Pro-illegal freaks at Columbia U at it again.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

That says it all folks. I suggesr reading Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" instead.

 

 

I didn't say I agreed with him, you jackass. He was wrong, but he was trying to form a positive solution to the vast exploitation that DID exist in his time. My personal favorite political books are 1984, The Prince, and Brave New World. But the point is that many right-wing fucktards pretend that Leninist communism is the same thing as Marx's original communist philosophy, therefore equating liberals with Leninist communism, when that couldn't be any further from the truth.

[Jhony5]

Posted by: ToDumbToFuckingThink

And unless you're a bigot, that's a problem ... Why??? I can see wanting to preserve the name of marriage, but they should have every right to form civil unions that give them all the same rights as if they were married. The only issue here is the name of "marriage." Civil unions should make this a non-issue.

Well, this is fodder for another debate. Marriage is what it is. The same ignorant argument your stating could be parroted by polygamist and otherwise. Gays have been accepted and their rights protected by legislature. That wasn't good enough apparently. Flat out, two dudes getting married is fucking dumb. Maybe just my opinion, however my opinion is in the majority and is supported by the law of the land. Nuff bout that.

No, they just complain about certain exploitations.

Exploitations??? Tell me you didn't just say that in defense of the invaders? Exploitation is a motherfucker sneaking his illiterate uneducated ass illegally across our borders, breeding like a rabbit, drawing on every form of welfare meant to be extended to Americans, crowding our jails and court systems with his drunk ass, and sending all the money he earns by working illegally BACK TO MEXICO. Google Western union money transfers to Mexico. Its god dam astonishing how much American money ends up back in Mexico. EXPLOITATION, you bet your ass!

Um, no. They blame the white folks in the government for the shitty response to the hurricane ... Not for causing it. They're blaming the people for NOT DOING THEIR JOB.

I concur that the government fucked up on Katrina. However that does not do away with the images of countless black standing around, hands extended, asking for the magic handouts they have grown so very accustomed to. As the old saying goes. One cannot be helped unless one helps themselves. My comment towards the Katrina issue was more directed at the popular belief among the black community that the levees were sabotaged by whitey as a means of removing blacks from New Orleans. Check the new Spike Lee movie if ya don't follow me on that one bro.

This sounds kinda like a bigotted comment.

 

Bigoted, maybe. True, definitely.

... Aaaaand this is all a bunch of bigotted stereotyping of Mexican people.

Look guy, I can drive down the scenic streets of Greenwood Indiana any time of any day of the week, and what I see is exactly what I described. Mexicans walking down the road to the liquor store. This isn't a "stereotype". Its whats happening in the once white and relatively crime free streets of Greenwood. I worked in a Kroger store in Greenwood on 3rd shift as the night manager. I swear to you on my child, EVERY dam night I had to take time out of my busy schedule dealing with drunk ass Mexicans and their beer fetish. One of the most common issues I had with them was them coming in past 3am ( the cutoff time for alcohol sales in Indiana ) trying to buy beer. Enter the language barrier hindered further by the level of intoxication. I spent so much time doing this that I had a college kid that worked for me and knew fluent Spanish, write down the message I was so often trying to convey to drunk illegals, onto a piece of paper so I could save myself the grief. Sometimes the truth sounds ugly. Sometime it sounds "stereotypical". But nevertheless, the truth is the truth is the truth.

And this is just nationalistic bullshit.

So your telling me that Mexico DOESN'T suck? Go ahead muthafucka, say it. I dare you. I've been to Mexico, and believe me when I say, IT SUCKS!!! Why else are millions of their people risking life and limb to leave the place?

 

Go ahead and tell me Mexico doesn't suck. Then tell me why it doesn't suck.

 

Can't do it? I can. Mexico SUCKS because Mexicans SUCK.

[hugo]

Exploitations??? Tell me you didn't just say that in defense of the invaders? Exploitation is a motherfucker sneaking his illiterate uneducated ass illegally across our borders, breeding like a rabbit, drawing on every form of welfare meant to be extended to Americans, crowding our jails and court systems with his drunk ass, and sending all the money he earns by working illegally BACK TO MEXICO. Google Western union money transfers to Mexico. Its god dam astonishing how much American money ends up back in Mexico. EXPLOITATION, you bet your ass!

 

 

Exploitation..it is the pinko commies favorite term whenever their is an inequality. Regardless of the reason for that inequality.

 

The fact is all empowered commies,e.g. Lenin, Mao, Castro, Pot, inevitably grossly violate the civil liberties of their citizens. I don't see the same level of gross civil liberties being violated by the followers of Locke. This is because the modern liberals e.g. Mao, Stalin, Pot, Kennedy, Kerry, unlike the classical liberals do not understand that rights to private property is a civil right and history tells us that when this basic civil right is violated all civil rights are in jeopardy. Ya would think if them Mexicans were being so badly exploited they would stop coming here.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

Posted by: ToDumbToFuckingThink

 

 

Did you come up with that all by yourself, or did your Imperial Wizard mama help you out?

 

Well, this is fodder for another debate. Marriage is what it is. The same ignorant argument your stating could be parroted by polygamist and otherwise. Gays have been accepted and their rights protected by legislature. That wasn't good enough apparently. Flat out, two dudes getting married is fucking dumb. Maybe just my opinion, however my opinion is in the majority and is supported by the law of the land. Nuff bout that.

 

 

Um, again, CIVIL UNIONS. Name of marriage is protected, but gays are allowed the same rights as married couples by making a similar commitment. Everything you just said is an irrelevent dodge of this simple solution to the problem.

 

 

 

Exploitations??? Tell me you didn't just say that in defense of the invaders?

 

 

No, I said it in condemnation of places that hire them en masse and treat them like early 19th century workers to save some bucks from hiring people who are qualified. Wal-Mart, for instance.

 

 

 

Exploitation is a motherfucker sneaking his illiterate uneducated ass illegally across our borders, breeding like a rabbit, drawing on every form of welfare meant to be extended to Americans, crowding our jails and court systems with his drunk ass, and sending all the money he earns by working illegally BACK TO MEXICO.

 

That's one form of exploitation, yes. And what I mentioned above is ALSO exploitation.

 

 

 

Google Western union money transfers to Mexico. Its god dam astonishing how much American money ends up back in Mexico. EXPLOITATION, you bet your ass!

 

 

What is your insistence on this black-and-white good guy/bad guy Old West view of the world? It sounds like all you hear is "you're with all us Americans or you're with them damn dirty Mexicans." You don't acknowledge the complexities of the issue.

 

 

 

I concur that the government fucked up on Katrina. However that does not do away with the images of countless black standing around, hands extended, asking for the magic handouts they have grown so very accustomed to.

 

 

Because white people never do that, eh? And the media gives full and equal coverage of beggers of every race?

 

 

As the old saying goes. One cannot be helped unless one helps themselves. My comment towards the Katrina issue was more directed at the popular belief among the black community that the levees were sabotaged by whitey as a means of removing blacks from New Orleans. Check the new Spike Lee movie if ya don't follow me on that one bro.

 

 

I don't usually watch Spike Lee movies, with the exception of Summer of Sam. His tripe sounds about as credible as the theory that illegal Mexican immigrants are gaining vast political power and are about to infiltrate all levels of our government.

 

 

 

Bigoted, maybe. True, definitely.

 

 

If you really beleive all Mexicans fit your sterotype any more than all Americans fit the stereotype I mentioned, you're truly a fanatic on this issue.

