (snips)
>>
>> >Sorry, dear, but I spent last Christmas ringing the bell to raise money
>> >for the needy in our community, such needy people being low wage
>> >workers who, after they work two jobs, have to rely on charity to keep
>> >from freezing in the winter.
>>
>> Trying to force anyone to pay more for anything than it's
>> worth in the marketplace causes less of that thing to be
>> traded. Raising the minimum wage doesn't magically make the
>> work of people with marginal job skills worth more money.
>> How would driving them out of the hourly wage labor market
>> help their income earning capacity?
>>
>How do you decide what a job is worth? As I recall it depends on the
>willingness of the seller and the buyer to accept it.
That's right. It's a market.
> But thanks to
>public and private charity, we have made it possible for people to sell
>their services at lower rates (there is one absolute floor to any price
>- which that it has to cover costs). It costs so much to live on. If
>what you make is less then in order to keep working you need a subsidy
>- call it welfare, call it charity, call it what you will, it amounts
>to a subsidy by people who do not see a cent of the profits of the
>employer.
So stop giving out this charity and see if that changes the
job market to make low-skilled work more valuable. My guess
is it won't. I can't think of a single reason it would.
>As they said, handoouts encourage dependency. The handouts that are
>given to low wage workers encourage dependency on the parat of their
>employers. Those employers are basically freeloading on us, and I
>would like to put a stop to it. I do not want to pay their rents. I do
>not want to pay their elecric bills. And I do not want to subsidize
>their work force. As to how they can afford, and what it is worth and
>the rest, they can solve it teh way they solve their rent, and electric
>and water bills.
When you give handouts, are you subsidizing employers,
employees, both, or what? Say, I don't think I'm going to
make any money on my cotton crop this year -- could you
please send me some cash? I'm not sure exactly whom I
should blame for this lack of income, as I'm not selling any
job skills for it. But I'm sure I should be blaming someone
else.
>> >I do not see why I should freeze my toes so that the businesses who
>> >employ those people can make a profit.
>>
>> Were you drafted into that bell ringer job?
>>
>> > If you cannot survive unless
>> >you get the subsidy of people like me - taken shameless advantage of
>> >because of my tender heart - then maybe you should consider if you
>> >should be in business in the first place.
>>
>> Your subsidies are going to the workers without job skills
>> worth much money. Raising the minimum wage won't increase
>> their job skills, so some of them will be forced out of the
>> hourly wage market. I suppose they can then pick up
>> aluminum cans or do yard work on a contract basis -- which
>> will still not be worth much money. Their problem is not
>> that the minimum wage is too low, but that their job skills
>> just aren't worth much money
>
>I would not mind, as I said, that my charity money be given to cases of
>genuine need, nor employed in giving them the tools to avoid further
>dependency. But I do wish it used to further dependency nor
>freeloading.
The only way I know for you to discourage freeloading is to
stop contributing to freeloaders.
>> > I am willing to led a
>> >helping hand in cases of genuine need, but not to encourage dependency
>> >on business owners.
>>
>> Business owners are willing to pay market rates for labor.
>
>Market rates? Before it was what the job was worth.
Same thing.
> Two different
>things.
Nope -- same thing.
> And market rates are what they are because the subsidies given
>to the worforce allows them to sell their labor than they would
>otherwise. Without the subsidies, they might move out to a place that
>might offer better prospects, and that would drive the market rates up
>again.
No, market rates are the rates determined in the marketplace
by the mutual agreements between buyers and sellers.
Robert Sturgeon
wrote:
>Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>
>> Trying to force anyone to pay more for anything than it's
>> worth in the marketplace causes less of that thing to be
>> traded. Raising the minimum wage doesn't magically make the
>> work of people with marginal job skills worth more money.
>> How would driving them out of the hourly wage labor market
>> help their income earning capacity?
>
>Your free market theories only work if the market is not skewed.
Free market theories always "work" when they're tried. If
the market is skewed, we need to unskew it.
> Here's
>some food for thought: Employers today can buy many types of labor in
>developing countries at extremely low rates. American workers, however,
>do not have the option to have costs of living comparable to those in a
>developing country.
They need to either increase their value or cut their costs
-- just like any other seller of goods and/or services.
Otherwise, they're screwed. If you don't think so, just ask
any former U.S. auto worker.
>BTW, don't feel too safe with your labor skills. Soon there won't be
>many left that aren't available in abundance in India or China ...
I don't HAVE any labor skills -- that I know of, anyway. My
skillset is entirely in the field of growing crops (pun
intended) and I already do compete with people in China and
India. Are my skills "safe"? No, and I wouldn't want them
to be safe.
