Bungee Jumper Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I actually meant help more kids get better cable to watch so they stop screwing when they're bored, but your thought works too. 839597[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I actually meant help more kids get better cable to watch so they stop screwing when they're bored, but your thought works too. 839597[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Sure you would. Everyone talks a good game. Barbara Streisand and Jessie Jackson are my absolute favorites at that. Are you the type of person who doesnt believe people actually do have a heart and would do something nice? Adoptions DROP virtually every year. Don't let facts actually get in the way. But hey, let's continue to force your religious beliefs on people in a free country. The Churches got plenty of money. It's just too bad they construct edifices to their own glory instead of doing the right thing. Again, talking a good game. If you zealots were smart, you'd work a hell of alot harder on having the local church organize against the things that actually lead to abortion - but that'd actually be constructive and we all know organized religion ain't the least bit about that. This may come as a shocker to you, but ... I dont attend church. Im not a huge fan of church. I do not LOVE church. I love GOD. My beliefs on abortion are not directly from God. Sure that is an influence but before I was on fire for God, I still believed abortion was not right. So those two paragraphs are somewhat of a non-factor arent they? Recap: Me+Church = do not mix Yeah, I'm sure people would be lining up. Just as I'm sure all the systems (AND MONEY, which you and most of the other zealots don't actually have) required would magically appear if the over 1,000,000 abortions performed annually in this country suddenly came to a stop. 839541[/snapback] Right because before abortion was made legal there were thousands of babies stranded on the streets ... God forbid people actually have consequences for their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Are you the type of person who doesnt believe people actually do have a heart and would do something nice? Oh, there are people out there who do nice things. I just don't think YOU'RE one of them. This may come as a shocker to you, but ... I dont attend church. Im not a huge fan of church. I do not LOVE church. I love GOD. My beliefs on abortion are not directly from God. Sure that is an influence but before I was on fire for God, I still believed abortion was not right. So those two paragraphs are somewhat of a non-factor arent they? Recap: Me+Church = do not mix Not really. Me+abortion don't work. However, I actually understand the need for it as well as my (and society's) limitations as a person to impart my value set on anyone who doesn't actually live in my house. I'll believe you can stop people from having abortions at the exact same time you can stop people from doing drugs. Guess exactly when that'll be (think: The Rapture). Right because before abortion was made legal there were thousands of babies stranded on the streets ... God forbid people actually have consequences for their actions. 839644[/snapback] You're right, when abortion was illegal there were no orphanages. In fact, there were so few problems with unwanted children that "Lil' Adopted Annie" was the best attended musical of all time. The government had it so good they didn't have to create agencies at every level to deal with the problem. There are abortions NOW and there are over ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND children each year who aren't adopted. Does that fit into your little "there are no children wandering the streets" theory? Or because YOU, in your life as a poor college kid, don't actually know WTF you're talking about? Yeah, that's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I was on fire for God, 839644[/snapback] Jesus Christ, you're one of those kooks?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger in Paradise Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 If the progressives actually cared about Minimum Wage, they'd simply tie it to the cost of living indexes. Too bad they benefit so much from it remaining crappy, so it looks like they're actually doing something when every decade or so they champion the cause. 839485[/snapback] There must have been a blue moon last night, that makes TWO consecutive posts from AD that were constructie and well thought out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 If the progressives actually cared about Minimum Wage, they'd simply tie it to the cost of living indexes. Too bad they benefit so much from it remaining crappy, so it looks like they're actually doing something when every decade or so they champion the cause. 839485[/snapback] I would love to see that happen, but there is no way tying it to a cost of living index would get past the GOP hard-liners. So, if the choice is to compromise and get the minimum wage bill through as a stand-alone increase, or not get anything through, I'd be happy with the former. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I would love to see that happen, but there is no way tying it to a cost of living index would get past the GOP hard-liners. So, if the choice is to compromise and get the minimum wage bill through as a stand-alone increase, or not get anything through, I'd be happy with the former. 839751[/snapback] Bull. They could have passed this stuff numerous times over the past 40 years, when they enjoyed majorities in both houses and held the Executive. The simple fact is they won't because it benefits them more to keep people poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 There must have been a blue moon last night, that makes TWO consecutive posts from AD that were constructie and well thought out. 839724[/snapback] Well, now I can die in complete peace. I was just waiting for your validation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Bull. They could have passed this stuff numerous times over the past 40 years, when they enjoyed majorities in both houses and held the Executive. The simple fact is they won't because it benefits them more to keep people poor. 839780[/snapback] Bitching and moaning about the (distant) past has no relevence to the political landscape now. If the Dems came out with a minimum wage increase bill tied to the cost of living index there is no freaking way in hell it would get through, and even if by some miracle it did, they wouldn't have the votes to override Dubya's almost-certain veto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Bitching and moaning about the (distant) past has no relevence to the political landscape now. Of course it doesn't. If we actually held anyone accountable things might actually change. If the Dems came out with a minimum wage increase bill tied to the cost of living index there is no freaking way in hell it would get through, and even if by some miracle it did, they wouldn't have the votes to override Dubya's almost-certain veto. 839803[/snapback] Nothing more than an excuse for the pathetic group you worship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger in Paradise Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Well, now I can die in complete peace. I was just waiting for your validation. 