 

 

 

Look guy, I can drive down the scenic streets of Greenwood Indiana any time of any day of the week, and what I see is exactly what I described. Mexicans walking down the road to the liquor store. This isn't a "stereotype". Its whats happening in the once white and relatively crime free streets of Greenwood. I worked in a Kroger store in Greenwood on 3rd shift as the night manager. I swear to you on my child, EVERY dam night I had to take time out of my busy schedule dealing with drunk ass Mexicans and their beer fetish. One of the most common issues I had with them was them coming in past 3am ( the cutoff time for alcohol sales in Indiana ) trying to buy beer. Enter the language barrier hindered further by the level of intoxication. I spent so much time doing this that I had a college kid that worked for me and knew fluent Spanish, write down the message I was so often trying to convey to drunk illegals, onto a piece of paper so I could save myself the grief. Sometimes the truth sounds ugly. Sometime it sounds "stereotypical". But nevertheless, the truth is the truth is the truth.

 

 

Indeed, and do you know how many Americans I know that fit the stereotypes I mentioned? Or how many decent Mexican Americans who contribute to society that I've met? There is some truth in every stereotype; it's when you try to apply it in an all-encompassing sense to a particular demographic that you've lost touch with reality.

 

 

So your telling me that Mexico DOESN'T suck? Go ahead muthafucka, say it. I dare you. I've been to Mexico, and believe me when I say, IT SUCKS!!! Why else are millions of their people risking life and limb to leave the place?

 

Parts of it suck, sure. Likewise, people risk their lives to leave Compton. Black people used to risk their lives to leave the American South. Again, you continue with these all-encompassing blanket statements that showcase a dangerously simplistic world view.

 

If all of Mexico was as you say, why do so many Americans flock to Cancun every year for Spring Break? Us damn dirty American gringos, refusing to stay in our own country! We can't even learn Spanish before we go over there!

 

 

Can't do it? I can. Mexico SUCKS because Mexicans SUCK.

 

 

Blanket statement. Are you saying that ALL Americans are peachy keen perfect little angels, superior to Mexicans or people of other countries by their very nature?

 

What really sucks is blind, ignorant nationalism and people calling for a police state.

[hugo]

I didn't say I agreed with him, you jackass. He was wrong, but he was trying to form a positive solution to the vast exploitation that DID exist in his time. My personal favorite political books are 1984, The Prince, and Brave New World. But the point is that many right-wing fucktards pretend that Leninist communism is the same thing as Marx's original communist philosophy, therefore equating liberals with Leninist communism, when that couldn't be any further from the truth.

 

There was never any vast exploitation. Capitalism was not as efficient, nor had as much capital to work, with as it does today. Those who labor voluntarily are not exploited (the pinko commie's favorite word).

 

I suggest everyone read THE MYTH OF THE ROBBER BARONS by Burton W. Folsom

 

What is funny is fucktards who are too stupid to realize that the empowered followers of Marx always form tolitarian states.

[hugo]

The federal government did not do a hell of a lot for the San Francisco quake victims of 1906 or the Galveston hurricane victims of 1900. Some of them whining Katrina victims are still getting free rent.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

Exploitation..it is the pinko commies favorite term whenever their is an inequality. Regardless of the reason for that inequality.

 

 

In this case, I'm dealing with someone who is in favor of government exploitation.

 

 

The fact is all empowered commies,e.g. Lenin, Mao, Castro, Pot, inevitably grossly violate the civil liberties of their citizens.

 

 

And all of them (arguably barring Mao) follow LENINIST COMMUNISM!!! Leninist communism is NOT true communism in the traditional sense. It is using the name of communism as an excuse to establish a dictatorship without the people rebelling. Yes, THEY are totalitarian assholes. Marx was not.

 

If you aren't mentally capable of differentiating between original Marxist communism and 20th century Leninist communism, you shouldn't be talking about it.

 

 

 

I don't see the same level of gross civil liberties being violated by the followers of Locke.

 

 

Locke didn't leave his works as easily exploitable as Marx did. He flat-out stated that you can overthrow any corrupt government and spoke in general terms about civil liberties. Marx, OTOH, was all about the class war. He wasn't careful with his phrasing, and as such left his works open for people like Lenin to exploit. Lenin would've had a more difficult time twisting Locke's words, since Locke was all about the people rebelling any time someone begins to exploit their power. With Marx, he managed to convince people that a temporary exploitation was neccessary to form a classless society.