(Why do people always end up personalizing such
discussions???)
Robert Sturgeon
<appl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Just like circus performers and movie stuntmen do. Some
jobs are risky. Don't want the risk? Don't take the job.
>Wonderful
Free choice and the free market are, indeed, wonderful.
PerfectlyAble
No. Sorry. Meant Suger in general, anything with suger added
(which is about everything) to corn syrup.
>
> >MOST IMPORTNAT iv.) Never eat processed food.
> >
> >Processed food is crap. It takes time and money to
> >prepare, it cost more than the raw products
>
> I understand what you're saying, but it's a lot cheaper for me to buy
> a can of soup than to make it from scratch in that I really don't much
> care for freezing things and I couldn't possibly eat chicken soup made
> from an entire chicken before it spoiled. Besides which I'd probably
> get sick of it. Per serving it may indeed be cheaper but I don't see
> that processed food takes more time to fix.
> Reminds me of when I used to make bread. Homemade bread was, in my
> household, *not* cheaper than store bought because it was so good that
> the family would eat three or four homemade loaves to one store
> bought.
Producers adds suger, fat, chemicals, they mass produce
and pass on the costs of that labour by using less quality
ingredients. Basically, processed food stinks, you can tell,
leave it to cool and eat it. As for you have no time, how
much time will you have to take to exercise off all those
extra calories! Make time. You will save money from
the gym fees, from sitting on the loo from the crap they
put in the food.
>
> > and
> >allows manufactures to pump the food with every
> >form of crap making you fat. Basically you can't
> >see it but it pays capialists (the bad kind) to
> >pump up the food with crap so it can stay on the
> >shelves, etc, etc. Process food concentrates
> >energy, so the more you eat the quicker you
> >reach your required calories for the day. If you
> >love food, you wouldn't be eating processed foods.
>
> I'm not a vegetarian, never will be and I'm not a food conspiracist as
> you seem to be. One thing I don't understand though is why in the
> hell they put so damned much salt in processed foods. I'm assuming
> that people like their soups and whatnot overloaded with salt.
Salt makes your pores in your mouth open, so the
food tastes better than it would of.
> >Get serious, people who are fat are self-abusing.
>
> As are people who smoke (did for years, don't anymore), people who
> over drink (aside from occasionally never have had a problem), people
> who abuse drugs (absolutely never).
> Sue
>
> Life is a coin. You can spend it anyway you wish, but you can only spend it once."
Producers put a chemical in meat so that it expands and
takes on water. So you pay more for the same meat per
lb. Now that chemical gets into your body fat what do you
think it will do? We've been eating vegies for millions of
year, nothing wrong with them (as long as you vary them
as they were seasonal for millions of years too).
Robert Sturgeon
<appl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>>
>>
>> But not if that includes smoking a cig, or drinking some
>> Scotch, or ... well, or anything you don't happen to like?
>>
>
>I am a civil libertarian, unlike the repugs and the religious right
Oh, sure you are...
>People can smoke only their right to smoke stops when it interferes
>with my right to breath fresh air; I would never interfere with a
>person's right to smoke in their homes, indeed, that includes smoking
>things other than tobacco if they choose
What about their right to smoke in their own office, or bar?
>Scotch, not to my taste but I love a good French Bordeaux and I imbibe
>quite often (drank a Lynch-Bages 1989 in celebration Tuesday night)
>
>I don't like smoking because I don't like second-hand smoke and smokers
>have no right to subject me to that
So don't go into buildings where it's allowed. I can agree
to ban smoking in public offices and such, but not in
private businesses.
>I see smokers walking down the street, holding a lit cigarette spewing
>cancerous smoke everywhere. Why should I have to be subject to that;
>if they want to smoke them don't force me to share that
That's ridiculous. You won't get cancer from breathing in a
tiny bit of second hand smoke out on a street. You don't
like the SMELL of tobacco smoke, so you want to keep other
people from smoking anywhere you might happen to smell it.
And you call yourself some kind of "libertarian"? Fat
chance... You're as much of a control freak as any "repugs
and the religious right," or Democrats and the religious
left.
Sue
wrote:
>
>Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>>
>>
>> But not if that includes smoking a cig, or drinking some
>> Scotch, or ... well, or anything you don't happen to like?
>>
>
>I am a civil libertarian, unlike the repugs and the religious right
>
>People can smoke only their right to smoke stops when it interferes
>with my right to breath fresh air; I would never interfere with a
>person's right to smoke in their homes, indeed, that includes smoking
>things other than tobacco if they choose
>
>Scotch, not to my taste but I love a good French Bordeaux and I imbibe
>quite often (drank a Lynch-Bages 1989 in celebration Tuesday night)
>
>I don't like smoking because I don't like second-hand smoke and smokers
>have no right to subject me to that
>
>I see smokers walking down the street, holding a lit cigarette spewing
>cancerous smoke everywhere. Why should I have to be subject to that;
>if they want to smoke them don't force me to share that
When are you going to call for a ban on wearing scents in public
places? There are people who are highly allergic to certain perfumes
to the point where they need hospitalization. What about all the
controllable allergens that cause massive asthma attacks in some
people. Going to call for a control on that, too?
Sue
>
>> Yes, it IS a values issue. You have stated YOUR values --
>> that getting an abortion is a matter of rights, but smoking
>> a cig isn't. Why are you having trouble understanding that?
>>
>> --
>> Robert Sturgeon
>> Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
>> http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Life is a coin. You can spend it anyway you wish, but you can only spend it once."
Sue
I limit sugar simply because of the calories.
>
>>
>> >MOST IMPORTNAT iv.) Never eat processed food.
>> >
>> >Processed food is crap. It takes time and money to
>> >prepare, it cost more than the raw products
>>
>> I understand what you're saying, but it's a lot cheaper for me to buy
>> a can of soup than to make it from scratch in that I really don't much
>> care for freezing things and I couldn't possibly eat chicken soup made
>> from an entire chicken before it spoiled. Besides which I'd probably
>> get sick of it. Per serving it may indeed be cheaper but I don't see
>> that processed food takes more time to fix.
>> Reminds me of when I used to make bread. Homemade bread was, in my
>> household, *not* cheaper than store bought because it was so good that
>> the family would eat three or four homemade loaves to one store
>> bought.
>
>Producers adds suger, fat, chemicals, they mass produce
>and pass on the costs of that labour by using less quality
>ingredients. Basically, processed food stinks, you can tell,
>leave it to cool and eat it. As for you have no time, how
>much time will you have to take to exercise off all those
>extra calories! Make time. You will save money from
>the gym fees, from sitting on the loo from the crap they
>put in the food.
Um. I eat about 1100 calories a day right now. I don't think that's
excessive. Unfortunately there are days when that amount isn't
doable. And, I'm weak. Chocolate.......
>
>>
>> > and
>> >allows manufactures to pump the food with every
>> >form of crap making you fat. Basically you can't
>> >see it but it pays capialists (the bad kind) to
>> >pump up the food with crap so it can stay on the
>> >shelves, etc, etc. Process food concentrates
>> >energy, so the more you eat the quicker you
>> >reach your required calories for the day. If you
>> >love food, you wouldn't be eating processed foods.
>>
>> I'm not a vegetarian, never will be and I'm not a food conspiracist as
>> you seem to be. One thing I don't understand though is why in the
>> hell they put so damned much salt in processed foods. I'm assuming
>> that people like their soups and whatnot overloaded with salt.
>
>Salt makes your pores in your mouth open, so the
>food tastes better than it would of.
Sorry, but my taste buds are really sensitive to salt. Sometimes
that's *all* I can taste in a food. If I put butter/margarine on
vegetables the salt in it is plenty. I very rarely put salt on
anything.
>
>> >Get serious, people who are fat are self-abusing.
>>
>> As are people who smoke (did for years, don't anymore), people who
>> over drink (aside from occasionally never have had a problem), people
>> who abuse drugs (absolutely never).
>> Sue
>>
>> Life is a coin. You can spend it anyway you wish, but you can only spend it once."
>
>Producers put a chemical in meat so that it expands and
>takes on water. So you pay more for the same meat per
>lb.
That is so obvious when one browns meat. So much water oozes out it
can be damned near impossible.
> Now that chemical gets into your body fat what do you
>think it will do? We've been eating vegies for millions of
>year, nothing wrong with them (as long as you vary them
>as they were seasonal for millions of years too).
I love veggies. I love meat, too. I just try to balance the two.
Sue
>
>Producers adds suger, fat, chemicals, they mass produce
>and pass on the costs of that labour by using less quality
>ingredients. Basically, processed food stinks, you can tell,
>leave it to cool and eat it. As for you have no time, how
>much time will you have to take to exercise off all those
>extra calories! Make time. You will save money from
>the gym fees, from sitting on the loo from the crap they
>put in the food.
BTW - I don't really do my walking to burn calories. At my age my
joints are getting a bit creaky so I walk to keep them working. I
futz around with little 3 lb dumbbells to try to build up arm
strength. I suspect one of my reasons for doing this would offend
you. It's so I can hold up a shot gun a little easier.
So, regardless of the reason, I still have to take time to exercise.
PerfectlyAble
Sue wrote:
> On 11 Nov 2006 15:25:52 -0800, "PerfectlyAble" <jr...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >
> >Producers adds suger, fat, chemicals, they mass produce
> >and pass on the costs of that labour by using less quality
> >ingredients. Basically, processed food stinks, you can tell,
> >leave it to cool and eat it. As for you have no time, how
> >much time will you have to take to exercise off all those
> >extra calories! Make time. You will save money from
> >the gym fees, from sitting on the loo from the crap they
> >put in the food.
>
> BTW - I don't really do my walking to burn calories. At my age my
> joints are getting a bit creaky so I walk to keep them working. I
> futz around with little 3 lb dumbbells to try to build up arm
> strength. I suspect one of my reasons for doing this would offend
> you. It's so I can hold up a shot gun a little easier.
I was a vegetarian for five years long ago, I have no problem
with people owning guns as long as they are a member
of a militia/gun club and others have to vouch for their
sanity. I have no problems with killing animals as long
as they are wasted. My only real beef is with religious
boomers who think they are entitled to shove religious
arguments into the public spaces and not have their
ideals shot down for the inept counter-productive,
even immorality of their ideas and ideals. rant rant rant. ;-)
> So, regardless of the reason, I still have to take time to exercise.
> Sue
If there is ever a world wide collapse in food production
the fat people willll be eaten first, as it has always been.
Fat people were natural storehouses before refrigeration.
Sue
>
>Sue wrote:
>> On 11 Nov 2006 15:25:52 -0800, "PerfectlyAble" <jr...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Producers adds suger, fat, chemicals, they mass produce
>> >and pass on the costs of that labour by using less quality
>> >ingredients. Basically, processed food stinks, you can tell,
>> >leave it to cool and eat it. As for you have no time, how
>> >much time will you have to take to exercise off all those
>> >extra calories! Make time. You will save money from
>> >the gym fees, from sitting on the loo from the crap they
>> >put in the food.
>>
>> BTW - I don't really do my walking to burn calories. At my age my
>> joints are getting a bit creaky so I walk to keep them working. I
>> futz around with little 3 lb dumbbells to try to build up arm
>> strength. I suspect one of my reasons for doing this would offend
>> you. It's so I can hold up a shot gun a little easier.
>
>I was a vegetarian for five years long ago,
Oh, I had the impression that you are one now.
> I have no problem
>with people owning guns as long as they are a member
>of a militia/gun club and others have to vouch for their
>sanity.
I am a member of a gun club but no one vouches for anyone's sanity. I
guess it's sort of assumed.
> I have no problems with killing animals as long
>as they are wasted.
I don't kill animals. My only shooting, and that's very rare, is trap
shooting. That's where I need the arm strength.
> My only real beef is with religious
>boomers who think they are entitled to shove religious
>arguments into the public spaces and not have their
>ideals shot down for the inept counter-productive,
>even immorality of their ideas and ideals. rant rant rant. ;-)
Well, I'm not religious, but I leave those who are alone.
>
>> So, regardless of the reason, I still have to take time to exercise.
>> Sue
>
>If there is ever a world wide collapse in food production
>the fat people willll be eaten first, as it has always been.
>Fat people were natural storehouses before refrigeration.
Visions of the Donner Party and that Packer (?) fellow. Brrrr.
Sue
Morton Davis
offer $10 an hour just to get enough applicants to fill positions.
Azaliah
"Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> shouted thusly:
>In my area no one will show up to interview at minimum wage. They have to
>offer $10 an hour just to get enough applicants to fill positions.
And you live in what area?
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
<((>< <((>< <((><
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.
Gunner
>
>I do not see why I should freeze my toes so that the businesses who
>employ those people can make a profit. If you cannot survive unless
>you get the subsidy of people like me - taken shameless advantage of
>because of my tender heart - then maybe you should consider if you
>should be in business in the first place. I am willing to led a
>helping hand in cases of genuine need, but not to encourage dependency
>on business owners.
So you are ringing the bell for the Retarded? You must be..as they are
the only people who do not have the ability for upwards advancement.
Or are you claiming that folks who work at Micky-Ds are chained to the
drive up window?
Heads up, cupcake..profit is why business is in business. If they wanted
to run a charity..Im sure they would. No profit..no business creation.
No business creation, no jobs.
Thats how it works in the real world. Minimum wage jobs are intended for
those who work part time, are going to school learning to get a better
job, or as an entry into the working world. If you expect to make a
"decent living" at a minimum wage job..you ARE retarded.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Gunner
> My only real beef is with religious
>boomers who think they are entitled to shove religious
>arguments into the public spaces and not have their
>ideals shot down for the inept counter-productive,
>even immorality of their ideas and ideals. rant rant rant. ;-)
Atheism, just another faith based belief system
Like Liberalism.
Gunner
>>
>>The increase in taxes is to cover the health cost of smoking
>
>No, it wasn't. 10% was to go to smoking cessation education. The
>rest was to go to children's health (Healthy Families), emergency
>rooms (IIRC) and so forth.
Correct. And those services are currently in deep poop because of the
Illegal Aliens sucking down the system.
So taxing smokers was primarily (90%) to cover the costs to society of
Illegal Aliens.
Now thats something the Left didnt say in their ads, now did they?
Gunner
I wont. On the other hand..dont go where smoking is common and
considered normal. Like many bars.
You at that point..put YOURSELF at "risk"
Btw..how do you like your electric car?
Gunner
>
>Of course, if your employees are on welfare, that means that the
>taxpayres are paying their salary, and why should they?
oh oh...boy..THIS is gonna get good....chuckle...
gunner
Gunner
>
>RadicalModerate wrote:
>> In misc.survivalism bushlied <appl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > That's your brilliant answer
>>
>> > What about those who don't [want to be exposed to second hand tobacco
>> smoke in a barroom as part of their employment]
>>
>> They shouldn't work in a bar then.
>>
>> --
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>>
>> From: address IS Valid.
>
>So in other words they have to risk their health to provide for
>themselves and their kids
>
>Wonderful
How so? Does the Government ala the USSR, pick a job and put a worker
into it? Or does one do so knowingly and voluntarily?
So they risk their health or not..by picking the job they want to work
at.
Correct?
Gunner
>
>I am a civil libertarian, unlike the repugs and the religious right
>
>People can smoke only their right to smoke stops when it interferes
>with my right to breath fresh air; I would never interfere with a
>person's right to smoke in their homes, indeed, that includes smoking
>things other than tobacco if they choose
so you have no issue if a bar owner posts a sign indicating this is a
smoking establishment on the front door to the bar. And puts ashtrays at
all seats. Correct?
No one is forceing you to knowingly enter that bar and be exposed to
smoke. Is that also correct?
Lets see how libertarian you really are? Or simply one who wishes to
impose your values on others.
Gunner
Nick Hull
> American workers, however,
> do not have the option to have costs of living comparable to those in a
> developing country.
It isn't so much the high cost of living but the cost of high living.
People are not poor because they lack money, they are poor because they
spend money on the wrong stuff. My own daughter is a good example,
after 3 years of college she dropped out and is working at McDonalds.
She has a much bigger Tv than I, a newer computer, but cannot afford an
apartment.
How much do these 'poor' people spend on beer and cigarettes?
--
Free men own guns - www.geocities/CapitolHill/5357/
Nick Hull
Robert Sturgeon <rst...@inreach.com> wrote:
> >Should you have to risk your life for a job
>
> You do if you want to be a circus performer, or an oil rig
> worker, or a movie stuntman, or a soldier, or a... LOTS of
> work is risky. Don't want the risk -- don't take the job.
>
The riskiest job on dry land is probably farmers ;)
Nick Hull
Robert Sturgeon <rst...@inreach.com> wrote:
> That's ridiculous. You won't get cancer from breathing in a
> tiny bit of second hand smoke out on a street. You don't
> like the SMELL of tobacco smoke, so you want to keep other
> people from smoking anywhere you might happen to smell it.
> And you call yourself some kind of "libertarian"? Fat
> chance... You're as much of a control freak as any "repugs
> and the religious right," or Democrats and the religious
> left.
My wife hates the smell of perfume; perhaps we should outlaw the use of
perfume in public places. Strong perfume smells a lot worse than 2nd
hand smoke ;)
Robert Sturgeon
<anti...@go.com> wrote:
(snips)
>In my area no one will show up to interview at minimum wage. They have to
>offer $10 an hour just to get enough applicants to fill positions.
I'm not surprised. We have a minimum wage, but very little
unemployment -- so the minimum wage must be too low to have
much effect. That is to say, it must be lower than what
many people would demand for their work anyway. Raising it,
however, to, say, $10/hour, would have an effect. And not a
good one.
If the minimum wage really does make low-skill workers'
labor more valuable, and if that's what its backers really
want, and if the minimum wage does not cause unemployment,
then why are they screwing around at those low rates?
$7.50/hour is chump change. Why not go to $100/hour, and
REALLY improve the lives of the low-skill workers???
Robert Sturgeon
<nh...@isp.com> wrote:
>In article <rsrbl25gtopem2onb...@4ax.com>,
> Robert Sturgeon <rst...@inreach.com> wrote:
>
>> >Should you have to risk your life for a job
>>
>> You do if you want to be a circus performer, or an oil rig
>> worker, or a movie stuntman, or a soldier, or a... LOTS of
>> work is risky. Don't want the risk -- don't take the job.
>>
>
>The riskiest job on dry land is probably farmers ;)
I don't know the statistics, but yes, farming is risky work
-- both physically and economically.
JJ
>>> Trying to force anyone to pay more for anything than it's
>>> worth in the marketplace causes less of that thing to be
>>> traded. Raising the minimum wage doesn't magically make the
>>> work of people with marginal job skills worth more money.
>>> How would driving them out of the hourly wage labor market
>>> help their income earning capacity?
>> Your free market theories only work if the market is not skewed.
>
> Free market theories always "work" when they're tried. If
> the market is skewed, we need to unskew it.
Exactly. And until that happens, we cannot let the labor market run
without regulation.
>> Here's
>> some food for thought: Employers today can buy many types of labor in
>> developing countries at extremely low rates. American workers, however,
>> do not have the option to have costs of living comparable to those in a
>> developing country.
>
> They need to either increase their value or cut their costs
> -- just like any other seller of goods and/or services.
> Otherwise, they're screwed. If you don't think so, just ask
> any former U.S. auto worker.
It is simply not possible to live off $100 per month in Detroit, as it
is in China. And a 50-year old auto worker has very few options to
"increase his value". So what do you propose for him?
>> BTW, don't feel too safe with your labor skills. Soon there won't be
>> many left that aren't available in abundance in India or China ...
>
> I don't HAVE any labor skills -- that I know of, anyway. My
> skillset is entirely in the field of growing crops (pun
> intended) and I already do compete with people in China and
> India.
You don't. Farming in the US is a heavily subsidized protected market.
Sue
I damn near killed a co-worker several years ago when she had a bad
allergic reaction to some perfume I was wearing. I never wore perfume
to work again. And yet, perfume is still legal to wear in public.
Odd, isn't it?
Sue
Exactly!!!
Robert Sturgeon
wrote:
>Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>
>>>> Trying to force anyone to pay more for anything than it's
>>>> worth in the marketplace causes less of that thing to be
>>>> traded. Raising the minimum wage doesn't magically make the
>>>> work of people with marginal job skills worth more money.
>>>> How would driving them out of the hourly wage labor market
>>>> help their income earning capacity?
>>> Your free market theories only work if the market is not skewed.
>>
>> Free market theories always "work" when they're tried. If
>> the market is skewed, we need to unskew it.
>
>Exactly. And until that happens, we cannot let the labor market run
>without regulation.
It's the regulation that skews the market.
>>> Here's
>>> some food for thought: Employers today can buy many types of labor in
>>> developing countries at extremely low rates. American workers, however,
>>> do not have the option to have costs of living comparable to those in a
>>> developing country.
>>
>> They need to either increase their value or cut their costs
>> -- just like any other seller of goods and/or services.
>> Otherwise, they're screwed. If you don't think so, just ask
>> any former U.S. auto worker.
>
>It is simply not possible to live off $100 per month in Detroit, as it
>is in China. And a 50-year old auto worker has very few options to
>"increase his value". So what do you propose for him?
I would suggest to him that he get into some other line of
work. On a collective basis, I would suggest to the UAW
members that they take a cold hard look at the economics of
the auto business and do everything they possibly can to
improve their employers' economic performance -- especially
in the areas of labor costs and work rules. Maintaining
their adversarial relationship with their employers only
makes certain the eventual failure of the whole bunch of
them. The very first thing they must do is to get it
through their thick heads that their competitors are not in
those office buildings in Detroit and New York -- their
competitors are in auto factories in Japan, Germany, Korea,
and, most importantly, in China. The Chinese are going to
REALLY wipe them out of they don't change their ways. I'm
looking forward to those reliable, efficient, $12,000
Chinese cars. :-)
>>> BTW, don't feel too safe with your labor skills. Soon there won't be
>>> many left that aren't available in abundance in India or China ...
>>
>> I don't HAVE any labor skills -- that I know of, anyway. My
>> skillset is entirely in the field of growing crops (pun
>> intended) and I already do compete with people in China and
>> India.
>
>You don't. Farming in the US is a heavily subsidized protected market.
It is subsidized, but the crops I grow are not protected.
