Trump woos balcks, "what the hell do you have to lose?”

[phrodeau]

Same shit...black (R) = not real black person but a puppet for the white devil.

The only thing that could ever stop the black community at large from voting (D) is for (D)'s to fuck up and be honest for a few min on live TV.



No that's racism.



Neither does 15/hr.



They want all jobs to start out paying 40-90k/yr depending on where you live.

Their idea of helping poor people is to give them money to make more poor financial decisions with.

I will help you to a fact. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. If a person works full time for that, he or she will earn $15,080.00 in a year. The current poverty level threshold for a single person is $16,242.00 per year. Notice a difference?

 

[BotanyBoy]

I will help you to a fact. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. If a person works full time for that, he or she will earn $15,080.00 in a year. The current poverty level threshold for a single person is $16,242.00 per year. Notice a difference?

Arbitrary government fuckery.

What's your point?

16k a year isn't that much more livable than 15.

 

[Raziel83]

You are missing the point BB. The point is that with the current minimum wage people working full time jobs may still live in poverty. Raising the minimum wage to 15$/h would help with that.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You are missing the point BB. The point is that with the current minimum wage people working full time jobs may still live in poverty. Raising the minimum wage to 15$/h would help with that.

No it wouldn't because the raise wouldn't cover the welfare that they would lose especially if it found them in a new tax bracket somehow? Ohh lord that would be some shit.

If we are going to do this right we need to bump that min wage up to 22-30/hr depending on zip code and stop taxing everyone making less than 80k~/yr.

Otherwise we're just fucking around with stupid shit and wasting time.

Kinda like ACA and all the other incrementalist dipshittery.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post

What is "a living wage?" That is, what does the term mean to you?

I'm not a bit surprised you can't understand that concept, Box.

I understand it. I'm asking if you do.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

Please provide some list or description of the policies that Republicans have adopted or promoted that are beneficial to African Americans at any time in the last 20 years.

Just name a few. I'm curious to know about them.

Please provide some list or description of the policies that either party has adopted or promoted that are beneficial to African Americans at any time in the last 20 years.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Please provide some list or description of the policies that either party has adopted or promoted that are beneficial to African Americans at any time in the last 20 years.

You don't even have to be that harsh....just ask for some in the last 8 LOL

 

[phrodeau]

If anyone needs proof that right-wingers are deliberately thick, it's in this thread.

 

[BotanyBoy]

If anyone needs proof that right-wingers are deliberately thick, it's in this thread.

Well if we're not on board with NeoLib Democrat Derp policy then we MUST be right wingers!!!

LOL, you're further right than I am dipshit.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

If anyone needs proof that right-wingers are deliberately thick, it's in this thread.

you make fucktards look intelligent

 

[phrodeau]

Well if we're not on board with NeoLib Democrat Derp policy then we MUST be right wingers!!!

LOL, you're further right than I am dipshit.

But the "deliberately thick" shoe fit pretty well, did it?

 

[BotanyBoy]

But the "deliberately thick" shoe fit pretty well, did it?

Nah I just figured you were shit talking because I wan't buying into your bullshit.

(which of course makes me right wing!! LOL)

 

[about_average]

If not for his cluelessness on foreign affairs, Herman Cain might have been able to do it.

Not to mention he was quite willing to unequivocally violate the US Constitution in judicial appointments.
Not that many people cared about that.

Arbitrary government fuckery.

What's your point?

16k a year isn't that much more livable than 15.

No, but $30,000 would be, which is what it would be at $15/hr.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No, but $30,000 would be, which is what it would be at $15/hr.

Everywhere but BFE Kansas/Dakota that's still living meal to meal.

And even then without a bunch of other policies in place that's going to be a very short lived temporary boost.

Why not just get god damn real about it and set the min wage where it needs to be for a living wage? Most experts say 22/hr is where it should be. Then people could buy a car ever decade or so and maybe even a few of them who aren't shit with money could afford a shit shack of their own.


Why not just end poverty and set min wage at 30/hr? See what the real bullshit is and change policy as necessary.

 

[underguy1]

Not to mention he was quite willing to unequivocally violate the US Constitution in judicial appointments.
Not that many people cared about that.


No, but $30,000 would be, which is what it would be at $15/hr.

You'll never, ever get the point through to the libertarian mind. They eschew logic and mathematics..

 

[BotanyBoy]

You'll never, ever get the point through to the libertarian mind. They eschew logic and mathematics..

I'm pushing for a legit living wage, yet you think I'm a libertarian?


LOL I don't think you could possibly be any dumber....

 

[underguy1]

The author of the article, Michael Emerling, is a bit less crude than Moshe Kroy. The best liars are those who believe their bullshit; Emerling, whose bio boasts that he lectures around the country on "The Art of Political Persuasion," is a bit slicker and more nuanced in his presentation:

In 1976, I discussed this problem with John T. Hamilton III, a libertarian strategist and activist living in Tucson, Arizona. He had developed an enormously effective technique for bringing the left and the right to a consistent libertarian position.

It is called "political cross-dressing." "Cross-dressing," of course, refers to the adoption of the dress and behavior of members of the opposite sex. For the libertarian, political cross-dressing means using right-wing words, evidence, and arguments to support civil liberties, and left-wing terms and reasons to support the free market.

Political cross-dressing is based upon a sound principle of salesmanship: it shows the prospect how the "product" will fulfill his wants and needs. This can be done because freedom has something for everyone.

From:

Found: Libertarians' "Lying To Liberals" Guide Book

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/lying-to-liberals/

 

[BotanyBoy]

For the libertarian, political cross-dressing means using right-wing words, evidence, and arguments to support civil liberties, and left-wing terms and reasons to support the free market.

You can't show me doing that and it has nothing to do with me asking you to explain the huge conflict of your statements.

If government can just will wealth into existence, the how come N.Korea has the economic problems it does and how is it possible for the USA to wage economic war against anyone???

Either government can will wealth into existence via government magic or they can't....which is it?

 

[underguy1]

Rothbard on parental obligations to children:

The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive. (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.)

 

[BotanyBoy]

I see that having to explain yourself is causing a total short circuit situation.....

I'll just take that as you being full of shit.

 

[underguy1]

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5vzCmURh7o

 

[BotanyBoy]

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5vzCmURh7o

Your inability to explain your arguments isn't a straw man on my part but if that's what you have to keep telling yourself to keep the delusion alive then by all means

 

[underguy1]

Low IQ, no ethics.

 

[underguy1]

Your inability to explain your arguments isn't a straw man on my part but if that's what you have to keep telling yourself to keep the delusion alive then by all means

You're just a liar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GzXVqwYHVE

 

[BotanyBoy]

Low IQ, no ethics.

Ad hominem

adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.


Does government create wealth or not??