 

 

Marx was a misguided idealist.

 

 

 

This is because the modern liberals e.g. Mao, Stalin, Pot,

 

 

Barring Mao who is debatable (but either way murdered people who didn't agree with him, which is a socially conservative convention), these people are in NO way liberal. Taking away civil rights and controlling the media, forcing people to live their lives according to a specific tradition is the very ANTITHESIS of what it means to be liberal. 20th century "communists" are NOT liberals in the traditional sense! They twisted the words of a liberal philosophy as an excuse to form totalitarian regimes that mirrored the repressive regimes throughout history.

 

 

Kennedy, Kerry, unlike the classical liberals do not understand that rights to private property is a civil right and history tells us that when this basic civil right is violated all civil rights are in jeopardy.

 

 

I like Kennedy, though he had his faults as do most politicians. Kerry sucks ass.

 

 

Ya would think if them Mexicans were being so badly exploited they would stop coming here.

 

 

Lesser of two evils. But not all Mexican Americans are illegal, regardless.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

There was never any vast exploitation. Capitalism was not as efficient, nor had as much capital to work, with as it does today. Those who labor voluntarily are not exploited (the pinko commie's favorite word).

 

I suggest everyone read THE MYTH OF THE ROBBER BARONS by Burton W. Folsom

 

 

So ... Are you denying that people were overworked, had no minimum wage, had no real worker's rights (IOW if they were injured from being overworked, could just be kicked aside), etc.? Thus saying that virtually every modern sociology or humanities textbook is wrong?

 

BTW, the fact that they consented to the labor is irrelevent when there's no real alternative other than being homeless, and they aren't allowed to strike or protest their treatment. As far as the word "exploited" goes, it's a legitimate word. It wasn't invented by Joseph Stalin, so stop harping on about it.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

The federal government did not do a hell of a lot for the San Francisco quake victims of 1906 or the Galveston hurricane victims of 1900. Some of them whining Katrina victims are still getting free rent.

 

 

What exactly is your point? That there were times when the government didn't give a fuck about white people either? Therefore, black people should shut up and accept the crappy response with a smile on their face?

[hugo]

So ... Are you denying that people were overworked, had no minimum wage, had no real worker's rights (IOW if they were injured from being overworked, could just be kicked aside), etc.? Thus saying that virtually every modern sociology or humanities textbook is wrong?

 

BTW, the fact that they consented to the labor is irrelevent when there's no real alternative other than being homeless, and they aren't allowed to strike or protest their treatment. As far as the word "exploited" goes, it's a legitimate word. It wasn't invented by Joseph Stalin, so stop harping on about it.

 

It was a world where goods were much scarcer. Only after capitalism created more goods could better working conditions and higher wages be given. The history of the industrial revolution shows that individuals quite voluntarily leave their farms for factory labor. Two willing parties agree then there is no exploitation. Exploitation exists only where government coercion exists.

 

Come on, you stated you are an anarchist. Don't you understand this? Less government is better. Stop being a fool. Drop Das Kapital pick up Free To Choose by Milton Friedman. It would be a good start in you re-education. I realize you are a victim of our public school system that teaches myths such as the robber baron scenario as fact.

[hugo]

What exactly is your point? That there were times when the government didn't give a fuck about white people either? Therefore, black people should shut up and accept the crappy response with a smile on their face?

 

Everything is race with you, ain't it? The point is Galveston and San Francisco managed to rebuild with very minimal federal assistance. This was before modern liberalism turned a nation of pioneers into a bunch of dependent pansies.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

It was a world where goods were much scarcer. Only after capitalism created more goods could better working conditions and higher wages be given. The history of the industrial revolution shows that individuals quite voluntarily leave their farms for factory labor. Two willing parties agree then there is no exploitation. Exploitation exists only where government coercion exists.

 

 

Guy ... The fact that the government controlled all goods and services to the point that your choices were either to work or die of hunger MAKES it coercion.

 

"Hi, either work for me until you break your back and starve, or don't work for me and just starve. BTW, I'm not being coercive at all"

 

 

If you're arguing that the economy demanded the exploitation ... Fine, but it is STILL opression, regardless of the reason. Similarly, the slaves were originally bought for economic reasons rather than racial ones. Doesn't change the fact that blacks were oppressed. Mind you, there were still some rich folks in America back then, at the head of the industries. I really don't see how you can argue that they WEREN'T exploitative. Most major businesses are even today.

 

 

Come on, you stated you are an anarchist. Don't you understand this? Less government is better.

 

Did I ever say otherwise? In general, I'm for free trade with the caveat that there must be enough laws so that vast exploitation and monopolies don't occur. So long as there are some effective safeguards against that sort of thing, I'm for lack of government interference.

 

 

Stop being a fool. Drop Das Kapital pick up Free To Choose by Milton Friedman. It would be a good start in you re-education. I realize you are a victim of our public school system that teaches myths such as the robber baron scenario as fact.

 

 

All it seems that you've disputed is the reasoning behind the oppression, not that the oppression existed. Which is sort of beside the point. I mean, Hitler thought Germany was being assailed by the Jews and he was effectively a hero out there saving the world. Doesn't change the fact that, regardless of his intentions, he unleashed one of the greatest evils the world's ever known.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

Everything is race with you, ain't it?

 

 

No, but the topic was brought up under the context of "black people blaming white people for hurricanes." It was introduced into the discussion by Jhony5 as a racial issue.

 

 

The point is Galveston and San Francisco managed to rebuild with very minimal federal assistance. This was before modern liberalism turned a nation of pioneers into a bunch of dependent pansies.

 

 

I'd imagine that the fact that they weren't expecting government assistance means they weren't paying taxes for that purpose and were more prepared for a do-it-yourself situation. Honestly, I could see it working either way ... The national government is in charge of these things, or the local government is. Either way, I hold the system to do what it's designed to, and when it fails at that, people can and should speak out against it.

[hugo]

Slavery was oppression. Voluntary labor was not oppressed anymore than someone born with no legs is crippled. Let me explain this verrrry sloooowllllee. I reeeealize youe education in free market economics is limited. The pie was only so big. PIECES OF THE PIE COULD ONLY BE A CERTAIN SIZE. AS TECHNOLOGIES IMPROVED AND LABOR BECAME MORE EFFICIENT THE PIE GREW BIGGER. NOW THE LABORER COULD HAVE A BIGGER PIECE.

 

Maybe this will help. Would you favor a minimum wage increase to $200 an hour?

[hugo]

No, but the topic was brought up under the context of "black people blaming white people for hurricanes." It was introduced into the discussion by Jhony5 as a racial issue.

 

 

 

 

 

I'd imagine that the fact that they weren't expecting government assistance means they weren't paying taxes for that purpose and were more prepared for a do-it-yourself situation. Honestly, I could see it working either way ... The national government is in charge of these things, or the local government is. Either way, I hold the system to do what it's designed to, and when it fails at that, people can and should speak out against it.

 

People should realize that government is inefficient by nature and vote to keep as much of their money away from government as possible.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

Again, all you're disputing is the reasoning behind the oppression, rather than the existence thereof. The fact that they were born into it is really irrelevent. The point is that there were a few extremely rich people at the head of society holding most of the money and oppressing the rest. That's what Marx was against. What you're pointing out is the fact that there were less social classes then than now due to the lesser resources -- instead of upper, upper middle, middle, lower middle, working class, and working poor, back then it was basically the bourguise and the proles -- which is EXACTLY what I pointed out earlier, and why Marx beleived in the class war that was upcoming.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

People should realize that government is inefficient by nature and vote to keep as much of their money away from government as possible.

 

 

People should all be responsible to the point where anarchy is possible. Unfortunately, they're not. In part due to the brainwashing that the government mandates they're given from birth.

[hugo]

People should all be responsible to the point where anarchy is possible. Unfortunately, they're not. In part due to the brainwashing that the government mandates they're given from birth.

 

Yep, they are brainwashed into believing government interventions in the free market such as OSHA, the minimum wage, the Civil Rights Act of 1965 are neccessary, This is done by such actions as teaching the robber baron myth to impressionable youngsters.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

Forgot to ever address this ...

 

 

My friend, K-man, sometimes struggles with his thoughts. On this particular point, he is dead on with his assumption.

 

Why can't it be the political left that has exploited minorities to the brink of mortification? Trivialized our miniscule border patrol? Then abusing our overtly generous welfare institution?

 

 

If you're talking about Democrats, sure. They suck.

 

 

 

Since we, as Americans, have to tiptoe around fucking shitheel Muslims because of political correctness;

 

Tipetoe around? We're coming close to violating international rules of war, such as the Geneva Convention. In addition to lessening our civil rights. We're becoming rather repressive due to 9/11. The only possible way you can say we're "tiptoeing" is the fact that we aren't outright saying "Let's kill all Muslims." There's still plenty of racial profiling and the like going on. It's just not quite as bad as, say, the anti-Japanese hysteria back in WW2 or the communist hysteria during the 50's.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

why is it so hard to believe that the foundations laid by neo-commie/ultra-liberal establisments, like the ACLU, has weakened the country's utmost important goal. Which is, national security, and this can only be achieved by thwarting this fucking leviathan with a harpoon.

 

 

Actually, I don't tend to beleive much of the reasons for going to war. I don't think The Patriot Act and other such conventions are making us any safer. Same with the war in Iraq. I think it's dangerous to place national security above civil liberties. That's how the Nazi occupation of Germany came to fruition.

 

 

 

 

Strengthen our country's resolve by enforcing the laws of the land.

 

Then again, the neo-cons have figured it best to concentrate their efforts in Iraq and forego the squabbles of the petty poor citizens.

 

 

"Concentrate" their efforts as in waste their efforts for oil and an excuse to limit the youth population, gaining extra money, in addition to spreading American imperialism. All while the true Jihadist hotspots are handled with relative kid gloves.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

Yep, they are brainwashed into believing government interventions in the free market such as OSHA, the minimum wage, the Civil Rights Act of 1965 are neccessary, This is done by such actions as teaching the robber baron myth to impressionable youngsters.

 

 

You're ... Against minimum wage??? You do realize that without guidelines like minimum wage, poverty would vastly increase and a few major corporations would end up with virtual monopolies on almost every aspect of life, correct? As for the Civil Rights act, depends which part you mean. I don't see how a sane person could support having to pay taxes to vote. OTOH, a literacy test being required isn't so bad.

 

Of course, voting is really a waste of time, given it's mostly the same people running things behind the scenes with the same agendas regardless of who you vote for ...

[RoyalOrleans]

We're coming close to violating international rules of war, such as the Geneva Convention.

 

I hate that damn convention.

[hugo]

You're ... Against minimum wage??? You do realize that without guidelines like minimum wage, poverty would vastly increase and a few major corporations would end up with virtual monopolies on almost every aspect of life, correct?

 

You are truly ignorant of economics. The vast majority of working adults make more than the minimum wage. Once again I ask you...Would you support a minimum wage of $200 an hour. Let me tell you why you should not. It would result in massive unemployment and inflation. The effect of any effective minimum wage would be inflation and unemployment. The reason minimum wage increases have never resulted in excessive inflation and employment is there has never been an effective minimum wage increase. The minimum wage has always been lower than what the vast majority of working adults earn. In other words the free market has already raised the wages of adults then stinking pinko liberals come in and try to claim their little fucking minimum wage bills have created the increased wages. Of course you are stupid when inferring lower wages would reduce competition. Lower wages reduce barriers to entry and therefore increase competition. Please..educate yourself. I am tired of debating with ignoramouses.

 

Sadly, our minimum wage laws have harmed the most vulnerable workers,

 

Minimum Wage Harms Entry-Level Workers

A number of economists are coming to the conclusion that minimum wage hikes disadvantage minority teens and those with low skill levels trying to get a foothold in the U.S. labor market.

 

Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman says the minimum wage is one of the "most anti-black laws on the statute books."

 

Economist Walter Williams, who is black, warns that the wage floor "is one of the most effective tools in the arsenals of racists everywhere."

 

Government data show that black and white teenage unemployment rates in 1948 were about the same -- 9.4 percent black and 10.2 percent white.

 

But as the minimum wage rose in the 1960s and 1970s, the unemployment rate for blacks roughly doubled compared with whites -- to 37.7 percent for black teens by 1980, compared to 18.5 percent for white teens.

 

According to the Employment Policies Institute, 215,000 additional jobs for teens should have been created in 1995, but the minimum wage hike that year killed them -- a 3.5 percent drop in job opportunities.

 

This job cancellation hit black and Hispanic teens hardest -- opportunities fell by 9 percent and 3.8 percent for these groups, respectively.

According to U.S. Chamber of Commerce statistics, when Congress raised the minimum wage in 1989, the proportion of black teens who had jobs fell by 12 percent. While blacks comprised only 15.3 percent of all youngsters age 16 to 19, they suffered 30 percent of the job losses.

 

Source: Editorial, "Minimum Opportunity," Investor's Business Daily, April 23, 1998.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

You are truly ignorant of economics. The vast majority of working adults make more than the minimum wage.

 

 

"Most working adults" STARTED at minimum wage and worked their way up. If you're not making enough to support your education or carreer training around your late teens and early twenties, all that goes down the crapper. Think before you post.

 

Once again I ask you...Would you support a minimum wage of $200 an hour.

 

No.

 

Let me tell you why you should not. It would result in massive unemployment and inflation. The effect of any effective minimum wage would be inflation and unemployment. The reason minimum wage increases have never resulted in excessive inflation and employment is there has never been an effective minimum wage increase. The minimum wage has always been lower than what the vast majority of working adults earn. In other words the free market has already raised the wages of adults then stinking pinko liberals come in and try to claim their little fucking minimum wage bills have created the increased wages. Of course you are stupid when inferring lower wages would reduce competition. Lower wages reduce barriers to entry and therefore increase competition.

 

 

Um, no. If companies can hire newbs for as little as they want, all across the country, that would result in less and less people being able to pay their way towards career training, thus less new businesses and higher poverty rates.

 

 

In any event, while what you're mentioning is technically true, the scenario of a $200/p/h minimum wage is such an exaggeration that it strips your post of all meaning. What I'm talking about is have A minimum wage so that Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, and Ford can't suddenly decided that they want everyone to work for $1/p/h unless they're experienced.

 

 

 

Please..educate yourself. I am tired of debating with ignoramouses.

 

 

Says the guy who's too dumb to distinguish Marx from Lenin.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

Regardless of the flame-oriented direction this thread wandered off too, I do plan to eventually check out these books you speak of. I'm open to hearing new perspectives, and I've paid less attention to economic debates than social structure and foreign policy. However, I'm also planning to read Howard Zenn's own writings on economics, among others'. I expect that the books you recommend will be biased, same as what I'm planning to read right now. I doubt I'm going to agree with either side on everything.

[Jhony5]

I am currently working on a patent for my new invention

 

The MEXI-CANNON.

 

Placed at random intervals lining the border. When groups of illegals are caught, just simply place them in the mexi-cannon and shoot those little ******s back to Mexico. How long before word spreads and they stop trying to destroy America?