And "heavily" depends on your definitions, doesn't it? I
could look up the %age of my revenue that comes from the
government, but offhand I'm sure it's less than 15%. The
foreigners I compete with are, by and large, also
subsidized. Some, like the Europeans, are REALLY heavily
subsidized. For the record (although it doesn't matter), I
oppose both protection and subsidies. I would be willing to
do without both. Of course, I would demand that the
subsidies for all other American business also disappear.
Given the political clout of the teachers, nurses, doctors,
AND farmers, I do not expect any of that to happen.
JJ
>>>> Your free market theories only work if the market is not skewed.
>>> Free market theories always "work" when they're tried. If
>>> the market is skewed, we need to unskew it.
>> Exactly. And until that happens, we cannot let the labor market run
>> without regulation.
>
> It's the regulation that skews the market.
No. It's mostly the speed of the technological and economic developments
that enable globalization. The labor market cannot possibly keep up with
this, since it takes a much longer time (at least a generation) for a
whole society to adapt. During the transition protective measures will
remain necessary to some extent. You cannot just open the flood gates
between extremely poor and very rich societies and expect a smooth
equalization of pressure while the latter's water level stays the same.
>>> They need to either increase their value or cut their costs
>>> -- just like any other seller of goods and/or services.
>>> Otherwise, they're screwed. If you don't think so, just ask
>>> any former U.S. auto worker.
>> It is simply not possible to live off $100 per month in Detroit, as it
>> is in China. And a 50-year old auto worker has very few options to
>> "increase his value". So what do you propose for him?
>
> I would suggest to him that he get into some other line of
> work.
That is possible if you're young, but from a certain age there just
aren't any practical options left besides flipping burgers.
> Maintaining
> their adversarial relationship with their employers only
> makes certain the eventual failure of the whole bunch of
> them. The very first thing they must do is to get it
> through their thick heads that their competitors are not in
> those office buildings in Detroit and New York
Looking at stagnant worker salaries and broken pension promises in times
of record corporate profits and exploding executive compensations one
might get a different impression.
>>>> BTW, don't feel too safe with your labor skills. Soon there won't be
>>>> many left that aren't available in abundance in India or China ...
>>> I don't HAVE any labor skills -- that I know of, anyway. My
>>> skillset is entirely in the field of growing crops (pun
>>> intended) and I already do compete with people in China and
>>> India.
>> You don't. Farming in the US is a heavily subsidized protected market.
>
> It is subsidized, but the crops I grow are not protected.
> And "heavily" depends on your definitions, doesn't it?
It's tens of billions per year, plus tariffs.
> The
> foreigners I compete with are, by and large, also
> subsidized. Some, like the Europeans, are REALLY heavily
> subsidized.
What I wrote before similarly applies to Europe and Japan, which are
more or less in the same boat as the US (except that they - so far -
have managed to retain a healthy manufacturing sector while it has
shrunk dramatically in the US).
> For the record (although it doesn't matter), I
> oppose both protection and subsidies. I would be willing to
> do without both.
A large part of the US farming sector woulnd't survive without protection.
> Of course, I would demand that the
> subsidies for all other American business also disappear.
> Given the political clout of the teachers, nurses, doctors,
> AND farmers, I do not expect any of that to happen.
Teachers and nurses are not your competition.
Morton Davis
"Nick Hull" <nh...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:nhull-F1658A....@dialupusa.usenetserver.com...
I knew a couple who were always short of money. They did nothing but
complain about not being able to pay their bills. Yet their trash was full
of empty take out food packages.
Gunner
>>
>> I would suggest to him that he get into some other line of
>> work.
>
>That is possible if you're young, but from a certain age there just
>aren't any practical options left besides flipping burgers.
Sure there is. I turned 50, and started my own business. A hell of a lot
of us "old guys" are doing exactly that.
govern...@comcast.net
<rst...@inreach.com> wrote:
>>It is simply not possible to live off $100 per month in Detroit, as it
>>is in China. And a 50-year old auto worker has very few options to
>>"increase his value". So what do you propose for him?
>
>I would suggest to him that he get into some other line of
>work.
You're suggesting that the US abandon the manufacturing sector
*completely*?
Swill
--
But the one who does not know and does things deserving
punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone
who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from
the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will
be asked. -- Luke 12:48
govern...@comcast.net
<rst...@inreach.com> wrote:
>>You don't. Farming in the US is a heavily subsidized protected market.
>
>It is subsidized, but the crops I grow are not protected.