839781[/snapback] RIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Hey! That's a good answer! We can make sure working people don't have enough money to feed and cloth their kids so we can kill zygotes!! Jesus would approve, I'm sure! 839464[/snapback] Or they could wait to start a family until they make more than minimum wage and can afford to raise their kids without govrnment assistance like any responsible adult would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Bitching and moaning about the (distant) past has no relevence to the political landscape now. If the Dems came out with a minimum wage increase bill tied to the cost of living index there is no freaking way in hell it would get through, and even if by some miracle it did, they wouldn't have the votes to override Dubya's almost-certain veto. 839803[/snapback] Hang on a second. If you presume that the Democrats will have the political juice to get an increase in minimum wage passed, why would one tied to CPI get vetoed, but a minimum wage tied to CPI not get vetoed? That doesn't make any sense. If there is political support (from the people) for a wage increase, there would be even more political support (from the people) for a wage tied to CPI. The question I have is: Why does NO ONE talk about tying the minimum wage to the CPI? And the most obvious one is that it is politically expedient to have an issue to go to the well with every now and then. Seriously... if Democrats really cared about the poor minimum wage workers, they should propose one that keeps pace with inflation. Anything else is just eyewash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Hang on a second. If you presume that the Democrats will have the political juice to get an increase in minimum wage passed, why would one tied to CPI get vetoed, but a minimum wage tied to CPI not get vetoed?839903[/snapback] I don't understand your question. I'm saying that they probably have enough votes to get a minimum wage increase through, but I do not think one tied to the cost of living index would. There hasn't been a federal increase since 1997 (I believe), and the hue and cry from "small business" is that a minimum wage increase would destroy them. So, if an increase on it's own has been a tough sell, how would tying one to an automatic increase as the cost of living index increases get through? Would I love to see that bill? Hell yes. Do I think we'll see that bill? No way. These bills don't get proposed in a vaccuum. They have a pretty good idea how the votes will go. So, why waste time with a bill you know won't get through? You could do it for political reasons, like the GOP does for their hard-on for flag burning amendments in election years. But I don't believe the Dems will do that in this instance. Getting the wage increase is far better than just proposing one and getting it shot down. That doesn't make any sense. If there is political support (from the people) for a wage increase, there would be even more political support (from the people) for a wage tied to CPI. The question I have is: Why does NO ONE talk about tying the minimum wage to the CPI? And the most obvious one is that it is politically expedient to have an issue to go to the well with every now and then. Seriously... if Democrats really cared about the poor minimum wage workers, they should propose one that keeps pace with inflation. Anything else is just eyewash. 839903[/snapback] Say the Dems propose that bill. And it never gets through. The same people yelling that the Dems don't have the stones to propose a minimum wage increase tied to the cost of living index will be the same ones saying that they only put it out there for political reasons. They haven't proposed anything yet, and you're already slamming them. What's the most important thing here? Getting these people more money or satisfying the chatteratti? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 What's the most important thing here? Getting these people more money or satisfying the chatteratti?839935[/snapback] That strikes me as a question that should be asked of our newly elected Democratic officials, no? What's more important? Trying to get them more money, or not doing anything because they think their efforts will fail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 That strikes me as a question that should be asked of our newly elected Democratic officials, no? What's more important? Trying to get them more money, or not doing anything because they think their efforts will fail? 839972[/snapback] Isn't that what I just said? People are tripping over themselves to call them a failure and they haven't even come to power yet. If it's 2008 and they haven't tried to push through a bill increasing the federal minimum wage you can be pretty sure the outcry will be coming from the left, and not the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Why does NO ONE talk about tying the minimum wage to the CPI? Lemme see, you want to have a serious debate about a proposal you don't agree with to begin with. Sounds fruitful. You start, why would you want to tie wages to an index that is itself political, and potentially volatile, and may go down, therefore getting rid of scheduled increases for the purposes of businesses having some cost certainty with budgeting? Seriously... if Democrats really cared about the poor minimum wage workers, they should propose one that keeps pace with inflation. Anything else is just eyewash. 839903[/snapback] Eyewash, do we put that in the CPI? That may be more useful than figuring out a living wage and poverty level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Eyewash, do we put that in the CPI? That may be more useful than figuring out a living wage and poverty level. 839994[/snapback] Impossible. It's the leveling water theory. The government has gotten more and more involved in our daily lives and virtually the same percentage of people are poor as were before all this crap started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Oh, there are people out there who do nice things. I just don't think YOU'RE one of them. Not really. Me+abortion don't work. However, I actually understand the need for it as well as my (and society's) limitations as a person to impart my value set on anyone who doesn't actually live in my house. I'll believe you can stop people from having abortions at the exact same time you can stop people from doing drugs. Guess exactly when that'll be (think: The Rapture). You're right, when abortion was illegal there were no orphanages. In fact, there were so few problems with unwanted children that "Lil' Adopted Annie" was the best attended musical of all time. The government had it so good they didn't have to create agencies at every level to deal with the problem. There are abortions NOW and there are over ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND children each year who aren't adopted. Does that fit into your little "there are no children wandering the streets" theory? Or because YOU, in your life as a poor college kid, don't actually know WTF you're talking about? Yeah, that's it. 839694[/snapback] To be honest I cant really argue with most of what you wrote above. Most of it is true. I must ask though. Why do you I am not a person who would do something nice? This may be a stupid question, but ... do you believe in God or take part in any religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts