birdog1960

thanks very much!

to many more!

oh. that changes things. carry on. nothing to see here. and there isn't a single available drug that has shown sustained, significant weight loss to the extent that obesity is "cured". doesn't exist. it's pretty simple: if conventional medicine can't treat it, snake oil salesmen will tell you that they can. been considering the swsx festival as a vacation for a while. either that or nearly strictly bluegrass in san francisco. ever been to swsx?

c'mon. what walmart is doing here is the ethical equivalent of me selling a weight loss program that i know doesn't work. the consequences may be less but the principle is the same. the dirt farmer in the himalayas is confronted with his own moral questions as well. perhaps, he's tempted to sell watered down goat milk. know a few ut grads. have to say they're not the most liberal folks i've ever met but that's ok. they seem to have good intentions. anyway, have heard good things about austin except for the urban sprawl. the music scene sounds right up my alley.

heard an artist interviewed on npr today about how fast austin is growing and that she contemplated leaving but couldn't find anywhere with better weather and so many progressives. but i'm pretty certain she was complaining about too many new folks like you...just a guess based on your posts. tolerance didn't seem to be her strong suit which i found interesting.

talk about a fish out of water! maybe you can pick up a "keep austin weird" shirt at your local walmart, too.

principles...we don't need no stinkin principles! honesty, sincerity? what are those? the scarier thing however, is that people will buy stuff like this from from walmart, made and sold by slave wage workers and not see the irony.

somehow, i don't think you're likely the best one to be giving advice on this. just a guess...not at all sure why you insist i'm cherry picking. what basis do you have to know my stance on the other issues that you bring up? for example, i'm anti abortion but also anti capital punishment. to be pro one and anti the other is in my view, cherry picking. but, i like the bee gee Jesus you posted. has anyone drawing these ridiculous impressions ever been to a museum? a few hours in the british museum looking at carvings and drawing from the biblical era and asia minor should be required before anyone tries to draw a biblical figure (or discusses ethnicity on fox news). i answered a comment re obama that was as thoroughly divorced from the thread topic as your comments. probably should have abstained in retrospect. but i'm confident that i'll weigh in on that cornucopia of topics separately at some point. I am all for reducing poverty... What I’m against is talking about “inequality” as if that term denoted any of those concerns. Poverty matters; injustice matters. Mere inequality is beside the point.</p> agreed. the primary topic isn't inequality. it's poverty. and it's clear that the pope thinks the massive concentration of wealth is, in part, a cause. there is a middle ground between full equality and massive concentration. within that middle ground are concepts other than marxism. that's what limbaugh and presumably you, fail to grasp. to be against 50% of the world's wealth being held by 1 or 2 percent is not necessarily the same as being for marxism. it's not either/or. it may be more difficult to think in terms of more than 2 dimensions or options but it usually more accurately reflects the truth.

it was a bad game played by two of the worst teams in the nfl.

perhaps you can obfuscate the actual issue of this thread, the popes economic stance, into oblivion. that appears to be some cons goal. maybe we can discuss whether santa and Jesus is/was white.

maybe because sheeple (they even have a nickname for limbaugh acolytes, right?) here in the US of A have elevated this blow hard to a status where his comments are quoted to the pope. has obama disappointed me? yes, certainly re the aca rollout. i really haven't had problems with much else. there's really not much opportunity to accomplish much when you have a sizable majority of the house willing to go as far as shut down the gov't over an unwinnable battle.

so i guess limbaugh was wrong, eh? think he'll make a retraction or apologize? not bloody likely. the pope again rejects the idea of trickle down economics giving an apt metaphor of a wine glass that is supposed to overflow to the poor but instead magically gets bigger. it was limbaugh that likened this to marxism, not Francis. the statement is what it is and what it is, people like limbaugh and those who espouse trickle down economics, don't like.

really? so you're asserting that one must agree that the crusades were just, to also believe in the holy trinity? you might want to read up on papal infallibility, too. what you imagine it means, probably isn't what it, in fact, means. there's that whole ex cathedra thing. i believe that the past failings of the church are due to human error and misinterpretation. that doesn't lessen the divine design. we've just gotten it wrong, sometimes and so have other religions. i think Francis is getting a whole lot more right than wrong.

$50 walmart card and $25 grocery card. when i was self employed, we had either a party at a family restaurant with all employee family members invited or employees only lunch at one of the best restaraunts in town, whichever the employees voted that they wanted. it was almost always the family dinner. they also got $100.

seem to remember something about the widow's mite...

wow. just wow.to simplify, how bout looking at the secular component of the pope's message (yes, i know, theology is integral to his message but it's possible to distill it as he did to a degree when answering his atheist questioner). without the theology, his message in essence is that people should work at being good. defining good is relatively easy for some things: eg a good knife is one thast cuts well, stays sharp and is maneuverable. a good person? i think it's clear from his writing that he sees the ideal more closely represented by mother theresa than jamie dimon. and i think he's correct. the world would be a much better place with more people striving for that ideal. it's really pretty simple. you may not agree but it's a straightforward message.

yes, i realize all of that. although he recognizes that within the church and outside of it, others have different opinions. as it says in the "time" piece, he's attempting to balance mercy with judgement in a way not often seen. he's already stated that, while important (and while not softening the church stance), too much emphasis has been put on issues such as contraception and abortion at the expense of other important social issues. there's a worldwide papal poll for all Catholics that includes questions on sexual matters. while i don't take that as a pass to act as one pleases without regard to the churches teachings, i think it's an implicit recognition that not all practicing Catholics are on the same page on all issues. ultimately, he believes that everyone, including athiests, can be redeemed, as he simply has stated.

i certainly agree that some media outlets are getting it wrong. this one for instance: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/27/limbaugh-profoundly-disappointed-in-popes-attack-on-tyranny-of-unfettered-capitalism/

i also wonder what percentage of owners own multiple stores.what does your name and photo mean? mel gray, chiefs?

time's person of the year http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/yuletide-gift-for-pope-francis-vast-popularity-among-catholics/.

who? fortunately, a little more than 1/2 the electorate.

all the liberals here seem to agree that less than $15 will be achieved. colleagues and coworkers i've discussed it with don't believe $15 is gonna happen. i don't believe it's gonna happen. no, i don't have a poll. so what? the likelihood is that mcd workers won't be upped to a $15 minimum wage. i think they will likely get a raise. and asking for $15 to start will likely be instrumental in gettng it.

do you think if mcd's comes back with 9 they can't settle on 11 or 10?

but people making minimum wage can for the most part only afford cheap junk. walmart , mcd's and the like are their primary vendors in many cases. thus, it may well be in those particular employers best interest to increase pay to their workers and for others with less to gain, to be compelled to do so as well.

"it will tend to raise all wages since the floor is higher". i agree. most have already conceded that $15 is a starting point for negotiations.