What do you grow?
govern...@comcast.net
<rst...@inreach.com> wrote:
>I'm not surprised. We have a minimum wage, but very little
>unemployment -- so the minimum wage must be too low to have
>much effect. That is to say, it must be lower than what
>many people would demand for their work anyway. Raising it,
>however, to, say, $10/hour, would have an effect. And not a
>good one.
>
>If the minimum wage really does make low-skill workers'
>labor more valuable, and if that's what its backers really
>want, and if the minimum wage does not cause unemployment,
>then why are they screwing around at those low rates?
>$7.50/hour is chump change. Why not go to $100/hour, and
>REALLY improve the lives of the low-skill workers???
Combined with enforcement of illegal immigration the effects will be
positive indeed for Americans.
govern...@comcast.net
>>My wife hates the smell of perfume; perhaps we should outlaw the use of
>>perfume in public places. Strong perfume smells a lot worse than 2nd
>>hand smoke ;)
>
>I damn near killed a co-worker several years ago when she had a bad
>allergic reaction to some perfume I was wearing. I never wore perfume
>to work again. And yet, perfume is still legal to wear in public.
>Odd, isn't it?
What other regulations of personal behavior should the government be
allowed to make?
Gunner
(Hagar) wrote:
>In article <9q5dl213502rf5jth...@4ax.com>
>Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 11 Nov 2006 16:30:59 -0800, "PerfectlyAble"
><jr...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> > My only real beef is with religious
>> >boomers who think they are entitled to shove religious
>> >arguments into the public spaces and not have their
>> >ideals shot down for the inept counter-productive,
>> >even immorality of their ideas and ideals. rant rant rant. ;-)
>>
>> Atheism, just another faith based belief system
>
>Lack of superstition is not just another superstition.
>
>It's a lack of superstition.
No..its a belief system based on any factual data. So its simply
another faith based belief system.
>
>
>But trying to persuade you zealots of that is pointless; what
>you need is a two-by-four square between the eyes.
Be my guest and try. Would you care for a northern or southern exposure
to spend eternity in?
Btw..Im Buddhist.
>
>And you got one last Tuesday.
>
That had something to do with religion? Really. Are you sure? Given
that some 80% or so of the country professes to believe in God(s)..it
would then appear that only that -/+ 20% participated in the election.
Is that your claim? Or did you once again paint yourself into a corner?
Gunner, who doesnt use a remailer
Sue
>On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:53:33 GMT, Sue <seb...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>
>>>My wife hates the smell of perfume; perhaps we should outlaw the use of
>>>perfume in public places. Strong perfume smells a lot worse than 2nd
>>>hand smoke ;)
>>
>>I damn near killed a co-worker several years ago when she had a bad
>>allergic reaction to some perfume I was wearing. I never wore perfume
>>to work again. And yet, perfume is still legal to wear in public.
>>Odd, isn't it?
>
>What other regulations of personal behavior should the government be
>allowed to make?
I'm not really big on regulating personal behaviour.
Sue
>
>Swill
Sue
<fr...@spamexpire-200611.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
>In article <odcal252d7sq53fe1...@4ax.com>
>Robert Sturgeon <rst...@inreach.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10 Nov 2006 16:34:28 -0800, "Too_Many_Tools"
>> <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>snicker<....yeah a LITTLE list.
>> >
>> >I like to think of the Democrat landslide as the gift that
>just keeps
>> >giving and giving and giving.....
>>
>> You call THAT a "landslide"???
>
>Every single committee chairman in the new Congress will be a
>Democrat.
>
>All of them.
>
>That's very important to the investigations on the Democrats'
>"Little Last".
Is them Democrats makin' tiny shoes?
Sue
Gunner
>On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 07:46:18 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
><rst...@inreach.com> wrote:
>
>>>It is simply not possible to live off $100 per month in Detroit, as it
>>>is in China. And a 50-year old auto worker has very few options to
>>>"increase his value". So what do you propose for him?
>>
>>I would suggest to him that he get into some other line of
>>work.
>
>You're suggesting that the US abandon the manufacturing sector
>*completely*?
>
>Swill
Why would you think he is suggesting that? Manufacturing is booming in
the US. The problem for many guys..is that their particular skills are
no longer needed in manufacturing.
With the advent of CNC..its been a long and very obvious evolution away
from many many types of machine operations.mostly manual on manual
machines. Like buggy whip manufactures. We probably have as many or
more horses today owned by private parties than we did in 1900..probably
far more today..but few pull buggies or wagons anymore. Nor are there as
many Belgians or other large draft horses. Smaller riding stock is very
very common though in much of the US.
We havent abandoned the use of horses in the slightest. We just dont use
them in the same way anymore, or the same types.
Gunner